No History of History

In his article Catalyst or caterpillar? On the state of history in Canada, Ken Osborne is very critical of the quality of history being taught in Canadian high schools. Osborne contends that at the root of the problem are teachers of history that have become disconnected from their discipline. He blames the abandonment of historians from schools and the failure of history teachers to retain knowledge of their professions past, for the current state of the teaching of history in Canada. It is difficult to dispute Osborne’s claims, even though his point of view is one sided his evidence appears to be valid.
Before 1950, tells Osborne, historians “were truly public intellectuals”. They worked along side teachers with a concern for the value of history to society. Beginning in the 1960s, there was shift. Historians began to move into specialties and collectively aimed at establishing their field as an academic and reputable subject of study. Historians lost interest in producing works useful for schools or the general public, but published works more for other historians and academics. Since then the gap between historians and high school history only widened until it became segregated completely. The history teacher was left without a practical resource to do his job properly.
Osborne accuses the education system that trains history teachers as only perpetuating the problem. Teachers of history are trained to be teachers first and secondly in their subject matter. The value of a history teacher is very much dependent on his knowledge of the subject. Part of the trouble is that education programs place a high value on theory, over practice. The focus of education faculties is on the philosophical aspects of teaching and teachers graduate without a firm grasp of the material they will be teaching.
Ironically, student history teachers are not taught the history of their profession. There is not a recoded past explaining how the pedagogy got to where it is and the reasons for its evolution. As a result teaching strategies that are ‘discovered’ today were known to have worked in the 1920’s. The rich and valuable past of teaching history in Canada has not been successfully passed on to new teachers.
Osborne’s article can be criticized for its imbalance. Other than point out that there are some exceptional individuals out there who are teaching history well, Osborne does not acknowledge anything good about the history taught in schools today. He speaks as if the dire situation with history lessons is foregone conclusion.
Osborne does effectively point out what is wrong about the history situation in Canadian high schools and when and how things went astray. He even offers a solution to the problem; developing a national institution that will bring together historians, teacher and supporters of historical education to improve the quality of teaching history in Canadian high schools. Osborne’s hopes that relatively new organization HISTOR!CA is a positive step in the right direct. He says it is also the responsibility of journals like Canadian Social Studies to inform history teachers of their story to rebuild the connection with their craft.

Osborne, Ken. “Catalyst or caterpillar? On the state of history in Canada”. Canadian Social Studies. North York: Winter 2000. Vol. 34, Iss. 2; pg. 14.

troy