Sri Lanka: In Peace or in Pieces? A Critical Approach to Peace Education in Sri Lanka

Abstract

This article seeks to explore the 'two faces of education' through a critical analysis of peace education in Sri Lanka. It aims to contribute to the wider debate on the complex role of education in situations of conflict. The article starts with an overview of what peace education is, or should be. This leads to the conclusion that peace education cannot succeed in isolation, and needs to be incorporated in a multilevel process of peacebuilding. Further analysis draws from Bush & Saltarelli's notion of the 'two faces of education', combined with Lynn Davies's notion of 'war education'. These notions help to explain to what extent (peace) education in Sri Lanka contributes to positive or negative conflict, or, in other words, which one of the two 'faces' is most prominent. The positive side of education is employed through inter-group encounters, the stimulation of self-esteem and a 'peaceful school environment'. Through dialogue and understanding, these initiatives stimulate a desegregation of a very segregated school system and society. However, these positive initiatives remain limited. Other, more structural issues, tend to work towards the negative face of education, by fostering segregation, fear and bias rather than counteracting them. These issues form pressing challenges for peace educators and policy makers in Sri Lanka. Critically informed research and evaluation should provide guidelines for well-thought through peace education initiatives, by working towards a combination of critical theory and problem-solving approaches to deliver both critical and hands-on guidelines for further peace education initiatives.

Losing ground: a critical analysis of teachers’ agency for peacebuilding education in Sri Lanka

“…However, this gradually led to an ethnically and religiously segregated school system, wherein different ethnic groups were educated in separate schools in their own medium of instruction. Some argue that this segregated education structure has established and maintained misrecognition and contributed to the polarization of society (MoE, 2006a;Lopes Cardozo, 2009;2008;Jeyaratnam Wilson, 2000;Bush and Saltarelli, 2000).…”

“…Six years later, the 1997 General Education Reform specified that all pupils should learn both Sinhala and Tamil languages. Within the field of teacher education the reform introduced a new emphasis on human rights and values, principles of democracy and national cohesion, gender rights, environmental protection and proficiency in all three languages (Lopes Cardozo, 2008;Davies, 2011). A special Unit for Social Cohesion and Peace Education was formed within the Ministry of Education to initiate and coordinate activities aimed at uniting pupils and stimulating harmony.…”

“…A special Unit for Social Cohesion and Peace Education was formed within the Ministry of Education to initiate and coordinate activities aimed at uniting pupils and stimulating harmony. Although some aspects of peace education were promoted under different policies until 2008, a proper and unified plan for implementation was missing (Lopes Cardozo, 2008). Therefore, with support from the German organization GIZ a National Policy on Education for Peace and Social Cohesion and a Comprehensive Framework of Actions was formulated in 2008 to increase innovation of existing programs, provide coherence and coverage, avoid duplication and ensure sustainability (Davies, 2011;2, 2011).…”

“…At the national government level, the main bodies are the Unit for Social Cohesion and Peace Education and the National Institute of Education. The main non-governmental bodies are GIZ and UNESCO (Lopes Cardozo, 2008;Hoeks, 2011). From the 1990s onwards, the governance of most schools has been more and more decentralized to the nine provincial education offices and the 95 education zones (MoE, 2006b).…”

“…A teacher's job is a political and highly responsible one, and teachers' strategies in times of (post)war situations need to be investigated in relation to teachers' potential positive or negative influence on processes of peace/conflict. Teachers' actions (or inaction) cannot be disconnected from the potential positive or negative faces of education in Sri Lanka (Bush and Saltarelli, 2000;Lopes Cardozo, 2008). …”