As seen above, modern education systems seem to be directed to the needs of a capitalist society, and its educational process of socialising individuals is often based on competition, reflecting market rules (Bowles and Gintis, 1976). From a critical view of education, equal educational opportunity results in creating inequality in society as a result of the learning process emphasising acquisition of standardised knowledge and competition for higher academic achievement (Fuller, 1991: 39-40). This characteristic of the education system is supported by the examination system, in which education is used as an instrument to sort people into social categories and classes (Galtung, 1975: 320). This mechanism of schooling is problematic from the viewpoint of peace education, since peace itself is contrary to ‘vertical social relations and hierarchies in any form’ (ibid).
These characteristics of schooling can have negative consequences. Alexander and Hargreaves (2007: 1) report that in England ‘children are under intense and perhaps excessive pressure from the policy-driven demands of their schools and the commercially-driven values of the wider society.’ According to the same report on primary schools in England, children felt that ‘SATs were “scary”, made them nervous and anxious, and put them under pressure’
(ibid: 15). Furthermore, this situation can become the cause of potential violence in school, when the pressure for higher achievement and competition, causing students stress, depression, lack of self-confidence and low self-esteem, leads to personal violence such as aggression, bullying and self-harm (e.g. Davies, 2004: 121-3; Harber, 2004: 47, 70).
Thus, some aspects of current educational conditions seem to ‘constrain and disempower’
children rather than ‘enable’ them (Alexander and Hargreaves, 2007: 2), despite government initiatives that attempt to promote policies of caring for all children in school such as Every Child Matters. Moreover, the negative psychological effects on children can become more serious from their experience of failure in school, as children often learn to fail in school and have low self-esteem (Holt, 1965/1984). Bruner (1999: 36) states that, ‘success and failure are principal nutrients in the development of selfhood,’ while schooling has a crucial role in forming selfhood and self-esteem of children (ibid: 35), which is important from the viewpoint of peace promoting full personal development (e.g. Galtung, 1975; Curle, 1984).
However, it seems that schools do not always treat children’s vulnerable self-esteem with great care, by judging children’s performance continuously, thus in turn affecting children’s own evaluation of themselves (Bruner, 1999: 37). Bruner (1999: 39) claims that ‘we have become so preoccupied with the more formal criteria of “performance” and with the bureaucratic demands of education as an institution that we have neglected this personal side of education’. Since low self-esteem often causes young people to have negative feelings such as guilt, shame, depression and anger, part of the consequence can be youth crime in which they often show street smartness or defiance to compensate for their ‘sensed failure’ (or their experience of failure) in school (ibid: 37-38). Thus, if school cannot help these young people,
‘there are alienated countercultures that can,’ as Bruner (1999: 41) fears. In view of these conditions of schooling, Bruner (1999) claims that:
Any system of education, any theory of pedagogy, any “grand national policy” that diminishes the school’s role in nurturing its pupils’ self-esteem fails at one of its primary
functions. The deeper problem… is how to cope with the erosion of this function under modern urban conditions… Schools do not simply equip kids with skills and self-esteem or not. They are in competition with other parts of society that can do this, but with deplorable consequences for the society. (Bruner, 1999: 38)
Addressing the need for more consideration of the effects of schooling on children in terms of their conception of their own power to take initiatives, to take responsibility for their actions and to have confidence to cope with real-life issues in and outside school, Bruner (1999: 37) argues that, ‘Ideally, …school is supposed to provide a setting where our performance has fewer esteem-threatening consequences than in the “real world,” presumably in the interest of encouraging the learner to “try things out.”
3.4 Conclusion
There are many challenges that peace education faces in school, under the conditions of the education system and schooling discussed above, such as different forms of structural violence (i.e. inequality, authoritarian relationships), mental violence (i.e. indoctrination) and negative feelings (i.e. anxiety, pressure, anger, low self-esteem), which may cause violent behaviour and actions. At the same time, there is also the possibility of bringing positive changes into schools and society through educational initiatives. As Bruner (1999: 19-20) states, from the viewpoint of constructivism, education should help young people learn ‘to use the tools of meaning making and reality construction,’ not only to adjust to society but also to contribute to the process of changing the existing society when it is necessary. McLaren (2003: 70) also states that, based on critical theory, a school can be seen ‘not only simply as an arena of indoctrination or socialization or a site of instruction, but also as a cultural terrain that promotes student empowerment and self-transformation.’ This means that it is possible for peace education to contribute to this process by promoting peace and counteracting certain forms of violence. The details of how peace education can be implemented in schools, and the principles and practice of peace education, will be discussed later in the thesis.