Publish at February 16 2022 Updated February 24 2022
In organizations, there are two principles for achieving set objectives, either the obligation of means or the obligation of results. If everyone can understand what the obligation of results entails, what about the obligation of means?
These terms come from law and more specifically from the law of obligations. In a synallagmatic contract [Which involves a reciprocal obligation between the parties], each of the parties undertakes to fulfill their obligations. They can be based on 3 things (source):
When it comes to a sale contract, it is obvious that it is a double obligation to give. For example the car seller will give the car in exchange for the buyer paying for the car.
The same source, distinguishes between obligation of means and obligation of results.
Doctrine and case law rely on Articles 1137 and 1147 of the Civil Code to distinguish between obligations of means and obligations of result.
- An obligation of means exists when the debtor undertakes to use all means to achieve a result (a doctor undertakes to use all means to cure a patient, not to cure him or her for sure). The debtor can only be held liable if he has committed a fault.
- There is an obligation of result when the debtor undertakes a specific result (a carrier undertakes to deliver a thing). The latter is liable, by operation of law, if the result is not achieved.
Actually, teaching in countries such as France or the French-speaking part of Belgium is based on an obligation of means. In these systems, each stakeholder is supposed, at each level of people involved, to put all the means in place to achieve the final objective.
The final objective being defined in various legal texts such as the decree mission in French-speaking Belgium published in the Moniteur Belge on September 23, 1997. This decree sets the following objectives:
To know whether an objective has been achieved, it is necessary to be able to measure on the basis of quantifiable criteria. PISA surveys have their detractors, but they have the merit of existing and giving a picture of the situation of 15-year-old students in order to compare the education systems of OECD countries.
Here are the PISA results for the 2018 survey concerning the French-speaking part of Belgium (source):
- In reading, the 2018 results are down slightly from those of 2015. With a score of 481, FW-B is below the OCDÉ average (487).
- Traditional reading practices are less common than they were a decade ago and interest in reading is declining. This is a strong trend, affecting both girls and boys, observed in the majority of CSCE countries, and also corresponds to a change in practices: to follow the news, young people are clearly turning to digital media rather than to magazines and newspapers in their paper version.
- Mathematics scores (495) are up slightly and now higher than the average for the CSCE countries (489).
- Science results (485) are stable compared to previous cycles and close to the OECD average (489).
- With regard to inequalities related to social origin, FW-B still ranks among the education systems where these inequalities are most pronounced, along with the Flemish Community, France, Hungary and Luxembourg.
The first objective of the Mission Decree seems difficult to evaluate. How to measure self-confidence and personal development?
The second objective of the Mission Decree seems not to be achieved. If reading levels are low, it is difficult to believe that students will be able to learn throughout their lives.
The third objective is also difficult to measure. Criteria are needed to measure whether a person has become a responsible citizen capable of contributing to the development of society.
The fourth objective seems to be difficult to achieve since France and French-speaking Belgium are among the most unequal educational systems.
It must be admitted that the report card seems lackluster since of the two objectives that can be measured, neither seems to be achieved en masse. (One must take into account the global figures).
When a system does not reach its objectives it is good to try to understand why. On the basis of observed situations, which are not necessarily representative, we can try to find some clues:
The system is such that what many students are aiming for is not to acquire knowledge and skills but to succeed. One may believe that this is related but not necessarily (see below). If in a course, it is possible to succeed without acquiring real skills or knowledge, some will be satisfied with that. And as having had 10/20 in a course is of no use when it comes to taking a test that compares to other levels of education, one can imagine 100% success but with poor PISA results.
Some learners do not even aim for success. For a variety of reasons that deserve to be explored further and investigated, they may very well make the choice to fail. This may be:
Studies and theories have been done on motivation in school settings. This is the case, for example, of R. Viau's model or the study by researchers Émilie Tremblay-Wragg, Carole Raby and Louise Ménard.
While there are factors external to the learner, there are also internal factors that may be difficult to identify as the Locus of Control theory suggests.
It is interesting, moreover, that pedagogical currents have diminished the student responsibility aspect of teaching. Without going back to the 19th century, we can ask ourselves about a certain laxity. In fact, the right reflex is to be able to adapt the cursor to the context and circumstances without generalizing all the rules or their absence.
This document from the "Speech on the Bad Student" shows the paradigm shift from responsibility resting on the learner to a responsibility for the achievement of objectives passing on the teacher. Here are some excerpts:
- from the XVIth to the XIXth centuries, evil in education is embodied by three invariants, laziness, insubordination and offence to morals (Prairat, 1997), that the good student must be hardworking, obedient and far from the things of sex.
- And we will see Kant, in the name of freedom and reason, demand a severe education intended to straighten the child towards the good that is in him.
- Durkheim will have even, much later (1925), claim to substitute sociological science for philosophical thought to solve, among other things, educational problems, his approach will remain, at least on this point, just as linked to the great principles. If, for him too, education can only be severe, it is because it is necessary to bring this instinctive, individualistic and morally devoid being that is the child into the socialized universe of the transcendent and immutable, inviolable and sacred rule.
A little further on, two authors, Binet and Claparède are quoted to reverse the responsibility for the failure of a learner:
"the bad student is first of all a victim of the education system"
Now, we see parents marching in the parents' meeting to ask for accounts from the teacher whose student is failing. Incidentally, this has been mocked by several cartoonists
As in many things, the truth probably lies between these two extremes.
Every system that implements humans must be well thought out according to the objectives pursued. A teacher in compulsory education will have to choose between:
In the first case, the teacher may have failures or even a large number of failures. He will be held accountable, held to account and given extra work via remediation or second sessions.
In the second case, the teacher is nice because he "gives" points and is appreciated by the students. The principal has no appeals to deal with, so he is well regarded on that side as well. Finally, icing on the cake, while his colleagues are passing second sessions he has a few extra days of vacation.
One can hope that professional conscience prevails over facility but, in the long run, staying the course is complicated.
A system that puts individuals in presence creates social relations. Human beings are such that they develop not only chemistry but also enmity. Principals may give advantages to teachers they like over the most competent teachers. Often, moreover, the most competent ones will not necessarily be well regarded since they are the ones who, passionate about their profession and their subject) make a point of acquiring knowledge and skills.
Naturally, then, Principals are likely to please the teachers they prefer, even if it is not conscious. As noted in this article, this can materialize in:
No one will be able to prove that the principals who would have done this would not have put all the effort into achieving the goals. It is enough for them that their actions do not flout any legal text and everything will be fine ... except the acquisition of knowledge and skills by the learners.
We see that the systems allow in the state to free themselves from the obligation of means but for all that, the obligation of results seems impossible to implement in teaching at least in the head of teachers.
According to Perrenoud, this is impossible for the following reasons:
There are areas of human work in which it is possible and legitimate to demand results. This requires at least four conditions:
These conditions are not met for teaching.
- That the problem to be solved be purely technical, in other words, that the ends of the action be perfectly clear and that the professionals have no other task than to look for the best ways to achieve unambiguous goals.
- That the action of professionals depends only marginally on the cooperation or mobilization of individuals or groups independent of the organization that mandates them.
That the state of scholarly and professional knowledge makes effective action possible in most situations encountered.That the situations faced by professionals with the same level of qualification are, if not the same, then at least relatively comparable.
To remain factual, it is clear that the objectives are not being met. Is it because of the lack of accountability or because the systems were not thought through well enough? This deserves to be studied.
Teaching is based on scientific elements but is also probably an art; the basic mistake is perhaps to want to standardize everything and not to take into account the individuals whether they are learners, teachers or managements with the characteristics of each. A student is unique, a teacher is unique, and a principal is unique, so why would you want to put them all in one giant mold?
You might also like:
Are some remedies worse than the disease, in ecology as in economics?
We're facing a lot of challenges, and we need to put dogma aside. The most important thing is to convince rather than coerce, in order to rally as many people as possible to the causes that concern us all.
Talking about skills of the future means envisioning the jobs that may emerge in the years to come. But it also means thinking about, if not predicting, the skills that will be required in the near or distant future for any type of job, such as the computer skills that have become so prevalent today.
Open universities redefine themselves in the era of digital globalization [Thesis].
The era of digital globalization and its batch of pedagogical innovations that the world of higher education has known since the 2000s, questions the very foundation of open distance universities. To what extent are these open universities redefining themselves in the face of digital globalization?
Fragility is not weakness, it offers beyond our strengths an unsuspected resource to act and learn
