The Enemy Within: Work-Related Stress and the Education Crisis

Definition

Stress in the workplace has been recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a global health epidemic. Research examining the most stressful industries to work in the UK consistently ranks education among the highest groups, encompassing early years practitioners to higher education academics. One of the most commonly reported contributory factors is poor work–life balance, with high levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation—key components of burnout—endemic. Related research has highlighted unprecedented mental health difficulties among children and young people; while many educators feel ill-equipped to manage the levels of mental distress they encounter in the classroom and playground on a daily basis, contributing to their own diminished wellbeing. The current author posits that at the heart of a well-functioning learning environment is the holistic wellbeing of every member of the education community. This paper brings together evidence from across different levels of education to expose systemic failures to address work-related stressors, highlighting gaps in effective support mechanisms to meet the needs of both learners and educators. Philosophical questions concerning professional identities and the function of a contemporary education system with mental health on its agenda are considered. Finally, recommendations are put forward to help tackle the current crisis and curb the exodus of professionals from across the sector.

1. Introduction

Stress in the workplace has been recognised by the WHO as a global health epidemic, with an estimated 12 billion working days lost every year due to depression and anxiety among the workforce [1]. In one UK survey, almost a third of employees (30 percent) reported work-related stress, and one in nine (11 percent) claimed to be affected daily [2]. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) serves to remind employers of their legal duty to protect employees from stress at work, although no specific regulatory framework is applied [3]. The HSE’s concerns for workers’ physical health is well documented in its inspection and enforcement practices, yet no parallel process is implemented for work-related stress, exposing a worrying gap. Against this backdrop, the education sector is universally ranked as one of the most stressful industries to work in [4]. Workload intensification and accountability pressures have contributed to growing numbers of teachers turning to antidepressants to cope with “unmanageable” work demands [5,6]. Elevated levels of emotional stress and anxiety related to the workplace are rife across all levels of education—from the early years to higher education—leading to a sector increasingly synonymous with burnout and professional exodus.

Over recent decades, discourse around mental health and the role of education have become increasingly interwoven, prompting some authors to ask: What becomes of mental health when it is formulated into an ‘agenda’ for education? [7]. According to the WHO [8], “Mental health is a state of mental wellbeing that enables people to cope with the stresses of life, realize their abilities, learn and work well, and contribute to their community.” The WHO’s universally adopted definition moves away from medicalised notions of ill health and the treatment of disorders, embracing a holistic concept of mental wellbeing. For clarity, the broader concept of overall wellbeing additionally encompasses physical, social and economic components [9]. In the wake of this fresh perspective on mental health, many countries, including the UK, have campaigned to reposition public responsibility beyond the realm of the health sector. Schools and other education settings are now promoted as ideal environments to nurture and support learners’ mental wellbeing, generating a ‘virtuous circle’ with reciprocal effects on academic progress [10,11].

Conversely, education settings are associated with multiple stressors contributing to impoverished mental wellbeing including academic, social and interpersonal pressures. Certainly, there is a wealth of evidence documenting escalating mental health difficulties among both learners and educators. To date, the primary focus has been on identifying and addressing the needs of learners, while those of staff have received notably less attention [12]. This stubborn discrepancy is a major oversight; not least, given the known association between the mental wellbeing of educators and student outcomes [13,14]. Longitudinal studies have shown that teachers have a significant impact on the long-term physical and mental health of their students [15]; while related research found a negative association between teacher stress, burnout and poor mental health, and learners’ academic achievements [16,17]. Although studies at higher education level are relatively limited, Madigan and Kim [18] concluded that staff burnout had multiple implications for students including lower academic performance and motivation, and poorer mental wellbeing. Beyond the systemic benefits for learners, the welfare of educators deserves consideration in its own right. The workforce is at crisis point and tackling staff mental wellbeing can help to improve job satisfaction, reduce work-related stress and burnout, and bolster staff retention—enabling both students and educators to reach their full potential. Clearly, the mental health needs of staff warrants equal priority in education settings and research.

Furthermore, there is a notable gap in the literature in terms of comprehensive approaches that pool together different levels of education in discourse around creating mentally healthy learning spaces [19]. This paper aims to synthesise the evidence from the early years to higher education and consider the key challenges and the step change required to address the current mental health crisis across the sector. The primary focus is on the UK, a country at the forefront of multiple campaigns and initiatives on mental wellbeing in education, providing a rich case study that will be of interest and relevance to an international readership.

2. The State of the Sector: Education, Neo-Liberalism and Mental Health

It is strongly argued that mental health cannot be separated from the wider social and political context that one inhabits [20,21]. The social determinants of mental health comprise the set of structural conditions to which an individual is exposed to across their life course [20]. In the global North, dominant neo-liberal ideology perceives the market as the driving mechanism across all societal structures. Thus, within the education sector, market values—individualism, self-reliance, consumerism and profit—define what are deemed productive, responsible and acceptable practices and policies [22]. Over the last half century, the ‘marketisation of education’ has dominated the rhetoric and reforms of successive UK governments on both sides of the political spectrum [23]. The same trajectory, evident in comparable economies such as the United States [24], has also been adopted in more diverse nations including several low- and middle-income countries [25]. According to critics, applying free-market models to education, inevitably positions parents and students as consumers and systemic issues become inextricably entrenched in personal relationship dynamics. For staff, individual responsibility for optimising performance takes precedence, while institutional support and collective bargaining are typically marginalised [26]. Maiese [23] insists that it is the very nature of free market competition and individualism within a neoliberal context that generates the psychological distress inherent in our education institutions. It is through the lens of wider socio-political and systemic factors that the current paper explores the complex interplay of factors contributing to work-related stress and the impoverished mental health and wellbeing of the education workforce.

2.1. Mental Health in Early Years Settings

According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists [27], the mental health needs of very young children are best met by a multi-disciplinary, multi-agency approach that considers primary caregiver relationships and wider environmental influences including, pivotally, early learning settings. The early years is a crucial developmental period in which the foundations of cognitive, emotional, and social skills are laid, mitigating the risk of mental health difficulties later on [28]. The potential influence of early years (EY) educators on a child’s development is broadly recognised; yet the predominantly female workforce is generally low qualified and poorly paid [29]. Recent evidence from the UK revealed that social and emotional learning was almost entirely excluded from standard qualifications for EY workers below graduate level, despite this group comprising the majority of the workforce [30]. Unsurprisingly, EY staff reported often feeling ill-prepared to meet the mental wellbeing needs of young children in their care [27]. A recent international meta-analysis showed the prevalence rate of mental health difficulties among 1–7 year-olds was 20.1 percent, fuelling demands from health professionals for the UK government to prioritise the needs of very young children [8]. Although UK data is limited, 5.5 percent of 2- to 4-year-olds in England had a diagnosable mental health condition in 2017 [31].

Growing evidence highlights how many staff in EY roles feel unsupported by their managers and experience high levels of stress and burnout [32,33,34]. Systemic challenges such as low pay, onerous workloads, and few opportunities for professional advancement, are the most common workplace stressors [35,36]. Researchers examined (n = 67) EY employees’ psychological and physiological stress levels and found that 63 percent met the criteria for major depressive disorder and 41 percent for generalized anxiety disorder. While just over a quarter (26 percent) were on medication for a diagnosed mental health condition [37]. Worryingly, food insecurity and economic hardship were reported as major stressors by 25 percent of the sample. Further evidence suggests disproportionate levels of stress among EY workers of colour, underlining the urgent need to consider racialised stressors in addressing staff mental health [27]. Souto-Manning and Melvin [38] insist that the growing focus on implementing trauma-informed practice for young children should be mirrored in employers’ support for staff, including attending to any racially rooted trauma. Related research has demonstrated that working with trauma-experienced children increases stress and emotional burnout among EY practitioners [34,39], therefore directly compromising workers ability to provide support for those in their care. The impact of poor mental health and wellbeing, and low job satisfaction, is reflected in high staff turnover and a depleting workforce to nurture and educate society’s youngest citizens [40].

2.2. Mental Health in School Settings

A similar picture of impoverished staff mental health and wellbeing emerges at the school level, manifest in the 44 percent increase in teachers in England intending to leave the profession from 2022 to 2023 [41]. Prolonged exposure to stress was found to be negatively associated with job satisfaction and positively associated with intent to exit the sector [42]. The fall in teacher supply in England has been largely attributed to poor pay and working conditions compared to other graduate-level professions [41]. A survey by The National Education Union [5] identified workload intensification as the primary motivation for teachers to resign, closely followed by feeling professionally undervalued, and thirdly, pay. In 2024, the Department for Education (DfE) reported a significant increase in the number of school staff stating that their job had negatively affected their personal life and overall wellbeing compared to two years earlier [43]. Other evidence gathered from exit interviews with over 100 former teachers identified sleeping problems, panic attacks and general anxiety as key factors in their decision to leave the profession [44].

School staff are often compelled to prioritise pupils’ psychological needs above their teaching responsibilities [45], with one in five (20 percent) pupils experiencing probable mental health difficulties [46]. Despite NHS England expanding the number of Mental Health Support Teams (MHSTs) within schools and colleges, nationwide coverage is not anticipated until at least 2029/30 and is dependent on sufficient funding being made available [47]. In the meantime, schools have become the ‘fourth emergency service’ required to provide support across the spectrum of need, including pupils presenting with severe psychological distress [48,49]. Certainly, in neo-liberal societies, competitiveness becomes embedded in children’s education from an early age. International evidence suggests some associated benefits, including increased motivation and performance which can lead to better academic outcomes [50]. Conversely, exposure to a competitive environment has been linked to stress and anxiety about ‘failing’, triggering emotional insecurity [51], while anxiety in childhood is strongly predictive of later mental health problems [52]. In the UK, as children progress through school, standardised, high-stakes exams become more common and learners are compelled to achieve high grades. This can have a negative impact on mental wellbeing, with pupils feeling anxious, isolated and vulnerable [23].

At the school level, constant scrutiny is normalised and formally enforced through standardised metrics such as league tables and Ofsted assessments. Operating in an environment of depleted funding, senior leaders have found it increasingly difficult to satisfy external pressures—74 percent of state-maintained schools in England have seen real-terms cuts since 2010 [53]. As the multiple demands of a performative culture on senior leaders intensify, pressure is cascaded downwards onto staff. Further compounded by the positioning of parents as consumers, with teachers on the frontline being exposed to unprecedented levels of criticism and aggressive acts from parents [23,54]. Survey findings [55] revealed a staggering 86 percent of school leaders reporting a rise in parent complaints over a three-year period. Criticisms were often multiple and commonly escalated to official bodies such as Ofsted and the DfE [56], while their impact was amplified by the use of email and social media to air grievances [57]. Combined, these factors create a highly stressful work environment, detrimental to staff mental wellbeing, job satisfaction and employee retention [54,56].

The extant literature reveals a complex picture with multiple factors linked to teacher stress and burnout—organisational, social, interpersonal, and subjective factors all contribute to mental health conditions such as anxiety and/or depression [42]. Nonetheless, results from the annual UK Teacher Wellbeing Index [54] showed that 50 percent of respondents considered their workplace culture to be negative for their mental wellbeing. In England, teachers spend more time planning lessons, marking students’ work and completing administrative tasks than in most other countries globally [58]. Recent attempts to reduce teacher workload have centred on the administrative burden [44]; however, teachers have indicated that efforts should be re-directed to prioritise behaviour management and pastoral responsibilities [59]. Certainly, increased use of mobile phones and other digital devices in schools have ushered in novel forms of social disruption [60], elevating teacher stress levels. In other research, Szigeti et al. [61] found a strong positive correlation between teaching pupils with special educational needs and disabilities and both depressive symptoms and general burnout. Related evidence suggests that female teachers experience higher levels of stress compared to their male counterparts [62]. Gender differences have also been observed in relation to teachers’ experiences of poor student conduct, with sexist behaviour and language, and sexual harassment in schools on the rise [63]. Therefore, suggesting that gender-specific stress management interventions are warranted within the education sector.

2.3. Mental Health in Higher Education

Discourse around mental health in higher education (HE) has typically concentrated on the student body; however, a growing body of literature [64,65] shines a light on the deteriorating mental wellbeing of university faculty. Authors have reported a familiar pattern of punishing workloads, high stakes performativity pressures, and low sense of professional value. In the HE context, marketisation has created a climate of hyper-competition within and between universities [66]. The core mission is to develop and maintain attractive programme portfolios to entice and retain the optimal number of fee-paying students [67]. University students, like parents, have been repositioned as consumers, perceived by HE leaders (and often themselves [68]) as customers paying for a service. Institutions must provide an excellent ‘student experience’ in line with the expectations of a performance-based funding regime [69]. Academic instruction is commodified and mechanisms of quality control, auditing, and ranking are systematically embedded to quantify the experience of students [70], with vital resources devoted to marketing, branding and customer care [71].

Universities have become ‘risk organisations’ and prioritise avoiding performative failure above all else [72]. According to Brewster et al. [73], market pressures create a competitive, individualistic, and instrumentalised culture incompatible with staff mental wellbeing. Institutions must provide what the student-customer wants as opposed to what is actually required to become a well-educated citizen, with inevitable consequences for pedagogy [70,72]. Staff can be discouraged from expressing their authentic judgment, undermining academic professionalism [74] and academic freedom [75]; while unable to position themselves outside of a performative culture and still be regarded as a valued team member [72]. Meanwhile, students are strongly encouraged to engage with audit mechanisms such as course evaluations. Despite evidence showing low response rates, poor reliability and validity, and inherent biases, these metrics are widely implemented in academia [76]. International research [77] has found them to be openly prejudiced against women and ethnic minorities, yet they continue to influence recruitment, promotion and dismissal decision-making. Moreover, these high-stakes evaluations create stress and anxiety, feelings of inadequacy, and forced competitiveness among colleagues [77,78].

A UK survey of the HE workforce [79] found that the majority (78 percent) believed staff psychological health was deemed less important than productivity for universities. Related research highlighted widely held perceptions that staff wellbeing was not a priority for their institutions—in stark comparison to the student experience [9]. Certainly, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, institutional demands to maintain ‘business as usual’, fuelled a deepening staff mental health crisis [80,81]. An intensified and extended ‘academia without walls’ became the new norm as virtual workspaces rapidly superseded physical campuses [82]. Low morale and diminished mental wellbeing, due to punishing workloads and unmet professional developmental needs, were key drivers of high staff turnover [9]. Some social groups, including staff from lower social class backgrounds and women, were at heightened risk of poor mental health associated with entrenched inequalities [83]. Furthermore, members of staff from minority ethnic communities may face additional barriers to accessing appropriate psychological interventions due to the scarcity of mental healthcare professionals from diverse backgrounds [84].

In sum, evidence from across all levels of education has shown that despite concerted efforts to promote schools and other education settings as ideal environments to nurture and support mental health, these settings generate high levels of stress for learners and educators alike [23,30,73]. Critically, many children, adolescents and young adults are not receiving the mental health support they need, while educators are buckling under the strain [15]. This raises important questions concerning mental health provision, the role of the education sector, and professional responsibilities and boundaries.

3. Education with a Mental Health Agenda: Roles, Responsibilities, and Boundaries

The notion of universal, community-based health provision, including health promoting schools, is rooted in the WHO’s settings-based framework, originally set out in the Ottawa Charter in the mid-1980s [85]. In the intervening years, mental health has become increasingly interwoven with the environment in which an individual learns. In the UK, this has been firmly embedded through a succession of government initiatives and policy directives predominantly in school settings [86,87,88,89]. Against this backdrop, the reshaping of roles and responsibilities in schools and other education environments has challenged traditional beliefs about what constitutes the core business of educators [59].

3.1. Embedding Mental Health Support in the Early Years

In the UK, the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) framework [90] provides statutory guidance for EY providers. One of the core themes—personal, social and emotional development—is explicitly linked to mental health promotion. Good practice focuses on building strong relationships, helping children to understand their emotions and develop confidence. Each child has a key worker to support their individual needs; consequently, EY staff are uniquely placed to identify young children at risk and facilitate early intervention. A UK survey of 905 EY workers [91] discovered that the vast majority (98.5 percent) believed they had a vital role in supporting mental wellbeing. However, despite 91 percent of respondents claiming they regularly worked with children who presented with difficulties, over half (53 percent) admitted to having no specific training.

A major concern around the responsibilisation of mental health to educators is the lack of training, seen most profoundly in EY settings [92]. A growing body of evidence has shown that EY staff working with children with mental health difficulties experience elevated stress levels and burnout [34,37,39]. Clearly, there is urgent need for better training, both at qualification level and through continuous professional development, so that all EY practitioners are fully equipped for their role. However, while staff have specific responsibility (as specified in the EYFS framework) for supporting young children’s socio-emotional development—through nurturing positive relationships and skills-building—they are certainly not mental health professionals. EY practitioners have called for greater recognition of this fact and stressed the need for extra support with better access to mental health experts for both the children under their care and the workforce [32].

3.2. The Mental Health Agenda in School Settings

Although schools in the UK are not required to have a standalone mental health policy, they have a statutory duty for mental health promotion and support [93]. In practice, this translates into four core areas: Prevention—through fostering an emotionally healthy environment, delivering a psychoeducation curriculum, and nurturing resilience and socio-emotional skills; identification—recognising early signs of mental health difficulties; early intervention—helping pupils to access support or deliver school-based programmes; and referral to specialist services—signposting and liaising with external specialist agencies including Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). According to Maiese [23], with the onset of statutory provision, the status of schools as the ideal setting for mental health intervention was sealed, and this agenda has now become an integral part of a teacher’s job description.

Arguably, the repositioning of teachers’ responsibilities has been primarily led by gaps elsewhere in public sector budgets. These deficits have been offset by allocating mental health screening, intervention, and support to the remit of educators [23]. An overburdened mental health service with high referral thresholds and long waiting lists has compelled teachers to go ‘above and beyond’ to help fill the gaps [94]. The role of designated Senior Lead for Mental Health has emerged (a position expected to be filled by an existing member of staff); while additional responsibility has been allocated for mental health screening. Concerns relate to the inevitable scrutiny these responsibilities entail, ushering in extra auditing processes and performativity pressures. New Ofsted inspection criteria from autumn 2025 includes a 5-point scale for “children’s welfare and wellbeing” (in early years settings) and “personal development and wellbeing” (in schools) [95]. The negative effects of high-stakes formal inspections on staff mental health are already well documented including low morale, chronic stress, and in extreme cases linked to suicide [54,96,97]. Worryingly, an independent assessment of the newly revised Ofsted inspection framework concluded that just marginal improvements were predicted. Furthermore, it was only through a radical shift to a lower-stakes-accountability culture that the nefarious impact on staff mental wellbeing could be significantly ameliorated [97].

Certainly, implementing a mental health agenda in schools is beset by challenges. Many teachers feel personally responsible for supporting their pupils’ mental wellbeing; however, they are concerned by their lack of mental health literacy and relevant skillset [98,99]. These deficits affect teachers’ ability to identify difficulties and respond effectively to pupils in distress, while the situation is exacerbated by poor access to qualified professionals [100]. Although additional mental health training is in high demand from teachers, time poverty—due to excessive workload and work intensification—hinders the opportunity to attend training events. To illustrate, one survey found that 63 percent of education staff admitted to having multiple tasks to complete without sufficient capacity for three-quarters or more of the time [101].

Conversely, other evidence has shown that some teachers consider mental health to be peripheral to education and see their primary role as pedagogical [102]. Moreover, staff have reported that the burden of responsibility for pupil’s mental health has had a detrimental impact on their own [54,101]. In addition, teachers feel their wellbeing has been further compromised by other, non-pedagogical, demands such as helping to resolve family conflicts and giving financial assistance for food and basic school supplies [55,101]. Pertinently, in one teacher’s own words, “The government need to decide if they want us to be social workers, mental health workers or educators” [102].

3.3. Universities with a Mental Wellbeing Agenda

In line with the framework adopted in schools, universities are encouraged to embed a whole institution approach to mental health [73]. Nonetheless, as autonomous institutions, the manner in which support is provided varies across the sector. An expanding student population (In the UK, approximatley 50 percent of young people now attend university.), and the year-on-year rise in individuals seeking support, has increased the pressure on student support services as well as academic staff [103]. National statistics show that the number of young people in HE disclosing a mental health condition has increased markedly over the last decade (from less than 1 percent in 2010/11 to 5.8 per cent in 2022/23) [104]. However, a survey of 4000 UK students found that only 12 percent agreed that mental health issues were well managed by their university [105]. In 2025, a review of student suicide deaths showed a disturbing annual increase from 2009/10 [106]. Also of serious concern was the revelation that the postvention support made available to academic staff was significantly less than that provided to the victim’s peer group. Interestingly, recommendations to mitigate the risk of student suicide included increasing pastoral intervention from academic staff. Thus, extending the level of frontline support anticipated from faculty, despite the evident lack of services afforded to those same staff.

In accordance with the Equality Act 2010, universities have a duty to provide ‘reasonable adjustments’ for students as deemed necessary. In the aftermath of a student death by suicide and subsequent legal action (Abrahart v University of Bristol), greater clarity around the responsibility of universities was set out [107]. The court ruling found that universities had an ‘anticipatory’ duty to make reasonable adjustments without formal knowledge of a disability. Compliance advice to the HE sector included ensuring all student-facing staff received training to recognise symptoms of mental health difficulties and have a clear understanding of protocols and procedures [107]. However, evidence suggests a lack of knowledge and awareness among academics, and little or no relevant training to recognise or assess difficulties [103]. Worryingly, increased expectations on staff have not been matched by a corresponding improvement in mental health literacy.

Academics are often approached by students experiencing mental health distress due to their accessibility and existing relationship, yet they often feel unprepared. Research found that while some staff were confident initiating conversations around mental health, for others it was highly stressful [108]. The area of lowest confidence was related to providing ongoing support, and staff highlighted how this responsibility came with the likely cost of encroaching on their personal time. In another study, staff reported having to perform tasks which they felt were inappropriate, including assessing students’ mental health needs and triaging [109]. A recent scoping review exposed a distinct absence of literature documenting university training programmes on managing student distress [110]. Moreover, academics were often unclear about boundaries when dealing with students with mental health difficulties and institutional support was reported to be weak [109]. Related evidence underlined how staff often worried about the lack of clear boundaries and the ambiguous nature of pastoral support [111]. Some academics have gone further, challenging the notion that student mental health is their responsibility or within their professional role [112]; while exacting pastoral duties negatively affect staff’s own mental wellbeing, contributing to elevated stress and burnout [73,81].

4. S.O.S (Save Our Staff): Creating Inclusive Mentally Healthy Education Settings

Mental health in education has reached a crisis point. Elevated levels of work-related stress, anxiety, and depression are pervasive across all levels of education from the early years to higher education and have a significant impact on personal lives, the quality of education, and the sustainability of the workforce. Research has shown a reciprocal relationship between the mental health of educators and learners, starting from the early years [13,14,28]. Educators play a vital role in supporting their students’ mental health and wellbeing and, inevitably, anxious and stressed staff are less able to provide support, or create a positive learning environment and deliver high quality instruction [16,17,18]. At the heart of a well-functioning learning environment is the holistic wellbeing of every member of the education community. A fundamental shift is required whereby the mental health needs of staff are given equal priority to those of learners. To date, the significance of ensuring the mental wellbeing of the education workforce has been underestimated [97], while dominant narratives doggedly frame student and staff wellbeing as oppositional [73]. Institutional policies, training and culture overwhelmingly prioritise students, and support strategies often create extra practical and emotional demands on staff [94,101,108,109]. Clearly, efforts to create genuinely inclusive, mentally healthy education settings must also tackle existing concerns around educators’ professional role and introduce step changes to mitigate systemic factors contributing to elevated stress and burnout.

4.1. Professional Identity and Educator Mental Health

Evidence suggests there is a positive relationship between a strong professional identity and mental health, whereas a misalliance of workplace responsibilities and expectations induces anxiety and feelings of inadequacy [113]. Role clarity minimises uncertainty and allows staff to better manage daily stressors, buffering against mental health difficulties [114]. Nonetheless, for educators, the lines around professional responsibilities and boundaries have become increasingly blurred, especially in relation to providing mental health support for others [32,98,109]. Ball and Olmeda [115] insist that a neo-liberal onus on personal responsibility has generated a unique type of educator, from EY practitioner to HE academic. This takes the form of a resilient staff member who is expected to manage their workload with minimal capacity for autonomy or professional freedom. Employees are required to ‘work on themselves’ to enhance productivity and individual resilience to mental distress [23]. Conversely, human displays of vulnerability, distress and not coping, are perceived as signs of weakness and personal failure. Survey findings revealed that over 50 percent of HE staff worried about appearing ‘weak’ if they sought help for mental health difficulties and over 70 percent believed their career prospects would be at risk [80]. These findings indicate that for many educators an authentic whole institution approach to mental health is yet to be realised. In the first instance, educators must be recognised and valued as autonomous professionals to help foster higher job satisfaction and ultimately improve staff retention [113,114].

4.2. Staff Training Needs and Institutional Support for Educators’ Wellbeing

Although the mental health crisis in education continues to garner much public and academic attention, it remains centred on learners’ needs and staff’s role in prioritising the difficulties of those in their care. A wealth of evidence has shown worrying gaps in staff knowledge and skills around mental health, low confidence in responding to students’ needs, and inadequate or absent training across the sector [27,30,98,99,100,103]. Educators urgently need proper mental health training in line with clearly defined responsibilities for their role in promoting and supporting low-level needs; staff should certainly not be expected to be mental health experts and compensate for deficits elsewhere in public health services [23]. Moreover, appropriate training should be universal to ensure all staff are fully equipped to support their students, recognise signs of difficulties and make appropriate referrals through clearly defined channels to mental health professionals. Clearly, the ongoing pressures on external mental health services, including CAMHS, requires critical government attention to mitigate the ripple effect on education staff [116].

Alongside equipping educators with the essential knowledge and skills to provide appropriate support to learners, efforts to support staff’s own mental health and wellbeing are prerequisite. Universal, restorative practices can help foster empathy, social competence and emotional wellbeing enabling all members of a learning community to thrive [117]. However, scoping review findings highlighted a dearth of evidence-based interventions to help alleviate teacher stress prior to the COVID-19 pandemic [42]. More recent studies have identified mindfulness practice as a mechanism for managing job-related pressures and improving self-efficacy [118], reducing stress levels and burn out symptoms [119], and bolstering resilience [120]. Lately, mobile text technologies have been promoted as universal, low cost and easily accessible tools for tackling psychological distress in the workplace [121,122]. In common, these strategies advocate a personal coping solution, well-suited to a neoliberal ideology, whereby staff manage their own stress levels, build personal resilience and maintain positive wellbeing [115]. Beyond the limited gains of self-care approaches, psychological supervision for educators offers both restorative and developmental benefits. Education staff, including EY practitioners, have expressed the need for a safe, reflective space to centre on their own mental health and wellbeing [123,124]. Conversely, evidence has shown that interventions targeted at staff often had limited take up. Potential barriers included the quality of services provided, limited access to the professional support available [9], and competing priorities due to high workloads [26]. Nonetheless, other research suggested that when interventions had a strong development framework and were well-integrated into institutional policies, they were better received and more likely to be implemented successfully [26]. Crucially, work-based mental health and wellbeing interventions should be tailored to meet the needs of a diverse workforce. Sexism and other forms of discrimination and minoritisation, including structural racism, can exacerbate and perpetuate social inequalities in mental health [27,62,63,77]; therefore, targeted interventions for subgroups of educators should be considered within every institution’s inclusive staff wellbeing policy [42].

4.3. Tackling Systemic Barriers and Culture Change Across the Education Trajectory

Arguably, the notion of inclusive, mentally healthy learning communities runs counter to a neo-liberal ethos of competition and individual achievement [125,126,127]. In a performative culture there is relentless pressure on learners and educators alike. The obsessive pursuit of ‘doing well’ academically actively undermines a sense of ‘being well’ mentally [127]. By contrast, emotionally healthy settings are characterised by cultures that scaffold and support the psychological wellbeing of both students and staff. Strong school communities and healthy learning environments are created from policies and practices that move away from a highly competitive, performance-based narrative. For example, Maeise [23] proposes decentring grades and the reduction or elimination of high-stakes exams as potential first steps towards fostering more collaborate learning environments. This aligns with the type of radical shift to a lower-stakes-accountability culture recommended by the authors of an independent assessment of the revised Ofsted inspection framework [97].

Holistic approaches advocate embedding mental health promotion and support consistently across education systems and are based on the premise that schools and universities are not distinct spheres but stages on a continuous educational journey [19]. In line with this rationale, the scope can be extended downwards to include early years’ education. Kwon et al. [128] identified the EY working environment as one of the major drivers of staff mental health. In particular, perceived social support, including access to mental health resources, and positive relationships with colleagues were found to reduce stress and burnout. Other research has highlighted the benefits of collegiality and collective efficacy and its role in mediating the negative effects of work-related stress while improving work satisfaction and wellbeing outcomes [129,130]. Collective identity has been defined as the shared understanding of a professional community about themselves and their role within their institution and wider society [131]. Notably, Klassen et al. [129] found that collective efficacy and positive beliefs about work colleagues, significantly lowered student-behaviour-related stress among female school teachers. Alongside the benefits for employees, related research has identified collective efficacy as a primary factor influencing learners’ academic achievement [132]. These findings have crucial implications for educational practice and policy, and some authors have urged institutions to encourage collective teacher efficacy to help generate a more positive school climate that actively supports teacher’s mental health and wellbeing [131].

According to Cuthbert [133] the current obsession with student-centric approaches in HE needs to be replaced with an academic culture that recognises that at the heart of every university is learning, something that staff and students engage in together. Damaging misperceptions in HE can only be reverted by proactively and cohesively embedding cultural and structural change, shifting the focus from performativity to community, connection, compassion and belonging [109]. This would offer a progressive alternative to the predominantly reactive mental health culture focused on individual actions that currently pervades HE [73]. Pertinently, academics working in UK universities have significantly higher stress levels compared to their counterparts in Germany whose HE institutions have remained universally state funded. For Riva [19], universities—and likewise, other education settings—must be understood as ecosystems, and organisational mental health and wellbeing considered at multiple levels. This necessitates proactive national policy and guidance, building an authentic wellness culture into institutions, and equipping managers and leaders with the resources and skills to support all staff. Crucially, the voice of staff, their needs and expectations, should be included in the planning and implementation of institution-wide policies [113,114]. In addition, ongoing evaluation and development of mental health and wellbeing policies helps to ensure their efficacy and adaptability in the face of evolving crises [26]. As Riva [19] insists, only when all the subcomponents of the ecosystem are well, will every member within it have the optimal opportunity to thrive.

5. Conclusions

Aside from the ethical and social rationale for creating inclusive, mentally healthy education settings, there is a powerful economic one. In the academic year 2023/24, mental health difficulties (stress, depression or anxiety) accounted for 46 percent of total work-related ill health. This contributed to 2.5 million working days lost in the education sector due to work-related illness, costing the UK economy around £1.8 billion [134]. Nonetheless, cultures and cycles of distress stubbornly persist across the education sector. In the UK, the already leaky pipeline in the workforce, from EY practitioners to HE academics, shows no sign of ebbing as more employees profess their intention to leave the profession [40,41,42]. The current retention and recruitment crisis has been linked to major shifts in the education landscape occurring over recent decades. Neoliberal ideology and the entrenchment of market mechanisms have paved the way for an education system driven primarily by the pressure to perform and ‘succeed’ according to industry metrics. The hyper-intensification of work demands has included embedding a mental health agenda into the remit of educators. The workforce is under constant strain and barriers to institutional mental health and wellbeing are compounded by an onus on personal responsibility in education policy and practice [23,115]. Overhauling negative workplace cultures requires collective efficacy and senior leaders to work with staff to co-produce strategies and actions to enhance the mental health and wellbeing of all members of the learning community [9,92,130,133]. This is a call to radically rethink the expectations of our education institutions across the sector, and crucially, the individuals who work within them.