What is humanitarian education and does it help build peace?

By Chloe Bruce

Last of three parts

NYU Global TIES for Children studied some of the Ahlan Simsim programs. One of the programs called “Reach Up and Learn” targeted caregivers of children under the age of three. “In this program, trained health outreach staff called caregivers to share their regular curriculum of health tips, and integrated into this 7–10 minutes of Ahlan Simsim parenting guidance per week. While researchers found no significant impact on parenting behaviors, pointing to the limitations of a short, once-weekly, audio-only interaction, they did find the program reduced caregiver depressive symptoms.” This candid sharing of results helps to understand how these programs work to improve learning outcomes. In the case of another program evaluated, which involved remote teaching via WhatsApp, “[r]esearchers found that this program produced statistically and developmentally significant impacts on children, particularly for literacy, numeracy, and social-emotional skills. The impact was comparable to global studies of year-long, in-person preschool programs.”

These studies provide “new evidence that innovations in educational media and in leveraging caregivers’ support of learning can improve children’s holistic development,” said Hirokazu Yoshikawa, former co-director of Global TIES for Children.

The effectiveness of using media to teach peace or well-being is corroborated by studies of peace education projects conducted in Sierra Leone during and after the civil war. In their analysis, Yi and Wyness found that one of the most successful peace education initiatives was a series of TV and radio shows produced by Search for Common Ground. Structured programs led by the state or the UN, and those taking place in educational institutions, often had limited success due to a lack of scale, insufficient teacher motivation, and a lack of relevance of the content to the specific context. Non-formal education initiatives, however, seemed more successful at fostering reconciliation.

The Limitations of Humanitarian Education

There are several underlying issues with humanitarian approaches to peace. One of the most apparent assumptions is that most conflicts stem not from imbalances of power or resources but from a lack of mutual understanding. As the authors of a 2025 article published in the International Journal of Lifelong Education explain, a focus solely on promoting dialogue between conflicting parties is flawed. “This approach has the underlying assumptions that conflict primarily emerges from misunderstanding or lack of recognition, and reconciliation is both possible and desirable if dialogue is fostered.” The article points out that “peace education can no longer rest on the post-1945 model of (only) cultivating diplomacy, pacifism, compromise, and reconciliation under the presumption that peace is humanity’s default state. Rather, a reconceptualization of peace education is required that: resists both naïve appeasement and creeping militarization; and instead anchors itself in justice, international law, and democratic resilience.”

Current thinking points out that humanitarian education and peace education focus on promoting negative rather than positive peace. As a 2026 study published in the Educational Research Review explains, scholar Johan Galtung’s theory of positive peace “emphasizes the importance of addressing not only direct violence, but also structural and cultural violence, to achieve sustainable peace.” Arguably, by focusing solely on teaching empathy, resilience, and dialogue, humanitarian education initiatives fail to achieve positive peace.

Often, this reluctance to draw attention to the political, social, or economic inequalities that people caught up in or actively participating in conflict face stems from a desire (or imperative) to remain neutral and impartial. The Red Cross approach to humanitarian education mainly focuses on teaching about IHL to maintain neutrality. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) even states that “[The exploring humanitarian law program] is not explicitly concerned with peace, tolerance, mutual understanding, prevention of violence or conflict resolution. It emphasizes the positive changes in attitude stemming from ideas related to respect for life and human dignity, civic responsibility, and solidarity.”

The Red Cross approach helps ensure that its materials, and therefore its values, are taught in places where peace education may be censored, and focuses on creating materials that local teachers and practitioners can share in schools or communities.

According to international humanitarian law practitioner Sobhi Tawil, teaching IHL is less controversial than teaching human rights, as some divided societies consider lessons on human rights to be aligned with one side of the conflict. National Red Cross organizations function as humanitarian auxiliaries to their respective governments and are often accountable to prevailing public opinion. As an example, there has been previous backlash toward British Red Cross educational materials, which positively supported anti-racism education.

Humanitarian education initiatives that avoid discussing the causes or symptoms of conflict only alienate learners who are suffering real injustices. The Red Cross has lost significant legitimacy over the past few years, particularly with Ukrainians who accuse the wider Red Cross of complicity due to the actions of the Russian and Belarusian Red Cross organizations. In many ways, attempts to remain neutral and impartial in education are doomed to failure. According to Critical Pedagogy, a theory pioneered by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, “schools typically serve the interests of those who have power in a society by, usually unintentionally, perpetuating unquestioned norms for relationships, expectations, and behaviors.” As an International Institution with close ties to Western powers, a humanitarian organization risks reinforcing the problems that cause conflict.

Another issue is that foreign educators are often sent to poor countries to carry out humanitarian work and are disconnected from the local population, having a limited understanding of the complex social context. Sometimes they don’t speak local languages at all, or at a very basic level, according to Junru Bia’s article for the Network for Strategic Analysis. The temporary nature of their contract also means they are not around long enough to do the painstaking work required. As Michael N. Barnett explains in “The Humanitarian Club” in the book Global Governance in a World of Change, the humanitarian sector operates as an elite club furthering the interests of a specific group. They are elite not just because they come from the West and are funded by Western interests, but also because, as individuals, they come from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. Organizations like the UN and the IFRC favor individuals who are fluent in at least two European languages, not necessarily to speak to local people, but because these languages are the established languages of international politics. These humanitarian jobs are often completely out of reach for working-class people in any nation, Junru Bian points out.

Despite some efforts to universalize humanitarian education by building inter-agency networks and clusters, for the most part, each international humanitarian organization has its own individual education initiative, which is often rolled out differently in each location. Sometimes these initiatives include cooperation with local organizations, while in other instances they involve the state education departments. The sheer volume of different initiatives may be due to localization processes, and to ensure that learning meets the needs and contexts of learners. But it can also result from competition among organizations, the desire to align with their internal mission or values, and funders who demand something new, different, or specific to their goals.

Failing to meet funders’ demands can lead to a Catch-22 financial situation for humanitarian organizations. Education initiatives are already chronically underfunded. “New analysis from UNICEF shows that international aid to education is projected to fall by $3.2 billion by 2026—a 24 percent drop,” states the UNICEF website. International Rescue Committee’s senior director of education, Emma Gremley, laments that “Despite the vast and growing education needs of children and youth in crisis contexts, education remains a severely underfunded aspect of humanitarian responses globally, receiving less than three percent of humanitarian aid annually.” On the other hand, when it is funded, funders can often bring their own biases to the program through funding requirements. The World Bank self-reports that it is a key funder of humanitarian education programs. “Our education portfolio in Fragility, Conflict, and Violence settings has grown rapidly in recent years, reflecting the increasing importance of the FCV agenda in education. In fiscal year 2024 (FY24), our investment in FCV settings stands at $7 billion, accounting for about 27 percent of the World Bank’s education portfolio and representing 42 projects in 28 countries.” Critics argue that organizations such as the World Bank are not politically neutral and that funding priorities can shape the design and implementation of humanitarian education programs.

Another problem is the lack of consistency in approach and in the sharing of data to determine which actions or initiatives are effective and which are not. Even when organizations review their programs, they are not always forthcoming with the results, perhaps for fear that any negative findings would be used to revoke funding. Finally, a common issue across these initiatives is their focus solely on teaching children. Adults are key actors in conflict, but are often completely excluded from these peace education initiatives. In general, very little attention is paid to educating adults beyond career-related skills. According to a 2023 survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, one in four adults faces barriers to learning. Around half of adults don’t participate in learning or show interest in it. Common barriers are a lack of time and opportunities, and the restrictive cost of training. Humanitarian peace education, which doesn’t reach the people who need it the most, cannot possibly achieve peace.

The Future of Humanitarian Education

Humanitarian education has expanded far beyond simply restoring access to schooling. It now encompasses peace education, psychosocial support, social-emotional learning, and humanitarian principles, all aimed at reducing suffering and helping communities recover from crisis. While many programs show promising results, especially at the individual and community level, evidence of their long-term impact on building peaceful societies remains limited.

The field also faces significant challenges, including chronic underfunding, fragmented approaches across organizations, political constraints, and a lack of rigorous long-term evaluation. As a result, researchers still know far less than they should about which educational approaches produce lasting change and how successful models can be adapted to different cultural and political contexts.

Even so, humanitarian education remains one of the few humanitarian tools that addresses both immediate crises and their long-term consequences. Beyond restoring access to classrooms, it seeks to equip people with the knowledge, skills, and resilience needed to navigate conflict, rebuild communities, and reduce future harm. As conflicts become more frequent and complex, education is increasingly recognized not simply as a humanitarian service but as an essential part of humanitarian infrastructure—and one of the most important long-term investments societies can make in peace, resilience, and human well-being.

***

Chloe Bruce is a nonprofit communications specialist and project manager who has worked and volunteered with humanitarian organizations in the UK, Australia, Colombia, China, and Canada. She studied English and history at the University of Edinburgh before earning a master’s degree in leadership and international development from King’s College London. She also holds an advanced diploma in humanitarian education from the University of Teacher Education Zug. She is a contributor to the Observatory.

This article was produced for the Observatory by the Independent Media Institute.