Trying To Analyze The Coexistence In The School ( Case : Argentina )

TRYING TO ANALYZE THE COEXISTENCE IN THE SCHOOL  ( CASE:  ARGENTINA ) 

Few days ago it was published in a popular newspaper in Argentina the philosopher's comment and physical Mario Bunge where an Argentina of contradictions noticed and it enunciated that:

"… in the exterior nobody knows nowadays of the country. 40 years ago, the students in United States knew that Argentina was the country of  Evita , of Perón and of the meat. After that, it was also known that Borges was Argentinean. But today anything is not known and that is an deception…". ( Clarín: 22/03 2010 ) 

The following article is a fragment of an investigation with respect to the coexistence in the school , it seeks to be a flash so that other countries can have certain information regarding the current state of the education in Argentina.

 Inside the mark of the social institutions, this is one of the one that more suffers their impacts, where" (... ) more apparent and more strident symptoms is the exclusion and the school failure, the uneasiness (teachers and students), the conflict and the disorder, the violence and the difficulties of the integration in the institutions and, mainly, the absence of sense of the school experience for adolescents' significant proportions  (...)" (1) For it, I consider excellent to debate: How does one cohabit in the school?    

In the first place, one can say that the coexistence in the school and keeping in mind the different informations that we incorporate to our daily wealth from diverse environments: massive media, school experience, etc; it is closely linked with certain situations of anguishes, violence, overflow, among others; is it so, do we face with sentences like the one that Fernández L. refers is possible to put point to the institutional suffering? .The socio-economic changes and the sharp polarization increased by the crisis starting from the 2001 in Argentina next to the deterioration of the mature authority, the changes in the social morals and the pauperization of the political-judicial institutions, does it locate us in a context of permanent challenges, of anguishes, of uncertain futures, do I believe necessary to begin thinking about answers from the interior of the school like externally to it, so that exist equal forms of coexistence. In front of the diversity that present the Argentinean educational institutions, how an educational one is located before the demand of yields before youths that are in socio-cultural disadvantages?, what naturalness does have the poor youths to fail in the school environment?.  

It could be inferred that, the families of poor sectors would seem to choose the school for the dining room existence or their proximity to the home, while the families of sectors middle and high they would make it for their pedagogic practices. 

In general lines, the schools present queries regarding the imposition of norms, disciplines, and coexistence, and adult is the challenge in a complex society as it is Argentina, where the outrage and the preservation of public spaces is precarious. If the normative space is not respected in our daily life, why to make it in the school environment?.  

The construction of the norms and the coexistence are product of the curricular spaces and also in the way in that the ethics and the justice are manifested in the society, it is important to open dialogues on the positioning of the norm and their relationship with the discipline and the school, because this allows us to think what place it occupies the school in the society and what list it completes in the formation of a youth. It would be enriching to contemplate to the norm like that that it possesses attributes of something that represents us to all and that it organizes our coexistence, if the adults are not able to manage it in a school institution almost with security the school it won't be characterized as an environment free of conflicts. It is undeniable the polarization among expectations of the student-processes educational-culture - where" (... ) today high school title (or mercantile expert, etc) it only guarantees the right to make line for a work position (...)" (2) or like Duschatzky points out: " (...) the popular sectors would not participate since of the benefit of being young this condition it would be reserved to the sectors middle and high, or their juvenile attributes would be prisoners of such stigmas as the drunkards", those drugged", the violent ones", product of visions miserable, those that only perceive the popular thing as that degraded, the primitive thing (...)" (3). According to my school experience they were asked to a group of students in situation of poverty, of a 1º year of a public school in Buenos Aires, what it was them more serious, to attack a professor or to break a glass of the school, most referred that it was more serious him second, in front of this one can say that: the property is above the individual and that the bonds among students, among student-professor are extremely devaluated, in relation with the material things.  In general, these youths valued the hight school but they coincided that they didn't understand anything , however, they presented contradictions because they also referred that the school should finish it to be able to be somebody", to make something", for the case of these youths in its great majority coincided in perceiving to the normative thing as confused, in spite of the conflicts in the own school like in other environments: family, work, etc. as for the situations of coexistence based on the violence, directive and educational they coincide in an increase of the physical and verbal violence among students where the behaviors of their own families impact, while for some youths they are only normal behavior and they are not questioned the violent behavior as a problem, a distortion is visualized among what is violence and what is not it. In front of these conflicts which the institutional posture is about these problems?. do they seem to be configured two postures: on one hand that student that is violent, is separate it the rest for the fear to that this it contaminates to the rest of the group, being the outcome a pass to another institution, or the school abandonment and for the other one, although it doesn't interest them to learn does it remain in the institution the educational one who manages the discipline, being but is it prepared for it?. 

When several public schools that receive student young in situation of poverty, I visualized dramatic images in the ways of life of the same ones, either, family problems, situations of violence, the combination of delinquency with attending the school ,etc; it is common to listen to a young today to say: I am very donkey, I am not good for the study, I am a disaster, etc; who conclude the high school is an exception they are considered, it is so -although it seems arbitrary - they would seem to be defined two juvenile actors, like Reguillo Cruz enunciates: the incorporate youth  (represented by the dominant culture) and the alternative or dissident youth" (represented by the subordinate culture), but is the query what reasons you fences to underrate the capacities of these dissident youths?, how can you transmit that all the youths can learn and to settle down democratic rules of coexistence - equal?. 

(1) Tenti Fanfani. And comp.:  Education for all . The challenges of the democratization of the access. Publishing group. Altamira. Argentina. 2003. pg 30 

(2) Tenti Fanfani: op. cit. Pg 29

(3) Duschatzky. Silvia: The school like frontier. Meditate about the school experience of young of popular sectors. Paidós. Buenos Aires. Pg 24                                                          

Fragment of the investigation by Miriam Gualberto, School and social context in Argentina (Anthropologist .University from Buenos Aires)