Close to one year ago, following the eruption of violence in Israel and Gaza, Conrad Hughes published a blog post entitled How Might International Schools Position Themselves in Times of Armed Conflict. In that post Hughes stated that “the purpose of international schools is not to publicly condemn nation states or governments, individuals or groups, nor is it to encourage our students to take sides, it is always to stand on the side of peace.” On first reading, this statement makes perfect sense, and I suspect many international school leaders delivered a very similar message to their school communities. I know I did. Upon continued reflection, however, it strikes me that while our international schools may not be taking a stand against aggressor nations or groups, we are not really standing up for peace either. The sad truth is that the international school movement has lost its compass regarding peace education. I believe this needs to change.
The fact is, the promotion of peace is a foundational principle of international schools, one of two main reasons why our schools exist. In Schools Across Frontiers (1987), for example, Alec Peterson, the first Director General of the International Baccalaureate, describes the milieu in which the international education movement gained momentum. Once again confronted by the horrors of world war, post-World War II educators sought to promote international understanding, also known at the time as international mindedness, in hopes of promoting peace among nations. When the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was established in 1945, poet-statesman Archibald Macleish contributed these lines to its charter, “Since wars begin in the minds of men it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed” (https://www.isaschools.org/index.php/about-us?id=204, accessed August 18, 2024). UNESCO quickly took action to promote these “defences of peace.” In 1949 it sponsored the First Conference of Principals of International Schools and of Schools Specially Interested in Developing International Understanding, which was “open to schools that `consciously aim at furthering world peace and understanding through education’” (Hill, 2002). Clearly, the ever-increasing number of schools that embraced this aim were seen as the vehicles for achieving it. In the years immediately following the war, international education was widely seen as a force for good, for making the world a better place.
Creating a more peaceful world has never been the sole purpose of international schools, however. In addition to this idealistic aim, historically there has also been a pragmatic aim- the provision of a rigorous program of study and a transportable credential that would allow students from increasingly globally mobile families to return to their home countries for tertiary study. Hill (2002) maintains that these pragmatic concerns were historically of greater importance. “Parents, students, teachers and school administrators needed to be convinced that the curricula were relevant to international students and acceptable by the best universities around the globe; ideological objectives were not of themselves sufficient motivation” (p. 25). I would argue that today, this dichotomy between pragmatism and idealism, identified by Tarc (2009) as an enduring “tension,” has largely disappeared. Today, pragmatism, i.e., the market, prevails.
Consider, for example, how much of our focus in international schools today centers on the provision of educational qualifications. Publicly we pride ourselves more on exam results than on international mindedness. We embrace “global quality standards through quality assurance processes such as accreditation” (Cambridge and Thompson, 2004) not primarily because they lead to better educational experiences for our students, but because they enable us to fulfil a core requirement of the globalized system in which our schools operate: sorting out students for colleges. When Artificial Intelligence emerges as a powerful tool for educational change, our first response is not how it might be used to enhance or even fundamentally change the learning process, but how it could be used to “game the system,” i.e., thwart the sorting. It begs the question: when armed conflict erupts somewhere in the world, why don’t we explicitly condemn the aggressors? Is it because we believe these situations are too complex for us to judge or is it actually because we don’t want to risk alienating some members within our communities, thus risking internal conflict, perhaps even a decline in enrollment?
Imagine if our international schools truly always stood on the side of peace, as Hughes suggested. What might that look like? How could we cultivate the skills, attitudes, and knowledge that promote the capacity for peace in our students and in our communities?
One way would be to mandate peace education as part of the formal curriculum. When I started out with the IB Diploma Program some 30 years ago, the IB offered a course called Peace and Conflict Studies, but this course was eliminated, and its remnants now exist as but one unit within the Global Politics course. We need peace studies to permeate our curricula. This involves explicitly teaching students different theories of peace, the history of peace studies, the different types of conflict and their relation to violence versus non-violence, and the history of peace making and peacebuilding. By examining Galtung’s distinction between negative and positive peace, for example, students will be able to make connections between peace in their own lives and in the wider world.
Another way, one that many schools already use, is to model peaceful conflict management. International school staff can demonstrate non-violent communication, showing students how to resolve disagreements peacefully and respectfully. Related to this endeavor is the implementation of Restorative Justice practices. Instead of traditional punitive approaches, schools can use restorative justice to address conflicts and wrongdoing, focusing on repairing harm and restoring relationships.
Finally, we can stand up for peace by framing the two sides of an instance of armed conflict not as between two nations or cultures, but first and foremost as peace vs violence and go on to publicly, unequivocally oppose violence and physical aggression in all their forms, on both macro and micro scales. We don’t have to call out the aggressor in order to call out the aggression. We can stand on the side of peace. There are other strategies for building cultures of peace within our international schools, and we should explore them further too. The first step, however, is to assume responsibility for the task.
References
Cambridge, J., & Thompson, J. (2004). Internationalism and globalization as contexts for international education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 34(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305792042000213994
Hill, I. (2002). The history of international education: An International Baccalaureate perspective. In M. Hayden, J. Thompson, & G. Walker (Eds.), International Education in Practice: Dimensions for national and international schools (pp. 18–29). Routledge.
International Schools Association. (2024). About us: Building for the future. Retrieved August 18, 2024, from https://www.isaschools.org/index.php/about-us?id=204.
Peterson, A. (1987). Schools across frontiers (2nd edition). Open Court Press.
Tarc, P. (2009). Global dreams, enduring tensions: International Baccalaureate in a changing world. Peter Lang.
D.J. Condon is the Director of the International School of Luxembourg.