Essential Question Reflection Essay

The Construction of Narratives of History in Secondary History and Social Studies Classrooms:

Considering the Roles of Testing and Political Agendas

The narratives of history that are promoted within a community often reflect the dominant values and current concerns of that community. The ways narratives of history are constructed also play a central role in maintaining cultural values and ideologies, as the way the past is framed often sets a context and structure through which young people will view their society and their roles within it. As scholars Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, along with countless others, have tirelessly argued, no narrative is neutral or “objective”. An analysis and consciousness of the ways historical narratives are being constructed, the values they promote, and their potential impact on those consuming them, is a practice I believe is essential for history teachers and educators in general to be engaging in critically and deliberately as we construct narratives and lenses through which our students will view the content we teach in our classes.

The importance of constructing ethical and anti-oppressive narratives of history, often which run counter to the dominant narratives promoted through various channels of US cultural production and which invite students to hone their skills as critical thinkers, are the driving forces in my approach to curriculum development. I travelled to India hoping to learn ways in which narratives of history are constructed in Indian social science classes. I teach about the Indian Independence Movement of the mid 20th century as a model example of a successful widespread people’s movement and anti-imperialist revolution. I hoped to learn how teachers in Indian schools framed this story and the ways that this story may or may not influence Indian students’ conception of the country’s history and, if this is possible to learn in such a short visit, their self-perceptions.

Of course for every classroom, every teacher and every student, there will be differences in how historical narratives will be both constructed and consumed; having said that, there are also trends. The trends I observed the most in both schools in which I observed and taught during our week with our host teacher, and in the several schools that we visited in Bangalore, in the state of Karnataka and in Delhi with our hosts from the Teachers’ Foundation, echo some of the tensions and struggles that most teachers working in public schools in New York City are facing. At the secondary level, students throughout India’s various school systems are tested at the end of every year, and are faced with a very high stakes exam at the end of their 10th year.

Standardized testing has increased dramatically in the last several years in New York City and in the US in conjunction with “teacher accountability” measures pushed forth by education policy makers who usually have no experience let alone understanding of best practices for educating children. These tests have subsequently shaped curriculum, and both the student and teacher experience of school. I still have a very basic understanding of the complexities of the Indian education systems that vary in multiple ways. Some key differences between the state of Karnataka and the state of New York that influence the issue of testing include that teachers in India have their own voting block in order to influence policies that may impact schools, and that while students in private schools in NYC are not required to take these exams, students in the variety of types of schools that comprise the Indian education system are all taking standardized tests, though these differ depending on the type of curriculum in which they are enrolled (of which there are several options).

In spite of these differences, the reason I am discussing testing in an essay about constructing narratives of history in the classroom is because of the severe impact testing seems to be having on curriculum both in New York and in the schools I saw in Karnataka. In New York City, public high school history teachers are faced with preparing students for two different exams, and while teachers are given the format, they are given vague instructions regarding the content that will appear on the tests. Through review of past exams, teachers can identify general themes and perspectives that almost always appear on these exams, and this has tremendous repercussions for curriculum. The student population of New York City public schools is mostly students of color, yet the tests prioritize historical narratives that prioritize the voices and valorize Europeans and people of European descent, therefore shaping most history classrooms to do the same. For students and teachers in the Indian schools where I observed, students were enrolled in either the state board curriculum or the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) curriculum that is overseen by the national government in Delhi. In both cases, students take high stakes exams in 10th Standard (grade) that impact their admission into ‘high school’ (11th and 12th grades). Also in both cases, teachers and students are issued text books, that are a fraction of the size of typical text books in the US, that are issued by either the state board or national board; I was able to borrow both the 10th standard Karnataka state and CBSE books to read and compare, though I did not see examples of the tests students will take at the end of the year. Teachers I met with explained that the topics and questions at the ends of chapters are exactly what students will see on the test at the end of they year. For this reason, most of the teachers I spoke with expressed feeling limited and bound to teach exactly what is in the textbook, in some cases, word for word. One teacher also showed me a weekly calendar issued by the state government that showed which lesson he should be teaching on a given day; after talking to several teachers it was unclear whether or not this calendar was suggestive or mandatory, but the teacher who showed it to me stated that it was mandatory.

This creates a curriculum that is completely defined by the test, and the narratives of history being constructed in the classroom being constructed by these government boards, rather than classroom teachers. In this context, it seems that the test is defining the curriculum even more restrictively than in many of the history classrooms I have seen in NYC, though I know there are schools do exist in NYC and in the US that select a pre-determined curriculum for teachers and expect them to teach it word for word and on a strict schedule, usually linked to some kind of testing. Of course, some schools and teachers veer from this curriculum, including in schools we visited in Bangalore and in Delhi, and prepare students for the test in other ways, or teach parallel curricula so that the test prep course is not the only course students take, but in my limited experience with a handful of teachers this summer, it seemed clear to me that many teachers do not feel they have the freedom or room to build a curriculum based on their own understanding of history, let alone one that invites students to overtly question the curriculum and the historical narratives it presents or to even build in activities that invite students to discuss and build their own understanding of history through comparing multiple narratives.

If we look at the state curriculum offered in most schools, what this means is that the state is literally creating the historical narratives that students will learn in class. I listened and read carefully to try to figure out what perspectives were being set forth, particularly regarding colonialism and resistance, in the Karnataka State 10th standard history book and classes that I observed when working with our host teacher in Bangalore. In one particular classroom, which is certainly not representative of schools in Bangalore, but rather the only experience I had observing and then debriefing with a social science teacher the week I was there, I noticed what seemed to be a tone that at best showed appreciation for British imperialists, and at worst, seemed to propose a hierarchy that placed British imperialists above Indian intellectuals of the 19th century.

Perhaps this speaks more to the fact that the textbooks come directly from government boards, than to any particular teacher’s perspective on history. The different dominating political parties construct different narratives about Indian history in order to support or align with their values and vision for the country. Therefore, curriculum and textbooks will reflect the political party in power’s perspective. Recently, India’s central government has seen a shift away from the Congress Party (INC) with the election of Prime Minister Modi of the Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). One educator explained that teachers are expecting new textbooks as a result of the elections this year. Of course, this also means that the state curricula and national curricula may differ depending on which party controls each government.

To answer my question about the narratives constructed around the figure of Gandhi in particular, I mostly saw what I expected, in Gandhi being honored and valued as “the founder of the nation”. Some people I spoke to thought that Gandhi’s legacy has been fairly represented and in fact, has been openly questioned in a healthy way that acknowledges his humanity, while, coincidentally, on July 19th, towards the beginning of our stay in Bangalore, Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Asad made headlines with his censoring response of author Arundhati Roy’s critique that Gandhi had “casteist tendencies”.

Perhaps because of visiting schools towards the beginning of the school year, I did not see any teachers teaching about Gandhi’s involvement in the Independence Movement. I did, however, observe two lessons that addressed events that took place earlier during British rule in India. I, perhaps naively, expected to find more clear anti-imperialist messaging than what I saw; which, again, represents my own assumptions more than anything else. This may have been a reflection of the INC’s perspective, and our host teacher’s son explained to me that he thinks this is also grounded in some of the values of Hinduism. He explained that, in his understanding, it is part of Hindu philosophy to show appreciation for all people, and he hypothesized that perhaps teachers are cautious not to turn students against British people, and to see the good in what may seem like a bad situation. I was humbled by this conversation when he went on to say, essentially, that even if teachers present a didactic, singular narrative of history, it does not mean that students are not questioning that narrative.

As a classroom teacher, I tend to approach curriculum development and daily practices with an extreme sensitivity to the narrative that is being promoted in my classes so that it supports students in identifying and challenging systems of oppression, and hopefully feeling empowered and hopeful enough to do so. This is not to say that I do not assume students are not and will not do this on their own, but in my awareness of the school as a site of societal and structural power, I feel it is important that students are given opportunity and space to examine and question structures of social inequity within the school setting. The conversation with our host teacher’s son made more salient and reflected back to me my own bias and expectations that are grounded in my own personal context and experiences when observing in classrooms.

Consciously, I know and knew that cultural differences often mean that one is not even aware of the communication or social cues that one may be missing. I did not spend nearly enough time in India or in any single school to have a sense of how to interpret the ways that certain cultural expectations and social cues may have been impacting what I observed in classrooms. I am also limited by the interactions I had as being singular experiences that cannot be extrapolated to generalizations. However, in thinking about what this experience means for me continuing as an educator, I find myself reflecting on the ways dominant social, political and cultural norms are influencing teaching and learning and schooling. This is something many of my colleagues, friends and I often discuss: the impact of the dominant discourse which devalues public education and de-professionalizes teaching on our daily experience in schools, and the deeply detrimental impact on our students. Spending time in cities where the dominant cultural regard for schooling and education is clearly so different and so much more positive, among other things, amplified the need for deep societal shifts to take place around education in New York City.