When Bush & Saltarelli’s The Two Faces of Education in Ethnic Conflict was published in 2000, the work was introduced as one that ‘challenges a widely-held assumption – that education is inevitably a force for good’ (p. v). What, then, does the idea of the ‘two faces of education’ (positive and negative) mean today when the study of the relationship between education and conflict is ‘now entering the mainstream’ (Karpinska et al, 2007, p. 243), a state of affairs that implies the debunking of assumptions around education’s inevitable ‘goodness’? This question is raised within this thematic issue. The issue invites contributors to explore the positive and negative faces of education presented in their areas of expertise and to reflect upon the contemporary utility of this concept for understanding the complex relationship between education and conflict. The articles included in the contribution represent a diverse set of case studies that, taken individually, demonstrate the complexity and particularity of the ways that education can contribute to, mitigate, postpone, deepen, minimalise (the list goes on ...) conflict as well as the ways in which conflict can alter, halt, transform (the list goes on …) educational provision and policy. Taken together, the articles in this thematic issue offer several lessons. First, the collection as a whole certainly shows that in situations affected by conflict the faces of education are multiple and are often contradictory. Further, multiplicity and contrariety are shown to be present at many levels – from international policy documents, as Owen-Jackson explores, to the local dialogue between combatants within a faction in an armed conflict, as Barakat demonstrates. Contributions such as those of Matsumoto on ex-combatants in Afghanistan and of Evans on Bhutanese refugee children in Nepal, point to the importance of including the perspectives of those engaging in and experiencing conflict in understanding the faces of education. Indeed, as these authors show, the aspirations and political competencies of young people, as well as the opportunities available to them in situations of conflict, should be seen to play an important role not only in the ultimate assessment of the impacts of education but also in the planning of educational interventions. Shields & Rappleye’s work on conflict and education in Nepal, along with Barakat’s study of anti-apartheid and Palestinian resistance movements demonstrate an important insight about the utility of ambiguity around education for fostering unity among disparate groups – which, in itself, the authors show, can both mitigate and contribute to conflict. Contributions by Lopes Cardozo on the faces of peace education in Sri Lanka and by Cremin & Warwick on the policy shift towards ‘community cohesion’ in the United Kingdom raise important questions about the faces visible within policy frameworks and show how ambiguous policy frames can be interpreted in manners that may foster peace, conflict or the status quo. The individual contributions are briefly outlined below before returning to a final consideration of the insights drawn out from the study of the ‘two faces’ today. Bilal Fouad Barakat extends the notion of the ‘two faces’ to what he calls ‘conflicts within the conflict’. In exploring the ‘multiple fault lines’ that divide and align groups, Barakat highlights the