British Teachers Avoiding Subjects (Holocaust, Crusades) That Offend Muslim Students

[Lemur]

Seriously, what is going on over there? First you surround George Orwell's house with surveillance cameras, and now your teachers are too cowardly to offend people by disseminating accurate history. U.K., wha'happen?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

By LAURA CLARK
Last updated at 00:14am on 2nd April 2007

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'.

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting 'anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'.

It added: "In another 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 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques."

A third school found itself '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'.

The report concluded: "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."

But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: "History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable."

The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among teachers - particularly at primary level - was leading to history being taught in a 'shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning'.

Lessons in difficult topics were too often 'bland, simplistic and unproblematic' and bored pupils.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

[Duke of Gloucester]

Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail. It would be interesting to read the actual report but since the journalist does not identify the report's title, authors or who commissioned it, I haven't found it. I have found reference to a report commissioned by the Historical Association (a Professional Association of History Teachers) about controversial issues at primary level. This would not cover coursework. Until we find the actual report the article is based on, we won't know what its actual findings are.

Avoiding controversy does not sound like the sort of thing any of the history teachers I know would do.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Daily Mail. That should tell you all you need to know about the slant, Lemur. If I read the article properly, there were anecdotes from only three schools.

There is certainly a problem with schools (across Europe) trying to be overly politically correct. History as a whole is threatened as a core subject in many places precisely because of the difficulties presented by interpretation. In the UK, because of the very restrictive curriculum, there is little time for debate. Students are coached to pass exams, not to engage in thinking. Thus sensitive subjects can be avoided, but I would imagine this is more to do with avoiding real teaching and getting the school up the league tables rather than Muslim sensitivities.

[English assassin]

Daily mail is teh filth. But the story ran in the Grauniad too.

Report available here http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/prog...page=11&type=0 scroll to the bottom of the page.

I might give it a read at lunchtime, but from a skim it looks as if what happened was that two paragraphs of a useful piece of research that may inform practice in a difficult area has been reported by journos.

A very very quick skim of the report shows neither cause for complaceny or alarm.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Report available here http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/prog...page=11&type=0 scroll to the bottom of the page.

Thank you for the link.

It reads (on quick skim) as an intelligent investigation into teaching emotive and controversial history and how to upskill teachers so they don't avoid or misrepresent views.

[Adrian II]

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

If you put it this way, this is certainly the case in The Netherlands. In some schools with large numbers of pupils from Moroccan and other Arab homes these lessons tend to degenerate into bickering and acrimony. Orhers have found ways to tackle the subject, most don't have the problem at all. It's really more of a symbolic fracas. A bit like the evolution/creation issue in American schools: some schools in certain States become virtual battlegrounds, whereas most States don't have any curriculum infighting whatsoever.