1

Promoting peace in school: A case study of education for peace in England

- Shared possibilities and challenges with citizenship education -

Noriko Sakade

1. Introduction: research context

Considering the problems of bullying, negative conflicts and violence in schools

(Harber, 2004; Smith, 2003), and recent concern over the issue of religious and

ethnic tensions or conflict in communities (see Davies, 2008), the UK government

has taken initiatives to implement some measures through schooling, such as anti-

bullying policies and guidance as to how to promote community cohesion (DfCSF,

2007). In line with these measures, there are educational initiatives to promote

peace and non-violent conflict resolution in schools, such as peace education and

peer mediation. These initiatives are seen as part of education for citizenship, which

would nurture skills and values necessary for democratic citizenship (Bickmore,

2001; Cremin, 2007).

This paper examines how peace education fits in with the overall framework of

citizenship education by sharing its aims, values and practices, and explores

challenges facing current peace education as well as overall citizenship education in

the context of schooling, by drawing on the findings of a case study of an existing

education project in schools (Sakade, 2009). The project in the study aims to

promote peace in schools in England by nurturing students’ peacemaking skills and

knowledge of conflict, by linking with the PSHE (Personal, Social and Health

Education) and Citizenship curriculum.

The paper first discusses the general principles and practice of peace education,

and its place within citizenship education. It then presents a case study of current

2

peace education in schools, portraying its aims, practice and impact, along with

issues facing the initiative. Based on the findings of the case study, the final section

of the paper draws together different aspects of peace education which contributes

to promoting citizenship education in schools, and then discusses the challenges

and possibilities of peace education and overall citizenship education, for promoting

effective and sustainable practice so as to have positive effects on students.

2. Education for peace and conflict resolution as citizenship education

Current peace education has been largely influenced by the development of peace

research (Hicks, 1996), particularly by two concepts of peace: ‘negative peace’ and

‘positive peace’ (Galtung, 1975). Negative peace generally means the absence of

violence between nations or groups, but also includes the situation whether is no

physical violence but no interaction either (Galtung, 1975, p.29). On the other hand,

positive peace involves cooperation and integration between groups, with the

absence of structural violence (or social injustice) in which ‘the violence is built into

the structure and shows up as unequal power and consequently as unequal life

chances’ (Galtung, 1975, p.114). Moreover, in the field of philosophy, Kant’s

(1795/1917) idea of peace is established through consensus, based on freedom,

equality and common laws accepted by members of society. Based on these ideas

of peace, peace education aims to promote a peaceful and just society through

education. Peace education can be implemented both in stable societies and those

in conflict, and the value of peace education has been affirmed by international

organisations such as UNESCO and UNICEF. A range of educational initiatives to

promote peace have been practised in different historical, socio-political, cultural and

educational contexts, with various objectives, approaches, contents and methods

(Burns & Aspeslagh, 1996; Salomon & Nevo, 2002; Vriens, 1990; Wintersteiner,

3

Spajić-Vrkaš & Teutsch, 2003), whilst some common objectives and characteristics

can be found across many programmes (Bar-Tal, 2002; Hicks, 1988a). A broad

definition of peace education is provided by UNICEF:

The process of promoting the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values needed to

bring about behaviour changes that will enable children, youth[s] and adults to

prevent conflict and violence, both overt and structural; to resolve conflict

peacefully; and to create the conditions conducive to peace, whether at an

intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup, national or international level. (Fountain,

1999, p. 1)

Common areas of learning include the knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviour and

values, which are necessary for non-violent conflict resolution and peace-building

(Hicks, 1988a; Johnson & Johnson, 2005, p. 276). Thus peace education is not only

‘education about peace’ (gaining knowledge), but also ‘education for peace’

(nurturing skills, attitudes, behaviour and values) (Bjerstedt, 1990; Hicks, 1996).

The main concepts, aims, values and educational practice of education to promote

peace and non-violent conflict resolution are shared with citizenship education in

schools in the UK and elsewhere. Many of the concepts of peace stated above are

identified in the key concepts at the heart of citizenship education, such as

democracy and autocracy, co-operation and conflict, equality and diversity, fairness

and justice, which have formed the basis for current Citizenship Education which

was introduced in the National Curriculum in England and Wales in the UK in 2002

(Citizenship Advisory Group, 1998). The main aspect of ‘education about peace’ is

to learn about peace-related matters, such as peace, war, nuclear issues, justice,

power, gender, race, environment (Hicks, 1988a), religion and ethnicity (Davies,

4

2008). This aspect of learning is shared with Citizenship Education, which aims to

prepare children to deal with these kinds of controversial issue: war and peace,

human relationships, oppression and justice (Citizenship Advisory Group, 1998, p.

57). In practice, the interactive learning of peace-related knowledge can be

promoted through discussion in groups. Johnson and Johnson (1992 in Deutsch,

1993, pp. 515-16) perceive the use of constructive controversy in teaching subject

matter as one of the key components of education for peace and conflict resolution,

and suggest group discussions about peace-related issues from various

perspectives and positions, with the search for consensus as a whole group on a

certain position. The ability to discuss and debate controversial issues and problems

is also an important element of Citizenship Education (QCDA, 2010).

‘Education for peace’ involves the skills, attitudes, behaviour and values necessary

for building peace and practising non-violent conflict resolution, since peace

education aims to give students opportunities: to express their feelings, to gain

knowledge of and insights into today’s reality, and the necessary skills and values to

prepare them to build peaceful relationships with other people and to work for

peaceful solutions without resorting to violence at all levels as future citizens, as

stated by Bjerstedt (1990, pp. 45-46). With a similar emphasis on different aspects of

learning, Citizenship Education is also ‘education for citizenship, behaving and

acting as a citizen, therefore it is not just knowledge of citizenship and civic society;

it also implies developing values, skills and understanding’ (Citizenship Advisory

Group, 1998, p.13). Based on the three strands of effective education for citizenship:

social and moral responsibility, community involvement, and political literacy, with an

emphasis on responsibility and moral virtue (Citizenship Advisory Group, 1998, p.

13), primary schools are encouraged to nurture children’s moral values and personal

development as necessary preconditions of citizenship (1998, p. 11).

5

For example, Citizenship curriculum for pupils at Key Stage 2 (Year 3-6) (QCDA,

2010) includes learning to realise the consequences of negative or aggressive

behaviours such as bullying and racism, as part of their preparation to play an active

role as citizens, while providing opportunities to take responsibility, for example, by

acting as a playground mediator. It also aims to enable pupils to develop good

relationships through considering the effects of their actions on others, other

people’s feelings and viewpoints, while respecting the differences between people.

In this way, Citizenship Education, involving values and skills as well as knowledge,

promotes the link with the early stages of child development, often within PSHE

(Personal, Social and Health Education). Some (e.g. Bell, 2005) consider this close

link between Citizenship Education and PSHE as problematic because of a

difference between the two: ‘PSHE is about the private, individual dimension of

pupils’ development, whereas citizenship concerns the public dimension.’ On the

other hand, peace education involving learning about peace and conflict on different

levels (from personal to global) could contribute to elements of both Citizenship

Education and PSHE.

Moreover, the importance of education to promote peace and conflict resolution

within the overall framework of citizenship education has been addressed by many

(Bickmore, 2001; Cremin, 2007; Davies, 2005). Bickmore (2001, p. 137) notes that

‘peer conflict resolution creates active roles for young people to help them develop

capacities for democratic citizenship (such as critical reasoning and shared decision

making).’ Her study of peer mediation in schools in the USA illustrates how peer

mediation programmes could contribute towards nurturing the students’ skills and

values needed by active and responsible citizens by providing them with the

opportunity and responsibility to manage conflicts occurring among peers. Cremin

(2007) also emphasises the importance of promoting peace education, conflict

6

resolution and peer mediation in schools as an integral part of education for

citizenship in that it equips young people to be able to engage with their

communities in positive ways and to deal with conflicts or problems.

The ‘community’ here also includes a school, which is built and maintained by

students and school staff, and is served by a school-based peer mediation service

(Bickmore, 2001, p. 138). Various dimensions of ‘community’ from a school’s

perspective have been identified by DfCSF (2007, p. 5), including the school

community, the community within which the school is located, the UK community

and the global community. Education for peace and conflict resolution, as well as

education for citizenship, needs to take account of various contexts and issues on

these different levels from a school, a local community, a state to the world

(Citizenship Advisory Group, 1998, p. 25; Hicks, 1988b, p. 248). This aspect of

peace at all levels is emphasised by Johnson and Johnson (2005, p. 276), stating

that ‘the ultimate goal of peace education is for individuals to be able to maintain

peace among aspects of themselves (intrapersonal peace), individuals

(interpersonal peace), groups (inter-group peace), and countries, societies, and

cultures (international peace)’.

Thus education for peace could contribute towards nurturing students’ capacities

for their personal development and interpersonal relationships as well as for

responsible and conscientious citizenship as members of the school community,

local community and future society. In this way, education for citizenship and

education for peace and conflict resolution share a common goal to build a

democratic and peaceful society through developing students’ capacities needed for

this process. This interplay between the development of individuals’ capacity and the

improvement of society seems to underlie education for peace as well as education

for citizenship. This general stance on the relationship between individuals and

7

society is supported by Mead (1934/1967), who perceives that the social

reconstruction and personality reconstruction of individuals are the two sides of a

single process of human social progress. Thus, it is clear that education for peace

and citizenship supports the possibility of influencing and changing the future shape

of society, rather than merely maintaining the present model of society.

3. A case study of education for peace in school

3.1 Research aims

As one of the educational initiatives to promote peace and conflict resolution in

schools, the study examines the Peace Maker Project, which is run by an

educational organisation in England, West Midlands Quaker Peace Education

Project. It is based on empirical research carried out in 2005 - 2006 (Sakade, 2009).

The overall aim of the research was to gain insight into the reality of the current

practice of education to promote peace, particularly in the context of schooling in

relatively stable societies. For this aim, the research conducted an empirical study of

an existing educational organisation, and the implementation of its project to

promote peace and constructive conflict resolution in schools. The study mainly

explored the following research questions:

What are the perceived needs of promoting peace through education?

How is education for peace practised in schools in England, under what

principles?

What impact does it have?

What are the issues?

8

Based on these research questions, the empirical study portrayed and investigated

the organisation and one of its projects in a primary school with a view to

understanding the principles and the practice of peace education in school.

The study is based on the assumption that peaceful behaviour can be promoted

through education. This is supported by accumulated evidence which suggests that

violence is a learned behaviour rather than intrinsic to human nature (see the ‘Seville

Statement on Violence’ 1986 in Adams). This idea is reflected in the statement of

UNESCO’s Constitution: “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of

men that the defences of peace must be constructed” (in Wilson, 1946).

3.2 Methodology

The research used mainly qualitative methodology, involving a case study approach

within an interpretive paradigm. The study focused on the following two samples:

1) One organisation, West Midlands Quaker Peace Education Project (WMQPEP)

This particular organisation, WMQPEP, was chosen for its long lasting active work

on peace education in schools. WMQPEP, supported by local Quakers, works with

students and staff in schools in the West Midlands area, with the aim of promoting

awareness of all kinds of conflicts, and of offering the means of resolution

(WMQPEP, 2004). In 2005, WMQPEP was staffed with a project manager, a project

administrator and 12 project workers, and worked with 16 schools and youth

services. The major work has been the ten-week workshop, the Peace Maker

Project in primary schools, which is often followed by peer mediation training.

Recent work also includes producing teaching materials for National Curriculum

Citizenship in secondary schools (WMQPEP, 2006).

9

2) One state, multi-cultural primary school in Birmingham, where WMQPEP has run

the Peace Maker Project

This particular school was selected since it was one of the schools where WMQPEP

has been active, and its characteristics are shared with many urban schools in

England (e.g. pupils with diverse ethnic, cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, a

high transience rate). The research focused mainly on the Peace Maker Project, run

for the whole Year 5 group over a period of 10 weeks (2 hours a week) in 2006. The

sample of the research consisted of a leading project worker, the head teacher, a

learning mentor and participants of the project, including the whole Year 5 group (30

pupils) and a class teacher.

The main methods used for data collection were questionnaires, semi-structured

interviews, participant observation and documentation. A summary of the methods

and their objectives is as follows:

Short questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with eight WMQPEP staff

aimed to explore their perspectives on education to promote peace and to

identify the principles and stated practices of the project.

Participant observation of the 10-week project by the researcher aimed to learn

how the principles were actually practised in the project and to investigate

pupils’ learning processes and possible changes in their behaviour, abilities and

confidence.

Alongside observation, the impact of the project was examined through

questionnaires (before and after the project) and group interviews (after the

project) with the whole class of Year 5 pupils (about 30), interviews with a class

teacher and the project worker.

10

In-depth interviews with the head teacher and a learning mentor aimed at

exploring the school’s previous experience of the project.

3.3 Research findings

In the light of the research questions above, the case study found the following

results.

1. The need for education to promote peace

WMQPEP addresses the need for education to promote peace in schools, because

of the current social environment where children are often exposed to fighting,

violence and aggression as the only ways to deal with problems, while they lack the

opportunity to learn social skills. There is also concern that children’s learning and

growth are often affected by bullying and conflicts in their daily lives, while many

children have difficulties in dealing with their emotions such as anger and anxiety.

Thus there is a perceived need for children to learn about conflict ‘both in social

conditions and in personal relationships,’ and to develop the skills to manage

conflicts or problems in non-violent and creative ways (WMQPEP, 2006), which will

be useful throughout their lives.

Sharing this view, the school perceives the need for educational initiatives to

develop children’s self-confidence, communication and conflict resolution skills, and

emotional literacy, as preventive measures to reduce behavioural problems. The

school would also like children to learn to respect and include everyone and to

integrate more, expressing concerns over divisions between different gender or

ethnic groups, and the influx of immigrant children. The school has invited the Peace

Maker Project since it is in line with the school policy based on these aspects of

educational needs, providing a model for working with children and a tool for training

11

teachers. The school thinks that the project also fits in with the National Curriculum,

being linked with PSHE and Citizenship curriculum, and expects the learning

outcomes relating to these subjects, such as the awareness of the impact of one’s

actions on others, the understanding of one’s own and other people’s emotions and

feelings, and the values of inclusion and equality.

2. The project and the underlying principles

The principles of WMQPEP’s work involve ‘education for peace’ (improving peaceful

relationship) and ‘education about peace’ (developing an understanding of peace

and conflict). With the aim of creating the conditions for peace, WMQPEP not only

deals with violent conflict or aggressive behaviour but also works on solving

problems in peaceful ways and improving human relationships. Consequently,

WMQPEP’s work deals mainly with peace on a personal level rather than a more

macro level, while peace ranges at different levels from intrapersonal to international

(Bjerstedt, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 2005). Its statement says, ‘The Peace Maker

Project intends to offer a solution to the current situation in schools where bullying or

conflicts in playgrounds or classrooms are everyday life, and a small argument often

escalates into a bigger problem. The Peace Maker Project aims to help schools to

become places where people feel secure enough to grow…’ (WMQPEP, 1998).

Although the project is only based in schools, WMQPEP hopes that its work also has

a positive impact on the improvement of people’s relationships in wider contexts,

believing that ‘peaceful relationships should be achieved in all areas of life, for

example: family, school, workplace, community and international relations’

(WMQPEP, 2006). Thus, this starting point for building peace may be on a small

scale, but WMQPEP hopes that peace will spread further from a school to a wider

community.

12

Within these principles, its project facilitates child-centred, experience-based

learning to promote peace-related ideas such as non-violence, equality, inclusion

and cooperation, which reflect the two concepts of peace (Galtung, 1975), discussed

above: ‘negative peace’ (absence of violence) and ‘positive peace’ (cooperation and

integration among people). In particular, WMQPEP considers communication, co-

operation and affirmation as essential components of human interaction, which

serve as the factors which help to manage conflict or problems. This approach was

originally developed by Children’s Creative Response to Conflict Program in New

York (see Prutzman, Burger, Bodenhamer & Stern, 1978), to deal with inner-city

violence, and has been widely adopted in the UK (Stacey & Robinson, 1997, p. 9). In

actual workshops, WMQPEP uses a Circle Time model as its main method, which

represents everyone’s equal position and participation. The Circle Time model aims

to promote good relationships and positive behaviour by providing the ideal group

listening system, in order to raise children’s self-esteem, promote moral values,

establish a sense of team and develop social skills (Mosley, 1996, pp. 32-3). The

Circle Time approach is seen as ‘a democratic system, involving all children and

giving them equal rights and opportunities (Mosley, 1996, p. 33). The approach

gives power to children, by trusting their ability to learn from each other in a group

with support from a facilitator, whose important role is ‘to enable rather than instruct’

and ‘to facilitate the sharing of insights and experience’ (Kingston Friends Workshop

Group, 1987, pp. 1-2; 1996, p. 10).

Based on the Circle Time model, a WMQPEP worker facilitates different group

activities, cooperative games and discussions, in which children learn to work with

others; to resolve conflict effectively; to express their opinions and feelings; to listen

to others; to make their own choices; to understand and respect other people and

different viewpoints; and to include everyone as equals. These activities are

13

designed for all children to participate in and contribute to the process of sharing

their ideas, making decisions and taking responsibility as an individual and as a

group. The overall project promotes children’s autonomy and self-control over their

behaviour rather than trying to control them. In practice, a project worker always

asks children’s suggestions or opinions, by asking them, ‘What choices did you

make that helped you to do that?’, rather than telling them what to do. In this way, a

project worker encourages children to come up with their own ideas for dealing with

issues based on their own decisions. For example, the process of making ground

rules involved identifying problems and possible solutions to the problems based on

the experience of the children, while the rules are agreed and followed by everybody

in the class.

After experiencing each game and activity, children are asked questions to reflect

on their experience and analyse their actions to consider what can be improved:

‘What happened?’, ‘What did we do well?’, ‘What didn’t go well? Why?’ ‘Were there

any problems?’, ‘How can we do it better next time?,’ ‘How did you feel when… (e.g.

somebody laughed at you) ?’, ‘What choices did people make to help that game go

well?’, ‘What did you learn?’, ‘What rules might we need for that game? Why?’.

Dewey (1916/2005, p. 86) addresses the need for this kind of reflection, since

experience is only meaningful when a change made by action is consciously

connected with its consequence and with the meaning (Dewey, 1916/2005, p.83).

Moreover, reflection allows people to accept responsibility for the consequences of

their actions (Dewey, 1916/2005, p. 87). In accordance with Dewey’s idea,

WMQPEP encourages children to consider their own and others’ actions as well as

the consequences of these, and to take responsibility for their actions and

behaviours. Teachers also participate in the project and experience the approach

used by WMQPEP. Some examples of the activities are as follows:

14

[Examples of activities]

Finding similarities and differences

Objective: To improve communication, cooperation and affirmation skills.

Process: In random pairs, the pupils find out one way in which they are different and

one thing they share, and present what they learn about each other to the rest of the

class.

Outcomes: The pupils learned more about their classmates and realised that people

with different backgrounds also share things in common, which can help in building

good relationships and resolving conflicts.

Conflict-related group activity: identify how conflicts escalate

Objectives: To improve communication, cooperation and problem-solving skills; to

explore what makes conflicts escalate and how they feel about the conflicts.

1. Model conflict: The project worker and a class teacher act out people who

are blaming each other for mistakes at work and insulting each other. As the

conflict escalates, their attitudes towards each other become more mean and

aggressive. The pupils discuss what they thought about the conflict that they

have just seen.

2. Identify how conflicts escalate: In random groups of 5 - 6, the pupils

identify some causes of conflicts in school and discuss how conflicts get worse or

how they can be solved, and then act out a conflict situation in a group.

3. Round: After the activity, they all sit in a circle and the project worker asks

them to identify something that makes conflicts grow.

15

WMQPEP’s work is based on a belief that conflict can be constructive rather than

destructive:

‘The project aims to develop an understanding of how conflict, if resolved

creatively and without violence, can be a positive force for change.’

(WMQPEP, 2004)

This viewpoint is underpinned by the idea of conflict transformation, in which co-

operation is considered an important element for constructive conflict resolution (e.g.

Francis, 2002), since the purpose of conflict resolution is ‘to discover or develop

common ground and reach a mutually acceptable agreement, through a co-

operative process rather than a contest’ (Francis, 2002, p. 30).

3. The impact of the project

3.1. The conditions and issues in the school and the class researched

In this inner-city school, many pupils are from low-income families and from different

cultural and ethnic backgrounds (e.g. Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Somali, Afro-

Caribbean, Polish). There is a high transience rate, and many arrive at the school

with little or no English. The school has adopted a rigorous behaviour management

system, involving rewards and punishments, so that all the adults involved can deal

with behavioural issues consistently. The class, which is the subject of the research,

has pupils from various cultural backgrounds, and many use English as an additional

language. There are some issues such as disintegration and conflict between pupils,

particularly involving newly arrived Somali boys and differences of cultural values

between them and other pupils. Thus one of the objectives of the project for this

particular class was to promote the integration of the class, along with the general

aims of the project as seen above.

16

3.2 The impact of the project

The overall findings of the research suggest that the project has had some positive

effects on pupils and on the school. The details of the effects were more complex,

however. Observation by the researcher during the 10-week project and interviews

with the teacher and the project worker suggest that pupils’ interpersonal skills (e.g.

communication, cooperation, problem-solving skills), self-confidence, emotional

literacy and relationships have improved to a certain degree. Regarding

communication, many pupils became able to listen attentively and became more

confident in expressing their opinions, ideas and feelings in a circle, while also

understanding other people’s viewpoints and feelings better. Their emotional literacy

seems to have improved as they became more able to control their negative

emotions and behaviour. In terms of cooperation, they became more able to work in

groups, help each other and share their ideas. They also developed positive and

inclusive attitudes, as they interacted with other people more and showed more

respect for each other and different perspectives. In terms of behaviour, they

became more considerate of their actions and the effects of these, and improved

their ability to make their own choices about appropriate behaviour and to take

responsibility.

However, there was little progress on a group level, for example, in terms of the

integration of different gender or ethnic groups in the class. There was still the

tendency for the pupils to divide into different gender and cultural sub-groups,

although they became more used to interacting with people from different groups.

This indicates that more work needs to follow, in that the project has formed the

basis for further development of their capacities to become responsible citizens,

helping them internalise the values of peace and equality through direct experience

of practising these values.

17

Moreover, the interviews with teachers suggest that, through participating in the

project and observing the approach used by a project worker, they have gained new

insights into children and learned different ways of teaching and dealing with

behaviour. It was also observed that some teachers started using the techniques for

positive behaviour management.

4. Issues facing the project

While there were some positive effects on children and on the school, the findings

suggest that there are some limitations in the capacity of the project for handling

wider issues facing a school or a community, such as disintegration of different

gender or ethnic groups, or a clash of values, which may reflect the current

situations in the community. There is also a problem caused by different messages

given to pupils at school and at home regarding different attitudes towards conflict or

violence, which could cause them confusion (e.g. it may be normal to use violence to

deal with problems), as recognised by WMQPEP. Therefore, this kind of initiative, at

least, provides children with the opportunity to experience different ways of solving

problems, which they can choose from in the future, while at the same time

enhancing their self-confidence and their ability to deal with problems or conflict and

to make decisions for themselves.

One of the major issues identified by the research was that there were tensions

between the approach used by the project and the general practice of in schools in

terms of behaviour management, and teaching and learning (Harber & Sakade,

2009). It was observed that some teachers use punishments to control children’s

behaviour, while the project promotes children’s self-discipline and self-control

based on positive behaviour management. WMQPEP considers that these attitudes

of the school and of teachers exist partly because peace education or the

18

approaches used in the project are not part of teacher training, and suggests the

need for training for teachers to understand the values underpinning peace

education and its practice. Moreover, while valuing the approach used in the project,

the class teacher did not think that this could be used in each lesson because

normal lessons require more control in order to meet educational targets within a

limited time, according to the interview.

Recommendations and implications

The findings from the case study above suggest that peace education, as part of

citizenship education, supports many key aspects of the latter, in terms of aims,

concepts, values, approaches and practice. On the other hand, some of the main

issues facing peace education as seen in the study also seem to be shared by

overall citizenship education, as discussed below.

WMQPEP’s project to promote peace in schools, with its principles and practice,

promotes some of the key concepts that underpin citizenship education such as

democracy, responsibilities, equality, respect, diversity and community (Kerr, 2003,

p. 8). The initiative aims to nurture knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and behaviour,

such as an understanding of peace and conflict, skills in communication, cooperation

and problem-solving, positive and inclusive attitudes, self-confidence and self-

discipline, which are necessary for young people to deal with conflict and problems

in non-violent and constructive ways. These aspects of learning reflect the

dimensions of citizenship education, which involves knowledge and understanding,

skills, attitudes and values (Kerr, 2003, p. 8). WMQPEP’s project aims to prepare

young people to build peace in a school and in a wider society, with its emphasis on

being future-oriented and action-oriented (e.g. Galtung, 1975, p. 330; Hicks, 1996, p.

168). This reflects the nature of citizenship education to be ‘forward-looking,’ in that

19

schools a play major part in ‘equipping young people to take a full part and active

role in the communities to which they belong, both now and in the future.’

In terms of its approach, the methods used by WMQPEP involve child-centred,

experience-learning with reflection, which are underpinned by the values associated

with peace such as equality, cooperation, inclusion and autonomy. This reflects the

idea that the form or process of education should be ‘compatible with peace’ (Hicks,

1996, p. 168). In particular, experience-based learning is considered important for

acquiring values, attitudes, skills and behaviour in peace education, because this

‘internalization cannot be achieved by merely preaching’ but by practising these

aspects of peace (Bar-Tal, 2002, p. 33). This view is shared by citizenship education

in which experience-based learning is seen as an important element, particularly in

one of the approaches: ‘education through citizenship,’ in which children learn

‘through active, participative experiences’ (Kerr, 2003, p. 14).

As seen above, WMQPEP’s initiative mainly focuses on ‘education for peace,’

which aims to improve peaceful interpersonal relationships, rather than ‘education

about peace’ which aims to promote the awareness and knowledge of peace and

conflict in wider social contexts. Thus the model of peace education used by

WMQPEP seems to concern peace and conflict on a micro-level (personal), rather

than on a macro-level (social), since WMQPEP does not deal with wider social

issues in national or international contexts, nor promote critical thinking and analysis

by raising awareness of social injustice. Thus, to some extent this can be seen as a

limitation of WMQPEP’s approach. This issue also relates to the division that often

exists between personal and social education and citizenship education in schools.

A micro-level approach to peace education seems to be more common in primary

schools as part of the PSHE curriculum in England, which focuses on practical and

personal aspects of learning, while a macro-level approach seems to be used more

20

in secondary schools as part of the Citizenship curriculum, in which controversial

issues such as war and peace, oppression and justice are discussed (Citizenship

Advisory Group, 1998). However, considering that there is often a connection

between micro (personal) and macro (social) aspects of an issue (e.g. with people

who wish to make small-scale changes, but whose behaviour is constrained by

larger structural forces), there is the need to combine the practical and personal

approach with the critical analysis of social structure from wider perspectives

(Harber, 2002, p. 231). Thus, one of the issues facing education for peace would be

concerned with how to ensure that the learning on the various levels, from

interpersonal, community, national to international and global, are closely linked.

This issue is shared with overall citizenship education, which involves aspects of

both the personal development of students, and the political and social development

of society (Osler & Starkey, 1996), and requires both aspects of learning by creating

strong links between local, national and international contexts (Citizenship Advisory

Group, 1998; Kerr, 2003).

One major issue identified by the above study was that there were tensions

between the initiative to promote peace and the dominant practice of schooling due

to different approaches to teaching and learning and behaviour management,

particularly discipline and school ethos involving hierarchical structures and the use

of punishments. The study suggests that the approach used by the initiative,

promoting the autonomy of children and their questioning in the learning process,

can be seen as a potential threat to the existing hierarchy in schools, undermining

the authority of teachers and the didactic teaching style which predominates. The

use of these contrasting approaches and negative perceptions of schools could

diminish the potential for positive and long-term effects of the initiative. Thus, for its

effective and sustainable practice in schools, it is important to ensure consistency in

21

ethos and practice throughout the school. While this task requires whole school

commitment, many schools may face challenges, considering that schools often

emphasise adult control and external discipline rather than the development of

students’ autonomous self-control (e.g. Foucault, 1977). In this process, Stewart

(1998) addresses the need to bring changes into schools in terms of ethos,

structures and cultures by involving a whole school community, based on the

experience of promoting peer mediation (a certain type of peace education) in

schools in Northern Ireland:

The idea of empowering the pupils to participate in resolving conflict involves

altering the focus of control. It may mean changing the school ethos, and all this

means changes of attitude for staff, parents and pupils. (Stewart, 1998, p. 88)

As part of the process, Stewart (1998, p. 85) suggests the need for training of adults

in the whole school in order to sustain and promote the practice, recognising that, for

teachers who consider their role as maintaining discipline and control (as they are

taught in teacher training), allowing pupils to resolve their own conflicts can be seen

as a sign of weak discipline (Stewart, 1998, p. 88). This view is shared by many (e.g.

Citizenship Advisory Group, 1998; Cremin, 2007; Hopkins, 2004; Huddleston & Kerr,

2006), who address the importance of integrating education for democratic

citizenship and constructive conflict resolution into a range of learning activities and

opportunities in the school through a whole-school approach. Huddleston and Kerr

(2006, p. 83) state that schools should provide students with opportunities ‘to play a

part in decision-making, take on positions of responsibility and manage their own

learning’, in order for them to practise active citizenship and internalise values

underpinning the practice. Similarly, Bickmore (2001, p. 154) argues that one of the

22

essential elements of democratic education is ‘to foster students’ development of

autonomy by allowing them to share some power with adults in the school’. As part

of the practical experience that students could have in schools, education for peace

and conflict resolution can give students the opportunity to exercise their autonomy

and make decisions about rules or their actions, by managing their conflicts for

themselves, as discussed above.

Overall, peace education can contribute to promoting citizenship education in many

ways, providing children with opportunities to learn skills, knowledge and values

which prepare them to become conscientious, active and responsible citizens, who

can take a part in building a democratic and peaceful society. At the same time,

peace education and overall citizenship education face the challenge of ensuring

that the context of schooling is compatible with these educational practices in order

to have positive effects on students in the long term.

23

References

Adams, D. (Ed.) (1991) The Seville Statement on Violence: Preparing the Ground for

the Constructing of Peace. Paris: UNESCO.

Bar-Tal, D. (2002) Elusive Nature of Peace Education. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo

(Eds.) Peace Education: The Concept, Principles and Practices around the World.

Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bell, D. (2005, 17 January.) Citizenship. Speech to the Hansard Society: OFSTED

Lecture (London). Retrieved May 2006, from

www.saled.org/docs/bellspeachoncitizenship.doc

Bickmore, K. (2001) Student Conflict Resolution, Power ‘Sharing’ in Schools, and

Citizenship Education. Curriculum Inquiry. 31 (2), 137-162.

Bjerstedt, A. (1990) Towards a Rationale and a Didactics of Peace Education:

Progress Notes (1990) on the Project ‘Preparedness for Peace’ in Sweden. In A.

Bjerstedt (Ed.) Education for Peace in the Nineties. (A conference report). Malmö

(Sweden): Lund University. (Education and psychology interactions: No. 105).

Burns, R. J. & Aspeslagh, R. (Eds.) (1996) Three Decades of Peace Education

around the World. New York: Garland Publisher.

Citizenship Advisory Group. (1998) Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of

Democracy in Schools. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Cremin, H. (2007) Peer Mediation: citizenship and social inclusion revisited. London:

Open University.

Davies, L. (2005) Teaching About Conflict Through Citizenship Education.

International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education. 1 (2), 17-34.

Davies, L. (2008) Educating against Extremism. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

24

Deutsch, M. (1993) Educating for a peaceful world. American Psychologist 48 (5),

510–17.

Dewey, J. (2005) (First published in 1916) Democracy and Education. Stilwell:

Digireads. com Book.

DfCSF. (2007) Guidance on the duty to promote community cohesion. London:

Department for Children, Schools and Families. Retrieved May 2010, from

www.dfcsf.gov.uk

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.

Fountain, S. (1999) Peace Education in UNICEF. (Working Paper) New York: UNICEF.

Francis, D. (2002) People, Peace and Power. London: Pluto Press.

Galtung, J. (1975) Peace: Research. Education. Action: Essays in Peace Research.

Vol.1. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.

Harber, C. (2004) Schooling as Violence (London, RoutledgeFalmer).

Harber, C. (2002) Not Quite the Revolution: Citizenship Education in England. In M.

Schweisfurth, L. Davies & C. Harber (Eds.) Learning democracy and Citizenship:

International Experiences. Oxford: Symposium Books.

Harber, C. & Sakade, N. (2009) Schooling for Violence and Peace: how does peace

education differ from ‘normal’ schooling? Journal of Peace Education. 6 (2), 171-187.

Hicks, D. (1988a) Understanding the field. In D. Hicks (Ed.) Education for Peace.

London: Routledge.

Hicks, D. (1988b) Changing paradigms. In D. Hicks (Ed.) Education for Peace.

London: Routledge.

Hicks, D. (1996) Racial justice, Global development or Peace. In R. J. Burns & R.

Aspeslagh (Ed.) Three decades of peace education around the world.

25

Hopkins, B. (2004) Just Schools: A Whole School Approach to Restorative Justice.

London: Jessica Kingsley publishers.

Huddleston, T. & Kerr, D. (2006) Making sense of citizenship: a continuing

professional development handbook. London: Hodder Murray.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (2005) This Issue: Peace Education. Theory Into Practice.

44 (4), 275-279.

Kant, I. (1917) (originally published in 1795) Perpetual Peace. London: George Allen &

Unwin.

Kerr, D. (2003) Citizenship: Local, National and International. In L. Gearon. (Ed.)

Learning to teach citizenship in the secondary school. London: Routledgefalmer.

Kingston Friends Workshop Group. (1987) Ways and Means. Kingston upon

Thames: KFWG.

Kingston Friends Workshop Group. (1996) Ways and Means Today. Kingston upon

Thames: KFWG.

Mead, G. H. (1967) (First published in 1934) Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Mosley, J. (1996) Quality Circle Time in the Primary Classroom. Cambridge: LDA.

Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (1996) Teacher Education and Human Rights. London: David

Fulton.

Prutzman, P., Burger, M. L., Bodenhamer, G. & Stern, L. (1978) The Friendly

Classroom for a Small Planet: Children’s Creative Response to Conflict Program.

Wayne; Avery publishing Group.

26

QCDA. (2010) National Curriculum: Citizenship Key Stage 2. London: Qualification

and Curriculum Development Agency. Retrieved from

http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/index.aspx

Sakade, N. (2009) Peace Education in Practice? A Case Study of Peace Education

in England. PhD thesis. University of Birmingham (School of Education),

Birmingham.

Salomon, G. & Nevo, B. (Eds.) (2002) Peace Education: The Concept, Principles

and Practices around the World. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smith, P. K. (Ed.) (2003) Violence in schools: the response in Europe. London:

Routledgefalmer.

Stacey, H. & Robinson, P. (1997) Let’s Mediate. Bristol: Lucky Duck Publishing.

Stewart, S. (1998) Conflict resolution: A Foundation Guide. Winchester: Waterside

Press.

Vriens, L. (1990) A Reappraisal of Values and Options. In A. Bjerstedt (Ed.)

Education for Peace in the Nineties. (A conference report). Malmö: Lund University.

Wilson, H. E. (1946) Education and UNESCO. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wintersteiner, W., Spajić-Vrkaš, V. & Teutsch, R. (Eds.) (2003). Peace Education in

Europe: Vision and Experiences. Münster: Waxman.

WMQPEP. (1998) Peacemakers. (Video about WMQPEP’s work) Dudley: WMQPEP.

WMQPEP. (2004) West Midlands Quaker Peace Education Project. Dudley:

WMQPEP.

WMQPEP. (2006) WMQPEP Annual Report 2005. Dudley: WMQPEP.