Cătălina Tănăsescu, teacher
Mircea
Ghițulescu
Middle School,
Cuca, Argeș County, Romania
At a European level, Romania
ranks 3rd in 42 countries where the bullying phenomenon was investigated. One
in four children was repeatedly humiliated at school in front of their
classmates; one in six children was repeatedly beaten; one in five children
repeatedly humiliated by another child at school. The sociological study
"Child Bullying" by the Save
the Children Organization, in 2016, highlighted the need to adopt measures
to stop this alarming phenomenon.
The most recent report published at the end of October
by the Bucharest School Inspectorate shows that the number of violent acts in
pre-university education in the capital city was 2.3 times higher than last
year as compared to the school year 2016-2017. Specifically, if 2 years ago the
total number of bullying acts at school level was 139, in 2017-2018 their
number reached more than double, i.e. 326. Of these, 218 were classified as
attacks in person, 35 attacks on school security, 10 attacks on goods, and 63
were considered as other acts of violence in the school surroundings. For
violence against students, four teachers were sanctioned in the school year
2017-2018. In fact, it is sure that the number of violent acts in school was
higher. The "skipping out" of some cases, the gap between what
students are saying and what they are reporting is the result of a difficult to
define concept of violence. Defining violence in school is not an easy task. Not
only does violence imply excessive and extraordinary events, but also the
identification of daily violence, including the definition of microviolence.
The
phenomenon has always existed in the pupils' group dynamics, but, since the
beginning, administrative preoccupation has generally been ignored until its
media discovery. School violence sells well. The way the phenomenon is
presented in the media leads to the impression of an epidemic of brutal rage
and a growing danger in school. On the other hand, misconceptions and beliefs
about violence, bullying and victimization are common and widespread. These
often affect the sensitive and neutral judgment of adults in bullying
situations, preventing them from detecting the signs of bullying in time and from
responding appropriately. Violence in school must be viewed critically and
pragmatically, with a view to combining scientific knowledge and reflection on
strategies to combat or prevent.
The problem
of violence in school is, first and foremost, a daily, repetitive, proteomic
oppression. School is a space for learning and social relationships together.
It can only successfully work as a complete work: "School should be a safe
and positive educational environment" (Olweus, 2010). The
"ordinary" violence is present in every school, it is an everyday violence, common and not necessarily
criminal. Teasing, exclusion, humiliation, harassment, brutality, improper
handling, scandal, or indiscipline represent just as many ways in which one may
be the victim of violence in school. The solution would be to conceive the
fight against the phenomenon, not simplistic, in the short term, but in the
long run, through daily prevention and dissuasion.
The concept
of bullying is associated with a particular experience of violence. The already
old concept was defined by Dan Olweus, who carried out the first research on
this subject in Norwegian schools, on a sample of 140,000 young people. It
defines the phenomenon as an aggressive and systematic abuse of power over the
long term. According to the researchers who studied the phenomenon, bullying
involves long-term, physical or psychological violence committed by one or more
aggressors against a victim who is unable to defend themselves, the aggressor
acting with the intention of harming the victim.
Eric
Debarbieux says that "violence is just a part of bullying and vice
versa" (Debarbieux, 2010). Limiting school violence to school bullying
means ignoring adult violence against pupils or other violence. Bullying is a
concept that tends to individualize the issue and place responsibility
exclusively on the aggressor or the victim, sometimes the family, minimizing
the influence of the socio-economic context and the institution. In November
2017, the Organization Save the Children
launched the Campaign "Stop Bullying or Abolish Break Time!" To
trigger an alarm on the aggressions of the victims of bullying. In 10 minutes,
a child can lose confidence in her or himself and others and the long-term
consequences on emotional development and social integration are extremely
serious. There are 10-minute breaks, in which one in four children in Romanian
schools is repeatedly victim of bullying. The campaign highlighted the violence
of the school environment.
Being a victim or an aggressor implies a cumulation of features and a context.
The origin of violence must not be placed solely on the individual, but the
much deeper levels of violence that are part of institutional frameworks must
be sought and identified. Can there be a violent school? The school climate
influences the definition of violence itself, violence "can often be
reduced to the degradation of the school climate" (Debarbieux, 2010). The
link between the school climate and violence has been established since 1986 by
the Gottfredson spouses and has since been investigated by numerous research.
Research has long hesitated to include organizational variables or
school-related variables on the list of risk factors themselves. Without
neglecting the immense share of socio-demographic and contextual variables,
especially economic, researchers such as Debarbieux 1996, Soule 2003,
Benbenisthy and Astor 2005, attempt to measure the role of the school climate
in explaining the variations in victimization suffered by both students and
teachers, and in the evolution of security sentiment, self-esteem or school
failure.
The team's
research led by Denise C. Gottfredson is particularly convincing: in a sample
of 234 schools, the results of an intensive survey on victimization and the
school climate show that factors that most often explain the rise in victimization
include teacher instability, lack of clarity and injustice in the application
of the rules. A certain use of the risk factor approach may prove insufficient
and dangerous if this approach lists categories of risk prediction without incorporating
them in a systematic and contextual approach. One of the pitfalls of research
and action in the field of school violence is to only consider an element of
the system: either in a metaphor of the besieged school, the external factors,
or in an illusory belief in the self-sufficiency of the school, exclusively
internal factors, or, in naive psychology, only the individual variables. The
approach to risk factors is a common one in psychology. The school factors
considered are school failure, truancy, school dropout, frequent disciplinary
problems, frequent school changes, poor attachment to school, and poor involvement
in school activities. One of the problems of the risk factor approach is that
it has been insufficiently contextualized; the literature uses too often models
that are not related to the school variables. Contextualizing school violence
at the level of school variables is one of the most promising research
directions. School-related factors are: the effects of school size, the effects
of organizing teamwork and school management, and the effects of pedagogical
practices.
Perceiving violence in school exclusively as violence enforced in school
is "common blindness"
(Debarbieux, 2010); a simplistic naivety that
contributes to recommending dangerous solutions that emphasize the phenomenon
they claim to fight. If we laid stress on the idea that school violence is
being built amidst school premises, we must not allow ourselves to be tempted
to say that this is "teacher's fault", and all violence is to be
explained by their incompetence or sadism. The reductionist notion: violence in
school, school violence implies a radical simplism to be combated. However,
sometimes school adults may themselves be aggressors. It is painful that for a
certain segment of the population some "violence" is normal, and it
is part of a traditional right of correction. Obligation to stand, additional
issues, offenses, ridiculing in public are violent crimes based on a very long
history. This type of violence was an "educational tradition" that
suppresses the overwhelming majority of students' rights. The fear that a change
of mentality might render teachers "powerless" should be overcome.
The normal education that a child
should receive excludes any type of violence.
In a broad
contextual approach, violence in school is the result of a complex causal
system and regards education as a whole. Violence sets many traps; it is an
adversary without a law that leads to fighting. Exceeding the major pitfalls of
exaggeration, denial, simplicity and ignorance, the fight against bullying involves
the challenge of recognizing, knowing and acting, because preventing bullying
is an act of high moral significance.
Bibliography
|
|
Depino Catherine
|
Violența
în școală, București, Editura Trei, 2013
|
Debarbieux Eric
|
Violența
în școală: o provocare mondială?,
Iași, Editura Institutul European, 2010
|
Netzelmann Tzvetina Arsova, Elfriede
Steffan,
Angelova Marina
|
Strategii
pentru o clasă fără bullying,
eBook
|
Whitson Signe
|
Fenomenul
bullying 8 strategii pentru a-i pune capăt, București, Editura Herald, 2017
|
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento