The American West has been a core GCSE topic in the UK for decades. But often the way it is taught perpetuates damaging narratives which erase Indigenous voices - much like this US example. Here are some of the things I wish I'd thought more about 16 years ago. A thread... /1
Let's begin with preconceptions. This image comes from an amazing book by Philip Deloria: Indians in Unexpected Places. He shows how such an image reveals many preconceptions which shape how we think about Indigneous presence in North America. /2
My own preconceptions of Native people began young and were shaped by TV westerns. I've spent a whole career unpicking them. Many teachers and students have their own preconceptions as you can see from the survey. It is often an image stuck in the C19th. /3
When asked to comment on Indignous presence today, most tchrs/students left the question blank. Where responses were given there was a focus on cultural destruction, reservations and poverty. The preconception is often that "real" Native people have gone or are disappearing /4
Again, most suggested the Native US population was under 1 mil (49% < 100K) rather than the 9.7 million across 573 tribes of the census. It is unsurprising that, when asked to name the events below, most young people could only name the two on the left. /5
I am v aware that the narratives I was told as a 14yo (pic), and some of the narratives I've taught previously as a teacher have contributed to the 4 key issues outlined below. But where did my own misconceptions and myopias come from to then pass on? /6
I doubt UK teachers want to perpetuate problematic representations of Indigenous pasts or contribute to erasure in the present. But regardless of intent it is too easy to do. I realised I would need to explore how my own preconceptions (and maybe yours) were shaped. /7
Problematic narratives are perpetuated in many ways: through popular culture; works of history, and of course, school textbooks. Textbooks especially play a powerful role in shaping teacher and student knowledge and creating or challenging misconceptions. /8
Traditional histories (think John Wayne film) promoted "heroic settler" narratives in which Native peoples were either ignored or appeared as a barrier to white expansion to be "overcome". See Billington for eg. and play "spot the issue" . /9
Although the "heroic pioneer" narrative seldom appears in UK books, its derivatives do. Eg. referring to colonists as "settlers"; or assuming US colonisation was inevitable, rather than the result of political and personal choices (see example 2). /10
Another derivative is exploring the stories of white colonists without acknowledging their role in displacing Indignous peoples. Abigail Scott is a fascinating person but her father entered into a genocidal war against the Yakama shortly after arriving in Oregon - unsaid here /11
Another theme in many textbooks is to begin by looking at the now questioned "land bridge" migration theory which creates (knowingly or not) a false equivalnece between Indigenous peoples and European colonists as both moving into the region /12
Later, revisionist histories, like Brown's "Bury My Heart..." replaced the heroic narrative with one of a genoicdal US state. However these histories removed Indigenous peoples' agency and perpetuated the view that Native people ceased to exist after 1890. See @DavidTreuer /13
Brown I think has had the biggest impact on UK textbooks. Here you can see how textbooks, resources (and exam boards) recognise genocidal policies but continue an erasure narrative of Native peoples ceasing to exist post 1890. Play "spot the issue" /14
It is also notable that the source materials for exploring Lakota or Dakota lives in many of these books rely on Euro-American authors or artists such as Catlin, Dodge, or Parkman. There is an erasure of Indigenous voices discussing Indigenous experiences. /15
For Lakota/Dakota, the writings of people such as Charles Eastman, Luther Standing Bear or Zitkala Sa are all available via Project Gutenberg and very accessible. There are contemporary voices too via @WoLakotaProject for eg. wolakotaproject.org/oseu-six/ . /16
Brown's portrayal of Indigenous peoples also fed into a growth of more positive but still sterotypical views of Natives as stoic warriors, or spiritual "wise men". Essentialised portayals have therefore filtered into film (Dances with Wolves) and textbooks. /17
All of these issues create misconceptions of about Indigenous peoples as victims without agency, locked eternally in the 19th century past. This in turn effectively erases the Native present and means people fail to see Treuer's vital point here. /18
Of course, New Western History (1980s on) recognised this and sought to correct the record by viewing the West as a place not a frontier. The aim was to take the focus away from just areas of conflict and to focus on accommodation as well. To give agency. /19
My own thinking as a teacher was most shaped by this school of thinking. But the drive to explore the complexity of the West had a knock on impact. In looking at Native agency the danger quickly becomes suggesting Indigenous peoples had agency at all points when they did not. /20
As @Jeff__Ostler points out, NWH has trodden important ground but it also leaves gaps which can downplay genocidal colonialism or fail to acknowledge the impact of colonialism on the present. I have been challenged to unpick my own preconceptions again /21
Reading histories by Native authors, or which centre Native narratives puts a different light on the stories we might tell. @nickwestes for instance argues settler colonialism is the driving narrative in exploring the Native past and present. /22
Ironically, given my love of Marc Bloch, I realised that my own failure to reframe the narrative stemmed from my lack of knowledge of the present. Even a quick read through @IndianCountry articles shows the contining impact of- and resistance to- colonialism /23
So where am I on the journey now? Still learning. As Deloria says - we are all subject to preconceptions but they don't have to rule over us. As @lindstorian puts it - we need to channel our frsutrations into learning. For more on that journey see andallthat.co.uk/america-1789-1… /24
Reading another eg of conservative voices in ed suggesting that seeking to diversify history ed, and ensure it better reflects scholarship, is a pursuit of niche interests, at the expense of improving edu for all.
First @rpondiscio classifies the pursuit of “teaching history honestly” - an approach to history which suggests e we need to acknowledge racist and imperial roots in schools - as a “luxury belief”. Something of concern to the woke, young staffers but not the pupils they serve /2
He then goes on to claim that on 15% of 8th graders in the US “are proficient in history”, implying that time would be better spent “teach[ing] history.” The pursuit of a critical approach to a diverse past is suggested as a barrier to learning - a social injustice /3
So today I read an @Ofstednews report on an ITE partnership which has been judged inadequate. The more I think about it the more annoyed I get. Frustrated at the approach of inspectors. Angry the shortcomings of the CCF/ECF and #ITTMarketReview. Let me explain… 1
I am not disputing the judgment - for which I don’t have the evidence, but the phrasing raises some serious concerns about the thought processes of (often non-ITE specialist) inspectors and their interps of the CCF/ECF. I would have the same concerns had the outcome been good. 2
Let’s take this eg. The implication here is that once trainees have been “taught” something, they should then be expected to apply it in school. This is a very impoverished understanding of trainees and the ways in which they learn - a liner learn->do model 3
A few things to take issue with @StuartLock (and choosing to ignore the use of "histrionics") 1) On what metric is ITT quality too low, or curriculum poor? What would be an acceptable measure of quality + what % of the sector should be meeting this? Recent inspections are v pos
2) Heresy normally involves challenging an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy in the DfE has been that ITT is poor ever since Michael Gove took on the role of Secretary of State. This is also the orthodoxy of a vocal portion of Twitter.
3) Let's unpick the issues with the suggestions beyond the evidnece base:
a) ITT should indeed have evidence-led curricula but following the CCF (a static document) takes us away from that. You cannot follow an explicit plan AND be led by unfolding evidnece.
Some thoughts on ITT/ITE: a thread on changing my mind based on evidence.
When I first completed my teacher training, I felt I felt woefully unprepared for the first school I worked in. I was leading a department of one with little guidance and the behaviour was awful /1
For many years I held my training responsible. In some ways it was. I had little subject specific input and was asked to do like very little subject specific reading. This was highlighted in my 3rd year when I joined a highly trained dept. /2
There was also definitely an emphasis on learning styles and other edu fads so common in the mid 00s. Sometimes these were critically evaluated, other times not. /3
Right. Back to the ITT Market Review. What delights does Part 2 hold?
First on reorganisation it is interesting that HEIs are presumably lumped under this category of "other" desspite HEIs accounting for 75% of all training and being the most effeciently organsied already /1
Let's talk efficiency for a moment. 70 accredited (!!) HEIs already train an average of 443 trainees each. The average SCITT trains just 59. It feels like there may be an obvious instrastructure advantage to one model here... /2
This seems like a major push to TS hubs being central to ITT delivery and monitoring the design and delivery of curriculum. This is a strange choice if we are to believe that research evidence is menat to drive practice. Will schools be defacto unis? /3
A few years back I surveyed 253 people on experiences of ITE. Here's what I found: 1) Quality of training was seen to generally be good or better and improved after a dip in the 2000s 2) Secondary teachers (213) were even more positive about their training (not in all routes)
These findings seem to challegne much of the discourse in the recent ITT Market Review Report, and a good deal of the discussion I have seen flying about today. But there is more...
3) Subejct input is identified as key in the ITT Report. Quality of subject specific input seems to decline over time 4) Yet to unpack, subejct specifc was still strong in HEIs followed by SD-uni partnerships 5) Still true when controlling for recent trainees