Cognitive-behavioral correlates of pupil control ideology

Teacher’s pupil control ideology is a central feature for the quality of the teacher-student relationship, which, in turn, impacts the teacher’s level of well-being. The pupil control ideology refers to a teacher’s belief system along a continuum from humanistic to custodial views. Teachers with humanistic orientation view students as responsible and, therefore, they exert a lower degree of control to manage students’ classroom behaviors. Teachers with a custodial orientation view students as untrustworthy and, therefore, they exert a higher degree of control to manage students’ classroom behaviors. The relationship between pupil control ideology and dysfunctional beliefs originated from the cognitive-behavioral therapy framework has not been investigated, despite existing evidence suggesting that the pupil control ideology is linked to stress and burnout. One hundred fifty-five teachers completed a set of self-report questionnaires measuring: (i) teacher’s pupil-control ideology; (ii) perfectionistic and hostile automatic thoughts; (iii) irrational beliefs; (iv) unconditional self-acceptance; (v) early maladaptive schemas; and (vi) dimensions of perfectionism. The result suggests that teachers who adopt a custodial view on pupil control ideology endorse more dysfunctional beliefs than teachers who adopt a humanistic view. They tend to present a higher level of perfectionism, unrelenting standards, and problematic relational beliefs, including schemas of mistrust and entitlement. They also present more often other-directed demands and derogation of other thoughts. Such results picture a dysfunctional view on pupils who misbehave, as adversaries who threaten their rigid and/or perfectionistic expectations.

Does custody visiting achieve anything?

This chapter assesses the effectiveness of the work of custody visiting, and sets out how it can be measured: it is examined according to five criteria of its regulatory function, to assess principally whether the work made any difference to police behaviour. Custody visiting is found to be largely ineffective: in particular, detainees do not trust the visitors, finding the meetings as being of no benefit to them. Custody visiting is measured against the United Nations standards for monitoring detainees, including the need for expertise, and the chapter finds that the United Kingdom is in breach of these international obligations. The chapter looks at the claims made for custody visiting in the scheme’s official literature, including the claim that custody visiting offers reassurance to the public: this is found to be impossible to assess, but probably false, since so few people have heard of the scheme. The chapter concludes that the comprehensive regulatory failure is likely to be the result of deliberate policy, driven by the strong forces of crime control ideology and the power of the police.