Early Career Teacher Preparedness to Respond to Student Mental Health

Abstract

Although student mental health is known to be an issue and teacher mental health has garnered increasing attention, these two concerns are seldom considered in tandem despite their deep interconnection. New graduates entering classrooms for the first time face an inevitably steep learning curve as they become independent classroom practitioners, and for those who already experience anxiousness in their own learning, the associated challenges are likely to be intense. Alongside this, the recent increases in student mental health difficulties mean that these novice practitioners, already under stress, are placed in a position where they need to identify, refer, and support students showing signs of poor mental health, usually without any specific training or qualification. Drawing on two distinct yet complementary datasets—an online survey of preservice teachers and a survey with follow-up interviews of practising teachers—this paper examines intersecting challenges across different stages of teacher development. The findings reveal that practising early career teachers report low self-efficacy and high stress in managing student mental health, while preservice teachers experience elevated learning-related anxiety. Together, these insights signal a mounting crisis in the profession, which we argue indicates an urgent need for systemic reform and targeted professional development to better support and mental health preparedness to promote both student and staff wellbeing.

1. Introduction

It has become something of a truism to frame studies of teaching and teachers within a context of crisis. Yet it is well accepted that the sector has for many years faced significant issues with recruitment and retention (Mason & Matas, 2015; Shields, 2025; Cuervo & Vera-Toscano, 2025), and teacher shortages have reached critical levels in countries around the world (Brandenburg et al., 2024; N. Kelly et al., 2019). A more recent feature of the contemporary landscape is the increasing challenges presenting in terms of student mental health (SMH). With growing awareness and acceptance of mental health as a topic that is less socially taboo (Angermeyer et al., 2023), part of this increase may be related to better awareness and reporting (Foulkes & Andrews, 2023). However, there is evidence that the prevalence of mental health difficulties may genuinely be on the rise. A large-scale review (McGorry et al., 2024) concluded that rates of youth mental illness increased by 50% over the last two decades, with peak onset around the age of 15. Further, most children with significant mental health difficulties can or do not access support (Humphrey & Wigelsworth, 2016; Mental Health Australia, 2025). In high school classrooms, therefore, classroom teachers face significant exposure to students exhibiting cognitive, affective, or behavioural difficulties associated with mental health. In this context, the classroom teacher may be the first point of contact for identification and referral as well as ongoing support.

The degree to which this is, or ought to be, a teacher’s responsibility is unclear. However, in the context of widespread cuts to funding for social services (ACOSS, 2024), inconsistent access to and uptake of primary care (AIHW, 2025) and inequitable access to a range of services in rural and remote locations (Baum & Freeman, 2025; Disney et al., 2025), teachers may be the only professionals in a position to recognise and respond to student difficulties with mental health, despite ongoing teacher shortages (NSW Teachers Federation, 2024). This creates dual pressures. Firstly, there is the obvious pressure on the teachers themselves, who are in the most part not trained for this role and yet feel a deep sense of responsibility and duty of care towards their students. Secondly, this situation creates pressure on the education sector overall, impacting teacher wellbeing and therefore exacerbating the already entrenched issues of recruitment and retention.

An aspect of this landscape that is not always acknowledged is the role of teachers’ own mental health. Nationally, Australia had over half a million registered teachers in 2023 (AITSL, 2025a), of these, 320,377 were secondary teachers, teaching 1,629,624 secondary students. Given that 22% of the adult population experienced a mental health disorder in the previous twelve months (AIHW, 2025), there must be tens of thousands of secondary teachers who oversee students while also managing their own difficulties with mental health. Research suggests mental health challenges are often prevalent before entering teaching and are then exacerbated by systemic pressures (Granziera et al., 2025). It is unsurprising, then, that large proportions of the teaching workforce do not intend to stay in the profession long term. A 2023 survey of teachers’ career intentions revealed younger teachers are more likely to express intention to leave before retirement, with this being indicated by about half of teachers aged up to 29, compared with one third of those aged 50–59 (AITSL, 2025a). This illustrates the importance of supporting teachers early in their teaching careers (N. Kelly et al., 2019).

Further, when teachers experience distress, this can exacerbate SMH outcomes (Oberle & Schonert-Reichl, 2016), including internalising and externalising symptoms (De Rubeis et al., 2024). The reciprocal interrelationships between teachers’ and students’ mental health underscore the importance of addressing both. The following sections outline the current state of child and adolescent mental health, the evidence base for SMH in secondary school classrooms in Australia, and the implications of this for teachers in the early stages of their career and in preservice education.

1.1. Child and Adolescent Mental Health

‘Mental health’ has become increasingly high-profile within academia and wider society. ‘Mental health’ and ‘wellbeing’ are sometimes used interchangeably, and a variety of definitions exist without clear consensus. However, leading definitions commonly acknowledge that mental health operates on a spectrum ranging from better to poorer, and that individuals move between points on this continuum (C. M. Kelly et al., 2011), affecting their capacity to cope and navigate life. In contrast to mental health, mental illness or disorder can be defined as a disruption to functional cognition, emotional regulation or behaviour (WHO, 2022).

Mental health is important across the human lifespan, yet child and adolescent mental health are most relevant in school contexts. Statistics relating to the worldwide state of youth mental health are alarming. One in seven children aged 10–19 experience a mental disorder, and anxiety and depression are one of the leading causes of adolescent illness and disability (WHO, 2024). The consequences can be devastating; suicide is the third leading cause of death among individuals aged 15–19 years old (WHO, 2024). These trends are also present in Australia, where the prevalence of child and adolescent mental health issues was already regarded as critical ten years ago (Lawrence et al., 2015). That year, the Young Minds Matter Survey (Lawrence et al., 2015) indicated that 13.9% of young people aged 4–17 years old experienced a mental health disorder. More recent data from the National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing (ABS, 2022) highlights a significant increase in the pervasiveness of mental health issues, particularly among 16–24-year-olds, for whom the frequency of experiencing any mental health disorder within the last 12 months has risen from 26.4% to 39.6% in just over a decade, and the prevalence of 12-month anxiety and affective disorders has more than doubled (ABS, 2008; ABS, 2022).

This particularly impacts the secondary schooling context because adolescence has been established as the peak onset period for lifetime mental illness (C. M. Kelly et al., 2011; McGrath et al., 2023; National Mental Health Commission, 2021). About half of life-time mental health issues begin before age 14, and 75% develop before 24 (Kessler et al., 2005; OECD, 2021; WHO, 2013). Further, experiencing mental health issues during childhood and adolescence, can have a long-lasting impact into adulthood, particularly if untreated (National Mental Health Commission, 2021). Treatment may be difficult to access even after identification and referral due to the informal and unsystematised nature of school-based mental health services (Nygaard et al., 2024) alongside prolonged waiting times for professional support, see

Table 1. Wait times for youth mental health support in Australia (Subotic-Kerry et al., 2025).

Treatment Providers	Mean Days Waited	Standard Deviation	Range (Days)
Psychologist	100.1	77.25	10–365
Psychiatrist	127.5	78.8	18–341
School Counsellor	60.9	21	8–365
Headspace	107.6	89.44	14–365
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services	71.6	65.52	14–304
Paediatrician	121.9	83.85	14–365
Inpatient hospital stays	82.5	70.14	10–272

(Subotic-Kerry et al., 2025).

Most relevant to early career teachers (ECT), students’ experience of mental health issues during adolescence can significantly impact their capacity to engage with various academic, social and emotional components of their schooling experience. Children experiencing mental disorders are also noted as having heightened vulnerability to factors such as educational difficulties and rush taking behaviours (WHO, 2024). It is therefore imperative that we address this issue, in part by equipping teachers to respond effectively to SMH in the classroom.

1.2. The Context of Early Career Teaching

Teachers face a wide range of stressors in their day-to-day practice, and these are amplified in the ECT context. A range of challenges impact ECT wellbeing and retention including workload pressures, behavioural management challenges, stress associated with communicating with parents/caregivers, and the emotional demands of teaching (Black et al., 2023). The role of mentoring has also been identified as a critical support mechanism in promoting teacher retention during the early career phase (Lampert et al., 2025; Schuck et al., 2017), alongside the importance of initial teacher education (ITE) programmes in preparing graduates for teaching in rural and remote contexts (McCallum & Hazel, 2016). As Kearney (2015) articulates, beginning teachers commence their careers with a period of adjustment during which they are on the periphery of communities of practice and thus do not benefit from the collegial support that more experienced teachers might enjoy.

Thus, almost by definition, ECTs carry a heavier cognitive and logistical load in multiple elements of professional practice. It takes more work for them to plan learning activities, develop and differentiate resources, deliver their lessons, liaise with colleagues, communicate with parents, write reports, and myriad other tasks. These tired, stressed, teachers are therefore poorly positioned to cope effectively when presented with SMH challenges, which may manifest in complex and challenging behaviour. This manifestation is likely to be bi-directional, that is, the ECT is less able to perform appropriate identification, referral and support; and at the same time the difficulty of dealing with the situation is likely have a greater impact on an already depleted novice professional. The need for training and support in management of SMH is therefore particularly acute in the early career context. While ongoing psychological intervention should be provided by psychological professionals outside of the classroom, teachers are nonetheless confronted daily by children displaying signs of mental health difficulties, and so it is part of their role to both manage immediate behaviour and refer to appropriate expert support. It is unclear, however, to what extent these issues are addressed in the training of preservice teachers, which is discussed further below. At the level of proficient teacher, SMH is identified as a priority area within the New South Wales (NSW) Education Standards (NESA, 2025) however the same emphasis is not evident at the graduate level. Newly qualified teachers, therefore, may find themselves in classroom contexts that they are ill-prepared to confidently manage.

One approach to managing stress in ECT’s that has been trialled within Australia is to target intervention directly at stress-management itself (Hepburn et al., 2021). However, an unintended implication of such interventions is to position the teacher as the locus of the problem, i.e., the reason teachers are stressed is that they are not sufficiently good at stress management. This is unfair. In many cases, there are valid reasons why it is reasonable for teachers to feel stressed (Gray et al., 2017). In fact, teacher mental health is not solely an individual or situational crisis but is linked to systemic factors that are embedded within broader structural issues concerning how education is conceptualised, resourced, and socially valued (Hagermoser Sanetti et al., 2021; Mayer & Oancea, 2021). It must therefore be more fair and more effective to address the underlying causes that lead to such high levels of stress. Of course, stress results from a wide range of causes; however, as will be shown in the research discussed in this paper one of these causes is a lack of preparedness to manage SMH issues in the classroom. Therefore, a better understanding of that context could inform training and interventions to directly address one root cause of teacher stress.

In Australia, this situation is particularly challenging both for ECT’s and for those who are still in ITE programmes. That is because in Australia student teachers who have completed most of their training, but who have not yet graduated, can obtain conditional accreditation, or permission to teach; terminology varies between states and territories. In 2023 in Australia, 81% of the teaching population held full registration, indicating full qualification with experience, and 12% held provisional registration, indicating early career status following graduation (AITSL, 2024). Of the 7% remaining, over half (4%) were teaching under alternative authorisation, indicating that they have not completed their ITE degree, and therefore have not yet demonstrated that they have met the requirements of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Whilst 4% is a small proportion of the overall teaching workforce, when that workforce numbers 553,300 teachers (AITSL, 2025a) then 4% translates into more than 22,000 teachers working in schools in charge of their own classrooms before they have graduated as qualified teachers. There are likely also areas where the proportion of not fully qualified teachers may be much larger than the 16% national average. These areas/schools, which are struggling to recruit and retain fully qualified teachers, are also likely to be among the most challenging teaching environments, with student populations who are likely to be lower-SES, higher need, impacted by trauma, and so forth, described by Lampert et al. (2025) as the ‘hardest-to-staff schools’. It is therefore well worth exploring the ITE context more deeply.

1.3. Initial Teacher Education

To understand ECT experiences, one must examine the training that preservice teachers receive prior to entering the classroom. Preservice education is known to relate to professional satisfaction (Shields, 2025) and ECT attrition (N. Kelly et al., 2019). In Australia, ITE programmes must adhere to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST), which guide teacher education degrees and their placement components and are regulated by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Parts of these standards have the potential to relate to managing SMH, for example, within the ‘Graduate’ level Professional Practice descriptors, which is the level required at graduation from ITE, is ‘4.4 Maintain student safety: Describe strategies that support students’ wellbeing and safety’ (APST Graduate Standards, AITSL, n.d.). While that level specifies that teachers should ‘support’ student wellbeing, only at proficient are teachers expected to ‘ensure’ wellbeing, and both these descriptors are framed ‘within school and/or system, curriculum and legislative requirements’. Only at the level of ‘highly accomplished’ should teachers ‘initiate and take responsibility for’ implementing those requirements. This voluntary higher level of qualification, however, was held by only 573 teachers in 2018 (AITSL, 2025b) and continues to be held by under 1% of teachers in Australia (A. Taylor, 2023).

In Australia, before becoming qualified, preservice teachers typically undertake at least 60–801 days of supervised practicum. This forms a core component of teacher education because they allow preservice teachers to apply theoretical knowledge, develop practical skills, and receive mentorship from experienced teachers. The number of placement days required in NSW is set by the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA). While the minimum number of days is mandated, the structure, delivery and funding of professional experience vary between institutions as well as between states and territories within Australia. For example, at University of Newcastle, undergraduates complete 90 days over three placements during their degree, 10 days more than mandated; and postgraduate students complete their required 60 days over two placements. Legislative ambiguity can allow for variation in the interpretation and application of guidelines, leading to ‘over-reliance on the “good-will” of key stakeholders, and competing demands between the “actual” and “hidden” costs of professional experience’ (Ledger et al., 2020, p. 139).

Some ITE programmes have innovated to enable early paid teaching work, such as the NSW Department of Education’s trial of mid-career transition to teaching programme that promises ‘begin working in high schools as teachers within six months’ (University of Sydney, 2021), or the Bachelor of Education at Charles Darwin University (CDU) which offers ‘learn while you study—immediate classroom role’ (Teach for Australia, 2025). Crucially, however, the mid-career programme was only open to high-performing professionals, who had to be approved by both government and university staff in order to participate; and the CDU classroom work began as a supporting role before becoming true teaching work. That is to say, safeguards were in place to prevent untrained preservice teachers from walking straight into classrooms unsupervised.

However, as Australian teacher shortages have become acute, with around 4000 unfilled teaching positions (Rahmat et al., 2025), teacher supply has been identified as priority area number one in the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan (NTWAP) (Department of Education, 2022) which has driven changes in minimum training requirements. As previously described, Education students can apply for conditional accreditation prior to graduation. In NSW this can be obtained after completing 75% of an undergraduate or 75% of a postgraduate ITE degree. There is no stipulation that professional experience placements must have been completed within this percentage, thus some ITE students are teaching in schools without having completed any supervised placements. The postgraduate ITE situation is particularly concerning because students with a non-teaching bachelor degree and an offer of employment teaching that discipline in a NSW school (e.g., holding a Bachelor of Science and a contract to teach Science) can be employed as classroom teachers without having completed any proportion of their postgraduate teaching degree at all.

The teacher shortage is also manifest in the rapid uptake of ‘Waiver B’. This is a formal waiver of Appendix B of NESA’s Professional Experience Policy which allows some final-year ITE students to complete their final placement through paid teaching work at a school where they are employed under conditional accreditation. The aim is to promote curriculum continuity by retaining school-employed ITE students rather than introducing new, temporary teachers. However, these students do not receive the normal level of mentoring, because they are employed as teachers, not students. This blurs the line between the role and expectations of teacher versus that of student and raises questions about assessment equity and practicum intensity. Emergent research suggests that a supportive school environment where more experienced educators actively mentor ECTs may offset some of these disadvantages (Rahmat et al., 2025). However, there is no guarantee of such a strong mentoring culture. Empirical evidence is lacking due to the recency of this context, yet it is implausible that unqualified and undertrained preservice teachers would be equipped to effectively manage challenging classroom contexts, including managing SMH.

1.4. Theoretical Framework

It is important to bear in mind that whilst preservice teachers are enrolled in ITE they are still students, and like all learners they bring a range of individual attributes that frame their perceptions of and responses to the learning environment. Likewise, individuals are influenced by the characteristics of their environment, and this reciprocal determinism is a core element of social-cognitive theory.

These dispositions towards learning represent a set of relatively stable traits that determine a learner’s ‘default response’ to new situations. This may include how confident they typically feel (self-efficacy, Bandura, 1977) whether they tend to enjoy complexity (need for cognition, Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), and the extent to which they are able to consciously monitor and control their learning (metacognitive awareness, Schraw & Dennison, 1994). These dispositional attributes are commonly gauged using self-report instruments, in which students rate their agreement with statements that represent the underlying dispositional constructs. The resulting mean scores can then generate a profile, illustrating an individual’s or a cohort’s overall dispositions towards learning (Cantwell et al., 2017; Lonka et al., 2021; Spray et al., 2023).

Students’ dispositional profiles are known to relate to university learning (Entwistle & McCune, 2013) and to motivation and performance (Buehl & Alexander, 2005). Importantly, while learners’ dispositional attributes are relatively stable in the absence of contextual priming, they can also evolve in response to experience and are therefore potential targets for pedagogical intervention (Spray & Goulding, 2024). This may be particularly pertinent in the ITE context, because preservice teachers’ dispositions influence not only their university learning but also their future teaching and thus future student outcomes. An inherent challenge of promoting adaptive dispositions in developing teachers is that the very skills that enable teachers to be responsive to their students, such as empathy and efficacy, may also be the same characteristics that contribute to intense stress in challenging professional contexts such as early career teaching. For preservice teachers who report low self-efficacy or high anxiety in the context of university learning, there is arguably higher risk of experiencing the same in the ECT context, potentially to an even greater extent, logically leading to increased risk of burnout and attrition.

The theoretical model illustrated in Figure 1 overviews the dynamic of these teacher attributes, on the right, alongside the characteristics of the teaching context, on the left This framing is drawn from the job demand-resources theory (Bakker & de Vries, 2020). At the core of the model is the evaluation of contextual demands of the teaching environment against teacher attributes, which can be framed as resources. On both sides, however, there are elements that may be considered predominantly as resources, such as mentoring and expertise, and those that are clearly costs such as workload and anxiety. Broadly, more positive elements are positioned higher and more problematic aspects shown lower on the diagram. However, multiple elements may operate as either a resource or a cost, such as self-efficacy which can be high (and serve as a resource) or low (and function as a cost). Likewise, effective support and mentoring is certainly a resource in the teaching context, but an absence of support, or, worse, actively unsupportive colleagues, would be a cost. This model therefore represents a dynamic balance of multiple interacting elements, with subjective evaluation by individual teachers of their own capacity in a particular situation, place and time. When this evaluation of capacity results in an imbalance, i.e., when teacher resources are insufficient to meet contextual demands, then this results in a ‘debt’ to be borne on the teacher side of the equation. This personal cost compounds over time to manifest in individual burnout, and logically ends in increased attrition in the sector as teachers make the rational decision to exit a profession that is not personally sustainable.

Burnout is known to be a significant issue for public school teachers in NSW, with 59% recently reporting that they feel burned out by their work (NSW Premier’s Department, 2024). Existing empirical evidence supports the connection between individual differences in terms of dispositional attributes such as self-efficacy, and burnout in the early career stage (Pikić Jugović et al., 2025). Other causes of burnout include lack of training, limited resources, and excessive expectations; yet these may be ameliorated to some extent by investing in teacher wellbeing to reduce emotional exhaustion (Oberg et al., 2025). Other studies have reported correlations with workload, depressive symptoms and intention to leave the profession (Granziera et al., 2025), and correlations between teacher perceptions of poor working conditions and teacher stress, burnout and attrition (Brandenburg et al., 2024). Invisible labour exacerbates these elements because it entails a lack of recognition and support, and contributes to exhaustion, low efficacy, and thus greater likelihood of burnout. The complex interrelations between these constructs underpin the two studies reported in this paper, drawing them together and illustrating the importance of equipping teachers with effective strategies to meet the challenges of student mental health in their classrooms.

Research questions

In summary, then, there is a confluence of crises across the education sector, youth mental health, and Early Career Teaching. This therefore requires clearer understanding of how early career teachers are navigating this context, in order to inform more effective training and support. This project was therefore driven by one overarching question: How prepared are ECT to manage student mental health in the classroom?

Within this, the following sub-questions informed targeted analysis of the data:

RQ1

To what extent do preservice teachers demonstrate dispositional profiles that are likely to be adaptive in their future management of mental health?

RQ2

To what extent do ECT report a sense of preparedness to support students with potential mental health challenges?

RQ3

To what extent do ECT report that student mental health is part of their role and/or impacts their teaching practice?

2. Materials and Methods

To foreground the significance of teachers’ own mental health in shaping their capacity to respond to student wellbeing, this study utilises two distinct datasets. Study 1 captures preservice teachers’ self-perceptions as learners, including their sense of self-efficacy and the anxiousness that may accompany their own learning. Study 2 examines practising teachers’ reported experiences in managing SMH in school settings. These datasets therefore represent distinct, but connected, cohorts. The use of both datasets enables a nuanced exploration of potential intersections between teacher wellbeing and responses to SMH; offering insight into how these domains may influence one another, potentially reciprocally; and ultimately contributing to the development of more effective support strategies.

Both studies were approved by the institutional human ethics committee (Study 1: H-2022-0050 and Study 2: H-2023-0374). Both utilised online surveys hosted within QuestionPro. Study 1 recruited preservice teaching students via courses at a large regional university in Australia, and Study 2 used social media recruitment to reach practising teachers across New South Wales before interviewing a subsample of survey respondents individually. An overview of participants is shown in

Table 2. Comparison of the two studies’ samples.

	Study 1	Study 2
Cohort	Preservice teaching students	In-service and preservice teachers
Number of survey responses	724	175
Number of interviews	n/a	19
Largest age groups	77% aged 18–21 96% aged 18–29	39% aged 25–34
Gender	73% female	67% female Male: 31% Non-binary/gender diverse/agender: 1.2% Prefer not to say: 0.6%
Primary/Secondary	Primary and secondary	Secondary only
State	NSW	NSW

. Each study is reported below, with detailed methods, results and findings. Findings are then discussed collectively in the following section, with consideration of implications.

3. Results

3.1. Study 1

3.1.1. Study 1 Method

Participants completed a composite survey instrument combining a range of dispositional attributes representing agentic, affective and epistemic attributes (Appendix A). This survey was based on earlier dispositional surveys used with doctoral and postgraduate learners (Cantwell et al., 2017; Spray, 2018; Spray et al., 2023) revised in light of new undergraduate data (Spray, 2022). The data were analysed in SPSSv30 using both variable-centred factor analysis, to identify underlying dispositional dimensions, and person-centred cluster analysis to identify latent groups of participants with similar dispositional profiles. A small number of demographic items were also included, one of which asked participants to report identification with equity groups, and an optional series of items about specific learning difficulties that impact university study.

Participants were recruited from two foundational Education courses, comprising predominantly students in Bachelor of Education degree programmes, specialising in Secondary, Primary or Primary and Early Childhood teaching. The sample therefore reflected this cohort. Respondents (n = 724) were 97% Education students, 98% domestically enrolled, and 90% first or second year. They were generally young, with 96% aged 18–29 (77% 18–21), and female (73%). The regional university where this study was situated is known for having a large proportion of lower-SES students, including many first in family, and higher than average numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Of the respondents to this survey, 25% identified as first in family, 17% rural and remote, 10% low-SES, 9% as experiencing disability, and 6.1% reported being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Note that some respondents responded to multiple categories.

3.1.2. Study 1 Results

The scales were checked psychometrically and found to be reliable, with most Cronbach’s alphas greater than 0.7. All scales’ Cronbach’s alphas, mean scores and standard deviations are reported in

Table 3. Overview of dispositional scales.

Scale	Items	Example Item	Cronbach’s α	Mean	s.d.
Self-efficacy	6	I am certain I can accomplish my academic goals	0.834	4.59	0.656
Need for cognition *	6	I only think as hard as I have to	0.812	4.24	0.823
Prospective anxiety	4	One should always look ahead so as to avoid surprises	0.724	4.48	0.799
Inhibitory anxiety	4	The smallest doubt can stop me from acting	0.875	3.49	1.110
Metacognitive awareness	8	I understand my intellectual strengths and weaknesses	0.832	4.23	0.936
Structure of knowledge	5	Lecturers should focus on facts instead of theories	0.655	4.21	0.723
Acquisition of knowledge	5	If you don’t learn something quickly, you won’t ever learn it	0.807	4.95	0.754
Positive epistemic emotion	3	When I am learning I often feel curious	0.672	4.19	0.733
Negative epistemic emotion	4	When I am learning I often feel frustrated	0.740	3.60	0.881
Proactive coping	5	I am a take charge kind of person	0.808	4.00	0.812
Reflective coping	5	I address a problem from various angles until I find the appropriate action	0.748	4.31	0.747
Feelings of shame	3	When I’m not doing well in learning I feel embarrassed	0.902	4.29	1.184
Performance avoidance	3	I avoid attempting to do something when I feel uncertain	0.908	4.16	1.19

* reverse scored.

. The highest standard deviations are for the more affective scales, such as inhibitory anxiety (s.d. 1.110), feelings of shame (1.184) and performance avoidance (1.19).

Following verification of the data’s suitability for factor analysis (KMO 0.788, Bartlett’s test of sphericity < 0.001), the thirteen scale variables were entered into principal components analysis (PCA), applying varimax rotation with kaiser normalisation. This generated a clear three factor structure based on Eigenvalues greater than one; that is, no specific number of factors was determined a priori. These three components explained 62% of variation. The groupings of variables reveal underlying dimensions representative of agentic beliefs, affective beliefs, and epistemic beliefs (

Table 4. Loadings of attributes on to dispositional components (loadings < 0.4 are supressed).

	Factor 1 Agentic Beliefs	Factor 2 Affective Beliefs	Factor 3 Epistemic Beliefs
Metacognitive awareness	0.825
Reflective coping	0.799
Proactive coping	0.798
Self-efficacy	0.621	−0.460
Feelings of shame		0.837
Performance avoidance		0.800
Inhibitory anxiety		0.776
Negative epistemic emotions		0.614
Prospective anxiety	0.405	0.515
Structure of knowledge			0.820
Need for cognition	0.421		0.624
Acquisition of knowledge			0.565
Positive epistemic emotions	0.438		0.533

).

This is in line with factor structures in previous analyses with other datasets (Spray, 2022, 2024; Freeman & Spray, 2024). The agentic beliefs include attributes generally considered to be adaptive for learning, such as metacognitive awareness, reflective and proactive coping, and self-efficacy. The second factor, on the other hand, which represents affective beliefs, is formed of generally maladaptive attributes associated with anxiousness in learning: feelings of shame, performance avoidance, and negative epistemic emotions such as confusion and frustration. It is worth noting that of the two anxiety subscales included, one is not necessarily maladaptive. Prospective anxiety, which describes a learners’ tendency to worry about upcoming tasks, actually dual loads (0.405) on the agentic beliefs. This is addressed in more detail below in the findings and discussion sections. The third factor identified here is labelled epistemic beliefs, because it is formed of attributes related to the structure and acquisition of knowledge, and to the enjoyment of learning (positive epistemic emotions) and complexity (need for cognition).

These dispositional factors were then entered into two-step cluster analysis to identify any latent groups within the cohort, characterised by similarity in their dispositional profile. The initial analysis identified seven potential clusters, several of which represented under ten percent of respondents. This solution was therefore not readily interpretable. Previous dispositional studies have consistently identified three cluster solutions (Cantwell et al., 2017; Lonka et al., 2021; Spray et al., 2023) and so two-step cluster analysis was repeated with three clusters specified a priori. This generated a three-cluster solution of fair quality. The ratio of largest to smallest cluster was 1.38. Factors 2 and 3 (affective and epistemic) contributed most strongly to this cluster solution. The clusters’ dispositional factor scores are reported in

Table 5. Dispositional clusters with standardised factor scores.

	Cluster 1 40.2% (n = 278)	Cluster 2 30.8% (n = 213)	Cluster 3 29% (n = 201)
Factor 1 Agentic	0.24	−0.18	−0.14
Factor 2 Affective	0.17	−1.02	0.84
Factor 3 Epistemic	0.84	−0.41	−0.72

, using standardised scores, so that positive numbers represent scores above the cohort average, and negative numbers mean cluster scores are below the cohort average. Cluster 1, comprising 40% of participants, was a little above average in terms of anxiousness (0.17), high in epistemic beliefs (0.84) and above average in agentic beliefs (0.24). This is indicative of a generally adaptive dispositional profile. Cluster 2, including 31% of participants, was very low in anxiousness (−1.02), but also low in epistemic beliefs (−0.41) and agentic beliefs (−0.18). This is a less adaptive profile, and the very low anxiousness may actually reflect a level of disengagement with learning.

The third cluster has the most apparently maladaptive profile. This cluster comprises almost one third of respondents (29%) and has high anxiousness (0.84), very low epistemic beliefs (−0.72) and slightly below average agentic beliefs (−0.14). This final cluster is the most concerning because low epistemic beliefs are least suited for high quality learning and teaching, due to involving a preference for simple knowledge, correct answers, and a belief in fixed intellectual ability. Given this epistemic profile, it is unsurprising that in the ITE context these students experience the highest levels of anxiousness in learning.

In addition to rating the dispositional profiling items, participants were also asked to report whether they identified as experiencing any specific learning difficulties to the extent that their learning becomes impacted. The most common response was ‘anxiety’, which was indicated by 243 respondents (34% of the sample), a larger proportion than those who stated that they do not experience any specific condition (28%). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was reported by 19% of respondents, autism by 6%. Other conditions reported included, sensory processing disorder (SPD) (3%), depression by 2%. Other conditions reported include obsessive–compulsive disorder (n = 6) and chronic PTSD (n = 2). A subsequent item asked whether participants had a formal diagnosis, and 54% of respondents reported diagnosis of at least one condition. Exact reported diagnosis rates varied by condition, for example, 43% of ADHD participants had a diagnosis in place, and a further 19% were seeking diagnosis, but the basic proportions of diagnosed/undiagnosed/seeking diagnosis were remarkably similar across conditions.

3.1.3. Study 1 Findings

Dispositional profiles are representative of individual differences, and so in any population variation can be expected. Preservice teachers present with a range of dispositional profiles that may be more or less adaptive in various situations. The sample reported in this paper were heterogenous in line with reported profiles of other student cohorts (Cantwell et al., 2017; Spray, 2018). The three-component structure includes a conceptually coherent underlying factor representing students’ anxiousness in learning, formed of dispositional attributes that exhibited the largest standard deviations, such as feelings of shame and inhibitory anxiety. This is concerning because it demonstrates that a subset of the preservice teachers in this sample reported high levels of maladaptive attributes associated with anxiousness in learning. These include attributes such as intolerance of uncertainty and fear of failure. This would be concerning in any student population but is especially problematic in preservice teachers who will be responsible for others’ learning in their daily professional practice.

The reported rates of mental health issues within the preservice cohort is also concerning. About one third of respondents identified as experiencing anxiety to the extent that it impacts their learning; it is not a stretch to extrapolate that these preservice teachers may be on a trajectory towards becoming anxious ECTs. A study of student teachers with mental health conditions in the United States concluded that student teaching could be a positive experience, yet that this could be undermined by a general lack of mental health awareness, education and training (Houdyshell et al., 2021). Further, there is evidence of relationships between teachers’ perceived stress, mental health literacy, anxiety, and career resilience (Qian et al., 2023). Limited literature has thus far explored the pedagogical significance of teacher mental health, but work by McLean demonstrates clear connections between teachers’ depressive symptoms and students’ instructional experiences (McLean et al., 2018), feedback to students (McLean & Connor, 2018), and student learning outcomes (McLean & Connor, 2015). This therefore demonstrates the importance of addressing mental health in ITE. These issues are explored further in the later sections of this paper.

3.2. Study 2

3.2.1. Study 2 Method

This study utilised a mixed-method design consisting of two phases. The first phase involved an online, anonymous survey aimed at establishing teachers’ experiences and sense of self-efficacy to support SMH issues. The survey was composed of eight demographic items followed by 25 questions. The survey elicited 175 responses from in-service and preservice secondary teachers in NSW (Table 2). The demographic information provided by participants during the survey highlighted a broadly representative cross-section. For example, 66.3% of survey respondents were female, as compared to 67% of teachers in NSW Secondary Schools. ECT’S formed the largest proportion of respondents (38%), and their data is the primary focus of the present analysis.

The survey utilised a researcher-developed teacher self-efficacy scale exploring teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in dealing with various aspects of managing SMH. This was validated prior to deployment by a pilot study which showed it to be psychometrically robust2. The instrument consists of four subscales, each addressing one element of supporting students with mental health: (1) identification, (2) conversation, (3) referral, and (4) ongoing support. Each scale comprised versions of the same five items describing participants’ sense of efficacy in different domains. For example, ‘I can confidently identify students who are experiencing poor mental health’ (scale one) was varied to read ‘I am confident in my ability to initiate a conversation with a student about their mental health’ (scale two), ‘I am confident that I can refer students to the relevant internal supports for their mental health’ (scale three), and ‘I am confident that I can provide appropriate ongoing support in my classroom to students who are experiencing mental health issues’ (scale four).

Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS (Version 29) while qualitative survey data was manually coded by the researcher (author 2). Qualitative coding established an initial series of codes for each question and then collapsed these into nodes during second level coding. Further qualitative analysis was conducted for the in-depth semi-structured interviews, conducted with a consenting sub-set of survey respondents (n = 19) of whom eight were ECT from a range of educational contexts (see Appendix B). The interview questions were refined in light of the survey findings and subsequently organised into broad thematic categories informed by the preliminary analysis. Interviews were conducted via zoom and recorded for transcription. Transcripts were analysed using a phenomenological hermeneutic approach, which seeks to understand the lived experiences of individuals. This epistemological positioning recognises the importance of interpreting the meaning of experiences within their specific contexts, and acknowledges that experience is always interpreted, both by the participant and the researcher (Smith et al., 2009; Dibley et al., 2020; van Manen, 2017). In keeping with this approach and drawing on Gadamer’s notion of the ‘fusion of horizons’, each interview transcript was read by the researcher at the outset of exploring each new theme (G. Taylor, 2012). As a result, every transcript was read in full at least five times. This iterative process enabled the researcher to identify and consolidate the final set of themes and subthemes emerging from the interviews.

In the presentation of results below, qualitative comments from the survey are reported using participant numbers, and quotations from interviews are reported using pseudonyms to maintain confidentiality and in adherence to ethics protocols.

3.2.2. Study 2 Results

The dataset yielded a wide range of insights. The results presented here are those most salient to ECT testimony on the following themes: teachers’ accounts of supporting SMH, the self-reported impacts of these experiences, and perceptions regarding preparedness to navigate these challenges.

Survey Results

Multiple survey questions addressed the frequency and nature of teachers’ work supporting SMH. For example, respondents were asked how recently they have had to respond to or support a student with a mental illness, and 76% of ECT’s indicated the most recent option offered, which was ‘within the last week’. This was notably higher than non-ECT respondents, of whom 57% reported responding ‘within the last week.’ Respondents also reported the extent to which supporting SMH impacted their teaching practice. Three quarters of the whole sample of 175 respondents believed that supporting SMH has a direct impact on their teaching, with a smaller portion indicating that it can impact practice ‘at times’ (13%). Only 2.5% of respondents identified that they did not perceive an impact because they considered it to be a ‘part of practice’.

Responses to open-text items offered clarification of the detail behind these figures. When discussing impacts on teaching practice, respondents noted issues including time, workload, differentiation and classroom dynamics. Respondent 14 stated, “...the most significant impact is the time that it takes.” Many responses mentioned additional workload created by addressing SMH concerns. Further, several teachers specifically noted the time-sensitive nature of supporting SMH, and that, because of this, other duties such as planning or marking are pushed outside of work hours. This was exemplified by Respondent 164: “...the worry about that student … also impacts the amount of work I do after school.”

Another clear issue was the impact SMH can have on classroom dynamics. Various participants mentioned that SMH significantly impacts students’ behaviour and capacity to learn. For example, Respondent 101 noted: “[SMH] absolutely impacts teaching practice. Students suffering from mental health issues can become oppositional in class... [or] disengaged in class...in critical incidents, students have attempted self-harming behaviours...when these incidents arise, teaching activities cannot continue...”. Despite having under five years’ classroom experience, several ECTs described the impact of critical incidents such as physical conflict and serious self-harm on their experiences of teaching.

Other pedagogical challenges were also highlighted, including the sheer volume of SMH issues. Some teachers noted that teaching classes with multiple students who need further support, particularly in relation to wellbeing, puts strain on their practice. Many also noted the practical difficulties of trying to support one child experiencing mental health issues while having 20–30 other students still relying on them. For example: “To respond to a mental health concern you need to be completely present with that child. It is hard to do that with 29 other students in the room” (Respondent 156).

A significant and unanticipated theme was the profound impact that supporting SMH has on teachers’ own mental health. This was noted by several ECT’s across various survey questions. One (respondent 110) stated “...thinking about student issues/problems and how to assist can have an impact on day-to-day difficulties with my own wellbeing”, and respondent 164 concurred “...a lot of the time teachers struggle to manage their own mental health, let alone taking on the students too.” Similarly, respondent 36 highlighted the complexity of this reciprocal dynamic: “it’s also important to consider the toll that dealing with SMH can have on the teacher, who will have their own triggers and traumas”. The cognitive load associated with supporting SMH was also reported: “I often leave school at the end of the day and continuously think about how I can best help” (respondent 159). Another ECT addressed school SMH support from a systemic perspective: “I think the system is not set up very well to help students or teachers who are struggling with mental health issues. Like many things in public education the system is broken and needs a serious overhaul” (respondent 109).

Teachers’ beliefs in their professional capabilities were assessed using a self-efficacy scale (described above) which demonstrated good internal reliability with high Cronbach’s alphas (>0.88) across all subscales.

Table 6. Overview of Teachers’ sense of efficacy in responding to student mental health.

Scale	Items	Example Item	Cronbach’s α (n = 175)	Mean ECT (n = 66)	s.d.	Mean Experienced Teachers (n = 91)	s.d.
Identification	5	I can confidently identify students who are experiencing poor mental health.	0.896	4.31	0.933	4.54	0.962
Conversation	5	I am confident in my ability to initiate a conversation with a student about their mental health.	0.926	4.44	1.044	4.71	1.081
Referral	5	I am confident that I can refer students to the relevant internal supports for their mental health	0.908	4.63	1.223	4.79	1.085
Ongoing support	5	I am confident that I can provide appropriate ongoing support in my classroom to students who are experiencing mental health issues	0.880	4.23	1.032	4.34	1.088

displays the psychometrics for each subscale, based on the entire sample (n = 175), which includes preservice, ECT, and experienced teachers, alongside the means and standard deviations for the ECT and experienced teacher groups. Experienced teachers reported generally higher scores than ECTs, although not to the extent of statistical significance; this may be due to the relatively low sample sizes. Standard deviations were also similar across both cohorts. ECTs’ lowest mean scores were for Identify (4.31) and Ongoing Support (4.23), whereas Conversations (4.44) and Referral (4.63) had somewhat higher scores. The fact that the highest scores were for Referral may represent teachers’ preference to pass potential SMH issues to other more qualified professionals; this is discussed further below.

To gauge perceptions of SMH training in the broader profession, respondents were asked whether they believed teachers have an adequate level of training to respond to and manage SMH. The overwhelming majority of ECT’s (92.9%) and experienced teachers (92%) reported they did not believe teachers have such training. When asked what training, experiences or resources would be helpful to support teachers’ sense of confidence in responding to SMH, both ECTs and experienced teachers suggested training within ITE programs and mandatory in-service training.

Finally, respondents rated their overall confidence in responding to SMH on a scale of 1–100. ECTs reported a lower sense of confidence (mean score 60.8, s.d. 21.9) in comparison to more experienced teachers (mean score 68.6, s.d. 21.6). From this, it may be deduced that experience can improve teachers’ confidence in responding to SMH concerns. However, the consistently high standard deviations demonstrate substantial individual variation. This suggests that while experience may increase average confidence, it does not lead to consistent confidence across all teachers.

Interview Results

The interviews primarily addressed classroom teachers’ role in supporting SMH, revealing many challenges and complexities. The following results are drawn from ECT interviewees, to represent their experiences and perspectives. All participants agreed that SMH is inextricably linked to students’ capacity to learn and therefore must factored into teachers’ role to some extent. However, they consistently expressed a lack of clear definition in the role of a teacher in supporting SMH. When asked if there was clarity, Jamie simply responded, “No, not at all”, and most interviewees echoed the same sentiments. When asked if they had anticipated the role that they would play in supporting SMH, all ECTs stated that they had not: “No way” (Lola), and “No, I thought I am a maths teacher, no way, I am not going to touch any of that” (Noah).

Following the identification of teacher mental health as a theme of the survey data, the interviews also addressed teachers’ management of their own wellbeing. This was a fruitful and significant topic of discussion, spanning the contribution of supporting SMH to teacher burnout, and the lack of support for teacher wellbeing within schools and educational institutions more broadly. Both ECTs and experienced teachers stated that the strain of supporting SMH can impact teacher wellbeing. For example, Henry described supporting SMH issues as: “One extra piece of the puzzle for teachers to deal with...it certainly contributes to teacher burnout.’, and Lola reflected: ‘I think that’s what we see with a lot of teachers at the moment, is that teachers are going above and beyond … they’re just burning out and wanting to leave the profession.”

ECTs and experienced staff openly criticised the availability of support for teachers’ mental health. Sophia asked: “If you struggle yourself as a teacher with wellbeing issues, then who’s your support?” Likewise, Jamie described that schools “… have all these procedures and these pathways and streamlines in place to support students. But there is no role or position allocated to supporting staff”.

3.2.3. Study 2 Findings

This evidence illustrates that ECTs do not feel prepared to support students with potential mental health challenges (RQ2), and some had not even considered they might need to be prepared for it (RQ3), as exemplified by Sophia: “I didn’t know what teachers did.” In line with this, there was a clear desire to have more training to support SMH. Many participants advocated for SMH to become a required part of ITE programs, implying that they felt they did not receive adequate or explicit training in their own preservice education. Likewise, both survey and interview results highlight that while ECTs frequently respond to SMH issues in their role as a teacher, this work is not formally recognised or defined. Further, ECTs highlight that supporting SMH significantly impacts both their practice, in and out of the classroom, and their personal wellbeing.

In the discussion that follows, we explore the potential significance of intersections between the two datasets. In particular, we consider the high-anxiety and low self-efficacy profile identified among pre-service teachers alongside the challenges reported by in-service teachers. We suggest that together, these datasets might indicate continued sensitivity across the teaching career trajectory that, without targeted intervention, may have enduring consequences for teacher wellbeing, thus contributing to attrition.

4. Discussion and Implications

This research shows that a large proportion of ITE students report high anxiousness around learning (Study 1), which is concerning for a preservice teaching cohort. The heterogeneity of the cohort was apparent in cluster analysis, so while some students are likely not impacted to any great extent by anxiousness in their university study, others are struggling to cope effectively, which has predictable consequences for their transition into autonomous practice. The workplace these students will inhabit upon graduation is likely to be a stressful environment, with a high cognitive and emotional burden. The responsibility of supporting school students’ mental health makes this an additionally high stakes setting, particularly in the context of Waiver B pathways and widespread teacher shortages that are seeing more experienced colleagues, who might mentor novice teachers, leaving the profession.

By incorporating a second dataset that is focused on teachers’ self-reported practices and experiences supporting SMH, this paper draws connections between preservice teachers’ dispositions towards learning, specifically agency, anxiousness, and epistemic beliefs, and the experiences of ECT in terms of supporting SMH. Through examining these intersecting dimensions, we aimed to understand how personal and professional factors shape teachers’ responses to SMH, illuminating potentially important avenues for interventions and support. This is certainly not intended to locate the responsibility for engaging with issues of mental health with the individual, while ignoring broader structural issues. However, we suggest that attention to and support of learner dispositions within ITE would better prepare graduates to manage the challenges of the ECT context, in terms of managing both their own efficacy and anxiety, and that of their students. This aligns with previous recommendations to address dispositions to teach early in preservice training (O’Neill et al., 2014) and is supported by the recent findings of Pikić Jugović et al. (2025) that “early career teachers who are better at managing and motivating themselves … displayed fewer symptoms of burnout” (p. 3340). Crucially, the abilities to manage and motivate oneself depend on strategies that can be taught, practised, and learned, and has it has been shown that improving self-regulation, as a personal resource, can reduce burnout (Bakker & de Vries, 2020). This therefore necessitates that these skills should be addressed in ITE and in ongoing professional development for teachers.

The findings of Study 2 show that teachers consider managing SMH to form a significant part of their workload, for which they do not feel equipped to confidently respond, and may not even feel that they should respond to. As one experienced teacher (Keeley) described: “It shouldn’t be a requirement of the job, but it is. Make no mistake. Anyone who is coming into leadership that I am mentoring, I’m teaching them the skills that they need…that they shouldn’t need”. These findings also speak to the persistent undervaluing of care practices within educational contexts. While existing research has documented the substantial pastoral responsibilities shouldered by professionals in so-called caring fields, such as education, healthcare, and psychology, it also reveals a troubling lack of institutional and societal recognition of the significance of this work (Henderson et al., 2024; Kariou et al., 2021; Ormiston et al., 2022). As a result, these practices constitute ‘invisible labour’ which is essential to ensuring children’s access to psychological support during periods of acute need, particularly in the context of the current youth mental health crisis, yet is rarely acknowledged or adequately resourced in terms of time, emotional labour, or professional compensation.

This disconnect reflects broader systemic tensions, wherein institutions publicly affirm the importance of mental health and wellbeing yet often fail to translate this commitment into meaningful structural support (Baker & Burke, 2023; Rajan, 2023). Such gaps may stem from financial constraints or a general lack of understanding regarding the complex and emotionally fatiguing nature of supporting learners, particularly in identifying distress, differentiating instruction, and fostering inclusive classroom environments. These dynamics have been critically examined in other educational settings, including higher education, where similar patterns of institutional failure to enact meaningful change have been observed despite professed commitment to staff and student mental health and wellbeing (Baker & Burke, 2023; Reid, 2021). We suggest that continuing to document teachers’ everyday experiences of supporting SMH via research is an important element in drawing these issues to the attention of the public and policymakers.

While complexities arise around the role that teachers do and/or should play in supporting SMH, the teacher interviews unequivocally demonstrate that SMH is inextricably linked to students’ capacity to engage with curriculum and teachers’ capacity to teach and support them. This paper emphasises the importance of treating student and teacher mental health as a priority, from preservice training onward. This necessitates the holistic integration of mental health literacy, trauma-informed frameworks, and attention to wellbeing within teacher education programmes (Gilham et al., 2021). For instance, the incorporation of case studies and critical incidents within a carefully scaffolded learning environment might better prepare pre-service teachers for the student mental health challenges they may observe in the workplace. Yet, preparing educators alone is inadequate. Any embedding of mental health literacy within teacher education must be accompanied by meaningful workplace support.

In terms of the theoretical framework presented above in Figure 1, it is apparent in the results of these studies that there is substantially more evidence of contextual demands and the associated costs for teachers, than there is for the mitigating resources that would help teachers to meet the demands of their work. As the findings reported here highlight, teachers cannot continue to undertake the complexities of their role in a system that does not allocate appropriate time, resources, and training, or support for their own wellbeing. Clearly, concrete investment is required to support teachers doing this work that they are currently not trained or paid for. Such measures might include allocation of time to support staff reflection and de-briefing with qualified professionals, ongoing investment in professional development, and dedicated in-class support for student mental health (Berger et al., 2022). Similarly, the systems that train and induct new teachers could certainly do more to explicitly raise awareness and capacity to manage mental health of both staff and students. As a result, our five key recommendations are outlined below.

1.

School-based mental health screening

Some experts have called for universal school-based mental health screening, to proactively identify young learners and enable early intervention before issues become entrenched or student behaviour has reached crisis point (Humphrey & Wigelsworth, 2016). This would also create reliable baseline data to monitor the prevalence of mental health issues and allocate resourcing equitably. Current resourcing is inconsistent, as illustrated by the interview data in Study 2. Some schools have ample resources to draw upon while others have little to no recourse in terms of professional support for mental health issues (staff or student). For example, Noah (an ECT from an urban independent school) explained that his school has “two full-time psychologists that are booked out,” whereas Ella (an experienced teacher from a rural Government school) described “our nearest psychologist is in [another town] which is two hours away from us”. This relates to issues with youth mental health resourcing outside of teaching, and the inherent contradiction of teachers being advised to refer students to support that is not reliably available (Gunawardena et al., 2024). In Australia young people wait on average 99.6 days, and up to 365 days, to see youth mental health services (Subotic-Kerry et al., 2025). This inevitably results in teachers dealing with unsupported students and being forced to take a more leading role in managing students’ mental health, despite a lack of training and preparedness, and at the cost of their own mental health as well as broader student learning.

2.

Acknowledge classroom complexities

It should also be acknowledged that even when students are able to access appropriate external professional support, teachers remain exposed to learners’ difficulties with mental health. This amplifies ordinary challenges such as classroom management and differentiation, as well as adding additional complexities. Regular contact with students experiencing mental health difficulties can impact teachers beyond the classroom, occupying their thoughts far beyond school hours, and this means SMH can have a huge impact on teachers. Teacher mental health therefore needs to be made a priority in its own right.

3.

Acknowledgment of vicarious trauma

It is not an overstatement to describe teachers’ experiences as leading to vicarious trauma, for which there are clear neurological underpinnings including mirror neurons and empathic responses (Wyatt, 2024). Vicarious trauma, and related concepts such as secondary traumatic stress and compassion fatigue, are known to impact individuals who are exposed to traumatic stories and situations (Wyatt, 2024). In fact, “the emergence of compassion fatigue, burnout and secondary traumatic stress is a critical factor driving teachers out of the profession in Australia” (Oberg et al., 2025, p. 1106). Compassion fatigue, within the context of teaching, is defined as the deep exhaustion, both emotional and physical, that can occur when exposed to traumatic situations through students (Oberg et al., 2025). When asked their primary reasons for wanting to leave the profession, NSW public school teachers report emotional exhaustion as the top reason (39%), and high emotional demands of work as the third most common reason (27%) for leaving the profession (NSW Premier’s Department, 2024). Such evidence supports this paper’s call for action to raise awareness and support wellbeing for professionals who bear witness to trauma and human suffering.

4.

Provision of targeted professional development

There is thus an urgent need for teachers to be trained and supported themselves when dealing with SMH. However, the existing preservice education system does not appear to be adequately preparing graduates for this work. Part of this is due to the standards set out for graduate teachers (the APST) being inadequate to safeguard SMH, as previously discussed. The standards around student safety address ‘student wellbeing’ without specifying mental health and without considering the associated importance of staff mental health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, the evidence reported in this paper demonstrates that ITE programmes must explicitly prepare preservice teachers to respond to SMH, both to support students and to sustain their own mental health as a practitioner. Teachers qualified at graduate level should be capable of implementing strategies and utilising infrastructure to ensure the best possible outcomes for students and staff. It is also essential that preservice teachers are properly supported in supervised placements, which is not guaranteed under current regulations. Ironically, the push to achieve NTWAP’s first priority area (increase teachers supply) risks creating a context that directly undermines other priority areas, such as strengthening ITE (#2) and keeping the teachers we have (#3) (Department of Education, 2022).

5.

Formally recognise the role of the teacher

The teachers’ role in responding to SMH should be formally recognised as part of their professional role. This role must be clearly defined within role statement and featured within the APST. Formal recognition of this could pave the way for proper investment to build capacity for mandated professional learning and allocated workload. Without resourcing, teachers and schools do not have the time or energy to be able to respond effectively to SMH, and the consequences of this fall upon students and the staff themselves, with associated impacts on student achievement and staff wellbeing, job satisfaction, and retention. That said, professional boundaries should also be respected: teachers are not, and should not need to be, trained mental health professionals in the same way that psychologists or social workers are. The system-level infrastructure surrounding schools must be strengthened so that these specialists are available for referral when teachers need to pass cases on. Teaching might also learn from the practices of such professionals, for example, adopting the kind of professional de-briefing processes that are used by other first responders (Ancarani et al., 2025; Feuer, 2021). If such support were available centrally, it could be made available to all teachers so they are less dependent on local level support which may not be present or effective.

5. Limitations

This study, like all others, is bounded by known limitations. Self-report questionnaires and interviews do not offer objective measures; however, they remain valid methods in terms of representing participants’ perspectives. We acknowledge that the data reported here represent comparatively small samples relative to the number of ECT across Australia, and that participants in these studies were located within one Australian state (NSW), constituting a contextual limitation. There is no reason to believe these samples are not more broadly representative, however it is noted that all participants in these studies were volunteers, introducing potential self-selection bias, and so further studies with larger samples would be welcome. More in-depth research is also required to better understand the national context in terms of ECT preparedness to manage their own and their students’ mental health.

We acknowledge that this paper’s use of two studies, chosen to offer complementary perspectives on two related stages of teacher development, also entails inconsistent methodology across two separate designs. The incorporation of two distinct research designs and participant cohorts means that we are engaging with educators at different stages of career development. While we argue that this is a strength that offers complementary insights, it also limits our ability to draw comparable conclusions across the cohorts in the way that a longitudinal study might allow. Accordingly, we recognise that the field needs studies that more comprehensively examine these issues for staff and students across stages of teacher professional development, ideally longitudinally.

6. Conclusions

The contemporary landscape in which it is common for SMH to be un- or under-supported is impacting students’ learning, as well as creating or exacerbating mental health issues for the teachers themselves. From a policy perspective these issues contribute to issues with teacher retention, and at the human level they impact individual teacher and student wellbeing; all of which undermines effective learning. In the context of teacher shortages and high prevalence of mental health difficulties among both students and staff, the consistent lack of training or support identified in this paper are profoundly problematic. Wellbeing is necessary for learning and thus should be central to our education systems, yet when those systems are under-resourced to care for the people who form them, both wellbeing and learning suffer as a consequence.

Further, the evidence presented in this paper highlights future issues that may result from the current cohort of preservice teachers in the transitional space of ITE, a space in which they hold the role of both student and teacher. A substantial proportion of preservice teachers report anxiousness in learning that offers a poor foundation for their future teaching practice. They are not only more likely to experience anxiety in their professional practice, but in combination with lower agentic beliefs and more naïve epistemic beliefs they are also less equipped to respond adaptively when challenges do arise. The ITE sector must therefore be part of the solution in better supporting student and teacher mental health.

Ultimately, strong leadership is required in the policy and education sectors to take responsibility for the delivery of this essential work. Functional infrastructure must be built to enable all young people to access appropriate and timely professional support. Even alongside such development, the role of identifying and supporting young people with potential mental health difficulties will continue to fall within teachers’ pedagogical remit, and thus this must be acknowledged as a formal part of their role; and they must be trained, supported, and remunerated appropriately. Without such action, teachers face being left without the capacity to effectively maintain mental health and wellbeing for either their students or themselves.