The Historical Association, a UK charity that bills itself as "the national voice for history," recently published a report, funded by the government's Department for Education and Skills, on Teaching Emotive and Controversial History (pdf).
The HA note that the National Curriculum for History and standardized history qualification exams "often include areas of study that touch on social, cultural, religious and ethnic fault lines within and beyond Britain. Such areas of study include the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the Holocaust and aspects of Islamic history. These areas are sometimes avoided by teachers to steer away from controversy in the classroom." The Daily Mail, in an alarming headline, bills this as Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims (a title I originally rejected for this diary). The less alarmist Daily Express headline reads: Schools axe controversial subjects.
continued
Differences between the UK and US educational systems notwithstanding, the same issues are capable of arising throughout this country on a district-by-district level. Another kind of approach to educating about controversial issues is discussed in A different model of coexistence, which discusses a joint Israeli-Palestinian effort that has developed history booklets presenting both Palestinian and Zionist views of their mutual history.
A section of the report (at page 15), entitled Teacher avoidance of emotive and controversial history, lays out the HA's conclusions:
Teachers and schools avoid emotive and controversial history for a variety of reasons, some of which are well-intentioned. Some feel that certain issues are inappropriate for particular age groups or decide in advance that pupils lack the maturity to grasp them. Where teachers lack confidence in their subject knowledge or subject-specific pedagogy, this can also be a reason for avoiding certain content. Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes. In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship. Some teachers also feel that the issues are best avoided in history, believing them to be taught elsewhere in the curriculum such as in citizenship or religious education.
For example, a history department in a northern city recently avoided selecting the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE course work for fear of confronting anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils. In another department, teachers were strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination. In another history department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils, but the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 [ages 11-14] because their balanced treatment of the topic would have directly challenged what was taught in some local mosques.
The HA note a problem that I'm sure is common to many teachers in the US as well as the UK: "Where teachers model the processes of critical enquiry that characterise the adult discipline of the subject, history teaching may well clash with a narrow and highly partisan version of family or communal history in which some pupils have been reared."
One cannot tell from the HA report how widespread this kind of avoidance actually is. The Holocaust (Shoah), for example, apparently only would be taught as part of a module called "Germany 1919-1945", studied only in courses on modern world history. The HA must think the topic widely taught, however, because they use teaching the Holocaust (Shoah) as an example of how to address "emotive and controversial history effectively." This requires, the HA report says at page 17:
an understanding of student misconceptions. Without this awareness of misconceptions about events such as the Holocaust, appropriate learning strategies are rendered impossible. Students often bring misconceptions and stereotypes with them. For example (in relation to the Holocaust), the beliefs that all Germans were Nazis, that the Nazis invented anti-Semitism, that all Jews were helpless victims and that all the victims died in gas chambers.
Unfortunately, "teachers lack incentives to take risks even when they recognise the relevance of addressing emotive and controversial content and themes, such as Islamic history."
Recent events have heightened tensions both within the Muslim community and between Muslims and between Muslims and non-Muslims. Yet never has an understanding of Islamic history seemed more vital. At present "Islamic civilisations" (from 7th to 16th centuries) is an optional choice for a "world study before 1900". Few choose it. Many schools have considered Islamic history too difficult, alien or complex to teach. Most pupils do not study Islamic history at all, other than a glance at the Crusades from a western perspective. Schools with Muslim pupils face particular challenges in negotiating the interface between community history and school history. Not all Muslims are happy with the idea of Islamic history being taught by non-Muslims. The relationship between a communal, mythologised history adhering to one narrative sits uncomfortably with a critical history that is open to multiple interpretations and perspectives.
How serious are these kinds of problems here in the US?
What tend to be the topics most likely to suffer: evolution? the Civil War (War against the rebellion)? the Civil Rights movement?
What should be done?
Original tags: United Kingdom, Education, Holocaust, Shoah, political correctness