The focus of my doctoral research arose in a conversation with a teacher a few weeks ago; their question was simple but important: “why are you researching history textbooks?”
The teacher’s surprise at my research might have been less likely if we had both been from one of the many nations around the world, such as the United States, China, or India where history textbooks are more transparently “political”. In England, where there has been no tradition of direct state approval of textbooks,[1] there remains what William Marsden has described as a distinct “anti-textbook ethos”.[2] For many teachers the “textbook” lesson remains a synonym for a stifled and unimaginative pedagogy.
To begin to answer the initial question it is important to first understand why the field of textbook studies has received less attention in Britain than elsewhere, and secondly to explore just how the work being done on the PortraitEMB project can help to change this.
The history of studying history textbooks
The period after the Second World War saw numerous studies on history textbooks in Europe if not Britain. Germany was undergoing a process of “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” (coming to terms with the past), which led to intense scrutiny of how the Nazi period was taught in schools. In a simar vein, the Franco-German Textbook Commission, established in 1951, aimed to revise how each country was portrayed in the other’s textbooks, fostering reconciliation through education.
Britain’s national story was also shaped by its experience of the two world wars.[3] The Second World War, however, has always been taught as a ‘just’ war, a perspective reinforced by countless films, television shows and works of literature. There was seemingly no need for the national introspection that led nations like Germany to devote resources to conflict studies in relation to schooling. Whilst there were strong calls in England for an internationalist approach to teaching subjects like history and geography in the 1920s and 1930s, its advocates also lost credibility when first Japan then Germany and finally Italy withdrew from the League of Nations.[4]
The textbook market and author choice
The content of textbooks in Britain is also largely market driven at KS3 and then constrained by the exam boards and Ofqual at GCSE and A Level. Politicians have some influence but less direct control on what goes into textbooks, and the few occasions where they have strayed into this area there has been considerable reaction. One example would be the drafting of the first National Curriculum or, more recently, the discussion around the suggested curriculum reforms of former Education Secretary Michael Gove, which were modified in the face of widespread criticism.[5]
The absence of a single, state-sanctioned textbook for each subject created an opportunity for publishers to decide what books they believed would be most popular with teachers. Education Boards, followed by Local Education Authorities and committees, as well as the National Curriculum, had some influence on the content but little on the way that content was interpreted. This was left to the authors of these books.
For the first half of the twentieth century, textbook authors in Britain were almost all male and employed as lecturers or teachers at elite universities or public schools. One example is A school history of England,[6] written largely by Oxford historian Charles Fletcher with poems and additional text provided by Rudyard Kipling, which became the centre of public debate due to its overt jingoism, anti-Irish sentiment, and misogyny. The Manchester Guardian described it as a “nearly worthless” historical text[7] and “a most pernicious influence” on the minds and morals of children and yet it sold over 130,000 copies and remained in print until 1950.[8]
Historical textbooks as sources
History textbooks are often full of the work of academic historians, either in the form of brief quotes or extended passages. They can also be used as sources in themselves. What I will label as “historical” textbooks (those published before 1970) provide us with a snapshot into public attitudes, as interpreted by textbook authors, on a range of contentious issues such as the British Empire, British national identity, the Commonwealth and race.
When we teach about Britain in 1948 our focus today is drawn towards the construction of a nascent welfare state and the arrival of the Windrush but how was this changing world being conveyed to the school children of the day? A geography textbook published that year offers some valuable insights.
C. Midgley, Golden Mean Geographies (Book Seven: Palm and Pine, 1948), p. 7.
On first reading, it is tempting to draw the conclusion that this author, writing after India and Pakistan had won independence from Britain, is offering the reader a soothing balm to cope with the coming collapse of the British Empire. It is equally possible that the author is not talking about decline at all but rather transformation of Empire. Although the Atlee government was presiding over the retreat from India and Palestine, they had no notion that Empire would disappear in Africa and the Caribbean for another fifty years. It was the transformation to “trusteeship” and then “partnership” with respect to the colonies that was key,[9] and probably what Midgley is talking about here – although he seems to have got the chronology wrong, intentionally or otherwise.
What this passage reveals is how the decline of the British Empire was being framed for students. It is rich with propositions and subtext that make for valuable classroom discussion and historical analysis. By studying such texts, we can explore questions such as:
- How was the transformation of the Empire being presented to British schoolchildren?
- What does this reveal about contemporary attitudes towards Britain’s changing global role?
- How does this narrative compare with what we now know about the political realities of the time?
This approach to textbook studies not only enriches our understanding of historical periods but also provides an excellent opportunity for students to engage with primary source material and develop critical thinking skills. It demonstrates how textbooks themselves can be powerful historical sources, offering windows into the educational priorities and social attitudes at different points in the twentieth century.
Exploring neglected aspects of British history
When contrasted with passages and images from earlier textbooks, many of which remained in print well into the 1960s, we can begin to construct enquiries into neglected aspects of British history. They provide us with source material for important questions such as “What did the Empire mean to people in twentieth-century Britain?”
The earlier passage refers to attitudes “changing rapidly” but a popular history textbook, that was still in print well into the 1950s, demonstrates that attitudes had not changed for everyone and that there was more continuity than change in the content taught in history lessons.
But the Boer did not want the blacks lifted up, and he regarded as dangerous revolutionaries these new preachers who said that a K***** was as good as a white.[10] In justice to the Boer (and to the British colonist also, who thought with him) it must be admitted that there was much to be said for this point of view. These white men were a mere handful in the midst of a great native population, and if they did not make themselves feared they might very likely see their farms burnt and their families massacred. The missionary, who came prepared for a life of self-sacrifice and a sudden death, did not sympathize enough with the ordinary man’s feelings on the matter.
A. Williamson: Builders of the Empire (Clarendon Press, 1952), p.236
This passage, from the popular Builders of empire textbook for secondary school-age children remained in print until 1960. The offensive language and the explicit defence of colonial violence stand at odds with the claim from the earlier geography textbook.
Historical textbooks and contemporary debates
As we near the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire in 2033, one of only a few episodes in British history that have retained a similar status within school curricula since the turn of the twentieth century (along with the Indian Rebellion of 1857), historical textbooks can be powerful sources for understanding change and continuity of ideas, including racial thinking. As my colleague Cassie advocated in her earlier blog post, the utilisation of historical textbooks as tools for historical inquiry and critical engagement with the past can be a valuable one.
Examining historical textbooks offers a unique lens through which to view and engage with contemporary debates on curriculum content and representation. As we grapple with questions of what should be taught in our history classrooms and how diverse experiences should be represented, historical textbooks provide tangible evidence of how these issues have evolved over time. In essence, historical textbooks serve as mirrors, reflecting past educational priorities and societal values, allowing us to critically examine our current practices and aspirations for a more representative and equitable history curriculum. By engaging with these sources, teachers and students alike can participate more meaningfully in ongoing debates about what stories we tell about our past and why.
Reflections:
How do you choose modern textbooks that effectively represent diverse perspectives and align with curriculum or exam specifications?
As you can see historical textbooks may contain controversial content or interpretations of historical events. How do you approach teaching controversial content or interpretations in your classroom?
NOTES
[1] Williams Marsden (2001) quoted in T. Oates, Why textbooks count: a policy paper (2014), p. 8.
https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/181744-why-textbooks-count-tim-oates.pdf
[2] W. E. Marsden, The school textbook: history, geography and social studies, 1st edn (Routledge, 2001). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203041284
[3] D. Reynolds, “Britain, the two world wars, and the problem of narrative”, The Historical Journal, 60(1) (2016): 197–231.
[4] P. Yeandle, Citizenship, nation, empire: the politics of history teaching in England, 1870-1930 (Manchester University Press, 2015), p. 160.
[5] Gove was Education Secretary 2010-2014. K. Burn, “The Gove Legacy in the Curriculum: The Case of History”, in M. Finn, The Gove legacy: education in Britain after the Coalition (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), pp. 47- 62.
[6] C. R. L. Fletcher and R. Kipling, A school history of England (London, 1911).
[7] R. Symonds, Oxford and empire: the last lost cause? (London, 1986), p. 160.
[8] C. H. K. Marten (revised by R. Symonds), “Fletcher, Charles Robert Leslie (1857–1934)”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004). https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/33173
[9] J. Darwin, The empire project: the rise and fall of the British world-system, 1830–1970 (Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 629.
[10] The original text included a racial slur used to describe Black people in southern Africa, it has been expurgated here as it is deeply offensive.
FURTHER READING
Hyam, R. Britain’s declining empire: the road to decolonisation, 1918–1968 (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
White, N. Decolonisation: the British experience since 1945 (Routledge, 2014)