Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Bush and Saltarelli’s two faces of education model
The model seeks to unravel the constructive and destructive impacts of education herein referred to as the two faces of education. The bottom line is that education initiatives in a diverse populated area can have effects that are radically opposed (Bush & Saltarelli, 2000:vii) such that the implementers must seek to deconstruct structures of violence and construct structures of peace. Inevitably, education is believed to impact on the society for the good and for the ill (positively or negatively). They argue further that a clearer understanding of positive and negative impacts of education can be gained by looking at both faces of education. The model suggests, that teachers stop doing the wrong thing by identifying the initiatives that do harm (Bush & Saltarelli, 2000:27), on the one hand, and on the other continue to nurture and do the right thing by developing a better understanding of positive impacts of educational initiatives. The two faces of education resonate with Freire’s (1972) analysis of education as a two-edged sword that, when handled by an oppressor, which on one hand, when it is manipulated by the oppressor, can be restrictive to the extent of relegating people to a culture of silence, while on the other hand, where education is made truly accessible, it can be a truly liberating and empowering pedagogy. What are the ingredients of the two faces?
The negative face of education is characterised by the following five ingredients:
Uneven distribution of education
Education as a weapon of culture repression
Denial of education as a weapon of war
Manipulation of history for political purposes
Manipulation of textbooks
Uneven distribution of education is regarded a serious source of friction in contexts characterised by diverse learner populations (Bush & Saltarelli, 2000:9). Education is highly valued in contemporary societies. In this respect, cultural conflict is fuelled when it is unevenly allocated. The groups that are educationally disadvantaged are affected socially, politically and economically for generations. In an ethnically stratified society (Bush & Saltarelli, 2000:9) privileged groups may attain a higher average educational level than groups of lesser status for the clear reason that educational attainment is enhanced by a privileged background (Bourdieu in Haralambos, Holborn & Heald, 2008:67). More specifically, the privileged are those endowed with capital in the form of financial wealth and social status, with particular reference to membership of the dominant culture of the region, and are well-placed to achieve in all facets of life. For instance, the dominant ethnic group may control the political process by which schools are funded and structured and, by the same token, promote schools attended by children belonging to their group or class, or who reside in their own educational district (Bush & Saltarelli, 2000:9).
Education can be used to repress culture by serving as an instrument of ethnocide, defined by Stavenhagen in Bush and Saltarelli (2000:10) as “the process whereby culturally distinct people lose their identity as a result of policies designed to erode their land and resource base, the use of their language, their social and political institutions, as well as their traditions, art, religious practices and cultural values”. case in point is the education system in independent Zimbabwe which has pushed aside some indigenous languages (Ndamba, 2013), eroding ethnic groups’ cultures.
Peace education and peace building model
This model is a continental peace resource founded in 1984 by an organisation called Nairobi Peace Initiative (NPI) (2015:1). The model was brought int perspective in 2008 at a regional conference on peace education in eastern and central Africa held in Nairobi, Kenya, by the NPI (Shaw, 2008:1). As a result of its drive towards peace building, the NPI was awarded 2012 Africa peace of the year accolade (Nairobi Peace Initiative, 2015:1). In a diverse populated area marked by cultural conflict, peace education is an avenue by which individuals and communities can be taught and persuaded to shun a culture of violence and adopt values and behaviours of a culture of peace (Nairobi Peace Initiative, 2008:5). In South Africa, a rainbow nation, peace education is incorporated into the reconciliation process (Shaw, 2008:6). Ethnic tensions supposedly expressed by xenophobic attacks on Zimbabwean refugees can gradually be minimised if the peace education initiative is implemented effectively.
Peace education is an umbrella term that describes the process by which educators support young people to cope with heightened personal and social risk, such as peer pressure, violence and bullying or alienation (Shaw, 2008:6). The goal of peace education is to build a culture of peace in schools (USAID, 2011:7). The Coalition of Peace in Africa (COPA) (2008:3) reports that “since the future of any nation depends on how responsible its young people are, inculcating a culture of peace in young generations will ensure that in the years to come Africa will have a core group of people in decision making positions who value diversity, social cohesion and community co-existence”. COPA (2008:3) indicates that peace education can effectively reduce cultural conflict in a number of areas. Bush and Saltarelli (2000:27) suggest in a close analysis of peace education that cultural conflict can be reduced significantly if peace-building rather than mere peace education were implemented. Peace-building is a bottom-up venture whereas peace education is a top-down process. According to Bush and Saltarelli (2000:27), peace-building education is apart from being driven by the victims of cultural conflict, founded on their experiences and capacities. The peace-building curriculum includes teaching of conflict management techniques, critical reading skills, as well as cultivation of values of cultural tolerance and non-violence. Peace-building education would be firmly rooted in immediate realities of the victims of cultural conflict (Bush & Saltarelli, 2000:27). For example, if it is an immediate reality that the instructional materials in schools administered by mines are biased towards the culture of one group, they should be urgently modified to reflect diversity. Peace-building education is not confined to the classroom; it may include multi-ethnic community projects.
CHAPTER ONE ORIENTATION
1.1 INTRODUCTION .
1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.3 AIM OF THE RESEARCH
1.4 MOTIVATION FOR THE RESEARCH.
1.5 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
1.6 ELUCIDATION OF CONCEPTS .
1.8 OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
1.9 SUMMARY
CHAPTER TWO CONTEXT OF SCHOOLS ADMINISTERED BY MINES IN ZIMBABWE
2.1 INTRODUCTION .
2.2 PRE-COLONIAL CONTEXT
2.3 COLONIAL EDUCATION
2.4 POST-COLONIAL EDUCATION
2.5 CULTURAL CONFLICT IN THE LANGUAGE DOMAIN
2.6 TEACHER’S KNOWLEDGE AND PEDAGOGICAL COMPETENCE AS REGARDS DIVERSITY
2.7 STRATEGIES THAT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED TO REDUCE CULTURAL CONFLICT IN SCHOOLS
2.8 SUMMARY
CHAPTER THREE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR THE REDUCTION OF CULTURAL CONFLICT IN DIVERSE (MULTICULTURAL) SOCIETIES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
3.3 MODELS FOR THE REDUCTION OF CULTURAL CONFLICT IN CONTEXTS CHARACTERISED BY DIVERSITY
3.4 SUMMARY
CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN .
4.3 RESEARCHER’S ROLE
4.4 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
4.6 CREDIBILITY
4.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .
4.9 SUMMARY
CHAPTER FIVE DATA PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
AN EDUCATION STRATEGY TO REDUCE CULTURAL CONFLICT IN SCHOOLS ADMINISTERED BY MINES IN ZIMBABWE
