School relationships and attachments are an important part of all students’ lives. For many years student attachment to schools has been recognised as a major factor in resilience for students. Burdekin’s (1998) report on youth homelessness cites school attachment as one of the last connections students have before becoming homeless. Broadbent (2008) also supports this contention.
Most students enjoy going to school and the major incentive is their relationship with friends. School relationships have positive effects on students’ perception of school and school life. Attachment theories which consider “all children, regardless of socio-economic or ethnic background, require warm, supportive relationships with caring helpful and receptive adults for health development” (Rey, Smith, Jina, Somers, & Barnett, 2007, p. 347) are currently receiving renewed prominence in relation to school psychology. Rey et al. further suggest that positive relationships formed with the main caregiver at home extend positively into school relationships. The quality of attachments and relationships with teachers is important in the students’ lives as the outcomes are reflected in the interest, involvement, behaviours and connectedness of students in school activities. Having a similar concept Clegg and Sheard (2002) contend that challenging behaviour, in a range of ability and age groups, can be partly attributed to insecure attachments. Their contention is supported by Venet et al. (2007) who found “that insecure children and adolescents experience more-socio- emotional, cognitive and academic difficulties than their secure peers” (p. 283).
This reinforces the concept that students need to feel safe – emotionally and physically - to be comfortable in the school environment.
Libbey (2004) undertook an analysis of a range of studies measuring school relationships. She identified nine elements of connectedness some of which, namely academic engagement, belonging, peer relations, teacher support and student voice are discussed within this chapter as key aspects in pro-active learning environment and essential for effective intervention. Webster and Knotek (2007) also consider that the attachment or connectedness perspective is important for all students.
3.3.2.1 Teacher - student Relationships
Most people can remember their favourite teachers at school usually because the teachers made learning interesting but because they knew and cared about the students – students felt they had positive relationships with the teachers. It was usually the class or year when the students performed to their potential. “One of the most consistent findings …is that positive, supportive relationships with adults are associated with good outcomes for children” (Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr, 2004).
Mawhinney and Sagan (2007) wrote about “the power of personal relationships” and the positive effects on classroom management and student learning. They consider that classrooms where students are relaxed are conducive to higher level thinking whereas students in coercive classrooms are scared and their thinking
revolves around survival in the class rather than participation in and absorption of content. Positive teacher–student relationships are based on:
• teachers knowing their students as individuals, so that they can prepare work that is related to the interest of their students;
• teachers’ use of active listening skills in class demonstrates positive regard for the students’ opinions and worth;
• teachers having have high expectations of all their students; and
• teachers developing strategies for repairing relationships, which are damaged by negative classroom incidents, so that the relationship and the student learning can continue (Mawhinney & Sagan, 2007).
Mawhinney further considers respect, courtesy and fairness to be teacher attributes which enhance the learning experience for all students.
Decker, Dona and Christenson (2007) examined the literature on student and teacher relationships and effects on the outcomes for students. They concluded that as the quality of the relationships between students and teachers improved there “were increases in the positive, social and engagement outcomes for students” (p. 83). Further, they considered that negative student and teacher relationships put students more at risk than expected by the student’s normal risk profile.
A similar finding was reported by Davis and Dupper (2004) in their studies examining school dropouts where students without positive relationships with adults found peer inter-personal relationships, conflict resolution and problem
solving were difficult tasks (p. 186). Participation in extra-curricular activities also reduces the dropout rate however not many students with social, emotional and behavioural needs are invited to join (or are actively excluded) because of their behaviour or the perception that their behaviour would be prejudicial to the activity (Davis & Dupper, 2004). Some of these students choose not to join another activity where they believed they would not be successful. Extra-curricula activities usually involve teachers and students interacting in a more social environment. Teachers can be seen without their authoritarian image and as people with interests other than teaching (Mawhinney & Sagan, 2007) and a different type and level of relationship evolves. The broadening and strengthening of student/teacher relationships is effective in reducing and preventing dropouts.
The value and influence of school relationships with teachers and peers cannot be underestimated as they infiltrate all aspects of school life. (Anderson, et al., 2004; Buhs, et al., 2006; Davis & Dupper, 2004; Decker, et al., 2007; Mawhinney & Sagan, 2007; Webster & Knotek, 2007; Willms, 2003). Teachers are constantly interacting with students and the outcomes of these interactions are related to teacher quality, their attitudes and values and their underpinning theories of teaching and learning (Biggs & Telfer, 1987; Caldwell & Spinks, 2008; Davis & Dupper, 2004; Huitt & Hummel, 2003; Martin, et al., 1999; McNally, et al., 2005; C. R. Rogers, 1983; Slavin, 1997; Wells, 2003).