Immediately after the First World War, the Belgian government attached great importance to the dissemination of a unified and patriotic war narrative. In primary as well as in secondary education, the memory of the war had to be cultivated in the history class, but also outside the regular courses, in a more affective vein. Textbooks and notebooks, classroom walls, playgrounds and field trips, they all referred to the war. In many instances, the government encouraged or supported these initiatives. The specific outlook of these practices of remembrance was however locally determined. In this contribution, two types of local remembrance practices are presented: the school commemoration of fallen students or former students, and the organization of field trips to the former front region. Both practices involved different concepts of memory. In the case of commemorative monuments, the main aim was to link different generations to each other. The dead – who were presented as real individuals - were supposed to stand as a model for the living. Students who had died for their fatherland and who had behaved courageously had to inspire the soldiers of the future. In field trips to the front region, a different type of memory was conceptualized. Not the connection between the dead and the living, but abhorrence at the sight of so much destruction was stimulated. Here, the past couldn’t possibly be a model for the future. Thanks to this negative approach, this remembrance practice would remain successful in the long run. In an era in which education on the war became immersed in peace education, such field trips could remain meaningful.