Episode 13: Why school history matters

(upbeat music) - Hello and welcome to another episode of Past Times, Talking and Teaching History. Your clues podcast on history education. My name is Andreas Holpiger, and in this episode we will have a conversation about the role that history education plays in society. We'll tackle some pretty crucial questions about why we do history, what purpose history teaching in schools have or should have, and in doing so, we'll also look ahead a bit to EuroGleo's upcoming annual conference that will take place this spring 2022 in Italy. Now, to look into all of this, I'm really pleased to bring Professor Tina Funderflees to the podcast. (upbeat music) - All right, welcome so much to Tina Funderflees. Tina, you are an assistant professor of history at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, at their School of History, Culture and Communications. You completed your PhD research also in Rotterdam on the perpetuation of national narratives in English and Dutch history textbooks. Your work on that has also been recognized with awards by the International Standing Conference for the History of Education and the Belgian Dutch Society for History Education back in 2019. Currently, you combine teaching with a role as project secretary of the Historians' Days in August of this year to 2022, which is a three day national conference jointly organized by the Erasmus University in Rotterdam and the Royal Netherlands Historical Society. Now, one of the reasons why I was very keen to invite you to this podcast today is that you about six months ago or so you received a research grant to work on a new research project. It's titled Why School History Matters, Public Discourses on the Purposes of History Education in 2020. And of course, we'll start talking about that very soon, but yeah, thank you so much for joining us and welcome. - Well, thank you very much for the invitation. I'm happy to join and to talk about history education. - Wonderful, so without too much further ado, let's just go straight to our question for you. As I mentioned, you received this research grant to work on a new project on Why School History Matters. To give the listeners a bit of context, it's also of course very much related to our upcoming annual conference, which will take place in Bolonia in spring this year and it's entirely devoted to more or less the same question that you're tackling in this research. But coming back to your research proposal or your work, as I understand it together with colleagues at the University of Cambridge, you will be looking at present day debates about the role of school history in society. And I was just hoping that you could tell me and our listeners a bit more about your projects, the scope of it, what kind of societies are you looking at, in fact. And perhaps also first to start off a bit about the reasons for why you got interested in this particular topic. - Yes, thank you very much. Well, I will investigate a long history of public debates about purposes of history education and then more specific about English and Dutch history education. Because history is a contested school subject, we see it in newspapers and on the news, on the internet. So history education is a topic of polarized public debate. And for example, during the Black Lives Matter protest in the United Kingdom, campaigners sent an open letter to the education secretary calling on him to decolonize the history curriculum and to make the teaching of Black history a compulsory part of the national curriculum. But for example, when you look in an ellipse, public outrage arose over the murder of the French history teacher, Samuel Patti. After he had shown muamette cartoons in a lesson on the freedom of speech, so the Dutch minister of education asked schools to reflect upon this murder and to hold a minute of silence. But this request evokes tensions in several schools due to many threats on social media. Now, a history teacher in Rotterdam is still in hiding. So a cartoon was hanging on his notice board for five years but it actually became a contested issue after this memorial. But of course, these examples are part of a long history of public debates about school history's role in society because this role relates to ideas on identity, citizenship, community cohesion and for example, processes of inclusion and exclusion. So history education engages with moral values that are in one way or another political and actors with various interests, conflicting interests, have discussed school history's purposes. For example, politicians, opinion leaders, teachers, religious leaders, and so on. So many, many various ideas on history education. So my research question is which ideas on school history's purposes circulate in English and that's public discourses in a period between the 1920s and the 2020s. And how can changes and continuities be explained? Because so far, no systematic research have been done into public discourses on school history's purposes. Of course, history textbooks have been investigated official political documents, but what about the public discourse about history education? And I think the public discourse is extremely important, relevant and interesting because that is a route in my opinion to understanding the ways in which events, persons, and developments such as cultural, economic or political developments have affected views on how school history benefits society. And why does it such a contested issue? And that's also why I have chosen for a comparative element in my research because the national context is also important. Of course, also the international context. So when you do comparative research, you can try to understand how national developments, events or persons affect the debate on school history and whether you see the same trends, patterns or developments or if things are different. And of course, England and the Netherlands they both had colonies in the past. And nowadays, they have multicultural societies. So there is a lot of debate in these societies about history and about the topics that should be addressed and in what ways they need to be addressed and for what reasons. So that's why I have chosen England and the Netherlands also because the governments of both nations started to interfere with history education. - Good, I just ask just a question on that actually. How did they start interfering in which way and when did this take place? - Well, when you look to England, for example, you had a teacher who created, so to say, the national curriculum. Of course, he didn't grade it by herself, but she implemented the national curriculum. So that was also a way of controlling the history education to a certain extent. But in the Netherlands, the governments also started to interfere recently with history education. For example, we have now a canon of that history education, but also earlier with certain time periods and certain characteristics of these time periods that needed to be learned. And just separate from the discussion, whether you like it or not, it's just important, I think, to observe that for the first time in the history of history education, that the government started to interfere also with the contents of history education to a certain extent. I think that's also related to the context of that moment, right? It was also after 2001 and 2002 with a murder of a Dutch politician and the twin towers who went down. So there was a lot of discussion about the national identity and who we are as Dutch and about the perhaps failure of the Multicultural Society and what could be done about it. So I think the complexities of the Multicultural societies and the role of history education within that societies is shared between England and Netherlands. And just another question on your current research or that you will be doing. So I realized my questions may also be a bit premature because you haven't really done the research yet. But maybe also just to understand if you have an idea of where you have seen things going. I was wondering about who exactly are the players in this public discourse. So you mentioned now the government started taking a greater interest. But I was also wondering in particular with regard to history teachers and history educators because it's my perception and it's just my perception. I don't have anything to really back this up with. My feeling on this is that history teachers used to play a much greater role in being a part of public discourse than they are today and there could be many reasons for this. That's my feeling, I don't know if you agree. But will you also be looking at how various organizations representing history teachers, including, for instance, your Cleo or National Member Association. So in the UK, you have the Historical Association. You have Varian Cleo here in the Netherlands. And they are, of course, associations that still very much are fighting for history as a subject and history teachers as a profession. But what about sort of the individual teachers? Have they also been a part of this discussion and to which extent do you feel? - Yes, that's an important sub-question with my research like who or which voices dominated the public debate or which voices were heard in a public debate and from who? And I think teachers play the role, for example, when you look into newspapers. But it's also interesting to see the various role of different associations, but also opinion leaders, sometimes at a strong opinion about history education, perhaps without much knowledge about history education. - Right, yeah. - So I think it's very important to investigate the history of public debates in order to understand and to provide some background information to the heated discussions about history education in the present, to have an insight into patterns and developments, but also because public opinions and strong opinions can affect policies and government policies. And I think that's also important to understand not only official associations of history, educations, for example, but also had the public opinion, that's very general for me later, but you know what I mean? The strong voices can have an effect on government policies. And I think it's important to see changes and continuities within the public debate, but also exactly what you say, the voices of different people. And when you ask about the role of history teachers and the role of the sort of associations, for example, well, I have indeed to investigate how their role changes if it changes over the past or not, but I haven't seen that yet, but that is just because the research is indeed in its beginning. - Very good. I mean, I'm really looking forward to seeing the fruits of your research endeavor. So another question that indeed is also linked to the public discourse as I see it, because you often, or often I've seen lately, you get politicians or people making claims about the need for a common understanding of history that people, they see the societal problems that you talked about in your answer to my first question. And then their sort of immediate reaction is, well, it's pupils should be taught x, y, z. But I've seen that also here in the Netherlands, where I'm leaving now, I'm not Dutch, but I'm living here, and I've seen that also in the public discourse here. But at the same time, you also have the case that history as a subject, as a school subject, is given less and less priority in curricula and in the number of hours that you have devoted to it. So in fact, in a number of countries, it's not even a mandatory subject anymore. It's optional. And just sort of with the attention that you have been now through debates around the role of history education, what do you see as the reason for these developments? - Yes, well, perhaps several reasons, and it can of course differ per country, but when you look into the Netherlands, for example, let me start with the Netherlands. There is a lot of discussion about, if pupils know enough about history, and people try to solve that by interfering with the contents of history education. For example, by providing a history canon, and by including also the black pages of history, what is often mentioned in the black pages of history, like slavery, or for example, the war of independence in Indonesia, and we heard the recent news about it, about the role of the Netherlands within that war. And it is often said that the Dutch people, and especially pupils, don't know enough about it, and they say, well, we need to change history education. But indeed, what you say, the hours for history education have been changed. History education is not mandatory anymore. Of course, you have history education in the Netherlands at the primary school, and in the first years of secondary school, good then, you can choose the subject. And I think that is dangerous, well, dangerous, but at least I think if you bring up the hours for history education, that can solve the problem of, you know, not knowing enough about the past, or not having the skills to investigate, or to understand, or to critically think about the past. So I think the hours are very important. But when you look into the public debate, and also within societies, it is often about, you know, the free choice to look for a certain profile for your future, and then history can be part of it, or you can just skip it, because people think you can also live without history. And a lot of societies, especially, I think, in times of economic crisis, have the intention to not devote in much time, not so much time to history as a subject. And also, I think the discussion is not new. For example, when you look to the public debate after the first world war, and especially after the second world war also, there was a lot of debate about the relevance of history education, because people said, look, we had a second world war. If history cannot prevent war, and we can make it into peace education or something like that, but it does not prevent war. So why should we learn about the past? If it does not affect the present, or if it does not affect how we think and how we act, what is the use of history? Let's get rid of it. Now, I think there is a deeper debate about that as well, right? What is the use of history? Because, of course, that's also what Nietzsche said, right? Too much history can prevent you from living in the present, because it ties you to the past. And it doesn't give you space to live in the present. But of course, it's also dangerous, I think, to live without history. Because then I think you are very more open for distorted versions of the past, because you cannot critically investigate or understand the process of historical representation anymore, for example. This is a nice bridge, actually, to another question I had. But yeah, I will try to give you also some background for this, because I mentioned in the beginning that we are organizing our annual conference about the question of what history is for. And in preparing for that, we actually reached out to our members, so members of Eurokeo all across Europe and beyond. And we asked them precisely this question. And the answer is that we got. I will roughly divide them up in three sort of broader categories. Category number one is basically about national and identity-related purpose. So history, in this sense, is a tool to promote a feeling of national identity and group belonging. And that's root. And the second category, we label it sort of civic purposes. And in this case, or in this sense, history is really aimed at promotion of a peaceful society, valuing diversity, yeah, you mentioned the increasingly diverse aspects of our classrooms and so forth. And it's about making sure that diverse people can live together without sort of awakening wounds of the past and a shared past that we can build a future together around. And the third one is more relating to sort of scientific or critical purposes. So like critical thinking skills, but also just generally skills that you can take out of the historians' craft, in a sense. And I just wanted to ask, yeah, what's first of all, what's your position on this? And what you see is what history is for, which is a very big question to do answer, but also to play a little bit of a devil's advocate, perhaps, given the very continued success of the nation state as a basis for how we organize ourselves. Is there still a case to be made for history, education, as a source of this shared national identity? And are we not a little bit in danger of letting nationalist or populist forces hijack that kind of position? If we focus, let's say, too much in quotation mark on the competencies and the skills that you get out of history education. Sorry, a very long question. Now, it's a very interesting question and also quite a tricky one because I really like distinction. But of course, it's also tricky to choose a certain category. But if I needed to choose, I feel most at home, I think, within a third one about the scientific or critical purposes of history. Because I think it helps to keep the balance because history can be used and is of the use, of course, as an instrumental tool. For example, to enforce a national identity or to promote diversity and so on. But I think you can also use history, for example, to promote a European identity, et cetera. But I think it is important to critically reflect on these goals as well. And these goals often say more about the present than about the past, I think. So history is important to understand society as it is today. And for example, to understand the inequality within society as it is today and to understand the gap between rich and poor. But at the same time, there are critical thinkers who say that is not enough. And they say instead of explaining the current conditions of society and leave them undisturbed, they say we need to pull apart the assumptions that are used to justify the current arrangements. So they say history is a warning or need to be a warning also against those historical works that seek to normalize and naturalize the current conditions, such as inequality. So they say on the one hand, you can explain how and why societies are as they are. But at the same time, the relevance of history shows the many possibilities of history. And that things are not predetermined or neutrally given, but that there are possibilities for change and that people have a choice. But when we talk about history, education, and pupils, I think it's also important to understand that the minds of pupil grow with their aids, right? So I can totally understand that you start with history in a certain way at primary school and that you try the more critical approach at secondary school. And now I come to the second part of your question, what about the nation state? And apparently, it's still very important. I think it's not wrong to teach the history of the nation. I think it's very important because you speak the same language as other members of the nation state, but I think it makes different how you teach the nation state. Of course, you can teach the nation state, but then you can show how that national history is related and connected to other countries, empires, and to the world, to global history. And I think that's very important to understand also the language you use, is that you do not talk about the Netherlands in agent times, for example, with that you understand that the Netherlands is quite a reason, well, what is a reason? But the Netherlands, as a concept, came into being. And of course, that sounds perhaps too scientific, but just to show, I think that you can teach children something about the history, about the place where we live now. But just trying to show it in an interesting way that it came into being precisely by the interaction with other countries, with other people, with the world. So I totally understand your question, that it's too simple to get rid of the nation state, so to say. So I think it's still very important, but it's, in my opinion, I think it's different how you address it. Yeah, how you address it. And also, I can understand that you talk about diversity and identity in a classroom, especially in the history classroom. But I think we also need to understand that these are instrumental tools as well, right? And not necessarily wrong. But I think it's important, therefore, I feel at home as a third one, that we critically reflect on how we, as teachers, educatious, researchers, use history as well. And I think a lot of countries are already doing that. If you investigate English and Dutch history textbooks, for example, there are parts of discussions, how is a hero made, for example? Why does someone becomes a hero in a certain age, or in a certain context? And perhaps on television and within the public media, there is discussion about the biggest or the greatest Britain of them all, for example. But when you look into the history textbooks, that's not a question. People, pupils investigate the process of hero making. And I think that's quite interesting, perhaps the pupils are further than a public debate, so to say. Yeah, that is very interesting, indeed. Yeah, I hadn't thought of that link with all these popular history, well, it's not even popular history. It's more sort of in the media of the greatest Britain and all of that. Great, maybe just to wrap up a little bit, because you obviously will be researching that public discourse between the last 100 years or so. But where do you mention, also very interestingly, after World War II, there was this also this reckoning with the fact that history couldn't prevent the war. And what's the point that, so to speak, what other kind of key moments do you see in this without having really done the research now, I realize, but still up until today, are there other key defining moments that you think you might encounter that sort of shifts the discourse completely? Yes, I think, well, to start off the World War I, let's say, in the 1920s, you see a lot of discussion about history education, and it's even described as poison for the children hard, as poison. Because some people said we had the first World War, if so much people who were willing to die for the country, and why perhaps it's all, not all, but, well, the blame also needs to go to history education, and especially the nationalist ideas of history that were transferred within history education, that young children had a distortant version of their own country and their own people and the other. So people said history education is poison. Let's get rid of it. And others said, no, that's way too easy. We need to critically, here it is again, investigate the historical representation and the historical process of images that is present in history textbooks. So let's try to improve history education precisely to prevent war and not only focus on political history, but let's also focus on cultural history. And then there was, of course, also some people who said we only need to talk about peace and that all the wars have led to a certain peace. And they tried to interpret history as a kind of peace development. So there was a lot of discussion about the role of history education in society after the first World War, and it also continued after World War II. But it was, of course, we also know the term from not again, so people said people need to know about the war and about the horrific things that have happened in order to prevent things. And of course, especially after World War II, you also hear that voice that people said history is extremely important precisely to not forget what happened and what people are capable of. So let's use history education to prevent war and to have a more nuanced version of the other, so to say. But also when you, in the '60s, for example, but it's also different within a national context when I think of England, and when I think about history education in England, after World War II, it was quite heroic. Like we liberated the Netherlands, for example. We are heroic. And we stood alone against Hitler, of course, not alone, but that was often the myth like we stood alone against the world power. The effort against Holiath, for example. But in the Netherlands, it was very different because the Netherlands were occupied by Nazi Germany for five years, and then they were liberated. So when you look into the discussions about Dutch history education, it was more oriented on a European identity in the '60s, not so much national anymore, because the idea was, well, we are a small country, we were occupied. Yeah, we need to relate to Europe to become strong again. But of course, when you look, and now I make a big jump into present debates about the European identity, that's also very problematic. And especially in England and the UK. And there are even researchers who say that the Brexit is related to history education, because English history education focused very much on the strong nation, and that's the national theme within history education can be related to Brexit even. That's, I will use the opportunity to then ask you a sort of a very final question, because it's always fun to ask historians about the future and the present day. But so even in this situation that you also described a little bit with Brexit, with a lot of culture wars, a lot of public discourse about history and what it is about, and why we do it, is that, in your view, from the perspective of those of us who wish to have more attention giving to history education, more time devoted to it in schools, et cetera, is that an opportunity, or is it a problem, a hurdle? Oh, yeah, that's a tricky question, because in my opinion, of course, it's an opportunity. I think it's very important to increase the numbers of our full history education precisely to teach students about the content and about historical skills. And also, in this time, we fake news. I think that historical skills are also very important. Also, skills to check sources, for example, that we use a lot as historians, but also to reflect on processes of historical representation. And our history is used in politics, for example, and in present day debates. And I think that's also very interesting for pupils and students to do in class, and also to understand each other more, because they are the new generation. So history, I think, really can not directly solve problems or predict the future. But I think history is very important to increase understanding, neutral understanding. And I think within a multicultural society, with many problems, and also with new digital techniques, and fake news, and everything, I think history is very, very important. So I see it as an opportunity. And I think that pupils can do a lot with history. And at history, teachers are doing great things with history, but that they just need more time to educate the pupils. And I think that's very important. I think that sounds like a perfect way to end our conversation. Thank you so much, Professor Tina Funderfrees, for having joined us, shared some thoughts about your work and your research. And I wish you all the best in conducting this research together with colleagues in the UK. - Well, thank you very much for your invitation. And I hope to know more when I have my results. Thank you very much. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music)