Every time a violent incident occurring in a school is publicized, the same scenario is repeated: political figures demand “the return of authority”, exemplary sanctions and zero tolerance for disciplinary violations. The Minister of National Education promises to take the necessary drastic measures. And in the end, nothing happens. Should we see in this recurring inability to “restore authority” culpable laxity, or on the contrary a sign that this repressive rhetoric is neither realistic nor up to the challenge?
In my opinion, it is a matter of the classic confusion between authority and authoritarianism. Authority is the ability to enforce a predefined framework. There are several ways to exercise it. Authoritarianism is only one of them. It consists of imposing one’s framework by force. In the school field, it used to be based on corporal punishment and severe punishments sanctioning the slightest deviation. If authoritarianism was considered acceptable, or even the norm in certain places and at certain times, it is clear that this is no longer the case.
The groundswell of rejection of authoritarianism did not come from 1968 as is often heard, but goes back to the French Revolution. Corporal punishment has been banned since 1834. Most of us (even those who call for the return of authority) would not want a return of school authoritarianism for our own children. There is no reason to see this as decadence, but as progress: authoritarianism is simply not compatible with the values of a 21st century state of law, which are freedom, justice, democracy, autonomy, the right to individuality and self-determination.
Another source of authority is the institution to which one belongs and the status one has within it. But the same movement that rejected authoritarianism has also undermined the prestige and symbolic authority of all institutions, including national education. It is now possible to contest all institutions. This desacralization is inseparable from democracy and the rule of law, but it has a social cost.
It is easy to blame teachers for having lost all authority. However, it must be acknowledged that authoritarianism is no longer an option, and that the authority they can draw from their institution is much weakened. The real problem with teachers is that they have not been trained in any viable alternative between authoritarianism and permissiveness. This is where drawing on psychological research could help.
Threats and punishments are not very effective in changing behavior.
In recent years, positive psychology has highlighted kindness towards students and the importance of dialogue. The requirement of kindness is an imperative, but it is not sufficient: being kind and dialoguing does not in itself confer any authority. Among the most recent proposals, the development of psychosocial skills is an interesting avenue. Empathy, emotion regulation, self-control, and constructive communication are important skills that are useful to work on with students. But moving from skills to behavior is not automatic.
Students are generally well aware of prohibited behaviors and the associated sanctions, because this is where all attention is constantly focused. But this is not enough to ensure that everyone adopts the expected behaviors. Indeed, threats and punishments have very little effectiveness in changing behaviors, which are not necessarily mastered or automated by all students. It is therefore necessary to teach them explicitly and train students in them. To do this, proven methods are based on rewarding positive behaviors, rather than punishing deviant behaviors. And they are all the more effective when they are implemented consistently across the school, rather than by each teacher in isolation. The best known of these is called Positive Behavior Support And has already been experienced successfully in France.
Focusing on expected behaviors rather than deviant behaviors is a profound reversal of perspective compared to the habits of our school system. But train our teachers in this approach would be likely to finally give them the means to exercise an authority that falls neither into authoritarianism nor into laxity.
Franck Ramus is a researcher at the CNRS and the Ecole Normale Supérieure (Paris).
.