Teacher attrition presents a growing concern for schools in the UK and internationally (Avalos & Valenzuela, 2016; Department for Education, 2019a). Within England, recent figures show that 59% of staff in schools considered leaving the profession in 2022 due to pressures on their mental wellbeing, and 55% of staff took concrete steps to change or leave their jobs (Savill-Smith and Scanlan, 2022). Alongside the problem of staff turnover, there are growing concerns over teacher wellbeing with a startling 81% of staff in schools reporting mental health symptoms related to their work in 2023, a 3% increase on the previous year’s figure (Education Support, 2023). Similar concerns around teacher recruitment, retention and found within Europe (e.g. European Commission, 2018). For example, in Sweden where teachers are subjected to similar pressures as those found in England due to competition and marketisation of the state school sector (Toropova et al 2021), there are major teacher shortages across age phases (European Commission, 2023) and rising teacher stress levels (Ramberg et al., 2019).

In response to these international concerns a discourse has emerged around the need to ‘build teachers’ resilience’ (Mansfield et al., 2016). Policy documents such as the Early Career Framework (Department for Education, 2019b) aim to tackle the teacher retention crisis by providing enhanced professional development to promote teacher competence and confidence. Implicit in such policies is the premise that if only we could make teachers better at their jobs, they would be ‘more resilient’ and stay within the profession. While teacher self-efficacy has indeed been shown to be an important predictor of resilience in teachers (Ainsworth & Oldfield, 2019), it is important to recognise that individual factors represent only one side of the teacher resilience problem. If teachers are to thrive (and stay) in their roles, action is needed to address levers for change within teachers’ professional environments as well as providing support to teachers at the individual level.

Within social-ecological framings of resilience, resilience is not a trait which resides within the individual, but rather is a process of interaction between factors operating at different ecological levels (e.g. the individual, the school, the broader policy landscape), which results in varying levels of positive adaptation (Kangas-Dick & O’Shaughnessy, 2020; Gu, 2018; Ungar et al, 2013). These factors influence teachers’ capacity for ‘positive adaptation’ – the extent to which they are able to adapt to the many demands of their professional role. Positive adaptation may be reflected by high levels of job satisfaction and wellbeing on the one hand, and low levels of stress, anxiety, burnout and depressive symptoms on the other. Our previous quantitative research found that contextual factors (e.g. support from leadership, workload and school culture) explained as much variance in measures of adaptation in teachers as individual factors (Ainsworth & Oldfield, 2019); however, this design was only able to explore the direct effects of predictors (like support from management and self-esteem) on resilience, and did not have sufficient statistical power to explore the interactions between them. Our recent qualitative research (Oldfield & Ainsworth, 2022) suggests that these interactions may be an important part of the resilience process, with teachers’ accounts of their professional experiences suggesting that individual factors (e.g. self-esteem) do not exist independently from the environment, and tend to be influenced by broader environmental factors (e.g. support from management and accountability frameworks).

The current paper will investigate these interactions, reporting data from a large-scale quantitative survey distributed to teachers across England by project partners, the National Education Union and charity, Education Support. This study is part of a broader three-year project, funded as part of the ESRC Education Research Programme. The survey was designed to measure factors which previous research has suggested to be important to the resilience process in teachers at both the individual and contextual level as well as outcome measures of adaptation. 8 Individual level measures were included in the survey: self-esteem, emotional intelligence, personality, life orientation (a tendency towards optimism and pessimism), self-care, self-efficacy, independent problem solving and investment in relationships with pupils. At the contextual level 8 sub-scales were included which measured: support from management, workload, support from colleagues, school culture, perceived conflict between beliefs and practice, pupil behaviour, relationships with parents and support from family and friends. The survey also measured a number of resilience-related outcomes, including job satisfaction and burnout. The survey set out to investigate the following research questions: • RQ1: What is the relative contribution of individual versus contextual factors in predicting levels of adaptation (burnout, job satisfaction and wellbeing) in teachers? • RQ2: How do individual and contextual factors interact with each other to predict levels of adaptation in teachers? The survey results were analysed by adopting a ‘protective’ model of resilience, allowing investigation of the interactions between predictors. In this way, we moved beyond previous ‘compensatory’ models which only explored direct independent effects (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Ainsworth & Oldfield, 2019). The first step of the analytic process involved relative weights analysis (Tonidandel & Le Breton, 2014), which allowed us to assess which factors explained the most variance in teacher wellbeing, job satisfaction and burnout (RQ1). This allowed us to then focus in on the a smaller subset of key predictors, which we then inputted into a series of regression models in order to investigate potential interactions between these factors in predicting the resilience-related outcomes (RQ2). Decisions around which interactions between predictors were entered into the model were informed by theoretical considerations, including insights from previous qualitative data which demonstrates potential interactions between predictors of resilience outcomes (Oldfield & Ainsworth, 2022). Mediation analyses (Hayes, 2018) were performed to investigate the indirect effects of the different individual and contextual factors on teacher resilience as well as the direct effects.

The analyses suggest that the most important predictors of job satisfaction and burnout in teachers predominantly operate at the school level rather than the individual levelThese findings adds further weight to the argument that teacher resilience should not be conceived as something which resides solely within the individual and warns against hyper-individualised framings of, and interventions for, teacher resilience. The mediation analyses provide evidence of indirect effects on resilience-related outcomes within and between ecological levels. The findings suggest that relational approaches to promoting teacher resilience might be especially promising given that support from management and support from colleagues appear to influence teacher resilience through multiple indirect routes. For example, the variance in teacher burnout levels explained by support from management was mediated by workload, school culture, self-esteem and conflict between beliefs and practice. In other words, teachers were less likely to feel burnout in schools where there were supportive leadership practices, because these practices affected how manageable their workloads were, how positive the culture of the school felt, how good they felt about themselves and the extent to which they felt they could teach in line with their values. The implications of the findings for developing data-driven ‘ecological’ interventions to promote teacher resilience will be discussed, including examples of how data can be used to identify possible levers for change within schools. The importance of addressing exosystemic factors (e.g. Ungar et al., 2013), e.g. policies and conditions, operating at the level of the education system as a whole (beyond the school), will also be highlighted, drawing upon evidence that these broader policy factors also drive mediating effects on teacher resilience acting through the more proximal ecological levels of the school and the individual teacher.

Ainsworth, S., & Oldfield, J. (2019). Quantifying teacher resilience: Context matters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 82, 117-128. Avalos, B., & Valenzuela, J. P. (2016). Education for all and attrition/retention of new teachers: A trajectory study in Chile. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 279- 290. Department for Education (2019a). Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy. London: Department for Education. Department for Education (2019b). Early Career Framework. London: Department for Education. Education Support (2023) Teacher Wellbeing Index 2023. London: Education Support. European Commission (2018). Teaching careers in Europe: Access, progression and support. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399-419. Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). The teacher shortage is real, large and growing, and worse than we thought. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-teacher-shortage-is-real-large-and-growingand-worse-than-we-thought-the-first-report-in-the-perfect-storm-in-theteacher-labour-market-series/ Gu, Q. (2018). (Re) conceptualising teacher resilience: A social-ecological approach to understanding teachers’ professional worlds. In M. Wosnitza, F.Peixoto, S. Beltan and C.Mansfield (Ed.). Resilience in education (pp. 13-33). Springer, Cham. Kangas-Dick, K., & O’Shaughnessy, E. (2020). Interventions that promote resilience among teachers: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 8(2), 131-146. Mansfield, C. F., Beltman, S., Broadley, T., & Weatherby-Fell, N. (2016). Building resilience in teacher education: An evidenced informed framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, 77-87. Oldfield, J., & Ainsworth, S. (2021). Decentring the ‘resilient teacher’: exploring interactions between individuals and their social ecologies. Cambridge Journal of Education, 52(4), 409-430. Ramberg, J., Låftman, S. B., Åkerstedt, T., & Modin, B. (2020). Teacher Stress and Students’ School Well-being: the Case of Upper Secondary Schools in Stockholm, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 816-830, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2019.1623308 Savill-Smith, C., & Scanlan, D. (2022). Teacher Wellbeing Index 2022. London: Education Support. Tonidandel, S. & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). RWA-Web -- A free, comprehensive, web-based, and user-friendly tool for relative weight analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 207-216. doi: 10.1007/s10869-014-9351-z. Toropova, A., Myrberg, E., & Johansson, S. (2021). Teacher job satisfaction: the importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics, Educational Review, 73(1), 71-97, doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247. Ungar, M., Ghazinour, M., & Richter, J. (2013). Annual Research Review: What is resilience within the social ecology of human development? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(4), 348-366.