PEACE EDUCATION AND CYPRUS
Fellowship to Enhance Global Understanding - Cyprus Study Tour
"The theme of this Study Tour is Peace Education, which includes intellectual foci on conflict resolution, anti-violence curriculum, cross-cultural communication, social justice, reconciliation, globalization, and peacekeeping skills. Cyprus is a perfect place for a Study Tour on Peace Education because it is a Middle Eastern country in the European Union with a history of multicultural conflict resolution and educational initiatives that promote cross-cultural understanding. Students will have opportunities to experience an ancient culture with Greek Orthodox and Muslim heritages. We will be welcome in several universities, secondary schools, and elementary schools, and we will participate in lectures and workshops on Peace Education offered by faculty in Open University.
Cyprus is a member of the International Network for Conflict Resolution Education and Peace Education. As a culturally and politically divided country, Cyprus is one of the world centers for peace education. Cypriot educators have faced the challenges of ethnic, religious, and cultural conflict especially since 1974, and their approaches to peace education are well known.
For this Study Tour, participants will propose a professional development presentation that addresses three areas: research, teaching, and leadership/outreach. With these presentation projects, participants will have the opportunity to integrate experiences from this study tour with their own respective intellectual and professional interests. Students from all college programs will be benefit from school visits where we will observe classes in public, private, urban, and rural districts. Wherever possible, we will arrange for participants to meet with teachers, coaches, administrators, counselors, and Cypriot students. Personal meetings such as these typically serve as venues for learning about the host culture, establishing personal connections, practicing cross-cultural communications, and developing global perspectives.
Open University offers high quality distance education facilities. These facilities will be made available to our program. Therefore, in addition to many other cultural experiences, students will also be able to enhance their knowledge and skills in educational technology and online education. These experiences with distance education should be of interest to students from all of our college programs.
Limassol is home to Peace Players International. We are scheduled to visit Agios Antonios school in Limassol where we can observe the physical education peace curriculum in action. Agios Antonios school has both Greek and Turkish speaking students, and it serves as an exemplary site for learning about cross-cultural peace education in schools through sport, arts, and multicultural curriculum.
Experiences in Cyprus will include school and university visits, archaeological monuments, village/agrarian sites, and interactions with Study Buddies. We will also be able to work with college of education faculty in Cyprus to hear about their educational research and Peace Education policies."
(Text from http://globalfellowship.educ.msu.edu/sample-page/cyprus/, 2012)
Cyprus is a member of the International Network for Conflict Resolution Education and Peace Education. As a culturally and politically divided country, Cyprus is one of the world centers for peace education. Cypriot educators have faced the challenges of ethnic, religious, and cultural conflict especially since 1974, and their approaches to peace education are well known.
For this Study Tour, participants will propose a professional development presentation that addresses three areas: research, teaching, and leadership/outreach. With these presentation projects, participants will have the opportunity to integrate experiences from this study tour with their own respective intellectual and professional interests. Students from all college programs will be benefit from school visits where we will observe classes in public, private, urban, and rural districts. Wherever possible, we will arrange for participants to meet with teachers, coaches, administrators, counselors, and Cypriot students. Personal meetings such as these typically serve as venues for learning about the host culture, establishing personal connections, practicing cross-cultural communications, and developing global perspectives.
Open University offers high quality distance education facilities. These facilities will be made available to our program. Therefore, in addition to many other cultural experiences, students will also be able to enhance their knowledge and skills in educational technology and online education. These experiences with distance education should be of interest to students from all of our college programs.
Limassol is home to Peace Players International. We are scheduled to visit Agios Antonios school in Limassol where we can observe the physical education peace curriculum in action. Agios Antonios school has both Greek and Turkish speaking students, and it serves as an exemplary site for learning about cross-cultural peace education in schools through sport, arts, and multicultural curriculum.
Experiences in Cyprus will include school and university visits, archaeological monuments, village/agrarian sites, and interactions with Study Buddies. We will also be able to work with college of education faculty in Cyprus to hear about their educational research and Peace Education policies."
(Text from http://globalfellowship.educ.msu.edu/sample-page/cyprus/, 2012)
MSU MATHEMATICS EDUCATION NEWS
News Article Entitled "Global Fellowship Awardees from PRIME" (I was interviewed about my fellowship and experiences in Cyprus by the Mathematics Education Department at MSU)
PERSONAL REFLECTIONS
Why Cyprus? Finding Nuance in Peace Education
Despite being socially inclined, I felt that some of my initial interactions in Cyprus fell flat. I was pretty confident that my introductory "elevator speech" was spot on...short and sweet: “We are from Michigan State University in the United States and are here because we are studying peace education in your schools. We are all from the College of Education and are interested in how your teachers teach to diverse populations of students about peace and conflict, etc…” But for some reason, I found that the conversation that followed never seemed to go as expected. I thought that people would respond by saying something akin to, "Oh, that's great. You should make sure to check out this school or talk to that person" or maybe share a story about how their nephew just completed a 3rd-grade project on multiculturalism. Instead, and to my surprise, those I met were often confused about why we would be in Cyprus of all places, if we wanted to study peace education. After all, Cyprus is the only region in the world with a divided Capital. Further, the hurt from past atrocities was salient in the stories told by those on either side of the Green Line. If there were movements toward peace through education, most of the people I met hadn't heard of it. So, why Cyprus?
My expectation was that peace was an explicit topic of study in the curriculum. Further, I thought that teachers in the area must have been doing an exceptional job incorporating issues of peace into their curriculum–why else would we have flow across an ocean to learn about peace education, after all? I expected to see teachers talking with their peers about how to do a social justice or peace-focused lesson. I expected to observe student presentations on cultural tolerance or on the history of conflict between the North and South. Instead of this, I saw immigrant students being taken out of class to learn Greek; I saw only Christian, and not Muslim, holy figures on the walls of the classrooms; I heard about how non-Greek students were asked to go to a separate room while Greek students celebrated Greek Day. Further, I cannot recall a single teacher using the word “peace” during class. After some conversations with members of my study tour group, however, I came to realize that my expectations were unrealistic.
When thinking about peace, I envisioned people from different cultures coming together and talking through their conflicts in a rational way–making agreements, practicing tolerance, and embracing other cultures. Through my experiences in Cyprus, I came to understand that the spectrum between conflict and peace is broad and that activism and education can take many forms. After re-reading field notes and after discussions with my peers, I began to note the nuances of peace education. Subtle acts performed by teachers–like asking students to introduce themselves and to name their home country–served to include students from all backgrounds and to affirm their ethnic and cultural identities; this was a nuance I failed to miss initially.
My observations and reflections supported me in thinking about peace education in three different ways: (a) teaching peace, or explicitly drawing attention to issues of peace and conflict within the curriculum; (b) teaching with peace, or modeling how to show respect for all people, regardless of their background or experiences; and (c) teaching for peace, or teaching with the ultimate aim of achieving a more peaceable society for the next generation. Despite my expectations, I did not actually witness most Cypriot educators engaging in teaching peace. When I did not witness this, however, it caused me confusion and frustration; for the first week or so, I had a persistent feeling that I must be missing something. But, as I mentioned previously, I came to understand that this is not the only way to approach peace education. I did, however, find evidence teaching with peace. That is, some teachers we observed put significant effort into establishing classroom norms that reflected their beliefs about peace. For these teachers, peace education took the following forms: (a) encouraging group work between students with differing nationalities or backgrounds; (b) supporting students in talking through conflict; and (c) fostering an environment where multilingualism is seen as a strength, not a deficit. Although it took some time and reflection to become aware of this form of peace education, I eventually came to understand its importance. Although subtle, modeling respect for others and one’s own heritage can be quite powerful. Teachers actively fostering environments that allow for equal status and participation of all students may have an impact on how students engage with one another outside class. In short, these teachers supported their students in seeing how they should treat another person, regardless of their ethnicity and culture, and in turn, learning what it is like to be treated with respect.
I name the last form of peace education--teaching for peace—as a way to acknowledge the longer-term hopes and goals for the future of education. That is, teaching for peace acknowledges peace as a driving ideal–something that may not ever be achieved, but is motivating nonetheless. Teaching for peace was reflected in how educators talked about their classrooms and the future of their students. Regarding teaching for peace, I have now come to understand my unrealistic expectations. I assumed that I would be able to see the great strides teachers had made with their students and within their communities. I assumed that teachers would be able to provide strong evidence for how much progress they and their students had made with respect to peace. I came to understand, however, that the teachers we observed were often exceptions to the rule—working as peace activists against great adversity. Therefore, the idea of having made substantial progress toward the goal of peace was not apparent.
In some of the urban schools, teachers noted that student retention was a major issue. Oftentimes, immigrant families could not say in one place for longer than a few weeks. Thus, the impact of any teacher, despite her effort and skill, would be minimal. The financial poverty of students’ families was also an issue in these districts. Some schools had set aside funds to ensure that students had three meals a day because parents were not always able to provide this for their children. Indeed, teachers often had concerns about their students that extended beyond the classroom walls. In addition, teachers also taught within a centralized system; the curriculum was mandated and teaching was highly structured. Modifications to the curriculum to include issues of peace were not only time-consuming and difficult, but also put teachers at risk. For these reasons, evidence of progress toward peace may be difficult to detect. Moreover, finding evidence of this sort of teaching or learning is difficult because it may take a great deal of time for students to learn how to act peaceably toward one another or to take an active role in establishing peace between groups. Teaching and learning for peace is a long-term effort and progress toward this goal cannot be witnessed in a single observation.
Overall, I feel that my experiences in Cyprus helped me to make sense of the importance of my expectations. Namely, that whenever a researcher enters a particular setting, she brings preconceptions with her, impacting what she is able and willing to see. Additionally, I learned something about nuance. Namely, that there are many forms of education and of activism, and that it is important to be open to them. I am fortunate to have been challenged by others when they asked, “Why are you studying peace education here?”. Answering these types of questions has allowed me to gain new insights into my expectations about peace education and to see how these expectations did not always match reality.
My expectation was that peace was an explicit topic of study in the curriculum. Further, I thought that teachers in the area must have been doing an exceptional job incorporating issues of peace into their curriculum–why else would we have flow across an ocean to learn about peace education, after all? I expected to see teachers talking with their peers about how to do a social justice or peace-focused lesson. I expected to observe student presentations on cultural tolerance or on the history of conflict between the North and South. Instead of this, I saw immigrant students being taken out of class to learn Greek; I saw only Christian, and not Muslim, holy figures on the walls of the classrooms; I heard about how non-Greek students were asked to go to a separate room while Greek students celebrated Greek Day. Further, I cannot recall a single teacher using the word “peace” during class. After some conversations with members of my study tour group, however, I came to realize that my expectations were unrealistic.
When thinking about peace, I envisioned people from different cultures coming together and talking through their conflicts in a rational way–making agreements, practicing tolerance, and embracing other cultures. Through my experiences in Cyprus, I came to understand that the spectrum between conflict and peace is broad and that activism and education can take many forms. After re-reading field notes and after discussions with my peers, I began to note the nuances of peace education. Subtle acts performed by teachers–like asking students to introduce themselves and to name their home country–served to include students from all backgrounds and to affirm their ethnic and cultural identities; this was a nuance I failed to miss initially.
My observations and reflections supported me in thinking about peace education in three different ways: (a) teaching peace, or explicitly drawing attention to issues of peace and conflict within the curriculum; (b) teaching with peace, or modeling how to show respect for all people, regardless of their background or experiences; and (c) teaching for peace, or teaching with the ultimate aim of achieving a more peaceable society for the next generation. Despite my expectations, I did not actually witness most Cypriot educators engaging in teaching peace. When I did not witness this, however, it caused me confusion and frustration; for the first week or so, I had a persistent feeling that I must be missing something. But, as I mentioned previously, I came to understand that this is not the only way to approach peace education. I did, however, find evidence teaching with peace. That is, some teachers we observed put significant effort into establishing classroom norms that reflected their beliefs about peace. For these teachers, peace education took the following forms: (a) encouraging group work between students with differing nationalities or backgrounds; (b) supporting students in talking through conflict; and (c) fostering an environment where multilingualism is seen as a strength, not a deficit. Although it took some time and reflection to become aware of this form of peace education, I eventually came to understand its importance. Although subtle, modeling respect for others and one’s own heritage can be quite powerful. Teachers actively fostering environments that allow for equal status and participation of all students may have an impact on how students engage with one another outside class. In short, these teachers supported their students in seeing how they should treat another person, regardless of their ethnicity and culture, and in turn, learning what it is like to be treated with respect.
I name the last form of peace education--teaching for peace—as a way to acknowledge the longer-term hopes and goals for the future of education. That is, teaching for peace acknowledges peace as a driving ideal–something that may not ever be achieved, but is motivating nonetheless. Teaching for peace was reflected in how educators talked about their classrooms and the future of their students. Regarding teaching for peace, I have now come to understand my unrealistic expectations. I assumed that I would be able to see the great strides teachers had made with their students and within their communities. I assumed that teachers would be able to provide strong evidence for how much progress they and their students had made with respect to peace. I came to understand, however, that the teachers we observed were often exceptions to the rule—working as peace activists against great adversity. Therefore, the idea of having made substantial progress toward the goal of peace was not apparent.
In some of the urban schools, teachers noted that student retention was a major issue. Oftentimes, immigrant families could not say in one place for longer than a few weeks. Thus, the impact of any teacher, despite her effort and skill, would be minimal. The financial poverty of students’ families was also an issue in these districts. Some schools had set aside funds to ensure that students had three meals a day because parents were not always able to provide this for their children. Indeed, teachers often had concerns about their students that extended beyond the classroom walls. In addition, teachers also taught within a centralized system; the curriculum was mandated and teaching was highly structured. Modifications to the curriculum to include issues of peace were not only time-consuming and difficult, but also put teachers at risk. For these reasons, evidence of progress toward peace may be difficult to detect. Moreover, finding evidence of this sort of teaching or learning is difficult because it may take a great deal of time for students to learn how to act peaceably toward one another or to take an active role in establishing peace between groups. Teaching and learning for peace is a long-term effort and progress toward this goal cannot be witnessed in a single observation.
Overall, I feel that my experiences in Cyprus helped me to make sense of the importance of my expectations. Namely, that whenever a researcher enters a particular setting, she brings preconceptions with her, impacting what she is able and willing to see. Additionally, I learned something about nuance. Namely, that there are many forms of education and of activism, and that it is important to be open to them. I am fortunate to have been challenged by others when they asked, “Why are you studying peace education here?”. Answering these types of questions has allowed me to gain new insights into my expectations about peace education and to see how these expectations did not always match reality.
Research in a Foreign Land: The Complexity of Discourse and the Limitations of Observation
When coming to Cyprus, I felt that my previous experiences in the United States talking about issues of race, gender, and class had prepared me to talk about the complex issues pertinent to Cypriots. That is, I was aware that when traveling to Cyprus, the discourse surrounding peace and conflict would be heavily loaded and that it would important to tread lightly when making assumptions about the meaning of a given word or phrase. Knowing this, I was quick to ask knowledgeable individuals–often those from the host school–about what I should or should not say, and in what contexts I should be particularly careful. Similar to discussing issues of race in the United States, it became quite obvious to me that no terminology works for everyone. As soon as you feel comfortable with having found the most politically correct way of talking about something, you find an individual or group of people that believe a certain word or phrase is problematic. For example, when talking about issues of race in the United States, I avoid using the term “minority” because it often connotes a deficiency or insignificance. Instead, I often use the phrase “person of color” to refer to a person who does not identify as Caucasian. Of the various ways that I might refer to a person who does not identify as White, my experience leads me to believe that this referent seems to be the most sensitive or most respectful. A friend who identifies as Cuban-American informed me, however, that she is in fact quite pale and does not feel like the phrase “person of color” would aptly describe her. Her challenge reminded me that even when I have become comfortable using a phrase because it is convenient and typically doesn't offend others, I must remember that no one phrase transcends people or context. The impact of my words does not always match the intention.
This fact became evident when learning about how to talk about the people and regions on either side of the Green Line. I came to understand that although the labels “Northern Cyprus” and “Southern Cyprus” served to de-center ethnicity, these labels may be misleading; the divide between these regions is not purely geographical. Therefore, using directional referents may be less divisive, but may not accurately reflect the true state of affairs. Further, the inclusion of designators like “Greek” or “Turkish” to the label Cypriot, rather than simply referring to anyone from Cyprus as a Cypriot, draws attention to the ethnic divide. Because of unequal social or political status, using such a label incorrectly could be problematic. Especially because, as I recently learned, Greek and Turkish Cypriots are more genetically similar to one another than they are to their designated motherlands, it might be easy for an outsider to have difficult distinguishing one ethnic group from another. Further, I noticed that the people we visited with used the term interculturalism rather than multiculturalism. Although I did not fully develop a nuanced understanding of the differences between these terms, I came to realize that the term multiculturalism had a particular contextual meaning and that this meaning did not reflect the intention of the peace activists with whom we worked. The importance of this distinction, then, is that their use of the term interculturalism seemed to be in response to their knowledge about how the term multiculturalism would likely be misinterpreted within that context. This understanding help me to gain insight into the importance of having knowledge about how one’s words will be interpreted based upon context and upon the background and experiences of the person with whom you are talking.
Terminology also made the discussion of historical events in Cyprus difficult. For example, those from the Greek Cypriot side would likely call the events of 1974 “an invasion by the Turks”. Turkish Cypriots, however, might identify this event as an “intervention” or response to a “Greek Invasion.” Thus, the terminology one uses often reflects one’s beliefs and perspective about certain historical events. It is also interesting to note that the terminology used to refer to these events is further complicated by European politics. Specifically, because the European Union does not recognize Northern Cyprus (the Turkish side) and has officially deemed their presence “an occupation” of one of its member states, terminology like “the Turkish invasion of 1974” is affirmed from outside parties. Within the Cyprus context, like other contexts, knowledge of the political climate and the history become particularly relevant. My experiences in Cyprus have reinforced the importance of being aware of the contextual nature of discourse and of not making assumptions about the impact of the words of another. Insight into particular contexts cannot be gained immediately and in some cases may take a great deal of time to discover. Indeed, learning about differing politics, ideologies, and experiences of native Cypriots has helped me to realize the complexity of the situation. Further, I learned that there is no single representative viewpoint.
I came to Cyprus knowing that it was a politically and emotionally charged atmosphere and that we would only be talking to a subset of the people, thus only exposing us to a limited number of viewpoints. I knew that we would not be seeing all of the sites and we would not get to here all of the stories. Yet, it was not until I witnessed moments of tension—moments when the intent of words did not match the impact—that I was sharply reminded that we were only getting one slice of a complex picture. After our first week in Cyprus, I think that I may have become somewhat complacent in my understanding. We had talked to many individuals and had heard many interesting and insightful stories. Over time, I came to see the views of the people with whom we spoke as being normative. At a couple of points in the second week of the trip, I was reminded of my limited experience and awareness because I was fortunate enough to meet a few individuals who did not share these experiences or beliefs. Although we did not get the opportunity to speak with individuals who held strong counter beliefs (e.g., Greek Nationalists), a few short interactions with people coming from slightly differing viewpoints was indeed humbling and served to remind me about the limitations of my research. Indeed, we oftentimes want to overgeneralize our experiences—to say “This is what Cypriots think about education,” for example—but context and the limitations of observation cannot be overlooked.
This fact became evident when learning about how to talk about the people and regions on either side of the Green Line. I came to understand that although the labels “Northern Cyprus” and “Southern Cyprus” served to de-center ethnicity, these labels may be misleading; the divide between these regions is not purely geographical. Therefore, using directional referents may be less divisive, but may not accurately reflect the true state of affairs. Further, the inclusion of designators like “Greek” or “Turkish” to the label Cypriot, rather than simply referring to anyone from Cyprus as a Cypriot, draws attention to the ethnic divide. Because of unequal social or political status, using such a label incorrectly could be problematic. Especially because, as I recently learned, Greek and Turkish Cypriots are more genetically similar to one another than they are to their designated motherlands, it might be easy for an outsider to have difficult distinguishing one ethnic group from another. Further, I noticed that the people we visited with used the term interculturalism rather than multiculturalism. Although I did not fully develop a nuanced understanding of the differences between these terms, I came to realize that the term multiculturalism had a particular contextual meaning and that this meaning did not reflect the intention of the peace activists with whom we worked. The importance of this distinction, then, is that their use of the term interculturalism seemed to be in response to their knowledge about how the term multiculturalism would likely be misinterpreted within that context. This understanding help me to gain insight into the importance of having knowledge about how one’s words will be interpreted based upon context and upon the background and experiences of the person with whom you are talking.
Terminology also made the discussion of historical events in Cyprus difficult. For example, those from the Greek Cypriot side would likely call the events of 1974 “an invasion by the Turks”. Turkish Cypriots, however, might identify this event as an “intervention” or response to a “Greek Invasion.” Thus, the terminology one uses often reflects one’s beliefs and perspective about certain historical events. It is also interesting to note that the terminology used to refer to these events is further complicated by European politics. Specifically, because the European Union does not recognize Northern Cyprus (the Turkish side) and has officially deemed their presence “an occupation” of one of its member states, terminology like “the Turkish invasion of 1974” is affirmed from outside parties. Within the Cyprus context, like other contexts, knowledge of the political climate and the history become particularly relevant. My experiences in Cyprus have reinforced the importance of being aware of the contextual nature of discourse and of not making assumptions about the impact of the words of another. Insight into particular contexts cannot be gained immediately and in some cases may take a great deal of time to discover. Indeed, learning about differing politics, ideologies, and experiences of native Cypriots has helped me to realize the complexity of the situation. Further, I learned that there is no single representative viewpoint.
I came to Cyprus knowing that it was a politically and emotionally charged atmosphere and that we would only be talking to a subset of the people, thus only exposing us to a limited number of viewpoints. I knew that we would not be seeing all of the sites and we would not get to here all of the stories. Yet, it was not until I witnessed moments of tension—moments when the intent of words did not match the impact—that I was sharply reminded that we were only getting one slice of a complex picture. After our first week in Cyprus, I think that I may have become somewhat complacent in my understanding. We had talked to many individuals and had heard many interesting and insightful stories. Over time, I came to see the views of the people with whom we spoke as being normative. At a couple of points in the second week of the trip, I was reminded of my limited experience and awareness because I was fortunate enough to meet a few individuals who did not share these experiences or beliefs. Although we did not get the opportunity to speak with individuals who held strong counter beliefs (e.g., Greek Nationalists), a few short interactions with people coming from slightly differing viewpoints was indeed humbling and served to remind me about the limitations of my research. Indeed, we oftentimes want to overgeneralize our experiences—to say “This is what Cypriots think about education,” for example—but context and the limitations of observation cannot be overlooked.
CYPRUS / PEACE EDUCATION RESOURCES
Books and Articles
Peace Education: the Concept, Principles, and Practices Around the World
Teaching Contested Narratives: Identity, Memory and Reconciliation in Peace Education and Beyond
Peace Education: Exploring Ethical and Philosophical Foundations
Peace Education in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies: Comparative Perspectives‘Oysters with the Missing Pearls’: A Cyprus storyEchoes from the Dead Zone: Across the Cyprus Divide
Teaching Contested Narratives: Identity, Memory and Reconciliation in Peace Education and Beyond
Peace Education: Exploring Ethical and Philosophical Foundations
Peace Education in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies: Comparative Perspectives‘Oysters with the Missing Pearls’: A Cyprus storyEchoes from the Dead Zone: Across the Cyprus Divide
Mathematics Education Resources for Peace and Social Justice
Creating Balance Conference: Math Education and Social Justice
Radical Math
Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice: Conversations with Educators
Radical Equations: Civil Rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project
Reading And Writing The World With Mathematics: Toward a Pedagogy for Social Justice
Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the NumbersImproving Access to Mathematics: Diversity and Equity in the Classroom
Radical Math
Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice: Conversations with Educators
Radical Equations: Civil Rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project
Reading And Writing The World With Mathematics: Toward a Pedagogy for Social Justice
Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the NumbersImproving Access to Mathematics: Diversity and Equity in the Classroom
Other Interesting Resources
The Home for Cooperation - Nicosia, Cyprus
Global Doing Democracy Research Project
Peace Education Foundation
Peace Education Center
Teachers Without Borders
International Network for Conflict Resolution Education and Peace Education
Allies for Change
Human Rights Campaign
Global Doing Democracy Research Project
Peace Education Foundation
Peace Education Center
Teachers Without Borders
International Network for Conflict Resolution Education and Peace Education
Allies for Change
Human Rights Campaign