andallthat.co.uk
  • Blog
  • GCSE / A Level Topics
    • America 1789-1900
    • Antisemitism
    • British Radicalism 1789-1900
    • Crusades
    • Elizabeth I
    • Germany 1919-45
    • Historical Interpretations
    • Historic Environment
    • International Relations 1900-2000
    • Italian Renaissance
    • Medicine
    • Medieval Kings
    • Russia 1855-1921
    • Soviet Russia
    • Politics Files
  • KS3 Topics
    • Interpretations
    • Stand-Alone Lessons
    • NEW KS3 File Store
    • OLD KS3 File Store
    • Student Resources
  • Advice
    • GCSE Options
    • A Level Options
    • Personal Studies
    • University Applications >
      • Choosing Courses
      • General Advice
      • Personal Statements
      • Predicted Grades
  • Teachers
    • YHEP Teach Meet
    • Stand-Alone Lessons >
      • Ancient World
      • Medieval World
      • Early Modern
      • Industrial Revolution
      • Modern World
      • Post-Modern World
    • KS3 Teaching Resources
  • MeetTheHistorians
  • Trips
  • About
    • SubBlog
  • Contact

Knowing Whose History? Do my textbooks imply that they are a narrative or 'The Narrative'?

3/1/2017

2 Comments

 
Picture
Welcome to part 2 of my mini-series on choosing textbook resources for the history classroom. You can find the main landing page for this blog HERE.

In my last blog I was concerned with asking questions about the structure of narrative in a textbook and what narrative is developed. Today's focus is, in my opinion, just as important: Any good history textbook needs to acknowledge that that narrative it offers is contested. That is to say, the book needs to inform its readers that it provides ‘a narrative’ and not ‘The Narrative’, even if this is only in passing. This is particularly important if we see the role of a knowledge-rich curriculum as delivering social justice. This point was also made during the WLFS Conference, established to look at the importance of knowledge in the curriculum. From Christine Counsell at the beginning of the day, to Robert Tombs at the end, the point was made that we need to recognise that history is ultimately a matter of debate.

The solution is to provide access to more than one side of the question when considering a national narrative #WLFSHistory

— Heather Fearn (@HeatherBellaF) February 25, 2017

Christine Counsell on the danger of one story - 'we must be preparing students for argument' #WLFSHistory

— Rebecca Howard (@MissHowardCHS) February 25, 2017

@MissHowardCHS links to key messages frm #WLFSHistory yday on importance of multiple narratives&stories&a knowledge rich history curriculum

— Rebecca Howard (@MissHowardCHS) February 26, 2017
What messages are developed by the textbook?
When choosing textbooks, one of my first key questions is what messages they develop in the narrative, whether these are historically valid. As a sub-question to this, I am generally interested in the underlying themes or messages created and how these might be a help or a hindrance to my students.

One again, I have chosen to use Robert Peal’s ‘Knowing History’ sample chapter on Henry VIII to explore these issues further. Below I have tried to outline some of the main narrative messages from this section: 
  • Henry VIII was an heroic and intelligent king.
  • Henry was an ambitious king who aggressively sought to expand.
  • Henry signed a peace with France because he was let down by the Holy Roman Empire.
  • The Scottish took advantage of Henry’s heroic campaign against France and invaded England. The Scots ended up being defeated by the Queen (an embarrassment? Implied).
  • The Catholic Church was immensely powerful and corrupt.
  • The papacy was controlled by greedy and corrupt nobles.
  • Indulgences and relics were ways for the corrupt church to make money.
  • Pilgrims were somewhat stupid and bought into this.
  • Protestants were those who campaigned against Catholic greed and corruption.
  • The printing press helped Protestant spread a message of simplicity.
  • Protestants believed that people could have a direct relationship with God through the Bible and Catholics did not.
  • Martin Luther began the Reformation by nailing his theses to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral.
  • Henry was desperate for a male heir – this was a bigger issue than his failure to defeat the French in 1525. Henry needed a divorce to get a male heir.
  • Henry turned on Cardinal Wolsey because he failed to negotiate the divorce.
  • Anne Boleyn gave Henry the idea to break from Rome.
  • Henry did not like Protestantism but suddenly realised Luther’s ideas would give him more power in England than the Pope.
  • Henry married Anne and then broke with Rome, creating the Church of England.
  • The Act of Supremacy was one of the most important laws in English history.

Already you will see that some of these messages are more problematic than others. For instance, the idea that the Catholic church was very powerful during this period is fairly undisputed; the idea that it was wholly corrupt however is a very particular interpretation of the period. Then we have the parts where Peal tries to explain the motives of Henry VIII in breaking from Rome, implying that this was a deeply cynical move connected with power and wealth: another debated point. Most troubling is the implication that ordinary people (when they are mentioned) were effectively duped into superstitious practices – a line of thought generally out of kilter with recent historiography on the period. For me, the throwaway points about people’s beliefs, corrupt churches, irrational Catholicism, or the Scots being defeated by a woman, actually communicate a worrying lack of respect for the period and the people who inhabited it.

These smaller messages build into a set of broader messages, which I find equally problematic:
  • That Henry VIII was a great king because he made big changes.
  • That Henry VIII and a small group of nobles were instrumental in liberating the faiths of ordinary people from a corrupt church.
  • That ordinary people had little or no thought about their beliefs or religion.
All three of these messages can, and have, been robustly challenged by a wide array of historians, from Duffy, to Scarisbrick, to Swanson. More importantly the text embeds an ahistorical, judgmental attitude towards the past, and encourages pupils to ignore the mentalities of the ordinary people who lived through these tumultuous events. In essence, the story is little better than those simplifications presented in Deary’s ‘Horrible Histories’, albeit at the other end of the scale.

Of course, all history textbooks need to accept some degree of simplification. After all, they are not degree-level text. However, I think it is worth comparing the approach taken in the “Changing Minds” book from Longman (originally published in 1997 but still very much in print). The book begins its chapter on Henry VIII with the following “Some say that Henry only made the break with Rome because the Pope would not let him have a divorce…” (p.49) From the outset it is clear that the issue is contentious. Just like Peal, the Longman book goes on to outline the issue of inheritance, however it also posits a number of other viable theories for why Henry might have wanted to break with Rome. Pupils are then asked to think through why Henry made the break and, ultimately whether or not he might be considered a Protestant. 

I have included a summary of messages from the Longman book below for reference:
  • Many nobles were happy when Henry VIII came to the throne, but many people are often hopeful of a new start.
  • Henry VIII liked to portray himself as a powerful king and used this power to change the lives of the people.
  • There is a debate about why Henry broke with Rome but the fact he was not allowed a divorce was key
  • Henry wanted a son due to the failure of Catherine of Aragon to produce a male heir – he was in love with AB but hoped she would provide an heir too.
  • Protestants were worried about the power of the Catholic church – Henry did not like the power of the church to intervene in his personal affairs.
  • Protestants said the Catholic church and its clergy were corrupt – this was supported by evidence but not true of all monks and priests.
  • Protestants and Catholics held different beliefs on the role of the bible in religion.
  • Henry was encouraged to break with Rome by advisers such as Cranmer and Cromwell.
  • Henry’s break with Rome inadvertently made Parliament more powerful. Evidence suggests that Parliament was more interested in passing other laws.
  • The Act of Supremacy broke the link with Rome and made Henry the head of the Church in England – many people accepted this but there were also some who did not. Henry punished people who disagreed.
  • Henry closed down the monasteries and took their wealth with a hope of propping up the wealth of the monarchy but he wasted much of this on wars.
  • The Act of Supremacy did not solve the problem of control of the church in the long term – this was due to succession crises and various Catholic plots lasting until the 1750s.
  • Often in history there are unintended consequences. 

Does the narrative acknowledge its contested nature? 
The second major question I want to deal with in this blog is whether or not a textbook acknowledge the contested nature of its narrative and accepts that it is a narrative and not ‘The Narrative’. When looking at the 'Knowing History' series through this lens, I feel there is a lack of recognition of important disciplinary point. The chapters themselves are presented as simple, historicist accounts of past events. There is no real sense in the book that there might be any disagreement over the narrative, and students are certainly not asked to question it. In many ways, I hear echoes of the controversial declaration from Florida’s 2006 Education Bill, which stated that “history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable.” (Florida State Legislature, 2006). 
​
Of course, we might argue that a good history teacher could fill these gaps, however, the book does not contain enough contextual detail for teachers to introduce the idea of a contested narrative themselves as there is no conflicting or contradictory information to work with.  

To take a couple of examples: the chapter on the Elizabethan Golden Age begins by taking this term at face value: “Due to Elizabeth I’s wise decision making, England enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace and stability during her reign” (p.34). At no point in the chapter is the term itself questioned, or at least contextualised. I am all for author voice, but not in isolation from the historical debates which surround contested concepts like the ‘Elizabethan Golden Age’. Equally on page 56, Peal declares that “It was clear England’s Commonwealth experiment had failed…” with no sense that this might be a contested point. This in itself creates huge issues for anyone wanting to use the books with non-specialists, or teachers with limited period knowledge who may inadvertently reinforce such points without question. 

I found only two places where historians were mentioned in the first two sections of the book: one to note that Henry owned a pair of football boots; and another to say that the Vikings discovered America rather than Columbus (the closest to introducing the idea of a debate).

Now, I accept that historicism is an historical school in its own right, but the narrative here seems to rest on a somewhat outdated, Protestant-centric, historiographical view of the Reformation. The Catholic Church is referred to as a great, corrupt body, led by greedy and avaricious popes with a taste for womanising. Catholic traditions are dismissed as superstitions, and Martin Luther and John Calvin appear as the rational saviours of ordinary religion. Of course, there is much truth in the corruption of the Catholic Church in the 16th century, but the idea that the whole church was corrupt to the core is very Protestant lens through which to view events. The book gives no hint that this might be the case. Indeed, just shy of a century ago, in 1918, Edward Harvey (1918, p. 322) noted that 
Picture
The historiography on Luther and his impact is extremely wide ranging, but again, there is no sense of disagreement here. To fail to acknowledge such a point is a major bone of contention for me when considering which books might suit my students, and whether they might help them develop a full understanding of the discipline of history.

Summary
I hope I have managed to outline the importance of asking key questions about the nature of the historical narrative developed in textbooks. Crucially, a well-chosen narrative allows students to understand the nature of disciplinary history, whilst also learning detailed substantive content. I hope I have also presented the case for considering the quality of the historical scholarship and research in any textbook to ensure that we maintain a suitable respect for the past when teaching. 
​​
In my next blog, I intend to get beyond issues of how knowledge is presented and focus more specifically on the precise historical knowledge communicated. This is an area where recent books such as Peal’s make large claims about their superiority, so it will be interesting to see how they stack up against existing offerings. As ever, please feel free to leave comments below or via Twitter @apf102. 
2 Comments
Ian Phillips
3/7/2017 09:09:03 am

More a review I fear than a comment
When the book is written by someone with such vast range of experience, which includes a few years teaching experience, working as a researcher for a right wing think tank and being 'School Teacher in Residence at the Department of Education it some how deserves that extra little bit of scrutiny. When the publishers make claims about the text along these lines claiming the text will:
"Ignite an interest in history through extraordinary people, amazing facts, and a distinctly engaging narrative"
or that it will:
"Help all students to think critically about the past by focusing on the knowledge they need and then checking their understanding.'
You think it's too good to be true; and given contemporary concerns about fake news, this text even boasts its own 'fact checker', which, given Mr Peal's pedigree seems a bit odd, does someone with such a glittering career need a fact checker? Is Modern Britain not his period?

So first the positives: as far as I can see all the facts are correct and by this I really mean the dates and their associated events. The names of all the politicians, inventors, generals and philanthropists are also correct, much to the chagrin of the History Boys - it would rapidly confirm their view that history was 'one thing after another'. Mind you Bennet did set the play in a 1960s grammar school. I'm not sure if the books suitability for a 1960s grammar is a plus however.

The text is dense and busy - very busy, after all there's a lot to get in. It kind of resembles a Chatechismal text designed to be recited by heart. Just looking at one random paragraph: 'James Hargreaves was an illiterate handloom weaver from Lancashire, who wanted to find a more efficient process for spinning cotton.' Ok here I'm nit picking first of all spinning is a process - it doesn't matter if it's a hand spinning wheel or a spinning jenny, the process is the same: fibres are drawn (stretched) and then twisted. Hargreaves and all the others wanted to speed up the process. The real question I would want pupils to think about is the significance of Hargreaves' illiteracy. For me it tells me something perhaps about learning styles, that Hargreaves was a practical engineer who was good at problem solving. So why chuck in the reference to Hargreaves not being able to read? The second question I would want pupils to ask is 'Why then?' why, within the space of a couple of decades was the manufacture of cotton textiles transformed by new technology and different ways of organising production. All we get from Mr Peal is a succession of inventions - one thing after another. This is former History HMI John Slater's parody of the pre History National Curriculum subject writ large where the North was there simply to invent looms or work in mills. This degree of ignorance is repeated in the Chapter on Iron and Coal; sometimes it might just be down to poor editing or proof reading at other times it's just careless sloppy writing:
'Men, women and children dug coal with pickaxes in mines up to 100m below ground, travelling down narrow shafts to reach them.(sic)' So what's the matter here, well if you're from the south it's all the same but there was a significant division of labour and there are an abundance of contemporary illustrations which show young children working as trappers, women used as beasts of burden pulling coal on heavy sledges, one of these illustrations was used in the later unit on Factory Reform so it's not as though this division of labour isn't known about. Oh and another dig (literal this time) at the soft handed southern author: a pickaxe is used to break the coal from the seam, it was then loaded into trucks or onto sledges using a shovel. Again in this chapter there is a misunderstanding of industrial processes where the text writes about 'coke-powered blast furnaces' Producing iron is a chemical process, the reactions taking part inside the furnace are fuelled by coke - there is a significant and important difference.
Ok you say in defence 'there's a word limit' but if you set yourself up as an expert, if you advocate the 'knowledge based curriculum' your knowledge ought to be sound. I could go on, perhaps other readers might be able to find more inaccuracies.
What I would like to focus on are significant deficiencies. The chapters literally roam the world but there is not a single map used in the entire text. I find myself asking time and again what are pupils meant to do with this book. When I taught early American History to 2nd year undergraduates I found that maps played an important role in helping them to develop a more concrete idea of the space of North America. Unit 1 mentions Virginia and Massachusetts ( confusing the Pilgrim Fathers and Puritans along the way), the latter is colder and wetter apparently; Maryland is thrown in for good measure and before we know it there are 13 Colonies stretching from New Hampshire all the way down to Georgia. The Units h

Reply
Ian Phillips
3/7/2017 09:48:03 am

It seems there's a word limit.
Here's the final paragraphs:-

Ok you say in defence 'there's a word limit' but if you set yourself up as an expert, if you advocate the 'knowledge based curriculum' your knowledge ought to be sound. I could go on, perhaps other readers might be able to find more inaccuracies.
What I would like to focus on are significant deficiencies. The chapters literally roam the world but there is not a single map used in the entire text. I find myself asking time and again what are pupils meant to do with this book. When I taught early American History to 2nd year undergraduates I found that maps played an important role in helping them to develop a more concrete idea of the space of North America. Unit 1 mentions Virginia and Massachusetts ( confusing the Pilgrim Fathers and Puritans along the way), the latter is colder and wetter apparently; Maryland is thrown in for good measure and before we know it there are 13 Colonies stretching from New Hampshire all the way down to Georgia. The Units have a number of illustrations but appear to be purely decorative, some are 'modern illustrations' which raise questions about that new history concept of 'Interpretations of History'. What message do some of these modern illustrations convey about say early 20th century attitudes to colonisation?

Finally there are links and connections to be made with other subjects, especially maths. Any survey of the industrial revolution inevitably involves statistics. Sometimes these are presented in helpful tables (I can be positive!) but usually they take the form of throw away comments in the text. And at times a combination of quick-fire stats are just too confusing: 'powerlooms increased from 2,400 in 1813 to 115,600 in 1835 to 250,000 in 1857'. At one time the word Exponential is used to describe the increase in population and the definition used is a simplified wikipedia one liner. It might be that this is an idea explored in maths and simple graphs might be able to illustrate just how population grew in this period.

If I were still a Head of a History Department - would I buy copies for my pupils no. Would I have recommend it as a resource for students on an ITT course: equally no. It is depressing to think that this kind of text is now being enthusiastically promoted as a breakthrough in history teaching for the 21st century. It is a lazy and sloppy effort, it is worse than the kind of resource I have seen produced by any number of beginning teachers. Dates and events and people might be verified by fact checkers but it is a just a dull, inaccurate trudge through the past.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Key Files

    Archives

    January 2019
    August 2018
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All
    Assessment
    Causation
    Change & Continuity
    Communication
    Concepts
    Evidence
    Interpretations
    Northern History Forum
    Ofsted
    Perspectives
    Planning
    Posters
    Progression Model
    Student Materials

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos used under Creative Commons from j van cise photos, Phil Roeder