Discipline and Morale in School and College

A Study of Group Feeling

M. F. Cleugh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000397055
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Originally published in 1971, the author was concerned with a nexus of related ideas: group spirit, morale, discipline, discrimination, stigma. How, she asks, are these connected with leadership, both that of the assigned person in authority, lecturer or teacher, and that of the dominant spirits within the group? What is their relation to backwardness, and the place of the slow learner in the school morale system? Answering these and other questions, particularly around morale, the first part of the book contains a number of case studies and examples of varying degrees of complexity. These are intended to act as pointers or guides for the discussion of problems, which takes up the second half of the book.

Part One . Case Studies

Introduction

For a long time I have been concerned with a nexus of related ideas: group spirit, morale, discipline, discrimination, stigma. How are these connected with leadership, both that of the assigned person in authority, lecturer or teacher, and that of the dominant spirits within the group? What is their relation to backwardness, and the place of the slow learner in the school morale system? Where does streaming fit in? How can a good group spirit assist what I have elsewhere (Cleugh, 1962, Chapter 2) called ‘social learning’ and by what mechanisms does it operate? What part do good communications play in the development and maintenance of good morale? What about the morale of teachers themselves, as distinct from that of their pupils? These questions are basic, and they overlap and subdivide in a most perplexing manner. No sooner does one catch on to one question than it turns into another. It seems to me that a study of morale, which has been surprisingly little considered in educational literature, occupies a key position in this imbroglio. It is a more useful topic to study than discipline, which rapidly tends to degenerate into a consideration of punishment, and corporal punishment at that, and once that Gorgon’s head has been raised one can say goodbye to any rational discussion while the proponents and opponents argue hotly and emotionally. Meanwhile common sense and rationality fly out of the window and wider issues are forgotten. By contrast, the study of morale is a useful aspect to approach the Gorgon’s head – from the back, so to speak – for in the last resort one cannot have good discipline without good morale. How can a helpful group feeling, an accepting climate which gives individuals a chance to grow and encourages social learning, be fostered? We are still in the stage of needing detailed factual data before we can proceed, on which hypotheses can be built.

The plan of this book, therefore, is simple. In the first part are a number of case studies and examples of varying degrees of complexity. Some are described in detail, others are much briefer and exemplify a single point. Some are followed by comments on the main issues involved, and these it is hoped will act as pointers or guides for the discussion of problems which takes up the second half of the book. With the exception of the fictionalized ‘Village School’ the examples are genuine, but obviously steps have been taken to prevent identification, and names and other details have been changed, so that any similarity of names is purely coincidental, and no reference to any individual living or dead is intended. We need constantly to remind ourselves that the stuff of education is nearer to the classroom, in all its complexities, than to the library with its neat psychological and sociological abstractions and classifications, which can quickly become barren if not constantly tested against actual cases and situations. I begin with a longish case which studies a group from its beginning to its end.

1 The Joint Fieldwork Exercise

In this case study I propose to describe a group which lasted for two weeks, examining particularly the interrelationships which developed between staff and students, the effectiveness or otherwise of its leadership, and the consequence of these on the development of group morale.

Much of the detail may sound trivial, but it is not just gossip. Through incidents a picture of the whole situation is built up, and without them the analytical discussion that follows would be meaningless.

The situation is seen through the eyes of an observer, Miss Oakes, who made fairly full written notes each evening, and these form the basis of the description below. She said that she tried to be as honest and objective as she could, and to make it clear which were factual statements of events and which were her own gloss on those events.

Two colleges, Thames and Clyde, decided to run a joint field exercise. The leader, Mr May, and nine students, three men and six women, came from Thames. The deputy leader, Miss Lane, two other staff members, Mrs Carter and Miss Oakes, and nine students, one man and eight women, came from Clyde. In addition there was an Australian couple, Mr and Mrs French, with their twelve-year-old son John. The Frenches could not be classed as either students or staff (Mr French was doing postgraduate work at Clyde), and because of their age they tended to occupy an intermediate position. Three of the Clyde students, Miss Cullen, Miss Watt, and Miss Wooler, were from Miss Lane’s personal tutorial group: the other members of staff had had no previous ties with the students, except for Miss Oakes, who knew Mr French.

The following brief notes give Miss Oakes’s impressions of the student members as they first appeared to her, and then on closer acquaintanceship.

Miss Allen	(Thames)	dim	dim
Miss Bates	T	giggly	flighty
Miss Bell	(Clyde)	(not identified)	unstable
Miss Bower	T	steady	good ability, stubborn
Miss Carr	T	rather weak	pleasant
Miss Cullen	C	flighty	and how!
Miss Day	C	quite good	quite good
Mr Elias	T	unstable	nice, not unstable
Mr Gill	T	good	plausible
Miss James	T	unstable	able but unstable
Miss Lay	T	unstable	giggly
Miss Ling	C	quite good	quite good, obstinate
Miss Mill	C	good	weak when difficulties arise
Mr Richards	T	good	not bad, can be obstinate
Mr Singh	C	quiet, able	quiet, able
Miss Taylor	C	unstable	a real problem
Miss Watt	C	(not identified)	quiet, pleasant
Miss Wooler	C	harmless	good type

Mr Elias and Mr Singh came from overseas, as did Miss Mill. Apart from Mr Gill, who was in his mid-twenties, the other students were all round about twenty-one. Mr May and Mrs Carter were about fifty, Miss Lane and Miss Oakes in their late thirties.

The day-by-day account of events appears on the following pages, with the comments set out opposite for ease of reference.

Description of events

1. 1. 1st day. It was evident (noted Miss Oakes) that Miss Lane and Mrs Carter distrust Mr May. He is facetious – played for popularity by making students giggle in train. Some of the things he says are inaccurate.
2. 2. Mrs Carter comments that the students seem to be a weak group, but Miss Lane disagrees. Mr Elias remarks that the group seems pretty dull. Miss Oakes also finds them unpromising. Mr May is extremely desirous for the fortnight to be successful.
3. 3. Mr May and Miss Lane indulge in backbiting and express a good deal of hostility to various absent notabilities. Very woolly opening talks by both Lane and May.
4. 4. Pairing of Thames and Clyde students for field tasks done by Lane without consulting them, but she dropped an earlier idea she had of compulsorily fixing the rooming lists.
5. 5. 2nd day. Lane and Carter sat together at the top of the table for breakfast and dinner, but they did split at supper – Lane seemed very self-conscious about her place at the top. May rebuked the students at lunch – not their fault, bad instructions. Lane and Carter also dissatisfied with students. May and Lane expressed hostility again towards (absent) organizer.
6. 6. Doubt about validity of May’s instructions – hesitation. The students said among themselves, ‘You can’t believe him.’ Very weak questions from students – not checked by May in chair – others very bored. The three Clyde staff felt May’s leadership was much to blame – in particular, as he was not resident with the others.
7. 7. Some silly byplay among the students of the ‘We’re better than you’ type was definitely encouraged by Lane.
8. 8. Oakes talked to most of the students in turn and found them quite nice as individuals. She found herself increasingly irritated by Lane who needed to be the non-stop centre of attention, very ostentatiously in charge. It was at this point that she decided to make a study of the group interactions, and found that writing notes relieved her feelings! 3rd day. Students varied in ability on their fieldwork – some just drifted. Oakes queried dim student (Cullen) but Lane said she was one of her best. Lane poor at thanking helpful visitors and May departed for the day at 10.30 a.m.
9. 9. One of the effects of lack of trust in the leaders is that it raises doubts whether adequate briefing has been given to outside helpers. Carter and Lane sat at the top of the table for all meals.
10. 10. In the evening they treated two students (the acceptable Richards and Cullen who was one of Lane’s own students) to a drink, while completely ignoring the rest. This seemed unwise. The students talk to Oakes pleasantly.
11. 11. Lane ticked off students who asked for sandwiches – students annoyed (they had not been told beforehand of procedure re absence from meals). Lane then had to smooth hostel down. Students also complained of cost. Another grumbling session by Lane and Carter. French bought coffee for the staff. When Lane grizzled, French asked if she was anxious about the success of the fortnight, but she denied this. Today was said to be better than yesterday – actually the group was a bit easier – some talk across the table mainly started by French and Oakes. Frenches are a great social cement and the child is a help too.
12. 4th day. More trouble with insufficient instructions – Lane dressed down Cullen, who is usually a favourite.
13. 12. May handled the fieldwork better – the group kept together and were punctual – Lane firm about this. Visiting expert gave good guidance, but students not properly informed until supper who he was. He was nicely thanked by Lane. Lane critical of John French, wandering about on his own during the fieldwork. Students properly consulted re choice of day’s programme by Lane – this went better.
14. 13. More grizzling in evening at behaviour of students by Lane and Carter – two examples of their impertinence to her given by Lane (a) over sandwiches yesterday, (b) asked by her not to rush up for second helpings they had said, ‘What business is it of yours?’
15. 14. Meantime the cliques are solidifying – only Gill and Cullen of the students are ‘in’, the rest are ‘out’. The only ones who try general talk across the table are the Frenches again and Oakes. The absence of May and the immaturity of Lane means little effective leadership.
16. 15. Rumours get around before there is official intimation – several times there has been no information and then a blow-up because students have done the wrong thing. Altercations with students undignified.
17. 5th day. It has now got to open cheek – Lane angrily reported conversation, ‘It’s got nothing to do with you what we do.’ To which she replied, ‘If you don’t fit in with the party you can leave it.’
18. 16. Carter said certain women students take advantage because Lane is young, but that this is an advantage with the men! Party drifted lackadaisically through its fieldwork. French rallied the party by singing. Lane took charge well when a student fainted. May’s instructions to group contained inaccuracy which Oakes tried to correct. Rest of party kept waiting while four staff were taken off to drink.
19. 17. At the tea pause, Lane made efforts to invite Watt and Wooler (both her own students) to join the staff. No attempt at mixing with the others.
20. 18. Later she called to them saying, ‘Be ill tomorrow so that I can get off fieldwork.’ At supper, May exhorted the students – ‘Be matey, praise everything, and above all drink!’ – and praised them fulsomely.
21. 19. The students had taken the head of the table, and Lane and Carter were forced to split.
22. 6th day. Carter and Oakes discussed differences in direction – May praising, Lane blaming. Reception – speeches by May and James. Lane – undignified laughter at lunch and posture at reception. Students said she drank a lot – much repartee. Christian names among students now, but very cliquey.
23. 20. Oakes sat with James and Co. at lunch and told Lane this – thanked for doing it (James and Co. are thought to be outside the pale). Carter: ‘I think I’ll have to do some slumming.’) Oakes: ‘It wouldn’t be a bad idea.’ Query – does Carter feel Lane needs support? – she probably could help more by mixing with students. Students fairly responsible in talking to outsiders. May on return journey very relieved and self-congratulatory that critical day had passed off so well. Carter and Lane have discussed May and the background of altercation with French – got the reply, ‘There is a lot more in leading a party than I had grasped.’ Diplomatic, and ambiguous. Carter spoke to Oakes of May’s insecurity and need to show off and cover up – apparently no realization that the same is also true of Lane.
24. 7th day. May now less sure that yesterday was a success. Lane, Carter, and Oakes left party, agreeing to be back by 11 a.m. Oakes was back but others missing and May went without them at 11.10. At lunchtime, apologies–said they had phoned at this time, but no message came.
25. 21. In the meantime, James showed sense – held party back from vanishing when bus stopped, with the official leaders missing, May presumably at the office, Lane goodness knows where.
26. 22. Lane explained to Richards that she thought his speech yesterday much better than that of James. Lane ordered John to back of bus, John argued, Lane insisted, and finally John went but only just – not well handled. Another reception today, in the early evening – leading parts taken by Gill, Richards, and James. Much giggling. May mixed well, remainder of staffless well. Lane critical of French for not drinking.
27. 23. The whole party (except May) returned to its quarters one hour late. Oakes asked James to give an apologetic explanation to the management, which she did. No other apologies were forthcoming.
28. 24. Oakes invited James and Wooler, who happened to be handy, to go with her and help i...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Part One Case Studies
• Part Two Principles
• References
• Index