What do students know and understand about the Holocaust?

12
Introduction
two reasons here in that, alongside the many and
various representations of the Holocaust, the word
has itself acquired enormous representational
significance. As Tim Cole, following James Young,
has argued, the Holocaust has become a widely
used ‘cultural icon’, an ‘archetype’ and a rhetorical
device: a ‘figure for subsequent pain, suffering and
destruction’ emblematic of man’s inhumanity to
man (Cole 1999: 9).
In characterising and attempting to account for
both forms of representational work, Cole
distinguishes between the Holocaust as historical
reality and what he calls ‘the myth of the Holocaust’.
Citing Liebman and Don-Yehiya (in Cole 1999: 4), he
argues that, ‘by labelling a story a myth, we do not
mean it is false’; rather, ‘a myth is a story that evokes
strong sentiments, and transmits and reinforces
basic societal values’. Bell (2003: 75) agrees that,
‘as such, myth is not synonymous with pernicious
distortion or dissimulation’ nor is it ‘an antonym of
history’. Instead, Bell employs the term in a very
similar manner to Cole, to denote (re)constructions
of the past that use processes of simplification,
selection and/or dramatisation to reflect
contemporary values, sensibilities and concerns
(Bell 2003).
Among the emblematic figures and places
that Cole critically examines in his 1999 study
are: Oscar Schindler, the eponymous hero of
Spielberg’s 1993 feature film; the immortalised
schoolgirl diarist Anne Frank; and the infamous
Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Each, he
demonstrates very clearly, have occupied positions
of central importance within public imaginaries of
the Holocaust. While the research findings reported
in a number of the following chapters confirm the
continued representational significance of Auschwitz-
Birkenau, classroom-based research conducted by
Michael Gray (2014b) suggests that both Schindler
and Anne Frank have been displaced in the popular
consciousness of today’s school students by the
entirely fictional characters ‘Bruno’ and ‘Schmuel’
from the novel and film adaptation of The Boy in
Striped Pyjamas. This contention is examined in
detail in Chapter 4.
Political and pedagogical framings:
The importance of educational aims
Public institutions, and schools in particular,
perform a vital function in communicating
frameworks for understanding the Holocaust.
In 2014, the then Secretary of State for Education,
Michael Gove, unveiled the revised National
Curriculum for England’s schools, the fifth since
its introduction in 1991.
While the Holocaust has always been a
compulsory component of study for students in
Key Stage 3, its symbolic significance in terms of
curricular framing has never been more profound.
In the current curriculum – taught in schools from
September 2014 – the Holocaust stands alone as
the only named compulsory content within a unit of
study entitled ‘Challenges for Britain, Europe and
the wider world 1901 to the present day’. Other
key twentieth-century events – both the First and
Second World Wars, for example – are listed only
as content that could be included (DfE 2014: 97,
emphasis added).
In spite of this prominence, and in keeping with all
four previous curricular framings, the 2014 curriculum
does not provide any further detail or guidance on
what should be taught about the Holocaust. Nor
does it specify what students who have completed
their compulsory taught content might reasonably
be expected to understand. Interestingly, at no point
during the last 25 years has the question of why the
Holocaust appears as compulsory content been
formally explained. Rather, its educational importance
is presented as though entirely self-evident.
This belies the reality that there are multiple
competing perspectives on how, why and indeed
whether this history should be taught in schools
(Russell 2006). It also obscures the fact that,
although they are seldom explicit, there are dominant
discursive framings which powerfully prioritise
specific approaches to teaching the Holocaust.
In 2009, the Centre for Holocaust Education
– then known as the Holocaust Education
Development Programme – produced an empirical
study which documented pedagogical practice
in English secondary schools. This drew on over
2,000 survey responses and focus-group interviews
with 68 teachers at 24 different schools. Among
its key findings, the study reported high levels of
commitment among teachers towards teaching
about the Holocaust and strong agreement that it
was important to do so. For example, 86 per cent of
the history teachers who responded to the relevant
question agreed with the statement, ‘It is right that
teaching about the Holocaust is compulsory in the
history curriculum’, while 93 per cent agreed that ‘It
will always be important to teach about
the Holocaust’.
Many of those who were interviewed in greater
detail also made reference in various ways to a
‘special’ status given to the subject within their own
practice. Some, like the two teachers quoted below,
explained that they also emphasised this status to
their students:
I always say to them [her students], if you never ever
remember anything else that we are teaching you in
this classroom – in this school – I want you to learn