Overview:
This article argues that schools must intentionally track and act on relational data—students’ connections to trusted adults, peers, and school spaces—because relationships, not just grades or referrals, explain why students engage, persist, or quietly drift away.
Leigh Reagan Alley, Ed.D. is Coordinator of Teacher Education at the University of Maine at Augusta, where she designed the first dedicated Master of Arts in Teaching Whole Child Education. She is the former executive director of Maine ASCD, an architect of the xSELeratED Schools Framework, an Advisor for the Institute for Humane Education, and the award-winning author of Social-Emotional Learning texts for children and educators.
As educators, how often have we heard it? “Measure what matters!” And measure we do: grades, tardies, referrals. The data we collect explains the “what.” The problem is that the data we don’t collect—relationships—explains the “why.”
We can pull a report in seconds that tells us who is failing Algebra I, who has three tardies, and who was referred to the office twice last week. Those numbers are important. They help us to see patterns, allocate support, and chart some forms of progress.
But ask a different set of questions—Who hasn’t had a meaningful interaction with an adult this week? Who is sitting alone at lunch even though it’s October? Who enrolled two weeks ago and still doesn’t know where the art room is? Who lost a peer group and is now wandering unconnected from table to table?—and suddenly the system is quiet. There’s no button to click for that. That’s the missing piece. That’s relational data.
Learning is social. Decades of whole-child and social-emotional learning (SEL) work—and what we know from developmental-relationship research, including work from Making Caring Common and others on the power of even one steady, caring adult—keep telling us the same thing: when students feel known, they attend more regularly, behave more predictably, and take more academic risks. We just haven’t traditionally tracked that part.
What is Relational Data?
Relational data is simply information about students’ connection to people, places, and routines in school. It’s the stuff that every teacher knows in their gut but that rarely makes it into a shared system. That’s relational data. And we need to start treating it, and tracking it, as real data.
It answers questions such as:
- Who’s connected?
- Who’s drifting?
- Who’s new?
- Who is over-referred to the office but under-seen by adults?
- Who has a “person” in the building?
- Who participates in something that brings them joy or purpose?
None of that shows up in the gradebook, but every educator knows it’s the difference-maker between a student who keeps showing up and a student who, in one way or another, quietly disappears.
Why It Matters
Whole-child and SEL research has been steady on this: students learn better when they feel safe, seen, and supported. A single developmental relationship in a building—one trusted adult who checks in, notices absences, invites a student into something meaningful—acts as a protective factor. It’s the thing that keeps students tethered when life outside of school is loud, or when school becomes hard, or when adolescence is doing what adolescence does.
When students don’t have that, they often go quiet or they act out.
This is why tracking only grades and referrals gives us a partial story. Grades tell us about performance, not belonging. Referrals tell us about conflict, not support. A student can go an entire semester with no office referrals and still be in real danger of drifting out of school because no one actually knows them. Because they don’t have secure tethers. Another student may have several referrals because they keep testing boundaries—but they are also on the volleyball team, work in the library, and have an assistant principal they trust. If we only look at the academic and behavioral numbers, we end up intervening for the wrong kids and missing the ones who are fading out in plain sight.
Three Buckets
We don’t need a big new platform to collect this important relational data. We need a shared understanding and a simple way to log what we see. One way to begin is to think in three buckets: who’s connected, who’s drifting, and who’s new.
Bucket # 1. Who’s Connected?
This bucket is one that networks and projects are increasingly concerned with. And thank goodness for that. These are the students who can name at least one adult they trust and at least one place in school where they feel like they belong.
In a middle school, this might be the kid who is always in the music room. In a rural high school, it might be the student who helps the custodian, runs the scoreboard, and sits with the same three friends every day. In an elementary school, it might be the student who goes to the counselor’s lunch bunch and the art club.
What to note:
- Trusted adult(s)
- Activity, club, class, or job that keeps them coming
- Peer group or table they sit with
- Evidence of joy or investment (theater, robotics, FFA, choir, library)
Why it matters:
- Research on developmental relationships has repeatedly shown that even one strong school-based relationship boosts engagement. Connected students have built-in protective factors. With them, we can spend more time sustaining than “fixing.”
Bucket #2. Who’s Drifting?
These are the students who are present but not rooted. They’re not causing trouble, so no one is calling home. But these learners aren’t woven in either.
We see them sitting at the end of the table. We see them doing group work alone until we find them a circle to join. We see them leaving the building quickly. We can’t name a single thing at school that’s “their” thing.
What to note:
- Sits alone or moves around to different seats
- Leaves quickly at transition times
- Doesn’t join groupwork unless prompted
- Isn’t a member of a club, team, or activity
- Says, “I don’t know” when asked who they’d go to for help
Why it matters:
- Drifting students are often the ones who become chronically absent, suddenly oppositional, or who show up on our desk as a “did-anyone-know-about-this?!?” situation. Attendance data has told us this for years: catch the drift early, or chase it all year. Catching drift early is kinder and more efficient than reacting to crisis.
Bucket #3. Who’s New?
“New” doesn’t just mean newly enrolled. It also means newly returned from suspension, newly reentering after a long absence, newly in foster care, newly immigrated, or even newly divided between households.
These students often spend the first days or weeks in observation mode or outside-looking-in mode. If no one claims them, they can stay in that mode indefinitely.
What to note:
- Date of arrival or return
- Who onboarded them
- Which adult has eyes on them for the next 2–4 weeks
- Whether they’ve been introduced to peers, spaces, and routines
Why it matters:
- Transitions are high-risk moments for disconnection. A simple “3 adults in 3 days” practice—three intentional contacts in the first three days—gives them what those developmental-relationship studies keep naming: at least one caring adult who sees them.
Simple, Doable Data Collection
This is where teachers fairly say, “Please don’t give me another form!”
So I propose we don’t. I propose we build it into what we already do. Make it fast, visible, and shared. Here are some options I like:
Option 1: The staff map.
This is one of those exercises that the popular, high-profile networks and projects often get right. Take a grade-level list or an advisory list and put it in a shared digital space. Every adult who interacts with that group puts their initials next to students they have a real relationship with—not “I have them with me in third period,” but, “They would come to me in crisis.” The goal is simple: every student has to have at least one set of initials. Students with no initials become a priority for connection. This exercise takes minutes, not an afternoon.
Option 2: The 2-minute weekly scan.
During a team meeting, PLC or common planning time, or even a quick hallway huddle, ask three questions: Who’s drifting? Who looked different this week? Who’s new? Say the names out loud. Capture them in a running list. Assign someone to check in. That’s it. No rubrics, no color-coding. Just human, humane noticing and assigning.
Option 3: Advisory notes.
If your school has advisory, homeroom, “crew,” or “family” time––whatever you call it in the context of your school––add one line to whatever notes the advisor already keeps: “This week I connected with ___ about ___.” Over time, this becomes a log of touchpoints. We can review the log and track which students are being seen.
Option 4: The 10% check.
Once a quarter, ask each teacher to list the 10% of students they’re most worried about—not academically but relationally. Then look for overlap. If the same student shows up on multiple lists, that’s an early warning. That student needs a person.
These are all ways to take what the research keeps telling us—that relationships matter—and turn it into something a school can see and act on.
What We Do With What We Collect
Relational data isn’t helpful if it just lives on a spreadsheet. It has to change practice. More importantly, it has to change lives.
- Match students to adults.
If a student has no initials on the staff map, they need an adult. That can be a coach, an ed tech, a librarian, a member of the office staff, a counselor—whoever will be consistent. Ask that adult to check in twice a week for a month. Not like it’s a job. Like it’s a joy. - Invite, don’t force.
If a student has no activities, personally invite them to something low-risk. Students join people, not programs. A personal invitation from a known adult to join a school circle is far more powerful than any flyer on a wall. - Watch transition points.
New students, students who have had a friend group break apart, students reentering after discipline, students navigating tough realities outside of school––the list goes on––need extra eyes for a while. Put them on a short-term “connection list” and make sure someone touches base with frequency. - Share wins.
When a student who was drifting shows up to art club or starts eating with a group, tell the team. It reinforces the habit of noticing. It also proves the point: when we track connection, our entire community behaves differently.
Anticipating Pushback
When we start tracking relational data, we may hear a few things:
- “This is subjective.”
It is. So is grading participation. So is deciding who gets a positive phone call home. Subjective doesn’t mean useless. It means we name what we’re looking for and we norm together. - “We don’t have time.”
This is prevention work. All of our time goes somewhere—either into early connection or into later crisis response. Research on attendance and behavior has been clear: connected kids take less crisis time. - “We already do SEL.”
Good! This is SEL we can see! It’s not a lesson; it’s evidence of whether the lessons are taking root in actual relationships.
The Bigger Idea
When schools claim to care about the whole child but only focus on measuring grades and recording behavior, students take notice. When schools start tracking who is known, who is anchored, and who is being missed, they notice, too. And they thrive.
Tracking isn’t about surveillance. It’s about stewardship. These are our students. We should know who they belong to. Of all the things we could ever leave to chance, belonging isn’t one. It’s essential, like nourishment. Like breathing.
When we start naming and sharing relational data, we’re saying out loud that connection is part of the instructional day, not an extra offered only by the most nurturing teachers. It becomes everyone’s job to notice anyone who is drifting, to invite anyone who is new, and to ensure that everyone has the protection of connection. Over time, our relational data shifts our school from reacting to behavior to tending to belonging. And that’s the kind of culture where academics and SEL finally stop competing with each other and start reinforcing one another.
