½¿É«µ¼º½

In their work on neighbourhood policing, Wilson and Kelling (1982) discuss the ‘Broken Windows’ theory. They outlined that visible sign of neglect, such as unrepaired windows, signal that disorder is tolerated, increasing the likelihood of further decline. Kelling (2015) later emphasised the responsibility of systems to maintain environments that prevent deterioration rather than merely respond to its symptoms. The underlying logic was structural: when early indicators of strain are ignored, deeper systemic problems become normalised.

This analogy provides a useful lens for examining how resilience is currently positioned within education policy. Teachers who display visible signs of strain, including burnout, disengagement or absence, are treated as individual problems requiring remediation. The focus, in effect, shifts to repairing the window rather than examining the condition of the building.

Across education policy, grit and resilience are frequently invoked as shorthand for persistence, employability and professional suitability. In England, the Department for Education (DfE) positions teacher wellbeing and resilience as prerequisites for effective provision (DfE, 2018). In Wales, the education and training inspectorate Estyn defines resilient learners as those who respond positively to challenge (Estyn, 2021), and the Curriculum for Wales identifies resilience as a defining characteristic of ambitious, capable individuals prepared for lifelong learning (Welsh Government, 2017). This discourse extends into post-compulsory reform, with the Post-16 Education and Skills white paper in England emphasising the need for a resilient and adaptive workforce (DfE, 2025). Taken together, these frameworks construct resilience as both a professional expectation and a policy solution to system-level instability.

This policy coherence, however, masks a conceptual problem. Grit and resilience are rarely defined with precision and are frequently used interchangeably. Kannangara et al. (2018) describe this as a ‘jangle fallacy’, where overlapping constructs are treated as synonymous despite theoretical differences. This lack of clarity has practical consequences for how wellbeing and professional support are designed and implemented.

Grit denotes sustained perseverance and passion for long-term goals characterised by consistent effort and future-oriented motivation over time (Duckworth, 2016). Resilience, by contrast, is more accurately understood as adaptive recovery within adversity. It is a dynamic, context-responsive process shaped by emotional regulation, relational support and access to environmental resources (Cornu, 2009; Gu & Day, 2013).

When policy merges these constructs into a single focus of endurance, responsibility for wellbeing shifts from the system to the individual. Educators are therefore expected to regulate workload, stress and emotional labour internally rather than question the organisational conditions producing those pressures. This reflects broader accountability and performativity cultures within education, where professional effectiveness is increasingly being framed through self-management, while resilience has become a regulatory expectation rather than a supported process (Gu & Day, 2007).

‘Teachers who cope are positioned as resilient and professionally robust, while those who struggle risk being viewed as lacking capacity.’

This has implications for professional identity. Teachers who cope are positioned as resilient and professionally robust, while those who struggle risk being viewed as lacking capacity. Over time, this normalises endurance as a professional virtue and removes institutional accountability for working conditions (Gu & Day, 2013).

However, this should not be read as an argument against staff perseverance. Grit remains relevant to professional development, long-term commitment and goal pursuit. Resilience, however, should not be constructed as a mandatory prerequisite for functioning within structurally strained systems.

The distinction is ecological rather than semantic. Systems that continue to individualise resilience risk accelerating burnout rather than mitigating it; the implication for both policymakers and leadership within educational settings is a necessary shift towards critical reflection on organisational structures and support mechanisms, prioritising what institutions can do for staff rather than what staff must do for themselves, and embedding proactive systemic responses to challenge rather than reactive interventions at points of crisis.

References

Cornu, R. (2009). Building resilience in education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1183–1191.

Department for Education [DfE]. (2018). Addressing teacher workload in Initial Teacher Education (ITE). .

Department for Education [DfE]. (2025). Post-16 education and skills white paper.

Duckworth, A. L. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. Scribner.

Estyn. (2021). Initial teacher education in the post-compulsory education and training sectors..

Gu,Q. & Day, C. (2007). Teachers resilience: A necessary condition for effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1302-1316.

Gu, Q. & Day, C. (2013). Challenges to teacher resilience: Conditions count. British Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 22–44.

Kannangara, C. S., Allen, R. E., Waugh, G., Nahar, N., Khan, S. Z. N., Rogerson, S., & Carson, J. (2018). All that glitters is not grit. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1539.

Kelling, G. (2015) An Authors Brief History of an Idea, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(4), 626-629.

Welsh Government. (2017). Education in Wales: Our national mission 2017–21.

Wilson, JQ. And Kelling, GL. (1982) Broken Windows, The Atlantic. .