½¿É«µ¼º½

In postconflict societies, education is often seen as a cornerstone of peacebuilding. Governments, international agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) embrace its potential to foster reconciliation and prevent future violence (UNESCO, 2011). However, this understanding is often narrowly limited to promoting ‘peace education’ – teaching such values as tolerance, human rights and non-violence. While important, this approach fails to capture the complex role that education plays in either building or undermining peace. Education can also entrench inequalities, reinforce marginalisation, and perpetuate structural injustices (Bush & Saltarelli, 2000).

Drawing on extensive research conducted by the author in the aftermath of conflict with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Iraq, this blog post argues that peace education initiatives introduced in the aftermath of conflict are often insufficient and, in some cases, counterproductive. Though rooted in Iraq, these lessons apply to other postconflict settings, where education systems remain deeply scarred by violence. Three interconnected limitations undercut both implementation and impact of these initiatives, and these are explored in turn.

‘Peace education initiatives introduced in the aftermath of conflict are often insufficient and, in some cases, counterproductive.’

Individual change vs structural transformation

First, peace education interventions often focus on individual behaviour change, trying to promote critical thinking or tolerance. By framing peace as something achievable through personal actions, these educational interventions shift the burden of peace onto the victims of conflict, especially children. Interventions often fail to engage with critical peace education and neglect to empower learners as agents of social change. As a result, the structural causes of conflict – such as economic exclusion, political marginalisation and historical grievances that are frequently embedded in broader society – remain unaddressed.

This depoliticisation of education is partly driven by international education actors’ mandates of neutrality. To maintain government approval, they must often avoid contentious issues, favouring non-confrontational strategies that target individual behaviours over political structures (Shanks, 2025). In Iraq, for instance, external peace education interventions often sidestep critical discussions on power imbalances, inequality and sectarianism. By focusing on interpersonal issues, peace education serves to oversimplify postconflict recovery and limits the transformative potential of education to inspire learners to take active roles in shaping a just society (Shanks, 2025).

Such forms of peace education risk turning schools into tools of pacification, where students are taught to manage conflict but not challenge the systems that perpetuate inequality. This undermines meaningful change and disempowers students from confronting the conditions that harm them.

Overburdened teachers in underresourced systems

Second, peace education places unrealistic demands on teachers already burdened by postconflict realities. In Iraq, educators face expectations to deliver peace curricula focused on critical thinking, dialogue and social cohesion, after receiving only brief in-service trainings from international humanitarian and development actors with peacebuilding mandates. These trainings are undermined by Iraqi schools continuing to emphasise rote learning and teacher-centred instruction and the widespread use of corporal punishment. In other words, teachers are expected to promote open dialogue in contexts where authoritarian teaching is still the norm and compliance is prioritised over enquiry (Shanks, 2025).

Further undermining the objectives are the limitations to change, teachers are working in underresourced schools with overcrowded classrooms, limited materials and communities experiencing widespread trauma. In conflict-affected areas class sizes can exceed 60 students, and psychosocial support is minimal (UNICEF, 2018). In such environments, even basic academic instruction is difficult, let alone implementing complex peacebuilding pedagogy.

A contradiction exists between the ideals of peace education and the realities of postconflict systems. Though critical thinking and participatory dialogue are commendable goals, they are undermined by entrenched traditions and institutional neglect. While many educators value professional development, they often find peace education unworkable without systemic support. Without investments in resources, teacher wellbeing and institutional capacity, peace education risks becoming a hollow, performative effort. Instead of transforming systems, it can compound existing inequalities and leave both teachers and students disillusioned.

Contradictions in curriculum and inclusion

Third, structural inequities within education systems directly contradict the objectives of peace education. In Iraq, displaced students are often confined to underfunded parallel systems with fragmented curricula. Meanwhile, the national curriculum continues to exclude minority narratives, effectively erasing the histories of groups such as the Yezidis, Christians, Kurds and Turkmen. This marginalisation undermines peace education’s credibility. When minority students are taught about tolerance and human rights in classrooms that exclude their histories, the message rings hollow. The contradiction is stark: while promoting diversity, education systems may reinforce the very exclusion they aim to challenge. For example, Kurdish communities in disputed territories and Yezidi genocide survivors encounter curricula that negate their trauma. These inconsistencies reflect broader political dynamics and power imbalances.

Such contradictions are common in postconflict states, where peace education is introduced into unreformed systems shaped by prewar hierarchies or political settlements favouring dominant groups. Without comprehensive curriculum reform, including the integration of minority narratives, peace education risks perpetuating cycles of exclusion.

Towards peacebuilding education

To make a meaningful contribution to postconflict recovery, education must go beyond teaching peaceful values. What is needed is peacebuilding education – one that addresses the structural injustices underpinning conflict and empowers young people to understand, critique and change their environments (Davise, 2004).

This shift requires structural reforms: inclusive curricula that reflect diverse histories, pedagogies that empower rather than discipline, and equitable resource distribution. It also means recognising that education is inherently political. Schools are not neutral spaces; they are deeply entangled in broader struggles over identity, power and justice.

Education’s role in peacebuilding is not limited to teaching peace. It encompasses who has access to education, what quality that education holds, and how different communities are represented in curricula. Without tackling these systemic issues, education cannot truly foster peace.

In Iraq and elsewhere, education should be central to peacebuilding – but only if we stop assuming that teaching peace is enough.

References

Bush, K., & Saltarelli, D. (2000). The two faces of education in ethnic conflict. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Davies, L. (2004). Education and conflict: Complexity and chaos. Routledge.

Shanks, K. (2025). Peace education, conceptual clarity, and contextual applications: A case study from Iraq [].

Stewart, F. (2008). Horizontal inequalities and conflict: Understanding group violence in multiethnic societies. Palgrave Macmillan.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2011). The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education.

United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF]. (2018). Education under fire: How conflict in the Middle East is depriving children of their schooling. ÌýÌý