Knowing Kids Makes a Huge Difference,Part I: Exploring the Principal–Student Relationship

Characteristics of Positive TSRs

While the TSR is unique, it is still very similar to other interpersonal relationships, in that it generally follows developmental stages, rests on a foundation of communication, and is goal-oriented. It differs from other interpersonal relationships due to a lack of equality (as is found more often in peer or romantic relationships) and in time constraints (Frymier & Houser, 2000). Most TSRs associated with positive outcomes are described as caring, supportive, or nurturing, suggesting that the relationships must be based generally on concern for another’s well-being. Having said that, the research also indicates that TSRs exist within a highly complex and dynamic set of systems and processes and are dependent on a number of individual idiosyncrasies (Freiberg, 2014). Due to the myriad factors that influence and make up the TSR, Pianta et al. (2002) attempted to encapsulate the complex nature of TSRs in the notion of a “relationship system.” This system contains the features of the individuals (race, background, age, etc.), the understanding of the relationship by each individual, the process of communication between individuals, and the environment/context in which the relationship exists. As such, personal interactions and a meaningful “knowing” of students are critical components of TSRs (Goldstein, 1999; Landrum, 2014; Martin & Dowson, 2009; O’Bleness et al., 2014; Pianta et al., 2002; Rodriguez, 2008).

Teachers involved in positive TSRs have been characterized as empathetic, warm, and encouraging of critical thinking as well as promoting student-initiated and student-regulated activities (Cornelius-White, 2007). For example, Freiberg (2014) found that teachers who center instruction around student needs, hold high expectations for students, and are confident in their own abilities and performance tend to form more positive TSRs. Likewise, Johnson’s (2014) research confirmed that classrooms that are comforting physical environments can help facilitate a feeling of security in children, and predictable classroom routines (and the involvement of students in the development of those routines) support students’ attachment to teachers. In light of this, Schiewer (2013) called teachers to be fully present by inviting “students into an active but hospitable learning environment” (p. 547), where all can come together to share ideas and interact as opposed to a place where students come to be passively filled with knowledge (Freire, 2000). For Schiewer, this was about teachers finding a balance between being an authority figure and being friendly.

Open communication between members is a leading notion in the facilitation of positive TSRs (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Fredriksen & Rhodes, 2004; Freiberg, 2014; Frymier & Houser, 2000; Martin & Dowson, 2009; Murray, 2014; Pianta et al., 2002). Birch and Ladd (1997) emphasized the concept of closeness, which they described as, “the degree of warmth and open communication that exists between a teacher and child” (p. 62) as being a crucial element of TSRs. But the student is not just a passive recipient of what the teacher brings to the relationship. The relationship is reciprocal, and how each member acts in a relationship relies upon both members—teacher and student—perceiving the relationship and the role of the other in the relationship (Fredriksen & Rhodes, 2004; Pianta et al., 2002).

Significance of TSRs

The TSR has been linked to a variety of outcomes across numerous domains. Healthy TSRs can lead to increased academic achievement (Crosnoe et al., 2004). Lee and Loeb (2000) related social support from teachers to gains in reading and math. Collie et al. (2016) pointed out that relationships have been most often linked to improved academic performance based on task-oriented mastery goals but also noted that the positive correlation can be applied to self-oriented personal best goals as well. However, similar to the principal’s effects on student outcomes, the majority of the current research describes TSRs as influencing student engagement and motivation (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Gentilucci & Muto, 2007; Klem & Connell, 2004; Roorda et al., 2011; Silva et al., 2011), which are mediators between the TSR and academic achievement.

Positive TSRs have also been found to contribute to improved temperament, behavioral, and disciplinary outcomes among students (Buhs et al., 2017; Crosnoe et al., 2004; Lind, 2014) as well as to influence psychological domains (Fredriksen & Rhodes, 2004) such as student attitudes toward school (Frymier & Houser, 2000; Klem & Connell, 2004) and abilities to adjust to school environments. Birch and Ladd (1997) described students involved in positive TSRs as being more cooperative, more self-directed, and less avoidant. Conversely, Murray (2014) designated nonsupportive or poor-quality TSRs, characterized by conflict, hostility, and/or alienation, to be associated with emotional and behavioral issues in students.

Challenges to the TSR

Numerous authors reveal obstacles to the building of effective TSRs. First, as Bernstein-Yamashiro and Noam (2013) noted, organizational and bureaucratic schemes that are present in schools tend to work against the development of meaningful adult–child relationships. The need to maintain order and discipline, often related to class size and school size, results in many teachers building social distance, or boundaries, between themselves and students (Bernstein-Yamashiro & Noam, 2013; Harrington, 2014). Freiberg (2014) also revealed that diversity in the classroom makes building TSRs more challenging, while Roorda et al. (2011) found that the impact of the TSR might be affected by the decrease in the amount of time that students spend with a given teacher as they progress through the grade levels.

The pressure teachers face to meet the demands of the job can also impede meaningful TSRs. Once again, more than 25 years ago, teachers in Poplin and Weeres (1993) reported “regret [for] having so little time in the day to seek out individual students” (p. 10). Unfortunately, more recently, Bernstein-Yamashiro and Noam (2013) discovered very similar sentiments, claiming that some teachers struggle to provide students with the personal attention they require as many teachers “struggle to maintain enthusiasm, order, and a sense of personal fulfillment in their working lives” (p. 21) because of the many pressures they face to meet accountability benchmarks and ensure students’ academic success. Emotional stress and teacher “burnout” can force teachers to distance themselves from students, while some students’ emotional demands can be so intense that they overwhelm teachers’ abilities to form meaningful personal relationships. Just as describing what the TSR is tends to be a more abstract and subjective endeavor (prompting various authors to write more precisely about what the TSR does), the issue is similar for PSRs. As such, this article begins to describe some of the “norms” of principal behavior as a form of practice-based evidence for PSRs.

Theoretical Foundations for the TSR

The complex human relationship, having been studied for decades, has yielded numerous theoretical approaches and perspectives to explain the many different kinds of relationships (see Solomon & Vangelisti, 2010 for example). According to Harvey and Wenzel (2006), there are four major theoretical perspectives in the study of close relationships. Evolutionary theorists attempt to explain relationships from a sociobiological perspective—how relationships facilitate the survival of the species. The social exchange/equity perspectives are rule-based approaches that suggest relationships operate on a cost–benefit basis. The cognitive-behavioral/social learning approaches posit that people’s attitudes and behaviors toward others are constantly being adjusted based upon their thinking and perceiving of the many different relational encounters. Finally, the attachment approaches assert that the characteristics of the formation of child–caregiver bonds shaped during infancy are analogous to the characteristics of the formation of adult bonds later in life.

According to Roorda et al. (2011), the most common theoretical approaches used to explore the TSR come from the attachment and social–motivational perspectives. Studies using the attachment perspective typically evaluate the quality of a TSR with respect to three dimensions: (1) closeness—referring to the degree of warmth and openness of communication; (2) conflict—negative, coercive, or clashing interactions; and (3) dependency—meaning a child’s overly needy or clingy behaviors (Pianta, 2001). Self-system (Connell & Wellborn, 1991) or self-determination (Deci et al., 1991; Ryan & Powelson, 1991) social–motivational theories propose that student motivation and engagement are determined by the extent to which certain psychological needs are met. These needs are (1) relatedness—which teachers can meet by being involved with students (i.e., caring for and being interested in the student), (2) autonomy—providing students with the freedom to make their own choices and revealing the connections between curriculum and students’ experience, and (3) competence—establishing clear rules and boundaries (Roorda et al., 2011).

Participants and Settings

A combination of convenience and purposive sampling (Elliot et al., 2016; Etikan et al., 2016) was used to identify four principals (two from middle school and two from high school, all less than 30 miles apart) to participate in this study. Participants were selected based on (1) convenience (practical criteria like location, availability, and willingness to participate) and (2) alignment with the purpose of the study (participants were known by the researchers as having rich student relationships). Unfortunately, due to limitations placed on this study by the university’s institutional review board, no current students were asked to participate. Instead, principals were asked to identify any former students with whom they felt a meaningful or “close” PSR may have existed. Interviews with three former students who satisfied these criteria provided enhancement and insight into how some students defined and characterized meaningful or positive relationships with their principals (see Online Appendix A for brief descriptions of the Participants and Settings).

Data Collection and Procedures

Data collection consisted of individual participant interviews, observations of principals, and field notes. On-site observations occurred in order to better understand and experience the school context in which the relationships take place and to witness any direct interactions between principals and students. Field notes documented basic logistical information along with details about the setting, specific moments witnessed, noteworthy quotes overheard, and/or real time insights and reflections experienced (Lichtman, 2013; Phillippi & Lauderdale, 2018). Participant interviews were semistructured (see Online Appendix B) and guided by the study’s research questions. Each principal was asked to speak about their understandings/feelings toward/perceptions of PSRs in general (what the PSR means to them, what purposes they believe the PSR serves to the principal/to the school/to the student(s), etc.) and then asked to describe or talk about any current or past relationships with any student(s) in particular. Similarly, each student participant was asked to talk about their relationship with their principal. However, as narrative inquiry prefers the story as the source of data, participants were encouraged to speak unencumbered by specific questions. Interviews with principals were recorded and conducted in person at their school site. Interviews with the former student participants were also recorded and conducted in person or over the phone.

Data Analysis

While “stories themselves are not research,” narrative inquiry requires researchers to interpret and make meaning of the stories (Lichtman, 2013, p. 95). The writing process was intertwined with the analytic process, as writing up is a “method of discovery and analysis” (Richardson, 1994, p. 516). According to Clandinin (2016), narrative inquiry is “fluid” and is “not a set of procedures or linear steps to be followed but a relational inquiry methodology that is open to where the stories of participants’ experience take each researcher” (p. 33). As such, analysis of the data began while data were being collected and continued throughout the write-up of the final “story.” The process of memoing was used throughout the data collection and analysis phases.

While each principal and each school was different, commonalities began to emerge from the individual interviews and observations. A priori codes were devised from the literature review and were used to begin coding the data. As new ideas, themes, or narratives appeared during the iterative coding process, new codes were created when appropriate (Lichtman, 2013).

After numerous readings of the data, the authors decided to “retell” the stories as one new story. Restorying is essentially “the process of reorganizing the stories into some general type of framework,” often in a chronological sequence (Creswell, 2013, p. 74). Polkinghorne (1995) described this narrative approach as one in which “researchers collect descriptions of events and happenings and synthesize or configure them by means of a plot into a story or stories” (p. 12). Observation data were used to provide both the chronological framework for the story and a significant amount of detail surrounding many of the interpersonal interactions. Interview data were used to provide details about specific relationships, as well as context, reveal participant feelings, ideas, motivations, and interpretations of experiences related to the PSR.

The Kids Are What Save This Job

While intentional, the interviews and observations provided an overwhelmingly favorable view of the PSR phenomenon. Positive, healthy, and productive relationships with students were a primary goal. While principals did point out that many neutral and some negative, tenuous, or tense relationships do indeed exist, they downplayed the impact or volume of any negative relationships and remained optimistic that some, if not most, of those relationships could evolve into more positive relationships. Principals allocated their negative comments and moments of tension, discomfort, or displeasure about the job to the realm of adults and/or the bureaucracy (which were not foci of this study). For example, one principal stated,

The kids are what save this job. Even on their most maddening days, that’s just them trying to figure out their way in the world. Part of what makes this work fulfilling for me is getting to know kids and seeing their trajectory and their growth, and knowing that you in some way had an impact on them, whether that’s because you hired the teacher who was their big mentor, or a direct interaction that I can quantify.

No Empty Spaces

DJ arrived at school with three formal appointments on his calendar: a first period teacher meeting, a grade-level parent meeting in which he would need to make an appearance, and a lunch meeting with the Student Government Association. The rest of his calendar was blank. However, this did not mean that DJ was free to spend the day answering emails, completing paperwork, or performing other noninteractive administrative or managerial tasks. This day, like most others, was “marked by numerous impromptu meetings, small fires to put out, or potential problems to mitigate before they [became] big problems.” Furthermore, there were certain anchor points that rarely appeared on DJ’s calendar but were almost always staples of any day: arrival, lunch in the cafeteria, and dismissal. DJ rarely missed being present at these anchor points. The vast amount of “empty space” on DJ’s calendar was filled completely with mostly human interactions by the end of the day, which reinforces the claim made by authors, like Fullan (2001), that a principal’s interpersonal relationships are essential components of the job.

At Least a Thousand Interactions a Day

These human interactions define DJ’s practice. Often referred to as “check-ins,” these interactions with teachers, students, staff, and parents are typically quick, casual encounters consisting of fist bumps, high fives, short greetings, small inquiries, or quick acknowledgments of performance, achievement, or effort. When asked to estimate how many of these engagements might take place during the course of a day, DJ responded, “at least a thousand interactions a day.” While the actual number may vary depending on the day or exactly what might constitute an interaction, it was clear from the interviews and observations that there are too many (or some might be too subtle) to count.

When viewed in isolation, these check-ins might seem insignificant, as they are often incredibly brief and only occasionally reference academic or behavioral “school-related” issues. However, these check-ins are quite purposeful and important to DJ. The quantity of these check-ins gives DJ, who no longer has the same daily, immersive platform through which to engage students as teachers do, a better chance of possibly connecting with students. The deeper and more meaningful relationships are rarely formed from one or a few encounters. It takes time and often persistency on DJ’s part for students to recognize that their principal is more than some distant authority figure. Given the numerous demands of the job, DJ must push himself to be visible and accessible. He seeks out the opportunities that might maximize his interactions, which is why arrival, lunchtime, and dismissal are often the times when he tries to avoid scheduling meetings or working in his office. But even during class times or sports, when students are typically actively engaged with other adults, DJ recognizes the need to be present and engaging.

Holy Cow! My Principal Knows Me!

During these countless check-ins, DJ is constantly engaging with people face-to-face. He engages them in casual conversation about how their day is going, what video games they’re talking about, or the band logo on their shirt. He tells them jokes and laughs with them, and he shows a sincere concern for their well-being in general and their school experience in particular. He is encouraging and supportive, often praising students’ achievements and efforts. His desire to get to know his students, along with his care and concern for their well-being, are deeply aligned with the notions of care, support, and nurturance that are often ascribed to the types of meaningful school relationships that Noddings and others describe in the section “Characteristics and Significance of Positive TSRs.”

Over time, DJ gets to know some of his students on a more personal level. His genuine interest in getting to know the students is not only important to DJ, but he believes that it is important to the students as well. DJ believes that he has to be visible, engaging, and interested in order for “the relational capacity [to] be true” to the students. Just as Gentilucci and Muto (2007) noted, students are able to distinguish between principals who were simply visible and those who engaged with them and were approachable. But it is not just DJ who believes that students notice and value his presence and approachability. DJ’s former students, Martin and Will, for example, enthusiastically testified to DJ’s relational authenticity.

Tracking Endless Details

In order to build these connections and relationships, DJ retains an incredible amount of information in his head, and much of it is highly detailed. While it is difficult to say exactly how this is possible (DJ believes that “it’s just a gift”), there is no doubt that the information is helpful to DJ and helpful to the relationship-building process. He knows some students’ schedules. He remembers which student did well on a particular assignment that a teacher might have told him about. He knows who got hit pretty hard in the football game the night before. And he’s constantly adding new information to his cache, like finding out that a student is a Def Leppard fan, or new details about some video game the kids are playing. All of this helps DJ build, maintain, and deepen connections with his students.

I’m a People Person: Background and Characteristics

DJ’s background and character definitely contribute to his capacity as a relational leader. He describes himself as a “people person” who has “always prioritized relationships.” He loves getting to know people, and his passion for working with kids seemed to naturally lead him into the schools. He prioritized building relationships as a teacher and struggled when he left the classroom, knowing that building relationships with students would be more difficult as an administrator. DJ’s background and characteristics are worth noting, as this appears to corroborate the commonly held beliefs that backgrounds and characteristics—relational and otherwise—play significant roles in influencing new relationships. Fitzsimons (2012) extended this notion to the leadership domain, claiming that leaders bring along and employ their previously developed relational schemas into the organizations that they lead.

Authority and Friendliness: A Balancing Act

As Schiewer (2013) mentioned when describing the TSR, a balance between authority and friendliness is necessary to facilitate positive relationships. This appears to be no different for principals. On one hand, during our observations, there appeared to be only a small number of principal–student interactions that one might identify as the principal exercising their authority. The overwhelming majority of the interactions appeared purely friendly. On the other hand, one might argue that the principal’s deep, detailed, and personal knowledge of so many students and situations, coupled with the commonly held perceptions of and more traditional beliefs about the principalship in general, could be a subtle or subconscious reminder of the principal’s inherent authority during any interactions.

The interactions between principals and students in this study did not appear to have a large power differential. In other words, the principal did not appear to be a looming authoritarian figure, and the student was not some insignificant subject. Many of the relations appeared to be more egalitarian, just as Janson et al. (2011) noted in their observations and discourse analysis of a principal and his student.

Given the traditional or historical perceptions of the principalship, along with the true degree of responsibility and authority that comes with the role, it may be important to maximize friendly interactions and delegate some of the disciplinary responsibilities, as DJ appeared to do, in order to attempt to find a balance between authority and friendliness. Besides, as DJ noted, relationships do not evolve based solely on disciplinary confrontations. It is the positive relationship that can make disciplinary encounters—or any other encounters requiring the exercising of authority—more productive.

They Help Me Do My Job: Meaning and Purpose

Beyond the sheer enjoyment and energizing nature of building relationships with students, DJ firmly believes that his relationships along with the relational culture and climate that he encourages make him a far more effective principal. After all, he sees his primary responsibility as serving kids. “Kids come first,” according to DJ, and those who work with him know it.

He feels that his many check-ins, and the deeper relationships that often result, keep him connected to what is going on in the school. They can provide opportunities to catch small problems before they become bigger. They can help reveal staffing, process, or program issues or inefficiencies. DJ’s decisions are more informed when he knows students, and when he needs to help or support teachers or students, that help is much more effective. His constant presence and approachability make it easier for some students to seek DJ out when they have concerns. Furthermore, making potentially difficult confrontations more productive is one of the many positive outcomes that result from DJ’s relationship building.

Not only do these findings strongly align with the literature on the significance of TSRs, but they also reinforce that direct student interactions are a legitimate and meaningful way for principals to meet their student-monitoring responsibilities. Monitoring students is a common responsibility for principals but, as Lunenburg (2010) notes, many principals opt to perform that task by working through the systems and structures of the school and the bureaucracy. The findings also align with the literature, which essentially states that the principal’s relationships are strong contributors to school culture and climate and that focusing on culture and climate can offer principals a “wide-angle view” and “a broader framework for understanding difficult problems and complex relationships within the school” (MacNeil et al., 2009, p. 77).

Challenges and Complications

A variety of considerations exist that complicate the development of PSRs. The complex, unpredictable, broad, and highly variable nature of the principalship leads to many demands on a principal’s limited time. The principals interviewed for this study all mentioned these constraints as barriers to getting out into the school to build relationships with students. Furthermore, as Noddings (2013) mentioned, caring relationships are not one-sided. The cared for must acknowledge and receive the care provided by the one caring. Not all students that principals engage may choose to receive that care. The large numbers of students for whom principals are responsible also limit the number of relationships that might be formed. However, because DJ recognizes these limitations, he prioritizes building an overall relational culture within the school that encourages teachers and staff to follow his relational lead.