|
In my last blog I began looking at whether we should be proud of “the history teacher community”. I argued that one of the most crucial factors in determining this would be to establish, with honesty, what we had and had not done in relation to challenges raised by society at large, and made the case that we need to be careful of complacency through over-congratulatory self-narrative. In today’s blog I want to explore the ways in which we have been thinking about curriculum in “the community” and to ask if our curricular planning has lived up to the narrative we have told ourselves.
Facing ourselves Writing in Nazi occupied France, Jewish historian, Marc Bloch argued that “the scholar who has no inclination to observe the men (sic), the things, or the events around him will perhaps deserve the title…of a useful antiquarian. He would be wise to renounce all claims to that of a historian” (Bloch, 1992, p. 36). Nowhere is this more obvious at the moment than in terms of our understanding of race and racism. The last few months have seen a widespread outcry at our collective failures in Britain (and England especially) to face our colonial past and deal with the cancer of racism. And the challenge now is more than simply " being non-racist", but in being actively "anti-racist."
Critiques call communities and institutions to take stock and assess their record and responsibilities. The “history teacher community” is no exception. Yet one of the most common responses I have seen has been for people to suggest that “the community” has always taught diverse history, or that "the community" has long engaged in explaining racism, or empire, or colonialism. Such statements are usually backed with a range of examples showing where history teachers have engaged with diversity through their curricular constructions. It is the same “oh but we already…” response which I noted in my last blog. It requires an honest appraisal.
In some ways the positive assessment outlined might be considered true. For instance, the Schools History Project, which has been a voice in history since the 1970s, is built around six core principles, one of which states: “SHP believes that the history curriculum is often too narrowly defined, and that it should continue to offer more opportunities for children and young people to study a range of periods in history, civilisations and cultures beyond Europe, family and local history and more social and cultural history. SHP campaigns for a history curriculum that reflects the continuing social, cultural and ethnic diversity of Britain. The Schools History Project promotes diverse content, diverse approaches to the study of history and a focus on the diverse experiences of people in the past.” (Schools History Project, no date)
Certainly, SHP has done much to promote this aim through its annual conferences which have included many workshops and keynotes on teaching diverse histories, a particular highlight being Miranda Kaufmann talking about her work with teachers in relation to “Black Tudors” in 2019. Beyond this however, SHP has always tried to promote its core principles through textbooks, resources, and latterly its own GCSE exam specification. Though notably, some elements of these books have required re-writing due to portrayals of different groups, or problematic narrative elements.
Another SHP principle discusses the importance of history helping children to make sense of the world they live in: “As history educators we need to make our subject meaningful for all children and young people by relating history to their lives in the 21st century. The Project strives for a history curriculum which encourages children and young people to become curious, to develop their own opinions and values based on a respect for evidence, and to build a deeper understanding of the present by engaging with and questioning the past."
This is a clear statement of purpose which gets to the heart of the current call to action, and one of which I am proud to support.
"The community” might equally point to the many workshops at Historical Association conferences on themes such as globalising the Second World War, teaching the history of medieval Mali, or embedding migration through Key Stage 3 as evidence of a commitment to diversity. There has also been a fantastic HA Fellowship programme coordinated by Abdul Mohamud and Robin Whitburn in conjunction with Nick Draper and Kate Donnington helping teachers to teach about transatlantic slavery. This certainly makes me proud to be part of the “history community”. Testing the limits of our pride But being proud of anything is always a risk. As my grandmother used to say, “pride comes before a fall.” The trouble is that “the community” risks being so caught up in its pride that it doesn’t realise that it has yet to get off the floor and walk. We have to be forensic in analysing the realities of how “the community” have dealt with the issue of race in the way we deliver curriculum. Are we actually being "anti-racist" in what we do? To claim that “we are already addressing” the #BLM challenge without looking at the evidence fully is to silence valid critique, and to gloss over an opportunity for proper reflection. I will begin therefore, with some trepidation, with my own curriculum for ITE. As you can see below, I have built in some space for trainees to grapple with issues of curriculum and of representation. At the very start of the year trainees are asked to grapple with the overall narrative being delivered by various books, textbooks and curriculum constructions. We spend an entire day exploring diversity in the curriculum before Christmas, including an exploration of the RHS Race Report, the work of Mohamud and Whitburn, an engagement with Black Tudors etc. In March we have a cross curricular day with the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education exploring how to teach the Holocaust, which also involves a direct engagement with the concepts of race and racism. In addition to these, over the last two years, I have tried to incorporate more diverse topics into our coverage of second order concepts. Looking at evidence for example now involves an exploration of the 11th century Arabic manuscript, “The Book of Curiosities”
However, there are some big issues here. The TIDE Runnymede report on the teaching of migration, belonging and empire found that “Initial Teacher Education (ITE) courses do not provide the space or skills to enable teachers to confidently cover sensitive and controversial issues with young people.” (McIntosh, Todd and Das, 2019, p. 8). My course is still primarily organised around trainees understanding and wrestling with disciplinary concepts. Although I have tried to keep adding more diverse content, and have provided space to conceptualise diversity, I have never really fundamentally questioned whether disciplinary concepts, are the right framing for so much of what I do. Although UCL representatives help trainees to grapple with the issue of racism in relation to the antisemitism and the Holocaust, real engagement with complex concepts like empire or race is almost absent from my curriculum. I can’t imagine that courses which have minimal or no subject specific input are doing much better on this front. This is in stark contrast to ITE courses run by Jason Todd at Oxford, or Abdul Mohamud and Robin Whitburn at UCL, where exploration of student and trainee grappling with these life-shaping concepts is central. It seems that “the community” are far from all being in the same place.
Moreover, I have never properly engaged in any serious self-reflection of what trainees have taken from the course. When Harris was concerned about his trainees’ engagement with diversity in history for example, he conducted a two-year study exploring their changing views (Harris, 2012). Indeed the "Justice 2 History" approach is to begin with student perceptions of curriculum. My "solutions" have therefore barely begun to address the challenges being raised, yet have allowed me to engage in a positive self-narrative of taking action. I have needed to disrupt this narrative with truth. Examining school curriculum constructions Given the issues in the construction of ITE curricula, it is worth now turning to school curricula as another proxy for the state of “the history teaching community”. For a further exploration of these issues, I would highly recommend reading Catherine Priggs’ article in Teaching History 179 which was published a week or so after I originally wrote this blog (Priggs, 2020). There are of course some wonderful things happening in curriculum right now, not least Priggs’ own work I have noted above. I also mentioned in my previous blog the fantastic examples of history departments embracing more diverse teaching, which have been shown at conferences, or online. However, the “community” picture is far from uniform. I do not want to single out individual departments here as this is about reflection and not “blame”. But what is notable about Priggs’ work is its approach. Priggs and her department explore and review their curriculum with through their own critical lens but also that of their students. There is an express interest in being open and honest, as well as learning and improving. This is a wonderful model for us all. In this same vein, I think it is instructive to look at a “typical” Key Stage 3 curriculum and note the distance “the community” still has to travel. The following extracts are taken from the two-year Key Stage 3 studied at all schools in one large academy chain. They are illustrative, I think, of a wider picture which I have experienced during my teaching career and whilst working with departments around England.
Although the initial paragraphs of the rationale offer some hope, the final paragraphs and the reality of the associated curriculum offer a different image. There is a huge question mark over whether this curriculum is actually addressing diversity, let alone one which would help students understand the ways in which concepts such as migration, belonging, racism or empire have shaped our present age (McIntosh, Todd and Das, 2019; Todd, 2019). Indeed, despite nods to some non-British history, the central organising concept of the curriculum for the most part seems to “the nation”, and its developing political and economic shape. I cannot comment on the teaching of course, but at a curriculum level at least, this does not feel like a curriculum which is expressly "anti-racist". This is a curriculum which does not fit that positive "community" narrative.
As Priggs (2020) notes, the imperative to teach “world” and/or “diverse” histories is not new, but adoption has been faltering, and more recent trends in education have actually seen a shift back towards more national narratives. The curriculum above is therefore not an isolated example. The content taught in schools has narrowed for all kinds of reasons and the National Curriculum requirements to study ‘world history’ have been watered down significantly through academisation. And this is before we consider how “world history”, when present, is too often taught. A study of “the Aztecs” for instance can too readily become a reinforcement of problematic narratives of conquest in which Indigenous peoples only appear in relation to European “exploration”. This is true of other topics of this type. The textbook extract on Columbus (below) gives a good sense of this.
Worse still, "world history" can become a type of orientalism in which Indigenous peoples are not understood on their own terms but are held up for their perceived differences. Note for example the obsession with human sacrifice in almost all curriculum materials on “the Aztecs”. What is clear is that there is still a long way to go.
Channel frustration into learning
So if we want to make a change, where do we begin? If you are anything like me, you will realise there are huge gaps in your knowledge and understanding. This can be frustrating. As a colleague recently said to me: channel that frustration into filling those knowledge gaps!
Demand a curriculum for justice I think we also need to be vocal about the need for change. This is a potentially momentous opportunity for history teachers (and pupils) to demand widespread change in schools and universities. So often the content of our programmes, our curricula, are dictated by inertia, exam board specifications, or the mysterious market forces publishers use to determine their output. What power there is surely be in having the voices of teachers and pupils involved in a project to establish the ethical criteria for a curriculum for justice. A curriculum which not only gave a fuller picture of the past and its diversity, but also contextualised and helped explain for students the ideas and concepts which shape their world today. To return to Bloch briefly “ignorance of the past…confounds contemporary action” (Bloch, 1992, p. 35) and right now we need a generation are able to see and perceive the realities of injustice more clearly so that they can work to resolve them. That would be a curriculum which, as an SHP Fellow, would truly live out those principles I hold to be important in history teaching. References
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Key FilesArchives
July 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed
