Inclusive Education for the 21st Century

Close relationships between teachers and students are important for all classrooms. Close student–teacher relationships provide a critical foundation for learning and set the tone for the classroom climate (Hughes 2011). Students who experience close and supportive relationships with their teachers are more likely to interact positively with other classmates, to excel academically, and to feel a positive sense of school belonging and adjustment (Pianta & Stuhlman 2004). Close relationships are also powerfully predictive, with relationship quality in the early years of schooling predicting both social and academic outcomes in high school (Hamre & Pianta 2001; McGrath & Van Bergen 2015).

In developing close relationships with their students, educators face two inherent challenges. First, research shows that student–teacher relationship quality typically declines across the school years (Jerome et al. 2009), albeit with different trajectories and fluctuations for different groups of students (Lee & Bierman 2018; Spilt, Hughes et al. 2012). This may be because reduced student–teacher interactional opportunities in higher grades create conditions whereby teachers and students are less invested in student–teacher relationships, and more attentive to relationships with peers and colleagues. It is also possible that teachers’ expectations of students change across time, as students grow older and as differences in student behaviour become entrenched. Finally, according to O’Connor and McCartney (2007), interactions are increasingly instruction-based and not relationship-based. Whatever the cause, strategies for ameliorating both reductions and fluctuations in relationship quality are important (Lee & Bierman 2018).

Second, some students and some teachers are at greater risk of experiencing poor-quality relationships than others. For example, boys are more likely than girls to experience a negative student–teacher relationship, as are students in at-risk groups—including minority students, students from low-income families, students with disruptive behaviour, and students with learning difficulties (see McGrath & Van Bergen 2015; Roorda et al. 2011 for reviews). Worryingly, it is these same at-risk groups of students who are most likely to benefit from close, supportive and caring relationships with teachers (McGrath & Van Bergen 2015).

For teachers, a host of different risk factors emerges. Teachers with low teaching self-efficacy and teachers who provide less emotional support in the classroom are each likely to experience poor-quality relationships with their students, as are teachers with depression (Hamre et al. 2008; McGrath & Van Bergen 2017). These results hold true even when student characteristics, such as disruptive behaviour, are taken into account (that is, statistically removed from the analyses such that the unique contributions of the teacher can be determined). Teachers with more years’ experience might also be at greater risk of experiencing poor-quality student–teacher relationships (Brekelmans et al. 2005), although findings are equivocal (Hughes 2011). Interestingly, despite evidence that student gender predicts relationship quality (McGrath et al. 2017), the findings for teacher gender are more complex. Gender matching appears important for female teachers, who report preferences for female students, but it is not vital for male teachers (Spilt, Koomen et al. 2012).

In this chapter, we explore the characteristics of different student–teacher relationships and the contexts in which they develop. We also draw on available research evidence to identify the benefits of close and supportive student–teacher relationships for all students. We conclude the chapter by considering the practices that can help teachers to nurture close relationships with their students. In doing so, we present a blueprint that teachers, teacher educators and researchers can use to drive new lines of questioning and troubleshoot interactional problems as they arise. We note that all students have the right to expect a close, supportive and effective relationship with their teachers, irrespective of challenging learning, developmental or behavioural characteristics (Spilt & Koomen 2009).

Characterising the Student–Teacher Relationship

Research investigating student–teacher relationships typically characterises these relationships using three relational constructs: closeness, conflict and dependency (Hughes 2011; Murray & Murray 2004; Pianta 2001; Sabol & Pianta 2012). Applying these constructs, student–teacher relationships have traditionally been classified as being either positive or negative. A positive student–teacher relationship is defined as one that is both high in closeness and low in conflict and dependency. A negative relationship, in contrast, is one that is low in closeness and high in either conflict or dependency (Hughes 2011; Pianta 2001; Pianta & Stuhlman 2004).

While student–teacher closeness has been associated with positive adjustment, and conflict with poorer adjustment, the effects of dependency on student outcomes are less clear (Hughes 2011; Murray & Murray 2004; Solheim et al. 2012). This may be because the appropriateness and function of dependency are also variable across time and contexts. Dependency refers to how reliant a student is on the teacher, and is typically considered in terms of age-appropriate behaviour. Thus, what might appear clingy or possessive for an older child may be normative for a younger child who has not yet developed strong independence. Dependency is also likely to be culturally specific, with some cultures valuing independence and autonomy more than others (Solheim et al. 2012).

Due to challenges in operationalising dependency, it has sometimes been both reframed as a neutral (and not negative) relationship construct, and omitted from reviews of student–teacher relationships and their outcomes altogether (McGrath & Van Bergen 2015; Roorda et al. 2011). Following these same lines of reasoning, we encourage teachers to view dependency not as a relationship obstacle but as a call for additional support. Hence, if a student is particularly dependent, the teacher has a unique and much-needed opportunity to support the student’s development of self-regulation and autonomy in a way that is developmentally and culturally appropriate. We discuss strategies for addressing dependency in our final section.

Towards a more nuanced view of student–teacher relationships

Given that dependency is often omitted, positive and negative student–teacher relationships have come to be synonymous with closeness and conflict. These relationship constructs are unlikely to be dichotomous in practice, however. Although closeness is a strong marker of an emotionally positive relationship, it is entirely possible for students and teachers who share warmth and closeness to also experience significant conflict (Spilt & Koomen 2009). Thus, a dimorphic view of student–teacher relationships may overlook important nuances in the combination of qualities characterising these relationships.

In recent research, McGrath and Van Bergen (2017, 2019) presented four relationship categories, based on bisections of both closeness and conflict data. They found evidence that more than 40 per cent of relationships may be ‘atypical’, with either high closeness and high conflict (a complicated relationship), or low closeness and low conflict (a reserved relationship). Together, these atypical relationship types exceed the number of purely negative relationships (see Table 12.1).

Table 12.1: Characteristics of four student–teacher relationship types (adapted from McGrath & Van Bergen 2019)

Relationship type	Characteristics	Incidence
Positive	High in closeness and low in conflict	41.2%
Complicated	High in closeness and high in conflict	15.7%
Reserved	Low in closeness and low in conflict	25.5%
Negative	Low in closeness and high in conflict	17.6%

The identification of at least two atypical student–teacher relationship types, complicated and reserved, highlights the need for teachers and researchers to broaden their discussions of relationships beyond the positive–negative dichotomy. This is important for two reasons. First, and despite students benefiting strongly from relational closeness, those with complicated student–teacher relationships may still require support to improve prosocial behaviour and reduce aggression. As relational closeness may be less stable than conflict (Lee & Bierman 2018), it is also possible that these same students will not experience the benefits of close relationships with other teachers. It is therefore vital that teachers do not overlook including these students in behaviour supports, despite their own feelings of closeness towards the student.

Second, students with reserved student–teacher relationships may be particularly vulnerable to negative academic and social outcomes. As reserved relationships are characterised by both low closeness and low conflict, these students may go unnoticed by teachers and receive considerably less attention, time and support than students who experience other relationship types. Compounding this risk is a possible confound between reserved student–teacher relationships and shyness. Shy students often have great difficulty in forming positive relationships with their teachers, and therefore have relationships that are neither close nor conflictual (Coplan & Rudasill 2016). Interestingly, however, they also tend to have higher levels of dependency on teachers (Arbeau et al. 2010). This dependency may be due to anxiety when interacting with peers, which leads the student to over-rely on teachers for social interaction (Arbeau et al. 2010). To ensure the development of close and supportive relationships with teachers and peers alike, such students must be identified and supported.

Student–teacher relationships in context

When considering the characteristics of different student–teacher relationships, it is important to examine the broader contexts in which those relationships occur. These broader contexts have an impact on how close and effective student–teacher relationships are, and the influence of the student–teacher relationship on other developmental outcomes. For almost 40 years, Bronfenbrenner’s seminal ecological systems theory (1979) has been used to describe how factors relating to the individual student, his or her family, the school, the peer group and the broader community each have complex and interrelated influences on child and adolescent development. At the individual level, for example, prior educational experiences may influence a student’s developmental outcomes and their relationships, while at the peer level, the educational values and antisocial behaviours of one’s friends may be of influence. At the family level, socio-economic status and family conflict each play a role, and at the community level, student safety and community involvement are likely to be influential.

Drawing upon Bronfenbrenner’s classic work (1979), relationship scholars in the modern era have also developed ecological models of development to examine both the role of student–teacher relationships in development, and the processes and experiences that may influence relationship quality (O’Connor 2010; Pianta & Walsh 1996). Research applying ecological models of development has identified important findings for student wellbeing, including that high-stakes testing negatively impacts close student–teacher relationships (Thompson 2013), that there is a bidirectional relationship between student–teacher relationship quality and peer liking (Hughes & Chen 2011), and that a close relationship with a teacher can protect against the negative effects of a poor child–parent relationship for young children (Hughes et al. 1999).

Using ecological models of development, student–teacher relationships have increasingly been targeted as a mechanism for enhancing development for students at risk. Not only do student–teacher relationships have powerful outcomes, but they also are amenable to intervention. This means there is the potential for whole-school communities to implement initiatives designed to improve the quality of specific students’ relationships with their teachers and, in doing so, also target other child and adolescent outcomes, such as peer relationships, academic achievement and student behaviour (Quin 2017). Other contextual factors that place students at risk of negative outcomes are less readily influenced by educators within the school community (Quin 2017). It is important to remember that the outcomes of these relationship interventions are also likely to be influenced by other in-school factors, including academic climate, interpersonal safety and institutional environment (Quin et al. 2018). Thus, other approaches might also be needed in specific cases. When relationship interventions are paired with these other approaches, the chance of positive student outcomes is high.

The role of the teacher: emotional labour, relational labour and instruction

Above we describe how student–teacher relationships are characterised by closeness and conflict, and how dependency may also drive relationship quality in some cases. We further note how relationships exist within specific ecological contexts, and how contextual factors such as individual student or teacher characteristics, peer and family relationships, and school and community structures might also influence student–teacher relationships and student outcomes. As many readers of this book are pre-service and existing teachers, there is a need to also consider the work of the teacher specifically. Here, we focus on the role of the teacher in managing and building close and effective student–teacher relationships.

Teaching is often described as a type of emotional labour, requiring teachers to manage their emotions in accordance with professional rules and expectations. This classification does not fully consider the longitudinal and interpersonal nature of classroom dynamics, however. Given the inherently relational work of teachers, we identify teaching as also being a kind of relational labour. In addition to being required to manage their emotions to conform to predetermined rules, teachers are expected to have superior relational skills that allow them to form close relationships with a diverse range of students. Hence, the teachers who are most likely to be considered ‘effective’ by colleagues, students and parents are those whom students are able to connect with and relate to on a personal level. In this chapter, we use the term ‘relational labour’ to frame the practices that promote relational closeness between teachers and students.

Of course, relational work is not a teacher’s only task. Perhaps most prominent in popular discourse is the expectation that teachers should provide instruction that aligns with the prescribed academic curriculum. Yet relationships and instructional work are mutually dependent. When students struggle to understand a difficult concept, for example, those with close student–teacher relationships are likely to feel comfortable expressing frustration or difficulty in a safe and secure environment. The teacher is then afforded the opportunity to offer emotional support while simultaneously providing more nuanced instruction. When there is a mismatch between a student’s psychological needs and learning, teachers who are close to that student may be better able to disentangle these competing motivations. For this reason, the overlap between relational and instructional work is critical (Nie & Lau 2009).

Benefits of close student–teacher relationships for students, teachers and society

Just as student–teacher relationships are multifaceted, so too are their benefits. Below we highlight short- and long-term benefits of a high-quality student–teacher relationship for students, for teachers and for society. We note that these benefits are powerful and interlinked, with strong bodies of evidence to support them. Drawing on these benefits, we highlight the need for close student–teacher relationships to be prioritised in pre-service teacher training, whole-school interventions and broader educational policies.

Benefits for students. Close and supportive student–teacher relationships have powerfully important impacts on student outcomes. Students benefit from such relationships in the form of improved wellbeing and psychological engagement, more appropriate classroom behaviours, stronger academic performance and closer peer relationships (Hamre & Pianta 2001; McGrath & Van Bergen 2015; Quin 2017). In contrast, poor student–teacher relationships contribute to low academic achievement and greater disciplinary infractions, even when student behaviour is accounted for (Hamre & Pianta 2001). High-quality student–teacher relationships are also protective (McGrath & Van Bergen 2015). Students who have experienced high-quality student–teacher relationships are less likely to be absent from school, less likely to be suspended and less likely to drop out of school (De Wit et al. 2010; Rumberger 2011).

The benefits of close and supportive student–teacher relationships are particularly important for students who are otherwise vulnerable. For example, Meehan and colleagues (2003) found evidence of reduced aggression in students with supportive teacher relationships, with particularly strong effects for students in minority groups. Close relationships with teachers can also buffer the detrimental effects of negative parent–child relationships (Hughes et al. 1999). Finally, students who do not experience positive adult role models outside of school may be particularly likely to turn to teachers to model a host of positive social processes and behaviours in the classroom (Catalano et al. 2004). Although a legacy of successive close relationships is optimal (Lee & Bierman 2018), just one teacher can make a powerful difference. McGrath and Van Bergen’s (2015) review of 92 studies on student–teacher relationships highlights the finding that even a single close relationship can serve protective and predictive functions for students who are at risk.

Benefits for teachers. Although student–teacher relationships are typically discussed in terms of their benefits for students, they are also important for teachers. Teachers report considerable distress from managing disruptive classroom behaviours (Beaman et al. 2007), with long-term wellbeing and employment outcomes. In a large-scale study of 2569 Norwegian teachers, for example, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2011) found that problems with student discipline left teachers feeling emotionally exhausted, and this exhaustion in turn predicted both lower job satisfaction and higher motivation to leave the teaching profession. If close and supportive student–teacher relationships can arrest these behaviours, as we show above, the benefits for teachers and their schools are enormous.

Closeness with students is also an important source of teacher wellbeing more broadly (Milatz et al. 2015), and teachers typically report finding the relational aspects of their work highly rewarding (Gallant & Riley 2017). Given the benefits of closeness for students and teachers alike, strategies are needed to identify teachers who commonly experience lower levels of closeness. Although there is some counter-intuitive evidence that low levels of closeness may protect teachers from emotional exhaustion (Milatz et al. 2015), this strategy is likely to backfire. Low closeness with students is associated with teachers’ feelings of helplessness (Spilt & Koomen 2009) and, as we show above, also places students at greater risk of negative outcomes. A more effective strategy, therefore, is to provide direct and indirect support for teachers as they engage in relationship-building and relational labour. We discuss this support in our final section.

Benefits for society. Over and above the benefits of close student–teacher relationships for individual students, teachers and schools, there are also significant flow-on benefits for society more broadly. We note above, for example, that close and supportive student–teacher relationships can significantly reduce students’ aggressive behaviour. Given evidence that aggression at school predicts long-term unemployment and criminal activity (Kokko & Pulkkinen 2000), these early relationships may have much larger economic and social-justice benefits for individuals and communities. In addition, for students with high levels of aggression, there may be an indirect effect. Close student–teacher relationships support a reduction in aggressive behaviour, and a reduction in aggressive behaviour is in turn likely to support more positive and enjoyable peer interactions in the school context. We also note above that students who experience close relationships with their teachers are less likely to truant, to be suspended or to drop out of school. This may be because such students feel a greater sense of belonging at school. Whatever the cause, such trends have important societal outcomes: truancy and dropout are associated with diminished physical and emotional health (and, thus, greater societal health burden), reduced academic opportunities, poor vocational opportunities and increased mortality (Belfield & Levin 2007). The greater engagement students have with school, the stronger the social benefits overall.

Nurturing Close and Supportive Student–Teacher Relationships

In the final section of this chapter, we consider what teachers can do to build strong relationships with their students. We draw on our own research conducted with collaborators in Australia, and on research conducted by other teams internationally. Consistent with the view that teaching is a kind of relational labour, we organise this section by strategies and approaches that can be used to build closeness, reduce conflict and respond to dependency, as well as schoolwide approaches that can be taken to support teachers and create a positive school environment in which respectful and healthy relationships are prioritised.

In considering how teachers can best build close relationships with their students, it is important to also consider how the student–teacher relationship changes over time. Research focusing on the progression of individual student–teacher relationships across the school year is limited, yet it suggests that there are multiple opportunities to renegotiate relationship boundaries. In a longitudinal case study of a disruptive student and his teacher, Newberry (2010) describes four relationship phases:

1. an appraisal phase, where the student and teacher gather information about one another;

2. an agreement phase, where routines, expectations and interactional styles are established;

3. a testing phase, where boundaries are explored and re-established; and

4. a planning phase, where the student and teacher reflect on their past experiences and establish expectations for the future.

Critically, each phase offers opportunities for individual or whole-school interventions. Put simply, therefore, it is never too late to enhance student–teacher relationship quality.

Building closeness

Closeness within the student–teacher relationship is supported by care, warmth and open communication (Pianta 2001). Students are likely to feel closer to teachers who express an interest in their personal lives, who offer support when needed, and who care about their wellbeing. They are less likely to feel close to teachers with whom they clash.

Across the past ten years, a range of interventions has been developed to support the emergence of warm and supportive student–teacher interactions (Sabol & Pianta 2012). These interventions typically enjoy moderate support. In the ‘Banking Time’ intervention for younger children, for example, teachers work one-on-one with a student they are worried about to observe the student’s actions and emotions during play (Driscoll & Pianta 2010). To demonstrate emotional sensitivity and care, the teacher then narrates the child’s actions and emotions back to the student in an interested tone of voice. After just six weeks, teachers who participate in the Banking Time intervention report higher levels of closeness with the targeted student, increased frustration tolerance themselves and more successful classroom interactions (Driscoll & Pianta 2010). In the ‘My Teaching Partner—Secondary’ intervention for secondary students, teachers are offered strategies to increase closeness and boost their instructional success simultaneously (Mikami et al. 2011). They may, for example, be encouraged to ask about students’ extracurricular interests, and then to incorporate these interests into their teaching. Such interventions require the dedicated focus of a teacher on particular students, yet are otherwise easy to implement.

Interestingly, and as alluded to in the Banking Time intervention, teachers’ own attitudes and emotional responses are also important in facilitating relationship closeness. When students are disruptive, teachers who make external attributions for this disruption and who express high emotional competence are likely to experience closer and more enjoyable relationships than those who do not (McGrath & Van Bergen 2019). Drawing on the notion of relational labour, such teachers may regulate their own emotional responses to frustration in order to nurture their ongoing relationships with students. They also appear to be more likely to express emotional self-efficacy: a belief that they are capable of regulating their emotional reactions and supporting students to regulate theirs. For teachers who have lower emotional self-efficacy, engaging with psychologists (or other expert coaches) in emotion-reframing strategies and self-efficacy interventions may be beneficial for both themselves and their students.

Finally, when considering how best to build close and supportive relationships for at-risk groups, we encourage teachers not to forget about the students in their classes who are especially shy. Shy students do not typically experience high levels of conflict with their teachers, and, thus, they are more readily overlooked. Such students are highly likely to turn to teachers for emotional support when they are feeling anxious about interacting with peers, however, and there is good evidence that relational closeness with a teacher can protect shy students from peer rejection and school avoidance (Arbeau et al. 2010).

Reducing conflict

In public discourse, student–teacher conflict is often attributed to disruptive and challenging student behaviours, such as calling out in class, shouting, hitting and swearing. Consistent, systematic and evidence-based behavioural interventions for students who exhibit disruptive and challenging behaviours are critically important. Students themselves often report a need for such support, with suspended students reporting that they would have been less likely to be suspended if they had learned alternative strategies to manage their behaviours, received additional assistance with schoolwork and been given support to manage stressors at home (Quin & Hemphill 2014). Interestingly, however, research has shown that just over half (53 per cent) of the variance in teachers’ ratings of conflict can be attributed to student behaviour (Hamre et al. 2008). Other factors include teachers’ own mental health and self-efficacy, with teachers who feel less able to manage their classroom and less able to motivate students also reporting higher levels of conflict with the students in their class (Hamre et al. 2008). That these ratings of conflict exist over and above students’ own disruptive behaviour suggests that initiatives and interventions to support teachers’ own wellbeing and self-efficacy may have powerful implications for relational conflict, too. Even when particular students exhibit disruptive or challenging behaviour that is slow to change, teachers’ beliefs and actions are powerful and important.

One mistake that teachers may make in an attempt to reduce potential conflict is to give a pre-emptive warning or reprimand. Yet our own research reveals that this approach may backfire. To better understand students’ perceptions of their relationships with teachers, Van Bergen and colleagues (in review) conducted interviews with 96 Australian students in middle childhood and adolescence (Years 3 to 9). Some of the participants were enrolled in alternative school settings for students with behavioural difficulties, giving unique insight into the factors driving relationship quality for both mainstream and non-mainstream groups. Interestingly, although students themselves varied in age, school context and propensity for disruptive behaviour, the factors underpinning their perceptions of high- and low-quality relationships were remarkably consistent. Students reported close, supportive relationships with teachers who they perceived as being kind, caring, helpful or humorous, and negative, conflictual relationships with teachers who they perceived as being hostile or unjust (Van Bergen et al. submitted). Importantly, reports of injustice highlighted pre-emptive discipline as a key source of conflict:

Well, she always picked me out, as well, for misbehaving, so I got in a lot of trouble for that, but . . . like, a lot of people were just doing a lot worse than I was doing, but she was like, no, no, you’ve been bad before. (Sean, aged fifteen)

One reason that pre-emptive discipline is so likely to contribute to relational conflict is that it conveys negative expectations. In related research, findings over several decades have also highlighted the detrimental effect of negative expectations on academic achievement and progression (Rubie-Davies et al. 2006). To support student behaviour, reduce relational conflict and enhance other developmental outcomes, positive expectations and optimism are critical.

Responding to dependency

Throughout this chapter, we urge teachers to view dependency as a neutral relationship attribute. Specifically, we suggest that dependency should not be seen as a relationship barrier but as an opportunity to provide support for students who require it. In addressing dependency effectively, therefore, it is important to also diagnose the root cause. If the dependency is developmentally or contextually appropriate, and does not cause relational problems, then there is no particular reason to intervene. If, however, there are negative implications for the student, then intervention is appropriate.

Where students are overly dependent on teachers for organisational support, the focus for teachers should be on encouraging and scaffolding the students’ autonomous and independent classroom participation. Where students are particularly shy, however, a different approach is needed. It is recommended that teachers refrain from asking too many questions of shy students directly, especially in front of others, and instead engage in conversation with shy students when others are not nearby. This allows shy students to gradually develop social confidence before being asked to speak in front of the class (Evans 2001), and also supports the development of closeness. Although these two approaches differ, they are consistent in that the needs of the individual student are identified and his or her own skills are supported.

Supporting Teachers

Thus far, our recommendations for enhancing close relationships, reducing conflict and responding to dependency have centred on strategies that individual teachers can use when interacting with students. Both in Australia and internationally, there has been a tendency to place the responsibility for improved student outcomes on ‘super’ teachers without addressing broader, systemic issues (Mockler 2014). Yet relationships and student outcomes are a function of the broader teaching context, and it is the responsibility of the entire school community to create an environment in which close and nurturing relationships with all children are modelled, supported and encouraged, and where conflictual and reserved relationships are addressed sensitively and urgently. An explicit whole-school approach is invaluable.

Given the heavy emotional toll that teachers may feel when managing student behaviour, interactions and relationships, the support of school leaders (i.e. principals and executive staff) is critical. School leaders can play a vital role in creating a whole-school climate that is emotionally positive and supportive, and which promotes teacher efficacy (Wang & Degol 2016). Among Australian teachers who had left the profession, for example, Gallant and Riley (2017) found evidence of significant stress and burnout due to a perception of poor support, excessive workloads and short-term contracts. Although many of these stressors are structural, and beyond the control of any one school, leaders can provide emotional support to students, staff members and parents in the school community who are experiencing undue stress by addressing their concerns sensitively and directly. At an administrative level, school leaders should also seek to decrease those extraneous workload demands that are within their control, and to set clear behavioural expectations and values for the school community. Finally, leaders can demonstrate confidence in their teachers by allowing them greater autonomy where possible. Leaders who are effective in providing timely direction, intervention and support will create opportunities for teachers to invest greater time and energy in building relationships with their own students.

In addition to the support of school leaders, it is highly advantageous for teachers to have the support of a collaborative pastoral-care team that includes school psychologists and other specialist staff. Ideally, this pastoral-care team should work directly with school leaders to provide holistic support to the entire school community. For students, of course, psychological support is critical, and—as we note above—even highly disruptive students frequently identify this as a need (Quin & Hemphill 2014). Yet teachers, too, need support, and this is particularly the case when they are charged with managing complex student behaviours. Worryingly, school psychologists typically have limited time in which to work with teachers and their students (Tegethoff et al. 2014). In many cases, this means that teachers must manage at least some complex student behaviours with limited support for their own psychological needs. To address this problem, we advocate for widespread increases in educational funding for qualified specialist school staff.

Conclusion

Across this chapter, we have identified the key characteristics of close student–teacher relationships and discussed the benefit for students who experience a close relationship with their teachers. Given the value of close student–teacher relationships for all students—irrespective of their learning, developmental and behavioural characteristics—we suggest that schools focus on relationships as an essential priority.

To support this goal, we have reviewed a variety of interrelated strategies and approaches for building close relationships. We see, for example, that teachers can begin to build a close relationship with any child—even if the child is at risk in other ways—by simply expressing care and positive regard for that child. This is an important finding, because it positions the quality of each student–teacher relationship within the teachers’ sphere of influence. Of course, the expression of care can sometimes seem extremely challenging, particularly in the face of chronic misbehaviour. The research clearly shows that close and supportive relationships between students and their teachers are both necessary and valuable, however. Moreover, they also help to mitigate misbehaviour. Teachers who manage, develop and pursue close and supportive relationships with their students are often adept at considering a variety of explanations for their students’ behaviour and in regulating their own emotional reactions carefully. Schools and communities must look for ways to support teachers in this task, such that no students (or teachers) fall through the cracks.

References

Arbeau, K.A., Coplan, R.J. & Weeks, M., 2010, ‘Shyness, teacher–child relationships, and socio-emotional adjustment in grade 1’, International Journal of Behavioral Development, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 259–69

Beaman, R., Wheldall, K. & Kemp, C., 2007, ‘Recent research on troublesome classroom behaviour: A review’, Australasian Journal of Special Education, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 45–60

Belfield, C.R. & Levin, H.M., 2007, The Price We Pay: Economic and social consequences of inadequate education, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press

Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T. & van Tartwijk, J., 2005, ‘Teacher–student relationships across the teaching career’, International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 43, no. 1–2, pp. 55–71

Bronfenbrenner, U., 1979, The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by nature and design, London: Harvard University Press

Catalano, R.F., Haggerty, K.P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C.B. & Hawkins, J.D., 2004, ‘The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the Social Development Research Group’, Journal of School Health, vol. 74, no. 7, pp. 252–61

Coplan, R.J. & Rudasill, K.M., 2016, Quiet at School: An educator’s guide to shy children, New York, NY: Teachers College Press

De Wit, D.J., Karioja, K. & Rye, J.B., 2010, ‘Student perceptions of diminished teacher and classmate support following the transition to high school: Are they related to declining attendance?’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 451–72

Driscoll, K.C. & Pianta, R.C., 2010, ‘Banking time in head start: Early efficacy of an intervention designed to promote supportive teacher–child relationships’, Early Education and Development, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 38–64

Evans, M.A., 2001, ‘Shyness in the classroom and home’, in W.R. Crozier & L.E. Alden (eds), International Handbook of Social Anxiety: Concepts, research and interventions relating to the self and shyness, Westport, CT: Wiley, pp. 159–83

Gallant, A. & Riley, P., 2017, ‘Early career teacher attrition in Australia: Inconvenient truths about new public management’, Teachers and Teaching, vol. 23, no. 8, 896–913

Hamre, B.K. & Pianta, R.C., 2001, ‘Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade’, Child Development, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 625–38

Hamre, B.K., Pianta, R.C., Downer, J.T. & Mashburn, A.J., 2008, ‘Teachers’ perceptions of conflict with young students: Looking beyond problem behaviors’, Social Development, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 115–36

Hughes, J.N., 2011, ‘Longitudinal effects of teacher and student perceptions of teacher–student relationship qualities on academic adjustment’, The Elementary School Journal, vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 38–60

Hughes, J.N., Cavell, T.A. & Jackson, T., 1999, ‘Influence of the teacher–student relationship on childhood conduct problems: A prospective study’, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 173–84

Hughes, J.N. & Chen, Q., 2011, ‘Reciprocal effects of student–teacher and student–peer relatedness: Effects on academic self-efficacy’, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 278–87

Jerome, E.M., Hamre, B.K. & Pianta, R.C., 2009, ‘Teacher–child relationships from kindergarten to sixth grade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness’, Social Development, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 915–45

Kokko, K. & Pulkkinen, L., 2000, ‘Aggression in childhood and long-term unemployment in adulthood: A cycle of maladaptation and some protective factors’, Developmental Psychology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 463–72

Lee, P. & Bierman, K.L., 2018, ‘Longitudinal trends and year-to-year fluctuations in student–teacher conflict and closeness: Associations with aggressive behavior problems’, Journal of School Psychology, vol. 70, pp. 1–15 McGrath, K.F. & Van Bergen, P., 2015, ‘Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes’, Educational Research Review, vol. 14, pp. 1–17

—— 2017, ‘Elementary teachers’ emotional and relational expressions when speaking about disruptive and well behaved students’, Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 67, pp. 487–97

—— 2019, ‘Attributions and emotional competence: Why some teachers experience close relationships with disruptive students (and others don’t)’, Teachers and Teaching, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 334–57

McGrath, K.F., Van Bergen, P. & Sweller, N., 2017, ‘Adding color to conflict: Disruptive students’ drawings of themselves with their teachers’, Elementary School Journal, vol. 117, no. 4, pp. 642–63

Meehan, B.T., Hughes, J.N. & Cavell, T.A., 2003, ‘Teacher–student relationships as compensatory resources for aggressive children’, Child Development, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 1145–57

Mikami, A.Y., Gregory, A., Allen, J.P., Pianta, R.C. & Lun, J., 2011, ‘Effects of a teacher professional development intervention on peer relationships in secondary classrooms’, School Psychology Review, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 367–85 Milatz, A., Lüftenegger, M. & Schober, B., 2015, ‘Teachers’ relationship closeness with students as a resource for teacher wellbeing: A response surface analytical approach’, Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, art. 1949

Mockler, N., 2014, ‘Simple solutions to complex problems: Moral panic and the fluid shift from “equity” to “quality” in education’, Review of Education, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 115–43

Murray, C. & Murray, K.M., 2004, ‘Child level correlates of teacher–student relationships: An examination of demographic characteristics, academic orientations, and behavioral orientations’, Psychology in the Schools, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 751–62

Newberry, M., 2010, ‘Identified phases in the building and maintaining of positive teacher–student relationships’, Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1695–703

Nie, Y. & Lau, S., 2009, ‘Complementary roles of care and behavioral control in classroom management: The self-determination theory perspective’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 185–94

O’Connor, E., 2010, ‘Teacher–child relationships as dynamic systems,’ Journal of School Psychology, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 187–218

O’Connor, E. & McCartney, K., 2007, ‘Examining teacher–child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development’, American Educational Research Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 340–69

Pianta, R.C., 2001, Student–Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional manual, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources

Pianta, R.C. & Stuhlman, M.W., 2004, ‘Teacher–child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school’, School Psychology Review, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 444–58

Pianta, R.C. & Walsh, D.J., 1996, High-Risk Children in Schools: Constructing sustaining relationships, New York, NY: Routledge

Quin, D., 2017, ‘Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–student relationships and student engagement: A systematic review’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 345–87

Quin, D., Heerde, J.A. & Toumbourou, J.W., 2018, ‘Teacher support within an ecological model of adolescent development: Predictors of school engagement’, Journal of School Psychology, vol. 69, pp. 1–15

Quin, D. & Hemphill, S.A., 2014, ‘Students’ experiences of school suspension’, Health Promotion Journal of Australia, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 52–8

Roorda, D.L., Koomen, H.M.Y., Spilt, J.L. & Oort, F.J., 2011, ‘The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 493–529

Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J. & Hamilton, R., 2006, ‘Expecting the best for students: Teacher expectations and academic outcomes’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 429–44

Rumberger, R.W., 2011, Dropping Out: Why students drop out of high school and what can be done about it, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Sabol, T.J. & Pianta, R.C., 2012, ‘Recent trends in research on teacher–child relationships’, Attachment and Human Development, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 213–31

Skaalvik, E.M. & Skaalvik, S., 2011, ‘Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion’, Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1029–38

Solheim, E., Berg-Nielsen, T.S. & Wichstrøm, L., 2012, ‘The three dimensions of the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale: CFA validation in a preschool sample’, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 250–63

Spilt, J.L., Hughes, J.N., Wu, J.-Y. & Kwok, O.-M., 2012, ‘Dynamics of teacher–student relationships: Stability and change across elementary school and the influence on children’s academic success’, Child Development, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 1180–95

Spilt, J.L. & Koomen, H.M.Y., 2009, ‘Widening the view on teacher–child relationships: Teachers’ narratives concerning disruptive versus nondisruptive children’, School Psychology Review, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 86–101

Spilt, J.L., Koomen, H.M.Y. & Jak, S., 2012, ‘Are boys better off with male and girls with female teachers? A multilevel investigation of measurement invariance and gender match in teacher–student relationship quality’, Journal of School Psychology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 363–78

Tegethoff, M., Stalujanis, E., Belardi, A. & Meinlschmidt, G., 2014, ‘School mental health services: Signpost for out-of-school service utilization in adolescents with mental disorders? a nationally representative United States cohort’, PLOS ONE, vol. 9, no. 6, e99675

Thompson, G., 2013, ‘NAPLAN, MySchool and accountability: Teacher perceptions of the effects of testing’, The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 62–84

Van Bergen, P., Graham, L.J. & Sweller, N., in review, ‘Memories of positive and negative student–teacher relationships in students with and without disruptive behavior’, School Psychology Review

Wang, M.-T. & Degol, J.L., 2016, ‘School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 315–52