What Is Humanitarian Education and Does It Help Build Peace?
Humanitarian organizations invest in education to promote safety, resilience, and social cohesion, but researchers continue to debate its long-term impact on conflict and human well-being.
Introduction
Humanitarian education refers to educational initiatives developed or supported by humanitarian organizations to reduce suffering, protect vulnerable populations, and help communities recover from conflict and disaster. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees defines humanitarian education as an initiative that “is implemented in a humanitarian context and is inclusive of refugee and other marginalized learners.”
With wars and conflicts becoming increasingly common in the 21st century, education has taken on greater significance. According to a 2025 United Nations article, of the 234 million school-age children affected by conflict worldwide, 85 million are completely out of school. Helena Murseli, global lead of the UNICEF Education in Emergencies team, called the situation “unprecedented.” “These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a global pattern of escalating conflict that affects children’s right to learn,” she said.
There is an urgent need to help develop spaces to provide a caring environment, especially for children experiencing conflict and displacement. “Refugee children deserve an education of quality that will last them a lifetime. Education must be an integral part of our response to emergencies, not an afterthought that falls gradually into neglect,” states the UN Refugee Agency.
Humanitarian education encompasses a wide range of educational goals, teaching methods, and pedagogical approaches. To understand its effectiveness, this article examines its purpose and ultimate goal, its link to the humanitarian mandate to reduce conflict and human suffering, and, most importantly, whether it has achieved its objectives.
Why Humanitarian Education Is Important
Using education to develop a peaceful society has been foundational to the concept of schooling throughout human history. Two of history’s most prominent teachers, Confucius and Plato, both spoke of the purpose of education as creating “harmonious societies.” Over time, education was institutionalized, first by religious bodies and then by political ones. Colonialism rooted these educational structures worldwide. A 2023 Brookings article by Ghulam Omar Qargha and Emily Markovich Morris, from the Center for Universal Education, states, “In most countries under colonial influence, the colonizing forces used modern schooling to develop a workforce in the colony, spread culture and values, control the local populations from opposing colonial rule, and create a sense of national unity among colonized peoples.” Those purposes still rigidly define mainstream education today.
In the 20th century, following two catastrophic wars that engulfed large parts of the world, alternative models developed to recenter the role of education in nurturing peaceful, nonviolent societies. The United Nations created UNESCO to ensure a “peaceful coexistence between nations,” with the motto that “[s]ince wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” This helped pave the way for international organizations to highlight the importance of education, not only to sustain peace in conflict areas but also as a means to build a safe and nurturing environment for children in these countries and regions.
On a global scale, humanitarian educational endeavors focus on highlighting the value of education and ensuring universal access to it. Humanitarian education comes under the umbrella of Education for All (EFA). “Education for all is a principle advocating that all children, young people and adults should have access to quality education, regardless of background or circumstance,” the UNESCO website explains. The EFA declaration affirms that “education can help ensure a safer, healthier, more prosperous and environmentally sound world, while simultaneously contributing to social, economic and cultural progress, tolerance and international cooperation.” This shows that the international community’s push for wider participation in education stems from the idea that a more educated world is a more peaceful one.
There are, however, several limitations to this idea and its implementation. As UNESCO notes in its blog about the links between education, violence, and well-being, despite evidence that higher levels of basic education are associated with reduced national violent conflict, this claim remains ambiguous.
Although the number of people who receive at least a basic education has reversed since 1800, from one in five receiving a basic education to one in five who have not received any formal education, according to 2020 figures analyzed by Our World in Data, there is no way to prove this is a direct result of humanitarian education initiatives. The sharp uptick in education post-World War II suggests that the global shift in perceptions toward education, of which the UN was an integral part, has contributed to increased access to education. Other important developments include the recognition of education as a human right, which helped pave the way for another key humanitarian educational concept: education in emergencies (EiE). In her article in the Comparative Education Review, Julia C. Lurch emphasizes that “rights-based conceptions of education provided a powerful cultural frame that helped legitimate greater attention to EiE.” Education in emergencies has since become another pillar in humanitarian organizational responses to conflict.
Girls are often disproportionately affected in humanitarian emergencies. According to the UN Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI), girls are among those most excluded from education during crises and are especially vulnerable to dropping out of school. To cope with this situation, the UN argues that “Education in emergencies should become an integral part of a long-term strategy to develop inclusive education systems in countries affected by armed conflict.”
The Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE), established following the 2000 EFA conference in Dakar, promotes and helps to guide frameworks and approaches to EiE. The INEE states that providing education to children impacted by conflict helps reduce their suffering: “Education in emergencies provides physical, psychosocial, and cognitive protection that can sustain and save lives.” It further states that when parents and children living in conflict situations were asked what they most needed, they said they wanted to continue their education. “According to 8,749 children caught up in 17 different emergencies—ranging from conflict to protracted crises and disasters—who took part in 16 studies by eight organizations covering 17 different emergencies, 99 percent of children in crises see education as a priority,” states the INEE.
Unfortunately, education programs are facing dramatic cuts. “Today, only 3 percent of humanitarian aid goes to education. Yet the children most in need of a good education are also at greatest risk of having their learning disrupted, whether by conflict, violence, pandemics, climate, or other crises,” according to the World Bank.
Putting the long-term effects of this lack of funding into perspective, Murseli said, “We’re talking about 234 million children’s future and ultimately, global stability and development. The cost of inaction far exceeds the investment needed to get every crisis-affected child learning.”
An article in the Human Rights Education Review shows that humanitarian education not only teaches children basic subject concepts but is also essential for teaching school-age children how to exercise their human rights while respecting the rights of others.
Restoring Access to Education
Humanitarian organizations’ efforts to promote education go beyond merely advancing the idea of education; they also involve physically restoring access to education in disaster zones. For example, UNICEF, the World Food Program, and Save the Children, funded by the World Bank, helped rebuild Yemen’s education system between 2021 and 2024, following decades of instability, conflict, and famine. While there is not sufficient evidence of this project’s success, it aimed to rehabilitate 1,000 schools across Yemen, pay teachers incentives to ensure attendance, build rural teaching capacity, provide learners with equipment and healthy snacks, and train teachers to improve their ability to teach literacy and numeracy.
“Yemen’s education system continues to face immense challenges. More than 2.5 million children are currently out of school, while 2,375 schools have been damaged or destroyed, severely limiting access to safe learning environments across the country. To support the recovery of the sector, the National Education Sector Plan 2024–2030 was launched in 2025, defining national priorities and guiding international support for rebuilding Yemen’s education system,” states an April 2026 UNESCO report.
According to research by the Global Education Cluster, a forum for coordination and collaboration on education in humanitarian crises, the affordability of educational supplies and the lack of schools in the community are key barriers to accessing education. There, meanwhile, seems to be a division of opinion on the effectiveness of such educational initiatives.
As Maha Shuayb, director of the Center for Lebanese Studies, explains in her article for The New Humanitarian, educational initiatives do not always succeed. Her review of EiE for Syrian refugees displaced in Lebanon found that the Lebanese state education system could only accommodate 50 percent of school-age Syrian refugees, which resulted in learners being split into morning and afternoon shifts, with the afternoon cohort experiencing fewer positive outcomes than the morning shift. This resulted from the incompatibility between the educational needs of displaced people and the Lebanese school system.
Due to national regulations, lessons could only be taught by Lebanese citizens; students had to learn some subjects in French or English, even though most spoke Arabic as a first language. International donors funded this initiative and did not sustainably improve the system to build long-term capacity. “Ten years later, the results speak for themselves. Syrian refugee enrollment in Lebanese state schools is below 30 percent, with less than 4 percent progressing to secondary education.” She argues that this approach to providing education in emergencies is inherently flawed, as “85 percent of the refugee population is hosted in low- and middle-income countries, where educational systems may already be strained: Enrolling children in a struggling system is extremely challenging.”
On the other hand, the EiE practitioners insist that this education saves lives. In a working paper, Christopher Talbot, who was a co-founder of the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies, argues that “it also sustains life by giving children a sense of the restoration of normality, familiar routine and hope for the future, all of which are vital for mitigating the psychosocial impact of violence and displacement for individuals and whole communities.” Accessing education and reestablishing safe routines can therefore vastly reduce human suffering at a time when children are especially vulnerable to situations resulting in child marriage, child labor, and recruitment into groups supporting violence. Yona Nestel, a senior education adviser at Plan International Canada, writes that “Education in emergencies is often a humanitarian afterthought, even though it has been demonstrated as the most effective way to normalize children’s lives and help them recover from trauma.”
Talbot also states that being enrolled in education can help children avoid danger: “Children and adolescents who are not in school are at greater risk of violent attack and rape, and of recruitment into fighting forces, prostitution and life-threatening, often criminal activities.” He also claims that education initiatives can help restore peace in conflict situations and disaster-affected societies by preparing for reconstruction and developing economically and socially valuable skills.
In his 2011 article on EiE Best Practice, Phillip Price points to examples of learning about landmine awareness and sexual health, and how these lessons reduce death and injury later on in life. This highlights the other, arguably more important, side of humanitarian education initiatives: the content of education. Despite EFA and EiE’s focus on expanding access to education, humanitarian organizations often do more than just build capacity to educate; they deliver their own bespoke education curricula aimed at reducing human suffering and building more peaceful societies.
Restoring access to education is only one part of humanitarian education. Once children and communities return to classrooms or other learning spaces, humanitarian organizations face another question: What should be taught? Beyond literacy and numeracy, many organizations have concluded that education in crisis settings should also help learners cope with trauma, rebuild trust, resolve conflict, and strengthen social cohesion. This has led humanitarian organizations to develop specialized educational programs that draw on peace education and other learner-centered pedagogies.
Shaping Peace Education
Humanitarian organizations generally pursue these broader educational goals through three complementary approaches: training new humanitarian practitioners, teaching humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law, and adapting peace education through established learner-centered pedagogies.
Humanitarian organizations and educational institutions teach how to do humanitarian work. This includes learning a variety of practical skills, such as international law, frameworks, project management, and logistics, while instilling humanitarian values like accountability, trust, and fairness. A substantial amount of this learning takes place online, so it is accessible to a wide range of practitioners worldwide. Evaluations of some of these courses, including a humanitarian leadership diploma for practitioners in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and a course run by Médecins Sans Frontières in Italy, found them effective at building humanitarian knowledge and capacity among participants.
The extent to which such capacity building leads to peace in the region has not been clearly assessed. But it is considered better for the sustainability of humanitarian work among local populations. Scholar Séverine Autesserre has written several books highlighting the importance of localization in humanitarian work and its relationship to genuine, long-lasting peace.
A key part of the curriculum for these courses focuses on developing an understanding of humanitarian principles. They teach external practitioners and staff members to internalize values such as egalitarianism, respect, and empathy through practical skills like active listening and problem-solving. These skills are also taught to younger people through educational programs, such as the Youth as Agents of Behavioral Change (YABC) offered by the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). This program aims to teach young people “critical thinking, dropping bias, collaborative negotiation, mediation, and enhancing personal resilience,” along with other practical skills similar to those taught to humanitarian practitioners. This has led to the establishment of the final pillar of humanitarian education: teaching peace to the general population. Organizations use “peace education” pedagogy, combined with their experience teaching humanitarian skills and values, to develop learners’ willingness and instill the ability to be peaceful.
Peace education developed alongside alternative educational theories in the 20th century. While Montessori and other educational approaches promote education that centers on the needs of the learner, peace education focuses on the needs of peacebuilding. As Yi Yu and Michael Wyness explain in their journal Social Sciences, “Across socio-political contexts, peace education may target micro-level interpersonal skills, such as conflict resolution, or macro-level societal change, including altering collective narratives, breaking down stereotypes, and promoting human rights.”
Rather than representing a single distinct pedagogy, humanitarian education combines multiple leading learning theories to refine peace education into approaches that help rebuild societies after conflict and disaster. It combines aspects of psychosocial competencies and social-emotional learning (SEL) pedagogy to develop learners’ self-esteem and psychological resilience. Humanitarian education inculcates these pedagogies, believing that establishing a strong sense of self, combined with a deep understanding of emotions, is vital to building empathy and healthy coping mechanisms in the face of extreme stress.
It also seeks to teach people how to manage the trauma they’ve experienced, which is often a source of perpetuating conflict. It draws on other pedagogies, such as intercultural learning, to build the capacity to understand opposing views, aiming to bridge political or ideological differences between groups.
Does Humanitarian Education Work?
The YABC program has been implemented in several countries since its release in 2008. Still, aside from qualitative accounts of how the learning personally impacted some participants, there has been little evaluation of its impact on the development of peaceful societies. Beyond this program, the IFRC has developed educational programs aimed at teaching international humanitarian law since the early 2000s, with other organizations such as the British Red Cross and the Canadian Red Cross. According to testimonies in a 2025 blog post, IHL education helped develop empathy and understanding among students, especially toward people from refugee backgrounds. However, to really understand if humanitarian education is effective in building peace, these initiatives need to be thoroughly assessed.
Save the Children ran a program in Syria in 2022 called “The Summer Club,” which was structured as a “12-session child resilience program for… 200 children. The child resilience program included activities in problem-solving, improving knowledge of the self, healthy expression of feelings, effective communication, and identifying and dealing with abuse and bullying.” This program was likely modeled after Save the Children’s longstanding Youth Resilience Program. In investigating the efficacy of this project, Save the Children found high engagement in the program, with “99 percent attending more than 70 percent of all activities. Facilitators’ observations also noted that the children were deeply engaged during the sessions.” They also analyzed how far learning goals were achieved, stating that “100 percent out of the 65 percent of targeted children had better awareness of child protection threats and skills to deal with them, when comparing pre-test to post-test at the end of Summer Club.”
They also conducted third-party monitoring to determine that “Summer Club had increased their ability to understand school subjects and that their performance at school had improved from participating in Summer Club.” This program was initiated by Save the Children Denmark in collaboration with a local partner. According to them, while the local partner was heavily involved and provided continuous feedback, there is little information available on long-term outcomes or the program’s sustainability. A wider evaluation of how the education of these 200 children impacted broader peace in the region was not conducted.
We can compare this small program to a larger group of IRC initiatives in the same region. The “Ahlan Simsim” project has reached “over 1.3 million children and caregivers with direct services for families across Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.” It involves a structured 12-week intervention in which children watch an Arabic-language version of Sesame Street to learn social-emotional skills and improve literacy and numeracy. The show was called Ahlan Simsim or “Welcome Sesame” in Arabic. According to the IRC, their study “found that watching the Ahlan Simsim show had a significant impact on children’s foundational social-emotional skills, such as identifying emotions and applying coping strategies.”
They also broadcast the television show across the MENA region, reaching another 23 million children. IRC claims that “Watching Ahlan Simsim helps children identify emotions of fear and frustration and teaches them coping strategies, like pausing to breathe in emotionally stressful situations. … [N]ew characters join familiar faces like Elmo and Cookie Monster to teach children important lessons and promote healthy early childhood development. These new characters are designed to be relatable to children living in vulnerable situations.”
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.
