History Teaching in Public Schools:The Who, What, and Why of the Canadian History Curriculum

Louisa Orford1210372

History 3HI3Dr. Jennifer BonnellNovember 24th, 2014

History teaching in public schools has been a widely debated topic in recent years.

The debate spans far beyond the idea of what facts belong in a textbook and delves

deeper into four key themes. Ken Osborne, Peter Seixas and David Lowenthal discuss

how teachers should be educated; Diane Ravitch and Keith Barton discuss what role the

government should play; and Desmond Morton, Sam Wineburg and Jocelyn Létourneau

explore whether or not to create a national history to be taught nation wide. In turn, each

of these authors also explores their own opinions on what history the curriculum should

recommend. It is these top scholars who have put forth some of the foremost suggestions

and criticisms of the teaching of Canadian history in Canadian schools.

The debate is quite expansive and spans several decades. These authors all have

different approaches to the debate, however they each tend to explore one or more of the

key themes within their own work. The opinions put forth by these authors quickly

dismiss the argument that there are problems in the curriculum and they each believe that

there are other areas of history teaching that must first be fixed before the curriculum can

be addressed as problematic. Ultimately, it is through these key themes, that the subject

of how and why a national history should be taught is opened for further debate.

It is important to first note that in 1998, J.L. Granatstein published a highly

controversial work entitled Who Killed Canadian History? and it was an instant best-

seller.1 In this book, Granatstein blames Canadian students’ lack of historical knowledge

on the education system, the media, and the government's fixation on multiculturalism.2

He accuses the government of being neglectful, the teachers of trying too hard to make

their subject interesting, and historians for being too quick to commemorate and

1 J.L. Granatstein. Who Killed Canadian History?, (Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, 2007). 2 Granatstein, 19, 83

Orford 1

romanticize certain aspects of Canadian history like Vimy Ridge or Flanders Fields.3 He

claims that Canadians do not have the pride in their country that they should and offers a

variety of suggestions for how the teaching of Canadian history can be improved in the

classroom as well as on a more public scale.4 It is this work by Granatstein that many of

these authors either wish to agree with or wish to reject, but either way has influenced

many decades worth of historical writing on this subject.

To begin, the education of teachers is a topic of major concern for all of these

authors; however, the most prominent arguments on the topic come from Osborne,

Seixas, Lowenthal, and Ravitch. In his article “Teaching History in Schools: a Canadian

Debate,” Osborne argues that, despite all the criticisms of Canadian history teaching in

schools, it would be, in reality, quite hard to satisfy the arguments of other historians who

claim there is a problem with the substance of curricula. Instead, the focus should be on

the educational backgrounds of the teachers and how prepared they are to engage their

students in the history that has been laid out in the curriculum.5 If the teachers are better

prepared and more knowledgeable of the history they are being asked to teach, many of

the problems historians find in the curriculum could be easily solved. The article

culminates with Osborne’s synopsis of the debate at hand stating that the debate “has

taken an unnecessarily restricted view of the more fundamental question of why history

should be taught at all.”6 This article focuses around this question and Osborne uses each

of the purposed criticisms to actively prove this question as well.

3 Granatstein, 1174 Ibid., 158, 1765 Ken Osborne “Teaching history in schools: A Canadian debate.” 6 Osborne, 613

Orford 2

Correspondingly, as Osborne cited his work several times, Seixas has a similar

argument that he puts forth. In his article, “A Discipline Adrift in an "Integrated"

Curriculum: History in British Columbia Schools,” he suggests that the teaching of

Canadian history could benefit greatly from the collaboration of its teachers with

historians and historical institutions.7 Seixas claims that teachers must “enter into

dialogue about history with historians” because “then we would have opened the door to

a considerably more rigorous, authentic, and useful kind of history education than

anything envisioned in the current curriculum.”8 He does well to accept the fact that, due

to the broad sense of social studies in the curriculum, not all teachers who teach social

studies have a background in studying history. He focuses mainly around the question of

how history should be taught in schools, rather than what history is taught in schools.

Furthermore, Lowenthal, in his article, “Dilemmas and Delights of Learning

History,” makes the argument that it is because the historical field has no technical

elements to it that it is therefore seen as requiring no foundation in the subject in order to

teach it.9 He refers to history as “amateur scholarship” and uses this to discuss the

problems with teachers teaching history without history degrees.10 He makes the claim

that a teacher who lacks a history degree (undergraduate or graduate) puts too much

emphasis on making history fun to learn. This, in his opinion, devalues and diminishes

the importance of history as well as obscures the actual facts.11

Many of Seixas’ arguments are supported by research he has done for other

works. When he does cite other scholars to support his argument, he uses them to great

7 Peter Seixas. “A Discipline Adrift in an "Integrated" Curriculum: History in British Columbia Schools.”8 Seixas. 1059 David Lowenthal. “Dilemmas and Delights of Learning History.” 6310 Ibid.11 Lowenthal, 74

Orford 3

effect. Every point he makes has a corresponding citation to another historian who has

felt the same as he, including, but not limited to, Osborne and Granatstein. This shows

that his opinions are not so far-fetched and are seen as plausible by multiple authorities

on the subject. The article has a very logical flow to its points. The reader has no problem

deciphering what Seixas’ beliefs are and what his main argument is. His ideas are well

supported and justifiable and he has attempted to view his argument from all vantage

points and does not hide any flaws in his own opinion.

The argument Lowenthal attempts to make remains slightly unclear until the end

of the article. The arguments made are bogged down by examples and citations that could

have been elaborated upon to produce a more coherent understanding for his readers. He

references Seixas as he agrees that the curriculum cannot be addressed as a problem until

school boards recognize that not just any teacher can teach history.12 Like Seixas, he too

references some of his own past works however he does so in great detail. Where Seixas

referenced his own works in footnotes, Lowenthal uses his past research in the current

work and expands and elaborates on the arguments he had already made. Having written

after Seixas but before Osborne, it is likely that the writing of Seixas influenced

Lowenthal while Osborne would have been able to draw influence from both Seixas and

Lowenthal.

Though not a Canadian historian, Ravitch makes a solid argument in her article,

“The Educational Backgrounds of History Teachers,” concerning the out-of-field teachers

that school boards allow to teach subjects they are not educated in.13 She has very similar

arguments to that of Granatstein as she argues that “student who [are] higher achieving

12 Lowenthal, 7813 Ravitch. “The Educational Backgrounds of History Teachers.”

Orford 4

were likelier to get better-qualified teachers.”14 She bases her article off of a study done

by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Centre for Education Statistics (NCES).

The study compared out-of-field teachers on two criteria: the proportion of students who

are taught by out-of-field teachers who lack any university degree in the subject and by

comparing their classroom assignments to their educational background.15

Although Canada does not have a central education centre like that of its

American counterparts, the education systems both allow for the same sort of out-of-field

teaching to occur. It is very common across North America to have teachers teach classes

outside of their qualified field. It happens across subject areas, though is seen in greater

numbers in the social science course of history, geography and civics.16 It is unlikely that

Ravitch was influenced by much of what the other authors wrote as she did not refer to

them and as she is not dealing with the same education system.

Overall, it is Osborne who appears the most effective in this argument. Seixas

does well to be sure each of his arguments was well supported but lacked depth in a few

areas. Lowenthal, though referencing his own works to greater effect, allowed his

argument to be hindered by the quality and quantity of examples. Ravitch has a clear

argument but does not draw from a variety of sources. Relying mostly on statistics and

raw data drawn from surveys and studies, Ravitch is lacking the interpretive side of her

argument and spends much of her article listing results and findings. Osborne’s article is

concise and he uses his sources and examples effectively and ensures there are a variety

of them. He makes his opinion clear near the beginning of the piece and reinforces as he

goes. It is well laid out and easy to follow.

14 Ravitch, 14515 Ibid., 14416 Ibid., 147

Orford 5

A second popular stance among historians addressing this topic is that the

government should take better charge of creating a national history that is taught nation-

wide. As it is, public school curriculums currently lie in the hands of the provincial

governments. However, it is this exact delegation of responsibility that historians, like

Ravitch and Barton, argue does more harm than good.

Ravitch, having already argued that out-of-field teachers contribute to the pathetic

state of public history education, accurately portrays the variation in curriculum that this

delegation can cause. Comparable to the arguments of Granatstein, Ravitch uses statistics

and government documents again to explore the curriculums of the U.S. Department of

Education. She argues that, when the matter of what history will be taught in schools is

left up to the state governments, the state will take advantage of the opportunity to teach

their heritage and portray their history is a flattering light.

Comparably, Barton also discusses government shortcomings in history

curriculums in his article, “History, Humanistic Education, and Participatory

Democracy,” by examining interviews he has conducted with students of various ages

from across Canada, the U.S., and Britain.17 He claims that there are some teachers – he

uses the example of Northern Ireland – that do not know why it is important to teach

history, they simply do so because it is in the curriculum.18 Barton suggests that the

governments who write the curriculums should, at the very least, include some

information about why they believe it is an important subject. He expands on this idea by

saying that, when it is decided what information is going to be taught, it should be

simultaneously decided how the students will use the information they receive.19 This can

17 Keith C. Barton. “History, Humanistic Education, and Participatory Democracy.”18 Barton, 5219 Barton, 53

Orford 6

also be a criticism of the education of history teachers in that, if the teachers were

properly educated history students themselves, they should already be aware of the

benefits of studying history.

Ravitch shares that she believes that the reason there is so much out-of-field

teaching in history is because of the common misconception that anyone can teach

history. She argues that the states should look further into the education backgrounds of

its teachers before letting anyone teach anything. Especially in history where there is no

lack of teachers, she argues, school board officials, state officials, and even federal

education officials do not seem to care what the studies say and would rather believe that

virtually anyone with a teaching degree can use a textbook and teach history.20

Ravitch and Barton have very similar arguments and also very similar faults.

They both focus a great deal on studies and surveys of their topics. Neither are Canadian,

but their articles are often grouped or referenced with those of Canadians. They both

made very strong arguments; however, they got lost in the depth of their sources.

The final theme common throughout this debate is that of the national history that

is being taught. In regards to this argument, the prominent historians are Morton,

Wineburg and Létourneau. Morton and Wineburg claim that national history should

begin being taught at a very young age by well educated history teachers while

Létourneau is arguing from a more Québec-centric side, arguing much the same while

also criticizing parts of the Québec curriculum in regard to the national history it teaches.

Ultimately, between them, these historians agree that national history is incredibly

important to teach, and teach well.

20 Ibid., 52

Orford 7

In his article, “Canadian History Teaching in Canada: What’s the Big Deal?,”

Morton references both Osborne and Granatstein as he argues that there is a problem with

the severe lack of historical knowledge that students have today, but it does not mean

history is dead.21 History is merely sleeping, awaiting students to seek it out. Morton

describes this as being a result of the educator’s preference to “diminish history to the

smallest possible compass.”22 He says this is true only of educators outside of the

province of Québec as they have allowed “postmodern doubts” to influence the way they

think and feel about the past, while Québec teachers have remained true to the same

provincial history that has been taught for generations.23 An easy objection to the

teaching of history is the fact that there is no one “truth”.24 Why teach our children

something we do not know to be true? The answer to this is in the study he cites which

displays an embarrassing statistic of students who do not fully comprehend their own

history, much less that of any other country.25 Morton sides with Osborne that there are

major problems in how history is taught which boil down to the way history teachers are

taught. Morton’s article draws the arguments of the other historians into the greater

context of why history should be taught at all.

Létourneau, in his article “Remembering Our Past: An Examination of the

Historical Memory of Young Québécois,” becomes one of two to go against the idea of

using surveys and studies, like those utilized by Morton, Barton, and Ravitch, to solidify

arguments. He suggests that polling students in attempts to understand how much they

know of their national history can be swayed by the fact that they could be nervous or

21 Desmond Morton. “Canadian History Teaching in Canada: What’s the Big Deal?” 2622 Ibid., 2723 Ibid.24 Ibid.25 Ibid.

Orford 8

feel pressured: “Personally, I’d be afraid to be tested in a poll. I’m sure I would perform

badly…when, instead of asking them about specific details of the past…you can find that

[the students] know quite a lot of things.”26 He goes on to explain that their answers

would be very coherent, though perhaps not as sophisticated as his would be, but a far cry

from the ‘confused or senseless accounts’ that other historians report.27

Wineburg, like Létourneau, is questioning the validity of the studies historians

rely upon. In his article, “Making Historical Sense,” he directly states that he does not

believe the study Ravitch conducted was in any way a true characterization of the

knowledge of students.28 Wineburg is quick to point out that his research still has flaws as

he is still in the process of working through all of his data, but he also outlines what he

hopes to gain from a new way of thinking: “We are clearly in the earliest stages of trying

to understand our data…[but] by shedding light on how adolescents make sense of the

past, we can learn how to better engage their historical beliefs, stretch them, and call

them into question when necessary.”29 He conducts his interviews much like Létourneau

does as believes that the right answers comes not from asking the right questions, but

from asking the questions the right way.30

Within his article, Wineburg explores the notion that “children are by no means

“blank slates” when it comes to ideas and beliefs about the past.31 He argues that it is

popular media, parents, holidays, and even very early reading and schooling that will

26 Létourneau. “Remembering Our Past: An Examination of the Historical Memory of Young Québécois.” 7027 Ibid.28 Sam Wineburg. “Making Historical Sense.” 30629 Ibid., 32230 Wineburg, 32131 Ibid., 310

Orford 9

shape how a child is going to think and feel about their country’s history.32 The idea is

that children are exposed to the political and historical beliefs of their parents, of the

television stations, of their teachers, of their peers, of publishers, and so on before they

are even given the opportunity to learn the facts. As Wineburg describes it, it is “an

unending barrage of historical images.”33

Létourneau is speaking directly in the sense of Québec history because that is

where he has studied, but also because historians tend to find a lot of deviation in their

findings from Québec as compared to the rest of the nation. This article focuses largely

on what the young people of Québec do and do not know about their history. When he

recreated the polls in this way, he found the results were exactly as he had expected; the

students knew much more than it had originally seemed.34

The article goes on to explore his belief that the problems that arise in the national

history that is taught in Québec come down to the curriculum and the textbooks.

Létourneau explains that the curriculum for the compulsory Grade 11 ‘Québec and

Canada’ course is over-simplified and only reflects a history program that was created

over twenty years ago.35 He is quick to acknowledge that he is not the first scholar who

has put forth the idea that the curriculum and textbooks are outdated and unpretentious.

He rationalizes that the reason that the students have such a nationalistic view of Québec

is due to the fact that their textbooks, and by extension their teachers, hold that view: “It

is an exaggeration to say that the point of view expressed in those textbooks is narrowly

nationalistic. The francophones are not represented merely as the passive victims of the

32 Wineburg, 31033 Ibid.34 Létourneau. 7335 Ibid., 76

Orford 10

Anglophones. Nor are they considered perennial losers.”36 The textbooks do hold

patriotic value to both Québec and Canada; however, this is not an occurrence in other

provinces. Québec is the only province that asks its students to be loyal to its history, as

well as that of the country.37

In addition to referencing Lowenthal, Granatstein and Osborne, Morton makes

use of a fair number of sources including textbooks, articles and the results of studies

conducted throughout the nation. They help to solidify his argument by supporting his

claims with statistics and examples. Létourneau, Wineburg, and Morton published their

works after the others and could have easily drawn influence from all of them and used

current perspectives to expand and further explore their arguments. Morton’s point is

clear from the beginning: students may not have a clue when it comes to national

historical facts, but it is the teachers who do not have a clue when it comes to separating

history from heritage and making history useful.

Ultimately, it is Morton and Wineburg that help to bring the whole debate into the

larger historical context. Morton claims that, as public education was a 19th century

innovation, if teachers are properly trained in the subject of history, it would be able to

create loyal, dutiful citizens that would be willing to enlist in armies to fight the latest

national war, and entice mothers to cheer their sons on.38 It was a creation for the benefit

of the nation. He, like Lowenthal, argues that there has been too much emphasis placed

on making history fun to learn when, as he believes, the historical facts, if taught well,

should be able to speak for itself and entice students into pursuing historical studies.

36 Létourneau, 7637 Ibid.38 Morton. 26

Orford 11

These prominent historians who engage in this debate of history teaching in

public schools encompass the four main themes: problems with curricula, the education

of teachers, what role the government should have in history curricula, and whether or

not a national history should be established to be taught nation wide. They all agree that

the problems in curricula can be fixed only after addressing the latter three themes.

Wineburg, while arguing that children are often unknowingly exposed to historical

images from a very young age, appears to agree with Morton and Lowenthal. The three

believe that the perception children have of historical knowledge is highly

impressionable.

Again Morton agrees with Lowenthal, a historian well-known for arguing the

difference between history and heritage, as he states that “through the study of history,

students could learn…the fundamentals of causation, sequence, and relationships that

distinguish ‘history’ in its full intellectual rigor from that magpie’s nest of diamonds and

baubles called ‘heritage’.”39 Teachers and curriculums can find themselves too wrapped

up in teaching heritage to their students that the historical facts can slip through the

cracks quite easily. This acts as validation for why teachers must have a background in

history in order to teach history. The government should be insisting that history teacher

hold at least a minor in history so that they will fully understand the social and historical

context of what they are teaching. If not, the students are left again to media images and

the telling of heritage rather than history. Teachers are needed who can interpret and use

popular culture and images to shape the students ‘historical consciousness’ and be able to

use them to develop the students’ historical appreciation of their country’s past.

39 Morton, 26

Orford 12

Bibliography

Barton, Keith C. “History, Humanistic Education, and Participatory Democracy,” To The Past: History Education, Public Memory, & Citizenship in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press Ltd, 2006). Edited by Ruth Sandwell. 50-69

Granatstein, J.L. Who Killed Canadian History?, (Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, 2007).

Létourneau, Jocelyn. “Remembering Our Past: An Examination of the Historical Memory of Young Québécois,” To The Past: History Education, Public Memory, & Citizenship in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press Ltd, 2006). Edited by Ruth Sandwell. 70-87

Lowenthal, David. “Dilemmas and Delights of Learning History,” Knowing, Teaching & Learning History: National and International Perspectives (New York, NY: New York University Press Ltd, 2000). Edited by Peter N. Stearns, Peter Seixas, and Sam Wineburg. 63-82

Morton, Desmond. “Canadian History Teaching in Canada: What’s the Big Deal?” To The Past: History Education, Public Memory, & Citizenship in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press Ltd, 2006). Edited by Ruth Sandwell. 23-31

Osborne, Ken. “Teaching history in schools: A Canadian debate.” Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35:5, (2003): 585-626.

Ravitch, Diane. “The Educational Backgrounds of History Teachers,” Knowing, Teaching & Learning History: National and International Perspectives (New York, NY: New York University Press Ltd, 2000). Edited by Peter N. Stearns, Peter Seixas, and Sam Wineburg. 143-155

Seixas, Peter. “A Discipline Adrift in an "Integrated" Curriculum: History in British Columbia Schools.” Canadian Journal of Education, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter, 1994): 99-107

Wineburg, Sam. “Making Historical Sense,” Knowing, Teaching & Learning History: National and International Perspectives (New York, NY: New York University Press Ltd, 2000). Edited by Peter N. Stearns, Peter Seixas, and Sam Wineburg. 306-326

Orford 13