PEACE

· Abstracts of Papers Presented at the Annual Conference in Seattle, April 2001

· Message from the Chair, Peace Education

Aline Stomfay-Stitz, University of North Florida, astomfay@unf.edu

WELCOME! In addition to Abstracts of most of the Peace Education SIG presentations and related sessions from our annual conference, we have added a new feature – Our Graduate Students Sign In. Several joined our SIG and participated in our Business Meeting, sharing their research. We asked them to write about their areas of interest with the hope that members and our Newsletter readers will be able to offer suggestions, contacts, and helpful pathways for their dissertations. We offer the same warm welcome to YOUR students also, if you would like to send us similar information for a future Newsletter issue.

This is a golden opportunity to reach out to our newest generation of peace education researchers.

The Peace Education Special Interest

Group

The American Educational Research Association (AERA) held its annual meeting in Seattle from April 10-14, 2001. AERA has 143 different Special Interest Groups or SIGs, as they are popularly known as, that vary from “Brain and Education” to “Wholistic Education.” One of these SIGs is the Peace Education Special Interest Group, that will hereafter be referred to as PESIG. The PESIG with 60 members is a small SIG. It had at this conference a business meeting , 4 roundtables, a symposium, a paper session, and an interactive symposium shared with the Ecological and Environmental SIG. (A history of this organization, written by Aline Stomfay-Stitz, can be obtained from Ake Bjerstedt, School of Education, Box 23501, SE-200 45 Malmo, Sweden.)

The PESIG was founded in 1988 and has remained a small group as people concerned about violence in schools have promoted a similar interest group, “Conflict Resolution and Violence Prevention.” Research presentations related to topics of interest to peace education also took place at the “Constructivist Theory, Research, and Practice” SIG and Division C, “Learning and Instruction” that held a symposium on “Peace Education: An Active Field in Need of Scholarship.” This international symposium featured scholars from Israel, Northern Ireland, and South Africa.

At the business meeting Ian Harris talked about the international dimensions of peace education and Kathy Bickmore from Canada presented her research on conflict resolution. (A copy of her presentation, “Elementary School Conflict Resolution Initiative Evaluation Research on Peer Mediation Training and Program” can be found at http://www.state.oh.us/cdr/schools/bickmore.htm

The roundtable presentations were “Peace Education in Two Elementary Classrooms with Diverse Students,” by Louise Bogart and Helen Slaughter from the University of Hawaii; “Exploring Human Kindness through the Pedagogy of Aikido,” Paul Brawdy, St. Bonaventure University; “Meanings of Peace and Peace Education and Equality and Peace,” David Smith and Ratna Ghosh from McGill University; and “Expanding the Concept of Peace for Education in the 21^st Century and “Achieving Inner Peace through Yan Xin Qigong,” from Jin Ling and Yanyu Zhou, the University of Maryland.

The high quality of the papers at the Paper Session titled: Peace Education: Programs and Assessment ” demonstrated the value of peace education research. They included “National Survey of Human Rights Education in K-12 Schools in the United States,” by Dennis Banks, from State University of New York at Oneonta; “American Peace Education Initiatives in Cyprus,” by Sibel Erduran from Kings College in London, “Developing Cultural Fluency: Arab and Jewish Students Engaging in Each Other’s Company,” Jocelyn Glazier, Michigan State University, and “The Lasting Effects of Holocaust Education” by Samuel Intrator from Smith College. These were evaluation studies of the effects of peace education programs in a wide variety of contexts.

A record number of people were present for a symposium, “Educating for a Culture of Peace & Ecological Sustainability,” organized by Anita Wenden of York College in New York City. Speakers included the Online Newsletter Editor, Aline Stomfay-Stitz whose paper was on “Peace Education and Ecology: Blueprint for the Future” and Ian Harris, whose paper was titled “Challenges for Peace Education at the Beginning of a New Century,” Frans Verhagen from Earth and Peace Education Associates International who discussed “Sustainability Education in North America” and Edmund O’Sullivan, OISE, University of Toronto who discussed “Transformative Learning: Building Educational Values for the 21^st Century.” The symposium was followed by a reception that allowed peace and ecological educators from around the world to share their interests.

The next AERA Conference will take place in April 2002 in New Orleans. If you would like to present a paper, you should join AERA, which costs $45.00. Membership in the Peace Education SIG is $10.00. Your request for Membership should be sent to AERA, 1230-17^th St. Washington, DC 20036-3078. Paper proposals must be submitted by August 1, 2001. For more information, please contact Blythe Hinitz, hinitz@tcnj.edu

I. Abstracts of Papers: FROM THE PEACE EDUCATION SIG PAPER SESSION: Peace Education: Programs and Assessment

Chair: Joanne M. Curran, SUNY,Oneonta

National Survey of Human Rights Education in K-12 Schools in the United States: Preliminary Results.

Human rights education has been defined as learning that develops the knowledge, skills and values of human rights, with specific definitions also outlined by the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004). In the past five years, the author discovered, many countries have initiated activities regarding human rights issues, in pre-school, primary and secondary curricula either as a cross curricular theme or as an optional course.

The author surveyed 120 persons who were state education curriculum specialists for the social studies to determine the level of inclusion of human rights topics within their state.

The results showed that 40% of the states studied indicated that human rights education was within the state mandated curriculum, with the most comprehensive curricula in Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont.

However, the author concluded that there were issues as to conflicting definitions, vocabulary, enforcement, and assessment with a special need to understand that human rights should be an issue in everyday lives.

American Peace Education Initiatives on Cyprus: A Survey of Workshops Conducted with Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot Professionals and Students.

Cyprus has a long history of ethnic conflict that has resulted in economic as well as political instability. The United Nations peacekeeping forces have been based on Cyprus since 1964, but still present a serious threat to the future of NATO allies and the involved parties, Greece and Turkey. The two countries occupy one dimension of the complex ethnic rivalries in the Balkans.

Peace education in the Cypriot context involves educating Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots for effective negotiation skills. For the past two decades, the U.S. Embassy in Cyprus established an Office of Bicommunal Affairs. The paper had as its focus these bicommunal programs for professionals and students that included workshops involving journalists, health professionals, teachers, archeologists, and teachers with sessions based in Cyprus and also in Norway, the U.S. and Israel.

The workshop planned in Boston in 1993 had a special focus, involving the Conflict Management Group (CMG) at Harvard for conducting the workshop sessions, using the Fisher and Ury framework for negotiation with a problem solving focus. The author concluded that the location of the workshop on neutral grounds played a major role. Students were willing to communicate and seek solutions. They proposed that universities be open to students from both sides, along with social activities such as joint art festivals. Resolving conflicts was viewed as vital in attaining peace education.

The Lasting Effects of Holocaust Education: A Study of Students Six Years After They Finished a High School Holocaust Course.

The author pointed out that Congress recently passed a Holocaust Education Assistance Act, with recognition that it is a mandated part of the state curricular frameworks in five states and recommended in 11 others. However, there is a dearth of longitudinal studies that explored the long-term impact of Holocaust education on students. The author attempted to fill this gap by conducting a study that examined the curriculum experiences and pedagogical methods that students remember “as impacting and useful” six years after a taking a high school course.

The subjects were 12 students in four rural Northeastern towns who were interviewed by the author and two assistants. Students reported that their “most vivid educational memories” retained from their course experiences were related to specific episodes when they composed or created a written or artistic response to their experience with the Holocaust, such as aesthetic forms of keeping a journal or writing a children’s book.

Students describe especially their memories when they “felt a sense of stepping into the heart, mind and experience of another,” as episodes with a sense of sorrow and concern for those survivors. As a result of their experiences with the curriculum several reported that they also took courses in college on the Holocaust and episodes from the course also helped them “understand propaganda or tendencies for groups to scapegoat other groups.”

Louise Bogart, Chaminade University of Honolulu and Helen Slaughter, University of Hawaii

The authors studied two teachers who chose not to adopt the curriculum approach for peace education. Instead, they emphasized the importance of the environment in nurturing positive behaviors and preventing negative ones. The two teachers also included a foundation of “values for life” that held children responsible for their own behavior and offered practice in making choices. As a result of these deliberate choices, the two teachers literally “shared power with their students rather than socializing them into an authoriatarian and unequal social order.”

The authors concluded that the values of cooperation and caring were evident in almost everything that occurred within these classrooms. Peace education was manifested in “how instruction was organized, how a lesson was planned. . . and how teachers reacted to students’ responses.” The values of caring, cooperation and community were lived experiences in these two classrooms. Children exhibited several characteristics: they learned how to respond appropriately within the context of the classroom’s explicit values which made it safe to express and respond to feelings.

In addition, the researchers noted that many “conflicts were prevented from becoming serious because children took responsibility for using their own words” to respond to the conflict solving process.

Contacts: Louise Bogart – lbogart@chaminade.edu and Helen Slaughter – slaughte@hawaii.edu

The author defined Aikido as a martial art that emphasizes the “blending of energy between two persons” or as a “way to spiritual harmony,” based on a philosophy of peace and non-violence. The student is provided with a range of opportunities for self-study within the context of interpersonal relations. In essence, Aikido is a form of martial art that is done with rather than against an aggressor.

Expanding further on this concept, the author explained that Aikido evolved through spiritual aims “based upon the preservation of peace and the realization of universal harmony.” Ideally, students of Aikido develop the capacity to express themselves and of the greatest importance, to blend and redirect the force of the other in the interest of preserving peace and harmony.

The author’s research was based on a study of the master teacher of Aikido and four of his students who were interviewed. As a result of in depth interviews, a student remarked that it (Aikido) “is an area that really gives you a window into other people.” The presenter concluded with the thought that Aikido provides one possible model for instruction that focuses on the promotion of peace through the content it teaches. Teachers of Aikido use technique as a means of teaching their students how to let go of attachments and appreciate the common humanity they share with others. It is also a discipline in the process of self-discovery, as well as a pedagogical model that is shaped by themes of blending, integration, wholeness and unity.

The author provided an overview of six different philosophical approaches to peace and peace education: (1) Idealism and Peace; (2) Realism and Peace; (3) Pragmatism and Peace; (4) Reconstructionism and Peace; (5) Behaviorism and Peace; and (6) Existentialism and Peace.

The first conception – Idealism – is found in the peaceful person who discovers ideals such as truthfulness, justice, beauty and love within and thus becomes a peaceful person. The second conception –Realism and Peace – is based on logic and a careful analysis of cause and effect. The “realist peace educator would recommend that students consider actual case studies of conflicts.”

The third conception – Pragmatism and Peace- developed from the need for social change. Peace can be achieved, according to the pragmatist, when we adapt to change and resolve problems with nonviolence. The fourth conception – Reconstructionism and Peace – is required when a radical shift in our religious or philosophical value systems is required, a change noted “as a paradigm shift.” Reconstructionist teachers believe in building “a peaceful world community” with reformers as agents of change. The fifth conception – Behaviorism and Peace - requires identification of the aims of education which are then broken down into teachable steps. The sixth conception – Existentialism and Peace- embodies the idea that we become aware of peace-building possibilities that can be brought about if we practice the values of human dignity, freedom, and responsibility.

The author’s goal is to expand the concept of peace to include the integration of body, mind and spirit. It builds its conceptual framework on a traditional Chinese quigong cultivation and meditation practice known as Yan Xin Qigong. The philosophy includes a practice that dates back 7000 years. The basic element “qi” is present in all people and things in the universe, embodying the qualities of matter, energy and information. This is also a source to nurture all humans in order to integrate and harmonize lives. This is based on virtues that work as the core principles to harmonize the relationship of peace, Earth, and the universe. Included are qualities such as love, respect, understanding, forgiveness, piety, compassion and benevolence.

A new type of education and schools would include the teaching of virtues for building an appreciation of nature and for the cultivation of a higher sense of purpose in life. In actuality, the author believes we must “turn our full attention to cultivating loving and environmentally and spiritually aware global citizens on the planet Earth.” As a result we must “prioritize peace education, environmental education and love-based spiritual education and bring them into the mainstream of educational theory and practice.” Ideally, this model, Yan Xin Quigong, is a new philosophy (though of ancient origin) that should be cultivated for peace, as a model that is based on moral and spiritual systems for the integration of body, mind and spirit in order to achieve health, longevity, and inner peace.

In a paper related to the same theme – Yan Xin Qigong, the author defined the practice of Yan Xin Qiong, believing that peace in the outer world is based on peace in the minds of humans as the basis for a peaceful world and a balanced universe. The latter word “qiong” is pronounced as ‘chee gung’ which represents a flowing energy material that exists in everything and permeates the universe. It is an ancient Chinese practice that is regarded “as the basis of Chinese culture and includes a practice that combines breath, concentration and meditation.” This ancient Chinese wisdom and practice system can be considered one approach to achieve inner peace.

Inner peace, as defined by the author includes self-control, self-regulation, self-acceptance, inner relaxation, non-attachment, contentment . . . a simple and healthy life, a clear conscience, giving joy. . . and cooperation.” With this ancient Chinese practice, people can remain in harmony with nature and absorb vital energy from outside their body to supplement their needs. In addition, the whole philosophy of Yan Xin Qigong formed the theory of Chinese traditional medicine.

Throughout Chinese history, the author emphasized, the search for equilibrium, balance, and harmony was of vital concern in the Chinese lifestyle, along with reverence for life, concentration of thought and dignity of conduct. Furthermore, the goal of inner peace is based on one’s good deeds and contributions to society and the environment.

The author concluded with the argument that “if we apply Yan Xin Qigong to peace education, not only in theory but also more importantly in practice, it might break new ground for education reform in the 21^st century.”

6. Expanding the Concept of Education for Peace in the 21^st Century: Equity and Peace.

The researchers believe that schools must focus on peace education if they are to understand and deal with the causes of the destructive behaviors that have become a global phenomenon, such as bully-victim problems, acts of violence in or around schools, and homicide among children and adolescents.

Peace education has moved away from an essentially war-oriented focus to an orientation that focuses more on tolerance and interpersonal relations. However, they believe that social, cultural, economic, racial, ethnic and gender inequalities are still not viewed as the main structural sources of conflict.

Programs in multicultural education today include human rights and anti-racist strategies, cross-cultural communication within a comprehensive approach that involves both parents and communities. In addition, peace studies now also include components that aim to inculcate respect for non-anthropocentric systems.

1.Kathy Bickmore. Elementary School Conflict Resolution Initiative Evaluation Research on Peer Mediation Training

In the Cleveland (Ohio) Schools, a team of 25-30 elementary students and one or two adult advisors from each project school received program development assistance and an intensive three-day peer mediation training led by the Center for Conflict Resolution (Columbus, Ohio). The program emphasized both the creation of peer mediation services in each school and young student trainees to serve as peer leaders responsible for spreading nonviolent conflict management knowledge throughout their school communities.

The results of this evaluation research project affirmed that peer mediation, following the Center for Conflict Resolution training and program model, can improve elementary students’ capacity and inclination to handle conflict nonviolently. . .. as well as “reduce suspensions from school for violent activity and increase achievement in reading and citizenship.” The author recognized though that “good training is not enough. There should also be school-based program development, and support to build equitable programs that can grow and last over time.”

A complete Abstract of the research and a copy of the research project is available through the website of the Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution & Conflict Management at:

2.Ian Harris, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee discussed the international aspects of peace education. His Abstract will appear in the next Newsletter issue.

IV. INTERACTIVE SYMPOSIUM- Educating for a Culture of Peace & Ecological Sustainability- Ecological & Environmental Education SIG

Papers were presented by Peace Education SIG members: Ian Harris and Aline Stomfay-Stitz

1.Ian Harris, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, founder of the Peace Education SIG. Challenges for Peace Educators at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century.

Many look to peace education as a way to create a new world order based on mutual respect, nonviolence, justice and environmental sustainability. Great strides have been made during the past century, yet our academic field is still not universally acclaimed and still faces key challenges in order to grow and find a place on the main agenda of every educational institution and government in the world. The challenge for peace educators is to convince their professional colleagues of the value of teaching about peace.

The author underscored the progress made in the inclusion of peace studies programs. At the end of the 20^th century, he reported that 200 colleges and universities in the United States now have some kind of peace studies program. In addition, approximately one-tenth of the public schools include conflict resolution programs. The Universidad de la Paz in Costa Rica teaches peacemaking skills to adults. A field of alternative dispute resolution is trying to seek nonviolent resolution of conflicts in civic society. In addition, an encyclopedia of nonviolence has outlined the struggle of humans to use nonviolent strategies to achieve peace.

The author concluded that peace educators will have to become more effective when contacting legislators, school boards, university presidents and the general citizenry so that resources can be put into peacebuilding approaches to violence. If they ignore these challenges, peace education will remain peripheral to mainstream educational endeavors.

2. Aline Stomfay-Stitz, University of North Florida, Past Chair and On Line Newsletter Editor, Peace Education SIG

Peace education has been described as multidisciplinary with a myriad of dimensions that include peace and social justice, political participation, conflict resolution and ecology. This definition has been enriched by the research of Riane Eisler and Betty Reardon, among others, whose curriculum models have concern for peace and ecology as interwoven threads for education. Eisler’s proposal for a new paradigm for education is identified as a partnership model with environmental education as an integral part of the curriculum. While not expressly identified as a peace education model, Eisler concluded that the integration of an important curriculum thread “Caring for Life” (caring and caregiving) should be included in all of education from preschool to graduate school.

Ecological concern was a valid component for peace education. In each decade since the 1970s, peace education included concern for the environment as a central core value. It appeared in various forms: stewardship of the earth’s resources, conservation of natural resources and commitment to a personal lifestyle and behaviors based on ecological concerns.

In the 90s, Betty Reardon and Eva Nordland spearheaded a coalition of peace educators from several nations who contributed immeasurably to our understanding that planning for curriculum and learning should be based on ecological sustainability. Reardon emphasized her major shift in thinking from viewing the earth from a “spaceship Earth” perspective to a “Gaia view of Earth as a living organism” with human society as a living subsystem within the whole.

In essence, these two strands of peace education and ecological sustainability could be considered the building blocks that delineate a blueprint for the future.

In the past few years, we have been privileged to watch the progress made by several doctoral students in peace education who have shared their research with us. We have had students from Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Israel, as well as the U.S. as presenters and session participants. We would like to share current information on several of these students who attended the annual conference in 2001.

(1)Mary Lee Morrison, University of Connecticut, has been a Peace Education SIG presenter, sharing the doctoral research that she did on the life of Elise Boulding, noted sociologist, activist and author of numerous books (See Recently Published Book section for her latest). Mary Lee reported recently that she did complete her dissertation which she described as “an intellectual biography of Elise Boulding . . . It weaves her life and work together, seeking to understand these in relation to the concept of peace education so there . . . (is) the historical development of peace education as well as themes in relation to her life and work, including the peace organizations she was instrumental in helping to begin (IPRA and COPRED). There is also substantial chronological information about her life, mentors, and key influences and events.” A copy can be obtained from Mary Lee for $15(which includes copying costs and postage. )(Mailing Address: 129 Penn Dr., West Hartford, CT 06119. Email: MaryLee898@aol.com).

But, wait! There’s more good news! Mary Lee also wrote about a peace education project that was conceived by Elise Boulding that Mary helped write and develop. It is called “Making Peace Where I Live,” a curriculum project which teaches youth 10-12 years old the “skills of oral history so that they can interview peacemakers in their local communities.” This is available for $9.00 also from Mary Lee, but payment should be made to their fiscal agent – by check or money order to: PAMOJA, 1462 Green Mountain Turnpike, Chester, VT 05143. Email: mapwil@pamoja.net.

Congratulations, Dr. Mary Lee Morrison! We are very proud of you and especially grateful that you shared your research with us during our Peace Education SIG sessions.

(2) Stephen Gilchrist, doctoral student at Portland State University, took part in our Interactive Symposium and SIG Business Meeting in Seattle. He graciously shared information about his future doctoral studies. He believes that he is “still about a year from starting my dissertation. My tentative area of interest is in intercultural conflict resolution and environmental issues.” He will pursue a doctorate in education along with a master’s in conflict resolution at Portland State. He has a background in international business and forestry education.

(3).Susan Gustafson, who attended our sessions, is still in the early stages of her doctoral work. Her major area of interest is on the social development of children in early childhood, cross-cultural issues and especially how young children conceptualize peace and conflict. She is interested in the development of empathy in young children and the contribution empathy makes to principles of caring and social justice. Welcome, Susan!

(4)Tim McHargue, a doctoral student under the tutelage of Dr. Judith Van Hoorn, noted peace psychologist, is a school psychologist and counselor. Dr. Van Hoorn also participated in our sessions. Tim is examining the question: “How do we prepare adolescents to participate in the democratic process and encourage adolescents to engage in activity that contributes to the common good?” Tim explained that he sees this process as “intimately connected to the peace education process, as peacemaking is, ultimately, a democratic form of social engagement.” He rationalized that activities that contribute to the common good are, “by definition, peace making endeavors – actions that build cultures of peace.”

We feel all of our doctoral students who joined us in Seattle are valuable additions to our membership. We welcome you to take an active role in our Peace Education SIG.

Source for several of the websites is the Peace Resource Center, Wilmington College Newsletter of Peace Education Resources and Opportunities, Wilmington, OH 45177. www.wilmington.edu/peaceRC.htm

Accord: An International Review of Peace Initiatives: Website www.friends-partners.org/~ccsi/nisorgs/uzbek/peacemsm.htm

Candice Carter, Peace Education SIG member from the University of North Florida, has created a very useful web site for peace research. She has included a directory of links and contacts for organizations, web sites, and individuals engaged in peace research, peace education and non-violent conflict resolution topics and activities, online postings of peace research, and a forum for online discussions of issues.

She is also very interested in having others contribute their work to these resources. An individual, group, or organization engaged in peacemaking activities can use the Contact Page to add their information.

I hope you are as thrilled as I am with our compelling and very interesting SIG sessions in Seattle. You can get a taste of the variety of research that permeated our sessions in another section of this Online Newsletter. I was pleased to see that our panel presentation room was filled and overflowing out into the hallway. Our round tables were also well-attended. Many of you participated also in our Business Meeting and the Interactive Symposium that followed, featuring presentations by revered members of the Peace Education movement, our own Peace Education SIG members. A spirited discussion and a chance to get acquainted followed, concluding with a group of us having a delightful dinner together at a nearby restaurant.

I also attended the Conflict Resolution SIG Business Meeting and its interesting panel discussion, as your representative. We look forward to further collaboration in the future with these colleagues. Please remember to submit your proposal (which is ONLY by Electronic Submission now, with an August 1^st deadline), so that you can join us in 2002 in New Orleans. We have more interesting activities planned.

During the coming year, we will be electing new SIG officers, including the Treasurer and Program Chair/Associate SIG chair. If you would like to participate in the governance of this SIG, to assist its forward momentum into the new millennium, please contact me at hinitz@tcnj.edu or our Past SIG Chair, Aline Stomfay-Stitz at astomfay@unf.edu. We would be very pleased to have you assume a leadership position.

ORGANIZATIONAL NEWS: A completely revised SIG Handbook is now in press. It will cover all of the changes that took place over the course of the past few years. SIGs now have specific representation on the AERA governing body, so our concerns are being addressed. However, the issue of scheduling our annual Conference during the Holy Days of several religious groups and the issue of how SIG dues will be paid and credited under the new guidelines have still not been adequately addressed. The SIG Council and the listserv for SIG Chairs keeps us up-to-date on current developments. AERA will have a new Executive Director next year, following Bill Russell’s retirement. By assisting us in building a cohesive Peace Education SIG, by maintaining your SIG membership, and submitting a conference proposal, you will help us play a substantive role in the important SIG deliberations during the coming year.

We are especially pleased to welcome a new generation of peacemakers. These include some of our graduate students who have completed or are in the process of writing their dissertations on various peace education or related themes. They are interviewed in another section of this On line Newsletter. But we also have news of a young fourteen-year-old, Eric Heydenberk, from Quakertown, PA, son of the authors of A Powerful Peace, who has launched his own youth website based on conflict resolution and peer meditation training. His website provides links to similar peace and environmental sites.

ATTENTION PROPOSAL REVIEWERS: As you may have noticed, there were errors and omissions in the official Program for the annual conference in Seattle. For example, the names of Proposal Reviewers were not included for our SIG. Please be assured that we are most grateful that you assisted us in this important phase of our conference. We were promised that this glitch has been corrected. We hope you will continue to volunteer for this task.

The Call for Proposals for the 2002 AERA Conference in New Orleans, April 1-5, 2002 can be accessed on the AERA website:

The Deadline for all SIG proposals is August 2, 2002. The Information section gives detailed information on submitting Proposals: Individual, and Multiple-Presentation. The section titled “An Image Bank of Session Formats” is valuable because it specifically describes the Paper Session and symposium formats. The biggest change is that the Round Tables are now changed into regular Paper sessions. Once again, our Membership numbers will determine the number of Paper sessions we will be allotted.

(1) Peace: the Next Frontier will bring together those teaching in Montessori Schools in the Pacific Rim and Asia.

Date: August 4-7, 2001. Keynote Speaker will be our conference presenter, Louise Bogart, head of the American Montessori Schools Summer Intensive Elementary Teacher Education Program at Chaminade University of Honolulu.

For further information: e-mail to mipe00@aol.com or Mail to MIPE at P.O. Box 36, Swarthmore, PA 19081.