Power on the PlaygroundDecember 10, 2013

Uyen Nguyen

Michal Foucault’s discussions on power in his works,

“Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison,” and “The

History of Sexuality,” portrayed a power relation that is

ubiquitous, it is “everywhere, not because it embraces

everything, but because it comes from everywhere” (Foucault

1978, 93). I would like to examine this force of power and

draw a connection to recent school disciplinary strategies,

particularly the Positive Behavior Support (PBS) approach,

that has been adopted to curb or prevent behavioral problems

in school children. While my paper does not aim to critique

these policies as a mean of direct control by the state

apparatuses, it does intend on explaining the applicability

of Foucault’s insight on power relations in the way it has

disguised itself to be beneficial. My paper is also not

intended on critiquing the effectiveness of this approach,

but hope to demonstrate what Foucault meant when he

discussed how power is able to treat a multiplicity of

individuals “on whom a task or a particular form of behavior

must be imposed” (Foucault 1975, 205). The Positive

Behavior Support (PBS) approach is an example of how power

can act as an agency that is conducive to instituting

targeted behaviors and norms into school environments in a

lateral rather than a top-down power relation. For the

purpose of this paper, I will be discussing two models of

PBS: School-Wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Support

(SWPBIS); and Positive Unified Behavior Support (PUBS) and

will state specific examples that will be related to

discussing Foucault’s power relations. I hope to show its

relevancy to Foucault’s assertion that the deployment of

power was “proliferating, innovating, annexing, creating,

and penetrating bodies in an increasingly detailed way, and

in controlling populations in an increasingly comprehensive

way” (Foucault 1978, 107). I want to draw the connection to

Foucault’s power in the way that these two approaches are a

dissemination of a methodology in which the students and

teachers are engaged; in the site of their learning and

implanted in the bodies of the students as if “to strew

reality with them and incorporate them into the individual”

(Foucault 1978, 44).

Foucault’s power does not have a top-down relationship

and that it exists in a multitude of centers and channels

allowing it to have various modes of defining “instruments”

and “interventions,” “which can be implemented in hospitals,

workshops, schools, [and] prisons” (Foucault 1975, 205).

Power’s characteristics as seen in this manner allow it to

be fluid and able to traverse through the different stratum

of social order or hierarchical organization without

appearing to be overtly domineering. This guile feature of

power enables it to be tolerable and successful to the

masses since it is able to “mask a substantial part of

itself” and “hide its own mechanisms” (Foucault 1978, 86.)

It employs techniques that utilize bodies and spaces, giving

each a determined position while simultaneously creating a

link with these in order to establish meanings and values.

These meanings and values are able to govern over the

individuals so that there is a “guarantee of obedience of

individuals” (Foucault 1975, 48). Similarly, the PBS

approach acts as an accumulation of knowledge and appointed

as one of the multitude of centers and channels of power in

the schools. The approach carries with it various

mechanisms and instruments to define the relationship of

bodies and spaces, for instance the relationship between the

school staffs and the students is dependent on the settings.

For example, expected and accepted behavior in a classroom

will differ from expected and accepted behavior on the

playground. In lieu of an explicit power structure or top-

down power relationship, the PBS approach places meanings

and values in the placements of “buildings, rooms, and

furniture” but also creating a systematic way to

characterize, assess, and arrange hierarchies so that every

“individual and knowledge that may be gained of him belong

to this production” (Foucault 1975, 194). In other words,

while the system of power is defining the individual, the

individual is reproducing this power but acting on the norms

and practices of which it has instilled in them. In the

next few pages, I will give an overview of the PBS approach

and its models. I will also use specific examples of these

models to show how this disciplinary approach embodies the

many characteristics of Foucault’s power structure.

Misbehavior by students at school has been a long-

standing issue among educators. Misbehavior or disruptive

behaviors may cause students to feel unsafe at school,

disrupt learning processes, and a major reason for new

teachers to resign from their position within 5 years (Ward

B. and Gersten R. 2013, 317). Traditional disciplinary

methods; such as, verbal reprimands, timeouts, suspensions,

etc. have proved to be an ineffective strategy to mitigate

misbehaviors in students in the long term. Research has

shown that punitive methods exercise authority over the

student rather than changing the misbehavior, thus, the

problem persists. As a result, researchers in the field of

applied behavioral analysis, along with effective schools

and systems change have coalesced to develop strategies

aimed at thwarting student misbehaviors in a “framework of

multi-tiered positive, proactive, and instructional

supports” (318). This system of support was then termed

“positive behavioral support,” and was used to refer to a

general set of strategies that stated expectations “for

behavior in a positive manner, teaching those expectations

overtly, using quantitative data to make decisions, and

monitoring and measuring the effectiveness of

implementation” (318). Eventually, behavioral support was

incorporated into a prevention- oriented, school-wide

structure to encourage appropriate behavior among all

students. With the support of Congress and the U.S.

Department of Education, this stratagem was later referred

to as the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

(PBIS) and later emerged as the School-Wide Positive

Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS); however,

there are many other models that exist within the general

scope of PBS; such as, the Positive Unified Behavior Support

(PUBS). In sum, these approaches were developed as a way to

prevent and act as an early intervention designed to

prescribe methodologies for student behaviors. In doing so,

a comprehensive framework is designed to help train school

staffs to facilitate behavior change by establishing routine

expectations of behaviors that is repeated across school

settings. It involves not only the students of which are

the primary target, but also acts as a guide for

administrators, teachers, specialists, paraprofessionals,

bus drivers, and others who play a part in the climate of

schools (Ward, B., and Gersten, R. 2013, 319). In order to

understand the way this approach to schooling is similar to

Foucault’s discourse on power, it is important to see how

the general strategy to prevent and intervene in behaviors

of students has demonstrated new ways that power methods,

“whose operation is not ensured by right but by technique,

not by law but by normalization, not by punishment but by

control, are employed on all levels and in forms that go

beyond the state and its apparatus” (Foucault 1978, 89).

Furthermore, the use of quantitative data to monitor, to

make measures and to make decisions on how to better

implement future approaches is similar to Foucault’s

discussion on the ability of power to display itself as

being able to enable discussions or “public discourses”

(Foucault 1978, 25). In this way, power is concealing

itself, by providing a space for dialogue that acts as the

support and instrument.

As mentioned previously, Foucault’s idea of power is

not that an individual possesses it or can decide upon it,

or that the power relation exists between a leader and the

individual, but rather a lateral relationship that creates

the individual and to generate its own momentum. The

individual is subjected to power by “habits, rules, [and]

orders, [that is] exercised continually around him and upon

him, and which he must allow to function automatically in

him” (Foucault 1975, 129). Similarly, the SWPBIS and PUBS

models are mechanisms or techniques that are being placed to

normalized “habits, rules, and orders” into students and

school staffs so that these power characteristics can be

expressed in them “automatically.” I will attempt at

examining the structures of SWPBIS and PUBS closer in order

to show the parallelism of Foucault’s mechanisms of power as

a device that is able to gain acceptance, “because they

presented themselves as agencies of regulation, arbitration,

and demarcation” (Foucault 1978, 86).

The SWPBIS model functioned in a three-tiered model:

with each tier acting to support one another in order to

achieve the targeted role of reducing behavioral issues at

school. The first step for schools is to implement Tier

One, which is to create school-wide expectations that tailor

the “desired social behavior for all students” (Lynass, L.,

Tsai, S., Richman, T. D., and Cheney, D. 2012, 153). Tier

One allows schools to create three to five general school-

wide expectations, for example, “be safe, be respectful, and

be cooperative.” These expectations should be designed to

be developmentally appropriate, positive, and taught

systematically across school settings (Reinke, W. M.,

Herman, K. C., and Stormont, M. 2013, 40). To be more

specific, school expectations should be age appropriate in

the language used and the ability to perform the

expectations. The language should be positive; emphasizing

what students should do rather than focusing on what

students should not do. Lastly, these expectations should

be “specific and observable,” and “easy to understand and

enforceable” across school settings (Reinke et al. 2013,

41). The purpose of these expectations is to establish

common values and cultures among the school and its

community. It is also intended to serve as a foundation to

create a positive common language for both teachers, and

other school staffs as they address student behaviors.

After school-wide expectations are established they are

placed on a behavior matrix in order for teachers and school

staffs to identify behavioral indicators across different

school settings, for example, behaviors that are appropriate

in the cafeteria, library, or classroom (Lynass et al. 2012,

154). The behaviors are then easier to document and

implement. When students are unable to respond to Tier One,

the behavior matrix will make it easier for teachers to

implement Tier Two, which is to make an expected behavior a

targeted goal for students who are unable to follow them;

such as, behavior goals used on daily progress report cards.

The teacher may provide more time to coach the student in

the targeted behavior or developed a personalized menu of

reinforcing behaviors. In cases that Tier Three is needed,

the student will receive more individualized attention and

the teacher will receive supplementary staff assistance or

resources in order to achieve the targeted behavior in a

systematic way. This step often requires a “wraparound”

process, which the school will involve other school staffs,

members of the community and family as well (Simonsen, B., &

Sugai, G. 2013, 7).

Similarly, PUBS is also a school-wide intervention

intended to “establish uniform attitudes, expectations,

correction procedures, and roles among faculty, staff, and

administration” (Scott, J. S., White, R., Algozzine, K., and

Algozzine, B. 2009, 42). Differences between SWPBIS and

PUBS are mainly in the terminology used to explain their

procedures of implementation. For example, the PUBS model

uses “unified attitudes, unified expectations, and unified correction

procedures,” instead of a “Three-Tiered” system of the SWPBIS

model. The PUBS model is a “straightforward and practical

implementing model” with no systematic tiers of support that

is found in the SWPBIS model. However, both models share

the same goals and objectives to prevent problem behaviors

at school, but the differences lie in the descriptions of

both models. The first feature of the PUBS model relies on

the “unified attitudes” of its school’s staffs to switch

from an aversion management model to a positive behavior

support framework. Teachers and staffs are trained on

reinforcement procedures, direct instruction of

reinforcement, and corrective teaching in response to

misbehavior. The second feature of the model relies on the

“unified expectations,” which are school-wide rules designed

for students. These school-wide rules are taught by the

teacher to the student and are sustained by specific

praises. In addition, these rules were posted in classroom

and around schools to be visible to all students. The last

feature of this model relies on the “unified correction

procedures,” which has three steps. The first step is to

acknowledge the violation and to give a positive replacement

behavior. The next step entails the teacher to reinforce

the targeted behavior with praising the student’s self-

correction. The final step requires the teacher to

encourage future obedience (Scott et al. 2009, pp. 43-44).

Despite minor differences, the tactics used to implement

both the SWPBIS and PUBS model are clear measurable steps

with its own language and modes of actions to achieve

desired results; “it is the specific technique of a power

that regards individuals both as objects and as instruments

of its exercise” (Foucault 1975: 170). These measurable

steps are done with the belief that they are a necessity for

achievement and not as a means to explicitly control, which

makes power an expert at disguise. These approaches is

policing behavior not in the traditional view as being an

object that needs to be corrected or to be “taboo,” but it

is policing behavior in a way that allows it to be useful

through public discourses (Foucault 1978, 25). Targeted

behaviors are produced through mechanisms that promote them

as being healthy, safe and necessary in creating a

beneficial learning environment. Furthermore, the process

involves the entire school community, each with roles that

influence one another in a mutual and helpful way.

As mentioned earlier, I wanted to demonstrate how PBS

has systematically infiltrated in the site of the students’

learning space and implanted in the bodies of the students

or “rather that the [student] is carefully fabricated in it,

according to a whole technique of forces and bodies”

(Foucault 1975, 217). I will use the behavior matrix of the

SWPBIS model provided by Lori Lynass and her team of

researchers because I think that the behavior matrix is an

appropriate example to demonstrate how this system of power

can instill habits and rules on the students in the same way

that Foucault explained, “discipline ‘makes’ the individual”

(Foucault 1975, 170). The behavior matrix provides a chart

of school-wide expectations and school settings so that

school staffs can easily identify behavior indicators

appropriate for different school settings (Lynass et al.

2012, Figure 1). As was mentioned earlier regarding general

school-wide expectations, school staffs developed common

rules or expectations that could easily be transcribed to

multiple school settings. For example, in a sample behavior

matrix figure provided by Lynass et al. common expectations

were “be respectful, be responsible, be cooperative, and be

safe.” Each expectation had a list of appropriate targeted

behaviors that corresponds to different school settings,

such as, in the hallways or common area, cafeteria,

playground, and classroom. The behavior matrix allows

school staff to easily document behavior and identify

expected behavior from students. The expectation must be

defined for each location or setting and communicated to

school staff and students alike (McKevitt, B. C., Dempsey,

J. N., Ternus, J., and Shriver, M. D. 2012, 17). For

example, the teacher will initiate cafeteria behavior while

in the cafeteria, and demonstrate an example of a targeted

and untargeted behavior according to the behavior matrix.

Each student’s body gestures, voice and mannerisms are

systematically ritualized, rationalized and reinforced

through praises making this system of power invisible and

palatable for everyone to accept and follow. I will mention

a few examples of expected behaviors according to the

behavior matrix. A student in the cafeteria under the

common expectations of “Be Responsible” is assumed to keep

hands, feet and other objects to his or herself; to raise

his or her hands for assistance; and to clean personal space

at the table before leaving. A student in the hallways and

common area under the common expectations of “Be Safe” is

assumed: to walk, to stay on the right, and to use handrails

on stairs. A student in the classroom under the common

expectations of “Be Respectful” is assumed: to use the

correct voice levels, to work quietly and be a good

listener, to use kind words, to treat others as he or she

wants to be treated, and to understand and accept individual

differences (Lynass et al. 20012, Figure 1). These

expectations may appear to be commonsense behaviors expected

of a learning environment, and since there is a general

accepted assumption of these practices that I think allows

power to be successful “in [implanting itself] in bodies,

slipped in beneath modes of conduct, made into a principal

of classification and intelligibility” producing a reality

with “domains of objects and rituals of truth” (Foucault

1978, 44). I think this truth or knowledge of the

individual is what produces the individual and also

generates the production of the individual. The goal of

PBS is to create common expectations or common culture in a

school environment that is implemented with the intention of

being helpful in replacing undesirable behaviors with

desirable ones. It is not to say that “the individual is

amputated, repressed, altered by our social order, it is

rather that the individual is carefully fabricated in it,

according to a whole technique of forces and bodies

(Foucault 1975, 217). The school staffs and students are

being “fabricated” or modeled to perform desired practices

and behaviors while at the same time fueling this production

of power by monitoring and evaluating progress and change.

I think that the behavior matrix is an appropriate example

to demonstrate the power relationship within the school and

the ways that it is creating “spaces that provide fixed

positions […], carve out individual segments and […]

guarantee the obedience of individuals” (Foucault 1975,

148).

I think that the two models of the Positive Behavior

Support approach are good examples of representing the

“polymorphous techniques of power.” The ability of power to

exist in different forms has allowed it to embed itself into

the many layers of the social structure. Foucault exerted

that power is everywhere because it comes from everywhere,

and since “there is no absolute outside,” once “inside”

power there is no “escaping” it (Foucault, 1978, 93). Power

mobilizes and invents new mechanisms for itself and in doing

so it has manifested itself “through the brilliance of those

who exercise it.” It is “a power that insidiously

objectifies those on whom it is applied; to form a body of

knowledge about these individuals, rather than to deploy the

ostentatious signs of sovereignty” (Foucault 1975, 220). It

can implant itself into the reality of individuals and

subject them to practices and norms, which fabricates or

produces the individual. Thus, I think that the Positive

Behavior Support strategies acts as an agent of power

disguising itself as a benign systematic strategy, a

discourse with objectives and aims to produce a better

learning environment for school children as well as

relieving stress and tension for teachers and other school

staffs. The school-wide expectations that are implemented,

enable school staffs and students to follow a common

language and behavior, whilst appearing to be beneficial it

is inculcating habits, rules, and orders, that will allow

power to function automatically in them as if by commonsense

(Foucault 1975, 129).

Reference:

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan,

Trans.). New York: Random House.

Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality (R. Hurley, Trans.).New York: Random

House.

Lynass L., Tsai S.F., Richman T.D., Cheney D. Social Expectations and Behavioral

Indicators in School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports: ANational Study of Behavior Matrices (2012) Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,  14 (3), pp. 153-161.

McKevitt, B. C., Dempsey, J. N., Ternus, J., & Shriver, M. D. (2012). Dealing with

Behavior Problems: The Use of Positive Behavior SupportStrategies in Summer Programs. Afterschool Matters, (15), 16-25.

Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Stormont, M. (2013). Classroom-Level Positive

Behavior Supports in Schools Implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying Areas for Enhancement. Online Submission

Scott, J. S., White, R., Algozzine, B., & Algozzine, K. (2009). Effects of Positive Unified

Behavior Support on Instruction. International Journal On School Disaffection, 6(2), 41-48.

Simonsen, B., & Sugai, G. (2013). PBIS in Alternative Education Settings: Positive

Support for Youth with High-Risk Behavior. Education & Treatment Of Children (West Virginia University Press), 36(3), 3-14.

Ward, B., & Gersten, R. (2013). A Randomized Evaluation of the Safe and Civil Schools

Model for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports at Elementary Schools in a Large Urban School District. School Psychology Review, 42(3), 317-333.