Peace Education : A Review and Projection

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 445 967 SO 031 549 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION ISSN PUB DATE NOTE AVAILABLE FROM PUB TYPE EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS IDENTIFIERS Reardon, Betty A. Peace Education: A Review and Projection. Peace Education Reports No. 17. School of Education, Malmo (Sweden). Dept. of Educational and Psychological Research. ISSN-1101-6426 1999-08-00 49p. Department of Educational and Psychological Research, Malmo University, S-205 06 Malmo, Sweden; Tel: +46-40-6657000; Web site: http://www.mah.se/english/. Reports Descriptive (141) MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. Conflict Resolution; *Futures (of Society); *Global Approach; Higher Education; *International Cooperation; *Peace; War; *World Affairs; World Problems *Peace Education; *Peace Studies; World Order Studies ABSTRACT This report presents reflections on the substance, evolution, and future of peace education. Within an area of common purposes, a broad range of varying approaches are noted. The report discusses, for example: conflict resolution training, disarmament education, education for the prevention of war, environmental education, global education, human rights education, multicultural education, nuclear education, and world-order studies. The report finds that peace education, always marginal in the past in relation to mainstream education, now faces less resistance than earlier and that the culture of peace concept steadily gains currency. Outlines recommendations for future work with peace education. Contains 41 notes and a 55-item selected bibliography. (BT) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Department of Educational and Psychological Research Malmo University School of Education S-205 06 Malmo, Sweden Peace Education: A Review and Projection BETTY A. REARDON r1( rU.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS EN GRANTED BY Cr) O este.c1i. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) C/D EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION /CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. 1 No. 17 Peace Education Reports ISSN 1101-6426 BEST COPY AVAILABLE AUGUST 1999 PEACE EDUCATION: A REVIEW AND PROJECTION Betty A. Reardon In this report Dr. Betty A. Reardon presents reflections on the substance, evolution, and future of peace educationa field in which she has been a keen observer and a very active participant for some thirty-five years. Within an area of common purposes, a broad range of varying approaches are noted. Discussed in the report are, for example: conflict resolution training, disarmament education, education for the prevention of war, environmental education, global education, human rights edu- cation, multicultural education, nuclear education, and world-order studies. The author finds that peace education, always marginal in the past in relation to mainstream education, now faces less resistance than earlier and that the culture of peace concept steadily gains currency. Recommendations for the future work with peace education are outlined. 3 3 PEACE EDUCATION: A REVIEW AND PROJECTION Betty A. Reardon Peace Education Program Box 171, Teachers College Columbia University New York, NY 10027 The Nature of the Field: Multiple Approaches; Common Purposes As I write these reflections on the substance and evolution of peace education, the field, which I have observed from within for some thirtyfive years, seems to me on the brink of an unprecedented major advance into public acceptance. Peace education so long marginal, as seen from mainstream education may, after all, have a significant future. Like any reflection on a varied, often controversial, field, this essay is written from a particular personal perspective and is not without substantive bias or pedagogical preference. While my experience in peace education is perhaps more international than national, my opinions and perspectives are, of course, affected by U.S. citizenship and European American cultural identity. To contemplate the future of peace education it is necessary to comprehend what is meant by the term itself, the evolution of the substance it comprises and analyze the particular needs for further development of the field. The practices and perspectives that comprise the field are varied and not fully consistent one with the other. Indeed, there is an apparent reluctance to define it precisely, perhaps because it is a multi-disciplinary field found in a wide range of learning environments practiced by educators with varying concerns and perspectives. This lack of definition may have served to preserve the element of creativity which has been a source of pride among practitioners. It may be in part due to lack of the organizational structure that characterizes other fields, such as pro- 4 fessional associations and specific departments in schools of education. Peace education has been limited to only a very few such departments that have had insufficient influence on mainstream education. In professional associations it has also been marginalized. While there are citizens' organizations that espouse, encourage, even facilitate the practice and some professional organizations that have within them groups devoted to sharing experiences and informing their colleagues of the needs for and educational possibilities of peace education, there are no major national or international peace education organizations, and only recently has peace itself and specific preparation for it become a major focus of UNESCO. The lack of definition, however, is most likely because peace education has sprung up in many parts of the world, often independently of efforts in other countries, and has been developed in various subject areas. Yet the field has evolved, in some few cases, even flourished and developed in the various forms which seem to defy clear and precise definition that can be universally applied. Impelled by a range of socio-political concerns, the varied professional specializations of the practitioners, and the distinct, particular historic circumstances that have led to the emergence of a variety of approaches and issue foCuses, there is not one standard field but a variety of sub-fields loosely held together by a few common purposes. It is from those purposes that I will attempt for the purposes of this essay, to derive a definition which will offer some descriptions of the major practices, their perspectives, assumptions and goals, within the context of the historical circumstances that led educators to adopt them. I will, as well, offer comments on some of the historical context and public issues surrounding their introduction into the schools. If asked what purpose practitioners of each approach to peace education are pursuing through their particular pedagogies, most responses will indicate that a major goal is a more humane society, be that on a community, national or global basis. There is, as well, a shared assumption that such a society derives from positive, mutually beneficial relationships among the members of the society, regarded both corporately and individually. Another :common assumption seems to be that peace can only obtain under the existence of the fundamental precondition of mutually advantageous circumstances. This assumption extends to the belief that all concerned need to understand what constitutes such 5 circumstances and seek to maintain them. Further, most would also agree that in the contemporary world such circumstances are limited in even the best cases and absent in most cases. We live in a world of disparities where few enjoy advantages, a world of peacelessness. As educators, most would also argue that unless their respective populations are intentionally educated to understand and to pursue what is mutually beneficial to their own groups and diverse other groups and individuals, in no case will a society experience these circumstances which, for the purposes of this discussion, will be called "peace". Peace, then, is possible when society agrees that the overarching purpose of public policies is the achievement and maintenance of mutually beneficial circumstances that enhance the life possibilities of all. Such an agreement is sometimes identified as universal respect for human rights. It is also interpreted as an agreement to renounce the use of violence within the society, and to develop nonviolent processes for dispute settlement and decision making. Such agreements are, however, seldom fully and universally realized even within the national boundaries of democratic societies that enjoy a generally peaceful order. But at least at the level of publicly declared national values, if not daily practice, such societies espouse the human rights of their citizens and legally prohibit violence among them. There is no general, firmly held agreement on these principles at the level of world society, and some peace educators hold this to be a contributing factor in the widespread breakdown of the agreement within national societies, or more accurately, nation states and "former" nation states. Few would hold that peace could exist in the absence of a consensus on respect for human rights and prohibition of violence. Thus, although seldom articulated in these particular terms (Indeed, clear statements of conceptual definitions and social learning purposes are rare in many educational practices, even those of greater conformity and commonality in content and approach), the hope of strengthening human rights and reducing violence in the global society informs all the varied approaches to peace education, the absence of a consensus on definition not withstanding. Some will note that the two fundamental aspects of this stipulated definition of peace are reflective of the definitional distinctions peace researchers have made between "negative peace", the absence of war, and 6 "positive peace", the presence of justice and other peace values. (1) Some will probably also be aware that most who practice peace education are to some degree advocates of holism, both philosophically and pedagogically or as might be said by the academic peace researchers (some peace research is conducted by activists), in analysis and in policy application. Still other may say "in theory and in practice." Ho lists would argue that each of these categories is integral and essential to the other. It is this holistic approach to education that characterizes the advocates of comprehensive peace education who see a place for all the various teaching approaches as essential to an integrated framework of education for peace that comprehends both negative and positive peace. As will be discussed below, the holistic and comprehensive approaches are gaining ground as potentially the most effective routes to achieving the common purposes of all the approaches, especially when taking into account the recent historic circumstances that must be addressed by peace education. The trend is reflected in UNESCO's most recent policy statement on the field, the 1994 Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights, and Democracy (See Selected Bibliography) to be dealt with in greater detail in the discussion of current trends and future directions. In reviewing the historical evolution and practical development of the approaches, a common assumption about the essential nature of education can also be discerned. Given what all have attempted to do in introducing their respective approaches, they have assumed that two primary related functions of education are to provide knowledge about particular subject matter and develop capacities for addressing the subject in thought and action. From these assumptions, a common if not consensually or professionally agreed upon definition of peace education can be derived that can serve to construct a working definition and provide a vantage point from which to review the various approaches to the field. Peace education is the transmission of knowledge about requirements of the obstacles to and possibilities for achieving and maintaining peace, training in skills for interpreting the knowledge, and the development of reflective and participatory capacities for applying the knowledge to overcoming problems and achieving possibilities. This, then is a definition that includes all the approaches and can be used, not only for review and categorization, but also as the basis for creating a curricular relationship 7 among them which could comprise a holistically conceived, substantively comprehensive form of peace education. It should be noted that comprehensive peace education also connotes a developmental approach which argues that peace education should be included in the curriculum of all grade levels and developmental stages, and in all subject areas. As such it is learner centered, but the centering takes place with the focus of an interactive relationship between teacher and learner(s) in the learning process. Most practitioners of peace education assert that a learning process compatible with the concerns and developmental level of the learners is as important to effective pedagogy as is the subject matter to be learned. Among the various approaches to education for peace are some included in the realm of international education (later global education and/or world studies). Some take the form of multicultural education, and some more recent efforts evolved from environmental education. Each has a substantive base in a discipline. In the aforementioned approaches, the disciplines are respectively international relations, cultural anthropology and environmental sciences. Each was also derived in response to a perceived need for the citizenry to be informed about matters perceived as potentially or actually problematic; respectively: the emergence of a more complex system of international interdependence; demographic and social changes that initiated or intensified racism, religiously based strife, ethnic tensions and conflicts; and the growing severity of environmental degradation. Each of these approaches also would fall into the area of "education for peace" (2), that is education to create some of the preconditions for the achievement of peace. Other approaches to peace education might be called "education about peace" (2), education for the development and practice of institutions and processes that comprise a peaceful social order. These approaches which include: "creative" or "constructive" conflict resolution training; human rights education; and peace studies, which as practiced in elementary and secondary schools, is generally designated as "peace education", what is meant by the more narrow, traditional view of the field. Conflict resolution has its roots in jurisprudence, behavioral psychology, sociology and social change initiatives such as the American civil rights movements. 8 (3) It became a distinct field of university education and research in the 1950s and has been slowly but steadily growing to a place of some academic significance since then. It became a component of school peace education in the United States in the 1980s and in the 1990s began to be practiced in other countries, particularly those in "post conflict situations". Human rights education is 'a later entry into the schools and the uni- versities, the first university programs outside law schools being established in the late seventies and early eighties. The field, however, did not come to the schools so much as a translation of the substance of university courses and research as a response to what was seen as a virtual crisis in human and social relations, manifest in political repression, socio-economic deprivation, racism and sexism. While it placed some emphasis on the international standards, mainly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it focused more on the fundamental concept of human dignity and the problems and possibilities of the interpretations the various cultural traditions and legal systems gave to the concept. Peace education when so called in schools and the few universities in which it appears in the curriculum is perceived and defined somewhat differently by the general field of education than it is by the practices I would identify as components of the field of "peace knowledge" which comprises peace research, peace studies and peace education. (4) For the most part the subject matter peace education transmits is derived from the field of peace research which, like conflict resolution, emerged in the 1950s out of the work of individual researchers, mainly in the social sciences, in various parts of the world, but mainly in Europe. Called in its early days, "polemology" and/or "irenology", it formally took the generic name of peace research when the International Peace Research Association was established in 1964. Peace research has entered the universities through institutes that conduct research and courses which teach the substance and methods of the field to future researchers. It also informs peace studies which have been introduced into university curricula mainly, but not exclusively, through the social sciences, and mostly in the United States. Some universities have multidisciplinary peace studies programs which offer degrees. This article, however, will deal with peace education as an aspect of the field methodologically 9 concerned with instructional approaches as learning modes appropriate to the general education of large numbers, and thus pursues its purposes primarily but not exclusively in elementary and secondary schools, in all parts of the world. Most of the experiences recounted here, however, took place in the United States or in "international" settings and through "transnational" initiatives. Within the more narrow, self defined field of peace education there are also various approaches, interpretations and some contention about what does and should constitute the field. For the purposes of this essay the stipulated qualifier will be planned and guided learning that attempts to comprehend and reduce the multiple forms of violence (physical, structural, institutional and cultural) used as instruments for the advancement or maintenance of cultural, social or religious beliefs and practices or of political, economic or ideological institutions or practices. As the earlier broader definition serves to categorize and interrelate all approaches to peace education, both for and about peace education, this definition serves the same purposes for the narrower self defined field of traditional "peace education" which is the major focus of this essay. Thus, greater attention will be given to the historical evolution, practices and purposes of education about peace, emphasizing knowledge and skills of peacemaking, most especially traditional peace education, than to education for peace emphasizing attitudes toward and awareness of global problems and human diversity. While both are indispensable components of comprehensive peace education, most traditionalists would argue that without the particular capacities and skills that comprise the° learning objectives of the traditional field no specific approach is adequate to the achievement of the goals implicit in the general definition. Thus traditional peace education has become the core of what I would call "essential peace education", as I would call education about peace, "supportive peace education." It is distinguished mainly by the aforementioned substantive attention to one or more forms of violence. 10 10 The Varied Purposes and Pedagogies of Education for and about Peace Education for peace is primarily concerned with knowledge and skills related to The requirements of and obstacles to . . . the achievement of peace. Of the approaches included here, international, multicultural and environmental education, international education has the longest history. The major educational goal of global or international education (5) is imparting knowledge and skills about the international system and global issues. The apparent assumption underlying this goal is that a well informed public is essential to citizens' calling for and supporting policies which are more likely to lead to peace. Some thought of this approach as education for world citizenship. They saw that citizenship as participation in or expressing opinions on the international policy making of the citizens' respective national governments, supporting the United Nations and exercising overall responsible national citizenship within a framework of global responsibility. Much of this education was thus devoted to cultivating understanding of foreign policy and developing a global perspective, but not all of it cultivated the critical stance traditional peace educators assumed to be necessary to the purposes of achieving peace. An exception to this were those curricular efforts that taught a structural and values analysis of the international system, and those forms of "development education", a subset or alternative approach to global education that guided students through an inquiry into the economics of poverty and global disparities. The goals pursued by multicultural education are in the areas of the attitudes, the perspectives, and the knowledge required for peoples of different cultural backgrounds and traditions to interact with each other on positive and constructive terms. Multicultural education has three main sets of roots, one in education for international understanding, another in antiracist education and one in education for religious tolerance. The fundamental cognitive objectives are detailed knowledge of one or more other cultures as a means to comprehend that there are various ways to be human and experience the world. The attitudes to be cultivated are tolerance of ways of life distinctly different from one's own, respect for the integrity of other cultures and an appreciation of the positive potential of cultural diversity. Multicultural education is widely 11 11 practiced in American and European schools and to some extent is being introduced in other areas experiencing ethnic tensions and conflicts. It is often introduced only for purposes of reducing such tensions in schools or communities, but even when not self consciously practiced as education for peace, it makes a contribution toward that goal. Multicultural education is also closely related to human rights education in that it teaches respect for other cultures and ways of life so as to lead to respect for the fundamental humanity of peoples of all cultures. This fundamental respect will mitigate against prejudice and discrimination and lead the learners to expect that all should be accorded fair treatment and that groups need not fear or be on guard against others simply because of cultural, religious or ethnic differences which in themselves pose no threat. Multicultural education has involved study of the cultures of other nations and of cultural and racial groups within multiethnic societies. It is a popular approach with internationally minded schools around the world such as the UNESCO Associated Schools. It has also been adopted in areas affected by significant demographic changes, often due to world problems and conflicts. The fundamental purpose of environmental education is the transmission of knowledge about the pervasive and dangerous threats to the global environment, the degradation of local and community environments and the interrelationships between local and global environments. On the basis of this knowledge it seeks to cultivate a commitment to the preservation of the environment and the development of a sense of environmental responsibility, particularly for one's immediate or community environment. With regard to this purpose, practitioners of environmental education have been among those who promote activism within and outside the schools as a mode of participatory learning that appears to be an effective means to educating for various forms of social responsibility. Students are encouraged and guided in "environment friendly" behaviors and initiatives, often involving taking specific responsibility for the quality of the environments of their schools and communities. Environmental education can be considered an approach to education for peace when it argues the preservation of the environment to be an 12 12 essential prerequisite to all human endeavors, including the achievement of peace. All environmental education is not truly peace education. Some of it is still conducted within a framework that views the environment as the surroundings of or venue for human activity. Few curricula or programs address such issues as the impact of war and "defense" preparation on the environment, and few make the links between poverty and environmental degradation. None-the-less, a number of leading international peace educators and some environmental educators have begun to make these links. (6) Those environmental educators who encourage consideration of the Gaia hypothesis that the Earth is a single, self-regulating system have, in fact, made some significant contributions to recent developments in peace education, namely, ecological thinking, that will be discussed in the later section of this essay. Environmental education comes closer to education about peace when it takes an ecological living system perspective and when in combination with development education it addresses issues of sustainability. The question of preserving environmental sustainability raises some of the structural issues that researchers working in the area of "positive" peace explore. This research and some of the education that it inspires demonstrates relationships among and between large scale development such as the industrialization of agriculture, increased economic burdens on the poor and environmental erosion. Such research is used to make the case that global economic structures give rise to "structural violence", that is avoidable harm done to economically vulnerable groups. Environmentalists -who claim that some economic policies and development practices have lead to irreversible damage to the environment, argue that they constitute a form of "ecological violence", avoidable harm to the biosphere. Educators who introduce consideration of these arguments, and those that arise from the atmospheric pollution, land destruction, water contamination and excess consumption of mineral resources resulting from military activity are clearly in the camp of education about peace, because they state the problematique addressed in their curricula in terms of violence, the fundamental concern of essential and traditional peace education. Education about peace is "essential peace education" in two respects. The substance it addresses is about what peace is, its essence, and assumes that 13 13 without knowledge of what comprises it, peace cannot be pursued, much less achieved. Certain knowledge is essential to peace. At present three approaches could be categorized as essential peace education, human rights education, conflict resolution and traditional peace education. It is these three approaches which are becoming the integrated core of comprehensive peace education. All three are primarily concerned with avoiding, reducing, and eliminating violence, and each emphasizes one of those three possibilities. Human rights educators argue that respect for human rights would encourage individuals, groups, even corporate entities such as the state to avoid inflicting intentional, unnecessary harm to any human being. Some would extend this avoidance to the living environment. Conflict resolution educators hold that a broader repertoire of behavioral skills for dealing with conflict would result in a significant reduction of the violence they assert occurs for lack of knowledge of or skills of nonviolent conflict processing and resolution. Traditional peace educators have come to believe that, at least, socially sanctioned state violence could be eliminated by the establishment of global structures and procedures for dealing with such war producing conflicts as power differences, political struggles, and economic competition. Some even argue that such institutions could help reduce other forms of social and political violence. (7) It is important to emphasize here that the peace knowledge field has identified various forms of violence. In addition to the politically organized violence of war and various forms of repression, and the structural violence of neocolonial economic institutions there is, as well, social violence such as racism, sexism and religious fundamentalism, and the cultural violence of patriarchal institutions, blood sports, and the glorification of violent historical events in national holidays and the banalization of violence in the media. And now, all of these forms of violence are being seen in their totality as a "culture of violence and war". (8) While there are various ways of conceptualizing and defining violence, for purposes of peace education, an effective definition has been "intentionally inflicted harm that is avoidable and unnecessary to the achievement of just and legitimate purposes". Such a conceptual framework comprehends all of the forms of violence above and explicates the purposes of the three main forms of essential peace education. 14 14 While there are some peace educators who have long approached education about positive peace through the study of human rights, it is only in the last decade that the field has become a distinct growing educational practice, formally recognized as such by UNESCO in the Montreal Declaration of 1993. (9) Human rights education is undertaken in all parts of the world, and in all spheres of education. It was given a significant impetus when the United Nations General Assembly declared a Decade of Human Rights Education in 1995. While it focuses much of its attention on the international human rights standards, it is not transmission of knowledge of the covenants and conventions that forms the primary goal of human rights education. The field seeks to engender such knowledge complemented by action skills for the implementation of the standards, familiarity with remediation procedures and capacities to challenge to states and other political actors to assure the human dignity of all members of human society. Essentially, it hopes to develop a general societal acceptance of human dignity as a fundamental principle to be observed throughout society and to assure that all people are aware that they are endowed with rights that are universal, integral and irrevocable. It also seeks to demonstrate the relevance of human rights concepts, issues and standards to a broad range of human and social problems. Some practitioners are advocating a holistic approach to human rights education which is consistent with the perspectives and purposes of comprehensive peace education. (10) Conflict resolution education comprises efforts to impart knowledge and understanding of conflict processes, the distinctions between constructive and destructive processes so that the constructive may prevail over the destructive. The most widespread form of conflict resolution education is skills training as applied to conflicts that occur in schools and the everyday life of students. Such education also takes place in corporations, non-governmental organizations and other such groups who wish to increase their effectiveness and avoid the waste of productive time of employees and members in conflicts that could undermine the health and effectiveness of an entire organization. In schools it has also been used to deal with discipline problems and to develop community and a sense of efficacy among students. The goal of most resolution processes is the determination of an outcome 15 15 that will end the immediate conflict so as to meet the perceived needs of both or all parties to the conflict. More recently, however, the underlying social and political factors are considered in the approach being taken by those practitioners who seek to develop capacities to derive longer range, "transformative" solutions, that address root causes such as structures, fundamental social norms or political values that play into conflict formations. The separations between traditional peace education and conflict resolution become less distinct as these issues are addressed. So, too, there is some convergence between human rights education and conflict resolution, a few practitioners adopt human rights principles as guidelines for assessing desirable outcomes to be sought in the resolution process. Some are also turning their attention to post conflict situations wherein processes of reconstruction and reconciliation are seen as extensions of the resolution process, taking a wider view of conflict resolution as a component of a broader peace making process. Traditional peace education has always been concerned with the broader peacemaking process. Some practitioners have included conflict resolution as one of various essential skills necessary to both citizens and policy makers if war is to be eliminated and other forms of violence are to be de-legitimized. Traditional peace education began with a concern that learning be developed to avoid war. Some few even spoke of abolition as a goal of both the peace movement and peace education which was conceived as a component of that movement. In many respects peace education has continued to be more closely tied to the peace movement than the other realms of peace knowledge, peace research and peace studies. At present peace education draws its inspiration and support mainly from the communities served by the school in which it is practiced. Because peace education is practiced in the schools, it is not only concerned with community standards and social factors which affect public education, it unfolds in the environment which produces the adherents of social movements, the local community. Indeed, peace education came into the schools more as the consequence of citizen action and the particular concerns of individual teachers than of educational policy. Citizens groups in association with nongovernmental organizations appealed to individual schools and local school boards for the introduction 16 16 of some of the approaches discussed here. Some of these organizations also provided resources and services to teachers to facilitate this introduction. Some such as Educators for Social Responsibility, founded by teachers in the United States offered in-service teacher education programs that were school and community based and often supported by contributions from peace movement members and organizations. (11) The importance of this citizen action in the dissemination of peace education is seldom recognized, but it is not likely that the field could have developed to its present point without this involvement. It also accounts for some of the controversy which has surrounded the field throughout its history. Changing Historic Circumstances: Issues and Controversies While most who identify themselves as peace educators have had, from time to time, at least one professional foot in one of the various approaches described here, the term peace education generally applies to those whose primary work is in traditional or essential peace education. My professional work has been based there with some considerable experience, as well, in world order studies and human rights education leading me to the comprehensive approach and ecological and cooperative peace education. More recently, I have begun to explore educating for a culture of peace as the organizing framework most conducive to what I see as the needs and possibilities of peace education in these "millennial" years. As the categories and definitions offered here derive largely from the geographic and cultural ground on which I work, my view of the evolution and future of the field is conditioned by an admittedly subjective perspective on the historical evolution of peace education since the 1960s. I have included here only those developments I, personally, perceived as being significant influences on the field. Traditional peace education has deep historical and broad geographical roots. Some of them so entwined with the history of nonviolence, that some researchers claim that religious teachings regarding personal behavior and social obligations that prohibit violence are in fact forms of peace education, making the field perhaps the oldest form of social 17 17 education. In this century it has been associated with child centered education and "progressive" education, Maria Montessori and John Dewey both having been advocates of peace education. Several educators and peace researchers, most notably Clint Fink, Aline Stomfay-Stitz, David Smith and Terry Carson have researched this history and published some of their findings. (12) Traditional peace education is, thus, a field which predates the theories and circumstances which have determined contemporary curriculum and educational practice and the various forms of education for and about peace, many practices of which seem unaware of the roots and earlier achievements of the field. However, as it has evolved in the period since the close of World War II, peace education, particularly in the United States, has reflected this theory along with the historic conditions which inspired the various forms presented here as the landscape which surrounds it. The most significant of these forms of post war essential peace education have been war prevention, non-violence, world order studies, nuclear education, comprehensive peace education and ecological and cooperative education. The latter I consider to be the latest phase of comprehensive peace education. All were the consequence, as were the various forms of education for peace or "supportive peace education", of educators' responses to particular historic conditions and/or forms of organized violence, and, in the case of essential or traditional peace education, of strategic and security doctrines and policies. Peace education as such did not appear in school curriculum for a number of years after the war, although service agencies and education groups such as those sponsored by the Quakers consciously conducted some of their efforts under the label. International university education was more in currency, and was developing along the lines noted above of education to develop a public that would be better informed about world affairs and foreign policy. As the Cold War developed some of these efforts in the United States were openly education for understanding "the national interest" and in many cases "anticommunist education". While many educators specifically interested in education for peace emphasized "international understanding and cooperation" and encouraged study of the United Nations, it was not until the nineteen sixties that the critical approach to these issues that characterized peace education became part of 18 the curriculum reform movement that was affecting educational practice in Europe and the United States. Indeed, some of this reform was in response to the demand for a more rigorous substantive curriculum in the hard sciences and social sciences to assure a population well prepared to compete in the international power stakes of the times. However, there was also a call to continue the progressive education tradition of inquiry, critical thinking and problem solving. Peace educators defined war as a world problem and asserted that inquiry and critical skills were required to solve it. The intention to develop these capacities led to that period's phase of peace education, education for the prevention of war. This was an approach that was followed in the universities that had established courses or programs in peace studies as well as in the schools. (13) Buoyed by the wave of educational innovation in the social sciences and renewed calls for peace, war prevention education came into the schools in the form of anthologies about war, simulation games demonstrating the costs of war and some of the alternative courses of action that might be used to avoid war. (14) 1963 was a pivotal year in this phase of peace education because of the promulgation of Pope John XXIII's encyclical letter, "Pacem in Terris" and President John F. Kennedy's commencement address at American University, "Toward a Strategy of Peace", in which he announced the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Two major world authorities had called for an all out effort to achieve peace, providing the basis for some good curriculum material and validating and legitimizing the efforts of peace educators. For a short time, the barriers of suspicion and censorship which had become inhibiting factors in the development of peace education were lowered a bit. (15) This period lasted until the end of the decade when a very different climate had quite different effects on the schools than on the universities. The escalation of the war in Vietnam led to the student unrest and "teach ins" on university campuses that resulted in a proliferation of peace studies programs. However, the early public support for the war made it more difficult to engage in war prevention education in the schools. Peace education, not only in the United States, but in Europe as well, became even more an avenue for the development of critical thinking and brought ethical issues into those few classrooms in which it continued to be practiced. (In spite of the climate many teachers, not all with the 19 19 support of their administrations, raised issues associated with the war in their classes.) Although it was in many respects a set back for peace education, this, the forerunner of the "low intensity conflicts" that were to become the primary form of warfare in the succeeding decades, many of them proxy wars in the power struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union, brought significant new substantive and methodological developments to the fields of traditional and essential peace education. It was a set back because, rationalized as it was as a war against the spread of communism, to defend democracy and "Western Values" against an- other totalitarian onslaught, it invigorated some of the anticommunist sentiment that painted peace education with the colors of "disloyalty" and lack of patriotism. In spite of the supposed tradition of the rights to dissent and criticism of public authority that were usually cited as fundamental to Western democracy, criticism and resistance were censured, and critical education frowned upon. (16) Many school administrators found it prudent to encourage teachers to take up other less "controversial" global problems than national security policy. Anything seen to undermine national security, including questioning the analyses and policies of the security establishments was suspect as undermining "our way of life". The tensions and conflicts of the larger society also affected the peace and global education movements themselves. The collaboration of the sixties gave way to differences and separations that together with issues of funding served to fragment the American movement. The negative attitude toward critical peace education was also aroused by the pedagogies that were becoming part of the reforms taking place in social education which saw its own splits and controversies. The Freirean dialogic method which appeared in the seventies and was rapidly embraced by peace educators was thought by more conservative elements of the public and some in the educational establishments to be a faddish diversion from teaching the "basics", the fundamental subjects and skills. Values education came under special fire, not only for raising criticism about public issues, but also for challenging students to examine fundamental private and personal values thought to be the realm in which the young should receive instruction only from their families and religious institutions, not the schools. 20; 20 It was in this area of values that some of the most important strides were made in essential peace education both methodologically and substantively. Ethical and moral issues were confronted on several fronts; the legality of an undeclared war, questions of individual responsibility raised by dissent against the war policy and resistance to military service on the basis of law and conscience, both selective resistance to particular wars and general resistance on the basis of general conscientious objection. The morality of war had long been a component of traditional peace education, especially among those who taught the philosophy and practice of nonviolence, and in religiously based schools, particularly Quaker and Catholic institutions. Now it was raised in some nonreligious settings, using not scripture and just war doctrine, but the Nuremberg Principles as the basis for moral reflections. Another issue merged questions of structural and organized violence as the assertions regarding the underlying economic motivations for the war were examined, raising questions about the morality of neo-colonialism and such questions as were posed in the international political discourse by the call for a New International Economic Order (NIEO). Study of the war in Vietnam strengthened a bit, but only temporarily, efforts initiated by some law education projects to introduce elements of international law into the curricula of social education. (17) A more substantial development was the introduction of the issue of individual responsibility in the international system, especially important to the youths in secondary schools who were facing decisions regarding military service. Some peace educators felt morally obliged to help them sort through these issues with sound ethical analysis based on knowledge of the nature of the war, principles of international law and personal morality. (18) Individual and political morality were not the only ethical issues raised. Questions of economic justice and the life styles of the affluent were also brought into the inquiry as what some argued to be the underlying economic motives for the war were explored, bringing to a personal and communal level the global structural issues emerging from discussion of the NIEO. While essential and critical peace education was hardly popular, those who continued the practice developed some significant new dimensions to the field. Not all critical peace educators were pacifists, nor did all open 21 21 the institution of war itself to question. Those who did, including and especially those who taught the philosophy and practice of nonviolence and those in religiously oriented schools (such as the Catholics and the Quakers) had long considered the ethical and moral issues raised by war itself. (19) Study of the Vietnam war for which the primary basis of dissent and resistance were moral and legal principles brought the ethical dimension more integrally into the field, even in the public schools. The inquiry was extended not only to questions of individual responsibility in the international system raised by the issues of selective resistance to military service in illegal or immoral wars and fundamental conscientious objections facing many of the youths of secondary school age, but also to the wider question of the responsibilities of all in societies where the high standard of living of large numbers of the population were attributable to the imbalance in global economic structures researchers had classified as violent. As noted above, some ethical criticism was extended to the economic institutions and motives that were argued to be the underlying motivations of this and other "neocolonial" struggles. Questions of the world economy and the "life styles" of the affluent nations became integral to the values issues explored by peace education. Pope Paul's axiom, "If you want peace, work for justice" was translated into the terrain of peace education under the assertion that teaching about or for peace, necessitates teaching about and for economic and social justice. Here was another instance in which human rights, economic and social structures were linked inextricably to essential peace education, as the structural, institutional and values dimensions of peace education were clarified and systematized in the world order approach which like the ethical issues of low intensity conflict and neocolonialism became a distinct approach to essential peace education. (20) While most essential peace education has always been values oriented world order education took a particularly values explicit and specific approach. This approach to peace education derived from a peace research methodology designated as "world order inquiry" devised by the World Order Models Project (WOMP), a transnational peace research project established in 1968 by the Institute for World Order, then called the World Law Fund. The methodology comprised research into the potential designs of an alternative international system which could achieve the realization of a set of fundamental or "world order" values these researchers argued to 22 22 be, in one form or another, universal values: peace, social justice, economic well-being, ecological balance and political participation. (21) Instructional methods and school curricula were developed using some of the research devices employed by WOMP. The core of these curricular developments were the "world order values". Since the world order approach to peace education was an inquiry openly and explicitly values, systems and future based, world order inquiry was less practiced than the war prevention approach. The older approach, from the point of view of the advocates of world order inquiry, had moved a bit too much from the consideration of the prevention of war as such, to an inquiry into the possible resolution of one war, the American intervention in the war between North and South Vietnam. From this perspective the war prevention approach was more concerned with foreign policy issues than with alternatives to the institution of war. World order inquiry led students through study of various cases of international conflict, including Vietnam, reflecting on the institutional requirements of resolution and termination not only of the particular conflict but also on the possibilities for resolution and prevention of similar future conflicts becoming violent. World order studies was fundamentally a values based inquiry into the changes in the international system which could assure a more peaceful, just and ecologically viable global society. (22) As all traditional critical and essential peace education was inhibited by the war in Vietnam, so too, the intensification of the ideological and power struggles of the Cold War in from 1978 to 1982 was especially obstructive to the advancement of the system challenging and values explicit approach of world order studies. In the early 1980s, however, the changes in strategic doctrine and the development of the "Strategic Defense Initiative" that increased the possibilities of the use of nuclear weapons, led to a new, more widely practiced and less publicly challenged form of traditional or essential peace education yet to reach the schools, nuclear education. Nuclear education and the founding of Educators for Social Responsibility in the United States in 1982 and Teachers for Peace in Europe in 1984 inspired more vigorous, organized teachers' action than ever before. 23 23 Educators for Social Responsibility and International Teachers for Peace were generally similar in their curricular concerns, but had somewhat different stances on the politics of the issues they faced. Some European educators saw the task of the movement to be as political as it was educational. While the degree of political emphasis varied from country to country, it could be said that more classroom teachers preferred the emphasis to be on curricular matters, focusing efforts on persuading ministries as well as individual schools to undertake the emerging forms of peace education. Some who were not actually teachers believed that the educational tasks went beyond the schools, requiring education of the general public in the manner of other citizens' movements. These differences in the European movement (International Teachers for Peace was the product of a gathering of various national Teachers for Peace organizations in a conference which has taken place biennially since the first one in 1984) led to some controversy within the organization and eventually to a change of name to International Educators for Peace. In recent years International Educators for Peace have exerted efforts to mobilize educators for peace in regions of the world other than Europe, holding regional congresses in Senegal, Mexico, the United States and Canada. While the effort has helped to legitimize peace education, as has the support from teachers unions, it has not initiated the production of materials or the development of pedagogical practice or theory as have the Peace Education Commission of the International Peace Research Association or Educators for Social Responsibility, but some of its members have undertaken their own independent and collaborative curricular and training initiatives. In the United States, the movement initiated by Educators for Social Responsibility founded in Massachusetts in 1982, placed most of its emphasis on curriculum development, in-service teacher education and building collaborative contacts through exchanges or joint conferences with Soviet educators. The nuclear arms race was perceived to be part and parcel of the Cold War ideological and political struggle between the two Super Powers, a competition which had led to the demonization of the opponent on both sides of "The Iron Curtain". ESR, thus focused their curricular development work on two crucial areas that had considerable effect on critical and essential peace education, the nature 24 24 and potential consequences of nuclear warfare and understanding, not so much the Soviet political system as had been emphasized by the "antiCommunist" education of the sixties and seventies, as understanding the Soviet peoples in general and the Russians in particular. They produced a range of highly "teacher friendly" materials on both subjects. (23) While not without their share of resistance and controversies, these materials were generally well received by many concerned teachers and parents as well. (24) Nuclear education found its way into schools at all levels and in many subject areas, as did the particular form of education intended to increase understanding between the peoples of the United States and the Soviet Union as a major effort to avoid nuclear war. The efforts toward U.S. Soviet understanding were subject to some of the usual Cold War criticisms and accusations of eroding the need for resistance to communism and Soviet power. There was also some resistance to the study of nuclear war by parents who did not want their children subject to the possible trauma of instruction about the explicit and horrifying effects of nuclear weapons. Nonetheless there was strong enough popular support for efforts to avoid nuclear war, support further strengthened by the policy assertion that such a war could be won and might be necessary being advocated by some security analysts, to enable this new wave of peace education to bring the subject into schools where it never had been before. Nuclear education was one component of an area of peace education that had few adherents and fewer practitioners, disarmament education. Disarmament education seemed to produce an even more negative response, especially from the security establishment, than even the critical peace education practiced during the war in Vietnam, probably for two reasons in particular, "national security issues" and inability to distinguish between education and advocacy. The nuclear arms race among the super powers and nuclear powers was augmented by a parallel race in conventional arms that was consuming nations on both sides of the ideological divides, as well as the developing nations. These races were rationalized by the claimed imperatives of national security. The global arms race escalated to unprecedented proportions as virtually all nations accepted the notion that their national security depended on access to large numbers of sophisticated weapons. Whereas there was some adherence to the notion of arms control, the idea of disarmament per se, of reducing or 25 25 eliminating any significant volume of weapons, flew in the face of conventional notions of security. Secondly, but not less significant, was the reluctance of security establishments to have national security policy subject to open public examination or debate. It was a matter for experts that average adult citizens, much less adolescent students, were not competent to discuss or challenge. Inquiry into the arms race and exploration of alternatives to it, especially proposals regarding substantive disarmament were considered to be challenges to national security policy and advocacy of changes that would lead to vulnerability. The concept of inquiry into and evaluation of alternatives as a form of political education as distinct from political action was not understood. Inquiry into issues and problems of disarmaments was deemed to be a political contamination of "objective" education. Although the United Nations made some major efforts to change this climate with Special Sessions on Disarmament in 1978 and in 1982; and in spite of a history of various arms control agreements, national government continued to guard jealously their autonomous, often secretive, control of security decisions. Making the case for education fared no better. In 1980 UNESCO in fulfillment of a provision of the Final Document of the 1978 Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament held a World Congress on Disarmament Education that produced a much overlooked, but still significant Final Document of its own (Final Document of the World Congress on Disarmament Education, UNESCO, Paris, 1980). The document outlined the substance and dimensions of disarmament education and, in linking it to various other forms of peace education, anticipated the conceptualization of comprehensive peace education that informs the 1995 UNESCO Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy, and tried, apparently without success, to clarify the distinction between education and advocacy. It was not until a decade later when the International Association of University Presidents in association with the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs established a Commission on Disarmament Education that the theme re-entered the discourse on peace studies and peace education. (25) However, even these efforts by so distinguished an educational association did not advance the cause of disarmament education in the schools. Teachers, seemingly convinced of the caveat that it was a highly technical matter into which 26 26 inquiry required the knowledge of experts, chose instead to embrace conflict resolution as a more "teacher friendly" form of education for disarmament. (See note regarding education for and education about.) Even peace educators themselves were ambivalent in their stance toward disarmament education, some claiming that it was but another fragmentation of the field as exemplified by the various forms of education for and about peace. As such it would not strengthen the field. (26) Long a component of essential peace education during the later 1980s and through the 1990s conflict resolution education became the leading form of peace education, having been promoted and facilitated by various educational organizations, agencies and some NGOs. (27) Active training programs now exist in many parts of the world, frequently established as an antidote to social or political violence in society and/or to violence and disciplinary problems in the schools. At the university level more degree programs in peace and conflict studies were established during these years. University programs were built on conflict theory, while school curriculum emphasized practical skills and situation specific conflict resolution. As noted earlier, much of the training was conducted within the framework of strategic non-violence. Citizen training and teacher preparation in conflict resolution skills were introduced, often by American and European practitioners into various areas where political conflicts and struggles for justice were becoming violent or had already broken into violence. Comprehensive peace education, conceptualized so as to accommodate aspects of traditional peace education with both nuclear and disarmament education, advocates conflict resolution training as a skill development component of a cross curricular approach to peace education at all levels of elementary and secondary education. The approach, as noted earlier, seeks to integrate relevant aspects of education for and education about peace into a common conceptual framework with its foundation in the purposes of essential and traditional peace education and its pedagogies derived from a developmental concept of learning and social change. It was to some degree a response to the problem of fragmentation and proliferation of approaches to peace education. The substance of comprehensive peace education derives primarily from various efforts at trans- 27 27 national cooperation among peace educators, most notably those undertaken by members of the Peace Education Commission of the International Peace Research Association in the years since its founding in the early 1970s. Comprehensive Peace Education is a product of wider educational trends as well as the historical evolution of peace education. It owes much to the emergence of holism as a general principle of learning and curriculum development that gained more advocates among educators during the 1980s. (28) Much of the methodology proposed as comprehensive peace education has its roots in the alternative systems, system change and system transformation approach of world order inquiry. However, comprehensive peace education stretched the notion of system transformation beyond the structural and social implications of general and complete disarmament and global governance to the realms of culture and consciousness which had little or no currency in the realms of peace research and peace knowledge before the 1990s. The pedagogy of this approach remained true to its dialogic and Freirean roots as it incorporated aspects of the methods of discourse emerging from feminist scholarship and education that were becoming more widely practiced in universities, and having some effect on secondary schools. Feminist scholarship was another source of its holism. (29) An initiative in which Norwegian educators brought together American and Soviet educators (later Russian and Ukrainian) to collaborate on common projects and exchanges produced a later version of comprehensive peace education, ecological and cooperative education. This approach takes a global perspective, comprehending human political and economic diversities, along with the commonalities inherent in a single species striving for survival on one planet. (30) When the Project on Ecological and Cooperative Education first convened in Oslo in 1988, the American participants comprised advocates of both nuclear education and comprehensive peace education. This collaboration was to some degree made possible by the earlier cooperative efforts Educators for Social Responsibility had initiated between Soviet and American educators. Although both some of the participating Soviets and Americans had earlier been advocates of disarmament education, they did 28 not consider it a viable ground for their collaboration even in the waning years of the Cold War. They undertook the exploration of the grounding of their collaboration with a view to practical possibilities and the educational needs of global society. They encountered each other not only as Norwegians, Soviets and Americans but as global citizens all. In this exploration of subject matter and methodology which could inform a project to be embraced by both American and Soviet educators and, equally as important, not be subject to "discouragement" by their respective governments, a distinct approach to comprehensive peace education was devised that brought together all of these influences with the trend toward more proactive (and potentially critical) environmental education. In choosing the term "ecological" the participants not only elected environment as their common global problematique, they were, as well, seeking to develop a holistic living systems approach that would explore environmental issues within the dimensions discussed above; an approach that related the subject to peace as noted in the previous description of environmental education as a component of essential peace education; and that could form the foundation of a pedagogy that would facilitate a form of thinking beyond the structural systems type of thinking of world order inquiry. They sought to develop a form of ecological thinking, conceptually based on metaphors and models derived from natural, living systems, viewing the evolution of human social systems as a form of subsystem of the larger planetary system. It seemed that such a form of thinking based on a reverence for life was more conducive to the change in consciousness necessary to the envisioned transformation of the global social system. Ecological and cooperative education seeks a merger of ethical and ecological principles that marry the moral purposes of peace education to the intellectual and cognitive tasks of its social and political purposes. Some argue that ecological thinking also comes closer to the spiritual aspects of peace-making that are believed to be a source of the notion of human unity and universality that takes the biological reality of one human species into the realm of human consciousness wherein the seeds of transformation must be sewn. Such a mode of thinking and education has a strong affinity to the growing concept of a culture of peace which is now becoming a kind of short hand description of what peace educators have meant as the goal of global transformation. It is a 29 29 form of thinking that transcends culture and disciplines, seeking a fundamentally human perspective on education for a planetary future. All three areas of peace knowledge, however, have from their inception been multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and, in more recent times, transdisciplinary, too, as practitioners have made the argument that existing peace education, even as a widely included subject in schools and universities was far from adequate to the task it had undertaken. Peace, they argued, called for nothing less than a transformation of human society and all its institutions, including education, which in turn necessitated a transformation of human consciousness. In other words peace as a universal subject matter was not enough. Peace in its multiple forms and manifestations should become the core, the very purpose of all education. As such it must pervade the educational experience in content, pedagogy, school management and school community relations. It should become the ethos of the schools culture. (31) The Next Phase: Educating for a Culture of Peace No other idea has informed peace education with such profound transformational potential as the concept and vision of a culture of peace. While some approaches such as world order studies have promoted a values centered inquiry which challenges the ethics of the dual moral standards applied to the domestic and global realms under the existing international system, none, not even human rights education, has yet taken the peace inquiry into the deeper realms of human values and the human consciousness. Indeed, each of the approaches that evolved from essential peace education has attempted to probe fundamental values questions and involved ways of thinking that tended toward holism. Comprehensive peace education aspires to the development of a pedagogy that can contribute to the evolution of a global, humanist consciousness. Feminist approaches have challenged core social and cultural values in their explorations of the links between patriarchy and war and the systemic sexism and violence of the war system. Ecological approaches have brought us to a planetary perspective that enables peace educators to present the world to their students as one living system, in a manner 30 30 which awakens an awareness of human spirituality as the manifestation of humanity's integral relationship with that living systeman approach which opens the way for reflection on the cosmology from which cultures of war and violence have evolved. But none of these newer phases, even those who are undertaking to apply post modernism to peace education, (32) have produced a pedagogy or an educational scheme of the transformational dimension necessary to a culture of peace. The military modes of pursuing national interest and other social goals that world order inquiry described as a war system have come to be recognized by many more peace educators as the international structures that arise from and are sustained by a culture of war. Recently this more comprehensive and systematic analysis is becoming more widely applied to the discourse on peace. (33) However, even these efforts, taking place in an atmosphere in which peace studies flourishes in more colleges and universities and peace education becomes more widely accepted and practiced in the school, have not confronted the real challenge of cultural change. Indeed, in the discourse of transcultural collaboration on many global concerns, culture remains an untouchable, sacrosanct area of the human condition. (34) Even those who have offered the analysis of the relationship between culture and the war system (35) have not adequately probed the role of consciousness in the formation of the culture of war, and no peace educators have fully addressed the role of education in the formation of consciousness and socialization for war. (36) Those who quoted the UNESCO constitution that "...wars begin in the minds of men" as a rationale for peace education interpreted it to refer to the importance of adequate information, rational thinking and tolerant attitudes. Few challenged any of the fundamental cultural assumptions of education, the organization of the school and the specific processes of the dominant form of pedagogy, and even fewer probed the role of education in the development of consciousness. There seemed to be an assumption that education is cultivated within a consciousness that is immutable. Exploration of consciousness remained the purview of psychology, philosophy, and theology but not education. Additionally the links between education and school reform of the 1960s waned in succeeding decades, and Freirean principles were given enough lip service in the 31 31 mainstream to have lost the vigor of their challenge. Those who continued to uphold the critical tradition seemed to assume that critical reflection and the dialogic method were adequate to the task and continued to direct the critical dialogue at economic and security systems and social values rather than at the culture itself. All of these assumptions need to be examined, probably challenged, by those who would educate for a culture of peace. Given the particular nature of the current problems of violence and the unprecedented opportunities presented by the growing attention to the concept of a culture of peace, in particular, questions of the development of consciousness, and human capacities to intentionally participate in the evolution of the species and the reconceptualization of culture should inform the next phase of peace education which might now address the "heart of the problem." A culture of peace perspective promises the possibility to probe these depths, the "heart", the self concept and identity of the human species and the cosmologies from which these concepts and the dominant modes of thinking of a culture of violence arise. Now, as never before, all of education needs to be concerned about the question of what it is to be human and how formal curriculum can facilitate the exploration of that question so as to prepare learners to participate in social change, political-economic reconstruction, cultural transformation and the consciousness. Clearly, this requires profound changes throughout all educational systems, but most especially it demands equally significant developments in peace education, a new concept of purpose, a more fully developed pedagogy, broader dimensions than even comprehensive, feminist or ecological and cooperative education have envisioned. The historic circumstances in which the next phase of peace education is unfolding are significantly different than those that form the approaches and phases described here. Yet the furidamental problematique, the development of learning that will enable humankind to renounce the institution of war and replace it with institutions more consistent with the visions and values being articulated in the body of international standards intended to guide relations among people as persons and peoples as corporate groups, states and otherwise (There is, for example, no clearer statement of the norms of a peaceful society than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) remains the core of the peace education 32 32 task. A culture of peace approach, however, illuminates more clearly the full extent of the task. Had peace educators been better students of history, we might have understood from the outset of our work that significant change in human behaviors and human institutions cannot be achieved without change in the cultures which give rise to and are shaped by the behaviors and institutions. What most needs to be understood among those who pursue peace knowledge, researchers, academics and educators, is that the institutional problematique will no longer suffice. Nor will the augmentation of the field by new disciplines, even when those disciplines are integrated into a holistic comprehensive approach. If we are going to lead our inquiry into the realms of what it is to be human and how the violence manifest by human beings and human institutions can be overcome, then we must develop new questions for the inquiry, into the new institutional structures and cultural values and practices. We must review and assess our common intellectual past as a community of learners, to determine which aspects can help us to build a new foundation, and which would be useful to carry into the common future, the shared human culture we seek to devise. Educators more than most should understand how we are both shaped by our cultures and how we shape our culture in the light of the values we hold and the images of the possible and desirable that guide our communal endeavors, and elicit our social norms. Thus it is that peace education must, at last, move into what many of us have been advocating for years (I fear without fully understanding the fundamental meaning of the term), a transformational mode, a mode that will bring about a profound change in both the form and the substance of human cultures. This is a mode which requires us to be not only prescriptive but prophetic. But it also requires a new generation of peace educators who can rally around this task as those of us involved in the history and the evolution of past concepts and approaches to peace education have over the last four decades. We need a new generation of the global community of peace educators who cooperated and differed and, sometimes, conflicted in their endeavors to develop peace education in a global perspective, authentically rooted in their own societies and cultures. We need a generation that is aware of this history, even appreciative of its contributions, but unfettered by it as some who 33 33 produced the present modes of peace education sought to liberate their curricula and pedagogy from the limits of educational practices they believed served to support and replicate the war system. Those who formed transnational communities of peace educators in the earlier days of the international peace education movement were inspired and instructed by the values, the perspectives and ideas of their colleagues from other parts of the world. They were able to develop cross cultural and global perspectives that were more varied, more "down to Earth", humanly diverse perspectives than the more common image and metaphor of the Earth seen from the Moon, powerful and instructive as it was. We knew that few of our students would leave this planet, the majority of them never see it even from an airplane. But all need to perceive of themselves as sharing a single planet with millions of others with whom they had a common species identity, and who, like them, depended upon the health of that planet, seen or not in full, for their survival. To come to this perspective, to experience how diverse we could be and still hold common human and educational values, we needed contact with each other. With few resources and even fewer of the communications media that now enable some of us to be in daily electronic conversation across the globe, we somehow managed, because we knew this was the most effective way to learn what we needed to understand to do the work to which we were committed. For me the most meaningful of these experiences have been in the Peace Education Commission of the International Peace Research Association and the International Institutes on Peace Education. (37) Our conversations were sometimes informally woven into other international events where some were able to meet. Sometimes, opening our homes and sharing our airline mileage or piggy backing on another trip we would hold our own sessions. Events such as six people from five countries meeting at Casanovia College in New York State in 1971, which produced a curricular framework of a common value base and the shared planetary home, called global community education, occurred over the years. Among them the meetings of the Peace Education Commission at the Summer School held annually in Sweden in the early seventies by the International Peace Research Association; the regular visits of American teachers to the Soviet Union, and Soviet teachers to the United States in 34 34 the 1980s even before the end of the Cold War by Educators for Social Responsibility to enable them to work on common projects; the small meetings in homes and schools in Norway, Russia and the United States which produced the ecological and cooperative approach to peace education; the annual sessions of the International Institutes on Peace Education held regularly in various parts of the world through the 1980s and 1990s in which these networks shared their methods and materials to introduce other educators to the field; the collaborative projects which have been devised by a few participants in the Congresses of Educators for Peace in Europe, North America and Africa; were the venues in which we forged a network of personal and professional solidarity through which we conducted the conversations from which the international peace education movement and its fruits emerged. There is, I am convinced a need for such networks among young peace educators who will carry their conversations into the next century. With the knowledge and media available to them, such a network would be well able to explore in the depth and breadth necessary, the possibilities for a culture of peace and the learning that will be required to prepare this and succeeding generations to develop and preserve it. It is to be hoped that the pedagogic and cultural innovations devised by this new generation would be in a truly ecological mode, life aware and nurturing continued change toward experiencing the ever unfolding possibilities of life and peace. I suspect that such a living systems approach to the task may be essential to a culture of peace. The purpose of this essay is not to prescribe the terms and the questions of the networks and inquiries advocated here. Rather I have tried to set out a general framework of the conceptual perspectives, the conceptual evolution of pedagogical purposes and the historic conditions in which they evolved to apply, to this review and assessment of peace education. With this framework in mind, I will note some of the concepts have suggested elsewhere as relevant to education for a culture of peace. (38) I still hold that the primary purposes of peace education should be the development of peacemaking capacities. (39) In the context of present conditions I would suggest that the purpose of the new phase should be the development of capacities of cultural invention, knowing that these capacities must be developed within the context, an age characterized by 35 35 traumatic change and lack of normative direction in social and political policies. This is not to say that there are not strong normative concerns energizing global movements such as those devoted to concerns of a healthful environment, human rights, gender justice, poverty, demilitarization, disarmament and peace. These movements, however, have of necessity for the most part taken an oppositional stance to policy establishments rather than a transformational stance toward systems and the culture which produces them. Some of these establishments are in the hands of segments of their respective societies who hold to a particularist form of thinking that reinforces cultural separatism and religious fanaticism, conditions that form a significant obstacle to cultural change, as well as to recognition of the unity of humanity and gender justice. Other establishments are in the hands of the promoters of globalization which poses a distinct and perhaps greater obstacle to human unity, economic justice and cultural integrity. It is not an easy time to educate for a culture peace, but it is an opportune one. Peace education faces less resistance than ever before in the period covered by these reflections. The culture of peace concept steadily gains currency in both the discussions and the articulation of goals and purposes of civil society, and international agencies. While some governments have taken the standard position of not acknowledging the relevance of the concept or its purposes and some have actually resisted and rejected its introduction into anything other than the realms of UNESCO's fields of competence, the member states of UNESCO have accepted the focus on a culture of peace as one of the main organizing principles of the agency's work. Thus it is that there is both interest and legitimation, two conditions peace education advocates and practitioners have struggled to achieve. There is an opportunity not to be missed. Combined with the foundation that has been laid down over the past four decades and in a prophetic framework these conditions invite a new generation to begin the conversation advocated here. The conversation needs to look not only to the manifestations and proposed alternatives to a culture of violence, but most especially it needs to probe beneath the manifestations of the deep culture. It needs, as well, to explore the root values and world views of the culture of violence and the proposed alternatives. These need to address behaviors and strategies 36 36 that are self-consciously transformational rather than oppositional. The latter mode is one that peace education and the larger movement find difficult to transcend. The oppositional mode was formulated by the circumstances that faced peace advocates of all types. But it is too limited for a transformational process or the prophetic role that peace education should share with other social sectors that form the visions and values of society. The prophetic role demands a visionary mode that could guide the conversation to envision transformed and peaceful institutions and practices, especially in education, to ask not what kinds of schools could form and maintain a culture of peace, but rather, "Are schools the most effective route for societies to educate and socialize?" moving beyond changes in organization and methodology to challenge the very institutions that comprise educational systems. Such probings and inquiries I deem to be more transitional than transformational. They are what I conceptualize as elements of the process of recognizing and moving out of present cultures into spaces where transformed cultures can be intentionally cultivated. It is this conceptualization which leads me to suggest some "transitional capacities," human abilities to change themselves and societies that the peace education of the near future should cultivate. Among a wide range of possibilities five capacities seem to me to be especially relevant. All are grounded in and adapted from earlier and current learning purposes of education for and about peace. Each is now coming to new stages of relevance to the central task, and their conceptual parameters are being extended to meet present challenges. The five transitional capacities I would recommend to be considered for the initiating phase of the new peace education conversation are: ecological awareness; cultural proficiency; global agency; conflict competency and gender sensitivity. Ecological awareness is the capacity not only to manifest concern for the health of natural and humanly constructed environments but to appreciate being and to live as an integral part of the larger living world. Knowing that the human species is unique and essential, yet interrelated to and interdependent with all the other organs of the living system of Planet Earth. Such an awareness would be the opening to significant changes in relationships at all levels of the planetary social systems; changes that could initiate transformational processes in all spheres. While ecological 37 37 and cooperative education seeks to cultivate understanding of this principle transitional education should strive to teach how to internalize and live by it. Cultural proficiency also moves multicultural education into new spheres, emphasizing capacities to live with, in and through other cultures, as a way of becoming more human, more in touch with one's birth culture, more aware of one's human identity, and fully appreciative of the multiple possibilities for how to be human. Such an appreciation could form the basis of an inquiry into what it is to be human, what are the universals, the positives and negatives that I have argued we must deal with as we strive toward culture of peace. If human rights education were to educate to enter the transitional mode, it would start to raise such questions, so as to cultivate the ground from which a strong and flexible commitment to the universality of human dignity might grow. Global agency is the capacity required to be a global citizen. It can be cultivated in ways more practical than ever, now that civil society is a global force recognized throughout the world as an important component of the international political system. It is an arena in which world order thinking can be practically applied as citizens seek to change the institutions of the war system and to abolish the war itself, a necessary but not sufficient condition for a culture of peace. Core institutions! changes are the beginnings of transformational change. Global agency is the means to bring about such essential changes in global systems. Conflict competency is the ability to engage constructively in the controversies and contentions of the kind of structural and policy changes the abolition of war will require. Skills of conflict resolution and as noted earlier conflict transformation will be just as essential to the pursuit of these changes as they are now to the struggle for justice. The ethics and skills of nonviolence combined with conflict processing and reconciliation skills are perhaps the most essential transitional skills. Gender sensitivity, the capacity to appreciate the differences and special qualities of being male or female, of understanding how culture has transformed biological differences into gender identities and gender roles, is the key capacity to enhance transitional capacities into transformational 3.8 38 ones. Gender differences, and the privileging of masculine roles while manifest in myriad ways is a universal that cuts across all cultures. It is the lense through which the cultivation of human inequalities can be seen most clearly. It is a paradigm through which we can learn how differences in human perspectives conditioned by different experiences can reveal both humanly destructive and humanly enhancing possibilities. Peace knowledge and its various forms have helped us to understand much about what is humanly destructive. Culture of peace knowledge needs to help us to conceptualize and pursue what is humanly enhancing. A culture of peace seen as a culture of human enhancement can provide the starting points for this new phase of peace education as war prevention and elimination were the starting points of the older phases. The transition must take us from the view and framework of eliminating war and overcoming violence to envision peace and creating the culture in which it can be achieved. I hope we can welcome a varied and vigorous new generation of international peace educators into the conversations that will exploit to the fullest these times of unprecedented challenge and opportunity. Post script: Subsequent to the completion of this essay two significant developments have occurred which bear noting. One is the emergence of still another approach to peace education which its practitioners call coexistence education. (40) The other, the launching of the Global Campaign for Peace Education. (41) Brief Note on the Author Betty A. Reardon, Ed.D., is Director of the Peace Education Program, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Long active in a number of international organizations and movements, she has an unusually extensive experience of peace education, illustrated in several basic books in this area, including the 3-volume UNESCO publication "Tolerance: The Threshold of Peace" (1997). 39 39 NOTES AND REFERENCES Defining the distinction between negative and positive peace is generally attributed to the Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung, 1. one of the first and most prolific researchers in the field. 2. The distinctions between education "for" and "about" a social goal were made in the case of disarmament education in the background paper, "The Current Status of Disarmament Education," prepared by UNESCO for their World Congress on Disarmament Education, Paris, 1980. 3. The civil rights movement in the U.S. was also deeply influenced by the philosophy and practice of nonviolence, a subject area which has been given some limited space of its own in university peace studies programs, but enters school curricula mainly through conflict resolution and practices of classroom management. 4. The term "peace knowledge" was used as a comprehensive description of the various learning, research and action practices related to peace, to make distinctions among them and demonstrate the interrelationships among them that make it possible to define them as one field of knowledge. "The Pedagogical Challenges of Peace Education" in the Peace Studies Newsletter, No. 17, June 1998, The Journal of the Peace Studies Association of Japan. 5. International education and the term "education for international understanding" no longer have the currency they did in the first three decades following World War II. "Global education" which evolved from these approaches is now the more widely used term. 6. Among those who are interlinking environment with peace education are the Finnish educator Riitta Wahlstrom ("Promoting commitment to peace and environmental responsibility," Peace, Environment and Education, vol. 3, no. 1, 1992), and the Swedish educational researcher, Ake Bjerstedt. During Bjerstedt's tenure as Executive Secretary of the Peace Education Commission of the International Peace Research Association he edited the newsletter under the title of Peace, Environment and Education (published by the R & D Group "Preparedness for Peace," School of Education, Box 23501, S-200 45 Malmo, Sweden). 7. Arguments that the institution of war contributes to the severity and perpetration of other forms of violence are put forth by some peace researcher and critics of "the military option". Especially notable among them are feminist peace researchers and women peace activists. See for instance the Report of the Consultation on Women and Peace of the 40 40 International Peace Research Association, Gyor, Hungary, 1982 and the Report of a United Nations Expert Group on Gender and the Agenda for Peace, UN Division for the Advancement of Women, New York, 1994. 8. The concept of a culture of violence and its antidote a culture of peace were first conceptualized by the Peruvian peace researcher, Felipe McGregor, S.J. The concept inspired UNESCO's Culture of Peace Program undertaken in 1993. This Montreal Declaration and Plan of Action was formulated at a world conference on human rights organized by UNESCO in Canada. It 9. is the basis of UNESCO policy and activity in the field. 10. A holistic approach to human rights education is the basis of the work of the Peoples' Decade for Human Rights Education (PDHRE), an NGO which catalyzes human rights education throughout the world. It was the major lobbying agent in persuading the United Nations to declare a Decade for Human Rights Education, 1995-2005. PDHRE also formulated a definitional statement incorporating purposes and goals of human rights education. (526 West 111th Street, New York, NY 10025, USA.) 11. Educators for Social Responsibility is one of a number of national and international organizations that have encouraged peace education. Some focus more attention on the issues than others. Among those that have been especially supportive are the International Council for Adult Education, the World Council for Curriculum and Instruction, and International Educators for Peace. 12. Clint Fink's work which traces the history back several centuries has been published in several issues of the journal of the Consortium on Peace Research, Education and Development, Peace and Change. Aline Stomfay- Stitz covers two centuries of American peace education in Peace Education in America, 1828-1990, Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ, 1993. Terry Carson and David Smith devote a considerable portion of their comprehensive work on peace education to the modern history of the field, Educating for a Peaceful Future, Kagan and Woo Limited, Toronto, 1998. It should be noted that this work also offers an interpretation of the categories and development of peace education that differs on some points from this one. 13. The first peace studies program in the United States was established at Manchester College in 1948 and the next at Manhattan College in 1963 in response to the papal encyclical of that year, "Pacem in Terris". Soon after the program at Bradford University was established in U.K., to be followed by others in universities in England, Ireland and Australia. In 41. 41 Europe the University of Peace in Belgium, and the Inter-European University in Austria and the Center in Dubronik all offered peace studies. The University for Peace was established in Costa Rica in 1980. 14. Among the most widely used of the simulations games to teach about war prevention were "Guns or Butter" developed by William Nesbitt for the Foreign Policy Association and "Conflict", a simulation of a disarmed world and "Confrontation", based on the Cuban missile crisis, both developed by Gerald Thorpe for the Institute for World Order. The two agencies were among the many independent agencies seeking to influence curriculum during these years of change and reform. 15. The papal encyclical, "Pacem in Terris" and President Kennedy's "Toward a Strategy of Peace" were published in a curriculum unit for senior high schools, Let Us Examine Our Attitude Toward Peace, World Law Fund, New York, 1968. While peace educators in the United States and other Western countries did not meet the same fate as Paulo Freire, the Brazilian 16. educator who developed a method of critical education that came to be widely used to raise consciousness about unjust socioeconomic structures, exile from his own country, it often took considerable commitment and courage to continue critical peace education in the face of pressure against it. All were not able to stand their ground. 17. Some of the law education agencies in the United States such as the Constitutional Rights Foundation also developed materials to include some international human rights law as well as American Constitutional law in the school curricula. 18. The World Law Fund with the aid of Robert Low, a classroom teacher who developed a unit on the ethical issue related to the Vietnam war, produced a unit, "The Individual and the International System", Random House, New York, 1972, to enable teachers to introduce the Nuremberg Principles and other international legal precedents into inquiries into ethical aspects of war. More recently a new generation peace educator has argued the centrality of the Nuremberg Principles to all general education for citizenship: Dale T. Snauwaert, "International Ethics, Community and Civic Education," Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 78 (1995), pp. 119-138. It raised issues that once again have currency for peace education as a consequence of war crimes tribunals related to the genocidal wars in Bosnia and Ruwanda. 19. Catholic schools, some in social doctrine classes and some in citizenship or social education classes, studied the papal encyclical "Pacem in Terris" and some, the Augustinian just war theory which was especially 42 42 relevant during the Vietnam war period. Pacifism is fundamental to Quaker religious belief and thus part of Quaker education. They along with other "traditional peace churches" also offered counseling on decisions regarding military service to students. Similar economic and ethical issues arise today in the age of "globalization" referred to by analysts of the left and some peace 20. researchers as "neo-liberalism", i.e. the economic and strategic dominance of the "advanced nations" is extended through the spread of free market capitalism. Globalization is an issue now addressed by human rights education and peace education, making another strong link between the two fields. 21. The value of political participation was contested and did not always appear on the list. In later listings of "world order values", positive identity appeared in its place, a value now more current in peace education than it was when world order studies were being developed for the secondary schools in the 1970s. 22. The methodology devised for secondary schools is best illustrated by a curriculum unit by Jack Frankel et al. Peacekeeping: Can We Prevent War, Random House, Inc., New York, 1975. 23. ESR has produced and distributes a wide range of materials. They regularly publish a catalogue. 24. In some instances parents and teachers, fearful of the possibilities of nuclear war, joined in common initiatives and organizations such as the Vermont group, Parents and Teachers for Peace. 25. Subsequently this Commission established by the International Association of University Presidents added the terms Peace and Conflict Resolution to its title, now being called the IAUP/UN Commission on Education for Disarmament, Peace and Conflict Resolution. 26. These issues were discussed by Stephen Marks in "Peace, Development, Disarmament and Human Rights Education: The Dilemma Between the Status Quo and Curriculum Overload," International Review of Education, vol. 2, no. 3, 1983. 27. Children's Creative Response to Conflict began in the 1970s in the United States. The Conflict Resolution Network has been functioning in Australia since the 1980s and during the post Apartheid period in South Africa university based schools services and teacher training was undertaken. A regional affiliate of Educators for Social Responsibility, ESR Metro initiated a program in the mid 1980s which spun off a 43 43 program which has worked with schools and one in-service training throughout the United States and in other countries. 28. Two works by Douglas Sloan (Toward the Recovery of Wholeness, Teachers College Press, New York, 1984, and Douglas Sloan Ed. "Toward an Education for a Living World", a special issue of The Teachers College Record, vol. 84, no. 1, 1982) are useful examples of holism and its early application to peace education. 29. Feminism gained a narrow but tenacious foothold in peace research in the 1980s beginning with the 1983 Consultation on Women, Militarism and Disarmament, sponsored by the Peace Education Commission of the International Peace Research Association. 30. The ecological approach was introduced in a book produced by the Norwegian-American-Soviet project, Learning Peace: The Promise of Ecological and Cooperative Education, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1995. 31. Arguments about the centrality, holism and transformational tasks of peace education are made in Betty A. Reardon, Comprehensive Peace Education, Teachers College Press, New York, 1988. 32. See Lennart Vriens, "Postmodernism, Peace Culture and Peace Education" in Robin J. Burns and Robert Aspeslagh, Eds. Three Decades of Peace Education, Garland Publishing, Inc. London, 1996 and Dale Snauwaert. 33. The organizers of the Hague Appeal for Peace sponsored a series of teach-ins on the war system on university campuses in the United States as preparation for the participation of youth in the May 1999 conference held to observe the 100th anniversary of the founding of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Peace education of this kind is a point in the Hague Agenda for International Peace and Justice issued by the conference. 34. The human rights movement frequently encounters resistance to the implementation of international standards on the grounds that they are not appropriate to the culture of the resisting society. Cultural resistance is especially strong in the case of the human rights of women. 35. Johan Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996. 36. Some such as Douglas Sloan and Dale Snauwaert whose primary work has not been in peace education have explored the issue and at least 44 44 suggested its relevance to peace education. One of the first American works in the field, Education for Annihilation by William Boyer (see selected bibliography) was a virtual denunciation of the way in which the education system educated for war. There have long been those who argued that the competitive nature of most schooling was education for war. 37. The experience and work of the Peace Education Commission and its intellectual history are recounted in Robin Burns and Robert Aspeslagh, Three Decades of Peace Education Around the World (see Selected Bibliography). The volume also contains key theoretical works authored by members of the Commission through the 70s, 80s and 90s. 38. "Educating the Educators: The Education of Teachers for a Culture of Peace", a paper prepared for the World Conference on Higher Education, UNESCO, Paris, October 1998. Published as Peace Education Miniprint 99 by the Malmo School of Education. To be published in a collection of the Culture of Peace Panel papers edited by Eudora Pettigrew, Chairperson of the International Association of University Presidents/United Nations Commission on Disarmament Education. 39. See Betty Reardon, Comprehensive Peace Education, Chapter 7, Teachers College Press, New York, 1988. 40. See Eugene Weiner, Ed. The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence, An Abraham Fund publication, Continuum Publishing Company, New York, 1998. 41. Readers may address inquiries about the Global Campaign for Peace Education to the author at Teachers College #171, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA, or <bar19@columbia.edu>. 45 45 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Barash, David P. Introduction to Peace Studies. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA, 1991. Berger, Gould B. et al. (Eds.) Growing Up Scared. Open Books, Berkeley, CA, 1986. Bjerstedt, Ake. Peace Education: Toward Specification of Educational Objectives (Reprints and Miniprints, 554). School of Education, Malmo, Sweden, 1986. Bjerstedt, Ake. Peace Education in Different Countries (Educational Information and Debate, 81). School of Education, Malmo, Sweden, 1988. Bjerstedt, Ake. Towards a Rationale and a Didactics of Peace Education: Progress Notes on the Project "Preparedness for Peace". (Peace Education Miniprints, 6). School of Education, Malmo, Sweden, 1990. Bjerstedt, Ake. (Ed.) Peace Education: Global Perspectives (Studia psychologica et paedagogica, 107). Almqvist and Wiksell International, Stockholm, Sweden, 1993. Borrelli, Mario and Magnus Haavelsrud. Peace Education within the Archipelago of Peace Research 1945-1964. Arena Publishers, Troms0, Norway, 1993. Boulding, Elise. Building a Global Civic Culture: Education for an Interdependent World. Teachers College Press, New York, 1988. Boyer, William. Education for Annihilation. Published by author, Sisters, OR, 1973. Brock-Utne, Birgit. Feminist Perspectives on Peace and Peace Education. Athene Series. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1989. Burns, Robin Joan & Robert Aspeslagh. (Eds.) Three Decades of Peace Education Around the World. Garland Publishing, Inc., London, 1996. Carpenter, Susan. A Repertoire of Peacemaking Skills. Consortium on Peace Research, Education and Development, Washington, DC, 1977. Carson, Terry. (Ed.) Dimensions and Practice of Peace Education. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1985. 46 46 Carson, Terry & Hendrik D. Gideonse (Eds.) Peace Education and the Task for Peace Educators. WCCI, Bloomington, IN, 1987. Carson, Terry & David Smith. Educating for a Peaceful Future. Kagan and Woo Limited, Toronto, 1998. Drew, Naomi. Learning the Skills of Peacemaking. Jalmar Press, Torrance, CA, 1987. Engel, Brenda. Between Feeling and Fact. Center for Teaching and Learning, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, 1987. Gordon, Haim & Leonard Grob. Education for Peace: Testimonies from World Religions, Peace and Justice Traditions of the Major Faiths. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY,1988. Graves, Norman J. 0., James Dunlop & Judith V. Torney-Purta. Teaching for International Understanding, Peace and Human Rights. UNESCO, Paris, 1984. Haavelsrud, Magnus. Education for Peace: Reflection and Action. IPC Science and Technology Press Limited, Guildford, Surrey, UK, 1976. The Proceedings of the First World Conference of the World Council for Curriculum and Instruction, University of Keele, UK, September, 1974. Haavelsrud, Magnus. Approaching Disarmament Education. Westbury House, Guilford, Surrey, UK, 1981. Haavelsrud, Magnus. (Ed.) Disarming: Discourse on Violence and Peace. Arena, Troms0, Norway, 1993. Haavelsrud, Magnus. Education in Developments. Arena, Tromso, Norway, 1996. Hall, Mary Bowen & Sue Mansfield. Why Are There Wars? Powerful Ideas for Teaching Writing Skills: Grades 5-8. Scott. Foresman, Glenview, IL, 1986. Harris, Ian M. Peace Education. McFarland & Co., Jefferson, NC, 1988. Henderson, George (Ed.) Education for Peace: Focus on Mankind. ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development), Washington, DC, 1973. Hicks, David. (Ed.) Education for Peace. Routledge, London, 1988. 47 47 Hurst, John. "Pedagogy for Peace." World Encyclopedia of Peace (Vol. 2, pp. 274-278). Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1986. Johnson, David W. & Roger T. Johnson. Teaching Students to be Peacemakers. Interaction Books, Co., Edina, MN, 1991. Keefe, Thomas & Ron E. Roberts. Realizing Peace: An Introduction to Peace Studies. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 1992. Lantieri, Linda and Janet Patti. Waging Peace in Our Schools. Beacon Press, Boston, MA, 1996. Levin, Diane E. Teaching Young Children in Violent Times: Building a Peaceable Classroom. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, PA, 1994. McGinnis, James et al. Educating for Peace and Justice: Religious Dimensions. Institute for Justice and Peace, St. Louis, MO, 1984. McGinnis, James & Kathleen McGinnis. Education for Peace and Justice. Institute for Justice and Peace, St. Louis, MO, 1981. Nuclear Arms Education in Secondary Schools. Sponsored by the National Council for the Social Studies; the Social Studies Development Center of Indiana University; and the Johnson Foundation, 1985. O'Hare, Padraic. (Ed.) Education for Peace and Justice. Harper Row, San Francisco, CA, 1983. O'Reilly, Mary Rose. The Peaceable Classroom. Boynton/Cook Publishers, Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH, 1993. Ray, Douglas. (Ed.) Peace Education: Canadian and International Perspectives. Third Eye, London, Canada, 1988. Reardon, Betty. Militarization, Security and Peace Education. United Ministries in Education, Valley Forge, PA, 1982. Reardon, Betty. Comprehensive Peace Education: Educating for Global Responsibility. Teachers College Press, New York, NY, 1988. Reardon, Betty. (Ed.) Educating for Global Responsibility: TeacherDesigned Curricula for Peace Education, K-12. Teachers College Press, New York, NY, 1988. Reardon, Betty. Educating for Human Dignity. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1995. 48 48 Reardon, Betty & Eva Nord land. (Eds.) Learning Peace: The Promise of Ecological and Cooperative Education. State University of New York, Albany, NY, 1994. Smoker, Paul, Ruth Davies & Barbara Munske (Eds.) A Reader in Peace Studies. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK,1990. Schniedewind, Nancy. Cooperative Learning, Cooperative Lives. W.C. Brown Publishers, New York, 1987. Sloan, Douglas (Ed.) Education for Peace and Disarmament: Toward a Living World. Teachers College Press, New York, 1983. Stine, Esther et al. Education in a Global Age, Public Education Policy Studies. United Ministries in Education, Dallas, TX, 1983. Stomfay-Stitz, Aline M. Peace Education in America, 1828-1990: A Sourcebook for Education and Research. Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ, 1993. Thomas, T. M. et al. Global Images of Peace and Education. Prakken, Ann Arbor, MI, 1988. Toh Swee-Hin & Virginia Floresca-Cawagas. Peace Education: A Framework for the Philippines. Phoenix Publishing House, Quezon City, The Philippines, 1987. UNESCO. Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Cooperation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Paris, 1974. UNESCO. Education for International Co-opearation and Peace at the Primary School Level. Paris, 1983. UNESCO. Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights, and Democracy. IBE, Geneva, 1994. Wahlstrom, Riitta. Growth towards Peace and Environmental Responsibility (Publication Series B. Theory into Pactice, 67). University of Jyvaskyla, Institute for Educational Research, Jyvaskyla, Finland. Wilson, G. K. A Global Peace Study Guide. Housmans, London, 1982. 99 U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) ERIC NOTICE Reproduction Basis This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release form. This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket"). EFF-089 (3/2000)