Education in Emergencies A Review of The

671594
research-article2016
RERXXX10.3102/0034654316671594Burde et al.Education in Emergencies
Review of Educational Research

June 2017, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 619–658
DOI: 10.3102/0034654316671594
© 2016 AERA. http://rer.aera.net
Education in Emergencies: A Review of

Theory and Research
Dana Burde
New York University
Amy Kapit
Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack
Rachel L. Wahl
University of Virginia
Ozen Guven
New York University
Margot Igland Skarpeteig

Mission of Norway to the United Nations in Rome
In this article, we conduct an integrative and rigorous review of theory and

research on education in emergencies programs and interventions as inter-
national agencies implement them in areas of armed conflict. We ask several
questions. How did this subfield emerge and what are the key conceptual
frameworks that shape it today? How do education in emergencies programs
affect access, learning, and protection in conflict-affected contexts? To
answer these questions, we identify the conceptual frameworks and theoreti-
cal advances that have occurred since the inception of the field in the mid-
1990s. We review the theories that frame the relationship between education
and conflict as well as empirical research that tests assumptions that under-
pin this relationship. Finally, we assess what we know to date about “what
works” in education in emergencies based on intervention research. We find
that with regard to access, diminished or inequitable access to education
drives conflict; conflict reduces boys’ and girls’ access to education differ-
ently; and decreased distance to primary school increases enrollment and
attendance significantly for boys and even more so for girls. With regard to
learning, education content likely contributes to or mitigates conflict,
although the mechanisms through which it does so remain underspecified;
619
Burde et al.
and peace education programs show promise in changing attitudes and
behaviors toward members of those perceived as the “other,” at least in the
short term. Finally, providing children living in emergency and postemer-
gency situations with structured, meaningful, and creative activities in a
school setting or in informal learning spaces improves their emotional and
behavioral well-being.
Keywords: education in emergencies, conflict, access, learning, protection,

peace
Nearly a quarter of the world’s population, or about 2 billion people, live in

countries affected by conflict or extreme criminal violence (World Bank, 2016).
Conflict inhibits development, and poor countries that experience conflict typi-
cally have higher poverty rates than stable countries (World Bank, 2011). Similarly,
millions are affected each year by climate-related disasters and earthquakes that
destroy homes, neighborhoods, and schools. In 2011 and 2012 alone, more than
450 million individuals faced environmental crises (Blankespoor, Dasgupta,
Laplante, & Wheeler, 2010; Laframboise & Loko, 2012). In the midst of an emer-
gency, when a state bureaucracy is weak or absent, nonstate actors such as United
Nations (UN) agencies and other international or local nongovernmental organiza-
tions often support educational interventions. For example, they may support
schools in communities where state services have broken down, or provide supple-
mental educational activities that are intended to protect children from harm and to
promote cognitive, emotional, and social development (Sinclair, 2001, p. 23).
Aid organizations refer to these foreign interventions as “education in emergen-
cies” programs. The growing interest in the field of education in emergencies stems,
in part, from the realization that millions of children live in crisis-affected regions,
where they often lack access to education (United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2011). Indeed, approximately 50 million
primary and lower secondary age children are out of school in conflict-affected
countries (Save the Children, 2013). Similarly, natural disasters have a dramatic
effect on education (Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, 2008; Save the Children,
2008; United States Agency for International Development, 2014). There are four
times as many natural disasters as in the 1980s (Oxfam International, 2007), and the
average number is predicted to increase exponentially in the next 20 years (Webster,
Ginnetti, Walker, Coppard, & Kent, 2008).
In addition to these stark needs, multiple forces have shaped the field of educa-
tion in emergencies. At least since the 1950s, when President Truman launched
modern international development aid, this work has included support to educa-
tion in low- and middle-income countries. Yet in the midst of crises or conflict,
support often shifts toward humanitarian aid, which has rarely focused on educa-
tion. In response, humanitarian aid workers have highlighted the gaps in services
that crises create or exacerbate. Pointing to refugee children as well as popula-
tions affected by crises, they have argued for providing education aid to further
development goals of achieving education for all and to increase children’s pro-
tection in these unstable environments. More recently, the field has garnered
attention from strong states, such as the United States, in part because of the belief
620
Education in Emergencies
that uneducated masses may contribute to instability—or “fragility”—in weak
states or countries emerging from crisis and, conversely, that outside aid to educa-
tion can stabilize these countries, enhance state building efforts, and promote
global security.
These approaches to education in crises have been motivated by and involved
aid professionals and aid organizations interested in understanding program out-
comes. In recent years, the use of methods such as randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) that assess aid interventions have enhanced the tools available to funders to
evaluate their aid spending and catalyzed education researchers to expand the ways
they conduct research in countries affected by crisis. Indeed, the surge in RCTs—
also known as impact evaluations—carried out in low- and middle-income coun-
tries has increased the demand among international funders for rigorous empirical
research in order to determine “what works” to achieve program outcomes.
Although education in emergencies programs are implemented in areas affected
by both violent conflict and natural disaster, this article focuses solely on education
in emergencies in areas of armed conflict. To date, both scholars and practitioners
have focused more on conflict settings, and as a result, there are insufficient data
from natural disaster settings to warrant their inclusion here. The lack of informa-
tion on natural disaster settings represents a substantial gap in the literature and one
that we predict will change soon. We also focus on a view of education in emergen-
cies that is linked closely to the international aid community. Although regional
and national governments and local communities also engage in activities to miti-
gate the impact of conflict on education, there is limited research on these efforts
and even less work that analyzes or evaluates these initiatives.
In the following pages, we conduct an integrative and rigorous review of the
literature from conflict contexts, identifying theoretical, empirical, and interven-
tion research. The theoretical is important for defining circumstances and hypoth-
esizing about the relationships between conflict and education, whereas the
empirical tests these hypotheses. Intervention studies are empirical work that
helps show what mitigates the effects of conflict on education and of education on
conflict.1 We organize this material into four sections. First, we provide a brief
overview of the field and discuss education in emergencies as a conceptual frame-
work. Second, we explain our criteria for selecting material to review. Third, we
present our findings, focusing on the three most common categories of educa-
tional outcome: access, learning, and protection. For each of the three categories,
we review theories that frame the relationship between education and conflict as
well as empirical research that tests assumptions that underpin this relationship.
Finally, we assess what works in education in emergencies based on intervention
research and conclude with a summary of key findings and future directions.
Education in Emergencies: A Conceptual Framework
As humanitarian action evolved and expanded in the mid to late 1990s,2 interna-
tional aid workers took the opportunity to promote education as a key element of
humanitarian responses. They called these education initiatives “education in emer-
gencies” programs. The term was compatible with language used to promote aid in
countries affected by conflict, with an emphasis on urgent support for education as
a humanitarian need and human right. In fact, it was implicitly chosen to solidify
621
Burde et al.
this link to humanitarian action and ensure the incorporation of support to education
among other forms of relief aid. The term was also compatible with an interest in
outcomes related to improving lives of beneficiaries, a central goal of aid work.
This approach to education outcomes gained ground in the midst of a confluence
of global events that pressured humanitarian action to expand beyond its traditional
activities. Humanitarianism came to include a concern not just with individuals’
basic needs but also with fulfilling their rights to a certain standard of life.
International human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the
Child in 1989 and follow-up action meetings held by UN agencies expanded,
strengthened, and institutionalized the recognition and protection of children’s
rights, including the right to education. These trends coincided with the decline of
interstate conflicts, which were replaced by longer lasting intrastate conflicts that
displaced or killed greater numbers of civilians, including many children (Paris,
2004). The importance of providing support to education during crises became
more evident. At the same time, local populations affected by conflict also requested
support for education from aid donors. Educators and other practitioners, in turn,
noted the gap in services provided to populations affected by crisis and advocated
for increased support to education (Anderson, Martone, Perlman Robinson,
Rognerud, & Sullivan-Owomoyela, 2006; Cahill, 2010; Karpinska, 2012).
Educators adopted a number of strategies to include education in the humani-
tarian response paradigm. First, in 2000, a group of educators, linked mainly to
organizations such as the UN agencies and the International Rescue Committee
(IRC), formed the Interagency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) to
support education in countries affected by conflict and disaster. In doing so, they
defined education in emergencies as a category separate from development
activities in order to incorporate education into traditional humanitarian assis-
tance (Burde, Kapit-Spitalny, Wahl, & Guven, 2011). The term emergencies sig-
naled its urgency and underscored the relevance of education to the humanitarian
response paradigm.3 Second, placing emphasis on delivering education as a ser-
vice that could be packaged (i.e., United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund’s
“School in a Box”) highlighted its compatibility with other forms of packaged
emergency aid. Third, stressing service delivery had additional implications. It
helped distance education from politics, further deepening its compatibility with
core humanitarian principles (Burde, 2014). It also resulted in a rhetorical
emphasis on access over quality.4
Today, despite some continued resistance to education as an element of human-
itarian action, aid to education is often included in support to crisis-affected coun-
tries. Major bilateral donor agencies now earmark funds for education in
emergencies programs and hire staff whose portfolios include tracking and moni-
toring these programs. Although it is important to point out that funding for edu-
cation in crises continues to lag behind other sectors (Save the Children, 2013;
Winthrop, Ndaruhutse, Dolan, & Adams, 2010). Despite this lag, INEE member-
ship has increased from a handful of founders and affiliates in 2000 to more than
11,500 members in 2015.
This rise of investment in education in emergencies contributed to a growing
awareness of the importance of providing support to education to those in need.
However, another factor fundamentally challenged the framework in which many
622
humanitarians and policymakers viewed education aid. The September 11 attacks
triggered increased attention from Western governments to countries affected by
conflict. States considered to be “failed,” “failing,” or “fragile” became targets for
Western intervention. These countries were no longer perceived to be a danger
only to themselves; many Western governments suddenly perceived them as pos-
ing an imminent threat to the world at large and to the Western world in particular
(Barnett, 2009). Education was identified as one way to mitigate these dangers.
Within departments of state (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom), empha-
sis shifted from viewing support to education systems as important for distant
children’s well-being to viewing this support as important for preserving the secu-
rity of the homeland.
The new priority on education in fragile states makes specific assumptions
about the relationship between education and state stability (Novelli, 2010;
Winthrop & Matsui, 2013). Improving the provision of state services such as edu-
cation is thought to engage youth, defuse radicalization, and increase state legiti-
macy in the eyes of its citizens. As a result, education responses are often intertwined
with political goals, both in terms of identifying states that meet the definition of
fragile and in the content of the intervention. Although this language has been
widely taken up by Western governments and their bilateral aid organizations (e.g.,
AusAid, United States Agency for International Development), it has been criti-
cized both for the perceived stigma attached to it and for its link to Western security
interests (e.g., Novelli, 2010; Winthrop & Matsui, 2013). INEE has recently
renamed its Working Group on Education and Fragility to Education Policy
Working Group, and many humanitarian organizations avoid using the term.
Yet the education in emergencies framework is also imperfect, particularly in
its use of the term emergency, which implies a temporary condition and seems
ill-suited to describe crises that endure over time (Burde, 2014). The phrases
“education in crises” and “education in protracted crises” are also used to soften
and clarify the connection to emergency while preserving the sense of urgency
intended to garner a response. The precise terminology is most relevant for out-
siders delivering aid, as aid programs are typically considered simply education or
social welfare programs by their recipients. Here we use the phrase “education in
emergencies” because it remains the most common term among international
practitioners.
Method
Theoretical, qualitative, and quantitative studies5 examine both the problems
that affect access to education, learning, and protection, and the programs that
attempt to address these problems by increasing children’s access to education,
learning, and protection in countries affected by conflict. As noted, first, we
examine the theoretical relationships between emergencies and education. Second,
we review research that tests these assumptions and the evidence that supports
them. Thus, we explore the effect of conflict on educational access, learning, and
protection, and vice versa. Finally, we review interventions that aim to address
these problems. We explore what works in these contexts, reviewing the research
assessing the impact of program interventions intended to promote access, learn-
ing, and protection.
623
Search Parameters
We included only literature that focused on primary or secondary education—
because education in emergencies tends to focus mainly on these groups—in
states experiencing or recovering from conflict.6 In addition, we focused on lit-
erature analyzing aid recipient countries.7 Because education in emergencies is a
new field according to the way we, and most authors, conceptualize it, and
because our primary goal is to shed light on recent interventions, we included
only work published since 1995. Finally, we focused on peer-reviewed journals,
although we also included recent academic books dedicated to education in
emergencies, seminal policy pieces (determined by the extent to which subse-
quent publications reference them), and works published by international agen-
cies that met the inclusion criteria.
We conducted our primary search for academic articles in two phases. First, in
order to define the parameters of our categories described above, we conducted a
broad review, dividing the search terms by subject area and conducting individual
searches on (a) access to and quality of education in conflict-affected countries,
(b) child protection (psychosocial interventions), and (c) peace/tolerance/human
rights education. Each researcher assessed articles for relevance and methods, and
wrote analyses of the articles she found to be appropriate.
Based on these findings, we refined our questions and conducted a new search
with a more precise focus on access, learning, and protection. This search listed
education and any one of the following terms: armed conflict, emergency, fragil-
ity, or humanitarian. We searched Academic Search Complete, EBSCO Host,
ERIC, JSTOR, Proquest Central, and PsychINFO. We conducted additional
searches on the sites of the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, the National
Bureau of Economic Research, and the World Bank because their researchers
conduct impact evaluations and serve as sources of knowledge for the interna-
tional aid community. We reviewed titles and abstracts of approximately 3,000
articles in fall 2013.
From this batch, we selected those that matched our focus and then reviewed
them to ensure they fit the aforementioned criteria. We divided the selected work
into theoretical, empirical, and intervention-related categories. The first set of
articles or books includes those studying the relationship between education and
violent crisis conceptually. We included only research explicitly theorizing the
causal mechanisms influencing this relationship, excluding pieces that merely
described an effect. The second category includes empirical work on the relation-
ship between education and conflict, with the causal arrows pointing in either
direction. Third, we included articles or books evaluating the impact of programs
designed to intervene in this relationship. We included only qualitative studies
with clear descriptions of the methods used, sample drawn, and logic behind the
research design. We included only quantitative studies that explained the design
and analytical models and reported clearly on statistical results.
Finally, after receiving reviewers’ comments, we added books and articles in
summer 2015. First, we conducted a new search only for books using the terms
“education” AND “conflict” and “education” AND “emergencies,” using Google
Scholar, JSTOR, and seven EBSCO databases related to education. Second, we
searched for work that matched our criteria from well-known scholars (determined
624
by numbers of citations, length of time publishing, level of public profile). Third,
we reviewed a similar study that two of the authors had conducted in 2015 as part
of a rigorous review for the British aid agency and included relevant work that we
may have overlooked from that publication (see Burde, Guven, Kelcey, Lahmann,
& Al-Abbadi, 2015). Fourth, we conducted a final pass for key articles that we may
have overlooked or that may have emerged since our earlier searches. In total, we
included 121 articles in this review, with 6 included in more than one category: 45
theoretical pieces, 49 empirical articles that provide evidence on the relationship
between education and armed conflict, and 35 empirical articles that assess inter-
ventions and provide evidence on what works.
Results
Historically, the field of education in emergencies viewed education as largely
neutral, if not wholly positive, leading almost inevitably to a range of positive
outcomes including child protection and well-being, economic development, peace
building, and reconstruction (Davies, 2004, 2005; Davies & Talbot, 2008; Kagawa,
2005; Novelli & Cardozo, 2008; Paulson & Rappleye, 2007). More recently, how-
ever, scholars and practitioners have acknowledged that the relationship between
education and conflict is more complex than previously recognized (Brock, 2011;
Burde et al., 2011; Davies, 2004; King, 2011, 2014; Østby & Urdal, 2010;
Rappleye, 2011; Shields & Paulson, 2015; Smith, 2007). This shift was influenced
both by the events of September 11, as noted above, as well as by a policy paper
titled “The Two Faces of Education in Ethnic Conflict” (Bush & Saltarelli, 2000).
The paper was among the first to point out that education can both fuel hostility as
well as foster social cohesion. Starting with issues relating to access to education
below, we examine the current, more nuanced state of the field.
Access to Education
Of all the proposed relationships between education and emergencies, how
access to schooling either aggravates or ameliorates social tensions has received
the most attention. One reason is that access is relatively easy to measure by look-
ing at enrollment numbers and primary and secondary completion rates, and most
countries collect these data. A substantial body of scholarship in political science
has examined the causes of conflict, which sometimes includes educational
opportunity, or access to education, as a key variable. In addition, school atten-
dance is critical before other interventions can take place. This research provides
a basis for conceptualizing how conflict reduces access to education and how lack
of, or diminished access to, education drives conflict. In order to assess the impact
of programs that address these tensions, it is important to understand what we
know about how these interactions work.
Diminished or Inequitable Access to Education Drives Conflict

Scholars have theorized that inequalities and disruptions in the provision of educa-
tion are important factors that fuel conflict. Indeed, a lack of educational opportunity
has been considered a predictor of conflict. Young people may be more likely to join
armed movements if there are few educational opportunities that offer alternative path-
ways and hope for the future (Barakat, Karpinska, & Paulson, 2008; Barakat & Urdal,
625
Burde et al.
2009; Rose & Greeley, 2006). Furthermore, social exclusion that occurs when access
to education falls along ethnic or ideological lines—or even the perception that it does
so—likely fuels tensions (Colenso, 2005; Davies, 2005, 2011; Kirk, 2011). For
instance, in Nepal, inequality in access to and quality of education may have exacer-
bated conflict. The Maoist insurgency has drawn on educational disparities as part of its
campaign to discredit the government (Parker & Standing, 2007; Pherali, 2013).
Indeed, schools are among the most widespread and visible of state institutions, so
exclusion from them may contribute to a group’s grievances against the state.
Conversely, equitable access to education can contribute to peace and stability in part
because the provision of mass schooling helps increase the legitimacy of the nation-
state (Burde, 2014; Mosselson, Wheaton, & Frisoli, 2009).
The theoretical relationship between out of school youth and conflict described
above has been established in several empirical studies and has explored why a
link between educational access and conflict may exist. For example, youth in
Sierra Leone without access to education were nine times more likely to join vio-
lent conflict than those who attended school (Humphreys & Weinstein, 2008).
Scholars have found that in states with youth bulges, large populations of (male)
youth are more likely to experience conflict if their populations have lower levels
of education, although they have also found that relationship is mediated by vari-
ous other factors, such as national resources, poverty, and regime type (Barakat &
Urdal, 2009; Collier & Hoeffler, 2004; Collier, Hoeffler, & Soderbom, 2004;
Østby & Urdal, 2010). Income level, economic structures, and geographical
region all matter for the extent to which education is related to conflict in these
youth bulge countries. In one study, the relationship appeared strongest in low-
and middle-income countries and in Sub-Saharan Africa (Barakat & Urdal, 2009).
Education also may contribute to state stability through increasing the legiti-
macy of the state, spurring economic growth, reducing inequality, and building
social cohesion. Higher literacy and secondary school enrollment rates decreased
the probability of civil conflict in 160 countries analyzed between 1980 and 1999
(Thyne, 2006). Some scholars have found that educational investment is even
more strongly related to a lower rate of civil conflict if it is equally distributed,
because this decreases grievances against the state (Østby, Nordås, & Rød, 2009;
Thyne, 2006). Importantly, Østby et al. (2009) argued that regional identity influ-
ences perceptions of unequal distribution of education more than any other kind
of social affiliation because (a) regional belonging is often founded on a shared
history and it overlaps with other types of identities (e.g., ethnicity) and (b)
regional boundaries often shape the distribution of state welfare and political
influence, thereby producing the gaps between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”
Regional inequalities can thus reinforce competition for state benefits, fostering
aggression (Østby et al., 2009). Further research is necessary to understand if
regional analysis better captures the relationship between educational inequality
and conflict than country-level studies. However, educational inequality may not
always increase conflict. One cross-national quantitative study did not find any
significant effect for inequality on the risk of civil conflict (de Soysa & Wagner,
2003, as cited in Østby & Urdal, 2010). However, it is not possible to disentangle
the unit of analysis (in this case, the state) from findings; a regional analysis might
have shown different effects.
626
These quantitative studies begin to explain why educational access influences
the risk of conflict. Case study and ethnographic research enriches our under-
standing of these mechanisms, such as how local dynamics inform this relation-
ship and how combatants themselves see education as relating to conflict (Østby
& Urdal, 2010). For example, in-depth interviews complement survey research to
show that youth join rebel movements in part due to lack of access to education
(Brett & Specht, 2004).
Significantly, the ameliorating effect of education on the propensity to partici-
pate in hostilities has been called into question in the context of terrorism, one
type of violence posited to attract disaffected and undereducated youth, and more
recently in the absence of other governance reforms.8 Indeed, Krueger and
Maleckova (2003) found no link between education level and support for terror-
ism. Hezbollah combatants killed in the late 1980s and early 1990s tended to have
greater secondary education attainment than noncombatants, and Israeli Jews
involved in terrorism during the 1980s tended to be particularly well educated.
Given youth anger toward injustice, a recent report suggests that interventions
aiming to cultivate civic education in the absence of governance reforms may
stoke violence rather than decrease it (Proctor, 2015). Taking into consideration
the presence of political dissatisfaction adds important nuance to this discussion.
However, the high education levels of some terrorists may suggest that terrorist
groups prefer to select highly educated people, not that the educated are more
likely to attempt to join them (Berrebi, 2007; Fair, 2007).
Education also interacts with support for terrorist and militant groups and
their activities among the general population. For example, Shafiq and Sinno
(2011) found that in some countries higher levels of educational attainment indi-
cate greater support for suicide bombing when education is mediated by political
dissatisfaction. Similarly, Afzal (2013) found that better educated men in Pakistan
are more likely to support the Pakistani Taliban, yet better educated women are
less likely to support terrorist organizations. As Afzal showed, disaggregating
results according to gender is a critical area of inquiry that deserves more
attention.
In sum, much of the data reviewed above suggest that the benefits of increasing
access to education outweigh the potential risks. Governments should seek to
provide equitable access to education at all levels and for all groups. The post–
September 11 focus on fragile states has underscored the importance of examin-
ing the relationship between education and conflict and increased interest in
assessing programs designed to mitigate these effects. To understand better how
education affects conflict, it is important to assess the role education plays as it
interacts with other factors in specific contexts. In particular, region and economic
structures may matter in order for access to have a positive effect, as might the
quality of education and its relevance to job prospects (Brockhoff, Krieger, &
Meierrieks, 2014). Individual-level mechanisms that lead toward conflict as well
as the extent to which and how educational access plays a role as conflict contin-
ues are especially important to understand. More ethnographic research that
examines the ways in which educational access matters to actors involved in con-
flict would be helpful in this regard. We next turn to the effects of conflict on
educational access.
627
Conflict Reduces Access to Education
It is perhaps intuitive that conflict may reduce access to education. War destroys
schools, damages school systems, and injures or kills students and teachers, with
consequences for education. In addition, combatants may attack schools, render-
ing them unusable, and intimidate students and teachers to prevent them from
attending (Burde, 2014; Glad, 2009; Human Rights Watch [HRW], 2006, 2010a,
2010b; O’Malley, 2010; Save the Children, 2013; Sommers, 2005). NGOs such as
HRW and UNESCO have recently begun to document the most direct of these
effects, gathering data on attacks on education (e.g., HRW, 2006, 2010a, 2010b,
2011; O’Malley, 2007, 2010). The Global Coalition to Protect Education from
Attack was founded in 2010 to isolate attacks from other education issues and
focus specifically on this phenomenon.9
The type and intensity of the armed conflict affect educational access, as does
baseline educational access before conflict. Drawing on available household-level
data sets, several empirical studies investigated how exposure to conflict affects
children’s schooling in order to understand long-term consequences for human
capital formation (e.g., Akresh & de Walque, 2008; Dabalen & Paul, 2012;
Shemyakina, 2011; Valente, 2011; Verwimp & Van Bavel, 2013). Specifically,
these studies measured the direction and magnitude of the effects of violent con-
flict on educational attainment and its relationship to the employment status of
those exposed to the conflict. The studies reached different, and sometimes con-
tradictory, conclusions.
In general, conflict lowers access to education. A cross-country quantitative
analysis of worldwide UNESCO data from 1980 to 1997 lent support to this con-
clusion, showing that war leads to a 1.6 to 3.2 percentage point decline in enroll-
ment (Lai & Thyne, 2007). Whether this impact is greater for younger or older
children, however, depends on context and time. Some studies have shown that
conflict reduces younger children’s access to education more than older ones. For
example, 4 years after the fighting ended in the Ivory Coast, children attending
school in the most violent areas during the conflict had attained almost a full year
less of education than those educated in the same areas before the conflict (Dabalen
& Paul, 2012). Children in genocide-affected areas of Rwanda were significantly
less likely to complete fourth grade and attained a year and a half less of school
than those in other parts of the country. The impact was greater for children who
were younger at the time of the genocide (Akresh & de Walque, 2008). Likewise,
in Burundi, boys had a 6% lower chance of completing primary school for every
year of exposure to conflict (Verwimp & Van Bavel, 2013). As in Rwanda, the
impact was greater at younger ages among both male and female students.
Yet contrasting evidence shows that children who experienced conflict when
younger may face greater barriers at higher levels of education. Longitudinal,
mixed-methods survey, and interview data among children and youth in Sierra
Leone showed that the likelihood of dropout increased with age because conflict
reduced family income and children had to combine work and study (Zuilkowski
& Betancourt, 2014). Similarly, the Bosnian conflict had a significant impact on
secondary school completion, not primary education (Swee, 2009).
Interestingly, in some areas, the Maoist insurgency in Nepal increased female
primary school completion, as well as male primary school enrollment (Valente,
628
2011). This outcome may be due to the Maoists’ emphasis on equality and the
group’s efforts to remove barriers to schooling and to empower females.
Nevertheless, female attainment decreased in areas of Nepal with high frequency
of child abduction for fighting purposes (Valente, 2011). Likewise, demand for
education may actually increase during conflict due to the desire to emigrate, as
occurred in Spain’s Basque region (de Groot & Göksel, 2011). However, the
nature and intensity of violence may be important to consider. Both the Basque
country and much of Nepal are characterized by low-intensity, long-term vio-
lence. Finally, although educational attainment drops dramatically in fragile
states, the decline appears to be more modest in conflict-affected states—a find-
ing that is important to proponents of education as a tool for promoting state sta-
bility. Thus, state fragility (measured by the State Fragility Index) may be a
stronger predictor of negative effects than conflict (Paulson & Shields, 2015;
Shields & Paulson, 2015).
In part, variations in baseline enrollment rates may explain these contrasting
findings on whether conflict reduces, increases, or has no effect on educational
attainment. Paulson and Shields (2015) found that countries with high preconflict
enrollment tend to see a decline in enrollment during conflict. However, countries
with low preconflict enrollment rates continue to see slow increases in enrollment
during conflict.10 A variety of contextual factors as well as length and intensity of
conflict mediate the impact of fighting on education. Although not examined in
these studies, aid to education during conflict may also have a mediating effect.
Illuminating these findings, some qualitative studies have explored how
conflict affects schools, making them unsafe for children as sites of forced
recruitment (HRW, 2015) or kidnapping and extortion. Boko Haram’s mass
abductions of school children in Nigeria are a high-profile example. According
to interviewees, schools in Nepal have been targeted because they provided a
physical space to house armed groups and also because they often had financial
and human resources that armed groups can appropriate (van Wessel & van
Hirtum, 2013). However, to date, there has been scant research on this topic,
with qualitative researchers interested in the relationship between education
and conflict more likely to pay attention to issues of curriculum and content, as
elaborated below.
In sum, conflict is widely perceived to have negative effects on educational
access, reducing the level of attainment for those who are exposed to violence.
These data at the state level show clear deleterious effects. Yet cross-national
comparisons reveal that state fragility may be a stronger overall predictor of edu-
cational decline in a country as a whole than conflict.
Conflict Reduces Girls’ and Boys’ Access to Education Differently

It is widely assumed that conflict affects girls’ education more than boys’, and
that conflict likely exacerbates the same factors that inhibit girls’ access to educa-
tion in peacetime. For example, breakdown in the rule of law and in social norms
may increase parents’ concerns about a girl’s journey to and from school and about
the threats to girls in school (Kirk, 2011). Although the obstacles that prevent girls
from attending school may also exist in peacetime, available evidence has not
compared the effect of specific obstacles in stable versus conflict-affected areas.
629
Burde et al.
Thus, we cannot quantify the different effects. However, qualitative assessment
has shown that conflict deepens these existing concerns. Furthermore, substantial
anecdotal evidence has indicated that once girls reach school, additional risks
await. When social norms and the rule of law break down during conflict, girls may
be at increased risk for sexual assault at school. One grade level may include chil-
dren of different ages because their education may have been interrupted by vio-
lence. The presence of older boys in the classroom can be threatening to young
girls and raise parents’ concerns (Kirk, 2009). However, these interactions—reports
of which come primarily from practitioner experience—have not been empirically
tested. Additional research should further test existing theory on why girls are less
likely than boys to enroll in and attend school during armed conflict. Below, we
discuss the scant evidence that does exist on girls’ education in conflict zones and
how conflict affects access differently for boys and girls.
Existing empirical evidence has shown that girls’ enrollment is particularly
sensitive to distance, which may be aggravated by social instability—more so
than boys’. Girls’ attendance in Afghanistan decreased by 19 percentage points
for every mile increase in distance from school (Burde & Linden, 2013). Social
norms about propriety—for example, a belief that girls and women should stay
out of public view—may affect girls’ mobility. Although many factors make it
difficult for girls to travel to school in Afghanistan, political violence and safety
concerns appear to exacerbate these barriers. Tajik women—but not men—who
experienced conflict during 1992 to 1998 also attained less education than their
peers in areas with less conflict (Shemyakina, 2011).
A handful of studies have examined why conflict may not have the same effect
for boys. Conflict may increase the opportunity cost of time lost in travel to and
from school for girls. For example, Somaliland mothers often worked outside the
home to support the family because men had been killed or fled. Thus, they relied
on girls to work at home more than they would otherwise (Bekalo, Brophy, &
Welford, 2003). Some empirical research indicates that distance may affect girls’
access to education disproportionately even in peacetime, because a long walk
provides opportunities to question girls’ sexual purity (Murphy, Stark, Wessells,
Boothby, & Ager, 2011). Distance may combine with conflict to heighten fears
that girls will be kidnapped or attacked, further reducing parents’ willingness to
send girls to school (Burde & Linden, 2013).
Whether crisis affects male or female students more severely may depend on
the setting, however. For example, male enrollment may be more affected by
civil wars than female enrollment because of conscription (Lai & Thyne, 2007).
This finding does not necessarily contradict the fact that girls face exceptional
issues when it comes to schooling during conflict. One explanation is that girls
typically have lower levels of enrollment to begin with (Kirk & Winthrop, 2007).
Yet girls are not automatically worse off than boys on all measures. The two
groups face different problems in different contexts that must be considered at
the country or regional level. In the “What Works to Address These Issues” sec-
tion below, we examine interventions designed to increase access to schooling in
areas of armed conflict for girls in particular and children in general. Next, how-
ever, we look at the theories and empirical evidence on the relationship between
conflict and learning.
630
Learning
Although education in emergencies has historically prioritized more easily
quantifiable outcomes regarding access, with the shift in focus to fragile states
scholars and international practitioners increasingly emphasize the need to eval-
uate the quality of learning in emergencies both to understand achievement as
well as to understand how educational content and practices may contribute to
conflict and instability. To date, much of the literature examining learning and
achievement remains theoretical. In addition, the majority of scholarship that
considers the relationship between education and learning focuses on content.
For example, theorists point out that what is taught and how it is taught may
increase the likelihood of conflict. Often these theories relate to materials on his-
tory or social studies, or to how a “hidden curriculum” socializes students into
particular values. Few studies empirically assess the impact of educational con-
tent and teacher practices on conflict and vice versa. Existing literature also tends
to conflate interpersonal conflict and societal conflict, implying, for instance,
that abusive or oppressive classroom practices increase broader social tensions,
but without spelling out how.
Educational Content Contributes to or Mitigates Conflict
What is the relationship between the content of education and likelihood of
conflict? Although it is not clear to what extent education, either alone or in com-
bination with other factors, contributes to conflict or peace, education-related fac-
tors almost certainly do contribute to participation or nonparticipation in violence.
Both the explicit curriculum, such as what textbooks say about a particular group,
as well as the hidden curriculum, which may teach values and norms implicitly,
are important for their impact on societal conflict (Barakat & Urdal, 2009; Collier
& Chauvet, 2007; Collier & Hoeffler, 2004).
Indeed, history and historical detail can be easily manipulated in textbooks,
increasing social tensions by emphasizing the historical narrative of one group
over another or actively portraying another group in negative and threatening
terms (King, 2011, 2014; Kirk & Winthrop, 2007; Paulson & Rappleye, 2007;
Smith, 2005). This work focuses on societal conflict, with the implication that
promoting biases and stereotypes may also shape interpersonal interactions. For
example, if a child learns to identify with an ethnic or religious group in school,
and is taught that another group threatens his or her group, the child may be more
likely to participate in or support violence against the other group. These lessons
may be particularly problematic because teachers and textbooks are highly
respected in most societies, particularly in those that are print-poor, and children
may be unlikely to question what they learn (Burde, 2014). Conversely, text-
books that include respectful depictions of different groups, avoid stereotypes,
and include diverse ethnic groups rather than disproportionately representing
one group are likely to correct social biases (Dryden-Peterson, 2010; Dupuy,
2008). Such changes may reduce the potential for conflict: Students in the domi-
nant group may be less likely to believe negative portrayals of the minority if
textbooks and teachers model respect and tolerance, and the minority group may
feel less alienated and have less motivation for conflict if they are respected in
school (Wedge, 2008).
631
Burde et al.
Recent theoretical work has begun to consider why some peace education inter-
ventions that emphasize intergroup contact may have mixed results—although
these hypotheses have not been tested. Zembylas and Berkman (2015) noted that
standard integration programs often reify identity differences, assuming that groups
are relatively homogenous and stable. Furthermore, they tend to minimize poverty
and power, ignoring how these factors may influence students’ understandings of
experiences and histories. Critically, integration programs often create a “bubble” of
contact, and so are unlikely to address structural inequalities to which the students
return. Furthermore, peace education is primarily a Western construct and so may
not work in poorer conflict-affected environments (Sommers, 2001). Finally,
although the theories described above and in most examples given below focus on
social (group) conflict, peace education interventions are implemented and ana-
lyzed at the individual level. We discuss effects of peace education interventions in
more detail in the “What Works to Address These Issues” section below.
In addition, theoretical articles consider whether values and assumptions that
are often embedded in school lessons (the hidden curriculum), may influence
interpersonal conflict by shaping individuals’ actions and behaviors. During war-
time, classes may be more susceptible to violence and corruption due to the use of
physical punishment, curricula that teach about war, or cheating in examinations
(Davies, 2005, 2008). Violent or aggressive teaching techniques that model bad
behavior likely make a child more violent outside the classroom. Alternatively,
teachers may model conflict resolution skills by prohibiting violence in class and
creating an atmosphere of open and critical discussion (Davies, 2004, 2008,
2014). Similarly, teaching a tolerant, inclusive conception of citizenship, and
treating all students equally may decrease the likelihood of discrimination. We
now consider the empirical links between negative classroom content and
increased risk of conflict. Studies of the positive effects of learning on conflict
mitigation focus on interventions, which we discuss in the next section.
Almost all of the empirical studies that were returned in our search and that
relate to this section examined divisive educational content, implying but not
showing that what is taught fuels conflict or how it might do so. It also examined
mainly the relationship between societal—rather than interpersonal—conflict and
education. Indeed, these studies showed that many states have used curricula and
textbooks to promote social divisions, both at home and abroad. Collecting exten-
sive interview data and analyzing textbooks that were in circulation prior to the
1994 genocide in Rwanda, King (2014) showed how the history of Hutus and
Tutsis was portrayed as inherently oppositional. Textbooks taught that Hutus had
been slaves to Tutsis and that these relationships had continued into the present.
By teaching children to identify against another group, these texts helped create
an atmosphere conducive to violence in Rwanda.
Additionally, a hidden curriculum likely increased societal violence.
Interviewees identified practices that they believe helped fuel later conflict:
Teachers were aggressive, made negative comments toward one ethnic group, and
tolerated harassment by students of that ethnic group. Interviews also suggested
that valuing obedience over critical thinking in school may have indirectly facili-
tated participation in conflict (King, 2014). Similarly, Pakistani textbooks have
been shown to underscore sectarian divisions (International Crisis Group, 2014),
632
and India and Pakistan intentionally devised curricula that inculcated exclusivist
identities denigrating the other (Kumar, 2002; Lall, 2008). A systematic analysis
of both countries’ textbooks showed that elements of history were omitted or
emphasized to cultivate an exclusivist Hindu or Islamic identity, respectively.11
Likewise, during the civil war in Sudan, textbooks and teaching materials, par-
ticularly in the north, emphasized exclusivist identities, likely contributing to con-
flict (Breidlid, 2010). The perception of biased schooling may also fuel violence.
A sense that public schools are agents for Christianization has been found to
increase alienation of Muslims on the Philippine island of Mindanao, contributing
to wider social conflict (Milligan, 2003).
Evidence has shown that language of instruction is also contentious in relation
to societal conflict. Similar to the textbook and curriculum studies, this research
assumes that divisiveness directly incites conflicts or fuels ongoing violence. For
example, groups may be disadvantaged if they do not speak the language in which
classes are taught, deepening social inequality and potentially intensifying griev-
ances. Extensive fieldwork in six Burmese refugee camps on the Thai-Burmese
border showed that schooling was conducted in a language that one quarter of the
population in the camps—primarily Muslims—did not speak and that textbooks
were written in English (Oh & van der Stouwe, 2008). The schools privileged the
dominant group: “Western-oriented, mostly Christian, and Skaw Karen-speaking”
(Oh & van der Stouwe, 2008, p. 611). Similarly, the official use of English in
Rwandan schools may create new inequalities because it benefits the Tutsi, who
more likely have English-language backgrounds (King, 2011).
However, it is also difficult to establish a causal link between language policy
and violence. Furthermore, these studies have not isolated language policy among
other potentially relevant factors (e.g., economic position) motivating conflict.
They have suggested, rather, that language policy may play a role in motivating
resistance to a dominant group, and language policy may indeed contribute to
conflict even if it is not the only motivating factor. Furthermore, the findings
described in the preceding paragraphs assume that what and how students learn in
school informs how they behave outside school. The process is a complicated one
that does not always produce clear results.
In contrast to the studies above that analyzed group behavior, studies that ana-
lyzed individual behavior note that not all students who are exposed to violent or
exclusionary messages behave violently. A series of interviews with students liv-
ing in Eastern Europe and Germany during World War II and in Afghanistan dur-
ing the post-1979 armed conflict, for example, showed that students may resist
such messages. Although interviewed after the fact, interviewees often expressed
remorse over the divided identities they learned in school, “suggesting internal
resistances” to these messages (Dicum, 2008). Data based on such historical
memory can be fallible and subject to selective reporting (King, 2014). Yet simi-
larly, although jihadist textbooks widely used in Afghanistan and in Afghan refu-
gee camps in Pakistan likely had an effect on students’ attitudes, many students
exposed did not become jihadists (Burde, 2014). Thus, researchers and policy-
makers should not assume that children inevitably believe everything they are
taught, that what students learn is not subject to later reevaluation, or, at a mini-
mum, that attitudes translate into violent action.
633
Burde et al.
In sum, various forms of inequality and discrimination manifested in the class-
room and classroom materials are thought to drive violence, and critical thinking
skills are theorized to help resist violent messages, but more research is crucial to
identify and understand these mechanisms, distinguish between group- and individ-
ual-level mechanisms, and understand the links between the two. Generally, more
research is needed on the potential impact of curriculum, language policy, and
teacher practice on violence, though there is a large body of research that examines
how curricula in the form of peace education may or may not mitigate conflict. We
address this research in the “What Works to Address These Issues” section below.
Impact of Conflict on Educational Content and Learning Outcomes

There is likely a reciprocal relationship between curriculum and conflict—
negative and biased curriculum fuels conflict and conflict increases the chance
that curriculum will be biased. Regarding the latter, Davies (2004) has suggested
that schools are unlikely to offer peaceful environments characterized by a respect
for children’s rights if the wider society is repressive or conflict-affected. We
discuss the very limited evidence on this latter relationship here.
A handful of studies have suggested that the political context after conflict
affects how an open and safe environment in the classroom as well as textbook
material develop (Freedman, Weinstein, Murphy, & Longman, 2008). For exam-
ple, the governments of Rwanda and Bosnia both prohibited teaching history
directly following their conflicts. Such a moratorium is controversial and there is
no clear evidence that suggests the benefit outweighs the possible cost. In Rwanda,
the official government narrative, which has emphasized unity and discouraged
the examination of past or current conflicts, may be problematic. Teachers have
remained afraid to discuss ethnicity in the classroom, and recent oppressive gov-
ernment policies seem to have further inculcated a climate of fear. The suppres-
sion of classroom debate and analysis of conflict likely have stifled the
development of critical thinking skills and the understanding of historical evi-
dence. Furthermore, ignoring students’ and teachers’ experiences of ethnic differ-
ence and conflict could lead to more conflict in the future (King, 2014). Over the
course of a history curriculum reform project, the Rwandan government became
increasingly less willing to support the development of innovative curricula and
teachers backed away accordingly (Freedman et al., 2008). Thus, conflict may
negatively affect curriculum content even after the violence ends.
Practitioners recognize that, in situations of conflict, schools lack adequate
pedagogical equipment and that the learning conditions are often abysmal (Pingel,
2010). They intuitively link these conditions to reduced levels of learning.
However, we found no scholarly research examining this relationship. Additional
research is required to understand the extent to which conflict negatively affects
children’s learning in relation to other factors, such as poverty. Existing research
pays more attention to other risks, such as to students’ psychological well-being.
Next, we assess efforts to promote protection and well-being through education.
Protection and Well-Being
The psychosocial impact of violence and exploitation on children and teachers is
less visible, but may be no less damaging than physical injuries. Most scholarship
634
considering the relationships among education, conflict, and psychosocial well-
being is theoretical in considering, on one hand, the impact of trauma on children’s
education and, on the other hand, the potential for schooling to mitigate the effects
of this trauma. Recent research, however, indicates that daily stressors play a more
significant role than trauma (Betancourt et al., 2013; Burde et al., 2015; Fernando,
Miller, & Berger, 2010; Wessells & Kostelny, 2012).
The Protective Potential of Education

International practitioners consider it generally evident that traumatic stress
symptoms among children in these settings interfere with their learning (e.g.,
Aguilar & Retamal, 2009; Muñoz, 2010). Empirically, however, the effects that
conflict trauma has on children’s learning have received limited attention beyond
a few isolated studies. Just two studies in Sri Lanka and Sierra Leone have shown
that learning is impaired by posttraumatic stress (Betancourt et al., 2008; Elbert
et al., 2009). The lion’s share of literature focuses on how conflict trauma affects
children writ large.
Conversely, educators firmly believe that education protects children from
harm. Indeed, this is a key assumption held by those in the education in emergen-
cies field and used to justify the humanitarian provision of education. International
organizations have invested significant resources to develop child-friendly schools/
spaces, and INEE Minimum Standards highlight this claim: “In emergency situa-
tions through to recovery, quality education provides physical, psychosocial and
cognitive protection that can sustain and save lives” (INEE, 2010, p. 2).
This perspective assumes that education mitigates the effect of conflict on chil-
dren in several ways. First, perhaps most prominently, schooling is thought to
provide children and teachers with a sense of normalcy in an otherwise disruptive
setting by giving them a structured and stable routine (Davies & Talbot, 2008).
Next, trauma can be addressed in the school setting by giving children targeted
psychosocial support and developing their natural resiliencies. For example, the
provision of educational activities in a “healing classroom” may contribute to the
positive social and emotional adjustment of children (Winthrop & Kirk, 2008).12
Finally, schools are considered entry points for providing children and communi-
ties with access to other life saving services, such as nutrition, health, or water and
sanitation (Aguilar & Retamal, 2009; Mosselson et al., 2009; Paulson & Rappleye,
2007; Smith, 2005).
There is mixed empirical research to bolster these claims. A longitudinal quali-
tative study of refugee children showed that education may promote both immedi-
ate physical security and enable children to hold aspirations for future economic
security (Dryden-Peterson, 2011). Other studies indicate how children and stu-
dents themselves value schooling to support their well-being. Interviews with
refugee youth illustrated the importance that students themselves place on differ-
ent types of learning, from technical knowledge to practical skills to critical think-
ing (Winthrop, 2011). A qualitative study of an IRC nonformal education and
recreation program for Chechen IDP (internally displaced person) children
involved young people as youth leaders who cooperated with teaching staff to
engage with and develop activities for other young beneficiaries. Although the
program provided a space to develop important social relationships and engage in
635
Burde et al.
meaningful activity, the fact that the education program was nonformal limited
the youths’ ability to develop the sense of normalcy that they wanted (Betancourt,
2005). In the section on “What Works to Address These Issues,” we examine
education-based psychosocial interventions specifically designed to promote chil-
dren’s well-being and protection in armed conflict.
Constraints on the Protective Potential of Education

International practitioners also point out several constraints on the protec-
tive potential of education. In particular, as mentioned above, schools may be
a prime target for combatants to attack (HRW, 2006, 2010a, 2010b; O’Malley,
2007, 2010)—something that negates the safe space that schools may provide
(Aguilar & Retamal, 2009). Additionally, teachers themselves are often trau-
matized, with negative repercussions for the classroom. Girls may also be at
increased risk of sexual assault, harassment, and exploitation at school during
conflict (Kirk & Winthrop, 2006; Nicolai & Triplehorn, 2003). Finally, simply
returning to normal classroom activities may be insufficient among children
who face difficulties concentrating after exposure to violence and disruption
(Aguilar & Retamal, 2009).
Despite a significant gray literature that proposes ways in which education
promotes the protection of children in situations of armed conflict, few studies
specifically examine how this type of psychosocial protection might improve edu-
cational outcomes. Neither does the literature examine other educational dimen-
sions like classroom climate and interpersonal relationships that might indirectly
affect both academic outcomes and psychosocial well-being—although one study
doing so is in process (see Torrente et al., 2015).
What Works to Address These Issues
In this section, we examine evidence on what types of interventions might
work to mitigate the potential negative relationships between education and con-
flict and improve educational outcomes in conflict situations. We include in our
discussion evidence from intervention studies that employ RCTs, also referred to
as impact evaluations, as well as from other kinds of empirical research such as
rigorous observational studies and quasi-experimental designs. We first discuss
programs that increase access to education in situations of conflict. Next, we
review educational interventions intended to mitigate conflict through their con-
tent. Finally, we examine protection-oriented interventions designed to bolster
education and well-being. It is important to note that there may be many other
interventions that are effective but are not included here because of limited avail-
able evidence assessing their impact.
Access
In contrast to a relatively substantial literature on the relationship between
access to education and conflict, little research has tested the impact of interven-
tions intended to increase access in conflict-affected settings. In other words,
there are few studies that have explained what works to remedy the access issues
described above. Most studies of interventions designed to enhance access have
been descriptive or process-oriented case studies conducted by the international
636
agencies providing education and have neither been systematic nor explanatory.
Here, we review several studies that meet our selection criteria.
Community-based schools. Existing evidence has shown that community-based

schools increase access to education, particularly by decreasing distance to schools
and encouraging participation of local communities. According to one impact
evaluation, community-based schools, supported by international NGOs, increase
enrollment particularly for girls in conflict-affected Afghanistan. Although atten-
dance increased for both boys and girls dramatically, rising to 70% from an aver-
age of 27%, girls benefitted the most from the schools. Their enrollment increased
by 15 percentage points more than boys’, and girls’ test scores increased by 0.25
standard deviations more than boys’. Furthermore, the gender gap in test scores
narrowed significantly in the treatment villages (Burde & Linden, 2013). These
schools were extremely effective at increasing educational access and reducing
gender inequality.
Community-based schools may not only improve access to education but also
provide protection by deterring attacks that target both girls’ and boys’ education
(Burde, 2014; Rowell, 2013). Data from the NGO CARE on the rates at which
armed groups attacked government and community-based schools indicate that,
because they are located in a home or mosque and are more easily monitored by
the community, community-based schools may offer less of a target in areas
where government schools are under attack (Burde, 2014; Rowell, 2013).
Girls’ schools and female teachers. The availability of girls’ schools, female

teachers, and/or female classroom attendants also increases girls’ access to educa-
tion. In Pakistan, the presence of a girls’ school in a village significantly increased
the likelihood that girls from that village enroll (Lloyd, Mete, & Sathar, 2005). In
Afghanistan, according to observational data, as the proportion of female teach-
ers increased, girls’ enrollment rose by 30% (Guimbert, Miwa, & Nguyen, 2008).
This may break a negative cycle: Too few female teachers keep girls from attend-
ing school, and too few educated girls cannot produce enough female teachers.
However, many communities stress the importance of personally knowing
their daughters’ teachers. Both experimental and anecdotal evidence has indicated
that if parents know the male teachers who instruct their daughters, the teacher’s
gender is not a deterrent to girls’ enrollment, at least before puberty (e.g., Burde
& Linden, 2013). Additional research should disaggregate gender from acquain-
tance to test the effects of both on girls’ enrollment.
In sum, supporting community-based education is a common intervention in
countries affected by crises, with clear and significant effects on children’s
access to school and learning. Beyond these initiatives, surprisingly, there is little
empirical work that specifically examines interventions to increase access to
education in crisis settings. Most international evaluation research examines aid
to education in peaceful low- or middle-income countries. Also surprisingly, we
found no impact evaluations to date of temporary learning spaces or accelerated
learning programs, despite how common these interventions are in crisis situa-
tions. Finally, more research studying how education interventions can protect
children is necessary.
637
Learning
Programs that aim to address educational content and practices are often designed
to contribute to peacebuilding after conflict (Davies, 2005; Kagawa, 2005; Paulson
& Rappleye, 2007; Smith, 2005). Much of the intervention research examining the
peaceful potential of education has focused on these programs. Among these, peace
education interventions and multiple-perspective history teaching have been evalu-
ated rigorously. As mentioned, these evaluations analyze individual-level outcomes,
assuming that reducing personal biases and interpersonal conflict will mitigate
social conflict. An overarching limitation of these interventions and this literature,
therefore, is that they do not specify how interpersonal and societal conflict are
linked nor analyze the impact of peace education on group outcomes.
Peace education programs. Peace education is generally premised on the idea

that education can promote conflict resolution and peace-building by fostering an
atmosphere of nonviolence and reconciliation among learners that will diffuse into
the community, often—though not exclusively—through direct contact between
groups (Allport, 1954). Additional components of peace education include activi-
ties and lessons on sharing and dealing with emotional stress positively (Webster,
2013). Because substantial literature exists on peace education, we provide only
an overview of key findings here, building on the earlier work of Bar-Tal and
Rosen (2009; also see Burde et al., 2015).
Intergroup contact between conflicting groups is often an important compo-
nent of peace education programs. Although there is limited evidence on the long-
term effects of intergroup contact, one impact evaluation of a peace workshop in
Sri Lanka found that effects lasted up to a year after the intervention ended
(Malhotra & Liyanage, 2005). The workshop consisted of a 4-day camp where
18- to 21-year-old Sinhalese and Tamil students lived and socialized, attended
minilectures, creative activities, and toured a multiethnic village. In behavioral
tests 1 year later, participants expressed greater empathy toward members of the
other ethnicity and were more willing to donate money to charities that benefited
the poor of the other ethnicity. Meanwhile, students in the control group, as well
as students from nonparticipating schools, showed less empathy and were less
likely to give to needy members of the other group.
Combining independent study with intergroup contact also shows some prom-
ise. For example, a year-long school-based program that fostered intergroup con-
tact between Palestinian and Israeli youth found that both groups placed more
emphasis on positive aspects of peace such as cooperation and harmony (Biton &
Salomon, 2006). The program also prevented the deterioration of views and feel-
ings among program participants as compared with the control group in the face
of adverse events. The fact that the program was long-term, executed by trained
classroom teachers, and aimed at breaking down stereotypes may have contrib-
uted to its success. These mechanisms need to be tested, however. In addition, it
is difficult to know whether the effects were lasting, as the last survey was con-
ducted immediately after the program ended.
Peace education often positively affects attitudes and perceptions in postcon-
flict, protracted or intractable conflicts among willing participants (Bar-Natan,
2004, as cited in Salomon, 2004; Burde et al., 2015; Maoz, 2000), yet it is unclear
638
whether these positive outcomes are retained over time. A quasi-experimental
study of a year-long, school-based program for Israeli Jewish and Israeli
Palestinian youth found changes in adolescents’ peripheral beliefs, but not the
core beliefs that were central to their groups’ collective narratives (Rosen &
Salomon, 2011). A second posttest 2 months later showed that even the peripheral
beliefs changed back to their initial states.
In sum, although the interventions described above show promise, most evalu-
ations of peace education programs have struggled to isolate positive changes to
the curriculum or classroom practice from among the other factors that could help
build peace. In addition, the outcome measures typically used in evaluations have
been insufficient for assessing these programs, which often seek to change the
“root causes” of conflict, by changing attitudes and values. Lack of comparability
between experimental and control groups and selection bias among participants
have also weakened most of these studies. Additional research including experi-
mental designs should seek to better understand the mechanisms that promote the
outcomes that peace education programs are designed to achieve.
Multiple-perspective history teaching. Evidence from intervention studies has

shown that, compared with conventional history teaching that focuses on a single
narrative, teaching multiple perspectives of history positively affects students’
attitudes and perceptions (Burde et al., 2015). Practitioners promote these per-
spectives in two key ways: (a) an inquiry approach to multiple-perspective history
teaching (also called “critical analysis of conflicting sources”) and (b) a dual nar-
rative approach to history education (also called “joint history textbooks”).
The first approach assumes that engaging critically with primary and second-
ary evidence on conflicting historical perspectives will transform conflict-ridden
societies (McCully, 2012). Existing experimental and quasi-experimental evi-
dence is promising. Comparison of the inquiry approach with conventional and
other multiperspective approaches with history teaching showed that the former
had a significantly positive impact on changing students’ attitudes and percep-
tions about the contested past and out-group members (Barton & McCully, 2010;
Goldberg, 2014) and on improving intergroup relations (Goldberg & Ron, 2014).
The dual narrative approach, in which students learn both in-group and out-
group historical narratives, has mixed results. For example, some interventions in
which conflicting groups jointly produced dual narrative histories were promising
in the Israeli–Palestinian context (Adwan & Bar-On, 2004; Maoz, 2000).
However, dual narrative textbooks used by Palestinian high school students in
Israel did not promote interest in the Israeli perspective and were associated with
negative reactions to the latter’s narrative (Eid, 2010). In Northern Ireland, stu-
dents subjected to a dual history curriculum showed more interest in out-group
narratives, but struggled to fully engage with alternative historical perspectives
(Barton & McCully, 2012).
Most of these programs address intergroup violence that typifies a civil or local
war, such as the conflicts in Northern Ireland or between Israelis and Palestinians.
They generally work with young people who agree to participate; they do not
address internationalized conflicts or attempt to prevent recruitment into violent
extremism. Much work remains to be done to understand whether, how, and to
639
Burde et al.
what extent education programs can mitigate the phenomena that trigger partici-
pation in violent extremist groups and activities.

In the nexus among education, conflict, and protection, most research on educa-
tion and protection has assessed formal and informal education interventions
designed to mitigate anxiety, depression, or trauma in these circumstances. Little
research has examined how psychosocial programs may improve educational out-
comes. Although interventions adopt a range of approaches—from addressing
trauma to promoting resilience—scholars debate the appropriateness of using clini-
cally oriented approaches among a general population. In particular, the posttrau-
matic stress disorder (PTSD) pathology established in the West is likely incompatible
with many local beliefs elsewhere (Boothby, 2008; Burde et al., 2015; Fernando
et al., 2010). Interventions that do not take local norms and customs into account may
be inadvertently harmful, and too much focus on trauma may overlook the important
role of postconflict stressors on mental health (Betancourt et al., 2013; Fernando
et al., 2010; Wessells & Kostelny, 2012). Here, we review one experimental study
assessing how a psychosocial intervention improves children’s educational out-
comes, along with other school-based and non–school-based interventions designed
to address trauma and promote well-being. These programs typically provide cre-
ative arts or drama therapy, psychosocial support, and recreational activities.
These studies often have investigated whether an intervention is associated with
a reduction in PTSD and, to a lesser extent, with depression and anxiety. Although
the intervention studies reported here meet our criteria for selection, as with much
of the research in this emerging field, there are some caveats to keep in mind when
reading these outcomes. First, because these studies typically have not isolated pro-
gram components, we do not know specifics regarding what works and what does
not in achieving targeted outcomes. Second, long-term follow-up is unusual and
often challenging making it impossible to assess the effects over time. Third, most
studies have depended on self-reports, not supported by behavioral tests, observa-
tions, or teacher/parent reports of child functioning. Finally, most have conducted
pre- and posttreatment tests, not accounting for selection bias, nor capturing changes
over the course of the intervention. That said, overall these studies have found
promising results in reducing children’s anxiety, depression, and trauma. And taken
together, they offer important insights and points of departure for future research.
The following is a description of clear successes or controversies that have
emerged in the course of psychosocial interventions. In this discussion, we treat
psychosocial support programs as relatively monolithic, assessing the evidence
on their outcomes. This is because of the difficulty in understanding what pro-
gram components contributed to which outcomes and lack of attention to causal
effects.
Psychosocial therapy may improve educational outcomes. Our search returned

only one study that examines the impact of a psychosocial intervention on children’s
education; however, its results are promising. Using an RCT to examine the impact
of a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)/group therapy intervention and education
subsidies, researchers randomly assigned war-affected youth (aged 15–24 years) to
640
receive CBT through 10 group sessions (Betancourt et al., 2014). During these ses-
sions, the youth discussed self-concept and the impact of trauma on interpersonal
relationships. Immediately following treatment, the youth were again randomized
and offered an education subsidy. Enrollment, attendance, and classroom perfor-
mance were assessed among in-school youth after 8 months. The CBT intervention
had significant positive effects on both psychosocial indicators and educational out-
comes, including enrollment, attendance, and classroom behavior. Significantly, the
education subsidy alone increased attendance, but did not have an effect on mental
health, school retention, or classroom behavior. Furthermore, interactions between
the therapy and the subsidy were not significant, thus the psychosocial support was
the primary mechanism improving educational outcomes.
School-based psychosocial interventions. The range of psychosocial interventions

that take place at school is diverse, but they include classroom-based or group
interventions inside the school but outside the classroom. Although the differences
in the effectiveness of school-based programs versus clinical interventions are not
clear, school-based programs allow practitioners access to a larger number of chil-
dren and make treatment more accessible. Interventions that combine education
programs with trauma healing techniques or that integrate healing activities in a
school curriculum are rare; we review the available research that meets our criteria.
Some existing evidence shows some positive results on whether providing psy-
chosocial support to children in school through trauma-focused activities helps
them recover from crisis. Trauma/grief-focused psychotherapy provided to Bosnian
secondary school students exposed to war significantly reduced depression, grief
symptoms, and PTSD according to self-reports (Layne et al., 2008). The interven-
tion consisted of cognitive-behavioral activities that included cognitive restructur-
ing, problem-solving skills, psychosocial education, relaxation skills, stress
management, and therapeutic exposure. Reductions in PTSD and depression
symptoms were connected to increased classroom compliance and interest in
school and negatively associated with school anxiety and withdrawal. Likewise, a
curriculum-based training program with fourth and fifth graders in Croatia included
trauma healing elements, as well as awareness of ethnic bias, education on human
rights, and instruction in nonviolent conflict resolution (Woodside, Barbara, &
Benner, 1999). The results showed a reduction in PTSD symptoms in the interven-
tion group, as well as a small but significant reduction in ethnic bias.
Similarly, school-based psychosocial interventions that integrate art and recre-
ational activities show improvement in mental health. A classroom-based pro-
gram, “Overshadowing the Threat of Terrorism,” was implemented with
elementary Israeli students who were randomly assigned to either the intervention
or the control group (Berger, Pat-Horenczyk, & Gelkopf, 2007). The intervention
combined cognitive-behavioral activities with art and recreational activities, as
well as with self-expressive activities in the curriculum. Two weeks after the pro-
gram ended, participants reported statistically significant reductions in PTSD
symptoms and functional impairment measures compared with those in the con-
trol group; however, the long-term impact of the intervention was not assessed.
The Psychosocial Structured Activities used with war-affected youth in Northern
Uganda appeared to have similar effects (Ager et al., 2011). An intervention
641
Burde et al.
consisting of didactic presentations, drama, games, and reflective exercises, as
well as community service and periodic facilitated discussions between student
participants and their parents was implemented in 21 conflict-affected schools.
For a 12-month follow-up evaluation, eight schools were selected by random
quota sampling from those receiving the intervention and students were assigned
to intervention and comparison groups. Although both students who participated
in the program and those who did not showed a significant increase in their well-
being, the well-being of children in the group receiving the intervention increased
significantly more than for those who did not. A systematic review of 21 studies
on interventions targeting refugee children (14 in high-income countries, 7 in
refugee camps) also indicated the effectiveness of creative arts–based programs in
significantly improving mental health (Tyrer & Fazel, 2014). However, the review
also showed that interventions using CBT had the largest effect sizes.
Yet significantly, school-based psychosocial interventions may not be equally
effective for all populations. A rigorous randomized evaluation conducted with
Palestinian schoolchildren (aged 10–13 years) showed weak effects for girls.
Exploring the effects of a psychosocial intervention using “Teaching Recovery
Techniques” on emotional regulation, researchers found that whereas PTSD
symptoms were reduced for boys, symptoms were reduced in only a subset of
girls: those who had lower levels of trauma at baseline (Punamäki, Peltonen,
Diab, & Qouta, 2014).
Training teachers to cultivate protective learning spaces. Some evidence from

interventions that train teachers to cultivate protective environments in their class-
rooms shows mixed results. A study of an intervention in Israel conducted after
the 2006 Lebanon war found that when teachers established a safe environment
using diary documentation, narrative techniques, and play activities to help chil-
dren reprocess traumatic experiences, children’s coping skills improved (Wolmer,
Hamiel, Barchas, Slone, & Laor, 2011). Overall, participating children were more
likely to maintain a healthy equilibrium and re-experience traumatic events less
frequently. Yet because data were collected in pre–post and follow-up assessments
of the children, there is no counterfactual to which to compare these outcomes.
A partial evaluation of IRC’s Healing Classrooms intervention in the Democratic
Republic of Congo assessed the effects of training teachers to create safe and sup-
portive learning environments (Torrente et al., 2015). After the first and second
waves of data collection, the researchers found improved student perceptions of
support from their schools and teachers among language-majority students, but
not among language-minority students. However, the program also reduced stu-
dents’ perceptions of their schools as predictable and cooperative. There were no
effects on student self-perceptions of well-being.
Informal psychosocial interventions. Setting up child friendly spaces/child-

centered spaces or temporary learning spaces are common interventions
implemented by humanitarian agencies working on child protection and edu-
cation in the weeks following the acute onset of conflict. The two often look
similar: Both often take place in tents and combine lessons and recreational
activities with the goal of providing structure and a safe space for children
642
in the midst of chaos, although temporary learning spaces are typically more
focused on education.
Existing evaluations of this type of program have shown positive outcomes.
One evaluation found that children who participated in a child-centered space
in an IDP camp in postconflict Northern Uganda had better psychosocial out-
comes than those in a nearby camp that did not receive the intervention
(Kostelny & Wessells, 2008). Participants were more likely to be safe at home
and in the community, had positive social interactions with their peers and
adults, and learned stronger life skills than those who did not participate in the
child-centered space.
However, factors external to schooling—specifically caretaker mental health
and attitude—appear to be important as well. An emergency education interven-
tion among refugee youth living in Kunama camp in Ethiopia involved educa-
tional, psychosocial, and recreational activities conducted in shifts in large tent
schools, as well as recreational clubs when school was out of session (Betancourt,
Yudron, Wheaton, & Smith-Fawzi, 2012). Drawing on data from surveys con-
ducted 1 year apart with both adolescents and caregivers, the authors found that
caregiver mental health and attitudes were significant in determining how positive
an effect an emergency education program had on youth mental health and behav-
ior. When caregivers had higher levels of distress, youth were more likely to have
higher levels of psychosocial trauma and behavioral problems. Conversely, when
caregivers had lower levels of distress, perceptions of good access to social ser-
vices, and higher socioeconomic status, youth had fewer behavioral problems.
Similarly, an experimental study from Bosnia tested a 5-month, nonformal educa-
tion intervention that consisted of weekly meetings to promote good mother–child
interaction, increased knowledge of child development and trauma, peer support,
and basic health care (Dybdahl, 2001). Psychological tests and qualitative obser-
vations revealed significant postintervention differences between treatment and
control groups on measures of maternal well-being and mental health, as well as
on child psychosocial functioning.
In sum, the protective potential of education is a key message from education
in emergencies practitioners. There is some evidence that psychosocial support at
school helps children recover from crisis through improved educational outcomes
and improved mental health—although these effects may be reduced by factors
external to the psychosocial interventions. Furthermore, the extent to which for-
mal education itself provides protection outcomes has not yet been rigorously
tested. This is an important area for future research.
Discussion
The increasing demand for more specific evidence on program effectiveness
over the past several years is already beginning to show the new directions in
which the field will move. Peace education is now its own subfield, as is the study
of psychosocial interventions. Alternative learning systems such as accelerated
learning programs, community-based education, and temporary learning spaces
are developing new schools of thought. We summarize below a few conclusions
regarding what we know about the relationship between education and conflict,
and how to support education in emergencies in light of these trends.
643
Access to Education
It is clear that conflict affects access to education, with school infrastructure
destroyed during conflict and school personnel killed (Cuaresma, 2010; Lai &
Thyne, 2007). The impact tends to be greater for younger children than for older ones
(Akresh & de Walque, 2008; Dabalen & Paul, 2012; Verwimp & Van Bavel, 2013).
However, in certain contexts the negative impact of fighting on education is not as
clear (de Groot & Göksel, 2011; Swee, 2009; Valente, 2011) and may be mediated by
a variety of contextual factors as well as the intensity and length of conflict (Shields
& Paulson, 2015). More evidence is needed on these mediating factors.
We can also say with some confidence that unequal access to education con-
tributes to conflict initiation (Østby & Urdal, 2010; Thyne, 2006). In particular,
there is rigorous evidence that youth without access to education are more likely
to join violent conflict than those who attend school (Humphreys & Weinstein,
2008). This relationship appears strongest in low- and middle-income countries
(Barakat & Urdal, 2009). More research is important to understand the mediating
role of factors such as income level, economic structures, and geographical region
that play a key role in this relationship (Barakat & Urdal, 2009; Collier & Hoeffler,
2004; Collier & Chauvet, 2007; Østby & Urdal, 2010). However, the possible link
between education level and participation in or support for violent extremism has
not yet been clearly established.
Furthermore, convincing evidence shows that distance to school is an impor-
tant factor in determining enrollment in primary school, especially for girls (Burde
& Linden, 2013; Guimbert et al., 2008). In addition, an increased proportion of
female teachers is likely to encourage girls’ enrollment (Guimbert et al., 2008;
Lloyd et al., 2005). Open questions include, for example, the conditions in which
equitable access to education enhances peace. In addition, studies should illumi-
nate at which levels of education—primary, secondary, tertiary—interventions
are most effective in promoting peace. It is important to learn how the effective-
ness of specific interventions varies according to level of country development
(Brockhoff et al., 2014), or political dissatisfaction (Shafiq & Sinno, 2010).
Learning
A number of interventions are effective in rebuilding and maintaining educa-
tion quality during and after crises. First, community-based education shows clear
and significant effects on raising children’s achievement levels when available
formal schools cannot reach war-affected school-age children, particularly girls
(Burde & Linden, 2013). Second, contract teachers, although often less qualified
than those with full government credentials, are critical to providing education
during crises when many qualified teachers have fled or been killed.
Existing research does not establish a strong causal relationship between educa-
tion curricula content, language policy, teacher practices, and violence. However,
in examining the effect of particular curricula on attitudes and behaviors related to
peace or conflict, it seems clear that classroom materials that frame particular
social groups in a negative light, as well as repressive pedagogy, are likely to have
negative outcomes on peace-building measures (Burde, 2014; Davies, 2004; King,
2014). In order to understand how this happens and to what extent this may be true,
644
these mechanisms need to be tested systematically. Similarly, exclusions based on
language of instruction likely have negative effects both on educational achieve-
ment as well as on positive indicators of peace, but these questions should also be
examined with more nuance. In both cases, it would be valuable to understand
more precisely and systematically the degree to which positive curricula and
curricula that promote critical thinking produce positive effects.
Peace education programs show promising results in changing attitudes and
behaviors toward members of those perceived as the “other,” at least in the short
term (Biton & Salomon, 2006; Malhotra & Liyanage, 2005). However, more
research is required to understand the long-term effects. In addition, it is not clear
which program components lead to which outcomes.
With regard to the potential of education to offer protection and enhance well-
being for children living in emergency and postemergency situations, research
shows that providing children with structured, meaningful, and creative activities,
in a school setting or in informal learning spaces, improves their emotional and
behavioral well-being (Ager et al., 2011; Berger & Gelkopf, 2009; Kostelny &
Wessells, 2008). In addition, some psychosocial support programs appear to
improve classroom-related outcomes (Betancourt et al., 2014; Layne et al., 2008;
Woodside et al., 1999) although further research is needed. New work should
examine mechanisms that produce greater resilience among children as well the
effectiveness among different psychosocial programs.
Conclusion: The Challenge Ahead
The review above shows the current state of research on education in emergen-
cies. Yet this field is changing rapidly and world events have expanded attention
to education in these contexts in a way that has never before occurred. These
changes will continue as new voices introduce their ideas for peace and as events
raise questions about the links between education and violent extremism. For
example, the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Malala Yousafzai increased atten-
tion to education in emergencies. Although still young, Malala already demon-
strated that she is a force on the world stage—one that can amplify the voices of
tens of thousands of civil society actors who argue for education as a human right
and view it as an antidote to conflict. At the same time, strong states are examin-
ing the relationship between education and conflict with an escalating sense of
urgency. In response, attention to education in emergencies is set to grow expo-
nentially. Indeed, world leaders including the Prime Ministers or Presidents of
Chile, Indonesia, Malawi, Norway, and UNESCO’s Secretary General have co-
convened an Education Commission led by a former British Prime Minister that
is tasked with defining and addressing the educational needs of children in low-
income and conflict-affected countries and regions worldwide. These responses
hold promises and pitfalls. The latter are more likely if interventions are not
grounded in research and data collection.
Yet robust evidence on which to act is limited. Conducting rigorous research in
conflict-affected environments is difficult and often complicated by the fact that
most of the lead researchers of these studies to date are foreign to the contexts in
645
Burde et al.
which they are working. In addition, researchers launching projects in this field
must contend with shifting geopolitical stakes and interests. Increasing commit-
ment to rigorous research, circulating studies as they emerge, and coordinating the
efforts of large actors with small, local actors and membership organizations will
be critical in the years ahead.
The conceptual approach that dominates the field will also play a significant
role in shaping the work ahead. The education in emergencies framework that has
influenced the field to date highlights issues important to the rights of beneficiaries
of these programs. In contrast, a framework that focuses on state fragility, which is
increasingly emerging, highlights the interests of strong state actors. Although
these contrasting frameworks often lead to similar interventions, the former may
overly disregard politics in the pursuit of apolitical humanitarian goals whereas the
latter may rely too heavily on outside political interests to guide programmatic and
research decisions. Given global concerns about peace, violent extremism, and
war, it is crucial that as the field moves forward, researchers continue to examine
these theoretical paradigms that serve to shape as well as respond to real life events.
Notes
The first wave of research for this article was carried out with the generous support from
the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (https://www.norad.no/en/front/).
Thanks to Sarah Dryden-Peterson, Elisabeth King, Erin Murphy-Graham, and Julia
Paulson for their comments on early versions of this paper.
The findings and interpretations expressed, as well as any errors or omissions, are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our affiliated organizations.
1We use “empirical” to refer to studies that analyze data on relationships between
variables—either quantitatively or through qualitative case studies—but do not test inter-
ventions. Although intervention studies are also empirical, we refer to them here as inter-
vention studies to differentiate them from other empirical work.
2For a discussion of this expansion, see, for example, Barnett and Weiss (2008), Burde
(2014), and Terry (2002).
3On framing, see Keck and Sikkink (1998) and Snow, Rochford, Worden, and Benford
(1986).
4Focusing efforts on simply delivering a service and maintaining distance from educa-
tional content may have helped aid workers depoliticize their work in education.
5Although we appreciate that lines between “qualitative” and “quantitative” research
are often blurred, we use these distinctions for ease of reference.
6Following the Uppsala Conflict Database Program’s guidelines, we define countries
affected by conflict as those experiencing civil or interstate conflict within their borders
that results in at least 25 battle-related deaths per year (http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/
ucdp/definitions/).
7This attention to aid recipients means that we do not include some countries that fall
under the Uppsala Conflict Database Program definition, such as the United States. We did,
however, include literature on Northern Ireland, since much has been written about peace
education programs there.
8There is no universally accepted, single definition of terrorism, yet two characteristics
are intrinsic to any definition: the presence or threat of violence and a political or social
motivation. Terrorism is thus used to define the acts of individuals or subnational groups
that use or threaten to use violence toward a political/social end by intimidating a large
audience beyond the immediate victims of their acts (Enders & Sandler, 2011).
646
9See http://www.protectingeducation.org/ for information on the Global Coalition to
Protect Education from Attack.
10Also see Paulson and Shields (2015) for an interesting discussion of how improving
indicators of conflict, fragility, and education outcomes would enhance our understanding
of the impact of conflict on education.
11In India, Lall (2008) stated that this occurred more frequently under the BJP govern-
ment of 1998 to 2004. In Pakistan, she focused on the period of General Zia ul-Haq’s
administration (1977–1988).
12“Healing classrooms” refers specifically to a classroom intervention designed by the
IRC to address learning and psychosocial well-being for teachers and students exposed to
conflict. The program incorporates contextual awareness with conflict- and gender-sensi-
tive approaches to education.
References
Adwan, S., & Bar-On, D. (2004). Shared history project: A PRIME example of peace-
building under fire. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 17,
513–521.
Afzal, M. (2013). Gender, education, and support for militant groups: Evidence from a
public opinion survey in Pakistan. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?
a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtYWRpaGFhZnphbHxneDo2N
GM5ZTdhNzJjMTc2NGQ5
Ager, A., Akesson, B., Stark, L., Flouri, E., Okot, B., McCollister, F., & Boothby, N.
(2011). The impact of the school-based Psychosocial Structured Activities (PSSA)
program on conflict-affected children in Northern Uganda. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 52, 1124–1133.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02407.x
Aguilar, P., & Retamal, G. (2009). Protective environments and quality education in
humanitarian contexts. International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 3–
16. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.02.002
Akresh, R., & de Walque, D. (2008). Armed conflict and schooling: Evidence from
the 1994 Rwandan genocide (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series,
No. 4606). Retrieved from http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-
9450-4606
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Anderson, A., Martone, G., Perlman Robinson, J., Rognerud, E., & Sullivan-
Owomoyela, J. (2006). Standards put to the test: Implementing the INEE minimum
standards for education in emergencies, chronic crisis and early reconstruction
(Humanitarian Practice Network Papers, No. 57). Retrieved from http://www.odi-
hpn.org/download/networkpaper057pdf
Asian Disaster Preparedness Center. (2008). Impact of disasters on the education sec-
tor in Cambodia. Retrieved from http://www.adpc.net/v2007/IKM/ONLINE%20
DOCUMENTS/downloads/2008/Mar/MDRDEducationCambodia.pdf
Barakat, B., Karpinska, Z., & Paulson, J. (2008). Desk study: Education and fragility.
Retrieved from http://www.ineesite.org/uploads/files/resources/doc_1_FINAL-
Desk_Study_Education_and_Fragility_CERG2008.pdf
Barakat, B., & Urdal, H. (2009). Breaking the waves? Does education mediate the
relationship between youth bulges and political violence? (Policy Research Working
Paper, No. 5114). Retrieved from http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/
1813-9450-5114
647
Burde et al.
Barnett, M. (2009). The international humanitarian order. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Barnett, M., & Weiss, T. (2008). Humanitarianism: A brief history of the present. In
M. Barnett & T. Weiss (Eds.), Humanitarianism in question: Politics, power, ethics
(pp. 1–48). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bar-Tal, D., & Rosen, Y. (2009). Peace education in societies involved in intractable
conflicts: Direct and indirect models. Review of Educational Research, 79, 557–575.
doi:10.3102/0034654308330969
Barton, K. C., & McCully, A. W. (2010). “You can form your own point of view”:
Internally persuasive discourse in Northern Ireland students’ encounters with his-
tory. Teachers College Record, 112, 142–181.
Barton, K. C., & McCully, A. W. (2012). Trying to “see things differently”: Northern
Ireland students’ struggle to understand alternative historical perspectives. Theory
& Research in Social Education, 40, 371–408. doi:10.1080/00933104.2012.710928
Bekalo, S. A., Brophy, M., & Welford, A. G. (2003). The development of education in
post-conflict “Somaliland.” International Journal of Educational Development, 23,
459–475. doi:10.1016/S0738-0593(03)00016-6
Berger, R., & Gelkopf, M. (2009). School-based intervention for the treatment of tsu-
nami-related distress in children: A quasi-randomized controlled trial. Psychotherapy
and Psychosomatics, 78, 364–371. doi:10.1159/000235976
Berger, R., Pat-Horenczyk, R., & Gelkopf, M. (2007). School-based intervention for
prevention and treatment of elementary-students’ terror-related distress in Israel: A
quasi-randomized controlled trial. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 541–551.
doi:10.1002/jts.20225
Berrebi, C. (2007). Evidence about the link between education, poverty, and terrorism
among Palestinians. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 13(1).
doi:10.2202/1554-8597.1101
Betancourt, T. S. (2005). Stressors, supports, and the social ecology of displacement:
Psychosocial dimensions of an emergency education program for Chechen adoles-
cents displaced in Ingushetia, Russia. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 29, 309–
340. doi:10.1007/s11013-005-9170-9
Betancourt, T. S., Borisova, I., Williams, T. P., Meyers-Ohki, S., Rubin-Smith, J.,
Annan, J., & Kohrt, B. A. (2013). Research review: Psychosocial adjustment and
mental health in former child soldiers—A systematic review of the literature and
recommendations for future research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
and Allied Disciplines, 54, 17–36. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02620.x
Betancourt, T. S., McBain, R., Newnham, E. A., Akinsulure-Smith, A. M., Brennan, R.
T., Weisz, J. R., & Hansen, N. B. (2014). A behavioral intervention for war-affected
youth in Sierra Leone: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 53, 1288–1297. doi:10.1016/j.
jaac.2014.09.011
Betancourt, T. S., Simmons, S., Borisova, I., Brewer, S. E., Iweala, U., & de la Soudiere,
M. (2008). High hopes, grim reality: Reintegration and the education of former child
soldiers in Sierra Leone. Comparative Education Review, 52, 565–587.
doi:10.1086/591298
Betancourt, T. S., Yudron, M., Wheaton, W., & Smith-Fawzi, M. C. (2012). Caregiver
and adolescent mental health in Ethiopian Kunama refugees participating in an
emergency education program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 357–365.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.01.001
648
Biton, Y., & Salomon, G. (2006). Peace in the eyes of Israeli and Palestinian youths:
Effects of collective narratives and peace education program. Journal of Peace
Research, 43, 167–180. doi:10.1177/0022343306061888
Blankespoor, B., Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., & Wheeler, D. (2010). The economics of
adaptation to extreme weather events in developing countries (Center for Global
Development Working Paper, No. 199). Retrieved from http://www.cgdev.org/sites/
default/files/1423545_file_Economics_of_Adaptation_FINAL.pdf
Boothby, N. (2008). Political violence and development: An ecologic approach to chil-
dren in war zones. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17,
497–514. doi:10.1016/j.chc.2008.02.004
Breidlid, A. (2010). Sudanese images of the other: Education and conflict in Sudan.
Comparative Education Review, 54, 555–579. doi:10.1086/655150
Brett, R., & Specht, I. (2004). Young soldiers: Why they choose to fight. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner.
Brock, C. (2011). Education and conflict: A fundamental relationship. In J. Paulson (Ed.),
Education, conflict and development (pp. 17–32). Oxford, England: Symposium Books.
Brockhoff, S., Krieger, T., & Meierrieks, D. (2014). Great expectations and hard times:
The (nontrivial) impact of education on domestic terrorism. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 59, 1186–1215. doi:10.1177/0022002713520589
Burde, D. (2014). Schools for conflict or for peace in Afghanistan. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Burde, D., Guven, O., Kelcey, J., Lahmann, H., & Al-Abbadi, K. (2015). What works
to promote children’s educational access, quality of learning, and wellbeing in
crisis-affected contexts. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470773/Education-emergencies-rigorous-
review2.pdf
Burde, D., Kapit-Spitalny, A., Wahl, R., & Guven, O. (2011). Education and conflict
mitigation: What the aid workers say. Retrieved from http://www.protectingeduca-
tion.org/sites/default/files/documents/education_conflict_mitigation.pdf
Burde, D., & Linden, L. L. (2013). Bringing education to Afghan girls: A randomized
controlled trial of village-based schools. American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, 5, 27–40. doi:10.1257/app.5.3.27
Bush, K. D., & Saltarelli, D. (2000). The two faces of education in ethnic conflict.
Retrieved from http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/insight4.pdf
Cahill, K. M. (Ed.). (2010). Even in chaos: Education in times of emergency. New
York, NY: Fordham University Press.
Colenso, P. (2005). Education and social cohesion: Developing a framework for educa-
tion sector reform in Sri Lanka. Compare, 35, 411–428. doi:10.1080/03057920
500331470
Collier, P., & Chauvet, L. (2007). What are the pre-conditions for turnaround in failing
states? (Center for the Study of African Economies Working Paper). Retrieved from
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~econpco/research/pdfs/WhatPreconditionsForTurnaround.
pdf
Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic
Papers, 56, 563–595. doi:10.1093/oep/gpf064
Collier, P., Hoeffler, A., & Soderbom, M. (2004). On the duration of civil war. Journal
of Peace Research, 41, 253–273. doi:10.1177/0022343304043769
Cuaresma, J. C. (2010). Natural disasters and human capital accumulation. World Bank
Economic Review, 24, 280–302. doi:10.1093/wber/lhq008
649
Burde et al.
Dabalen, A. L., & Paul, S. (2012). Estimating the causal effects of conflict on education
in Côte d’Ivoire (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, No. 6077).
Retrieved from http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-6077
Davies, L. (2004). Education and conflict: Complexity and chaos. London, England:
Routledge.
Davies, L. (2005). Schools and war: Urgent agendas for comparative and international
education. Compare, 35, 357–371. doi:10.1080/03057920500331561
Davies, L. (2008). Educating against extremism. Staffordshire, England: Trentham
Books.
Davies, L. (2011). Learning for state-building: Capacity development, education and
fragility. Comparative Education, 47, 157–180. doi:10.1080/03050068.2011.554085
Davies, L. (2014). Interrupting extremism by creating educative turbulence. Curriculum
Inquiry, 44, 450–468. doi:10.1111/curi.12061
Davies, L., & Talbot, C. (2008). Learning in conflict and post-conflict contexts.
de Groot, O. J., & Göksel, I. (2011). Conflict and education demand in the Basque
region. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55, 652–677. doi:10.1177/0022002710381067
Dicum, J. (2008). Learning, war, and emergencies: A study of the learner’s perspective.
Dryden-Peterson, S. (2010). Barriers to accessing primary education in conflict-
affected fragile states: Literature review. Retrieved from http://resourcecentre.
savethechildren.se/library/barriers-accessing-primary-education-conflict-affected-
fragile-states-final-report
Dryden-Peterson, S. (2011). Refugee children aspiring towards the future: Linking
education and livelihoods. In K. Mundy & S. Dryden-Peterson (Eds.), Educating
children in conflict zones: Research, policy, and practice for systemic change—A
tribute to Jackie Kirk (pp. 85–99). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dupuy, K. (2008). Education for peace: Building peace and transforming armed con-
flict through education systems. Retrieved from http://toolkit.ineesite.org/toolkit/
INEEcms/uploads/1050/Education_for_Peace_Building_Peace.pdf
Dybdahl, R. (2001). Children and mothers in war: An outcome study of a psychosocial
intervention program. Child Development, 72, 1214–1230. doi:10.1111/1467-
8624.00343
Eid, N. (2010). The inner conflict: How Palestinian students in Israel react to the dual
narrative approach concerning the events of 1948. Journal of Educational Media,
Memory, and Society, 2, 55–77. doi:10.3167/jemms.2010.020104
Elbert, T., Schauer, M., Schauer, E., Huschka, B., Hirth, M., & Neuner, F. (2009).
Trauma-related impairment in children: A survey in Sri Lankan provinces affected
by armed conflict. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 238–246. doi:10.1016/j.
chiabu.2008.02.008
Enders, W., & Sandler, T. (2011). The political economy of terrorism. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Fair, C. (2007). Who are Pakistan’s militants and their families? Terrorism and Political
Violence, 20, 49–65. doi:10.1080/09546550701733996
Fernando, G. A., Miller, K. E., & Berger, D. E. (2010). Growing pains: The impact of
disaster-related and daily stressors on the psychological and psychosocial function-
ing of youth in Sri Lanka. Child Development, 81, 1192–1210.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01462.x
650
Freedman, S. W., Weinstein, H. M., Murphy, K., & Longman, T. (2008). Teaching his-
tory after identity-based conﬂicts: The Rwanda experience. Comparative Education
Review, 52, 663–690. doi:10.1086/591302
Glad, M. (2009). Knowledge on fire: Attacks on education in Afghanistan, risks and
measures for successful mitigation. Retrieved from http://www.care.org/sites/
default/files/documents/Knowledge_on_Fire_Report.pdf
Goldberg, T. (2014). Looking at their side of the conflict? Effects of single versus
multiple perspective history teaching on Jewish and Arab adolescents’ attitude to
out-group narratives and in-group responsibility. Intercultural Education, 25, 453–
467. doi:10.1080/14675986.2014.990230
Goldberg, T., & Ron, Y. (2014). “Look, each side says something different”: The
impact of competing history teaching approaches on Jewish and Arab adolescents’
discussions of the Jewish-Arab conflict. Journal of Peace Education, 11, 1–29.
doi:10.1080/17400201.2013.777897
Guimbert, S., Miwa, K., & Nguyen, D. (2008). Back to school in Afghanistan:
Determinants of school enrollment. International Journal of Educational
Development, 28, 419–434. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.11.004
Human Rights Watch. (2006). Lessons in terror: Education under attack in Afghanistan.
Retrieved from http://pantheon.hrw.org/reports/2006/afghanistan0706/afghanistan-
0706webfull.pdf
Human Rights Watch. (2010a). Targets of both sides: Violence against students, teach-
ers, and schools in Thailand’s southern border provinces. Retrieved from http://
www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0910webwcover.pdf
Human Rights Watch. (2010b). “Their future is at stake”: Attacks on teachers and
schools in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/
sites/default/files/reports/pakistan1210.pdf
Human Rights Watch. (2011). Schools and armed conflict: A global survey of domestic
laws and state practice protecting schools from attack and military use. Retrieved
from http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/crd0711webwcover.pdf
Human Rights Watch. (2015). “Our school became the battlefield”: Using schools for
child recruitment and military purposes in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.
Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/drcschools1015_
web.pdf
Humphreys, M., & Weinstein, J. (2008). Who fights? The determinants of participation
in civil war. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 436–455. doi:10.1111/j.
1540-5907.2008.00322.x
Interagency Network for Education in Emergencies. (2010). Minimum standards. New
York, NY: Author.
International Crisis Group. (2014). Education reform in Pakistan (Asia Report No.
257). Retrieved from https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/pakistan/educa-
tion-reform-pakistan
Kagawa, F. (2005). Emergency education: A critical review of the field. Comparative
Education, 41, 487–503. doi:10.1080/03050060500317620
Karpinska, Z. (Ed.). (2012). Education, aid, and aid agencies. New York, NY:
Continuum International.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in
international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
King, E. (2011). The multiple relationships between education and conflict:
Reflections of Rwandan teachers and students. In K. Mundy & S. Dryden-Peterson
651
Burde et al.
(Eds.), Educating children in conflict zones: Research, policy, and practice for
systemic change—A tribute to Jackie Kirk (pp. 137–152). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
King, E. (2014). From classrooms to conflict in Rwanda. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Kirk, J. (Ed.). (2009). Certification counts: Recognizing the learning attainments of
displaced and refugee students. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0018/001809/180906e.pdf
Kirk, J. (2011). Education and fragile states. In K. Mundy & S. Dryden-Peterson (Eds.),
Educating children in conflict zones: Research, policy, and practice for systemic
change—A tribute to Jackie Kirk (pp. 13–32). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kirk, J., & Winthrop, R. (2006). Eliminating the sexual abuse and exploitation of girls
in refugee schools in West Africa: Introducing female classroom assistants. In F.
Leach & C. Mitchell (Eds.), Combating gender violence in and around schools (pp.
207–215). Stoke-on-Trent, England: Trentham.
Kirk, J., & Winthrop, R. (2007). Home-based schools: A transitional educational model
in Afghanistan. In F. Leach & M. Dunne (Eds.), Education, conflict and reconcili-
ation: International perspectives (pp. 99–114). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Kostelny, K., & Wessells, M. (2008). The protection and psychosocial well-being of
young children following armed conflict: Outcome research on child-centered
spaces in Northern Uganda. Journal of Developmental Processes, 3, 13–25.
Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.576.645
6&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Krueger, A., & Maleckova, J. (2003). Education, poverty, political violence and terror-
ism: Is there a causal connection? (NBER Working Paper, No. 9074). Retrieved
from http://www.nber.org/papers/w9074
Kumar, K. (2002). Prejudice and pride: School histories of the freedom struggle in
India and Pakistan. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books.
Laframboise, N., & Loko, B. (2012). Natural disasters: Mitigating impact, managing
risks (IMF Working Paper, No. 12/245). Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/exter-
nal/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12245.pdf
Lai, B., & Thyne, C. (2007). The effect of civil war on education, 1980–97. Journal of
Peace Research, 44, 277–292. doi:10.1177/0022343307076631
Lall, M. (2008). Educate to hate: The use of education in the creation of antagonistic
national identities in India and Pakistan. Compare, 38, 103–119.
doi:10.1080/03057920701467834
Layne, C. M., Saltzman, W. R., Poppleton, L., Burlingame, G. M., Pašalić, A.,
Duraković, E., . . . Pynoos, R. S. (2008). Effectiveness of a school-based group
psychotherapy program for war-exposed adolescents: A randomized controlled trial.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1048–
1062. doi:10.1097/CHI.0b013e31817eecae
Lloyd, C. B., Mete, C., & Sathar, Z. A. (2005). The effect of gender differences in
primary school access, type, and quality on the decision to enroll in rural Pakistan.
Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53, 685–710. doi:10.1086/427042
Malhotra, D., & Liyanage, S. (2005). Long-term effects of peace workshops in protracted
conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49, 908–924. doi:10.1177/0022002705281153
Maoz, I. (2000). Multiple conflicts and competing agendas: A framework for concep-
tualizing structured encounters between groups in conflict. The case of a coexistence
project of Jews and Palestinians in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology, 6, 135–156. doi:10.1207/S15327949PAC0602_3
652
McCully, A. (2012). History teaching, conflict and the legacy of the past. Education,
Citizenship and Social Justice, 7, 145–159. doi:10.1177/1746197912440854
Milligan, J. (2003). Teaching between the cross and the crescent moon: Islamic iden-
tity, postcoloniality, and public education in the Southern Philippines. Comparative
Education Review, 47, 468–492. doi:10.1086/379494
Mosselson, J., Wheaton, W., & Frisoli, P. S. J. (2009). Education and fragility: A syn-
thesis of the literature. Journal of Education for International Development, 4(1),
1–17. Retrieved from http://www.ineesite.org/uploads/files/resources/Mosselson-
EducationFragilitySynthesisLiterature.pdf
Muñoz, V. (2010). Protecting human rights in emergency situations. In K. M. Cahill
(Ed.), Even in chaos: Education in times of emergency (pp. 9–15). New York, NY:
Fordham University Press.
Murphy, M., Stark, L, Wessells, M., Boothby, N., & Ager, A. (2011). Fortifying barri-
ers: Sexual violence as an obstacle to girls’ school participation in northern Uganda.
In J. Paulson (Ed.), Education, conflict and development (pp. 167–184). Oxford,
England: Symposium Books.
Nicolai, S., & Triplehorn, C. (2003). The role of education in protecting children in
conflict. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publi-
cations-opinion-files/520.pdf
Novelli, M. (2010). The new geopolitics of educational aid: From cold wars to holy
wars? International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 453–459.
doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.03.012
Novelli, M., & Cardozo, M. T. A. L. (2008). Conflict, education and the global south:
New critical directions. International Journal of Educational Development, 28,
473–488. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.01.004
Oh, S., & van der Stouwe, M. (2008). Education, diversity, and inclusion in Burmese
refugee camps in Thailand. Comparative Education Review, 52, 589–617.
doi:10.1086/591299
O’Malley, B. (2007). Education under attack 2007. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0018/001863/186303e.pdf
O’Malley, B. (2010). Education under attack 2010. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0018/001868/186809e.pdf
Østby, G., Nordås, R., & Rød, J. K. (2009). Regional inequalities and civil conflict in
Sub-Saharan Africa. International Studies Quarterly, 53, 301–324.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00535.x
Østby, G., & Urdal, H. (2010). Education and conflict: A review of quantitative, empir-
ical literature (Background Paper Prepared for the Education for All Global
Monitoring Report 2011). Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0019/001907/190777e.pdf
Oxfam International. (2007). Climate alarm: Disasters increase as climate change
bites. Retrieved from http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/climate%20
alarm.pdf
Paris, R. (2004). At war’s end: Building peace after civil conflict. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Parker, S., & Standing, K. (2007). The impact of conflict on schooling in Nepal. In F.
Leach & M. Dunne (Eds.), Education, conflict and reconciliation: International
perspectives (pp. 51–64). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Paulson, J., & Rappleye, J. (2007). Education and conflict: Essay review. International
Journal of Educational Development, 27, 340–347. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.
10.010
653
Burde et al.
Paulson, J., & Shields, R. (2015). Conflict-fragility-education: Issues in conceptualiza-
tion and measurement. In Z. Gross & L. Davies (Eds.), The contested role of educa-
tion in conflict and fragility (pp. 45–62). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Pherali, T. (2013). Schooling in violent situations: The politicization of education in
Nepal, before and after the 2006 peace agreement. Prospects, 43, 49–67. doi:10.1007/
s11125-012-9255-5
Pingel, F. (2010). The power of curriculum. In K. M. Cahill (Eds.), Even in chaos: Education
in times of emergency (pp. 109–135). New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
Proctor, K. (2015). Youth and consequences: Unemployment, injustice and violence.
Retrieved from https://www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/MercyCorps_
YouthConsequencesReport_2015.pdf
Punamäki, R., Peltonen, K., Diab, M., & Qouta, S. R. (2014). Psychosocial interven-
tions and emotion regulation among war-affected children: Randomized control trial
effects. Traumatology, 20, 241–252. doi:10.1037/h0099856
Rappleye, J. (2011). Different presumptions about progress, divergent prescriptions for
peace: Connections between conflict, “development” and education in Nepal. In J.
Paulson (Ed.), Education, conflict and development (pp. 59–100). Oxford, England:
Symposium Books.
Rose, P., & Greeley, M. (2006, May). Education in fragile states: Capturing lessons
and identifying good practice (Prepared for the DAC Fragile States Group).
Retrieved from https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Education_and_Fragile_States.pdf
Rosen, Y., & Salomon, G. (2011). Durability of peace education effects in the
shadow of conflict. Social Psychology Education, 14, 135–147. doi:10.1007/
s11218-010-9134-y
Rowell, J. (2013). Learning resilience: A study of vulnerability and protection in
Afghan schools. Kabul, Afghanistan: CARE Afghanistan.
Salomon, G. (2004). Does peace education make a difference in the context of an
intractable conflict? Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10, 257–274.
doi:10.1207/s15327949pac1003_3
Save the Children. (2008). In the face of disaster: Children and climate change.
Retrieved from http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/resources/online-library/in-the-
face-of-disaster-children-and-climate-change
Save the Children. (2013). Attacks on education: The impact of conflict and grave
violations on children’s futures. Retrieved from http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/
cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/ATTACKS_ON_
EDUCATION_FINAL.PDF
Shafiq, M. N., & Sinno, A. H. (2010). Education, income, and support for suicide
bombings: Evidence from six Muslim countries. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54,
146–178. doi:10.1177/0022002709351411
Shemyakina, O. (2011). The effect of armed conflict on accumulation of schooling:
Results from Tajikistan. Journal of Development Economics, 95, 186–200.
doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2010.05.002
Shields, R., & Paulson, J. (2015). “Development in reverse”? A longitudinal analysis
of armed conflict, fragility and school enrolment. Comparative Education, 51, 212–
230. doi:10.1080/03050068.2014.953314
Sinclair, M. (2001). Learning for a future: Refugee education in developing countries.
In M. Sinclair (Ed.), Education in emergencies (pp. 1–84). Geneva, Switzerland:
UNHCR.
Smith, A. (2005). Education in the twenty-first century: Conflict, reconstruction and
reconciliation. Compare, 35, 373–391. doi:10.1080/03057920500331397
654
Smith, A. (2007). Education and conflict: An emerging field of study. In F. Leach &
M. Dunne (Eds.), Education, conflict and reconciliation: International perspectives
(pp. 19–32). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame align-
ment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American
Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.
Sommers, M. (2001, March). Peace education and refugee youth. Paper presented at a
UNHCR workshop on “Refugee Education in Developing Countries: Policy and
Practice,” Washington, DC.
Sommers, M. (2005). Islands of education: Schooling, civil war and the South Sudanese
(1983–2004). Paris, France: UNESCO IIEP.
Swee, E. L. (2009). On war and schooling attainment: The case of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(Households in Conflict Network Working Paper, No. 57). Retrieved from http://www.
yale.edu/macmillan/ocvprogram/hicn_papers/FourthAnnualWorkshop_Swee.pdf
Thyne, C. (2006). ABC’s, 123’s, and the golden rule: The pacifying effect of education
on civil war, 1980–1999. International Studies Quarterly, 50, 733–754. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-2478.2006.00423.x
Torrente, C., Johnston, B., Starkey, L., Seidman, E., Shivshanker, A., Weisenhorn, N.,
. . . Aber, J. L. (2015). Improving the quality of school interactions and student well-
being: Impacts of one year of a school-based program in the Democratic Republic
of Congo. Journal on Education in Emergencies, 1(1), 48–91.
Tyrer, R. A., & Fazel, M. (2014). School and community-based interventions for refu-
gee and asylum seeking children: A systematic review. PLoS One, 9(2). doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0089359
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2011). Education
for all global monitoring report 2011. The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and educa-
tion. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001907/190743e.pdf
United States Agency for International Development. (2014). Guide to education in
natural disasters: How USAID supports education in crises. Retrieved from http://
www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2155/Natural%20Disasters%20
Report%20FINAL.pdf
Valente, C. (2011). What did the Maoists ever do for us? Education and marriage of
women exposed to civil conflict in Nepal (World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper Series, Vol. 5741). doi:10.1596/1813-9450-5741
van Wessel, M., & van Hirtum, R. (2013). Schools as tactical targets in conflict: What
the case of Nepal can teach us. Comparative Education Review, 57, 1–21.
doi:10.1086/667530
Verwimp, P., & Van Bavel, J. (2013). Schooling, violent conflict, and gender in Burundi
(World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 6418). doi:10.1596/1813-9450-6418
Webster, J. (2013). Peace education and its discontents: An evaluation of youth, vio-
lence, and school-based peace programs in Northern Uganda. Pursuit—The Journal
of Undergraduate Research at the University of Tennessee, 4(2), 59–81.
Webster, M., Ginnetti, J., Walker, P., Coppard, D., & Kent, R. (2008). The humanitar-
ian costs of climate change. Retrieved from http://www.unisdr.org/files/8058_
FeinsteinTuftsclimatechange.pdf
Wedge, J. (2008). Where peace begins: Education’s role in conflict prevention and
peace building. Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/
A2A4C1378EF2807E4925757E001E42DE-200803_Where_Peace_Begins.pdf
Wessells, M., & Kostelny, K. (2012). Everyday distress: Psychosocial and economic
impact of forced migration on children and families. In R. King & V. Maholmes
655
Burde et al.
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 640–655). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Winthrop, R. (2011). Understanding the diverse forms of learning valued by children
in conflict contexts. In K. Mundy & S. Dryden-Peterson (Eds.), Educating children
in conflict zones: Research, policy, and practice for systemic change—A tribute to
Jackie Kirk (pp. 123–136). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Winthrop, R., & Kirk, J. (2008). Learning for a bright future: Schooling, armed con-
flict, and children’s well-being. Comparative Education Review, 52, 639–661.
doi:10.1086/591301
Winthrop, R., & Matsui, E. (2013). A new agenda for education in fragile states.
Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/08-educa-
tion-agenda-fragile-states-winthrop.pdf
Winthrop, R., Ndaruhutse, S., Dolan, J., & Adams, A. (2010). Education’s hardest test:
Scaling up aid in fragile and conflict-affected states. Retrieved from http://www.
brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/2/education-aid-winthrop/02_
education_aid_winthrop.pdf
Wolmer, L., Hamiel, D., Barchas, J., Slone, M., & Laor, N. (2011). Teacher delivered
resilience focused intervention in schools with traumatized children following the
Second Lebanon War. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24, 309–316. doi:10.1002/
jts.20638
Woodside, D., Barbara, J. S., & Benner, D. G. (1999). Psychological trauma and social
healing in Croatia. Medicine, Conflict, and Survival, 15, 355–367.
doi:10.1080/13623699908409477
World Bank. (2011). Conflict, security, and development (World Development Report
2011). Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/
WDR2011_Full_Text.pdf
World Bank. (2016). Fragility, conflict, and violence. Overview. Retrieved from http://
www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/overview
Zembylas, M., & Berkman, Z. (2015). Rethinking the theoretical grounding of inte-
grated education in conflicted societies. In Z. Gross & L. Davies (Eds.), The con-
tested role of education in conflict and fragility (pp. 29–44). Rotterdam, Netherlands:
Sense.
Zuilkowski, S. S., & Betancourt, T. S. (2014). School persistence in the wake of war:
Wartime experiences, reintegration supports, and dropout in Sierra Leone.
Authors
DANA BURDE is an associate professor and director of international education at New
York University’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development,
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences; and an associate faculty member of the
Politics Department; 246 Greene Street, Suite 300, New York, NY 10003, USA; email:
dana.burde@nyu.edu. She is also an affiliate of NYU Abu Dhabi, the NYU Robert F.
Wagner School of Public Service, and the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
at Columbia University. Her research focuses on the effects of conflict on education,
the efforts of humanitarian organizations to mitigate these effects, and the relationship
between education and political violence or peace. She is particularly interested
in research that can be used to inform policy and that has the potential to help state
and nonstate actors create positive social change. She uses diverse research methods
656
including qualitative case studies and complex field experiments (also known as ran-
domized controlled trials) that rely on both large-scale surveys and in-depth, qualitative
interviews. Her book, Schools for Conflict or for Peace in Afghanistan, was published
by Columbia University Press in October 2014. Other work has appeared in the
Comparative Education Review, International Journal of Educational Development,
and American Economic Journal—Applied. Her research has been funded by the
Spencer Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the
Weikart Family Foundation, the Danish International Aid Agency, and the U.S. Agency
for International Development. She received her PhD in comparative education and
political science from Columbia University, Master’s in educational administration/
international education from Harvard University, and a BA in English literature from
Oberlin College. For more information, see www.danaburde.com.
AMY KAPIT is the coordinator and lead researcher for Education Under Attack 2018, the
flagship publication of the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA),
which tracks violations against students, educational personnel, and educational institu-
tions worldwide. Previously, she was the research director for a mixed-methods, ran-
domized controlled trial studying the sustainability of community-based schools in
Afghanistan, funded by a large grant from the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID; principal investigator, Dana Burde; Co–principal investigators,
Joel Middleton and Cyrus Samii). Her academic research focuses on how humanitarian
organizations address attacks on education, including violence, harassment, and threats
against students, teachers, and schools in areas of armed conflict Her work has appeared
in publications for GCPEA and for USAID. She holds a BA in religion and peace and
conflict studies from Swarthmore College and a PhD in international education from
New York University’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human
Development. The author can be contacted at 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New York,
NY 10118, USA; email: ark332@nyu.edu.
RACHEL L. WAHL is an assistant professor in the Department of Leadership, Foundations
and Policy at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education, 405 Emmet St S,
Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA; email: rlw4ck@virginia.edu. Prior to joining the fac-
ulty of the University of Virginia, she worked as a research scientist at New York
University and as a visiting scholar at the Institute for the Study of Human Rights at
Columbia University. Her research examines how ideas and ideals spread through edu-
cation and advocacy, particularly with regard to state and civil society efforts to influ-
ence each other. Her book, Just Violence: Torture and Human Rights in the Eyes of the
Police, (2017 with Stanford University Press) examines how police in India respond to
education and advocacy regarding torture. She has also published in journals such as
the Law and Society Review and the Oxford Journal of Human Rights Practice. Her
research has been supported by the Institute of International Education and the
Department of Defense through the David L. Boren National Security Education
Program Fellowship, as well as by the Carnegie Corporation and the Spencer
Foundation. She holds a BFA from Marymount Manhattan College and a PhD in inter-
national education from New York University.
OZEN GUVEN is a doctoral candidate in international education at New York University’s
Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, Department of
657
Burde et al.
Humanities and Social Sciences, 246 Greene Street, Suite 300, New York, NY 10003,
USA; email: ozen.guven@nyu.edu. Her research interests include education in emer-
gencies, conflict and political violence, ethnic and religious identity, nationalism, refu-
gee education, state and nonstate actors in conflict-ridden societies. Her current research
explores politicization among exiled Syrian teachers in Turkey and how teachers’ polit-
icization influences their educational decisions in refugee schools in and outside camps.
For this 1-year ethnographic study, she collected data through semistructured inter-
views with over 50 Syrian teachers working in camp and noncamp schools, participant
observations in noncamp schools, and documents analysis of textbooks and other teach-
ing materials. Her work has appeared in publications for Education Above All (a foun-
dation in Qatar), the UK Department for International Development, and for USAID.
She earned a BA in foreign language education at Bogazici University, Turkey, and an
MS in international relations at Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
MARGOT IGLAND SKARPETEIG is the policy director in Human Rights of Norad, the
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the technical arm of the Norwegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 7 Juniplassen 1, N-0032 Oslo, Norway; email: mts@norad
.no. She is currently serving as deputy permanent representative to the UN Agencies for
the Government of Norway in Rome. She has specialized in economic and social rights,
and her main research interests lie at the intersection of research and practical support
for human rights and development. She is also a part-time lecturer and supervisor in
political geography and development studies at the University of Oslo, and she has
published a number of peer-reviewed articles on human rights and development. She
has previously worked as a diplomat in Ethiopia, as a researcher in social sciences at the
University of Bergen and the University of Agder, and as a human rights adviser in the
Norwegian Human Rights Fund.
658

Education in Emergencies A Review of The

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Education in Emergencies A Review of The

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

671594

Review of Educational Research

Education in Emergencies: A Review of

Margot Igland Skarpeteig

In this article, we conduct an integrative and rigorous review of theory and

Keywords: education in emergencies, conflict, access, learning, protection,

Nearly a quarter of the world’s population, or about 2 billion people, live in

Diminished or Inequitable Access to Education Drives Conflict

Conflict Reduces Girls’ and Boys’ Access to Education Differently

Impact of Conflict on Educational Content and Learning Outcomes

The Protective Potential of Education

Constraints on the Protective Potential of Education

Community-based schools. Existing evidence has shown that community-based

Girls’ schools and female teachers. The availability of girls’ schools, female

Peace education programs. Peace education is generally premised on the idea

Multiple-perspective history teaching. Evidence from intervention studies has

Protection and Well-Being

Psychosocial therapy may improve educational outcomes. Our search returned

School-based psychosocial interventions. The range of psychosocial interventions

Training teachers to cultivate protective learning spaces. Some evidence from

Informal psychosocial interventions. Setting up child friendly spaces/child-

Вам также может понравиться