In the framework of public education, the relationships formed between students and educators—including both teachers and librarians—serve as foundational elements of student success. These relationships promote academic growth, emotional resilience, and behavioral regulation. However, when these connections deteriorate, the impact on student learning, engagement, and behavior can be profound. Research across all grade levels in U.S. public schools demonstrates that the breakdown of educator-student relationships significantly disrupts the learning environment and student outcomes. Fortunately, educational research also highlights a range of strategies that can be employed to prevent such breakdowns and restore connections when they occur.
Positive educator-student relationships foster achievement. According to Roorda et al. (2011), students who experience supportive, emotionally positive relationships with teachers are more likely to engage deeply with academic content and perform at higher levels. This pattern holds across subjects and grade levels. Pianta and Stuhlman (2004) noted that conflict between students and teachers in kindergarten could predict academic struggles well into adolescence, emphasizing the long-term influence of early relationship quality. These findings are not limited to classroom settings. Kachel (2013) found that school librarians who formed meaningful relationships with students significantly increased those students’ access to and use of academic resources, contributing to improved literacy and research skills.
In educational environments, student perception of safety and belonging is tightly linked to the presence of strong relationships with trusted adults. When students know that a teacher or librarian sees them, understands their needs, and communicates respectfully, they are more likely to take academic risks, persevere through difficult tasks, and engage more meaningfully in class. In contrast, when trust breaks down, students may withdraw or act out in an effort to self-protect. These reactions, though developmentally natural, often invite punitive disciplinary actions that further corrode the relationship. The consequences are both immediate and long-term, including lower GPA, missed instructional time, and heightened anxiety (Fredricks et al., 2004).
When educator-student relationships break down, student engagement suffers. Fredricks et al. (2004) argue that engagement involves emotional, behavioral, and cognitive investment in learning. A damaged relationship can reduce all three components. Students may avoid participating in class, feel disconnected from school, and lose interest in learning altogether. Zhou (2021) found that student-teacher rapport was a critical driver of classroom participation, while Pagowsky and Rigby (2014) reported that students experiencing “library anxiety” due to poor interactions with librarians often avoid the library entirely. These patterns lead to disengagement that undermines academic performance and erodes confidence.
Student engagement is multifaceted, but relationship quality remains a primary determinant across contexts. Students often report that they are more motivated to learn when they believe their teacher genuinely cares about their success. This phenomenon, referred to as “relational motivation,” has been documented extensively in urban and rural school settings. In the library context, students who perceive their librarian as approachable and invested in their interests are more likely to engage with library programs, seek out reading materials, and ask for academic help. The absence of such relationships can result in disengagement that extends beyond the library, affecting students’ capacity to conduct independent research, complete assignments, or find joy in reading.
Behavioral issues are another frequent consequence of broken relationships. Greene (2008) posits that most challenging behaviors in school reflect lagging skills and unresolved relational conflict. When students do not trust or feel respected by their teachers or librarians, they may respond with defiance or withdrawal. Research by Pérez-Salas et al. (2021) supports this view, indicating that negative educator-student dynamics correlate with increased disciplinary referrals. In many cases, these conflicts escalate, creating a cycle of misbehavior and punishment that further weakens the relationship.
As trust diminishes, the likelihood of restorative conflict resolution also decreases. Instead of viewing misbehavior as a communication signal, adults may label students as “problematic,” thereby activating implicit bias and contributing to disproportionate discipline. This is especially concerning for students from historically marginalized groups, who are statistically more likely to experience educator bias and more severe disciplinary actions. Broken relationships, left unaddressed, contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline, school disengagement, and chronic absenteeism—all of which carry lifetime consequences.
Fortunately, there are several evidence-based strategies for preventing and repairing damaged relationships. One approach involves restorative practices. Rather than focusing on punishment, restorative practices seek to repair harm and rebuild trust through structured dialogue. The Learning Policy Institute (2023) reports that schools using restorative methods have seen declines in suspensions and improvements in student-teacher trust. Librarians can also use these strategies by inviting students to reflect on their behavior and its impact, fostering accountability and empathy.
Restorative practices promote empathy by encouraging all parties involved to share how they were affected by a conflict. This humanizes the interaction and offers students an opportunity to be heard rather than simply judged. Restorative circles, peer mediation, and facilitated dialogues are among the many tools that have proven successful in both elementary and secondary education settings. Notably, these methods also cultivate emotional intelligence, which further reduces the likelihood of future relational breakdowns. When librarians or teachers incorporate restorative questions into their daily routines, such as “How did that make you feel?” or “What can we do to make it right?”, they model and reinforce relational repair.
Effective communication is also essential. Beachboard and Wright (2023) highlight the importance of active listening and empathy in creating safe, respectful learning environments. Simple practices such as greeting students warmly, remembering their names, and acknowledging their concerns help build trust and reduce misunderstandings. Librarians, who often interact with students in one-on-one settings, can reinforce these practices by offering encouragement and personalized assistance, especially to those who may feel overwhelmed or excluded.
Non-verbal communication, tone of voice, and body language also play key roles in relationship-building. Educators who remain calm and centered during conflict send an implicit message of safety and regulation to students. Conversely, abrupt gestures, dismissive tone, or visible frustration may escalate a student’s emotional distress. As such, educator training should emphasize both verbal and non-verbal techniques that promote relational safety. Research shows that students are more responsive to educators who exude consistency, patience, and authenticity—regardless of the subject matter being taught.
Collaboration enhances relationship quality. Gregory et al. (2016) found that involving students in classroom rule-setting and decision-making improves their sense of agency and cooperation. In libraries, giving students a voice in programming, book selections, and space design fosters ownership and investment. These collaborative practices shift the dynamic from control to partnership, reinforcing mutual respect.
Classroom environments that adopt shared decision-making often see improvements in student morale, peer interaction, and instructional outcomes. When students feel that their input is respected, they become more invested in maintaining a positive atmosphere. Similarly, library programs co-designed with student input often see higher participation rates and more sustained engagement. Examples include student-led book clubs, peer tutoring programs, and multimedia production spaces shaped by student interest. These opportunities not only strengthen educator-student bonds but also promote leadership, collaboration, and critical thinking among students.
Social-emotional learning (SEL) is another powerful tool. According to CASEL (2020), SEL helps students develop empathy, self-awareness, and relationship skills. These competencies enable students to navigate interpersonal challenges more effectively and strengthen educator-student bonds. Jones and Bouffard (2012) found that SEL programs improve classroom climate and reduce conflict, benefiting both academic performance and relational trust.
Integrating SEL into both academic instruction and library programming can be transformative. When students regularly practice emotional regulation, goal setting, and responsible decision-making, they are less likely to misinterpret feedback or escalate conflicts. For educators, SEL can foster greater self-awareness around personal biases and stress triggers, leading to more reflective and relational teaching practices. Librarians who embed SEL themes into reading selections or host mindfulness activities in the library contribute to a culture of care and emotional intelligence that resonates throughout the school.
Administrative support plays a vital role in sustaining these strategies. School leaders must prioritize relationship-building through professional development, staffing support, and inclusive policies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022) emphasize that students who feel connected to at least one adult at school are more likely to succeed and less likely to engage in risky behaviors. Administrators can support this by encouraging mentorship, facilitating check-ins, and modeling relational leadership.
Strong leadership also includes allocating resources and time for relational work. Educators and librarians cannot cultivate deep relationships with students if their schedules are overloaded, their caseloads are unreasonable, or their emotional labor is unrecognized. Schools that build structures such as advisory periods, open library hours, or family engagement nights increase opportunities for connection. Administrative policies that reward collaboration, celebrate relational success stories, and respond to student voice with action create environments where relationships can flourish.
Librarians, in particular, benefit from institutional recognition of their relational role. Kachel (2013) and Yorio (2021) underscore the importance of staffing and scheduling that allows librarians to engage meaningfully with students. By embedding themselves in instructional planning and student support services, librarians can create inclusive, student-centered environments that foster belonging and learning.
Moreover, when librarians collaborate with classroom teachers on cross-disciplinary projects, students experience a seamless support network that reinforces academic and emotional development. This integration allows students to view the library not merely as a location for books but as a vibrant space for inquiry, dialogue, and community. For underserved or marginalized students, these relationships can serve as protective factors that buffer against external adversity and foster resilience.
In conclusion, educator-student relationships are not ancillary to learning—they are its foundation. When these relationships break down, students suffer academically, disengage from learning, and often exhibit behavioral difficulties. Yet these outcomes are not inevitable. Through restorative practices, empathetic communication, collaboration, social-emotional learning, and systemic support, schools can prevent relationship breakdowns and heal those that occur. In doing so, they create more inclusive, supportive environments where all students have the opportunity to thrive. The challenge and opportunity lie in placing relationships at the center of the educational mission, where they rightly belong.
References
Beachboard, C., & Wright, R. (2023). Nurturing positive school relationships. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/nurturing-positive-school-relationships
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). School connectedness helps students thrive. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/school_connectedness.htm
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2020). What is SEL? https://casel.org/what-is-sel/
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Greene, R. W. (2008). Lost at school: Why our kids with behavioral challenges are falling through the cracks and how we can help them. Scribner.
Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Mikami, A. Y., Hafen, C. A., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). The promise of a teacher professional development program in reducing disparities in classroom exclusionary discipline. Peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in the journal Education Policy.
Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs to strategies. Social Policy Report, 26(4), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2012.tb00073.x
Kachel, D. E. (2013). School library research summarized: A graduate class project. Pennsylvania School Library Project. https://keithcurrylance.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MRUFinalReport.pdf
Learning Policy Institute. (2023). Fostering belonging, transforming schools: The impact of restorative practices. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org
Pagowsky, N., & Rigby, M. (2014). Ice ice baby: Are librarian stereotypes freezing us out of instruction? In the Library with the Lead Pipe. http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/ice-ice-baby-2/
Pérez-Salas, C. P., Opazo-Gómez, L., & Valdés-Cuadra, L. (2021). Influence of teacher–student relationships on student engagement and disengagement: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 708157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.708157
Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086261
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793
Yorio, K. (2021). School libraries 2021: Fostering relationships between students and community members. School Library Journal. https://www.slj.com/story/school-libraries-2021-fostering-relationships-between-students-and-community-members
Zhou, X. (2021). Toward the positive consequences of teacher-student rapport for students’ academic engagement in EFL classrooms. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 759785. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.759785