ARTICLES

 

School administrators' perceptions of democratic coexistence in Catalan schools: An analytical study

 

 

Laura García-Raga^I; Ingrid Sala-Bars^II; Montserrat Alguacil de Nicolas^II; Maria-Carme Boqué Torremorell^II

^IDepartment of Theory of Education, Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Sciences, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain laura.garcia@uv.es
^IIDepartment of Education, Faculty of Psychology, Educational Sciences and Sports Sciences, Blanquerna, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

In democratic societies, education should help build a participative, critical and responsible citizenry and therefore promote the role of schools as settings where students learn democratic coexistence. With the study reported on here we aimed to analyse how coexistence is fostered in classrooms and schools, as well as the possible synergy between schools' efforts to educate in democratic coexistence, and the children's social participation in their setting. To do so, we focused on the perspective of 476 school administrators at schools in Catalonia (Spain) based on an ad-hoc questionnaire comprised of 22 items on a Likert scale. The results reflect settings that value democratic coexistence at school and in society, although when we delved a bit deeper, we found aspects that still required more work. Actions that should be the focal point in the immediate future include developing more innovative educational strategies, training the administrators and enlisting students' participation in running the schools.

Keywords: Catalonia; citizenship; democratic coexistence; perception; school administrators; schools

---

 

 

Introduction

In today's societies, there is an unquestionable educational interest in building democratic schools and training citizens in the competences on which democracy is grounded (Veugelers & De Groot, 2019; Zaitegi, 2010). Taking the United Nations' call for the development of a fair, sustainable world (UN, n.d.) as referent, we observed that both goal 4 on education and goal 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions are concerned with proactively including the youngest members of society. Likewise, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO hereafter) adopted its Education Strategy 2014-2021 (UNESCO, 2014b), which states that conflictive environments have a severe effect on educational opportunities and that "education can empower learners of all ages and equip them with values, knowledge and skills that are based on and instil respect for democracy, human rights, social justice, cultural diversity, gender equality and environmental sustainability" (UNESCO, 2014b:14). At the time that those goals were formulated, the objective was also to prevent different forms of violence - bullying, sexism, racism, marginalisation - and the burgeoning radicalisation - extremism, fundamentalism, terrorism - at school (Aiello, Puigverd & Schubert, 2018; Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d'Ensenyament, 2016; Nordbruch & Sieckelinck, 2018). Now, due to the pandemic, which is affecting everyone, the need to develop positive coexistence connects the macro level with the micro level, given that interpersonal relations in the family, at school and in the world have drastically changed and are indeterminate, and what to teach in this regard is unknown (Jackson, 2019). The results of the study that Yao, Rao, Jiang and Xiong (2020) conducted in schools in China comparing the impact of two online teaching methods, namely recorded video versus live broadcasting, show that teachers should not limit themselves to conveying knowledge but that communicating with and mentoring students are essential to their academic success. This sheds light on the importance of keeping the bonds of coexistence alive in the new teaching scenarios.

In recent years, school coexistence has come to the forefront not only with the enactment of a host of educational regulations (García-Raga, Alguacil & Boqué Torremorell, 2019), but also with an unusual crop of initiatives which have revealed the importance of nurturing democracy by fostering the teaching of coexistence as an essential feature of citizenship. This teaching, which encompasses being a person, coexisting alongside others and inhabiting the world, has both a curricular component and an experiential component (UNESCO, 2014a). Thus, with this study we aimed to analyse how coexistence was fostered in classrooms and schools, as well as the possible synergy between schools' efforts to educate in democratic coexistence and children's social participation in their environment.

Review of the Literature

Educational reforms in the majority of countries have become increasingly open to introducing democratic coexistence as a prime referent. In Spain numerous initiatives at promoting measures to foster the improvement of coexistence in educational centres have been emerging (Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport [MECD], 2020; Observatorio Estatal de la Convivencia Escolar, 2011). However, more progress has been made with regard to those initiatives focused on school violence than those that seek to build a culture of democratic coexistence in a more comprehensive way. Likewise, we cannot forget that access to information and communication technologies has extended the sphere of coexistence to virtual spaces, including types of violence that should not be ignored at school (Avilés Martinez, 2019; Ortega-Ruiz, Del Rey Alamillo & Casas Bolaños, 2015).

In order to overcome this negative and narrowed vision of coexistence focused on a single element of analysis, such as students' behaviour and aggressive relations, we adopted a more global and positive vision. This notion of school coexistence is decisive in shaping democratic coexistence. If schools are turned into positive relational spaces, this can lay the groundwork for a responsible, active, and critical citizenry capable of forging united, cohesive societies (Sinclair, 2004).

With this objective in mind, we focused on the perceptions of school administrators, namely the principals of primary and secondary schools because their perceptions link what happens inside schools with what is happening in society. The subjects' perceptions allowed indirect access to the phenomenon under study through inferences made from objective data and were important because they incorporate the way of observing reality, highlighting the cognitive dynamics of the subject-environment relationship and the ability of the subject as creator (Arias Castilla, 2006).

We specifically set our sights on the educational context in Catalonia because this region was particularly interesting. Since late 2017 civil society has stepped up its struggle for self-determination by calling for a democratic referendum, which has not yet been approved by the government, although it has tested coexistence within families, schools and society at large (Cetra, Casanas-Adam & Tárrega, 2018; Turp, Caspersen, Ovortrup & Welp, 2017). As we have already mentioned, the goal was to analyse the coexistence actions undertaken in both classrooms and schools, as well as their needs and connection with the environs, in order to ascertain whether education can foster the construction of a democratic school and society by teaching coexistence.

Even though there is a vast range of studies and instruments in the field of coexistence to either measure the climate and level of conflict at school (Del Rey, Casas & Ortega Ruiz, 2017; Díaz-Aguado, Martinez Arias & Martin Babarro, 2010; Opere, Kamere & Wawire, 2019; Reyes-Angona, Gudiño Paredes & Fernández-Cárdenas, 2018) or assess specific strategies (Iriarte Redín, Ibarrola-García & Aznárez-Sanado, 2020; Moolman, Essop, Makoae, Swartz & Solomon 2020; Torrego Seijo & Galán González, 2008), the same does not hold true when assessing schools' efforts to promote positive coexistence globally. Consequently, there is a dearth of studies that provide valuable information on how coexistence is constructed at schools (Fierro-Evans & Carbajal-Padilla, 2019). This shift in approach from detecting the climate and conflict at schools (reactive perspective) towards focusing on the way a good climate is constructed (proactive perspective) can be both worthwhile and innovative.

Theoretical Framework

To begin with, democracy and education should go hand by hand in schools. For Dewey (1916) there is no democracy without education, and it is not possible to talk of education without democracy. Similarly, in the pedagogical invariable number 27, Freinet (1996) affirms that we bring democracy tomorrow by bringing democracy to school, because an authoritarian regime at school will not create democratic citizens. More recently, the Council of Europe (2015), in the document entitled "Declaration on promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education", demand respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

As Estellés and Romero (2016) advocate, the concept of democracy itself should be extended beyond the boundaries of the nation state to include global perspectives and participation on multiple governance levels. Similarly, Moreno Fernández and García-Pérez (2013) remark on the importance of thinking in terms of global citizenship and democracy in schools, and Banks (2017) advances a classification of four typologies of citizenship being promoted at schools: failed, recognised, participatory and transformative. Moreover, we do not understand democracy only as a key element of education but as social justice (Fraser, 2008; Young, 2011).

From this comprehensive perspective (Carter, 2020; Espelage & Hong, 2019; Fierro-Evans & Carbajal-Padilla, 2019; Moreno Fernández & García-Pérez, 2013; Pages i Blanch, 2019; Santisteban-Fernández, 2019), a democratic school is an educational community where everyone comprising it seeks spaces and times for dialogue and interaction, reaches common cooperation commitments and focuses on working on transformative projects that are emancipatory for the individuals and beneficial for the common good.

In this sense, we view coexistence as a complex concept referring to a collective, dynamic construction encompassing all the human relations among the actors in the educational community both within the school and in the environs, within the framework of rights and duties, whose influence radiates out beyond the boundaries of the school space (García-Raga & López Martín, 2010). Accordingly, democratic coexistence is recognised as a goal of education in and of itself, as well as teachers' obligation (Valdés-Morales, López & Jiménez-Vargas, 2019). Therefore, the main goal is to make the school a setting that equips students with the competences they need to know how to live and interact with others democratically, meeting the demands that society increasingly demand.

From a deliberative perspective (Gutman, 1987), what matters most is to respect the principles of non-repression and non-discrimination that make it possible to coexist in plural societies, so the key element is dialogue. Agreeing with Mouffe (2016), true democracies fight ideas, not people, hence both reasoning and emotions are necessary to get along with opponents. In this light, Biesta and Boqué Torremorell (2018) and Ruitenberg (2009) indicate that beyond cognitive skills, emotional learning is essential because democratic coexistence is always conflictual. Moreover, authors such as Biesta (2010) and Ranciére (2007), representing an emancipatory point of view that we fully subscribe to, stress the significance of creating subjectivities that adhere to democratic coexistence, which means to be and to act as equals within an unequal society by experiencing freedom, equality and solidarity. Then, the process that leads to democratic coexistence holds more value than the mere content itself.

That being said, schools can take a negative and reactive attitude to democratic coexistence -based on the concept of retributive justice that focuses on conflict avoidance and relies upon punishment as the tool to keep an appropriate school climate - or a positive and proactive attitude in the light of restorative justice principles that we have already examined in previous studies (Boqué Torremorell, 2020). Participation, active responsibility, compassion, inclusivity and respect are vital to build safe and healthy schools and communities, as well as to address harm by providing the opportunity to make amends. This constructive approach to coexistence is highlighted by different authors (Boqué, 2017; Ibarrola-García & Marte Redín, 2012; Perales Franco, 2018; Pineda-Alfonso & García-Pérez, 2016; Uruñuela, 2016; Zaitegi, 2010) who encourage the engagement of everyone in building caring relational environments.

According to Martínez Bonafé (2008), the essential question here is not how democracy or coexistence work, but how they are lived. That is, in what way does student subjectivity engage in projects of public interest and in affectionate relationships. Thus, the school must not only promote social competences aimed at living together in democracy but must also constitute an experiential laboratory where the exercise of these ideals is consolidated, because as Pagés i Blanch (2019:6) states, "the coherence between the experience and the discourse is key if we want to train our students in the principles of democratic citizenship." Consequently, a school that promotes democratic coexistence cannot ground its teaching solely on values and competences to live together and inhabit the planet but must also apply practices and programmes aimed at improving coexistence, as well as the organisation and democratic management of shared life and even the projection of the lessons learned to other contexts and through community initiatives. Among the most effective teaching and learning methodologies of equipping students with skills to democratically live with others, Omodan (2019) too points at experiential learning, disruptive caring pedagogy, problem-based learning and dialogical processes. It seems clear that to build an experience of democratic coexistence it would be necessary to be part and take part of what is currently happening in the school and in the community and, as Davies, Hampden-Thomson, Jeffes, Lord, Sundaran and Tsouroufli (2013) conclude, schools could do more to create a sense of community within the schools themselves and help pupils to engage with their neighbourhoods and communities.

To ensure democratic coexistence inside and outside the school, principals and school administrators in general hold the key. According to Lunenburg (2010), school administrators carry out four basic functions: planning, organising, leading, and monitoring. Their goal is to ensure high performance of students and faculty, and to be effective, they need to engage both in managerial tasks (policies, rules, procedures, authority relationships) and in building cultural linkages (symbols, rituals, norms). But, as Knight Abowitz (2022) highlights, when revisiting John Dewey's ideas on democracy, community, and citizenship, the narrow view of the principal's role today must evolve and position school administrators as community leaders. Within this framework, the role of school administrators is essential, since any effort may be futile without a clear drive for democratic coexistence by those who lead the school (Lopez Delgado, 2014; López Ramírez, García Hernández & Martínez Íñiguez, 2019; Pazur & Kovac, 2019). Consequently, as Campos Alves and Barros Barbosa state, "democratic school administration is the crux of the formation of education for democracy under a socially conscious, integrative perspective" (Campos Alves & Barros Barbosa, 2020:2). However, the passage from authoritarian management to transformational leadership cannot be done hastily, since authority exercised as a positive influence on others is necessary for the maintenance of an atmosphere of positive coexistence and requires a deep understanding, on the part of school principals, of participatory engagement, consultation and collective decision-making (Davids & Waghid, 2019).

In sum, taking into consideration the review of the literature and the theoretical framework, we based the study on two central concepts: democracy and coexistence. Then, we established the relationship between both and adopted a comprehensive approach to democratic coexistence. Afterwards, we considered two different ways of promoting democratic coexistence in schools: a positive and proactive way in contrast with a negative and reactive approach. Here, we defended curricular and experiential input as necessary, which explains our interest in the development of students' competencies, the actions and programmes promoted by the school and the democratic functioning of the school to reflect. Next, we included the community as a real context for practising democratic coexistence and bringing opportunities for genuine participation. Finally, we paid particular attention to the figure of the school administrator who, as representative and leader of the educational institution, can encourage a democratic system of coexistence in the school and the community.

The overall objective of this study was to review the role of the school in training students in democratic coexistence based on the perspective of the administrators of schools catering for students between the ages of 3 and 16. This general objective can be broken down into the following specific objectives:

a) To analyse the participating schools' involvement in developing competences for democratic coexistence.

b) To identify the coexistence actions promoted by the schools.

c) To ascertain how the schools manage coexistence in their own operations.

d) To detect the schools' needs in terms of training students for democratic coexistence.

e) To explore the schools' participation in community projects.

f) To study whether there are factors that affect the school's involvement in school coexistence.

 

Methodology

This was a non-experimental post-hoc study in which we used a quantitative methodology and conducted a descriptive-inferential analysis of the results.

Instrument

The instrument used is the questionnaire was developed ad hoc based on a previous study (Boqué Torremorell, García-Raga & Alguacil de Nicolás, 2021), as well as a literature review of the subject (Del Rey et al., 2017; Díaz-Aguado et al., 2010; Ibarrola-García & Iriarte Redín, 2012; MECD, 2017; Pineda-Alfonso & García-Pérez, 2016; Sinclair, 2004; UNESCO, 2014a). The questionnaire is structured in four categories to elicit how schools approach coexistence as competences to teach, experiences to live, school management and, also, to identify their present and future commitment to democratic coexistence.

To guarantee content validity, the questionnaire was assessed according to the criteria of sufficiency, clarity, coherence and relevance by 16 experts. The concordance was calculated using Kendall's W-coefficient, and no significant differences were found in the judges' responses. Therefore, several statements were reworded based on their suggestions, but no items were eliminated.

Next, we checked the reliability of the questionnaire in a pilot test with 136 randomly chosen school administrators using the Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient. An optimal reliability of 0.93 was found. Thus, the definitive questionnaire, as shown in Table 1, had 22 questions grouped into four categories with responses on a four-choice Likert scale (Not at all, A bit, Considerably and A lot): training (six items), actions and programmes (four items), operations: managing coexistence at the school (six items) and future plans and detecting needs (six items).

Participants

The target population of the study was the administrators of 2,983 schools that educate students between the ages of 3 and 16 in Catalonia, which included public, private and publicly-subsidised private schools. The representative sample was initially estimated at 341 administrators, with a confidence level of 95%, admitting a maximum error of 5%. Finally, a total of 476 representative responses were obtained from a random sampling procedure.

It was detected that 77.1% of the participants were affiliated with public schools and 22.3% with private or publicly-subsidised private schools. Likewise, 56.7% worked in schools catering for children between 3 and 12 years old (early childhood and primary), 22.1% in schools for children between 12 and 16 (secondary) and 21.2% in schools for children aged 6 to 16 (primary and secondary) or ages 3 to 16 (early childhood, primary and secondary). Furthermore, 32.6% were males and 66.8% females, while 0.6% preferred not to state their gender. In terms of age, 0.4% were under the age of 30, 11.6% were between 31 and 40 years old, 33.6% were between 41 and 50 and 54.4% were over the age of 50. Three-quarters of the participants stated that they had received training in coexistence issues (75.45%) as in-service training (55%) and in administrator training (31.4%). Finally, it became clear that training in coexistence has traditionally been absent from teachers' pre-service training (11.0%).

Information Analysis Procedure

Version 26 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse the information via a descriptive-inferential analysis of the data collected. Descriptive statistics were used, and once it was confirmed that the samples did not show normal distribution, non-parametric tests were performed to detect statistically significant differences between independent samples: the Mann-Whitney U test to compare two groups and the Kruskal Wallis test to compare more than two groups.

 

Results

The results are outlined below, arranged According to the two kinds of analysis undertaken: descriptive and inferential.

Descriptive Analysis

Data obtained from the questionnaire are presented according to the categories into which the questionnaire is divided. With regard to the first category, "Training: Development of competences to learn how to live together", which includes six items, we found that the majority of schools spent a considerable amount of time training in coexistence, with a total mean of 3.41. The mean scores and their standard deviations are shown in Table 2.

 

 

As illustrated in the table, of all the actions taken, the one with the highest score was related to values, with a mean of 3.62. Dialogue-based conflict management (3.54) and group cohesion (3.53) also returned high scores. In contrast, the least popular response was preventing bullying (3.12), although its score was fairly high as well.

Analysing the second category, "Practices: Programmes and actions to learn how to live together", which has four items, we found that the majority of schools undertook actions that contributed to school coexistence, since all the means were high. Specifically, emotional education was the practice implemented the most often and restorative practices the least, as shown in Table 3.

 

 

With regard to the category, "Operations: Managing coexistence in the school's operations", which comprises six items, the descriptive data are shown in Table 4. Here several low scores were returned, such as the one associated with developing rules in conjunction with the students (1.88) and designing the coexistence plan with the students (1.93). However, the scores were high on including objectives to improve coexistence in the management plan (3.22) and general annual programming (3.23).

If we look at the scores in the category "Projection: School's commitment to coexistence and detecting needs" (Table 5), which has six items, we found that they were somewhat lower than the other items. Only around half the schools had the time to spearhead initiatives (mean of 2.10) and had received training (mean of 2.46) in this regard. However, many of the schools were willing to cooperate in neighbourhood or town projects where the students advised, made proposals, took decisions or evaluated social policies.

Finally, Table 6 and Figure 1 show the scores in each category, calculated from the means of the items comprising them. Lower scores were returned in the category related to projection and the school's commitment to coexistence and detecting needs (2.63), followed by the category related to managing coexistence at school (2.72). On the other hand, the highest scores were in the category associated with training in competences to learn how to live together (3.41) and the category related to practices, programmes and actions to learn how to live together (3.12).

Inferential Study

The results of the analysis of the differences between the groups of participants are presented below. Here, we explored whether there were factors that affected the involvement of the schools when educating in democratic coexistence.

Firstly, checking the socio-demographic variables, we detected that there were only statistically significant differences in the "educational options" variable for the categories "Training: development of competences to learn how to live together" and "Operations: Managing coexistence at school", as shown in Table 7.

To further explore the differences detected, Figure 2 shows the means for each group, considering the variable of the school's educational options.

 

 

Figure 2 shows that the highest level of training in competences was among the administrators working in early childhood, primary and secondary schools (ages 3-16) or primary and secondary schools (ages 6-16). However, the highest level in terms of operations was found among the administrators in schools only offering secondary education (ages 12-16).

In terms of the variables more closely associated with the personal and professional aspects of the school administrators, the differences found are shown in Table 8. Specifically, differences were found in gender, age, years of experience in administration and training in coexistence. To further explore the differences in gender, the means on this variable for each group are shown in Figure 3, not including those who chose not to answer (three). It shows that female administrators had a higher level of training and practices.

 

 

Regarding the differences in age, the means for each group in this variable are shown in Figure 4. The highest mean scores found on the items in the category "Practices: Programmes and actions to learn how to live together" were among the administrators between the ages of 31 and 40. The lowest scores were among the administrators under the age of 30, although this included only two people. On the other hand, the administrators with more experience (more than 10 years) were those who stood out in all four categories: training, practices, management and projection (cf. Figure 5).

 

 

Exploring the differences with regard to training, Figure 6 shows the means for each group (those who have and have not had training). It reveals that the highest means of the scores on the items in all three categories (training in competences, operations and projection) were given by the administrators who had received training on coexistence.

 

 

Discussion and Conclusion

Generally speaking, we can state that the analyses conducted reflected those settings in which democratic coexistence at schools and in society were valued, although we found aspects that still required more work and improvement, especially when aiming at a transformative citizenship education as described by Banks (2017).

According to the first objective in which the schools' involvement in developing competences for democratic coexistence was analysed, we found that the participants' attitudes were generally quite favourable. Specifically, the values of coexistence, conflict management and group cohesion were mentioned most as factors which affected the school climate. This concurs with the findings by Valdés-Morales et al. (2019) who stress that a positive environment at school is related to a high level of cohesion, a warmer welcome and more support from teachers and administrators who are present and attentive to students' needs. Emphasising the role of the director, Moolman et al. (2020) point out that the type of leadership exercised in a school is a key dimension for achieving a positive context of coexistence because when students do not trust the principal or are critical of his or her disciplinary style, the climate in the school deteriorates. On the other hand, the students consider a principal who is close to the students, who is interested in them and supports them, shows strong commitment to maintaining positive coexistence bonds to be strict and fair at the same time. Also, Okorji, Igbokwe and Ezeugbor (2016:65) claim that "principals should create an atmosphere that is supportive, comfortable, friendly, productive, and relaxed, to motivate students' greater participation in learning and achieving educational goals."

Likewise, in a study on school coexistence, UNESCO (2014a:11) states that the 10 countries analysed "emphasize the importance of education in building peace, unity and social cohesion either through national constitutions or via education legislation and policy frameworks." Consequently, we refer back to Sinclair's words that "we should have a strand within our education programmes that explicitly introduces students to the practical skills, concepts and values needed for us all to live together" (Sinclair, 2004:141), both inside and outside of school (Davies et al., 2013). Specifically, within the school, teachers must promote an atmosphere where "learners are able to develop skills, attitudes and values that improve relationships, groups and society, and are also able to demonstrate respect for human rights and democracy" (Omodan, 2019:194). Also, strategies such as teaching controversial topics reinforce pupils' critical thinking (Santisteban-Fernández, 2019) and should be included in future studies along with the principles of non-repression and non-discrimination (Gutman, 1987).

In the category on coexistence actions associated with our second objective, the mean scores were fairly high for all the items, although emotional education practices were implemented the most and restorative practices the least. In this regard, we want to note the need for a constant effort to update the strategies aimed at most effectively responding to the school's current reality and society's demands. Even though nobody questions the importance of emotional education and dealing with democratic values (Biesta & Boqué Torremorell, 2018; Mouffe, 2016; Ruitenberg, 2009), there should also be strategies that allow conflict to be managed positively and proactively and with students' participation (Bonafé-Schmitt, 2000; Boqué Torremorell, 2003; Cowie & Wallace, 2006; Dwarika, 2019; López Martin, 2007; Torrego, 2012). Restorative practices, specifically, enable punitive disciplinary approaches to be revised to instead encourage students' participation in handling their own conflict in a democratic way, thus strengthening their interpersonal relationships and fostering the enactment of democratic citizenship competences (Armour, 2016; Boqué Torremorell, 2020; Reyneke, 2020; Wachtel, 2016).

However, the administrators themselves must be aware and engaged for this to be possible (Charles, 2019; Thorsborne & Blood, 2013).

With regard to managing coexistence, the third objective, low scores were found on student participation in both developing rules and designing the coexistence plan with the students' participation. Nevertheless, we found high scores when we enquired about the approach to improve coexistence in the management project and in the annual general plan. Thus, school policies remain highly focused on adults who are the ones who rule the school to the detriment of true student participation (Abdalla, 2019). However, if we want democratic schools, the students' role must be enhanced, which means recognising not only the need for teachers to be approachable but also that students' opinions and decisions should be included in the schools' documents. A previous study found that children's participation in the classroom and the environs was encouraged, but not so much in taking the decisions that affected the school administration or in areas traditionally led by teachers (Boqué Torremorell, Alguacil de Nicolás & García-Raga, 2020). Sharing of power or placing important matters in the students' hands was still not common (Carbajal Padilla, 2013), even though schools should be an essential space where democracy is exercised and students' participation in decision-making is essential. We must not forget that as Biesta (2010) and Ranciére (2007) state that an emancipatory educational process would still be necessary.

Therefore, we need to overcome this difficulty and listen to the students' voices, consider their contributions and help them take responsibility for running the school. This situation may also be evidence of a training deficit on coexistence issues, since at least one-third of the administrators indicated that they had not received training on coexistence. The analysis by Merma-Molina, Ávalos Ramos and Martínez Ruiz (2019) on the effectiveness of school coexistence plans also concludes that training programmes targeted at administrators and the committees in charge of promoting coexistence at school are needed. Similarly, the systematic review of the literature on school leadership and management in South Africa (Bush & Glover, 2016) confirms the need for specialised training, both for active principals and for aspiring managers in order to build their confidence in leading school communities.

This deficit in training is also reflected in the fourth objective of the study, since it appears to be one of the direst needs, along with having enough time to promote initiatives. Today, training in an entire series of techniques (mediation, cooperative learning, emotional education, restorative practices, etc.) is imperative, although it must start in pre-service training (Estelles & Romero, 2016) and not only be given as courses or training for administrators, which, based on the results, seems to be the most common situation. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to further analyse this when designing adequate teacher training that equips professionals with the tools that they need to deal with the challenges that they themselves perceive through experience (Penalva, Hernandez & Guerrero, 2014).

However, the scores were the highest in the fifth objective, aimed at determining the schools' willingness to cooperate in forums where children and adolescents participate in public policies. Thus, many of the schools were willing to collaborate on projects with the neighbourhood or with the municipality where boys and girls advise, make proposals, make decisions or evaluate policies, and many were willing to collaborate in projects where children participate in public administrations on issues dealing with education, health, justice and welfare. Without a doubt, children must go from being objects to subjects of policies, since the democratic deficit in children's participation is unquestionable and has been cited in multiple studies. In this regard, we quote Liebel (2007:37) who states that

[a] subject-oriented childhood policy recognizes children as competent actors and tries to strengthen their capacity to act and widen the scope of their opportunities and possibilities. The fact of aiming at strengthening the subjectivity of children is what qualitatively distinguishes it from conventional conceptions that defend girls and boys as objects of politics.

But to achieve this goal, it is not enough to protect the rights of the child by ensuring strong legal coverage since the real challenge, in many countries, continues to be that these rights become a reality in the lives of children, so, as Kilkelly and Liefaard (2019) highlight, legal support is only the beginning of the journey and not the end. Apparently, the most progress has been made locally, and some Children's Municipal Councils have been successful (Novella & Llena, 2016), even though they operate quite differently, and the decisions are primarily targeted at urban planning and leisure activities.

Finally, statistically significant differences were found among the administrators which give us an idea of the factors that could influence democratic coexistence. With regard to the socio-demographic variables, only educational options seemed to have an influence, with the highest level of training in coexistence competences found among the administrators of schools catering for children between 3 and 16 and between 6 and 16 years old, although the highest level in managing coexistence was found among administrators of schools for adolescents aged 12 to 16.

In terms of personal and professional factors, differences were found in experience in administration, training, age and gender. Specifically, the trained administrators with the most experience responded most positively, which again indicates the need to boost training in order to improve coexistence. With regard to age, the highest level in practices was among administrators between the ages of 31 and 40, and in terms of gender, women scored higher on the items. It would be worthwhile to study whether catering for school coexistence was a feminised issue, and if so, why.

In short, even though we could consider that the schools promoted democratic training from the perspective of the administrators, it is also essential to reflect on these results. The development of strategies like restorative practices, student involvement in school administration and improving pre-service and in-service teacher training should be priority avenues of action if we want schools to contribute to improving social coexistence and the challenges it poses to the sustainable development of the planet and the questions sparked by the current pandemic.

With regard to strategies, the goal should be to enact educational practices that promote the development of personal values and competences associated with proactiveness, commitment, responsibility, cooperation, democracy and social justice. However, these competences do not necessarily need to appear in isolation in the classroom but should instead be found and recognised within the web of educational areas and teaching and learning activities at school, always with student involvement. In this vein, the philosopher, Victoria Camps (1997, 2005), stresses the need for all individuals to cultivate the community dimension and be trained as citizens for public life. Giroux (1984, 1992) advocates the development of democratic practices at school and in the community as means of knowledge and exchange capable of promoting a critical, robust citizenry, given the danger entailed in one-track thinking. From this perspective, there are those who confirm that children have the capacity for political influence if they are taken seriously (Perry-Hazan, 2016; Yunita, Soraya & Maryudi, 2018), being able to guide activities and policies in diverse areas (Cutter-Mackenzie & Rousell, 2019; Menconi & Grohmann, 2018; Williams, Bingley, Walker, Mort & Howells, 2017).

Finally, with regard to teacher training, the demands from teachers themselves have led to an increase in courses on the topic, although there is a dearth of content on coexistence in pre-service training. The construction of the European Higher Education Area and its new roster of university degrees was a prime chance to consider including these novel themes in teacher training, although we still have a long way to go.

 

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the competitive project under the title, "Design of a roadmap for the inclusion of the voice of childhood and adolescence in the agendas of well-being, education, justice and health", developed with a grant from Programa d'Innovació i Qualitat Democrática del Departament d'Afers i Relacions Institucionals i Exteriors i Transparencia, de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Ref. DEMOC 2018_00005).

 

Authors' Contributions

This article is the result of collaborative work. Maria-Carme Boqué Torremorell was the coordinator of the research project and responsible for the structure and writing of the article. Laura García-Raga was in charge of the literature review and data analysis and Ingrid Sala-Bars and Montserrat Alguacil de Nicolás collected the data and presented the results. The discussion and conclusions were a collaborative effort.

 

Notes

i. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence.

 

References

Abdalla MJ 2019. Challenges and opportunities for authentic student participation in school governance: Lessons from Zanzibar. In JLP Lugalla & JM Ngwaru (eds). Education in Tanzania in the era of globalisation: Challenges & opportunities. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Mkuki na Nyota.         [ Links ]

Aiello E, Puigvert L & Schubert T 2018. Preventing violent radicalization of youth through dialogic evidence-based policies. International Sociology, 33(4):435-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580918775882        [ Links ]

Arias Castilla CA 2006. Enfoques teóricos sobre la percepción que tienen las personas [Theoretical approaches on the perception that people have]. Horizontes Pedagógicos, 8(1):9-22. Available at https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4907017. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

Armour M 2016. Restorative practices: Righting the wrongs of exclusionary school discipline. University of Richmond Law Review, 50(3):999-1037.         [ Links ]

Avilés Martinez JM (ed.) 2019. Los sistemas de apoyo entre iguales. De los equipos de ayuda a la cibermentoría [Peer support systems. On the cybermentoring support teams]. Barcelona, Spain: Graó         [ Links ].

Banks JA 2017. Failed citizenship and transformative civic education. Educational Researcher, 46(7):366-377. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17726741        [ Links ]

Biesta G 2010. A new logic of emancipation: The methodology of Jacques Ranciére. Educational Theory, 60(1):39-59. https://doi.Org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2009.00345.x        [ Links ]

Biesta GJ & Boqué Torremorell MC 2018. ¿Qué tienen que ver las emociones con la participación en la escuela? [What do emotions have to do with school participation?]. Participación Educativa, 5(8):29-42.         [ Links ]

Bonafé-Schmitt JP 2000. La médiation scolaire par les élèves [School mediation by students]. Paris, France: ESF.         [ Links ]

Boqué MC 2017. Plan de mejora de la convivencia [Programme of improvement of school coexistence]. In MP Díez Arcos & MS Jiménez Benedit (eds). Prevención, intervención y compensación del abandono educativo temprano [Prevention, intervention and compensation of early educational abandonment]. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura & Deporte.         [ Links ]

Boqué Torremorell MC 2003. Cultura de mediación y cambio social [Culture of mediation and social change]. Barcelona, Spain: Gedisa.         [ Links ]

Boqué Torremorell MC 2020. Prácticas restaurativas para la prevención y gestión de los conflictos: 20 círculos de la palabra y una asamblea en el aula [Restorative practices for conflict prevention and management: 20 circles and an assembly in the classroom]. Madrid, Spain: Narcea.         [ Links ]

Boqué Torremorell MC, Alguacil de Nicolás M & García-Raga L 2020. Children's views on citizenship education and peace in Catalan. In CC Carter (ed). Teaching and learning for comprehensive citizenship: Global perspectives on peace education. New York, NY: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Boqué Torremorell MC, García-Raga L & Alguacil de Nicolás M 2021. Children' s democratic participation: The case of Catalan schools from the principal's point of view. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 43(1): 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2020.1796174        [ Links ]

Bush T & Glover D 2016. School leadership and management in South Africa: Findings from a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(2):211-231. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2014-0101        [ Links ]

Campos Alves SM & Barros Barbosa MR 2020. Gestão escolar democrática: Dimensão diretiva aos processos educacionais significativos [Democratic school management: directive dimension to significant educational processes]. Research, Society and Development, 9(4):e13994298. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v9i4.2985        [ Links ]

Camps V 1997. Educar para la democracia [Educating for democracy]. Perspectivas, XXVII(4):529-535.         [ Links ]

Camps V 2005. Introducción: El concepto de virtud pública [Introduction: The concept of public virtue]. In P Cerezo (ed). Democracia y virtudes cívicas: Derechos fundamentales en la Unión Europea [Democracy and civic virtues: Fundamental rights in the European Union]. Madrid, Spain: Biblioteca Nueva.         [ Links ]

Carbajal Padilla P 2013. Convivencia democrática en las escuelas. Apuntes para una reconceptualización [Building democratic convivencia in schools. Reflections for its reconceptualization]. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, 6(2):13- 35. Available at https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4695207. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

Carter CC (ed.) 2020. Teaching and learning for comprehensive citizenship: Global perspectives on peace education. New York, NY: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Cetra D, Casanas-Adam E & Tárrega M 2018. The 2017 Catalan independence referendum: A symposium. Scottish Affairs, 27(1):126-143.         [ Links ]

Charles KM 2019. Administrators' perceptions of the implementation of restorative practices at selected urban elementary schools in Southeast Texas. PhD dissertation. Houston, TX: Houston Baptist University. Available at https://darius.hbu.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12262/197/Charles_hbu_1962D_10017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 20 June 2020.         [ Links ]

Council of Europe 2015. Declaration on promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education. Available at https://eu.daad.de/medien/eu.daad.de.2016/dokumente/service/auswertung-und-statistik/paris_declaration_2015_en.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2021.         [ Links ]

Cowie H & Wallace P 2006. Peer support in action. From standing by to stand by. London, England: Sage.         [ Links ]

Cutter-Mackenzie A & Rousell D 2019. Education for what? Shaping the field of climate change education with children and young people as co-researchers. Children's Geographies, 17(1):90-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2018.1467556        [ Links ]

Davids N & Waghid Y 2019. Educational leadership reconsidered: Re-invoking authority in schools. Africa Education Review, 16(2):36-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2016.1257919        [ Links ]

Davies I, Hampden-Thomson G, Jeffes J, Lord P, Sundaran V & Tsouroufli M 2013. Creating citizenship communities' project. York, England: The University of York. Available at https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/21968/1/FullTextpdf. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

Del Rey R, Casas JA & Ortega Ruiz R 2017. Desarrollo y validación de la Escala de Convivencia Escolar (ECE) [The development and validation of the Schoolwide Climate Scale]. Universitas Psycologica, 16(1):1 -11. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16-1.dvec        [ Links ]

Dewey J 1916. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: McMillan.         [ Links ]

Díaz-Aguado MJ, Martinez Arias R & Martín Babarro J 2010. Estudio estatal sobre convivencia escolar en la educación secundaria obligatoria [National study on school coexistence in compulsory secondary education]. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Educación.         [ Links ]

Dwarika VM 2019. Positive behaviour support in South African Foundation Phase classrooms: Teacher reflections. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 9(1):a761. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v9i1.761        [ Links ]

Espelage DL & Hong JS 2019. School climate, bullying, and school violence. In MJ Mayer & SR Jimerson (eds). School safety and violence prevention: Science, practice, policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000106-003        [ Links ]

Estellés M & Romero J 2016. Teacher education for citizenship in a globalized world: A case study in Spain. Journal of International Social Studies, 6(2):21-33. Available at https://iajiss.org/index.php/iajiss/article/view/230/241. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

Fierro-Evans C & Carbajal-Padilla P 2019. Convivencia escolar: Una revisión del concepto [School convivencia: Reviewing the concept]. Psicoperspectivas, 18(1):1 -14. https://doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-vol18-issue1-fulltext-1486        [ Links ]

Fraser N 2008. Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.         [ Links ]

Freinet C 1996. La escuela moderna francesa. Una pedagogía moderna de sentido común. Las invariantes pedagógicas [The modern French school. A modern pedagogy of common sense. The pedagogic invariables]. Madrid, Spain: Morata.         [ Links ]

García-Raga L, Alguacil M & Boqué Torremorell MC 2019. La educación para la paz en las políticas educativas. Un balance histórico y desafíos de futuro [Education for peace in educational policies. A historical balance and future challenges]. Historia Social y de la Educación [Social and Education History], 8(3):298-326. https://doi.org/10.17583/hse.2019.4164        [ Links ]

García-Raga L & López Martín R 2010. La convivencia escolar: Una mirada pedagógica, política y prospectiva [School coexistence: A pedagogical, political and prospective look]. Valencia, Spain: Universitat de Valencia.         [ Links ]

Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d'Ensenyament 2016. Protocol de prevenció, detecció i intervenció de processos de radicalització als centres educatius [PRODERAI CE] [Protocol for the prevention, detection and intervention of radicalization processes in schools].         [ Links ]

Giroux HA 1984. Ideology, culture, and the process of schooling. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.         [ Links ]

Giroux HA 1992. Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York, NY: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Gutmann A 1987. Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.         [ Links ]

Ibarrola-García S & Iriarte Redín C 2012. La convivencia escolar en positivo: Mediación y resolución de conflictos [School coexistence in a positive way: Mediation and conflict resolution]. Madrid, Spain: Ediciones Pirámide.         [ Links ]

Iriarte Redín C, Ibarrola-García S & Aznárez-Sanado M 2020. Propuesta de un instrumento de evaluación de la mediación escolar (CEM) [Proposal for a school mediation evaluation tool (MEQ)]. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 276:309-326.         [ Links ]

Jackson L 2019. The challenges of learning to live together: Navigating the global, national, and local. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20:249-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09591-3        [ Links ]

Kilkelly U & Liefaard T 2019. Legal implementation of the UNCRC: Lessons to be learned from the constitutional experience of South Africa. De Jure Law Journal, 52(SPE):521-539. https://doi.org/10.17159/2225-7160/2019/v52a30        [ Links ]

Knight Abowitz K 2022. The school principal as democratic leader: A critique of the Wallace Foundation's vision of the principalship. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(1):155-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1637545        [ Links ]

Liebel M 2007. Entre protección y emancipación: Derechos de la infancia y políticas sociales [Between protection and emancipation: Children's rights and social policies]. Madrid, Spain: Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología.         [ Links ]

Lopez Delgado M 2014. Democratic leadership in middle schools of Chihuahua Mexico: Improving middle schools through democracy. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 4(1):1 -12. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1136046.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

López Martín R (ed.) 2007. Las múltiples caras de la mediación: Y llegó para quedarse... [The multiple faces of mediation. And it's here to stay... ]. Valencia, Spain: Universitat de Valencia.         [ Links ]

López Ramírez E, García Hernández LF & Martínez Iñiguez JE 2019. La gestión directiva como potenciadora de la mejora del clima organizacional y la convivencia en las instituciones de educación media superior [The directive management as an enhancer of the improvement of the organizational climate and coexistence in high school]. Revista Iberoamericana para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo, 9(18):792-812. https://doi.org/10.23913/ride.v9i18.471        [ Links ]

Lunenburg FC 2010. The principal and the school: What do principals do? National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 27(4):1-12. Available at http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Lunenburg,%20Fred%20C.%20The%20Principal%20and%20the%20School%20-%20What%20Do%20Principals%20Do%20NFEASJ%20V27,%20N4,%202010.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

Martínez Bonafé J 2008. Investigando la vitalidad democrática de la institución educativa [Inquiring on the educational institutions' democratic aliveness]. Revista Educación y Pedagogía, 21(50):59-70. Available at https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/revistaeyp/article/view/9925/9123. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

Menconi ME & Grohmann D 2018. Participatory retrofitting of school playgrounds: Collaboration between children and university students to develop a vision. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29:71-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.06.006        [ Links ]

Merma-Molina G, Ávalos Ramos MA & Martínez Ruiz MA 2019. ¿Por qué no son eficaces los planes de convivencia escolar en España? [Why are school coexistence plans not effective in Spain?]. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 37(2):561-579. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.37.2.313561        [ Links ]

Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport 2017. Plan estratégico de convivencia escolar: Confiar en la fuerza de la educación [Strategic plan for school coexistence: Trusting the strength of education]. Spain: Author.         [ Links ]

Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport 2020. Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación [Organic Law 3/2020, of December 29, by means of which Organic Law 2/2006, of May 3, on Education].         [ Links ]

Moolman B, Essop R, Makoae M, Swartz S & Solomon JP 2020. School climate, an enabling factor in an effective peer education environment: Lessons from schools in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 40(1):Art. #1458, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v40n1a1458        [ Links ]

Moreno Fernández O & García-Pérez FF 2013. Educar para la participación desde una perspectiva planetaria. Análisis de experiencias educativas en Andalucía [Educating for participation from a planetary perspective. Analysis of educational experiences in Andalusia]. Iber. Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales, Geografía e Historia, 74:9-16.         [ Links ]

Mouffe C 2016. El retorno de lo político: Comunidad, ciudadanía, pluralismo, democracia radical [The return of the political: Community, citizenship, pluralism, radical democracy]. Barcelona, Spain: Ediciones Paidós.         [ Links ]

Nordbruch G & Sieckelinck S 2018. Transforming schools into labs for democracy: A companion to preventing violent radicalisation through education. Brussels, Belgium: Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) Centre of Excellence. Available at http://www.ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/networks/radicalisation_awareness_network/about-ran/ran-edu/docs/ran_edu_transforming_schools_into_labs_for_democracy_2018_en.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2020.         [ Links ]

Novella AM & Llena A (eds.) 2016. Infancia i participado política: Recull d'experiéncies de consells d 'infants i/o adolescents a Catalunya [Childhood and political participation: Collection of experiences of children's and/or adolescent Councils in Catalonia]. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat de Barcelona.         [ Links ]

Observatorio Estatal de la Convivencia Escolar 2011. Actuaciones para el impulso y mejora de la convivencia escolar en las comunidades autónomas [Actions to promote and improve school coexistence in the autonomous communities]. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Educación.         [ Links ]

Okorji PN, Igbokwe IC & Ezeugbor CO 2016. Relationship between school climate and principals' job performance in secondary schools. European Scientific Journal, 12(4):55-67. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n4p55        [ Links ]

Omodan BI 2019. Democratic pedagogy in South Africa: A rethinking viewpoint for knowledge construction. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(2): 188-203. Available at http://www.learntechlib.org/p/216602/. Accessed 4 July 2020.         [ Links ]

Opere OA, Kamere I & Wawire V 2019. School violence as a cause of non-peaceful coexistence in public secondary schools in Nairobi, Kenya. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(09):130-145. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.79010        [ Links ]

Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey Alamillo R & Casas Bolaños JA 2015. Nuevos riesgos de la convivencia escolar: El Cyberbullying [New risks of school coexistence: cyberbullying]. In R Ortega-Ruiz (ed). Convivencia y ciberconvivencia: Un modelo educativo para la prevención del acoso y el ciberacoso escolar [Coexistence and cybercoexistence: An educational model for the prevention of bullying and cyberbullying at school]. Madrid, Spain: Machado Libros.         [ Links ]

Pagès i Blanch J 2019. Ciudadanía global y enseñanza de las Ciencias Sociales: Retos y posibilidades para el futuro [Global citizenship and social science education: Challenges and future possibilities]. Revista de Investigación enDidáctica de las Ciencias Sociales, 5:5-22. https://doi.org/10.17398/2531-0968.05.5        [ Links ]

Pazur M & Kovac V 2019. Demokratsko skolsko vodenje: Analiza dosadasnjih istrazivanja i otvorena pitanja [Democratic school leadership: Analysis of current researches and open issues]. Metodicki Ogledi: Casopis za Filozofiju Odgoja, 26(1):33-60. https://doi.org/10.21464/mo.26.L5        [ Links ]

Penalva A, Hernández MA & Guerrero C 2014. Percepción de los expertos de la necesidad de la formación del profesorado en convivencia [Perceptions experts need for teacher training in coexistence]. Revista Fuentes, 15:281-304. https://doi.org/10.12795/revistafuentes.2014.i15.13        [ Links ]

Perales Franco C 2018. An ethnographic approach to school convivencia. Educação & Realidade, 43(3):887-907. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-623674800        [ Links ]

Perry-Hazan L 2016. Children's participation in national policymaking: "You're so adorable, adorable, adorable! I'm speechless; so much fun!" Children and Youth Services Review, 67:105-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.05.015        [ Links ]

Pineda-Alfonso JA & García-Pérez FF 2016. Education for peace and school coexistence: Plans and projects in Spain and Andalusia. In K Pandey, P Upadhyay & A Jaiswal (eds). Promoting global peace and civic engagement through education. India: IGI Global.         [ Links ]

Rancière J 2007. Hatred of democracy. London, England: Verso Books.         [ Links ]

Reyes-Angona S, Gudiño Paredes S & Fernández-Cárdenas JM 2018. Violencia escolar en Michoacán y Nuevo León, un diagnóstico situado para promover escuelas seguras en educación básica [School violence in Michoacán and Nuevo León, a situated diagnosis for promoting safe schools in basic-level education]. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 20(2):46-58. https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2018.20.2.1548        [ Links ]

Reyneke RP 2020. Increasing resilience, lowering risk: Teachers' use of the Circle of Courage in the classroom. Perspectives in Education, 38(1):144-162. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v38i1.11        [ Links ]

Ruitenberg CW 2009. Educating political adversaries: Chantal Mouffe and radical democratic citizenship education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28(3):269-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-008-9122-2        [ Links ]

Santisteban-Fernández A 2019. La enseñanza de las ciencias sociales a partir de problemas sociales o temas controvertidos: Estado de la cuestión y resultados de una investigación [Social sciences education based on social issues or controversial issues: State of the art and a research results]. El Futuro del Pasado, 10:57-79. https://doi.org/10.14516/fdp.2019.010.001.002        [ Links ]

Sinclair M 2004. Learning to live together: Building skills, values and attitudes for the twenty-first century. Paris, France: UNESCO.         [ Links ]

Thorsborne M & Blood P 2013. Implementing restorative practices in schools: A practical guide to transforming school communities. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.         [ Links ]

Torrego JC (ed.) 2012. La ayuda entre iguales para mejorar la convivencia escolar [Peer mentoring to improve school coexistence]. Madrid, Spain: Narcea.         [ Links ]

Torrego Seijo JC & Galán González A 2008. Investigación evaluativa sobre el programa de mediación de conflictos en centros escolares [Assesment of a mediation programme for conflict resolution in schools in the Community of Madrid]. Revista de Educación, 347:369-394. Available at https://redined.educacion.gob.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11162/72308/00820083000416.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

Turp D, Caspersen N, Qvortrup M & Welp Y 2017. The Catalan independence referendum: An assessment of the process of self-determination. Montreal, Canada: IRAI. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321934266_The_Catalan_Independence_referendum_An_assessment_of_the_process_of_self-determination. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

United Nations n.d. Sustainable development goals. Available at http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/. Accessed 20 June 2020.         [ Links ]

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2014a. Learning to live together: Education policies and realities in the Asia-Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO Bangkok Office. Available at https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227208. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2014b. UNESCO education strategy 2014-2021. Paris, France: Author. Available at http://www.wpf-unesco.org/eng/231288e.pdfhttp://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/. Accessed 20 June 2020.         [ Links ]

Uruñuela PM 2016. Trabajar la convivencia en los centros educativos. Una mirada al bosque de la convivencia [Working on coexistence in schools. A look at the forest of coexistence]. Madrid, Spain: Narcea.         [ Links ]

Valdés-Morales R, López V & Jiménez-Vargas F 2019. Inclusión educativa en relación con la cultura y la convivencia escolar [Educational inclusion in relation to school culture and coexistence]. Educación y Educadores, 22(2): 187-211. https://doi.org/10.5294/edu.2019.22.2.2        [ Links ]

Veugelers W & De Groot I 2019. Theory and practice of citizenship education. In W Veugelers (ed). Education for democratic intercultural citizenship. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill/Sense. Available at https://library.oapen.org/viewer/web/viewer.html7file=/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/37997/9789004411944_webready_content_text.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

Wachtel T 2016. Defining restorative. Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for Restorative Practices. Available at http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/Defining-Restorative.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2020.         [ Links ]

Williams AL, Bingley A, Walker M, Mort M & Howells V 2017. "That's where I first saw the water": Mobilizing children's voices in UK flood risk management. Transfers, 7(3):76-93. https://doi.org/10.3167/TRANS.2017.070307        [ Links ]

Yao J, Rao J, Jiang T & Xiong C 2020. What role should teachers play in online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic? Evidence from China. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 5(2):517-524. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.20.ar035        [ Links ]

Young IM 2011. Responsibility for justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

Yunita SAW, Soraya E & Maryudi A 2018. "We are just cheerleaders": Youth's views on their participation in international forest-related decision-making fora. Forest Policy and Economics, 88:52-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.12.012        [ Links ]

Zaitegi N 2010. La educación en y para la convivencia positiva en España [Education in and for positive coexistence in Spain]. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 8(2):94-132. Available at https://repositorio.uam.es/bitstream/handle/10486/661293/REICE_8_2_6.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 31 May 2022.         [ Links ]

 

 

Received: 25 June 2020
Revised: 29 April 2021
Accepted: 22 June 2021
Published: 31 May 2022