Direct and indirect educational relationships: Developing a typology for the contribution of different categories of school staff in relation to students’ educational experiences

Abstract

This article presents results from a research project exploring the relational interplay between school staff and students, its functions and complexity in the secondary school context. School relationships (between students and different kinds of staff) are more or less indirectly related to educational content: subject matter as well as norms and values. In the teacher-student relationship, the teaching and learning of subject matter largely defines the relationship, whereas for school support staff, the relationship to such content is fairly distant. However, they all have in common that these assigned functions are created for the purpose of enabling the education of our youth. In this article, a case study from a secondary school is used to develop a typology for understanding the relevance that content may have in these different types of relationships. We also explore the sometimes unpredictable ways in which content can emerge as relevant. A year-long case study was conducted during the 2012-2013 school year at a secondary school that had recently been renovated and in which work had been done to improve the educational environment. Multiple data sources were used, including document analysis, mapping, contextual observations and interviews. Official statistics, newspaper articles and school quality reports were used to contextualize the case. In this article, interviews with different categories of school staff and students formed the main source of data. The different assigned functions of the staff were categorized as: educators, education professionals (e.g. counsellors) and education support professionals (e.g. caretakers). Although the latter were often indirectly connected to content, they could also have relevance through the relationships that they developed with students. Here, there is a point in separating the staff´s assigned function as officially described and their relation to students as played out in practice. Two examples illustrate how members of staff diverge somewhat from their assigned functions in informal places and spaces to facilitate the educational experience of the students. It is argued that in a school for all students, this flexibility in school relationships can improve students' relations to content and school success.

Highlighting education support professionals’ indirect contributions to the educational environment

“…We begin by elaborating on Dewey's and Hansen's work on educational environments and the distinction between the environment and the surroundings. Our point of departure is that the environment is dynamic and connected to educational purposes and that educational relationships can be both direct and indirect and connected to norms, values and subject matter (cf Frelin & Grannäs, 2015). This elaboration directs our focus to the non-teaching staff in schools, such as cleaners, caretakers (vaktmästare) and canteen staff, whose work is not usually included in the educational enterprise.…”

The importance of psychological need satisfaction in educational re-engagement

“…The AP school staff made a conscious effort to build personal and trusting relationships with students. This whole school approach has been reported previously (Frelin and Grannäs 2015) and is intended to provide students with the tools necessary for success.…”

Utbildningens mellanrum

“…Självklart kan lärande ske överallt, men vissa rum i en skola är mer specifikt planerade för det syftet än andra. På samma sätt är vissa relationer i skolan mer direkt kopplade till lärande medan andra är mer perifera, även om de alla bidrar till att göra utbildning möjlig (Frelin & Grannäs 2015).…”

“…Olika professioners uppdragsuppfattningar får betydelse för vilka ramar som problem konstrueras inom, vad som utgör lämpliga åtgärder och även hur ansvaret för dessa åtgärder fördelas. Med hjälp av en ekologisk approach synliggörs hur olika professioners uppdragsuppfattningar påverkar hur väl en skola fungerar och idealiskt skapar personalen ett nät som täcker hela kunskaps-och socialisationsuppdraget (jfr Englund 1990) och fångar upp alla elever så att de inte faller mellan maskorna (Frelin & Grannäs 2015).…”