Exploring educator wellbeing: insights from primary teachers

Background Teacher wellbeing is a pressing international concern, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which contributed to increased attrition, teacher shortages, elevated levels of ‘burnout’, increased stress and poor retention. Teacher wellbeing incorporates a range of intersecting domains including work, social and family life, personal attributes and emotional regulation. However, the lived, day-to-day experience of wellbeing among primary teachers remains relatively under-researched, particularly within the Australian context.Purpose This study explores how a group of primary school teachers at one Australian government school understood and experienced their wellbeing, identifying the factors they perceived as supporting or undermining it. The research was guided by three questions: (1) How do primary school teachers at one Australian school experience and understand their wellbeing? (2) What factors do they identify as enhancing or diminishing their wellbeing? and (3) How do these experiences relate to the dimensions of the PERMA(V) framework?Method A qualitative case study was conducted using a single in-depth focus group with eight teachers at one government primary school in a semi-rural area of outer Melbourne, Victoria. Data were analysed through complementary inductive and deductive phases, with Seligman’s PERMA framework, extended to include vitality, used as an interpretive lens.Findings Teachers experienced the direct work of teaching as a deep source of meaning, positive emotion and engagement, while administrative demands, the collapse of boundaries between home and work, pervasive guilt and the absence of recognition for excellence eroded their sense of accomplishment and vitality. Collegial relationships emerged as a key protective resource.Conclusion The insights from this small-scale study suggest that supportive collegial and leadership cultures, and a re-examination of administrative load, may matter for primary teacher wellbeing. Generalisation is not intended; the value of the study lies in the depth of its qualitative account.