Prof. Carol Capita teaches Prehistory and introductory courses in Anthropology.  He is also associate member of the Institute for Educational Sciences.

Perspectives from Afar and from Near –

The significance of the topic today

History teaching has always been a central point in all debates concerning education. The enculturation process (viewed as the transfer of a set of values, attitudes, skills and knowledge that help the integration of the young in the dominant culture) makes it difficult to avoid the stress that is always put on the teaching of History. And this situation comes, if we consider the old Historia magistra vitae adagio, from the Antiquity. But then again, we now know that ancient historians never took it seriously with historical truth as we understand it today.

The relation history-truth is at least a dubious one. To say the least, it has to be readjusted on a daily basis, hence the mixed cultural result called “historical truth”. The major cause for this ambivalent relation that is established between the analysis of passed societies and events and what we label as “historical truth” comes from three elements that are rarely taken into account. First, there is the limits established by the available data – we can rather securely assume that only a fraction of the life of passed societies come down to us. Second, each generation has its own pattern of interpretation – of one’s own culture, the culture of others, and the passed cultures. Third, and maybe this is more important, I still am not confident that historical analysis can get away, when dealing with its ”research object”, from the values that are typical for a given moment. To give an example, it is difficult to view Victorian historians (or historians of the French Second Empire, for that matter) giving the populations from the colonies the credit for a real culture.¹ German historians and anthropologists did, but only after they lost their colonies. Another classic example is Ernst Kossina – a true master of archaelogical research, he believed he can trace the ethnicity through the material objects uncovered in the diggings; he unwillingly gave Nazi Germany a powerful instrument in stating the “Drang nach Osten”, thus contributing to the horrors of World War II.

Summing up, when dealing with History Teaching, we have to deal primarily with limits established by the sources, by ourselves, and by the society. To put it in other terms, History teaching deals with facts, skills, and values.

This somewhat lengthy introduction is, in my opinion, necessary. From what I see, historians tend to consider themselves as objectives, ignoring the limits of objectivity as such. True, it is obviously necessary to strive for objectivity; but it is also necessary to aknowledge the fact that a true objectivity, as far as the complete reconstruction of past is concerned, always eludes us. History in the classroom has to take these elements into consideration in order to make full use of its educational weight.

Is there a European approach?

Let us assume, at least for a while, that the considerations made above are at least a working hypothesis, and let us go further in our (hypothetical, to be sure) analysis. Our next point is to see if there is an European (i.e., a compromise between “national” perspectives) approach to History teaching, and what are the reasons for it.

Events that have marked our continent in the last decade or so have demonstrated the fact that the way in which History is taught in schools (and in higher education, I might add) is crucial for the behaviour of citizens. Few are the conflicts in the history of our continent that were not started on the basis or in the name of “historical truth”. Either it was the “historical mission” of one nation to fight for the political goals it established for itself, or it was the “historical injustness” that triggered the similar reaction. What we basically have then, is the political reaction based on the assumption that there is a link (self-evident and self-explaining) between present action and events that took place in the past. Needless to say, the argument goes on with the assumption that the present events, as well as those from the past, are morally correct and, therefore, unquestionable. The result is the existence of conflicting “historical traditions”, everybody having its own “truth”.

As a result of various stocktaking projects, the Council of Europe has established several elements that should provide a blueprint for the educational reforms in SEE. Briefly stated, these elements are: a greater link between History teaching and the education for a democratic citizenship, the promotion of multiperspectivity, of diversity of approaches, of multiculturality, the development of critical thinking skills, a grewater flexibility in the classroom activities, an increase in source materials to be used in classrooms. There is also another perspective to it: while the above mentioned elements constitute a blueprint for policy makers, the logical outcome has to be related to the classroom experience. In this respect, an European approach would favor teaching strategies related to the use of sources, the tackling of controversial issues, the focus on topics that are relevant in terms of learning rather than teaching, the development of transfer skills rather than subject related skills.

The problem that arises is that such a perspective asks for changes in educational policies as promoted by the texts that are of relevance for educational policies – the curricula and the textbooks. It also imply a dramatic shift from narrow perspectives (the national level, the intradisciplinarity, and so forth) to broader approaches.

To sum up, the European perspective includes (at least as a primary approach to the issue) the following elements:

• aspects related to educational policies (aims and objectives of educational systems, values and skills promoted, approaches to the curricular areas, new subjects);
• aspects related to documents of educational policies (objectives of each subject, approaches to each subjects, types and outlines of documents);
• aspects related to the classroom experience (teaching techniques, teaching sources etc.).

National, Regional, European, and World Histories

The relation between the various perspectives still remains a matter of debate. Usually, it is regarded as a certain balance between elements of contents. That is to say that, while nobody denies the importance of broader perspectives on past events, the relation that is established between the educatinal objectives to be taught, the related elements of contents, the amount of time at the disposal, and the evaluation schemes seem to reduce the amount of time alloted not to specific topics, but to the relation that establishes itself between, say, events on the European level and their influence on regional or national level. Even a quick glance at the curricula within the region shows to dominant models. The situation that seems to be widespread in the SEE is favoring a two-ways approach: one one hand, we have the countries that have two subject matters within their National Curriculum (better, programmes of study); on the other, the countries that have one subject matter (sometimes doubled by optional courses). The first model takes two school subjects into consideration, the national and the European/World histories (e.g., the Albanian and Romanian curricula), sometimes taught at the same time (the case of Moldova). To be completely honest, the curricula recommend the introduction of elements of European/World History within the curriculum for national History, and vice-versa. A poor solution, in my opinion, since there still are histories. The use of plural is not innocent, since the existence of two subjects implies a certain distance between the developments at the “national” levels and the broader (geographically and chronologically) levels, a fact that we, as historians, know to be at least debatable. The second model, integrating the continental and national perspectives, is more up-to-date, and – again – seems to be promoting a deeper understanding of History. However, if we consider the topics considered by the curricula, the situation is not that different. The curriculum is predominantly oriented on past events from the development of a particular (and politically determined) region, or – as seems to be the case in Turkey – cultural area (the Arab, Ottoman, and Muslim regions).

The separation is dangerous, since it promotes a sequential knowledge of History, a focus on facts; equally, it fosters historical “grand narratives” and narrow identity – that is, not with ideals, but with past events. What lacks such an approach is, then, the aspect of debate, that comes with multiperspectivity. It also transforms sources in arguments of authority, not in data that has to be questioned (compared, analysed, and so forth).

To be truthfully, it helps policy makers to have a more palatable public discourse.

Minorities in the National History teaching in SEE – the Romanian case

The issue of “national” history in the school curriculum is, in my opinion, the result of the perception of History as identity building instrument. True, History will probably never get away from this perception, since it is one of its role. Herodotus wrote that he wants to put in writing the battles between the Greek cities and the Persians in order to prevent the fading of the memory of those events. Thukydides, the true creator of the discipline, wrote that he wants to explain the events that are now known as the Pelloponesian war. But the result was more one of creating identities than a true narrative of the events – Greeks versus the Persians, Athenians versus the Spartans. Since then the story is all the time rather similar. Historians tend to take sides, even if the theoretical developments in the field have increased the search for objectivity. While this might be acceptable in academic writing – each of us has its own beliefs on certain topics held dear – the situation changes dramatically when dealing with the teaching of History in schools. First, teachers as adults have a certain authority – students tend to take their opinions as truths. Second, History in the classroom tends to be non-negotiable – quite often it is a matter of general knowledge, but that is taken as “generally accepted truth”. While academics can endulge in writing books and teach whole courses on one tiny topic, textbooks have at the most several pages for broader issues, and teachers have at the most a couple of hours to shed some light on these issues. Hence, the risk of loosing one of the most important assets of History – the debate. The case of the History of minorities in the National Curriculum is an example at hand.

When debating the problem of the way in which the history of minorities is present in the field of History teaching, one can find that several approaches are possible. First, he can choose to focus on the elements of content; that is, the informations provided, the phrasing used, if the terminology is or is not appropriate and or biased, if the contribution of minorities in shaping the history of one particular country is aknowledged, if personalities related to the minorities are present, and so forth. Second, the researcher can focus on elements related to more dynamic aspects, such as multiperspectivity, the history of mental reconstructions (l’image de l’autre is only one of the possible approaches), the history of ideas, the history of elites, and many others. Third, one might be tempted to look at specific didactic aspects; the relation between author text and sources (written or visual), the relevance of exercises for the history of minorities, the different didactic approaches related to the history of the minorities versus the history of the majority, the relation between content and methodology of History teaching and, say, Civics. Finaly, one might be tempted to take into account the more political aspects related to the teaching of the history, say, to what degree official commitment towards respecting minority rights includes respect of cultural heritage, educational rights. This perspective is even more important in SEE, since quite often political expedience meets public feeling but not demands voiced by the minorities themselves.

All these perspectives have to be taken into account. Au fin de compte, in most of the SEE countries, texbooks and other educational materials are approved and paid by the educational central authorities, which have to find a working compromise between the political agenda, weak financing, public feelings (shaped by tradition, level of culture, media maturity, and so forth) and the international developments in this field. To put it briefly, the teaching of the history of minorities remains not only a matter of didactics, but also a problem challenging at the same time the minorities and the majority. Without entering a philosophical debate, it is enough to say that the degree to which a majority feels comfortable with itself is in strong relation to which the rights of minorities are cared for.

The elements I would like to present you are those related to the situation in Romania. It is the situation I know better, and I am sure each of us knows the situation at home far better than I could ever hope to fathom.

1. The legislation related to the teaching of the history of minorities

The legislation related to the teaching of the history of minorities is set up in several pieces of legislation. Starting from the 1991 Constitution – that states the basic rights of ethnic, religious, and racial minorities² – several other documents create the legal framework for this segment of education. The most important is the Law of Education (84/1995), that was modified by the law 151/1999. The law stipulates several elements related either directly (in chapter XII of the law) or indirectly to the education of students coming from the minority groups. From the beginning it must be said that the overall picture is mixed. Some of the provisions might be considered to be in accordance with European standards, but they are “balanced” (that is, neutralised to some extent) by articles from the law that are more traditional. However, the fact that this subject matter is part of the core curriculum is a step forward. The basic elements related to the teaching system for the minority students are the following:

• the teaching of all grades can be pursued in the language of national minorities; in any community, if needed, classes with teaching in mother tongue can be organised (if conditions do not allow it, these classes will be organised in the nearest villege, town or city where this is feasible) – articles 8 (1,2) and 119;
• some of the educational documents can be written in the mother tongue (not the official documents, but official transcripts can be provided by the school and or university) – article 8(4,5) ;
• the organisation and content of the education cannot be organised on exclusivistic and discriminatory criteria (schooling units that are organised in accordance to the wishes of parents or legal tutors of students and for linguistic and or religious reasons are not considerated to be discriminatory) – article 12(2);
• the right of members of the national minorities to have access to schooling in mother tongue at all levels of education (and all types, according to the demand) – article 118;
• History and Geography are taught in the mother tongue in the Primary School, but not in Secondary and High School; the Romanian language for these classes and units has a special curriculum for the Primary Schools – article 120(1,2);
• the history and traditions of the minorities have to be present in the curricula and textbooks for World History and History of Romanians – article 120(3);
• the History and Traditions of the Minorities will be taught in mother tongue and can be introduced in the study plan for the Secondary School by request – article 120(4);
• in the schools that have students from the minorities groups, the subject matters mother tongue and History and Traditions of the Minorities will be introduced in accordance to the law³– article 121;
• in the universities, teaching groups, departments, and faculties having as language the mother tongue can be organised by request – article 123(1);
• the specific terminology for History of Romanians and for the Geography of Romania (at Primary level), as well as the technical terminology for vocational education (where classes for minorities in mother tongue are organised) has to be learned also in Romanian – articles 120(2), 122(1);
• private learning institutions for higher education can be organised by the minorities, with the complying to the provisions of the law; however, the state encourages the creation of multicultural institutions for higher education⁴, and promotes such activities that are focused on multiculturality and “harmonious interethnic cohabitation” – articles 123(2,3);
• all forms of education, either in Romanian or the languages of the minorities, are open for all citizens, disregarding the mother tongue and the language in which previous education was pursued⁵– article 123(4);
• admission exams and any other examinations can be delivered in the language in which the subject has been taught – article 124;
• in schools in which there are classes for the minorities, the teachers that are part of that minority will be represented (in the same ratio with the ethnical outlook of the student population) in the administrative functions – article 126.

Obviously, these elements of legislation can be considered to be, at least to some degree, beneficial to the education of students coming from minorities. However, several elements might prove to be controversial. For one thing, the History and Geography of Romania should be taught in the Romanian language; at the same time, the same subject matters will be taught, in Primary School, in the mother tongue. Second, the aims of education seem to be twofold: in two articles, the law states that the aims of the education is “the attainment of the educational ideal, based on the humanistic traditions, the values of democracy, and the aspirations of the Romanian society […]” (article 3) and “the development of the human personality” (article 4); but it also ensures ”the promoting of the love towards the country, towards its historical past, and the traditions of the Romanian people” (article 4/2). A statement that would put members of the minorities in an awkward position, since this definition actually ignores the concept of the civic nation, and reduces the possibility to promote diversity. Not to mention the fact that patriotism has nothing to do with the conservation of one’s own cultural traditions. A brief mention to the impact of these words of wisdom on the textbooks – authors were put in the position of one of Hervé’s characters: Tintin teaching to African students from Congo Belge about “nos ancêtres, les Gaulois”.⁶

2. The curricula for the History of Romanians

The curricula for the History of Romanians⁷ was adopted in several stages. For the compulsory education, the curricula for grades IV to VIII were adopted in 1996, while those for the High School were developed in 1999. These documents suffered several amendments, due mainly to the changes that occurred in the study plan.⁸ The reduction in the number of hours per week alloted to the teaching of History was the main cause for the reduction of compulsory themes at all levels of schooling. Another reason was the transformation that occurred in the outline of the subject matters. In 1998/1999 a new perspective was introduced, aimed at increasing the interdisciplinarity of the different subject matters. In accordance to that, all the subjects were regrouped in seven “curricular areas”;⁹ as a result, History had to share the amount of time with Geography, sometimes with rather dubious results. To give only an example, at Grade IV (last of the Primary School) History has 0,5 hours per week per school year. Another cause for change was, unfortunately, the political pressure (motivated, in turn, by public feeling and lack of historical and civic education). The more thematical approach was abandoned to some degree in favor of a more chronological and encyclopaedical approach.¹⁰ That is, in the curriculum for Romanian History new compulsory topics were introduced (mainly related to personalities and events related to the “grand national narrative”).

At a first glance, the curriculum for the History of Romanians does not offer many opportunities for the introduction of contents related to the history of minorities. Topics that specifically relate to that segment of knowledge are rather few. On th whole, 30 such themes are present in both the curricula for World History and for Romanian History (13 for the latter). But when we take into consideration the topics that implicitly relate to the history of the minorities, the number increases to 49 (20 for Romanian History).

Summarising, the situation is as follows:

Of course, if we take into consideration the qualitative aspects (i.e., the content and the importance of each topic), it is evident that introducing topics related to the history of the minorities might prove controversial, especially from the viewpoint of an classical approach on History teaching. Such is the case of the 1848 revolution, or the creation of Greater Romania. By no means it should be understood that we are advocating the eleimination of such topics; by the contrary, if we consider the skills (especially the transfer skills) and abilities that History can give to the students, such content is a necessary part of the curricula for the students that come from the majority. The problem is that the amount of editorial space available is not generous, and that textbook authors are put in front of Hobbes’ choice (see below).

3. The curricula for the History and Traditions of the Minorities¹¹

The other side of the same coin is represented by the curricula for the minorities.¹² Developed by representatives of the minorities, these curricula are aimed at preserving the cultural heritage and national identity of the minorities. This aim of the subject matter seems to have been approached quite differentiated by the various minorities that have developed such curricula.¹³ In most of the cases, the approach seems to be quite prominently linked to the development of that minority within the territory of to-day Romania. However, several elements seem to be relevant to the fact that the curricula for the History and Traditions of the Minorities seem to be elquent also for the way these minorities want to be perceived by the majority, for what the minorities seem to consider as being characteristic for themselves.

First of all, the approaches seem to be differentiatied in terms of compulsory topics present in the curricula. The number of optional topics is quite low, and the authors of the curricula for HTM have a more stern approach – teachers and students are supposed to learn about all the elements present in the curricula. Also, the number of topics is quite different. The German curriculum is very flexible (it has only 19 topics for two years) and oriented towards the cultural aspects, whereas the Hungarian is very detailed (surpassing the general curriculum) and, in our opinion, definitely oriented towards a political approach to History . This tells us something about the relation between the political presence of the minority and what is considered to be the “identity” of its members.

Second, there is a certain vision of “national” scope. Many HTM curricula include elements related to the history prior to their arrival in the to-day territory.¹⁴ While it is important for the students of one or another of the minorities to know about the origins of their own people, in some cases the debate is more related to historical traditions than to proven facts (e.g., the curriculum for the Rroma minority). Also, in our opinion, the increase in political data and elements related to the political aspects diminishes the amount of time for the more in-depth analyses of social, economic, and cultural history.¹⁵ It is not the scope of my presentation to enter a debate over the differences between the concepts of “ethnic nation” and “civic nation”; it suffice to say that without a focus on the relations between the minorities and the majorities, the latter will hardly be promoted.

Third, the fact that still the historical discourse is separated. When looking at the elements of contents that are presented in both the curricula for National History and the curricula for HTM, we can observe the fact that there are few topics that might be used as such for a multicultural approach. For one thing, the degree of detail when proposing contents is important. While the Romanian and Hungarian curricula are presenting a very detailed list of contents to be taught, the German curriculum is very liberal. One one hand, the curriculum is focusing on the political level, on the other, credit is given to the elements of the cultural and daily life; again, one approach favors the analysis of larger areas (such as those related to the contemporary borders), while the other stresses the local perspective. It goes without saying that the increase in contents details limits the flexibility of the teaching activity.

Then, the tentative conclusion that can be drawn is that even the introduction of a school subject called HTM does not solve the problem. What is called for is the integration of the various aspects of History in a single educational discourse.

Ways to overcome

But what are the ways to overcome such a situation? Of course, there always is the way of political action. This road – which seems to have been taken by many of the countries in the region – is dangerous. Experiences throughout the region show that top-down (or text-driven reforms) are not that welcome, either by the general public or by the teachers. Grass-roots reforms, while taking a lot of time and resources, have a greater degree of acceptance, spread the sentiment among the professionals that they are part of the process, and have a lasting effect (both in therms of product and process). Several ways come to mind. One way could be rather academic – increasing additional teaching materials, improving teacher training; another – more “earthbound” – is to improve teaching in the classroom by means of identifying resources that, while debatable, meager or out-of-date, can improve the didactics of History teaching. Basically, it is my opinion that a new didactic perspective on sources in the classroom is needed.

Notes:

1           Without entering a more detailed discussion, that would ask for a debate in itself, let us assume that culture is the set of objects, institutions, values, ideas, and beliefs that create solidarity among the members of the society and are aimed at insuring the continuity in time of that human grouping.

²           As a brief footnote, sexual minorities are still a problem. The article 200, that was condemning homosexuality, was eliminated after a heated and prolonged debate in the Parliament, but the Constitution was not modified. The major problem, though, seems to be public sensitivity on the issue.

⁴          This provision created a great debate, because it was linked with the request of the Hungarian minority to have a state university  with the Hungarian as a teaching language; the problem was that to a certain degree, this university was intended to be exclusively devoted to students from the Hungarian minority and without any activity in Romanian, which was not accepted. Finally, a private University was organised, the “Sapientia” University.

5          See previous note.

9        These areas are: Language and Communication, Man and Society, Maths and Sciences, Technologies, Sports, Arts, Counselling and Guidance

10     The media scandal was started in relation to a XII^th Grade textbook (i.e., for Romanian History), by several media key figures. Politicians reacted very fast, and the Ministry of National Education, while defending the general outline of the reform, had to comply to several demands made by the Parliament.

11     The major part of our debate focuses on the German and Hungarian minorities. However, the educational policies make reference to all the minorities, so that elements related to other minorities will be taken into consideration.

12     It was considered that this is the proper way to develop these documents. The National Comission for History only gave didactic expertise, and tried to negotiate some of the elements of content, but the final word was given to the task groups elected by each minority. In some cases, representatives of these minorities that contributed to the curricula were also working in the Ministry of National Education.

13    The minorities that have developed the curricula for HTM are the Hungarians, the Germans, the Rroma, the Slovaks, the Croats, the Serbs, the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Russians of ancient rite, the Turks and Tatars. The Bulgarian and Jewish minorities are in process of developing their curricula.

14    The Hungarian and Roma curricula are a clear indication. The latter has a topic related to social structures in ancient India – academics still debate if the origin of the Roma is in fact India.

15    With the notable exception of the curriculum for the German minority.

Prof. Carol Capita

University of Bucharest

Home

News

Main issues

Projects

Youth

Press Release

Contact