Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 15 October 2014, At: 04:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Peace EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjpe20
Voluntary standards for peaceeducationCandice C. Carter aa College of Education and Human Services , University of NorthFlorida , Jacksonville, USAPublished online: 14 Aug 2008.
To cite this article: Candice C. Carter (2008) Voluntary standards for peace education, Journal ofPeace Education, 5:2, 141-155
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17400200802264347
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Peace EducationVol. 5, No. 2, September 2008, 141–155
ISSN 1740-0201 print/ISSN 1740-021X online© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/17400200802264347http://www.informaworld.com
Voluntary standards for peace education
Candice C. Carter*
College of Education and Human Services, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, USATaylor and FrancisCJPE_A_326601.sgm(Received December 2007)10.1080/17400200802264347Journal of Peace Education1740-0201 (print)/1740-021X (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis52000000September [email protected]
Peace education is comprehensive. It encompasses instruction by all members of aschool. These standards, which were recommended by researchers and practitionersfrom many areas of the world, prescribe comprehensive and simultaneous instructionwith informal as well as formal curriculum. Although the voluntary standards are aresponse to neoliberal policies in the field of education, they were born of enduringconcepts along with research on educational practice and peace development. As theinternational community and its various schools grapple with several types of violence,comprehensive peace education provides student preparation for responsible stewardshipthrough an enacted vision of a better world. Included in this article are recommendationsfor providing such transformative education. The standards that embody thoserecommendations have been aids to instructors who implement peace education.
Keywords: instruction policy and standards; teacher; teacher educator; schooladministrator guidelines
Introduction
Comprehensive peace encompasses all contexts which humans can influence to preserve andbuild the conditions that allow life to flourish. Peace education is a responsive pedagogy thatdevelops knowledge, skills and dispositions for peace-building, for transformation ofconflicts to prevent or stop violent responses to them, as well as for resolution of conflicts.Peace needed is as far as galactic ecology, yet it is as close as intrapersonal wisdom. Througheducation, students can recognize self-understanding and management in addition to exter-nal factors as domains of their influence on peace development. They learn that interpersonaland environmental circumstances are outcomes of interaction with internal and externalprocesses. The pervasiveness of conflict topics in each school subject, as well as during inter-actions at school, provides a broad context for peace education. Recommendations for usingthose learning opportunities are catalysts for comprehensive peace education.
Background
Herewith is information about contexts, especially in the Americas and specifically in theUSA, that illustrate regional goals of peace education. I then present recommendations, inthe form of standards, for accomplishing those goals. Limitations of this work exist fromthe scope of the author’s lens and the range of my research in this field. My objectives arestimulation of policy development for peace education and description of such contents. The
*Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
142 C.C. Carter
presentation evidences how educators and researchers of the Americas, as well as manyother regions of the world, who participated in the formation of the presented standards,construed domains of learning about peace. In the tradition of this field, they responded topolitical, economic, social and environmental conditions which influenced their recommen-dations. During that process, they combined their notions of peace from the philosophicalfoundations they shared, along with the diverse notions and languages they used to expressthem. The collaborators recognized escalation of violence and had a vision of transformingconflict without it. During the six years I sustained this collaboration in the creation of thevoluntary standards for peace education, I felt the urgency of proactively responding toneoliberalism that was undermining human rights, environmental and political conditionsthroughout the world. The dearth of peace in schools of the USA exemplified the great needfor responsive policy and guidelines.
Where there is no subject place of its own in the curriculum, outside of certificate anddegree program offerings in higher education, peace education has been taught throughintegration in other subject areas which have government policy legitimacy in prescribedstandards (Florida Department of Education 2007). Consequently, the instructional subjectsof language, social studies, arts, science and mathematics have been used as venues forteaching knowledge, skills and dispositions that support multidimensional peace (Bickmore2004b; Carter 2004b; Pirtle 1998). Educators have found methods for integration of peaceas an explicit topic, along with strategies for informal instruction during interactions ontheir campuses (Carter 2003). For example, true accounts of peace throughout history havebeen used to augment social studies (Boulding 2000). Where schools have adopted an ethosof peace and made it a mission for all school personnel to advance, peace can be foundacross all subject areas, or as its own subject of study (Forcey and Harris 1999). Yet,schools with such comprehensive instruction are few. Most depend on visionary and effec-tive leadership to maintain a peace mission in the absence of policy mandates to supportsuch practice. Peace education has several goals and components. For instance, Appendix 1lists identifiable components of peace education within the Americas. The components ofpeace education listed here were mostly found in English and Spanish literature as well asduring observations of and experience with its use. The literature and conference presenta-tions reviewed included research on policy for peace education.
Peace-focused policy
Policy that has influenced educational practice can be found in the form of governmentdirectives or proclamations, recommendations and guidelines by organizations and site-based principles such as school mission statements. For example, sites that have had school-wide preparation of all of their members for peace education have used recommendationsof organizations and related government policies, where they were available, to developtheir mission statements and procedures for accomplishing peace education. In circum-stances where school-wide commitment and inclusive preparation existed, teachers havecollectively and individually incorporated policies as the foundation of their instruction. Aslicensed professionals, they take responsibility for the design of educational programs thatare responsive to the needs which their students, society and the global community evidence.For instance, the ‘Declaration on a culture of peace and nonviolence for the children of theworld’ by UNESCO (1998) provided a rationale for peace-focused pedagogy. Although theUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has never been ratified in the USA,educators there use it to teach students about those rights. Voluntary adoption of recommen-dations that support peace education often evidences high motivation to teach about, and for,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Peace Education 143
peace. Beyond the influence of related policy, the felt responsibility of teachers for fosteringpeace in their students’ lives develops from multiple sources including personal experience,their professional preparation and the emphasis their school administration may have on thataspect of education. Unfortunately, the percentage of teachers who are purposefully creatinglessons for peace education in the absence of related policy is low.
Where peace as a topic is missing in education policy, guidelines and curricula, onlystrands of peace education, but not a clear vision and commitment to peace, can be identi-fied. Presently, components of peace that can be found in standards or guidelines foreducation in the USA evidence their limited epistemological and political foundations. Forexample, standards for learning democratic citizenship have the goal of advancing partici-pation by all. However, democracy through voting, which is the main process taught fordemocratic decision-making, fails to advance peace for the outvoted minority whose needscan be left unsatisfied. A peace focus in lessons on democratic citizenship includesinstruction in methods that bring about consensus in decision-making, for the good of every-one, through processes such as deliberation and active listening (Galtung 1996; Parker2005). Education that focuses mainly on the good life for dominant or majority populationsreveals a need for specific peace goals. Policy that does not have a clear goal of peace inand through education fails to support educational practices that accomplish that goal.Currently, national policy in the USA is counterproductive for social education (Sleeter2007). For example, the failure to include social education, also known in the USA as socialstudies, as an identified area of importance in national mandates for instruction has causedit to be left aside in most primary schools. ‘What is measured is treasured’ (Pederson 2007),is a current reality. Without national policy that sets forth goals for achievement in socialeducation, no testing in primary schools for competence in social knowledge and skillsoccurs. Consequently, children in the USA have rarely been experiencing social studieslessons as a result of incomplete policy. This has created a great challenge for teachers insecondary schools who are faced with students who lack a foundation in social knowledgeand skills. Compounding this problem is the escalation of violence in the society andschools of the USA. Without opportunities to learn about how people throughout historyhave responded to violence, by use of positive and negative peace, students are left with theperception that violence is just a part of their life; something they live with and use as aresponse to conflict. Beyond the dearth of needed social education in the USA, there isuniversal rationale for having policy that promotes peace education.
Rationale for peace education standards
Lack of visionary guidelines and school policy
Justification for guidelines and standards that support peace-focused education throughoutthe world are a lack of multidimensional peace, visions of its existence and formalagreements for bringing it about. However, most countries and education organizations arecurrently not providing standards or guidelines that explicitly recommend topics and skillsof peace through instruction. Yet, this is a period of standardization as the process oflegitimizing what is used as curriculum and instruction. For instance, schools in the USAhave recently lost to tested subject preparation a balance of multidisciplinary instructionincluding arts and physical education with free-play time, in addition to social studies. Thisimbalance has heightened frustrations, thereby increasing violence through oppression ofuninterested and restless children and behavior problems. Additionally, placing students insupposed ability-level groups, and only providing a narrow curriculum for students withlow social and economic status, has been limiting their social and cognitive learning
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
144 C.C. Carter
opportunities while increasing ethnic segregation and other social divisions. Interculturalunderstanding and cooperation do not result from segregation. Interpersonal tensions andviolence characterize relations where social segregation exists.
The continual prevalence of multiple forms of violence is a compelling rationale for apeace focus in schools. Students as well as other school members experience intrapersonalas well as interpersonal and systemic violence. Intrapersonal violence occurs through self-negation an individual develops in response to injustice, in addition to other causes of self-doubt. Interaction with people that undermines the conditions of peace is interpersonalviolence. Structural conditions that perpetuate injustice in an organization of any type causesystemic violence. The development of peace entails proactive attention to all three formsof violence. Constructive efforts in response to the need for change, such as addressing thesources of violence, are proactive behaviors.
Visions of a peaceful world have resulted in suggestions for and implementation ofmultiple strategies for building peace through education (Brenes-Castro 2004; Education forPeace 2007; Hutchinson 1996). Regardless of their social and economic status that too ofteninfluences the amount of violence they endure, young people can develop peace-promotingknowledge through learning about causes of violence and processes for ending it (Johnsonand Johnson 1995; Lantieri and Patti 1996). While non-governmental or multinational orga-nizations have been stipulating competencies of peace education, the only peace-specificpolicies to be found by a government body in most nations are the formal resolutions madeby the UN. Subsequent to the 1998 UN resolution for training in a culture of peace and adeclaration of the next decade to include it in education, the UN initiated in 2004 a WorldProgram for Human Rights Education (Human Rights Education Associates 2005; UNGeneral Assembly 1998; United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for HumanRights, 2004). Needed is policy development of regional governments to expand peace fociin curriculum, instruction, assessment, school management and research, beyond wherethose components have been accomplished by educators who have taken the initiative todevelop them. Lack of specific peace development policy for education has resulted in apockets-of-peace infusion in schools by personnel who are motivated to create such spacesin their formal and informal instruction (Carter 2004a).
Insufficient knowledge of peacemaking
There is a lack of knowledge about peacemakers and the successful methods they use. Inmany regions, the normalization of violence renders those who work for peace as specialpeople (at best), because they advocate for and model alternative methods of living that arecounter to dominant culture. Seen from various viewpoints on a continuum ranging frompeacemakers to revolutionaries, these peace workers share a motivation to take risks in thepursuit of personal and societal transformation. When their acts become accurately known,they are informal peace educators bringing attention to opportunities for change. Yet, onlya small portion of the many who work for peace in their personal or public lives are recog-nized for their important work, or described in commercial curricula. Consequently,students lack knowledge about many peacemakers and their accomplishments.
When asked in the USA who have been the peacemakers in their country and community,students can typically name very few, if any, who have worked for peace. In most cases,they have incomplete knowledge of the extent of that work. For example, students commonlyname Dr Martin Luther King Junior in association with his speech on the Washington Mall,but they are rarely knowledgeable about his outspoken objection to the war engagements ofhis country. In the same vein, children identify Rosa Parks as a peacemaker, for only one
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Peace Education 145
seemingly serendipitous act of noncompliance with segregation. They are not taught abouther extensive preparation as an activist in a collective effort to counter systemic violence.For the most part, students in the USA have a dearth of knowledge about people in theirregion, as well as other nations, who have worked to end violence. Although they are familiarwith Mother’s Day, students are rarely taught about the movement to end war that wasassociated with that national holiday. Social studies teachers have informed me that a lackof curriculum about the peace agreement and subsequent federation of the Haudenosaunee(Iroquois League) that ended horrific fighting in North America is the reason they had noprior knowledge of such accomplishments. Yet, for over a decade a widely used textbooktitled Meeting the Standards (Haas and Laughlin 1997), among other available resources,has provided information for social studies instruction about these important accomplish-ments of the Haudenosaunee (Wallace 1994). Although there are ample sources of informa-tion available about the accomplishments of peace workers, it is apparent that availability isnot the impediment to its inclusion in the curriculum (Canfield et al. 2005; Peace HistorySociety 2007; Terp 2007). Lacking preparation for peace education can influence teachersuccess in accomplishing it (Carter 2007b).
Professional preparation
Affecting teacher preparation programs are educational standards that are used for evalua-tion of their training. For example, in the USA the National Council for Accreditation ofTeacher Education (NCATE) standard that prescribes education about, and accommodationof, human diversity, motivates universities that are seeking accreditation to document theseaspects across their preparation programs. Three strands of training that NCATE (2006)currently evaluates are knowledge, skills and dispositions. Consequently, teacher prepara-tion in NCATE-accredited colleges includes these components in their courses (Stallworth-Clark 2007). As in childhood education, teacher educators find their students have a widerange of knowledge, skills and dispositions (KSDs) that support peace education. Prepara-tion programs which provide direct experience for students with people of diverse back-grounds expect students to develop the KSDs that support education of multiculturalpopulations (Brantmeier 2006). Direct experience with the strategies of peace has beenrecognized as more productive than training that focuses on changing dispositions throughknowledge acquisition (McCauley 2002). Strategies that require students to recognize socialconflicts, learn about them from multiple perspectives, and proactively respond to themhave positively affected the efficacy of teachers in training (Carter and Smith 2004). Beliefthat one can proactively respond to social conflicts supports motivation to continue thataspect of education. Unfortunately, required experience with proactive response to socialconflicts is very limited in teacher preparation. Beyond strategies for classroom manage-ment, which typically focus on sanctions for positive and negative behaviors, there are veryfew programs that prepare teachers and principals for peace-focused education (Reardon1999). More teacher and administrative preparation for facilitating comprehensive peaceeducation is needed. Awareness of this need broadened after school shootings began occur-ring in the USA.
Administration’s commitment
Responsibility for nonviolent interactions on campuses became more germane throughoutthe USA after bloodshed began in schools with students who had higher socioeconomicstatus than their counterparts in poor communities. Yet, nonviolence as a goal on a campus
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
146 C.C. Carter
has not automatically translated into objectives for building peace. There is a differencebetween avoidance of campus violence and education for peace. The former focuses onhuman interaction while the latter has several foci with a vision of, and goals for, accom-plishing peace. Administration that takes a commitment to peace development buildsmotivation of its teachers through accountability, in addition to inspirational leadership withthat stated vision. Administrative support through positive evaluations of teachers’ accom-plishments with the goals of a school is a common motivator. Standards for peace educationin school relations as well as classroom curricula and instruction motivates administratorsand the teachers whose work they evaluate to focus on that important goal.
In addition to enhancing explicit and implicit curricula for children, peace policy andguidelines establish a place for objectives in teacher and principal preparation, sustainedteacher training on campuses and evaluation of educational practice for their facilitation ofpeace education. Where I distributed the standards for peace education, teachers and schoolleaders identified them as useful. While they are instrumental standards for teaching aboutpeace, and having it, the implementation of the voluntary standards provides an opportunityto advance research in this field.
Research
Although research on peace education can include studies that use as descriptors any of thecomponents listed in Appendix 1, this discussion is limited to studies of policy-supportedpeace education. Comparative research reveals the need for – and outcomes of – policy thatestablishes a place for peace in student and teacher education (Carter 2004a, 2007a). Peaceeducation has been enacted throughout schools where its components or comprehensiveprograms have been statutory from policy by governments, or decisions by school adminis-tration (Salomon and Nevo 2002). For example, an education reform order in 1989mandated for use across all schools of Northern Ireland the ‘education for mutual under-standing’ (EMU) themes. New cross-community education policy and EMU adoptionresulted in its implementation in primary and secondary education (Smith and Robinson1996). The government in Northern Ireland subsequently funded evaluations of EMU. Acommitment to evaluation of EMU further motivated its use in schools and supportedresearch on its enactment and outcomes. ‘Education for peace’ (EFP) has become an inter-nationally popular program since its success in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where it was exten-sively facilitated by government policy during the most recent post-war period. Identifiedas the components of its effective program were: (a) a unity-based worldview, (b) a cultureof peace, (c) a culture of healing, and (d) peace as the framework for the curriculum (Danesh2006). One unifying component of EFP has been the use of arts for accomplishing learning,assessment and community-building goals. Recently, the federal government of the USAfunded a model of arts-based learning about conflict resolution. Research on the facilitationof conflict resolution in schools highlights the importance of diversity accommodation inthe implementation of mediation programs (Carter 2002a, 2002b).
Education for understanding human diversity is the most common type of statutorypeace-building course in the USA. Government recognition of conflicts between – anddisparity of – social groups in the USA has resulted in limited policy requirements for multi-cultural education. In Florida, a course titled ‘Teaching diverse populations’ (TDP) wasmandated for all students who seek state certification as educators. Examination of TDPevidenced outcomes of the different methods used for that course throughout Florida. Forexample, required social action within the teacher education courses demonstrated howstudents learned through experience prosocial skills for responding to diversity-based
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Peace Education 147
conflicts (Carter and Smith 2004). Policy that prescribes goals of peace in education supportsmore than learning about prosocial transformation of conflict. It enhances opportunities foraddressing the needs of students who have been experiencing violent outcomes of conflict.One specialist in violence prevention and restorative practices opined that
I hope I come to a point where I will be able to ask school people if they have policiesattending to the needs of victims in their school and they will be able to answer yes. Theywill be able to articulate what those are. There will be things offered to kids when they havebeen harmed, harassed, bullied or part of a fight – the opportunity to talk to someone, to geteducation, to be able to ask for a restorative process. (International Institute for RestorativePractices 2005, 4)
Research on restorative practices has positive implications for peace education policy, as doother studies of peace-focused education.
Recommendations for standards
In Appendices 2 through 4 are voluntary standards for peace education. Members of thePeace Education Commission of the International Peace Research Association, the PeaceEducation Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association andother related groups generated suggestions for the contents of the standards (Ahmad 2004;Bickmore 2004; Carter 2006).
The standards support responsiveness. To facilitate their use by different peopleinvolved in education, the theme of inclusion pervades them. They are broad statementsabout current components of peace education, thereby allowing for their contextually appro-priate application. With multiculturalism increasing in schools, it was impossible to developone set of culturally relevant standards for all of the regions that have been using them.Consequently, the standards allow for interpretation. For example, the standards forcommunication enactment help educators accommodate the cultural norms of their students,such as whether or not to require eye contact and ‘I messages’ (see below) while teachingstudents related skills. Additionally, the standards foster involvement of all direct partici-pants in education of children and their teachers. Consequently, there are standards forstudents, their teachers, teacher educators and school administrators. To save space in print,the components of each set of standards that one group will influence are included in theresponsibility of that group. For example, teacher educators are responsible for preparingteachers in training for use of the recommended standards for teachers. The standards forschool administrators support their peace-building management of the school and theirsuccess as a role model for peaceful interaction, especially in conflict resolution. They alsoprovide rationale for funding continual teacher training for peace education. Teachersuccess, especially in social interaction with diverse populations, depends on their reflectiveexperiences in training and practice. Hence, the standards facilitate continual developmentof knowledge, skills and dispositions that enable provision of peace education.1
In the spirit of accountability for inclusiveness, the voluntary standards for peace educa-tion were checked with the list of criteria for education standards that the National Associ-ation of Multicultural Education (NAME) provided (2006). The standards here address thekey concerns that NAME identified, which were inclusiveness, diverse perspectives, self-knowledge, accommodating alternative epistemologies and social construction of knowl-edge. One outcome of providing voluntary standards for peace education is the use of thosestandards by organizations that are also producing recommendations for practices whichpromote peace through education.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
148 C.C. Carter
Uses of standards for peace education
Education policy
Standards for comprehensive peace education illuminate needed inclusion of peace inschool goals and guidelines. They also provide an aid to policy makers who, representingtheir stakeholders, look to schools for resolution of societal problems. Adoption of thestandards by school administrators and governments that prescribe instruction provides theneeded foundation for development of peace through education. Where the standards are notadopted as policy, their optional use as aids in developing school mission statements andcorresponding instruction is valuable in the advancement of peace goals set by educatorsand their administrators, as well as by the most important school participants; the studentsand their families. Additionally, the standards enable expansion of the curriculum to includecontents that support peace education. Moreover, the standards can have a valid role asuniversity accreditation criteria, such as that which NCATE uses for endorsement of qualityteaching (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards 2006).
This article is intended to stimulate continual consideration and refinement of standardsfor comprehensive peace education. It particularly speaks to practitioners of diversity educa-tion as well as teacher educators who have recognized the need for refining and expandingthose peace-building practices (Hagan and McGlynn 2003; Melnick and Zeichner 1997). Itrationalizes policy development for peace education throughout the world. It demonstratesthat it is worthwhile to anticipate effects of prosocial policy.
A picture of applied standards
From their awareness of their own mental state, school participants take care of themselveswhile their stress stimulates an acute emotional condition. When it is culturally appropriate,which sometimes is not the case in collectivist cultures, students use ‘I statements’ tocommunicate their feelings and needs. ‘When … [this happens] I feel … [a condition] andI need … [something to address it]’. For example, a teacher might hear from a student ‘Whenyou interrogate me about this problem, I feel insulted, and I need to be treated respectfully’.Another scenario is ‘When you ask me to do this, I feel resistant, and I need to know whyI should want to do it’. As students understand diverse norms and exceptionalities, they betteraccept and adapt to differences in behavior that they perceive as respectful. From educationin, and with, compassionate communication, students know how to recognize disrespect andother antisocial interactions as expressions of unmet needs. Using ‘I statements’ or someother culturally appropriate discourse, the students request information after acknowledgingthe communicated stress. They also explain their need to feel respected and to problem-solve.
With knowledge of transformative strategies which have worked in past conflicts,students consider and try them, or create new strategies, for addressing mutual needs in aconflict. Having learned from their teacher the value of partnership, they do not try to domi-nate their conflict partners by making demands. Mutual agreement for trying a problemsolution provides the shared responsibility and interdependence the students learn to value.These communicative approaches to transformation of violence have been working forstudents who have learned them (Joy 2007). In their reflections on how these skills worked,students identified the value of using them in conflict at home, school and elsewhere withpeople they encounter, including contexts which had previously been characterized byphysical violence (Carter 2007b).
With their knowledge of peacemaking used in the past, students engage in proactive workto address violence they analyze from several perspectives. Their recognition of oppression
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Peace Education 149
and empathy for the dominated stimulates their motivation to learn about and react to suchviolence (Miller, Kozu and Davis, 2001). The ability to classify different types of violenceenables students to respond to them. For example, recognizing multiple opportunities forpeacemaking in a habitual response (learned from prior observations), the student reconsid-ers the instinctual response to a homeless person who requests aid. Instead of labeling anddismissing the ‘bum’, a quick self-check reveals a lack of information. The student thenlearns about the situation, which often evidences structural conflict, and then uses that infor-mation to formulate a proactive response to the problem, including its root causes.
The school administrator recognizes the relevancy and potential of the learning activitiesfor student development. This results in acknowledgement of peace education accomplish-ment by the student’s teacher. The principal and teacher encourage family involvement inthe student’s engagement with a societal conflict. Through this supportive collaboration inpeace-focused learning, the student develops efficacy as a peace developer. Consequently,the norm of violence that pervades society is no longer accepted as the way life has to be.A vision of a peaceful future, cultivated across school subjects, enables student preparationfor peace development.
Implications for transformative education and research
Standards for peace education have potential for transformation through their widespreadconsideration and use. Collaborative engagement in this important opportunity can increasethe skills of our future decision makers, everybody who could have the knowledge aboutand dispositions for peaceful conflict resolution. Voluntary adoptions of the standards forpeace education have begun this process where access to them has been available. Incorpo-ration of these standards in school mission statements, curriculum guidelines and lessons forstudents of all ages is providing opportunities to develop peace in their lives, communityand world.
Peace-focused education portends more than transformation of conflicts in schools andtheir communities. While vision has been crucial to the success of nonviolent conflictresolution in micro as well as macro contexts, commitment to carrying out challenges ofconflict resolution are also crucial (Diamond 2000). A focus on peace development througheducation and research about it similarly occurs through vision and commitment in the faceof many forms of violence. The expanding opportunities in higher education, sustained bythe faculty and students they attract and administration that supports them, evidence a coreof shared hope in violent times. These programs are illuminating internal as well as externalprocesses and opportunities for using them. The availability of the voluntary standards forpeace education facilitates broader efforts to understand and enhance peace developmentthrough education.
Avenues for research on processes that support prosocial conflict transformation andother methods of peace development are evident from implementation of the standards.While studies have shown processes that were useful for some populations, the contextualconditions for success vary, as well as the interpretations of them. More information aboutthe use of the standards across diverse contexts would be helpful.
Note1. These standards are condensed from a more thorough list that was collaboratively developed with
peace researchers and educators from different areas of the world. Contact the author for thecomprehensive list of standards for students, teachers, teacher educators and school administrators.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
150 C.C. Carter
Notes on contributorCandice C. Carter, PhD in Curriculum and Instruction, is an associate professor in the College ofEducation and Human Services at the University of North Florida. In the same university, she directsthe interdisciplinary conflict transformation program for undergraduate and graduate students,including doctoral candidates. Dr Carter edits the noncommercial Journal of Stellar Peacemaking(www.jsp.st) that publishes through nonfiction, arts and research information about peace develop-ment. Her other publications include research on peace-focused teacher preparation, social education,conflict transformation and curriculum integration. Dr Carter is a consultant for development andimplementation of peace education in universities, colleges and schools.
ReferencesAhmad, I. 2004. Proposed standards for peace education: Reflections. Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, April 12–16, in San Diego, CA.Bickmore, K. 2004a. Proposed standards for peace education: A constructively conflictual
commentary. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, April 12–16, in San Diego, CA.
Bickmore, K. 2004b. Education for peace building citizenship: Teaching the dimensions of conflictresolution in social studies. In Challenges and prospects for Canadian social studies, ed. A.Sears and I. Wright, 187–201. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
Boulding, E. 2000. Cultures of peace: The hidden side of history. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.Brantmeier, E. 2006. Being white among a sea of brown: Transformative moments when teaching
in Navajoland. Journal of Stellar Peacemaking 1, no. 2. http://www.jsp.st (accessed April 4,2007).
Brenes-Castro, A. 2004. An integral model of peace education. In Educating for a culture of socialand ecological peace, ed. A.L. Wenden, 77–98. New York: State University of New York.
Canfield, J., M. Hansen, C.C. Carter, S. Palomares, L. Williams, and B. Winch, eds. 2005. Chickensoup for the soul: Stories for a better world. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.
Carter, C.C. 2002a. Conflict mediation at school: Peace through avoidance? New York: ERICClearinghouse on Urban Education. (ED 433396).
———. 2002b. Conflict resolution at school: Designed for construction of a compassionatecommunity. Social Alternatives 21, no. 1: 49–55.
———. 2003. Prosocial music: Empowerment through aesthetic instruction. MulticulturalPerspectives 5, no. 4: 38–40.
———. 2004a. Education for peace in Northern Ireland and the USA. Theory and Research inSocial Education 32, no. 1: 24–38.
———. 2004b. Whither social studies? In pockets of peace at school. Journal of Peace Education1: 77–87.
———. 2006. Standards as guidelines for peace education: Developments and considerations. Paperpresented at the meeting of the International Peace Research Association, July 3–6, in Calgary,Canada.
———. 2007a. Teacher preparation for peacebuilding in the USA and Northern Ireland. In Address-ing ethnic conflict through peace education, ed. Z. Bekerman and C. McGlynn, 245–58. NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.
———. 2007b. Peace education through tele-dramatics instruction: Implications for teacher educa-tion. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April9–13, in Chicago.
Carter, C.C., and A. Smith. 2004. Preparation of teachers for proactive citizenship education. Paperpresented at the meeting of the International Peace Research Association, July 3–6, in Sopron,Hungary.
Danesh, H. (2006) Towards an integrative theory of peace education. Journal of Peace Education 3:55–78.
Diamond, L. 2000. The courage for peace. Daring to create harmony in ourselves and the world.Berkeley, CA: Conari.
Education for Peace. 2007. http://www.efpinternational.org/ (accessed 4 December 2007).Florida Department of Education. 2007. Florida Sunshine State Standards: Peacemaking skills for
little kids, grade 2 Available online at: http://pef.iserver.net/SunshineStateStandards/ (accessed 4December 2007).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Peace Education 151
Forcey, L., and I. Harris, eds. 1999. Peacebuilding for adolescents: Strategies for educators andcommunity leaders. New York: Peter Lang.
Galtung, J. 1996. Peace by peaceful means. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute.Haas, Mary, and Margaret Laughlin, eds. 1997. Meeting the standards. Social studies readings for
K-6 educators. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.Hagan, M., and C. McGlynn. 2003. Moving barriers: Promoting learning for diversity in initial
teacher education. Journal of Intercultural Education 15: 243–52.Human Rights Education Associates. 2007. http://www.hrea.org/ (accessed 4 December 2007).Hutchinson, F.P. 1996. Educating beyond violent futures. London: Routledge.International Institute for Restorative Practices. 2005. Restorative practices impact public schools in
Minnesota: An interview with Nancy Riestenberg. Restorative Practices E Forum, January 16,2003. http://fp.enter.net/restorativepractices/riestenberg.pdf (accessed December 4, 2007).
Johnson, D.W., and R.T. Johnson. 1995. Teaching students to be peacemakers: Results of five yearsof research. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 1: 417–38.
Joy, A. 2007. SBHS students learn how to use conflict resolution in daily life. Hollister Free Lance,p. 1.
Lantieri, L., and J. Patti. 1996. The road to peace in our schools. Educational Leadership 54:28–31.
McCauley, C. 2002. Head first versus feet first in peace education. In Peace education: Theconcepts, principles, and practices around the world, ed. G. Salomon and B. Nevo, 247–58.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Melnick, S.L., and K.M. Zeichner. 1997. Enhancing the capacity of teacher education institutions toaddress diversity issues. In Preparing teachers for cultural diversity, ed. J.I. King, E.R. Hollins,and W.C. Hayman, 23–39. New York: Teachers College.
Miller, P.A., J. Kozu, and A.C. Davis. 2001. Social influence, empathy, and prosocial behavior incross-cultural perspective. In The practice of social influence in multiple cultures, ed. W. Wosinska,R.B. Cialdini, D.W. Barrett, and J. Reykowski, 63–77. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
National Association for Multicultural Education. 2006. Criteria for evaluating state curriculumstandards. http://www.nameorg.org/resolutions/statecurr.html (accessed June 1, 2006).
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. 2006. http://www.nbpts.org/ (accessed June 1,2006).
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. 2006. http://www.ncate.org/ (accessedOctober 10, 2006).
Parker, W.C. 2005. Social studies in elementary education. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Peace History Society. 2007. http://www.peacehistorysociety.org/ (accessed June 2, 2007).Pederson, P. 2007. What is measured is treasured: The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on
non-assessed subjects. The Social Studies 96: 105–12.Pirtle, S. 1998. Linking up! Using music, movement, and language arts to promote caring,
cooperation, and communication; Pre-k through grade 3. Cambridge, MA: Educators forSocial Responsibility.
Reardon, B.A. 1999. Educating the educators: The preparation of teachers for a culture of peace.Peace Education Miniprints No. 99, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432527.
Salomon, G., and B. Nevo, eds. 2002. Peace education: The concept, principles, and practicesaround the world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sleeter, C., ed. 2007. Facing accountability in education: Democracy and equity at risk. New York:Teachers College.
Smith A., and A. Robinson. 1996. Education for mutual understanding. The initial statutory years.Coleraine, Northern Ireland: Centre for the Study of Conflict, University of Ulster.
Stallworth-Clark, R. 2007. Transformative teacher preparation: Fostering the development ofteacher dispositions that support peace. Journal of Stellar Peacemaking 1, no. 2. http://www.jsp.st (accessed December 4, 2007).
Terp, H. 2007. My poor path to peacebuilding: Producing a peace academy. Journal of StellarPeacemaking 2, no. 1. http://www.jsp.st (accessed December 4, 2007).
UNESCO. 1998. Declaration on a culture of peace and non-violence for the children of the world,2001–2010. http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/uk/uk_sum_decade.htmResolution 53/25 (accessedNovember 24, 2006).
UN General Assembly. 1998. Culture of peace. Resolution 52/13. http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/uk/uk_sum_refdoc.htm (accessed November 24, 2006).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
152 C.C. Carter
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2004. ABC: Teaching humanrights. Practical activities for primary and secondary schools, 2nd ed. New York: UnitedNations.
Wallace, P. 1994. The Iroquois book of life. White roots of peace. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light.
Appendix 1. Goals and components of peace educationGoals
Develop peace-promoting knowledge, skills and dispositionsIdentify self as a peace facilitatorRecognize and analyze past and present peaceDevelop efficacy as a peacemakerEnvision and plan for future peace
ComponentsKnowledgeKnow repeating causes of human conflictKnow the processes of nonviolence in multiple contextsIdentify processes that have been successful for peacemakersKnow of peace leaders, peace-focused organizations and peace networksUnderstand the omnipresence, ambiguity and value of conflict for needed change
SkillsAccommodate human diversityRecognize needs of self and othersExhibit pro-social behaviors with familiar and unfamiliar culturesAnalyze conflict from several perspectives, avoiding dichotomiesEnvision, design and build peaceful contextsIdentify and proactively respond to injusticeDevelop mindfulness of reality and its influence on behaviorExhibit emotions awareness and managementUse nonviolent outlets for negative feelings and physical stressUse compassionate communication and other conflict-transformation techniquesEngage in reconciliation for restoration, or development, of relationshipsEvaluate the effectiveness of conflict-response strategies
DispositionsDemonstrate:Appreciation for peaceAppreciation for diversity of human and other life formsPhysical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual consciousnessEmpathy for those in need, including animalsLocal to global civic responsibilityEnvironmental stewardshipCommitment to peace-buildingCourage to avoid violence in conflict transformationConfidence with use of peacemaking strategies
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Peace Education 153
Appendix 2. Recommended standards for students
Students of peace education exhibit the following developmentally appropriate knowledge, skills and dispositions:
Self-AwarenessRecognize own values, emotional tendencies and peace-development capabilities.
Human DiversityUnderstand and accommodate variations of culture as well as physical and cognitive abilities,
including different methods of peaceful conflict transformation.
Contextual AwarenessIdentify threats to the life-sustaining needs of people in local and global communities while
analyzing causes of systemic, as well as intrapersonal and interpersonal, violence.
Peace HistoryRecall peace efforts and accomplishments of people, organizations and societies, including women
and children.
Pro-Active CommunicationIdentify and use positively transformative communication techniques.
Methods of Non-violent Conflict ResolutionDescribe and demonstrate appropriate methods for different situations.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
154 C.C. Carter
Appendix 3. Recommended standards for teachers and teacher educators
In addition to educating students with the recommended peace education standards for students, teachers as well as their educators demonstrate the following skills:
Diversity Accommodation and EnhancementFacilitate positive contact with, as well as information about, diverse cultures in the local region
and afar to overcome ignorance, misinformation and stereotypes. Accommodate cultural norms of students including their diverse learning styles. Enable student construction of, from their collective experiences as well as provided information, their concepts of peace and positive processes for increasing it.
Positive RegardDemonstrate appreciation for all student achievements in, and aspirations for, nonviolent
development of peace.
Compassionate CommunicationUse compassionate and equitable communication in dialogic facilitation of classroom management
and other interactions with school participants.
Modeling Peace StrategiesModel action for comprehensive peace development, on and beyond the campus, to demonstrate a
community norm of respect, justice and environmental stewardship.
Conflict AnalysisAnalyze ecological and social interactions for identification of conflict antecedents, including
oppression with irresponsible consumerism and other obstructions of human rights in addition to destructive treatment of the earth and its solar system. Examine power relations for sources of violence and opportunities for its nonviolent transformation, including the local and global impact of militarism. Cultivate non-dichotomous analysis with examination of data from multiple perspectives.
IntegrationIntegrate knowledge bases and subject areas for holistic cultivation of knowledge with skill
development across courses by all instructors.
Partnership ManagementCreate a nurturing school–home environment which nourishes and provides a safe place for
communication about concerns and possible responses to them. Involve students in decision-making about their learning needs, including their ideas for peace development. Listen to families’ ideas of how peace can be developed in the classroom and school and then assist with facilitation of their viable suggestions.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Peace Education 155
Appendix 4. Recommended standards for school administrators
School administrators practice the following peacemaking skills:
Model Peace-building and PeacemakingDemonstrate in daily interactions dispositions and skills that develop peace including vision,
commitment, regard, compassion, optimism and cultural diversity.
Recognize and Acknowledge Peace on CampusDemonstratively value and recognize cooperation by and mutual support of all school participants.
Include peace maintenance and development as criteria for inclusion in evaluation of all school personnel.
Provide Peace Education for All School ParticipantsSupport initiatives in peace-oriented education by school members including ecological-minded
consumption and recycling of materials at school as well as peace-focused curriculum and instruction. Provide opportunities for peace education instruction of, and involvement by, families and other school partners including the school as a place for citizenship enactment.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
04:
28 1
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
