CPL (10) 6 Part II


Local partnership for preventing and combating violence at school Conclusions of the Strasbourg Conference (2-4 December 2002)

Rapporteur: Brith FÄLDT (Sweden)

---------------------------

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Background to the Conference

In 1992, the Committee on Culture and Education of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE)1 decided to organise a conference on this subject to exchange ideas on how local authorities could help to prevent and overcome school violence, in partnership with the other bodies concerned.

The Council of Europe's Steering Committee for Education had also included a meeting on the same topic in its 2002 programme, following a symposium in Brussels in November 1998 on "Violence in schools: awareness-raising, prevention, penalties". There are also plans to organise an ad hoc conference of education ministers on the issue.

For its part, the Directorate of Youth and Sport has already organised several seminars on combating violence at school as part of the human rights education programme, particularly in conjunction with local non-governmental youth organisations.

These three bodies therefore agreed to pool resources and organise a joint conference in 2002.

As well as building on the results of work already undertaken by the three bodies, such co-operation provides a suitable opportunity for extending and de-compartmentalising dialogue between the various local agencies and partners that ought to be closely involved in efforts to prevent school violence in its different forms.

Finally, in January 2002 the Council of Europe Secretary General decided to launch a three-year integrated project on "Responses to violence in everyday life in a democratic society". This conference was under the auspices of the integrated project and as such brought together several Council of Europe directorates general and institutions. The aim was to provide a broader framework, so that violence at school could be tackled in a comprehensive way and the conference's conclusions given greater coverage and impact.

2. Preliminary thoughts

Violence in school is a complex phenomenon involving a wide variety of factors, and it is sometimes difficult to separate cause and effect.

Nonetheless, schools throughout Europe seem to be confronted with a growing problem of violence, in an institution often viewed as one where the impact and tensions of the outside world should be minimised. Violence at school has consequences not only for schools themselves but also for society at large.

It is very difficult to compare situations between schools and between countries. This is because those making the comparisons have different perceptions and there is a lack of consistency in the methods used to quantify the situation. Moreover the various stages linking pupils' or teachers' sense of insecurity and actual aggression may be viewed as a continuum. All of these stages are grouped under the general heading of violence, which naturally biases any attempt at comparisons. Cultural differences complicate the situation even further.

As a result, a formal definition of violence seemed to be beyond the scope of the conference, though it did emphasise the need to define and establish objective indicators for measuring the long-term impact of violent situations throughout Europe.

The Council of Europe's views the problem of school violence from the standpoint of protecting human rights and promoting democratic values. This is consistent with the Council's fundamental values but is also a pragmatic approach. Whereas it is unrealistic to seek agreement on a precise definition of school violence, it seems likely that a common threshold for action can be defined, based on protecting victims' rights and respecting certain rules necessary to maintain democratic values.

The first two lessons to be drawn are that schools can no longer function as self-contained entities in isolation from their environment and that countering and preventing violence at school necessarily implies a commitment by the community at large.

The key point to emerge from the conference was that partnerships were essential ingredients of a long-term and effective response to school violence, and that this would entail:

- a more comprehensive understanding of the problem and the mechanisms involved;

- breaking down barriers between the various institutions more or less directly concerned, to co-ordinate and optimise their activities in this respect;

- defining common objectives and specific responsibilities, to the long-term benefit of all concerned;

- safeguarding democratic processes and respect for the rights of all parties involved in the design and implementation of action programmes;

- fostering awareness of the problem throughout the community, to ensure a more effective response to violence, both within and outside schools.

3. Conference Objectives

The conference set out to respond to the urgent need for violence-prevention strategies. In particular, it aimed to:

- foster awareness of the real situation in all the European Cultural Convention countries and draw attention to the need for wide-ranging partnerships to deal with the situation;

- identify out-of-school partners and their roles and responsibilities, and emphasise the importance of schools' co-operating with them, especially in implementing strategies;

- devise strategies and working methods for developing, implementing and monitoring prevention policies and responding to existing problem situations.
These strategies should be concerned with:

- developing the school environment, to promote open dialogue and mediation, without ruling out carefully devised penalties as appropriate;

- including violence prevention in the formal or informal curriculum;

- addressing the problem of violence from primary school onwards (in practice, many programmes start too late);

- introducing early warning systems;

- deciding how to react to violence when it does occur;

- in extreme cases providing for specific needs, for example pupils who have been repeatedly expelled from school, particularly for the purpose of re-socialising them back into society/school;

- including young persons in the development of prevention strategies;

- training teachers and other professionals, particularly in non-formal education, to manage conflict situations;

- training all categories of educational staff.

4. Results and follow-up

The first tangible results of the conference included the publication of a compendium of case studies from local and national bodies (a total of 26 from 16 countries) and the adoption of a final declaration (see appendix);

The next step will be to draft proposals for future Council of Europe activities in this field, particularly in the context of the integrated project on responses to violence in everyday life, in collaboration with the other conference organisers.

The conclusions and proposals resulting from the conference as well as follow-up work will be disseminated as widely as possible and submitted, in a form to be decided, to the relevant ministerial conferences and other Council of Europe bodies.

5. Participants

There were 163 participants from 40 countries:

- representatives of relevant ministries,

- decision-makers and representatives of civil society at local level,

- representatives of youth organisations,

- teachers and young persons active in the field.

II. VIOLENCE IN SCHOOL: A PROBLEM FOR SOCIETY

The tragic events in Erfurt in Germany on 26 April 2002 was hopefully a single extreme event but still a perplexing example of recent acts of extreme and savage violence reported from our schools.

Reports of violence in schools seem to be increasingly frequent right across Europe. Police statistics in various European countries bear out this trend. Nor should we ignore the minor violent forms of less serious but repeated events regularly observed in our schools.

Acts deemed to be violent can vary greatly, from verbal abuse of and by pupils, teachers and other staff to harassment and physical attacks on persons, destroying equipment and damaging buildings, racketeering, druguse, and drugtrafficking. We can also identify specific forms of violence against girls and women.

Such behaviour is now unfortunately extending to the youngest of our pupils and studies show that the earlier such violent conduct occurs the more violence such persons will commit as they grow older.

Schools can no longer be considered safe places for our children. Their very image is suffering badly. In order to restore it, we must develop methods that both protect the victims and will react adequately towards the perpetrators to re-socialize them back into school and society.

Schools also need early warning systems and adequate methods for preventing all forms of deviancy. Deviant behaviour such as truancy can be an early sign that has to be dealt with; if it is not, it can lead to total exclusion and eventually become a problem for society at large.

Can local authorities do something to help? Should they become involved in opposing school violence?

The Congress Committee on Culture and Education believes that the answer to both is yes - local authorities must be actively involved and enter into local partnerships with all those concerned.

If we do not act, the entire school system may lose the ability to fulfil its educational role. More and more children will be condemned to failure since a climate of fear and violence is totally unconducive to listening and learning. School violence could impose a very high cost on society as a whole, since it threatens the future of our children and generations to come.

Given the statistical evidence of the scale of the problem, the studies and programmes launched to deal with school violence are woefully inadequate.

Manuel Eisner of Cambridge University's Institute of Criminology says that:

- there are few systematic studies of the effectiveness of existing programmes or overall programme evaluations;

- there is only limited co-operation between researchers and programme administrators;

- there is little demand for really cost-effective programmes.

He thinks that a number of risk factors need to be taken into account:

- individual personality;

- the family;

- the school;

- lifestyle and relations with friends and peers;

- the social and physical environment.

Local authority involvement in education varies from one European country to another but they all have an interest in the younger members of their communities and in school buildings and transport.

There are no miracle solutions to put forward and we have no intentions to replace the excellent work of many professionals on the spot, who are the most directly concerned by anti-violence programmes. Nevertheless local authorities can do much to ensure that such programmes are more wide-reaching and effective.

The main reason for such local authority involvement is probably the fact that aggressive behaviour is not confined to schools but is equally apparent outside. Since urban security is one of their leading concerns authorities must also include the educational dimension in the policy making process.

Local authorities are also responsible for the efficient use of tax payers' money and thus answerable for any deterioration in the public education system.

If we believe in the values and benefits of a public education system we must take steps to maintain that system at a high standard so that it can fulfil the tasks entrusted to it.

As well as performing educational and knowledge-transmission functions schools make a key contribution to socialising young people and introducing them to community life. Schools constitute micro-societies where young persons learn behaviour that will condition their future adult lives. If schools become havens of violence and conflict the effect on future society must cause us great concern.

Preventing and countering school violence is thus a major challenge that calls for a co-ordinated response from all those who can contribute to more comprehensive and effective programmes.

III. LOCAL ANTI-VIOLENCE PARTNERSHIPS

The main lesson to emerge from the conference therefore is that there is a need for local partnerships from the widest possible range of backgrounds in which all concerned can make their own contribution to the search for new approaches to the problem and offer each other mutual support. It was particularly important to reach a consensus, given that the participants included teachers, school heads, education inspectors, social workers, academics, police and parents' representatives. The only important group not represented were the young people themselves. In practice, they must be actively associated in any policies or programmes on this subject.

There was also strong agreement that local partnerships of the sort envisaged must not result in excessively complex, cumbersome or bureaucratic structures. Instead they should be flexible and based on dialogue and mutual co-operation. Their effectiveness will increase as a climate of confidence emerges between partners. Once there is a shared commitment to tackling the problem and the various partners have realised that they can count on each other, each will be ready to act within his or her own particular sphere of competence.

Local authorities can contribute significantly to this sense of collective awareness by themselves taking a stand and organising a public debate for all those concerned. Indeed the conference was told that certain towns and cities had already taken such steps. Local authorities are ideally placed to encourage dialogue and co-operation between the various protagonists.

In my municipality of Pitea in Sweden this approach has enabled us to reduce school violence significantly and create a climate of mutual support and collective responsibility between societal actors involved. Many years of ongoing work enables us to believe that practically all our citizens are now prepared to contribute to this cause to improve the local climate .

The conference final declaration is very comprehensive and presents the various aspects of local partnerships in detail.

I simply wish to highlight a few particular points of importance to local authorities:

1. Recognising the problem and mobilising partners

By recognising the existence of the problem of school violence and making it clear that they will mobilise all their local services in response, local authorities help to create a general readiness to face up to the challenge. This is a necessary precondition for local partnerships and effective programmes to deal with and prevent this problem.

2. Suitable responses

It is important to react adequately to violence, even less serious acts and find strategies and methods to all forms of violence. The severity of the response must reflect the gravity of the offence. The more serious the act the more important it is to notify external partners according to a rising scale. The least serious cases can be dealt with between pupils and teachers, but as the gravity increases first the school hierarchy in co-operation with the parents and then possibly outside agencies such as social workers or even the police need to be brought in.

3. Conflict resolution training

Teachers require, though unfortunately all too rarely receive, training in techniques for the peaceful settlement of disputes or conflicts and how to engage in dialogue to defuse situations likely to degenerate. This should form part of teachers' initial training and be a regular aspect of in-service training.

Teachers must work preventively by training young people how to react to aggression or other violent situations. Young persons should themselves be able to intervene with their peers, a method that sometimes can be more effective than adult intervention. In certain Belgian schools for example young people are trained to become mediators.

This training in peaceful conflict settlement and an ability to enter into dialogue with one's peers will be of benefit to young persons, not only at school but also throughout their adult life. Adequate time and resources must be devoted to this task from early childhood.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

This conference was a very rewarding experience for all those taking part, who came from widely differing horizons and countries. The five workshops were an opportunity to exchange ideas and experience and the compendium of case studies reveals a remarkable diversity of approach and of local partnerships concerned with preventing and countering school violence.

We are still at the very early stages of drawing up policies and implementing programmes, which must be effective in the long term. Now it is time to mobilise and I invite you all as locally elected representatives to consider what steps you can take within your authorities to put into practice the ideas set out in the final declaration. Our activities should certainly offer you scope for innovation in this area. The first step is to decide what priority it should be accorded.

Regular exchanges of information and ideas at local, national and international levels should enable us gradually to improve our approaches. This applies to efforts to overcome violence in schools, but also to the more general problem of urban insecurity.

Our children's' and young persons' present and future are at stake. We owe them our support.

APPENDIX 1

Strasbourg, 4 December 2002

IP2 (2002) 27 Final

Local partnerships for preventing and combating violence at school

Conference organised by Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe

Directorate of Youth and Sport

Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education

Final Declaration adopted at the close of the Conference

This conference has been organised in the framework of the Council of Europe Integrated Project "Responses to violence in everyday life in a democratic society"

1. The Conference "Local partnerships for preventing and combating violence at school" was held at the Council of Europe headquarters from 2 to 4 December 2002. It was organised by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the Directorate of Education and the Directorate of Youth and Sport. It was part of the Integrated Project (2002-2004) launched by the Council of Europe Secretary General on “Reponses to violence in everyday life in a democratic society".

2. About 150 participants took part in the discussions. They represented Ministries of Education and Youth at national and local level, local and regional authorities, youth movements, non-governmental organisations from civil society, and various local agencies of other national Ministries (Ministries of the Interior, Justice...).

3. The discussions were centred around a series of general observations, an analysis of the situation in various European countries or regions, and about thirty case-studies.

4. At the close of the discussions, the participants adopted this final Declaration, which contains the conclusions reached in their debates and a number of recommendations to the various parties in attendance.

Violence at school

5. Public opinion in general, and all the relevant players in particular, have become acutely aware in recent years of the phenomenon of violence at school, especially in connection with particularly tragic incidents which have been widely reported by the media.

6. These tragic events, of which there are – thankfully – relatively few, are in fact the tangible expression of violent incidents which are less serious in nature but occur more frequently; although it is difficult to quantify how often they occur, there is no doubt that they are becoming more common.

7. An increase in violent incidents is characteristic of all European societies, and educational community is no exception. This trend is varied, and does not affect all social groups in the same way. Nonetheless, violence destabilises democracy as a whole.

8. In this respect, whilst adequate responses must be provided, they must nonetheless be particularly balanced, so as not to exaggerate the relative scale of the problem in school environments throughout the Council of Europe member States.

9. Violence at school is not a new phenomenon, but it would appear that it has changed considerably in nature over recent years, particularly on account of the school environment’s growing inability to isolate itself from the tensions and difficulties of all sorts that characterise society in general, and the local communities in which schools are located in particular.

10. Violence at school covers incidents that differ enormously, ranging from minor incidents to very serious cases: all of them must be dealt with appropriately. Particular attention should be given to issues related to gender.

11. There is a wide diversity of situations in the member States, in terms of the forms that school violence takes and its context and causes. Nonetheless, a very wide consensus has emerged on the need to implement local partnerships, the arrangements for which should of course be adapted to individual situations.

12. It seems that some basic guidelines should be emphasised, namely:

- violence prevention is a key aspect of education for democratic citizenship (tolerance and intercultural dialogue, gender equality, human rights, peaceful resolution of conflicts, human dignity, non-violence);

- young people should be seen as players and key partners in any activity in this area;

- mechanisms should exist for taking action even before violence occurs, by raising awareness among all the parties concerned and through preventative work;

- rapid and proportional reaction mechanisms should be available where such phenomena do appear;

- all parties must recognise the need to act and these parties should step up their active
role;

- exchange and dialogue should be developed at all levels within communities, but also between them, especially at European level;

- priority should be given to protection and care of victims;

- support to families in their educational role.

Why partnerships?

13. Since the underlying causes of violence at school are partly the result of external phenomena, any action, particularly preventative action, should bring together not only the various elements in the education system but also all the players from the local community.

14. Consequently, the development of partnerships is a precondition for the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of prevention work, and represents a clear added value in comparison with any action, however laudable, that may be implemented separately by each of the parties.

15. Violence has an enormous social cost, which requires that preventative action be taken with a view to reducing its frequency in a tangible way.

16. The principle of partnership, whilst not necessarily calling into question the powers and specific rules applicable to each of the parties, does imply de-compartmentalisation and the establishment of cross-disciplinary ties between the parties or services concerned.

17. Generally speaking, the concept of partnership in preventing violence is also the key element of any activity for this purpose in a democratic context that respects the fundamental values that unite the Council of Europe’s member States. Accordingly, building partnerships is a contribution to the harmonious functioning of democratic institutions.

Who are the partners?

18. Naturally, the very diverse range of national, regional or local situations must be taken into account; nevertheless, we consider that it would be appropriate to take account of the following partners, in different ways and to varying degrees:

- the school community, in all its forms, especially teachers and their organisations, administrative and managerial bodies, social and medical services and all non-teaching staff. Particular attention should be given to the role of pupils, including very young pupils, parents and their representatives;

- the local and regional authorities and their various specialised services, particularly those involved in preventing violence in general, the social services, the police, services of regional planning, cultural activities…;

- all youth organisations, formal or informal;

- representatives of civil society, especially non-governmental organisations involved in cultural activities, non-formal education, or violence prevention that focuses on certain groups or districts and of faith communities;

- the social, economic and political worlds in general;

- the media, in particular local and regional media;

- representatives of social research circles, from academia or specific structures;

- the national authorities involved in policies on education, youth, culture, social and economic issues, health, justice and law-enforcement, regional planning and urban policy, and especially their decentralised services at local level.

Elements to be considered in drawing up local strategies for awareness-raising, prevention and appropriate reaction

19. While it is clear that, all too often, moves to introduce such strategies are a reaction to the emergence of visible incidents of violence, it would in future be appropriate to establish such prevention-oriented initiatives before serious incidents occur, or incidents that are less acute but repeated.

20. It must be emphasised that any strategy in this area consists primarily of launching a process that will necessarily develop, rather than establishing formal structures, although the latter are obviously necessary. Accordingly, it is important to design such strategies in the long-term.

21. In this respect, assessment of the climate in schools and in the community as a whole is essential. An analysis, bringing together all the partners on the basis of local circumstances, should be carried out to determine, pragmatically but comprehensively, the various phenomena existing in the local community that might lead to the development of violence.

22. It would be appropriate to introduce a system of indicators identifying phenomena with the potential to lead to violence as soon as they appear (early warning systems).

23. Places or fora for sharing information, awareness-raising, identifying common objectives, evaluation and monitoring the situation should be established. Nevertheless, considerable flexibility should be maintained, in order to be able to adapt quickly to changes in the local community or to newly-revealed problems.

24. Where a phenomenon with the potential to generate violence is identified, or where violent incidents are observed, there should be a rapid reaction, particularly:

- support for potential or confirmed victims, encouraging them to express themselves and helping to guarantee a return to a sense of personal balance;

- there should be a clear reminder of the rules for the perpetrators of violent acts, together with balanced and appropriate punishment that is specifically focused on repairing harm and recognising what one has done, and the implementation of educational measures.

- action should taken to address the underlying phenomena that lead to the emergence of visible violence. This is the area in which the role of the community at large is particularly important.

25. In implementing any prevention strategy, it is appropriate to have a clear procedure aimed at defining each person’s role and responsibility, and the role and responsibility of the community as a whole. In this respect, any prevention strategy should be conducted in a context of democratic dialogue that respects the players’ cultural, economic and sociological diversity. Clear co-ordination of activities is needed, in order to avoid the phenomena of bureaucratisation and conflict of interests. The training of the protagonists concerned should be included in this process.

26. Developing mediation measures is at the heart of prevention strategies. All the players concerned may, at certain points, assume the role of mediator, nevertheless it would frequently be useful to have a specific body or specific individuals, including young people themselves, appointed to listen and to intervene in the capacity of mediators.

IN CONCLUDING THEIR DISCUSSIONS, THE PARTICIPANTS WISHED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:

To Council of Europe member States and signatory states of the European Cultural Convention:

That they:

- take any measures at national level that would be likely to promote and encourage the development of local partnerships for preventing and combating violence at school, particularly through the adoption of a legislative framework that creates favourable conditions, and recognition of the importance given to their development;

- pay particular attention to creating a favourable context for the development of long-term preventative measures;

- adopt appropriate budgetary measures to ensure the introduction and functioning of local partnerships, in full or in part;

- encourage the various Ministries and departments concerned at national, regional or local level to participate constructively in local partnerships;

- establish national bodies to monitor the situation at national level and provide assistance or support to local partnerships;
- include the prevention of violence at school in initial and in-service training for educational staff within a multidisciplinary framework;

- give particular attention to the impact of the media regarding violence among young people;

- promote sharing of experience and information as well as dissemination of good practices.

To local and regional authorities:

That they:

- integrate the prevention of violence at school in their general programmes for preventing violence in everyday life;

- encourage their various departments to contribute to the establishment of strategies to combat violence at school;

- support the development of prevention strategies, inter alia in material and financial terms;

- implement youth policies that incorporate consultation and participation by young people in local and regional democratic life;

- promote the sharing of experience and information as well as dissemination of good practices.

To school establishments:

That they:

- play their full role in introducing initiatives, even and especially before any violent incidents occur also through including violence prevention in the curriculum in an appropriate manner;

- take particular action to develop a favourable climate within schools, by encouraging de-compartmentalisation of the roles and functions of the various internal players in school life;

- encourage the opening up of schools to the communities in which they are located;

- guarantee the democratic functioning of schools, with particular recognition of the rightful place of pupils and their parents.

To youth organisations:

That they:

- contribute their experience and skills to prevention work;

- promote training or awareness-raising activities about prevention, in association with the other local partners;

- work to develop youth policies at local level that will include the youngest groups.

To local and regional media:

That they :

- provide balanced coverage and reporting, that not only deals with incidents of violence but also views any positive action to prevent violence or increase awareness also deserves to be brought to the public’s attention;

- contribute to the training of pupils, teachers, parents and the entire educational community in the field of the media and ethics;

To the Council of Europe:

That it:

Pursue the work begun at this Conference, particularly through:

- publication and wide dissemination of the Conference report and this Final Declaration;

- rapid preparation of a handbook on the implementation of strategies to prevent violence at school, on the basis of the conclusions set out above, and including a number of specific examples of good practice;

- completion of training modules for the parties concerned, particularly teachers, youth leaders, parents and the various local players;

- preparation of a draft Recommendation by the Committee of Ministers on partnerships for the prevention of violence at school, bringing together the three bodies involved in organising this Conference;

- inclusion of the specific elements involved in preventing violence at school in the general conclusions that are to be adopted at the close of the Integrated Project on "Reponses to violence in everyday life in a democratic society", particularly with regard to the implementation of general prevention policies;

- recognition of the role of education in developing networks of observatories of violence in everyday life, as part of the Integrated Project;

- continuation of the work already begun in the area of the media and violence, particularly as regards material targeted at young people (media education, ethical guidelines, media impact on behaviours;

- organisation of specific activities in this field taking into account the particular features of different European countries or regions (especially South-East Europe);

- strengthening of working relationships with other international organisations (e.g. UNESCO and UNICEF) to develop synergies in particular for the dissemination of experience and good practices and the analysis of causes of violence at school.

APPENDIX 2

Programme of the Conference

Monday 2 December

9 a.m. Official opening

(Chairperson: Baron Berend Jan VAN VOORST TOT VOORST)

Mr. Walter SCHWIMMER, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Mr. Jean-Marc NOLLET, Minister for Children, Responsible for Basic Education, Initial Reception and O.N.E. missions of the French Community in Belgium
Baron Berend Jan VAN VOORST TOT VOORST, Chair of the Culture and Education Committee of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe

Mr. César BIRZEA member of the Steering Committee for Education

Mr. Guillaume LEGAULT, Chairperson of the Joint Council on Youth Questions

10 a.m. Coffee break

10.30 a.m. Contexts of violence at school

– Integrated project “Reponses to violence in everyday life in a democratic society”, Mr Jean-Pierre TITZ, Project Manager

– General introduction, Mr Manuel EISNER (Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University and Zurich Institute of Technology)

– Presentation of the situation in several countries or groups of

countries:

Ms Anica MIKUS KOS (Slovenia)
Prof. Jerzy SARNECKI (Sweden) (Stockholm University)
Mr. Chris GITTINS (Director of the National Behaviour Training Programme) (United Kingdom)
Mr. Valery CHINKOV, Ministry of Education of the Federation of Russia

– Presenters’ panel and general discussion in plenary

12.30 p.m. Lunch

2.30 p.m. Working groups – themes common to all five groups:

– Why partnerships in the fight against violence at school?

– What is their added value compared to other strategies?

– Who are the partners, their roles and distinct advantages?

(Each working group session will start off with the presentation of two case studies)

6 p.m. End of day’s work

6.30 p.m. Reception

Tuesday 3 December

9.30 a.m. Resumption of the working-group discussions (presentation of two

other case studies)

10.30 a.m. Coffee break

Resumption of the working groups

12.30 p.m. Lunch

2.30 p.m. Working groups – themes: conditions necessary for successful

partnerships, initiatives, structures and working methods,
co-ordination, training of protagonists, follow up and evaluation

5.00 p.m. Plenary session: Review panel with Rapporteurs and Representatives of the organising bodies

Wednesday 4 December

9.30 a.m. Final report by the General Rapporteur

(Mr Eric DEBARBIEUX, European Observatory on violence in schools, Bordeaux, France)

10.30 a.m. Coffee break

11 a.m. Discussion and adoption of the final declaration

12 p.m. Close

1 Internet address: www.coe.fr/cplre

 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents