Page 1

Authors: Maja Vitas Barbara Sivertsen Andra Tanase Proof reading Serbia report: Srđan Došljak

December 2015

www.eeagrants.org www.fondong.fdsc.ro


2


Authors: Maja Vitas Barbara Sivertsen Andra Tanase Proof reading Serbia report: Srđan Došljak

December 2015 Project financed by the SEE Grants 2009 – 2014, within Fondul ONG Programme in Romania The content of this material does not necessarily reflect the official position of SEE Grants 2009-2014

3


Table of Content I. II. III.

IV. V.

4

Introduction ............................................................ Overview ................................................................ Country Reports ..................................................... Serbia ..................................................................... Norway .................................................................. Romania ................................................................. Comparative Perspectives and Recommendations ... Bibliography & References ......................................

Page 5 Page 7 Page 9 Page 9 Page 23 Page 29 Page 41 Page 43


I. INTRODUCTION These realities mirror not only a present situation in which a large percentage of our children are living in a destructive teaching environment because of various degrees and forms of violence in their school lives, but also a future situation which should be already considered and acted upon/prepared. Yet many of these realities are not known or fully understood. In the same way, many of the possibilities of action and what is already happening is not sufficiently analyzed and publicized. Few of the actors are empowered and a highly complex task is normally left to the ‘usual suspects.’ This study addresses these key issues, providing a practitioner understanding of the violence in school phenomenon, reflecting on the extent the phenomenon is understood in the school context, presenting the perspectives and experiences of some of the key actors and offering examples of practices. The key aim, and the direction of our recommendations falls mainly on the structural level, one of the key aims of this study being to provide a knowledge base for practitioners to improve POLICIES aimed at preventing and arresting violence in schools. The study is based on the experience of three countries, Serbia, Romania and Norway, building upon the diversity of experience, resources and approaches in each of the countries and noticing at the same time a very strong commonality: the fact that many are still turning a cold shoulder on the phenomenon and that this is affecting our common future in a highly connected and interdependent world where [mutual respect, good communication and cooperation] are essential not only for a comfortable life but for basic survival. After an initial chapter which sets the context [explain more], each of the following chapters zooms into the experience of the 3 countries included in the study. Norway has actively worked for the reduction of violence in schools since the early 1990s. The process first began to show results on a national level after the creation of the Department of Learning Environment was established, and brought system to the efforts. In Romania, following a series of incidents with wide media appearances in Romania the authorities have developed together with large organisations active in the field of child protection comprehensive frameworks for understanding and tackling schoolbased violence. While the frameworks theorise quite well the phenomenon a significant gap exists when it comes to the awareness of this phenomenon in schools, to the abilities of students, teachers and others to address the issue and logically following from this to the impact of these initiatives. In Serbia, efforts to address and prevent violence in schools were quite intense in the last decade and were focusing not only on types of violence encountered in the school ground (physical aggression, bullying, discrimination) but also at home, on cyber violence as well as gender-based violence.

International agencies such as UNICEF have played a major role in charting the situation with comprehensive studies both in Romania and Serbia. Upon analyzing the experiences of the three countries, both in terms of successes and failures of the programmes implemented, a few key recommendations appear as of utmost necessity:

 MULTI-ACTOR EFFORT: working systematically with students, teachers, school management, parents/families, media, NGOs, regional and national authorities and insistence on the agency and true participation of each of those;  NURTURING CAPACITIES FOR ADDRESSING VIOLENCE: active and dedicated creation of capacities to recognize, prevent, manage and heal violence, process which should be developed at all actor levels;  RESOURCES AND STRUCTURES for PEACE: the allocation of needed resources, political will and creation of structures that would foster the continuous and conscious recording of data, that would represent a reference in cases of violence (eg. mediation clubs, violence-free principles and action boards, point-persons etc) and that would be ready for informed and capable intervention. Detailed recommendations are presented at the end of this study.

In summary, if once Amartya Sen identified education as one of the main factors for development, we identify education as one of the main factors for peace and offer data, experiences, suggestions and arguments for a stronger policy framework at the school, community and national levels. 5


6


II. OVERVIEW DEFINITIONS AND TYPES OF VIOLENCE Although violence that affects youth and school based violence has always existed in school settings, the official preoccupation with tackling it at the policy level has only been spelled out starting with 1997 Safety in Schools conference organized by the Council of Europe in The Utrecht. There are many possible ways that define violence, narrower or wider in scope. The most adopted definition for violence in school settings is the one adopted by the World Health Organisation:

Another frequent approach to school based violence, encountered especially in the context of the interventions by the Police, is an association between the notions of violence and delinquency. The trend, however is to take into consideration a wider definition considering also the fact that a wider definition allows also for a wider spectrum of intervention. PEACEBUILDING PALETTE

The intentional use of physical force, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person or against a group or community that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. The World Report on Violence against Children1 identifies the main forms of violence as follows:  physical and psychological punishment;  bullying;  sexual and gender-based violence;  external violence: effects of gangs, conflict situations, weapons  and fighting. One of the reference studies in the field in Romania, the UNICEF/ISE study on violence in schools adopts the following definition: “any type of manifestation of certain behaviors such as:  Inadequate or insulting words, such as name calling, bullying, irony, imitation, threat, harassment;  pushing, hurting, wounding;  behavior that violates certain laws (rape, consumption/selling of drugs, vandalism – purposely causing material damages, theft;  offense to the statute/authority of the teacher (language or unrespectful behavior towards a teacher);  inadequate school behavior: being late for class, leaving class during class time, smoking in the school setting and any other type of behavior that violates school regulations” (UNICEF, p. 22)

With so many different dimensions of school based violence also the needed interventions need to be multidimensional. The figure bellow illustrates, similarly to the Utstein Peacebuilding Palette, a Preventing and Arresting Violence in Schools Palette that will be later explored in our study:

POLITICAL STRUCTURES & POLICIES MONITORING & ANALYSIS

EDUCATION & ALTERNATIVES

SECURITY

What is remarkable about the above-mentioned definition is that although the study differentiates and investigates later on among actors who commit violence describing also violence committed by teachers, parents etc towards students, the conceptual definition adopted almost exclusively refers to acts of violence committed by students. This is also the conceptual trend and framing in most studies produced. 7


8


III. NATIONAL EXPERIENCES

a. SERBIA DEFINITION OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE: For the purpose of this research we will define violence as it is defined in the Special Protocol for the Protection of Children and Students From Violence, Abuse and Neglect in the Educational and Upbringing Institutions – violence is any form of verbal or non-verbal behavior that has been committed at least once or has repeated, which as a consequence, poses real or potential endangerment of health, development and dignity of children / students2.

a) TYPES OF VIOLENCE AND THEIR RELATIVE PREVALENCE According to the Special protocol3, forms of violence in schools can be:

       

physical violence, emotional / psychological, social violence, sexual violence and abuse, digital violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.

As the objective of this summary is to provide a national overview of school violence, the three latter forms of violence will not be the subject of our enquiry at this point. I II III IV V

physical violence emotional / psychological social violence sexual / gender based violence digital violence

RELATIVE PREVALENCE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF VIOLENCE At this point, the researcher in Serbia was not able to find official data about the prevalence of school violence in schools in Serbia. At the end of 2014 UNICEF and The Institute for Psychology published comprehensive research about school violence for the period 2006-2013 in the schools that are a part of the “School without Violence” program4. The sample of schools where the research was conducted was quite big: 237 schools, 109,154 students (3rd – 8th grade, age 9-15) and 15,507 school employees, however it is important to point out that the schools included in the sample were the schools that were already a part of the program “School without Violence” which is described in Segment c: Types of initiatives addressing school violence. The research defined violence in schools as any violence related to the social life of a school, not only cases of violence that happened on the school 5 ground . For the purpose of this overview, the data on the prevalence of various forms of violence will be presented in percentages and special attention will be paid to the two subcategories of violence: gender-based / sexual violence and digital violence.

9


According to the research summarized by Popadić, Plut and Pavlović, the prevalence of different forms of violence according to age and gender in % were6:

GENDER

GRADE

ALL

Hitting

Snatching

Coercing

Threats

Insults

Gossiping

Sexual harassment Disturbing messages Recording with mobile phone

Never once or twice more times never once or twice more times never once or twice more times never once or twice more times never once or twice more times never once or twice more times never once or twice more times never once or twice more times never once or twice more times

81.2 14.4 4.4 89.7 8.4 1.9 90.8 7.5 1.7 83.9 13.0 3.0 54.2 30.1 15.7 67.0 23.6 9.4 90.3 5.7 4.0 94.3 4.4 1.2 91.7 7.0 1.2

M

F

III-IV

V-VI

VII-VIII

78.1 16.3 5.6 88.7 9.1 2.3 88.3 9.3 2.4 80.6 15.5 4.0 52.7 29.7 17.5 71.7 20.3 8.0 94.7 3.2 2.1 94.2 4.4 1.4 90.9 7.6 1.4

84.4 12.5 3.2 90.8 7.6 1.6 93.4 5.6 1.0 87.4 10.5 2.1 55.7 30.5 13.8 62.0 27.1 10.9 85.8 8.3 5.8 94.3 4.5 1.2 92.7 6.3 1.0

67.6 25.7 6.7 86.0 11.7 2.3 88.2 9.7 2.2 79.0 17.3 3.8 54.8 32.2 13.1 66.7 25.5 7.8 -

85.5 10.7 3.8 90.7 7.4 1.8 91.0 7.3 1.7 84.2 12.5 3.1 51.1 30.3 18.6 64.8 24.3 10.9 92.1 5.1 2.8 94.8 4.1 1.2 91.5 7.4 1.2

89.8 7.4 2.8 92.2 6.1 1.7 93.2 5.5 1.3 88.2 9.5 2.3 56.6 28.0 15.4 69.2 21.2 9.6 88.6 6.4 5.1 93.8 4.8 1.4 92.0 6.7 1.3

GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

DIGITAL VIOLENCE

As a part of a project-integrated response to violence against 7 women research on gender-based violence in schools was conducted during 2013 and 2014 in 35 primary and 15 secondary schools. Students from age 10 to age 18, as well as teachers and school psychologists and pedagogues, participated in the research by filling out a total of 24 982 questionnaires. The overall conclusion was that gender-based violence exists in primary and secondary schools in Serbia. In total, 69% of primary school students and 74% of secondary school students have been exposed to gender-based violence at least once since the beginning of 2013/14 school year8.

Within cooperation between MPNT9, UNICEF and Telenor, research about digital violence to which students of primary and secondary schools were exposed was conducted in 10 2012 within project “Stop Digital Violence” . 3784 students, 1349 teachers and 2031 parents from 17 primary and 17 secondary schools in Serbia participated in the research. This research defined digital violence as using mobile phones, computers, video cameras and similar electronic devices in order to intentionally intimidate, insult, humiliate or hurt a person 11 in some other way.

10


STATISTICS ON VICTIMS OF DIGITAL VIOLENCE12: OLDER PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

TYPE OF VIOLENCE

Never

Once

2-3 times

Many times

Never

Once

2-3 times

Many times

SMS harassment

84%

7%

5%

4%

77%

11%

8%

4%

recording with mobile phone

91%

6%

2%

/

89%

6%

2%

/

harassment with phone calls

79%

8%

7%

6%

74%

10%

9%

7%

harassment with emails

96%

2%

/

/

96%

2%

/

/

harassment on social networks

82%

9%

5%

4%

83%

9%

5%

3%

someone used your online account

87%

9%

2%

2%

82%

12%

4%

2%

someone pretended to be someone else in online communication

87%

7%

3%

3%

81%

10%

6%

3%

someone sent you viruses

81%

9%

4%

6%

65%

12%

12%

11%

someone posted lies and insults on your account

93%

5%

1%

1%

91%

5%

2%

2%

someone posted photos or videos of you

92%

4%

2%

2%

88%

7%

2%

3%

someone impersonated you

89%

7%

2%

2%

88%

8%

2%

2%

The frequency of digital violence and the number of students involved is increasing with age and online bullying is more dominant compared to bullying by mobile phone calls and texting. Students were more willing to admit to having been victims of digital harassment than to harassing others. 10% of students of the 4th grade admitted that they had harassed others by using digital media, while the number of senior primary school students who harassed others via digital media increased to 28%, and it was 33% of 13 secondary school students .

outdoors. As the most frequent strategies registered as responses to peer violence, the research identified the following: 1. avoiding situations where subjects could be targeted, and 2. developing protection networks. Students do not believe that the system functions for their protection and that the perpetrator will be punished.

According to SeCons Draft Research on various forms and sources of insecurity in the youth in everyday life (scope of 20 high schools in Belgrade and Novi Pazar), preliminary results showed that in high schools peer violence was most present in 4 forms: physical violence, psychological violence (verbal or controlling), sexual violence (physical and verbal), economic violence (taking money and valuables). Violence is present in all school spaces, indoors and 11


b) ACTORS INVOLVED IN TACKLING THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE Prevention of violence and the issue of school violence are contained in the strategic and legal documents and manuals of: REPUBLIC OF SERBIA  The Law on the Basics of the Educational and Upbringing System;

LOCAL AND NATIONAL NGOS Types of initiatives addressing school violence

 Programmes of the Unit for Violence Prevention MPNT

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL 14 DEVELOPMENT  Standards of quality of education and upbringing institutions;  Standards and competences of teachers;  Special protocol for the protection of children and students from violence, abuse and neglect in the educational and upbringing institutions;  The manual for the implementation of the Special protocol for the protection of children and students from violence, abuse and neglect in the educational and upbringing institutions;  The rulebook on the protocol of treatment in an institution in responding to violence INTERNAL SCHOOL DOCUMENTS that regulate security and protection of children from different forms of violence:  Statute of the institution  Rulebook on disciplinary and material responsibility of school employees  Rulebook on student security  Rulebook on student codes of conduct  Rulebook on upbringing and corrective measures  Protection of violence program – within annual school plans UNIT FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION (a part of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development) was founded in February 2012 with expert and financial assistance from UNICEF and with the objective of more effective planning, coordination and monitoring of the response of the MPNT and other partners within the upbringing and education system to the prevention of violence over and among children and creation of a safer and more secure environment for learning and development. INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS UNICEF – The programme is implemented by UNICEF and MPNT, it was based on the UNICEF programme previously implemented in 15 Croatia GIZ – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

12

 SOS phone established for reporting the    

cases of violence Response units Education Cooperation A published manual on: Psychological Crisis Interventions in Educational Institutions in cooperation with GIZ.

 UNICEF School without violence – towards safe and encouraging environment for children is implemented by UNICEF and MPNT with the support of the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Work and Social Policy, Council for Children’s Rights of the Government of the Republic of Serbia and the Institute for the Advancement of Education and Upbringing, and since 2008/09 school year also with the support of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Ministry of youth and Sports16. According to the data available on the web page of the Unit for Violence prevention MPNT 242 primary and 9 secondary schools, or in total 252 schools (16% of all schools in Serbia) are included in the programme17.

 GIZ – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit implemented a school mediation program under the project “Strengthening the Structures for Youth Empowerment and Participation” with the support of Ministry of Youth and Sports of the Republic of Serbia. Within this project implemented from 2005 to 2014, the mediation programs were accredited at the State Institution for Education and Professional Advancement of Teachers and have now been introduced in at least 200 schools18.


 State-accredited programs for professional advancement of teachers – programs submitted by organisations and /or institutions. A new catalogue was published for school years 2014/15 and 2015/16 containing fewer educational programs for teachers and/or students on conflict prevention, peacebuilding, etc. The programmes address following topics: Conflict resolution (119), school mediation (3), bullying prevention, communication skills, peace education, peer violence prevention (3), conflict prevention and peacebuilding (1) prevention of cyber violence (2), non-violent communication, support to teachers in violence prevention (2), cooperation of youth and parents in violence prevention (2). In comparison to the past two-year period, there are no accredited programs on the topic of gender-based violence.

 Local NGO programs – some local NGOs, including Nansen Dialogue Centre Serbia20, have implemented or are implementing some programmes on prevention of school violence and peace education. Some organisations produced accredited curricula for education of teachers on the topic regarding prevention of school violence, peace education and peer mediation (such as programs described within the previous bullet point). The general impression is that the numbers of these initiatives is on decline as most programmes were dependent on donor funding and the number of available donor support for violence prevention and peace education is decreasing.

d) DEFINING SUCCESS The evaluation of School Without Violence was conducted from May to June 2009 for the programme initiated in 2005 on the research sample of 40 schools and participation of students (age 9 - 15), parents, teachers and representatives of local authorities, MPNT and UNICEF. According to the evaluation, the beginning of the cooperation with schools that had entered the program was excellent and the mentors were accepted well. Violence as a problem had different statuses at schools. Consciousness about violence was raised among actors, regarding knowledge about new forms of violence (besides physical violence), sensitivity to violence, more frequent reporting by students and their readiness to talk about violence. The most was achieved in the informing and learning area. However, it was noted that during its implementation, the program became more complex and its successfulness weakened: motivation decreased and problems such as lack of resources occurred. Strong support for program implementation came from the formalization of the process – rules and patterns of school, student, teacher’s reactions to violence were raised to the level of procedures. Factors important for the success of the program: motivation – positive and directed towards gaining competencies and problem solving; clear expectations – in line with program objectives and implementation of its content; adjustment of program 21 to the particular school .

Summary of the evaluation of NDC Serbia's project School Mediation – Violence Prevention in Multiethnic Schools in Vojvodina: Actors in educational institutions: schools and MoE improved their coordination in preventing violence, law application in the effort to establish safe school environment in multiethnic setting. Multiethnic schools have become better connected and have planned joint activities for the new school year. Key achievements of the project were that teachers, pedagogues and psychologists from six Vojvodina schools acquired conflict resolution skills and techniques and after a cycle of trainings became certified school mediators. Teachers felt empowered in the mediator's role as they had got knowledge, skills and clear procedures on how to react to conflicts in schools. Skills and competencies were built gradually and systemically during the project which the teachers stressed as an advantage, appreciating the support NDC Serbia and partner organizations provided through consultative and supervisory meetings. The teachers particularly appreciated the fact that the work with students was organised simultaneously with their trainings and throughout the school year. After the trainings of teacher mediators and peer mediators were completed, preconditions for implementing school mediation as a mechanism for the prevention of violence were fulfilled. Each of the six schools selected peer mediator team members and integrated school mediation in their Annual School Plans for the school year 2014/2015, which ensures that school mediation will be a part of regular school activities. The project envisaged a close cross-sectoral cooperation and was implemented with the support of the Unit for the Prevention of Violence at the Ministry of Education and the Provincial Secretariat for Education. Institutional representatives contributed as lecturers and clarified the law regulations and protocols on the prevention of violence to teachers, pedagogues, psychologists and school principals. With these activities, NDC Serbia and partners connected actors in the educational sector in Vojvodina to further invest in the upbringing components and establish school mediation as a mechanism for constructive conflict resolution in practice. 13


The project Strengthening Social Competence and Preventing Violence in schools, Lillehammer-Bujanovac Schools Cooperation was implemented 2010-2013 in Bujanovac municipality in southern Serbia where schools are still separated on ethnic basis and even buildings are in different parts of the town. Four primary schools (two from the town and two from the villages) actively participated in trainings for teachers, principals and students and in applying Social Competencies plans, thus working on the prevention of violence. They continued resolving conflict cases in mediator clubs established in the previous period. The baseline was that the discipline in schools was still not satisfactory; the number of conflict cases was high, with violent conflicts becoming the problem. The new The Law on the Basics of the Educational and Upbringing System was put in practice in 2009 in Serbia. Articles 44 and 45 strictly forbid violence and discrimination of any kind. Ministry of Education did not have the capacity to organise professional trainings in all schools in order to equip teams for prevention of violence in schools for its implementation. The expertise of Lillehammer teachers and experienced advisors from Lillehammer municipality School Department was used to transfer necessary skills and knowledge, while counselors from the Ministry of Education in Serbia gave practical interpretation of the law. In this way the main beneficiaries, representatives of schools where the teaching process is held in Serbian and schools in which teaching is in Albanian language benefitted from good practices from abroad adapted for the specific needs of the community and the country. Inter-sectoral cooperation between schools, local selfgovernmet and the ministry of education at the national level was strengthened through direct cooperation.

14

Joint activities were organised with students from all schools (ethnic Albanian and Serbian) such as the joint performance which was held in the school where the teaching is in the Serbian language, which is the sign that some divisions were overcome. Representatives of local self-governmet were present, as well as parents and colleagues from the Lillehammer school department. Also the celebration of 21st September, the International Day of Peace, became the regular occasion for joint students' activities. Regarding the institutionalisation of changes, all schools included social skills plans as a part of the regular work of teams for the prevention of violence and implemented them. Mediation clubs are considered to be efficient mechanisms for resolving conflicts. Coordination of efforts between educational institutions: schools, ministry of education headquartes and school departments was improved, as teachers maintained relationships. Local self-government expressed the willingness to organise future multi-ethnic events at the municipal level, asking schools to suggest a date to become 22 an annual event .


The following section describes the context and results of the field research component of the Serbia report, which complemented the desk review:

I. THE RESEARCH SAMPLE AND CONTEXT The research was conducted during the spring of 2015 (April - June) and it was conducted by representatives of NDC Serbia in six primary schools (PS) in Serbia. The schools that participated in the research were three (3) from Belgrade two (2) from Novi Sad, as well as one (1) primary school from Temerin. Both teachers and students participated in the research with a total of 51 teachers, school psychologists and pedagogues from five schools and 276 of sixth (134) and seventh (142) grade students from all six schools. The adults from one Belgrade primary school did not participate in the survey. The survey for the students was identical in all schools and it consisted of 11 questions that addressed school rules and how clear they were to students, as well as how much students could participate in designing the rules and decision making, how much students could rely on getting help if needed from both their peers and school staff, how often they were exposed to violence during the current school year (2014/15) and to what type. The survey questions also addressed the situations when violence had happened: if it had been reported, if the student had received assistance or advice and if the student had been exposed to bullying.

ADULTS PER TOWN CHART: Total number of adults

51

Belgrade Novi Sad Temerin

21 24 6

STUDENTS PER TOWN AND PER-CLASS CHART: VI grade

VII grade

Total number of students

276

134

142

Belgrade Novi Sad Temerin

137 97 42

64 51 19

73 46 23

15


II. RESULTS 1. PRESENTATION OF THE SURVEY FINDINGS: STUDENTS23 1a) The greatest number of students, 134 or 48.55% of 276 participants in total thinks that all of the teachers have clear expectations on how students should behave to each other. (71 students from the sixth grade or 52.99% and 63 students from the seventh grade or 44.37%) 1b) Most students, 188 or 68.12% think that all adults at the school think it is important that the students are good to each other. (97 student from the sixth grade or 72.39% and 91 students from the seventh grade or 64.08%) 2) Most students, 109 or 39.49% think that most of adults at the school react when a pupil says or does something nasty to another pupil. (55 students from the sixth grade or 41.04% and 54 students from the seventh grade or 38.03%) 3) Most students, 89 or 30.80% partly agree that in their school there are clear rules on how to behave in school which everyone respects. However, most six graders (43 students or 33%) agree that the rules are clear, while most seventh graders (52 students or 36%) partly agree. 4) Most of the students, 121 or 43.84% agree that they can influence the change of the school rules. (76 students from the sixth grade or 56.72% and 45 students from the seventh grade or 31.69%) 5) Most students, 89 or 32.25% partly agree that they don’t tease each other in their class if someone makes a mistake. However, 70 students or 25.36% disagree and they think students get teased when they make a mistake. PARTLY AGREE

6. 52 38.81%

7. 37 26.06%

In total 89 32.25%

DISAGREE

6. 34 25.37%

7. 36 25.35%

In total 70 25.36%

6) 136 students, or 52.99%, agree they can talk to someone in their class if something bothers them. (71 students from the sixth grade or 45.77% and 65 students from the seventh grade or 49.28%). 7) Most of the students, 94 in total, or 34.06%, think that there are a few teachers at the school to talk to if needed. However, 81 students, or 29.35% students think there is just one. 16

8) Most students, 123 or 44.57%, have not had the need for contact with any of the adults at the school to get help with social/personal problems. (62 students from the sixth grade or 46.27% and 61 students from the seventh grade or 42.96%). For most of those who got advice from adults at the school, the advice was quite helpful and the greatest number of students, 75 of them or 27.17% of all the students participating in the survey got that advice from teachers. 9) During this school year, the most frequent types of violence to which surveyed students were exposed to were: teasing (145 students or 52.54%), exclusion (107 students or 38.77%), spreading rumors (171 students or 61.96%) and somebody commenting on their appearance in a way they did not like (135 students or 48.91%). However, to most of the students this happened occasionally or only once. 17.75% of students was exposed to threats and 19.20% to physical violence such as kicking, pushing and punching. Most of the cases of violence happened in the changing rooms - 82 cases, and in the classroom - 52 cases. Most of the wrongdoers came from the same class as the students at whom violence was directed - 88 cases, however students also identified adults at school as wrongdoers in 55 cases. To the question: did the school do anything to help you, most of the students (67) said no adults at school knew what had happened to me, and 62 of them claimed adults at school knew absolutely nothing about what had happened to them. On the other hand, 50 students told everything about what had happened to them to somebody the exact same number of times as the number of students who told absolutely nothing. Students confide most often to their peers and family members, however, a great number of them does not report violence to anyone.


10) We defined bullying as continuous negative behavior of one or of a group of people aimed at a pupil who has difficulty in defending himself/herself or repeated teasing in an unpleasant, hurtful fashion. The greatest number of students who participated in the poll stated that they had not suffered from the negative consequences of bullying - 181 students or 65.58% (99 students or 73% of sixth graders and 82 students or 57.75% of seventh graders). Students who stated that bullying happened to them occasionally represented 22.1% of the sample. Students that recognize that they have been bullied most often identified students in their class or other students in the school as bullies. Some students, 22 in total, claimed that they were bullied more often, from several times a month to several times a week, and these students identified both verbal and physical violence under question 9 as forms of violence that had been happening to them. The number of cases of bullying is greater in the seventh grade than in the sixth grade. Some students claim that occasionally they have been bullied by adults at school and at one school during the survey they complained about being bullied by a particular teacher, their answers in the questionnaires coincided with the story told in the classroom during the survey. 11) Students' answers were very diverse on the question: "Does the Student Parliament influence decision-making process in you school?". Students from the same school answered very differently to this question - from recognizing a full influence of the Student Parliament on decision-making to saying that they did not know what the Student Parliament was and that something like that did not exist in their school or that it did not influence decisionmaking. Does Often Student Parliament influence decision 6th 7th all making 33 18 51 process in your school?

Occasionally

Sometimes

6th 7th all 8 11 19

6th 7th all 20 37 57

Never

6th 7th all 11 25 36

It’s not active

6th 7th all 40 23 63

2. PRESENTATION OF THE SURVEY FINDINGS: ADULTS 1. Most of the adults think that there is quite a lot of expressed awareness in their school on the issue of school violence 29 adults or 56.86% of the sample, while 11 of them or 21.57% think that there is very much awareness about the issue of school violence which was the strongest level of awareness offered in the survey. None of the teachers thought that there was no awareness at all.

violence (exclusion, internet/mobile phone/social media bullying), while a little less 20 adults, or 39.22%, think that quite a lot of awareness extends to those hidden forms of violence. Again, none of the teachers thinks that there is no awareness of hidden forms of psychological violence. 3. Most of the adults agree that the school holds meetings or discussions about the prevention of violence, and only 3 teachers said they did not know whether the school held those meetings or not. often quite a lot sometimes

18 adults or 15 adults or 14 adults or

35.29% 29.41% 27.45%

4. Most of the adults think that other teachers in the school are active in the prevention of violence. 22 adults or 43.14% think that quite a lot of other teachers are active and the same number 22 adults or 43.14% think that some of the other teachers are active in the prevention of violence. 5. Most of the adults, 25 of them or 49.02% see the school leadership as being very much active in the prevention of violence, and another 20 of them or 39.22% think that the school leadership is active quite a lot, only 1 teacher claimed that no one at all from the school leadership was active in violence prevention and another one stated he or she did not know. 6. Most of the adults see examples of violence among their students several times a week. To the question on how often they saw examples of violence among their students, the adults answered:

continuously several times daily daily several times weekly occasionally

0 3 12 19 17

0 5.88% 23.53% 37.25% 33.33%

2. Most of the adults, 23 of them or 45.1% think that only some of that awareness extends to hidden forms of psychological 17


7. Here is how the adults answered the question about prevalence of some of the common forms of violence.

Form of violence

Daily

Several times a week

Occasionally Never

Don’t know

Physical fighting

1 1.96%

1 1.96%

7 13.73%

0

0

Physical bullying

1 1.96%

6 11.76%

42 82.35%

2 3.92%

Discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, social status or other

1 1.96%

10 19.61%

31 60.78%

Exclusion for other reasons

2 3.92%

3 5.88%

Bullying Internet/ mobile phone/ social media

4 7.84%

Sexual harassment

Discrimination

2.83

Peer pressure

3.5

0

Personal power politics (bullying)

3.67

5 9.80%

4 7.84%

Personality disturbances because of conditions at home

3.67

Genuine clash of interest

3.83

35 68.63%

5 9.80%

6 11.76%

4 7.84%

24 47.08%

4 7.84%

12 23.53%

0

4 7.84%

30 58.82%

7 13.73%

10 19.61%

Peer pressure to do negative things/behave in negative ways

0

0

10 19.61%

20 39.22%

21 41.18%

Drugs or alcohol use or promotion

0

1 1.96%

26 50.98%

10 19.61%

14 27.45%

Spreading rumors

0

1 1.96%

12 23.53%

18 35.29%

20 39.22%

8. The adults at schools identified which of the common forms of violence they considered to be the most frequent among students in their school. The adults see physical violence as being the most common in their schools and as the most common and most frequent forms of physical violence they identified: fights, physical bullying and smaller fights. They see verbal and social violence as very common as well, especially spreading rumors, verbal violence and exclusion. Digital violence and Internet abuse are also identified by the adults; however on a smaller scale with the note that some of the teachers were very aware it existed and that they did not have a sufficient input in its prevalence. A few of the adults identified cases of ethnic, social and gender discrimination, abuse of alcohol and drugs and peer pressure to behave badly. 9. The adults identified physical violence and abuse and promotion of alcohol and drugs as the most serious form of violence among their students. 10. Here is how the adults ranked some common sources of violence in a range where 1 was the highest rank and 6 is the lowest: 18

11– 13. During a meeting with the teachers in the first school it was suggested that questions regarding teachers experiencing violence from various actors should also be included in the survey. The total number of adults is smaller than the whole sample of adults as 41 adults from 4 schools answered the questions. Teachers most often experienced violence from: students (17 teachers or 40.47%), colleagues (9 or 21.43%) and parents (7 or 16.67%). The most frequent form of violence to which teachers are subjected is psychological violence (13 teachers or 30.95%). However, the number of experiences of physical violence is quite serious as 7 adults, or 16.67%, of the sample have experienced physical violence and additional 5 adults or 11.9% of the sample experienced digital violence. The degree of gender-based violence is not high as only one adult answered that he or she was subjected to gender-based violence at school. Regarding prevalence of violent experiences of adults most of them, 13 teachers or 30.95%, answered that they had experienced violent behavior once during the school year 2014/2015 and 5 of them or 11.9% experienced violence a few times. 14. Most of the adults, 18 of them, or 35.29%, think that level of violence in their schools is lower than in most schools in their area, and 8 adults, or 15.69%, think the level of violence is the same.


15. Their conclusion was mostly based on the information from meetings 66.67%. 31.37% of adults based their conclusion on hearsay and 24.45% on public media. 16. Most often schools organize regular class level meetings and regular meetings of the Team for the Prevention of Violence are according to the adults organized often (66.67% of answers) or quite often (33.33% of answers).

Type of he meeting

Often

Quite a lot

Sometimes

Never

Don’t know

Regular “teaching environment” meetings

10 19.61%

11 21.57%

19 37.25%

3 5.88%

4 7.84%

Regular meetings of the Team for the prevention of violence

23 45.1%

17 33.33%

8 15.69%

0

3 5.88%

Regular class level meetings

34 66.67%

9 17.65%

5 9.8%

1 1.96%

1 1.96%

Regular teacher level meetings

23 45.1%

18 35.29%

8 15.69%

0

1 1.96%

17. Most of the schools in which the research was conducted had already participated in some violence prevention programs (see 19) and the numbers of peer-to-peer or third-party conflict mediation activities were quite high 80.39% and trainings of students in conflict management techniques 76.47%. Type of the activity

Yes

No

Don’t know

.

.

Peer-to-peer conflict mediation, or other third-party mediation

41 80.39%

0

8 15.69%

Training of pupils in conflict management techniques

39 76.47%

5 9.80%

6 11.76%

Often

Quite a lot

Sometimes

Never

Don’t know

Awareness-raising exercises with pupils

34 47.06%

19 37.25%

7 13.73%

0

0

Regular evaluation of the quality/security of the school ethos

23 13.73%

26 50.98%

13 25.49%

1 1.96%

2 3.92%

18. The table below shows with which actors the schools had formalized cooperation and to what degree. Actors with whom cooperation was established

Very much

Quite a lot

To some degree

None at all

Don’t know

Local child protection agency

17 33.33%

17 33.33%

12 23.53%

1 1.96%

3 5.88%

Local health care center

22 43.14%

16 31.37%

8 15.69%

0

4 7.84%

The police

22 43.14%

17 33.33%

0

0

2 3.92%

19


19. Has your school run any campaigns on any types of violence? If yes, could you briefly describe the campaign and its objective: Some of the schools and/or their students participated in the campaign and activities organized by third parties: celebration of the International Day of Peace and the Arts Competition titled I Like Peace – Peace Is My Choice, literary and arts competitions against violence, 16-day campaign to end violence against women, celebration of the day of the Internet. Additionally, schools organized their own campaigns and school projects underlining friendship, fair play in sports and inter-ethnic communication. Two of the schools that participated in the research are a part of the School Without Violence program led by UNICEF and the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development. 20. The adults think that the school leadership initiates the most of violence protection measures. The table below shows how adults at schools perceive which actors are behind the most of violence protection measures, shown in number of answers and percentages: Type of actor

State

Local School authorities leadership

Individual Other teachers

Number of answers

4

18

42

28

1

Percentages

7.84%

35.29%

82.35%

54.9%

1.96%

21. The adults think that the school leadership is most effective in initiating violence protection measures. The table below shows which actors are most effective in violence protective measures, shown in number of answers and percentages: Type of actor

State

Local School authorities leadership

Individual Other teachers

Number of answers

2

18

41

25

3

Percentages

3.92%

35.29%

80.39%

49.02%

5.88%

22. Most of the adults at school think that students who are victims of violence and ask teachers and school to protect them receive an adequate protection. The chart below shows how adults perceive how often the students who are victims of violence receive protection: Answer

Always Most of the times

Number of answers

26

Percentages

50.98% 35.29%

20

18

Some times

Rarely

Never

I do not know

3

0

1

0

5.88%

1.96%


3. COMPARATIVE RESULTS ADULTS AND STUDENTS Based on the results of the survey and the discussions with teachers and students from six schools, the conclusion is that students and adults at school agree about some aspects of violence prevention mechanisms, prevalence of violence and certain types of violence, and disagree about other. Actors involved in the prevention of violence The state, as well as international organizations such as UNICEF and local NGOs, made many efforts regarding prevention of school violence. The Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development adopted legislations, rulebooks and protocols for violence prevention and protection of children, however most of the adults at schools see the school leadership or individual teachers as initiators of the most of violence protection measures rather than the state. Local authorities are more visible in initiating school violence prevention programmes than the state. Most of the adults at school think that schools have good cooperation with the local police departments and health centres. All schools participated in some forms of violence prevention programmes initiated either by third party organizations or by the school leadership and violence prevention teams from their schools, and teachers and school leadership generally think that violence prevention mechanisms are functioning well and that they are managing to help students in need of protection and violence prevention. Tackling violence and providing assistance for students The adults generally think that students who need protection and help would get that help at school, however looking at the answers of students regarding reporting violence and getting help with personal problems from the adults at school, the picture is quite different. Most of the students said they had no need for contact with any of the adults at the school to get help with social/personal problems, however over half of the students identified their peers from the class as persons they could turn to regarding personal problems. Students generally think that if they need some form of help, they could talk to a few teachers or only one teacher. Most of the surveyed students who experienced some form of violence during the previous school year did not report it to the school.

occurred during the past school year. Also they identify exclusion and other forms of social and psychological violence as forms that they occasionally see. The adults also acknowledge the existence of digital violence among students with a comment that they do not have an overview of it and how frequent it is. On the other hand, students identified psychological and social violence as the most frequent forms of violence such as: teasing and exclusion which were mainly identified, however the number of students who are exposed to threats (17.75%) and physical violence (19.20%) is quite high. Most often identified forms of physical violence by students were: kicking, pushing and punching. The perpetrators of violence towards the students are most often their peers from the class (31.88%), however 19.93% of students see adults at school as perpetrators of violence. According to the students, violence most often occurs in the changing rooms (29.71%) and in the classroom (18.84%). Regarding bullying, the students who recognized that they had been bullied (30.07%) most often identified students in their class or other students in the school as bullies. The adults and students at surveyed schools see violence and it prevalence differently, as adults mostly comment on physical violence which is the most visible, while the forms of violence most frequently identified by the students are social and psychological. This is something that future violence prevention programmes should take into consideration before entering schools. Also, it is very important that adults at school, especially the teachers who are victims of violence, are also protected and empowered by both violence prevention programmes and the legislation.

Prevalence of violence and specific types of violence Adults from the surveyed schools saw physical violence and physical bullying as the most frequent forms of peer violence that 21


22


III. NATIONAL EXPERIENCES

b. NORWAY Aware of the detrimental effect of violence on the ability of the individual to learn, Norway created a Department for Learning Environment under the Education Directorate 7 years ago, and has since then introduced programs and resources, and monitored the results through annual questionnaires. Since then many methods have been tried in various schools, with varying results. Some improvement, in a few isolated cases dramatic improvement, has been shown in schools participating in the programs, but there is still a long way to go. 1. DEFINITION OF VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS USED IN NORWAY The definition of violence adopted by the Norwegian Educational Directorate: “Violence is any action that through fright, pain, damage or violation seeks to influence others.” Violence in Norwegian schools is often given the following categories:  Physical violence  Sexual violence  Psychological violence  Material violence  Latent violence (experience of a threatening environment) Note that the category of systemic violence often included by our partner organisations receives little attention in Norway, except in studies of specific immigrant environments.

2. TYPES OF VIOLENCE AND THEIR RELATIVE PREVALENCE

Norwegian Statistics Norwegian statistics are collected through the following process: all schools fill out three questionnaires every autumn:

 Pupil questionnaire, obligatory for 7th year, 10th year and 1st year in Further Education (12th year). Voluntary for 5th, 6th 8th and 9th year, and 2nd and 3rd year of Further Education  Teacher questionnaire, voluntary  Parent questionnaire voluntary The emphasis from Norwegian school authorities, rather than on focusing on violence itself, is on improving the learning environment, and here it is firmly established that in a good learning environment pupils will feel safe from all types of violation and appreciated. Consequently, a large part of the programme focuses on ensuring that pupils are safe from violation, both from fellow students and from teachers.

23


Prevalence of violence

Digital bullying

24

In the 2013 study , 21.3% of pupils answered that they had experienced violations/negative happenings more than 2-3 times a month. The frequency of the type of violence is shown in this table (answers are from 83,885 pupils): Type of violence

Percent

Somebody hit, kicked or held me fast so that I was afraid Somebody threatened me so that I was afraid (including social media) Somebody spread lies about me (including social media) I felt excluded Somebody made negative comments about my appearance Somebody teased or made a fool of me (including discrimination)

3.3 3.4 8 8.7 7.9 10.7

The total number of pupils experiencing violations shows a small but consistent reduction year to year from 2010 when the first overview was presented. The researchers who wrote the report were, however, unwilling to say that this represented a real reduction as they also thought that the questionnaires themselves, and the researchers handling of them had reduced the number of “unserious� answers.

24

Definition: Any action carried out through electronic media of individuals or groups that repetitively communicates hostile, aggressive or violating messages with the intention of creating discomfort. I, or somebody I know has experienced repeatedly unpleasant/threatening messages through electronic social media, or has been the object of a negative electronic campaign*

Girls 37% Boys 31%

This is a relatively new phenomenon and has not yet been thoroughly statistically handled. Digital mobbing was not treated separately in the statistical part of this study, but Norstat has carried a separate statistical study and the following statistic was referred to in the Educational Directorates study: The Educational Directorates report shows a slightly lower incidence of digital bullying than traditional bullying, but the researchers pointed to a weakness in the way the questionnaire was formulated, that could make this result unsure.


Root causes Of violence In the face-to-face interviews, pupils themselves experienced that there was more talk about digital bullying, than there was actual digital bullying. The teachers experienced that their pupils largely used the digital media to send each other compliments and “likes”. When teachers from these schools observed negative actions, they consistently followed up. In one secondary school a teacher, who was Facebook friends with several students, had discovered that a large number of students had “liked” negative comments about a student, and he had followed up so that the school had reacted. An interesting point about violations in the digital world, is that while violations in the school yard are mostly limited to “strong” pupils acting against vulnerable pupils, in the digital world the vulnerable have a chance to “get back” and use it. School leaders feel that the structure of the social media is slowly erasing the once clear border between school and free time, and that the schools experience this as challenging. It has also become more difficult for teachers to be present in the digital world, as pupils have moved on from Facebook to Twitter, Vine, Snapchat, Instagram etc. 3. FACTORS INFLUENCING FREQUENCY OF VIOLATIONS

External factors influencing violence:      

Demographic conditions: The research statistically compared the occurrence of violence with demographic conditions such as population density, number of pupils per teacher, size of schools size and resources of municipality and found little to no correlation.

Contextual conditions: The statistical comparison with contextual conditions such as  peace and quiet in the classroom  support from home  support from teachers  participation in decision making in the classroom  common rules  secure environment showed a considerably higher inverse correlation, particularly related to peace and quiet in the classroom, support from parents and teachers, and secure environment.

Note that the sources of violence should not be confused with factors that exacerbate violence, such as absence of adult leadership in school environment, oppressive culture, lack of training in positive response, unpleasant physical surroundings etc. Per Isdal’s summary of the sources of violence is often used. Although the four defined sources of violence are not exhaustive, overlap and on occasions one can be the source of the other, it is expedient to divide violence in schools into 4 types or groups, as these four types of violence require a very different emphasis on methodology/combination of methodologies. 1. Bullying – based more on greed for power and the desire to have visible influence than on a genuine clash of interest (key words: expose and sanction). 2. Individuals with a consistently aggressive response to stress and perceived difficult situations/relations (key words: place responsibility, train alternative reactions). 3. Clash of interest – a badly manage conflict that is allowed to escalate into violence (key words: personal conflict management, peer mediation). 4. Impor ted gang and extremist mentality (and externally imposed violence) (key words: community and parent engagement). Cultivation of an encouraging, positive school environment with caring adults that are good role models clearly supervising will have a preventive influence on all forms of violence.

25


4. ACTORS INVOLVED IN TACKLING THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Measures taken by Norwegian government: The Education Directorate has its own department called “The Department for Learning Environment” (DLE) that  follows up the questionnaires,  runs supplementary education for teachers  runs school mediation courses  gives advice to schools that have challenges etc.  has website resources for a whole series of areas relevant to the teaching environment The DLE’s resources cover the following:

 Class leadership: pedagogical resources and support for the school’s work with developing competence within good class leadership  Pupil relations: resources and support for the development of a positive teaching environment, and good relationships between teachers and pupils, and inter-relationships between pupils  Home-school cooperation: research based resources to aid good home-school cooperation  Tools for the development of organisation and leadership  A section on bullying that covers advice on how to expose bullying, how to handle bullying, and a “Manifest Against Bullying” that, through films and articles, covers a new theme each year (2014 theme: digital bullying). This section also contains guides for handling of bullying in kindergatens, schools and free-time environments, and short videos demonstrating situations and how important it is for adults to act. All schools are issued with a copy of Per Isdal’s book “Violence in Schools”25 which is a fairly comprehensive overview of the different types and causes of violence, together with strategies for tackling violence. 5. TYPES OF INITIATIVES ADDRESSING SCHOOL VIOLENCE It is obligatory for schools to have a “School Environment Council” consisting of pupils, parents and teachers. There are four programmes sponsored by The Department for Teaching Environment, all of which emphasise increasing the awareness and accountability of teachers. These are: Olweus, Respect, Zero and Pals. Also used, although not sponsored, are ART (Agressive Replacement Training), Zippy’s Friends, Step for Step, Lion’s Quest, 26

It is My Choice. These are programmes with very concrete pedagogic content, for example series of pictures for interpretation and lists of discussion points designed for each year group. Many schools use school mediation in addition or alone. School Mediation is a system for training all pupils and staff in personal conflict management, and some pupils from each year group in 3rd party mediation. It is an excellent method for reducing the conflict level in the schools, but is not able to respond to all forms of violence or violation. 77% of schools have used external programmes with training and guidance. Almost without exception, schools that have not used the external programmes have declared that they have worked out their own programmes. 1) “Olweus” is a very extensive and holistic programme, which includes all areas of school life and all actors in the schools. It involves closer monitoring of the school yard, parent-staff-pupil committees, more closely defined routines and responses to violations and violent acts, a reporting and following up routine, regular staff meetings and more. It requires that each school has an Olweus trainer/ advisor, and that all teachers go through a course. In Norway 600 schools are using the programme. Note that in USA 9000 schools are using it, and it is also extensively in use in Germany and Holland. It demands resources, because of the training, and schools find it expensive in spite of some financial support from the government. It uses up resources earmarked for “teaching staff development”, which is not popular among the teaching staff. The programme is described in full in a separate document.


2) “Respect” is the Norwegian version of the European Connect Project “Tackling Violence in Schools”. The project focuses on one part of the Olweus project, in that the focus is completely on the development of clear, respectful leadership and behaviour among the teaching staff of the school. Key words: development of competent adults with authority, breadth in involvement (holistic), consistency in behaviour, sustainability. In Norway 100 schools have participated in the programme. Again, it involves lots of training, and in spite of support from the Department of Education, it works out as quite expensive for the school. 3) “Zer”o is a programme with the expressed aim of achieving zero tolerance for all forms of bullying. Again it aims at developing clear leadership and consistency of response. It has a lot of common characteristics with the other programmes – it has the same key words. The programme is in use in 370 schools. Quite popular because it is cheaper for the school and does not require special training. 4) PALS – positive behaviour, supportive environment and cooperation. The focus here is on the learning environment: respect and quiet in the classroom, increased social competence, all pupils given the possibility to feel mastering, etc. The thinking is that this will spread to all aspects of behaviour and increase the level of motivation and thriving. The pupils learn strategies to deal with bullying, both as witness and as victim. Extensive documentation and control, with an aim at continuously improving the measures applied. The programme is in use in 208 schools in Norway. Note that of the many programmes and strategies studied in the British 2010 report26 the PALS approach came out top on all measurements. 6. DEFINING SUCCESS

Satisfaction with programmes:

What works? Consistent response: One of the agreed strengths common to all programmes that came up in the survey was the strictly executed “uniform response” from teachers. Both limits and response were agreed on, so that the pupils new exactly what to expect. At the heart of this response are 4 ground rules:

 Call violence what it is, don’t give it milder names.  Place responsibility in the right place  Take time to work with the victim’s experience of violence  Establish zero tolerance and common rules, with clear and consistent reactions to infringements Training Also the teachers were positive to being given training in formulation, so that they could express themselves clearly with no possibility of misunderstanding. Guidelines/strategies for specific recurring situations One example is the “Guidelines for meeting armed violence” attached. The common weakness of the programmes Over time, the amount of time demanded by the programmes became a burden, making it difficult to sustain.

Statistics gathered from questionnaires (see following table) showed that the schools were satisfied with the programmes they chose, irrespective of the programme. .

Rectors

Teachers

Parents

Pupils

Positive or very positive to the programme

99%

95%

93%

90%

Committed involvement in the programme

98%

89%

72%

86%

27


28


III. NATIONAL EXPERIENCES

c. ROMANIA Although not a new phenomenon, the attention given to violence in schools in Romania has been increasing after 2005, with repeated instances of school-based violence being signaled in the media over the past years. Cases of students physically fighting among themselves and of students threatening teachers, cases of teachers physically and psychologically hurting students have received wide media attention and in a sense marking the issue as urgent. Yet the story is definitely more complex and deeper than the shallowness of the TV screen. The report on Romania combines the findings generated by an extensive desk review on the data and publications available with the results of several focus groups and questionnaires launched mainly to students and teachers but which also captured responses from parents, school councilors, regional authorities and representatives of the Cluj community. The desk review scanned online mostly the main publications, available data and statistics, policies and initiatives with the objective to provide the background information and context for the PDRVS project, identifying how (much) school violence is perceived, the main causes and effects of violence, the main actors engaged and also the initiatives that are already under way to prevent, stop or heal violence. The data collected through questionnaires and focus groups provided a comparative, complementary perspective focusing on the realities of Cluj Napoca. Key findings that resulted from this investigation are the fact that violence is mostly seen in the direct sense, being exemplified through intentional verbal, physical or psychological abuse. Few references are made in the more extensive studies to the “invisible” aspects such as the structural and cultural causes and effects of violence and the awareness about these aspects in practice is very low. The framework for addressing violence is well prioritized at the policy level, yet in many cases it lacks a practical aspect and it stays at the level of a policy and paperwork shell, missing the substance. Another remarkable aspect about the tackling of this phenomenon is the low participation of students in defining or heading actions to prevent and reduce school based violence.

DEFINITIONS USED FOR SCHOOL-BASED VIOLENCE IN ROMANIA Different definitions appear in the literature describing school based violence, including definitions adopted from World Health Organisation, D. Olweus, or the definitions used in international covenants on the topic, one of the most quoted being the Utrecht conference (1997). "The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation" (WHO, 2002) While many definitions describe quite well the visible types of violence, few of them consider in-depth aspects, such as what sustains or justifies these forms of direct violence. For that we propose adding to the existing definitions also Johan Galtung’s categorization which differentiates between direct, structural and cultural violence and considers as violence any act, structure or principle that hinders the fulfilment of fundamental human rights or freedoms.

29


GALTUNG’S VIOLENCE TRIANGLE DIRECT VIOLENCE

VSIBLE

INVSIBLE CULTURAL VIOLENCE

STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE

Fig RO 1: GALTUNG’S VIOLENCE TRIANGLE Getting back to the findings from the literature review, in the majority of cases, violence is understood as a behavior and consequently school violence is seen as falling under one of the categories: inadequate expression, pushing/hurting/hitting, delinquency, offence towards the teacher’s status and inadequate school behavior (missing classes, smoking, being late etc)27. One immediate alarm signal drawn from this “working definition” is that it indicates that school violence is understood as something “committed” by the student and that it creates already a paradigm where the student is the offender. Another differentiation found in our literature, and school nomenclature relates to the severity of the violent act, namely a distinction between “serious” and “less serious” offences as identified by the Cluj County Guide on Procedures for Tackling School Based Violence28: LESS SERIOUS

SERIOUS

Raised Voice Teasing Irony Nick Names Insult Swearing Spitting Taking away personal goods Instigation to violence Violating correspondence privacy Unwanted touching Rephusing to fulfil certain tasks Etc

Harassment Trust abuse Threat Cheating Discrimination Stealing Destroying property Black mailing Calomny Seduction Kidnapping Disturbingpublic order Throwing things around Hitting (on different scales) Rape, sexual offences and attempted rape Killing and attepted killing Etc.

30

While an apparently complex conceptual framework appears in the literature on violence in schools in Romania, it presents two major faults, one being the limited understanding of violence at the level of effects or manifestations, and the other one being the limited responsabilisation and recognition on the complex web of contributors and responsible people for the acts of violence. Some of the instruments used for filling these gaps are presented in the following section and could be used systematically by the responsible structures to have thorough understanding of the phenomenon of violence in schools.

ON CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND ACTORS INVOLVED IN THE PHENOMENON OF VIOLENCE IN ROMANIAN SCHOOLS Once identified, and classified, the violence in schools needs to be analyzed, namely to identify the causes/consequences and possibilities in changing the situation. The main questions to answer are:

? What causes school violence? ? What are the effects of school violence? ? Who is involved / being affected by school violence? Who can have a positive / negative impact on the phenomenon?

Two classic tools for conflict assessment conflict/problem tree and actor analysis are used to answer these questions. The UNICEF / ISE (2006) Practical Guide for School Principals and Teachers includes the following tool for the analysis of causes and effects of school violence. The same tool (problem tree) was be used as a research tool of the PDRVS research in Cluj.


EFFECTS

MAIN PROBLEM CAUSES

In our analysis one of the recurring causes of violence in schools appears to be the family, be it losing interest and engagement due to business or being absent due to economic issues. Also the system, educational policies and lack of teacher training are identified as main causes. On the upper level, one of the effects being quoted several times is isolation, lack of interest in the educational process (a PISA study quoted by PRO TV showing Romania as the country with the least motivated students29) and again the falling back into some of the root causes, re-creating a cycle of violence.

Fig RO 2: Conflict/Problem Tree Template and samples of Problem Trees from PDRVS Workshop

The specific causes and risk factors cited in the studies fall under a few main categories, categories which are easily recognizable in the discourse and rhetoric of actors participating in the discussions and focus groups of the project:

RISK FACTORS THAT CAUSE VIOLENT BEHAVIOURS SOURCE - UNICEF/ISE, 2006, P. 97: Biological Family Violence Sociological Poor Economic Conditions Psychological Unstable Family Environment Low Self Esteem High Incidence of Violence in the Media Permissive Legal Framework Alienation (lack of communication and group belonging) Racism, Sexism, Homofobia, etc

Individual Relational Community Societal

Although again the categorization is a complex framework for potential specific causal analysis, we note that in our case, the categories are rather general and we could not find an in-depth study which illustrates the causality and checks the specificity of any of these factors contributing to school violence (similar to the case of Norway which demonstrated little or almost no connection between economic background to school violence.) The subjective perception of these causes, checked by an extensive field research confirmed the poor and unstable family conditions and the own experience of violence in the family as some of the strongest predictive factors for violent behavior among students. A prioritization of the main causes done by councillers, directors and teachers is as follows:

31


2.8% 20.3%

16.1%

2.1%

58.7%

Fig RO 3: Distribution of main causes of violence

Individual factors Family factors School factors Wider social environment factors NR

Again, the students’ opinion is missing. Different actors have slightly different opinions on the causes of school-based violence, denoting that strong opinions are formed, yet little inter-actor dialogue is happening to build a shared view on the phenomenon:

TEACHERS

COUNSELORS

PARENTS

STUDENTS

- Overcharged curricula - Unsuitable school timetable - Too large number of students per class - Lack of extracurricular activities - Lack of personalization of teaching methods for students with special needs - Poor school infrastructure - Lack of sufficient counselors

- Miscommunication students-teachers - Subjective evaluations - Negative peer influence of “problem students” - Insufficient psycho-pedagogic training for teachers - Competition

- Differences in socio-economical status - Subjective evaluation - Lack of protection measures - Negative influence of “problem students” - Reduced authority (status) of teachers

- Miscommunication students-teachers - Subjectivity in evaluation - Unattractive pedagogical methods - Verbal violence - Competition - Unjustified sanctions - Corporal punishment

OPINIONS REGARDING CAUSES OF VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS (UNICEF/ISE, 2006, p. 141)

32


The field research identified communication as one of the main gaps and causes of violence. Also this research showed the strong belief among school staff that the family environment is the main cause of student’s violent behavior and lack of communication, lack of motivation, lack of capacity to manage violent incidents and ‘students’ provocation’ as some of the main causes for the violence induced by teachers towards students.

THE ACTORS NORMALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE STUDIES TACKLING ADDRESSING VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS ARE:

Fig RO 4: ACTOR MAP FROM PDRVS WORKSHOP The report from the multi-stakeholder consultation held in Cluj Napoca in November 2014, involving student representatives, teacher representatives, representatives of the School Inspectorate, parents and the representatives of parents, civil society, police and some business community representatives identified the following relevant actors at the Cluj level:

                    

Volunteers - LSDGC Romania (teachers association) Teachers (university and pre-university) Teachers Associations Institutions: ARACIP, ARACIS Parents/Guardians - Parents Associations Students - On/offline media Prevention and combating violence commission Religion teachers Local authorities Public figures Library and librarians Sports clubs Businesses Students Counselors - psychologists, therapists, specialists Civil society School inspectorate Ministry of Education Students Council Specialists in conflict management Other specific references to Cluj based schools, groups and institutions

It is important to note that upon being encouraged all these actors placed themselves on the map, recongizing the key role that they need to actively play in order to impact the violence in schools. 33


DATA & STATISTICS

The UNICEF/ ISE study, quoted above covered 1207 primary and secondary schools with a total population of 5857434 students. The in-depth interviews in this study covered 627 students, 148 teachers, 156 parents, 143 school councillers and other main stakeholders presents the following statistics:

 From 1207 schools investigated 75% have reported the presence of different types of violence.  The schools in urban settings, the periphery schools and also the schools with a larger number of students display 10- 15 percentages more cases of violence than the rural, central and smaller schools respectively  The following forms of violence according to the actor that provokes this type of violence:

TYPES OF MANIFESTATION OF VIOLENCE AND THEIR RESPECTIVE FREQUENCY (UNICEF, ISE, P 49)

Types of manifestation / Frequency

Not at all

Seldom

Often

Very Often

NR

Violence among students Students’ violence towards teachers Teachers’ violence towards students

7.3 50.7 56.5

71.7 40.3 33.1

18.2 1.2 0.1

1.2 0.1 0.0

1.5 7.7 10.3

THE FOLLOWING GRAPHS FURTHER DETAIL EACH TYPE OF VIOLENCE

0%

0%

34

Directors Students School Counselors

Directors Students School Counselors

Hitting/Corporal Punishment

5%

0%

Swearings/Offences

10%

Exclusion from Class

10%

10%

Ignoring/Not Paying Attention

20%

Nonverbal Aggression

15%

20%

Hitting/Physical Aggression

30%

Swearings/Offenses

20%

30%

Non-verbal Aggression

40%

Sarcastic/Ironic Attitudes

25%

40%

Refusal of tasks

50%

Ignoring messages

30%

50%

Indiscipline

60%

Running away from classes

35%

60%

Offence (religion)

70%

Offence (ethnicity)

40%

70%

Offense (economical status)

80%

Beating

45%

80%

Offense (physical/psychical traits)

50%

90%

Fights/Conflicts

100%

90%

Swearing

100%

Biased Evaluation

Fig. Ro 5c: MOST FREQUENT FORMS OF INADEQUATE BEHAVIOR OF TEACHERS TOWARDS STUDENTS

Fig RO 5b: MOST FREQUENT FORMS OF VIOLENCE OF STUDENTS TOWARDS TEACHERS

Sarcastic/Ironic Attitudes

Fig RO 5a: MOST FREQUENT FORMS OF VIOLENCE AMONG STUDENTS

Directors School Counselors


The study indicates how the violence generated by the teachers towards the students is the most problematic and covered type, how the rules and regulations that refer to the teacher’s behavior are general and few in numbers and even the name of the graph shows a certain bias towards naming teacher-generated violence (the graph is titled the most frequent inadequate behavior of teachers towards students) and does not include the appreciation of the student’s themselves. As Castle and Diallo (2008) remark “gender roles are extremely important in understanding schoolbased violence as they shape the ways that men and women relate to each other both publicly and privately.” The gender dimension was also another factor investigated in the 2006 study revealing the following gender distribution of the cases of violence:

Fig. RO 6: DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO GENDER OF SERIOUS SCHOOL VIOLENCE STUDENTS AS AGGRESSORS

STUDENTS AS VICTIMS

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7 0%

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

50%

0%

100%

Sexual aggression Drugs consumption Alcohol consumption Belonging to neighborhood gangs Vandalism Stealing Physical aggression

20% 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Girls Boys

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sexual aggression Stealing in school vicinity Physical aggression in school vicinity Harassment in school vicinity Physical aggression in school Harassment in school Stealing in school

Alternative data sources are also important in getting a wider picture on the violence phenomenon. A study commissioned by Romtelecom in 2012, identifies 31% of the children interviewed were victims of an act of violence, with 45% of these cases happening in the school setting.

Fig. RO 7: ROMTELECOM 2012

Hitting from unknown individuals..... 68.1 Hitting from teachers..... 58.4 Hitting from school mates..... 38.2 Hitting from friends..... 25.2 Hitting from parents..... 24.9 Ugly words from teachers..... 11.5 Ugly words from unknown people..... 10.5 Hitting from siblings/cousins..... 8.7 Humiliating Jokes from unknown people..... 8.0 Humiliating Jokes from teachers..... 6.5 Ugly words addressed by school mates..... 4.2 Ugly words addressed by parents..... 4.2 Humiliating jokes by school mates..... 4.0 Ugly words addressed by friends..... 2.7 Humiliating jokes by friends..... 15 Ugly words by siblings/cousins..... 1.2 Humiliating jokes by siblings/cousins..... 1.2 Humiliating Jokes by parents..... 1.0 I don’t know..... 3.2 0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

35


Fig. RO 8: IMPORTANCE OF DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE IN ROMANIA

Although our empirical research was much more reduced in scope, covering less respondents (46 having completed the questionnaire, 16 taking part in focus groups and 10 in-depth interviews) and all from Cluj Napoca, some of the findings are very similar and furthermore some of the missing dimensions can be completed.

NGOs Students Parents Teachers Institutions

Among our sample, a large majority of respondents consider tackling violence in schools, as a very important issue in our society. As earlier we noted that one of the issues with violence in schools is the lack of recognizing this as a problem, we wanted to check and the findings show that a high but not very high level of awareness is perceived, with teachers, students and NGOs being quite aware and institutions being the least aware of the phenomenon and its complexities.

4 3 2

Based on this, the respondents identified verbal and social media violence as the most prevalent (sometimes even ‘normalised’) and also violence expressed through social media. This should be considered as a very important emerging tendency and specific measures taken.

1 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fig. RO 9: LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE IN ROMANIA

Social media Cultural Psychological Threats Discriminatory Emotional Imaginary

Fig. RO 10: TYPES OF VIOLENCE

Physical Verbal

0

36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

30


Earlier we were noting the missing recognition of structural and cultural violence. Through observing some of the outputs of an arts-bases analysis session, the structural violence appears to be one of the most dominant experience of school-based violence. The mentioning in focus group discussions of schools associated with prisons, the mentioning of several adults of memories of how they were labeled and stayed so throughout school with no chance of challenging this, and the following pictures are testimonies in this respect. Isolation, and the lack of sharing among different actors, a blockage in communication is the related problem. This is a very important aspect to be considered and addressed in the strategy of reducing school based violence.

POLICIES (NATIONAL AND LOCAL) The following policies are the most cited documents that include relevant provisions on preventing and dealing with violence in schools and should be considered and closely examined and operationalized. The Advocacy Seminar held in Cluj Napoca, within the PDRVS project revealed a low awareness of these policy documents and a very low awareness of the content and operationalization of these instruments.

 National Education Law  Law no. 35/2007 on increasing security in education;  Law no. 29 /2010, addition to Law no. 35/2007 on increasing security in education;  OMECT 1409/29.06.2007 on increasing the safety in schools  Law no. 272/21 June 2004 on protection and promoting children’s rights;  Regulations regarding the organization and functioning of preuniversity educational institutions.

Fig. RO 11: ILLUSTRATION OF PERCEPTION OF STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE FROM PDRVS WORKSHOP

37


In terms of procedures, except for the policy guidelines, the Cluj County Resource Center for Educational Assistance Cluj (2010) recommends the following procedure for intervention, separating “serious” and “less serious” cases of violence:

Fig. RO 12: CLUJ COUNTY RESOURCE CENTER FOR EDUCATION ASSISTANCE INTERVENTION PROCEDURE

INTERVENTION PROCEDURE FOR CASES OF VIOLENCE IN SCHOOL

Looking at this available procedure, we can acknowledge the importance of having an identified path in tackling violence, yet at the same time can see a rather linear, sanction-based approach, again clearly placing the student as the ‘aggressor’ and lacking the real participation of the same student in the correction of the violent act. Peer support and engagement, one of the internationally identified most effective mechanisms for sustainably tackling violence, lacks from this scheme. As an alternative, a number of complex approaches are recommended, approaches in which causes of violence are targeted more than just the effects, approaches in which there is the recognition of different actors as contributing to the phenomenon and approaches in which the students have an active role in the resolution of the problem. 38


THERAPY: PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES THAT TACKLE SCHOOL VIOLENCE Internationally, UNESCO STOPPING Violence in Schools: A Guide for Teachers (2009) suggests 10 approaches for teachers to adopt:

Many of these can also be observed in Romania, where a number of initiatives tackle school violence directly. The downside of this being that this is done in an insular (isolated and uncoordinated) manner. Many projects and initiatives are described in the Youth Against Violence: Best Practice Models (2011) and include a wide array of activities including:

1. Advocate a holistic approach involving students, school staff, parents and the community 2. Make your students your partners in preventing Violence 3. Use constructive discipline techniques and Methods 4. Be an active and effective force to stop bullying 5. Build students’ resilience and help them to respond to life’s challenges constructively 6. Be a positive role model by speaking out against sexual and gender-based violence 7. Be an advocate for school safety mechanisms 8. Provide safe and welcoming spaces for students 9. Learn violence prevention and conflict resolution skills and teach them to students 10. Recognize violence and discrimination against students with disabilities, and those from indigenous, minority and other marginalized communities

 Information sessions and information

 

Fig. RO 13: PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT MEASURES/ACTIVITIES TACKLING VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

 

OTHER MEASURES COOPERATION WITH HEALTH ORGANISATIONS COOPERATION WITH CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT MEASURES

COOPERATION WITH POLICE COOPERATION WITH NGOS VISIBLY DISPLAYED RULES IN SCHOOLS

 

RULES JOINTLY AGREED WITH STUDENTS TEACHER TRAINING THEMATIC WORKSHOPS WITH STUDENTS PEER TO PEER MEDIATION PROGRAMMES

materials and sessions (such as posters in schools, arts expo, theatre plays) on violence and its effects by teachers, NGOs, Police etc Identification of vulnerable groups Workshops and training programmes with students and teachers on different knowledge, skills and values needed (such as human rights, discrimination, listening, cooperation, positive approaches etc) Open days for the engagement of parents (including initiatives such as Parents’ school) Peer mediation programmes Simulations of conflict resolution mechanisms (including initiatives such as the Students’ Court of Justice) Counselling sessions Monitoring exercises of the violence incidents in schools

MULTI-ACTOR MEETINGS (PARENTS, TEACHERS, STUDENTS...) THEMATIC MEETINGS WITH PARENTS THEMATIC MEETINGS AT CLASS LEVEL AWARENESS RAISING CAMPAIGNS PUBLIC POLICIES FOR PREVENTING AND COMBATING VIOLENCE COMMISSION FOR PREVENTING AND COMBATING VIOLENCE

very high

0 high

5 10 15 20 medium low none

0

5

OTHER MEASURES COOPERATION WITH HEALTH ORGANISATIONS

FREQUENCY OF ACTIVITIES AND MEASURES ADDRESSING VIOLENCEIN SCHOOLS

COOPERATION WITH CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES

25

The respondents of our questionnaires identified the cooperation with Police, joint establishing of rules at the school level and multi-actor meetings and teacher training as among the most effective measures at the level of their schools. This shows the fact that still, communication and inter-actor dialogue and engagement on this theme remains one of the most needed measures.

COOPERATION WITH POLICE COOPERATION WITH NGOS VISIBLY DISPLAYED RULES IN SCHOOLS RULES JOINTLY AGREED WITH STUDENTS TEACHER TRAINING THEMATIC WORKSHOPS WITH STUDENTS PEER TO PEER MEDIATION PROGRAMMES

MULTI-ACTOR MEETINGS (PARENTS, TEACHERS, STUDENTS, AUTHORITIES...) THEMATIC MEETINGS WITH PARENTS THEMATIC MEETINGS AT CLASS LEVEL AWARENESS RAISING CAMPAIGNS PUBLIC POLICIES FOR PREVENTING AND COMBATING VIOLENCE COMMISSION FOR PREVENTING AND COMBATING VIOLENCE

very often

often

10 sometimes

15 20 seldom never

39


The educational authorities seem to be the ones that have most measures to deal with the issue in a comprehensive manner from research to diagnosis and intervention. The INGOs and NGOs also play an important role, mostly implementing projects in partnership with the educational institutions. Pehraps one of the best examples and main resources in Romania is the Project Youth Against Violence (Tinerii Impotriva Violentei) which gathered an important resource base in terms of data, in terms of best practices, and in terms of practical guides for implementing violence-reducing strategies at the school level. Another very visible project is Viata fara Violenta (Life Without Violence) (www.viatafaraviolenta.ro). Among the public authorities, the Police is the authority which takes one of the more visible roles in preventing violence, through its information campaigns. Among the private sector, the issue appears to be tackled by few large companies as part of their community engagement/CSR capaigns. Such examples are: Romtelecom’s “Cuvintele Dor (Words Hurt)” Campaign http://cuvinteledor.ro/ Although impact studies virtually does not exist, and most of the above-mentioned initiatives are run at project level, thus reporting on results and perceived outcomes, from the reports and also the interviews conducted with students and teachers indicate that socialization exercises and extra-curricular activities with the specific purpose of increasing awareness and identifying violence as an indesirable act yield results. During one of the focus groups conducted in Romania a teacher reported that one year, after one specific project “1,2,3 Violence STOP” in a school in Cluj Napoca was completed, one student faced with a violence act stood up in the hall way and shouted “1,2,3, Violence STOP” and put his hand in front as a “STOP” sign.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the existing documents, haing analised the data from the questionnaires, focus groups and interviews, the recommendations which results from there realities are captured in a nutshell as follows:

 To continue and improve the practice of professional monitoring 

  

40

of violence in schools To work on capacities for recognizing and dealing with violence in all phases of conflict (prevention, management and healing) especially among students and teachers and school councilors but also other key actors To increase the participation in activities aimed to tackle the phenomenon of all key actors To institutionalise the dialogue on this topic To insist on structural and cultural changes within the system and mentalities


IV. COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS While the realities in the three different countries are widely different, violence in schools represents an issue across the board, moreover, across the board we found the need to improve our ways of addressing violence, because, as one of the authors of this study affirms that despite significant time, resources and efforts invested into programmes “Norwegian students are as bad as Romanian Students or as Serbian students.” What is the missing link? What is the red thread to be followed? A few directions such as: a) systematic and professional data collection and situation assessment b) complex teacher training c) strategic revision of the school curricula and extra-curricular activities with a focus on collaboration, non-violence and d) design of “schools without violence” frameworks e) sustained multi-stakeholder dialogue on this topic that would enable the process to continue and be sustainable beyond funding, political or mediatic moments of highlight

Based on these perspective we draw the following recommendations:

 

TO ALL RESPECTIVE ACTORS: To pay particular attention to recognizing ‘invisible violence’, the structural and cultural dimensions of violence that sustain and justify the direct acts of beating, discrimination, marginalization or other types of hurting. To monitor the dynamics of violence within changing circumstances and act upon established ‘early warning’ systems before widespread or serious violence occurs To pay particular attention to gender-based violence, ethnic or racial discrimination and cyber violence, types of violence which are particularly prevalent in today’s societies and schools. To further invest in the social development of students and establish school mediation as a mechanism for 30 constructive conflict resolution in practice To create opportunities at all levels for teachers and teacher students to train in good communication habits that damp aggression and promote mutual respect and cooperation

41


TO DONORS AND INGOS AND RIGOS

 To continue to support and fund peace education programs and policies implemented by schools, individuals and the civil society, as MoE's activities are centrally structured and often more on a normative level than on the level of activity

TO CIVIL SOCIETY

 To continue to initiate violence prevention and peacebuilding programs and policies for youth and schools as an actor that has the ability to react quickly and effectively  To show an interest in/monitor the programs for promoting a good teaching environment in the schools in their local areas

TO GOVERNMENTS AND RESPECTIVE MINISTRIES OF EDUCATION

 To match enforcement policies for violence prevention and protection from violence, discrimination and neglect to other organizational and financial measures taken by the government and MoEs, such as rationalization of school staff measures on the national level and to make sure that organizational measures do not harm the enforcement of violence prevention and protection measures, more specifically work of school psychologists and pedagogues  With a focus on improving the school environment on a national level, to make resources such as suggestions for good school policies, materials about tackling violence, good practices and programs etc. available on a website  To include in teacher training capacities specifically aimed at prevention, dealing with and healing violence;  To enable inter-institutional partnerships between universities and schools

TO SCHOOLS, TEACHERS AND SCHOOL ADMINITRATORS:

 To develop and maintain peer mechanisms for violence prevention and conflict resolution such as school mediation, as they are an important aspect of students' social development;  To continuously invest in school staff's competencies to resolve conflicts peacefully and to facilitate dialogue among students, colleagues and parents;  To develop a comprehensive school policy for reducing, handling and following up incidents of violence  To develop, through a participatory process, a consistent policy defining the limits of acceptable behavior and response to infringements. To ensure that the entire school, including staff and pupils are informed on and continuously reminded of these policies.

42

Literature 1. D. Kuzmanović, Digitalno nasilje, novi izazov za škole, Institut za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet, Beograd, Petnica 2013, available at: http://dobrinkakuzmanovic.weebly.com/ 2. Dragan Popadić, PhD, and Ms Dobrinka Kuzmanović, Utilisation of Digital Technologies, Risks, and Incidence of Digital Violence Among Students In Serbia Summary, Institute of psychology, Faculty of philosophy, University of Belgrade Belgrade, December 2013, available at: http://www.unicef.org/serbia/Digital_Violence_Sum mary_2013.pdf 3. D. Popadić, D. Plut, Z. Pavlović, Nasilje u školama: analiza stanja od 2006. do 2013. godine, Institut za psihologiju, UNICEF, Beograd 2015 4. Special protocol for the protection of children and students from violence, abuse and neglect in the educational and upbringing institutions, Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia http://www.mpn.gov.rs/images/content/dokumenta/d okumenta/nasilje/Posebni_protokol__obrazovanje1.pdf 2006. UNICEF.ISE. Violenta in Scoala 2006. UNICEF.ISE. Prevenirea si Combaterea Violentei in Scoala. Ghid Practice pentru directori si cadrele didactice. 2014. Scoala Romaneasca. La calitatea educatiei codaşi, dar la violenta în şcoli fruntaşi. Accesat 5/04/2015 http://www.scoalaromaneasca.ro/Dosar/2010-10/lacalitatea-educa%C5%A3iei-coda%C5%9Fi-dar-laviolen%C5%A3a-%C3%AEn-%C5%9Fcolifrunta%C5%9Fi UNICEF. World Report on Violence Against Children. Http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/I.%20World%2 0Report%20on%20Violence%20against%20Children .pdf 2011. ISE. GHID pentru structurile cu responsabilitati în prevenirea şi combaterea violentei în mediul şcolar de la nivelul unitatii scolare, de la nivel judetean şi de la nivel national. 2009. UNESCO. STOPPING Violence in Schools: A Guide for Teachers. Available online at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001841/18 4162e.pdf


V. BIBLIOGRAPHY & REFERENCES Sources

14. MPNT 15. pg 40

1. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit web page https://www.giz.de/en 2. Ministry of education, science and technological development of the Republic of Serbia web page http://www.mpn.gov.rs 3. Report of Nansen Dialogue Centre Serbia School Mediation – Violence Prevention in Multiethnic Schools in Vojvodina, SRB13/0032 4.Special protocol for the protection of children and students from violence, abuse and neglect in the educational and upbringing institutions available at: http://www.mpn.gov.rs/images/content/dokumenta/dokumenta/na silje/Posebni_protokol_-_obrazovanje1.pdf 5. Safe House in Serbia web page: http://www.sigurnakuca.net 6. UNICEF Serbia web page http://www.unicef.rs/publikacije.html 7. UNICEF web page http://www.unicef.org/serbia

16. Popadic, Plut,, Pavlovic, pg. 40 17. http://www.mpn.gov.rs/o-ministarstvu/jedinicaza-prevenciju-nasilja 18. https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/21213.html 19. number of programmes 20. Education for Peace – Resolution through Dialogue, catalogue number47., Catalogue for professional advancement of teachers in Serbia http://katalog2015.zuov.rs/Program2015.aspx?katbr oj=47&godina=2014/2015 21. Evaluation of the program School Without Violence, Ipsos 2009, http://www.unicef.rs/publikacije.html 22. Written by Tatjana Popovic, the coordinator of the project Strengthening social competence and preventing violence in schools, LillehammerBujanovac School Cooperation (2010-2013)

Endnotes/References

23. all results summarized in Annex 1 Cumulative results students

1. World Report on Violence against Children (2006). Available at: http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/reports.html

24. Analyse av Elevundersøkelsen 2013, Christian Wendelborg, Melina Røe and Roger Andre Federici, NTNU Samfunnsforkning AS

2. Special protocol for the protection of children and students from violence, abuse and neglect in the educational and upbringing institutions, Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia http://www.mpn.gov.rs/images/content/dokumenta/dokumenta/nasilje/Posebni_ protokol_-_obrazovanje1.pdf 3. ibid 4. D. Popadić, D. Plut, Z. Pavlović, Nasilje u školama: analiza stanja od 2006. do 2013. godine, Institut za psihologiju, UNICEF, Beograd 2015 5. ibid. p. 37 6. ibid. p. 82 7. Project implemented by Faculty of Political Science Belgrade, Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia, Safe House and School Without Violence UNWOMEN, UNICEF and UNDP 8. http://www.sigurnakuca.net/un_protiv_nasilja/unicef_srbija/istrazivanje:_rodno_ zasnovano_nasilje_u_osnovnim_i_ srednjim_skolama_u_srbiji.437.html

25. “Vold i Skolen” av Per Isdal, Signe Marie Natvig Andreassen , Ragnvald Thilesen , published by Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet and Kommunenes sentralforbund (utgiver), 2003. 26. Department of Education Research Report DFE RR089: The Use and Effectiveness of Anti-bullying Strategies in Schools, Fran Thompson and Peter K. Smith, Goldsmiths, Univeristy of London. 27. 2006. UNICEF.ISE. Violenta in Scoala 28. Cluj County Guide on Procedures for Tackling School Based Violence (2010) 29. http://stirileprotv.ro/special/elevii-romani-iubescscoala-dar-nu-si-la-scoala-cifrele-care-arata-fatarusinoasa-a-invatamantului.html 30. Project report: Report of Nansen Dialogue Centre Serbia School Mediation – Violence Prevention in Multiethnic Schools in Vojvodina, SRB13/0032

9. Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development 10. translation for „Zaustavimo digitalno nasilje“ 11. Dragan Popadić, PhD, and Ms Dobrinka Kuzmanović, Utilisation of Digital Technologies, Risks, and Incidence of Digital Violence Among Students In Serbia Summary, Institute of psychology, Faculty of philosophy, University of Belgrade Belgrade, December 2013 12. Data summarized from: D. Kuzmanović, Digitalno nasilje, novi izazov za škole 13. D. Popadic, D. Kuzmanovic Utilisation of Digital Technologies, Risks, and Incidence of Digital Violence Among Students In Serbia Summary.

43


Understanding school violence online  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you