The purpose of this case is to examine the connection between the pedagogical practices of standards and relationships. Although research supports the importance of both practices, current efforts often construct a situation where educators must choose between the two. This perception pits one practice against the other, demanding educators choose a side without first reflecting on the validity of the dichotomy. Instead of forcing a choice between standards and relationships, this case explores alternatives for administrators to construct a more holistic pedagogical approach to learning that begins at the intersection of the two practices.
AllodiM. (2010). The meaning of social climate of learning environments: Some reasons why we do not care enough about it. Learning Environments Research, 13, 89-104.
2.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267.
3.
Bernstein-YamashiroB.NoamG. (2013). Relationships, learning, a development: A student perspective. New Directions for Youth Development, 137, 27-44.
4.
BeutelD. (2010). The nature of pedagogic teacher-student interactions: A phenomenographic study. The Australian Educational Researcher, 37(2), 77-91.
5.
BradyL. (2011). Teacher values and relationship: Factors in values education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 56-66.
ConleyD. (2014). Common Core: Development and substance. Social Policy Report, 28(2), 1-15.
8.
CooperJ.HeY. (2013). Beyond the joys of teaching: Stories from four novice secondary teachers. The New Educator, 9, 98-118.
9.
DavisH. (2006). Exploring the contexts of relationship quality between middle school students and teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 193-217.
10.
DottererA.LoweK. (2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1649-1660.
11.
FanF. A. (2012). Teacher: Students’ interpersonal relationships and students’ academic achievement in social studies. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18, 483-490.
12.
GilesD. (2010). Developing pathic sensibilities.: A critical priority for teacher education programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1511-1519.
13.
GilesD. (2011a). Relationships always matter: Findings from a phenomenological research inquiry. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 80-91.
14.
GilesD. (2011b). “Who we are” and “how we are” are integral to relational experience: Exploring comportment in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 59-72.
15.
GilesD.SmytheE.SpenceD. (2012). Exploring relationships in education: A phenomenological inquiry. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 52, 214-236.
16.
HuanV.QuekG.YeoL.AngR.ChongW. (2012). How teacher–student relationship influenced student attitudes towards teachers and school. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 151-159.
17.
LiebtagE. (2013). Moving forward with Common Core State Standards implementation: Possibilities and potential problems. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(2), 56-70.
18.
LovatT.DallyK.ClementN.ToomeyR. (2011). Values pedagogy and teacher education: Re-conceiving the foundations. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(7), 31-44.
19.
MargonisF. (2011). In pursuit of respectful teaching and intellectually-dynamic social fields. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30, 433-439.
20.
MidgleyC.FeldlauferH.EcclesJ. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 981-992.
21.
MilliganJ. (2005). Teaching in Moloch: Toward a prophetic pragmatic critique of pedagogical fundamentalism. Journal of Thought, 40, 97-111.
OstermanK. F. (2010). Teacher practice and students’ sense of belonging. In LovatT.ToomeyR.ClementN. (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing (pp. 239-260). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
24.
PolikoffM. (2012). Instructional alignment under No Child Left Behind. American Journal of Education, 118, 341-368.
25.
PriceH. (2012). Principal–teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 39-85.
26.
RayleA. D. (2006). Mattering to others: Implications for the counseling relationship. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84, 483-487.
27.
RiegS.MarcolineJ. (2008, February). Relationship building: The first “R” for principals. Paper presented at the meeting of Eastern Educational Research Association Conference, Hilton Head, SC.
28.
RoachA.ElliottS. (2009). Consultation to support inclusive accountability and standards-based reform: Facilitating access, equity, and empowerment. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19, 61-81.
29.
RussellS. (2012). CCSSM: Keeping teaching and learning strong. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19(1), 50-56.
30.
SaeviT. (2011). Lived relationality as fulcrum for pedagogical–ethical practice. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30, 455-461.
31.
ShieldsC. (2006). Creating spaces for value-based conversations: The role of school leaders in the 21st century. International Studies in Educational Administration, 34(2), 62-81.
32.
SpiltJ.HughesJ.WuJ.KwokO. (2012). Dynamics of teacher–student relationships: Stability and change across elementary school and the influence on children’s academic success. Child Development, 83, 1180-1195.
33.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 217-247.
34.
Van RoekelD. (2010). Common Core State Standards: A tool for improving education [Policy brief]. Washington, DC: National Education Association Education Policy and Practice Department.
