Backing away from reverse psychology

When my wife and I used to take our eldest daughter on a walk as a toddler, there was a point in our local park where the paths split.  She would always wait to see which way I wanted to go, and then frown, grit her teeth and determinedly stomp off in the other direction, bottom lip firmly stuck out.  It was so reliable that we quickly learnt to pretend to walk down the path we did not want to take, so that she would march down the one we did actually want to take. This tale will, I know, bring a smile to the face of many parents and it’s something that doesn’t only apply to toddlers.  I came across this tweet the other day:

The basic psychology is that we often like things that are forbidden simply because they are forbidden. And that takes us to what is sometimes seen as one of the central dilemmas of any large school - that on the one hand we want creative, curious, risk-taking children who are prepared to question the rules; and on the other hand at the same time we have rules that we need students to follow if we are to function as an organisation.  

Of course it’s not really a dilemma because it’s not a choice between lots of silly rules and no rules at all; the question is really about which rules we have, how we communicate them and how we work towards a community that follow them because they can see they are in everyone's interests.

I have written before that a previous Head used to say if it’s not illegal, immoral or anti-social, it’s probably OK.  I really like this stance - not that it’s the end of the story (I have had long debates about what’s immoral or anti-social) but it sets a tone that moves the space away from one where the institution lays down the law, to a conversational space where we can discuss our views and priorities..  And it’s a conversation that students can have with teachers or parents - and most importantly, with each other.  It can be addressed in simple or sophisticated ways, and it’s the same conversation adults can be having with each other.   What I like most about this approach is that it puts the onus on individuals to work out the right thing to do, and then do it, rather than be told the right thing and punished if they did not do as instructed.  Aren’t these the sort of choices and responsibilities that we want for ourselves?  Aren’t they what we need for our kids?

The practical applications of this are many, for parents and teachers, and I recently was in touch with a student from 20 years ago.  Now a Director of Finance with a multinational, he wrote You probably don’t realise some of the life lessons you helped teach us alongside maths and I probably didn’t fully appreciate it either till much later. For example making us responsible for doing as much or as little of our homework as we felt necessary to understand the material and marking it ourselves. I’ll be using that with my own children and coach with similar principles with my staff.  Of course, this approach does not excuse teachers from knowing students, but it does make it a partnership, and it does clearly show that the benefits are long term and they are substantial.

All that said, this cartoon made me laugh.  There’s probably a lot to be said for the occasional bout of reverse psychology; but I wonder if the better approach would be to spend some time reading together, taking  real interest in each other’s books, recommending books you know that your children will like, and then patiently giving them the space to make their own choices.  The conversation is valuable; that applies far beyond reading and books; and it raises interesting questions about how to best elicit the behaviours we want from our students.  Often, strict rules generate great attention and interest in precisely the think that is being banned.  From smoking and vaping, to heavy use of mobile phones, to uniform matters, we can often undermine good intentions with ill-considered and indiscriminate reliance on rules. We can do better.