Richard Beaumont

The Holocaust’s importance in the History curriculum: A rationale for

teaching and how to teach

In this essay I will attempt to argue a rationale for the importance of teaching about
the Holocaust and its educational value, and thus its inclusion within the National
Curriculum. Moreover, I will try to evaluate this from differing perspectives, most
notably from Government, academic, teacher and student in order to demonstrate the
differing views surrounding the teaching of the Holocaust within the subject of
History.
Firstly, I would like to start with what Pingel ( 1990) calls the ‘historical
disaster’ that the holocaust represented; albeit mostly in Germany, as I think that this
illustrates the almost problematic nature of teaching and learning about the Holocaust,
which this particular event has presented to Governments, educators, academics and
students alike since the end of the Second World War. By this I mean, that History
and History teaching has often in the past been seen as a conduit for the transmittance
of ideas, identity, and notions of ‘progress’ etc. The Holocaust therefore, can appear
as an anathema to historical ideas of progress, for example, for many years the way
history was taught has been referred to as the ‘grand tradition’ (Phillips, 2002) where
there wasn’t much in the way of a focus on interpretations of history, as more
significance was placed on students learning a particular nation ‘story’, this again
highlights Pingel’s idea of how the Holocaust presents a breakdown in this narrative
of national progress, or perhaps even more so of European progress. Therefore,
because of this breakdown in history, perhaps as argued by G.Short (2004) who cites
historians like Kochan who argued for the Holocaust not to be included in the new
National Curriculum in 1989 as it does not act as a historical lesson, so therefore why
has the Holocaust remained as now the only compulsory part of the National
Curriculum? Again this begs the question of what Governments, teachers and students
want to learn from and about the Holocaust.
Furthermore, in a reaction to the changes brought in with the new National
Curriculum, a History Working Group was created to act as a buffer against political
meddling in School History ( 2000) by espousing that children should analyse
differing interpretations of controversial topics. Moreover, I believe that this is still a
fundamental part of School History, as students should be encouraged to investigate
how interpretations of certain historical events have come about. This view was
supported by the Historical Association’s ‘T.E.A.C.H’ initiative (2000), which
encouraged pupils to see that History is very much an ‘open’ subject, as espoused by
Lee and Dickinson, (1978) and not a closed sequence of events, thus having the least
academic weight in terms of the discipline of history, as more often than not it is
based on national myths or a ‘social memory’ as pointed out by Cubbitt ( 2007), who
himself discusses the relationship and confusion between history and memory,
whether that be collective or individual; though important to students in giving them a
sense of where they fit into their nation’s ‘story’; or as Brina (2003) suggests as a way
to uphold the values of democracy. This sentiment is perhaps magnified through the
lens of the Holocaust, where there is a clash between those who want to use the event
as a conduit for ‘historical lessons’ and those who (e,g Bauer, 2001) believe that the
Holocaust should be taught because of its historical significance.
 This notion is outlined by Warren ( 1998) when he suggests that historical
narrative allows us to locate ourselves in a shared local and national identity. This in
turn; has been espoused by successive governments when it comes to educational
policy; for example the focus on British History by successive Conservative
governments (Husbands, A.Kitson and A.Pendry, 2003) or the introduction of a
diversity element under the Labour government with the new national curriculum in
2000 ( Ofsted, 2004). This highlights that the notion of national memory persists and
can be used as a political tool, and will continue to influence students outside the
classroom. In terms of the Holocaust, successive governments have tried to use it as a
way to promote diversity and inclusion, so not really in a historical sense, but also I
feel as a way for governments to teach the Second World War in a more positive way
for British participation as Britain can be portrayed within a ‘liberator’ narrative, thus
using history to support British notions of liberty and rule of law, and the Holocaust
within the context of Nazi Germany can be easily portrayed as an example of what
happens when democracy and the rule of law breakdown. So even though the ‘grand
tradition’ of history education (Phillips, 20002) may have changed within the
classroom, it still pervades in the wider society, as history links into ideas of national
identity. However, this also chimes with Bauer’s (2001) argument against the
‘uniqueness’ of the Holocaust and of how that it can in fact be counter-productive for
well-intentioned aims, whether they are governmental, institutional or personal. So as
I’ll explore later in this essay, could the Holocaust’s inclusion in the National
Curriculum be actually counter-productive?
However, as pointed out by Sexias (Bain, 2000), there is this notion of ‘best
history’, whereby only certain aspects of a national story make it into school
textbooks; as mentioned before, often within textbooks it is the camps and liberation
part of the Holocaust that often has prominence, which again helps to reinforce
national notions of ‘right’, which may well feed into Freidlander’s (1997) ideas of the
redemptive attributes of the Holocaust for the nations that were affected by it. My
point is to highlight the dichotomy the History teacher faces when teaching within the
parameters of collective memory, as put forward by Cubbitt ( 2007) in the sense that
there is a desire for people to link history together with social memory to create
positive national stories. This arguably being the case, means that as a teacher I want
students to understand the complexities of events like the Holocaust, and a
Collectivist approach to history can engage pupils, but has a tendency to over-
simplify the interpretation of events, and can reinforce stereotypes by excluding
certain groups of people from the national ‘story’, or in the sense of the Holocaust the
Allies, as having the agency as liberators within the history of the Holocaust to the
detriment of Jewish people who were directly affected by the events of the Holocaust.
Now, where I agree with Post-Modernists like Jenkins as pointed out by
Gunn ( 2006) is post-modernism signalling the end of ‘grand narratives’ and a shift in
who has the agency in driving historical narratives. However, I take this to mean, that
there will be a move from ‘closed’ stories or myths towards a multi-discursive
history, whereby other people’s stories are told (e.g women, children, non-European).
Further to this, there should be an encouragement of students to examine how these
stories came about and what they can tell us about the society in which they were
created. Admittedly, over the last few decades (through organisations like the
International Task Force) there has been more of a shift in following a more diverse
approach towards the teaching of the Holocaust. Also, Jenkins (1991) proffers the
idea that there are “no centres, but local patterns of dominance”, which I agree with in
the sense that history is relative to where it is being created or studied, though as I’ll
develop later; this poses issues for the teaching of Holocaust insofar as reflecting the
diversities within this topic (e.g perpetrators, collaborators, bystanders, differing
nationalities)
Moreover, following on from this is Lyotard’s (Breisach, 2003) assertion
that within post-modernism there is “an incredulity toward meta-narratives”, though
in terms of teaching about the Holocaust, has it been perceived as ‘challenging’
exactly because it has become a ‘meta-narrative’ that transcends national boundaries
and generations? Therefore, going back to my earlier point about perspectives on
teaching about the Holocaust, if the Holocaust has become some sort of ‘meta-
narrative’ that has been used for different purposes by different groups of people in
order to transfer particular ideas; what does this mean for the classroom teacher? I
think that this highlights some of the issues that teachers face when teaching about the
Holocaust.
However, perhaps one way of alleviating this issue slightly, as espoused by
Jenkins (1991) is the teaching of historiography instead of history as being more of a
use to students; this was thought by the National Curriculum Council (McAlveay,
2000) as being too dull for students, so shouldn’t be included in the curriculum
explicitly. Though, this could actually enable students, again if the Holocaust is part
of a larger ‘meta-narrative’ to actually see more of it’s constituent parts and perhaps
understand more clearly how the Holocaust has been shaped by various political,
social and cultural lenses. Further to this, as teachers we must be cautious about
history being portrayed as simply fiction dressed up as reasoned explanation (Jenkins,
1991), as surely there would be no way of stopping anachronistic and false claims
being passed off as a narrative of actual events. Here we enter into the realm of
Holocaust denial, for example; Dr David Irving’s denial of the extent of the holocaust,
(Evans, 2002) which is a descent if not a dangerous collapse into history being simply
‘made up’. Perhaps this could be an argument for the merits of including some
historiography teaching of the Holocaust in order to prevent such arguments as
Irving’s from gaining ground.
As mentioned by Bruchfeld (2013) the use of the term Holocaust has its
own historical development, so therefore I think that by teaching students some aspect
of the historiography of the Holocaust, we as teachers would be better preparing
students for the rigors of analysing the various political, social and cultural
perspectives of the Holocaust; and later on in this essay I will put forward how best I
think we as teachers can do this.
Further to this , theorists such as Adorno (1966) suggest that the point of
education has been changed by the consequences of Auschwitz, and that there is a
need for revising how educators teach in light of the consequences of the Holocaust,
and that it has the same relativism to all people at any point in time. Again as I‘ve
mentioned earlier with Pingel, (1990) there has been a tendency to use the Holocaust
as a conduit for moral and social ideas in the hope of not repeating these same events.
However, I subscribe more to Kinloch’s (2001) view of the need to see the Holocaust
in its historical setting and to study its causation and significance, and as Bauer (2001)
suggests this will lead on to matters surrounding moral and ethical questions, though
this shouldn’t be an end in itself. I agree that if the Holocaust is taught with too much
emphasis on a moral purpose, it may well detract from further analysis and evaluation
as to how it came about; and as what Kinloch (2001) calls ‘quasi-mysticism’ around
the Holocaust, this notion of it as a modern moral fable, may well prevent students
from critically engaging with the Holocaust. However, I will look at later on in this
essay at how to facilitate students’ critical engagement with this topic.
 Moreover, as a history teacher, there are some narratives of events that do take
on a moral dimension, such as the Holocaust., as espoused by McLaughlin (1999).
This is where, perhaps, history teaching takes on a moral dimension, as pointed out by
Warren (Warren, 1998) as historians are “not just interested in events, but in states of
mind, value-systems and motives”. So while I agree with Kinloch (2001) in couching
Holocaust teaching firmly within historical concepts such as causation; are they really
divorced wholly from moral or ethical context within which they were produced?
Therefore, with these seemingly inherent historical and moral dimensions to
the Holocaust, its inclusion within the curriculum I would argue, would be primarily
in terms of its historical significance within Twentieth Century history and secondly,
the incumbent moral and ethical issues that are attached to this event. However, I
would focus on their use in showing how these events were justified and perpetrated
at the time, rather than the Holocaust’s ability to act as a modern day fable in order to
prevent discrimination or further future genocide.
So, as previously discussed, the Holocaust and its teaching has had many
diverse groups seeking to draw meaning from its events, whether that be historical,
political, social or moral. However, as mentioned before, what does this mean for the
classroom teacher, trying to convey these disparate ideas to young students. Here, I
will consider how best to teach the Holocaust and what educational value it may
present to those studying it.
Kinloch (2001) and Salmons (2010) may have differing ideas as to the
nature and purpose of Holocaust education, in terms of its moral dimension, but
where they do concur is in the need to use historical enquiry to give students a
‘window’ into this very complex event. I agree with this approach to teaching about
the Holocaust and I will discuss its particular merits.
As highlighted in the Institute of Education’s own report into Holocaust
teaching (2009) many teachers raised as a concern of how to go about teaching this
topic, but this was coupled with a strong belief in the importance of students studying
the Holocaust. This I feel presents a particular challenge to teachers as because many
of us feel passionately that students must learn about the Holocaust , that we want
them to ‘know’ about it, an almost ‘shut up and listen’ approach can sometimes come
about. One possible approach to delving into the complexities of the Holocaust, is to
as Riley argues (TH 97, 1999) , the allowance students have to build up layers of
questioning, or as she calls ‘inferences’ around a valid historical question. As this will
hopefully prevent as Counsell ( 2003) points out ‘random fact grabbing’; but this
leads also to the problem of the possible time constraints that the teaching of the
Holocaust has within the curriculum, with many schools only having a few lessons in
which to broach the complex issues and events that surround the Holocaust.
So, as teachers I think that it is imperative to allow students to use
structured historical enquiries in order to aid them in constructing their own
understanding. This I feel can be used within the classroom, as Hadyn ( 2003) points
out a ‘big’ enquiry question which should take place through analysing the purpose of
that evidence, as suggested by Elton ( 1967). This in turn, is encouraging students to
begin a process of dialogue with the evidence in the enquiry (Wineburg, 2001) and
using their questioning of the sources to build up a more complex picture of a past
event. So in my enquiry that I’ve tried in my own History lessons I wanted students to
move beyond simply ‘reading’ sources towards engaging with them in an enquiry
process, and not seeing historical evidence (Bage, 2000) as a ‘means to an end in
itself, but a means to pursuing an enquiry or answering a question’; and more
importantly I wanted students to generate their own questions after having analysed a
set of enquiry sources.
However, even though a historical enquiry process may well allow
students to derive a deeper understanding of the Holocaust; as a teacher the use of
evidence is fraught with various considerations and challenges, as outlined by Ashby (
2005), we as teachers hope or presume that students can reach reasoned and rigorous
conclusions, though she points out students’ tendency to validate evidence that fits
into their own preconceived ideas, without really questioning the evidence at hand. In
terms of Holocaust teaching this needs careful consideration when using perpetrator
evidence, whether the provenance of evidence is known or not. This, as pointed out
by I Phillips (TH141, 2010) presents perhaps one of the salient paradoxes when
teaching the Holocaust through historical enquiry. This is due to the fact that as
teachers we may well evince an enquiry process in order to enable students to shape
their own understanding, but if using perpetrator evidence, we may be unintentionally
reinforcing the very same stereotypes we seek to challenge, as the students are
exploring the past through a Nazi ‘lens’. This therefore highlights the need for a
diverse range of evidence both primary and secondary; however, this can be
problematic for teachers to actually find. Many teachers use textbooks as their main
means of supplying the necessary historical evidence within the classroom. However,
as pointed out by Foster (2011) many textbooks inadvertently reinforce Nazi
stereotypes of Jewish people, for instance, by not giving any agency to Jewish people
within the narrative of the Holocaust in a portrayal as victims. Within my own
teaching, I have tried to address this issue by including information on the historical
nature of anti-semitism and primary evidence such as Primo Levi (1947) in order to
provide students with a more complex and diverse range of evidence.
Moreover, returning to what Wineburg ( 2001) calls the reading of ‘subtext’
and the assertion that students often view historical evidence as simply a bearer of
information and do not question why a source has been produced. So, if as teachers
we are encouraged to engage students in historical enquiry, I feel that it is imperative
that we teach our students to consider why a source has been produced, therefore
enabling the students to progress in their historical understanding and hopefully gain
an insight into how History can be selected and constructed by the people that write it.
This is especially important when using ‘perpetrator’ evidence, such as Nazi
propaganda posters, as there is a real risk of unintentionally reinforcing Nazi ideas of
Jewish people. This also leads onto my earlier point of the need to give students more
a historical framework of anti-Semitism, so that they have more of a reference point
from which to deconstruct ‘perpetrator’ evidence. Moving on from this point, I think
that, and again using my own teaching as a reference point; students would very much
benefit from having more of a working knowledge of Jewish religion, culture and
identity, so therefore having a wider framework of definition when they come to
study aspects of the Holocaust. As I am concerned with the fact that, which again was
highlighted in the HEDP report (2009) that many students don’t have much time
within the curriculum to study the differing aspects of Jewish religion, culture and
identity, which will no doubt have a detrimental effect on how they create their own
understanding of the causes and consequences of the Holocaust.
Due to this risk of inadvertently defining Jewish people within the
confines of the Holocaust, one possible way to mitigate these possible outcomes
would be for a more cross-curricula approach to the teaching of the Holocaust. As
through a more unified approach through subjects like History, Religious Studies and
Citizenship, students will be able to develop a greater knowledge of Jewish religion,
culture and history, and thus be able to draw upon their understanding across the
various disciplines and therefore counter the possible negative effects of using
‘perpetrator’ evidence when teaching the Holocaust, but also this would help in
providing a far greater lineage to Jewish culture and identity than just purely within
the Twentieth Century, as some students might think, due to timetable constraints
only exposing students to Jewish culture, religion and identity through the ‘filter’ of
the Holocaust.
Further to this, by enabling students to have a multi-disciplinary
approach to learning about the Holocaust they will as Husbands (1996) suggests, be
able to construct an interpretation of past events in response to an enquiry question, as
they will not only be critically using evidence, but also within the context of the
Holocaust they will have a wider knowledge of Jewish culture, identity and religion
from which to draw upon and give students the tools with which to question the
sources and the motives from which they were made; or as Wineburg points out (
2001) the ‘subtext’ of a source. This I think will make students critically engage more
with the history of the Holocaust.
Due to the emotive nature of teaching the Holocaust for both teacher and
student, I think that sometimes teachers want students to have certain outcomes from
studying the Holocaust; but I think that as teachers we should allow students to derive
their own meaning from analysing the evidence at hand; by this I mean, not adopt a
more didactic or ‘closed’ approach. As equipping students with the critical skills to
decode evidence we as teachers will make them, as supported by Coffin (2006) gain a
more complex understanding of the historical event they are studying. and help them
as Danto ( 1985) argues to build up ‘complex narratives’ by using documentary
evidence, and seeing evidence as inter-linked with other sources; or having a
‘polyvocal dialogue’ with the evidence as Berkhofer ( 1995) points out, in the sense
that students look for more then one specific meaning in a source. This should enable
students to progress in their understanding of the Holocaust, allow students to move
past the rigidity of what Lee and Shemilt (TH 113, 2003) describe as ‘scissors and
paste’ and towards a more developed and fluid understanding of what the evidence
might be saying both explicitly and inexplicitly, akin to the ‘sub-texts’ that Wineburg
describes ( 2001), thus equipping the students with the tools to build up a richer and
more meaningful picture of the past. Also, I believe that by routing the students’
understanding of the Holocaust in rigorous analysis of historical evidence, the moral
and ethical questions that no doubt will emerge will have a solid and reasoned base
from which to be explored within the classroom.
Also, coupled with (as I’ve mentioned previously) some study of the
historiography of the Holocaust, I think that students will derive greater meaning from
their enquiries as they see that History itself is a process of revision (Bourdillon,
1994), dependent upon when an Historical account was written, who wrote it and who
is reading it, as set out by Bage ( 2000), which is imperative in students having some
understanding of, in order to gain some sense of how History is constructed and thus
make them more critical readers of the past.
Therefore, I think that the Holocaust has an important place within the
History curriculum, and I feel that through properly conducted historical enquiry and
research that the other issues surrounding morality and ethics will be couched in a
securer framework. As by studying the Holocaust as primarily a historical event, I
think we will prevent what Bauer ( 2001) calls the ‘mystification’ of the Holocaust,
and as I’ve stated previously this in turn risks actually being counter-productive to the
aims of the Holocaust’s inclusion in the curriculum, due to the fact that without
students analysing the causation and consequences of the Holocaust through the use
of documentary evidence they will not develop a sound working knowledge and
understanding of this significant event, and will only see the Holocaust in terms of it
as some sort of ‘fable’, which concurs with Pettigrew’s (TH141, 2010) argument of
the Holocaust’s use for ‘presentist’ aims, as a conduit for modern mores.
However, saying this, I do think that the Holocaust can serve as some sort of
base from which to use as a way to explore issues not necessarily around morality per
se, but more concerned with how history, politics and culture can be shaped by one
person or persons to ostracise another person or persons, for example the creation of
‘scapegoats’ within a society. In this sense students can look for patterns and
commonalities between differing historical events. For instance, Kelleway, Spillane
and Haydn (TH153, 2013) have produced a sequence of progression for steps towards
genocide in order for students to use as template when studying different cases of
genocide. This perhaps show a shift and a combination of factors in the ‘use’ of the
Holocaust within education, as recently there has been a shift in aligning the
Holocaust alongside other genocides like Cambodia and Rwanda, which could be an
attempt by educators and government to keep the Holocaust ‘relevant’ in terms of its
lessons for modern day students and as Kelleway, Spillane and Haydn (TH153, 2013)
espouse at helping to broaden students’ engagement with the Holocaust. However,
there is a danger here of by creating common cause in a sense between differing
genocides that there might be too much of an ‘overview’ of events and thus not seeing
these disparate events on their own unique historical contexts. This again, raises the
important issue of embedding any study of the Holocaust or any other genocide
within a historical enquiry framework.
However, to aid these outcomes that various educators have espoused when
studying the Holocaust, I would argue that if there was perhaps a more diverse and
pluralistic approach to history within and across the curriculum some of the
aforementioned issues (e.g Jewish culture) might not be that problematic as students
would already have a greater working knowledge. So therefore, some of the issues
around students’ preconceived ideas that gives an impression to students that History
is a ‘closed’ story, that wasn’t open to conjecture; as pointed out by Lee ( Lee, Ashby
and Shemilt, 2005) and this may well be mitigated somewhat by the promotion and
development of more diverse narratives within the history curriculum.
In summary, I would argue that the Holocaust should be included within the
history curriculum but not compulsorily, as this, as I’ve outlined previously may well
be counter-productive to the Government’s no doubt well-intentioned aims. I would
contend that the Holocaust, should be included in the curriculum not for perhaps some
‘presentist’ aims as though some moral fable from the past, which I agree with Bauer
(Bauer, 2001) in that it prevents a deeper understanding of this complex topic.
Therefore, I would assert that the Holocaust should be included within the history
curriculum, as alongside the Second World War, it is arguably one of the most
historically significant events of the Twentieth Century, with its political impact still
being felt today.
It also illustrates how history is created and used on personal, societal and
global levels, but for teachers I think the Holocaust is valuable within the curriculum
as perhaps unlike many other modern events it can be an opening into the exploration
of a variety of different themes. For example, study of the Holocaust can allow
teachers to support their students in analysing how particular groups may be made
into scapegoats, how political power can be abused, why or how people do or do not
stop these abuses of power and how different groups of people can be cast as ‘other’
and the ramifications of this. Therefore, due to the scale, weight of evidence and
relatively long chronological framework for the Holocaust it can be used as a study in
a gamut of political and social historical issues. Though perhaps most importantly it
provides a profound refutation of the modern European sense of ‘progress’ and
because of this, it raises so many questions on so many differing themes; should in
my opinion, be an argument for its inclusion in the History curriculum.

Word count: 4570

Bibliography

Adorno, T (1998) ‘Education after Auschwitz’, in Critical Models: Interventions and

Catchwords, New York: Columbia University Press

Ashby R, Gordon P and Lee P (2005) ‘Understanding History International review of

History Education’, Volume iv London: Routledge

Bain R. (2000) ‘Into the breach: using research and theory to shape history
instruction’ in Stearns P., Seixas P. and Wineberg S. (eds.) Knowing, Teaching and
Learning History New York: New York University Press

Bage G. (2000) ‘Thinking History 4-14’, Routledge Falmer

Bauer, Y (2001) ‘What was the Holocaust?’ (Ch 1) in Rethinking the Holocaust. New
Haven: Yale

Bourdillon H (eds) (1994) ‘Teaching History’, London: Open University Press

Berkhofer R (1995) ‘Beyond the Great Story, History as text and discourse’. London:
Harvard University Press.

Breisach E (1993) ‘On the future of history, the Post-modernist challenge and its
aftermath’: London, The University of Chicago Press.

Brina C (2010) ‘Not crying, but laughing: the ethics of horrifying students
School of Sociology’: University of the West of England, Bristol,

Bruchfeld, S (2008) ‘The refugee policy and Jewish refugees in Sweden

1920-1950’ :Lars M Andersson & Karin Kvist Geverts (edit.), Swedish Science Press,
Uppsala

Coffin C. (2006) ‘Historical Discourse, The language of time, cause and evaluation’.
London: Continuum.

Cubbitt G (2007) History and Memory, Manchester, Manchester University Press

Danto A (1985) ‘Narration and Knowledge’, Columbia University Press

Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010) ‘The National Strategies for
Secondary Schools’, Crown Copyright

Dickinson A K, Gard A and Lee P J (1978) ‘Evidence in History and the Classroom’
in A K Dickinson and P J Lee (eds) History Teaching and Historical Understanding
London: Heinemann, 1 - 20
Elton G R (1967) ‘The Practice of History’ Sydney: University Press; London:
Methuen, 1967

Evans R (2002) ‘Telling lies about Hitler: the Holocaust, history and the David Irving
trial’, London, Verso.

Falk Pingel (1990) "Story of our time for history? history didactics
and history in its relation to contemporary history in the Western zones
and in the Federal Republic ", in: Tel Aviv Yearbook for History, vol. XIX,

Foster S (2011) ‘Selection, limitation and challenge: Portrayals of the Holocaust in

English Secondary School textbooks’: Institute of Education, London.

Friedlander S (1997) ‘Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume 1: The Years of
Persecution 1933-1939’: Phoenix

Fulbrook M (2002) Historical Theory, London, Routledge

Gunn S (2006) ‘History and Cultural theory’, Longman

Haydn T and Counsell C (2003) ‘History, ICT and learning in the Secondary School’:
Routledge Falmer.

Historical Association (2000) ‘T.E.A.C.H. [Teaching emotive and controversial

history 3-19]: a report from The Historical Association on the challenges and
opportunities for teaching emotive and controversial history 3-19

Holocaust Education Development Programme (2009) ‘Teaching about the Holocaust

in English Secondary Schools, an empirical study of national trends, perspectives and
practice’: Institute of Education, London

Husbands, Chris (1996) ‘What is History Teaching? Language, Ideas and Meaning in
Learning About the Past’,Buckingham: Open University Press

Husbands C, Kitson A and Pendry A (2003) ‘Understanding History: Teaching and

Learning about the past in Secondary Schools’, Open University Press

Kelleway, Spillane and Haydn (2013) ‘Never again’? Helping Year 9 think about
what happened after the Holocaust and learning lessons from genocides’ in Teaching
History 153 (Dec) pp.38-44

Jenkins K (1991) ‘Re-thinking History’, London, Routledge

Jordanova L (2000) ‘History in Practice’, London, Hodder Arnold.

Kinloch, N (2001) ‘Parallel castastrophes? Uniqueness, redemption and the Shoah’ in

Teaching History 104 (sep) pp.8-14.

Kitson G (1967) ‘The Critical Historian’, London: Heinemann

Lee, P. J., Ashby R. and Shemilt, D. (2005) 'Putting principles into practice: teaching
and planning' In M. Suzanne Donovan and John D. Bransford (eds), How Students
Learn: History in the Classroom. US National Research Council, Washington DC:
National Academies Press.

Lee P J and Shemilt D (2003) ‘A scaffold, not a cage: progression and progression
models in history’ Teaching History 113, pp.13 – 23

Levi P (1947) ‘If this is a man’ (translation Woolf S, 1959): Everyman

McAleavy T (1998) ‘The use of sources in school history 1910–1998: a critical

perspective’ in Teaching History 91, pp.10 -16

McLaughlin T (1999) ‘Morality, Citizenship and the Shoah’ in Teaching History

Ofsted, 2004. ‘Ofsted Conference Subject report’. Ofsted [online] (published 2005)
Available at http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5650/ [Accessed April 2014)

Pettigrew, A (2010) ‘Limited lessons from the Holocaust?’ Critically considering the
‘anti-racist’ and citizenship potential’ in Teaching History 141 (Dec) pp.50-55

Pickles E (2010) ‘How can students’ use of historical evidence be enhanced’ in

Teaching History 139 (Mar) pp. 41-51

Phillips I (2008) ‘A question of attribution: working with ghetto

photographs, images and imagery’ in Teaching History 141 (Dec) pp.11-17

Phillips R (2002) ‘Reflective teaching of History 11-18’ London: Continuum

Riley C: (1999) ‘Evidential Understanding, period knowledge and the development of

literacy: a practical approach to ‘layers of inference’ for Key Stage 3’, in Teaching
History 97

Riley, M (2000) ‘Into the Key Stage 3 history garden: choosing and planting your
enquiry questions’ Teaching History 99

Riley M. (2009) SHP Principles. Schools History project, [online]

Available.at: http://www.schoolshistoryproject.org.uk/AboutSHP/principles.htm
[accessed April 2014]

Salmons P (2010) ‘Universal meaning or historical understanding?

The Holocaust in history and history in the curriculum’ in Teaching History 141
(Dec) pp. 57-63

Schools History Project (1976) ‘New look at History, Schools History 13-16 project’.
Edinburgh, Homes McDougall Ltd.
Short, G Teaching the Holocaust: The Relevance of Children's Perceptions of Jewish
Culture and Identity: British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1994), pp.
393-405

Symcox L and Wilschut A (eds) (2009) National History Standards, the problem of
the canon and the future of history teaching. London: Information age publishing

Warren, J (1998) ‘The Past and its Presenters’, London, Hodder and Stoughton

Wineburg, S (2001) ‘Historical thinking and other unnatural acts’, Philadelphia,

Temple University Press