The present research on the development of pedagogical authority in the new era was conducted at the University of Latvia from 2007 to 2010.

Its topicality is determined by the gradual changes of teacher’s role in the modern society. Nowadays to provide qualitative and effective students’ learning, it is essential for teachers to possess such key qualifications as self-management skills, problem-solving skills, critical thinking skills, communication skills, work and study skills, social and cooperative skills (Komorowska, 2001) as well as be able to make a reflective dialogue and on the basis of cooperation form mutual relationships between teacher and students and students themselves (Lūka, 2008) considering European education traditions. In order to form mutual relationship with students, the teacher should be an authority for the students.

This paper analyzes one of the quality and effectiveness aspects in the process of the development of a teacher-authority – an authority as a relationship between people and an art of interaction.

The objective of the paper is to analyze the effectiveness of teacher-authority’s pedagogical ethics in creating relationships, promoting interaction between teacher and students to form the culture of school.

Theoretical framework of the research is formed by the theories on the authority development (Blanke, 1994; Volmer, 1990; Geissler, 2006) and interaction theories (Schäfer, 2005; Svence, 2009). Authority does not mean certain traits of character but the quality of people’s interaction and relationships. Maintaining interaction and mutual relationships lies in the core of authority development. It is important not to mix authority with authoritarianism (Arendt, 1994). This is especially important for Latvia whose democracy is developing. Traditionally parents and students associate authority with a strict teacher, who is able to ensure discipline and obedience to provide learning, however, discipline and obedience may be attained by forming mutual relationship in which the teacher demonstrates an example by their behavior and attitude, discipline should follow from the person’s responsibility (Peks, 2005).

Authority is related with culture. In this paper culture is interpreted as ethical values that the teacher promotes in their students by personal example through their subject. They are interaction values that are being formed in a way that discipline and obedience at school are based on moral and ethical values, mutual respect, not fear from being punished, i.e., on the culture of mutual relationships (Schäfer, 2005).

In practice a contradiction is exposed – if the teacher is not an authority for students, he/she loses his/her value, significance and sense of being a teacher (Geissler, 2006), as a result communication between teacher and students does not occur (Svence, 2009). In order to form a meaningful, trustful interaction both teachers and students have to follow certain rules, ethics. The teacher’s ethics is regulated by the teacher’s code of ethics and the basic principles of teacher’s ethic activity are professionalism, good fellowship, freedom, responsibility, faithfulness, fairness, respect, self-respect, tact (Kuzņecova, 2003).

The research questions are: 1) How the teacher’s pedagogical attitude, teacher’s ethics are related with teacher’s authority? How does it promote students and teachers’ mutual interaction and culture at school? 2) How does the teacher’s authority promote effective pedagogical process?

Arendt, H. (1994) Zwischen Vergangenheit und Zukunft. München: Piper. Blanke, J. (1994) Zur Berufsethik des Lehrers im historischen Wandel. // Ethos und Kulturauftrag des Lehrers, Hrsg.Fischer,H.-J, Lippke, W., Schwerdt, D., Frankfurta.M., Peter Lang Verlag. Cohen, L., Manion, L., et.al. (2003) Research Methods in Education. London and new York: Routledge, pp. 3-45. Geissler, E. E. (2006) Die Erziehung. Ihre Bedeutung, ihre Grundlagen und ihre Mittel. Würzburg, Ergon Verlag, S.113-132. Hunter, A., Brewer, J. (2003) Multimethod Research in Sociology. // Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. (ed. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C.) London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 577-593. Kelle, U., Erzberger, C. (2004) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Not in Opposition. // A Companion to Qualitative Research. (eds. Flick, U., von Kardoff, E., Steinke, I.) London: Sage Publications, pp. 172-177. Kuzņecova, A. (2003) Profesionālās ētikas pamati. [Basics of Professional Ethics]. Rīga, RaKa. Komorowska, H. (2001) Teacher education and training – Polish case. // Living together in Europe in the 21st century: the challenge of plurilingual and multicultural communication and dialogue. Starsbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, pp. 123-130. Lūka, I. (2008) Profesionālās angļu valodas kompetences veidošanās augstskolā. [Development of ESP competence during studies.] Rīga: Biznesa augstskola Turība. Peks, S. (2002) Nepazīstamais ceļš. [The Unknown way]. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC. Schäfer, K.-H., (2005) Kommunikation und Interaktion, Wiesbaden, GWV. Scriven, M. (2007) Evaluation Research. // The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. (eds. Outhwaite, W., Turner, S.P.) London: Sage Publications, pp. 523-533. Svence, G. (2009) Pozitīvā psiholoģija: laime, optimisms, apmierinātība ar dzīvi, prieks. [Positive psychology: luck, optimism, life satisfaction, joy]. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC. Volmer, G. (1990) Autorität und Erziehung. Studien zur Komplementarität in pädagogischer Interaktionen. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.