Barriers to implementing peace education in secondary schools in South Africa

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to explore barriers to implementing peace education in secondary schools in South Africa. The empirical inquiry employed qualitative research methodology and evaluation research design to examine the implementation of a peace education programme in three selected secondary schools in the Western Cape, South Africa. Purposive sampling was used to select the research sites and participants. Data were collected through semi-structured individual interviews with the manager of the Quaker Peace Centre (QPC) programme and school principals; and focus group discussions with teachers and learners. The data were analysed through thematic content analysis. Findings indicate that peace education was implemented with modest success outside the formal curriculum by following a multimedia approach using learner-run peace clubs and anti-bullying campaigns. However, barriers to the implementation of peace education persist, including financial constraints; inadequate allocation of time to peace education; poor parental involvement; overburdened teachers; and negative attitudes and societal influences. Based on these findings, the study recommends that government and school management should support the successful implementation of peace education by providing teacher training on peace education, including peace education in the mainstream curriculum; ensuring that all stakeholders participate in peace education efforts; and prioritising funding for implementation.

KEYWORDS:

• Peace education
• South Africa
• barriers
• secondary schools
• qualitative study
• conflict resolution
• school violence

Background to the study

According to Chelule (2014), peace education programmes have been implemented worldwide over the past decades. To date, peace education remains a strategy to cultivate various skills and instil certain attitudes and values in children – such as listening, empathy, tolerance, non-violent behaviour, and respect (Zamalieva 2020). Although peace education programmes are not part of the South African school curriculum, research indicates that peace education is finding its way into South African schools because of escalating school violence (Ndwandwe 2021).

The paper was inspired by the increase in incidents of violence in schools, which is not conducive to meaningful teaching and learning (Adigun et al. 2022). A study by the Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention (CJCP) found that violence is a frequent phenomenon in South African schools. For instance, 22.2% of secondary school students experienced violence at school in the period from August 2011 to August 2012. According to this research, more than a million learners are affected by violence in South Africa (Burton and Leoschut 2013). This article aligns itself with the view of Garner (2014, 484), who asserts that ‘school violence is a growing phenomenon that is receiving serious attention globally’. Currently schools are regarded as sites characterised by disrespect for the law, racial intolerance, and the proliferation of violence (Hochfeld et al. 2022).

Violence in schools, particularly within the Western Cape school context, has remained a significant problem for decades. As Burton and Leoshcut (2013) point out, easy access to drugs, alcohol, and gang violence (in and outside of schools) have been associated with school- related violence in most schools in the province. Sitoyi (2020) states that acts of violence include bullying, attending school with dangerous weapons such as knives, fighting, sexual violence, theft, and assaulting learners and teachers on school property. Glober (2018) attests that acts of violence are frequently being perpetrated by learners, school staff and community members or learners from neighbouring schools who enter school premises with the intention to commit acts of violence. The escalation of violence in schools is generally assumed to be symptomatic of an ailing society with disturbing pathologies in terms of indiscipline, violence, rape, assault, xenophobic attack, gender-based violence and the disintegration of families (Sekhaulelo 2022). As Legotlo (2014) remarks, some scholars attribute school violence to South Africa’s apartheid past, when violence was often used to oppress people who resisted the brutal authoritarian regime and those who were fighting for equal governance, freedom, and human rights for all. Most strikingly, gangsterism (the culture of belonging to organised gangs of violent criminals, which is prevalent in the townships of the Western Cape), is linked historically to the forceful removal of Coloured families and their dispersal over the Cape Flats in the Western Cape during the apartheid era (Sitoyi 2020).

According to Maringina and Gibson (2019) the rise of gangsterism is a consequence of huge political, economic, and social divides that were exacerbated by apartheid, and which resulted in the marginalisation of most of the non-white population. Schools, as socialisation agents, are a mirror of society; therefore, if society is violent, the learners are violent because they imitate their parents and other roles models in society (Glober 2018). Since adolescents spend most of their daytime with teachers, schools are appropriate places for interventions to combat violence. In the view of Khumalo (2019), the role of the school is to equip learners with skills to live peacefully with others. This idea challenges the schooling system to include peace programmes that teach constructive attitudes, skills, and behaviours to curb the rise of conflict (UNESCO 2013).

In the past, the South African government has tried to implement several interventions to curb the scourge of violence. Efforts by the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the Department of Basic Education (DBE), which outlawed dangerous weapons, have not been as successful as hoped (Netshitangani 2014). In addition, as Sitoyi (2020) observed, various other interventions in the Western Cape, such as the Safe School programmes, the deployment of School Resource officers, the Walking Bus initiatives, and the After-School programmes have not contributed sufficiently to positive results, as gangster violence continues to plague schools in the province. Again, although Life Orientation (LO) was introduced in schools as a subject to conscientise learners about their constitutional rights and promote tolerance of other cultures and religious backgrounds, school violence persists and continues to undermine a culture of peace in schools (Dube and Hlalele 2018). Many schools in South Africa are unable to impart appropriate social and emotional skills that could empower learners to deal with complex problems. In fact, schools have turned into breeding sites of violence, racial and other forms of intolerance, disrespect for the law, and a lack of discipline (Harber 2018; Jacobs 2014; Potterton 2014).

Although the problem of school violence and strategies or interventions to combat such violence have been widely researched, few studies have been conducted on alternative approaches to violence, such as peace education (John 2018; Maxwell, Enslin, and Maxwell 2004). In this regard, Mwaniki (2013) and Hamman (2017) affirm that, despite general acknowledgement of the potential benefit of peace education as a strategy to restore positive peace in schools and society, there is a gap between the rhetoric found in the literature and typical peace education practices found in schools. In addition, the role that is played by various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that provide programmes or interventions, such as peace education, is inadequate in South Africa. Hence, this study conducted an evaluation of an initiative implemented by a non-governmental organisation based in Cape Town, Western Cape. The Non-Violent Schools Campaign (NVSC) programme is provided by the Quaker for Peace Centre (QPC), which strives to increase the number of individuals in schools who are willing to act against all types of violence to promote and develop a culture of peace. Barriers to the implementation of peace education as a strategy to combat violence in selected secondary schools in the Western Cape were explored.

The objectives of the programme are to raise awareness of the need to curb all forms of violence in schools and to enhance the quality of classroom instruction and student learning. The teachers include non-violence in the curriculum in a variety of imaginative and creative ways. They also participate in Alternative to Violence Project (AVP) sessions and are trained as AVP facilitators. This method of conflict resolution could discourage learners from using violence. At the same time, learners are encouraged to join their schools’ peace clubs so that they, together with school administrators, may take responsibility for reducing school violence. Learners who attend the Quaker Peace Centre’s (QPC) camps, indabas (strategic meetings) and seminars are known as ‘peace buddies’ and they participate in exciting activities to challenge the idea that violence is acceptable. The QPC, in partnership with the Western Cape Department of Education, organises workshops and hosts indabas where best practices and strategies are discussed to reduce violence in schools. AVP is a component of the peace buddies’ activities, and the learners’ non-violent conflict resolution techniques. Moreover, the programme offers training to peace buddies to act as peer mentors who attend to any reported incidents of bullying and report any form of violence to teachers. The training is mainly practical and experiential as it uses interactive exercises, games and role playing so that participants can share their experiences, become equipped to identify sources of conflict, and resolve the conflict non-violently and peacefully. The programme also empowers bystanders with skills to intervene non-violently, end bullying and protect the victims. In addition, this programme requires teachers to enrol in a 40-hour training exercise, called ‘training of trainers’, which aims to empower them with peace education skills and integrate peace education during their teaching (Quaker Peace Centre 2011, 2015).

Within the scope of this project a specific objective was to explore barriers experienced by role-players in implementing peace education at selected schools in the Western Cape. It was guided by the question: What are the barriers experienced by role players (programme manager, principals, teachers, and learners) when implementing peace education in selected schools in the Western Cape, South Africa?

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. A review of the relevant literature includes a discussion of the concept of peace, a culture of peace, peace education and the barriers to implementing peace education in schools. An elucidation of the integrative theory of peace provides the theoretical framework that informs the analysis that follows. Thereafter, the qualitative-evaluative research approach and research design deemed appropriate for exploring the previously formulated research question are described. This is followed by the data analysis and discussion of findings. Finally, the conclusion, recommendations and future research are presented.

The ensuing section begins with a scholarly discussion of the literature and theoretical perspectives underpinning this paper.

Literature review

This section delves into a literature review pertaining to the study focusing on peace, peace education, the culture of peace as well as barriers to implementing peace education in schools.

Peace, culture of peace, and peace education: key concepts and principles

The concept ‘peace’ is difficult to define because it means different things to different people. Since the concept is so elusive, a school environment in which teachers and learners interact peacefully in a spirit of harmonious coexistence remains unattainable. Feuchte (2010) notes that defining the concept of peace is almost as challenging as achieving it. This is because the term ‘peace’ is a broad, vague and continuously evolving concept with different connotations. It is interpreted differently by various people in different cultural contexts (Hunter and Cheng 2006). This implies that the way in which peace is interpreted is determined by the kind of conflict it aims to resolve.

Peace can be described as comprising more than the absence of violence or the effective management of conflict. Respect for basic human rights and equity are easy to implement in schools where peace reigns. With peace as the driving/motive force, teachers and learners experience a sense of belonging, which enables them to embrace diversity. According to Galtung (1969), there are two main typologies of peace: negative and positive peace. Tilahun (2015) explains: ‘ … negative peace implies the absence of large-scale physical violence like a war. While positive peace involves the process of avoiding war or ending violence positive peace on the other hand, refers to the practices that restrict and obviate war, conflict resolution and school security.’ Peace is an experience. It is linked to social relations and conditions, and it is a struggle against relations and conditions based on inequality, exclusion and violence. The basis of peace is the recognition of the dignity of all human beings and respect for their fundamental rights and freedoms (Pinzon-Salcedo and Torres-Cuello 2018).

UNESCO (1999) describes a culture of peace as being characterised by attitudes, forms of conduct and life, values based on respect for life and human rights and the promotion and practice of nonviolence through education; dialogue; cooperation; equal rights and opportunities; freedom; justice; acceptance of differences and solidarity. It is promoted through practices that foster peace and respect for the human dignity of all people and groups that make up society. According to these practices, each person is the protagonist of his or her own history, the subject and builder of change, which is achieved by living out the principles of a culture of peace. In this sense, peace is seen as an essential value and a human right: the absence or reduction of all types of violence; the creative and nonviolent transformation of conflicts; cooperation; verbal and physical kindness directed at the basic needs of survival, well-being, freedom and identity; the prevalence of freedom, equity, dialogue, integration, solidarity, participation; the legitimisation of peace in symbolic spaces; the satisfaction of human needs; social justice and the empowerment of life (Wong et al. 2021). Thus, peace education refers to an education that, in the words of Velez et al (2021, 4), ‘contributes to generating social processes based on trust, solidarity and mutual respect, facilitates the peaceful resolution of conflicts and helps to think in a new way about human relations’. According to Pinzon-Salcedo and Torres-Cuello (2018), peace education has a series of characteristics for its praxis through which it questions educational processes; emphasises the typologies of violence; seeks the emergence of less authoritarian structures; reflects a coincidence between the ends and the means of education; and seeks the apprehension of values that stimulate social and personal change. In addition, it seeks to promote the understanding, appreciation, and acceptance of differences. This is achieved through dynamic, continuous, and permanent education, based on the concepts of positive peace and the creative perspective of conflict, as significant and defining elements which, through the application of socio-affective and problematising approaches, seek to develop a new type of culture of peace that helps people to critically unveil reality and situate themselves in it, and act accordingly (Mishra 2021). Consequently, education for peace encompasses more than the mere transfer of information. It implies a constant struggle for change in social structures by recognising that processes framed in different socio-historical and cultural contexts are needed. In fact, ‘it is not an action that ends in itself, but is projected to generate other actions, multiple and also in multiple areas’ (Khairuddin et al. 2019, 57). In the next section I present the barriers to implementing peace education in schools, as identified from existing literature.

Barriers to implementing peace education in schools

Despite the widespread acknowledgement of several studies on the potential benefit of peace education, such as equipping individuals with conflict resolution skills, promoting tolerance, and building positive relationships, research indicates noticeable gaps in the rhetoric found in literature and the kind of peace education practised in schools (Hamman 2017; Mwaniki 2013; Ndwandwe 2021). Abebe et al (2006) conducted a study in public schools in Milwaukee in the United States of America and discovered that, despite schools’ dedication to peace education, several circumstances hampered its implementation. Based on the results, teacher capacity overload; poor leadership by principals; a shortage of financial resources; extra demands; the model’s complexity and deficient peace education training, among other issues, must be solved to execute peace education.

Abebe et al (2006) also highlight many difficulties that stymie peace education presents. Among these challenges are deficient coordination and cooperation among the initiators of peace education programmes; a lack of defined objectives and difficulty in establishing a democratic structure, particularly among internal personnel. In addition, women are noticeably absent and there is no financial means to conduct the programmes in West Africa. Other impediments to peace education are the dearth of current teaching materials and also language barriers, particularly when it comes to minorities. Moreover, there is no political will to work with the chosen team and the curriculum is not suited to the demands of the community (Chelule 2014).

With reference to the study by Enaigbe and Igbinoghene (2016) in Nigeria, challenges such as inadequate knowledge of the concept and aims of peace education among various stakeholders mean that the expertise and capacity for peace education in the country are limited. The authors also mention inadequate funding; a lack of political will to adopt peace education as part of the national education policy; methodologies contrary to the aims and goals of peace education; and a lack of parent or guardian support for the peace education programme. Likewise, based on literature findings, McLean, Cook and Crowe (2008) surmise that practising teachers also face the challenge of limited understanding of what peace and peace education entail. As a result, their efforts to incorporate peace education into the curriculum are in vain; and teaching often results in ineffective lesson planning and practice. Harber and Mncube (2012) argue that teachers are not receiving adequate training; and, as a result, they remain unskilled and indisposed to teach controversial issues in the classroom. This means it is impossible to implement peace education effectively, with teachers who are not well prepared and sufficiently trained to present peace education programmes. It is imperative that teachers possess deep knowledge about peace so that they can easily become agents.

Zartman (2007) identifies various barriers to the effective implementation of peace education, such as the issues pertaining to the elusive nature the definition of peace, inadequate pedagogical methods, a shortage of teaching and learning materials and the lack of compressive evaluation of peace education practices and their impact. Zamir (2009), as cited in Gursel-Bilgin and Bengu (2021) links the challenges to implementing peace education in schools to pedagogical obstacles in peace education – such as emotional and cognitive mistrust of peace education, the role that the media plays in promoting stereotypes, propaganda due to the politicisation of peace education; and the existence of the culture of violence and war interwoven into social norms and values as reflected in school culture and curricula. As a result, many students reject peace education because of the use of teacher-centred and dominant pedagogies mostly found in schools (Zembylas et al., 2016).

The difficulty in evaluating the achievement of peace education is another challenge facing schools. In his study Momanyi (2018) affirms that it is difficult to evaluate the impact of peace education, since its objective pertains to the internalisation of values, attitudes, skills, and patterns of behaviour. Reardon (1988) points out that traditional methods of assessment, such as texts and examinations, that are normally used in schools are not suitable for the evaluation of peace education outcomes, as they cannot be used to evaluate a mental stance.

The lack of parental involvement is another barrier affecting the implementation of peace education in schools. Enaigbe and Igbinoghene (2016) allude that parents are often reluctant to provide support to their children and they distance themselves from participating in peace education activities. This causes teacher frustration (Rubagiza, Umutoni, and Kaleeba 2016) as parents are not cooperating with the schools to shape learners’ behaviour (Ndwandwe 2021). In the next section I explore the integrative theory of peace which anchors this study.

Theoretical grounding

This section introduces the integrative theory of peace. Its main purpose is to discuss how this theory provides a useful framework for enhancing our understanding of the barriers to implementing peace education in schools.

The integrative theory of peace

The study is anchored in the integrative theory of peace as proposed by Hossain B. Danesh (2008), drawing from his seven-year experience in implementing a peace education programme in 112 schools in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This theory purports that all human states of being including peace are the outcome of human cognition (knowing), emotion (loving), and volition (choosing) that undergird people’s worldviews (Danesh 2006). According to this theory, peace is dependent on interactions between all aspects of human life – whether ethical, political, physiological, spiritual or socio-political states – which are expressed through intrapersonal and interpersonal interaction within a geographical location by groups of people (Danesh 2006). In essence, as Danesh (2006) indicates, peace is dependent on intimate interpersonal relationships where individuals strive to pursue and support the establishment of the culture of peace. Therefore, by developing this theory, Danesh (2011) provides a comprehensive holistic view of peace that embraces various goals and approaches relating to peace and peace education. The integrative theory of peace encourages individuals to become tolerant of other people’s ideas and opinions, while also affording them the respect they deserve. Through co-operation and unity, conflicting individuals can negotiate and make well-informed decisions to the benefit of both parties. Therefore, a well-nurtured, unity-based worldview can promote a culture of peace (Danesh 2008).

This theory was adopted as theoretical framework because of its strength in offering a better understanding of the process that leads to the attainment of peace and due to its potential to evaluate, develop and guide the implementation of peace education programmes that aim to promote genuine, peaceful relations and empathetic relationships among learners and teachers. The theory provided the researcher with a nuanced lens to explore barriers to peace education in South African schools – after all, schools remain the most suitable agents to foster knowledge about peace among learners and to empower them to become agents of peace (Bar-Tal, Rosen, and Nets-Zehngut 2011). Peace education in schools can serve as a tool to transform learners’ worldview from one of violence to that of peace. In the following section the research methodology adopted in this study is presented.

Research methodology

A qualitative approach (Creswell and Creswell 2017) was followed in this research study to explore some challenges in the implementation of peace education at selected schools in the Western Cape. The choice of this approach was guided by the nature of the research problem. The phenomenon of interest is stakeholders’ experiences in the implementation of peace education. An evaluation research design was adopted within an interpretivist paradigm (Babbie 2017, 2020; Johnson and Christensen 2019).

Research sample and participants

Purposeful sampling was used to select participants who are knowledgeable about and experienced in the implementation of a peace education programme. The NGO selected for the study was the QPC in the Western Cape. A programme manager of the organisation was purposefully selected because of his experience as a provider of a peace education programme for learners. The reason for choosing the QPC as a provider of peace education programmes was its long engagement in peace education projects. Since 2011 the QPC has been engaged in peace education projects in selected secondary schools under the auspices of the Metro South District and the Western Cape Education Department (WCED) (QPC, 2014/15). Three secondary schools in the Waterfall Circuit (a pseudonym) in Cape Town, under the jurisdiction of the Metro South District of the WCED in which the programme of the QPC has been implemented, were selected by purposeful sampling. Eleven secondary schools in the Western Cape are currently implementing the programmes of the QPC. Three schools were chosen because they have been participants in the Non-Violent School Campaign (NVSC) programme of the QPC since 2011. These schools were considered information-rich (knowledgeable about or experienced in the phenomenon of interest) sites that can offer first-hand information on the phenomenon of peace education and can help to answer the research questions of this study properly. They were recommended by the programme manager of the QPC, who had been asked to identify schools where the programme of peace education was implemented.

The purposeful sampling method was used to choose participants from selected schools, with the goal of studying their perspectives and experience of the implemented programme of peace education in schools. The participants chosen for this study comprised the QPC programme manager as expert informant; and three school principals as they are important stakeholders in education, and their leadership role is significant in overseeing every curriculum activity that takes place in their schools. Therefore, it was important to capture their judgment and perceptions and how their roles as managers influence the programme of peace. In addition, three teachers from each school (nine teachers in total) were selected. The criterion used for choosing teachers is that they have been trained by the QPC and are engaged in facilitating the NVSC provided by the QPC at their respective schools. Teachers act as facilitators and implementers of peace programme education. Finally, 15 learners (five in each school) who are participants in the NVSC programme provided by the QPC were selected. Grades 10 and 11 were chosen because it was assumed that they had rich experience of and exposure to the programme of peace education from their previous grade. In the next section I present how the process of data collection and analysis was conducted.

Data gathering and analysis

Two face-to-face data collection methods were used: semi-structured interviews (with the QPC programme manager and school principals) and focus group discussions with three teachers in each school (nine teachers in total) and five learners in each school (15 learners in total). These data collection methods are an effective way of bringing to the fore the experiences and perceptions of participants whose opinions or experiences of the peace education programme in their schools are important. During the data analysis, the process was executed in two sequential stages. In the first stage, the data gathered from the interviews and focus group were transcribed and were closely studied by reading and re-reading the interview transcripts while playing the audio recording several times to obtain meaning from the data. In the second stage, themes and categories were generated from verbatim quotes of participants’ experiences. The researcher did thematic analysis through coding and categorising, using the inductive analysis method (Azungah 2018).

Ethical considerations

In research, ethical considerations guide one’s behaviour. The researcher complied with the research ethics policy of the University of South Africa under the auspices of which the study was conducted. In addition, the director of the QPC and the WCED gave their consent to participate in the study. Several other ethical issues were adhered to, such as obtaining permission from each school, ensuring the anonymity of each participant’s identity and honouring voluntary participation. The identity of the programme manager of the QPC was coded as PM1; learners as L1 to L15; teachers as T1 to T9; and the school principals were coded as SP1, SP2 and SP3 respectively. Parental consent was obtained for participants below the age of 18. Additional verbal consent was pursued in all instances where interviews and focus group interview sessions were recorded. In the following section I present the findings and discussion.

Findings and discussion

The analysed data findings have revealed numerous barriers that hinder the effective implementation of peace education in schools. These were mainly (a) financial barriers; (b) inadequate allocation of time to peace education; (c) societal violence (d) the lack of parental involvement; and (e) negative attitudes. These themes are discussed below.

Financial barriers

Financial barriers were found to be a serious challenge. Adequate funding remains the most pivotal issue in education; without sufficient funding, education cannot bear any fruit. Most participants mentioned the lack of financial support as a challenge affecting the implementation of peace education in schools. They indicated that funding is needed for organising peace education events and for running the QPC. Owing to a lack of funds, some learners cannot meet after school because they would miss free school transport. The participants also indicated that learners are hungry when they meet after school, and the peace club is unable to supply refreshments.

The findings also indicated that the Department of Basic Education does not provide any financial support to the programme. The programme manager complained about the lack of financial assistance from the state:

Firstly, the challenge is financial because it is difficult to get funding from the department. The education department cannot fully pay for the work we are doing. The department should take responsibility for that. They must also fund these programmes.

One learner cites the lack of funds as a barrier to organising learners to stay behind after school to attend peace education activities and provide refreshments. One learner remarked:

Learners do get hungry, so we have a challenge to provide for food since there is no money to buy food.

Another learner, who has been tasked to be a peace buddy, expressed his frustration caused by the lack of funding:

We all know that no programme can run without money. So, the issue of funding is a major problem for most schools here as they operate in limited budget. They cannot afford to provide food to learners after school and sometimes we [peace buddies] are forced to take our lunch money, save it so that we buy something later in the afternoon. So, if our government can intervene and provide funding to this project, we can take it further.

The above findings concur with those of Enaigbe and Igbinoghene (2016) who argue that inadequate funds pose a major barrier to peace education. Eslami-Somea and Movassagh (2014) also affirm that insufficient financial resources for developing course content and training teachers are an impediment to developing and implementing peace education.

Time constraints

The insufficient time devoted to the programme was perceived as another barrier for the implementation of peace education in schools. A few participants indicated that the amount of time allocated to peace education was not enough, given the amount of work to be done to deal with the problem of violence. Matindi (2013) comment on the visible gaps in delivering peace education in the classroom. They explain that the contributory factor to this problem was that academic subjects are emphasised at the expense of value-based subjects. As a result, peace education does not receive the attention it deserves in schools. For example, a conflicting work schedule interfered with the QPC’s work to contribute to peace in schools. The programme manager indicated that peace education is hampered by time barriers because, in some instances, schools deny the QPC access to learners during school hours. Finding learners who are willing to participate in the programme activities is another challenge they are faced with. The programme manager stated the following:

Time is a challenge because we can only go into the school to perform peace education activities after school hours, during school hours we are not permitted to enter a school. … When we try to get other learners to be involved after school it is not easy because we are not using the right times as far as the school is concerned. If you say to them, please come and meet me after school, they don’t want to come, they rush, if you say let’s meet during lunch time, they won’t come.

During the interview, the principals also blamed time barriers and transport for the poor attendance of peace education activities, which normally take place after school and over weekends. One of the principals claimed:

Most of the programmes run after school hours, so the majority of our learners use public transport to come to school, so they [learners] cannot have the peace programme until late, because they don’t stay in the same community where they can just leave school and walk home. So, they need to consider at all times for their transport home, especially when they have workshops outside school. Sometimes, those workshops run on a Friday afternoon and the Saturday and we need to make sure that we have adequate transport arrangements.

The above statements show that time barriers affect the implementation of a peace education programme in schools. The findings reveal that little time is devoted to the peace education programme. This finding is in keeping with Harber and Sakade’s (2009) – that time is one of the greatest challenges for school teachers, project workers and other educational actors. Mishra (2011) cautions that peace education values and skills should not only be taught but should also be practised each day in every school. Therefore, more time is required for effective peace education.

Societal violence

A third barrier, according to the empirical data, is the influence of societal violence. Findings indicate that school violence is related to the location of the schools in the Cape Town townships, which are mostly gang ridden areas with a culture of domestic violence. Moreover, this pattern of violent behaviour spills into schools and is learnt by the learners. The programme manager had the following to say:

The challenge is that we are living in a very big place of about 4.5 million people with many schools. These schools struggle because we are situated in violent areas that impact negatively on the school environment and hinder learning due to gang violence. As a result, learners drop out of school as they cannot learn; it is not always a very conducive environment to complete your schooling.

One teacher (participant T3:S2) agreed that violence in society has a negative influence on learners’ psyche. He stated the following:

Well, through interaction with my learners, the challenges that they normally mention are from a society or community they come from violent backgrounds and witness violence in the community. [sic]

The programme manager (participant P.M) believes that the apartheid past still affects society. He said:

We are a damaged society, we come from a damaged background, and apartheid did a lot of damage, so we need to deal with that.

These findings confirm the assertions of Legotlo (2014) that violence in schools reflects an ailing society and a violent past.

One learner also described the difficulties of living in a neighbourhood where learners are exposed to gang violence, especially at home. His response also confirmed that peace education should begin at home. The learner shared the following view:

Peace education must be also advocated at home as we have gangsters who fire gunshots through doors at our houses … we want to learn about life in a peaceful manner. Education does not just take place at school.

Participant T1:S3, a teacher in the same school, showed empathetic insight into the damaging impact of broken homes and domestic discord of learners. The teacher commented:

I think that the challenge that we face is that our learners come from broken and unhappy homes … they are upset in a way, sometimes I feel our learners don’t want this peace education.

This implies that the environment in which children grow up determines their behaviour. Learners who grow up in an environment where they are exposed to bullying will act violently to deal with differences or conflicts. De Wet (2007) affirms that school violence aetiology stems from larger social factors over which the school has little or no control. Msezane (2015) asserts that schools are a microcosm of society and merely reflect social ills. Violence in a community spill over into schools.

Lack of parental involvement

The lack of parental involvement is another challenge, according to some of the participants. The programme manager (participant PM) remarked:

One of the challenges is to get the parent involved. Even if you call parents’ meetings – because they work long hours and get home late, and on Saturday morning they want to chill with family and friends – they do not show up … so, basically, the challenge is to get the parents involved. The parents are not involved, especially young fathers … and eventually have no relationship with their children. No bonding takes place.

A similar view was expressed by a principal (participant P1) who said:

Sometimes we try to contact the parents, but they are not involved to support the schools.

A study by Ndwandwe (2014) confirms that parents are often too busy to follow up on their children; and, owing to family commitments, they find it hard to visit teachers and participate in important events.

One teacher (participant T1:S2) blamed the absence of parental supervision and guidance at home. She also mentioned that in child-headed households adult inputs and discipline are lacking. She had the following view:

The challenges are that parents are not giving guidance to their children’s [sic]. Some children do not have parents, and others are heading to [sic] their homes. As teachers, it becomes difficult for us to instil discipline and peace values to the learners … they are used to do things their own way.

This study concurs with Enaigbe and Igbinoghene (2016) who assert that parents are often reluctant to support their children and to participate in peace education activities.

Negative attitudes

This study found that negative attitudes are a significant barrier to the implementation of the peace education programme. Some teachers and learners were unwilling to participate in the peace education programme. One learner highlighted the lack of peer cooperation by stating the following:

Learners are not cooperating; they do not want to listen to what we are telling them … So those who are not involved in this peace club, they do not cooperate with us.

Another learner (L2: S3) explained the courage that was required to become a leader in peace education if one’s peers refuse to cooperate:

The experience I had is that being a peace buddy was difficult for me because I was being verbally abused, I was being bullied, they forever tried to put me down, but at the end of the day I knew that being a peace buddy was a good choice … I always stand up, not for me, but for others as well.

One learner (Participant L2:S1) also pointed out that it was not easy to get cooperation from learners during a conflict situation:

It is when two people are fighting, and we want to make peace and we called both and other one [sic] doesn’t want to come.

These statements correspond with those in a study by Gurse-Bilgin and Bengu (2021) who affirms that learners’ lack of confidence and motivation to participate in a programme to bring about change in their schools inhibit the implementation of peace education.

Another learner (Participant L2:S3) claimed that his participation in peace education and being a peace buddy exposed him to victimisation and intimidation. According to him, participation in peace programmes demands commitment and moral courage from young learners living in a violent community. He stated the following:

Being a peace buddy member was not easy and safe … jealousy plays a huge role. Especially, when learners who used to sell cigarettes and drugs in the school, are to join the peace club and leave their dirty works. Being a peace club member is actually very hard. … . we actually putting our lives mostly in danger, because they are selling those cigarettes for someone else … they might be waiting for us outside, that is one of the biggest challenges we face.

This corresponds with Muthui (2015) who asserts that deep-rooted beliefs and attitudes hamper the effective implementation of peace education. These beliefs are a result of contextual and situational factors that stimulate intergroup conflict.

Another principal (P2) pointed out the difficulty in motivating learners to learn from their peers in the programme. Evidence suggests that some learners display a negative attitude towards peer mediators and peace buddies. This principal argued as follows:

There are some challenges. Mostly, the learners don’t take them [peer mediators] seriously. I mean others show them negative attitude saying I can’t take instruction from other learners, especially when they are mediating them. However, there are few learners who listen to them.

This agrees with Matindi (2013) who contends that a lack of common interest among various actors is a challenge to the effective implementation of peace education in schools. In this regard, Ekpoh (2015) advises that extra-curricular activities imparting peace values by means of peace activities should be part of the school programme. Once again, this author maintains that it is imperative for schools to enhance interest, commitment, and active participation in a peace education programme by training learners who are willing to reinforce peace education through practical activities, who are eager to promote peaceful values and transform the behaviour of their peers in school.

Conclusion and recommendations

The study explored the barriers to implementing peace education as a strategy to combat violence in schools. The overall findings of the study show that school violence in many South African schools undermines the educational mission and the well-being and development of children, diminishing the reputation of these institutions and effectiveness of these institutions. Findings also indicate that school violence is related to the location of the schools in the Western Cape townships, which have a high incidence of gangsterism and domestic violence. These social problems affect schools and the learners learn violent behaviour and undermine efforts to deal with the problem. Therefore, it is argued that peace education is more important than ever in South Africa and indispensable for the restoration of peace in schools. But this will only be achieved if we encourage learners to be optimistic and equip them to be agents of peace. After all, the future of every country depends on the everyday choices and acts of our youngsters. Informed by the integrative theory of peace, the findings suggest that peace education is a vehicle for social justice because of its huge potential to inspire a change in attitudes and behaviours and replace violence and conflict with peace. Unfortunately, research studies that aim to explore alternative approaches to violence, such as peace education, are still limited in South Africa (John 2018). This paper served to close that gap through the exploration of barriers to the implementation of peace education in schools, as corroborated by empirical findings. The findings revealed that financial barriers; inadequate allocation of time to peace education; influence of violence on the society; a lack of parental involvement; and negative attitudes obstruct the effective implementation of peace education.

To overcome these challenges, it is recommended that researchers conduct in-depth studies on peace education and collaborate with practitioners to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Teachers should have regular opportunities for professional development through workshops, seminars and training programmes focused on peace education. School managers should support the implementation process and ensure that peace education is integrated into the school curriculum. Government needs to prioritise funding and resources for peace education and policy makers should develop comprehensive policies to support the implementation of peace education programmes in schools.

By implementing the principles of integrative theory of peace into these recommendations, schools in South Africa will win the battle against the scourge of school violence, and educators, policy makers and stakeholders can work together to overcome the barriers to implementing peace education in schools and foster a more peaceful and inclusive society that upholds positive values and good citizenry.

Acknowledgments

The author would also like to express his gratitude to my mentor, Professor Velisiwe Gasa. I am also grateful for the constructive criticism of my anonymous peer reviewers. The generosity and expertise of each one of you has aided my research and eradicated several errors. Participants are acknowledged for their willingness to participate in this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data presented in this study are available on request to the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to ethical assurances of anonymity.

Additional information

Funding

This study had the financial support of the University of South Africa

Notes on contributors

Ntokozo Dennis Ndwandwe

Ntokozo D. Ndwandwe is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Educational Foundation, in College of Education at the University of South Africa. His research interest is peace education, conflict resolution education and parental involvement in education. Ndwandwe obtained his PhD in Sociology of Education from the University of South Africa.