Picking up on our topic of conflict, coexistence, and mediation, this section will cover the main aspects of coexistence in educational centers. To do this, we will define coexistence as a process that requires different components, such as respect, the capacity for conflict resolution, the creativity to choose the best opportunities and strategies for each conflict situation and/or decision-making. This is how discipline, authority, norms, and organizational structures are constitutive elements of this process. Such is the case of discipline, which must be based on constant integral dialogue and accompanied by reasoning and the ability to negotiate and persuade, as well as the valorization and respect for established basic norms.
In the case of authority, it must be through the prestigious recognition of a person and not by the role they perform. The relationship between the parties must be founded on the bond that is created and the relationship that is established.
Regarding established norms, ideally, they should be established through the work of the educational community, where each unit is a democratic participant in the composition of the norms established for the proper functioning of coexistence.
From the perspective of organizational structures, these should be formed through cooperative organizations with the aim of delving into and deepening what has already been done to consolidate and perfect the work already carried out. On the other hand, they should aim towards peaceful education, under the conceptual model of Education for Peace, structured by the concept of positive peace and a creative perspective of conflict.
Among the causes of conflict are various factors, including current society (in my case, I speak of Chilean society), the entry of women into the workforce, single-parent families, long working hours, and long commutes to work are some of the causes for the absence of parental figures in Chilean homes. On the other hand, access to virtual social networks, ease, free access, and lack of adult supervision promote replicated behaviors in children that are not always expected by adults. The low authority of teachers in the classroom setting, understanding that the authority figure is currently built on admiration and respect for actions and not for the role(s) performed. Finally, loneliness and the lack of parental relationship with children, the expression of affection, effective communication, and daily planning are other influential factors in the causality of conflict.
Among the coexistence management models, three can be highlighted:
1. Punitive-sanctioning model.
2. Relational model.
3. Integrated punitive-relational model.
The first model, punitive-sanctioning, is based mainly on the sanction of the individual. The act of sanctioning is also a lesson for those who observe the behavior and its repercussions. The main characteristic of this model is that it points to the power of authority for conflict resolution and is mainly regulated by established norms and sanctions for non-compliance, focusing fundamentally on a retributive approach to justice. The disadvantages of using this model, in terms of the limitations it presents, point to the non-correction of the expected behavior, that is, as a consequence, greater distance and resentment are obtained regarding the institution that hosts them. On the other hand, in relation to the student who errs, it fails to promote autonomous morality; the conflict is not resolved, and it seems that what is important is not the actor but the one who accuses the behavior, that is, the complainant.
Regarding the second model, relational, it deals with the actors involved in the conflict. They try to solve the conflict through different instances of dialogue with the aim of restoring the damage done to the victim of the situation. This model is mainly characterized by restitution to the victim, thus favoring a morality with greater autonomy, leaving the educational center as a passive actor. As for the limitations of the model, it is said that generalized prevention is not guaranteed, and in addition to investing time and energy, there may be a complex situation outside an educational context in relation to the conditions that favor effective dialogue.
The third model, integrated punitive and relational, presents, in my opinion, better conditions than the previous ones, since the educational center offers the possibilities of generating a conflict resolution system, greater dialogue, and in a legitimate context for the parties. Among the characteristics of this model, the following stand out: a system of norms established by the institution; a school council that offers restitution to the victim and sanction to the actor provoking the conflict, and a dialogue process that enriches communication and problem-solving, favoring greater moral autonomy. Finally, the educational center takes on an active role in the execution of granting legitimacy and value to the organizational structure for the reception of this type of event.
For a teacher, being trained in conflict resolution means being better prepared for their educational work. ISEP has designed the Master in Psychopedagogical Intervention in Educational Contexts to respond to this need.