PROGRAMACIÓN DE BIOLOGÍA Y GEOLOGÍA DE 1º DE BACHILLERATO

There have been discussions about the legitimisation of teaching peace education in formal schooling. One of the problems is the general idea that peace education is only needed for particular schools, where problems of conflict are perceived, whereas peace education is actually intended to prepare everyone for creating peace in school and in society. Tyrrell (2002) recognises this problem of promoting peace education and other similar initiatives (such as peer mediation):

... peer mediation is about resolving conflict and the existence of conflict is sometimes seen as a sign of failure, then peer mediation is only needed when there is a problem. The reality is that peer mediation is valuable as a proactive, preventive strategy in dealing with conflict. (Tyrrell, 2002: 174)

More fundamentally, a key obstacle to the promotion of peace education in schools can be seen as all the structures and practices of formal education, including hierarchical structures and the reproduction of inequality, authoritarianism in discipline and in relationships, and competition, which are not compatible with the ideas and practices of peace and peace education. Stewart (1998: 88) recognises this situation in the UK, in which ‘almost all conflict resolution projects in schools depend on engagement with voluntary or independent agencies

and initiatives within individual schools rather than forming part of national educational policy’, and she perceives the reasons as hierarchical characteristics of schools, the focus on control, the school ethos and attitudes of staff, parents and pupils, which need to change in order to empower children to be able to participate in the process of conflict resolution.

Similarly, Galtung (1975: 317) and Burns (1996: 122) state that peace education has not been widespread, partly because of its educational characteristics, contrary to much of formal education, which often reflects national interests and ideology.

Another difficulty is that peace education is sometimes seen as value-laden and not objective and thus a form of political indoctrination (Hicks, 1988c: 176; Harris and Morrison, 2003: 165), especially from the predominant view that education should be objective, neutral, impartial and value-free, and the assumption that the school curriculum is socially and politically neutral (Giroux, 1983: 45). Recognising these questions about objectivity and the neutrality of peace education, Hicks (1996: 168) argues that such a view reflects ‘a particular ideological position which assumes that both research and education can be objective, neutral, impartial and value-free,’ and that ‘so-called objectivity may be an apology for not asking fundamental and awkward questions about an unjust status quo’. These critical viewpoints share the idea that formal education is never neutral, as it involves politics and power, reflecting the interests of the states and of dominant groups in society, as discussed previously.

Being contrary to indoctrination, peace education aims to nurture children’s critical judgement to identify any form of propaganda (Hicks, 1988c: 176).

On the other hand, there is a difference between teaching separate peace education classes and integrating peace themes into existing curricula. Regarding curriculum links with peace education, some suggestions have been made on how to make links between skills or knowledge relevant to peace education and school subjects across the curriculum, including English, Geography, History, PSHE and RE (e.g. see Cole, Snyder and Garlake, 1997: 4-5), and recently Citizenship (e.g. see Citizenship Advisory Group, 1998). While some argue that

‘peace studies’ (or peace education) is not a proper subject and should not be included on the timetable, peace educators are not necessarily advocating the introduction of peace education into schools as a new subject, ‘but rather asking what teaching and learning could go on within existing subjects to help children understand issues to do with peace and conflict’

(Hicks, 1988c: 176). This means that the emphasis is on the promotion of an approach to education which intends to transform society, based on person-centred education, by developing self-reliance which is essential for the reconstruction of society (Hicks, 1988b:

245). Thus, while a major goal of many peace educators can be seen as the incorporation of peace education within formal education systems, there are some considerations that need to be taken into account from critical viewpoints.

For example, Burns (1996: 121-2) is concerned that the formal acceptance of UNESCO recommendation may prevent the promotion of critical approaches to peace education, considering that the UNESCO concept of education for international understanding and peace adopted by many education systems has only basic and limited forms of peace education.

Burns (1996: 122) thinks that an alternative form of education is not possible within formal educational institutions, ‘so long as formal educational institutions exist within present socio-cultural and political structures,’ and agrees with the viewpoint that the alternative cannot stand for social reality of examinations and employment, both of which are controlled by dominant groups in society, even if some individual schools or individual class teachers may have the freedom to influence or change structures. Thus, one challenge of promoting peace education in formal education involves the question of ‘how to mesh the content with existing philosophies, and to develop new pedagogies where adequate ones do not exist’

(Aspeslagh and Burns, 1996: 57). This means that the introduction of peace education into the education system needs to be carefully considered since, ‘Without change in the wider context, the new content of the knowledge could easily be subsumed within existing structures without changing those structures or the approaches to learning’ (Burns, 1996: 123).