teacher student relationship assignment

Teacher-Student Relationships Matter

• Posted March 17, 2021
• By Gianna Cacciatore
• Counseling and Mental Health
• Disruption and Crises
• Teachers and Teaching

Effective teachers form authentic, caring relationships with their students. In the best of times, forming these relationships can be a challenge; in a post-pandemic world, where many teachers are engaging with students remotely, building relationships can feel impossible. Fortunately, says trained counselor and educator Megan Marcus , educators can learn the skills necessary to build strong relationships, both in person and online.

Marcus is the founder of FuelEd , a Houston-based nonprofit committed to teaching these skills to educators around the country. By providing teachers with access to one-on-one counseling, group workshops, and educator training, FuelEd hopes to close what it perceives to be a gap in educator preparation: the space between what an educator is expected to do — build strong, secure relationships with students, families, and coworkers — and the level of social and emotional support educators actually receive. Inspired by Marcus’ background in human psychology, Fuel Ed leads with the belief that teachers cannot effectively care for their students unless they care for themselves first.   

“Just one relationship with a caregiver throughout a lifespan can actually change the brain’s development, heal trauma, and promote learning. Educators have the potential to utilize this power. Many do organically, through naturally forming secure relationships. But we could do so much more if educators were equipped with the skills and self-awareness to systematically do this work,” explains Marcus.

Here, Marcus offers four steps educators can take to promote emotional intelligence and build relationship-driven schools, both in-person and online.

1. Learn the science behind strong relationships.

Research shows that the way a person relates to caregivers early in life can impact that person’s relationships later on. For example, explains Marcus, “if you had insecure relationships in your childhood, you’re more likely to build relationships with others that aren’t secure.” The good news? Once identified, a person’s relationship patterns can change. That means educators can learn the skills behind secure relationship-building — and they can teach them. This gives educators the opportunity to, within their daily interactions, strengthen the ways their students relate to others throughout life.

2. Embrace the power of empathic listening.

Empathic listening means listening to what a student has to say — a student’s “strong emotions and painful experiences,” says Marcus — and not responding. No reassuring, no offering advice. Just listening. While deceptively simple, this type of listening can help a student build self-regulation skills. That’s because it kicks off a powerful interpersonal cycle. “Someone comes to you, they share their feelings, and instead of jumping in to problem solve, you listen. That’s very trust-building. Now, not only is this person calmer and better able to solve their own problems, but they want to come back to you again, share more. And the more you can learn about them and their needs, the more you, as the administrator and the teacher, can be respond to their needs,” explains Marcus.

“Just one relationship with a caregiver throughout a lifespan can actually change the brain’s development, heal trauma, and promote learning. ... We could do so much more if educators were equipped with the skills and self-awareness to systematically do this work.”

Empathic listening, she adds, can also help school leaders build stronger, more positive relationships with staff.

To make space for empathic listening, educators can prioritize opportunities for one-on-one connections in scheduled check-ins or drop-in office hours. Since this type of listening can take place in person, on Zoom, or over the phone, this is a skill that all educators, no matter their learning modality, can use to form more secure relationships.

3. Practice genuine vulnerability.

Often, educators feel restrained by the need to exert authority in a space, so they refrain from sharing their genuine frustrations or emotions. This hinders the development of secure attachments, says Marcus, and limits the social-emotional culture of a school. Instead, she suggests, educators should share their experiences directly. Once one person shows vulnerability, another person will open up. Only then can secure relationships blossom.

This practice fuels student-teacher relationships, but it is also key to creating an over-arching culture of safety in a school. “The more that principals can model empathy and self-awareness, the more they can share their journey with teachers and be vulnerable, the more it’s going to encourage educators to engage in the work,” says Marcus.

If you are educating in person, you can practice sharing personal details in informal exchanges with both students and colleagues. If you are educating online, Marcus says, you can use virtual opportunities, like introductory videos, pet cameos, or Zoom dance parties, to introduce your personality to your school community.   

4. Provide educators with opportunities to do their own healing.

Teaching is, at its core, interpersonal work. It requires high levels of emotional intelligence. When educators approach the work unprepared for its social-emotional load, says Marcus, relationships suffer. Her advice? Give educators access to spaces and resources where they can do their own introspection and healing. When teachers are invited to engage in the therapeutic process of unpacking their personal stories and triggers, it can lead to social-emotional growth. The more that educators are able to improve their own social-emotional intelligence, the more students will be able to learn and feel safe.

Additional Resources:

• FuelEd's professional development workshops for educators.
• From Making Caring Common: How to Build Empathy and Strengthen your School Community
• Teaching Social and Emotional Skills All Day
• Safeguarding the Mental Health of Teachers
• Trauma Informed video series

Usable Knowledge

Connecting education research to practice — with timely insights for educators, families, and communities

Related Articles

Why Rest is Best

And why it’s an act of justice

Rebuilding for a New Normal

A new report provides guidance for promoting trauma-responsive schools during the pandemic

A Space for Joy

Educators talk about the impact COVID has had on school happiness

Positive Teacher-Student Relationships

What are they.

Everyone can point to a teacher who made a difference in his or her life, and also to one who made life miserable for a short time. Why? Because the teacher-student relationship is at the heart of teaching. As Rita Pierson noted in her famous TED talk, “Kids aren’t going to learn from someone they don’t like.”

But what is a positive teacher-student relationship? Here are some examples based on research that asks both teachers and students what makes this relationship so special:

For Teachers: According to educators, a positive relationship with a student is close and supportive, but not overly dependent. A teacher who cares about his or her students believes that every child can learn, but differently and at different rates, sets high expectations, is warm and trusting, and strives to keep the relationship conflict-free. He or she also uses humor and admits mistakes, sets clear boundaries, and is open, honest, and approachable.

For Students: Students told researchers that good teachers listen to and take a personal interest in students’ lives. They show respect, value the individuality of each student, and are kind and polite. A caring teacher gives honest, but kind feedback, and offers second chances. They help students with schoolwork, manage the classroom well, and, perhaps most importantly, they plan fun activities.

For Higher Education: At the college level, students prefer professors who are approachable—they say “hi” on campus, smile often, and stay after class to talk to students. They also set high expectations, are fair, honest, trustworthy, respectful, open, supportive, and encouraging.

Why Cultivate Them?

Decades of research clearly show that positive teacher-student relationships are extremely important for student outcomes in all categories—feelings, attitudes, behavior, and achievement—and at all ages.

Students do better overall with caring teachers.

• Studies have found that for students from pre-K to 12, positive student-teacher relationships increase engagement , motivation , prosocial —kind and helpful—behavior, and academic achievement .

Seeing students as individuals is key to their well-being and success.

• When teachers use practices that are sensitive to students’ individual differences and needs and that also include student voice, their students tend to be more motivated and show higher academic achievement ; they also feel better about school, participate more, and show less disruptive behavior across grade levels.

Negative student-teacher relationships can have long-lasting impact.

• Conflict-ridden relationships with teachers in kindergarten predict worse grades, work habits, and discipline problems into late elementary or even middle school.

Relationships matter at every age.

• In preschool and kindergarten : When their relationships with teachers are more emotionally supportive and less conflictual, preschool students become more socially and academically competent; similar effects occur for kindergarteners.
• In elementary and middle school , close, positive student-teacher relationships are associated with greater student engagement in learning and better social and behavioral outcomes in general, including less risky behavior .
• In high school , students who connect with their teachers are less likely to engage in risky behavior , including substance abuse, sexual activity, and suicide.
• In university , students are less likely to drop out , and they show more commitment, engagement, effort, intellectual development, and academic achievement.

Teachers, too, benefit from good relationships with their students.

• They experience the joy of teaching, helping to maintain their commitment to the profession by preventing burnout .

Practice Collections

Courageous Connections that Challenge Your Biases

Assessing Your School Climate

Listening with Compassion

Look Up Vibe (LUV Moment)

Say “We” to Nurture Collaboration in Students

Music to Inspire Kindness

Kindness Art for Students

Family Business

Designing the Classroom to Promote Kindness 

Honesty Commitment for Students

Pleasant Events Calendar for Students

Imagining Flourishing and Kindness: A Mindfulness Practice for Adults

Where We Stand

Standing Up Against Discrimination

Understanding Prejudice Through Paper Plate Portraits

Understanding Justice

Mindful Reflection Process for Developing Culturally Responsive Practices

Check for Understanding Circle

GGIE Online Courses for Educators

Do you want to dive deeper into the science behind our GGIE practices? Enroll in one of our online courses for educators!

You Might Also Like

Teaching and Learning for the Greater Good

Why Teacher-Student Relationships Matter

• Share article

Students spend more than 1,000 hours with their teacher in a typical school year. That’s enough time to build a relationship that could ignite a student’s lifetime love of learning—and it’s enough time for the dynamic to go totally off the rails.

Education watchers have long known that the relationship with a teacher can be critically important to how well students learn. But emerging research is giving a clearer picture than ever of how teachers can build and leverage strong relationships with their students.

“People sometimes mistake a kind of casual familiarity and friendliness for the promotion of really deep relationships that are about a child’s potential, their interests, their strengths, and weaknesses,” said Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Southern California who studies the effects of emotions and mindsets on learning.

“A lot of teachers ... have really strong abilities to engage socially with the students, but then it’s not enough,” she said. “You have to go much deeper than that and actually start to engage with students around their curiosity, their interests, their habits of mind through understanding and approaching material to really be an effective teacher.”

In a forthcoming longitudinal study with Bank Street College of Education, Immordino-Yang is tracking how the highly effective teachers of low-income students set classroom norms and feelings of trust and safety for students—but also leverage that foundation to promote students’ deeper thinking and engagement.

Why are teacher-student relationships important?

“The relational part of teaching may very well be its most underrated aspect. ... When teachers are good at building relationships with students, the skill is seen more as cover for a lack of content knowledge or wherewithal to instruct with rigor,” James Ford, the 2015 North Carolina State Teacher of the Year and the program director for the Public School Forum of North Carolina, told Education Week . To the contrary, he added, “Our first job as teachers is to make sure that we learn our students, that we connect with them on a real level, showing respect for their culture and affirming their worthiness to receive the best education possible.”

A Review of Educational Research analysis of 46 studies found that strong teacher-student relationships were associated in both the short- and long-term with improvements on practically every measure schools care about: higher student academic engagement, attendance, grades, fewer disruptive behaviors and suspensions, and lower school dropout rates. Those effects were strong even after controlling for differences in students’ individual, family, and school backgrounds.

Teachers benefit, too. A study in the European Journal of Psychology of Education found that a teacher’s relationship with students was the best predictor of how much the teacher experienced joy versus anxiety in class.

How does a teacher’s approach affect that relationship?

In a 2018 study, Arizona State University researcher Victoria Theisen-Homer found different teacher-training programs prioritized different kinds of relationships with students:

• An instrumental focus involved a limited, one-way relationship in which teachers cull bits of information about students specifically to motivate them to behave well and focus on teacher-directed tasks. The relationships “were structured as a controlled means to a particular end: student compliance,” she found. “Students learned that their value was tied to the degree to which they worked hard and behaved in line with what mostly white authority figures demanded.”
• A reciprocal focus required teachers to gather complex information and develop a holistic understanding of their students, inviting the students to grapple with content and problems together. “These students not only learned to think for themselves, but also had adults who affirmed and responded to their thoughts and experiences. Such interactions prepared them to engage with authority figures, and to someday hold positions of authority themselves,” Theisen-Homer said.

The study also found in an analysis of two of these programs that teachers trained in the instrumental focus were more likely to go on to teach in low-income, high-minority schools, while those trained in reciprocal relationships ended up in schools with more high-income and white students. It was not clear why teachers ended up sorting in this way, but it raised concerns about differences in the kinds of relationships high- and low-income students might experience with teachers.

“Sometimes teachers don’t understand the importance that their relationship with each student has on that student’s identity and sense of belonging,” said Vicki Nishioka, a senior researcher with Education Northwest who studies teacher-student relationships. “What gets in the way of that is a more authoritarian kind of discipline and interaction approach with students, which really doesn’t work.”

For example, a 2016 study randomly assigned teachers to increase their positive interactions with students. Students of teachers who boosted their ratio to five positive comments and interactions for every negative one had significantly less disruptive behavior and more time on task academically than the students of a control group of teachers.

How can teachers improve their relationships with students?

In a word: Empathy. Across several recent studies, researchers have found that teachers who cultivate empathy for and with their students are able to manage students’ behavior and academic engagement better.

Nishioka finds that trying to suppress biases or stereotypes about students can sometimes make them worse, but practicing perspective-taking—actively imagining how a student might perceive or be affected by a situation—can reduce bias and deepen teacher-student relationships. She recommended teachers:

• Talk to students to understand differences in their perceptions and expectations in class.
• Research cultural differences between teachers and students to head off cultural misunderstandings, particularly around norms, styles, and language.
• Teach and model perspective-taking for students in class.

How can teachers maintain healthy boundaries with students?

Experts caution that for teachers and students, “relationship” does not equal “friend,” particularly on social media. Many districts have rules against teachers following or friending current students on Facebook, Twitter, or other platforms, in part because it might open teachers to liability if they see inappropriate behavior from students online.

Teachers also should be upfront with students who confide in them that they are required by law to report evidence of abuse and can’t keep secrets that could put students in danger.

Teacher and education author Starr Sackstein, whose blog is hosted on the edweek.org website, also recommends that while teachers can and should share personal stories if they are “purposeful and appropriate” to the discussion, they should use these to model for students what level of detail is appropriate for sharing in social conversations.

How can relationships with students support teacher quality?

While student feedback is often incorporated into teacher evaluations in higher education, it is rarely a direct part of K-12 teacher evaluations. But that doesn’t mean districts can’t use student feedback to improve teaching practice, and in particular, such feedback can be used to help teachers build deeper relationships with students.

For example, the High Tech High Media Arts charter school in San Diego trains students using a six-week course to act as observers. The students met regularly with the teacher to give feedback about their communication skills and engagement in the classroom, and to brainstorm better ways to reach out to students. Teachers and administrators found that going through the training gave students better understanding of the teachers’ roles. School staff members said that teachers also “developed deeper relationships with students, interacted with students in a more positive way during class, communicated information about projects and assignments to students more clearly, generated better questions to stimulate student dialogue during Socratic seminars, and created more collaborative learning environments for students.”

A version of this article appeared in the March 13, 2019 edition of Education Week as Why Teacher-Student Relationships Matter

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Advertisement

Teacher Wellbeing: The Importance of Teacher–Student Relationships

• Open access
• Published: 12 July 2011
• Volume 23 , pages 457–477, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jantine L. Spilt 1 ,
• Helma M. Y. Koomen 2 &
• Jochem T. Thijs 3  

175k Accesses

522 Citations

25 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Many studies have examined the importance of teacher–student relationships for the development of children. Much less is known, however, about how these relationships impact the professional and personal lives of teachers. This review considers the importance of teacher–student relationships for the wellbeing of teachers starting from the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping of Lazarus ( 1991 ). Based on theories on interpersonal relationships, it is postulated that teachers have a basic need for relatedness with the students in their class. It is discussed that teachers internalize experiences with students in representational models of relationships that guide emotional responses in daily interactions with students and change teacher wellbeing in the long run. In addition, the notion of mental representations of relationships at different levels of generalization could offer a window to understand how individual teacher–student relationships may affect the professional and personal self-esteem of teachers. Lastly, it is argued that the influence of student misbehavior on teacher stress may be more fully understood from a relationship perspective. The review shows that few studies have directly tested these propositions and offers suggestions for future research.

Similar content being viewed by others

Teacher and Staff Wellbeing: Understanding the Experiences of School Staff

Unravelling the wellbeing needs of Australian teachers: a qualitative inquiry

Preschool student–teacher relationships and teaching stress.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Insight in teacher wellbeing is important for several reasons. First of all, it adds to the understanding of teacher careers. Knowing factors that are of high concern to teachers is helpful in creating school contexts that foster teachers’ job commitment and prevents dropout from the profession. Second, by examining what is most satisfying and rewarding for teachers, a better understanding of their attitudes toward school reforms and intervention programs can be gained (e.g., van Veen et al . 2005 ). In many cases, teachers are the agents of change, and insight in teacher wellbeing might add to the dissemination of intervention programs in schools (Lochman 2003 ). Last but not least, teachers are important adults in children’s scholastic lives, and there is some evidence that teacher wellbeing, at least indirectly, has significant effects on children’s socioemotional adjustment and academic performance (Hamre and Pianta 2004 ; Malmberg and Hagger 2009 ; Moolenaar 2010 ; Roth et al . 2007 ).

Research on teacher wellbeing has focused largely on stress and burnout. Organizational and social pressures such as administration workload, classroom management issues, and lack of supervisor and team support have been extensively studied (Borg and Riding 1991 ; Burke and Greenglass 1995 ; Greenglass et al . 1997 ; Kokkinos 2007 ; Smith and Bourke 1992 ). To date, however, the interpersonal relationships between teachers and students have been largely ignored as a factor of significance to teacher wellbeing (Friedman 2000 ; Kyriacou 2001 ). Teaching has been ranked as one of the highest in stress-related outcomes from a database of 26 occupations, and the emotional involvement of teachers with their students is considered the primary explanation for such findings (Johnson et al . 2005 ). It seems obvious that the formation of personal, supportive teacher–student relationships inherently demands emotional involvement from teachers. For students, it is evident that the affective quality of the teacher–student relationship is an important factor in their school engagement, wellbeing, and academic success (for a meta-analysis, see—Roorda et al . 2011 ). Teacher–student relationships characterized by conflict and mistrust have deleterious effects on children’s learning (e.g., Hamre and Pianta 2001 ). Yet, relatively little is known about the interpersonal demands that teachers may experience from their students (Newberry and Davis 2008 ). Also, there is little recognition of the internal needs that teachers themselves may have for positive, personal relationships with individual students. The goal of this literature review is to explore the impact of teacher–student relationships on teacher wellbeing. In addition, we aim to provide a hypothetical model that describes the key concepts and interrelations between those concepts to guide future research.

Our review consists of five parts. First, the “Transactional Model of Stress and Coping” (Lazarus 1991 ) is outlined as an organizational framework. The model explains the potential effects of external stressors on wellbeing through the experiences of everyday discrete emotions and is, therefore, highly useful to understand the effects of interpersonal teacher–student stressors on teacher wellbeing. Second, we discuss empirical evidence for the hypothesized influence of teacher–student relationships on teacher wellbeing. As the wellbeing of teachers is influenced by many interacting factors that are present both inside and outside the school environment, we expect significant yet moderate effects of teacher–student relationships on teacher wellbeing. Third, theoretical models on interpersonal relationships are explored to understand the value of teacher–student relationships for teachers. More specifically, it is suggested that teachers have a basic need for relatedness with their students and that they internalize interpersonal experiences with students into mental representational models (i.e., internal working models) that contain sets of beliefs and feelings regarding the self, the student, and the self–student relationship on different levels of generalization. These mental models provide an interpretative framework to understand social behavior of others and guide behavioral and affective responses in interactions with others. Fourth, we explore the potential effects of teachers’ mental relationship models on their emotional responses in daily interactions with students to understand how teacher–student relationships over time can affect teacher wellbeing. Finally, we expound how these relationship models can elucidate the widely recognized effects of perceived student misbehavior on stress and burnout. We hypothesize that representations of relationships with individual students, and especially of relational conflict, influence the effects of perceptions of misbehavior on teacher wellbeing.

Transactional Model of Stress and Coping

To understand how teacher–child relationships can influence teachers’ daily experiences of stress, and consequently the wellbeing of teachers, we first consider the “Transactional Model of Stress and Coping” of Lazarus ( 1991 ) and Lazarus and Folkman ( 1987 ). According to this model, an individual’s reaction to stress is guided by the subjective interpretation or appraisal of an external stressor which subsequently triggers an emotional response. The primary appraisal process involves subjective evaluations of whether the incident is relevant and goal congruent . Only incidents that are judged relevant to one’s goals, values, or needs trigger emotions. Incidents that are appraised as goal incongruent trigger unpleasant emotions such as anger or fear. Conversely, an event or interpersonal demand leads to positive emotions when it facilitates the realization of a goal or motive. Secondary appraisal involves the subjective evaluation of one’s ability to cope with the situation, which influences the intensity of emotions. Negative changes in wellbeing are caused by repeated daily experiences of discrete unpleasant emotions in response to chronic stressors, whereas prolonged experiences of pleasant emotions promote wellbeing.

Two prominent features of this model are of particular importance for the current review. First, the intensity of stress depends on the importance of the value or goal that is threatened. We, thus, need to understand the importance of teacher–student relationships for teachers. Second, the transactional model focuses on the prolonged experience of discrete emotions as a key predictor of wellbeing. These emotions are triggered by cognitive appraisals of an event or situation. We explore how teachers’ mental representations of their relationships with students may affect their emotions in actual situations with students to explain the effects of teacher–student relationships on teacher wellbeing.

Figure  1 depicts the proposed theoretical model. It presents the effects of teachers’ mental representations of teacher–student relationships on their wellbeing through their everyday emotional responses. Furthermore, the model proposes that teachers’ relationship representations could mediate or moderate the well-studied effects of perceived student behavior on teacher wellbeing. A fairly similar model has been proposed in a recent review on teacher burnout, emotions, and student misbehavior by Chang ( 2009 ; see also Chang and Davis 2009 ). The current model, however, highlights the role of teachers’ mental representations of relationships with individual students.

Hypothetical model: (1) MR mental representations, (2) subjective appraisal process between brackets , (3) reciprocal effects between variables are present but not depicted (except for the link between wellbeing and teacher–student interactions) as the theoretical model implies causality, and (4) the dotted lines represent a mediational model; an alternative possibility is moderation represented by the dashed lines

The psychological health and wellbeing of people is relatively stable. Yet, research on job stress and satisfaction demonstrates that prolonged exposure to chronic stressors and unsuccessful coping do impact the wellbeing of employees (e.g., Hakanen et al . 2006 ; Montgomery and Rupp 2005 ; Van den Broeck et al . 2008 ). In the current review, we consider the wellbeing of teachers as a long-term outcome influenced by mental representations of teacher–student relationships through everyday emotions and stress. However, though the model assumes causal effects of relationship perceptions on teacher wellbeing, it should be noted that wellbeing, in turn, most likely influences the ability to form personal relationships with children. Lazarus and Folkman ( 1987 ) also emphasize circularity and explain that, although the cognitive-affective process of stress implies a temporal sequence, variables can be both antecedents and outcomes. For instance, burnout among teachers has been found to inflate perceptions of antisocial and oppositional behaviors (Kokkinos et al . 2005 ).

Because most research on teacher wellbeing has examined occupational stress and burnout, similar (negative) indicators will receive attention in this literature review. Yet, it is important to note that the current review refers to wellbeing as an umbrella term for both positive and negative indicators of psychological and physical health. Theoretically relevant positive indicators to be discussed are job satisfaction, work motivation, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and positive self-view (Borg and Riding 1991 ; Brouwers and Tomic 2000 ; Hakanen et al . 2006 ; Shann 1998 ; Tsouloupas et al . 2010 ).

The influence of Teacher–Student Relationships on Teacher Wellbeing

It is widely believed that personal relationships with children afford teachers internal rewards and give meaning to their work. Teacher–student relationships are often mentioned as one of the core reasons for staying in the profession (Hargreaves 1998 ; O’Connor 2008 ). Is there empirical support for the widely assumed association between teacher–student relationships and teacher wellbeing? In this section, we review available research.

Hargreaves ( 2000 ) conducted in-depth interviews with 60 teachers and found that relationships with students were the most important source of enjoyment and motivation. This was found for both primary and secondary school teachers, although the findings indicated more emotionally intense relationships in elementary than in secondary schools. Elementary teachers experienced both more negative and positive emotions and referred more often to incidents of anger and frustration. Secondary teachers tended to describe personal relationships with students more in terms of acknowledgment and respect (Hargreaves 2000 ). The organizational structure of secondary education can make it somewhat more difficult for secondary teachers to feel personally connected with their students. Accordingly, secondary teachers experienced more alienation from students and more often felt unknown and stereotyped by their students, which was repeatedly mentioned as a source of negative emotion (Hargreaves 2000 ). These interviews highlight the value that teachers attach to personal relationships with students in their classroom, and illustrate how conflictual or alienated relationships exert a threat to not only teachers’ professional but also their personal wellbeing. Other researchers have also drawn attention to the strong connection between the personal and professional wellbeing of teachers and have reasoned that there cannot be real professional development without personal development (Day and Leitch 2001 ; O’Connor 2008 ).

There is also some evidence from descriptive and correlational research that confirms the importance of healthy teacher–student relationships for the wellbeing of teachers. Shann ( 1998 ) used data from a 3-year project of school effectiveness in four large urban middle schools to examine teacher satisfaction. Both interview and questionnaire data revealed that teachers ranked teacher–student relationships as most important among 14 key variables including school curriculum, job security, teacher autonomy, recognition of teacher achievement, and relationships at work. Moreover, positive teacher–student relationships were also ranked as most satisfying. This fits with the high level of personal commitment that teachers feel toward their students. Correlational research based on teacher reports of conflict and closeness in relationships with individual students provides modest support for linkages with teacher wellbeing. Teacher reports of conflict, but not closeness, have been found to be modestly related to efficacy beliefs of teachers (Spilt 2010 ; Yeo et al . 2008 ), and to self-reported depression of preschool teachers when conflict was higher than expected based on teacher perceptions of child problem behavior (Hamre et al . 2008 ). These findings suggest that experiences of high teacher–student conflict could undermine teachers’ efficacy beliefs and evoke feelings of helplessness. Similarly, the percentage of teacher–student relationships in the classroom judged as negative by the teacher has been found to be associated with teacher reports of stress and negative emotions (Yoon 2002 ). In contrast, Mashburn et al . ( 2006 ) found that it was closeness, and not conflict, that was positively related to teachers’ efficacy beliefs regarding management of difficult child behavior in a sample of pre-kindergarten teachers. They did not find linkages between teacher–student relationship quality and teacher-reported depression.

In sum, both in-depth interviews with teachers and correlational research indicates that teachers get intrinsic rewards from close relationships with students and experience negative affect when relationships are characterized as disrespectful, conflictual, or distant. The results suggest that there are at least modest associations between dyadic teacher–student relationships and the wellbeing of teachers. However, there are hardly any empirical studies that have been explicitly designed to examine the effects of teacher–student relationships on the wellbeing of teachers and, to our knowledge, causal effects are yet unexplored.

Theoretical Perspectives on the Importance of Teacher–Student Relationships for Teachers

Stress is typically experienced when goals are threatened that are of high concern to individuals (Kyriacou 2001 ; Lazarus and Folkman 1987 ). Conversely, events that facilitate the realization of a highly valued goal tend to elicit pleasant emotions that contribute to positive wellbeing. Accordingly, relationships with students can only be harmful or beneficial to the wellbeing of teachers when teachers have a need or desire for personal relationships with students. Many researchers have called attention to the importance of strong personal attachments of teachers to their students (Day and Leitch 2001 ; Hargreaves 1998 ; Nias 1996 ; O’Connor 2008 ). In the previous section, we found support for this notion and discussed research that has provided some empirical evidence for the effects of teacher–student relationships on teacher wellbeing. Yet, these studies do not explain why teacher–student relationships appear to be of such a strong personal concern to teachers. What motives or desires are at stake when teachers experience poor relationships with one or multiple students in their class? In this section, we explore this question drawing from two main theoretical models on interpersonal relationships that have also been used to frame understanding of the influence of teacher–student relationships on children (for reviews see: Davis 2003 ; Koomen et al . 2006 ; Pianta et al . 2003 ). We discuss the self-determination theory of motivation (SDT; Deci and Ryan 2000 ) and the attachment paradigm (Bowlby 1969 /1982) applied to teacher–child relationships. Although different conceptualizations are used, these theories emphasize a basic human need for relatedness that underlies and explains interpersonal behavior in social contexts.

Self-determination theory of motivation

The SDT (Deci and Ryan 2000 ) postulates three universal, innate psychological needs: for autonomy (ownership, responsibilities, and self-actualization), belongingness (close relationships, interpersonal regard, and support), and competence (feeling capable to bring out desired outcomes and effectively cope with challenges). Furthermore, SDT distinguishes between different types of motivation that reflect a continuum from low to high autonomous or self-determined motivation: external regulation (e.g., “When I devote time to individual talks with students, I do so because I want the parents to appreciate my knowledge and familiarity with their children”), introjected regulation (e.g., “… I do so because it makes me feel proud to do this”), identified regulation (e.g., “… I do so because I can learn from them what happens in the classroom”), and intrinsic regulation (e.g., “… I do so because I like being in touch with children and adolescents”; Roth et al . 2007 ). Fulfillment of the three basic needs contributes positively to intrinsic motivation where the job is primarily done for pure interest and its inherent enjoyment and satisfaction.

This theory has been widely applied both in the field of organizational psychology and educational psychology to study motivation and wellbeing. For students, satisfaction of the three basic needs through emotional involvement, provision of structure, and autonomy support from teachers has been shown to contribute to academic motivation and achievement (Bao and Lam 2008 ; Furrer and Skinner 2003 ; Skinner and Belmont 1993 ). Similarly, for employees, basic needs fulfillment was positively related to wellbeing, job satisfaction, and work motivation (Van den Broeck et al . 2008 ; Vansteenkiste et al . 2007 ). Though relatively little research has been conducted on teaching, several studies have pointed to the importance of choice and control in teaching as well as to support from supervisors and colleagues (Greenglass et al . 1997 ; Skaalvik and Skaalvik 2009 ; van Dick and Wagner 2001 ). These factors promote intrinsic motivation and a positive work attitude for teachers (Wagner and French 2010 ) and in turn may lead to self-determined learning in students (Roth et al . 2007 ).

Research within this tradition has almost exclusively focused on teachers’ relationships with co-workers, whereas research on teachers’ relationships with students is virtually absent. It could be argued that teachers spend most of their working time in the classroom, which makes teacher–student relationships the most likely source for fulfillment of the need for belongingness. Accordingly, in-depth interviews with teachers show that teachers feel strongly connected with “their” students and talk about love and respect and the internal rewards they gain from close relationships with students (Hargreaves 2000 ). The study of interpersonal relationships with students as a source of fulfillment of the need for belongingness could, thus, aid our understanding of teachers’ work motivation and wellbeing.

Attachment theory

Within attachment theory (Bowlby 1969 /1982; Cassidy and Shaver 1999 ), the motivation for belonging can be recognized in the attachment behavior of individuals. The psychological aim of affectional bonds between an individual and an attachment figure, seen in for example caregiver–child and adult romantic relationships, is to achieve or maintain emotional security. The experiences gained in attachment relationships become internalized into mental representations (i.e., “internal working models” or “mental schemas”) of relationships that guide social information processing in a consistent and predictable manner (Bowlby 1969 /1982). This has important consequences for future social relationships. According to attachment theory, internal working models of relationships contain generalized information about the self, others, and self–other relationships that shape the development of new relationships (Bretherton et al . 1989 ; Main et al . 1985 ). Research on the hierarchical structure of these models demonstrates that relationship experiences are internalized at different levels of generalization (Sibley and Overall 2008 ). Repeated interpersonal experiences across relationship contexts generate a global interpersonal orientation. People also construct domain-specific models for various types of relationships (e.g., romantic, familial, and work relationships) as well as relationship-specific models for relationships with specific others such as a parent, a spouse, or a colleague (Sibley and Overall 2008 ).

Analogous to parental caregivers, it is contended that teachers construct mental models of their relationships with students that represent teachers’ views, feelings, and inner world regarding their teaching (Pianta et al . 2003 ). Teachers may hold domain-specific models of their relationships with students that contain generalized expectations and beliefs about themselves as a teacher, about their various roles (e.g., caregiver, disciplinarian, and instructor), self-efficacy beliefs, goals for interactions with students, and beliefs about how students should relate to teachers. In a similar vein, Chang and Davis ( 2009 ) assert that teachers hold implicit theories about the nature of classroom relationships. They, for instance, explain how teachers’ destiny or growth beliefs about relationships with students can affect teachers’ investment efforts in relationships with challenging students. Growth beliefs encompass the view that relationships are malleable and that relational difficulties can be overcome. Conversely, destiny beliefs endorse the view that possible relationship partners are either compatible or incompatible. Another internalized belief at the domain-specific level could be that teachers are obliged to equally care for all their students (cf. O’Connor 2008 ). Such beliefs may motivate teachers to give equal attention to their students. Furthermore, teachers may hold different views of their teaching roles. Teachers who primarily view themselves as parent surrogates or socializers tend to be more attentive to disruptive students, whereas teachers who view themselves predominantly as instructors tend to respond more strongly to underachievers (Brophy 1988 ).

Due to the physical proximity between teachers and students, teachers are also believed to form relationship-specific models for individual children in their class. These models contain a teacher’s image of the child, a sense of her- or himself in interaction with the child as well as internalized feelings that color these images (Pianta et al . 2003 ). These relationship-specific models are considered to be nested within the domain-specific model about the teaching profession, which is nested in the global model that contains generalized beliefs about relationships and views of the self. The representations of personal relationships with students are related to and reciprocally influenced by teachers’ professional and personal self-views. As such, relationships with individual students can bear a significant influence on teachers’ self-esteem and wellbeing. It has even been suggested that teachers themselves are care - seekers who, in their turn, can gain considerable emotional security from relationships with students or even seek corrective emotional experiences from students that disconfirm and change initially insecure relational schemas (Golby 1996 ; Riley 2009 ). In a similar vein, Davis ( 2006 ) applies the concept of dual relationships when teachers use their relationships with students to meet their own psychological needs.

There is a fast growing body of research that has studied teacher–student relationships guided by notions from the attachment framework. Most researchers have relied on teacher-report questionnaires such as the widely used and well-validated Student–Teacher Relationship Scale, to measure teacher perceptions of conflict, closeness, and (sometimes) dependency in their relationships with specific children from preschool to upper elementary school (Ang 2005 ; Pianta 2001 ; Koomen et al . 2011 ). Conflict refers to negative and discordant interactions that are generally measured using items such as “Dealing with this child drains my energy” and “This child and I always seem to be struggling with each other.” Conversely, closeness represents the degree of warmth and open communication, including items such as “My interactions with this child make me feel effective and confident” and “It is easy to be in tune with what this child is feeling.” Many researchers also include the subscale dependency in their research containing items referring to interpretations of student behavior only, such as “This child is overly dependent on me” and “This child asks for my help when he/she really does not need help.” With respect to the latter dimension, it is noteworthy that some researchers have questioned its validity and have argued that it may be a marker of child adjustment problems rather than a relational dimension (Doumen et al . 2009 ; Spilt 2010 ). Importantly, teachers’ reports of relationship quality are unique predictors of children’s school functioning above their direct reports of student behavior, which supports the validity of such reports to capture the nature of dyadic relationships between teachers and children (Hamre and Pianta 2001 ). Additionally, some researchers have employed the Teacher Relationship Interview (TRI; Pianta 1999a ). The TRI is a semi-structured interview based on interviews that are used to tap into adults’ mental models of attachment and parenting (Bretherton et al . 1989 ; Button et al . 2001 ; Main et al . 1985 ). First, tentative results suggest that the TRI captures mainly relationship-specific information, especially about internalized affect (Spilt and Koomen 2009 ; Stuhlman and Pianta 2002 ). In addition, it also seems to measure more domain-specific information regarding teacher roles as a caregiver and manager/disciplinarian, suggesting interconnectedness between the relationship-specific and domain-specific models (cf. Spilt and Koomen 2009 ).

Research on teachers’ global attachment styles is relatively sparse. Teachers’ generalized adult attachment styles and attachment history have been linked to motives for entering education (Horppu and Ikonen Varila 2004 ), preferences for behavior management strategies (Morris-Rothschild and Brassard 2006 ), sensitive caregiving behavior (Constantino and Olesh 1999 ), and evaluations of individual teacher–child relationships (Kesner 2000 ).

Just like self-determination theory, attachment theory assumes that affectional bonding between individuals is driven by an innate motivation of humans. Proximity between individuals triggers the development of specific mental relationship representations. The discussed studies offer tentative support for the interconnectedness between teachers’ global relationship styles and both teachers’ professional beliefs about teaching and their relationships with individual students. Yet, although there is good reason to assume that teachers construct relationship models at different levels of generalization, we are aware of no studies that have tested this.

The need for relatedness

Following the “Transactional Model of Stress and Coping” (Lazarus 1991 ), teacher–student relationships cannot be harmful or beneficial to teachers unless these relationships are important to their goals or motives. According to the theoretical perspectives on teacher–child relationships discussed in the previous sections, it is a basic psychological need for relatedness that can explain the importance of personal relationships within the classroom for teachers. Baumeister and Leary ( 1995 ) reviewed an extensive body of empirical literature on human interpersonal behavior and conceptualized the need to belong as a fundamental, pervasive human motivation. People have a basic desire for pleasant interactions with others in a personal caring context and readily develop social bonds when they are simply exposed to each other. For teachers, the time spent in the proximity of students probably triggers a desire for unity and togetherness with students in their classroom and motivates them to engage in personal relationships with pupils. Poor relationships go against this need for relatedness and make teachers vulnerable for personal failure and rejection by students. Both previously discussed theoretical perspectives imply that frustration of the need for relatedness undermines positive wellbeing. Following this reasoning, teachers’ relational experiences with individual students is predictive of their wellbeing.

The notion of mental representations found in the attachment framework appears useful to understand how relationships with individual children affect teacher wellbeing. It was suggested that the physical proximity between teachers and students activates teachers’ global attachment models and brings on the development of domain-specific and relationship-specific models. The interconnectedness between these models could explain how teacher–child relationships can affect teachers’ professional and personal self-images and could elucidate the notion that teachers invest “themselves” in relationships with individual students (Nias 1996 ). It explicates that teachers are emotionally vulnerable and may experience not only professional but also personal failure when relationships with students are poor (Hargreaves 1998 , 2000 ; Newberry and Davis 2008 ; O’Connor 2008 ).

Some annotations may be relevant. The desire for personal relationships does not imply that teachers develop strong relationships with all children in their classroom. For instance, Davis ( 2006 ) describes how middle school teachers were drawn to students who reflect some aspects of themselves or who validated their instruction. In-depth interviews with kindergarten teachers revealed that teachers may overlook specific children as they had little to say in the interviews and did express neither positive nor negative feelings for these children (Spilt and Koomen 2009 ).

Furthermore, although the desire for relatedness is considered a basic need, this does not mean that there are no differences between individuals in the strength of this need. For instance, dismissive-avoidant attachment is associated with a desire for independence and an inclination to devalue interpersonal relationships to protect the self from feeling vulnerable. Thus, teachers with more dismissive-avoidant relationship orientations may feel uncomfortable with emotionally close relationships with students and may overlook or reject attachment signals from students (Horppu and Ikonen Varila 2004 ).

It also seems that not all teachers feel equally responsible for developing close relationships with their students and that not all teachers have an understanding of the positive effects that good relationships can bring about in students. Though this may be different in elementary school, some of the middle school teachers interviewed by Davis ( 2006 ) felt that they were not obliged to meet students’ needs for relationships. It could be that these teachers had more dismissive relationship orientations or were more likely to seek only (a few) relationships that are believed to return their investment or meet their own psychological needs.

Teachers may also have additional motives to pursue positive relationships with students. Healthy relationships with children are a precondition for effective teaching as it helps teachers to motivate and control children’s behavior and learning attitudes (Pianta 2006 ). As such, positive teacher–child relationships may indirectly influence teachers’ feelings of effectiveness, competence, and agency.

In sum, the basic desire for relatedness, recognized in various theoretical paradigms about interpersonal relationships, may elucidate teachers’ desire for personal relationships with students and explain why individual teacher–student relationships can affect the professional and personal identities of teachers and in turn contribute to their wellbeing.

The Effects of Teachers’ Mental Relationship Models on Emotions in Everyday Interactions

According to the “Transactional Model of Stress and Coping” of Lazarus ( 1991 ), negative emotions are the keys to understanding the effects of external stressors on wellbeing. It is the repeated or prolonged experience of pleasant or unpleasant emotions that evokes changes in wellbeing in the long run (see Fig.  1 ). Thus, to understand how teachers’ relationships with students influence their wellbeing, it is worthwhile to consider how teachers’ internalized relationship representations affect their emotions in everyday interactions with children.

Emotions play a key role in research on stress and burnout (Lazarus 2006 ; Montgomery and Rupp 2005 ). Kyriacou ( 2001 ) defines teacher stress as a negative emotional experience that is triggered by teachers’ perception of an external situation as threat to their self-esteem or wellbeing. Emotions reveal what is important for individuals: only events that are judged relevant to one’s values elicit emotions (Lazarus and Folkman 1987 ). Moreover, more than major life events, the recurrence of daily hassles and the prolonged experience of negative affect are considered key processes in the development of burnout (Chang 2009 ; Jennings and Greenberg 2009 ; Kyriacou 2001 ; Sutton and Wheatley 2003 ). Interactions with students are considered to be an important source of teacher emotion. Researchers have introduced the concept of emotional labor to describe the emotional demands inherent to the teaching profession (Glomb and Tews 2004 ; Nias 1996 ). Chang ( 2009 ) synthesizes literature on burnout and emotions to describe teachers’ emotional experiences when dealing with disruptive students, thereby emphasizing the importance of teachers’ discrete emotions for teachers’ wellbeing (e.g., anger, frustration, anxiety, and guilt; for a discussion of discrete positive emotions, see Lazarus 2006 ). Chang and Davis ( 2009 ) further elaborate on this model by explaining how teachers’ implicit theory of relationships (i.e., generalized beliefs about the nature of classroom relationships) are linked to habitual appraisals of problematic student behavior and, in turn, unproductive emotional labor, compassion fatigue, and burnout. Guided by the attachment perspective, we argue that it is important to consider how both relationship specific and more global mental representations of relationships shape teachers’ emotional lives.

According to the self-determination theory of motivation, warm teacher–student relationships contribute to teachers’ self-determined or autonomous motivation, which is primarily characterized by positive feelings (i.e., enjoyment). However, probably most informative to understand teachers’ emotional responses in specific situations with students is the notion that teachers construct mental models of their relationships with individual students (e.g., Pianta et al . 2003 ). It is a basic quality of such models that they shape emotional and behavioral responses in concrete situations. Disobedient student behavior, for instance, is more likely to be appraised as challenging and threatening when the teacher has internalized negative feelings about the relationship with the student and holds unfavorable schema’s of the relationship with the student. This, in turn, could amplify the teacher’s stress response in encounters with the student. In addition, as mental representations become increasingly stable, daily interactions with a “difficult” student can become a chronic source of stress.

Research into mothers’ representations of specific relationships with their children indicates that especially the internalization of negative affect predicts their parenting behavior (Button et al . 2001 ). Analogously, in a sample of kindergarten teachers, Stuhlman and Pianta ( 2002 ) demonstrated that teachers’ internalized negative feelings for a child were significantly related to displays of negative affect in observed interactions with that child. This research provides tentative support for the idea that the nature and intensity of emotions that teachers experience in their daily interactions with students is shaped and defined by underlying mental models of their relationships with students.

One aspect of emotional labor is the need for teachers to invest their “selves” (Nias 1996 ). As noted earlier, the personal and professional identities of teachers appear closely interlinked with their relationships with individual children, as relationship-specific models are nested within domain-specific and global models of relationships. There is some evidence that global relationship orientations of teachers shape their daily emotional lives, which converges with notions from attachment scholars about the influence of attachment styles on emotion regulation (Cassidy 1994 ). Clinical experience and scientific research suggest that teachers with a history of avoidant attachment are more inclined to dismiss or neutralize emotional aspects in their interactions with students (Morris-Rothschild and Brassard 2006 ; Pianta 1999b ). Dismissive teachers may be less hindered by poor teacher–student relationships because they are more inclined to distance themselves from others and to interact in a more controlling and task-focused way. Conversely, anxious-preoccupied attachment orientations are characterized by worries about being worthy of love and a strong dependency on approval, and responsiveness from partners. Preoccupied teachers may take relational conflict more personal because they tend to hold high, unrealistic expectations of relationships with students. This may cause more intense negative emotions in the context of a limited flexibility to cope with these emotions (Horppu and Ikonen Varila 2004 ; Morris-Rothschild and Brassard 2006 ). This suggests that the negative effects of poor teacher–student relationships on teacher wellbeing are dependent on teachers’ relationship styles. In a similar vein, Schirmer and Lopez ( 2001 ) demonstrated in a sample of employees from a single university that employees with preoccupied and dismissive attachment styles perceived lower levels of supervisor support than secure employees. Only preoccupied workers, however, experienced heightened levels of stress under conditions of low perceived support.

In conclusion, there is tentative evidence that teachers’ everyday emotional responses to interpersonal stressors are shaped by underlying relationship-specific as well as more global representational models of relationships. To date, however, there has been very limited research on this subject.

Can Teachers’ Mental Relationship Models explain the Association Between Student Misbehavior and Teacher Stress?

Although little research has examined the effects of teachers’ mental representations of teacher–student relationships on wellbeing, there is ample evidence that teacher perceptions of student behavior influence the wellbeing of teachers. In addition, student behavior is considered one of the most important correlates of teachers’ representations of teacher–student relationships and of the conflict dimension especially (Birch and Ladd 1998 ; Hamre et al . 2008 ; Hughes et al . 1999 ; Spilt and Koomen 2009 ). This is consistent with the hypothesized effects of teacher–student relationships on teacher wellbeing. In this section, we examine how teachers’ mental representations of relationships and perceptions of student behavior are interrelated as predictors of teacher wellbeing. More specifically, we explore the possibility that the effects of perceived student misbehavior on teacher wellbeing are mediated and/or moderated by mental representations of the dyadic relationship with students.

Student misbehavior and discipline problems have consistently been identified as key sources of teacher stress and burnout (Borg and Riding 1991 ; Brouwers and Tomic 2000 ; Evers et al . 2004 ; Gable et al . 2009 ; Hastings and Bham 2003 ; Kokkinos 2007 ; Kyriacou 2001 ; Lewis 1999 ; Sutton and Wheatley 2003 ; Tsouloupas et al . 2010 ). Teacher perceptions of student misbehavior are directly and positively associated with emotional exhaustion, which is a core dimension of burnout (Tsouloupas et al . 2010 ). Research further demonstrates that teachers spend a substantial amount of their time on behavior management and that the use of ineffective, reactive strategies causes heightened levels of stress (Clunies-Ross et al . 2008 ).

It should be noted that most stress research has measured teachers’ overall perceptions of disruptive behavior and discipline issues within their classroom (Clunies-Ross et al . 2008 ; Evers et al . 2004 ; Tsouloupas et al . 2010 ). However, there may be just a few students with more severe behavior problems who have a relatively strong influence on discipline issues and levels of stress experienced by teachers. Accordingly, there is much differentiation within teachers in their perceptions of behavioral problems and relational conflict (e.g., Mashburn et al . 2006 ). Research into teaching stress indicates that problem behaviors do not necessarily lead to stress. For instance, different teachers have been found to report substantially different levels of stress in relation to similarly disruptive children, which emphasizes its highly individualized and dyadic nature (Abidin and Robinson 2002 ; Greene et al . 1997 ; Greene et al . 2002 ). Based on these findings, it seems important to examine teachers’ perceptions of student behavior and relationships at the dyadic level. To date, however, this line of research on teaching stress has received limited attention, whereas, at the same time, attention for the interpersonal nature of individual teacher–child interactions has grown rapidly over the last two decades guided by the pioneering work of Pianta ( 1992 ) and Pianta et al . ( 2003 ).

In a discussion on classroom management, Pianta ( 2006 ) criticizes previous research for exclusively examining student (problem) behavior and classroom management in terms of concrete behaviors and practices. Current research, however, advocates a relationship-focused perspective to understand behaviors of children and teachers in light of the meaning for the interpersonal relationship (Nie and Lau 2009 ; Pianta 2006 ; Wentzel 2002 ). Relationships between teachers and students entail more than the sum of their behaviors and their individual characteristics (Pianta 2006 ; Pianta et al . 2003 ). Therefore, within this research tradition, teacher reports of relationship quality, mostly assessed using the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale, typically measure teachers’ perceptions of the interpersonal relationship with a specific student, of the behaviors of that student towards the teacher, and their views about the student’s feelings about the teacher (Pianta 2001 ). Such reports are considered to capture the internalized beliefs and feelings about the dyadic relationship (i.e., representational models), which, as noted earlier, are believed to guide teachers’ behaviors and emotional responses to student behavior in actual situations (Pianta et al . 2003 ). Accordingly, these relationship reports (example item: “When this child is in a bad mood, I know we’re in for a long and difficult day”) may reflect cognitive and affective (appraisal) processes about the self and self–other relationship that are more proximal to teachers’ stress responses in actual situations, and hence to their wellbeing, than teacher reports of simple student conduct problems (example item: “often has temper tantrums”).

Moreover, there is some empirical evidence that perceptions of disruptive student behavior shape mental representations of the dyadic relationship. Longitudinal research over the course of a school year indicates that teachers’ perceptions of externalizing student behavior are reciprocally related to representations of conflictual relationships, suggesting that perceptions of problem behavior exacerbate representations of conflict and vice versa (Doumen et al . 2008 ). The internalization of negative affect and beliefs about the relationship may cause perceptual biases (e.g., not noticing positive behavior from the student or being highly sensitive to relatively minor misconduct) and negative automatic thoughts about student behavior (e.g., “this student wants me to feel upset” or “this student does it on purpose”), which increases perceptions of disruptive behavior that in turn reinforce the internalization of negative beliefs and feelings about the relationship with the student. Importantly though, Doumen et al . found that this cyclical process was driven by perceptions of heightened levels of child problem behavior in the beginning, thereby indicating causality. Therefore, it seems conceivable that perceptions of misbehavior primarily influence mental representations of teacher–student relationships. These in turn may affect teachers’ emotional responses in daily hassles with students. In line with this reasoning, representational models of teacher–student relationships could mediate , at least in part, the effects of perceived student misbehavior on teachers’ emotional responses (see Fig.  1 ). Indeed, preliminary evidence suggests that the effects of perceived problem behavior on teaching stress are (fully) mediated by teachers’ perceptions of conflict within the relationship with that student (Koomen and Spilt 2011 ).

An alternative possibility is that representations of teacher–student relationships moderate the effects of perceived student misbehavior on teachers’ emotional responses in actual situations. In this case, representational models are viewed as a lens through which student misbehavior is interpreted (Pianta et al . 2003 ). Unfavorable representations (i.e., internalized negative cognitions and feelings about the self–other relationship) could then amplify the effects of perceived misbehavior on teachers’ stress reactions (see Fig.  1 ). This could elucidate why different teachers may experience different levels of stress in interactions with equally disruptive students (cf. Greene et al . 2002 ; for parallel findings with regard to student outcomes, see e.g., Meehan et al . 2003 ).

In sum, it was discussed that not student misbehavior in general but the extent to which it undermines the teacher–student relationship may cause prolonged distress in teachers. More specifically, it could be reasoned that perceptions of behavior problems of individual students shape teachers’ mental representations of the dyadic relationship, which in turn are believed to guide teachers’ stress response in daily situations with students and in the long run can cause changes in teacher wellbeing. As such, mental representations of teacher–student relationships could perhaps be a more powerful predictor of teacher wellbeing than perceptions of problem behavior. In addition, it is also possible that unfavorable relationship representations amplify (i.e., moderate ) the negative effects of perceived misbehavior.

Discussion and Directions for Future Research

In previous research, perceptions of student misbehavior and discipline issues have been considered among the primary sources of negative emotional experiences and stress for teachers. Chang ( 2009 ) contended that we need to understand teachers’ interpretations and attributions of student misbehavior because habitual patterns in teachers’ judgments underlie the everyday emotional experiences of teachers that contribute to stress and burnout (see also Chang and Davis 2009 ). In the current review, we reasoned that teacher perceptions of student behavior and daily emotional experiences of teachers need to be considered in light of the interpersonal relationships between teachers and students. We proposed that teachers’ internalized representations of interpersonal difficulties could mediate or moderate the effects of perceived behavior problems on teacher wellbeing. Teachers’ mental representations of relationships with disruptive children appear characterized by elevated levels of internalized negative affect, which in turn appear predictive of emotional displays in daily interactions (Spilt and Koomen 2009 ; Stuhlman and Pianta 2002 ).

Furthermore, we sought to understand why teacher–student relationships are important to teachers. According to theoretical models of relationships, teachers’ emotional involvement with students in the classroom is driven by a basic psychological need for relatedness or communion. In fact, teachers may be drawn to the classroom in part, because here that need might be fulfilled. Frustration of the relationship motive evokes stress, and in the long run causes changes in the wellbeing of teachers. In addition, guided by attachment research, we discussed that teachers form representational models of teacher–student relationships on different levels of generalization, which could explain why both the professional and the personal wellbeing of teachers seem affected by individual teacher–student relationships. From a practical view, it’s noteworthy that mental representational models are considered open models that can be modified by corrective experiences and through in-depth reflection (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al . 1998 ; Chang and Davis 2009 ; Pianta 1999b ; Spilt et al . 2011 ). Teacher educators and school administrators need to understand the critical role of beliefs and feelings about classroom relationships in general and relationships with specific students in teachers’ professional development, as well as how teachers can be equipped with interpretative frameworks that promote constructive responses to relational and behavioral difficulties with specific students to avoid escalating conflict and emotional exhaustion.

A closer understanding of teachers’ relatedness to students in the classroom may not only provide new insights in teachers’ wellbeing, ongoing professional development, and retention but also offers indirect yields for students’ school success. Consideration of teacher–student relationships as a core aspect of the teaching profession and provision of adequate professional support for teachers to enhance their relational pedagogy will contribute to educational outcomes because good relationships between teachers and students are central to learning and instruction (Martin and Dowson 2009 ; Roorda et al . 2011 ).

It should be stressed that there is virtually no research that has directly tested the propositions of the conceptual model represented in Fig.  1 and considerable work remains to be done in the development of appropriate measures. We propose four issues that should be considered in future research. First, there is a need of more in-depth measures to understand teachers’ interpersonal experiences with students. Research inspired by attachment theory has typically relied on teacher reports of closeness and conflict, which yield highly valuable information about teacher–student relationships. However, attachment research suggests that semi-structured interviews provide a more in-depth understanding of mental representations of caregiver–child relationships (Maier et al . 2004 ). Based on this premise, the TRI was developed and tested in kindergarten classes (Spilt and Koomen 2009 ; Stuhlman and Pianta 2002 ). Replication is needed in larger samples and clinical populations. In addition, research needs to be extended beyond early or elementary education.

When considering the measurement of teachers’ interpersonal experiences with students, it is worthwhile to take the multidimensionality of teachers’ relationship perceptions into account. Teacher perceptions of student–teacher relationship quality embody relatively independent dimensions referring to close and warm aspects of the relationships against discordant and negative aspects (e.g., Pianta 2001 ; Spilt and Koomen 2009 ). Baumeister et al . ( 2001 ) synthesized numerous studies and inferred that bad experiences are more powerful and have a more lasting effect on individual’s wellbeing than good experiences. Following this reasoning, conflictual relationships with a few children in class may have stronger effects on teacher wellbeing than distant or even close relationships with the other children. In addition, research indicates that teachers can judge their relationships with disruptive children as simultaneously conflictual and close (e.g., Spilt and Koomen 2009 ). Perhaps, in the context of a warm and open relationship, relational conflict and discipline issues resulting from maladaptive child behavior may be experienced as stressful but do not necessarily contribute to burnout because the effort is believed to be meaningful and worthwhile. The psychodynamic existential perspective on burnout indeed states that the root cause of burnout lies in a loss of significance (Pines 2002 ). Research from this perspective has shown that chronically high levels of stress do not necessarily lead to burnout when the work is still believed to be important (Pines 2002 ; Pines and Keinan 2005 ). For these reasons, it is recommended that researchers examine both the unique and interactive effects of negative (conflict) and positive (closeness) relationship qualities.

Second, researchers agree that daily experiences of negative emotions triggered by chronic stressors are key processes in the development of burnout. In this context, it is important to examine both the emotion itself and the ability to regulate that emotion. Chang and Davis ( 2009 ) provided a thorough discussion of teacher emotions and regulation of emotions in challenging teacher–student relationships that offers a basis to examine linkages between teachers’ mental representations of relationships with individual students, emotional experiences, and coping strategies. To examine teachers’ daily emotional experiences, it is important to also adopt appropriate micro-analytic methods to study the emotional lives of teachers in the classroom (Chang 2009 ; Lazarus and Folkman 1987 ). Carson et al . ( 2010 ) introduces ecological momentary assessment to capture teachers’ emotional states through repeated assessments in the field over an extended time period. Based on the current review, it could be instructive to use micro-analytic methods for the assessment of teacher emotions in interactions with individual students, and link these data to measures of teacher–student relationship quality and teacher wellbeing.

Third, researchers need to carefully select their outcome variables. Whereas much research has focused on teacher stress and burnout, there has been relatively little attention to positive indicators of wellbeing. The self-determination theory of motivation, for instance, specifically predicts that positive teacher–student relationships enhance autonomous work motivation and job commitment of teachers. Such factors may add to our understanding of the resilience of teachers under various stressful conditions (see also the work of Hakanen et al . 2006 about energetical versus motivational processes).

Fourth, there is a need for longitudinal data to support the proposed causal effects of teacher–student relationships on the wellbeing of teachers. As noted earlier, though reciprocal relationships are present, the model implies a causal process as corroborated by stress research (e.g., Lazarus and Folkman 1987 ). It was proposed that teachers’ representational relationship models guide their emotional responses in daily interactions with students, which in turn can cause changes in teacher wellbeing. In addition, we argued that teachers’ mental representations of relationships with individual students are a more powerful predictor of teacher wellbeing than perceived student misbehavior. For stringent tests of causality, however, experimental research is needed. As noted earlier, experimental efforts may be directed at the representational level. Alternatively, representational models can also be changed indirectly through behavioral change (e.g., Pianta 1999b ). The effects of such intervention programs on teachers’ emotional responses and wellbeing could be studied in order to provide evidence for causal effects.

Several qualifications of the review should be considered. First, it was largely confined to individual teacher–student relationships because these have received limited attention as a factor related to teacher wellbeing (Friedman 2000 ; Kyriacou 2001 ). It proposed that affective relationships with individual children can meet a basic need of teachers for relatedness. However, a teacher’s sense of companionship and belonging is also related to the degree of social cohesion in the classroom and in the school (e.g., Martin and Dowson 2009 ).

Furthermore, this literature review was highly explorative. Multiple notions and conceptualizations about interpersonal relationships in general and student–teacher relationships in particular were explored from different perspectives and research traditions and the major propositions were organized in one, relatively simple conceptual model. The discussion of the major propositions was based on mostly limited empirical research and deduced from theoretical perspectives that have generally been applied to understand teacher–student relationships as a proximal factor of children’s development.

Another qualification of the current review may be the reliance on the “Transactional Model of Stress and Coping” of Lazarus ( 1991 ) as a general organizing framework to conceptualize links between external stressors and wellbeing. Although this model is widely accepted, there are other theoretical approaches such as the job demand-resources model (Bakker et al . 2004 ) or the existential perspective (Pines 2002 ). In addition, two tenets of Lazarus’ model remained largely unexplored because these were considered beyond the scope of the current review: First, the secondary appraisal process that involves the evaluation of the individual’s ability to cope with the situation is believed to influence the intensity of discrete emotions. Chang and Davis, ( 2009 ) characterize teachers’ emotional experiences in terms of (habitual) primary and secondary appraisals about student behavior and link these emotions to activating and de-activating coping strategies. Second, Lazarus’ model emphasizes the subjective experience of stress and states that the identification of individual factors is crucial to understand why some individuals suffer more stress than others under similar environmental circumstances. The current review argues that individual differences in vulnerability to interpersonal stress could (partly) be explained by differences in relationship orientations or attachment styles (see also Pines 2004 ).

In spite of its explorative nature, this literature review yielded several important insights that could guide future research on teacher wellbeing. First, it suggests that teachers’ relationships with specific students can be primary sources of teachers’ everyday emotional experiences and wellbeing because teacher–student relationships contribute to a basic need for relatedness. In addition, the notion that teachers internalize interpersonal experiences with students into representational models of teacher–student relationships could explain the frequently stated view that professional and personal identities of teachers are closely interrelated and shaped by relationships with individual students. Lastly, representational models of relationships are believed to shape and define discrete emotional experiences in everyday interactions with students and as such could further elucidate the well-studied effects of misbehavior on teacher wellbeing.

Abidin, R. R., & Robinson, L. L. (2002). Stress, biases or professionalism: What drives teachers’ referral judgments of students with challenging behaviors? Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10 , 204–212.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ang, R. (2005). Development and validation of the teacher–student relationship inventory using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74 , 55–74.

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Juffer, F., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1998). Interventions with video feedback and attachment discussions: Does type of maternal insecurity make a difference? Infant Mental Health Journal, 19 , 202–219.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands—resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43 , 83–104.

Bao, X., & Lam, S. (2008). Who makes the choice? Rethinking the role of autonomy and relatedness in chinese children’s motivation. Child Development, 79 , 269–283.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 , 497–529.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5 , 323–370.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviours and the teacher–child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34 , 934–946.

Borg, M. G., & Riding, R. J. (1991). Stress in teaching: A study of occupational stress and its determinants, job satisfaction and career commitment among primary school teachers. Educational Psychology, 11 , 59–76.

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: vol. 1. Attachment, 2nd edn . New York: Basic Books.

Bretherton, I., Biringen, Z., Ridgeway, D., Maslin, C., & Sherman, M. (1989). Attachment: The parental perspective. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10 , 203–221.

Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4 , 1–18.

Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 , 239–253.

Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. (1995). A longitudinal study of psychological burnout in teachers. Human Relations, 48 , 187–202.

Button, S., Pianta, R. C., & Marvin, R. S. (2001). Mothers’ representations of relationships with their children: Relations with parenting behavior, mother characteristics, and child disability status. Social Development, 10 , 455–472.

Carson, R. L., Weiss, H. M., & Templin, T. J. (2010). Ecological momentary assessment: A research method for studying the daily lives of teachers. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 33 , 165–182.

Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59 , 228–249.

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications . New York: The Guilford Press.

Google Scholar  

Chang, M.-L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21 , 193–218.

Chang, M.-L., & Davis, H. A. (2009). Understanding the role of teacher appraisals in shaping the dynamics of their relationships with students: Deconstructing teachers’ judgments of disruptive behavior students. In: Advances in teacher emotion research (pp. 95–127). New York: Springer

Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behaviour. Educational Psychology, 28 , 693–710.

Constantino, J. N., & Olesh, H. (1999). Mental representations of attachment in day care providers. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20 , 138–147.

Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student–teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38 , 207–234.

Davis, H. A. (2006). Exploring the contexts of relationship quality between middle school students and teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 106 , 193–223.

Day, C., & Leitch, R. (2001). Teachers’ and teacher educators’ lives: The role of emotion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 , 403–415.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 , 227–268.

Doumen, S., Verschueren, K., Buyse, E., Germeijs, V., Luyckx, K., & Soenens, B. (2008). Reciprocal relations between teacher–child conflict and aggressive behavior in kindergarten: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37 , 588–599.

Doumen, S., Verschueren, K., Buyse, E., De Munter, S., Max, K., & Moens, L. (2009). Further examination of the convergent and discriminant validity of the student-teacher relationship scale. Infant and Child Development, 18 , 502–520.

Evers, W. J. G., Tomic, W., & Brouwers, A. (2004). Burnout among teachers: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions compared. School Psychology International, 25 , 131–148.

Friedman, I. A. (2000). Burnout in teachers: Shattered dreams of impeccable professional performance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56 , 595–606.

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 , 148–162.

Gable, R. A., Hester, P. H., Rock, M. L., & Hughes, K. G. (2009). Back to basics: Rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44 , 195–205.

Glomb, T. M., & Tews, M. J. (2004). Emotional labor: A conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64 , 1–23.

Golby, M. (1996). Teachers’ emotions: an illustrated discussion. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26 , 423.

Greene, R. W., Abidin, R. R., & Kmetz, C. (1997). The index of teaching stress: A measure of student-teacher compatibility. Journal of School Psychology, 35 , 239–259.

Greene, R. W., Beszterczey, S. K., Katzenstein, T., Park, K., & Goring, J. (2002). Are students with ADHD more stressful to teach?: Patterns of teacher stress in an elementary school sample. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10 , 79–89.

Greenglass, E. R., Burke, R. J., & Konarski, R. (1997). The impact of social support on the development of burnout in teachers: Examination of a model. Work and Stress, 11 , 267–278.

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43 , 495–513.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72 (2), 625–638.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2004). Self-reported depression in nonfamilial caregivers: Prevalence and associations with caregiver behavior in child-care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19 , 297–318.

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, 17 , 115–136.

Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 , 835–854.

Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 , 811–826.

Hastings, R. P., & Bham, M. S. (2003). The relationship between student behaviour patterns and teacher burnout. School Psychology International, 24 , 115–127.

Horppu, R., & Ikonen Varila, M. (2004). Mental models of attachment as a part of kindergarten student teachers’ practical knowledge about caregiving. International Journal of Early Years Education, 12 , 231–243.

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, 28 , 173–184.

Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79 , 491–525.

Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience of work-related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20 , 178–187.

Kesner, J. E. (2000). Teacher characteristics and the quality of child-teacher relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 38 , 133–149.

Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 , 229–243.

Kokkinos, C. M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou, A. M. (2005). Correlates of teacher appraisals of student behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 42 , 79–89.

Koomen, H. M. Y., & Spilt, J. L. (2011). Child problem behavior in relation to teaching stress: The role of teacher-student relationships. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development , Montreal, Canada

Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., & Thijs, J. T. (2006). Assessing aspects of the teacher–child relationship: A critical ingredient of a practice-oriented psycho-diagnostic approach. Educational and Child Psychology, 23 , 50–60.

Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., Schooten, E., Jak, S., & Pianta, R. C. (2011). Validating the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: testing factor structure and measurement invariance across student gender and age in a Dutch normative sample. In revision for publication in Journal of School Psychology .

Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53 , 27–35.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive–motivational–relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46 , 819–834.

Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Emotions and interpersonal relationships: Toward a person-centered conceptualization of emotions and coping. Journal of Personality, 74 , 9–46.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1 (3), 141–169.

Lewis, R. (1999). Teachers coping with the stress of classroom discipline. Social Psychology of Education, 3 , 155–171.

Lochman, J. E. (2003). Commentary: School contextual influences on the dissemination of interventions. School Psychology Review, 32 , 174.

Maier, M. A., Bernier, A., Perkrun, R., Zimmermann, P., & Grossmann, K. E. (2004). Attachment working models as unconscious structures: An experimental test. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28 , 180–189.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 , 66–104.

Malmberg, L.-E., & Hagger, H. (2009). Changes in student teachers’ agency beliefs during a teacher education year, and relationships with observed classroom quality, and day-to-day experiences. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 , 677–694.

Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79 , 327–365.

Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Teacher and classroom characteristics associated with teachers’ ratings of prekindergartners’ relationships and behaviors. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24 , 367–380.

Meehan, B. T., Hughes, J. N., & Cavell, T. A. (2003). Teacher–student relationships as compensatory resources for aggressive children. Child Development, 74 , 1145–1157.

Montgomery, C., & Rupp, A. A. (2005). A meta-analysis for exploring the diverse causes and effects of stress in teachers. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 28 , 458–486.

Moolenaar, N. M. (2010). Ties with potential: Nature, antecedents, and consequences of social networks in school teams. Doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://dare.uva.nl/record/339484 .

Morris-Rothschild, B. K., & Brassard, M. R. (2006). Teachers’ conflict management styles: The role of attachment styles and classroom management efficacy. Journal of School Psychology, 44 , 105–121.

Newberry, M., & Davis, H. A. (2008). The role of elementary teachers’ conceptions of closeness to students on their differential behaviour in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 , 1965–1985.

Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: The emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26 , 293.

Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2009). Complementary roles of care and behavioral control in classroom management: The self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34 , 185–194.

O’Connor, K. E. (2008). “You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 , 117–126.

Pianta, R. C. (Ed.). (1992). Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children’s lives . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pianta, R. C. (1999a). Assessing child-teacher relationships. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Enhancing relationships between children and teachers (pp. 85–104). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Pianta, R. C. (1999b). Supporting teachers: The key to affecting child-teacher relationships. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Enhancing relationships between children and teachers (pp. 125–146). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student–teacher relationship scale. professional manual . Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Pianta, R. C. (2006). Classroom management and relationships between children and teachers: Implications for research and practice. In C. S. Weinstein & C. M. Evertson (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (Vol. viii, pp. 685–709). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between teachers and children. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 199–234). Hoboken: Wiley.

Pines, A. M. (2002). Teacher Burnout: A psychodynamic existential perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8 , 121–140.

Pines, A. M. (2004). Adult attachment styles and their relationship to burnout: A preliminary, cross-cultural investigation. Work and Stress, 18 , 66–80.

Pines, A. M., & Keinan, G. (2005). Stress and burnout: The significant difference. Personality and Individual Differences, 39 , 625–635.

Riley, P. (2009). An adult attachment perspective on the student-teacher relationship & classroom management difficulties. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 , 626–635.

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. In revision for publication in Review of Educational Research.

Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 , 761–774.

Schirmer, L. L., & Lopez, F. G. (2001). Probing the social support and work strain relationship among adult workers: Contributions of adult attachment orientations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59 , 17–33.

Shann, M. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92 , 67–73.

Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2008). Modeling the hierarchical structure of attachment representations: A test of domain differentiation. Personality and Individual Differences, 44 , 238–249.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 , 518–524.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 , 571–581.

Smith, M., & Bourke, S. (1992). Teacher stress: Examining a model based on context, workload, and satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8 , 31–46.

Spilt, J. L. (2010). Relationships between teachers and disruptive children in kindergarten: An exploration of different methods and perspectives, and the possibility of change. Doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://dare.uva.nl/record/331714 .

Spilt, J. L., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2009). Widening the view on teacher–child relationships: Teachers’ narratives concerning disruptive versus non-disruptive children. School Psychology Review, 38 , 86–101.

Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Thijs, J. T., & Van der Leij, A. (2011). Supporting teachers’ relationships with disruptive children: The potential of relationship-focused reflection. Human Attachment and Development , (in press).

Stuhlman, M. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2002). Teachers’ narratives about their relationships with children: Associations with behavior in classrooms. School Psychology Review, 31 , 148–163.

Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15 , 327–358.

Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Exploring the association between teachers’ perceived student misbehaviour and emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion regulation. Educational Psychology, 30 , 173–189.

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work and Stress, 22 , 277–294.

van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2001). Stress and strain in teaching: A structural equation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 , 243–259.

van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., & van de Ven, P.-H. (2005). One teacher’s identity, emotions, and commitment to change: A case study into the cognitive-affective processes of a secondary school teacher in the context of reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21 , 917–934.

Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80 , 251–277.

Wagner, B. D., & French, L. (2010). Motivation, work satisfaction, and teacher change among early childhood teachers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24 , 152–171.

Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73 , 287–301.

Yeo, L., Ang, R., Chong, W., Huan, V., & Quek, C. (2008). Teacher efficacy in the context of teaching low achieving students. Current Psychology, 27 , 192–204.

Yoon, J. S. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher–student relationships: Stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 30 , 485–493.

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by grant 411-08-502 from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research assigned to Dr. H.M.Y. Koomen.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Developmental Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Jantine L. Spilt

University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Helma M. Y. Koomen

Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Jochem T. Thijs

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jantine L. Spilt .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Spilt, J.L., Koomen, H.M.Y. & Thijs, J.T. Teacher Wellbeing: The Importance of Teacher–Student Relationships. Educ Psychol Rev 23 , 457–477 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y

Download citation

Published : 12 July 2011

Issue Date : December 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Teacher wellbeing
• Teacher stress
• Teacher–student relationships
• Mental representations
• Behavior problems
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Twitter Channel
• Facebook Profile
• YouTube Channel
• Instagram Profile
• Linkedin Profile
• Pinterest Profile

The Importance of Strong Relationships Between Teachers & Students

A strategy to solve unfinished learning.

Anxiety, stress, and in some cases, trauma are prevalent as we live through the COVID-19 pandemic. Students are facing food and housing insecurities, isolation caused by school and business closures, uncertainty due to parents losing jobs, and the fear of catching the coronavirus or grief of losing family members to it. Educators are facing their own personal stresses, in addition to being concerned about teaching academic content and about the well-being of their students, which can ultimately wear on their well-being.

Download the Brief

But even with all of these stressors, teachers and students are trying to remain connected to schools and each other. Strong relationships with teachers and school staff can dramatically enhance students’ level of motivation and therefore promote learning. Students who have access to more strong relationships are more academically engaged, have stronger social skills, and experience more positive behavior. Unfortunately, too many students do not have this experience. A survey of 25,400 sixth to 12th graders in a large diverse district, found that less than a third of middle schoolers had a strong relationship with their teachers, and that number dropped to 16% by the time students reached 12th grade. Students from low-income backgrounds report even fewer strong relationships with their teachers.

When schools closed their doors in March 2020, these connections went away for many. But building trusting relationships will be critical to addressing the months of stress and missed classroom instruction, or unfinished learning, that has followed. Estimates show that as many as 3 million students are offline, hard to find, or have left school altogether as a result of school closures. In some places, data shows as many as 1 in 5 students did not participate in virtual learning in the spring. Building and maintaining strong “developmental relationships” that reconnect students with adults in school buildings will matter more now and in coming months than in previous school years. Without these trusting relationships and connections, educators cannot catch students up.

Strong relationships between adults and students must include: expressing care, challenging growth, providing support, sharing power, and expanding possibilities (see related chart for explanations). Importantly, these relationship-building actions must be done with an equity lens, one that supports positive racial, cultural, and ethnic identity development. The country’s attempt to reckon with 400 years of anti-blackness in response to recent acts of racial violence and injustice is highlighting the long-standing systemic inequities affecting students of color. And the pandemic is exacerbating them.

Creating strong relationships between students and those charged with educating them therefore will require adults to acknowledge the long-standing harms caused by racism in schools. Bias and discrimination, both implicit and explicit, can easily lead to harmful in-school practices that erase students’ cultural identities. Relationship building, however, must be done intentionally with the needs of students of color in mind and with a strength-based lens that recognizes and values the rich cultural and linguistic assets they bring to the classroom.

In this brief, we highlight the important practices of fostering strong relationships between students and adults, as well as how to build these relationships in ways that encourage and support students to engage in tasks that move them beyond their current understanding and skills.

What Do We Know About What Works?

District and school leaders considering emphasizing relationships as a strategy to help students catch up and stay connected with school will have to make intentional and important decisions about structuring time for teachers and staff, investing in activities, training on building developmental relationships, and about how to most effectively group students.

As school leaders consider what type of strategy could work best with their staff and students to build strong developmental relationship, they will have to make challenging decisions based on their specific circumstances or contexts. These decisions will come with tradeoffs. In this brief, we draw on research on strengthening student-teacher relationships, school-based mentoring, school-based after-school programming, and school-based case management to provide insight on those tradeoffs. The following chart shows how implementing different elements of building strong developmental relationships impacts the effectiveness of those relationships.

How Effective are Strong Relationships?

Critical Questions for Leaders

Who benefits most from strong relationships?

Students from all backgrounds and ages benefit from strong relationships.

Below are critical questions to ask, based on available research, as schools and districts are building plans to completed unfinished learning.

Why are strong relationships important?

Strong relationships provide a foundation for student engagement, belonging, and, ultimately, learning. The more high-quality relationships students have with their teachers, the better their engagement in school.

How can schools strengthen relationships among students and staff?

The most important thing schools can do to foster these relationships is to have a culture that explicitly values adults nurturing relationships with students and providing teachers and school staff with the time, space, and occasions to interact repeatedly with individual students, especially those that seem less engaged.

Which adult relationships are most impactful?

All in-school adults should strive for strong relationships with students. When students have strong relationships with their teachers, in-class motivation increases the most. In these instances, students are motivated by teachers’ high expectations as well as their own.

How should schools group students to foster relationships between adults and students?

Smaller groups are most effective for fostering relationships. One-on-one interactions allow for the greatest opportunity for individualized attention and support, but some adults and students benefit from a larger group setting.

What tasks will foster strong relationships in individual or group settings?

Activities are most effective when they are based on students’ interests or goals.

What training do adults need to build strong relationships?

Schools should provide all the adults in the school building with training on the elements of developmental relationships, time, and strategies to build developmental relationships. Schools should also provide individual feedback based on observations of adult interactions with students. This training will ensure that relationships are stronger and more effective in accelerating academic learning. students of color.

10 Strategies for Building Positive Teacher-Student Relationships

• August 2, 2023

Hey there, teacher friend! As we embark on another exciting year, its important for us to build positive teacher-student relationships from the start. We know that creating a welcoming classroom environment is essential for building positive relationships with our students. When students feel valued, respected, and connected, they are more likely to be engaged, motivated, and successful. In this blog post, I’ll share practical strategies that will help you establish a welcoming classroom environment and build strong teacher-student relationships. Let’s dive in and create a space where every student feels like they belong!

But first, snag this engaging activities guide for FREE. Sign up below:)

Building Positive Teacher-Student Relationships

ONE: Greet Students with Genuine Enthusiasm

When students enter your classroom, go beyond a simple “hello.” Greet them with a warm smile, direct eye contact, and a genuine greeting. Take a moment to connect with each student individually, using their names if possible. This small act of recognition shows that you value them as individuals and sets a positive tone for the entire day.

TWO: Create a Safe and Inclusive Space

Ensure that your classroom is a safe and inclusive space for all students. Embrace and celebrate diversity in all its forms. Display posters or visuals that promote inclusivity and acceptance. Incorporate multicultural literature and resources into your teaching materials. Encourage open discussions about different cultures, perspectives, and experiences. By fostering a culture of acceptance, you create an environment where all students feel valued and respected.

THREE: Build Personal Connections

Take the time to get to know your students on a personal level. Engage in casual conversations before and after class. Ask about their interests, hobbies, and experiences outside of school. Show genuine interest in their lives beyond academics. Remembering details about their lives and following up on previous conversations helps build trust and establishes a strong foundation for positive teacher-student relationships.

FOUR: Practice Active Listening

Listening is a powerful tool for building connections with students. Practice active listening by giving your full attention when students speak. Maintain eye contact, nod in understanding, and ask follow-up questions to show that you value their thoughts and opinions. Encourage students to share their ideas and concerns, and provide a safe space for them to express themselves without judgment. By actively listening, you validate their feelings and experiences, strengthening the bond between you and your students.

FIVE: Incorporate Student Voice and Choice

Empower students by giving them opportunities to have a say in their learning. Seek their input when making decisions about classroom activities, projects, or even seating arrangements. Encourage them to share their ideas, suggestions, and feedback. By actively involving students in decision-making processes, you not only increase their engagement but also demonstrate that their opinions matter and are valued.

SIX: Celebrate Achievements and Efforts

Recognize and celebrate the achievements and efforts of your students. Acknowledge their hard work, improvement, and milestones. Display student work prominently in the classroom, showcase accomplishments on a bulletin board, or create a “Student of the Week” recognition program. By highlighting their successes, you reinforce their self-esteem, boost their confidence, and create a positive classroom culture that celebrates individual growth and achievements.

SEVEN: Practice Fairness and Consistency

Treat all students with fairness and consistency. Establish clear expectations and consistently enforce classroom rules. Be mindful of any biases or favoritism, and ensure that all students are given equal opportunities to participate and succeed. When students feel they are treated fairly, they develop trust and respect for you as their teacher, leading to stronger teacher-student relationships.

EIGHT: Provide Individualized Support

Recognize that each student is unique and may have different learning needs and challenges. Provide individualized support and accommodations to meet their diverse needs. Take the time to understand their strengths, weaknesses, and learning styles. Differentiate instruction, provide extra assistance, or offer additional resources as needed to ensure their success. By catering to their individual needs, you demonstrate your commitment to their growth and well-being.

NINE: Encourage Collaboration and Peer Connections

Create opportunities for students to collaborate and interact with their peers. Incorporate group activities, pair work, or project-based learning that encourages teamwork and cooperation. Foster a sense of community where students support and learn from each other. Encourage students to share ideas, provide feedback, and collaborate on solving problems. By promoting collaboration, you foster a supportive and inclusive classroom environment.

TEN: Be Approachable and Supportive

Maintain an approachable demeanor and be available for your students. Encourage them to seek help or guidance when needed, whether it’s related to academics, personal challenges, or even extracurricular pursuits. Show empathy, offer encouragement, and provide the necessary support. Your accessibility and supportiveness will create a sense of trust and security, allowing students to feel comfortable approaching you with their concerns and seeking the help they need.

Creating a welcoming classroom environment is a powerful way to build positive teacher-student relationships. By implementing these strategies, you can establish a space where students feel valued, respected, and supported. As educators, we have the incredible opportunity to impact the lives of our students. Let’s create a classroom environment where every student feels welcomed, empowered, and inspired to reach their full potential. Together, we can build lasting connections and make a difference in the lives of our students.

Don’t forget to grab the engagement guide today!

I love sharing helpful content with y’all and would love to connect on IG or Facebook . I’m on TikTok too! Follow me and send me a DM with what you need more of because I’m here to help! If you are looking for even more inspiration, find me on Pinterest ! 

Wanna read more?

3 Awesome Teaching Tools that Use AI Lesson Plans to Save Time

8 Tips of How to Have Confidence Teaching in the Classroom

• X (Twitter)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More blog posts

I help busy teachers (like you) save time and energy by creating engaging Anatomy & Biology resources.  I live in Georgia with my 2 children, husband, and fur baby. I love working out and hanging out with my family. 

Looking for ways to get students engaged?

The ultimate guide to engaging students to learn anatomy.

Copyright 2024 | Rae Rocks Teaching, LLC | All Rights Reserved

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

The Importance of Student-Teacher Relationships

Reilly Fitzmorris, Sarina Russo, Shelbie Coristine, Gabby Rivolta, Patricia Beninato

Please cite this page as:

Coristine, S., Russo, S., Fitzmorris, R., Beninato, P., & Rivolta, G. (2022, April 1). The importance of student-teacher relationships . Classroom Practice in 2022. Retrieved [date], from https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/educ5202/chapter/the-importance-of-student-teacher-relationships/

What Is A Student-Teacher Relationship?

A student-teacher relationship in the classroom is a positive relationship between the teacher and the student in efforts to gain trust and respect from each other. This relationship may consist of getting to know your students better, providing choice and encouraging the students to become stronger learners everyday. By doing this teachers are showing respect to their students, valuing their individuality and being polite. Having a positive relationship with your students helps them become more successful in the classroom as well as makes your classroom a safe and welcoming environment for all.

Ways To Build A Student-Teacher Relationship

There are many tips and tricks that can be used to build a strong student teacher relationship. One way that a strong student teacher relationship can be created is by making it apparent that the teacher cares about the students (“6 Ways to Build Strong Teacher-Student Relationships with SEL”, 2022). This can be done by talking with your students, such as asking about their day. Another way could be by listening to your students, this can be done by hearing their opinions, taking into account their interests, and by learning each student’s unique learning styles (“6 Ways to Build Strong Teacher-Student Relationships with SEL”, 2022). As well you can develop mutual trust with your students, such as providing them with choices and always having their best interest in mind (“6 Ways to Build Strong Teacher-Student Relationships with SEL”, 2022). In addition, you always have to be respectful and fair with each and everyone of your students (“6 Ways to Build Strong Teacher-Student Relationships with SEL”, 2022). You can ensure this by not picking favorites and having the same corrected behavior for each student. Furthermore, you can get to know your students and their families. This can be done by paying attention to your students during class and offering them opportunities to talk or share what they want about their families. Lastly, by giving your students positive words of encouragement and constructive criticism (“6 Ways to Build Strong Teacher-Student Relationships with SEL”, 2022). This is important due to the fact that it creates trust with your students, as they know they can rely on you to be honest. Of course, there are many other alternative ways to build a positive student teacher relationship, but these are some great examples of how to start.

Advantages of a Student-Teacher Relationship

Student- teacher relationships have displayed many advantages in the classroom. To start, students who share a positive relationship with their teacher develop stronger social-emotional skills. In addition, these students are more likely to absorb an increased amount of academic knowledge (Positive teacher-student relationships have cascading benefits, 2021). The result of a strong student-teacher relationship is that it allows students to feel confident through exploration and taking risks in their academic tasks. In short, students who have a positive student-teacher relationship demonstrate a stronger performance in the classroom (Positive teacher-student relationships have cascading benefits, 2021). However, one of the most important impacts of a positive student-teacher relationship is the production of an environment that incorporates mutual respect. One way an educator can produce a strong relationship with a student is to explicitly define learning goals and expectations in a positive manner. This could look different for groups of students or individual students. The strong relationship will allow for educators to be aware of their students’ learning and adjust their learning goals and expectations as needed (Admin, 2017). In the same manner, the educator should allow opportunities for students of all learning styles to participate in class discussions through oral and written communication. In addition to academic advantages, positive student-teacher relationships improve mental health and assists students in developing self-worth (Admin, 2017). Oftentimes, students look up to their educators as mentors. With this in mind, students are likely to feel pride when the educator encourages them in their learning and social interactions. Social competence, problem-solving abilities, autonomy, and a feeling of a bright future or purpose are protective elements that boost resilience, these all can be developed in a supportive teaching atmosphere (Bondy et al., 2007). As noted, students benefit from positive student-teacher relationships. Likewise, educators benefit as well. While creating strong relationships with their students, educators are strengthening their own interpersonal and professional skills (Admin, 2017). By strengthening their interpersonal communication skills, educators are more likely to respond effectively to stressful situations. In addition, educators are able to form relationships with parents and coworkers. In summary, it can be noted that students and educators equally benefit from the creation of positive student-teacher relationships.

The Importance Of Student-Teacher Relationships: Short and Long Term

As stated, student-teacher relationships are highly essential in an effective classroom. Specifically, student-teacher relationships are important for students in their short term and long term education. Student-teacher relationships are important in the short term because it creates a thriving classroom environment, helps students develop self worth and improves student mental health (Buffet, 2019). In the same manner, these positive relationships may decrease behavioral problems and promote academic success. Student- teacher relationships help foster the academic success of students. With this being said, student-teacher relationships assist students in the short term. These relationships support students for the specific year they spend in that educational setting with the educator (Buffet, 2019). Likewise, a positive student-teacher relationship is very important in the long term because it gives students confidence as well as ensuring that they know that their ideas are valuable. In turn, this allows students to carry this confidence throughout their future years pursuing academics. Also, this confidence and recognition of self-worth can be seen in social and emotional aspects of the students life. Another long term effect is that positive teacher relationships teach students that mistakes are an indication that they are learning. Learning is ongoing and students are able to identify this through the production of positive student-teacher relationships. This type of relationship will foster confidence in the long-term for the student.

Causes of Poor Student Teacher Relationships

Poor teacher-student relationships result from the instructor’s lack of awareness. Some students require tailored educational approaches since they do not respond to learning in the same way as others. When a teacher fails to regard an individual student’s educational needs, relationship problems between teachers and students arise. Each student’s ability to learn and interact with educators is influenced by their personality, family backgrounds, mental processes, learning styles, priorities, maturity levels, and academic ambitions (Tucker, 2021). When possible, teachers should treat each student as an individual who deserves one-on-one attention and specialized, concentrated education. In addition, a poor student-teacher relationship will develop if the educator’s main or only priority in the classroom is academics (Tucker, 2021). In correspondence with academics, students need to feel cared for and have the chance to feel strong emotions. Educators are responsible for building relationships with students that are not surface level or academically focused. Students should feel that their educator is someone they can trust and communicate freely with. The lack of empathy displayed by an educator can result in a poor student-teacher relationship.

We interviewed 8 individuals all in different sections of the educational field. We asked them a series of questions on student-teacher relationships. The interviewees requested to stay anonymous, but all are familiar with different roles within the education community. The following are their answers.

First Interviewer

Grade(s) you teach or please indicate role if not in a classroom teaching role:

• Grade 2, Grade 3

What do positive teacher-student relationships look and feel like in the classroom?

• mutual respect – respectful interactions
• Open communication
• Teacher is supportive but encourages independence
• Individuality of each student is valued
• Kind and polite interactions
• Honest and kind feedback is given to students
• Teachers get to know their students and their differences
• Teacher believes in each student
• Simple gestures shared (hello and goodbye, a smile, a tap on the shoulder) What do you believe is the strongest indicator of positive teacher-student relationships?
• Communication that is respectful between the two

What factors influence the teacher-student relationship in the classroom?

• Treating students with respect and supporting them encourages them to be more motivated and engaged. When students know that their teacher loves and supports them, they are more likely to be more self-directed and want to succeed. This positive teacher-student relationship also encourages positive relationships with peers.

Second Interviewer

• Grade(s) you teach or please indicate role if not in a classroom teaching role: Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8
• In order for any relationship to be successful, there has to be respect and trust. The teacher is the adult and the student is the child. It isn’t a friendship. There have to be boundaries or else nothing would be accomplished. As an adult, you will wear many hats… doctor, parent, nurse, psychiatrist. The child needs to know you care. Caring means listening, showing empathy and sensitivity. Caring also means correcting children when they make a mistake, academically and with the choices they make. Establish clear and concise rules. Address inappropriate behavior, but also praise the positive. It’s okay to provide incentives, however some things are non- negotiable. Structure is so important, as is routine. Be fair and consistent. Treating everyone fairly does not mean you treat everyone the same. Depends on the needs of the child. Laugh with them. Laugh at yourself.

What do you believe is the strongest indicator of positive teacher-student relationships?

• Get to know your students. Talk to them. Learn what’s important to them, what motivates them, what shuts them down. Communication with home keeps everyone on the same page. Try to formulate your own take on a child. Some people just don’t click, meaning a child maybe struggled with a former teacher, but don’t let that teacher’s opinion cloud your judgment.
• Pay close attention to how a child interacts with other children. Be a confidence builder. Be a coach. Offer suggestions when there is conflict, but let them work it out. Be a mediator. Allow and encourage them to own their behaviour, the good and not so good. Make every child feel important and relevant. Let them know their ideas are helpful and appreciated. Empower them. Acknowledge their strengths and achievements.

Third Interviewer

• Literacy Teacher
• Positive teacher-student relationships look and feel calm, positive, respectful, open, safe and flexible.
• Respect. I think that both the teacher and the student need to feel respected. When a student feels respected, they feel safe and are able to share ideas, take risks and focus on learning.
• number of students in the classroom
• number of adults in the classroom
• student needs

Fourth Interviewer

• Kindergarten Prep
• Good listener
• Kindness/Caring
• Communication
• Value individuality
• Open minded
• Positive interactions
• Empathy and communication.
• Building a safe environment for the student through good communication allows the students to feel like they can trust their teacher.
• Also having empathy for and with your students will allow you to manage students’ behavior and academic engagement.
• The attitude of the educator towards a student is a major influencing factor to the teacher-student relationship. Positive student relationships (good rapport) are fundamental to success. When students feel safe and supported, they’re more likely to engage in learning and have better educational outcomes. Plus, when students have positive interactions with teachers, they have fewer behavioral problems.

Fifth Interviewer

• Program Resource Teacher
• Mutual respect, trust, communication that is open and honest-student can share their needs and the teacher can share their needs and both trust that each will do their best to meet those needs
• Engaged learners- if they are engaged it is because the teacher has met their unique learning styles/levels/needs through differentiation and universal design
• Teacher has to have constant and consistent and honest conversations with students about their needs, teacher has to show students that they took their conversation seriously and honoured their conversation, student will develop trust over time that the teacher is doing their best and then student will learn to listen to what the teacher or adult needs and do their best to honour it
• Team work between home school and student- but student has to have at least one adult at home that cares and shows a effort on a consistent basis
• This conversation was a scripted and works with every student Dr Ross Greene (conversations are modeled) and Shanker’s self regulation research
• I took the lense of a struggling student, which all students can become if their needs are not met

Sixth Interviewer

• Elementary Curriculum Consultant
• In a classroom with positive teacher/student relationships you would feel it when you walk in the room- a sense of calm and belonging. It would be a warm and inviting classroom. Every student would know they are valued and cared for. It would look like a community of mutual respect, open dialogue/communication, and students engaged in learning. Opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning in ways that build their confidence and belief in themself would be evident.
• A caring teacher who knows and believes in their students
• Teachers who take time to get to know their students- the ways they learn best, what motivates them, what is important to them, background etc can build stronger relationships with their students.
• It is important that teachers build positive relationships with the student’s family/caregivers as well.

Seventh Interviewer

• Technology Support Teacher
• Student – teacher relationships develop over the course of the year. At the beginning of the year, it’s critical that the teacher intentionally work towards getting to know each student. Asking questions about their day, evening prior, how they’re doing, etc. helps to show students that the teacher cares about them. Setting a positive, calm tone in the classroom environment also contributes to the development of relationships. Students should feel comfortable sharing their learning, problems and everything from wiggly teeth to conversations about world events with their teacher.
• The strongest indicator is a functioning classroom where learning is possible. When you walk into these classrooms, students feel safe, trusted and that their voice is heard. Time is spent positively communicating. They might be communicating about a math lesson or during their breaks socializing with friends. A positive relationship leads to more time spent learning and less on repairing conflicts occurring between peers or student- teacher. Trust and a sense that their teacher cares about them contributes to this environment. What factors influence the teacher-student relationship in the classroom?
• Teacher mental health and personality, student mental health and personality, time spent getting to know students, teacher sharing some personal experiences or a bit about their family, pets, travels, etc., teacher creating interesting learning experiences that invite student voice, opinion, discussion, how teachers handle conflict or disruptive behaviour (does it build a safe space or deteriorate the relationship), taking time during recesses to talk one on one with students, making students feel special and heard, relationship between parents and teachers

Eighth Interviewer

• System Literacy and Numeracy Facilitator
• Positive student teacher relationships involve a caring teacher that treats students equitably, believes that all learners can succeed and gets to know each student’s strengths and needs to help them grow in their learning and confidence in themself. It looks like open conversation, listening and timely feedback. In rooms where this is very successful you see teachers making students feel supported by including them in lessons, choosing topics to suit individuals, guiding the learning and celebrating small successes. It looks like learning from mistakes and valuing each moment together.
• Belief that all students can be successful.
• Student experiences with adults in and out of school, class size, student individual needs and classroom support, interruptions, teacher excitement for student learning and building relationships, support of administration

From a Student’s Perspective

Oftentimes, educators fall victim to assuming their students’ needs before addressing them with the students. With this being said, educators view students’ needs from their own perspective, rather than the students. Educators have the responsibility to communicate with students in regards to their needs in their intellectual, social, and emotional development. This can be completed through journals, check-ins, or conversations. In this specific assessment, we asked a variety of students, “What do you wish your teacher knew or would do?” Within the video, the answers from a wide range of students are shown. Most importantly, the answers are displayed from the student’s perspective.

John Hattie and His View On Student-Teacher Relationships

“It is teachers who have created positive teacher-student relationships who are more likely to have above average effects on student achievement.” – John Hattie

Professor John Hattie is an educational researcher. Performance indicators, models of measurement, and evaluation of teaching and learning are among his research interests. With his two books Visible Learning and Visible Learning for Teachers, John Hattie gained a wider audience. Visible Learning is the result of a synthesis of over 800 meta-studies involving over 80 million students. Visible Learning, according to John Hattie, is the product of 15 years of research on what works best in schools for learning. “Possibly the world’s most influential education academic,” according to TES (Visible Learning, n.d.).

The meta study Visible Learning (2009) by John Hattie is a defining moment in educational research. It was deemed the “holy grail of teaching” by the Times Educational Supplement. Hattie’s book answers the question, “What works best for student achievement?” (Visible Learning, n.d.).

John Hattie created 10 mindframes that teachers need to adopt in order to maximize student success. Mind Frame 7: “Teachers/leaders believe that it is their role to develop positive relationships in classrooms/staff rooms” (Hattie, 2012). Teachers must establish a positive interpersonal interaction with each student, and kids must feel safe, fair, and compassionate in the classroom. “How can I instil a high level of trust in my students?” “Do my students feel comfortable expressing what they don’t know or understand?”

The teacher-student interaction has a .72 effect size on student accomplishment, according to John Hattie, author of Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. To put that into perspective an effect size of .4 and above is highly significant for student achievement. Listening skills, empathy, mutual respect, care, and positive regard for students were found to strengthen connections, according to the research (Turner et al., 2016).

It can be concluded that student-teacher relationships result in a positive classroom environment and experience. Evidence has been provided through scholarly sources and the interviews completed by individuals who are first-hand witnesses to student-teacher relationships. The information gathered demonstrates the increase of engagement, confidence, and motivation displayed by students who have a strong relationship with their teacher. Likewise, teachers are strengthening their communication and professional skills while building these relationships. In summary, student-teacher relationships foster a welcoming environment and produce success for both the student and the educator.

 Bibliography

Admin. (2017, November 20). 4 benefits of positive student-teacher relationships. Pride Surveys. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.pridesurveys.com/index.php/blog/4-beneficial-effects-of-student-teacher-rela tionships/

Bondy, E., Ross, D. D., Gallingane, C., & Hambacher, E. (2007). Creating environments of success and resilience. Urban Education, 42(4), 326–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907303406

Buffet, –T. S. and J. (2019, October 31). Positive teacher-student relationships. Greater Good In Education. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://ggie.berkeley.edu/school-relationships/positive-teacher-student-relationships/#:~:t ext=For%20Teachers%3A%20According%20to%20educators%2C%20a%20positive%2 0relationship,trusting%2C%20and%20strives%20to%20keep%20the%20relationship%2 0conflict-free

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing Impact on learning. Routledge.

Positive teacher-student relationships have cascading benefits. Network for Educator Effectiveness |. (2021, July 22). Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://neeadvantage.com/blog/positive-teacher-student-relationships-have-cascading-benefits/#:~:text=When%20students%20have%20a%20positive,or%20referred%20for%20sp ecial%20education.

Tucker, K. (2021, November 5). What are the causes of a poor relationship between a student & teacher? The Classroom | Empowering Students in Their College Journey. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from

Turner, D. M., Aljure, I., & Canevari, P. (2016, April 1). 7 powerful actions you can take to improve relationships with your students – brain based learning: Brain based experts. Brain Based Learning | Brain Based Experts. Retrieved March 2, 2022, from http://www.brainbasedlearning.net/improve-relationships-with-students/

Visible learning. VISIBLE LEARNING. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2022, from https://visible-learning.org/

6 Ways to Build Strong Teacher-Student Relationships with SEL. Social and Emotional Learning – Aperture Education. (2022). Retrieved 2 March 2022, from https://apertureed.com/5-strategies-building-relationships-students/.

Classroom Practice in 2022 Copyright © 2022 by Dr. Catherine Vanner is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Our Mission

How AI Can Help Teachers Guide Students to Active Learning

These teachers believe that AI can redistribute teachers’ and students’ roles to further personalized learning.

A growing number of educators are shifting the traditional teacher-student relationship from passive to active learning. Doing so requires innovative thinking and pedagogy—and new tech tools can play a pivotal supporting role.

Organizing community discussions for ISTE , ASCD , AASA , and EdWeek puts me in daily conversation with educators around the world. These public and private talks provide a wide-angle view of what’s happening in classrooms now and what’s coming soon.

At this point in 2024, the first wave of educators experimenting with generative AI are sharing their wins, losses, and takeaways; among the most intriguing is that ChatGPT and its cousins are more than just tech tools—they are catalysts that shift teacher-student relationships in fascinating ways. I spoke with several educators to gain deeper insights into what has worked best for them.

Using Generative AI to Hyper-Personalize Learning

Helen Crompton, who teaches generative AI to teachers at Old Dominion University, told me, “It gives educators more time, as we’re able to offload extra tasks and spend more with the students.” 

AI can help with personalized learning as teachers tailor content to students’ interests, abilities, and challenges in ways previously unimaginable. Combine any learning objective with a student’s interest and grade level and then ask ChatGPT to tailor an exercise for that student. In seconds, the app spits out a personalized lesson. 

There are many new  articles ,  videos ,  books ,  peer-reviewed papers , and  professional development resources that explore the intersections of personalized learning and AI that can help teachers get started.

Putting Learners in the Driver’s Seat

AI tools can also shift more responsibility for learning  from teacher to student. Shelby Scoffield, a California high school English teacher, gave  seven creative examples . In the first, she put the onus on students to learn to use generative AI responsibly, giving them ”a prompt that asked the AI platform to generate several sources cited in MLA format. They (students) had to then find the sources on their own to see if they were valid.” 

Using AI to engage students creatively while putting them in the driver’s seat is one of the most common ways the teacher-student relationship is evolving.

Using Generative AI and Small Talk to Understand Students’ Needs

Dan Jones is a forward-leaning middle school teacher in Ohio who moved from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side” a decade ago. He told me how he uses small talk, or micro-conversations, to replace traditional formative assessment in project-based learning. By engaging students in brief conversations, he determines who is grasping the material and who needs help. He discovered ways to combine generative AI and micro-conversations to assess students more robustly. 

First, he created a customized chatbot for his classes—this is a step that takes some work. Next, he taught students how to use it to get immediate feedback on their assignments. Jones’s go-to tool is School AI , which allows him to see students’ conversations with the bot. Those conversations give him deeper insight into which students need his attention and where. 

Combining AI with micro-conversations gives Jones time for targeted, face-to-face chats with the students who need him most. Jen Staufer provides a road map for setting up a similar chatbot for your classes.

Using Generative AI to Reduce Suspicion and Build Trust

ChatGPT’s launch sparked cheating fears and drove distrust between students and teachers. However, teachers are increasingly discovering creative ways to ensure academic integrity.

The Richland School of Academic Arts in Ohio is setting up a more advanced custom AI platform. It’s called a “ walled garden ,” because it’s isolated from the general data pool used by tools like ChatGPT. These cutting-edge bots are similar to generative large language models like ChatGPT in that they are trained using internet data. But instead of absorbing large swaths of the internet and treating it all somewhat similarly, they generate feedback based on a more limited database of information that their creators deem reliable.

Customized walled gardens allow you to give students open access to the AI platform, see how they use it, and determine where guardrails are needed based on data versus blind suspicion. Instead of tools that catch students cheating, this approach allows educators to trust students while having the ability to verify integrity.

Moving from Guide on the Side to Chief Learning Validator

Caroline Kurban, an AI researcher and instructor at MEF University, suggests that we should push the boundaries of generative AI with preservice teachers. To keep up with the pace of change, Kurban developed a method that intentionally shifted her relationship with students from the guide on the side to collaborator and validator. 

I spoke with Kurban about a recent class in which she asked her students to select a generative AI tool that interested them, pick a course-related project, and use the tool. Her role started as the learning facilitator, but as the varied assignments progressed, she became a collaborator, “working alongside students as a co-learner,” she said, “engaging in a shared journey of discovery facilitated by AI.” 

She soon stepped into a new role, chief learning validator of content accuracy and certifier of whether the learning process met objectives. She routinely found herself learning from her students—an experience she describes as delightful.

Managing the Shifting Teacher-Student Relationship

Across my conversations with the teachers mentioned above, I collected a list of steps to successfully navigate the shifting teacher-student relationship in the age of AI.

Embrace the emerging role  and shifting relationships that AI is driving. “One of the biggest things I had to give up was a sense of control. But the rewards outweigh anything I had to give up,” said Jones.

Recalibrate your vision  of what it means to be an effective teacher in the age of generative AI. This involves getting comfortable learning with and from students .

Talk with administrators  and peers about the shifting teacher-student relationship and why embracing the evolution is essential to preparing students for the AI-infused workplace.

Prepare parents for the shift. Many may believe that a teacher’s role is to instruct from the front of the room, and a student’s role is to take notes and pass tests. Talk with them about how AI is driving teaching and learning toward more self-directed learning and why it’s vital for their kids to master this skill sooner rather than later.

Talk with your students.  We’ve conditioned students to associate AI with cheating. Students may feel hesitant to use AI tools. Be prepared to explain to students how AI can be a complement to their work if used responsibly.

Identify personal practices  to help you adapt to the evolving relationship. Taking the time to reflect and discover what you need and what works for you goes a long way toward a smoother transition.

Take AI in stride. AI is seeping into classrooms too fast for any of us to keep pace. Identify and focus on one or two tools relevant to your course content and learning objectives. Feel free to take a rain check on the rest.

Such steps offer meaningful starting points for engaging with this emerging and evolving technology, leveraging it for learning.

Former Robinson High School coach, teacher accused of having relationship with 17-year-old student

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (KWTX) - A former Robinson High School coach and teacher was arrested after being accused of having a relationship with a 17-year-old female Roosevelt High School student, CBS affiliate KENS 5 reports.

San Antonio police arrested Andrew Carter McCown, 27, without incident according to KENS 5. McCown is currently an algebra teacher and a football coach at Roosevelt High School.

McCown was also a Robinson football offensive coordinator, track coach and math teacher before his arrest in 2022 for drunken driving and weapons charges.

KENS 5 reports that police were contacted in March by North East ISD regarding a teacher having an improper relationship with a female student. San Antonio PD told KENS 5 that the victim told a classmate about the relationship and they proceeded to inform school officials.

Detectives from the Special Victims Unit interviewed the victim and then McCown. KENS 5 said McCown did not cooperate with investigators.

Police told KENS 5 the relationship began in January.

McCown is now on administrative leave as the investigation continues, KENS 5 reports.

According to KENS 5, investigators will be reaching out to previous schools McCown worked for, including Robinson High School.

Police encourage anyone who may be a victim to come forward and contact SAPD, KENS 5 reports.

No other information was provided.

Copyright 2024 KWTX. All rights reserved.

UPDATED: Report reveals why woman allegedly shot her husband

Affidavit: Stolen weapons, drugs found inside Robinson home after barricaded man surrendered

Missing Uber driver from Kosse found dead in Waco

Affidavit: Waco woman struck manager with her car after brother was fired

Police: Suspect in deadly Killeen shooting found dead from apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound in Lampasas County

Latest news.

Baylor assistant Alvin Brooks III leaving the Bears to join Kentucky, sources tell CBS Sports

Fort Worth football player’s epic prom night party ends in gunfire

With money running out, financial expert breaks down if your Social Security benefit is safe

Lacy Lakeview residents voice concerns about the nearly $10 million bond for street repairs

• River City Live
• Newsletters

BREAKING NEWS

LIVE: Defense wraps up testimony in sentencing trial for man who killed Nassau County deputy

2 river flood warnings in effect for brantley and columbia counties, longtime douglas anderson music teacher pleads guilty after touching 16-year-old student, professing romantic feelings, jeffrey clayton faces a range of nearly 3 years to 40 years in florida state prison.

Anne Maxwell , I-TEAM and general assignment reporter

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – A former longtime music teacher at Douglas Anderson School of the Arts pleaded guilty Wednesday morning to four felony charges related to illegal contact with a student.

Jeffrey Clayton agreed to plead guilty to two counts of offenses against students by authority figures; indecent, lewd or lascivious touching of certain minors and unlawful use of a two-way communications device. In exchange, the state agreed not to bring any additional charges related to his employment at Douglas Anderson.

Recommended Videos

MORE: Warrant shows what led to arrest of Douglas Anderson school music teacher

Clayton now faces a range of nearly three years to 40 years in Florida State Prison, which a judge will decide.

At a sentencing hearing on June 14, seven other alleged victims will also be allowed to share victim impact statements.

RELATED: ‘My high school hell’: Letters from former Douglas Anderson students detail years of anguish involving accused teacher

On the afternoon of March 17, 2023, a 16-year-old student at Douglas Anderson School of the Arts went to a one-on-one singing lesson with Clayton. Clayton, 65, sat next to the student and professed his romantic feelings for her before he rubbed her thighs and leaned in to kiss her multiple times.

The victim confided in a friend about the incident, which led to a home visit by a Department of Children and Families representative and a Clay County Sheriff’s Office deputy visit, which then alerted the victim’s parents.

The Duval County School Board Police then became involved.

MORE: City hiring outside counsel to investigate Douglas Anderson allegations, state reporting issues

On March 21, 2023, law enforcement set up a 30-minute controlled call between the victim and Clayton, in which he made numerous incriminating statements relating to the incident and potential future romantic gestures he wanted to pursue, according to the State Attorney.

The victim also provided law enforcement text messages Clayton had sent her.

Further investigation revealed additional female students who came forward upon hearing of Clayton’s actions and arrest and gave information about their interactions with him.

Clayton will remain out of jail on a $100,000 bond until he is sentenced.

Copyright 2024 by WJXT News4JAX - All rights reserved.

About the Author

Anne maxwell.

I-TEAM and general assignment reporter

Click here to take a moment and familiarize yourself with our Community Guidelines.

• Manage Account
• Website Survey
• Voter Guide
• Things to Do
• Public Notices
• Help Center

Former Mesquite ISD teacher admitted to dating, sexual relationship with student, docs say

The former mesquite isd teacher allegedly told police he and a student were in a “dating-type” of relationship..

By Tyler J. Davis

6:05 AM on Apr 24, 2024 CDT

A former Mesquite ISD teacher facing a criminal charge for an alleged inappropriate relationship told an investigator that he and a student were dating and had sex, an arrest-warrant affidavit says.

Cesar Antonio Jimenez, 32, faces a charge of improper relationship between educator and student. The girl, whom he taught in an automotive class at Vroonland Vanguard High School, told police the relationship began with texts about her breakup and eventually included sending naked images, the affidavit states.

Some of Jimenez’s alleged misconduct was discovered via security cameras April 5, police wrote in the affidavit. A Vanguard assistant dean was, for an unrelated matter, reviewing on-campus surveillance footage from April 2. Video showed Jimenez and the student watching the sunset about 7:30 p.m., the affidavit said.

The two were standing near each other “as if they were a dating couple” and, for about an hour, were seen on camera interacting inside an auto classroom. Jimenez was allegedly kissing the girl’s hand and the two were embracing and tickling each other.

Read the crime and public safety news your neighbors are talking about.

By signing up you agree to our  Terms of Service  and  Privacy Policy

A detective interviewed the student April 8, and she said her teacher was like a “brother/father figure.”

She “first stated they texted regarding her current breakup with her boyfriend, and they just texted regarding her problems,” the affidavit reads.

Eventually, she and Jimenez started sending each other intimate photos, the affidavit said. They had sex at her residence multiple times, she told the detective.

The detective also talked to Jimenez, who said he and the student were dating and had sex earlier this year. Jimenez said he knew it was illegal to have a sexual relationship with a student, the detective wrote in the affidavit.

Jimenez of Midlothian was arrested April 10 by the U.S. Marshals, according to a news release from Mesquite police officials. Police said they were made aware April 5 of the potential inappropriate relationship.

He resigned shortly after learning of the police investigation, KDFW-TV (Channel 4) reported.

Tyler J. Davis , Night breaking news editor . Chicagoland native Tyler Davis has worked, at times, on sports, public safety and courts coverage in Charlotte, Des Moines and Detroit. Now, he helps the Morning News handle breaking news stories and enterprise.

After her 16-year-old son was killed in Dallas, a mother prayed for a sign

Demand from large-scale users could strain texas power grid, ercot chief says, 5 thoughts from mavericks-clippers game 2: pivotal win as series moves to dallas, what to know about dallas’ $1.25 billion 2024 bond program.

• Entertainment
• KSAT Insider
• Newsletters

Former Southside ISD teacher arrested, charged with improper relationship with student, records show

Ernest orlando herrera, a former teacher at losoya middle school, was arrested on monday.

Rebecca Salinas , Digital Journalist

SAN ANTONIO – A 56-year-old man who taught in Southside ISD is accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a student, according to court records.

Ernest Orlando Herrera, a former 8th-grade teacher at Losoya Middle School, was arrested on Monday.

An arrest warrant affidavit from Southside ISD police states Herrera had sexual contact with a 13-year-old who was a student in his classroom.

The student’s mother was made aware of the allegations, and campus police met with campus administration on Friday, the affidavit states.

Herrera had already been relieved of his position as a teacher by Southside ISD, police said.

According to the affidavit, Herrera wrote a statement to campus administration that said he had been speaking with the student for a few weeks and they “developed a relationship.”

A warrant for his arrest was issued on Monday. He is charged with improper relationship between an educator and student, a second-degree felony, records with the Bexar County Jail show.

Southside ISD Superintendent Rolando Ramirez released the following statement:

On Friday, the district received a report of alleged inappropriate behavior between a staff member and a student. The district takes all allegations of inappropriate behavior very seriously and immediately upon receiving this report, the district reported the issue to law enforcement and began to investigate the allegations. We are deeply troubled by any report alleging an employee engaged in inappropriate behavior in our district. We have zero tolerance for any actions or behaviors that harm or can potentially harm our students. All district personnel must pass a criminal background check as a condition of employment, and we expect our teachers and staff to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. The staff member in question is no longer employed by Southside ISD effective immediately.

Copyright 2024 by KSAT - All rights reserved.

About the Author

Rebecca salinas.

Rebecca Salinas is an award-winning digital journalist who joined KSAT in 2019. She reports on a variety of topics for KSAT 12 News.

Recommended Videos

Middle school teacher accused of inappropriate relationship with student

by SBG San Antonio Staff Reports

SAN ANTONIO (WOAI/KABB) — A Southside Independent School District teacher in Texas is behind bars, accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a middle school student.

San Antonio Police arrested Ernest Herrera, 56, after he told authorities that he had been "speaking with the 13-year-old victim for several weeks and had developed a relationship with her. He went on to say that they "touched and kissed," according to the arrest report.

He was charged with one count of improper relationship between educator and student.

Herrera has since been fired from Losoya Middle School. He's being held in the Bexar County Jail on a $75,000 bond.

Southside ISD superintendent Rolando Ramierez issued a statement on Tuesday about the alleged inappropriate behavior:

On Friday, the district received a report of alleged inappropriate behavior between a staff member and a student. The district takes all allegations of inappropriate behavior very seriously and immediately upon receiving this report, the district reported the issue to law enforcement and began to investigate the allegations. We are deeply troubled by any report alleging an employee engaged in inappropriate behavior in our district. We have zero tolerance for any actions or behaviors that harm or can potentially harm our students. All district personnel must pass a criminal background check as a condition of employment, and we expect our teachers and staff to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. The staff member in question is no longer employed by Southside ISD effective immediately.

Durant High School teacher had sexual relationship with student, deputies say

• Emily Wunderlich Times staff

A teacher at Durant High School was arrested Thursday after deputies say he had a sexual relationship with a student.

Jaime Hernandez Cabrera, 25, is facing four charges of unlawful sexual activity with a minor and four charges of sexual battery by an authority figure over a student.

According to a news release from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Hernandez Cabrera first connected with a 16-year-old girl on social media in October 2022. He was 24 at the time.

“They began a consensual sexual relationship in November of 2022 and continued until June 2023,” the news release states.

In August 2023, deputies say Hernandez Cabrera began working as a teacher at Durant High School, where the girl was enrolled as a student.

Hernandez Cabrera and the girl resumed their sexual relationship the following month, deputies say. The last incident occurred in March 2024 on school property during school hours, the news release states.

Deputies were responding to the school for an unrelated call on April 11 when they learned about the relationship, the news release states. An arrest warrant was issued for Hernandez Cabrera on Thursday, and he turned himself in at the Orient Road Jail later that day, according to the news release.

“This man was entrusted with the responsibility to make a positive impact. Yet, he disregarded that duty, betraying not just those who trusted him but our entire community,” Sheriff Chad Chronister said in the news release. “As a father, I understand the concerns of parents who are hearing about this situation. I want to reassure you that our detectives, along with the school’s administration, are taking every possible step to ensure the safety and well-being of every student.”

Records show Hernandez Cabrera was being held at the Falkenburg Road Jail without bond on Friday. A spokesperson for Hillsborough County Public Schools did not return an email seeking comment about the status of his employment.

Anyone with additional information can contact the sheriff’s office at 813-247-8200.

Editor, Breaking News

MORE FOR YOU

• Advertisement

ONLY AVAILABLE FOR SUBSCRIBERS

The Tampa Bay Times e-Newspaper is a digital replica of the printed paper seven days a week that is available to read on desktop, mobile, and our app for subscribers only. To enjoy the e-Newspaper every day, please subscribe.