misguided gives one cause for pause. As it does so, it may also temper one’s faith in the
mechanisms often employed by authorities whose actions in the sphere of policing, for
example, have come under scrutiny of late. And it undoubtedly raises questions regarding
the wisdom of educational practices from those legislated in No Child Left Behind to
those promoted in Race for the Top and to those now required by the Common Core State
Standards. Whether or not one agrees with the basic thrust of the authors’ position,
namely, that efforts relative to peace education “will often be contrary to standard
educational practices that emphasize individual achievement through competition and
hierarchical practices,” it is an important observation and call to question the degree to
which we can rely on governmental mandates, be they the local, state, or federal level, to
provide guidance or even awareness on such issues.
The focus on the centrality of the individual person and his or her growth and
development to the concept of education just addressed above is also evident in the work
of Sheryl Lieb, “Teaching for Peace Existentially: A Creative Pedagogy for Individual
and Community Peacemaking.” Emphasizing the importance of peacemaking as an
outcome of education, Lieb writes “to teach for peace, existentially, means to first teach
for the revitalization of self as peacemaker, bringing together the warring parts of self
that compete for control of the psyche and body.” While education is often assumed to be
centered on the growth and development of the individual, Lieb identifies an other-than-
economic interdependence between the wellbeing of the individual and the broader
community of which he or she is a member. There is, moreover, the view that elements of
“the neoliberal culture of standardization and objectification” that seriously impact the
broader community are not supportive of education as a “peaceful and cooperative
Previous Page Next Page