Rejection and mutation of discourses in curriculum reforms: peace education(s) in Colombia and Germany

ABSTRACT

Previous work has not yet comparatively studied which forms of peace education (PE) have been adopted in national laws. Through content analysis of policy documents, we seek to find out why the Colombian Congress established PE as mandatory content across all educational levels in 2014 in a postwar phase, while the German Standing Conference of Ministers of Education rejected attempts to implement PE since the Cold War. Whereas the German school curriculum has maintained a strong disciplinary structure that leads to the rejection of the local version of PE developed in the Federal Republic of Germany, either as military indoctrination or critical pedagogy, Colombia’s curriculum based on classical education is now influenced by educational standards and citizenship education—both influences from the United States. Therefore, it was easier for Colombian policymakers and educators to mutate the local fusion of citizenship competences into a psychological version of PE to solve national conflicts at the expense of promoting moral, historical, and political thinking in connection with traditional school subjects. We conclude by reflecting on how socio-political context and didactic traditions matter in explaining why some educational discourses are rejected or mutate with previous institutionalized educational rhetoric.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher education curriculum
• national curriculum
• national standards
• educational policy
• peace

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Francisco Ramirez, John W. Meyer, Patricia Bromley, Christine Min Wotipka, Tim Seidenschnur, Jens Jungblut, George Krücken, and Christiane Rittgerott for comments that help us preparing the final version of this article. We also would like to express gratitude to Katherine Bird for editing and proofreading this work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

Pedro Pineda wrote this article while supported by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation under Grant [number Az. 40.18.0.003SO];Fritz Thyssen Stiftung [number Az. 40.18.0.003SO].

Notes on contributors

Pedro Pineda

Pedro Pineda (Dr. Phil., Humboldt University of Berlin) is currently finishing his Habilitation (post-doctoral qualification) at the International Centre for Higher Education Research of the University of Kassel (INCHER) while being a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW). He specializes in the fields of comparative education, higher education, the sociology of education, and organizational studies.

Jorge Celis is sociologist, MA in Sociology and MA in International and Comparative Education from Stockholm University. He has been education researcher and consultant for the last sixteen years. Jorge is also a Researcher at the Research Group Stem+B at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Jorge Celis

Pedro Pineda (Dr. Phil., Humboldt University of Berlin) is currently finishing his Habilitation (post-doctoral qualification) at the International Centre for Higher Education Research of the University of Kassel (INCHER) while being a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW). He specializes in the fields of comparative education, higher education, the sociology of education, and organizational studies.

Jorge Celis is sociologist, MA in Sociology and MA in International and Comparative Education from Stockholm University. He has been education researcher and consultant for the last sixteen years. Jorge is also a Researcher at the Research Group Stem+B at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia.