Over time, structures and institutions become so familiar that they escape criticism – longevity is disguised as nature:

‘Discipline must be made national,’ said Guibert. ‘The state that I depict will have a simple, reliable, easily controlled administration. It will resemble those huge machines, which by quite uncomplicated means produce great effects; the strength of this state will spring from its own strength, its prosperity from its own prosperity. Time, which destroys all, will increase its power [italics added].’ (Guibert, 1770 as quoted in Foucault, 1991, p.169)

Embedding controversial systems (such as mass schooling) within the very fabric of society ensures that structures of power withstand generations. Politicians who introduced compulsory schooling in the late-nineteenth century are no longer alive, yet society abides by their laws and institutions without question. Illich (1971, p. 26), however, challenges society’s ageist and simplistic assumptions: that “children belong in school. Children learn in school. Children can be taught only in school. I think these unquestioned premises deserve serious questioning”.

Embracing man-made systems as if they are laws of nature is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, other educational systems such as community learning, whereby children learn essential life-skills through observation and imitation (rather than a delivery of knowledge), will not be seen as legitimate education. Indigenous communities use this style of learning, “developing an identity as a member of a community” and “becoming knowledgeably skilful” with the “former motivating, shaping and giving meaning to the latter” (Lave, 1991, p. 65). Whereas, in Western schooling, “students are objectified as talented, borderline, under-achieving, irredeemable” (Ball, 2010, p. 108) and placed into a hierarchal system which advantages high-achieving students at the expense of others:

The individual body becomes an element that may be placed, moved, articulated on others. Its bravery or its strength are no longer the principle variables that define it; but the place it occupies, the interval it covers. (Foucault, 1991, p. 164)

Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism manifests in schools as a series of crucial decisions being made about the everyday lives and future prospects of young people and depriving them of having any input or power to oppose these decisions. Authoritarian systems have a “simple, reliable, easily controlled administration” (Foucault, 1991, p.169) “whereby discipline, power and knowledge can seamlessly travel through institutions, implement themselves onto individuals’ minds and bodies, without any real interaction or explanation” (Simmons, 2019, p. 4). Within authoritarian regimes, consequential decisions are made by a leader and this leader is “aloof and withdrawn”, compared to democratic regimes where groups make decisions and leaders are “involved and approachable”. Examples of the resultant behaviour of authoritarianism are: “aggression or apathy”, “competitiveness/scapegoating”, “submissive” and a “low; tense” morale (Lippitt & White, 1958 as quoted in Meighan & Harber, 2007, p. 80). It could be argued that schools adopt an authoritarian regime as the curriculum and structure has no input from teachers or students – it is delivered directly from the government and these instructions are non-negotiable.

An example of an authoritarian decision is the UK Conservative government scrapping coursework in between 2015-2017 for almost every subject and the introduction of new linear exams. Studies such as Cresswell (1990) show that girls perform far better in coursework than boys do and girls achieve higher grades than boys at all ages, including in STEM subjects (O’Dea et al., 2018). “Men keep changing the rules if women show any sign of becoming as successful as them” (Thomas, 1990 as quoted in Meighan & Harber, 2007, p. 85) – the curriculum was changed despite the possibility of disadvantaging girls and advantaging boys. The sense of urgency and remarkable action taken to save boys from “becoming the disadvantaged group” (Ross, 2013) is impressive and demonstrates government’s ability to address equality concerns with real, immediate action even when it involves ignoring the advice of teachers, educational professionals and the interests of higher achieving students. Following this reform, girls maintained the “lead over boys despite new linear exams” (Busby, 2017). This policy change is evidence that the hidden curriculum does, indeed, teach that “men are more important than women” (Meighan & Harber, 2007, p. 76) as the high attainment of girls compared to boys was viewed as a problem or structural mistake that needed to be rectified. Educational academics such as Wellington (2015) question whether the gender attainment gap’s “media spotlight would have been as strong if girls’ results had fallen significantly behind boys’” (p. 4).

Authoritarian methods of discipline can resemble bullying as “it involves a power imbalance (child vs. adult), it is repeated over time (students defined as “troublemakers” are targeted by disciplinarians), and it is demeaning” (Kupchik & Farina, 2014, p. 149). Students are shaped by their environment: “I am where I think” (Mignolo, 2011, p. xvi). Having total control of an institution, a year group, a classroom, means also somewhat having total control of each occupant as the “word class denotes both the container and the contents” (Ariès, 1962, p. 171-172).

Huebner and Gilman (2006) found that dissatisfaction with schooling corresponded to lower functioning and attainment, implicating pupils’ experiences as a key factor in determining a school’s success. They suggested that, while “traditional academic aims” are important, childhood is a significant time and the importance of their mental and social well-being should not be understated (p. 149). Considering these findings, the authoritarian approach to education and curricula should be challenged with the improvement of students’ grades as a pessimistic incentive to be kinder towards and grant more freedom to students.

Separation and panopticism

Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, the “model prison” (Bentham, 1791), was originally designed as a mode of labour surveillance to reduce the amount of time wasted by free workers thus increasing the capital yield of the working day. The Panopticon arranges many people around one small point of authority (i.e. a single watch tower or a teacher); the mass becomes a “periphery” (Foucault, 1991, p. 200); this is an efficient and economical mode of control. The Panopticon is an “observed solitude” (Bentham, 1843, p. 60-64) that aims to deprive individuals of privacy, reduce the likelihood of disobedience and to subject everyone to the penalties of rule-breaking:

They are like so many cages, so many small theatres, in which each actor is alone, perfectly individualised and always visible. The panoptic mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognise immediately. […] if they are schoolchildren, there is no copying, no noise, no chatter, no waste of time. (Foucault, 1991, p. 200-201)

In theory, this model would ensure the fair and equal implementation of rules as the authoritarian gaze is evenly distributed. In reality, many studies have shown that rule-enforcement and punishment is disproportionately inflicted on marginalised groups such as people of colour. Black boys are overrepresented in lower sets and face disproportionate levels of permanent exclusion from school (Graham & Robinson, 2004, p. 654). Pomerantz (2007) found that bigger or more physically developed girls are disproportionately targeted for wearing inappropriate clothes when, indeed, their clothes are compliant with school rules: they are punished with a sexualising gaze for not appearing child-like enough. Here, the rules are inconsistently enforced as the normalisation process targets individuals who are viewed as abnormal for their age. As well as proof of sexism, Pomerantz (2007) is proof of ageism within schools: girls are punished because their body type is seen as ‘inappropriate’ for their age.

Foucault (1991) likens panoticism to the state-imposed quarantine of the seventeenth century following an outbreak of the plague: “a strict spatial partitioning” (p. 195), an “enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point […], in which power is exercised without division, according to a continuous hierarchal figure, in which each individual is constantly located, examined and distributed” (p. 197). Quarantine during a pandemic is a “model of the disciplinary mechanism” (p. 197) according to Foucault (1991). Panopticism can be characterised as an extreme concentration of power, additional powers given to high ranking individuals by high ranking individuals themselves, the separation of ‘normal’ people by law or rules, and the complete control over them when arranged in this way, maintenance of social-distancing by authority figures and penalties for those who do not obey. The plague and quarantine, Foucault suggests, is the ideal metaphor of disciplinary power. Considering the mental health effects and economic ruin caused by the latest pandemic in 2020 (Codagnone et al., 2020), it is concerning and suspicious that schools are designed in a way that resembles emergency powers being exercised on medical grounds.

Panoptic power is remote and omnipotent:

The training of school children was to be carried out [by] few words, no explanation, a total silence interrupted only by signals – bells, clapping of hands, gestures, a mere glance from the teacher […] it was called par excellence the ‘Signal’ and it contained in its mechanical brevity both the technique of command and the morality of obedience. (Foucault, 1991, p. 166)

Dividing peers makes their supervision easier by identifying and locating individuals, disruption and excellence. This process also creates distance between the authority and the obedient – the communications are minimal and remote and they lack flexibility, sociability, negotiation and care. The maxim “divide et impera” (‘divide and conquer’ or ‘divide and rule’) is a political strategy that aims to “prevent alliances that could challenge the sovereign” (McIntosh, 2019, para. 6) – Foucault explores this design in both the school and the prison: “even if the compartments it assigns become purely ideal, the disciplinary space is always, basically, cellular” (Foucault, 1991, p. 143). Whilst it is difficult to imagine a school without classes, it is the assignment of a particular location with the forbidding of leaving that space that makes the segmented school restrictive in a way that resembles the prison. The excessive and intrusive observation of children also affects their parents: “the [seventeenth century] Christian School must not simply train docile children; it must also make it possible to supervise their parents, to gain information as to their way of life, their resources, their piety, their morals” (Foucault, 1991, p. 211). If a child refuses to go to school, for example, it is the parents who are prosecuted by the state.

Conditioning

“Rewards and punishments […] are two sides of the same coin” (Jakešová & Slezáková, 2016, p. 323). Together, they form a “policy of coercions” (Foucault, 1991, p. 138) that have the effect of obedience, rewarding desired behaviours and punishing that which does not serve the institution. “Rewards turn play into work” they are a currency that buys “temporary obedience” (Jakešová & Slezáková, 2016, p. 323). Examples of such rewards would be:

• A high grade,
• Private or public recognition for high quality work,
• ‘Promotion’ into the student council or titles such as “Head Boy” or “Head Girl”,
• Recognition of good behaviour,
• Warmth (i.e. smiling, laughing, kind words),
• Extra trust or responsibilities that increase self-esteem,
• Early or added leisure time,
• Praise.

These rewards will encourage a pupil to repeat the rewarded behaviour thus reducing the chances of dissent. The culture of rewarding a school’s high attainment, observed in league tables, “will create incentives for pupil selection” (Ooghe & Schokkaert, 2016, p. 359) which undermines the purpose of education. “The institution of the school has corrupted the practices it was meant to support” (Murphy, 2013, p. 187) as rewards are currency: teachers may experience a similar reward system whereby their career prospects depend on their pupils’ attainment.

At the centre of the school “functions a small penal mechanism” (Foucault, 1991, p. 177) that can be easily manipulated. Pavlov (1897/1902) discovered that when a bell is rang before a dog is fed, the dog will begin to salivate at the sound of the bell without any food. This is classical conditioning and it interacts with one’s natural instincts, desire for nourishment and adaption to routine. What was found here was serious because it shows how easily the mind can be trained to react to signals that represent something real, without that ‘real’ stimulus being present. It is possible that children are subjected to classical conditioning in a similar way as a bell signifies lunchtime. Furthermore, this lunchtime (and other leisure time) can be taken away by staff as a punishment. Seligman and Maier’s (1976) learned helplessness theory, again, used a dog to demonstrate how, overtime, a living being will cease attempting to avoid pain or gain freedom if it believes that it does not have the power to do so. Comparisons between humans and dogs are difficult as dogs do not have a sense of past or future (Hyman, 2010): they lack episodic memory which Tulving (2002) suggests is exclusive to humans. Despite the issues of validity in animal studies, these studies illustrate the potential for authority to control one’s mind and body through remote signals without any real interaction.