The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a 15-year plan of action for people, the planet and prosperity, adopted in 2015 by all UN Member States. It aims at improving the lives and prospects of everyone, everywhere. Although the 2030 Agenda was not developed specifically for children there are many connections between it and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), as UNICEF has demonstrated by mapping the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) onto the UNCRC (Wernham, 2017). This mapping adopts a broad interpretation of the Global Goals and of the Convention but reinforces connections between the two and their potential for mutual advocacy and implementation. A crucial connection –let’s think of article 19 of the UNCRC– is the responsibility placed on institutions, to End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children (SDG 16.2). Particularly educational institutions (SDG 4) such as school, it is argued, carry an imperative role to stimulate sustainable development, by working on social relations and conditions to promote a violence free community. However, despite international legislations on child protection, it is always a question of interpretation and negotiation as concerns how these rights are materialized in various countries’ educational policy, as well as why they are described as important to consider (Ball et al., 2012; Know Violence in Childhood,2017). With this as a background it becomes of interest to analyze and compare how the need to protect children from violence is interpreted and enacted in national contexts and in relation to research about violence (Ball et. Alt, 2012; Francia and Edling, 2017; Biffi, 2017). Sweden and Italy are two countries interesting to look at from a European perspective, due to their specific culture and approaches to child violence. Sweden is described as a highly secular (previously protestant) and individualistic country. Contrary to this, Italy tends to be pictured as a non-secular, catholic country premiering the collective (Meyer, 2014). Moreover, compared to other countries Sweden generally has a low percentage of children and youth feeling exposed to violence, such as bullying (Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2018, p. 46, Swedish Research Council, 2011: 353, p.12). Italy, has a tradition with the Reggio Emilia Approach, an educational philosophy, to considers children as subjects of rights, who grow through significative and respectful relations in their communities. With this as a background, the purpose of the paper is to provide insight in how two countries enact in educational policy the right of children not to be subjected to various forms of violence stressed in Agenda 2030 and UNCRC, in order to create a strong and respecting community in a fragmented world. More specifically the paper asks the following research questions: Do, and if so, how do educational national policy in Italy and Sweden motivate the need to protect children from violence? Do, and if so, how do educational national policy in Italy and Sweden describe violence against children? Do, and if so, how do educational national policy in Italy and Sweden describe measures to oppose violence? Are there, and if so which similarities and/or differences can be found in-between the countries as regards the questions above? In order to understand how international policies are processed in national contexts the concept of policy enactment is used (Maguire, Ball, Braun, 2010; Maguire, Ball, Braun, Hoskins, 2011). Central in the enactment theory is that policies are not just implemented in institutions through a neutral and top down fashion but are dependent upon human practices in particular contexts. In this paper the translation between international policy and national policy as regards directives to handle violence in education is analysed, but not the practice and school context itself. To conduct a comparative study linkages and differences will be taken into account in order to compare the cases. Linkages are created by posing similar questions to the material and differences imply awareness that all comparisons always contain cultural and contextual differences and contestations that need to be addressed (No´voa & Yariv-Mashal, 2003). A risk in comparative education research is the lack of the units of analysis that display sufficient commonalities to make their differences significant and useful (Manzon 2011). In order to deal with this risk we have established the terms of comparison – a minimal base of shared commonalities. These common units of analysis in our comparative design study between Italy and Sweden are educational policy documents influencing the responsibilities to oppose violence in school. More specifically three questions are posed to the material: 1. How is the work against violence motivated? 2. What kind of violence is highlighted and how is it defined? 3. How is the work against violence to be approached? The policies of Sweden and Italy are interpreted using content analysis as a theoretical lens. Content analysis is a research method that highlights and structures the content in centre of analysis in a systematic manner (Weber, 1990, p. 9). The policy documents are approached in three steps. Firstly, read several times by the authors with the purpose to identify plausible focal points in a general manner. Secondly, the themes are coded into various content-themes based on the three questions above. In this stage the choice of words and semiotics relating to motivation, various forms of violence and methods are highlighted. Thirdly, the outcome of the interpretations is placed in relationship to previous research with the intention to provide general explanations for the findings (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992; Weber, 1990). Within the framework offered by international strategies to protect children and favor human flourishing, the study is expected to shed light on Swedish and Italian educational policy in school to shield children from violence. Initial findings show how Sweden’s educational policies address violence in a systematic and systemic manner ( School Act, 2010, Discrimination Act, 2008) , whereas Italian policy focuses more on the creation of a prevention network, where inclusion, equal opportunities and investments are crucial (MIUR, 2016), without in many cases addressing violence explicitly. In pedagogical terms, it is expected that the potential of educational policy to promote a culture of respect within the school, although in different manners because of the different national situations will be explored. In Italy discrimination against cultural and gender differences are a specific concern (MIUR, 2015, 207), together with cyberbullying (MIUR, 2017). In Sweden discrimination is also at the heart of specific policy (Discrimination Act), whereas bullying is not used in the School Act but is mentioned in the reports of the Swedish National Agency of Education, as children tend not to feel exposed to this kind of violence. The potential of this culture to get through the walls of the school, extending to the rest of the community, by reinforcing and sometimes reconstructing alliances with families, through educational co-responsibility covenants (MIUR, 2016, 2017) will be explored, in light of the peaceful, free, equitable community that the Agenda 2030 aims to build. References -Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet. Diskrimineringslag (2009:567). Sveriges Riksdag. -Ball, S. J., Maguire, M. & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy - policy enactments in secondary school. London: Routledge. -Biffi, E. (2017). Protecting minors against violence: from strategy to practice. Education Sciences & Society. 1, 47-64. -Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313-321. -Francia, Guadalupe, & Edling, Silvia. (2017). Children's rights and violence: A case analysis at a Swedish boarding school. Childhood, in process. 24(1), pp. 51-67. -Know Violence in Childhood. (2017). Ending Violence in Childhood. Global Report 2017. New Delhi, India. -Maguire, M.; Ball, S. & Braun, A. (2010). Behaviour, classroom management and student ‘control’: enacting policy in the English secondary school, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 20 (2), 153-170. -Maguire, M.; Ball, S.; Braun, A. & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy subjects and policy actors in schools: some necessary but insufficient analyses, Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 32(4), 611-624. -Manzon, Maria (2011). Comparative Education - The Construction of a Field. Hong Kong: Springer, Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. -Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map. Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. NY: PublicAffairs US. -Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2015). Linee Guida Nazionali. Educare al rispetto: per la parità tra i sessi, la prevenzione della violenza di genere e di tutte le forme di discriminazione. -Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2016-2019). Piano per la formazione dei docenti 2016-2019. -Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2017). Linee di Orientamento per la prevenzione e il contrasto del cyberbullismo. -Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2017). Rispetta le differenze. Piano nazionale per l’educazione al rispetto. -No´voa, A., & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of governance or a historical journey? Comparative Education, 39(4), 423-438. -Public Health Agency of Sweden. (2018). Skolbarns hälsovanor i Sverige 2017/18. En grundrapport. -Swedish Research Council. (2011). Utvärdering av metoder mot mobbning (2011:353). Stockholm: Fritzes. ¬UN General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. -Utbildningsdepartementet. (2010). Skollag (2010:800). Sveriges Riksdag. -Weber, Robert Philip (1990). Basic content analysis. 2. ed. Newbury Park: Sage -Wernham, M. (2017). Mapping the Global Goals for Sustainable Development and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. UNICEF.
Montà, C., Biffi, E., Edling, S. (2020). Agenda 2030 and Children’s Right not to a co be Subjected to Violence: Educational policy in Sweden and Italy. Intervento presentato a: The European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), Glasgow (Conference canceled).
Agenda 2030 and Children’s Right not to a co be Subjected to Violence: Educational policy in Sweden and Italy
Montà, C. C.
;Biffi, E.;
2020
Abstract
The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a 15-year plan of action for people, the planet and prosperity, adopted in 2015 by all UN Member States. It aims at improving the lives and prospects of everyone, everywhere. Although the 2030 Agenda was not developed specifically for children there are many connections between it and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), as UNICEF has demonstrated by mapping the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) onto the UNCRC (Wernham, 2017). This mapping adopts a broad interpretation of the Global Goals and of the Convention but reinforces connections between the two and their potential for mutual advocacy and implementation. A crucial connection –let’s think of article 19 of the UNCRC– is the responsibility placed on institutions, to End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children (SDG 16.2). Particularly educational institutions (SDG 4) such as school, it is argued, carry an imperative role to stimulate sustainable development, by working on social relations and conditions to promote a violence free community. However, despite international legislations on child protection, it is always a question of interpretation and negotiation as concerns how these rights are materialized in various countries’ educational policy, as well as why they are described as important to consider (Ball et al., 2012; Know Violence in Childhood,2017). With this as a background it becomes of interest to analyze and compare how the need to protect children from violence is interpreted and enacted in national contexts and in relation to research about violence (Ball et. Alt, 2012; Francia and Edling, 2017; Biffi, 2017). Sweden and Italy are two countries interesting to look at from a European perspective, due to their specific culture and approaches to child violence. Sweden is described as a highly secular (previously protestant) and individualistic country. Contrary to this, Italy tends to be pictured as a non-secular, catholic country premiering the collective (Meyer, 2014). Moreover, compared to other countries Sweden generally has a low percentage of children and youth feeling exposed to violence, such as bullying (Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2018, p. 46, Swedish Research Council, 2011: 353, p.12). Italy, has a tradition with the Reggio Emilia Approach, an educational philosophy, to considers children as subjects of rights, who grow through significative and respectful relations in their communities. With this as a background, the purpose of the paper is to provide insight in how two countries enact in educational policy the right of children not to be subjected to various forms of violence stressed in Agenda 2030 and UNCRC, in order to create a strong and respecting community in a fragmented world. More specifically the paper asks the following research questions: Do, and if so, how do educational national policy in Italy and Sweden motivate the need to protect children from violence? Do, and if so, how do educational national policy in Italy and Sweden describe violence against children? Do, and if so, how do educational national policy in Italy and Sweden describe measures to oppose violence? Are there, and if so which similarities and/or differences can be found in-between the countries as regards the questions above? In order to understand how international policies are processed in national contexts the concept of policy enactment is used (Maguire, Ball, Braun, 2010; Maguire, Ball, Braun, Hoskins, 2011). Central in the enactment theory is that policies are not just implemented in institutions through a neutral and top down fashion but are dependent upon human practices in particular contexts. In this paper the translation between international policy and national policy as regards directives to handle violence in education is analysed, but not the practice and school context itself. To conduct a comparative study linkages and differences will be taken into account in order to compare the cases. Linkages are created by posing similar questions to the material and differences imply awareness that all comparisons always contain cultural and contextual differences and contestations that need to be addressed (No´voa & Yariv-Mashal, 2003). A risk in comparative education research is the lack of the units of analysis that display sufficient commonalities to make their differences significant and useful (Manzon 2011). In order to deal with this risk we have established the terms of comparison – a minimal base of shared commonalities. These common units of analysis in our comparative design study between Italy and Sweden are educational policy documents influencing the responsibilities to oppose violence in school. More specifically three questions are posed to the material: 1. How is the work against violence motivated? 2. What kind of violence is highlighted and how is it defined? 3. How is the work against violence to be approached? The policies of Sweden and Italy are interpreted using content analysis as a theoretical lens. Content analysis is a research method that highlights and structures the content in centre of analysis in a systematic manner (Weber, 1990, p. 9). The policy documents are approached in three steps. Firstly, read several times by the authors with the purpose to identify plausible focal points in a general manner. Secondly, the themes are coded into various content-themes based on the three questions above. In this stage the choice of words and semiotics relating to motivation, various forms of violence and methods are highlighted. Thirdly, the outcome of the interpretations is placed in relationship to previous research with the intention to provide general explanations for the findings (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992; Weber, 1990). Within the framework offered by international strategies to protect children and favor human flourishing, the study is expected to shed light on Swedish and Italian educational policy in school to shield children from violence. Initial findings show how Sweden’s educational policies address violence in a systematic and systemic manner ( School Act, 2010, Discrimination Act, 2008) , whereas Italian policy focuses more on the creation of a prevention network, where inclusion, equal opportunities and investments are crucial (MIUR, 2016), without in many cases addressing violence explicitly. In pedagogical terms, it is expected that the potential of educational policy to promote a culture of respect within the school, although in different manners because of the different national situations will be explored. In Italy discrimination against cultural and gender differences are a specific concern (MIUR, 2015, 207), together with cyberbullying (MIUR, 2017). In Sweden discrimination is also at the heart of specific policy (Discrimination Act), whereas bullying is not used in the School Act but is mentioned in the reports of the Swedish National Agency of Education, as children tend not to feel exposed to this kind of violence. The potential of this culture to get through the walls of the school, extending to the rest of the community, by reinforcing and sometimes reconstructing alliances with families, through educational co-responsibility covenants (MIUR, 2016, 2017) will be explored, in light of the peaceful, free, equitable community that the Agenda 2030 aims to build. References -Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet. Diskrimineringslag (2009:567). Sveriges Riksdag. -Ball, S. J., Maguire, M. & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy - policy enactments in secondary school. London: Routledge. -Biffi, E. (2017). Protecting minors against violence: from strategy to practice. Education Sciences & Society. 1, 47-64. -Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313-321. -Francia, Guadalupe, & Edling, Silvia. (2017). Children's rights and violence: A case analysis at a Swedish boarding school. Childhood, in process. 24(1), pp. 51-67. -Know Violence in Childhood. (2017). Ending Violence in Childhood. Global Report 2017. New Delhi, India. -Maguire, M.; Ball, S. & Braun, A. (2010). Behaviour, classroom management and student ‘control’: enacting policy in the English secondary school, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 20 (2), 153-170. -Maguire, M.; Ball, S.; Braun, A. & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy subjects and policy actors in schools: some necessary but insufficient analyses, Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 32(4), 611-624. -Manzon, Maria (2011). Comparative Education - The Construction of a Field. Hong Kong: Springer, Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. -Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map. Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. NY: PublicAffairs US. -Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2015). Linee Guida Nazionali. Educare al rispetto: per la parità tra i sessi, la prevenzione della violenza di genere e di tutte le forme di discriminazione. -Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2016-2019). Piano per la formazione dei docenti 2016-2019. -Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2017). Linee di Orientamento per la prevenzione e il contrasto del cyberbullismo. -Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2017). Rispetta le differenze. Piano nazionale per l’educazione al rispetto. -No´voa, A., & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of governance or a historical journey? Comparative Education, 39(4), 423-438. -Public Health Agency of Sweden. (2018). Skolbarns hälsovanor i Sverige 2017/18. En grundrapport. -Swedish Research Council. (2011). Utvärdering av metoder mot mobbning (2011:353). Stockholm: Fritzes. ¬UN General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. -Utbildningsdepartementet. (2010). Skollag (2010:800). Sveriges Riksdag. -Weber, Robert Philip (1990). Basic content analysis. 2. ed. Newbury Park: Sage -Wernham, M. (2017). Mapping the Global Goals for Sustainable Development and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. UNICEF.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
