Looking for peace in national curriculum: the PECA Project in New Zealand

Abstract

This is the pilot study for the Peace Education Curricular Analysis Project – a project that seeks to become a longitudinal and global analysis of national curriculum statements for pro-peace values. National education as a system of organized learning can act as a transmission belt – a cultural institution that assigns communal ideals and values and uses pedagogy to echo social standards. As this analysis considers that it is possible to assess non-peace education for peace education qualities, this study analyzed New Zealand’s early childhood, primary, and secondary education curricular statements to ascertain the presence or absence of three elements common in peace education programs: recognition of violence; addressing conflict nonviolently; and creating the conditions of positive peace. The methodologies used in this mixed methods study include directive and summative content analysis. This analysis finds that the curricular statements (2) of New Zealand have made progress to educate students toward peace and non-violence and that in general, the early childhood curricular statement incorporates a greater amount of pro-peace content than the primary and secondary curriculum statement. Opportunities exist to strengthen peace education content in future New Zealand curricular statements.

Keywords:

• peace education
• content analysis
• curriculum
• PECA Project
• New Zealand

Acknowledgments

The author/researcher is deeply indebted to comments and reflection provided by academic reviewers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. There are three kinds of curriculum: explicit curriculum – knowledge students are expected to acquire, implicit curriculum – knowledge of cultural expectations in school and, hidden (null) curriculum – topics that are deliberately not included in the curriculum, ‘the options students are not afforded, the perspectives they may never know’ (Eisner 1985, 107).

2. While conflict is a normal facet of the human world violence is here considered deliberate but avoidable harm done to self and/or others (Harris and Morrison 2013).

3. Cultural violence: hierarchal world views, chosen people status, ethno-nationalism, ethnocentrism, discrimination, racism, ageism, sexism, exclusionary cultures, attitudes or beliefs, obstacles to perceiving universality (often displayed as symbolic forms of violence that are often invisible to insiders).

4. Indirect/Structural violence: inequality, institutional disenfranchisement, social marginalization, poverty, injustice, exploitation, obstacles to experiencing full humanity (systemic forms of violence that are often a part of national institutions).

5. Direct/Physical violence: physical harm, threats of harm, obstacles to experiencing personal safety (agentic forms of violence that can be tied to a perpetrator and victim).

6. Examples of Non-violent Conflict Transformation techniques can include: Team problem-solving, cooperation, nonviolent action/communication, win-win, separate the person from problem, address the problem not the person, responsibility without accusation, opponents become partners, recognition, bad situation not bad person/people, cooperation, joint/participatory decision-making, collaboration, asking, agreeing, negotiation, reconciliation, mediation, diplomacy, peacebuilding, nonviolent resistance, dialogue processes, compassionate listening.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago.