expands the very definition of what it means to be human.” This in turn, of course, raises
the question of whether the extent to which the hope or purpose of education revolves
solely around the personal development of the individual alone. With the underlying
question ‘what is education for? in mind, this leads one to consider whether there is a
need to take cognizance of the broader social context in which personal development is
necessarily located and with which the individual may share mutual obligations.
The focus shifts to the issue of violence in schools and the possibilities for peace
education in “Addressing Violence at School: A Place for Peace Education?” In
summation, authors Jay Poole and Marjorie Church conclude their paper by saying “if
school violence is to be addressed through peace education, educators and school
administrators must step up to the challenge of being introspective, thoughtful, and
intentional in creating learning environments conducive to peace education.” They do not
do so without first examining a body of literature that reflects a variety of opinion on the
issue of school violence. For example, while many call for bans on weapons others call
for arming school personnel. For them, however, “it seems important to consider how and
where so-called peace pedagogy and education may be located in the dialogue about how
to address the problem of school violence.”
Following the lead of Ian Harris and Mary Lee Morrison, Poole and Church
suggest that the quest for peace and justice must begin internally and then extend out into
the larger world. This brings them to the stark conclusion that efforts relative to peace
education must not only be intentional but “will often be contrary to standard educational
practices that emphasize individual achievement through competition and hierarchical
practices.” The suggestion that standard educational practice in this area is somehow
Previous Page Next Page