Whose Curriculum Is It Anyway?

Education has always been a political football, the curriculum made to bend to the whim of whatever the prevaling political power may be.

This is especially so of a country's history curriculum.

I remember when I was living in Chile a few years ago, the then (right-wing) government attempted to change the country's history books from writing about 'dictator Pinochet' to 'former president Pinochet'.

There was an outcry and the plan was quietly dropped.

Once a dictator always a dictator.

Something similar happened when Michael Gove, as Secretary of State for Education, attempted to enforce a triumphalist history curriculum in 2013.

In the end every school just got a bible with his name in it.

I was reminded of these two attempts to not exactly rewrite history but to refocus it after seeing a report by Amnesty International about what is happening in Russian schools currently.

Describing how schools have turned into 'factories of compliance', the report states:

"Russian schools are being converted from temples of knowledge into factories of compliance. It is the Russian state itself which defines what children must learn about Russia, its neighbours, and the rest of the world."

Leaving aside the parallels between some of the practices and UK's Prevent strategy, I was struck by two other History land grabs currently in the air. 

There's this from Suella Braverman, Reform's education secretary-in-waiting:

"As education secretary I will introduce a new curriculum that will rekindle national pride and ensure that every child leaves school with an understanding of what a privilege it is to be British.” [Source]

And, of course, this from you know who:

"The Secretary of the Interior shall... take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to ensure that all public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties within the Department of the Interior’s jurisdiction do not contain descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living (including persons living in colonial times), and instead focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people or, with respect to natural features, the beauty, abundance, and grandeur of the American landscape." [Source]

Teachers, I fear, are then at the mercy of two prevailing but opposing crosswinds.

Teach criticality in an age of AI.

Teach the history (and literature and music etc... ) of our 'great nation'. No questions asked.

Experienced teachers will surely navigate such a dilemma well and I hope will be supporting their less-experienced peers with the importance of independent thinking (sic) in such matters. 

Churchill (reluctantly dropped from Gove's curriculum) allegedly once said:

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."*

Developing independent, critical thinkers in today's classroom will ensure that future generations will benefit from a wider understanding of human endeavour and potential.

History may be written by the victors, but it is taught by teachers.

That puts that old political football in our hands.

Now what...? [ITL]

*His actual words were, "For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself." [Source]