Scientific Articles

• Julie Gerlinger & James C. Wo (2016). Preventing School Bullying: Should Schools Prioritize an Authoritative School Discipline Approach Over Security Measures?, Journal of School Violence, 15(2), 133-157, DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2014.956321
• Kim, S., Spadafora, N., Craig, W. et al. Disciplinary Structure and Teacher Support in Chinese and Canadian Schools: Examining How Authoritative Disciplinary Practices Protect Youth Involved in Bullying at School. School Mental Health 13, 501–517 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-021-09431-z
• Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T.-H., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative school discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00118562
• Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., & Jungert, T. (2018). Authoritative classroom climate and its relations to bullying victimization and bystander behaviors. School Psychology International, 39(6), 663–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318809762

Explanation of the Post

In the scientific literature, 3 types of conduct related to the establishment and monitoring of norms in educational spaces or homes are classified.

1. Authoritarian: When the adult shows her power and the generation of rules is unilateral without taking into account the needs of children.
2. Permissive: When adults do not offer rules, and if they do, bad behaviour doesn’t have any consequence. It is the children who rule.
3. Authorized: When adults in dialogue with children generate the rules and consequences. Consequences are dispensed fairly and transparently.

When school rules are fair and strictly enforced, consequences for breaking school rules are the same for all students, and teachers treat students with respect in a warm and supportive way generates better adherence to the norm and its compliance, thus reducing disruptive behaviors and bullying and increased upstander behavior.

Other sources