Relationships in Inclusive Education

Introduction to Topic

Why do we have to talk about it?

A relational approach is central to inclusive education. One aspect of inclusive education is the focus on the individual and the individual’s developmental needs. Another aspect is a focus on society and the social environment. How can the social environment be shaped in a form that is welcoming and hospitable for individuals? And how can each individual contribute to such an environment? A relational approach is the practical answer; the attempt to translate inclusive theory into relational practice.

This chapter starts by briefly summarising research showing the importance of relationships in human development and learning environments. It asks the question ‘What is a relationship?’ and investigates how power structures impact on relationships, particularly educational relationships. We then offer concrete ideas of how to apply this knowledge about relationships within the inclusive classroom. Depending on your individual questions and interests you might start your reading of the text in any of the subchapters. Start with the introduction if you want to get an impression of the current state of theory. If you prefer a more narrative introduction to the topic you might choose to start with ‘Relationships as a dance between you and me’. If you are aware of the theory and its ethical implications, but are looking for ways to apply this in a classroom setting you can directly go to the section on ‘Practical Application’.

Why are relationships important in education?

Often the social aspect of educational relationships is seen as an add-on; the role of the teacher might seem reduced to the organisation and delivery of content, while the relationship might seem less important. In fact, the reverse is true. There is increasing evidence that a safe, trusting, caring and respectful relationship is a prerequisite for an atmosphere of well-being that in turn creates good conditions for profound learning and inclusive practice (O’Toole and Hayes, 2020).

The Centre for the Developing Child at Harvard University presents evidence that brains are built up over time through the power of interactions and relationships. The work of Patricia Kuhl (e. g. 2010) is particularly illustrative in this regard. She investigated the development of language and found that babies and toddlers who were presented with a second language by looking at video of people speaking it on screens did not develop the structures of that language in the same way as those who were engaging in direct interactions with human beings. In short, as human beings our brains are made to develop through social interactions, and this is just as true in educational settings as anywhere else.

The student-teacher relationship is shown to be of crucial importance for learning in a variety of theoretical models and empirical studies (Hattie 2015 / Cornelius-White 2007). Bronfenbrenner’s work also foregrounds the importance of relationships that he sees as the culmination of a series of interactions occurring over time “with persons with whom [the child] has established a mutual and enduring emotional attachment” (Bronfenbrenner, 1973, p. 119; 1988; 2005). “In short, somebody has to be crazy about that kid” (ibid). Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical model as well as these empirical studies show that a focus on intellectual approaches to learning and more emotional or relational approaches are not mutually exclusive. Lives are lived interdependently through a network of shared relationships, or ‘linked lives’ and the power of such relationships is so strong that they are referred to as the ‘engines’ of learning and development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Hayes, O’Toole and Halpenny, 2023; O’Toole, Hayes and Halpenny, 2020).

Equally, the central argument of Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) is that the bond or attachment formed by an infant with the primary care-giver forms the basis of all future relationships, and of psychological well-being for the rest of the individual’s life. The theory states that this bond also has a highly significant influence on a child’s current and future behaviour and ability to learn. A phrase that is often used in Attachment Theory is that secure attachment with a trustworthy adult who holds the child in mind, provides a secure base from which to explore the world. In research and practice in education, the teacher is increasingly being seen through this lens (Harlow, 2021). This is explored in more detail later in the chapter.

Relationships are also important in education because a child’s academic self-image very much stems from the image that a teacher has of them (among other influences). For example, research based on the work of Albert Bandura on self-efficacy shows that if the adult puts forward to the child that they are capable and their learning is important, this trust becomes internalised into the child’s self-image. This impacts learning because work on self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1994) shows that if the child believes they can achieve a goal, they tend to work hard towards it, and through that hard work they are more likely to achieve the goal in reality. This achievement feeds back into the belief that they are capable learners, further influencing future learning in a positive feedback cycle. In contrast, if the adult conveys the impression that a child is incapable of achieving an academic goal, either overtly or covertly, this also becomes internalised into self-efficacy beliefs. The internalised fear of failure might then become a self-fulfilling prophecy and lead to a lack of effort that in turn leads to the failure to achieve a goal – after all, why would I try if I know I will fail? These are just some of a multitude of theoretical perspectives that foreground the creation of supportive student-teacher relationships, and ‘relational pedagogy’ as a theoretical and philosophical underpinning to educational practice is increasingly gaining support (Sidorkin, 2023).

Research reinforces the fact that children learn through good relationships and this can lead to better academic outcomes. Hence, a focus on relationships and a focus on grades are not mutually exclusive (Bingham and Sidorkin, 2004; Reich 2014, 2018). Relationships are the basis for working in an educational environment as it is easier to access a topic when there is a positive relationship between the people involved. Connections between teachers and students are going to develop, no matter what. Teachers can influence their own approaches to students and how they create  quality relationships. A relationship of some sort always exists and the only question is what will the quality of those connections be, and will they be nurturing or destructive for the people involved.

A child can learn in an environment where a teacher does not create a nurturing, relational atmosphere. Most people can give examples of things they have learned although they were afraid of or indifferent to a teacher. However, it is very, very difficult to learn deeply in an environment in which the child is afraid or the child is disengaged. As Siegel (2020) notes, “Experiences that involve little emotional intensity seem to do little to arouse focal attention, and have a higher likelihood of being registered as ‘unimportant’ and therefore of not being easily recalled later on. Events experienced with a moderate to high degree of emotional intensity seem to get labelled as ‘important’ and are more easily remembered in the future. If events are overwhelming and filled with fear, a number of factors may inhibit the hippocampal processing of explicit memory, and therefore may block explicit encoding and subsequent retrieval” (pp. 71-72). The most up-to-date understandings of the neuropsychological bases for learning show the impact of the stress hormone cortisol and the anti-stress hormones opioids and oxytocin on brain structures (Conkbayir, 2022; O’Connor, 2013); in other words, children’s brains develop, and learning happens, in the context of relationships (Siegel, 2020). Explicitly and mindfully centering relationships in the classroom is a crucial aspect of the teachers job, since the teacher sets the emotional and relational tone of the classroom as a role model, as well as as an authority figure.

Attachment theorists have identified different ‘attachment styles’ that we develop based on our experiences of relationships in early childhood. These include secure, insecure-ambivalent, insecure-avoidant and disorganised (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Main and Solomon, 1986). Decades of research (see O’Toole and Hayes, 2020 for an overview) has shown that securely attached children expect the world to be comforting and supportive, and so approach new relationships with this expectation. Therefore, securely attached children tend to behave prosocially in educational settings and invite future supportive relationships. On the other hand, insecurely attached children and those with disorganised attachment expect the world to be dangerous and  unsupportive, and equally approach new relationships with this in mind. Their approach to interactions may therefore reduce the chances of forming positive relationships in educational settings the future. So we see that all students need positive relationships with their teachers. However, for students who are in insecure living situations or who only have loose relationships in their lives, relationships are especially important if we want them to have a successful learning experience at school.  In more recent years we have come to understand that while early attachment experiences are highly influential, attachment style can be fluid across the life-course, depending on the availability of emotionally corrective experiences (Taylor, Rietschel, Danquah and Berry, 2015). Attachment theory assumes four different adult attachment styles: Anxious (or preoccupied), avoidant (or dismissive), disorganized (or fearful-avoidant) and Secure. The attachment styles are a result of early childhood experiences with primary caregivers, resilience and relational experiences in a life. Such experiences are those in which a person with an insecure or disorganised attachment is given the opportunity to discover that the world can in fact be comforting and supportive.They can thereby rewrite the expectations underpinning how they behave in the world – and so how the world responds to them. This gives hope to educators working with children who have experienced a less than ideal start in life that there is a lot of potential. Promising research avenues on children’s resilience have developed in recent decades  and the effect that one caring adult such as a warm, attuned, responsive educator can have on children’s trajectories and life chances (e. g. Brohl, 2007). Teachers are well advised to reflect on their own upbringing and attachment styles in order to create a professional relationship and reactions towards students with a variety of different attachment styles.

Another strong argument for positioning relationships at the centre of educational processes might be that relationships continuously develop, whether we acknowledge their importance or not. Therefore, it is good advice to invest in these relationships and try to ensure that the student-teacher relationship is the most positive it can be.

Next to these insights from research and academia, there are also legal arguments which underline the importance of relationships: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been ratified by 185 countries so far. This means that the states have the responsibility to ensure inclusion, accept diversity as the norm and adhere to individual’s different needs in order to ensure equal opportunities for participation. Relational education can be one way to put this political, legal and ethical goal into practice. In order to ensure participation, we need to get to know the participants and their individual needs. We need to build relationships in order to get to know them.

The German word ‘Beziehungsarbeit’ means the work and effort involved in developing and sustaining a relationship. This does not have a direct translation in English, but it is a powerful concept because it helps educators understand that while relationships are crucial to learning, they are not likely to develop to their full potential without significant and mindful effort. This means that the relational element of the profession needs to be valued to the same extent as other elements, such as the delivery of content. There needs to be an allocation of resources such as time, personnel, equipment, space and money for the creation of an accommodating atmosphere.

What is a relationship?

Having established that relationships are crucial for inclusive education, we now must ask what is actually meant by ‘relationship’. The definition of ‘relationship’ in an educational context is a very complex task. There are very different related fields such as Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, Education, Linguistics, Neuroscience, Political Sciences, activism and empirical everyday experiences of educators, teachers and students that shed light on different aspects of relationships. The challenge lies within combining very different systems of knowledge production and translating into a more holistic understanding of relationships.

There are many variables influencing “relationships” such as time, the number of parties involved, the social contexts, belief systems or experiences in early childhood and later, to name just a few. A relationship between two individuals is never isolated from the social environment (Nowak-Łojewska et al., 2019). It is influenced by the relationship one has to oneself, the primary caregivers, the environment and different social groups. It is influenced by belief systems of the group(s) an individual belongs to. It is also influenced by the beliefs an individual holds over what the counterpart in a relationship thinks of them and their actions; as well as what they believe others outside of this specific relationship think of them and their actions (Ryle and Kerr, 2022).

Although it is impossible to reduce a relationship to the actions, thoughts and beliefs of two people, we can benefit from looking at relationships from this perspective to better understand some of the dynamics underlying the process. The metaphor of a dance can help us to reduce the phenomenon of relationships to an understandable size (Ryle and Kerr, 2022). In the following paragraphs you can see some of the dance moves that would characterise our relationship. While reading, keep in mind that our dance will always also be influenced by the music, rhythm, our clothes, bodies, shoes, the floor, lighting, environment and so on. It is important that we both can more or less predict the other’s moves so that we don’t step on each others’ feet; rituals help us with these predictions. We should both know whether we are dancing Halay, Waltz, Rock’n’Roll, Dabke, Step Dance or in Musical,… but we will come back to that later.

Relationship as a dance between you and me

In the following paragraphs you will find some dance moves in the way they might be carried out in your classroom. You can put yourself in the position of student or teacher while reading. Enjoy.

Our relationship is influenced by what I think you think of me and by what you think I think of you. It is also influenced by what we think about what others think of us individually and of our relationship.

Our relationship is established over time.

Based on the roles ascribed to us and our accumulated experiences with other people in these roles, I make assumptions to predict how you will interact with me. I might assume that you as my teacher are on my side or that you are looking for a reason to catch me out.

Our relationship is a dynamic process, our attitudes and rituals are subject to change.

My previous relationships have shaped how I expect you to be with me, and thus how I react to you. Early in life, we learn how to “be” and what is expected of us in our relationships with our primary caregivers. These relationships form templates for my future relationships and influence how I interact with and react to you.

The way I see myself will influence the ways in which I can relate to you.

The culture of an organisation such as our school will influence how I am in our relationship. So if I feel that I am part of our school and my voice and behaviours are recognised and that they count, I will be more confident in our relationship.

The history of an institution will influence how I am in our relationship. For example, the fact that Roma children were deported directly out of classrooms in Nazi-Germany, has an effect on how families of survivors can be in relationships with schools and teachers.

I might try to form a relationship with you that mirrors the social templates ascribed to our roles and the expectations that come along with them. Relationships are structured by norms, conventions and (role) expectations that in turn are structured by narratives or societies’ stories (Harari, 2018). As persons we never play just one role, our identities are complex, fluid and dynamic,  and they entail a variety of different reference points, points for identification and might more often than not include aspects of contradictory beliefs and values.

Having experienced humiliation and degradation, I might react with fear, hurt, shame, anger, silence or violence if your behaviour reminds me of my past experience. I will see your behaviour and communication, not your intention. If you seem to repeat or reaffirm a stereotype other people hold against me or members of groups I identify with, I will protect myself and my group. If I trust you, because I have seen you deconstructing rather than reinforcing stereotypes, we might be able to criticise aspects of groups you and I identify with together.

My sense of self is as important to me as my sense of community and belonging. If you offer possibilities for identification and provide an atmosphere where I can develop a sense of belonging, I will be stronger and more relaxed.

To return to the metaphor of the dance, the movements in our relational dance can also be understood in more general terms of symmetry and asymmetry as we can see in the following paragraphs.

Symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships

Drawing on communication theory (Watzlawick, 2000) we can distinguish between symmetrical and asymmetrical communication. We might as well distinguish relationships for analytical purposes in these terms of symmetry and asymmetry. A symmetrical relationship is characterised by the even distribution of the power to continue or discontinue the relationship. An asymmetrical relationship is defined by the unequal distribution of power. One party has more resources, more economic, cultural, social or identity capital available than the other. In other words: while, for economic or structural reasons, one party depends on the continuity of a relationship, the other party does not, or at least not to the same extent.

The role of power in relationships

The fact that we cannot think of a relationship outside of (social) roles and how these roles are ascribed to positions of power or the loss thereof leads us to reflect further on how power structures outside the classroom filter in. Therefore, it is important to notice that while we distinguished between symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships for analytical purposes, an asymmetry is seldom or never complete. Intersectionality studies (Crenshaw 1989) have shown that some aspects of one’s identity might be associated with positions of power, while others are historically and presently marginalised. We need to realise that resources are unevenly distributed.

We have been talking about power in a rather simplifying way that helps us understand relationships. For the purpose of this chapter, we conceptualise power as the degree to which you can influence yourself and your environment. This in turn depends to a high degree on your different forms of capital (Bourdieu 1997). Relationships are structured by conventions and expectations that in turn are structured by a society’s narratives on power. Capitalism, Colonialism, Patriarchy, Cis-Heteronormativity, Genderbinary, Ableism, Social-Darwinism, Nationalism are some of the narratives or stories that structure our belief systems and our access to resources.

Earlier on, we looked at symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships in terms of the power to continue or discontinue the relationship. Now we see that this is not the only power that structures our interactions.

What is special about a relationship in a pedagogical context?

Similar to the relationship between a primary caregiver and a child, the relationship between teacher and student is always asymmetrical. This is mostly due to the social roles, age, developmental factors and the functions of school that include the socialisation and qualification of students as well as the allocation to social positions and job opportunities – the process of distribution of social positions and job opportunities (Fend 1980). However, there are some democratic schools that try to establish fundamentally different distributions of roles and power. An example of this is the Sudbury Valley schools, where the learners have a say, for example, in the employment of the pedagogical staff, even though the realities on the ground may be more traditional than it seems (Filion Wilson, 2015).

The student-teacher relationship is characterised by the roles and the normative expectations attached to the roles of student and teacher. While these are changing over time and also differ in cultural contexts, we can identify some commonalities. Also individual interpretations of how a teacher should be, behave like and think might differ greatly across school forms, regions, legal frames and time, there is a common factor. In public and private education, a teacher is an adult who gets paid for what they are doing. Looking at teaching under the lens of paid labour offers the opportunity for the public, who ultimately pays teachers, to expect professionalisation and in turn it allows teachers and educators to limit the influence of these expectations to the sphere of work. Other than the relationship with primary caregivers, the educational relationship aims at its own abolition. So, the teacher’s job includes supporting the student to become more and more independent and in the end not need them anymore.

To define a good pedagogical relationship, one lens is not enough. However, in a capitalist society, where a great deal of recognition is distributed monetarily, this cannot be ignored. In other words, where money and the flow of capital structure relationships, we need to look at their influence.

What are the consequences of conceptualising the student-teacher relationship as structured by power?

Recognising this is the first step to a better understanding of relationships and a possibility to deepen them. If we acknowledge that our relationships are not only influenced by good-will, intentions and personal (dis-)abilities, but rather a result of complex belief systems and narratives, we can start analysing our own position and positionality. Many activists and academics (Bourdieu 1997, Kilomba et al. 2005, Kilomba 2008, Essed 1990, Gomolla & Radtke 2000 / Ha 2007 / Palzkill, Pohl & Scheffel 2020, Mecheril 1997 u.a.) have analysed how these systems work in privileging some people while keeping others systematically away from power, or even the most basic resources (e.g., clean water, shelter). Drawing on these findings we can become aware of our own positionings within the social web. We can limit the influence dehumanising narratives and structures have on our relationships. We can get to know and become aware of our own and also our students’ positionalities and traumas that might be associated with these. We can then in turn understand where a relationship is asymmetrical due to one narrative (e.g., racism, gender binary) that positions one person at the receiving end of discrimination and the other at the receiving end of privileges (e.g., one cis-gendered and one trans* person). Teachers and educators are professionals with a public responsibility. They also often have structural advantages as shown above. The structural advantage in a partially asymmetrical relationship should be used to increase the well-being of all. ‘With great power comes great responsibility’ or rather with great privileges in a professional educational environment comes great responsibility. In the following paragraphs we will show how this might look like and summarise the practical applications with a brief overview on what to do with this power.

A relational classroom as part of a democratic school culture

The work of Biesta (2012; 2013; Biesta and Säfström, 2023) highlights the potential for education to become a location for democratic negotiation of a plurality of identities (Keupp, 2008). Within the classroom setting, a relationship that is based solely on the needs, wishes, power or dominance of one person (either teacher or student) in neglect of those of the other is unlikely to work positively; rather, educational environments offering both structure and support are most successful (O’Toole and Hayes, 2020). Traditional teaching approaches based on authoritarian ideas only focused on the teachers’ and the schools’ needs l to the neglect of those of the children and we are increasingly coming to recognise that this at best limits learning (Gregory et al., 2010) and at worst can create significant trauma and ‘symbolic violence’ for many people, particularly those who for whatever reason (ableism, racism, etc) struggle to fit the mold prescribed by the teacher or school (Bourdieu, 1990). Furthermore, children’s learning is equally limited by chaotic settings where rules are unclear or non-existent, and no expectations are identified (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006).

Ideally an educational relationship should be a democratic space where multiple identities, needs and strengths are negotiated (Biesta, 2012; 2013). In practice this can include sharing responsibilities for the shared spaces like cleaning together (Okihara 2006). Individual needs within the classroom will not always be in agreement with each other, and a good educational relationship does not mean that everyone is always happy. Sometimes it will mean negotiating conflict and the teacher will of course sometimes need to prod a student out of their comfort zone to promote the next stage of learning (Hayes et al., 2023) or reprimand students if their behaviour limits the development of themselves or others. In a truly democratic approach to education, conflict is negotiated not avoided (O’Toole, Dowling and McElheron, 2023). According to Biesta (2012; 2013), common action in education is not reliant on total agreement, total consensus, or total sameness since that would destroy the very plurality that is necessary for democracy. Relational inclusive education therefore must focus on the shared good of all in the classroom and not just the pursuit of individual agendas. However, a relational approach is also located within the potentially paradoxical position that individual needs do still matter, and meeting children’s needs to facilitate inclusion is not only important but an ethical imperative.

Practical Application

You might be asking yourself “what now?” I understand what a relationship is, I understand that relationships are crucial for inclusive education, I understand that I’ve got the power, now what should I do with it? In the following paragraphs you can find ideas on how the theory on relationships can be applied to a relational approach in the classroom in order to ensure inclusion.

Back to the dance:

Very often I am with you as you are with me, so the notion of a dance is a useful one because it helps us see that the steps I take impact on how you move in return. We hope that by now you have realised that this cannot be understood in an action-reaction pattern. You might think of societies’ narratives as the music to our dance that does not determine our movements but seduces us to move with the rhythm and makes it harder to move smoothly in a different rhythm. The shoes, the wheelchair, the floor can be thought of as the economical frame-work. Ask yourself, do we both have equal means to engage in this dance? What can we do to get there?

Here our co-author Simon, a practising teacher in Germany, shares some experience, linking the theoretical background to his daily routine as a teacher:

See yourself & your role as a teacher

As a professional the starting point of professional acting always is oneself. Start thinking of how you’ve been raised and what you stand for. Also, consider the power structures (see above) that influence your role as a teacher in school: You have the power to support individuals if you use your power wisely. Or you have the power to deeply destroy somebody’s self-esteem.

So, talking about myself – I am a white middle-class male – I was deeply shocked at first by just how different I was from most of my students and how much struggle this caused. To be clear: Not mainly to me, but to my students: I was someone fitting in the design – school settings are designed as white and middle class. But, for sure, I also have to admit, as a teacher, I am the one who has to work with the challenges my students might have.

Even if as a single person, impact is always limited, as a teacher you have an opportunity in your hands: the opportunity to make the lives of your students harder or to empower them. If you do not consider yourself as someone with power in the relationship – even if you do not want it – you will automatically reproduce injustice. So, define your role as a teacher and define establishing relationships with your students as part of your role as a teacher to use your power wisely.

Be humble & listen

If you want to listen to your students, you need to give space to their stories. These stories can be part of your German or Science class, or they can take room in informal situations such as breaks. They can be spread in the whole group or trustfully shared in a direct conversation between teacher and student.

As teachers, being the ones in a powerful position, we are used to people listening to what we say. If you want to create a constructive relationship, it is necessary to listen to your students, aiming at a better understanding of their living situations. Listen especially to their social environment – their families and friends – and recognise their daily challenges. If you know more about your students’ lives, you will have many more opportunities to link your lesson to them. And you will have the chance to create a deeper understanding of what they need, both as a learner and a personality.

This, for sure, should impact not only the individual level, but also requires systemic change: Create new school subjects meeting your students’ needs, establish supportive structures (e. g. anti-racist) in your schools.

Teacher as secure base: supporting positive behaviour in a relational classroom

In order to avoid incoherence and chaos, classrooms must have a grounding point, and we argue that this should be rooted in a student-teacher relationship that offers some sense of stability in an otherwise seemingly very unstable world. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973) identifies the adult as the “secure base from which to explore the world”, and in the educational setting this positions the teacher as providing the foundational relationship that helps ‘contain’ children’s anxieties (Harlow, 2021; Riley, 2011), providing them with ‘freedom to learn’ (Rogers, 1969). As the adult and the professional in the relationship, this leaves the teacher with responsibilities that come with inherent tensions and contradictions; acknowledging the students’ individuality and at the same time not being dissolved by different students’ individualities; maintaining and developing one’s own individuality but ensuring to uphold and stand up for others’ individualities, pluralism and a sense of community; and respectful negotiation of the tensions that arise when any diverse group of people comes together (Treibel 2015).

Therefore, within educational approaches that centre on relationships, the teacher not only can but must establish clear boundaries for what is okay and not okay in the classroom. In relational classrooms, teachers hold children responsible for their own behaviour, and support them to make choices that foster a warm, empathetic relational environment (Gatongi, 2007). While rules can certainly be negotiated and agreed with the children, it is the teacher’s responsibility to hold the line, call out behaviours that damage the relational environment of the classroom as a whole, and implement a clear, transparent system of consequences. In Simon’s example above, addressing inappropriate behaviour in the context of the relationship allowed for the behaviour to be addressed without damaging the relationship – in fact the relationship may have even been strengthened by this experience. Ideas for holding the line in challenging situations can also be found in the concept of confrontational pedagogy (e.g., Weidner). The negotiation of rules is of similar importance. Boyer (2016) recommends a group or class mission statement, renegotiated regularly. In this regard, it is important, however, to keep in mind the differences between consequences and punishment. Consequences are about preservation of the relationship through restorative practice and reparations; punishment is about re-establishing power and dominance. Within a relational frame, intervention strategies should have a triple focus: 1) on the person that is being harmed by a behaviour, 2) on the person showing disruptive behaviour, and 3) on the group and the classroom discourse influencing the group. Approaches that focus on communication and support the relational classroom can be found in systemic pedagogy (e. g. “Authority without violence” Omer et al. 2002 or Lemme et al. 2019).

Stability is of central importance in a relational approach, but it is worth repeating that this does not mean avoiding conflict. In the attachment-based concept of ‘rupture and repair’, ‘rupture’ to a relationship can be both overt (i.e., direct hostility, sarcasm) and covert (i.e., disengaged silences, eye rolling, physical withdrawal) (Maramosh, 2015). While rupture is likely to occur in settings where spaces and norms are negotiated (Treibel 2015), it does not have to be feared. Combined with ‘repair’ as an integral part, the concept of rupture and repair offers an orientation for the negotiation of needs and wishes in the classroom. Repair can happen in many different ways (Maramosh, 2015), and restorative practice is one of the practical tools to integrate this in an educational context. Concrete ideas can be found on the Website of the Department of Education Minnesota, e. g., the “Restorative Practices Trainer’s Guide Training Activities” and the “Practices of a Restorative School” (ideas for German speakers can be found in Grabe 2014). The key point in a relational approach is that children need to know that even if a teacher needs to impose consequences for behaviour, this does not mean the end of the relationship, it can be repaired. Considering the power dynamics in the student-teacher relationship and the asymmetry, the responsibility for initiating the process of repair lies with the teacher.

The concept of rupture and repair is also echoed in the person-centred concept of “unconditional positive regard” (Rogers, 1995). Regard for the person is non-negotiable. Therefore, awareness for condemning acts and never a person is central to the relationship. A teacher with a relation-centred approach should never threaten the loss of the relationship as this is recognised as an existential crisis for the child. Again, acceptance and unconditional regard for the child in an educational setting does not mean that all behaviours are to be accepted – it is possible to identify behaviour as inappropriate or damaging while still retaining respect and regard for the child as a fellow human being with needs and feelings, strengths and challenges, just like adults (Gatongi, 2007; O’Toole and Hayes, 2020). Boyer (2016) reiterates this point: “We accept all students unconditionally, but not all behaviour is safe, kind, forgiving, or loving. The [teacher] must consider the mental health and physical safety of all students and set appropriate limits“ (p. 344).

In the context of a book on inclusion, it is important to note that children with experiences of trauma and high-risk situations are particularly dependent on continuous and grounding relationships with their professional educators and other adults (Harlow, 2021). We stand in need of a critical debate on manipulative, exclusionary and labelling educational methods that appear to provide short-term success but attribute the reason for classroom disruptions to children and adolescents alone, while neglecting the role of adults and the broader social power structures in it. For example, O’Toole (2019) notes that current approaches to ‘wellbeing’ can lead to ‘toxic positivity’ when students are continually told to be happy, or when we demand resilience in the face of genuine challenges, rather than supporting students with the resources needed. Feeling anxious, upset, disengaged or even aggressive may be a meaningful or even life preserving response to the child’s life circumstances and should not be pathologised but rather met with compassion within a boundaried and stable relationship.

Relational systems

Throughout this chapter we have touched on the idea that relationships in a school setting will be impacted by other relationships the participants have within and outside the school setting, but it is worth explicitly exploring this idea. There is a chain of activity that individuals drag with them across settings (Slesnick et al., 2007), and children in the modern world have an increasingly complex range of settings full of fluidities and disruptions to negotiate (Jackson and Barnett 2019; Bauman 2000). Different settings may operate under different religious, moral, ethical, and social norms and expectations so that a multitude of narratives is continually negotiated by learners. These are negotiations regarding who they are and who they are becoming within potentially contrasting roles, relationships, expectations and experiences (O’Toole et al. 2019; Keupp et al. 2008). Teachers are never only teachers, they are sisters, friends, football players, queers, are being (dis-)abled, migrantised, awarded privileges and discriminated against. In the same way as students are never only students, people’s identities are complex processes in continuous (re-)construction. Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) maintain that learning and development is enhanced when there are linkages across the various settings in which children live their lives so that they can recognise and predict the behaviours of others, and their own strengths, skills, identities and understandings are transferable. In contrast, they proceed with caution, if movement between such settings (e. g. home and school) involves an intolerable level of disjuncture; then their learning and development can be disrupted. For example, when there are differences between home culture and expected school culture in terms of beliefs and practices, such as the use of body language, clothing, greeting rituals, kisses, hugs, or waving hands or the use of derogatory language, there is a potential for misunderstanding. A child might be seen as misbehaving in one context, when her behaviour would be acceptable in a different context. Since culture is in many ways invisible when we are immersed within it, educators’ attempts to support children to behave positively are often guided by biases and assumptions of which the educator is unconscious (O’Toole and Hayes, 2020).

Therefore, it is crucial to understand the student-teacher relationship within the context of systems of relationships. To clarify, the direct student-teacher relationship is highly influenced by all the other relationships in the lives of both the teacher and the child, particularly the relationships that can be observed, that is the other relationships occurring within the school. According to Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006), one of the most crucial relationships from the child’s perspective in this regard is that between the parent/guardian and the teacher as this provides a linkage and point of reference across the transitional boundary between home and school. The psychological concept of social referencing shows that children take their cues from adults on how they should feel and behave in uncertain situations (Berk, 2018). If parents and teachers seem to get on well and have mutual respect, this supports children to transition from home to school and feel safe.

In terms of inclusion, links and relationships between home and school are equally important for linguistic and cultural identity. Support structures for families are sometimes based on ‘socialisation’ (Hornby and Lafaele, 2011; O’Toole et al., 2019) whereby schools attempt to shape parental attitudes and practices so that they facilitate and meet the needs of the educational setting or of the broader society. This can create a jarring sense of disjuncture for children. As Derrington (2007) points out, the most successful inclusive schools do not force children to choose between multiple identities (e. g. the culture or language of the home and the dominant culture) but rather allow the child to be both or more. Relationships between children and teachers are rooted in the relationships both have with family and community. Sometimes values a school tries to convey might be opposed to the values a child is asked to adopt at home or in a particular community. We suggest to extend the distinction between the act and the person drawn before to a distinction between the values of a person and the person, when it comes to children in the formative years. Their values are still in development. As teacher: Try to say ‘that is not okay’ rather than ‘you are not okay’. And even more importantly, try to amplify students’ options for identification rather than limiting them, by creating positive frames for identification and providing possibilities for stable relationships with and amongst students (Render 2014); providing relationships in which conflict and disagreements don’t threaten the continuation of the relationship (Treibel 2015). Behavioural norms have to be a negotiation between students and teachers and change with time and age. Upholding core values such as equality and dignity is the teachers responsibility throughout and beyond these negotiations.

How can critical self-reflection inform relational practice?

In order to ensure that the relational culture within the classroom is not solely dominated by the personal and cultural background of the teacher, it is crucial for teachers to engage in regular critical self-reflection, studying their own positionality and what ‘steps’ they bring to the ‘dance’. In doing so, we may realise that while we cannot control the steps danced by our students, we do have influence on our own steps and so in turn, within a dynamic relationship, we influence others. In engaging in critical self-reflection as a relational practice, it is important to realise that we are never outside of society, nor of power. Therefore, critical self-reflection is necessary for egalitarian inclusive education (Messerschmidt 2011). For some teachers, this could mean the need to relearn everything about the centrality of their own identity, and active, mindful work to ensure they are listening to the children not only in the classroom but also incorporating their background and their communities. Consideration of power differentials will need to be revisited and relearned repeatedly. As a teacher you must be open to listening to challenges the children are facing, and you must also be humble and recognise when things are strange to you and you are strange to them. Thinking about privilege is a starting point to thinking about establishing relationships that are supportive of learning, and it is important to mindfully move beyond simple reproduction of our own school experiences. Identities are more fluid than they once were – many traditional guiding structures of society (patriarchy, colonialism, nationalism) are increasingly being deconstructed, and a teacher is no longer supposed to tell a child what to be – ‘be like this or you’ll get in trouble’. Rather there are more negotiated spaces than ever before, and critical self-reflection allows the teacher to make explicit and break down the assumptions they bring to the relationship, as in example case 2. We also need to avoid thinking in terms of overgeneralised groups and genuinely get to know the individual child – a real relationship does not mean making a homogenous group out of your students but rather seeking the story of the individual person, their aspirations, thoughts, identities.

Another important stance to facilitate critical self-reflection is the understanding that I as the teacher may have needs of my own that I am seeking (attention, recognition, friendship…), perhaps inappropriately, to meet through the relationship with my students. Critically self-reflective teachers must ask themselves: Am I seeking a student’s approval or proximity to satisfy my ego or strengthen my student’s independence? Am I introducing myself as an irreplaceable part of the student’s life and if so, reflecting on asymmetries, do I have the resources and am I willing to maintain the relationship, even when the student does not meet my expectations and confronts me with extreme violence or emotional needs? Do I or does my behaviour suggest a relationship (e. g. the relationship to a friend or a primary caregiver) that I am not able or willing to follow up on? Will it be easier for me to distance myself from the relationship, because in the end I go on holidays with my friends or family and the child is left with theirs? The power of relationships means that we must be mindful of the boundaries of these relationships. It is never the responsibility of the child to manage the emotions of the adult teacher, and equally, there may be areas of the child’s life in which the teacher does not have a central role to play.

The Principles of the Reckahn Reflections might be of use to support critical self-reflection. “1. Children and youth are addressed and treated with appreciation 2. Teachers and educational professionals listen to children and adolescents. […] 5. Teachers and educational specialists are aware of the interests, joys, needs, difficulties, pains and sorrows of children and adolescents. They consider their concerns and the subjective meaning of their behaviour.”

What to do with the power?

Here are some ideas, feel free to add, change, comment and compliment!

• Become aware of our strengths and power and (re-)appropriate it for social change.
• Be an amplifier: make others’ voices heard

• Be a filter on the way to an equal society without discrimination: help discriminatory language become a background noise rather than the dominant tone (classroom as discourse)
• Distinguish between intervention and prevention. The first aiming at protecting somebody or something during acts of violence, the second aiming at educating kids and reducing violent, harmful, discriminatory behaviour altogether.
• Don’t use the discontinuity of a relationship as a threat
• Condone the act not the person
• Be a good example, use restorative practice as a form to restore relationships and rebuild trust. In comparison to forgiveness, restorative practice offers a way to keep the self-respect instead of instilling shame or guilt in a party
• Apologise, if you have harmed somebody
• Don’t apologise for upholding pluralism and mutual respect as values
• Establish and maintain the relationship. It’s your duty as teacher
• Keep in mind to be humble, you don’t know everything
• Create appropriate and accessible communication channels with your students and their families
• Always see the individual person and treat different people differently
• Take into account the power structures in your wording and decision-making
• Be clear and transparent and have high expectations
• Care for your students, their stories and their development
• Believe in your students and show them that you want them to reach their goals

What are the challenges and barriers to putting relationships at the centre of educational practice?

While relationships are crucial to good inclusive practice in education, they are not always easy to put first, in part because of the inappropriate narrative, addressed above, that relationships exist somehow outside of the ‘real’ work of the teacher which is sometimes framed as content-delivery. Initial Teacher Education (ITE) at university (in Germany, Ireland, Italy and many other countries) often focuses on content: theories on literature or on science, theories on didactics or development. There is often one crucial missing point: student teachers in many jurisdictions are often not trained in how to interact on a personal level with a group of students. They do not learn how to create relationships as a basis for successful learning at schools. So, many teachers indicate that when they first start working at schools, they have to learn this while already on the job. And – for some teachers who may have been born and raised so differently from most of their students this can feel like an exhausting job. Because relationships are always individual, teacher education must provide general skills, and placement activities should focus on relationship building as well as specific instructional activities. Otherwise, early-career teachers can emerge from ITE with little sense of relationship-building as central to their role, and / or with inadequate skills to do the actual work of relationship-building.

These issues can become exacerbated as teachers progress through their careers. In many jurisdictions, teachers are under increasing pressure to meet academic outcomes and sometimes to disregard more holistic understandings of children’s learning. Teacher working time often does not include time to invest in relationships. For example, in spite of the evidence in favour of home visits to support learning (Soule and Curtis, 2021; Soule, 2020) in many cases if a teacher visits a student’s family at home to better understand their living situation and to provide appropriated learning settings at school, the teacher does this in their free time. We argue that relational work should be considered as part of the job description of teachers. Establishing a constructive relationship demands effort and time, and teachers must factor in the time to do the “Beziehungsarbeit” (work of building relationships) – to foster the students’ reflections and to tutor them in the process as well as time to reflect on themselves as teachers and a professional self-concept, privileges and power-sharing. Of course, this has implications for policy, too, because teachers cannot simply manufacture more time, and workplace roles do not happen in a vacuum outside of considerations of pay and working conditions. For teachers, school leaders and policy-makers, it is vital to centralise relationships in education, and to see building relationships as a key role within the profession of being a teacher. The European Unions for Education and Teachers play a vital role in shaping policies towards humane working conditions for teachers and educators that in turn make relational approaches an integral part of education.

Lastly, one of the biggest barriers to a relational approach in the classroom is the emotional labour involved for teachers and the potential for burnout. A teacher who invests in relationships can run the risk of caring so much for students, often with little structural support, that their self-care is neglected. This is unlikely to have positive outcomes for anyone involved and in order to be able to meet the needs of students, the needs of teachers must also be met: “Teachers are best able to serve students when they themselves have been adequately served” (Sergiovanni, 2005, p. 101). Therefore, we must emphasise that drawing personal boundaries is not in opposition to a relational approach; in fact, setting boundaries is a necessary pre-condition to being able to appropriately engage in relationships with students. There is no such thing as the ‘perfect’ teacher, and we draw on Winnicott’s (1953) idea of the ‘good enough’ parent to advocate for the ‘good enough teacher’; teachers who reflect on the impact of power structures within the classroom, who recognise the importance of relationships and do the work to build them, who understand their own needs and boundaries, who practice self-care and who perhaps do not always get things right, but are willing to work through ‘rupture and repair’.

Conclusion: Making use of key concepts of relational approaches for developing inclusive educational practices

1. Often the social aspect is seen as an add-on in classroom-situation, while many studies show the opposite is true: the state of well-being is the basis for successful learning.
2. Relationships create a link between different people to create an atmosphere of well-being over many years. If I create opportunities to get to know each other that are grounded in the lifeworld of students, I create references that might be helpful to support them in their learning processes. When I know about the interests of a child, I can try to implement topics. That also applies to group dynamics. Just keep in mind not to appropriate their identities that also need protection. Learn something about their views, listen to them and invite local representatives of these (sub-)cultures to your classes.
3. Each relationship is part of a constellation of other relationships. The student-teacher relationship takes place in the context of the relationships between children and their family and community, teachers’ relationships with the child’s family and community, and teacher’s relationships with their own family and community. Relationships are interactive, dynamic and multi-directional.
4. All students need to feel recognised as individuals, but the cultivation of good pedagogical relations is especially important for students with unsecure living situations and looser relationships. They are particularly dependent on continuous and grounding relationships with their professional educators.
5. Creating relationships with your students does not only make you more knowledgable about their interests; knowing something about their lives means also knowing about their negative experiences, fears and trigger points. In crisis situations, you can rely on the relational bound to lift students up again to prevent conflicts.
6. Relationships are structured by power, and it is crucial for teachers to engage in critical self-reflection on their own role in the asymmetry of the student-teacher relationship.
7. Teachers establish the secure base from which students explore their learning. Behavioural norms in the classroom must be set by teachers, with clear boundaries and expectations, and consequences that address the behaviour but never threaten the removal of the relationship.

Local contexts

Literature

About the authors

name: Lina Render de Barros

Lina Render de Barros is a queer of color activist from Pernambuco and Münsterland. She completed her first state examination (teaching degree) and her master’s degree in bilingual European education at the University of Education in Karlsruhe and her master’s degree in sociology at the Goethe University Frankfurt. She researches, lives and works in Cologne, always with the aim of taking a stand against group focused enmity and contributing to a more peaceful coexistence.

name: Leah O'Toole

Dr Leah O’Toole is Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education in the Froebel Department of Primary and Early Childhood Education in Maynooth University, Ireland. With an academic background in Psychology, her research interests include early childhood education, particularly accessing the voices of the youngest children from birth, relational pedagogy, bioecological theory and working with parents and communities. Inclusion across multiple dimensions is central to all elements of this work.

name: Simon Klippert

Simon Klippert is a Berlin-based teacher and teacher trainer. He has been working in various educational contexts: coordinating youth exchange programs in France, teaching students at university in Colombia, giving classes for newcomer-students in Berlin. For the last 10 years, he has been working as a class teacher at a secondary school in Berlin-Neukölln, with a focus on language and political education, trying to empower less privileged students. Furthermore, he shares his experience as a teacher trainer in Berlin-Kreuzberg. Simon is a founding member of related (www.related-bildung.de), an initiative fighting injustices within the German school system.