Pre-service teachers usually had to know something about the History of Education - both in their countries and globally - as a part of their induction into teaching up to about the 1980s.
From around this time a competences and standards regime became increasingly prominent and units/courses/even one-off lectures related to the History of Education disappeared within initial teacher education - certainly in the jurisdictions that I have worked in (England and Australia).
I will be interested to hear if History of Education continues in some countries globally.
Reactions to the death of 'History of Education' are likely to vary on a continuum between: 'good riddance - this was fairly useless knowledge which didn't help people to become better teachers' and 'a shame that teachers understand so little about the evolution of education over the past two hundred years'.
Personal stance: I have come to co-exist reasonably productively as a teacher educator with Standards regimes in both England and Australia - they can provide useful focus upon essential features and competences required of teachers......but I also feel that Standards can be instrumental and can underplay knowledge and (especially) values that underpin practice.
I have also undertaken some History of Education research on citizenship education and early Twentieth century inspection regimes, so should declare an interest that I see the 'History of Education' of having some value and importance as a field of study (but I remember being bored rigid in lectures on the topic during my own experience of initial teacher education) !
History of Education didn't deserve to die. Because through history we can develop from what our ancestors have. It's significant to continue teach history of Education to younger ones.
I know we do it for Workforce Education and Development, which prepares teachers to teach students in their content area. Without such an historical review, you can avoid making the mistakes of the past and also assess the improvements made in the field.
Many thanks,
Debra Here's the link to my PhD thesis with such historical overview: Article Workforce Education and Development Curriculum Responsivenes...
- I don't see any reason why such a relevant course should be discarded altogether though I know the competing demands of space for new courses everywhere we go. As they say, "the only clue to what man can do is what man has done." You should find to get the course back in some ways.
Thanks for those who have responded thus far. This strand has obviously piqued people's interests from the number of responses in less than 24 hours.
For the record I attach two papers representing my forays into the field of 'History of Education'. I do feel - respectively - that an exploration of the challenges facing citizenship education in the 1920s and 1930s throws light on the barriers to the area in the present; and similarly I do feel that exploring the issue of school accountability and the quality of teaching and learning in the early twentieth century via the role and practices of school inspectors throws light upon whether there is a place for external school inspection and quality assurance in the early twenty first century.
As an outsider, I think it is useful to know the heritage (and bias) of our current models. I wonder if a whole course is worth the trouble.
History of Education continues – for the moment. However, there is now a trend that everything must be directly applicable. Teacher training becomes more and more application-oriented and economised. There is no room for more comprehensive education. I hope we can stop the process of change because I am convinced that it helps teachers to know the history of education to understand why we recommend this way of teaching, whilst others are not recommended.
Tanja - You have put your finger on the problem. It is not only the arrival of Competences/Standards regimes that has contributed to diminishing areas that are seen as lying outside the essential and instrumental, but also accreditation hurdles. Having been a Course Co-ordinator for a 32 unit B.Ed. (Primary) degree in Australia 28 out of 32 units were pretty much prescribed in terms of Standards coverage and national and registration board requirements. This does not leave much space for distinctiveness, creativity, anything seen as beyond the Standards/Competences.
Not only History of Education, but Sociology of Education, Educational Psychology, Moral/Character Education and 'values'-related material - such as social justice and sustainability can all be represented as lying outside the 'core' of an initial teacher education programme because they are not named up in the Standards/Competences.
No-one would argue that areas such as classroom management, planning, disciplinary pedagogical content knowledge, and assessment are not central elements to becoming an effective teacher. Nor that the relationship between university-based education and teaching practice should not be strong and integrated.
The debate lies around whether the 'practicum turn' has led to too much important (fundamental?) education content being dropped.
I absolutely agree with you, Peter. In particular with regard to the constantly accelerating pace of industrial and societal change, it makes sense to give teachers a sound basic education to take with them for their career, to empower them to be able to act independently on this basis. Thus, they can generate themselves a set of tools and are no longer dependent on well-trodden paths.
Nicely put Tanja. The quality of your argument reminds me that my institution is comparatively rare in hanging on to a unit on Philosophy of Education/Critical Thinking within its undergraduate education programme - another area too often seen as icing on the cake rather than 'the cake'.
Thanks Peter and Tanja, this is a topic that is discussed on a regular basis in the corridors of our School of Education, particularly when our education degrees are undergoing the accreditation process. Although anecdotal in nature, the discussions centre around concerning issues with the present education system in Australia and the need for major reform to truly develop in students the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes required in the global 21st century context (both for the employment marketplace and to engage more broadly as citizens). The argument then flows that if we only prepare our pre-service teachers in a vocational education manner of competencies required in the current system who is going to have the broader picture or 'out-of-the-box' thinking to actually challenge the system and institute reform? It is the history/philosophy/sociology of education type subjects that provide the forum for this type of critical thinking.
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, Karena. You are absolutely right to place the focus of attention upon the importance of beginning (and indeed in-service) teachers being critical thinkers rather than passive 'implementers' of the latest iteration of a curriculum that comes along. A personal semantic dislike of mine is of teachers as 'deliverers' of a curriculum - when their role is actually to use the curriculum as a platform to enable sense-making, criticality, and creativity with their students.
I wonder, though, if I should disrupt the emerging consensus. History of Education; Sociology of Education; Philosophy of Education may be dying a death - or at least under severe pressure - for reasons other than the emergence of Standards/Competences frameworks as neo-liberal drivers of change.
Were these areas well taught? Could pre-service teachers see their relevance? Were they popular? Is the customer always king (or queen)?
History of Education (and other areas of intellectual substance that have gone missing) may also be seen as being victims of a purge of content in these post-modern times. To what extent is there space for all pre-service teachers to develop the sensibilities of a sociologist, a philosopher, an historian?
Hello Everyone. Re-visiting this space after a two month break, I am still surprised that no-one has made the case supporting why History of Education has disappeared as a module from teacher education programmes. As far as I am aware it no longer exists anywhere in Australian undergraduate teacher education programmes - even if there is a capable history of education academic within the Faculty......
This strand has had 84 reads so I again thank those of you who have contributed. It is good to see interest in this area/theme.
Some dead people live longer. History has often been buried, by new developments that dump the discipline of "history" into the garbage of the affluent society; dictatorships that find historical truths uncomfortable use to abolish all history which isn't pleasant written in the sense of their ideology. History is able to stand up again and again - it does not have to make any effort at all to do so. As long as there are human beings with the ability to self-realize, there is history. Or also, as the philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey said: "What man is, history tells him (only)".
Having been involved with teacher education /pre-service teachers for sometime, I would say that it is still included in many of the courses that I have knowledge of. Rather than being a discrete module it tends to be embedded into wider professional modules. I think that the reason it seems to have less curriculum space than in previous years (at least in the UK) is that other things have now been added to the curriculum of training /education for aspirant teachers - technology enhanced learning, online safety, radicalisation, fundamental British values (which is compulsory) etc... etc... so the inclusion of these have sought to reduce the capacity within the programme of studies for the history of education /teacher education.
It is some time since I re-visited this strand, but it has had 145 reads so has obviously provoked some interest and struck a chord.
For me, some understanding of both Ancient understandings of educational purposes and practices and modern social history are an essential part of teachers' mental toolkits.
[So why is it worth me knowing something about notions of 'the common good'[Aristotle] ?
[Why is 'Socratic' questioning still spruiked as being a good thing?]
[Why was universal education introduced in he first place?]
[How is 'Twenty-First Century learning different from early Twentieth Century learning?]
History's disciplinary focus upon change over time, perspectives, significance and causes and consequences are organizing frames for all teachers to reflect upon the merits of the latest educational initiative....
Indeed, the teacher can be given the basics that enable him to do his work, and then he must develop himself continuously.
It is interesting to learn that History of Education is no longer a requisite course in teacher education programmes in the named countries! What a loss!
In my country, Kenya, and I know in most other countries on the continent of Africa, especially those with a history of using English language in their schools, History of Education is still prominent. On my part, I feel that in those systems where standards have pushed out History of Education from teacher preparation, the focus must now be purely of producing sort of technicians! Surely, that historical knowledge about the teaching profession ought not to be relegated to where it is now in countries where standards are prioritised! Just wondering, are there any studies that show teachers in such places now do their work better without history of education knowledge?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology