Individual, collective, school, social, cultural, economic characteristics are interweaved inside classroom on the basis of game ans challenge psychology.
Social- family fund, ecological factors, internal school functions could form either peacefulness climate or lawlessness climate ( ex.street gangs, bullying inside school area ).
The connection between school violence and social exclusion or the split of social “tissue” constitute a fact. The same applies to conflict situation as well, because of the general absence of confidence in institutions and values.
As a cause and an effect of school failure or a desperate venture, school violence uses its own language and its own symbolisms and it is established gradually as a traditional practice.
The infant traumatic experiences, the violence as a survival lesson, the school mal-treatment, moral pretensions and demonologies, social reasons/excuses, populism and modernized nihilism policy, (school) justice’s value and the observance of the rules and limits from everyone are called to approach and handle the phenomenon ( school violence ).
However, first of all we should distinguish myths and realities concerning school violence, that means we must define it exactly and determine the background culture and release it from television representations. The researchers do not always agree with definitions such as violence, intimidation, aggressiveness, school mal-treatment while the suggested policies are moved in all the prevention levels. From the moment, however, that students themselves consider the punishment of certain behaviours necessary that means that the violence representation of all these who are involved and the negotiable character of interventions should become an object of special research
( far off aphorisms and generalizations )
This paper tries to address these issues with particular reference to the European Union, but not to a specific country. The paper argues that the source of the ‘crisis of democracy’ lies in the overall prioritisation of economic competition over democratic participation at both national and transnational levels. It also argues that the ways that knowledge is selected, organised and distributed both in and out of educational institutions is weakening rather than strengthening democratic citizenship. The first section of the paper points to policies of de-democratisation occurring in national and transnational contexts; the second section discusses the impact of the current modes of information and knowledge production and diffusion on active citizenship; and the third section reflects on the relation between contemporary education reforms and the current debate and initiatives for citizenship education.
Throughout its analysis the paper argues that notwithstanding popular discourses about the global spread of democratic values and the role of lifelong and ICT-based learning in advancing societies, democratic citizenship is in a stage of regression. The current version of globalisation has placed societies in a trajectory of relentless economic competition which supersedes any substantial development of democratic participation. Despite the wide legitimacy and the accelerated expansion of electoral democracy in the world, core decisions are being taken by/within transnational networks of economic and political power which define citizens’ reality but they are inaccessible to their participation. However, with the decisive help of ICT, knowledge is accessible in an unprecedented extent, but it is fragmented, commercialised, instrumental, highly specialised and it obscures political opinion. Recent education reforms are reinforcing these modes of knowledge organisation, as education systems are being aligned to policies of economic competitiveness. Curricula, on the one hand, emphasise the formation of skills related to the new economy, and, on the other, they are stressing the re-formation of, allegedly threatened, cultural identities. Citizenship curricula are being requested to transmit values considered necessary for individuals to build social capital in order to associate with each other in a well-functioning market society, rather than to reinvigorate democratic participation. Participation in educational decision making is displaced by management methods imported from the private sector along with evaluation mechanisms and outcomes-driven pedagogic modes which standardise teaching and learning policies and practices.
The paper concludes that the main direction that contemporary knowledge selection, organisation and distribution in and out educational institutions is taking is not pointing to an enlivenment of democracy as a political regime of deliberation and critique amongst citizens who are enabled and entitled to make decisions about the orientation of their societies. On the contrary, education, in its formal and informal dimensions, is aligned to the prevalent project of our age which is to create and sustain economically powerful ‘knowledge societies’ rather than vibrant ‘knowledge democracies’.
Jagdish S. Gundara and Namrata Sharma