CARB
CARB – Creative Approach to Resilience and Bravery in Education – is an ERASMUS+ project
with partners from four European countries and 12 different schools. The project aims to
support teachers and students in secondary education to discuss sensitive issues in the
school context in an increasingly polarised society.
To this end, a toolkit adapted to the age and world of the students was developed. The
tools are based on a symbiosis between deep democracy and creative arts facilitation.
HUMMUS and deep:black crossed their talents in this area. The result is a handbook,
videos and an exciting training course for teachers.
Want to know more? Check the website for all kinds of fascinating material to get started
in your school.
In these turbulent times, we are faced with increasingly complex issues. And this is palpable,
especially in education. There, not only are laws, decrees and curricula being questioned, but
above all the classroom climate is coming under pressure. The creative CARB project
worked on bravery and resilience among students and teachers in European schools. Fanny
Matheusen takes you through some reflections from the trajectory they went through.
Let us start with some examples of what is emerging in the classroom today:
● Many teachers today, and certainly those starting out, do not always feel safe in
schools where there might be a toxic climate of competition, gossiping or prejudice
against new ideas. Or where the physical conditions to teach safely are simply
lacking.
An example:
○ In a class of 10-12-year-olds in a school in Brussels, the class teacher is at her
wit’s end. Initially, the intervention starts hopeful and conversation ensues, but
suddenly the atmosphere turns and there is chaos all around, no one is listening
and the children’s attention is lost. A factor in this is surely also that at that
moment, all sorts of things were happening around the schoolyard that literally
came into the classroom.
● Students do not always feel seen in who they are, not by their peers, not by their
teachers or not by the school: searching for their individuality and identity, they
sometimes lose it in wanting to belong.
Some concrete examples of not being seen:
○ The teacher says, “The Reverend Pope died,” and a student immediately replies,
‘Reverend? That must be the guy who called my mother a murderer because as
a doctor she helps women get an abortion.’ Applause all around.
○ A staff member at the administration office makes a mistake in addressing a
non-binary student and gets “sexist” thrown at their head.
○ In history class, they talk about the victors of war. Some youngsters with
refugee histories reply that these were actually colonisers.
● In the education system, one change follows another, becoming more and more
abstract. Sometimes it becomes difficult to still see or say what education is about
today. We also find it increasingly difficult to deal with differences in educational
views.
Some examples:
○ Students talk about their own educational path as “I follow flex” or “I chose
double finality”: tell that to your friends or your parents. Who can still make
sense of this? This kind of language creates walls of difference that undermine
belonging.
○ At the student council, there is debate over whether all children’s books should
be banned from the library in which a traditional but racially offensive figure
appears. A fierce debate for and against causes students to disperse in
discontent that evening.
● Through the media, we hear stories of violence, oppression, natural disasters, wars
far and near. This fuels fear in people. And sometimes also causes scapegoating.
Some examples:
○ Student protest for peace in Gaza is violently suppressed at universities. The
students lay sore fingers on cooperation (or, according to them, collaboration)
with Israel.
○ Professor Djalali is unjustly imprisoned in Iran. Protests are held at the embassy
that day. If a student wants to call for this during class, there is ‘no time’ for it.
These situations can easily be referred to as interpersonal conflicts where counselling is
then suggested for individual students’ personal problems or a teacher gets a coach (at
best). Or the management calls parents to discipline a child at home. Without wanting to
detract from the fact that these attempts can also be useful, a broader perspective is taken
here. Inspiration came from the ecological model of Bronfenbrenner, an educator from the
1970s who highlighted the determining influences on children’s development from five
system layers: the micro-, meso-, exo-, macro- and chronosystem.
Let us use this model to look at the above situations. Think of the metaphor of a pebble you
throw into a pond. We will work with four expanding circles.
1. The first circle contains the intrapsychic state of a student and/or teacher: How does
this person feel? What is this person thinking?
2. The second circle zooms in on the classroom atmosphere, the interactions between
students and teacher, between students themselves. This is about the relational
wiring.
3. A third circle covers the educational system and the school within it. Legislation,
rules and procedures as well as intended school culture fit into this circle.
4. A fourth circle is the broad society context. A society in transition, a BANI society it is
also sometimes called: Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear or no longer logical and
Incomprehensible.
This model offers a first shift in perspective. To challenge our previously individualised
cause-and-effect and problem-solving thinking and start looking more broadly at what is real,
what is all there. Because in each of the above examples, these four circles play a role. And
more specifically, at those four layers, there is a problem with needs that are not being met.
Our basic needs are safety – identity – belonging.
These are not met at student level,
and teacher level,
and in the educational system,
and in society.
If the basic fundamental needs in all four circles are under pressure, we can begin to make
a difference in our own circle of influence and engagement and that will move the whole
system. Think again of that pebble in the water.
The priority is to work on those fundamental needs first. So what do we have to do in the
examples mentioned earlier? Some suggestions follow below and, of course, this is always
tailor-made.
● Ecoregulation of nervous systems: when our needs are not met, we are easily
overstimulated. Once overstimulated, we start fighting, fleeing or freezing and any
conversation becomes difficult if not impossible. We then end up in chaos, escalating
conversations or putting on our deaf ears. So to make a real conversation possible,
we must first calm that state. We do this by regulating our nervous system: through
breathing, through movement, through being together, being in nature, …
○ The school in Brussels from the first example noticed that children often came
in very overstimulated in the morning because of what they had already
experienced at home, on the street or in the playground that morning. They
decided to always start the day with small mindfulness exercises. Over time,
they noticed that classroom management was no longer such an issue, and
more so that students’ learning performance improved noticeably.
● Learning to say what needs to be said in a non-escalating way: sensitive topics
sometimes lead to a teacher or student being advised to hold back a little. However,
this is not helpful at all. We can only move freely through the four layers and develop
ourselves in the micro-, meso- or macro-context if we learn to speak in a way that
fosters connection again. And if we dare to speak in a non-violent way.
○ One of the CARB tools is a debate where we do not avoid polarising topics. For
instance, the case of victors versus colonisers in history class could be
discussed in a very different way. Or similarly, there could be a more connecting
conversation about what is going on in Gaza and how we want to deal with it as
students and as a university, where we never put these two camps against each
other but instead, for example, discuss a proposition with all stakeholders
present, such as ‘it is necessary to cut all ties with Israel’. Then we first listen to
all the ‘yes’es and then all the ‘no’es and then we see what we can learn from
this debate.
○ Likewise, the discussion on children’s books would have been worth a deep
democratic debate and perhaps a more inclusive decision would have emerged.
● Teach and agree on conversation rules: often there are implicit conversation rules
that are biased by a teacher’s style and school culture. Try agreeing on rules with
students instead of imposing them. And of course, as a teacher, present what you
think is important too. It is an exercise in inclusive decision-making that often leads
to rules being respected rather than enforced, and that peer pressure can become a
positive force.
○ In the intervention at the school in Brussels, the phase of clearly agreeing on
conversation rules together was skipped, assuming that by the middle of the
school year the students would know the rules of a good conversation. Still, it is
important to bear in mind that if we come in as an external person, then a new
group is actually formed. Two cultures meet: what the facilitator brings with
them in terms of conversation culture and how the class already does or did
this. Being more conscious of that could have resulted in a different
conversation. Deciding together where to have the conversation would also
have made sense. The playground was clearly not the right place to keep focus.
The children perhaps knew that already beforehand.
● Daring to stop when things go wrong. This may sound a bit strange, but as teachers,
we are very trained in compassionate behaviour with our students and sometimes we
let a situation get out of hand for too long. It takes some warrior energy to effectively
say STOP. And to do so soon enough.
○ In a class where there is bullying behaviour, a remedial conversation is
scheduled. The first step is to check in with a picture about how we feel about
this conversation. Despite being clearly asked at the start to let everyone speak
and not to interrupt, this still happens. And although this seems very strict, each
time the conversation is stopped. Until students start noticing it themselves, call
each other on it and finally a listening climate emerges. In a spontaneous
reflection, one of the students says that if the rules were respected in other
areas too, they would have a much nicer class. When asked who recognises
this, all hands go up in the air. Now the conversation can turn to setting
boundaries. Also about bullying behaviour, which starts in small ways by not
letting someone speak up.
○ When the word “sexist” is dropped, it is important to say STOP, because this
word does not cover the scope of what is happening, but it says a lot about the
impact the misgendering had on that person. Asking an exploratory question
such as ‘what makes you say this?’ can already make a big difference. Too
often, however, we let moments like this pass out of fear of those words, out of
a taboo on discrimination. Yet it is precisely discussing the use of these words
that can keep the interrelational dynamics intact. Moreover, in this way the word
also loses power for when it is really necessary to use it.
As a teacher, you create the above dynamics from a foundational attitude of compassion,
listening, intuition, clarity and, above all, being very present. And this is only possible if you
can also be grounded in the four layers: in yourself, in the interaction with your students, in
your classroom and school and in society.
This is not only a plea to teachers to engage with this, but equally to all other actors in and
around education to support it. Therefore, some concrete things we can all do:
● Speak about examples from your own life where a teacher has made a difference and
thus revalue the profession.
● Give sufficient financial space so that teachers who are education professionals can
continue to professionalise – the budget of 80EUR/teacher/school year in Belgium is
almost a mockery of human rights, I would say.
● Create a warm circle of parents, neighbours, volunteers around a school so that a
broader school approach becomes possible.
If we look a bit more broadly, we will hopefully scapegoat less and work more towards
making our education diversity-proof: that all differences are allowed to be there. And that
they add value. That we learn to navigate through the tension of sensitivities. And that we
develop bravery and resilience.
The CARB tools concretise some of the suggestions in this article and enable meaningful
conversations to take place again in the classroom. The tools can be used both group
dynamically and didactically. The design is based on deep democratic principles and
inspiration from creative arts facilitation. Four tools are already out and two more are on
their way. Supervision meetings with teachers in the project have already led to the
conclusion that the tools will also be useful for the teachers themselves, because they too
desperately need this strengthening of bravery and resilience.
A preview of one of the CARB tools: Navigate the fire. You use this tool when polarisation or escalation comes into the conversation.
Step 1: You say stop, mention the polarity and ask the group if they are willing to try a
different way of engaging with each other. If yes, you briefly explain the steps. You then
make a number of agreements, e.g. don’t interrupt each other; everyone tells his/her truth
and we are not going to comment on it; speak from the ‘I’.
Step 2: We all physically stand on one side of the polarity and first speak from that side.
Then we all move to the other side. In the first round, we don’t speak but show how that
side feels in our bodies. In the second round, there is room for opinions and arguments. In
the third round, we explore feelings.
Step 3: We stand or sit in a circle and harvest the wisdom gained from the debate. We do
this by reflecting on what touched us, what we thought was important that was said, what
stood out. When someone says something, we ask who recognises it.
Step 4: With these grains of wisdom, we can now come to decisions about the polarity
that may lead to certain actions. Sometimes they are just insights too, or sometimes the
effect is that each has learnt something and the air has cleared.
At the end, we provide time to wrap up with each other. Make sure nothing remains of the
sharpness that may have been present in step 2; that sharpness belongs there and not at
the end. See if there is anything left to make up, anything left to shake off.
Tip 1: The first time, it is very strange to conduct a debate like this. But gradually students
will gain experience and will start asking for it themselves. Teenagers in particular love
debating. It is a way for them to learn about themselves in the relation to others.
Tip 2: As a teacher, join in too and make sure you then speak from both sides. It is easiest
if you speak first and then facilitate what is said by the students.
Are you curious about the other tools? Take a look at our website for ready-made lesson
plans and instructional videos.
If you would like more support in this area, ask HUMMUS for a training session with your
teaching team. We offer various formulas tailored to your needs. Mail us at
hummus@deep-democracy.b