Peacebuilding citizenship learning? Colombian students’ and teachers’ perspectives on resource (economy-environment) conflicts

• In Event: Round-Table Session 3
  In Round-table Session: Building Democratic Peace Through Handling Conflict in Schools? Evidence from México, Colombia, Bangladesh, and Canada

Proposal

In various countries, young citizens from low-income groups are at particular risk of having fewer opportunities to learn how to address and transform the social conflicts that most concern them (Cox, 2010; Marien, Hooghe & Quintelier, 2010; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008). Factors that may exacerbate this problem may include, on the one hand, the insufficiency of school-based learning opportunities for engaged democratic citizenship and peacebuilding. On the other hand, there may be a mis-match between the citizenship curriculum taught in schools and students’ own lived experiences of violence, conflict and citizenship (Torney-Purta & Amadeo, 2011).
Accordingly, depending on the ways violence, conflict and citizenship issues are handled, (or ignored), young citizens’ peacebuilding citizenship capacities may be encouraged (or impeded) by schooling (Gladden, 2002; Bush & Saltarelli, 2000; Chaux, 2009). On the other hand, if students do get opportunities to discuss their existing understandings of their own realities, they may gain capacity to identify potential solutions to mitigate the issues that most concern them (Reimers & Cardenas, 2010; Davies, 2005; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). In contrast, if students (especially those economically or socially marginalized) are denied these kinds of opportunities may be unable to (or discouraged from) constructively voice and defend their own or collective/community interests and needs.
This paper focuses on Colombian young students’ understandings, concerns and opportunities to learn – in their social sciences and history curriculum/learning activities – a key component of both democratic citizenship and peacebuilding education: resource conflicts (environmental and economic conflicts), including their causes and the possible actions that citizens (and organizations/institutions these young students know) can take to mitigate them. Also, in dialogue with their teachers, it examines the (mis-)match between the young people’s experience-based understandings/concerns and the curriculum practices actually implemented in their schools.
This research is based on three public urban schools located in different violent and economically marginalized contexts from Bogotá, Colombia. Qualitative data are drawn from: 1 focus group with 4-5 history/social sciences teachers, which discussed how their implemented curriculum practices may address resource conflicts (environmental and economic conflicts); 1 focus group workshop with 3-4 groups of 5 students (age 10-15) that elicited their understandings and feelings about resource conflicts and the actions that citizens (individually or collectively) could take to mitigate them, and their perceptions of relevant classroom practices that enable (or impede) them to address those issues. In a final field phase, the author conducted a second focus group conversation with the same 4-5 teachers per school to discuss initial findings (especially students’ concerns and understandings) in relation to their pedagogical practices, and a second focus group conversation with 3 groups of students per school to discuss and enlarge initial findings.
Students from Bogotá expressed their concern regarding resource-related conflicts, such as land grabbing, poverty-misery, drug trafficking, child labor, government corruption and pollution. Based on students’ experiences, data evidences that students identified how these conflicts worked, they identified the interests and needs of the affected parties, such as peasants, women, children, black people and indigenous people. Also, students identified perpetrators that continuously reproduce resource conflicts, such as multinationals, business owners, guerrilla groups, paramilitary groups, and political figures. When asked what citizens like themselves (individually or collectively) could do to mitigate/address such problems, students revealed their sense of despair and hopelessness, for them the alternatives rested on individual changes. When asked what kind of governance actions could address such problems, very few mentioned the peace process recently signed that addresses land issues. In most cases, students saw corruption and governance issues as factors that constantly reproduce/aggravate the social-structural injustices that affect them.
Teachers also identified resource-related conflicts that concerned them, such as poverty, drug trafficking, corruption and land grabbing. Same as students, their proposed alternatives to address these issues were based on individual changes. For both students and teachers there is a lack of trust in the government, its institutions and its processes. When asked about their curriculum practices implemented in their schools, they mentioned that few topics were addressed.
This paper contributes to the understanding of the (mis)match between planned curriculum, teachers' perspectives, students’ understandings/concerns, and the education needed for sustainable peacebuilding in Colombia. Also, it sheds light on the ways learning opportunities within the subjects of history and social sciences education may address (or not) the roots and alternatives of indirect violence in Colombia, a post accord society.



References

Bush, K., & Saltarelli, D. (2000). The two faces of education in ethnic conflict. Towards a peacebuilding education for children. Nursing times (Vol. 81). Italy: Unicef. doi:10.1038/nchem.944
Cox, C. (2010). Oportunidades de aprendizaje escolar de la ciudadanía en América Latina: currículos comparados. Bogotá: Ministerio de Educación Nacional.
Chaux, E. (2009). Citizenship competencies in the midst of a violent political conflict: the colombian educational response. Audio-Visual Communication Review, 13(1), 116. doi:10.1007/BF02770787
Davies, L. (2005). Teaching about conflict through citizenship education. International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1(2), 17–34.
Gladden, M. (2002). Reducing school violence: strengthening student programs and addressing the role of school organizations. Review of Research in Education, 26, 263–299.
Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2008). High Quality Civic Education : What Is It and Who Gets It ? Social Education, 7(1), 34–39.
Marien, S., Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. (2010). Inequalities in non-institutionalised forms of political participation: A multi-level analysis of 25 countries. Political Studies, 58(1), 187–213. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00801.x
Reimers, F., & Cardenas, S. (2010). Youth Civic Engagement in Mexico. Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, 139–160.
Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. (2000). Community violence exposure and children’s Social adjustment in the school peer group: the mediating roles of emotion regulation and social cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 670–683.
Torney‐Purta, J., Amadeo, J.-A., & Andolina, M. (2010). A conceptual framework and multimethod approach for research on political socialization and civic engagement. Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, 497–523. doi:10.1002/9780470767603.ch19

Author

• Angela Guerra-Sua, OISE, University of Toronto