Safe and Friendly School Program

Program Bezpieczna i przyjazna szkoła

Country:

Territorial Level:

Poland
National

ESL Europe Average in 2022:

9,6 %

Country ESL rate in 2022:

4,8

Policy Description:

The program’s main objective was to create a safe and friendly school. It was launched in 2008 and lasted till 2016. It was based on a preventive scope to tackle early school leaving and coexistence problems at schools.

Weblink:

Policy Body of Reference:

Ministry of Education

Time period:

2008-2016

Active/Inactive:

Inactive

Vulnerable Population mentioned:

Yes (migrant background, disabilities, and special educational needs)

Most important Let's Care Pillar:

Safe Schools

Safe School Dimensions covered:

  • Training for teachers: improving teachers’ competencies in psychological assistance, management of violent situations, and building positive relationships with students and parents.
  • Family involvement in the school community: involving families in decision-making.
  • Training and advice for families: providing parents with training and materials to understand the adolescent crisis.
  • Educational support: enhancing peer learning assistance.
  • Emotional support: providing psychological and pedagogical assistance.
  • Exploration-based learning: reinforcing teamwork between students.
  • Develop socioemotional skills: working on students’ social skills.
  • Institutional sensitivity: strengthening the idea of tolerance and the acceptance of diversity.
  • Links between the school and other actors: cooperating with police and social services.
  • After-school activities: promoting volunteering.
  • Working in the school coexistence climate:  boosting prevention programs on conflict solving and peer mediators.
  • Enable student participation in school: involving students in decision-making.

Methodogical Note:

More than 60 policies from 11 countries have been examined to detect the top ten most comprehensive (considering what ESL policies’ dimensions have been prioritized, what vulnerable groups are considered, and what systemic levels stand out). 
 
The template dimensions analysed are training for teachers; teachers’ well-being; teacher participation; family involvement in the school community; training and advice for families; family participation in the educational process; identification of risks and educational needs; early school leaving warning system; educational support; emotional support; financial support; specialized and support personnel; offer educational and professional guidance; make curriculum flexible; make the management of times and spaces flexible; individualization of learning; permeability of educational system; facilitate transitions between school stages; exploration-based learning; develop socio-emotional skills; avoid segregation; language support; expert support to inclusion; institutional sensitivity; links between school and other actors; after-school activities; working in the school coexistence climate; physical characteristics of the school; and enable student participation in school.  The vulnerable circumstances studied are gender, migrant background, ethnicity, disabilities, and non-parental care. The systemic levels considered are individual, relational, community, and political.
 
The whole Database is available in Excel files in this HUB in case someone would like to consult them. In these Excel files, detailed methodological clarifications can be found. Bear in mind that the Policy Database is linked to the Let’s Care project Deliverable D2.2. entitled “Policy paper: economics of early school dropout: impact assessment and policy recommendations”. Therefore, the whole explanation of the methodological criteria applied can be found in Deliverable D.2.2 Annex III.
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top