Janez Krek, PhD, Lana Klopčič Teacher Authority and the Educational Role of the Class Teacher in the Era of Permissiveness Prejeto 21.06.2019 / Sprejeto 20.10.2019 Received 21.06.2019 / Accepted 20.10.2019 Znanstveni članek Scientific paper UDK 373.3.011.3-051 UDC 373.3.011.3-051 KLJUČNE BESEDE: avtoriteta učitelja, avtoritativ- KEYWORDS: teacher authority; authoritative, au- na, avtoritarna in permisivna vzgoja, vzgojna vloga thoritarian and permissive education; class teacher razrednega učitelja educational role POVZETEK – Z empirično raziskavo na osnovi ocen ABSTRACT – With empirical research based on stu- učencev o ravnanjih njim poznanih predmetnih učite- dents’ assessments of the behaviour of the class teach- ljev smo želeli preveriti obstoj štirih tipov avtoritete ers known to them, we sought to verify the existence of učitelja: avtoritarni, permisivni popustljivi, permi- four types of teacher authority: authoritarian, permis- sivni nezainteresirani in avtoritativni tip. Faktorska sive indulgent, permissive disinterested and authorita- analiza ni potrdila permisivnega popustljivega tipa tive. Factor analysis did not confirm permissive indul- avtoritete in permisivnega nezainteresiranega tipa gent and permissive disinterested as two distinct types avtoritete kot dveh različnih tipov permisivne avtori- of permissive authority, instead confirming three basic tete. Potrdila je tri osnovne tipe avtoritete učiteljev: types of teacher authority: permissive, authoritative permisivnega, avtoritativnega in avtoritarnega. Prvi and authoritarian. The first factor is a permissive type faktor je permisivni tip avtoritete učitelja, drugi faktor of teacher authority, the second factor is an authorita- je avtoritativni tip avtoritete učitelja in tretji faktor je tive type of teacher authority, and the third factor is avtoritarni tip avtoritete učitelja. V raziskavi smo tudi an authoritarian type of teacher authority. According ugotovili, da so po ocenah učencev najbolj pogosta to the students’ assessments, permissive behaviour is permisivna ravnanja učiteljev, sledijo jim avtoritarna the most frequent type among teachers, followed by au- ravnanja, najmanj prisoten pa je tip avtoritativnih thoritarian practices, while authoritative behaviour is ravnanj. V razpravi predlagamo, da osnovne šole v the least present type. We propose that primary schools svojo vzgojno zasnovo vključijo dodatno vzgojno na- include an additional educational task of the class logo razrednih učiteljev: da se v skladu z avtoritativ- teachers: in accordance with the authoritative type of nim tipom avtoritete z vzgojnimi ravnanji spopadejo authority, instructive behaviours should address the z negativnimi učinki permisivne vzgoje in da takoj po negative effects of permissive education, so as to at- vstopu učencev v šolo poskušajo vplivati na formira- tempt to influence the formation of students’ basic per- nje njihove temeljne strukture osebnosti. sonality structure as soon as they enter school. 1 Introduction In the last two decades, experts in various European countries have pointed out the negative effects of permissive education that commences in the child’s first years (Eber- hard, 2015; Furedi, 2009; Winterhoff, 2008). Changes in family education models, from the disappearing authoritarian model through authoritative to permissive models, result in schools being faced with differences in children’s behaviour and pose new educatio- nal challenges, including the issue of teacher authority. How are teachers responding to this? With empirical research, we attempted to find out how teachers establish authority in their pedagogical work today. Krek, PhD, Klopčič: Teacher Authority and the Educational Role of the Class Teacher... 123 2 Theoretically Based Types of Teacher Authority and the Results of Empirical Studies: Authoritarian, Permissive and Authoritative Authority Behaviour in accordance with a particular type of teacher authority and different teaching styles can increase or decrease the effects of family education on children (Mu- gny, Chatard & Quiamzade, 2006; Paulson, Marchant & Rothlisberg, 1998; Pellerin, 2005; Quiamzade, Mugny & Falomir-Pichastor, 2009; Wentzel, 2002). Research has shown that, of the three different ways of establishing teacher authority (authoritarian, permissive and authoritative), the best effects are achieved by an authoritative style (Konold et al., 2014; Walker, 2008, 2009). If we were to take only the expert findin- gs into account, we would expect teachers to respond with an authoritative model of authority. In her initial studies of authoritarian, permissive and authoritative parenting in the 1960s and 1970s, Baumrind found that, in many respects, children of permissive pa- rents did not differ significantly from children of authoritarian parents. Compared with children of authoritative parents, however, they were less achievement-oriented and less cognitively competent, and thus not as well prepared for learning and participating in class. Baumrind’s research showed that the authoritative behaviour of parents is linked to independent, purposive behaviour in children, and that authoritative parental control is clearly associated with all social responsibility indices in boys compared to authorita- rian and permissive parental control, as well as being associated with high achievement in girls (Baumrind, 1971). On the basis of empirical research, it has therefore been known for at least half a century that permissive education has a negative impact on the child’s readiness to enter primary school. The pupil is not adequately socialised and ready for learning and the burden of learning tasks. Permissive indulgent parents, as Baumrind called them in her early research, are emotional, caring and involved, but tend to be extremely tolerant and exercise little or no control and discipline. Authoritarian parents are severe, demanding, intolerant, autocratic, non-responsive and punitive, whereas authoritative parents are firm but fair and establish demands and discipline in an atmosphere of care. In the early 1980s, Ma- ccoby & Martin (1983) introduced a further distinction between permissive indulgent and permissive neglectful parenting into the triple structure of authority, which Bau- mrind (1991) adopted in her later research. We believe that the change in the theory with the introduction of four types of authority follows a certain shift in permissiveness as a social phenomenon. Permissive neglectful (or uninvolved) parents differ from permis- sive indulgent parents in that they show hardly any interest in their children. The types of parental authority and the associated behaviours have different effects on children. Based on a number of studies (Eisenberg, Fabes & Spinrad, 2006; Gins- burg, Durbin, García-España, Kalicka & Winston, 2009; Parke & Buriel, 2006; Paulus- sen-Hoogeboom, Stams, Hermanns, Peetsma & van den Wittenboer, 2008), Bernstein finds that three of the four types of parenting – permissive indulgent, permissive neglec- tful and authoritarian – are linked to various problematic personal, social and emotional characteristics that become evident in the school environment in the form of anxiety and poorer achievements, but are also manifested as irresponsibility, impulsivity, de- 124 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (3–4, 2019) pendence, lack of perseverance, unrealistic expectations and demands, and dishonesty. Authoritative parenting, on the other hand, is usually associated with optimally adapted social, emotional and moral development and full expression of children’s intellectual abilities (Bernstein, 2013a). It is also possible to include the behaviours and authority of the teacher in this con- text. At the beginning of the 1970s, researchers Dreikurs, Grunwald and Pepper (1971) built upon the three types of parental authority in connection with the management of the learning process in the model of authoritarian, permissive and democratic types of teacher authority. The term “democratic” is used for the authoritative model of teacher behaviour. In accordance with the concept of the four types of parenting, other researchers later developed four basic types of teaching and teacher authority by crossing two fun- damental dimensions of behaviour: how the teacher disciplines (strong, weak), and how engaged or involved (low, high) s/he is in relation to the students (Barnas, 2000). In a certain sense, these two dimensions combine demandingness (control, supervision, maturity demands) and responsiveness (warmth, acceptance, involvement). Accordingly, in Figure 1 (after Barnas, 2000; Bernstein, 2013a), both permissive types of authority are weak in the discipline dimension, while authoritarian and autho- ritative authority are strong in this dimension. Figure 1. Four types of teacher authority Teacher involvement Low High Weak Permissive-neglectful Permissive-indulgent Discipline Strong Authoritarian Authoritative In the home and kindergarten environment, both permissive forms of authority pro- duce and, through the teacher in school, reproduce in the student a structure of primary narcissism and desire that does not internally (autonomously) bind him/her to social norms. A similar situation is true of relationships with other people, that is, the persona- lity traits described above. On the other hand, an important difference between authori- tativeness and authoritarianism is that the latter, too, is more likely to produce unwanted side effects, that is, violence and a structure of the Superego (according to Freud) that undermines the universality of otherwise internalised social norms. For the purposes of the present research, the theoretical model of teacher behavio- urs is mainly based on descriptions of the behaviours of four types of teacher authority as defined by Bernstein (2013a), but we have also considered certain characteristics described by Dreikurs and others (1971), as well as our own findings on the behaviours of teachers in the Slovenian primary school environment. Krek, PhD, Klopčič: Teacher Authority and the Educational Role of the Class Teacher... 125 3 Methodology 3.1 Research Question The aim of the empirical research was to determine the type of teacher authority established by individual class teachers at a specific school with their behaviours. In the study, we decided to conceptualise authority with four basic types of teacher authority. Based on the students’ assessments of the teachers’ behaviours, we therefore sought to investigate the existence of four types of teacher authority in the sample of class tea- chers: authoritarian, permissive indulgent, permissive disinterested and authoritative. 3.2 Sample, Selection Process and Data Processing The quantitative research was based entirely on a non-random sample of students from grades 5–9 at a suburban primary school in Slovenia and their teachers. For the purposes of the overall research, two samples of students and teachers were created. The sample of the overall research comprised students attending grade 5 classes and the subject classes of grades 6–9 at a suburban school in Slovenia, as well as their teachers. Responses to the questionnaire were obtained from 270 students and 42 teachers. Thus, the sample size of the overall research is 270 students (135 girls and 135 boys) and 42 teachers, forming a total sample of 312 students and teachers. Two different anonymous questionnaires were used as an instrument to collect data: one for the teachers and one for the students. The content of the questionnaires was ali- gned to the indicators for determining the type of authority, and the anonymous survey questionnaire for the students was adapted to their age. The data collection process was carried out over the course of a week at the beginning of June 2017. The online questi- onnaire was filled out according to a predetermined schedule on the school premises, in a computer classroom and in small groups. For the purposes of the factor analysis for determining the type of teacher authority based on the indicators (teachers’ behaviours) with which we indirectly determined the types of authority, the only responses used were those of the lower secondary level stu- dents (a total of 205 students from grades 6–9, of whom 42 were sixth-grade students, 59 seventh-grade students, 54 eighth-grade students and 50 ninth-grade students) who had responded twice to the set of questions in the survey questionnaire related to the behaviours of one of their teachers during class. Thus, each student answered the same questions twice, but each time regarding a different teacher, whose name had been de- termined and who taught the student during that school year. The names of the teachers were determined in a random order, on the condition that the teacher taught the student during that year. Differences in the number of evaluations for each teacher were mainly due to dif- ferences in the number of students taught by each teacher. Each student gave his/her opinion on each teacher’s behaviours in the classroom by responding to the content of the indicators for determining the type of teacher authority using the assessments: I completely agree, I agree, I disagree, I completely disagree. In order to ensure the 126 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (3–4, 2019) accuracy of the results obtained in the factor analysis, we only considered the answers of the lower secondary level respondents who responded to all of the indicators of the authority types, that is, to all of the listed items regarding the behaviours of a particular teacher during class. Therefore, instead of 410 suitable responses for factor analysis, a sample of N = 380 was obtained. Prior to executing the factor analysis, we performed the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test, both of which showed that the sample was suitable for carrying out factor analysis. In order to obtain conceptually similar and significant clu- sters of variables, we selected the main axes method with oblique Oblimin rotation and performed Kaiser normalisation. For processing the data within the framework of the overall quantitative research, we used, in addition to factor analysis, the statistical data processing operations in the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) program. The operations used were: de- scriptive statistics to show the structure of each sample (frequency tables and structu- ral diagrams), descriptive statistics to show the characteristics of the variables of each questionnaire (frequency tables, average values and structural diagrams), and factor analysis to determine the types of teacher authority based on the indicators (teachers’ behaviours), through which we indirectly determined the types of authority. 3.3 List of Indicators for the Four Theoretical Types of Teacher Authority As can be seen below, we designed 20 items that are content indicators or variables of each theoretically conceived factor. The items comprise four sets of five indicators, with each set defining a certain type of teacher authority: authoritarian, authoritative, permissive indulgent and permissive disinterested. The order of the variables was mixed in the survey questionnaire. For each variable, the respondents selected the extent to which they agree with the statement. Below we list the sets of behaviour descriptions (indicators) for determining the four types of teacher authority: Authoritarian teacher: □ 1: S/he doesn’t care if it’s difficult for us; s/he expects us to do our best. □ 2: S/he only likes students who obey him/her; the others are disruptive, and s/he doesn’t like them. □ 3: The teacher presents the rules to the students; there is no discussion about them, and the teacher never deviates from them. □ 4: The teacher does not tolerate anyone opposing him/her. □ 5: The teacher expects us to obey him/her even if his/her decisions are unfair. Authoritative teacher: □ 6: The teacher often surprises us with his/her knowledge. □ 7: We talk about the rules first, after which they are no longer negotiable. □ 8: We trust the teacher because s/he always observes the agreed rules in a sensible way. Krek, PhD, Klopčič: Teacher Authority and the Educational Role of the Class Teacher... 127 □ 9: We respect the teacher, but we also like him/her because s/he always works hard for us. □ 10: The teacher encourages us to learn, but s/he is truthful and explains what we know and what we don’t know yet. Permissive indulgent teacher: □ 11: The teacher leaves us a lot of freedom because the rules are not important to him/her. □ 12: The teacher never forces us to do anything in class that we don’t want to do. □ 13: The students can negotiate about anything with the teacher. □ 14: The students have the power in the class, not the teacher. □ 15: The teacher does not mind disturbances in the class; it is more important for him/ her that we do what we want. Permissive disinterested teacher: □ 16: The teacher is more interested in anything else than the school and the students. □ 17: In situations where the teacher would have to make an effort to achieve some- thing in relation to the students, s/he would rather just let them be. □ 18: The teacher would rather disregard the behaviour of students who behave ina- ppropriately than try to establish order. □ 19: The teacher is not demanding in class and doesn’t care if the lessons are boring. □ 20: The teacher essentially doesn’t care whether we do something or not. These were the conceptual sets of variables for each theoretically conceived factor and we were interested in whether or how they are associated. 4 Results The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy is greater than 0.6 (0.839) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity is statistically significant (0.000) which me- ans that the values of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test and Bartlett’s test confirmed that the sample is suitable for carrying out factor analysis. The results of the factor analysis of the statements regarding authority types are shown in Table 1. Eigenvalues greater than or equal to 1.00 have been excluded. With regard to the 20 variables included, the oblique rotation of the variables extracted four factors, which explain 22.477, 10.045, 5.919 and 2.233 percent of the total variance, respectively, amounting to a total of 40.674 percent of the total explained variance. The proportion of the explained factor variance is shown in the Table 1. 128 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (3–4, 2019) Table 1. Results of the factor analysis of the statements about different types of teacher authority (total Variance Explained) Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Squared Loadings Factor Total % of Cumulative Variance % Total % of Cumulative Variance % Total 1 5.013 25.066 25.066 4.495 22.477 22.477 3.881 2 2.560 12.802 37.868 2.009 10.045 32.522 2.517 3 1.851 9.253 47.121 1.184 5.919 38.441 2.086 4 1.091 5.456 52.578 447 2.233 40.674 0.681 5 0.940 4.700 57.278 6 0.920 4.599 61.877 7 0.817 4.087 65.963 8 0.792 3.962 69.925 9 0.750 3.752 73.677 10 0.658 3.288 76.965 11 0.627 3.134 80.099 12 0.585 2.925 83.023 13 0.571 2.854 85.877 14 0.543 2.714 88.591 15 0.474 2.371 90.963 16 0.438 2.189 93.151 17 0.426 2.132 95.283 18 0.369 1.845 97.128 19 0.304 1.518 98.646 20 0.271 1.354 100.000 The values of the weightings corresponding to the variables that form the indivi- dual factor obtained by factor analysis are shown in Table 2. In the fourth factor, the statistical analysis allocated only two variables with negative weightings. We therefore disregarded this factor in our interpretation and concluded that the factor analysis in the relevant framework showed three basic factors. In order to improve the interpretation of the factors, only variables with the following factor loadings were selected: > 0.408 (first factor), > 0.498 (second factor) and > 0.379 (third factor). The names of the fac- tors are: first factor – permissive type of teacher authority; second factor – authoritative type of teacher authority; and third factor – authoritarian type of teacher authority. Krek, PhD, Klopčič: Teacher Authority and the Educational Role of the Class Teacher... 129 Table 2. Values of the weightings of the obtained factors; ranking, arithmetic means and standard deviations of variables Factors Descriptive Variables Statistics 1 2 3 4 Rank Mean SD ** 6. The teacher often surprises us with his/her knowledge. 0.498 17 2.28 0.884 * 16. The teacher is more interested in anything else than the school and the students. 0.443 0.331 5 3.07 0.872 *** 1. S/he doesn’t care if it’s difficult for us; s/he expects us to do our best. 0.467 13 2.45 0.896 –7. We talk about the rules first, after which they are no longer negotiable. –0.417 12 2.48 0.879 * 11. The teacher leaves us a lot of freedom because the rules are not important to him/her. 0.659 1 3.12 0.853 *** 2. S/he only likes students who obey him/her; the others are disruptive, and s/he doesn’t 0.379 9 2.71 0.946 like them. ** 8. We trust the teacher because s/he always observes the agreed rules in a sensible way. 0.682 18 2.19 0.895 *** 3. The teacher presents the rules to the students; there is no discussion about them, 0.460 15 2.37 0.845 and the teacher never deviates from them. * 17. In situations where the teacher would have to make an effort to achieve something in relation 0.516 –0.313 8 2.86 0.849 to the students, s/he would rather just let them be. ** 9. We respect the teacher, but we also like him/her because s/he always works hard for us. 0.818 20 2.04 0.933 –12. The teacher never forces us to do anything in class that we don’t want to do. 0.356 0.375 10 2.70 0.896 *** 4. The teacher does not tolerate anyone opposing him/her. 0.615 14 2.44 0.924 * 18. The teacher would rather disregard the behaviour of students who behave 0.553 7 2.93 0.923 inappropriately than try to establish order. * 13. The students can negotiate about anything with the teacher. 0.408 11 2.62 0.916 * 19. The teacher is not demanding in class and doesn’t care if the lessons are boring. 0.511 6 2.94 0.900 ** 10. The teacher encourages us to learn, but s/he is truthful and explains what we 0.658 19 2.11 0.889 know and what we don’t know yet. * 14. The students have the power in the class, not the teacher. 0.652 4 3.08 0.872 *** 5. The teacher expects us to obey him/ her even if his/her decisions are unfair. 0.489 16 2.36 0.915 * 15. The teacher does not mind disturbances in the class; it is more important for him/ 0.779 3 3.10 0.899 her that we do what we want. * 20. The teacher essentially doesn’t care whether we do something or not. 0.737 1 3.12 0.938 130 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (3–4, 2019) Key: The asterisks indicate the factor into which the individual variable is classified (* permissive, ** authoritative and *** authoritarian type of authority), the two varia- bles with crossed-out rank numbers were excluded. Numbers before the variables fol- low the order of the four theoretical factors. The following factors have been obtained: First factor: permissive type of teacher authority Limit point > 0.408 Associated 9 indicators and their value weightings (the number in square brackets after the value weighting is the arithmetic mean rank of the indicator): □ The teacher does not mind disturbances in the class; it is more important for him/her that we do what we want (0.779). [3] □ The teacher essentially doesn’t care whether we do something or not (0.737). [1] □ The teacher leaves us a lot of freedom because the rules are not important to him/ her (0.659). [1] □ The students have the power in the class, not the teacher (0.652). [4] □ The teacher would rather disregard the behaviour of students who behave inappro- priately than try to establish order (0.533). [7] □ In situations where the teacher would have to make an effort to achieve something in relation to the students, s/he would rather just let them be (0.516). [8] □ The teacher is not demanding in class and doesn’t care if the lessons are boring (0.511). [6] □ The teacher is more interested in anything else than the school and the students (0.443). [5] □ The students can negotiate about anything with the teacher (0.408). [11] Second factor: authoritative type of teacher authority Limit point > 0.498 Associated 4 indicators and their value weightings: □ We respect the teacher, but we also like him/her because s/he always works hard for us (0.818). [20] □ We trust the teacher because s/he always observes the agreed rules in a sensible way (0.682). [18] □ The teacher encourages us to learn, but s/he is truthful and explains what we know and what we don’t know yet (0.658). [19] □ The teacher often surprises us with his/her knowledge (0.498). [17] Third factor: authoritarian type of teacher authority Limit point > 0.379 Associated 5 indicators and their value weightings: □ The teacher does not tolerate anyone opposing him/her (0.615). [14] □ The teacher expects us to obey him/her even if his/her decisions are unfair (0.489). [16] Krek, PhD, Klopčič: Teacher Authority and the Educational Role of the Class Teacher... 131 □ S/he doesn’t care if it’s difficult for us; s/he expects us to do our best (0.467). [13] □ The teacher presents the rules to the students; there is no discussion about them, and the teacher never deviates from them (0.460). [15] □ S/he only likes students who obey him/her; the others are disruptive, and s/he doesn’t like them (0.379). [9] Fourth factor: disregarded Associated indicators and their value weightings: □ We talk about the rules first, after which they are no longer negotiable (–0.417). [12] □ In situations where the teacher would have to make an effort to achieve something in relation to the students, s/he would rather just let them be (–0.313). [10] The factor analysis of the students’ responses about the types of teacher authority revealed a correlation between the indicators that were designed in sets to define a particular type of teacher authority. In answering the question as to whether authorita- rian, permissive indulgent, permissive disinterested and authoritative types of teacher authority are present in the sample of teachers from the selected school, it should be pointed out that the indicators for describing two types of permissive behaviours – the “indulgent” and “disinterested” types of teacher authority – are combined in a single factor, as the factor analysis did not confirm the permissive indulgent type of authority and the permissive disinterested type of authority as two discreet types of permissive authority. The analysis confirmed three basic types of teacher authority: permissive, authoritative and authoritarian. The first factor, which combines the behaviours of the permissive “indulgent” and the permissive “disinterested” types of teacher authority, is therefore labelled the permissive type of teacher authority and explains 22.48 % of the explained variance. The second factor is the authoritative type of teacher authority, which explains 10.05 % of the explained variance. The third factor is the authoritarian type of teacher authority, which explains 5.92 % of the explained variance. The fourth factor (2.23 % of the explained variance) is ignored, as the two theoretically unrelated variables have a negative and low weighting value. In general, we can state that the individual statements captured the difference in the three types of behaviour and teacher authority. For one school in Slovenia, our research therefore confirms the results of studies that classify teacher authority into three basic types: permissive, authoritative and authoritarian. In the behaviours of teachers who de- monstrate permissiveness, both “indulgent” and “disinterested” types are “indulgent”, albeit for different reasons; the behaviours that indicate greater or lesser personal invol- vement of the teacher do not reveal a specific type of authority. Before undertaking further interpretation of the results obtained, we should point out the limitations of the research. According to the results, there are only three ba- sic types of teacher authority in the perceptions of the students. However, the combi- ned factor of the permissive indulgent and the permissive disinterested type of teacher authority could be the result of the way the statements were formulated. Had the indica- tors been formulated differently – that is, had the differences in behaviours been defined in another way – it might have been possible to demonstrate links between the variables in four theoretically based factors. A similar concern could also apply to the two other types of authority: had the formulations been better suited to the actual behaviours of te- 132 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (3–4, 2019) achers and the perception of such behaviours in the specific cultural milieu, they might have yielded slightly different results and values. The research is also limited by the fact that it was carried out in only one primary school in Slovenia. A survey conducted on a representative sample of schools would probably show different values. This could be a challenge for future research. Nonetheless, given that the increase in permissiveness in child education in Slovenian society can be traced back several decades, we question whether the results of the research on a representative sample of schools would show a significantly different result, such as the absence of the permissive type of teacher authority. We therefore believe that the results from one school are also relevant. Insofar as factor analysis speaks of the latent structure of the individual answering the questionnaire, the question arises as to whether a factor analysis in which we draw conclusions regarding the structure of teachers’ behaviours based on students’ responses is justified. The same indicators, only transformed to address teachers and written in the first person singular (“I often surprise students with my knowledge”, etc.), were also included in the survey of the teachers involved. For the purposes of statistical analysis, four variables were formed when proces- sing the responses obtained from the teachers, each of which included the values o f the arithmetic means of the indicators for determining the four theoretical types of teacher authority. Figure 2 shows the extent to which the teachers (N = 42) defined their autho- rity type in self-assessment as authoritarian, authoritative, disinterested and permissive, as well as the extent to which their self-assessment differs from the students’ asses- sments (N = 380), that is, the differences in the arithmetic means of the self-assessments of the teachers and the students’ assessments. A t-test showed that the opinions of the students and teachers regarding the type of teacher authority established in the clas- sroom during instruction at the selected school differ statistically significantly. The level of significance is 0.008. Figure 2. Comparison of the arithmetic mean of the assessment of authority types ac- cording to the students and teachers 4,00 3,50 3,00 2,50 2,00 Teachers Students 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 Authoritarian Authoritative Disinterested Permissive Krek, PhD, Klopčič: Teacher Authority and the Educational Role of the Class Teacher... 133 In the graph Figure 2, the black curve represents the values of the arithmetic means for each type of authority in the self-assessment of the teachers, while the grey curve is the arithmetic mean of the assessments for each type of authority according to the students. Compared with the teachers’ assessments, the arithmetic means of the students’ responses are lower in the authoritarian type of authority and both permissive types, while the arithmetic means are almost identical in the authoritative type of authority. It is clear from the graph that the arithmetic means of each individual factor do not show a divergence of the students’ and teachers’ assessments, but rather indicate the similarity of the sample of responses. We therefore conclude that the students’ responses are not merely a reflection of their subjective (latent) structure. The arithmetic means of the assessments of teachers’ behaviours in Table 2 show the average agreement/disagreement with the individual statements made by the stu- dents for the 20 variables classified in the factor analysis. It is evident that the behaviours which are indicators of permissiveness have the high- est arithmetic means (i.e. the highest average level of agreement from the students that the assessed teacher behaves according to the individual statement). The first eight places are occupied by eight variables of the common factor of permissiveness (M from 3.12 to 2.86). In 9th place is the first statement from the authoritarian type of authority (No. 2, M = 2.71). The 10th and 11th place are again occupied by two claims that were theoretically conceived as the permissive type of behaviour; however, the statement (No. 12, M = 2.70) was not included in the factor of permissiveness because it appeared in two factors with similar weightings. In 12th place is the statement (No. 7, M = 2.48) which theoretically falls into authoritative practices; however, it was again disregarded, as it appears in two factors simultaneously (see Table 2). This is followed by the remaining statements, with the variables describing authoritarian behaviours having a consistently higher value on the scale (M from 2.45 to 2.36) than those describing authoritative behaviours, which (apart from the eliminated variables) occupy the last four places (M from 2.28 to 2.04). These data show that, of the three ways of establishing teacher authority, behaviours describing the permissive type of authority gain the highest average level of agreement among the students. Of the three types of authority – authoritative, authoritarian and permissive – the permissive type prevails, followed by authoritarian and authoritative behaviours. 5 Discussion and Conclusion: Teacher Authority and the Educational and Moral Role of the Class Teacher in the Context of Permissiveness In accordance with the presented theoretical premises and the results of numerous empirical studies on the effects of authoritarian, permissive and authoritative educa- tion on children, it would be desirable for teachers in schools to behave in accordance with the authoritative pattern of authority. However, the results obtained reliably show that, at least at one school in Slovenia, this is not the case. Using factor analysis, we confirmed three different types of authority in the behaviour of teachers at the lower secondary level. We also found that, according to the students’ assessments, the behav- 134 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (3–4, 2019) iour of teachers is most frequently of the permissive type, followed by authoritarian behaviours; while authoritative behaviours, which are the most professionally desir- able type, are the least evident. As indicated above in the introduction, authoritative behaviours are professionally the most demanding and require a high level of engage- ment or involvement. From the results of the research we can conclude that additional professional education of teachers regarding the authoritative type of authority would probably be recommendable (Bernstein, 2013b; Harju & Niemi, 2016; Inglis, 2012; Maccoby, 1992; Podgornik & Vogrinc, 2017; Šimenc & Štraus, 2016). We believe that the behaviours of teachers with a permissive type of authority in school can be understood as the teachers’ response to the contemporary context of edu- cation and authority outside the school environment. It is likely that a lot of these teach- ers do not behave permissively for conceptual reasons, that is, because of a belief in a permissively lenient type of authority; rather, they adapt pragmatically to social shifts by not taking an authoritative position in relation to permissively formed students. Fur- thermore, from this professional position, they do not resist the pressures of parents who behave and think permissively. We do not, however, simply interpret the “pragmatism” of the teachers’ response as “disinterestedness”, at least not in the case of primary level teachers, who begin teaching students when they enter school at the age of six. If there are many children who behave according to the model of permissive education, their undesirable behaviour can become a “normal” form of behaviour. Although this is “disturbing behaviour”, the teacher’s main aim is to carry out the learning process. Another obstacle to the professional response is that it is not traditionally the task of the class teacher in primary school – and even less of teachers in the last four years of primary school – to perform the educational tasks of parents and kindergarten teachers from the period prior to the student’s entry into primary school. In terms of implementing the set educational goals and enabling the process to proceed with as few disruptions as possible, it may therefore seem professionally justified for the teacher to react to the disturbing behaviour of a student merely by settling him/her down at that particular moment. However, the teacher’s orientation towards a short-term goal results in long-term harm to both the individual learner and the overall quality of the learning process and has long-term negative consequences in the subsequent years of schooling (and probably in the future life of the student, as well). If the teacher does not react to permissiveness with authoritative behaviours, s/he further strengthens the unde- sirable subjective structure of the student and adverse patterns of behaviour. In six-year- olds, it is more difficult to recognise the seriousness of the problem, but it is precisely at the beginning that the problem is more easily rectifiable, and the instructive behaviours of teachers can have the most durable effects. We therefore propose that, in their educational plan, primary schools clearly include an additional educational task of the class teachers: in the initial period from the entry of the student into primary school, class teachers should form the personality structure of the child in such a way that, through instructive behaviours in accordance with the authoritative type of authority, they engage with the negative effects of permissive education. This would support the student’s moral development, cognitive competence, and readiness to learn and participate in class, thus enabling the student to realise his/her potential. In accordance with expert findings, and from the perspective of care for the wellbeing of the student, we are convinced that it is the ethical duty of the school and teachers to take on this responsibility. Krek, PhD, Klopčič: Teacher Authority and the Educational Role of the Class Teacher... 135 Dr. Janez Krek, Lana Klopčič Avtoriteta učitelja in vzgojna vloga razrednega učitelja v kontekstu permisivnosti V zadnjih dveh desetletjih strokovnjaki v različnih evropskih državah opozarjajo na negativne posledice permisivne vzgoje, ki se prične v otrokovih prvih letih življenja. Spremembe v družinskih vzgojnih vzorcih, ki zajemajo od izginjajočega avtoritarnega preko avtoritativnega do permisivnega, povzročijo razlike v vedenju otrok in zastavljajo šolam nov edukacijski izziv, ki vključuje tudi avtoriteto učitelja. Kako se nanj odzivajo učitelji? Z empirično raziskavo smo zato poskušali ugotoviti, na kakšen način učitelji v sodobnosti vzpostavljajo avtoriteto pri svojem pedagoškem delu. Na osnovi ocen učen- cev o ravnanjih njim poznanih učiteljev smo želeli ugotovili, kako pogosto se pojavljajo ravnanja, ki jih je mogoče razlikovati kot avtoritarni, permisivni in avtoritativni tip avtoritete učitelja. Informacije o tem, kako se učitelji z različnimi oblikami avtoritete v šoli odzivajo v sodobnem kontekstu vzgoje in avtoritete v družini, smo vzeli kot osnovo za razmislek o vzgojni in etični vlogi razrednega učitelja v kontekstu permisivnosti. Učinki permisivne zgodnje vzgoje na otroka so znani. Taka ravnanja odraslih ustvarijo zgrešeno raven samospoštovanja pri otrocih, ne razvijajo njihovega občutka odgovornosti, otroci ne prevzemajo simbolnih kriterijev kulture, preko katerih bi preso- dili, do česa so upravičeni, ustvarijo minimalno spoštovanje avtoritete – oziroma bolje rečeno, specifični odnos do nje – in pripravljeni so druge kriviti za lastne pomanjkljivo- sti. Še več, nakazane poteze subjektivne strukture otroka lahko vodijo tudi v povečano nasilje v šolah. V novejši (2017) metaštudiji raziskav, v katero je bilo zajetih 1.435 štu- dij, ki so ugotavljale povezanost med družinskimi vzgojnimi vzorci in eksternaliziranimi simptomi pri otrocih in adolescentih, Pinquart ugotavlja, da starševska toplina, nadzor nad vedenjem, dopuščanje avtonomije in avtoritativni vzgojni stil pokažejo zelo malo do malo navzkrižnih in dolgoročnih negativnih povezav z eksternaliziranimi proble- mi. V nasprotju s tem so psihološki nadzor, avtoritarno, permisivno in zanemarjajoče starševstvo povezani z višjimi ravnmi eksternaliziranih problemov. Tako se (tradicio- nalnim) vzorcem nasilja učencev, ki so (bili) v okolju izven šole izpostavljeni nasilju, lahko pridruži še nasilno vedenje otrok, ki je posledica permisivne vzgoje. Agresivno vedenje teh učencev je zlasti v prvih letih šolanja razrednim učiteljem teže prepoznati kot obliko nasilja, saj v permisivnem družinskem okolju otrok ni izpostavljen fizičnemu nasilju, zato ne prinaša v šolo kulturno značilnih in prepoznavnih vzorcev (fizičnega ali verbalnega) nasilja. Njihovo nasilje je lahko dojeto le kot še ena od oblik individualno pogojenega “motečega vedenja”. Ravnanja v skladu z določenim tipom avtoritete uči- telja oziroma različni načini poučevanja lahko povečujejo ali zmanjšujejo učinke, ki jih imajo na otroke izkušnje iz družinske vzgoje. Raziskave Baumrind in drugih so pokaza- le, da ima med tremi različnimi načini vzpostavljanja avtoritete učitelja (avtoritarnim, permisivnim in avtoritativnim) najboljše učinke avtoritativni stil. Če bi upoštevali zgolj strokovna spoznanja, bi pričakovali, da se bodo učitelji odzvali z avtoritativnim vzor- cem avtoritete. V začetku 80. let sta Maccoby in Martin v trojno strukturo avtoritete vpeljala dodatno razliko med permisivnim popustljivim in permisivnim zanemarjajočim starševstvom. V ta kontekst je mogoče umestiti tudi ravnanja in avtoriteto učitelja. V 136 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (3–4, 2019) skladu z zasnovo štirih tipov starševstva in avtoritete so kasneje raziskovalci razvili tudi štiri osnovne tipe poučevanja in avtoritete učitelja s križanjem dveh osnovnih dimenzij vedenja: kako učitelj disciplinira (močno, šibko) in kako je angažiran oziroma vpleten (visoko, nizko) v odnosu do učencev. Ti dve dimenziji kombinirata zahtevnost (nad- zor, usmerjanje, zahtevo po odraslosti) in odzivnost (toplino, sprejemanje, vključenost). Skladno s tem sta obe permisivni vrsti avtoritete šibki v dimenziji discipline, medtem ko sta v tej dimenziji močni tako avtoritarna kot avtoritativna avtoriteta. V teoretičnem modelu ravnanj učiteljev za izvedbo raziskave smo se v največjem delu oprli na opise ravnanj štirih tipov avtoritete učitelja, kot jih opredeli Bernstein, upoštevali smo tudi nekaj značilnosti, kot jih opišejo že Dreikurs in ostali, ter lastne izsledke o ravnanjih učiteljev v slovenskem osnovnošolskem okolju. Avtoritarni učitelj je oseba z visokimi pričakovanji in jasno določenimi cilji, od katerih nikoli ne odstopi, a pri tem sledi izključno lastnim prepričanjem, se ne ozira na okoliščine in ne upošteva mnenj drugih. Učenci imajo le malo ali sploh nimajo možnosti za pogovor ali razpravo. Pričakuje visoke dosežke in jih nagrajuje z dobrimi ocena- mi, tega pa ne podkrepi z osebno pozornostjo ali s spodbudnimi besedami. Učenčev osebnostni razvoj in morebitne težave učencev ga ne zanimajo in ohranja distanco. Je strog, dosleden, prošenj učencev za podporo ne spodbuja in jih lahko presliši. Šibkosti ali neuspehe ignorira, kaznuje pa jih z nizkimi ocenami. Prepričan je v svoj prav in če mu učenci ne sledijo, to doživlja kot izključno njihov problem. Avtoritarni učitelj je torej ukazovalen, dominanten, izvaja pritisk, vsiljuje svoje zamisli, zahteva poslušnost, učen- ci se lahko vedejo zgolj tako, kot on zahteva. O skupnih načelih nikoli ne razpravlja, ne mara nasprotovanja, prepričan je, da ima vedno prav. Od svojih prepričanj nikoli ne odstopi, četudi bi se izkazalo, da so neustrezna. Bernstein opiše dva tipa permisivnih ravnanj učitelja. Permisivni nezainteresirani (zanemarjajoči) učitelj ne poučuje učencev več od osnov. Prihaja v razred in izvaja ena- ke ure pouka leto za letom, iz leta v leto uporablja enake učne pripomočke in pristope, ne spodbuja vprašanj učencev in ima, kolikor je mogoče, malo stikov. V odnos z učenci se ne poglablja, odnose doživlja kot grožnjo. Sam deluje po liniji najmanjšega odpora in enako pričakuje tudi od svojih učencev. Z učenci ustvari sobivanje v nenapisanem kompromisnem vzdušju nedelavnosti. V učnem okolju ni izzivov, ne poskuša vzpostaviti oziroma vzdrževati discipline, če pa pride do vedenjskih težav, jih ignorira, če je le mogoče. Kadar bi moral vložiti več truda v doseganje postavljenih ciljev pri učencih, raje odneha oziroma to vnaprej prepreči z odpovedjo ciljem ali z nižanjem zahtevnosti, s posledicami pa se ne obremenjuje. Permisivni popustljivi učitelj pa je nasprotno prizadeven in dejaven, a se boji storiti karkoli, kar bi prizadelo učence v vzgojno-izobraževalnem procesu, denimo, da bi bili preobremenjeni, da bi zaviral njihov osebnostni razvoj ali prizadel njihovo podobo o samem sebi. Če učencev učna snov ne zanima, jo raje izloči, če je mogoče. Ne sporoča jim, da bi se morali potruditi, če jih določena učna snov morda ne zanima ali jim pov- zroča težave. Ničesar ne vsiljuje. Na učence gleda kot na otroke, ki potrebujejo pomoč in podporo, zato zanje pripravi vse tako, da učencu težko kdaj spodleti ali pa je to sploh nemogoče. Zaradi popustljivosti celoten pouk prilagaja “najpočasnejšim”, čeprav na škodo uspešnejših učencev. Učne pripomočke poenostavlja, da učenci ne bi bili pre- več obremenjeni z naporom pri razumevanju. Dovoli jim, da se odločajo, kako in kdaj bodo ocenjeni, ne vrednoti le njihovih dosežkov, temveč že sam trud. Postavlja sicer Krek, PhD, Klopčič: Teacher Authority and the Educational Role of the Class Teacher... 137 zahteve in določa roke, pri uveljavljanju pa se nenehno prilagaja. Ne vztraja pri svojih odločitvah in z nenehnim iskanjem soglasja glede aktivnosti odgovornost med poukom prelaga na učence. Okleva pri vzpostavljanju reda v učilnici, četudi to od njega jasno pričakujejo celo nekateri učenci. Učencem ne postavlja jasnih meja, pravil in jih ne di- sciplinira. Ustvarja učno okolje, v katerem učenci ne vedo, kaj učitelj od njih pričakuje in če sploh dejansko želi, da njegova pričakovanja upoštevajo. Avtoritativni tip učitelja izkazuje visoko vpletenost in ima trden, vendar pravičen red in disciplino. Ima jasno določene cilje in visoka pričakovanja do vseh, predan je poučevanju in skrben v odnosu do učencev, vendar ocenjuje dosežke, ne trud. Je vedno pripravljen učencu izkazati podporo, vendar pazi, da ne ustvarja odvisnosti ali da bi ga izkoriščali oziroma z njim manipulirali. Uspeh učencev nagradi z ocenami in s pohvalo, spodbuja učence, da se bolj potrudijo, če je treba, in dovoli izjeme le, če to jasno izhaja iz učenčevih posebnih potreb ali drugih utemeljenih okoliščin v okviru šolskih pravil. Ima spoštljiv odnos do učencev in enako zahteva od njih. Vzpostavlja hierarhični odnos z učenci in se zanje vztrajno trudi. Poglablja se v odnos z učenci in stoji za svojimi dejanji, ki so utemeljena in jih tudi argumentira. Od učencev pričakuje natančnost pri reprodukciji snovi, obenem pa spodbuja razmišljanja učencev o učnih temah in zanima ga njihov odnos do vsebin učne snovi. Po potrebi v oblikovanje razrednih pravil vključi tudi učence (in starše), tako da do končne oblike pridejo preko skupnega dogovora, čeprav ta proces terja več časa in učiteljeve odzivnosti. Šolska pravila učencem predho- dno predstavi in tudi razloži, zakaj so nujno potrebna in kakšne so njihove razsežnosti. Pravila konsistentno uveljavlja. Cilj empirične raziskave je bil ugotoviti, kateri tip avtoritete učitelja s svojimi rav- nanji vzpostavljajo posamezni predmetni učitelji na določeni šoli. Kvantitativna razi- skava je v celoti temeljila na neslučajnostnem vzorcu učencev od 5. do 9. razreda ene iz- med primestnih osnovnih šol v Sloveniji in učiteljev, ki na tej šoli poučujejo. Vprašalnik za učence je rešilo 270 učencev in za učitelje 42 učiteljev. Za potrebe faktorske analize za določitev tipa avtoritete učiteljev na osnovi indikatorjev (ravnanj učiteljev) so bili uporabljeni le odgovori anketiranih učencev predmetne stopnje (vzorec N = 380). Pri- pravili smo seznam 20 indikatorjev za štiri teoretične tipe avtoritete učiteljev. Faktorska analiza odgovorov učencev o tipih avtoritete učiteljev je pokazala, da obstaja povezanost med indikatorji, ki smo jih zasnovali v sklope za opredelitev dolo- čenega tipa avtoritete učitelja. Faktorska analiza je potrdila tri osnovne tipe avtoritete učiteljev: permisivnega, avtoritativnega in avtoritarnega, ne pa tudi permisivnega po- pustljivega tipa avtoritete in permisivnega nezainteresiranega tipa avtoritete kot dveh različnih tipov permisivne avtoritete. Prvi faktor, ki združuje ravnanja permisivnega popustljivega in permisivnega nezainteresiranega tipa avtoritete učitelja, tako imenu- jemo permisivni tip avtoritete učitelja in pojasni 22,48 % variance. Drugi faktor je av- toritativni tip avtoritete učitelja in pojasni 10,05 % variance. Tretji faktor je avtoritarni tip avtoritete učitelja s 5,92 % pojasnjene variance. Četrti faktor (2,23 % pojasnjene variance) zanemarimo, saj imata dve teoretično nepovezani spremenljivki negativno in nizko vrednost. Raziskava za eno šolo v Sloveniji tako potrjuje rezultate raziskav, ki avtoriteto uči- teljev razporejajo v tri osnovne tipe: permisivnega, avtoritativnega in avtoritarnega. Pri ravnanjih učiteljev, ki izkazujejo permisivnost, oboji pa so – čeprav iz različnih 138 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (3–4, 2019) razlogov – “popustljivi”, ravnanja izkazujejo večjo ali manjšo učiteljevo osebno anga- žiranost, ne razkrijejo pa posebnega tipa avtoritete. Omejitve raziskave: če bi indikatorje formulirali drugače, bi se mogoče pokazale povezanosti spremenljivk za štiri teoretično zasnovane faktorje. Raziskava, izvedena na reprezentativnem vzorcu šol, bi verjetno pokazala nekoliko drugačne vrednosti, kar je lahko izziv za prihodnje raziskave. Ker pa naraščanju permisivnosti v vzgoji otrok v slo- venski družbi lahko sledimo že več desetletij, se sprašujemo, ali bi rezultati raziskave na reprezentativnem vzorcu šol pokazali bistveno drugačen rezultat, denimo odsotnost per- misivnega tipa avtoritete učitelja. Zato menimo, da so tudi rezultati ene šole relevantni. Kolikor faktorska analiza govori o latentni strukturi posameznika, ki odgovarja na vprašalnik, se postavi vprašanje, ali je faktorska analiza, pri kateri na osnovi odgovorov učencev sklepamo o strukturi ravnanj učitelja, upravičena. Enake indikatorje, le pre- oblikovane tako, da so nagovarjali učitelje, smo postavili tudi v raziskavo vključenim učiteljem. Primerjava aritmetičnih sredin ocen tipov avtoritete po mnenju učencev in učiteljev je pokazala, da so aritmetične sredine odgovorov učencev nižje pri avtoritar- nem in obeh tipih permisivne avtoritete, aritmetični sredini avtoritativne avtoritete pa sta skoraj identični. Vendar aritmetične sredine vsakega faktorja posebej ne pokažejo divergentnosti ocen učencev in učiteljev, pač pa podobnost vzorca odgovorov, zato skle- pamo, da odgovori učencev niso zgolj odraz njihove subjektivne (latentne) strukture. Aritmetične sredine ocene učencev o ravnanjih učiteljev, ki so jih podali učenci za 20 spremenljivk, uvrščenih v faktorsko analizo, pokažejo, da imajo med tremi načini pridobivanja avtoritete učitelja v povprečju najvišje stopnje strinjanja učencev rav- nanja, ki opisujejo (združeni) permisivni tip avtoritete. Med tremi vrstami avtoritete: avtoritativno, avtoritarno in permisivno, prevladujejo ravnanja permisivnega tipa av- toritete, sledijo jim avtoritarna in avtoritativna ravnanja. V skladu s predstavljenimi teoretičnimi izhodišči in rezultati številnih empiričnih raziskav o učinkih avtoritarne, permisivne in avtoritativne vzgoje na otroke bi bilo za- želeno, da bi učitelji v šolah ravnali v skladu z avtoritativnim vzorcem avtoritete. Pri- dobljeni rezultati zanesljivo vsaj za eno šolo v Sloveniji povedo, da ni tako. Najmanj je prisoten prav tip avtoritativnih ravnanj, ki bi bila strokovno najbolj zaželena. Ravnanja v skladu s tem tipom avtoritete so strokovno najzahtevnejša in zahtevajo tudi visoko angažiranost, zato sklepamo, da bi bila verjetno priporočljiva dodatna strokovna izo- braževanja učiteljev o avtoritativnem tipu avtoritete. Menimo, da ravnanja učiteljev, ki so v skladu s permisivnim tipom avtoritete v šoli, lahko razumemo kot odziv učiteljev na sodobni kontekst vzgoje in avtoritete izven šol- skega okolja. Verjetno precej teh učiteljev ne ravna permisivno zaradi prepričanja v permisivno popustljivi tip avtoritete. Pragmatično se prilagajajo družbenim premikom: po eni strani ne zavzamejo avtoritativne pozicije v razmerju do permisivno formiranih učencev, po drugi strani pa se s svojega strokovnega položaja tudi ne zoperstavljajo pritiskom permisivno delujočih in razmišljujočih staršev. “Pragmatičnosti” odziva pa si vsaj pri učiteljih razrednega pouka, ki prično peda- goško delati z učenci, ko vstopijo v šolo s šestim letom starosti, ne razlagamo preprosto z njihovo “nezainteresiranostjo”. Če je več otrok, ki se vedejo v skladu z vzorcem per- misivne vzgoje, lahko postane njihovo nezaželeno vedenje “normalna” oblika vedenja. Gre za sicer “moteče vedenje”, vendar učitelj želi predvsem izpeljati učni proces. Ovira Krek, PhD, Klopčič: Teacher Authority and the Educational Role of the Class Teacher... 139 strokovnemu odzivu je tudi dejstvo, da tradicionalno ni bila naloga razrednega učitelja v osnovni šoli, da bi opravljal vzgojne naloge staršev in vzgojiteljev iz obdobja pred vstopom učenca v osnovno šolo – še manj pa je bila to naloga učiteljev v zadnjih štirih letih osnovne šole. Zato se z vidika izpeljave začrtanih vzgojno-izobraževalnih ciljev in da proces poteka s čim manj motnjami, lahko zdi strokovno upravičeno, da učitelj na mo- teče vedenje učenca odreagira tako, da ga trenutno umiri. Ta razmislek in usmerjenost učitelja v kratkoročni cilj pa verjetno povzročita dolgoročno škodo tako posameznemu učencu kot splošni kakovosti učnega procesa ter puščata dolgoročne negativne posledice v nadaljnjih letih šolanja (s tem pa verjetno tudi v nadaljnjem življenju). Učitelj tudi sam na dolgi rok krepi neželeno “moteče vedenje” in subjektivno strukturo učenca. Razredni učitelji so v posebnem položaju, ker je na učenca v prvih letih po vstopu v osnovno šolo še mogoče vzgojno vplivati tako, da vzgoja v šoli poskuša zagotoviti, kar je vzgoja v predšolskem obdobju zamudila. Pri šestletnikih je težje prepoznati resnost problema, toda prav na začetku je laže odpravljiv in vzgojna ravnanja učiteljev imajo lahko najtrajnejše učinke. Zato predlagamo, da osnovne šole v svojo vzgojno zasnovo jasno vključijo dodatno vzgojno nalogo razrednih učiteljev: da v začetnem obdobju od vstopa učenca v osnovno šolo formirajo strukturo osebnosti otroka tako, da se z vzgoj- nimi ravnanji v skladu z avtoritativnim tipom avtoritete spopadejo z negativnimi učinki permisivne vzgoje. Tako bi podprli moralni razvoj učenca, kognitivno kompetentnost, pripravljenost za učenje in sodelovanje pri pouku ter s tem omogočili učencu, da lahko realizira svoje potenciale. REFERENCES 1. Barnas, M. (2000). “Parenting” Students: Applying Developmental Psychology to the College Classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 27, No. 4, pp. 276–277. 2. Baumrind, D. (1991). The Influence of Parenting Style on Adolescent Competence and Substan- ce Use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, No. 1, pp. 56–95. 3. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current Patterns of Parental Authority. Developmental Psychology, 4, No. 1, pp. 1–103. 4. Bernstein, D. (2013a). Parenting and Teaching: What’s the Connection in Our Classrooms? Part One of Two: How Teaching Styles Can Affect Behavioral and Educational Outcomes in the Classroom. Psychology Teacher Network, 23, No. 2, pp. 1–6. 5. Bernstein, D. (2013b). Part 2 – Parenting and Teaching: What’s the Connection in Our Clas- srooms? Psychology Teacher Network, 23, No. 3, pp. 1–5. 6. Dreikurs, R., Grunwald, B.B., Pepper, F. C. (1971). Maintaining Sanity in the Classroom: Illu- strated Teaching Techniques. New York: Harper & Row. 7. Dusi, P. (2012). The Family-School Relationships in Europe: A Research Review. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 2, No. 1, pp. 13–33. 8. Eberhard, D. (2015). Kinder an der Macht: Die monströsen Auswüchse liberaler Erziehung. Muenchen: Koesel-Verlag; Random House GmbH. 9. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A., Spinrad, T.L. (2006). Prosocial Development. In: Nancy Eisenberg, W. Damon & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Per- sonality Development., Vol. 3, 6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp. 646–718. 10. Furedi, F. (2009). Why Education Isn’t Educating. London, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. 11. Ginsburg, K.R., Durbin, D.R., Garcia-Espana, J.F., Kalicka, E.A., Winston, F.K. (2009). Asso- ciations between Parenting Styles and Teen Driving, Safety-Related Behaviors and Attitudes. Pediatrics, 124, No. 4, pp. 1040–1051. 140 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (3–4, 2019) 12. Harju, V., Niemi, H. (2016). Newly Qualified Teachers’ Needs of Support for Professional Com- petences in Four European Countries: Finland, the United Kingdom, Portugal, and Belgium. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 6, No. 3, pp. 77–100. 13. Inglis, G. (2012). Reconstructing Parents’ Meetings in Primary Schools: The Teacher as Expert, the Parent as Advocate and the Pupil as Self-Advocate. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 2, No. 1, pp. 83–103. 14. Konold, T., Cornell, D., Huang, F., Meyer, P., Lacey, A., Nekvasil, E. et al. (2014). Multile- vel Multi-Informant Structure of the Authoritative School Climate Survey. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, No. 3, pp. 238–255. 15. Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The Role of Parents in the Socialisation of Children: A Historical Over- view. Developmental Psychology, 28, No. 6, pp. 1006–1017. 16. Maccoby, E.E., Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the Context of the Family: Parent-Child Interaction. In: P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (4th ed.). New York: Wiley, pp. 1–101. 17. Mugny, G., Chatard, A., Quiamzade, A. (2006). The Social Transmission of Knowledge at the University: Teaching Style and Epistemic Dependence. European Journal of Psychology of Education – EJPE (Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada), 21, No. 4, pp. 413–427. 18. Parke, R.D., Buriel, R. (2006). Child Development and the Family. In: Damon, W. & Lerner, R.M. (Series Eds.), Eisenberg, N. (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (6th ed.), Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development. New York: Wiley, pp. 429–504. 19. Paulson, S.E., Marchant, G.J., Rothlisberg, B.A. (1998). Early Adolescents’ Perceptions of Pat- terns of Parenting, Teaching, and School Atmosphere: Implications for Achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, No. 1, pp. 5–26. 20. Paulussen-Hoogeboom, M.C., Stams, G.J.J.M., Hermanns, J.M.A., Peetsma, T.T.D., Van den Wittenboer, G.L.H. (2008). Parenting Style as a Mediator between Children’s Negative Emo- tionality and Problematic Behavior in Early Childhood. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 169, No. 3, pp. 209–226. 21. Pellerin, L.A. (2005). Applying Baumrind’s Parenting Typology to High Schools: Toward a Mid- dle-Range Theory of Authoritative Socialization. Social Science Research, 34, No. 1, pp. 283–303. 22. Podgornik, V., Vogrinc, J. (2017). The Role of Headteachers, Teachers, and School Counselors in the System of Quality Assessment and Assurance of School Work. SAGE Open, 7, No. 2, p. 1. 23. Quiamzade, A., Mugny, G., Falomir-Pichastor, J.M. (2009). Epistemic Constraint and Teaching Style. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, No. 2, pp. 181–190. 24. Šimenc, M., Štraus, M. (2016). Coleman’s Third Report. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 6, No. 2, pp. 43–60. 25. Walker, J.M.T. (2008). Looking at Teacher Practices through the Lens of Parenting Style. Jour- nal of Experimental Education, 76, No. 2, pp. 218–240. 26. Walker, J.M.T. (2009). Authoritative Classroom Management: How Control and Nurturance Work Together. Theory into Practice, 48, No. 2, pp. 122–129. 27. Wentzel, K.R. (2002). Are Effective Teachers like Good Parents? Teaching Styles and Student Adjustment in Early Adolescence. Child Development, 73, No. 1, pp. 287–301. 28. Winterhoff, M. (2008). Warum unsere Kinder Tyrannen werden (Oder, Die Abschaffung der Kindheit). Guetersloh, Muenchen: Guetersloher Verlagshaus, Random Haus GmbH. Janez Krek, PhD (1963), associate professor of Philosophy of Education at the Faculty of Educa- tion, University of Ljubljana. Address: Cesta na Brdo 43, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; Telephone: (+386) 041 459 943 E-mail: janez.krek@pef.uni-lj.si Lana Klopčič, MA (1980), primary teacher at Dob Primary School. Address: Zadobrovška 10b, 1260 Ljubljana, Slovenia; Telephone: (+386) 040 595 868 E-mail: lana.klopcic@guest.arnes.si