View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Examining the Links between Child-Teacher Relationships, Classroom Quality, and Child Outcomes across Racial Groups

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Examining the Links between Child-Teacher Relationships, Classroom Quality, and Child Outcomes across Racial Groups
Language: English
Authors: Iheoma U. Iruka (ORCID 0000-0003-4695-6190), Breanna Dede, Susan M. Sheridan, Natalie Koziol, Lisa Knoche, Amanda Witte
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2025 62(8):2667-2684.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R305N160016
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Grade 1
Descriptors: Teacher Student Relationship, Classroom Environment, Preschool Education, Kindergarten, Grade 1, Reading Achievement, Mathematics Achievement, Interpersonal Competence, Behavior Problems, Racial Differences, Ethnicity, African American Students, Hispanic American Students, White Students, Elementary School Students, Preschool Children
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Student Teacher Relationship Scale, Classroom Assessment Scoring System, Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23494
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: This study examined the unique and interactive effects of teacher-child relationships and classroom quality on PreK to Grade 1 children's reading and math achievement, social skills, and problem behaviors, as well as whether these relationships differed by children's race and ethnicity. Based on data from 192 children (18.23% Black, 8.33% Latine English-speaking, 21.88% Latine Spanish-speaking, 51.56% White) from PreK to Grade 1 and their teachers, analyses were conducted to examine whether (1) the quality of teacher-child relationships and classroom quality experienced by children differed by race and ethnicity, (2) race/ethnicity moderated the association of teacher-child relationships and classroom quality on children's achievement and social skills, and (3) race/ethnicity moderated the association between the interactive effects of classroom quality and teacher-child relationship on children's achievement and social skills. Findings from multi-level mixed models indicated teacher-child relationships were significantly associated with growth in child achievement and social skills and classroom quality was associated with problem behaviors. While race/ethnicity did not moderate the association between teacher-child relationship and classroom quality, there was evidence of racialized differences in the buffering role of classroom quality on children's achievement and behavior in the face of conflictual teacher-child relationships. The implications of the findings for promoting equitable learning opportunities for racially minoritized children are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1477317
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEWw-MJcwrOSmJKyb1IwdeXAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPysNJwfB7jXR9xEQQIBEICBm2KVUGsmRXc7_5c8k0zLVmNKkdXhkGLz1YTczdcL4KoryB4vG2mcWcuHbYcUo_2zixjE7fwzEcBMtqed_eTot_NHAmkA_7dt8PSxQPs8OMyvssfYQR5DRzDcl2fBzmQ-v9XGL2OknqPJUnn3Curi31KWK0a-sq0DGNcmm79O84WWj6kniHLABICAgtgfx7SV5_n5EYlOmv0KgnE0
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186727911;pis01aug.25;2025Jul21.06:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186727911-1">Examining the Links Between Child–Teacher Relationships, Classroom Quality, and Child Outcomes Across Racial Groups </title> <p>This study examined the unique and interactive effects of teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality on PreK to Grade 1 children's reading and math achievement, social skills, and problem behaviors, as well as whether these relationships differed by children's race and ethnicity. Based on data from 192 children (18.23% Black, 8.33% Latine English‐speaking, 21.88% Latine Spanish‐speaking, 51.56% White) from PreK to Grade 1 and their teachers, analyses were conducted to examine whether (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) the quality of teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality experienced by children differed by race and ethnicity, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) race/ethnicity moderated the association of teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality on children's achievement and social skills, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) race/ethnicity moderated the association between the interactive effects of classroom quality and teacher‐child relationship on children's achievement and social skills. Findings from multi‐level mixed models indicated teacher‐child relationships were significantly associated with growth in child achievement and social skills and classroom quality was associated with problem behaviors. While race/ethnicity did not moderate the association between teacher‐child relationship and classroom quality, there was evidence of racialized differences in the buffering role of classroom quality on children's achievement and behavior in the face of conflictual teacher‐child relationships. The implications of the findings for promoting equitable learning opportunities for racially minoritized children are discussed.</p> <p>Summary: Teachers report conflictual relationships with Black children compared to their White and Latine peers, consistent with existent literature.Teachers' relationships with their students are essential for children's achievement and social skills, regardless of race or ethnicity.The quality of the classroom environment matters even more for children's learning when teacher‐student relationships are less positive.</p> <p>Keywords: achievement; classroom quality; race/ethnicity disparities; social skills; teacher–child relationship</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Early educational opportunities and experiences have the potential to produce long‐lasting impacts on children (Dodge et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]; Jerome et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref5">37</reflink>]; Howes [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref6">31</reflink>]), especially for children from socially and economically disadvantaged households and communities (Reynolds et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref7">61</reflink>]; Sheehan et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref8">65</reflink>]). Beyond the structural features of the early education setting (e.g., economic resource, teacher experience and education), process features, namely the <emph>quality of the teacher–child relationship</emph> and <emph>classroom quality</emph> (e.g., Redding [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref9">60</reflink>]), are instrumental in supporting children's learning (Crosnoe et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]; McCormick et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref11">46</reflink>]). Unfortunately, Black children are less likely to have close relationships and more likely to have conflictual relationships with their teachers than their White peers (Redding [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref12">60</reflink>]; Saft and Pianta [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref13">64</reflink>]). Further, Black and Latine children—the largest racially and ethnically marginalized groups in United States public schools—are likely to be in programs rated as low quality (Hanselman [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref14">29</reflink>]). Given the importance of process features (i.e., teacher–child relationships, classroom quality) for children's learning, it is critical to simultaneously examine their link to children's academic and social skills for racially and ethnically diverse children. Although prior studies have examined classroom processes separately (e.g., Baker [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]; Perlman et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref16">52</reflink>]), very few have examined their interplay for historically marginalized children (i.e., Black, Latine children, dual/English language learners) in the early years of schooling (pre‐kindergarten [pre‐K], kindergarten, and Grade 1). This study fills this gap in the literature by investigating both the individual and interactive effects of classroom quality and teacher‐child relationships for Black and Latine children. Given the heterogeneity of Latine children, we also consider English‐ and Spanish‐Latine speakers as a proxy for acculturation given its role in influencing children's experiences in the classrooms (e.g., cultural and linguistic discontinuities that affect social‐emotional and academic adjustment) (Oades‐Sese et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref17">49</reflink>]). Furthermore, there is evidence that the teacher–child relationship may serve as a buffer for immigrants in their schools (Ialuna et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref18">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-3">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>This study's overarching framework is the bio‐ecological model, which emphasizes the multiple systems that impact children's development and learning; each system is embedded within and impacts the others in reciprocal ways (Bronfenbrenner and Morris [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>]). The microsystem is most proximal to children's learning development and includes the immediate context of home and school/preschool programs, which exert the most influence on children. Macrosystems are represented by the values, norms, customs, and policies exhibited within these systems. Our interest is in understanding how the microsystem of schools and teachers is associated with children's learning and how the underlying macrosystemic norms that treat minoritized populations as inferior may operate within the microsystem of schooling (i.e., teacher–child relationship, classroom environment).</p> <p>This study is further guided by the Contextual Systems Model (CSM; Pianta and Walsh [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref20">56</reflink>]) and Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP; Brown‐Jeffy and Cooper [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>]; Ladson‐Billings and Tate [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref22">39</reflink>]) frameworks. The Contextual Systems Model posits that child development occurs within interrelated environments, including the child's school. The school functions as a complex and dynamic system that influences social, affective, behavioral, and academic domains of child development. As the main facilitator of the school environment on children's learning, teachers play a significant role in how the educational system impacts children, primarily through their interactions and relationships with students and classroom learning opportunities. We expect that the additive association between child‐teacher interactions and the quality of the classroom environment may best explain child outcomes.</p> <p>Culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) builds on the bio‐ecological framework by emphasizing macrosystemic (i.e., societal) norms and ideologies and microsystemic (i.e., immediate) interactions between children and their teachers. CRP requires teachers to understand cultural differences between them and their students, as well as their own potential stereotypes about their students, so they can adequately meet the needs of children in their classrooms. CRP underscores the importance of home–school connection, teacher‐student relationship, and teaching the whole child, which is critical to addressing learning opportunity gaps and, subsequently, the achievement gap (Brown‐Jeffy and Cooper [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref23">7</reflink>]). According to CRP, classroom lessons and practices must be responsive to the needs of children from various cultural backgrounds and incorporate home cultural values into the school environment. Brown‐Jeffy and Cooper ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]) expand the core tenets of CRP to include the critical race theory viewpoint, which shows how the cultural and systemic effects of racism have been integrated into the education system and school relationships. Building upon these theories, this study underscores the importance of studying the experiences of racially and ethnically minoritized children in the context of an educational system with inherent biases and a history of systemic and interpersonal inequality.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-4">Teacher–Child Relationship and Child Outcomes</hd> <p>Numerous studies have shown that teachers have a direct impact on grades, test scores, and domain‐general competencies, such as students' growth mindsets and effort, with the quality of the teacher‐child relationship driving this impact (Redding [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref25">60</reflink>]). The quality of teacher‐child relationships, such as their closeness, conflict, and dependence, is related to important academic and socioemotional outcomes (e.g., Baker [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]). In the academic domain, positive relationships with teachers have been consistently linked to favorable educational outcomes from early childhood to adolescence (Murdock, 1999; Redding [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref27">60</reflink>]). Several underlying factors may influence this association. For example, a child with a close relationship with a teacher is likely to see the classroom as a safe and affirming learning environment that fosters engagement in learning, which results in better academic achievement.</p> <p>On the other hand, children who have a conflictual relationship with their teacher may be more likely to see the classroom as unsafe and unsupportive, fostering a negative perception of the classroom environment and thus, disengagement from the school environment. As for socioemotional outcomes, Student–teacher relationships have also been linked to children's social skills (Hajovsky et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]). Even within an international context, researchers studying German preschoolers have shown positive links between teacher‐child closeness and children's prosocial behavior, and between teacher‐child conflict and dependency and externalizing behavior (Glüer and Gregoriadis [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref29">24</reflink>]). Positive teacher‐child relationships can serve as a protective factor for children's socioemotional skills, and contentious relationships between teachers and children can result in negative social competence and problem behavior (Baker [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]; Howes et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref31">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Race is a social construct (Markus [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref32">44</reflink>]) that has been culturally and systematically embedded in the fabric of the United States, including the educational experience. Racially/ethnically minoritized children (i.e., Black, Latine) are less likely to experience positive teacher‐child relationships (Goldberg and Iruka [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref33">25</reflink>]; McCormick et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref34">46</reflink>]). They are likely to be perceived more negatively than White children, with teachers reporting more conflict with Black children than their White peers (Goldberg and Iruka [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref35">25</reflink>]; Jerome et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref36">37</reflink>]; Pigott and Cowen [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref37">57</reflink>]; Zulauf‐McCurdy and Loomis [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref38">75</reflink>]). Conflictual relationships between teachers and children often lead to disciplinary action, such as suspension and expulsion, which negatively impacts a child's academic performance throughout the life course (O'Grady and Ostrosky [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref39">50</reflink>]; Zinsser et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref40">74</reflink>]). Additionally, Black children are over‐referred for disciplinary action, and consequences for misbehavior are harsher for them than their nonminority classmates (Hines et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref41">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers' expectations and beliefs around what is considered good classroom behavior are inherently informed by their own experiences, values, and beliefs, otherwise known as cultural capital (Redding [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref42">60</reflink>]). As educators are mainly White (85%) and female (75%) (Irwin et al. 2021), there is a notable mismatch between the identities and experiences of teachers compared to the students they teach. Thus, one potential reason for racial differences in teacher‐child relationships is the lack of racial concordance between student and teacher (also referred to as Student–teacher racial/ethnic matching) (Jerome et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref43">37</reflink>]; Redding [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref44">60</reflink>]; Soliday Hong et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref45">67</reflink>]). There is evidence that racial/ethnic concordance between students and teachers also plays a role in teachers' perception of students, thus influencing the quality of their relationship (Jerome et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref46">37</reflink>]). Racial concordance has been associated with higher rates of child engagement in learning, motivation, and social skills, and lower rates of absences (Rasheed et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref47">58</reflink>]). Teachers' ratings of the quality or closeness of their relationships with same‐race students have been found to be more positive than those of a different race (Saft and Pianta [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref48">64</reflink>]). Therefore, given the prevalence of racial/ethnic differences between teachers and students, there may be an impact on the relationship between the individuals due to what is understood as acceptable classroom behavior (Pigott and Cowen [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref49">57</reflink>]; Redding [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref50">60</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-5">Classroom Quality and Child Outcomes</hd> <p>Classroom instruction and interaction quality have also been noted as another process feature associated with children's outcomes (Araujo et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref51">2</reflink>]; Ulferts et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref52">68</reflink>]; Zaslow et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref53">73</reflink>]). For example, classroom quality— including emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support, as measured by the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (Pianta et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref54">55</reflink>])—has been linked to various child skills and outcomes. For example, studies show that classrooms rated highly on intentional instruction are associated with positive child outcomes in the areas of cognitive skills, academic progress, and social skills (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref55">48</reflink>]). In their systematic review and meta‐analysis, Wang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref56">70</reflink>]) found small overall effect sizes for the associations between the three CLASS domains and children's pre‐literacy skills. Furthermore, children attending preschool demonstrated modestly larger gains when teachers provided higher‐quality instruction and engaged in more emotionally supportive interactions (Perlman et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref57">52</reflink>]). Teaching practices that prioritize intentional listening, active engagement, and a focus on learning as opposed to correctness create a high‐quality instructional environment in which children are positioned to succeed both in and outside of the classroom. Similarly, Kyriakides et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref58">38</reflink>]), in their meta‐analyses of effective teacher practices, found that time management, clear structuring of the classroom routines, orientation to classroom rules, and modeling of appropriate learning behaviors contributed to student outcomes.</p> <p>Even with insurmountable evidence about the importance of high classroom quality, not all children are enrolled in schools deemed as high quality. Several studies and reports find racial disparities in the quality of preschools, with Black and Latine children likely to be in programs rated as low quality both relative to the schools in their area and at a national level. For example, in New York City, Black and Latine children are more likely than White children to attend pre‐K programs rated as low quality despite the city's rigorous standards and teacher qualification requirements (Latham et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref59">40</reflink>]). Similarly, McCormick et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref60">45</reflink>]) found that Black and Latine children, and to a lesser extent Asian children, were less likely to enroll in Boston's pre‐K programs than White children, especially when programs were deemed as high quality. They were also likely to live further away from pre‐K programs designated as high‐quality. Furthermore, Reardon ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref61">59</reflink>]) finds that school poverty, likely due to residential racial segregation, is a significant predictor of racial achievement gaps, with Black and Hispanic students likely to attend high‐poverty schools. This racial inequity in quality is consistent with the EdBuild report that non‐White school districts get $23 billion less than White districts despite serving the same number of students, which is likely to lead to less enriching materials and supports, inequitable resource distribution, and the disproportionate placement of underprepared teachers in high‐poverty schools (Borman and Kimball [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]; Darling‐Hammond [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref63">15</reflink>]; Orfield [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref64">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-6">Interconnection Between Teacher‐Child Relationship and Classroom Quality for Child Outcomes</hd> <p>Even if Black and Latine children are in classrooms rated as high quality, incongruence between the learning environment and their learning styles, and potentially the quality of the teacher‐child relationship, may limit their benefit. That is, the benefits of a high‐quality learning environment may be amplified when children experience a close, non‐conflictual relationship with their teacher. This may be especially important for racially minoritized children, considering the inequitable learning opportunities they experience in the early years and throughout the life course. It is also possible that a close teacher‐child relationship may buffer children from the negative impact of a low‐quality classroom environment. In examining racial differences in preschool boys' socio‐emotional development, Graves and Howes ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref65">26</reflink>]) found that above and beyond observed classroom quality, teacher‐child conflict predicted boys' peer social skills, frustration tolerance, and conduct problems. However, once the teacher‐child ethnic match was accounted for, gender differences were no longer present. Burchinal et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref66">9</reflink>]) found that for children from low‐income families, social outcomes were more strongly influenced by the quality of teacher‐child interactions, but only when teachers are actively and positively engaged with children as measured by high ratings of emotional support. This study highlights the importance of understanding classroom quality and teacher relationships as individual factors and taking a deeper dive into their influence within different contexts and for different children.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-7">Current Study</hd> <p>Although it is a given that the teacher‐child relationship and classroom quality are critical aspects of education that support all children, there has been limited attention to their unique and interactive association with children's academic outcomes and social skills and whether they vary based on children's racial and ethnic identity. Understanding how these patterns may differ based on race fills a gap in the literature and adds to our understanding of the unique experiences of children of color, especially Black and Latine children. The purpose of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of the effects of student–teacher relationships and classroom quality on the educational outcomes for children from different racial/ethnic groups across pre‐K to Grade 1. The research questions are as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Does the quality of teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality experienced by children differ by race and ethnicity?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the association of teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality on children's achievement and social skills, and does the association vary by race and ethnicity?</item> <p></p> <item> Does the association between classroom quality and children's achievement and social skills vary by teacher‐child relationship, and does this interactive association vary by race and ethnicity?</item> </ulist> <p>Hypothesis. Given the current evidence, we expect that racially/ethnically minoritized children, especially Black children, are likely to be in lower‐quality classrooms and experience more conflictual relationships with their teachers than White children. Based on proximity, we expect the links between teacher‐child relationships and child outcomes to be stronger than between classroom quality and child outcomes. We also expect to see differential effects by race, favoring White children over Black and Latine children. That is, we expect associations between teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality on child outcomes to be stronger for White children than minoritized children. Given the limited research regarding the link between teacher‐child relationship and children's achievement and social skills being moderated by classroom quality and child race/ethnicity, we provide no hypothesis.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-8">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727911-9">Setting and Recruitment</hd> <p>Data for the present study were drawn from the pre‐K, kindergarten, and Grade 1 waves of a longitudinal study evaluating malleable factors that support children's early learning and ongoing academic success. The study took place in rural and urban communities in one Midwest state. Data for pre‐K students were collected over two time points in the fall of 2016 and spring of 2017; subsequent data were collected annually for these same children when they were in kindergarten (spring 2018) and first grade (spring 2019). Sixty‐three pre‐K classrooms in 36 schools, 124 kindergarten classrooms in 73 schools, and 128 1st‐grade classrooms in 74 schools were included.</p> <p>Initial recruitment began when students were pre‐K age (4–5 years old). Recruitment efforts targeted students attending publicly funded center‐based programs (i.e., preschool, Head Start) and those receiving care or educational services in other settings. Teachers of pre‐K students in center‐based programs were invited to participate and provided informed consent. Following teacher consent, the families of five randomly selected students from each participating teacher's classroom (i.e., attenders) were invited to participate. Because the original study focused on the experiences and outcomes of typically developing children, those eligible for or enrolled in special education at the point of initial enrollment in pre‐K were not included. To ensure adequate measurement, only children and parents who were fluent in spoken English or Spanish were included. In cases where parents declined to participate, or students did not meet eligibility requirements, additional students from the classroom were randomly selected and invited to participate.</p> <p>Pre‐K children not attending a center‐based preschool program (i.e., non‐attenders) were recruited from the same school community catchment areas as center‐based program attenders. A multifaceted recruitment approach included coordinating with local medical offices to advertise the study and posting fliers in churches, community centers, local grocery/convenience/retail stores, and other public spaces frequented by families with young children. Local school district partners and early childhood staff working within the targeted area also identified families of potentially eligible students (e.g., younger siblings of elementary school students). Parents who responded to outreach efforts were invited to participate in the study and provided informed consent.</p> <p>Following the pre‐K year, participating parents were asked to provide their child's primary K and Grade 1 teacher names. In cases where a teacher's name was unavailable from parents, research assistants contacted school administrators to solicit the names and contact information of the participating child's primary teacher. In cases where children had multiple teachers, the teacher with whom the child spent most of their instructional time was determined to be the primary teacher. Identified teachers were contacted by research staff, informed of the child's participation in the longitudinal study, invited to participate, and provided informed consent. Teacher participation was strictly voluntary.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-10">Participants</hd> <p>Children were included in the present study if they were in the target grade each year (i.e., in preschool in Year 1, kindergarten in Year 2, and 1st grade in Year 3), belonged to one of four racial/ethnic/language groups (separating the Hispanic/Latine children by language as a proxy for acculturation [e.g., Iruka et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref67">36</reflink>]]): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>) Black, non‐Hispanic/Latine with a primary home language of English; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>) Hispanic/Latine, any race with a primary home language of English; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>) Hispanic/Latine, any race with a primary home language of Spanish (or a combination of English and Spanish); or (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>) White, non‐Hispanic/Latine with a primary home language of English; had data on the covariates; and had at least some child‐level data from the spring of pre‐K, kindergarten, and/or Grade 1. Among the 358 children participating in the larger study, 252 were preschool attenders, and 245 followed the typical progression of grades. Among these 245, 202 belonged to one of the target racial/ethnic/language groups. Among the 202, 192 had covariate data and at least some child‐level outcome data, representing the final sample of children included in at least some of the analyses. The analytic sample size varied slightly across models due to instances in which the child had no outcome data for a particular measure.</p> <p>Demographic characteristics of the child sample are presented in Table 1. At the first assessment (in the fall of children's pre‐K year), approximately half of the child sample was female (53.13%) and attended a rural school (51.56%).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>] Children's mean age was 5.30 years (SD = 0.27). Approximately half (51.56%) were White, non‐Hispanic, 21.88% Latine Spanish‐speaking, 18.23% Black, non‐Hispanic, and 8.33% Latine English‐speaking. With respect to primary caregivers' highest education, 33.33% had a high school diploma/GED or less; 45.31% had some college or a certificate or 2‐year degree; and 21.35% had a 4‐year degree or higher. Most study households (82.29%) were classified as low income (at or below 150% federal poverty level and/or received government support).</p> <p>1 Table Child anD Family Background Characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Total (<italic>n</italic> = 192)</th><th>Black (<italic>n</italic> = 35)</th><th>Latine English‐Speaking (<italic>n</italic> = 16)</th><th>Latine Spanish‐Speaking (<italic>n</italic> = 42)</th><th>White (<italic>n</italic> = 99)</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th><italic>M</italic> (SD) or %</th><th><italic>M</italic> (SD) or %</th><th><italic>M</italic> (SD) or %</th><th><italic>M</italic> (SD) or %</th><th><italic>M</italic> (SD) or %</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Child Age at Pre‐K Assessment</td><td>5.30 (0.27)</td><td>5.26 (0.26)</td><td>5.33 (0.27)</td><td>5.34 (0.29)</td><td>5.29 (0.26)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child Gender</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>53.13</td><td>65.71</td><td>50.00</td><td>52.38</td><td>49.49</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>46.88</td><td>34.29</td><td>50.00</td><td>47.62</td><td>50.51</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent Education</td></tr><tr><td>< HS diploma or GED</td><td>8.33</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>30.95</td><td>3.03</td></tr><tr><td>HS diploma or GED</td><td>25.00</td><td>34.29</td><td>18.75</td><td>40.48</td><td>16.16</td></tr><tr><td>Some college or vocational/technical training or certificate</td><td>33.85</td><td>40.00</td><td>62.50</td><td>16.67</td><td>34.34</td></tr><tr><td>Associate's or 2‐year degree</td><td>11.46</td><td>14.29</td><td>6.25</td><td>2.38</td><td>15.15</td></tr><tr><td>4‐year degree or higher</td><td>21.35</td><td>11.43</td><td>12.50</td><td>9.52</td><td>31.31</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Low Income Status</td></tr><tr><td>Above 150% federal poverty level and no government support</td><td>17.71</td><td>5.71</td><td>6.25</td><td>4.76</td><td>29.29</td></tr><tr><td>At or below 150% poverty level and/or government support</td><td>82.29</td><td>94.29</td><td>93.75</td><td>95.24</td><td>70.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Geographic Location</td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>48.44</td><td>100.00</td><td>31.25</td><td>64.29</td><td>26.26</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>51.56</td><td>0.00</td><td>68.75</td><td>35.71</td><td>73.74</td></tr><tr><td>Fall Pre‐K Reading Achievement</td><td>93.61 (10.70)</td><td>95.17 (11.41)</td><td>96.00 (7.06)</td><td>89.60 (9.73)</td><td>94.38 (11.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Fall Pre‐K Math Achievement</td><td>100.97 (9.93)</td><td>98.23 (9.80)</td><td>106.13 (7.86)</td><td>94.67 (10.44)</td><td>103.79 (8.47)</td></tr><tr><td>Fall Pre‐K Social Skills</td><td>104.78 (15.21)</td><td>99.06 (18.09)</td><td>107.38 (12.66)</td><td>104.24 (13.60)</td><td>106.62 (14.80)</td></tr><tr><td>Fall Pre‐K Problem Behaviors</td><td>97.90 (15.85)</td><td>105.14 (21.46)</td><td>95.69 (11.71)</td><td>99.00 (14.82)</td><td>95.23 (13.77)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Characteristics of teacher participants are in Table 2. Across grades, most teachers were female (ranging from 98.00% to 98.96%) and White, non‐Hispanic (ranging from 90.00% to 93.68%). Years of experience ranged from <emph>M</emph> = 11.38 years (SD = 9.04) to <emph>M</emph> = 14.56 years (SD = 10.35). Approximately half of the teachers had a Bachelor's degree as their highest level of education (ranging from 50.00% to 55.56%). Most (95.24%) pre‐K teachers had a state certificate or endorsement for early care/education.</p> <p>2 Table Teacher background characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Pre‐K (<italic>n</italic> = 63)</th><th>Kindergarten (<italic>n</italic> = 124)</th><th>1st Grade (<italic>n</italic> = 128)</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th><italic>M</italic> (SD) or %</th><th><italic>M</italic> (SD) or %</th><th><italic>M</italic> (SD) or %</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Gender</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>98.41</td><td>98.96</td><td>98.00</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>1.59</td><td>1.04</td><td>2.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Race/Ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td>Black, non‐Hispanic</td><td>1.61</td><td>0.00</td><td>5.00</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td>4.84</td><td>4.21</td><td>4.00</td></tr><tr><td>Another race, non‐Hispanic</td><td>0.00</td><td>2.11</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>White, non‐Hispanic</td><td>93.55</td><td>93.68</td><td>90.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Highest Level of Education</td></tr><tr><td>Associate's</td><td>1.59</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's</td><td>55.56</td><td>51.04</td><td>50.00</td></tr><tr><td>Master's</td><td>38.10</td><td>46.88</td><td>48.00</td></tr><tr><td>Education specialist or professional diploma based on at least 1 year of master's level coursework</td><td>3.17</td><td>2.08</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1.59</td><td>0.00</td><td>2.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">State Certificate or Endorsement for Early Care/Education</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>4.76</td><td>58.33</td><td>66.00</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>95.24</td><td>41.67</td><td>34.00</td></tr><tr><td>Years Experience</td><td>12.31 (9.09)</td><td>14.56 (10.35)</td><td>11.38 (9.04)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186727911-11">Study Variables</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727911-12">Child–Teacher Relationships</hd> <p>The 15‐item Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref73">53</reflink>]) was used to assess teacher's perceptions of the quality of the teacher‐child relationship. The current study utilized the Conflict and Closeness scores on the STRS, calculated as the average of 12 and 11 items, respectively, with higher scores representing greater conflict and closeness in the student–teacher relationship. Teachers were asked to rate how applicable statements were to their current relationships with a particular child using a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = <emph>Definitely does not apply</emph> to 5 = <emph>Definitely applies</emph>. The STRS has been widely used in studies with pre‐K and elementary school children and has been found to be associated with children's and teachers' classroom behaviors and observational measures of classroom quality (e.g., Birch and Ladd [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>]; Howes and Hamilton [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref75">32</reflink>]). The developer reports test‐retest reliabilities as 0.88 for closeness and 0.92 for conflict across a 4‐week period (Pianta [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref76">54</reflink>]). In the current study, across the three target waves, internal consistency ranged from 0.76–0.86 for closeness and 0.91–0.92 for conflict.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-13">Classroom Quality</hd> <p>The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS; Pianta et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref77">55</reflink>]) was used to directly assess classroom environments. Trained observers, certified by the measure developer, rated each classroom on ten dimensions grouped into three domains: Emotional support, Classroom Organization, and Instructional Support. Emotional Support measures positive and negative climate, teacher sensitivity, and teacher regard for student perspectives. Classroom Organization measures behavior management, productivity of instructional time, and instructional learning formats. Instructional Support measures concept development, quality of feedback, and language modeling. Each dimension is rated on a 7‐point scale, and domain scores are calculated by averaging scores across cycles within an observation. In this study, raters observed classrooms for 2 h consisting of four cycles, with each cycle consisting of 20 min of observation and 10 min of coding. Internal consistency ranged from 0.69 to 0.83 for Emotional Support, 0.84–0.86 for Classroom Organization, and 0.86–0.90 for Instructional Support. Test–retest reliability for four observations based on two‐way random intraclass correlation, absolute agreement, and average across the observations ranged from 0.87–0.93 for Emotional Support, 0.87–0.93 for Classroom Organization, and 0.85–0.88 for Instructional Support.</p> <p>Several studies have been conducted to examine the validity of the CLASS. Studies of predictive validity suggest that CLASS scores are positively associated with student academic and social‐emotional outcomes (e.g., Araujo et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>]; Domínguez et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref79">18</reflink>]). In addition, a recent meta‐analysis of the CLASS's factor structure supported the three‐factor model initially proposed by CLASS developers (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref80">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-14">Achievement</hd> <p>Trained data collectors directly assessed children's reading and mathematics using the individually administered Woodcock‐Johnson Tests of Achievement III (WJ‐III; Woodcock et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref81">71</reflink>]). The WJ‐III is a widely used assessment that provides norm‐referenced measures of a child's academic abilities. The Broad Reading Cluster, consisting of letter‐word identification, reading fluency, and passage comprehension subtests, was used to measure children's reading achievement. The Broad Mathematics Cluster, comprised of calculation, math fluency, and applied problems subtests, was used to measure children's mathematics abilities. Each cluster provides a standardized score (<emph>M</emph> = 100, SD = 15), which reflects a child's overall reading and mathematics performance relative to the expected performance of children in the same age population. The internal consistencies of the Broad Reading and Broad Mathematics Clusters are <emph>ɑ</emph> = 0.94 and 0.95, respectively (Woodcock et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref82">71</reflink>]). The WJ‐III norming sample was selected to be representative of the US population in terms of race and other demographics at the time of sampling. Approximately 73% of the norming sample was White, 22% Black, and 12% Hispanic/Latine (McGrew et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref83">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-15">Social Skills</hd> <p>Children's social skills (i.e., social skills and problem behaviors) were indirectly assessed via teacher ratings on the Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS; Gresham and Elliott [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref84">27</reflink>]). Teachers indicated the frequency of behaviors exhibited by the participating child on a 4‐point Likert‐type scale (1 = <emph>Never</emph>; 4 = <emph>Almost always</emph>). Raw scores for each subscale were calculated and then converted into standard scores (<emph>M</emph> = 100, SD = 15). Higher scores indicate more social skills and more problem behaviors. In this study, internal consistency across the three target waves ranged from 0.97–0.98 for social skills and 0.95–0.96 for problem behaviors. The authors provide evidence of construct validity based on high correlations between SSIS subscales and scales measuring similar behaviors (e.g., BASC‐2, Vineland‐II; Gresham and Elliott [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>]). In addition, the SSIS was normed on a sample representative of the total US population race/ethnicity distribution at the time of sampling, with 15.5% of the norm sample identified as African American, 20% Hispanic/Latine, and 58.1% White (Gresham and Elliott [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref86">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-16">Covariates</hd> <p>Several covariates were entered to control variability and increase the precision of our models. Covariates in the present study were (a) child achievement (WJIII) and (b) social skills (teacher‐rated SSIS) at pre‐K entry; (c) child age in years at time of assessment (time‐varying), (d) child gender, (e) geographic location of child's school (rural vs. urban), (h) highest parent‐reported parent education across waves (highest degree, five categories; see Table 1), (i) parent‐reported household income status (low at one or more waves <emph>vs.</emph> consistently high across waves; see Table 1), (j) grade/wave (time‐varying), (k) teacher‐reported teacher years of experience (time‐varying), and (l) teacher‐reported teacher endorsement (yes/no) (time‐varying).</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-17">Procedure</hd> <p>Data were collected in the fall and spring of children's pre‐K year and in the spring of kindergarten and first‐grade years; classrooms were English only. Teachers completed questionnaires via a secure web‐based platform. Parents completed demographic questions during a meeting with a research assistant in their homes, at the school, or at a convenient community location. Parents were offered the choice to complete the survey directly on a project iPad or for the research assistant to read each item aloud and input parent answers. For families who spoke Spanish as their primary language, research assistants fluent in Spanish administered the surveys. Twenty‐one percent of families completed the survey in Spanish. Observations were conducted in the middle of the school year (i.e., winter) by a trained observer. Trained data collectors assessed children's reading and math achievement using English‐only assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-18">Data Analysis Plan</hd> <p>Cross‐classified multilevel modeling and linear regression were performed in SAS version 9.4 via the MIXED procedure. For the child‐level outcomes, multiple time points were nested within children, and children were nested within teachers within a grade, but teachers varied across grades. Thus, random residual, child, and pre‐K, kindergarten, and Grade 1 teacher effects were included in each model unless there was insufficient variability, in which case the problematic term was dropped. For the classroom quality outcomes, which were measured at the teacher level, only a random residual term was included in the models.</p> <p>Differences in the quality of teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality by child race/ethnicity (Research Question 1) were examined by regressing the target variable on child race/ethnicity, controlling for the aforementioned child, family, and teacher covariates. Because classroom quality was measured at the teacher level, for those analyses, we first aggregated all child‐level predictors to the classroom level. For example, child race/ethnicity was operationalized as the proportion of students in each group within a classroom.</p> <p>To evaluate whether the associations of teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality on children's achievement and social skills varied by child race/ethnicity (Research Question 2), the target child outcome variable was regressed on the target teacher‐child relationship or classroom quality variable, child race/ethnicity, and their interaction, in addition to the child, family, and teacher covariates. Separate models were estimated for each combination of predictor (teacher‐child relationship and classroom quality variables) and outcome (achievement and social skills variables).</p> <p>Finally, to evaluate whether the associations of classroom quality on children's achievement and social skills varied by teacher‐child relationships and, further, whether this interactive association varied by child race/ethnicity (Research Question 3), the target child outcome variable was regressed on the target teacher‐child relationship and classroom quality variables, child race‐ethnicity, and their 2‐ and 3‐way interactions, in addition to covariates. Separate models were estimated for each combination of predictors and outcomes.</p> <p>Across analyses, the residual maximum likelihood was used for estimating the model parameters. Where necessary, maximum likelihood estimation was used for conducting likelihood ratio tests (LRTs). The Kenward‐Roger approximation was used for standard errors and denominator degrees of freedom.</p> <p>The unadjusted significance level was set at <emph>α</emph> = 0.05. The Benjamini‐Hochberg correction was applied to account for multiplicity (comparisons among multiple racial/ethnic/language groups [6 comparisons] and multiple measures of the child‐teacher relationship [2 measures], classroom quality [3 measures], achievement [2 measures], and social skills [2 measures]). The number of dependent comparisons ranged from 2 to 12, depending on the research question and specific analysis. Standardized mean differences and regression coefficients were calculated as a measure of effect size.</p> <p>In preference to listwise deletion, full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation was used to ensure that children were retained in the analyses even if they had missing relationship or outcome data at some time points.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-19">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727911-20">Preliminary Analyses</hd> <p>Preliminary analyses of child and family demographics indicated significant associations between race/ethnicity and parent education (<emph>χ2</emph>[df = 12] = 64.27, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), household income status (<emph>χ2</emph>[df = 3] = 18.84, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), geographic location (<emph>χ2</emph>[df = 3] = 62.87, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), pre‐K entry reading achievement (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref87">3</reflink>, 188) = 2.73, <emph>p</emph> = 0.045), pre‐K entry mathematics achievement (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref88">3</reflink>, 188) = 12.56, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and pre‐K entry problem behaviors (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref89">3</reflink>, 187) = 3.69, <emph>p</emph> = 0.013). Parents of Latine Spanish‐speaking children were more likely to report lower levels of education than parents of Black, Latine English‐speaking, and White children. Black and Latine Spanish‐speaking children were more likely to reside in households at or below the federal poverty line and/or receiving government support than White children. Black children were more likely to attend urban schools than Latine English‐speaking, Latine Spanish‐speaking, and White children. Latine Spanish‐speaking children were more likely to attend urban schools than Latine English‐speaking and White children. Black and Latine English‐speaking children and White children had significantly higher pre‐K entry reading achievement than Latine Spanish‐speaking children. White children had significantly higher pre‐K entry mathematics achievement than Black and Latine Spanish‐speaking children. Latine English‐speaking children had significantly higher pre‐K entry mathematics achievement than Black and Latine Spanish‐speaking children. Black children had significantly greater pre‐K entry teacher‐reported problem behaviors than White and Latine English‐speaking children.</p> <p>Preliminary analyses were also conducted to examine the distribution of predictor and outcome variables for the overall sample and by children's race/ethnicity (see Table 3). On average, Student–teacher Closeness was high (<emph>M</emph> = 4.32 [SD = 0.54]) and Conflict was low (<emph>M</emph> = 1.51 [SD = 0.70]). CLASS domain scores were relatively high for Emotional Support (<emph>M</emph> = 6.09 [SD = 0.58]) and Classroom Organization (<emph>M</emph> = 5.97 [SD = 0.76]) and moderate for instructional support (<emph>M</emph> = 3.20 [SD = 0.90]). Regarding student achievement, on average, Broad Reading scores were near the mean of the norm sample (sample <emph>M</emph> = 99.07; SD = 11.77) and Broad Math scores were 0.28 standard deviations above the mean (sample <emph>M</emph> = 104.18; SD = 13.11). Social Skills, as rated by teachers, were 0.44 standard deviations above the mean of the norm sample (sample <emph>M</emph> = 106.60; SD = 15.63), and Problem Behavior ratings were 0.17 standard deviations below the mean (sample <emph>M</emph> = 97.43; SD = 15.05).</p> <p>3 Table Descriptive statistics for primary predictors and outcomes, aggregated across waves, for overall sample and by race and ethnicity.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Total (<italic>N</italic> = 192)</th><th align="center">Black (<italic>N</italic> = 35)</th><th align="center">Latine English‐speaking (<italic>N</italic> = 16)</th><th align="center">Latine Spanish‐speaking (<italic>N</italic> = 42)</th><th align="center">White (<italic>N</italic> = 99)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Primary Predictors</td><td>M (SD)</td><td>Range</td><td>M (SD)</td><td align="center">M (SD)</td><td align="center">M (SD)</td><td align="center">M (SD)</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Closeness<ext-link href="a" /></td><td>4.32 (0.54)</td><td>1.6–5.0</td><td>4.33 (0.44)</td><td align="center">4.22 (0.59)</td><td align="center">4.29 (0.52)</td><td align="center">4.34 (0.57)</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Conflict<ext-link href="a" /></td><td>1.51 (0.70)</td><td>1.0–4.8</td><td>1.88 (0.94)</td><td align="center">1.65 (0.66)</td><td align="center">1.40 (0.57)</td><td align="center">1.42 (0.61)</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support<ext-link href="b" /></td><td>6.09 (0.58)</td><td>3.0–7.0</td><td>5.87 (0.78)</td><td align="center">6.13 (0.59)</td><td align="center">6.08 (0.57)</td><td align="center">6.16 (0.49)</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization<ext-link href="b" /></td><td>5.97 (0.76)</td><td>3.6–7.0</td><td>5.63 (0.98)</td><td align="center">5.88 (0.71)</td><td align="center">5.97 (0.76)</td><td align="center">6.08 (0.66)</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support<ext-link href="b" /></td><td>3.20 (0.90)</td><td>1.3–5.9</td><td>3.22 (1.02)</td><td align="center">3.41 (0.94)</td><td align="center">3.11 (0.80)</td><td align="center">3.21 (0.90)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Outcomes</td></tr><tr><td>Reading Achievement<ext-link href="c" /></td><td>99.07 (11.77)</td><td>58.0–130.0</td><td>98.51 (11.73)</td><td align="center">101.24 (9.67)</td><td align="center">94.17 (12.26)</td><td align="center">100.93 (11.32)</td></tr><tr><td>Math Achievement<ext-link href="c" /></td><td>104.18 (13.11)</td><td>40.0–137.0</td><td>100.41 (12.33)</td><td align="center">107.05 (10.53)</td><td align="center">98.44 (14.10)</td><td align="center">107.37 (12.19)</td></tr><tr><td>Social Skills<ext-link href="c" /></td><td>106.53 (15.60)</td><td>57.0–130.0</td><td>100.59 (18.30)</td><td align="center">105.79 (15.36)</td><td align="center">107.49 (14.34)</td><td align="center">108.06 (14.89)</td></tr><tr><td>Problem Behaviors<ext-link href="c" /></td><td>97.45 (15.04)</td><td>82.0–160.0</td><td>105.04 (20.28)</td><td align="center">98.08 (13.00)</td><td align="center">95.35 (13.15)</td><td align="center">95.92 (13.46)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a Mean item scores, with a possible range from 1 to 5, with high scores reflecting more teacher‐reported closeness or conflict.</p> <ulist> <item>2 b Mean domain scores, with a possible range from 1 to 7, with high scores reflecting greater levels of emotional support, classroom organization, or instructional support.</item> <item>3 c Standard scores with <emph>M</emph> = 100, SD = 15. Higher scores reflect greater levels of achievement, social skills or problem behaviors.</item> </ulist> <p>Correlations for the overall sample are shown in Table 4. Overall, there was a significant relationship between the teacher‐child relationship and math achievement, social skills, and problem behaviors in the expected direction—closeness was positively associated with math and social skills and negatively associated with problem behaviors, and conflict was negatively associated with math and social skills and positively associated with problem behaviors. The teacher‐child relationship was not associated with reading achievement. Classroom Emotional Support, Organization, and Instructional Support were positively related to children's reading achievement; there was no relation to math achievement. Classroom Emotional Support was positively associated with children's social skills. In addition, classroom Emotional Support and Organization were negatively associated with problem behaviors.</p> <p>4 Table Bivariate correlation for primary predictors and outcomes, aggregated across waves.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1. Teacher‐Child Closeness</td><td>1.00</td><td>−0.39<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.12<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>−0.02</td><td>0.12<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.01</td><td>0.12<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.51<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>−31<ext-link href="**" /></td></tr><tr><td>2. Teacher‐Child Conflict</td><td /><td>1.00</td><td>−0.20<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>−0.15<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>−0.08</td><td>−0.07</td><td>−0.13<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>−0.66<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.81<ext-link href="**" /></td></tr><tr><td>3. Emotional Support</td><td /><td>1.00</td><td>0.68<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.51<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.10<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.04</td><td>0.11<ext-link href="*" /></td><td align="center">−0.21<ext-link href="**" /></td></tr><tr><td>4. Classroom Organization</td><td /><td>1.00</td><td>0.35<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.14<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td><td align="center">−0.15<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>5. Instructional Support</td><td /><td>1.00</td><td>0.10<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.09</td><td>0.05</td><td align="center">−0.07</td></tr><tr><td>6. Reading Achievement</td><td /><td>1.00</td><td>0.64<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.13<ext-link href="*" /></td><td align="center">−0.08</td></tr><tr><td>7. Math Achievement</td><td /><td>1.00</td><td>0.20<ext-link href="**" /></td><td align="center">−0.14<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>8. Social Skills</td><td /><td>1.00</td><td align="center">−0.74<ext-link href="**" /></td></tr><tr><td>9. Problem Behavior</td><td /><td align="center">1.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05</item> <item>5 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186727911-21">RQ1</hd> <p>Does the quality of teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality experienced by children differ by race and ethnicity?</p> <p>Associations of race/ethnicity on teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality are in Table 5. After controlling for child, family, and teacher covariates, teacher‐child conflict significantly varied by child race/ethnicity (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref90">3</reflink>, 161) = 5.54, Benjamini‐Hochberg [BH] adj. <emph>p</emph> = 0.002). Teachers reported significantly greater conflict with Black children on average than Latine Spanish‐speaking (<emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = 0.46, SE = 0.12, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.001, Std. <emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = 0.66) and White (<emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = 0.30, SE = 0.11, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.024, Std. <emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = 0.42) children; they also reported greater conflict with Latine English‐speaking children compared to Latine Spanish‐speaking children (<emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = 0.33, SE = 0.14, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.044, Std. <emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = 0.48). There were no other significant differences in teacher‐child conflict by race/ethnicity. In addition, there was no overall association of child race/ethnicity on teacher‐child closeness.</p> <p>5 Table Model‐predicted associations of race/ethnicity on teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>F(df) or LRT(df)</th><th>BH <italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Closeness</td><td>F(3, 148) = 0.53</td><td>0.659</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Conflict</td><td>F(3, 161) = 5.54</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support</td><td>LRT(3) = 16.00</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization</td><td>LRT(3) = 16.80</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support</td><td>LRT(3) = 5.40</td><td>0.145</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note:</emph> BH, Benjamini‐Hochberg corrected <emph>p</emph> value; LRT, likelihood ratio test.</p> <p>After adjusting for covariates, teacher emotional support and classroom organization significantly varied by child race/ethnicity (LRT(df = 3) = 16.00, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.002 and LRT(df = 3) = 16.80, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.002, respectively). On average, Black children were significantly more likely to be in classrooms with lower emotional support compared to Latine English‐speaking (<emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = ‐0.47 [representing the difference between a classroom with all Black children vs. all Latine English‐speaking children], SE = 0.19, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.024, Std. <emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = −0.81), Latine Spanish‐speaking (<emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = −0.45, SE = 0.14, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.004, Std. <emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = −0.78), and White (<emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = ‐0.46, SE = 0.13, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.003, Std. M<subs>Diff</subs> = −0.79) children. Further, on average, Black children were significantly more likely to be in classrooms with lower Classroom Organization compared to Latine Spanish‐speaking (<emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = ‐0.51, SE = 0.18, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.017, Std. <emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = −0.66) and White (<emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = ‐0.68, SE = 0.17, BH <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Std. <emph>M</emph><subs>Diff</subs> = −0.88) children. The remaining race/ethnicity comparisons in teacher Emotional Support and Classroom Organization were nonsignificant, and there was no overall association between child race/ethnicity and classroom Instructional Support.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-22">RQ2</hd> <p>What is the association of teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality on children's achievement and social skills, and does the association vary by race and ethnicity?</p> <p>As presented in Table 6, after adjusting for covariates, teacher‐child relationships were significantly associated with children's mathematics achievement, social skills, and problem behaviors but not children's reading achievement. Greater teacher‐child closeness was associated with higher math achievement (Est. = 2.14, SE = 0.80, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.032, Std. Est. = 0.09) and social skills (Est. = 12.27, SE = 1.04, BH <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Std. Est. = 0.43), and fewer problem behaviors (Est. = ‐6.82, SE = 1.04, BH <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Std. Est. = ‐0.25). Greater teacher‐child conflict was associated with lower math achievement (Est. = ‐1.61, SE = 0.70, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.042, Std. Est. = −0.09) and social skills (Est. = −12.34, SE = 0.86, BH <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Std. Est. = −0.55), and greater problem behaviors (Est. = 14.68, SE = 0.65, BH <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Std. Est. = 0.68). Associations between teacher‐child relationships and child outcomes did not vary as a function of child race/ethnicity.</p> <p>6 Table Model‐predicted associations of teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality on children's achievement and social skills and variations by race/ethnicity (Research Question 2).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Main Effect Association</th><th align="center">Interaction with Race</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>Est.</th><th>SE</th><th>BH <italic>p</italic></th><th>Std. Est.</th><th><italic>F</italic>(df)</th><th>BH <italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Reading Achievement</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Closeness</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.256</td><td>0.04</td><td>F(3, 373) = 0.44</td><td>0.964</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Conflict</td><td>−1.10</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.123</td><td>−0.06</td><td>F(3, 408) = 0.29</td><td>0.833</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.745</td><td>0.03</td><td>F(3, 375) = 0.56</td><td>>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.378</td><td>0.06</td><td>F(3, 366) = 0.89</td><td>>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.911</td><td>0.00</td><td>F(3, 349) = 1.03</td><td>>0.999</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Math Achievement</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Closeness</td><td>2.14</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.032</td><td>0.09</td><td>F(3, 387) = 1.84</td><td>0.560</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Conflict</td><td>−1.61</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.042</td><td>−0.09</td><td>F(3, 394) = 1.31</td><td>0.539</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.75</td><td>>0.999</td><td>0.01</td><td>F(3, 366) = 0.22</td><td>>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization</td><td>−0.13</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.989</td><td>−0.01</td><td>F(3, 328) = 0.26</td><td>>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.283</td><td>0.07</td><td>F(3, 317) = 0.15</td><td>0.931</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social Skills</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Closeness</td><td>12.27</td><td>1.04</td><td><0.001</td><td>0.43</td><td>F(3, 419) = 3.18</td><td>0.096</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Conflict</td><td>−12.34</td><td>0.86</td><td><0.001</td><td>−0.55</td><td>F(3, 412) = 0.66</td><td>0.577</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support</td><td>0.97</td><td>1.20</td><td>0.634</td><td>0.04</td><td>F(3, 389) = 2.54</td><td>0.337</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.586</td><td>0.03</td><td>F(3, 400) = 2.44</td><td>0.192</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.677</td><td>0.02</td><td>F(3, 403) = 0.80</td><td>0.592</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Problem Behaviors</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Closeness</td><td>−6.82</td><td>1.04</td><td><0.001</td><td>−0.25</td><td>F(3, 419) = 2.95</td><td>0.065</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐Child Conflict</td><td>14.68</td><td>0.65</td><td><0.001</td><td>0.68</td><td>F(3, 406) = 0.79</td><td>0.670</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support</td><td>−3.52</td><td>1.10</td><td>0.011</td><td>−0.14</td><td>F(3, 397) = 0.36</td><td>0.784</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization</td><td>−2.30</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.024</td><td>−0.12</td><td>F(3, 397) = 0.90</td><td>0.664</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support</td><td>−0.73</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.676</td><td>−0.04</td><td>F(3, 377) = 1.49</td><td>0.436</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>7 <emph>Note:</emph> BH, Benjamini‐Hochberg corrected <emph>p</emph>‐value.</p> <p>After adjusting for covariates, aspects of classroom quality were significantly associated with children's problem behaviors but not their achievement or social skills. Specifically, greater emotional support and classroom organization were associated with fewer problem behaviors (Est. = −3.52, SE = 1.10, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.011, Std. Est. = −0.14 and Est. = −2.30, SE = 0.86, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.024, Std. Est. = −0.12, respectively). Instructional support was not significantly associated with child outcomes. Associations between classroom quality and child outcomes did not vary as a function of child race/ethnicity.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-23">RQ3</hd> <p>Does the association between classroom quality and children's achievement and social skills vary by teacher‐child relationship, and does this interactive association vary by race and ethnicity?</p> <p>Associations of classroom quality by teacher‐child relationships on achievement and social skills and variations by student race/ethnicity are in Table 7. The association between classroom organization and problem behaviors was significantly stronger among children who experienced less closeness with their teacher (Est. = 3.57, SE = 1.14, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.023, Std. Est. = 1.07). As shown in Figure 1, greater Classroom Organization was associated with fewer problem behaviors for children experiencing average or low levels of closeness with their teacher. In contrast, Classroom Organization was not associated with problem behaviors for children experiencing high levels of closeness with their teacher. Differences in problem behaviors associated with teacher‐child closeness were more pronounced among classrooms with low levels of classroom organization.</p> <p>7 Table Model‐predicted associations of classroom quality by teacher‐child relationships on children's achievement and social skills and variations by race/ethnicity (Research Question 3).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>2‐Way Interaction</th><th align="center">3‐Way Interaction with Race</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>Est.</th><th>SE</th><th>BH p</th><th>Std. Est.</th><th><italic>F</italic>(df)</th><th>BH p</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Reading Achievement</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support × Teacher Child Closeness</td><td>−1.29</td><td>1.08</td><td>>0.999</td><td>−0.47</td><td>F(3, 314) = 2.59</td><td>0.319</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization × Teacher‐Child Closeness</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.937</td><td>0.15</td><td>F(3, 363) = 0.81</td><td>0.584</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support × Teacher Child Closeness</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.996</td><td>0.07</td><td>F(3, 357) = 0.98</td><td>0.606</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support × Teacher Child Conflict</td><td>−0.50</td><td>0.81</td><td>>0.999</td><td>−0.18</td><td>F(3, 350) = 0.40</td><td>0.755</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization × Teacher‐Child Conflict</td><td>−0.63</td><td>0.62</td><td>>0.999</td><td>−0.24</td><td>F(3, 356) = 0.85</td><td>0.622</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support × Teacher Child Conflict</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.62</td><td>>0.999</td><td>0.06</td><td>F(3, 333) = 0.81</td><td>0.534</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Math Achievement</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support × Teacher Child Closeness</td><td>−0.71</td><td>1.15</td><td>>0.999</td><td>−0.23</td><td>F(3, 348) = 2.13</td><td>0.289</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization × Teacher‐Child Closeness</td><td>−0.13</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.961</td><td>−0.04</td><td>F(3, 379) = 1.04</td><td>0.646</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support × Teacher Child Closeness</td><td>−0.72</td><td>0.86</td><td>>0.999</td><td>−0.25</td><td>F(3, 362) = 1.21</td><td>0.611</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support × Teacher Child Conflict</td><td>−0.43</td><td>0.81</td><td>>0.999</td><td>−0.14</td><td>F(3, 357) = 4.58</td><td>0.044</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization × Teacher‐Child Conflict</td><td>−1.43</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.322</td><td>−0.49</td><td>F(3, 363) = 1.40</td><td>0.582</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support × Teacher Child Conflict</td><td>−0.02</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.975</td><td>−0.01</td><td>F(3, 358) = 2.56</td><td>0.221</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social Skills</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support × Teacher Child Closeness</td><td>−1.29</td><td>1.50</td><td>0.585</td><td>−0.35</td><td>F(3, 362) = 0.58</td><td>>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization × Teacher‐Child Closeness</td><td>−2.55</td><td>1.14</td><td>0.104</td><td>−0.74</td><td>F(3, 402) = 0.33</td><td>0.960</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support × Teacher Child Closeness</td><td>0.95</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.553</td><td>0.27</td><td>F(3, 394) = 0.05</td><td>0.985</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support × Teacher Child Conflict</td><td>−1.94</td><td>1.07</td><td>0.213</td><td>−0.53</td><td>F(3, 394) = 0.25</td><td>0.938</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization × Teacher‐Child Conflict</td><td>−0.76</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.722</td><td>−0.22</td><td>F(3, 398) = 1.19</td><td>0.935</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support × Teacher Child Conflict</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.838</td><td>0.07</td><td>F(3, 386) = 0.88</td><td>>0.999</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Problem Behaviors</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support × Teacher Child Closeness</td><td>3.60</td><td>1.50</td><td>0.104</td><td>1.02</td><td>F(3, 349) = 0.45</td><td>>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization × Teacher‐Child Closeness</td><td>3.57</td><td>1.14</td><td>0.023</td><td>1.07</td><td>F(3, 391) = 0.38</td><td>>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support × Teacher Child Closeness</td><td>1.07</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.628</td><td>0.32</td><td>F(3, 373) = 0.59</td><td>>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Support × Teacher Child Conflict</td><td>−0.16</td><td>0.77</td><td>0.836</td><td>−0.05</td><td>F(3, 381) = 1.32</td><td>>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Organization × Teacher‐Child Conflict</td><td>−0.49</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.501</td><td>−0.15</td><td>F(3, 391) = 2.05</td><td>0.642</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Support × Teacher Child Conflict</td><td>−0.71</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.606</td><td>−0.21</td><td>F(3, 376) = 4.41</td><td>0.055</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>8 <emph>Note:</emph> BH, Benjamini‐Hochberg corrected <emph>p</emph> value.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01aug25/pits23494-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23494-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Classroom organization by teacher‐child closeness interaction association on child problem behaviors." /> </p> <p></p> <p>No other associations between classroom quality and child outcomes varied as a function of teacher‐child relationships when aggregating across race/ethnicity. However, one significant three‐way interaction with race and ethnicity was observed. The interactive association between Emotional Support and teacher‐child conflict on children's mathematics achievement significantly varied by race and ethnicity (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref91">3</reflink>, 357) = 4.58, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.044), and in particular, when comparing Black children to White children (Est. = −7.97, SE = 2.15, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.001, Std. Est. = −2.59). For Black children, the association between Emotional Support and mathematics achievement was significantly stronger among children who experienced less conflict with their teacher (Est. = −3.02, SE = 1.25, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.033, Std. Est. = −0.98). As shown in Figure 2a, greater classroom Emotional Support was associated with higher mathematics achievement for children experiencing low levels of conflict with their teacher. In contrast, classroom Emotional Support was not as strongly associated with mathematics achievement for children experiencing average or high levels of conflict with their teacher. Differences in mathematics achievement associated with teacher‐child conflict were more pronounced among classrooms with high levels of Emotional Support. For White children, the association between Emotional Support and mathematics achievement was significantly more positive among children who experienced greater conflict with their teacher (Est. = 4.95, SE = 1.75, BH <emph>p</emph> = 0.020, Std. Est. = 1.61). Greater classroom Emotional Support was associated with higher mathematics achievement for children experiencing high levels of conflict with their teacher, whereas this association was weaker for children experiencing average levels of conflict with their teacher (Figure 2b). Differences in mathematics achievement associated with teacher‐child conflict were more pronounced among classrooms with low levels of Emotional Support. There was no interactive association between Emotional Support and teacher‐child conflict in Latine children's mathematics achievement.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01aug25/pits23494-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23494-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Classroom emotional support by teacher‐child conflict interaction association on child math achievement for Black (a) and White (b) children." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727911-26">Discussion</hd> <p>This study examined the unique and interactive effects of teacher‐child relationship and classroom quality on Pre‐K to Grade 1 children's reading and math achievement, social skills, and problem behaviors, and whether these relationships differed by children's race and ethnicity. Findings indicate that even after controlling for various sociodemographic characteristics, Black children, compared to White and Latine children, regardless of language, were likely to be in classrooms rated as lower quality and also have more conflictual relationships with their teachers, as reported by teachers. While observed classroom quality was minimally related to child outcomes and mainly for problem behavior, teacher ratings of their relationship with their students were consistently related to children's achievement and social skills. Teacher‐child closeness was positively associated with math and social skills and negatively associated with problem behaviors, and teacher‐child conflict was negatively associated with children's math and social skills, and positively associated with problem behaviors. There was no evidence these associations varied by child race. However, race did moderate the interaction between teacher‐child relationships, classroom quality, and child outcomes, providing some evidence of the buffering nature of classroom quality in the face of conflictual relationships between teachers and children.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-27">Black Children and Inequitable Learning Environments</hd> <p>Unfortunately, consistent with the literature, Black children continue to be exposed to inequitable learning environments. Black children were in environments observed as being less emotionally promotive, meaning the climate was less positive, more negative, and less respectful of student perspective than the classroom environments of Latine children. Black children's classroom environments were also less organized, with less adequate behavior management and less productivity in learning than White and Latine children's classrooms. This is consistent with various pre‐K studies that have shown that Black children were often in classrooms rated as lower quality than White children (Hanselman [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref92">29</reflink>]). Beyond the classroom environment quality, teachers of Black children rated their relationship with them as more conflictual than their relationships with Latine children and White children. This is in line with the current literature that continues to note that teachers report not having as warm and trusting relationships with Black children as they do with other children (Goldberg and Iruka [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref93">25</reflink>]; Redding [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref94">60</reflink>]; Saft and Pianta [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref95">64</reflink>]). Many reasons have been postulated for racial/ethnic differences in quality environments, such as the history of economic and racial segregation (Feagin and Barnett [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref96">20</reflink>]), limited resources and more stressors in programs serving Black children (Darling‐Hammond [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref97">16</reflink>]), less experienced teachers (Clotfelter et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref98">11</reflink>]), racial discordance between teachers and children (Redding [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref99">60</reflink>]), and implicit bias (Gilliam et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref100">23</reflink>]; Iruka et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref101">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>There was some emerging evidence that Latine English‐speaking children were likely to have conflictual relationships with their teachers compared to Latine Spanish‐speaking children and in classrooms less organized than their Latine Spanish‐speaking and White peers; caution should be taken given the small sample of Latine English‐speaking children. While more studies are needed that include more racially/ethnically and linguistically minoritized students, such as Indigenous and Asian American children, there is a concern about the systemic nature that continues to place Black children in lower quality programs with teachers who view them through a harsher and more punitive lens compared to their peers. This deficit view (i.e., implicit bias) of Black children has been linked to the disproportionality found in preschool suspension and expulsion (Gilliam et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref102">23</reflink>]; Wymer et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref103">72</reflink>]). What these findings indicate is that Black children may be reacting in response to the more conflictual relationships they have with their teachers, coupled with a disorganized and less emotionally supporting environment that disregards their perspective more than some other students.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-28">Association between Teacher‐Child Relationships, Classroom Environment, and Child Outcomes</hd> <p>Consistent with extant literature, the findings in this study show that a teacher‐child relationship that is close and less conflictual is associated with stronger academic outcomes and social skills, and fewer problem behaviors (Ansari et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref104">1</reflink>]; Roorda et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref105">63</reflink>]; Valiente et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref106">69</reflink>]). Furthermore, no racial or ethnic differences in this relationship emerged, indicating that positive and supportive relationships between teachers and students play an important role in children's cognitive and socio‐emotional development regardless of race and ethnicity by setting a condition for children to be positively engaged and connected to learning. In their examination of the longitudinal association between teacher‐child relationship quality and academic achievement, Li et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref107">43</reflink>]) found a transactional link between the teacher‐child relationship, especially conflict, and children's achievement, particularly through children's observed behavioral engagement (i.e., the extent to which children actively participated in academic‐related activities in the classroom).</p> <p>While there were minimal findings linking classroom environment and child achievement and behavior, above and beyond other predictors, there were two exceptions. The quality of the classroom environment (i.e., classroom emotional support and organization) was associated with fewer teacher‐rated problem behaviors, calling attention to the role of the classroom in promoting (or hindering) children's self‐regulation. This finding is generally consistent with literature noting that specific aspects of the classroom, such as emotional support and organization, are associated with children's regulatory skills (Cadima et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref108">10</reflink>]; Fuhs et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref109">21</reflink>]; Rimm‐Kaufman et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref110">62</reflink>]). For example, Curby et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref111">13</reflink>]) found that classroom emotional support predicted several academic outcomes in prekindergarten and social competence in kindergarten. The lack of finding a link between classroom quality and academic outcomes in this study compared to previous studies (e.g., Curby et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref112">13</reflink>]) may be due to the lack of variability in the outcomes (i.e., scores were within approximately one‐half standard deviation of the mean), and classrooms being rated, on average, very high on emotional support (6.09 out of 7.00) and classroom organization (5.97 out of 7.00). However, in their systematic review and meta‐analysis of the CLASS and child outcomes, Perlman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref113">52</reflink>]) found small associations and heterogeneity in the relationship between the CLASS domains and child outcomes, with significant correlations derived primarily from one dataset. These authors found few effects for the emotional support and classroom organization domains, calling for more research on the CLASS and its association with student outcomes.</p> <p>There was also a lack of evidence that the association between classroom quality and child outcomes varied by race or ethnicity. This could indicate that classroom quality works the same across racial and ethnic groups or could reflect a lack of association between classroom quality and child outcomes, consistent with the extant literature. Some of the reasons postulated for the lack of association between quality and child outcomes include outcomes of interest, the threshold of quality needed to find effects, and the lack of cultural relevance of global quality measures (e.g., Burchinal [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref114">8</reflink>]; Curenton et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref115">14</reflink>]; Layzer and Goodson [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref116">41</reflink>]). Future studies are needed to address some of these factors and consider whether race and ethnicity are moderators.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-29">Relationships Within High‐Quality Learning Environments Matter for Children's Social Skills</hd> <p>Whereas some studies have separately examined the association between teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality, there has been limited examination of their interactive effects on child outcomes. Consistent with our theoretical framework of the contextual systems model, the findings in this study indicate some interactive effects between teacher‐child relationships and classroom quality. This study shows that the quality of the classroom environment, namely classroom organization, seems to serve as a buffer for children experiencing low to average levels of closeness with their teachers compared to their peers. While low teacher‐reported closeness is associated with an increase in child problem behavior, this may be attenuated when teachers are able to create an environment of high productivity in learning with clear and proactive behavior management.</p> <p>For Black children, being in an emotionally supportive classroom was more beneficial for their math achievement in the face of low conflict with teachers. Thus, Black children experiencing higher levels of conflict were not as buffered from the quality of the classroom environment as some of their peers (there were no findings for Latine English‐ or Spanish‐speaking children, which may be due to their small sample size). Consistent with our culturally relevant pedagogy about the racialized nature of schools, scholars have noted anti‐Blackness permeating education systems even as early as pre‐K (Iruka et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref117">35</reflink>]; Zulauf‐McCurdy et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref118">76</reflink>]); thus, there is a need to examine structural and process features that buffer children from pernicious racism they are likely to experience in their ecological system, including in schools. Given that race is a proxy for proximal processes such as racism, discrimination, bias, and privilege, there is a need for more studies to examine how the context of the classroom, from the teacher‐child interactions and classroom environment to individual child experiences, are racialized and experienced by racially, culturally, and linguistically minoritized children.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-30">Limitations</hd> <p>Although this study provides important contributions to the literature by underscoring the unique contribution of the teacher‐child relationship and classroom environment and their interaction across racially and linguistically diverse children, it is not without limitations. One set of limitations concerns the use of observational data. While the CLASS measure has been widely used and validated, observational data is limited in that it is only a snapshot of the classroom environment through the lens of teacher‐child interactions and was only observed during one 2‐h period. It is also unclear whether markers used to measure quality through observation are culturally and linguistically relevant and salient for racially minoritized children (Curenton et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref119">14</reflink>]). Research that compares multiple observations, examines rater bias, and adapts observation methods to incorporate antibias principles is needed.</p> <p>A second limitation concerns the correlational nature of the data, which allows interpretations regarding associations as opposed to causation. Future studies should aim to track these relationships using a longitudinal study design that allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships between these variables, and to yield a greater understanding of the patterns observed and whether they predict later academic and socio‐behavioral outcomes.</p> <p>Another limitation of the present study is source variance. Although we utilized both observational methods and self‐reports, the self‐report measures included in the study were all completed by teachers, so same‐rater bias must be considered a limitation. Future work should investigate the quality of teacher‐child interactions and relationships using alternative measurement methods. Observational measures of individual child experiences and teacher‐child interactions based on an antibias and culturally responsive framework, as well as reports from children about the quality of their relationship with teachers, would be beneficial. Although our study used valid and reliable child outcome measures often found in the literature, there is a need to attend to other outcomes that may be particularly relevant for racially, culturally, and linguistically minoritized children, such as agency, curiosity, and healthy racial‐ethnic identity. Lastly, our study was focused on the classroom experiences of Black, Latine, and White children, but there is a need for more research to attend to other racially and ethnically marginalized children, including Asian, Indigenous, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, and Middle Eastern North African children across various socioeconomic groups, to understand their learning opportunities and experiences with an aim toward equity.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-31">Conclusion</hd> <p>The findings in this study confirm the importance of close and low conflictual teacher‐child relationships for racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse children's achievement and socio‐behavioral outcomes. It also instantiates that some aspects of the classroom environment promote certain child outcomes. Unfortunately, it continues to show that teachers continue to rate their relationship with Black children as more conflictual than with some other children, and Black children as having more problem behaviors than their peers. However, attention should continue strengthening positive and close relationships between teachers and children, perhaps through programs such as Infant Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation (Shivers et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref120">66</reflink>]) and Banking Time (Driscoll and Pianta [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref121">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>It remains critical to attend to the inequities facing Black children's learning experiences and identify ways to buffer multi‐level adversities, including racism, poverty, and trauma. Given the anti‐Black racialized ecosystem that Black children are likely to live in, children may be hypervigilant about their context. Scholars have noted the higher‐than‐normal allostatic load experienced by Black women that likely contributes to poor health and early death (i.e., weathering) (Geronimus et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref122">22</reflink>]). Thus, it is critical that attention is paid to attenuating high stress and inequities impacting Black children and other minoritized children experiencing adversity.</p> <hd id="AN0186727911-32">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors thank all the school leaders, educators, families and children who participated in this project. We also want to thank all of the data collectors for their role in this project. The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant #R305N160016 to the University of Nebraska‐Lincoln. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.</p> <ref id="AN0186727911-33"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> We used the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale codes to identify schools' geographic locale. NCES categorizes all school districts (city, suburb, town, rural) using an "urban‐centric" classification system. The categories rely on concepts used by the Census Bureau to define an area's urbanicity; urbanized centers are core areas with areas with populations of ≥ 50,000 and urban clusters are defined by populations between 2500 and 50,000. Rural areas and towns do not lie inside an urbanized area or urban cluster. At the time of the first assessment, 48.44% of children were enrolled in one of two urban school districts classified as a large principal city. The remaining 51.56% of children were enrolled in one of ten rural/town school districts characterized as rural remote (2), town remote (7), and town distant (1) were involved.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186727911-34"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ansari, A., T. L. Hofkens, and R. C. Pianta. 2020. " Teacher‐Student Relationships Across the First Seven Years of Education and Adolescent Outcomes." Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 71 : 101200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101200.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Araujo, M. C., P. Carneiro, Y. Cruz‐Aguayo, and N. Schady. 2016. " Teacher Quality and Learning Outcomes in Kindergarten." Quarterly Journal of Economics 131, no. 3 : 1415 – 1453. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, J. A. 2006. " Contributions of Teacher‐Child Relationships to Positive School Adjustment During Elementary School." Journal of School Psychology 44, no. 3 : 211 – 229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref71" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Birch, S. H., and G. W. Ladd. 1997. " The Teacher‐Child Relationship and Children's Early School Adjustment." Journal of School Psychology 35 : 61 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00029-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref62" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Borman, G. D., and S. M. Kimball. 2005. " Teacher Quality and Educational Equality: Do Teachers With Higher Standards‐Based Evaluation Ratings Close Student Achievement Gaps? " Elementary School Journal 106 : 3 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref19" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U., and P. A. Morris. 2006. " The Bioecological Model of Human Development." In Handbook of Child Development: Vol. 1. Theoretical Models of Human Development, edited by R. M. Lerner, 793 – 828. Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref21" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brown‐Jeffy, S., and J. E. Cooper. 2011. " Toward a Conceptual Framework of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: An Overview of the Conceptual and Theoretical Literature." Teacher Education Quarterly 38, no. 1 : 65 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref114" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burchinal, M. 2018. " Measuring Early Care and Education Quality." Child Development Perspectives 12, no. 1 : 3 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12260.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref66" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Burchinal, M., N. Vandergrift, R. Pianta, and A. Mashburn. 2010. " Threshold Analysis of Association Between Child Care Quality and Child Outcomes for Low‐Income Children in Pre‐Kindergarten Programs." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25, no. 2 : 166 – 176.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cadima, J., K. Verschueren, T. Leal, and C. Guedes. 2016. " Classroom Interactions, Dyadic Teacher–Child Relationships, and Self–Regulation in Socially Disadvantaged Young Children." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 44, no. 1 : 7 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0060-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clotfelter, C. T., H. F. Ladd, and C. R. Clifton. 2023. " Racial Differences in Student Access to High‐Quality Teachers." Education Finance and Policy 18, no. 4 : 738 – 752.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crosnoe, R., T. Leventhal, R. J. Wirth, K. M. Pierce, R. C. Pianta, and N. E. C. C. R. Network. 2010. " Family Socioeconomic Status and Consistent Environmental Stimulation in Early Childhood." Child Development 81, no. 3 : 972 – 987. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01446.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curby, T. W., L. L. Brock, and B. K. Hamre. 2013. " Teachers' Emotional Support Consistency Predicts Children's Achievement Gains and Social Skills." Early Education & Development 24, no. 3 : 292 – 309. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.665760.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curenton, S. M., I. U. Iruka, M. Humphries, et al. 2019. " Validity for the Assessing Classroom Sociocultural Equity Scale (ACSES) in Early Childhood Classrooms." Early Education and Development 31, no. 2 : 284 – 303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1611331.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling‐Hammond, L. 2004. " Inequality and the Right to Learn: Access to Qualified Teachers in California's Public Schools." Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 106 : 1936 – 1966.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling‐Hammond, L. 2013. " Inequality and school resources." In Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance, edited by P. L. Carter and K. G. Welener, 77 – 97. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dodge, K. A., Y. Bai, H. F. Ladd, and C. G. Muschkin. 2016. " Impact of North Carolina's Early Childhood Programs and Policies on Educational Outcomes in Elementary School." Child Development 88, no. 3 : 996 – 1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12645.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domínguez, X., V. E. Vitiello, M. F. Maier, and D. B. Greenfield. 2010. " A Longitudinal Examination of Young Children's Learning Behavior: Child‐Level and Classroom‐Level Predictors of Change Throughout the Preschool Year." School Psychology Review 39 : 29 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Driscoll, K. C., and R. C. Pianta. 2010. " Banking Time n Head Start: Early Efficacy of an Intervention Designed to Promote Supportive Teacher‐Child Relationships." Early Education & Development 21, no. 1 : 38 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802657449.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feagin, J. R., and B. M. Barnett (2004). Success and Failure: How Systemic Racism Trumped the Brown v. Board of Education Decision. University of Illinois Law Review, 1099.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuhs, M. W., D. C. Farran, and K. T. Nesbitt. 2013. " Preschool Classroom Processes As Predictors of Children's Cognitive Self‐Regulation Skills Development." School Psychology Quarterly 28 : 347 – 359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geronimus, A. T., M. Hicken, D. Keene, and J. Bound. 2006. " Weathering' and Age Patterns of Allostatic Load Scores Among Blacks and Whites in the United States." American Journal of Public Health 96, no. 5 : 826 – 833. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2004.060749.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilliam, W. S., A. N. Maupin, C. R. Reyes, M. Accavitti, and F. Shic. 2016. Do Early Educators' Implicit Biases Regarding Sex and Race Relate to Behavior Expectations and Recommendations of Preschool Expulsions and Suspensions. New Haven, CT : Research Study Brief. Yale University, Yale Child Study Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glüer, M., and A. Gregoriadis. 2017. " Quality of Teacher‐Child Relationship and Preschoolers' Pro‐Social Behaviour in German Kindergartens." Education 3‐13 45, no. 5 : 558 – 571. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2016.1140802.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldberg, M. J., and I. U. Iruka. 2023. " The Role of Teacher‐Child Relationship Quality in Black and Latino Boys' Positive Development." Early Childhood Education Journal 51 : 301 – 315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01300-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graves Jr., S. L., and C. Howes. 2011. " Ethnic Differences in Social‐Emotional Development in Preschool: The Impact of Teacher‐Child Relationships and Classroom Quality." School Psychology Quarterly 26, no. 3 : 202 – 214. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham, F., and S. Elliott. 2008. Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Rating Scales. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hajovsky, D. B., S. R. Chesnut, K. A. Helbig, and S. M. Goranowski. 2023. " On the Examination of Longitudinal Trends Between Teacher‐Student Relationship Quality and Social Skills During Elementary School." School Psychology Review 52, no. 6 : 679 – 695.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanselman, P. 2019. " Access to Effective Teachers and Economic and Racial Disparities in Opportunities to Learn." Sociological Quarterly 60, no. 3 : 498 – 534.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hines, E. M., D. Y. Ford, E. C. Fletcher, Jr., and J. L. Moore, III. 2022. " All Eyez on Me: Disproportionality, Disciplined, and Disregarded While Black." Theory into Practice 61, no. 3 : 288 – 299.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howes, C. 2000. " Social‐Emotional Classroom Climate in Child Care, Child‐Teacher Relationships and Children's Second Grade Peer Relations." Social Development 9, no. 2 : 191 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howes, C., and C. E. Hamilton. 1992. " Children's Relationships With Child Care Teachers: Stability and Concordance With Parental Attachments." Child Development 63, no. 4 : 867 – 878. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howes, C., C. E. Hamilton, and C. C. Matheson. 1994. " Children's Relationships With Peers: Differential Associations With Aspects of the Teacher‐Child Relationship." Child Development 65, no. 1 : 253 – 263.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ialuna, F., S. Civitillo, N. McElvany, B. Leyendecker, and P. Jugert. 2024. " Resilience in Multicultural Classrooms: School Relationships Can Protect the School Adjustment of Immigrant, Refugee and Non‐Immigrant Children." British Journal of Educational Psychology 94 : 1271 – 1293. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12713.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iruka, I. U., N. Gardner‐Neblett, N. A. Telfer, et al. 2022. " Effects of Racism on Child Development: Advancing Antiracist Developmental Science." Annual Review of Developmental Psychology 4, no. 1 : 109 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121020-031339.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iruka, I. U., D. R. LaForett, and E. C. Odom. 2012. " Examining the Validity of the Family Investment and Stress Models and Relationship to Children's School Readiness Across Five Cultural Groups." Journal of Family Psychology 26, no. 3 : 359 – 370. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jerome, E. M., B. K. Hamre, and R. C. Pianta. 2009. " Teacher‐Child Relationships From Kindergarten to Sixth Grade: Early Childhood Predictors of Teacher‐Perceived Conflict and Closeness." Social Development 18, no. 4 : 915 – 945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00508.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriakides, L., C. Christoforou, and C. Y. Charalambous. 2013. " What Matters for Student Learning Outcomes: A Meta‐Analysis of Studies Exploring Factors of Effective Teaching." Teaching and Teacher Education 36 : 143 – 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson‐Billings, G., and W. F. Tate. 1995. " Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education." Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 97 : 47 – 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latham, S., S. P. Corcoran, C. Sattin‐Bajaj, and J. L. Jennings. 2021. " Racial Disparities in Pre‐K Quality: Evidence from New York City's Universal Pre‐K Program." Educational Researcher 50, no. 9 : 607 – 617. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x211028214.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Layzer, J. I., and B. D. Goodson. 2006. " The 'Quality' of Early Care and Education Settings: Definitional and Measurement Issues." Evaluation Review 30, no. 5 : 556 – 576.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, H., J. Liu, and C. V. Hunter. 2020. " A Meta‐Analysis of the Factor Structure of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS)." Journal of Experimental Education 88, no. 2 : 265 – 287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2018.1551184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, L., C. Valiente, N. Eisenberg, et al. 2022. " Longitudinal Associations Among Teacher‐Child Relationship Quality, Behavioral Engagement, and Academic Achievement." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 61 : 25 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.05.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markus, H. R. 2008. " Pride, Prejudice, and Ambivalence: Toward a Unified Theory of Race and Ethnicity." American Psychologist 63, no. 8 : 651 – 670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.651.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCormick, M., M. Pralica, J. Hsueh, et al. 2023. " Going the Distance: Disparities In Pre‐K Enrollment in Higher‐Quality Schools by Geographic Proximity, Race/Ethnicity, Family Income, and Home Language." AERA Open 9 : 1 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231168867.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCormick, M. P., E. E. O'Connor, E. Cappella, and S. G. McClowry. 2013. " Teacher‐Child Relationships and Academic Achievement: A Multilevel Propensity Score Model Approach." Journal of School Psychology 51, no. 5 : 611 – 624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGrew, K. S., F. A. Schrank, and R. W. Woodcock (2007). Technical Manual. Woodcock‐Johnson III Normative Update. Riverside.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 2005. " Early Child Care and Children's Development in the Primary Grades: Follow‐Up Results From the NICHD Study of Early Child Care." American Educational Research Journal 42, no. 3 : 537 – 570.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oades‐Sese, G. V., M. Kitzie, C. Velderman, W. L. Rubic, S. Rutstein, and M. Waltuck. 2012. " Cultural Considerations for Building Social‐Emotional and Academic Resilience in Hispanic Preschool Children." In Resilience in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: Translating Research into Practice, 279 – 298. New York, NY : Springer New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Grady, C., and M. M. Ostrosky. 2023. " Suspension and Expulsion: Early Educators' Perspectives." Early Childhood Education Journal 51 : 115 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01285-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orfield, G. 2014. " Tenth Annual Brown Lecture In Education Research: A New Civil Rights Agenda for American Education." Educational Researcher 43, no. 6 : 273 – 292.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perlman, M., O. Falenchuk, B. Fletcher, E. McMullen, J. Beyene, and P. S. Shah. 2016. " A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of a Measure of Staff/Child Interaction Quality (The Classroom Assessment Scoring System) in Early Childhood Education and Care Settings and Child Outcomes." PLoS One 11, no. 12 : e0167660.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C. 1992. The Student‐Teacher Relationship Scale. Charlottesville, VA : University of Virginia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C. 2001. STRS: Student–Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional Manual. Lutz, FL : Psychological Assessment Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C., K. M. La Paro, and B. K. Hamre. 2008. Classroom Assessment Scoring System™: Manual K‐3. Paul H Brookes Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C., and D. J. Walsh. 1996. High‐Risk Children in Schools: Constructing Sustaining Relationships. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pigott, R. L., and E. L. Cowen. 2000. " Teacher Race, Child Race, Racial Congruence, and Teacher Ratings of Children's School Adjustment." Journal of School Psychology 38, no. 2 : 177 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00041-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasheed, D. S., J. L. Brown, S. L. Doyle, and P. A. Jennings. 2020. " The Effect of Teacher‐Child Race/Ethnicity Matching and Classroom Diversity on Children's Socioemotional and Academic Skills." Child Development 91, no. 3 : e597 – e618. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13275.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reardon, S. F. 2016. " School Segregation and Racial Academic Achievement Gaps." RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 2, no. 5 : 34 – 57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Redding, C. 2019. " A Teacher Like Me: A Review of the Effect of Student‐Teacher Racial/Ethnic Matching on Teacher Perceptions of Students and Student Academic and Behavioral Outcomes." Review of Educational Research 89, no. 4 : 499 – 535. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319853545.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, A. J., S. R. Ou, C. F. Mondi, and A. Giovanelli. 2019. " Reducing Poverty and Inequality Through Preschool‐to‐Third‐Grade Prevention Services." American Psychologist 74, no. 6 : 653 – 672.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rimm‐Kaufman, S. E., T. W. Curby, K. J. Grimm, L. Nathanson, and L. L. Brock. 2009. " The Contribution of Children's Self‐Regulation and Classroom Quality to Children's Adaptive Behaviors in the Kindergarten Classroom." Developmental Psychology 45, no. 4 : 958 – 972. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015861.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roorda, D. L., H. M. Y. Koomen, J. L. Spilt, and F. J. Oort. 2011. " The Influence of Affective Teacher‐Student Relationships on Students' School Engagement and Achievement a Meta‐Analytic Approach." Review of Educational Research 81, no. 4 : 493 – 529.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saft, E. W., and R. C. Pianta. 2001. " Teachers' Perceptions of Their Relationships With Students: Effects of Child Age, Gender, and Ethnicity of Teachers and Children." School Psychology Quarterly 16, no. 2 : 125 – 141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheehan, K., P. K. Bhatti, S. Yousuf, et al. 2022. " Long‐Term Effects of a Community‐Based Positive Youth Development Program for Black Youth: Health, Education, and Financial Well‐Being In Adulthood." BMC Public Health 22, no. 1 : 593.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shivers, E. M., F. Faragó, and D. E. Gal‐Szabo. 2022. " The Role of Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation in Reducing Racial and Gender Relational and Discipline Disparities Between Black and White Preschoolers." Psychology in the Schools 59 : 1965 – 1983. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22573.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soliday Hong, S. L., K. B. Legette, L. Kuhn, et al. 2023. " Lead Teacher, Assistant Teacher, and Peer Racial/Ethnic Match and Child Outcomes for Black Children Enrolled in Enhanced High‐Quality Early Care and Education Programs." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 64 : 186 – 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.03.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ulferts, H., K. M. Wolf, and Y. Anders. 2019. " Impact of Process Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care on Academic Outcomes: Longitudinal Meta‐Analysis." Child Development 90, no. 5 : 1474 – 1489. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13296.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valiente, C., J. H. Parker, J. Swanson, R. H. Bradley, and B. M. Groh. 2019. " Early Elementary Student‐Teacher Relationship Trajectories Predict Girls' Math and Boys' Reading Achievement." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49 : 109 – 121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.05.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, S., X. Wang, L. Liang, and H. Xie. 2024. " Teacher‐Child Interaction Domains Measured by the Class and Children's Pre‐Literacy Skills: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis." Early Education and Development 35, no. 3 : 431 – 453. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2022.2159259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W., K. S. McGrew, and N. Mather. 2001. Examiner's Manual. Woodcock‐Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Riverside Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wymer, S. C., C. M. Corbin, and A. P. Williford. 2022. " The Relation Between Teacher and Child Race, Teacher Perceptions of Disruptive Behavior, and Exclusionary Discipline in Preschool." Journal of School Psychology 90 : 33 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaslow, M., R. Anderson, Z. Redd, et al. 2016. " I. Quality Thresholds, Features, and Dosage in Early Care and Education: Introduction and Literature Review." Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 81, no. 2 : 7 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12236.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zinsser, K. M., C. A. Zulauf, V. Nair Das, and H. Callie Silver. 2019. " Utilizing Social‐Emotional Learning Supports to Address Teacher Stress and Preschool Expulsion." Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 61 : 33 – 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.11.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zulauf‐McCurdy, C. A., and A. M. Loomis. 2023. " Parent and Teacher Perceptions of the Parent‐Teacher Relationship and Child Self‐Regulation in Preschool: Variations by Child Race." Early Childhood Education Journal 51, no. 4 : 765 – 779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01341-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zulauf‐McCurdy, C. A., O. R. Nazaire, T. Powell, and I. U. Iruka. 2024. " Interrogating the Role of Anti‐Blackness in the Early Care and Education Experiences of Black Children and Families: A Call for Advancing Equitable Science and Practice." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 69 : S6 – S14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.03.004.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Iheoma U. Iruka; Breanna Dede; Susan M. Sheridan; Natalie Koziol; Lisa Knoche and Amanda Witte</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref122"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1477317
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Examining the Links between Child-Teacher Relationships, Classroom Quality, and Child Outcomes across Racial Groups
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Iheoma+U%2E+Iruka%22">Iheoma U. Iruka</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4695-6190">0000-0003-4695-6190</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Breanna+Dede%22">Breanna Dede</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Susan+M%2E+Sheridan%22">Susan M. Sheridan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Natalie+Koziol%22">Natalie Koziol</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lisa+Knoche%22">Lisa Knoche</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amanda+Witte%22">Amanda Witte</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2025 62(8):2667-2684.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R305N160016
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Achievement%22">Mathematics Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Competence%22">Interpersonal Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Differences%22">Racial Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnicity%22">Ethnicity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22African+American+Students%22">African American Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hispanic+American+Students%22">Hispanic American Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22White+Students%22">White Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Student+Teacher+Relationship+Scale%22">Student Teacher Relationship Scale</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Classroom+Assessment+Scoring+System%22">Classroom Assessment Scoring System</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Woodcock+Johnson+Tests+of+Achievement%22">Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Social+Skills+Improvement+System+Rating+Scales%22">Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23494
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examined the unique and interactive effects of teacher-child relationships and classroom quality on PreK to Grade 1 children's reading and math achievement, social skills, and problem behaviors, as well as whether these relationships differed by children's race and ethnicity. Based on data from 192 children (18.23% Black, 8.33% Latine English-speaking, 21.88% Latine Spanish-speaking, 51.56% White) from PreK to Grade 1 and their teachers, analyses were conducted to examine whether (1) the quality of teacher-child relationships and classroom quality experienced by children differed by race and ethnicity, (2) race/ethnicity moderated the association of teacher-child relationships and classroom quality on children's achievement and social skills, and (3) race/ethnicity moderated the association between the interactive effects of classroom quality and teacher-child relationship on children's achievement and social skills. Findings from multi-level mixed models indicated teacher-child relationships were significantly associated with growth in child achievement and social skills and classroom quality was associated with problem behaviors. While race/ethnicity did not moderate the association between teacher-child relationship and classroom quality, there was evidence of racialized differences in the buffering role of classroom quality on children's achievement and behavior in the face of conflictual teacher-child relationships. The implications of the findings for promoting equitable learning opportunities for racially minoritized children are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1477317
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1477317
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23494
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 2667
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 1
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethnicity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: African American Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hispanic American Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: White Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Teacher Relationship Scale
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Assessment Scoring System
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Examining the Links between Child-Teacher Relationships, Classroom Quality, and Child Outcomes across Racial Groups
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Iheoma U. Iruka
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Breanna Dede
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Susan M. Sheridan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Natalie Koziol
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lisa Knoche
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amanda Witte
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1