SCHOOLED FOR PEACE

In her eponymous work, Professor Alison Wolf of Kings College London, explores the link between education and economic growth — something that has lately troubled governments all over the world in their quest for development. In these terms, development usually refers to economic rather than human development. But, there is a more important role for education, notably its pre-eminent obligation to educate young people as pacifists and catalysts for social change.

The problem is how best to do it, through education rather than indoctrination because the latter is surely anti-educational.

As Jonathan Sacks notes in The Dignity of Difference (2002), there is a real danger that the market, left in its own hands, will concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, leaving significant many without stable employment, income or prospects. Inequalities breed divisions, which may in turn, breed resentment and conflict. The world may have a global economy but we do not yet have a coherent vision of global concern. Provision of universal education is a necessary beginning but the moral imperative of educators is to educate for peace.

The recently published UN Human Development Report also reiterates that “human development is about putting people at the centre of development. It is about people realizing their potential, increasing their choices and enjoying the freedom to lead lives they value”. This ambition, the elixir of human development, will only be realized if we are able to exploit the potential of education as resolvers of conflict and, more proactively, as educators and enablers of peace. But has anything in the world changed recently which gives us this moral imperative? May be. Consider this:

• the axis of influence has shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific (although President Obama’s premature but optimistic Nobel Peace Prize may suggest otherwise);

• the responsibility for peace is considered to be global and does not rest fully with the institutions set up to help bring peace;

• more to the point, it rests with each of us as individuals and

• last, but not least, there is some sense of inter-connectedness.

Three-year-old children argue and fight but it is worth pondering why conflicts develop on the playground? Is there a real risk that certain attitudes and behaviours will become so worryingly established in young children they are precursors for adult conflict? Is there a risk that the children may see violence as a means of resolving conflict? In a society that rushes to blame, who is responsible? Is it the child, his parents or the peer group? Is it his school or society at large? Where does a school draw the line on punishments? How do schools prevent conflict and promote active, responsible citizens?

Schools have responsibilities, through their values and practices, to educate for peace. They have an obligation to develop personal and intercultural understanding and tolerance. Although the more democratically run schools give students a voice in many aspects of school life, most schools are over reliant on the power of an hierarchy and, in doing so, may place students at the bottom of the pyramid, irrespective of their mission statement and stated aims.

This runs the risk of alienation, subjugation and compliance through authority rather than through the personal values of right and wrong. I n t e r n at i o n a l schools, comprising students diverse in terms of mother tongue, culture, faith and background, have a unique responsibility to promote inter-cultural understanding. Blessed as they are with all the resources that cultural diversity offers, as well as the bastions of privilege they tend to be, they need to have permeable walls: To be distinctively different from the surrounding communities yet open to them and empathetic to the needs of the community. Their walls must allow an appreciation of the cultures around them. If we are clear about our stand for peace, and resolute in dealing with conflict, there are some givens:

• adopt values and aims that demonstrate a commitment to peace;

• give students a voice in decisionmaking;

• emphasize the importance of equality of opportunity;

• have a clear stance on behavioural norms and expectations;

• deal with conflict consistently and rigorously; and

• promote peace through the curriculum and events, projects, community action and most important, through inter-relationships.

One may ask how education can transform society? Actually, education may be transformational but it is a process rather than a single event and one that usually takes time. Educating youngsters is a vehicle for educating parents and challenging stereotypical attitudes.

By bringing together diverse cultural groups and developing attitudes of cultural appreciation, schools can make a positive difference to society.

But, teachers need backing to be able to take the brave step of allowing diverse opinions in the classrooom. In India, the examinations and assessment regime, with its stultifying effect on teachers’ behaviour, must be reformed. Will schools in which bullying is rife, change society by their emphasis on mutual understanding or lack of it? Not in the short term. In any case, mutual understanding is just one aspect of building a constituency for peace.

Standards and expectations need to be based on the school’s ethos and values. So-called “zero tolerance” has become the mantra to guide decision-making on anti-social behaviour. But zero tolerance is anti-educational. Tolerance is a value to be cherished, even though tough action is needed to dissuade students from engaging in anti-social, anti-community behaviour. Only by promoting tolerance can we make a difference and eliminate the motives for gang warfare, for persecution of the underdog or for inter-cultural dissonance. In this way, we build a sense of global community and emphasize what we have in common rather than the few things on which we differ. A genuine dignity of difference.