SOLICITUD DE ADMISIÓN EN EL CURSO DE EDUCACIÓN EN VALORES Y PREVENCIÓN DE CONDUCTAS DE RIESGO

Nombre y apellidos............................................................................................................
D.N.I..........................Domicilio........................................................................................
Ciudad............................C.P....................Tlfnos contacto.............................................
E-mail.............................................
Titulación académica.........................................................................................................

Universidad................................................................Fecha..............................................

Centro educativo del municipio de Madrid en el que impartirá docencia en el curso 2007/08 y materia/as que impartirá.................................................................................

Dirección del centro.....................................................................Teléfono.......................

Modalidad para la que solicita la admisión (primaria o secundaria)..........................

· Este impreso debe ser entregado junto la siguiente documentación:
-Breve currículum vitae
-Breve resumen de las razones por las que desea realizar el curso.
-Fotocopia del DNI
-Fotocopia del título de licenciado o diplomado
-Certificación del centro del municipio de Madrid en el que estará trabajando durante el curso 2007-2008 u otro documento acreditativo.

La inscripción puede realizarse:
Personalmente en la Unidad de Psicología Preventiva, Facultad de Psicología, despacho 2.313-C (edificio 2, 3ª planta). Tfno. 91-3942936
- Por correo dirigido a: Mª José Díaz-Aguado, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 28223.
- -Por correo electrónico (enviando la documentación por correo postal) a una de las siguientes direcciones: prevenirenmadrid@psi.ucm.es; mabel@psi.ucm.es


Fecha y firma del solicitante:
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

.
.

“Educación en Valores y Prevención de Conductas de Riesgo”
Curso de Formación continua de la Universidad Complutense
realizado en el marco de un convenio con Madrid Salud
Dirección: María José Díaz-Aguado
Catedrática de Psicología de la Educación
de la Universidad Complutense



Impartido desde el curso 2004


Matrícula gratuita. Plazas limitadas

Los gastos de matrícula se cubren dentro del programa “Prevenir en Madrid” , del Instituto de Adicciones de Madrid Salud y la Universidad Complutense. Por eso, la matrícula resulta gratuita para el profesorado que en él se inscribe. Matrícula que, de lo contrario, se estimaría en torno a los 500 euros.

Reconocimiento de créditos

La Universidad Complutense reconoce el curso con un certificado de 10 créditos (4 créditos por 11 sesiones presenciales y 6 créditos por el desarrollo del programa Prevenir en Madrid en el propio centro educativo. Este certificado es reconocido por la Comunidad de Madrid como formación permanente del profesorado.
Dirigido al profesorado que trabaja en el municipio de Madrid
Curso para Educación Secundaria: profesorado que trabaja con adolescentes
Curso para Educación Primaria: profesorado que trabaja en dicho nivel, preferentemente en los dos últimos cursos.
Con la colaboración de la Consejería de Educación de la Comunidad de Madrid

Objetivos y perspectiva del curso

Este curso se inserta dentro del programa Prevenir en Madrid, desarrollado en colaboración entre la Universidad Complutense, el Instituto de Adicciones de Madrid Salud con el objetivo de proporcionar al profesorado de Madrid los medios que permitan adaptar la escuela a las exigencias de la situación actual para mejorar la convivencia y prevenir conductas de riesgo, prestando una especial atención a las que pueden originar drogodependencias, así como a la violencia.

El programa “Prevenir en Madrid” se basa en procedimientos y actividades que contribuyen a desarrollar la autoridad del profesorado, ayudándole a adaptar su papel a las características del alumnado actual, educando para la ciudadanía democrática desde la práctica de las relaciones en el aula y la reflexión compartida sobre cómo coordinar deberes y derechos, la libertad y la salud.

La metodología de formación del profesorado que sigue el curso ha dado excelentes resultados con anterioridad. Se basa en una continua interacción entre la teória y la práctica, la explicación de los problemas que trata de prevenir y el análisis de cómo conseguirlo, que sus participantes comparten desde el inicio del curso a través de los documentos audiovisuales realizados sobre el programa y, desde la cuarta sesión, a través de lo que sucede al desarrollarlo en los propios centros educativos.

Contenidos

1.La convivencia escolar y el vínculo educativo como condiciones básicas de la prevención.
1.1. Cambios sociales, retos escolares y convivencia.
1.2. La prevención desde un punto de vista evolutivo.
1.3. La prevención desde la escuela, la familia y el resto de la sociedad.
1.4. Hacia una nueva forma de ejercer la autoridad desde el aula.
2. Condiciones generales para la prevención de conductas de riesgo. El programa “Prevenir en Madrid”.
2.1. Evolución de los programas de prevención.
2.2. Resultados obtenidos en los estudios sobre eficacia.
3. Procedimientos para educar en valores y mejorar el vínculo educativo.
3.1. La discusión y el debate.
3.2. Aprendizaje cooperativo y experiencias de responsabilidad.
3.3. Enseñar a resolver conflictos. Pautas para la mejora de la disciplina.
3.4. Educar para la ciudadanía democrática.
4. Unidades, actividades y contenidos del programa “Prevenir en Madrid”.
5.1. El riesgo desde el punto de vista evolutivo. Incertidumbre y estrés.
5.2. Las drogas.
5.3. Resistencia a la presión de grupo.
5.4. Ocio y ciudadanía democrática.
5.5. La construcción de la igualdad y el respeto mutuo: los derechos humanos.
5.6. La construcción de la no violencia y aplicación a las violencias más cotidianas: el racismo, el sexismo y la violencia con los iguales, en la escuela y en el ocio.



Profesorado

La mayoría de las sesiones presenciales del curso serán impartidas por el equipo de la Unidad de Psicología Preventiva de la Facultad de Psicología de la Universidad Complutense con la Dirección de María José Díaz-Aguado, Catedrática de Psicología de la Educación.
Este equipo tiene una larga experiencia en formación especializada sobre como mejorar la convivencia escolar y prevenir conductas de riesgo desde la educación.
Contará, además, puntualmente, con la colaboración del profesorado que ha desarrollado el programa “Prevenir en Madrid” en cursos anteriores en secundaria o en primaria, así como con el profesorado del Instituto Complutense de Drogodependencias para una sesión dedicada al tratamiento educativo de la información sobre las drogas.

Materiales a distribuir en el curso
Se facilitará a cada uno de los participantes en el curso el material, escrito y audiovisual del programa Prevenir en Madrid.

Distribución temporal de sesiones presenciales
La parte presencial del curso (4 créditos) se distribuye en dos fases:
· La primera fase, de 16 horas, en tres sesiones en septiembre.
· La segunda fase, de 24 horas, en ocho sesiones de tres horas, de octubre a mayo.

Modalidad para educación Secundaria. Las dos fases se realizarán en la Facultad de Psicología. Campus de Somosaguas
Primera fase, tres sesiones de 9.30 a 15.00: los días 10, 11 y 12, de septiembre.
Segunda fase (un lunes al mes, de 17.30 a 20.30): 8 de octubre, 19 de noviembre, 3 de diciembre, 21 de enero, 18 de febrero, 10 de marzo, 14 de abril y 5 de mayo.

Modalidad para educación primaria. Las tres sesiones de septiembre se realizará en la Facultad de Psicología y las ocho sesiones de seguimiento: C.P. Menéndez Pelayo, calle Méndez Alvaro 16 (metro Atocha).
Primera fase, tres sesiones de 9.30 a 15.00. los días: 5, 6 y 7 de septiembre.
Segunda fase (un jueves al mes, de 17.00 a 20.00 horas): 11 de octubre, 22 de noviembre, 13 de diciembre, 24 de enero, 21 de febrero, 6 de marzo, 17 de abril y 8 de mayo.



Condiciones para la realización de la segunda fase en el propio centro educativo

La admisión de 20 profesores o más de un mismo centro educativo, o de varios centros próximos, puede permitir realizar la segunda fase presencial, de 24 horas, en su propio centro educativo o en un centro próximo.

Requisitos para obtener el certificado del curso de 10 créditos

La superación de los 4 créditos correspondientes a la parte presencial será evaluada a través del control de la asistencia a las 11 sesiones que componen el curso (cómo mínimo al 85%).
Para la superación de los 6 créditos correspondientes al desarrollo del programa en los Centros Educativos se tendrá en cuenta la evaluación de la memoria final que sobre dicho desarrollo debe entregar cada participante. El número mínimo de sesiones realizadas será de 12 y la fecha límite para la entrega del informe el 11 de junio de 2008.
En el mes de junio se celebrará el III Encuentro sobre el Programa Prevenir en Madrid en el que podrán participar como ponentes los profesores que se integren a esta nueva convocatoria del curso “Educación en valores y prevención de conductas de riesgo”, y al que están invitados también los equipos y profesionales que han iniciado su participación en el programa con anterioridad.

Dónde y cuándo presentar las solicitudes de plaza

El plazo inicial para la presentación de solicitudes finaliza el 30 de junio de 2007. Y el lugar de presentación es la Unidad de Psicología Preventiva de la Facultad de Psicología de la Universidad Complutense, Campus de Somosaguas, lateral 2, tercera planta. Teléfono: 91-3942936.
La solicitud debe realizarse en el impreso adjunto, incluyendo la siguiente documentación.
· Currículum vitae con los datos más relevantes.
· Fotocopia del título de licenciatura o diplomatura.
· Certificación del Centro Educativo del Municipio de Madrid en el que se trabajará durante el curso 2.007-2008 u otro documento acreditativo de dicha condición, especificando el curso o nivel educativo.
En el caso de que de un mismo centro se presente más de un/a profesor/a, conviene reflejar en la solicitud si se dan condiciones favorables a la cooperación. Puesto que éstas serán consideradas para la selección de las solicitudes. La resolución de estas solicitudes se comunicará en la primera quincena de julio.
Teléfonos de contacto: 91-3942936 (de lunes a miércoles).
Correo electrónico para envio de solicitudes: prevenirenmadrid@psi.ucm.es ; mabel@psi.ucm.es
Correo electrónico de la dirección del curso: mjdiazag@psi.ucm.es
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

SCHOOL PEER VIOLENCE

Copyright 2006 by the Psychology in Spain, 2006, Vol. 10 . No 1, 75-87
Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos





This article analyses, from an ecological perspective, the main results obtained in research on violence among adolescents: prevalence, characteristics of aggressors and victims, and age and gender-related differences, with special emphasis on the series of studies1 carried out by the present author with 826 adolescents on conditions of risk and protection with respect to the violence they suffer, employ or observe, both in school and outside school. Based on the results of these studies, the development of prevention is proposed, integrating the characteristics of specific anti-bullying programmes within a broader perspective that overcomes the usual contradictions and rejects all forms of violence, along with the dominance-submission model on which it is based. Emphasis is placed on the following key components for prevention: the development of multiple-level cooperation and a no-violence curriculum. The results obtained from a programme assessed with 783 adolescents confirm the effectiveness and viability of these components.
En este artículo se analizan, desde una perspectiva ecológica, los principales resultados obtenidos en las investigaciones sobre violencia entre adolescentes: incidencia, características de agresores y víctimas, diferencias en función de la edad y el género, prestando una especial atención a la serie de estudios que su autora ha dirigido con 826 adolescentes sobre las condiciones de riesgo y protección de la violencia que sufren, ejercen u observan, en la escuela y en el ocio. A partir de los cuales se propone desarrollar la prevención integrando características de los programas específicos contra el acoso desde una perspectiva más amplia, que permita superar las contradicciones más habituales y rechazar todo tipo de violencia así como el modelo de dominio-sumisión en el que se basa. Y se destacan, como componentes clave para la prevención: el desarrollo de la cooperación a múltiples niveles y el currículum de la no-violencia. Los resultados obtenidos en un programa evaluado con 783 adolescentes confirman la eficacia y viabilidad de dichos componentes.


The original Spanish version of this paper has been previously published in Psicothema, 2005, Vol. 17. No 4, 549-558
...........
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to María José Díaz-Aguado Jalón, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28223 Madrid (Spain).
E-mail:mjdiazag@psi.ucm.es
PREVALENCE AND SCENARIOS OF PEER VIOLENCE
The majority of studies carried out over the last two decades on peer violence in adolescence have focused on the violence found in schools, and on one of its principal forms, commonly termed "bullying", highlighting that: 1) it includes a range of behaviours (making fun of others, threats, intimidation, physical abuse, systematic isolation, insults); 2) it tends to cause problems that are repeated and prolonged over time; 3) it involves an abuse of power, with one pupil, who has the general support of a group, bullying another who is defenceless and cannot escape from the situation alone; 4) and it is maintained due to the ignorance or passivity of those around both bully and victim, who do not involve themselves directly.
Most research on school bullying has been carried out from a descriptive perspective, trying to discover the prevalence of the problem and the characteristics of those involved, both bullies and victims. In the pioneering study on a national scale, Olweus (1993) concluded that in Norway about 15% of the primary and high-school population was affected by bullying. Contrary to popular belief, bullying takes place far more frequently inside the school environment than on the way to and from home. No differences were observed in relation to size of school or number of pupils per class (Olweus, 1993).
The series of studies carried out by Smith in the United Kingdom shows that between 20% and 10% of pupils see themselves as victims (Smith, Talamelli, Cowie, Naylor & Chauhan, 2004), while those considering themselves as bullies account for between 4% and 10% (Smith & Sharp, 1994). The frequency of bullying on the way to and from school was found to be about half that of bullying in schools themselves.
In the study carried out in Spanish high schools for the People’s Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo, 2000), 33.8% of pupils claimed to be the victims of insults, 4.1% of physical aggression and 0.7% of armed threats. As regards aggressors, 40.9% of pupils claimed to use insults; 6.6% physical violence and 0.3% armed threats. The playground is the most frequent location for physical violence and direct exclusion, while insults, nicknames and damage to belongings were more frequent in the classroom. There appear to be no significant differences between state-funded and private schools with regard to this problem.
One of the aims of our own work (Díaz-Aguado, Martínez Arias & Martín Seoane, 2004) was to compare peer violence in the two most relevant contexts: inside and outside school. The study was carried out in 12 high schools in the Autonomous Region of Madrid, and involved 826 adolescents between 13 and 20 years of age, with an average age of 15.44. Among the main results, we should highlight the fact that teenagers in general claim to suffer less bullying outside than inside school, with the exception of intimidation with threats or weapons, where the opposite is true. The frequent situations of exclusion and humiliation at school seem to be behind the tendency towards violence of those acting as bullies in both contexts. When attempting to differentiate types of adolescents with respect to their participation in violence, cluster analyses reveal three situations:
1) That of the majority of cases (80.5%), in which there is no significant threat of violence in either context.
2) That of the most common problem (16.1%), in which pupils are excluded and bullied inside as well as outside school (in leisure time).
3) That of the worst problem, covering 3.4% of those assessed, who suffer a little more than the rest from victimization at school, use all forms of aggression much more frequently in both contexts, and are victims outside school (in leisure time) of much more violence, and in its most serious forms; this situation probably coincides with that of adolescents who identify themselves with violence and tend to spend their time with other adolescents of similar characteristics.
From these and other studies designed to reveal the prevalence of bullying it can be deduced that:
1) We are dealing with a phenomenon which is a normal part of traditional school culture, given that throughout their school lives, all children seem to come into contact with it, as victims, aggressors or spectators (the most common role).
2) Communicating the facts about the prevalence of violence among schoolchildren to society at large is an essential step on the way to breaking the traditional "conspiracy of silence" that has existed in relation to this problem, and overcoming the common tendency to minimize its importance. At the same time, however, one must be wary of the opposite trend, exaggerating its prevalence and thereby transmitting a distorted view of today’s schools as the scenes of constant violence.
THE PROFILE OF AGGRESSORS AND THE DOMINANCE-SUBMISSION MODEL
Characteristics of aggressors
The following characteristics are among those most frequently observed in aggressors (Olweus, 1993; Pellegrini, Bartini and Brooks, 1999; Salmivalli et al., 1996; Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit and Bates, 1997): a negative social situation, even though they have some friends who follow them or support them in their violent behaviour; a strong tendency to abuse their strength (they are usually stronger physically than their peers); impulsiveness, combined with a low level of social skills, a low frustration threshold, problems obeying rules, negative relationships with adults and low levels of achievement, these being problems which are exacerbated with age; they find it difficult to be self-critical –and in relation to this it is interesting to note that in various studies that have tried to measure the self-esteem of aggressors, normal or high levels have been found. Among the main features of their families the following usually stand out: the absence of warm and loving affective relationships with parents, especially on the side of the mother, who displays negative attitudes or has little time for the child; difficulties in teaching their children to respect limits, combining permissiveness in relation to anti-social behaviour with frequent authoritarian, coercive measures, and often resorting to physical punishment.
Our study carried out with teenagers (Díaz-Aguado, Martínez Arias and Martín Seoane, 2004) also reflects the fact that aggressors have fewer non-violent conflict resolution strategies available, as well as detecting the following shortcomings around which the prevention of this problem could be suitably oriented:
1) They agree more with beliefs that justify violence and intolerance in different kinds of relationships, including peer relationships, showing themselves as more racist, xenophobic and sexist. In short, they tend to identify with a model of relationships based on domination and submission.
2) They have difficulties putting themselves in someone else’s position. Their moral reasoning is more primitive than that of their classmates, identifying justice more frequently with "doing to others what they do to you or what you think they do to you", a belief that may explain their tendency for taking revenge for real or imaginary offences. Also, they identify with a series of concepts closely related to bullying, such as "sneak" and "coward", terms they use to justify bullying and maintain the conspiracy of silence that perpetuates it.
3) They are less satisfied than others with their learning at school and the relationships they establish with teachers.
4) They are perceived by their schoolmates as being intolerant and arrogant, and at the same time they feel like failures. The set of characteristics in which they stand out suggest that they have peers who follow them or support them in their acts of aggression, forming groups with a tendency towards violence which would be joined by other individuals who have had few previous opportunities for playing a positive role in the school context.
The prevention and treatment of aggression
These results show the importance of eliminating situations of exclusion from the academic sphere at the earliest possible stages of education, and of favouring the identification of teenagers with the values of mutual respect, empathy and non-violence, with a view to the prevention of bullying. To eliminate these, it is not enough simply to teach conflict resolution (one of the most frequent approaches); rather, it is necessary to integrate prevention into a more global approach, in which it is possible to:
1) Teach the condemnation all forms of violence by favouring a representation that helps to combat it. Our research shows (Díaz-Aguado, dir., 1996, 2001, 2004) that the rejection of violence should be favoured from a perspective that includes not only its rejection in general, independently of who is the victim and who is the aggressor, but also specific treatment of its most frequent manifestations: gender violence, and peer violence inside and outside school (in leisure time). Disciplinary measures must contribute to this objective by helping to generate cognitive, emotional and behavioural changes that enable the aggressor to put him/herself in the victim’s position, to regret having used violence and to try to make up for the damage done. The effectiveness of these three components improves when they are integrated in a single process.
2) Favour the identification with the respect for human rights, stimulating development of the ability to put oneself in the other’s place, the basic force behind all socio-emotional development, and which in its most evolved levels is common to all human beings; and to favour also an understanding of the universal rights and the capacity to use that understanding when making one’s own moral decisions, linking those rights to the obligation to respect them. Including the rejection of violence in this perspective, conceptualizing it as a dangerous threat to human rights, favours its understanding as a problem that can affect all individuals, given that it endangers the level of justice necessary for their own rights to be respected.
3) Develop alternatives to violence: establishing alternative contexts and procedures within schools, through which, in a normalized way (without anyone feeling threatened by them), tensions and discrepancies can be expressed and conflicts resolved without turning to violence (through communication, negotiation, mediation, etc.) and promoting skills in all individuals (students, teachers, etc.) that enable tension to be confronted and conflicts resolved in a context of non-violence.
VICTIMIZATION AND TREATMENT OF DIVERSITY IN THE SCHOOL
The situation of victims
Among the pupils who are victims of bullying it is common to distinguish two situations (Díaz-Aguado, Martínez Arias & Martín Seoane, 2004; Olweus, 1993; Pellegrini, Bartini & Brooks, 1999; Salmivalli et al., 1996; Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit & Bates, 1997; Smith et al., 2004):
1) The typical victim, or passive victim, characterized by: a social situation of isolation, linked to low levels of assertiveness and difficulties in communication; highly passive behaviour, fear of violence and displayed vulnerability (inability to defend oneself when intimidated), high levels of anxiety, insecurity and low self esteem; characteristics which can be related to the tendency observed in several studies of passive victims to blame themselves for their situation and to be in denial, probably because they consider their own situation to be more embarrassing than the aggressors consider theirs (they sometimes appear to be proud of being aggressors).
2) The active victim, characterized by a social situation of isolation and a strong lack of popularity, being among the pupils most rejected by their classmates (more so than aggressors and passive victims). This situation could be the root cause of their selection as victims, although this, as in the previous case, could be compounded by victimization; an excessive and impulsive tendency to act, to act without choosing the most appropriate behaviour for each situation, with concentration problems (in some cases to the extent of hyperactivity) and a certain disposition to react with aggressive or irritating behaviours. These characteristics have led to type of victim being called "provocative victims", a term which should be avoided to prevent the common tendency to blame the victim, which can be found with respect to any type of violence, including that which occurs in schools. The situation of active victims is that which appears to have the worst long-term prognosis.
The results obtained in some studies (little mentioned in the literature) have special significance with respect to the prevention of victimization. According to these, the risk of becoming a victim of bullying increases if one belongs to an ethnic minority in a disadvantaged situation (Díaz-Aguado, 1992; Troyna & Hatcher, 1992); has learning difficulties in the normal classroom (Nabuzoka & Smith, 1993); shows difficulties with verbal expression (Hugh-Jones & Smith, 1999); or is among the boys who challenge the traditional sexist stereotype (Rivers, 1999; Young & Sweeting, 2004).
How should the results about the victims’ characteristics be interpreted? Can they be considered as merely individual problems, and therefore basically treatable by training the victims in skills to escape such situations? Or must they be also be recognized as problems of a school system in which the different types of exclusion and abuse (racist, sexist, and so on) found in society as a whole are allowed to be reproduced? The response to these questions from psychology is extremely important, since it affects not only the efficacy of interventions, but also the possibility of contributing to counteracting the frequent tendency in all types of violence, including school bullying, to justify bullying by blaming the victim, a tendency to which not only aggressors, but also the victims themselves and those in their social environment often fall prey. This tendency is closely linked to the need to believe that the world is fair (Lerner, 1980), and that the dire events we see happening around us will not happen to us. In order to avoid contributing to such a tendency, and indeed, to help to overcome it, we need to take special care with the psychological descriptions of the victim’s situation, emphasizing the changes necessary in schools for preventing problems, and avoiding the description of individual characteristics that increase the risk with terms that activate the tendency to blame the victim.
The role of classmates in relation to exclusion and bullying
The study of the role played by classmates who are not directly involved in the bullying has been growing rapidly over the last few years (Cowie, 2000; Pellegrini, Bartini & Brooks, 1999; Salmivalli et al., 1996; 1998), given the finding that they are present in the majority of situations involving bullying. To illustrate the importance of the role they play, we need only consider one of the results that emerges systematically in studies of the profile of victims and aggressors: the marked isolation of the victim, with no friends, rather unpopular, and experiencing both of these problems to a greater degree than the bullies, especially in the case of active victims. Analysis of this situation should consider that a lack of friends can trigger the onset of victimization, and that this may cause even greater unpopularity of those suffering it, and consequently further isolation (Baker, 1998; Cowie, 2000; Pellegrini et al., 1999; Salmivalli et al., 1996; Smith et al., 2004). It has also been observed that having friends and being popular protects against victimization. However, the protective character of friends is virtually zero if these belong to the group of victims, probably due to their being too weak to intervene. This leads us to the conclusion that in order to prevent violence it is important to work with the class as a whole, encouraging the type of relationships among classmates that inhibit its emergence (Salmivalli, 1999).
In the study we carried out with adolescents it also became clear that there was a need to improve the situation among classmates to prevent bullying, given the type of responses when asked what they did in such situations. In their own words, these are the most frequent behaviours: 1) "try to stop the situation if the victim is a friend" (70.6%); 2) "try to stop it even if the victim is not a friend" (45.6%); 3) "ask someone other than a teacher for help" (37.5%), especially friends. Despite its lower frequency, it is surprising to find that a substantial percentage of schoolchildren, when witnessing the bullying of a classmate "don’t do anything even though I think I should" (17% if we take the responses for often, and 56% if we add those for sometimes), "don’t do anything because it’s his/her problem" (15% and 47%, respectively), and "confront the victim as well as the group" (11% and 31%). This suggests that the roles of active and passive accomplice are relatively frequently played out in school contexts, and that without this complicity violence could not occur with the frequency and intensity that it does at present.
Prevention of victimization
From the results obtained in studies of the victims’ situation it emerges that in order to prevent violence among adolescents it is necessary to:
1) Encourage cohesion among classmates and eliminate situations of exclusion which, if not prevented, tend to arise in the first years of school and throughout subsequent ones. In order to achieve this, it would be helpful to increase opportunities for facilitating this in classroom activities, such as cooperative learning, as well as developing the skills necessary to enable such cooperation, individually and in groups. These conditions not only aid the integration of all pupils, but also permit early detection (and solution) of interaction problems.
2) Include activities specifically aimed at preventing victimization within violence prevention programmes, teaching students to: say no in situations that could lead to bullying; ask for help when it becomes necessary; be emotionally prepared so as not to feel guilty if one is a victim.
3) Teach how to detect and overcome the different types of prejudice existing in society with respect to certain groups, because in order to overcome this it is not enough for the school not to be racist or sexist, but it must work actively and explicitly on the elimination of these problems, creating space for this on the curriculum within global programmes that provide experiences of equality, and help to eliminate all kinds of exclusion (Cowie and Sharp, 1994; Gillborn, 1992; Horton, 1991; Troyna and Hatcher, 1992).
VIOLENCE, GENDER AND SEXISM
One of the most frequently repeated results in the studies on violence is that men use it more often and in a more serious way than women (Rutter et al., 1998; Scrandroglio et al., 2002), a difference clearly manifested from childhood onwards in all contexts, including school (People’s Ombudsman [Defensor del Pueblo], 2000; Olafsen & Viemero, 2000; Olweus, 1993; Whitney & Smith, 1993). As is the case with other contexts and age groups, bullying is related to traditional male stereotypes in which masculinity is associated with domination, absolute control and violence (Cowie, 2000; Díaz-Aguado & Martínez Arias, 2001). Studies on the frequency with which victimization situations occur in schools according to victims’ gender have delivered less consistent results (Olafsen & Viemero, 2000; Smith & Sharp, 1994).
To explain the relationship between aggression and gender, it should be borne in mind that the main risk condition for violence is not gender as a biological condition, but rather the identification with dominance over others, associated with the traditional male stereotype. This type of identification increases the risk of generating aggressive behaviour towards classmates, more frequently among boys, but also in girls (Young & Sweeting, 2004).
Furthermore, various studies have shown the need to consider qualitative differences, given that the use of violence by women tends to be much more indirect (Österman, 1998) and is more influenced by situational pressures. Salmivalli et al. (1998) carried out a longitudinal study along these lines in sixth to eighth-year pupils (aged 12-15) in which they observed that the role of aggressor is much more stable among boys, and that although in both groups the role is influenced by peer pressure, such pressure is more influential among girls.
Our study (Díaz-Aguado, Martínez Arias & Martín Seoane, 2004) also shows that across almost all indicators boys display a higher risk of violent behaviour and intolerance than girls. The absence of gender differences outside school can be interpreted as an indicator of the strong group pressure that tends to exist in this context, and which could hinder violence-inhibiting mechanisms among adolescents. This reflects the need to focus work aimed at breaking down sexism in such a way that it favours an identification with the complete set of values traditionally associated with femininity (empathy, tenderness, etc.) and masculinity (strength, power, etc.), without the need for anyone to identify with the problems to which these stereotypes lead (such as violence).
CHANGES WITH AGE, CRITICAL PERIODS AND THE NEED TO ADOPT A DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
Retrospective studies of what adults remember show that the frequency of violent episodes suffered at school reaches its highest levels in early adolescence, between 11 and 13 years of age, both among samples taken from the population as a whole (Eslea & Rees, 2001) and with samples from groups with characteristics typical of higher risks of victimization. Hugh-Jones and Smith (1999), for example, noted that 83% of the adults interviewed who stutter said that they had at some time been victims of bullying at school, while 33% claimed this to have been particularly intense between 11 and 13 years of age, 21% between 8 and 10 years, 20% during adolescence and 5% between ages 6 and 7. Also, Rivers (1999), in a study of 190 adult homosexuals, almost all of whom suffered bullying at school, located the onset of the problem around the age of 10, and found that it continues for the next 5 years.
In our own research (Díaz-Aguado, Martínez Arias & Martín Seoane, 2004) we also find that there is a greater risk of peer aggression in early adolescence, compared to later stages, peaking in the second and third years of compulsory secondary education (13-15 years of age). These are also the school years which are most difficult for teachers, and in which the need to implement programmes for the prevention of violence is most frequently proposed. This may be explained by the fact that violence can be used in relation to a number of key aspects at this age, such as the reduction of uncertainty about one’s own identity, integration into the reference group, and channelling the hostility produced by frustration and tension, as well as constituting a response to the discrepancy between adolescents’ developmental needs and their situation at home and school. Eccles, Lord and Roeser (1996) found empirical evidence on five changes between primary and high school that can explain this increase in destructive behaviours: 1) greater emphasis on control and discipline; 2) deterioration in the relationship with teachers; 3) fewer opportunities to participate in class; 4) the fall in school marks; 5) lower levels, compared to those of primary teachers, of self-efficacy among high school teachers, whose role is reduced to simply teaching a particular subject. As a preventive measure, these authors propose changing the way school activities are structured so that they become more task and project-based, giving pupils a greater sense of personal involvement.
THE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE INTERACTION WITH THE SOCIAL SYSTEM AT MULTIPLE LEVELS. THE ECOLOGICALDEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH
As the above-mentioned studies show, and as is widely accepted among researchers today, (Baker, 1998; Cowie, 2000; Hernández, Sarabia & Casares, 2002; Ortega, 2003; Pellegrini & Brooks, 1999; Reinke & Herman, 2002; Salmivalli et al., 1996; Torrego & Moreno, 2003; Trianes, 2000), in order to prevent violence at school there is a need to adopt an ecological approach that allows a conceptualisation of conditions of risk and protection according to the interaction between the individual and the environment at different levels. Special attention must be paid to the way school activities are structured, as well as to the cooperation between schools, parents and society as a whole.
Features of the traditional school that increase the risks: incoherence and hidden curriculum with regard to violence
From the above it becomes clear that certain characteristics of the traditional school contribute to the appearance of peer aggression and hinder its elimination. These include:
• The tendency to minimize the importance of peer aggression, saying that it is inevitable, especially among boys, or that it is a problem children and adolescents need to resolve by themselves, without the interference of adults, in order to make them stronger, to "toughen them up." The widespread tendency of this belief is clearly reflected in the findings of our own research (Díaz-Aguado, Martínez Arias & Martín Seoane, 2004), showing that 37.6% of schoolchildren agree with the belief that "if you don’t hit back, the others will think you are a coward," which closely reflects the advice adults commonly pass on to children "If they hit you, hit them back." This suggests that the incoherence in schools with regard to this problem is merely a reflection of the wider incoherence prevalent in society.
• The traditional treatment of diversity as though it didn’t exist. This is the reason why belonging to a minority, being seen as different, having a problem or standing out because of an enviable quality increases the likelihood of being picked on as a victim for bullying (through nicknames, isolation, etc.).
• The typically insufficient response from the traditional school to peer violence among students, which leaves victims without the help they need to find a way out of the situation, and tends to be perceived by the aggressors as implicit support. This lack of a suitable response is linked to the traditional definition of the teacher’s role, especially in high school, with its near-exclusive focus on teaching the subject matter.
It is in relation to the lack of appropriate response in the traditional school that we can interpret the result obtained in our own study (Díaz-Aguado, Martínez Arias & Martín Seoane, 2004), showing that 34.6% of schoolchildren claimed they would never ask for the help of a teacher if they were being bullied, justifying this with the statement that "teachers are there to teach you, not to solve your problems," though they admit that they would ask a teacher "whom they felt they could trust." These reactions reflect the need to adapt the role of the teacher to the new situation in order to increase their educational efficacy, as well as the help they can provide in the prevention of violence. Although teachers are more and more prepared to put a stop to the problems described above, and to contribute to the eradication of school violence, it is not always easy to do so given the difficulty of changing deeply rooted patterns in schools, and they need all the help they can get through the provision of suitable educational resources.
Social changes and the risk of school violence. Maltreatment in the teacher-pupil relationship
From what is observed in the classrooms and perceived by the teachers themselves, there has clearly been an increase in recent years in difficulties of interaction between pupils and teachers, especially at high-school level. These tend to be described as disruptive behaviour, indiscipline and even harassment, as confirmed in the few studies focusing on teacher-pupil problems (Mendoza, 2005; Terry, 1998), which suggest that such aspects should be included systematically in both assessments and intervention, and should be considered in both directions, which would also allow the detection of pupil-to-teacher maltreatment.
In order to understand the possible influence of the macrosocial changes of the so-called technological revolution on this situation, it is important to remember that they reduce the effectiveness of certain conditions which until recently protected childhood from adult violence. Some of the cases of violence involving children and adolescents, widely covered by the media, have featured scripts impossible to invent at those ages, and information about the use violence that until now has never been accessible to one’s so young. And these changes affect in a very special way the two basic, traditional contexts of education and upbringing, as they have been structured since the industrial revolution:
• The nuclear family, which isolated itself from the extended family and specialized in the raising of children around the figure of the mother, herself isolated from what went on beyond her own restricted, private world.
• The traditional school, which became extended to ever broader sectors of the population. Structured on the basis of homogeneity and strongly hierarchical, centred around the unconditional authority of the teacher. Here, all those who did not match up to what was expected of the average pupil were excluded before reaching adolescence.
To prevent violence at school, it is necessary to bring the two main contexts of education and upbringing, school and family, in line with current social changes, structuring the relationships and activities that take place there so that they are more coherent relative to the democratic values our society is trying to transmit. There is an increasingly widespread consensus about the role that cooperation can play in achieving this, as well as the need for cooperation at various levels (Ahmed and Braithwaite, 2004; Conoley and Goldstein, 2004; Gini, 2004; Johnson and Johnson, 1999; Reinke and Herman, 2002).
THE EVALUATION OF PROGRAMMES FOR THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AT SCHOOL
Evaluation in relation to programmes for the prevention of violence at school falls into two categories: 1) that which focuses specifically on violence between peers, generally following the methodology established by Olweus; 2) that with a more general perspective, covering, for example, school-based anti-violence programmes or programmes for the prevention of violence in general, and usually based on the development of social skills.
Specific programmes against bullying at school
In the pioneering programme implemented in 42 schools in Norway by Olweus (1991) with 2,500 pupils aged between 10 and 15, schools were informed of the results obtained in the assessment of peer violence, as well about the response from the context, in an effort to sensitize teachers, parents and classmates about the need to show no tolerance towards it and to develop vigilance, rules and clear sanctions against it. Assessment of the results of the programme shows a significant reduction of bullying (of over 50%) in the reports of both aggressors and victims, without the aggressiveness being displaced to other contexts. In addition, an improvement was noted in the social climate and pupil’s satisfaction with the school, as well as a general reduction in antisocial behaviour. These results are related at least in part to the sensitivity towards the problem existing in Norway in the wake of the suicides of three pupils aged 10 to 14 as a result of having been bullied by their classmates (Stevens, De Bourdeauhuij & Van Oost, 2000).
Subsequent attempts to repeat the excellent results obtained in this first study have not been so positive. An example of this is the programme developed in Belgium (Flanders) by Stevens, De Bourdeauhuij and Van Oost (2000), with three of the basic components for intervention on bullying: 1) a school policy with clear rules and sanctions against bullying and abuse; 2) four classroom sessions on strategies and skills for conflict resolution arising out of abuse and in support of victims; and 3) specific treatment with aggressors and victims. Comparison of the results obtained in the experimental primary schools with those of the control schools show significant effectiveness according to aggressors, but not from the point of view of the victims, while in high schools the programme is not effective from either perspective. This difficulty had previously been observed in other studies (Smith & Sharp, 1994), and can be attributed to the inadequacy of trying to influence adolescents through norms established by adults, and this is why such programmes need to be addressed from a developmental perspective (Stevens et al., 2000). Subsequent studies lead us to the conclusion that the efficacy of anti-bullying programmes improves when these are developed continuously over time, with a long-term view, rather than implemented at a particular moment (Carney and Merrell, 2001); that efficacy is frequently only perceived from one of the two sides assessed: that of victims (Menesini & Smorti, 1997) or that of aggressors (Stevens et al., 2000); or that the preparedness of peers to act as mediators in conflict resolution and victim support is significantly lower among boys (Nailor & Cowie, 1999).
The most recent analyses of anti-bullying programme evaluations reflect a growing consensus on the need to broaden their objectives and activities beyond the specific focus on bullying, and to attempt to improve quality of life at school by promoting cooperation at different levels (Gini, 2004; Ortega, 2003).
School programmes for the prevention of violence
A review of school programmes designed to prevent violence in general shows that although a large number outline guidelines for action, only a few provide empirical evidence of their efficacy, and fewer still compare changes achieved through a given programme with a control group. The few programmes analyzing the effectiveness of prevention programmes frequently report results of only limited relevance (Webster, 1993; Wilson-Brewer et al., 1991). Thus, for example, Fields and McNamara (2003), in their review, observe that the experimental evidence available up to that time on programmes for the primary prevention of violence in schools carried out among adolescents, including comparisons with control groups, is very limited. An additional and serious problem is the lack of a coherent theoretical framework to underpin the intervention and help to explain the results. In relation to this is the further consideration of the need to design programmes in such a way as to include the moral dimension necessary in education against violence, boosting democratic values and the sense of community (Edwards, 2001), given that it is the connection with these moral values (Ortega, Sánchez & Menesini, 2002) that guides the decisions which will permit the use of the skills around which most programmes are organized. For example, we can highlight the proven efficacy in primary schools of the Programmes for the Construction of Peace implemented in a general and continuous manner. Alongside training in conflict resolution, these provide education in democratic values, tolerance and intercultural respect (Aber & Jones, 2003).
When the evaluation of prevention programmes is carried out by the school management itself, the following stand out for their effectiveness: first, those programmes which try to change the school in order to better adapt it to the needs of the pupils; secondly, those which promote changes and skills among teachers to prevent violence; thirdly, those which simply attempt to change the individual behaviour of violent pupils (Heerboth, 2000).
Attempts to draw up a research agenda for the prevention of school violence highlight the need to define the basic conditions that contribute to promoting a quality school environment in which there can be no place for violence, and which implies cooperation between teachers, pupils and parents. For this is it necessary to establish "intervention protocols that help to achieve it by simplifying the identification of the basic components" (Reinke & Herman, 2002, p. 796).
COOPERATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF NON-VIOLENCE AS BASIC COMPONENTS IN PREVENTION
The anti-violence programmes we assessed in our last study (Díaz-Aguado, 2004) revolve around two basic components: 1) the structuring of educational activities through cooperation in heterogeneous teams, which can take place in the context of any subject on the normal curriculum; 2) the application of a 16-activity protocol in which cooperation is applied to content related to the non-violence curriculum, including specifically, but not exclusively, problems of peer bullying.
Cooperative learning in heterogeneous teams
The social-historical approach of the psychology of activity (Bruner, 1999; Newman, Griffin & Cole, 1989; Vygotsky, 1978) provides the basic framework within which to explain the nature of the innovations included in our programme, as well as its effectiveness for adapting schools to the demands of today’s society and the characteristics of adolescence. These activities involve two fundamental innovations with respect to traditional procedures:
1) Organising pupils in heterogeneous teams (in terms of achievement, level of integration in the class as a whole, ethnic group, sex, risk of violence, etc.). This grouping helps to overcome the segregation and exclusion that can otherwise occur at school and can lead to the perpetuation of that which exists in society in general, and to the deprivation of opportunities for those at risk to learn how to prevent violence. This feature, then, contributes to the struggle against exclusion and to overcoming the uneven distribution of participation which tends to arise in the classroom and cause the alienation that develops in some students as well as many of the violent behaviours.
2) A significant increase in the power and responsibility given to pupils in relation to their own learning, especially in those activities where they are asked to play adult roles, such as being experts in various fields (media, prevention, politics, etc.). For example: drawing up a Declaration of Human Rights, a list of golden rules for eliminating violence at school, or campaigns to prevent gender violence aimed at adolescents. The results obtained prove that helping students to play expert roles is highly effective. When, for example, they pretend to be experts against violence, they acquire the formal skills needed for the activity while at the same time taking on board its objectives, i.e., justice, tolerance and mutual respect.
These activities favour meaningful learning, given that they provide a social context which is much more relevant than that of traditional classroom activities, and involve the completion of whole tasks with a finished product (Bruner, 1999). In this way, by treating students as though they were capable of preventing violence, and by providing them with the necessary support and motivation, they are more likely to discover the meaning such tasks have for the experts who normally carry them out, and to learn to identify with this meaning much more effectively than if we were to ask them to work step by step on each component separately in the manner of traditional textbooks: studying concepts and definitions in relation to violence, understanding the steps a media professional takes, applying them to a hypothetical situation, individually carrying out the exercises in the manual according to different criteria … The effectiveness of doing shared complete tasks has been explained from the psychology of activity in terms of their relevance for activating the zone of the construction of knowledge, and thus promoting learning (Newman, Griffin & Cole, 1989).
The non-violence curriculum
Throughout previous research (Díaz-Aguado, dir., 1996; 2003; Díaz-Aguado & Martínez Arias, 2001) we have been developing a series of activities for teaching how to construct values of equality, respect for human rights, tolerance and the rejection of sexism and violence, which is completed in the last programme (Díaz-Aguado, dir., 2004) with a series of specific activities aimed at combating peer violence inside and outside school (in leisure time), through a protocol of 16 basic activities:
A) Democracy is equality.
– Activation of previous schemata and basic communication skills though a public information campaign on TV.
– Discussion about various types of discrimination, underlining their connection with everyday life and discrimination at school.
B) The construction of human rights as the basis for harmonious life in the community.
– Drawing up a declaration of human rights.
– Comparing this to the 1948 declaration.
– Discussion about the violation of human rights in everyday life.
C) Encouraging a general representation of violence that will help to combat it.
– Discussion about the nature of violence, based on the video Hate and destruction.
–Discussion about bullying and victimization.
D) Racism and xenophobia, as an extension of A)
– Learning to detect racism.
– What a bad memory we have!
E) Sexism and gender violence
– Detection of sexism and the creation of alternatives
– Discussion about gender violence, based on the video Home, sad home.
– Creating a message to prevent or stop gender violence.
F) Peer violence inside and outside school (in leisure time)
– Detection of distortions that contribute to violence in general.
– Detection of distortions that contribute to violence among adolescents.
– Discussion about strategies to prevent or stop violence outside school.
– Creating a set of golden rules for eliminating violence from the relationships in school.
G) Final discussion session on how to integrate the above themes in one’s own identity.
Assessment of the effectiveness of the programme
The above programme was assessed with 783 children from schools within the Autonomous Region of Madrid (Spain), comparing the changes that took place in the experimental group with those of the control group. To this end, the following instruments were applied before and after the intervention: 1) the Questionnaire for the evaluation of peer violence inside and outside school (in leisure time); 2) the Questionnaire on attitudes towards diversity and violence; and 3) the Questionnaire on strategies for the prevention of violence outside school (in leisure time). These provided significant evidence of the programme’s effectiveness in terms of:
1) Reducing situations of violence at school, especially the more serious types, as perceived by both victims and aggressors.
2) Preventing serious violence outside school (in leisure time), as perceived by both victims and aggressors. This result helps to modify the pessimistic expectations that teachers sometimes have regarding the impossibility of preventing, from the school, forms of violence that occur outside school, and whose principal causes are usually situated outside the school system.
3) Reducing situations of exclusion at school, as perceived by the victims, situations that tend to grow if nothing is done to address them.
4) Developing a representation of violence that helps to fight it and to promote tolerance, helping to overcome beliefs that lead to: peer violence; sexism; racism and xenophobia.
5) Increasing the availability of more positive and well developed strategies for the prevention of violence outside school (in leisure time), rejecting violence as a form of resolving conflicts.
6) Improving the quality of the relationship with learning and with teachers, as assessed by participating pupils and by their teachers. Also noted is a tendency towards the improvement of other relationships and contexts covered by the programme’s activities: the classroom, friends, classmates, school, outside school (leisure time).
CONCLUSION
These results support the viability and effectiveness of the proposals made in this article for preventing violence among adolescents, integrating their treatment into a more global one, that of the rejection of all forms of violence. Furthermore, the results highlight cooperation as the fundamental principle for structuring school activity that can permit the adaptation of schools to a new situation, at different levels: between pupils, between pupils and teachers, between teachers, between the school and other social agents such as the family, municipal groups and associative movements. The results reflect that the practice of cooperation in all school subjects, together with the non-violence curriculum, should be highlighted as basic components of school anti-violence programmes (Díaz-Aguado, dir., 2004).
1AUTHORS’ NOTE
The programmes deriving from the mentioned studies have been published by the Instituto de la Juventud in three books and a video entitled Prevención de la violencia y luch contra la exclusion desde la adolescencia (The prevention of violence and the struggle against exclusion during adolescence), which are distributed free of charge by the organization to institutions working in this field. They can be requested by outlining the aim of the project to publicaciones@mtas.es. They are available via the Internet through: http://mariajosediaz-aguado.tk/.
References
REFERENCES
Aber, L.; Jones,S. (2003) Developmental trajectories toward violence in middle childhood: course, demographic differences, and response to school-based intervention. Developmental Psychology, 39,2, 324-348.
Ahmed,W.; Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and victimization: cause for concern for both families and schools. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 35-54.
Baker,J. (1998) Are we missing the forest for the trees? Considering the social context of school violence. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 1, 29-44
Bosworth, K.; Espelage, D.; Simon, T. (1999) Factors associated with bullying behavior in middle school students, Journal of Early Adolescence, 19,3, 341-362.
Bruner, J. (1999) La educación, puerta de la cultura. Madrid: Visor.
Carney, A.; Merrell,K. (2001) Bullying in schools. Perspectives on understanding and preventing an international problem. School Psychology International, 22,3, 364-382.
Conoley, J.; Goldstein,A. (Eds.) School violence intervention. A practical handbook. New York: Guilford Press.
Cowie, H. (2000) Bystanding or standing by: Gender issues in coping with bullying in schools. Aggressive behavior, 26, 85-97.
Cowie, H.; Sharp,S. (1994) Tackling bullying through the curriculum. In: P. Smith & S. Sharp (Eds.) School bullying. London: Routledge.
Defensor del Pueblo (2000) Violencia escolar: el maltrato entre iguales en la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Madrid: Publicaciones del Defensor del Pueblo.
Díaz-Aguado, M. J. (Dir) (1992) Educación y desarrollo de la tolerancia. Cuatro volúmenes y un vídeo. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia.
Díaz-Aguado,M.J. (Dir) (1996) Programas de educación para la tolerancia y prevención de la violencia en los jóvenes. Cuatro volúmenes y dos vídeos. Madrid: Instituto de la Juventud, Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales.
Díaz-Aguado, M. J. (2002) Educación intercultural y aprendizaje cooperativo. Madrid: Pirámide.
Díaz-Aguado, M. J. (2003) Prevención de la violencia y lucha contra la exclusión desde la adolescencia. Volumen dos: Programa de intervención y estudio experimental. Accompanied by a video. Madrid: Instituto de la Juventud. Also available at: http://mariajosediaz-aguado.tk.
Díaz-Aguado, M:J: Martínez Arias,R. (2001) La construcción de la igualdad y la prevención de la violencia contra la mujer desde la educación secundaria. Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer, Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales.
Díaz-Aguado, M.J.; Martínez Arias, R. Martín Seoane, G. (2004) Prevención de la violencia y lucha contra la exclusión desde la adolescencia. Volumen uno. La violencia entre iguales en la escuela y en el ocio. Estudios comparativos e instrumentos de evaluación. Madrid: Instituto de la Juventud. Also available at: http://mariajosediaz-aguado.tk.
Eccles, J.; Lord, S.; Roeser, R. (1996) The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and families. In: D. Cicherti & S. Toth (Eds.) Adolescence: Opportunities and challenges. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Edwards, C. (2001) Student violence and the moral dimensions of education. Psychology in the schools, 38,3, 249-257.
Eslea, M.; Rees,J. (2001) At what age are children more likely to be bullied at school? Aggressive Behavior, 27, 419-429.
Espinosa, P.; Clemente, M.; Vidal, M.A. (2002) Conducta antisocial y desarrollo moral en el menor. Psicothema, 14, 26-36.
Fernández, I. (1998) Prevención de la violencia y resolución de conflictos. Madrid: Narcea.
Gini, G. (2004) Bullying in Italian schools. An overview of Intervention Programs. School Psychology International, 25, 1, 106-116.
Fields, S.; McNamara,J. (2003). The prevention of child and adolescent violence. A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 61-91.
Gillborn, D. (1992) Citizenship, race and the hidden curriculum. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 2, 57-73.
Heerboth,J. (2000) School violence prevention programs in southern Illinois high schools: Factors related to principals’ and counsellors’ perceptions of success. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 60, 8-A, 2752.
Hernández, T.; Sarabia, B.; Casares, E. (2002) Incidencia de variables contextuales discretas en la violencia "bullying" en el recinto escolar. Psicothema, 14, 50-62.
Herrero, C.; Garrido, E. (2002) Los efectos de la violencia sobre sus víctimas. Psicothema, 14,109-117.
Horton, A. (1991) The Heartstone Odyssey: exploring the heart of bullying. In: P. Smith & D. Thompson. (Eds.) Practical approaches to bullying. London: David Fulton.
Hugh-Jones, D.; Smith, P. K. (1999) Self reports of short-and long-term effects of bullying on children who stammer. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 141-158.
Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. (1999) Cómo reducir la violencia en las escuelas. Barcelona: Paidós. First edition in English: 1995.
Lerner ,M.(1980) The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.
López, M.J.; Garrido,V.; Rodríguez, F. ; Paíno, S. (2002) Jóvenes y competencia social: Un programa de intervención. Psicothema, 14, 155-163.
Menesini, E.; Smorti, A. (1997) Strategie d´ intervento scolastico. In: A. Fonzi (Ed.) Il bullismo in Italia. Firenzi: Giunti.
Mendoza, B. (2005) La otra cara de la violencia escolar. El maltrato en la interacción profesor-alumno. Madrid: Universidad Complutense. Unpublished research report.
Nabuzoka, D.; Smith, P. (1993) Sociometric status and social behavior of children with and without learning difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 1435 -1448.
Nailor, P.; Cowie,H. (1999) The effectiveness of peer support systems in challenging school bullying: The perspectives and the experience of teachers and pupils. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 4, 453-459.
Newman, D. Griffin, P. Cole, M. (1989) The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge, MASS, Cambridge University Press.
Olafsen, R.; Viemero, V. (2000) Bully/victim problems in coping with stress in school among 10-to12 year old pupils in Aland, Finland. Aggressive Behavior, 26,57-65
Olweus, D. (1991) Bully-victim problems among school children. Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In: D. Pepler; K. Rubin (Eds.) The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1993) Conductas de acoso y amenaza entre escolares. Madrid: Morata, 1998
Ortega,R. (2003) El Proyecto Antiviolencia escolar: Andave. Boletín Colegio Oficial de Doctores y Licenciados, 17-23
Ortega, R.; Sánchez, V.; Menesini,E. (2002) Violencia entre iguales y desconexión moral: un análisis transcultural. Psicothema, 14,37-49.
Österman, D. Björkqvist, D.; Lagerspezt, K. (1998) Cross –cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 1-8.
Pellegrini, A.; Bartini, M.; Brooks, F. (1999) School bullies, victims and aggressive victims. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216-224.
Reinke, W.; Herman, K. (2002) A research agenda for school violence prevention. American Psychologist, 57,10,796-797.
Rivers, I. (1999) Peer victimisation and life-span development. Paper presented at the Inaugural European Conference on Gay and Lesbian Identities, University College, London, March. Quoted by Eslea & Rees, 2001.
Rutter, M.; Giller, H.; Hagel,A. (1998) Antisocial behavior in young people. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salmivalli, C. (1999) Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22,4,453-459.
Salmivalli, C.; Lagerspetz, M.; Björkkqvist, K.; Österman, D.; Kauklainen, A.. (1996) Bullying as a group process. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.
Salmivalli, C.; Lappalainen, M:; Lagerspetz, M. (1998) Stability and change of behavior in connection with bullying in schools: A two year follow up. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 205-218.
Scrandroglio, B.; Martínez,J.; Martín, M.J; López, J.; Martín, A.; San José, M.C.; Martín; J. (2002) Violencia grupal juvenil: una revisión crítica. Psicothema, 14, 6-15.
Schwartz, D.; Dodge, K.; Pettit,G.; Bates,J. (1997) The early socialization of aggressive victims. Child Development, 68, 4, 665-675.
Smith, P.; Sharp, S. (Eds.) (1994) School Bullying. Insights and perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Smith, R. ; Talamelli, L.; Cowie, H.; Naylor, P.; Chauhan, P. (2004). Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing victims and new victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 565-581.
Stevens, V.; De Bourdeauhuij, I.; Van Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in Flemish schools: An evaluation of antibullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 195-210.
Terry, A. (1998) Teachers as targets of bullying by their pupils: a study to investigate incidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 255-268.
Trianes, V. (2000) La violencia en contextos escolares. Málaga: Aljibe.
Torrego, J.C.; Moreno, J.M. (2003). Convivencia y disciplina en la escuela. El aprendizaje de la democracia. Madrid: Alianza.
Troyna, B.; Hatcher, R. (1992) Racism in children’s lives: A study of mainly white primary schools. London: Routledge.
Vygotsky,L. (1978) Mind in society. M. Cole, V. John Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Soubermen (Eds.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webster, D. (1993) The unconvincing case for School-based conflict resolution programs for adolescents. Health Affairs 12 (4) 126-140.
Whitney,I.; Nabuzoka,D. ; Smith,P. (1992) Bullying in schools: Mainstream and special needs. Support for Learning, 7,1,3-7.
Whitney,I.;Smith,P.. (1993) A survey of the nature and extend of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3-25.
Wilson-Brewer, R.; Cohen, S.; O ´ Donnell, L.; Goodman, I. (1991): Violence prevention for young adolescents: A survey of the state of the Art (Eric Clearinghouse, ED356442, 800-443-3742).
Young, R.; Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying, relationships, psychological well-being, and gender-atypical behavior: A gender diagnosticity approach. Sex Roles, 50, 7-8, 525 -555.

EDUCAR PARA A CIDADANIA NUM NOVO CONTEXTO EDUCATIVO

Maria José Diaz-Aguado
Diversidade de conflitos e das suas manifestações
Propostas de educação para a cidadania democrática
A actual Revolução, a que costumamos chamar de Tecnológica, provoca mudanças de tal amplitude em todas as esferas da nossa vida (família, trabalho, lazer...), que não deixa de ter significado simbólico o facto de coincidir com a mudança de milénio, com a representação do fim de uma época e o começo de outra: mudanças que se caracterizam por fortes contradições e paradoxos, entre os quais:
A dificuldade em compreender o que acontece perante a enorme quantidade de informação disponível.
A ausência de certezas absolutas perante o ressurgimento de formas de intolerância julgadas já superadas.
A necessidade de estabelecer relações num contexto cada vez mais heterogéneo confrontada com a pressão homogeneizadora e a incerteza sobre a nossa própria identidade.
A eliminação das barreiras espaciais na comunicação face ao risco cada vez maior de isolamento e exclusão social.
Estas mudanças alteram as condições em que se efectua o desenvolvimento das crianças e dos jovens, fazendo aumentar os conflitos que vivem e o risco de violência e, em consequência, a necessidade de trabalhar activamente para a sua prevenção.
Convém recordar que o conceito de infância, como uma etapa qualitativamente distinta da idade adulta, surge relacionado com as mudanças provocadas pela Revolução Industrial.
É a partir delas que se reconhece a peculiaridade desta etapa da vida e a necessidade de protecção, separando-a do mundo dos adultos e da sua violência, pelas barreiras que a família nuclear e a escola proporcionam.
As actuais mudanças originadas pela Revolução Tecnológica reduzem a eficácia dessas barreiras expondo as crianças com demasiada frequência a todo o tipo de violência, inclusivamente usando-as, por vezes como seus agentes. Esta nova situação muda a vida das crianças de múltiplas e complexas formas, modificando a representação que os adultos fazem da infância e aumentando a vulnerabilidade das crianças a variadas formas de violência, a ponto de haver o perigo do que se tem chamado o desaparecimento da infância. Tem-se verificado que, nalguns casos de violência, amplamente divulgados na comunicação social nos últimos anos, as crianças e adolescentes que os protagonizam reproduzem guiões impossíveis de inventar naquelas idades, e dispõem de uma informação de como exercer a violência a que até agora não tinham acesso. Uma das tarefas actuais da educação é descobrir novas barreiras que protejam as crianças e os adolescentes deste novo risco de exposição à violência.
Para compreender como as actuais mudanças afectam os jovens convém ter em conta que estes necessitam de construir uma identidade diferenciada, elaborar o seu próprio projecto de vida, descobrindo o que querem da sua vida. Esta exigência origina um alto nível de incerteza que, somado àquilo que as actuais mudanças sociais implicam, pode tornar-se insuportável para alguns jovens; especialmente quando não desenvolveram tolerância face à ambiguidade, quando não aprenderam a viver os conflitos, a dúvida como um elemento necessário para crescer, quando foram educados nas certezas e verdades absolutas.

Diversidade de conflitos e das suas manifestações
A análise dos conflitos que se vivem nos diferentes países da União Europeia, especialmente no que se refere à indisciplina e à violência na escola, obriga a que se tenha em conta que existem situações muito variadas, quer quanto à gravidade dos problemas, quer quanto à forma que assumem: entre uns e outros países, dentro do mesmo país (entre diferentes regiões) e inclusive dentro de uma mesma escola (entre aulas diferentes ou até na mesma aula na relação que se estabelece nas diferentes matérias e/ou com diferentes professores).
Do que ficou exposto no parágrafo anterior conclui-se pela conveniência em compatibilizar o desenvolvimento da consciência de que existem conflitos educativos novos (muito visíveis pela sua presença nos meios de comunicação) para os quais é preciso encontrar novas soluções, com um conhecimento preciso (não sobredimensionado) da amplitude e extensão desses problemas, evitando o erro a que as notícias difundidas por alguns meios de comunicação induzem de acreditar que a violência está presente na maioria das escolas e das relações que nelas se estabelecem.
Como resposta à pergunta frequente se a violência está ou não aumentando nas escolas, predomina neste grupo de reflexão uma opinião que gira em torno da necessidade de considerar tendências contrárias, uma vez que:
aumentou o desejo de erradicar a violência e já são reconhecidas como violência situações (como a humilhação e a ridicularização) que antes eram conceptualizadas com excessiva permissividade;
diminuiu o autoritarismo bem como o risco de violência dos professores para com os alunos, o que nem sempre foi substituído pela necessária disciplina democrática, antes tendo dado origem frequentemente a excessiva permissividade;
as duas alterações mencionadas podem explicar a razão pela qual parece ter aumentado em numerosos contextos os problemas de indisciplina e falta de respeito dos alunos para com os professores (que nalguns casos chegam a atingir a violência verbal e, mais raramente, a violência física);
a violência entre iguais é hoje mais conhecida e denunciada, ainda que seja difícil saber se está aumentando;
o facto de as crianças e os adolescentes disporem hoje de mais informação sobre como exercer a violência faz aumentar os danos que podem causar quando a utilizam.
Considerando globalmente as tendências atrás mencionadas poder-se-á concluir que, de uma forma geral, a violência na escola não aumentou, ainda que tenha mudado de forma, a frequência com que afecta diferentes actores (dando origem a problemas novos às vezes espectaculares), aumentou a gravidade das consequências em casos extremos, e a sua visibilidade nunca foi tão grande.

Propostas de educação para a cidadania democrática
Resumimos as nossas conclusões sobre como adaptar a educação às mudanças e necessidades atrás expostas e educar para a cidadania democrática no século XXI em dez propostas para a acção:
A educação para a cidadania democrática deve alargar-se a todos os processos de ensino-aprendizagem, a todas as actividades que têm lugar na escola; porque através de todas elas se transmitem (bem, medianamente ou mal) as normas e os papeis que os alunos exercerão fora dela. Pelo que não parece conveniente limitar a educação para a cidadania a uma disciplina ou a um momento determinado do horário escolar. Tomar consciência desta realidade ajudará a detectar e a superar possíveis contradições entre as normas e os papeis necessários para uma cidadania democrática e os que a escola pode estar a transmitir, E para superar algumas das contradições que, neste sentido, se detectam mais frequentemente, convém conferir aos alunos um papel mais activo na sua aprendizagem.
Se a escola assume a educação para a cidadania democrática ela deve constituir-se como uma comunidade democrática, porque a democracia aprende-se com a prática. Convém, por isso, avançar para lá da democracia representativa (existente na maioria das escolas) desenvolvendo uma democracia participativa, proporcionando aos alunos experiências que tornem realidade os velhos ideais da democracia: a liberdade, a igualdade e a fraternidade, sem esquecer este último, para o qual é necessário que cada indivíduo seja reconhecido e respeitado pelos demais, de forma a sentir-se um membro importante da comunidade a que pertence. E convém não esquecer que esta necessidade toca também os professores.
Educar para a democracia exige que seja posta em prática uma das suas características mais essenciais: a distribuição do máximo de poder entre todos os indivíduos.
Neste sentido, para que os alunos se apropriem do significado do contacto social da democracia convém que desde a escola participem activamente nos diferentes tipos de poder que o definem:
O poder legislativo, elaborando as normas que regulam a convivência escolar e a definição dos deveres e direitos dos indivíduos dentro da escola.
O poder executivo, através do qual são postas em prática as referidas normas e tomadas as decisões que possibilitem o exercício dos deveres e direitos previamente definidos.
O poder judicial, que se encarrega de aplicar as sanções quando são praticadas graves transgressões às normas de convivência.
Tanto os estudos científicos como as diversas experiências educativas mencionadas no grupo de trabalho reflectem que, quando as crianças e os adolescentes participam activamente em tudo o que se relaciona com as normas de convivência, se comprometem muito mais no seu cumprimento do que se não tivessem participado.
Educar para a cidadania exige que se ensine a respeitar limites de forma democrática. E para consegui-lo, convém ter em conta que embora se tenha avançado no combate à disciplina autoritária, esta nem sempre foi substituída pela necessária disciplina democrática, que é preciso promover para prevenir alguns dos problemas que se agravaram nos últimos anos; procedimentos disciplinares que devem ajudar o aluno, que transgrediu as normas de convivência, a entender o seu significado, a pôr-se no lugar das pessoas que possa ter prejudicado e a reparar o dano causado; incluindo a adopção de medidas disciplinares no contexto de democracia participativa, descrito no parágrafo anterior.
A educação para a cidadania deve ensinar a resolver conflitos e aplicar este ensinamento aos conflitos que surgem na escola assumindo que estes são parte inevitável da vida; e que quando estes são tratados de um ponto de vista construtivo, podem converter-se em motor de desenvolvimento, mas quando não se resolvem podem deteriorar a qualidade da educação e aumentar o risco de violência. Para ensinar a resolver conflitos é conveniente estabelecer na escola contextos normalizados (como as assembleias de turma, ou as tutorias) em que a remediação dos conflitos não resulte em ameaças para ninguém e em que, de forma periódica, todos e todas possam expressar as tensões e resolver os conflitos quotidianos de forma construtiva (através do diálogo, da negociação, da mediação...).
A eficácia da escola na educação para a cidadania democrática melhora quando também melhora a qualidade de vida de todas as pessoas que nela se encontram; conclusão que afecta não só a qualidade de vida dos alunos, mas também a qualidade de vida dos professores. Convém ter em conta, neste sentido, que a maioria dos comportamentos destrutivos que nela surgem são de natureza reactiva e que o risco aumenta quando o nível de tensão e de stress que ali se vive supera a capacidade para afrontá-lo sem violência. Assim, para prevenir, convém:
desenvolver capacidades para enfrentar o stress, a incerteza, a tensão (como as competências para a vida incluídas no curriculum escolar em diversos países europeus) sem reacções destrutivas;
e reduzir a tensão e o stress (melhorando a qualidade de vida) de todas as pessoas que convivem na escola.
A distribuição do poder, essencial na educação para a cidadania democrática, tem, para além da sua dimensão social, uma dimensão individual de grande significado na qualidade de vida das pessoas; a isto costuma fazer-se referência em diversos foruns internacionais com a expressão “empowerment”.
A educação pode desempenhar um papel decisivo no desenvolvimento desta dimensão também no aspecto individual, contribuindo para que cada aluno e aluna defina os seus próprios projectos escolares, desenvolvendo assim o poder de controlar e decidir a sua própria vida (definindo objectivos e meios para os alcançar, desenvolvendo a capacidade de se esforçar por consegui-los, superando os obstáculos que frequentemente surgem no referido processo...). Convém ter em conta que o sentido de projecto melhora a qualidade de vida das pessoas e diminui o risco de reagirem através de comportamentos destrutivos.
A educação para a cidadania democrática exige que sejam postas em prática novas e mais estreitas formas de colaboração entre a escola e a família, incrementando a presença, o poder e participação dos pais na vida da escola. Para isso é preciso estabelecer novos esquemas de colaboração, baseados no respeito mútuo (respeito pelo papel que cada agente educativo desempenha), orientando a colaboração no sentido de procura conjunta de soluções para fazer face um problema comum: adaptar a educação às exigências de uma sociedade em que as principais instituições educativas, caracterizadas até ao presente pelo seu isolamento, já não estão nem podem estar isoladas.
Todas as inovações necessárias para educar para a cidadania democrática exigem a existência de condições que permitam aos professores levá-las a cabo. Neste sentido convém ter em conta a necessidade de apoiar os professores, dando-lhes a possibilidade de adquirirem as competências necessárias e criando condições que possibilitem a cooperação entre eles; sem cair na tendência frequente de sobrevalorizar as possibilidades dos professores de desenvolverem objectivos muito complexos sem os meios necessários, nem na tendência contrária, subvalorizando a capacidade de alguns profissionais para adquirirem as competências necessárias que permitam adaptar a educação às exigências da situação actual.
Educar para a cidadania democrática exige que a escola coopere de forma muito mais estreita do que até ao momento, com o resto da sociedade, incluindo neste sentido não só a cooperação já mencionada com as famílias, mas também com outros agentes sociais (como as organizações não governamentais, os conselhos e administrações locais...). O que equivale a reconhecer, uma vez mais, que o não isolamento da escola em relação ao resto da sociedade não só está na origem de muitos dos seus problemas actuais, mas também pode estar na origem da sua solução. Para que a balança se incline nesta segunda direcção é preciso incrementar e melhorar a colaboração da escola com o resto dessa sociedade, da qual já não pode estar isolada.

Comunicação proferida no âmbito da Conferência "EDUCAÇÃO, INTEGRAÇÃO, CIDADANIA: da Autonomia ao Desenvolvimento Curricular" que se realizou em Sta. Maria da Feira, de 10 a 11 de Abril de 2000, sob a égide da Presidência Portuguesa da União Europeia.
*Maria José Diaz-Aguado é Catedrática de Psicologia da Educação na Universidade Complutense de Madrid e foi a Relatora do grupo de reflexão sobre CONFLITOS SOCIAIS E EDUCAÇÃO PARA A CIDADANIA na Conferência referida acima.


PONTOS DE VISTA

Education for democratic citizenship

COUNCIL FOR CULTURAL CO-OPERATION (CDCC)
EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP
REPORT ON THE PORTUGUESE SITE OF CITIZENSHIP, FEBRUARY 1999
Prepared by María José Díaz-Aguado, Augusto Santos Silva
DECS/EDU/CIT (99) 25
1. Introduction
1.1. The Lisbon Site
The Portuguese site is located in the region of Lisbon and it considers educational processes in contexts of great social and ethnic diversity and inequality. Following the basic concepts adopted by Sub-group B, it draws all the attention to the multiple forms of overcoming barriers, negotiating frontiers and building reciprocity-based relationships between different groups of citizens, their associations, and public institutions such as schools, health and social security services and municipalities.
1.2. Preparatory activities: the Programme for Intercultural Education
At the end of the 80’s, it becomes evident the historical turn of the Portuguese society: once a country of strong emigration, it is turning to be a country of increasing immigration. Thousands of people are coming, mainly from ancient African colonies, such as Cape Verde and Angola. As a response to the implications of this new situation for schools, it is launched, by the Ministry of Education, a special project, the Intercultural Education Project, held by the “Secretariado Entreculturas” (Intercultural Secretariat).
This Project took place between 1993 and 1997. In its first stage (1993-1995), 30 basic schools were comprehended, chosen according to the following criteria: (a) to have high rates of pupils from ethnic and cultural minorities, (b) to have high rates of failure, c) to wish to participate. In the second stage (1995-1997), the number of schools attained 52, 3 of them being secondary schools. (In Portugal, basic education corresponds to the first 9 years of curriculum, usually attended by children from 6 to 15 years), and secondary education to the 10-12 years of curriculum, usually attended by youngsters from 16 to 18 years).
The large majority of these schools belonged to disadvantaged neighbourhoods, where successive waves of immigrants settled, being some real ghettos. Most of them concentrated in the urban area of Lisbon.
Two aims were designed for this project. The first one was to develop conditions for overcoming failure, dropping-out and exclusion, in the schools involved; the second was to generalise tested experiences and methods.
Each school appointed a team of voluntary teachers, 3 or 4 acting as a steering group for the project implementation. One of the first tasks was to identify pupils’ needs. And there was, initially, a great consensus on the urgency to respond to material needs (food, hygiene), the most visible ones. So the Project began at such level. The teachers’ teams expressed their own needs for training, as they felt the need to incorporate educational innovations: they recognised the necessity of changing methods and strategies for dealing with pupils and their families, but they didn’t know how to change and in which direction. The implementation of a continuous training plan on intercultural education supported the development of the Project during the four years.
Schools developed periodic meetings, sometimes joining together teachers and parents – and, in many of them, this was a new fact. Some parents’ associations, which still last, were formed. Parents were invited to participate in school life: and many did, at first in non-curriculum activities, such as parties, folklore exhibitions or opening ceremonies. But, as the contact was going on and communication improved, some of the parents and other relatives (grandparents, uncles and aunts...) also went to classrooms, and participated in some core pedagogical activities, bringing cultural diversity and demonstrating the cultural value and pedagogical utility of their own ethnic culture. In that sense, teachers become aware that, to empower pupils and local communities and to fight exclusion, it is not enough to add cultural and ethnic activities to the traditional curriculum, leaving unaltered this one. Instead, it is really necessary to change deeply the structure of relationships inside classroom, in which the roles of teacher and learner are formed.
2. Actors, partners and local initiatives
2.1. Actors, motivations, capacities and competencies
The site of Lisbon can be described in the continuity of the Intercultural Education Project. Three of the schools (one secondary school, the others basic schools) that participate in the site have been partners before, in this Project. And the "Secretariado Entreculturas", itself, is fully a member of the steering committee of the Ministry of Education that supervises the site project.
There is a strong presence of children belonging to ethnic minorities, especially Gypsies and African families. The rate increases till 70%, in the case of the secondary school. Besides, it is common that non-African families avoid schools with a strong presence of Africans. The Ministry considers that these schools deserve special attention, due to their disadvantaged environment, and so there is an additional allocation of material and human resources.
The motivation of some of the technicians of the Ministry of Education that work in the supervision of the site can also be expressed in continuity with the general aims of the Intercultural Education Project. Let's quote a paper prepared by one of them, that intends to explicit the link between intercultural education and education for democratic citizenship:
The label of intercultural education connotes a dynamics of global reform of the school (…). It is, in fact, education for democracy because it aims at the participation of all stakeholders (…). The concept of intercultural education also implies a better equality of opportunity (…): to fight against inequalities and discrimination, to give an active voice to all those that have to do with a local educational community, to qualify schools as more participatory and democratic organisations. Then, we should define intercultural education as a road to empowerment and to inclusion, and so, as a way to understand and concretise education for democratic citizenship (Document from the "Secretariado Entreculturas", 19-03-1997, p. 3).
In what regards the motivation of teachers, we must consider two groups. The first one includes several teachers who participated in the Intercultural Education Project, since 1993, and are already engaged in new ways of seeing and practising their profession, in multicultural contexts. The second one, probably the majority, still presents low levels of commitment and would prefer to work in more affluent environments. But, within the first group, we could be more precise and suggest that different grounds can sustain engagement. There is a kind of religious or missionary attitude: one is deeply and sincerely concerned with the extremely bad conditions in which people live, and the strong barriers that limit access to basic goods such as education, housing or employment - but one does not express this concerns in terms of power, and does not explicitly envisage needs and strategies of empowerment. There is a professional commitment: one considers multicultural and disadvantaged communities as a challenge, and trusts his professional capacities to cope with it. There is a rather political, militant attitude, of those that conceptualise education as one particular level of the more general action for social change and empowerment of disfavoured citizens.
Besides schools and teachers, the Lisbon site also comprehends non-governmental organisations, developing non-formal learning practices. Two are especially relevant for our purposes: the community centre of the quartier called “Bairro do 6 de Maio”, one of the most depressed quartiers of the Lisbon area; and the association “Moinho da Juventude” (that is, Mill of the Youth).
The community centre was founded and is ruled by Catholic nuns, strongly committed to the work with poor and excluded people. They came from outside the neighbourhood and opted to live inside. The centre equipment is, in fact, located in the quartier. The activities include adult basic education, health care, kindergarten, cultural and leisure practices and the support to residents in what concern their relationship with public services of employment, social security or administration. Religious services are, of course, provided, including in “Creole”, the native tongue of the Cape Vertians, who constitute the majority of the residents. Professionals such as social workers, educators and mediators work in, or with, the centre. In general, these professionals are committed to principles of the education for democratic citizenship, and present one or several of the motivations referred to above.
The actors of the association “Mill of Youth” come from the neighbourhood, and this reinforces the local roots of the association. Many work as volunteers. Financial support was obtained from national and international sources: among the latter, we should emphasise the Youthstart Programme, from the European Union. One of the major activities of the association is to host a vocational course on mediation, aiming to form as mediators certain young members of the community with leadership activities or in a crossroad position. The course offered at the same time a formal curriculum, in correspondence with the requirement for formal education to deliver certificates. The 10 youngsters who achieved the course were subsequently integrated, in the context of a programme called, in Portugal, “The Social Market of Employment”, in the basic schools attended by children who live in the quartier. Their task is to facilitate the liaison between schools and families, and the assumption is that, coming from the community, they are in an excellent position to play such a role.
2.2. The formation of innovative partnerships
One of the most innovative practices implemented in the site of Lisbon is the co-operation between the volunteer activists of the association “Mill of Youth” and some of the schools that serve the neighbourhood. Part of the activities of each organisation takes place in the context of the other. Through the presence and the role of the young mediators, the association participates in the school activities; on the other side, part of the curriculum activities is developed in the physical and social framework of the association, itself, the teachers moving from school to association, in order to give some classes to their pupils.
Other innovation can be identified in the relationship that schools participating in the site of Lisbon do establish with pupils’ parents and relatives. Especially when the latter do in fact bring a real input to the design of the educational project of the school or even to classroom activities, because they inform teachers and students about their own experience and the main characteristics of their culture and heritage. We could signal here a route to the empowerment of parents proceeding from cultural milieus traditionally excluded from the cultural framework of public and formal education.
These schools want furthermore. They want to redefine curriculum in order to include patterns of relationship among teachers, between teachers and pupils, and between pupils, that induce the acquisition and development of competencies required for democratic participation. And they want to modify the procedures of internal organisation, in order to give larger influence to students and to make them more conscious of their role as partners of a (desirable) democratic school.
2.3. Participation of the local authorities
From the very beginning, one of the key objectives of the Portuguese site has been the engagement of local authorities, such as municipalities and parishes, of the urban area we deal with. Several representatives attended, in fact, the 4 workshops promoted until now, and they seem to wish to intensify their co-operation. Nevertheless, we noticed real difficulties to concretise this aim, perhaps because of some lack of definition of the respective roles of teachers, civil servants and politicians, in what matters basic and secondary education. This shortcoming should motivate an additional effort, from the leaders of the site, to overcome the barrier that separates local administration from local schools and NGO’s.
2.4. From vertical co-ordination to horizontal co-ordination
The Ministry of Education has assumed, until now, a leading role in the development of the Portuguese site. This role can be adequately described as a vertical one, due to the nature of the institutional relations between centre and periphery, in a centralised country such as Portugal. It would be better, therefore, to develop a kind of horizontal co-ordination, strengthening the networking of the local agencies that participate in the site.
3. Conditions of access, strategies and synergies
Since the very first activities of the Lisbon site, almost everyone recognises that schools normally reproduce traditional schemes and forms of organisation that constitute an obstacle to disseminate and acquire the competencies and capacities demanded by democratic participation.
Let’s quote from a document prepared by the “Secretariado Entreculturas”:
It doesn’t seem that the paradigm of “traditional school”, as an institution, allows for democratic practices (participatory, autonomous and empowering). It implements a very strong hierarchy, with vertical communication and command, functioning as a pyramid. Instead, a democratic organisation presupposes “horizontal” fluxes of communication and decision, based on matrix that must be more flexible, and provoke interaction between different levels of decision and larger participation in decision taking (...).The proposals for education for democratic participation must, therefore, rethink the school – the structure, organisation and role of school in a society where complexity is the rule, not the exception (...). A school that would be a place and opportunity to learn how to be a democratic citizen. A school that would be a microcosm in which all the subjects, children and adults, could learn the value of liberty and how to respect difference, be it ethnic, cultural or religious-based, could learn how to participate in power and to co-operate in the space of freedom provided by democracy (“Secretariado Entreculturas”, 19-03-1997).
The first workshop promoted by the Lisbon site addressed the same issue:
Sometimes the mass media do not facilitate and even prevents the full exercise of citizenship. According to some participants, the same happens with formal educational system, where some autocratic and dogmatic values prevail. (...) One does not learn how to become a citizen, one learns it by doing and living it.It was also said that this kind of learning in schools is not just the matter of a discipline or even a cross/curricular area, it implies a more global and total approach which also involves the hidden curriculum.(...) Raising opportunities for the pupils to participate in the school, especially within the management system, are necessary requirements, that lead to learn to live in others groups respecting other people’s values and differences (I. Martins, L. P. Cardoso, report from the first workshop, Seixal, 26-11-1997).
As we can deduce from these quotations, there is still a strong hierarchical distribution of power, in the relationships between teachers and pupils. This tendency prevents real participation of pupils in a democratic school organisation, that is, to concretise what seems to constitute a wide theoretical consensus.
According to the Portuguese rules, pupils’ participation, at basic and secondary education, takes these forms:
1- Each classroom elects a deputy, who acts as a representative and is invited to attend the meetings where all the teachers of the class face, mainly, disciplinary issues. This applies for pupils aged 10 and more years.
2- Each school with pupils aged 13 years onwards has its own students’ association. The executive board of the association is appointed by general and periodic elections. They usually act as organisers of leisure and non-curricular activities.
3- At secondary schools, pupils (aged 16 to 18 years) elect representatives to the management boards. Teachers’ representatives form the majority of these boards; and there are also representatives from local authorities and parents.
When we consider the way that implements these rules in the practice, we can’t stop noticing several obstacles. The first one is the contradiction between the formal mandate of the class deputy and the real authority of teachers: it is not uncommon that the deputy is invested of role of assistance to the teacher, instead of being a representative responsible before his or her colleagues. The second obstacle is the tendency to trivialise the role of students’ associations, too much concentrated on leisure activities. The third one is, of course, a limitation of representative democracy itself: there is little room for participation of the great majority of youngsters who are not elected as class deputies, association leaders or members of the management boards.
4. The Learning/Training/Education Activities
4.1. The role of formal educational structures in EDC to facilitate knowledge bysharing the power
Schools that participate in the Lisbon site are committed to the objective of overcoming the obstacles referred to above, and promoting conditions for a more active participation of students. For instance, in the Basic School Almada Negreiros, there is an attempt to create formal contexts for periodic meetings of pupils and of pupils and teachers: class assemblies, class deputies’ assemblies and even general pupils’ assemblies. But, to what extent does this mean real influence on decision-taking processes?
4.2. The importance of shared definition of goals, objectives and strategies
The workshops are the main instruments to improve communication and networking within the site. Four were promoted, in 1997 and 1998. We could say that a sense of identity of the site is being constructed by means of these periodic and thematic meetings.
4.2.1. Establishing common goals and strategies
The first meeting took place in Seixal, a town close to Lisbon, the 26th November 1997. 34 individuals were present, representing schools and non-formal educational services, public administration and local authorities. A consensus was achieved, on the main issues the Project should address: basic concepts related to the education for democratic citizenship; the role of school and non-formal education, of local authorities and non-governmental organisations; the curricular approaches; the role of media and other instances of formation of public opinion. Among the conclusions drawn up, we would remark the following ones:
Citizenship has to do with the rights and duties of the individual, and his liberty to express them and defend them. Citizenship fights against and opposes to any kind of obscurantism, or ideological dogmatism. The exercise of citizenship particularly counters any kind of indoctrination of minorities or unprivileged groups who experience difficulties of integration or participation.(...) Fighting for citizenship rights is more urgent for those who are deprived of work or family, and for the unschooled. In these cases, very particular strategies of training may be required (for example mediators).(...) Communication is the key issue in citizenship. At the functional level it means the process of interaction, where the language plays the role of establishing “bridges” in between the different identities. (...) Building partnerships between schools and parents, focusing on the strategies to reach the aimed co-operation is an important issue in the EDC. This may also change the way the parents think about the school, allowing the necessary participation of both partners and the emerging of joint initiatives in school.(...) Other activities and initiatives led by associations, municipalities and different community agents propose exceptional opportunities of participating, experiencing and sharing citizenship rights and rules in different settings than those of school. This type of framework is complementary to the experience on EDC, which may be gained in school (I. Martins, L. P. Cardoso, report from the first workshop, Seixal, 26-11-1997).
4.2.2. The training and role of social mediators
The second workshop took place, at the Ministry of Education, the 27th March 1998, with the presence of 37 individuals. The issue was “The training and role of social mediators”. Eventually, the conclusions of the debate were summarised in a report to the Council of Europe. Let’s quote some of them:
Mediation proved to be one of the capital dimensions of democratic commitment in such environments as the Lisbon surroundings. (…) We can’t expect people who feel so abandoned and out-of-place in a society that in several aspects is hostile to them, to participate in a voluntary and individual basis, as the liberal foundations of democratic ideology would preview and encourage. We must intervene directly and actively in the framework of education in, and for, community, in order to qualify young and adult people, expressing their right and facilitating their wish and ability to civic and political participation.
(…) Mediation means, then, both the principles and strategies to “open” to each other, two different and virtually conflicting worlds - the “world of the ghetto” and “the world of the State”, “the world of the ethnic minorities” and “the world of the autochthonous”, the “outsiders” and the “establishment” – and to assure the possibility of interaction between them, founded in respect of oneself and respect of the Other, respect for one’s identity and respect for difference.
(…) Mediation is also a core of principles and techniques for conflict management and resolution, committed to the values of reciprocal tolerance and understanding, negotiation and compromise. In which case, the mediator can be presented as a sort of third party, offering its services to facilitate communication between two contending parties. Is it necessary or advisable, to perform this kind of mediation, to be neutral, in what matters the motives of conflict and the interests of the contenders? Perhaps. But in a sense broader than the one which is admitted in international organisations for familiar or juridical mediation (for instance). Because, in the cases we are discussing now, mediation is only possible if grounded in a deep commitment to democratic values and rules, and then, implies a basic option for them, and for people in a position of disadvantage regarding the power of the other part.
We should, then, consider that the mediator’s role must be to equilibrate the balance of power. This apparently runs against the neutral and equidistant attitude, supposed inherent to that role, in other fields. But in circumstances of such a strong inequality between parties, how could he or she perform his or her role without this commitment to the more horizontal power relations of democracy?
The report of the workshop on mediation refers to the existence of three different ways of exercising mediation, among the activists that participate in the Lisbon site:
1- The Community Centre “Bairro 6 de Maio” concentrates in networking, establishing links both between the several public departments and between these and local community. The main goal is to pressure for territorially embedding of public agencies and policies.
2- The “animators-mediators” of the Project “Youthstart”, in the neighbourhood of Chelas, Lisbon, act as facilitators of the integration process in which are engaged the youngsters at risk of social exclusion, who attend a course of vocational training. They provide a daily mentoring: performing not a role of teachers or trainers, but a transversal guidance, centred in the emotional and relational aspects of the training, trying to identify and solve problems and promote self-esteem and capacities of problem-resolution. The proximity and globalism of this mediation does contrast with the partial and fragmented nature of the courses in formal education, in which they had resented successive failures. Mediators serve, here, as a kind of rock, a guarantee of help in training as well as in affects and communication.
3- The Association “Moinho da Juventude” promotes a programme of training for mediation. But the main task is conceived in terms of a linkage between the local African community – to which these young trainees belong – and the public schools that serve it, but are so far from its cultural and social backgrounds. The existence and work of such young trained leaders are assumed to improve a more direct and reciprocal communication between families and pupils’ parents, on the one hand, and teachers and school managers, on the other hand.
22 participants attended the third workshop, the 28th April 1998. The theme proposed was “Citizenship as a framework for pedagogical practices with children”. Two experiences were presented and discussed, one developed in a kindergarten, the other in a basic school, attended by 6-10 years old children. It was a training workshop, rather then a reflexive debate.
4.2.3. The liaison school-families
The fourth workshop discussed the issue of the communication and partnership between schools and families. It took place in the Regional Directorate of Education for Lisbon, with 23 participants. Two colleagues from the basic schools that privilege this issue, within the Lisbon site, introduced their methods and achievements. Some conclusions were drawn from the general debate that followed their presentation, in a report prepared by D. Carrapiço and L. Fonseca:
1- The intervention of the parents in school life is an important practice of citizenship. As a matter of fact, it is necessary to reinforce it, through strategies that enable schools to get closer to families and local communities. Enabling strategies are, among others, greater availability of teachers, openness of the school to its physical and social environment, identification of problems that concern pupils and their families, and co-operative procedures to enunciate and solve them.
2- It is urgent to think about the new roles teachers have to perform – roles that demand globalisation and intervention. Teachers cannot limit themselves to the role of transmitting knowledge; they must actively facilitate the global process of development – cognitive, emotional, and social – of their students. There is a hand full of consequences for teacher training, both initial and in-service training.
3- Several obstacles prevent further expansion and consolidation of pedagogical projects in schools: isolation and lack of resources, instability and discontinuity of teachers’ teams along the years, little or non-existent support from educational authorities.
4- The educational project of the school is the driving-force of its functioning. It is necessary to choose clearly common goals, to identify barriers and resources, to mobilise people, to articulate logic sequences of activities and procedures of evaluation and training, in order to get things changed and to improve the quality and social utility of education. But the educational project must be elaborated in a participatory process, motivating the co-operation of the entire “educational community” (that is, teachers, parents, pupils, staff people, psychologists and other stakeholders), in order to respond adequately to the specific needs of whom is prepared for.
5- Parents’ participation in school life and management must be conceptualised within a scheme of equality and co-operation. Communication may be disturbed by the influence of certain stereotypes and prejudices: the paternalism of teachers; the fear that professional domains may be invaded by intrusive parents’ associations; and reciprocal misunderstandings and arrogant manners. It is crucial, then, to separate clearly what is not but information transmission and accountability and what is really partnership and participatory, democratic project-building strategy.
5. Final remarks
The Portuguese site of citizenship was designed at an intermediate level, as an attempt to link some local experiences to improve democratic values and participation, both in formal and non-formal education. The characteristic they all share was the location in the same region, Lisbon and its neighbourhoods, deeply marked by cultural and ethnic diversity and social inequality. At the present stage of its development, the main interlocutors are 3 basic schools, 2 secondary schools, 1 public health centre, 1 community and religious centre, 1 local association, 1 private institute of action-research, and several departments and programmes of the Ministry of Education. Therefore, we have good expectations in what concerns the influence the development of EDC Project may have in the general policy of the Ministry, and in the functioning of several of its departments. But, on the other hand, the site is still too vertical a networking, depending too much on the initiative and leadership of the Government offices. The efforts to reinforce the presence of local authorities and adult education services did not result, till now, and so there is a lack of relevant partners as well as a bias towards childhood and youth.
In terms of achievements, the Portuguese site may indeed reach a good level of theoretical and professional reflection on the issue of education for citizenship. The periodic workshops proved to be a useful method, and the reports prepared for each one and circulated among all the participants contain rich materials, in what regards both ideas and good practices. How can this be translated into training materials and activities, directed towards multipliers such as teachers, teachers trainers, journalists, managers or opinion makers is one of the major challenges the Site must face, this year. A second point is that the participation in the EDC Project already concretised the possibility of visiting other countries’ experiences and contact other activists for some of the actors and professionals engaged in the Site. It is still difficult to constitute a network of local initiatives that may function in partnership logic and survive the end of this particular experience. And we have no precise ideas on implementation and dissemination strategies.