What do students know and understand about the Holocaust?

Recommendations

Info

Considerations and recommendations 213 programme’ and recommended that it should work with Teaching Schools and other parties ‘to create an in-depth programme to promote highquality Holocaust education among their networks and alliances’. In addition, the February 2015 report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism (APPG 2015: 115) recommended ‘that the government increases its grant for the evidence-based teacher training conducted by the Centre for Holocaust Education … with a view to expanding its work and the number of teachers it is able to train’. One of the clear findings of this study is that those who work in the field of Holocaust education will have to think very carefully about the issues raised by this research and respond in appropriate ways when developing their CPD programmes. As outlined above, the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education has already begun to address some of the most salient and urgent issues. Key recommendations: II. Teachers’ professional development 1. Organisations working in the field of Holocaust education should seriously consider the findings of this study and critically evaluate their existing CPD offer. Subsequently, professional development programmes should be designed to help teachers address the limitations in students’ knowledge and understanding identified by this research. A range of new and innovative CPD courses to improve practice are required. Of particular importance are the five areas identified above: improving students’ knowledge and understanding; challenging representations of the Holocaust; progression in students’ learning; engagement with survivors; and dealing with complex issues. 2. Professional development courses for teachers should be regulated by national standards to ensure they are of the highest quality. Greater priority should be given to releasing teachers who wish to attend high-quality CPD courses in Holocaust education from their daily commitments and this should be supported at the highest levels of government. 3. CPD which is university led, research informed and empirically tested has the potential to provide the most positive, quality-assured, long-term impact on improving teaching and learning about the Holocaust. It is important that the government continues to invest in such programmes. III. Curriculum, policy, accountability The study of the Holocaust has been a mandated feature of the National Curriculum for history in secondary schools in England since its inception in 1991. As a result there is little doubt that, at a basic level, advances have been made in ensuring that most students in England know something about the Holocaust. This awareness has also been strengthened by the establishment of: ■■ a national permanent Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum ■■ the institution of a national Holocaust Memorial Day ■■ the recently convened Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission and the subsequent UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation ■■ the proliferation of organisations focused on Holocaust education ■■ regular visits to schools by Holocaust survivors ■■ numerous other educational and artistic initiatives around the country. And yet, despite these laudable efforts to ensure that secondary school students learn about the Holocaust, this research reveals some serious limitations in students’ substantive knowledge and conceptual understandings. The purpose of this section is to examine the educational landscape more broadly in order to understand some of the reasons why limitations in students’ knowledge and understanding potentially exist and to offer a series of recommendations to address identified problems and improve teaching and learning about the Holocaust. The Holocaust and the National Curriculum In examining the tensions that exist in the field an obvious and important starting place is the National Curriculum. Compulsory study of the Holocaust has been a consistent feature of National Curriculum history since it first came into force in 1991. Indeed, the current mandate for students in Key Stage 3 (Years 7 to 9; 11 to 14 year olds) gives the Holocaust a pre-eminent position in the history curriculum as it appears as the only historical subject in the twentieth century that students must study. Further emphasising the important status of the Holocaust in the curriculum, it is notable by way of contrast that the First and Second World Wars, the Great Depression and the rise of the dictators are all optional topics of study. Given this prominent position in the history curriculum, it would be logical to think that most students experience a robust education in the history of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, four important factors serve as www.ioe.ac.uk/holocaust
214 Considerations and recommendations obstacles to this prospect: 1. lack of guidance 2. lack of an assessment framework 3. lack of curriculum time for learning about the Holocaust in history 4. increase in schools that do not follow the National Curriculum. 1. Lack of guidance Although learning about the Holocaust is mandated in the curriculum, no official guidance exists on what should be taught, how it should be taught or how much time teachers should spend teaching about the subject. Practice consequently varies considerably, as was demonstrated in the Centre’s 2009 study of teachers (Pettigrew et al. 2009). For example, some schools teach the Holocaust in just one hour of curriculum time per year, while others devote considerably more classroom time to the subject (the average in Year 9 is six hours per year). Furthermore, the way in which the Holocaust is taught depends crucially on the expertise of the teacher. As the Centre’s 2009 study demonstrated, most teachers appear not to have appropriate professional development and many found teaching about the Holocaust a difficult proposition. 2. Lack of an assessment framework Study of the Holocaust is not underpinned by any national assessment framework and, as a result, no accepted mechanism exists for evaluating what students know about the Holocaust or the effect that any curriculum model might have on their knowledge and understanding. Furthermore, teachers’ reticence towards assessing students’ learning about the Holocaust, reported by the Centre’s 2009 research, was chiefly the result of their lacking expertise in what form appropriate assessment should take. Once again, how the curriculum is enacted and assessed in schools varies considerably, and robust systems to ensure high-quality teaching and learning about the Holocaust do not exist. 3. Lack of curriculum time for learning about the Holocaust in history The persistent squeeze on curriculum time available for history also has an impact on how the Holocaust is taught in schools. Although history features in most school curricula, calls for improved standards in core subjects – mainly maths, English, science – over the past three decades has led to a typical decrease in the time allocated to history (Canadine et al. 2011). In addition, many schools now adopt a two-year Key Stage 3 curriculum (as opposed to the traditional three-year curriculum), so that students can begin working towards their GCSEs a year earlier. This has effectively reduced curriculum time for history, as those not intending to take a history GCSE drop out of history lessons in Year 9 (the recommended year for learning about the Holocaust). Some comfort may be derived from the fact that the Holocaust is often taught in subjects beyond history and so exposure to the subject is occasionally strengthened in other parts of the curriculum. For example, the 2009 report indicated that the Holocaust was often taught in English and religious education lessons. However, the Holocaust is not mandated in any subjects other than history, and curriculum time is far from guaranteed. Once again, practice varies considerably and, without careful curriculum planning, it is possible that tensions and contradictions will exist between how the Holocaust is taught in history and in other curriculum areas. For example, study of The Boy in Striped Pyjamas in English lessons may be at odds with what is taught in the history classroom. 4. Increase in schools that do not follow the National Curriculum Arguably the most serious potential challenge to the study of the Holocaust is the increasing number of schools that do not have to teach the subject. Following a series of educational reforms, including the Academies Act of 2010, secondary schools that become academies no longer have to follow the National Curriculum for history and, by extension, no longer have to teach about the Holocaust. The number of secondary schools across England that have converted to academy status has grown exponentially in recent years – while whereas 203 academies existed in May 2010, by June 2015 the figure had risen to 4,676 – and now a clear majority of secondary schools are academies. It is too early to assess the impact of this on school curriculum practices in general and on teaching and learning about the Holocaust in particular. Many academies continue to implement the National Curriculum fully, but it is only logical to assume that some will elect not to include the Holocaust in their curriculum, knowing that they are no longer mandated to teach it. Indeed, evidence already exists to suggest that this has happened in some secondary schools. As a result of these four educational trends it is legitimate to argue that the place of the Holocaust in the secondary school curriculum for 11 to 14 year olds is far from secure. Indeed, despite successive governments’ apparent support for Holocaust education, it is legitimate to argue that this area of study is under increasing threat.
Page 1 and 2:
CENTRE FOR HOLOCAUST EDUCATION What
Page 3 and 4:
What do students know and understan
Page 5 and 6:
iv About the UCL Centre for Holocau
Page 7 and 8:
vi Foreword by Sir Peter Bazalgette
Page 9 and 10:
viii Foreword by Professor Yehuda B
Page 11 and 12:
x
Page 13 and 14:
2 Executive summary ■■ Many stu
Page 15 and 16:
4
Page 17 and 18:
Olivia Hemingway, 2014
Page 19 and 20:
8 Introduction ■■ What forms of
Page 21 and 22:
10 Introduction the fate of the Jew
Page 23 and 24:
12 Introduction two reasons here in
Page 25 and 26:
14 Introduction Figure 1.1 Variatio
Page 27 and 28:
16 Introduction Holocaust are never
Page 29 and 30:
18 Introduction ■■ the inclusio
Page 31 and 32:
20 Introduction ■■ The chapter
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
24 Methodology Of particular note w
Page 37 and 38:
26 Methodology were asked questions
Page 39 and 40:
28 Methodology Vocabulary test We e
Page 41 and 42:
30 Methodology Table 2.2 Breakdown
Page 43 and 44:
32 Methodology Focus group details
Page 45 and 46:
34 Methodology How were the focus-g
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
38 Collective conceptions of the Ho
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
72 Encountering representations of
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
102 Preface often socially construc
Page 115 and 116:
Emile Holba, 2014
Page 117 and 118:
106 Who were the victims? students
Page 119 and 120:
108 Who were the victims? Figure 5.
Page 121 and 122:
110 Who were the victims? statement
Page 123 and 124:
112 Who were the victims? first ins
Page 125 and 126:
114 Who were the victims? shipped o
Page 127 and 128:
116 Who were the victims? With the
Page 129 and 130:
118 Who were the victims? the war,
Page 131 and 132:
120 Who were the victims? (Longeric
Page 133 and 134:
122 Who were the victims? many of J
Page 135 and 136:
124 Who were the victims? First Wor
Page 137 and 138:
126 Who were the victims? asking
Page 139 and 140:
128 Who were the victims? unending
Page 141 and 142:
130 Who were the victims? different
Page 143 and 144:
132 Who were the victims? the Nazi
Page 145 and 146:
134 Who were the victims? and Read
Page 147 and 148:
136 Who were the victims? many stud
Page 149 and 150:
Emile Holba, 2014
Page 151 and 152:
140 Who were the perpetrators and w
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174: 162 Who were the perpetrators and w
Page 181 and 182: Emile Holba, 2014
Page 183 and 184: 172 When and where did the Holocaus
Page 213 and 214: Olivia Hemingway, 2014
Page 215 and 216: 204 Considerations and recommendati
Page 223: 212 Considerations and recommendati
Page 236 and 237: Appendix 1: The Survey 225 Appendix
Page 238 and 239: Appendix 1: The Survey 227 How do y
Page 240 and 241: Appendix 1: The Survey 229 Word qui
Page 242 and 243: Appendix 1: The Survey 231 Explorin
Page 244 and 245: Appendix 1: The Survey 233 Do you r
Page 246 and 247: Appendix 1: The Survey 235 42. Who
Page 248 and 249: Appendix 1: The Survey 237 The Nazi
Page 250 and 251: Appendix 1: The Survey 239 64. What
Page 252 and 253: Appendix 1: The Survey 241 71. If y
Page 254 and 255: Appendix 1: The Survey 243 Returnin
Page 256 and 257: Appendix 1: The Survey 245 87. Have
Page 258 and 259: Appendix 2: Attitudinal scales used
Page 260 and 261: Appendix 3: Coding frameworks for f
Page 262 and 263: Appendix 3: Coding frameworks for f
Page 264 and 265: Appendix 4: Schools that participat
Page 266 and 267: Appendix 5: Schools that participat
Page 268 and 269: Appendix 6: Multiple regression ana
Page 270 and 271: References 259 Assmann, A. (2010)
Page 272 and 273: References 261 Carr, E.H. (1964) Wh
Page 274 and 275:
References 263 Emler, N. and Ohana,
Page 276 and 277:
References 265 Howitt, D. and Crame
Page 278 and 279:
References 267 Levstik, L.S. (2000)
Page 280 and 281:
References 269 Resnick, L.B. (1989)
Page 282 and 283:
References 271 Snyder, T. (2009)
Page 284 and 285:
References 273 Yeager, E., Anderson
Page 286:
Centre for Holocaust Education UCL
show all

What do students know and understand about the Holocaust?

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?