School connectedness is a term that describes the interplay between diverse groups, including students, friends, teachers, other school staff, and families (Rowe & Stewart, 2011). Important international literature has linked school connectedness to students’ academic, social, emotional, and physical wellbeing (eg., Bond et al., 2007; Cumming et al., 2018; Gowing, 2019; Somers et al., 2020). It is a phenomenon which can positively influence students’ mental health (Perkins et al., 2021), sense of belonging to community (Cumming et al., 2018), future orientation (Somers et al., 2020), and enjoyment of school (Gowing, 2019). Indeed, when students feel a positive sense of connection to school, it acts as a protection against risk-taking behaviours, mental health issues, and social conflict (Bond et al., 2007; Rowe & Stewart, 2011).

Strategies on how to foster students’ connection to school are, therefore, an important area for further study. Global issues in education, health, sustainability, and economic development, for example, challenge children’s wellbeing. Concern is rising for children’s mental health, relationships, information abundance, and overwhelming educational demands (Page et al., 2021; Stacey & Mockler, 2023). Additionally, in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, the importance of students’ school connectedness was amplified. In an uncertain and everchanging environment, students were under increasing pressure to adapt to the challenges of distance learning and manage the risks inherent in the virus. This led to concerns for students’ anxiety, depression, and isolation (Page et al., 2021). Moreover, students’ sense of belonging at school was shown to deteriorate on average across OECD countries, between 2018 and 2022 (OECD, 2023). In 2022, a staggering 25% of students in the OECD felt they do not belong in school (OECD, 2023). Given the gravity of these problems, children’s school connectedness must be nurtured and monitored.

Since the publication of germinal papers concerning school connectedness (e.g., Libbey, 2004), primary school children’s views have been represented in few empirical studies (see Page et al., 2021; Perkins et al., 2021 for notable exceptions). A sizeable number of studies have collected data from adolescent and adult populations (e.g., Bond et al., 2019; Gowing, 2019), yet research has overlooked children’s voice and restricted the scope and relevance of the research. Until now, strategies to improve primary school students’ connectedness were drawn from older age groups, even though they have differing needs and contexts. Consequently, the aim of this study was to hear more about children’s perceptions of school connectedness, than is available in previous empirical research, and position primary students as experts regarding their own experiences. The attention given in this study to students’ interpretations of the factors that influence school connectedness was therefore intended to support student ‘voice’, such that their views are prioritised in matters that affect them (United Nations Human Rights, 1989, Article 12).

Data analysis drew on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Ecological Systems Theory of human development examining the child’s microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. Bronfenbrenner (1979) described these systems as nested layers of the ecological environment in which human beings interact. It was understood, when entering into the study, that by improving conditions within these systems one can nurture students’ developmental trajectories.

A qualitative research design incorporated focus groups, observations and descriptive notes to explore the nature of how students experience school connectedness. The design offered students the opportunity to express their individual thoughts, feelings and opinions without starting from adult conceptualisations. Approval was granted by the Human Ethics Advisory Panel of the University of New South Wales, Australia in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2018, Chapter 4.2). Purposive sampling of independent non-government schools in NSW was conducted through a peak independent primary school body. The independent sector was selected given the increasing enrolments and arguably increased affordance to enhance climates conducive to student wellbeing and engagement. Five schools agreed to send parents and carers an invitation and the participant information statement and consent form (PISCF). Parental consent was received for 50 students, aged 8-12 years, enrolled in Years 3 to 6, all of whom gave informed assent to participate at the study. Twelve focus groups were conducted in the participants’ school settings over a period of 4 months. The researcher, as facilitator, used a semi-structured interview protocol to invite children’s nuanced and rich descriptions of their experiences. Question prompts included: When I say ‘school connectedness’ what do you think about? Do you feel connected to school? and, What helps you to have school connectedness? Observations and descriptive notes took in the facilities, school culture, people, and classroom dynamics. Data were recorded using digital and audio-visual recordings. Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021) was used to engage with the theory and interpret the full dataset. Transcripts were first uploaded to NVivo 14 to facilitate the organisation and manual coding of the dataset. The software was next used to enable the author’s movement through the six phases of Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021). This was a flexible and recursive analytic approach that encompassed data familiarisation, systematic coding and theme development. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Ecological Systems Theory provided the framework to interpret the patterns and relationships within the data. The analytic process was open-ended and iterative, such that it was in keeping with the researcher’s constructivist and interpretivist lens. Using this approach, each child contributed their perspectives to the focus group discussions to make meaning of the phenomenon and themes were created through the author’s interpretations of the data.

This study set out to gain a better understanding of primary school students’ perceptions of the factors that influence school connectedness. Findings have shown that school connectedness is influenced by the Breadth of Opportunities and Collaborative Communities in the child’s microsystem and Supportive School Systems in the macrosystem. The most striking influences were extracurricular and curricular activities, special events, students’ representation, and collaboration with friends and teachers in the school ecology. These factors have the potential to foster or weaken students’ school success and overall wellbeing. It is therefore incumbent upon whole school communities to consider practices shaping student’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences at school, as suggested by Rowe & Stewart (2011). An unexpected outcome of the study is the lessons participants offered for improving their school connectedness: provide positive conditions for socialising, reciprocating, and interacting with peers and the broad group of people in their school environment. Participants suggested that schools could encourage participation in activities including sports, music, curricular courses, celebrations, and school leadership. Most important was that students feel happy, supported, safe, treated fairly, valued, and included. The findings will be of interest to international community conversation about the design of evidence-informed policies, practices and programs to improve primary school children’s connectedness. Secondly, the study can contribute practical solutions to the problem of low school connectedness or disconnectedness, raised by Page et al. (2021) and Gowing (2019) among others. Lastly, the study can advance the current body of knowledge by highlighting children’s perceptions of school connectedness, a thus far under-examined angle within the literature. A limitation of this study was the small representation of First Nation students and non-English speakers. In addition, schools were faith-based and had educationally advantaged backgrounds. Future research would benefit from the input of a larger and more diverse range of students.

Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2007). Social and School Connectedness in Early Secondary School as Predictors of Late Teenage Substance Use, Mental Health, and Academic Outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.013. Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2021). One Size Fits All? What Counts as Quality Practice in (Reflexive) Thematic Analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Cumming, T.M., Marsh, R.J., & Higgins, K. (2018). School connectedness for students with disabilities. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315112930 Gowing, A. (2019). Peer-Peer Relationships: A Key Factor in Enhancing School Connectedness and Belonging. Child Psychology, 36(2), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2019.36.2.64 Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08284.x OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en Page, A., Charteris, J., Anderson, J. & Boyle, C. (2021). Fostering school connectedness online for students with diverse learning needs: Inclusive education in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(1), 142-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1872842 Perkins, K. N., Carey, K., Lincoln, E., Shih, A., Donalds, R., Kessel Schneider, S., Holt, M. K., & Green, J. G. (2021). School connectedness still matters: The association of school connectedness and mental health during remote learning due to COVID-19. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 42(6), 641–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-021-00649-w. Rowe, F., & Stewart, D. (2011). Promoting connectedness through whole‐school approaches: Key elements and pathways of interest. Health Education, 111(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/09654281111094973 Somers, C. L., Goutman, R. L., Day, A., Enright, O., Crosby, S., & Taussig, H. (2020). Academic achievement among a sample of youth in foster care: The role of school connectedness. Psychology in the Schools, 57(12), 1845–1863. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22433 Stacey, M. & Mockler, N. (2023). Purposes of education: freedom of the individual or ‘collective good’? In A. Wilkins (Ed.), Policy foundations of education (pp. 33-58). Bloomsbury. The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. (2007, updated 2018). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations (Retrieved January 2025, from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx)