{"id":14406,"date":"2026-04-06T22:05:15","date_gmt":"2026-04-06T22:05:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elpregonerodechile.com\/?p=14406"},"modified":"2026-04-06T22:05:15","modified_gmt":"2026-04-06T22:05:15","slug":"clarifying-the-difference-between-harmony-and-control-el-ciudadano","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/elpregonerodechile.com\/?p=14406","title":{"rendered":"Clarifying the Difference Between Harmony and Control El Ciudadano"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n<\/p>\n

\n

Original article: Nueva ley de Convivencia Educativa: No confundir convivencia con control<\/a><\/p>\n\n

By Rodrigo Guti\u00e9rrez Lobos, Sociologist<\/strong><\/p>\n

The tragic murder of a school inspector by a student in Calama has sent shockwaves across the country. As is often the case when school violence reaches such terrifying levels, the public debate quickly fills with immediate, visible, and politically favorable responses. One of those responses is, predictably, the proposal to install metal detectors in educational institutions.<\/p>\n

This reaction is understandable. It\u2019s unreasonable to expect calm from a community that has suffered such brutal trauma. There is pain, fear, anger, and a legitimate sense of vulnerability. Many families now approach their school\u2019s entrance with a level of anxiety that wasn\u2019t there before.<\/p>\n

In this context, any measure promising quick control appears reasonable and desirable. However, understanding this reaction is one thing; legislating or defining public policy from a place of pure shock is quite another.<\/p>\n

Therefore, it is crucial to state clearly that the new Law 21.809 is not solely about the installation of metal detectors, so reducing it to that\u2014 as has occurred in parts of media discussion\u2014 is not only inaccurate; it simplifies a much more ambitious regulation.<\/p>\n

From a rigorous legal perspective, this conclusion is untenable. The law does not provide a general or automatic authorization for installing these types of devices. Instead, it creates a coordination space with public safety agencies and allows for the implementation of risk prevention and mitigation measures, within a framework that still needs to be developed through regulations.<\/p>\n

In other words, any such measures will be subject to strict criteria of necessity, proportionality, and context-appropriateness. The law explicitly states this. It\u2019s not meant as a discretionary power for schools, nor a blanket policy; it will require exhausting all other options first.<\/p>\n

Thus, the law treats this approach as something limited, delicate, and constrained, not as a panacea for the system.<\/p>\n

However, the problem extends beyond the legal framework; it is also cultural. In a society battered by violence, visible measures often overshadow effective ones. A detector can be photographed. A metal detector appears on television. A bag search creates an impression that \u00absomething is being done.\u00bb But visibility should not be confused with depth, let alone effectiveness; without this discernment, we will never break the vicious cycle of violence or its escalation.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the inconvenient but necessary second point is that there is substantial evidence that does NOT support the idea that metal detectors decrease school violence. At best, some studies suggest they might enhance the perception of safety for certain individuals or inhibit the entry of specific objects. However, there is no proof that they diminish violence as a phenomenon or resolve its underlying causes.<\/p>\n

In the best-case scenario, they may improve perception, but it is also noted that this could generate a false sense of security; in other situations, violence involving metal objects shifts to outside school grounds, while inside, with a persistent culture of violence, a pencil or a broom could endanger a child\u2019s life or severely injure a teacher, as sadly happened in Recoleta a few years back and again last year in the commune of Trehuaco (wested.org<\/a>).<\/p>\n

This point is crucial. When the public conversation fixates obsessively on the object\u2014the weapon, the metal device, the detector\u2014it loses sight of everything that enables a school community to deteriorate to such levels.<\/p>\n

Serious violence does not stem from the school\u2019s entrance. It does not begin when someone enters with a weapon; it starts much earlier, in deeper and less visible layers like discrimination, the most prevalent form of violence that has increased in recent years; in normalized exclusion, daily humiliation, neglect of mental health issues, and institutions\u2019 inability to detect early signs of suffering and escalating conflict.<\/p>\n

This is precisely the risk of discussing only the tip of the iceberg. The debate focuses on access control, yet overlooks the non-physical forms of violence that often incubate for months or years, remaining invisible as they are not perceived in the classroom merely as \u00abdisruptive behavior.\u00bb\n<\/p>\n

Here, the new law indeed offers elements worthy of serious consideration. Because its main contribution is not about enabling control devices but about fostering a more comprehensive perspective on educational coexistence.<\/p>\n

With this regulation, the State takes on an active role in promoting respectful interactions, coexistence, and eradicating violence. It\u2019s no longer just about intervening after harm is done; it requires a serious approach to anticipating risk factors; mandates the presence of coexistence teams led by specialized professionals; demands management plans with concrete goals and actions; emphasizes and institutionalizes socioemotional education, mental health, and the prevention of suicidal behaviors; establishes monitoring mechanisms; strengthens reporting channels; and advocates for a more decisive collaboration between education, health, child welfare, and security sectors.<\/p>\n

Undoubtedly, this is an uncomfortable law; it does not satisfy those seeking quick punitive answers, nor does it dwell in naive idealism. Its strength lies precisely in that tension: trying to balance the need for security with the obligation to protect rights.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, its weakness may lie in implementation. The administrative burden, disparities in resources among institutions, and reliance on future regulations could impact its real effectiveness. Moreover, the cost of this added burden will undoubtedly fall on already strained educational communities and their staff.<\/p>\n

That is a significant concern. In fact, this may represent the most notable change from previous circumstances. For too long, school coexistence in Chile has depended on an unstable mix of goodwill, administrative overload, fragmented protocols, and delayed responses.<\/p>\n

The tyranny of evidence has so bureaucratized management that many schools must expend considerable energy ensuring compliance, leaving only residual energy for what is humanly essential. There is documentation, referral, formal responses. But this does not always mean there is listening, understanding, or timely intervention. When inertia drags an institution into this operational mode, serious issues can remain invisible to a fatigued community that can no longer distinguish between a warning sign and yet another routine episode.<\/p>\n

Therefore, it would be a tremendous political and educational mistake to reduce this law to a debate about metal detectors. Not only because this is legally inaccurate, but because it shifts discourse to the shallowest terrain: responses that offer short-term comfort but fail to transform underlying issues.<\/p>\n

No reasonable individual can look at the case from Calama without feeling unsettled. No serious person should belittle the fears of families or downplay the impact of such a tragedy. But precisely out of respect for that pain, it is inappropriate to turn it into fuel for a simplistic discussion. A devastated community deserves better than a superficial policy.<\/p>\n

Chile needs to discuss less about weapons and more about coexistence. Less about metal detectors and more about mental health. Less about spectacular control and more about institutional capacities for prevention. Less about the presentation of safety and more about the real conditions that allow for the care of students, teachers, support staff, and families.<\/p>\n

If the new law ends up being remembered as \u201cthe law that allows metal detectors,\u201d we will have failed to comprehend it. Worse, we will have once again acted as we often do in the face of violence: looking at what is easiest rather than what is most necessary.<\/p>\n

A safe school is not only one that detects dangerous objects at the entrance. It is, above all, one that knows how to recognize pain, exclusion, hopelessness, and violence before it is too late.<\/p>\n

(*) Rodrigo Guti\u00e9rrez Lobos is a sociologist and executive director of Fundaci\u00f3n Convivo. Website: convivo.cl. Instagram: @fundacionconvivo<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n