The dynamics of teacher-student relationships play a critical role in shaping student outcomes in K–12 education, particularly for students in special education. When a student is not liked by teachers, the consequences can reverberate far beyond the classroom. Negative perceptions by educators can result in lower expectations, reduced opportunities for participation, and diminished emotional wellbeing, while also reinforcing peer rejection. Conversely, strong, supportive relationships can improve academic performance, behavior, and self-esteem. For students with disabilities, the stakes are especially high, as they are more vulnerable to bias, misperceptions, and exclusionary practices that threaten both their legal rights and their social development. Understanding how to support a student who is not liked by teachers requires a holistic examination of relational, psychological, and systemic factors. This discussion will explore the importance of teacher-student relationships, the roots of teacher dislike, strategies for building empathy and trust, the role of advocacy and inclusion, the need for systemic school-wide supports, and the contributions of specialized staff, culminating in a set of evidence-based insights into how schools can ensure that every child is treated with dignity and supported to succeed.
The foundation of effective teaching rests upon the relationship between educator and learner. Research consistently demonstrates that positive teacher-student relationships foster engagement, intrinsic motivation, and resilience in students, while negative interactions erode confidence and exacerbate behavioral issues (Pianta et al., 2012). For students with disabilities, the relational component of teaching is doubly important, as many contend with stigma and lower expectations that can create an atmosphere of exclusion. Hamre and Pianta (2001) found that negative teacher perceptions of students in early elementary school were predictive of poorer academic and social outcomes up to eight years later, underscoring how early impressions can shape long-term trajectories. When teachers openly express frustration or dislike toward a student, peers often mirror this attitude, further isolating the child (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015). Thus, teacher dislike is not merely an interpersonal problem but a structural barrier to equitable education.
Dislike of a student by teachers often stems not only from overt behavioral disruptions but also from deeper biases, misinterpretations, and contextual factors. Teachers may perceive a student as defiant when in fact they are struggling with unmet needs such as processing delays, executive functioning deficits, or sensory sensitivities (Gibbs & Elliott, 2016). Cultural differences can also be misread, with communication styles or behaviors framed through a deficit lens rather than appreciated as diversity. Moreover, students who carry disability labels are often judged against ableist expectations of “normal” behavior and achievement. Ferguson (2008) argued that disability frequently marks students as “troublemakers” in the eyes of educators, even when their actions mirror those of peers. Teachers who feel unsupported in managing challenging behavior may default to blame, resentment, and avoidance. Over time, dislike can become entrenched, manifesting in lowered expectations, frequent disciplinary referrals, and neglect of instructional differentiation.
To support a student who faces this negative dynamic, intentional efforts to rebuild the relationship are essential. Strategies for humanizing the student and fostering empathy are well documented in the literature. Positive behavior support approaches emphasize proactive relationship building rather than reactive punishment (Sugai & Horner, 2009). Small interventions, such as the “two-by-ten” method in which a teacher converses with a student for two minutes per day over ten days about non-academic interests, have been shown to reduce behavior problems and improve rapport (Allen et al., 2013). These interactions remind teachers of the student’s individuality and potential beyond their disability label or challenging behaviors. Celebrating the student’s strengths and interests in class provides a counter-narrative to deficit-based thinking, shifting focus toward capability rather than incapacity. A teacher who incorporates a student’s interest in art, music, or technology into assignments begins to view the child through a lens of talent rather than disruption, which in turn fosters a more positive cycle of engagement.
Empathy is central to shifting teacher perceptions. Teachers who understand the roots of a student’s behavior are less likely to interpret actions as deliberate misbehavior and more likely to respond with patience and problem-solving. Trauma-informed teaching frameworks, for example, encourage educators to ask “What happened to you?” rather than “What is wrong with you?” when confronted with challenging behavior (Souers & Hall, 2016). For a special education student, this shift can mean the difference between exclusion and support. Teachers must also guard against confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret all of a student’s actions through a pre-existing negative lens. One missed assignment may be taken as evidence of laziness, while identical behavior from a favored student is seen as an isolated lapse. Interventions that require teachers to document positive behaviors alongside challenges can help disrupt this cycle and recalibrate perceptions.
Beyond individual teacher-student interactions, advocacy at the systemic level ensures that the student’s rights and needs are protected. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees access to the least restrictive environment and appropriate accommodations, yet implementation often depends on teacher cooperation. A student disliked by teachers may face inconsistent or reluctant application of accommodations such as extended time or modified assignments. Special education coordinators and parents play a critical role in reinforcing the necessity of these supports, not as privileges but as legal entitlements designed to level the playing field. Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings become crucial arenas for advocacy, where behavioral intervention plans can be formalized to provide teachers with structured responses and prevent reliance on punitive measures. Documenting progress, however incremental, and sharing this data with teachers can challenge negative assumptions and highlight the efficacy of support strategies.
Inclusion is not merely a legal mandate but a pedagogical imperative. Studies demonstrate that students with disabilities who learn alongside their non-disabled peers achieve higher academic outcomes and experience greater social integration than those placed in segregated settings (Hehir et al., 2016). Yet when teachers dislike a student, they may advocate for removal under the guise of appropriateness. Administrators and advocates must resist such moves unless absolutely necessary and instead invest in training and resources that make inclusive education feasible. Co-teaching models, in which general and special educators share responsibility for instruction, have shown promise in reducing teacher frustration and improving outcomes for students with disabilities (Friend et al., 2010). These models allow for real-time differentiation, shared problem-solving, and modeling of effective strategies, reducing the burden on any one teacher and fostering a sense of shared ownership.
School climate and systemic supports also play a profound role in shaping how teachers interact with challenging students. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) frameworks provide a structure for teaching expectations, reinforcing positive behavior, and applying consistent consequences. Schools implementing PBIS report reductions in disciplinary incidents, improved social-emotional skills, and higher teacher efficacy (Bradshaw et al., 2010). For a student who is disliked, PBIS creates a predictable environment in which their behavior is judged against clear standards rather than subjective perceptions. Similarly, social-emotional learning (SEL) initiatives can help all students, including those with disabilities, build self-regulation and interpersonal skills that ease tensions with teachers. Professional development that integrates SEL for educators themselves also reduces teacher burnout and promotes patience in managing difficult interactions.
Bias training is essential to address the root causes of teacher dislike. Implicit bias operates unconsciously, influencing expectations and interpretations of behavior. Gilliam et al. (2016) found that teachers were more likely to expect challenging behavior from boys and from children of color, even in preschool settings, illustrating how stereotypes can distort perceptions from the earliest years of schooling. For students with disabilities, similar biases operate, leading educators to underestimate intelligence, motivation, or potential. Professional development that addresses implicit bias, combined with ongoing reflective practice and peer discussion, can recalibrate teacher attitudes. Schools can normalize reflection by embedding it into staff meetings or coaching cycles, encouraging teachers to examine their own responses to students and consider how bias may play a role.
Support staff occupy a critical place in ensuring that disliked students are not left isolated. School counselors and psychologists can provide the student with a safe space to process emotions, while also coaching teachers in communication strategies that reduce conflict. Counselors often facilitate mediated conversations between students and teachers, creating opportunities for each to express concerns and repair trust. Special education teachers can prepare strength-based profiles of students and provide targeted resources for classroom teachers, while also co-teaching or modeling inclusive practices. Librarians, coaches, and other non-core staff offer additional venues for student success. When a librarian notices and nurtures a student’s interest in reading, or a coach highlights their teamwork on the field, these moments of recognition ripple outward, altering how other teachers perceive the student. Involving parents and community advocates adds further reinforcement, ensuring the student has allies both inside and outside of school who are committed to their wellbeing.
The process of transforming a disliked student’s experience is not immediate, but evidence suggests it is both possible and necessary. Teachers who initially resist often shift their perceptions when presented with data showing student improvement or when they experience firsthand a positive interaction that contradicts their assumptions. Administrators who emphasize that inclusion and equity are non-negotiable create a climate where teachers feel both accountable and supported. Students who once internalized teacher dislike begin to thrive when given recognition, support, and trust. Over time, these efforts can alter the trajectory of a student’s education, turning a potentially damaging experience into one that builds resilience and achievement.
The broader implications of this issue point to the centrality of relational ethics in education. Teaching is not merely the transmission of knowledge but the cultivation of human potential. When educators dislike students, particularly those with disabilities, they risk undermining the very mission of schooling. Schools committed to equity must therefore adopt both relational and systemic strategies to counteract bias, support teachers, and elevate students who might otherwise be marginalized. The transformation of teacher-student relationships, especially in challenging contexts, is not only possible but imperative for a just educational system. Supporting a student who is not liked by teachers requires patience, empathy, advocacy, and institutional commitment, but the rewards extend beyond the individual child to create a culture of inclusion that benefits the entire school community.
References
Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Lun, J. (2013). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333(6045), 1034–1037.
Bradshaw, C. P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K. B., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Implementation of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(2), 223–250.
Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: The continuing challenge to teach each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 109–120.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9–27.
Gibbs, S., & Elliott, J. (2016). The differential effects of teacher praise and criticism on students’ perceptions of the teacher and themselves. Educational Psychology, 36(9), 1391–1405.
Gilliam, W. S., Maupin, A. N., Reyes, C. R., Accavitti, M., & Shic, F. (2016). Do early educators’ implicit biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and recommendations of preschool expulsions and suspensions? Yale University Child Study Center.
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.
Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary of the evidence on inclusive education. Abt Associates.
McGrath, K. F., & Van Bergen, P. (2015). Who, when, why, and to what end? Students at risk of negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research Review, 14, 1–17.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. Christenson et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365–386). Springer.
Souers, K., & Hall, P. (2016). Fostering resilient learners: Strategies for creating a trauma-sensitive classroom. ASCD.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17(4), 223–237.
