School Problems Begin Outside of School

Opinion column by Fernando Flores Escobar, education team coordinator at PIDEE

The education institutions that take their education process seriously can not allow their processes to be shrouded in an atmosphere of fear among those who are called upon to build these healthy, coexisting relationships.

Healthy coexistence in schools is so crucial, that without it, there can’t be strong education. That is why it’s necessary to manifest, in the first place, a profound respect for each student and their participation in the learning process. Along the same lines, it’s necessary to strengthen the respect towards teachers, administrators, and other members of the educational community that have the tremendous responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the school.

The families that enroll their children and the neighborhood communities in which the schools exist and to which these families belong also form a part of the network of interactions that are essential for successful school performance.

All of these are manifestations based in the recognition that education is a core value and is built by everyone, to the point that without some of these protagonists, the functioning of the school would be impossible.

The commitment to education and the respect of its diverse sectors are the basis of a healthy coexistence in school.

The relationship or coexistence that is desired in schools is not the same as good behavior from the students. The latter is an expression of each child’s personality, as well as that of each group of students, brought to life or manifested following the type of community that has been built among the various sectors within the school.

To make a comparison, we could say that just as the climate is the average state that characterizes the atmosphere in a certain place and the weather is the condition of the atmosphere in one moment and place, the school community is predominantly what characterizes a school and impacts the behavior of the students. It is, to a large extent, the result or the response to the types of environments that are predominant there.

In the framework of the new school anti-violence legislation that has been imposed by the current administration, the Protected Schools Act (which has been partially declared unconstitutional by the supreme court) claims to want to put out the fire that is school violence, but to do so in a method that punitive and without enriching the bonds of the school community, actually adds more fuel to the fire that it is trying to extinguish.

The backlash among teachers and teaching assistants caused by the requirement to search their students’ backpacks—coupled with the unease felt by families and the students themselves—raises questions about the framework that justifies the practices being imposed.

We are not talking about exceptional measures resulting from serious or very serious incidents, which have indeed, and unfortunately, occurred in schools. Under the pretext of curbing violence in schools, there is now an attempt to establish constant suspicion and intrusion as an acceptable approach to preventing harm and safeguarding school communities.

Unfortunately, this is not the only such attempt. Law 21.809 on “Coexistence, Respectful Treatment, and Well-being of Educational Communities,” which recently went into effect, although drafted under the previous administration, unfortunately aligns with the “Protected Schools” law in its approach of intervening in schools through surveillance and suspicion—an issue that undermines and distorts the educational work of school professionals and weakens the role of the school principal, while instead strengthening the influence of school administrators.

A one-off response to sporadic violence should not be established as a permanent mechanism. It will soon outgrow its purported preventive function and lose its relevance, becoming a perverse incentive that will further strain school life—so that the remedy ends up being worse than the disease.

At the same time, the models of violent behavior disseminated by the media and social networks—which are sensationalized as widespread realities in the neighborhoods where the majority of the population lives—are infinitely more powerful and influential counterexamples than any capacity to ward off or prevent such actions, even with punitive measures within schools and high schools.

These powerful shapers of mass behavior—which harm society as a whole and, in reality, obscure the positive relationships and healthy coexistence that endure in working-class communities—are left entirely unaddressed by the new laws aimed at eradicating violence in schools.

“School vigilantism,” although presented as a solution to violence, is incapable of educating new generations; worse still, it prevents them from trusting others or being trusted by society.

If these legal frameworks are implemented as currently conceived, they will represent a step backward that undermines the fundamental mission of schools: to educate students so they can thrive in an environment of shared trust.

Harmonious school life stems from trust. To improve internal harmony and ensure the smooth operation of schools, some fundamental actions include:

– Strengthening the current psychosocial teams within the school coexistence teams by adding more professionals and provide them with financial and material resources to develop plans for direct work with students

– Strengthening the training to support staff at educational institutions to increase dialogue with students

– Promoting student expression through artistic, athletic, and participatory initiatives within their schools

– Introducing curricular and methodological changes in teaching that allow teachers greater decision-making autonomy

– Realizing the goals of the Full School Day by balancing regular classes with educational workshops on topics of school-wide interest that impact grades in various subjects

– Organizing a wide variety of workshops of interest to students and involving trained facilitators to lead them

– Strengthening the school support services administered by JUNAEB

– Increasing teachers’ non-instructional time and incorporating community instructors into academic support programs

– Strengthening ties for joint activities between community organizations in the school’s vicinity and each school within a given territory

– Improving, repairing, and beautifying common areas within each school

– Moving forward with an ongoing plan to improve school infrastructure and equipment

– Activating parent and guardian councils organized by grade level and by school

– Activating student councils, training student leaders, and granting them greater decision-making authority on issues that directly impact students’ school life

– Facilitating the functioning of all school participation and management bodies at each school

– Strengthening decision-making by the administrative teams at each school