{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0182648401826484, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012644889357218124, 'mean_word_length': 5.357142857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
International Understanding and Geographical Education

While the International Geographical Union’s (IGU) Commission on Geographical Education is acknowledged to be the longest standing of the various bodies of the IGU, the early years of the Commission are less than well documented. According to Wise (1992), the research by Schneider (1972) references the Commission on the Teaching of Geography as being first created in 1904, faded from the official record of the IGU, and then re-emerged in 1952 as a Committee of the IGU under the leadership of Neville Scarfe. Since 1952, though the titles have varied, there has been a Commission on Education designated at every IGU Congress. Wise reported, in part from his own experience with the IGU, that in the years after the Second World War it was the building of the peace and attention to international understanding that was discussed as a major contribution towards those ends by sound geographical teaching. Fairgrieve’s suggestions that the function of geography in schoolwas to train future citizens to imagine accurately the conditions of the great world stage and so help them to think sanely about political and social problems the world over (Fairgrieve, 1926) was a cornerstone in any discussion about curriculum and geographical literacy. Geography was also seen as a relevant subject for encouragement in schools in developing countries, where improved knowledge of the environment could assist in the tasks of raising living standards. Another motive for strengthening geographical education internationally was the change occurring in the school curriculum. In some countries, geographical teaching continues to be under threat from the introduction of the social studies curriculum. While there are multiple motives for teaching geography, it is the responsibility of the IGU Commission to represent the value of geography as an educational discipline, to illustrate the contribution that it could make to national educational aims and citizenship education, and to clearly state its significance and value towards international understanding among students and adults alike. However, based on the summary of the Commission prepared by Wise, it may be inferred that the Commission has been distracted from that responsibility. The Commission of 1952 was established under the title of ‘Geography in Schools’ and set itself the task of producing an authoritatively agreed statement about geography: geographers should ‘put their philosophy or point of view more clearly and forcibly before the ordinary public, and particularly educators’ (Scarfe, 1953, cited in Wise, 1992). The Commission intended to investigate and evaluate the present status of, and recent trends in, the teaching of the subject at elementary and secondary levels. It hoped then to be able to recommend what