Baird

Sarah Baird
Dr. Eichenberger
SO 375 HP: Contemporary Topics: Peace and Justice
4 May 2014
Pedagogy for Peace: How teaching peacemaking and conflict resolution skills leads to
happier classrooms and brighter futures
In the urban community, 25 percent of inner-city youth have witnessed a murder; 72
percent know someone who has been shot. Ten percent of children treated in hospitals have
witnessed a stabbing or shooting before the age of six (Haberman, 2008). These statistics may
seem shocking, but unfortunately, they are the reality for many children in the United States
today. When new teachers enter the field of education, many have grand hopes of changing the
world. However, when confronted with these harsh realities, many find themselves unable to
cope. What are we to do when children are trapped in a seemingly inescapable cycle of
violence? As stated by former UNESCO Director-General Federico Mayor, The key to the
prevention of violence is education for nonviolence (Opotow, Gerson, & Woodside, 2010).
This is where the need for peace education comes into play.
Peace education has been defined in several different ways. Fulcher defines peace
education as teaching skills and concepts which children can draw upon when faced with new
conflict or when dealing with the aftermath of past conflict (Fulcher, 2012). Another scholar
argues that peace education helps students to design strategies of action which can contribute to
the shaping of a world characterized by social justice and absence of exploitation (Fulcher,
2012). This includes learning skills such as listening, cooperation, problem solving, and
reflecting (Fulcher, 2012). Johnson and Johnson explain that peace education includes teaching

Baird

students how to engage in problem-solving negotiations and how to mediate their schoolmates
conflicts (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). For the purpose of this research, we will define peace
education as any type of education or training that helps students to better engage in constructive
problem-solving and conflict resolution as opposed to engaging in destructive or violent behavior
in order to solve conflicts.
Now that we have defined peace education, how do we go about teaching it to our
students? Peace education can be implemented in multiple ways, at virtually any age level, from
preschool students to graduate school students to adults. Despite differing circumstances and
implementations of peace education, the underlying goals of increasing personal skills and
confidence remain (Fulcher, 2012). Some simple methods for encouraging peace in the
classroom are outlined in Martin Habermans article, Gentle Teaching in a Violent Society. In
this article, Haberman suggests that teachers must model cooperation with other adults, respect
students expression of ideas, use cooperative learning, and encourage using subject matters as
the way to have fights (i.e. science fights about rival explanations, social studies fights about
what really happened, etc.), among numerous other strategies (Haberman, 2008). These
solutions are simple and can be implemented by almost any teacher for little to no cost without
taking much away from class lesson time. While this is not necessarily a structured approach to
teaching peace, Haberman argues that the use of these strategies can still be quite effective when
implemented properly. Educators who find themselves unable to garner funding to introduce
full-scale peace education programs can still implement these simple strategies in their
classrooms in hopes of benefitting their students.
Another approach to teaching students to be peacemakers is by teaching a select few
students how to properly use negotiation and peer mediation skills. In these types of programs,

Baird

there is an emphasis on training a small number of students to serve as peer mediators. This
approach is based on the assumption that a few specially trained students can defuse and resolve
constructively the interpersonal conflicts taking place among members of the student body
(Johnson & Johnson, 1995). However, while this is a relatively easy and inexpensive method
for schools to adopt, it has not been proven that this method decreases the severity and frequency
of interpersonal conflicts among students (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). Students may not feel
comfortable turning to peer mediators to resolve their conflicts. In addition, because not all
students are trained in peacemaking, not all of them can carry these skills over and apply them in
situations outside of the school environment.
One of the most well known approaches to implementing peace education is through the
Teaching Students to be Peacemakers (TSP) Program. In this program, we see the total student
body approach, which emphasizes training every student in the school to manage conflicts
constructively (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). Considering that this approach requires training
every student, teacher, staff member, and administrator, it can be considerably more costly and
time-consuming than the previously mentioned approaches. However, this type of program has
also proven to be the most effective for all students over time (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). Due to
the high level of success evidenced in implementing this specific type of program, this is the
program that we will continue to explore for the remainder of this research.
As mentioned above, the TSP program involves teaching all of those involved in the
education system about conflict resolution, negotiation, and mediation. There are three main
steps to implementing this program. First of all, the school must establish a cooperative context
(Johnson & Johnson, 1995). This can be done through the use of cooperative learning, such as
encouraging students to work collaboratively in groups in order to complete various assignments.

Baird

Second, educators use academic controversies to increase achievement and motivation to learn
(Johnson & Johnson, 1995). Haberman briefly mentions this concept as well when he
encourages teachers to use debate about academic topics as a way to show an example of
positive conflict in the classroom (Haberman, 2008). In addition to showing students that not all
conflict is negative, the use of academic controversies also increases student engagement,
knowledge, and achievement. Finally, the last step in establishing a total student body approach
to peacemaking is to establish a peacemaker program (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). The TSP
program is implemented once all students understand how to negotiate and mediate. An official
peacemaker program has been established in which the entire student body has been trained in
peacemaking strategies and shows success in correctly using these strategies. Although
establishing a peacemaker program requires a great deal of time and effort, the positive outcomes
that result are well worth the input required.
The effects of peacemaker programs can most certainly be seen in the school
environment. The use of cooperative learning in peacemaker programs has been shown to result
in higher achievement, increased use of higher level reasoning strategies, more caring and
supportive relationships, and greater psychological health (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). In
addition, the use of peacemaking programs creates a school community climate, which has been
shown to reduce the amount of bullying at elementary, middle, and high school levels (Opotow,
Gerson, & Woodside, 2010). Teachers in schools that have implemented peacemaker programs
have also commented on their effectiveness and the positive impacts that they have had in their
schools. The teachers observed that as a result of the peacemaker programs in their schools,
conflicts among students had become less frequent, severe, and destructive. In addition, they
observed that they spent much less time resolving conflicts among students (Johnson & Johnson,

Baird

1995). Because teachers are spending less of their valuable time sorting out conflicts between
students, the educational benefits of peace education are once again in effect due to an increase
in teacher-guided lesson and exploration time for students.
However, peacemaker programs do not only have decisive effect on the school
environment. When properly taught peacemaking and negotiation strategies, it has been
demonstrated that students will use these strategies just as frequently at home as in school.
Furthermore, results of research indicate that, once trained, almost all students maintained their
knowledge of negotiation and mediation and continued to use these skills in multiple aspects of
their daily lives (Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Johnson & Johnson 2004). By implementing
peacemaker programs, students will be able to reap the benefits for years to come. Peace
education empowers all students throughout their lives by allowing students who have
experienced negative personal power to become powerful in the peacebuilding process while at
the same time allowing students who have experienced oppression to become powerful in a new
and positive way (Fulcher, 2012). This sense of empowerment and confidence can have amazing
effects on class participation, achievement, and overall student happiness. As stated by Johnson
and Johnson, Individuals skilled in resolving conflicts tend to make and keep more friends, be
more employable, be more successful in their careers, have a more fulfilling family life, and
generally experience less stress and more happiness (Johnson & Johnson, 2004).
With such a great deal of beneficial outcomes as a result of peacebuilding programs, one
would imagine that more schools would be eager to implement them. Unfortunately, there are
still many hurdles to overcome in order to reach the goal of all students being educated in
peacebuilding skills. The most common reason why educators do not implement peace
education is also one of the most simple. Many school officials and educators have been taught

Baird

that the only way they can avoid conflict in schools is by demanding or requiring that children
comply and learn (Haberman, 2008). There is a view that traditional classrooms are
intrinsically violent in that the rights of the student to self expression and discovery are
subjugated to the rights of the governing body or teacher (Fulcher, 2012). Similarly, some
teachers believe that because violence should not occur, it should not be in school and therefore
should not be part of the teachers day-to-day work (Haberman, 2008). In order to combat these
mindsets, we must begin training current and future teachers to accept that, first of all, violence
and conflict do exist in schools. We must also make them aware that there are viable alternatives
to traditional classroom management techniques like coercion and force. In order to achieve
peace, students must be allowed to freely express their opinions, despite the fact that their
thoughts may differ from those of the teacher or person of authority. Only once these ideas have
been cleared from the minds of educators can we begin to conquer the remaining hurdles that
stand in the way of peace education.
Another blockade to the implementation of peace education comes along with the fact
that traditional schooling is driven by measurable results, usually based on testing. This leaves
little room for children to develop their own views of peace (Fulcher, 2012). So much time is
spent preparing for state and federally mandated assessments that students are left little room to
explore anything that is not directly curriculum-related. While peacebuilding skills may not be
evaluated through traditional testing, the use of conflict resolution skills is still measurable.
Educators and administrators can easily evaluate and compare the numbers of conflicts being
reported in their schools before, during, and after the implementation of peacemaking programs.
By recording and providing measurable data about the success of peace education, educators can

Baird

provide clear proof (to parents and uncertain administrators alike) that peace education is a
worthy shift in the traditional curriculum and is time well spent.
Finally, many districts are hesitant to implement peace education due to the sheer amount
of time, money, and resources that must be expended in order to complete programs such as the
TSP program. The outcomes of the TSP program are best reached through distributed training
sessions extending over the course of years. The program is designed to be a 12-year spiral
curriculum in which students receive the training every year from kindergarten through 12th
grades (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). The enormity of this sort of undertaking can certainly seem
overwhelming to educators who most likely do not have experience with implementing
peacemaking programs. On top of that, there is little funding allocated for peacemaking
programs when other types of programs are seen as being much more important to student
success. In order for peacemaking programs to become widespread, educators need to realize
their value in not only improving the school climate, but also improving the community, and the
futures of students as a whole.
It has been said time and time again that the children are the future. However, if we are
to create the prosperous and peaceful future that we dream of for our children, we must begin
now. It is no longer acceptable to assume that traditional approaches to solving conflicts in
schools are effective. If we wish to truly prepare our students for the future that they face, we
must ensure that they are well practiced in conflict resolution and peacemaking skills. Through
the implementation of peacemaking programs, students learn skills that will stay with them for
the rest of their lives, creating a brighter future for the world.

Baird

References
Fulcher, J. (2012). Learning Peace: Progressive impacts of peace education in
peacebuilding .Social Alternatives, 31, 40-42. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from the EBSCOHost
database.
Haberman, M. (2008). Gentle Teaching in a Violent Society. Educational Horizons, 72, 238-248.
Retrieved April 26, 2014, from the EBSCOHost database.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2004). Implementing the "Teaching Students To Be Peacemakers
Program". Theory into Practice, 43, 68-79. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from the EBSCOHOst
database.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1995). Teaching Students to Be Peacemakers: Results of Five Years
of Research. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 1, 417-438. Retrieved April 26,
2014, from the EBSCOHost database.
Opotow, S., Gerson, J., & Woodside, S. (2010). From Moral Exclusion to Moral Inclusion:
Theory for Teaching Peace. Theory into Practice, 44, 303-318. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from
the EBSCOHost database.