Summer 2007

Teachers and Teaching

Getting it wrong (or right) in education

A major challenge for any culture is shaping its children into functioning members of society. Stephen Dinham and Catherine Scott examine how to prepare children for their lives.

In any culture, but especially in one as diverse as our own, there are debates about both what constitutes a well-formed character and an adequate member of society. Notable in the ongoing anglophone cultural conversation about the formation of good people is the debate about the relative place of love versus discipline. Different historical eras and different subcultures have variously stressed the importance of one over the other.

Browsing any contemporary advice offered to parents will reveal that the authors tend to come down on the side of care and nurturance or discipline and guidance, sometimes styled as ‘tough love’. While there is considerable public emphasis on, say, preserving children’s self-esteem, the belief in the necessity of being tough as required lurks close by, as any parent of a publicly misbehaving toddler who has been advised to administer a ‘good hiding’ will be well aware.

This ambivalence over the relative merits of ‘love’ versus ‘tough love’ shapes all important cultural institutions, not the least education, which is a carrier institution—that is, a social arrangement charged with the responsibility of reproducing the culture. The history of the anglophone world has, at least for the last few centuries, been influenced by swings between a love and tough love approach to human beings and their formation. Some periods have seen a more relaxed approach while others have witnessed a swing back to discipline and control, as in the current era with its increase in legislation, control (the ‘nanny state’), policing and police powers.

Research by Diana Baumrind has demonstrated, however, that the love–discipline dichotomy is a false one and that the formation of well-rounded, well-adjusted, contented and productive human beings depends on both love (parental responsiveness to emotional and physical needs) and discipline (parental demandingness). To deny children one or both reduces their capacity to mature into people who possess the full suite of desirable human characteristics.

By considering the two dimensions of responsiveness and demandingness and whether each is low or high, four parenting styles have been proposed by researchers:

1. uninvolved—low responsiveness, low demandingness
2. authoritarian—low responsiveness, high demandingness
3. permissive—high responsiveness, low demandingness
4. authoritative—high responsiveness, high demandingness.

In an earlier paper we stated:

…authoritative parents are high on both responsiveness and demandingness. They are warm and supportive of their children, aware of their current developmental levels and sensitive to their needs. They also, however, have high expectations, and set appropriate limits while providing structure and consistent rules, the reasons for which they explain to their children, rather than simply expecting unthinking obedience. While they maintain adult authority they are also willing to listen to their child and to negotiate about rules and situations. This combination of sensitivity, caring, high expectations and structure has been shown to have the best consequences for children, who commonly display academic achievement, good social skills, moral maturity, autonomy and high self-esteem.

Responsiveness, demandingness and education

In the early 1960s, education in much of the world was characterised by high demandingness and low responsiveness, i.e., an authoritarian relationship existed between schools and students.

A wave of questioning of tradition, accepted practices and authority swept the western world, and this was reflected in changing thinking and ideology in teacher preparation and schooling.

Quite rightly, there was a feeling that schools and teachers needed to respond more to students as people and to better cater for their individual needs. Teachers and educational authorities questioned established school organisational and teaching practices and over the following decades curriculum prescription, testing, academic streaming and examinations gave way to school-based curriculum development and other forms of assessment. Students, like many members of society, began to speak out and engage in various forms of questioning, protest and activism.

Social concerns, such as pollution and environmental degradation, racism, sexism, drugs, sexual health and awareness, nuclear warfare, militarism and multi-nationalism, found a place in school curricula. Values education became prominent while examinations became less so—at least for a time.

As noted, many of these developments were desirable and even overdue. However, a fundamental error of perception occurred at this time that has ramifications to this day.

False dichotomies

Put simply, demandingness and responsiveness were falsely dichotomised. Ideologically, it was believed that any increase in responsiveness towards students must be accompanied by, and in fact required, a decrease in demandingness: to be responsive was to be progressive; to be demanding was traditional.

Over time, schools and schooling became more responsive to and less demanding of students, i.e., more permissive, with commensurate effects on matters such as standards, expectations, teaching methods, the balance of the curriculum and, above all, student achievement.

Other false dichotomies also reflected the polarisation of ideologies in education (knowledge/skills; subject content/learning processes; academic achievement/welfare; competition/collaboration; student-centred/teacher-centred learning; explicit teaching/constructivism; ‘sage on stage’/‘guide by the side’). In truth, the best teachers have always exhibited each of these seemingly mutually exclusive characteristics.

These false dichotomies and others have contributed to many of the problems we see in schools today, e.g., student disengagement, low expectations, behavioural problems, teacher and student role conflict and ambiguity, social determinism/stigmatisation of certain groups of students, under-achievement, abrogation of teacher responsibility, fear of ‘competition’, reluctance to ‘fail’ students, a view that learning must be ‘fun’ and ‘relevant’, ‘dumbing down’, grade inflation, self-esteem boosting, and so forth.

When such problems occur, there is a tendency to conclude that responsiveness has not gone far enough (e.g., calls for even more ‘relevance’ and student control) and that student development is being hindered by still too high demandingness. In this way, problems are further exacerbated as more fuel is thrown on the fire.

Some who dare to speak out about this situation are labelled as traditionalists or part of a ‘back to basics’ movement, i.e., they are seeking more authoritarianism.

High demandingness and high responsiveness: a good combination

However, the best teachers, educational leaders and schools today exhibit both high demandingness and high responsiveness, i.e., the relationship between schools, teachers, school leaders and students is authoritative, regardless of factors such as socio-economic background. The most effective teachers don’t dumb down, but are able to demonstrate to students the relevance and importance of what they teach. They inspire and equip students to perform at higher levels (Ayers, Dinham and Sawyer).

Predictably there has been something of a reaction to this ‘permissive’ situation in recent times (see the recent ABC television series Brat Camp where attempts were made to remedy the effects of permissive parenting through imposing greater discipline, something very difficult to achieve after the damage has been done), but the false dichotomising of responsiveness and demandingness in education remains problematic.

Pandering to students through low demandingness does not do them any favours in assisting them to achieve, to adjust to society, to prepare them for what life is going to ask of them, and in enjoying the benefits they can derive from adult life.

References

Ayres, P, Dinham, S & Sawyer, W (2004). ‘Effective Teaching in the Context of a Grade 12 High Stakes External Examination in New South Wales, Australia’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 141–165.

Baumrind, D (1989). ‘Rearing competent children’ in W Damon (ed.), Child development today and tomorrow, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 349–378.

Baumrind, D (1991). ‘The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance abuse’, Journal of Early Adolescence, Vol. 11, No. 1, p. 62.

Dinham, S (2007). Leadership for Exceptional Educational Outcomes, Post Pressed, Teneriffe, Queensland.

Scott, C & Dinham, S (2005). ‘Parenting, Teaching and Self-esteem’, The Australian Educational Leader, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 29–30.

Stephen Dinham is research director, Teaching and Leadership, ACER, Melbourne.

Catherine Scott is visiting research fellow, University of Huddersfield, an educational psychologist, researcher and writer.

The author owns the copyright in this article. For information related to the reuse of this work in any form please contact the publisher denise.quinn@curriculum.edu.au