“We Are The Heartbeat of The School”: A Framework for Educator-to-Educator Relationships

Abstract

Educator-to-educator relationships are critical for a range of educator, student, and school-wide outcomes. To foster and sustain healthy educator-to-educator relationships, a comprehensive framework is needed to understand what informs those relationships and how they function. Through thematic analysis of focus group and interview data from 72 educators in the United States, this qualitative study generated a multi-layered framework that highlights the key actions (communicate, collaborate, support), beliefs (values, respect, trust), and connections (connect professionally, connect personally, inclusion and bias) that constitute educator-to-educator relationships. Additionally, guided by the process-person-context-time (PPCT) model, the framework points out the important influences that school culture and climate, structural supports, and system-wide issues have on educator-to-educator relationships. Implications for research are discussed in terms of conceptualizing educator-to-educator relationships from behavioral, social-cultural, relational, and ecological perspectives. This more holistic approach to understanding relationships between educators can help bring discrete bodies of literature (e.g., on trust, collaboration, school culture and climate) into dialogue with one another. Implications for practice included a list of actionable strategies, grouped by themes from this study, that educators and school leaders can take to strengthen educator-to-educator relationships.

Keywords

educator-to-educator relationships process-person-context-time educator relationships collegiality educator well-being

Introduction

Educator-to-educator relationships are key to understanding and addressing the many critical shifts in the field of education in the United States (U.S.) over the last decade, including historically high rates of teacher turnover and burnout (Barnum, 2023; Diliberti & Schwartz, 2023; National Education Association, 2022), the growing diversity of the student body paired with shrinking staff diversity (Santoro et al., 2021), and the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although there is literature around specific, discrete aspects of educator-to-educator relationships, such as trust (e.g., Bryk & Schneider, 2003; Forsyth et al., 2011), collaboration (e.g., Cohen et al., 2009; Johnson, 2003; Kolleck et al., 2021; Vangrieken et al., 2015), and school culture and climate (e.g., Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008), relatively little research situates educator-to-educator relationships within a broader framework to explain the multi-contextual, bi-directional synergies between educators and their environment. To this end, we propose a framework developed through a qualitative study of educators that describes the individual, relational, and contextual factors constituting educator-to-educator relationships.

The Importance of Educator-to-Educator Relationships

Relationships between educators in schools are essential for realizing a host of beneficial educator outcomes, including well-being, professional growth, and job satisfaction (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Coppe, 2023; Edinger & Edinger, 2018; Hartcher et al., 2023; Kern et al., 2014; Nias, 2005; Pogodzinski et al., 2013; Santoro & Price, 2021; Toropova et al., 2021). A 2020 study of almost 8,000 teachers across 206 schools and nine states in the United States revealed that, amid an otherwise highly challenging and demoralizing period of the pandemic, teachers who could depend on their school leadership to nurture and facilitate meaningful teacher collaborations were the most likely to report satisfaction and retention in their jobs (Kraft et al., 2020). High quality educator-to-educator relationships also buffer against dissatisfaction, burnout, and elevated rates of turnover (Chang, 2009; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Hopkins et al., 2019; Taris et al., 2004). Importantly, in the United States, educators of color leave the profession at higher rates than their White colleagues, and organizational conditions including school relational dynamics are at the root of these higher rates of attrition (Achinstein et al., 2010; Bristol, 2020; Hansen & Quintero, 2019; Santoro et al., 2021). As such, high-quality educator-to-educator relationships might be particularly critical to support the field of education’s diversity and sustainability at large.

Strong educator-to-educator relationships can also critically influence student outcomes by, for example, modeling healthy peer relationships for students and collaborating with colleagues to cultivate collective efficacy and generate the conditions for favorable student learning (Berry, 2021; Goddard et al., 2004; Goddard et al., 2007; Norman et al., 2005; Roffey, 2012; Ronfeldt et al, 2015; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Conversely, when educator-to-educator relationships are weak or strained, the effects can trickle down to students (Catana, 2016). When students pick up on relational conflicts between educators, it can serve as a distraction from learning and even further the conflicts. As Nias (2005, p. 228) put it, “the welfare of the children was intimately bound up with the well-being of the adults who worked with them. If the latter did not feel accepted as people in the staffroom, they would not be fully at ease in the classroom.”

Furthermore, educator-to-educator relationships are inseparable from school culture and climate (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Moolenaar et al., 2014). For example, Cohen et al. (2009) identified three aspects of relationships that foster school climate: (1) respect for diversity; (2) school community and collaboration; and (3) morale and connectedness. High quality educator-to-educator relationships are thus an essential fiber of a positive school climate, whereas weak or conflict-ridden relationships can incite an antagonistic work culture, creating exclusive and unwelcoming working conditions, particularly for educators from marginalized backgrounds (Dixon et al., 2019).

Taken together, the importance of educator-to-educator relationships cannot be understated given their associations with educator, student, and school-wide outcomes. While past studies provide insights on how educator-to-educator relationships are associated with important outcomes, more studies are needed to understand the “key ingredients” constituting educator-to-educator relationships, and how schools can promote those key ingredients in actionable ways. To understand what constitute educator-to-educator relationships, there are various separate bodies of literature on specific factors such as collaboration (e.g., Kolleck et al., 2021; Vangrieken et al., 2015), trust (e.g., Cosner, 2009; Forsyth et al., 2011; Schneider, 2003), and connectedness (e.g., Jarzabkowski, 2002; Schlichte et al., 2005). While such bodies of literature offer depth on specific aspects of educator-to-educator relationships, our goal is to develop a unifying framework that brings the many critical aspects of educator-to-educator relationships together in a coherent way.

An Ecological Orientation for Educator-to-Educator Relationships

To capture the various aspects of educator-to-educator relationships together coherently, we utilize an ecological orientation guided by the process-person-context-time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Navarro et al., 2022). Specifically, we conceptualize individual educators as having agency over and being influenced by their relationships with their colleagues; the educators and their colleagues are further embedded in relational cultures and other layered contexts, all of which evolve and develop over time. Taking such an ecological orientation, the constituting factors and processes of educator-to-educator relationships cannot be separated from the contexts that enable, hinder, or in other ways shape the relationships. In other words, a framework on educator-to-educator relationships would not be complete without specifying the contextual factors and conditions that the relationships develop within.

Understanding educator-to-educator relationships through an ecological orientation also means centering issues such as power, conflict, and distribution of resources. For example, the relationships between educators and their school leaders exert high influence over the quality of educator-to-educator relationships. Strong leadership can directly impact school culture and the relationships between educators, whereas poor leadership and antagonistic work cultures contribute to teacher dissatisfaction and poor relational climate (Bristol, 2020; Fournier et al., 2019; Price, 2012).

Finally, taking an ecological orientation to understand educator-to-educator relationships also means recognizing the context holistically, attending to both the barriers that educators face as well as the assets they have. Specifically, this study uplifts educator autonomy and voices, while also showing the real organizational structures (e.g., leadership, policies) that they operate within. Taken together, we aim to highlight the interdependence of people and contexts, where a key aspect of thriving educator relationships is the fit between educators’ needs, skills, values, and their roles and positionalities within their schools.

Current Study

The central research question that drove this study was: what constitutes strong and positive educator-to-educator relationships? Specifically, through analyzing diverse educators’ voices, we aimed to capture the various interrelated factors composing educator-to-educator relationships, as well as the layered contextual factors influencing these relationships.

Method

Participants

Participants in this study were 72 educators in the United States recruited online in March 2022. Recruitment flyers were circulated online, and prospective participants were selected based on their responses in an interest survey that asked about their availability and demographic information including job role, school setting, school type, gender identity, racial-ethnic identity, and a brief description of the quality of relationships between educators in their school. In addition to the 72 educator participants, 28 educators were selected to participate but did return their consent form before we reached data saturation, so they were ultimately not part of the study.

Among the 72 educator participants, 60% were teachers, 21% administrative leaders (e.g., principals), 14% instructional coaches or specialists (e.g., school counselors), and 6% paraprofessional educators (e.g., aides for special education students). We intentionally refer to all our participants as educators to foster inclusivity. Most of our educator participants identified as female (74%; 25% male, and 1% non-binary) and White (64%; 17% Black/African American, 7% Asian American, 7% Multiracial, and 6% Latina/o or Hispanic). Our educator participants worked in their schools from 6 months to 30 years, with a mean of 7 years and a median of 5 years. At the time of data collection, 54% worked in traditional public schools (25% public charter schools, 15% private nonsectarian schools, and 6% private schools with religious affiliations). Half of the schools were located in suburban communities (28% urban, 18% rural, and 3% online), and the schools were from 21 states. Most were middle schools (36%) or high schools (32%); there were also schools that offered middle through high school (11%), K-12 (8%), K-8 (6%), and elementary (6%). One participant (1%) did not report school type. Our educator participants’ diverse personal and professional backgrounds support the transferability, which is an aspect of trustworthiness for a framework intended to resonate with educators from varies walks of lives (Stahl & King, 2020). See Supplemental Material 1 for more participant details; pseudonyms were used throughout this manuscript to protect confidentiality.

Focus Groups and Interviews

Data were collected through virtual, 90-min focus groups via Zoom conducted in English. To ensure confidentiality, no educators in the same focus group were from the same school. Recognizing there might be real and/or perceived power dynamics, we separated administrative leaders from teachers and paraprofessional educators into their own respective focus groups, as well as White educators and educators who identified with an underrepresented race/ethnicity into their own respective focus groups. If we did not have enough educators who identified with an underrepresented race/ethnicity to form a focus group, we asked them if they preferred to join a focus group with White educators, or if they preferred an individual interview (60 min). The individual interview option was also available to all educator participants, regardless of background characteristics, if they requested it (see Pezalla et al, 2024 for more methodological details). In total, 19 focus groups and 6 individual interviews were conducted. All study procedures were approved by the Solutions Institutional Review Board (IRB#: 2022/01/28). Each educator received a $150 electronic gift card as compensation to thank them for their insights and time.

The same set of seven semi-structured questions (Supplemental Material 2; e.g., “based on your experience, what makes up positive, strong relationships between you and other educators?”) were asked to educator participants regardless of whether they participated in a focus group or individual interview. The questions were developed with the central goal to understand what constitute and shape educator-to-educator relationships, and the questions were refined based on feedback from seven informational interviews with experienced educators and scholars. Additionally, focus group participants did a collaborative activity where they were asked to name everything that makes for positive relationships between educators, then they were asked to arrange and combine what they named into themes, and finally they were asked to rank the themes from the most to least important. Educators who participated in individual interviews were shown some of the themes from previous focus groups and were asked if any theme surprised or particularly resonated with them.

Three facilitators, all of whom are also among this paper’s authors, conducted the focus groups and interviews. All three facilitators had graduate school level training prior to conducting data collection, and we met weekly and shared a running list of notes to discuss and track anything significant related to facilitation (e.g., did not have time to do the collaborative activity, technological difficulties). The weekly meeting also served as check points for us to talk through our impressions from the focus group/interviews and conclude data collection when all of us felt that data saturation was achieved (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022).

Analysis

All focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed using an online transcription service. Four researchers (authors of this paper) analyzed the data iteratively (Cascio et al., 2019) and collaboratively (Richards & Hemphill, 2018) using Dedoose (Dedoose, 2023). We first generated an initial list of a priori codes as informed by a literature review and seven informational interviews with experienced educators and scholars, which yielded keywords such as “collaboration,”“trust,” and “jealousy.” The three facilitators also independently generated a list of themes based on their impressions conducting the focus groups/interviews. Those themes tended to be phrases that participants said in the focus groups/interviews, such as “connecting as humans,”“watercooler culture,” and “code switch.” Lastly, we went through all the themes that came out of the collaborative activity with educator participants (e.g., “positive attitude,”“norms,”“common goals”). An initial list of codes was generated by combining the themes from all aforementioned sources after removing redundancies.

Next, all four researchers independently coded the same transcript using the initial list of codes, then met to walk through their coding line by line. We calibrated our coding and added codes inductively through a reflexive thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2012; Braun et al., 2019). This inductive approach to allow codes and themes to emerge aligned with our interpretive orientation (Smith et al., 2008). This same process was repeated for five other transcripts, until all researchers felt confident that they were coding consistently. The resulting list of codes after this initial calibration process contained 48 codes.

Using the list of 48 codes, we then broke into pairs to code the remaining transcripts. The pairing alternated such that all four researchers worked with each other, which helped to ensure cross-coder consistency. Coding discrepancies were manually identified and then discussed by the two coders (Hill et al., 2005); discrepancies that could not be reconciled between the two coders, as well as consensus that implies a change to the codebook (e.g., adding a new code, refining the definition of a code) were brought to the weekly meetings with all four researchers. This throughout and collaborative approach to resolving coding discrepancies strengthened the dependability and hence trustworthiness of our interpretation (Stahl & King, 2020). In the meetings with all four researchers, we also discussed combining codes into emergent themes (e.g., “watercooler culture” was made a subcode of “school culture and climate”).

After about half of the transcripts were coded, all the excerpts for each code were reviewed to ensure that the code was being applied with an agreed-upon meaning. Discrepancies were extensively discussed by all four coders and the codebook was revised accordingly. The final codebook containing 36 codes, (Supplemental Material 3), which all coders felt achieved thematic saturation (Rahimi & Khatooni, 2024), was used to re-code the first half transcripts and code the remaining half of the transcripts. Multiple codes could be applied to the same excerpt in order to capture the interrelatedness of the emergent themes.

After data analysis was done, we shared the themes and their respective descriptions with 13 educators and 2 scholars, and we interviewed each of them to gather their feedback. This process functioned as a form of member checking to strengthen the credibility and hence trustworthiness of our interpretations (Stahl & King, 2020).

Researcher Positionality

As we were heavily involved in the collection and analysis of the data used in this study, we recognize that our personal and scholarly identities are inseparable from every aspect of this study—from how we interacted with the educator participants to how we interpreted their voices. Although we are all education researchers, we acknowledge we are currently not educators in middle or high schools (unlike our participants). We acknowledge that our diverse and interdisciplinary research training, including perspectives from developmental psychology, educational psychology, and public health, as well as our personal experiences with the education system, shaped our interpretations of the data.

Results

Six major themes were generated for what constitute and shape strong and positive educator-to-educator relationships (Table 1). We present the findings using an ecology metaphor: We conceptualize educators as thriving trees, such that the roots of thriving are the relationships between educators. The educator relationships (roots) are shaped by various layered ecological factors that represent the school and broader environments (Figure 1). Below, we elaborate on each major theme (bolded and italicized) and their respective sub-themes (italicized).

Table 1.

The Educator-to-Educator Relationships (E²E) Framework.

	Themes	Sub-themes
Roots: the main elements of E²E	Actions	Communicate
		Collaborate
		Support
	Beliefs	Affirm values
		Respect
		Trust
	Connections	Connect professionally
		Connect personally
		Promote inclusion and reduce bias
	Soil: School culture and climate that nurtures E²E	Social opportunities
	Soil: School culture and climate that nurtures E²E	Shared vision
	Bedrock: Structural supports for E²E	Leadership
		Time and space
		Politics
	Environmental factors: System-wide issues	Lack of diversity
		Underappreciation
		Educator retention

Figure 1.

Graphical representation of the educator-to-educator relationships (E²E) framework.

The Roots of Educator-to-Educator Relationships: Actions, Beliefs, and Connections

The first three major themes capture the main components of strong and positive educator-to-educator relationships. Collectively, we call them the ABCs of educator-to-educator relationships, standing for actions, beliefs , and connections . Like how roots support and nourish trees as they grow, we found that actions, beliefs , and connections are the roots that constitute strong and positive educator-to-educator relationships and their associated outcomes. While actions, beliefs , and connections are synergistically interconnected, they could be distinguished conceptually as the behavioral, social-cultural, and relational aspects of strong and positive educator-to-educator relationships respectively.

Actions

Three sub-themes were further developed to capture the actions that are central to strong and positive educator-to-educator relationships: Communicate, collaborate, and support. First, communicate was coded on a spectrum from lack of communication and miscommunication to having “real” conversations, clear communication, chain of command, and transparency. Educators who perceive open, transparent, and regular communication from their colleagues tend to feel a stronger sense of connection with one another and stronger commitment to their school. Conversely, educators who perceive communication to be cryptic, confusing, sporadic, and/or openly hostile tend to feel detached from their work and their relationships with colleagues.

I think just being open-minded and really honest has been helpful at our school. I think sometimes we have people who do like to sugarcoat things and kind of toxic positivity, but we are really, really honest with each other, and we like to see the big picture and sometimes it's not a great picture all the time, but we're able to have those real conversations… just being able to have those people you can go to and vent to, just being honest with everyone has been something that has really built those kinds of relationships at our school. —Anita (Black/African American, female teacher in a suburban, traditional public school)

A particularly nuanced aspect of communication that our educator participants shared is code-switching, which occurs when members of underrepresented groups are intentional about how they communicate with others in order to make the relationships “comfortable,”“easy,” or “peaceful” because they believe their authentic self might not be received well. As Richard, a male, Black/African American teacher in an urban private school shared below, educators who code-switch often carry substantial emotional burdens or relational strains that might reduce the amount of time, energy, and/or desire for them to form relationships with other educators.

We need better communication because it shouldn't feel like the underground railroad when we're talking. It shouldn't be like ‘come here, come by the water cooler that's in the underground at the locker room that doesn't get used anymore so we can have a talk about how your experiences are’. I know my White coworkers and male coworkers, they can just meet in the middle of the hallway, talk freely, miss class, talk at lunch, call lunch, and go get dinner together. It's not the same… If we're seen together, we're a gang. —Richard (Black/African American, male teacher in an urban, private school with religious affiliation)

Another Actions sub-theme of educator-to-educator relationships is collaborate, which ranged from siloed work styles (e.g., “I just sit in my room and I do my job”) to more collaborative work styles (e.g., through teaching teams or professional learning communities). Simply put, effective collaboration strengthens educator-to-educator relationships.

Intentionally distinguished from collaborate is support. While collaboration entails a reciprocal level of involvement between two or more educators, that is not necessarily the case for support. Our educator participants talked about support in multiple forms, such as emotional support (e.g., “being a good listener”), mentorship, peer observations, and constructive feedback. The value of support in fostering educator-to-educator relationships cannot be understated especially in the face of high expectations, overfilled schedules, lack of funding, and the many competing demands that educators navigate through. As Don shared below, providing and receiving support is essential in cultivating strong educator-to-educator relationships.

Another thing that I think helps with relationship building is…just giving up a little bit of time to support somebody else. I like to be a person that is helpful. Whatever comes on my plate for that day, I'm going to try to go after it with a positive attitude. Kind of like being the Al Newman, he was a baseball player for the [Minnesota] Twins and he could play any position. —Don (White, male teacher in a suburban, public charter school)

Beliefs

Going hand-in-hand with Actions were educators’ Beliefs that made up positive and strong educator-to-educator relationships. Three sub-themes were developed under Beliefs ::Values, respect, and trust. First, values capture how educator relationships are influenced by their perception of their colleagues’ beliefs about the teaching profession and/or students. Working with others who have similar values or philosophies about what it means to be an educator can aid educator-to-educator relationships, whereas conflicting beliefs about teaching often compromise educator-to-educator relationships.

It's my belief that you put the students first. I'm here to teach them, but it's their education. So I think I totally dedicate myself to that. When I feel like another teacher isn't, if they're just kind of coasting or they're making it about them rather than the students, that really is off-putting to me. —Kathryn (White, female teacher in a suburban, public charter school)

The role that values and beliefs play in shaping educator-to-educator relationships also extends to the school level. Educators compromise their relationships with colleagues and need to draw boundaries when they are in a school culture that conflicts with their values for teaching.

Half of the educators are very much anti-mask, anti-CRT, and half of them are very much mask, vaccinate, we've got to keep teaching cultural diversity and SEL. It's like we're a staff divided because we're in these two separate political groups who feel very strongly. It's become so clear how people align right now that it's like there's cliques. Oh, that's that group and that's that group and you can't trust them. —Fannie (White, female teacher in a traditional public school)

As the excerpt above alluded to, it is difficult to cultivate positive educator-to-educator relationships when educators find it difficult to respect their colleagues, for example due to not meeting their definitions of basic professionalism. On the other hand, when respect is cultivated, educators develop strong and positive relationships with their colleagues, and see them as role models, collaborators, mentors, and friends.

The last sub-theme under the Beliefs is trust. Our educator participants provided an abundance of accounts on how trust is a core element of strong and positive educator-to-educator relationships. As Eudora, a female, White paraeducator in a suburban traditional public school shared, trust looks like “the ability to talk and share what you want to share without feeling that there'll be repercussions.”Trust, however, can be precarious when educators find themselves in inequitable power dynamics or under unreasonable expectations to collaborate. Trust is also eroded when educators gossip about other educators or go “behind each other's backs” leaving others feeling “blindsided.”

Connections

In addition to Actions and Beliefs , Connections are also essential for strong and positive educator-to-educator relationships. The sub-theme connect professionally captures the palpable feeling educators experience when they enter their school building, ranging from emotional detachment or even teacher isolation to a sense of kinship or feeling part of a web of relationships. This sense of professional connection was described as a precondition for, and an essential aspect of deeper, trusting educator-to-educator relationship.

I feel like it is so important to have at least that one other person that you work with who you know you can count on. Before I was established in the school that I’m in and before I had made those relationships with people, I did not necessarily feel like I was a part of the community so I didn’t really feel connected. But then, the more connections you’re able to make, the better I have felt about being where I am. —Janet (White, female teacher in a rural, traditional public school)

Our educator participants also shared about some not so positive dimensions of professional connections; for example, even one colleague’s difficult personality can spread into a negative contagion and make educator-to-educator relationships challenging.

Going beyond connecting professionally, connect personally pertains to having real, sincere connections on a personal level that happen through interactions in the hallway as well as during informal events outside of school (e.g., happy hour, cookout, yoga) and often involves exchanges of positivity, laughter, and humor. Through these genuine and authentic connections (e.g., “how are you, really”), educators grow to appreciate each other and truly feel like “we're human beings, we're not robots.”

Connections would not be complete without recognizing the sub-theme of promote inclusion and reduce bias. As Larry shared below, educators thrive in an inclusive web of relationships where their strengths and needs are acknowledged and in which they can co-exist with and learn from their colleagues despite differences.

When you have different teachers with so many different cultural backgrounds working together, you got to be flexible with your teaching plan and teaching space, and you're going to be willing to accept new ideas or communicate when things are not going very well. And just be very straightforward to share what you are thinking and what is not working. —Larry (Asian American, male teacher in a suburban, public charter school)

On the contrary, factors that disrupt inclusion have damaging impacts on educators and their relationship with their colleagues. Educators shared with us both overt (e.g., discrimination and exclusionary tactics, microaggression) and covert (e.g., implicit prejudices and stereotypes) biases that made building relationships difficult. As educator Ray shared below, although educators from marginalized backgrounds can demonstrate resilience and manage to thrive despite biases, we cannot make light of the relational strains and emotional tolls that biases bring to their relationships with colleagues.

They're asking me when they see me, "Hey, are you a gym teacher?" as if somebody of my stature can't be a English teacher. They're questioning my ability to be able to teach or even my education level. These are the things I got to deal with. But yeah, I still have to come in and teach with a sane mind. I still have to come in and make sure everyone is comfortable. I still have to come in and do my job and do it well. —Ray (Black/African American, male teacher in a suburban, traditional public school)

The Soil: School Climate and Culture that Nurture Educator-to-Educator Relationships

So far our findings pertain to the main elements that constitute educator-to-educator relationships; the next set of our findings pertains to the critical elements at the school climate and culture level that bi-directionally nurture educator-to-educator relationships. Just like soil provides grounding and sustenance for roots, a thriving school climate and culture provides the condition for healthy educator-to-educator relationships to develop. Also, just like how roots in turn bind and strengthen the soil, thriving relationships between educators help make up a healthy school climate and culture .

Our educator participants described school climate and culture as ranging from school as a welcoming place, to schools making people “feel invisible,” highlighting the relational nature of school climate and culture. Many mentioned the concept of “watercooler culture,” which involves informal socialization between educators in other areas of the school outside formal instruction (e.g., teacher’s lounge, lunchroom, playground). Like the broader school culture and climate, watercooler culture can range from harmful to beneficial in terms of its influence on educator-to-educator relationships. For example, the proverbial watercooler might be a space for support and venting frustrations, or it might be dominated by gossip, peer pressure, and negativity contagion. In sum, school culture and climate - including its myriad subcultures - has the potential to facilitate educator relatoinships or exacerbate interactions that degrade educator relationships.

Within school climate and culture , two sub-themes were generated as nutrients for educator-to-educator relationships. First, educator-to-educator relationships are largely shaped by the various social opportunities that they can partake in, both formally (e.g., professional learning communities, school-mandated team-building events like rope courses, coaching after- school clubs or sports) and informally (e.g., happy hours, spur-of-the-moment cup of coffee with a colleague, outings). Secondly, as Herman shared below, working toward a shared vision (also phrased as core value or shared philosophy) unites and facilitates educator-to-educator relationships. Even in times of relational conflicts and disconnects, educators can ground themselves in their shared vision as a resilience factor to persevere.

The togetherness and we have the same mission, the same goal in mind really… If you as educators get that down together and say, yeah, we're both here, you can ask anything of me and I'll help you because we're here for the kids, we're here to do this together. —Herman (White, male teacher in a suburban, private school with religious affiliation)

The Bedrock: Structural Support of Educator-to-Educator Relationships

While we conceptualize soil as the bi-directional nutrients of educator-to-educator relationships, we conceptualize the more distant, but nonetheless critical, structural supports for educator-to-educator relationships as the bedrock in this framework. Much like how bedrocks provide a solid foundation for the soil and the roots that grow within it, school structures and policies can be aligned to support and sustain positive relational climates in which educator-to-educator relationships flourish. Three structural support sub-themes were generated: Leadership, politics, and time and space.

First, although strong relationships with leaders do not always fully translate to strong relationships between educators, or vice versa, the direct and indirect effects of leadership on educator-to-educator relationships were apparent. When relationships between educators and administrators are strong and positive, it serves as a role model and foundation (“setting the tone”) for collaborations, collegiality, and execution of shared visions among educators. Conversely, weak or negative relationships with administrators can create a school climate that is detrimental to the strength and quality of relationships between educators. Leadership also involves leadership style and philosophy. Educator-to-educator relationships flourish when leadership intentionally builds structures for educators to interact both professionally and informally. Conversely, educators talked about how their relationships “shattered” after watching leaders handle major events inappropriately, when leadership played down discriminatory incidents, or when leaders stick to rules and regulations that are counter-relational.

There was a trans student who wanted to use the correct gender bathroom for them, and the community exploded. Students were honestly just confused, it's a very, very rural area where I teach. The response from my admin team actually cemented my decision to hand in my resignation because they basically said, don't talk about it, it will all blow over. And I said, okay, that's not an environment I want to continue working in. —Beverly (White, female teacher in a rural, traditional public school)

Another major structural support for educator-to-educator relationships is politics, referring to the systematic allocation of resources or power within or between schools, including hierarchies, favoritism, perceived sense of superiority (e.g., “old guard mentality”), unions, administrative censoring, and other power dynamics and relations. As J. D. shared below, power politics can create factions in schools and influence the culture of relationships amongst educators.

If people feel like they're sort of put upon, like things aren't even, or they're not sure why somebody has a freer schedule than them, or if you get asked to substitute or cover classes and other people don't, that obviously is destructive to any kind of positive peer relationship. Or any perceived sort of inequity… I know for us, one issue at our school is because it's a for-profit school, we don't have a public salary schedule, which means that we don't really know where we stand in relation to each other, it kind of ruins that feeling of being all in the same boat, all working toward the same mission. —J. D. (White, non-binary teacher in an urban, private nonsectarian school)

To navigate the politics within and beyond school walls, educators talked about a host of resilience factors such as empowerment, self-efficacy, sense of autonomy/agency, and collective efficacy. As such, politics is not necessarily always problematic or relationally-taxing to navigate; rather, when intentionally leveraged (e.g., through distributive leadership), it could bring out the assets and strengths within educators (e.g., “teacher leader voices”) that are conducive to healthy relationships and relational climates.

Finally, structural supports of educator-to-educator relationships also include the foundational necessities of time and space. Not having, taking, or making the time was one of the most frequently mentioned barriers for educator-to-educator relationships.

It's going to sound just so simple, but I think time, just everyone feels like they're barely surviving in general and then put a pandemic on top of it. I think you just get holed up in your room doing just what you have to do from day to day, that it's hard to organically grow relationships with other people, because there's just not the time to do it. —Ayn (White, female teacher in a suburban, traditional public school)

Similar to time, physical space is a fundamental yet often overlooked factor for educator-to-educator relationships. Close proximity to other educators (e.g., sharing the same office, lunch room) could serve as a catalyst for collaboration and relationships, whereas segregation (e.g., separate campuses), marginalization (e.g., being assigned the basement, “gloomy” room/office), or even the very denial of space (e.g., not given an office space to even hang one's jacket) could make educator-to-educator relationships much more difficult.

Environmental Factors: System-Wide Issues

Some of the critical but less acknowledged aspects of educator-to-educator relationships are the institutional and political systems in which they operate. Continuing with our ecological metaphor, we conceptualize those system-wide issues affecting educator-to-educator relationships as the overarching environmental factors that affect the roots, soils, and bedrock; likened to what’s in the water or the air in schools. Simply put, it is nearly impossible to develop and sustain healthy relationships within an unhealthy system. Three system-wide issues sub-themes were generated: Lack of diversity, under-appreciation, and educator retention.

First, the lack of diversity (in the educator workforce) can become fertile ground for inequitable school cultures if schools are not intentional about fostering inclusivity. Just like a healthy forest needs biodiversity, educator relationships flourish when all cultures are explicitly welcomed and valued. As Lee shared below, lack of diversity can create a sense of isolation among educators whose backgrounds and identities are underrepresented or marginalized.

I think that it's hard to create a relationship, or make an overture with another human, if you feel you might not be able to connect with them. If there's not a diversity around you, or somebody who looks or speaks or sounds or believes like you or has an identifier like you, then you might not be able to have strong relationships, or as strong relationships. It's a little bit harder to forge that path, I think. —Lee (Multiracial, female learning specialist in a suburban, private nonsectarian school)

Another significant system-wide issue affecting educator-to-educator relationship is the societal under-appreciation of educators; for example, feeling devalued in terms of respect, time, workload, pay, benefits, and professional growth, to name a few. When educators feel underappreciated or burnt out, they can stagnate in their profession and develop a work-related malaise that stymies their relationships with other educators.

I feel like I'm leaning towards the Great Resignation. It's having to cover for other teachers during our one tiny little planning period. Some schools they're being paid in some schools they're not, it just makes it so hard to take a day off work without feeling guilty. And it also makes you resentful of your colleagues, even when I really don't want to be resentful. —Fannie (White, female teacher in a traditional public school)

On the other hand, we also found that the shared resentment of feeling undervalued could in some cases contribute to a sense of solidarity, compassion, and commiseration (e.g., “lean on each other a lot”) that might facilitate educator-to-educator relationships. Solidarity due to shared resentment, however, is hardly a prescription for sustainability of educator well-being and effectiveness.

Educator retention is another system-wide issue highly related to educator-to-educator relationships. High turnover makes it difficult to develop and sustain strong and positive relationships among educators, and turnover at the leadership level can often also trickle down and make the school climate and educator-to-educator relationships shaky. Specifically, the weight of disorder and disruption, whether on a controllable or dramatic scale, pulls educators away from fostering relationships. In the context of this study, educator retention is confounded with the many other stressors brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, which collectively made forming and sustaining relationships particularly difficult.

The past year, our climate and culture has really taken a turn down. I think the capacity went from zero to less than zero for educators… People used to have a lot of grace, people used to keep an open mind, a lot of people were helping each other, it was more close-knit. And then people lost a lot of that during the pandemic and at this point they're just trying to survive and they don't have that capacity to help or even understand, or give a space. We now have a few pretty known pockets fighting happening where teachers are having conflicts with other teachers. I've been there for over 17 years and I don't really remember it being like this. —Karen (White, female instructional coach in a suburban, traditional public school)

Discussion

As the field of education continues to grapple with critical issues such as educator well-being, retention, and morale following the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic (García et al., 2022), the need for strong and positive relationships among educators is foremost in this historical moment. The culmination of the findings from this study is a coherent framework that encompasses multiple synergistic elements of educator-to-educator relationships, as well as the layered contextual factors that shape those relationships. Overall, we used trees, roots, and the surrounding ecosystem (i.e., soil, bedrock, environmental factors) as a metaphor for educator-to-educator relationships. The interconnectedness of the forest ecosystems (Simard, 2021; Wohlleben, 2016) seemed particularly fitting for illustrating the interconnected nature of educator-to-educator relationships, and the co-dependence of such relationships with the school and broader systems.

Scholarly Implications

In the roots section, we grouped the essential elements that constitute educator-to-educator relationships into actions, beliefs, and connections, which pertain to the behavioral, social-cultural, and relational aspects of educator-to-educator relationships respectively. This section calls for the understanding of educator relationships and thriving to be holistic. Specifically, actions for strengthening educator relationships need to be rooted in asset-based beliefs, and beliefs about prioritizing educator relationships need to be backed up by concrete actions. At the core, educator-to-educator relationships are social and interpersonal dynamics, highlighting the fundamental importance of connections (Jarzabkowski, 2002; Löfgren & Karlsson, 2016). The behavioral, social-cultural, and relational synergy of educator-to-educator relationships also highlights the interrelatedness of the various elements of the framework, which calls for research that look at their interaction/moderation effects. For example, Ning et al. (2015) examined how the association between educator connection and collaboration varied as a function of educator beliefs.

Within actions, aligning with past literature, we showed that communication, collaboration, and support are core elements for educator-to-educator relationships (Cohen et al., 2009; Collie et al., 2015; Johnson, 2003; Kolleck et al., 2021; Renshaw et al., 2015; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010; van Horn et al., 2004; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Within beliefs, trust has been relatively well-studied in relation to educator-to-educator relationships (Bryk & Schneider, 2003; Forsyth et al., 2011; Hoy & Tarter, 2004; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Values and respect, on the other hand, have been well studied in terms of educator-to-student relationships but not as much for educator-to-educator relationships. Taken together, trust, values, and respect highlighted how central it is for educators to have colleagues who they align with in terms of their social, moral, or educational values (Nias, 2005; Harris & Anthony, 2001). This also speaks to the call for research on educator relationships to looks beyond “being nice to one another” and examine deeper concepts like beliefs that are critical for meaningful professional growth (Evans, 2012). Finally, within connections, we intentionally distinguish connecting professionally and connecting personally, and we emphasized promoting inclusion and reducing bias, which is a concrete acknowledgement that there are often real inequities and biases that shape educator-to-educator relationships.

The actions, beliefs, and connections that make up educator-to-educator relationships are only part of the framework. Our findings pointed out multiple contextual factors that are meaningful to fully, holistically understand educator-to-educator relationships, which ties back to the process-person-context-time (PPCT) systems model’s focus on the interrelatedness between people and context (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Navarro et al., 2022). We conceptualized the most immediate level that is bi-directionally related to educator-to-educator relationships as the soil, and that is the school culture and climate (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Cohen et al., 2009; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008; Hoy & Tarter, 2004; Hoy et al., 2002). What nourishes the soil is the bedrock, which we conceptualized as the supporting structures of educator-to-educator relationships, including politics, school leaders' actions, communication, mindset, and philosophies (Barth, 2006; Baptiste, 2019; Liebowitz & Porter, 2019; Kouzes & Posner, 2009; Price, 2012), as well as basic needs such as time and space. Finally, in the environmental factors section, we highlighted several system-wide issues that, although more distant, have substantial direct and/or indirect impact on educator-to-educator relationships. For example, the lack of diversity of the teaching workforce at large can exact a toll on educator-to-educator relationships, especially disproportionally so among educators from marginalized backgrounds (Bristol, 2017; Taie & Goldring, 2020). Overall, the richness in our data on the contextual factors calls for an ecological, multi-layered understanding of educator-to-educator relationships.

Practical Implications

Above all else, it is our hope that the educator-to-educator relationships framework is used by not only scholars, but also educators, giving them timely, actionable strategies and approaches to navigate the challenges of working in schools while feeling well-connected to their fellow colleagues, which in turn support their well-being, satisfaction, and professional growth. To this end, we developed a list of relationship-building strategies and approaches for strengthening educator-to-educator relationships based on the themes and findings of this study (Supplemental Material 4). For example, under the theme of collaboration (actions), we draw upon research evidence behind strategies such as PLCs (professional learning communities) and Critical Friends Groups (Curry, 2008). Under the theme of values (beliefs), we suggest having an open conversation about what it means to be a good educator, and highlight that it is okay to respectfully disagree with your colleague (Evans, 2012; Hargreaves, 2001). Under the theme of promoting inclusion and reducing bias, we present strategies, such as supporting affinity spaces (Pour-Khorshid, 2018), that might be particularly supportive for educators from marginalized backgrounds. Supplemental Material 4 also covers strategies that pertain to the contextual factors of educator-to-educator relationships, as grouped by school culture and climate (e.g., co-create a shared vision for educator relationships), supporting structures (e.g., refrain from favoritism and other practices that create friction or hierarchy among educators), and system-wide issues (e.g., minimize burnout contagion). Taken together, Supplemental Material 4 could serve as a practical roadmap for making the various elements of the educator-to-educator relationships framework actionable and practical.

Strengths and Limitations

Overall, this study has three main sets of strengths and limitations. To start with, a strength of our framework is its ecological, holistic, and comprehensive nature. Our goal was to develop a framework that would resonate with educators from a diversity of lived experiences. This breadth contributes to the generalizability of our framework, yet this very generalizability limits specificity. For example, our framework does not get to some of the nuanced relational experiences that educators who are most underrepresented in the field often navigate through (e.g., Achinstein et al., 2010; Bristol, 2020; Griffin & Tackie, 2017; Unda, 2023). To this end, future studies that aim to center the relational experiences of educators from marginalized and/or specific backgrounds are encouraged to take a more focused approach in terms of data collection and a more critical perspective for data interpretation. Another way to leverage the diverse lived experiences of our educator participants is to take a comparative approach to systemically examine sub-group similarities and differences. Building upon the findings of this study, future studies can examine whether certain components of the educator-to-educator framework are more salient for certain groups of educators. For example, do trust and beliefs play a more substantial role in shaping collegial relationships for educators from marginalized backgrounds? Do new educators report unique relational challenges compared to educators who have taught for longer? Do educators’ relational experience vary as a function of their job roles? Those nuanced questions were beyond the scope of this study but could be addressed with this study’s rich dataset.

Next, our study also has some methodological limitations. While we provide a landscape description of what educator-to-educator relationships look like for a large number of educators in a snapshot of time, relationships are by nature fluid, yet our data is unable to speak to how such relationships evolve or change over time. To this end, future studies could employ a longitudinal design by examining the same educators’ relational experience as they progress throughout or even over the school years. Also on a methodological note, participants were self-selected into the study, which means they might have felt particularly strongly about the research topic (i.e., educator-to-educator relationship).

Finally, our data collection method of focus groups/interviews is a strength in terms of centering the educators’ own narrative of their relational experiences. While focus groups/interviews afford richness in terms of educators’ self-reports, this approach could be strengthened with triangulation of other data sources, such as data on educator relationships from a system level perspective. For example, social network analysis (e.g., Kaihoi et al., 2022; Penuel et al., 2009) and school-wide observational data could complement our understanding of educator-to-educator relationships.

Conclusions

Grounded in the voices of 72 educators in the United States who represent a diverse range of backgrounds, this study shows that the relationships between educators are multifaceted and multi-layered. Specifically, educator-to-educator relationships are synergistically behavioral (actions: communicate, collaborate, support), social-cultural (beliefs: values, respect, trust), and relational (connections: connect professionally, connect personally, inclusion and bias). Our findings also highlighted the importance of taking an ecological perspective to understand educator relationships, that school culture and climate, structural supports, and system-wide issues are inseparably correlated with educators’ relational experiences. Overall, this study contributes to our understanding of educator-to-educator relationships from a holistic standpoint, which has implications for supporting a range of educator outcomes such as retention, well-being, and professional growth.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251408933 – Supplemental material for “We Are The Heartbeat of The School”: A Framework for Educator-to-Educator Relationships

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251408933 for “We Are The Heartbeat of The School”: A Framework for Educator-to-Educator Relationships by Ta-yang Hsieh, Lex Nappa, Alyssa Scott and Anne E. Pezalla in SAGE Open

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we are grateful for all the educators who participated in this study. This study is only possible with the contribution from educators who shared their stories with us—we are grateful for their time, insights, and vulnerability. We also thank Drs. Joanna Williams and Peter Scales for their feedback on the manuscript. Finally, this study is supported by a Chan Zuckerberg Initiative grant (CZIF2021-005774; “Expanding the Vision for Developmental Relationships in Schools”) awarded to Search Institute.

ORCID iD

Ta-yang Hsieh

Consent to Participate

The Solutions IRB approved our study protocols (protocol number: 2022/01/28) on March 01, 2022. Participants gave consent through electronic signatures before starting their focus group/interviews.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by a Chan Zuckerberg Initiative grant (CZIF2021-005774; “Expanding the Vision for Developmental Relationships in Schools”) awarded to Search Institute.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, TyH, upon reasonable request and signing of a data-sharing agreement with Search Institute.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Achinstein

Ogawa

R. T.

Sexton

Freitas

(2010). Retaining teachers of color: A pressing problem and a potential strategy for “Hard-to-Staff” schools. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 71–107.

Aldridge

J. M.

Fraser

B. J.

(2016). Teachers’ views of their school climate and its relationship with teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Learning Environments Research, 19(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9198-x

Baptiste

(2019). No teacher left behind: The impact of principal leadership styles on teacher job satisfaction and student success. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 9(1), 1–11.

Barnum

(2023, June 27). The teaching profession is facing a post-pandemic crisis. Chalkbeat. https://www.chalkbeat.org/2023/6/27/23774375/teachers-turnover-attrition-quitting-morale-burnout-pandemic-crisis-covid/

Barth

R. S.

(2006, March 1). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. ASCD. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/improving-relationships-within-the-schoolhouse

Berry

A. B.

(2021). Understanding shared responsibility between special and general education teachers in the rural classroom. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 40, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705211015681

Braun

Clarke

(2012). Thematic analysis. In Cooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

Sher

K. J.

(Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (Vol. 2, pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.

Braun

Clarke

Hayfield

(2019). “A starting point for your journey, not a map”: Nikki Hayfield in conversation with Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke about thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1670765

Bristol

T. J.

(2020). A tale of two types of schools: An exploration of how school working conditions influence Black male teacher turnover. Teachers College Record, 122, 1–41.

10.

Bristol

T. J.

(2017). To be alone or in a group: An exploration into how the school-based experiences differ for black male teachers across one urban school district. Urban Education, 53, 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917697200

11.

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Lerner

R. M.

Damon

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

12.

Bryk

Schneider

(2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40–44.

13.

Catana

(2016). Conflicts between teachers: Causes and effects. In Sandu

Frunza

Gorghiu

Ciongaru

(Eds.), New approaches in social and humanistic sciences (pp. 89–93). Medimond.

14.

Carver-Thomas

Darling-Hammond

(2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute.

15.

Cascio

M. A.

Lee

Vaudrin

Freedman

D. A.

(2019). A team-based approach to open coding: Considerations for creating intercoder consensus. Field Methods, 31(2), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X19838237

16.

Chang

M.-L.

(2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y

17.

Cohen

Mccabe

E. M.

Michelli

N. M.

Pickeral

(2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100108

18.

Collie

R. J.

Shapka

J. D.

Perry

N. E.

Martin

A. J.

(2015). Teacher well-being: Exploring its components and a practice-oriented scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(8), 744–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915587990

19.

Coppe

(2023). Teacher networks: From a catalyst for enactment of professional development to a source of professional development. Teachers and Teaching, 30(3), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2023.2263734

20.

Cosner

(2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 248–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08330502

21.

Curry

M. W.

(2008). Critical friends groups: The possibilities and limitations embedded in teacher professional communities aimed at instructional improvement and school reform. Teachers College Record, 110, 733–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810811000401

22.

Dedoose. (2023). Version 9.0.107, cloud application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. www.dedoose.com

23.

Diliberti

M. K.

Schwartz

H. L.

(2023) Educator turnover has markedly increased, but districts have taken actions to boost teacher ranks: Selected findings from the sixth American school district panel survey. RAND Corporation, 2023. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA956-14.html

24.

Dixon

R. D.

Griffin

A. R.

Teoh

M. B.

(2019). If you listen, we will stay: Why teachers of color leave and how to disrupt teacher turnover. The Education Trust & Teach Plus. https://teachplus.org/disruptteacherturnover/

25.

Dutton

J. E.

Heaphy

E. D.

(2003). The power of high quality connections. In Cameron

K. S.

Dutton

J. E.

Quinn

R. E.

(Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline (pp. 263–278). Berrett-Koehler.

26.

Edinger

S. K.

Edinger

M. J.

(2018). Improving teacher job satisfaction: The roles of social capital, teacher efficacy, and support. Journal of Psychology, 152(8), 573–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1489364

27.

Evans

(2012). Getting to no: Building true collegiality in schools. Independent School, 71, n2.

28.

Forsyth

P. B.

Adams

C. M.

Hoy

W. K.

(2011). Collective trust: Why schools can't improve without it. Teachers College Press.

29.

Fournier

Cervera

M. S.

Buckley

Guitierrez

(2019, October). Stories from the field: Cultivating relationships through administrator. Transforming Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED601210.pdf

30.

García

Kraft

M. A.

Schwartz

H. L.

(2022, August 26). Are we at a crisis point with the public teacher workforce? Education scholars share their perspectives. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2022/08/26/are-we-at-a-crisis-point-with-the-public-teacher-workforce-education-scholars-share-their-perspectives/

31.

Goddard

R. D.

Hoy

W. K.

Hoy

A. W.

(2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003

32.

Goddard

Y. L.

Goddard

R. D.

Tschannen-Moran

(2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810710900401

33.

Grayson

J. L.

Alvarez

H. K.

(2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1349–1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.005

34.

Griffin

Tackie

(2017). Through our eyes: Perspectives from Black teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 98, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717690363

35.

Hansen

Quintero

(2019, March 7). The diversity gap for public school teachers is actually growing across generations. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2019/03/07/the-diversity-gap-for-public-school-teachers-is-actually-growing-across-generations/

36.

Harris

D. L.

Anthony

H. M.

(2001). Collegiality and its role in teacher development: Perspectives from veteran and novice teachers. Teacher Development, 5(3), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530100200150

37.

Hargreaves

(2001). The emotional geographies of teachers’ relations with colleagues. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 503–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(02)00006-x

38.

Hartcher

Chapman

Morrison

(2023). Applying a band-aid or building a bridge: Ecological factors and divergent approaches to enhancing teacher wellbeing. Cambridge Journal of Education, 53, 329–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2022.2155612

39.

Hennink

Kaiser

B. N.

(2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

40.

Hill

C. E.

Knox

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

Hess

S. A.

Ladany

(2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196

41.

Hopkins

Bjorklund

Jr. Spillane

J. P.

(2019). The social side of teacher turnover: Closeness and trust among general and special education teachers in the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.08.020

42.

Hoy

Smith

Sweetland

(2002). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. High School Journal, 86, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2002.0023

43.

Hoy

Tarter

C. J.

(2004). Organizational justice in schools: No justice without trust. International Journal of Educational Management, 18, 250–259.

44.

Jarzabkowski

L. M.

(2002). The social dimensions of teacher collegiality. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 3(2), 1–20.

45.

Johnson

(2003). Teacher collaboration: Good for some, not so good for others. Educational Studies, 29(4), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569032000159651

46.

Kaihoi

C. A.

Bottiani

J. H.

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2022). Teachers supporting teachers: A social network perspective on collegial stress support and emotional wellbeing among elementary and middle school educators. School Mental Health, 14, 1070–1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09529-y

47.

Kern

M. L.

Waters

Adler

White

(2014). Assessing employee wellbeing in schools using a multifaceted approach: Associations with physical health, life satisfaction, and professional thriving. Psychology, 05(06), 500–513. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.56060

48.

Kolleck

Schuster

Hartmann

Gräsel

(2021). Teachers’ professional collaboration and trust relationships: An inferential social network analysis of teacher teams. Research in Education, 111(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/00345237211031585

49.

Kouzes

J. M.

Posner

B. Z.

(2009, January). To lead, create a shared vision. Harvard Business Review.

50.

Kraft

M. A.

Simon

N. S.

Lyon

M. A.

(2020). Sustaining a sense of success: The importance of teacher working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. EdWorkingPaper No. 20-279. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.

51.

Liebowitz

D. D.

Porter

(2019). The effect of principal behaviors on student, teacher, and school outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 785–827. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319866133

52.

Löfgren

Karlsson

(2016). Emotional aspects of teacher collegiality: A narrative approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.022

53.

Moolenaar

N. M.

Daly

A. J.

Cornelissen

Liou

Y.-H.

Caillier

Riordan

Wilson

Cohen

N. A.

(2014). Linked to innovation: Shaping an innovative climate through network intentionality and educators’ social network position. Journal of Educational Change, 15(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9230-4

54.

National Education Association (2022, January 31). Poll results: Stress and burnout pose threat of educator shortages. News Release. https://www.nea.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/NEA%20Member%20COVID-19%20Survey%20Summary.pdf

55.

Navarro

J. L.

Stephens

Rodrigues

B. C.

Walker

I. A.

Cook

O’Toole

Hayes

Tudge

J. R. H.

(2022). Bored of the rings: Methodological and analytic approaches to operationalizing Bronfenbrenner's PPCT model in research practice. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 14, 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12459

56.

Nias

(2005). Why teachers need their colleagues: A developmental perspective. In Hopkins

(Ed.), The practice and theory of school improvement (pp. 223–237). Springer.

57.

Ning

H. K.

Lee

W. O.

(2015). Relationships between teacher value orientations, collegiality, and collaboration in school professional learning communities. Social Psychology of Education, 18(2), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9294-x

58.

Norman

P. J.

Golian

Hooker

(2005). Professional development schools and critical friends groups: Supporting student, novice and teacher learning. The New Educator, 1, 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/15476880500276793

59.

Penuel

Riel

Krause

Frank

(2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100102

60.

Pezalla

A. E.

Scott

Nappa

Hsieh

(2024). Humanizing the research process: Collaborative reflections on prioritizing research participants’ agency, trust, and connection. The Qualitative Report, 29(6), 1603–1620. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.6631

61.

Pogodzinski

Youngs

Frank

K. A.

(2013). Collegial climate and novice teachers’ intent to remain teaching. American Journal of Education, 120(1), 027–054. https://doi.org/10.1086/673123

62.

Pour-Khorshid

(2018). Cultivating sacred spaces: A racial affinity group approach to support critical educators of color. Teaching Education, 29(4), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1512092

63.

Price

H. E.

(2012). Principal–teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 39–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11417126

64.

Rahimi

Khatooni

(2024). Saturation in qualitative research: An evolutionary concept analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 6, 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100174

65.

Renshaw

T. L.

Long

A. C. J.

Cook

C. R.

(2015). Assessing teachers’ positive psychological functioning at work: Development and validation of the Teacher Subjective Wellbeing Questionnaire. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000112

66.

Richards

K. A. R.

Hemphill

M. A.

(2018). A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0084

67.

Roffey

(2012). Developing positive relationships in schools. In Roffey

(Ed.), Positive relationships: Evidence based practice across the world (pp. 145–162). Springer Science + Business Media.

68.

Ronfeldt

Farmer

S. O.

McQueen

Grissom

J. A.

(2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 475–514. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562

69.

Santoro

D. A.

Hazel

Morales

(2021, January). Educators of color insights report. Bowdoin College and Portland Public Schools. https://www.bowdoin.edu/news/2021/07/office-of-career-exploration-and-development.html

70.

Santoro

D. A.

Price

O. A.

(2021, October). Structural supports to promote teacher well-being. EdResearch for Recovery, Brief No. 19. https://annenberg.brown.edu/sites/default/files/EdResearch_for_Recovery_Brief_19.pdf

71.

Schlichte

Yssel

Merbler

(2005). Pathways to burnout: Case studies in teacher isolation and alienation. Preventing School Failure, 50, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.50.1.35-40

72.

Schneider

(2003, March 1). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. ASCD.

73.

Simard

(2021). Finding the mother tree: Discovering the wisdom of the forest. Alfred A. Knopf. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n233

74.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001

75.

Smith

Schwandt

Smith

(2008). Interpretive inquiry. In The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage Publications, Inc.

76.

Stahl

N. A.

King

J. R.

(2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45381095

77.

Taie

Goldring

(2020). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2017-18 National Teacher and Principal Survey. National Center for Education Statistics.

78.

Taris

T. W.

Horn

J. E.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Schreurs

P. J.

(2004). Inequity, burnout and psychological withdrawal among teachers: A dynamic exchange model. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 17, 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1061580031000151620

79.

Toropova

Myrberg

Johansson

(2021). Teacher job satisfaction: The importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics. Educational Review, 73, 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247

80.

Tschannen-Moran

Barr

(2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503706

81.

Unda

M. D. C.

(2023). The systematic exclusion of Latinx teachers in U.S. public schools: A literature review. Race Ethnicity and Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2023.2203908

82.

Vangrieken

Dochy

Raes

Kyndt

(2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002

83.

van Horn

J. E.

Taris

T. W.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Schreurs

P. J. G.

(2004). The structure of occupational well-being: A study among Dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179041752718

84.

Wohlleben

(2016). The hidden life of trees: What they feel, how they communicate—Discoveries from a secret world. Penguin Books.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB