Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

[obeygiant]

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'.

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979)

Is this for real?

[Sayhey]

link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979)

Is this for real?

Probably not. Sounds like a report based on rumors.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting 'anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'.

It added: "In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils.

"But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques."

Why the city's name would have to be withheld is beyond me. If it is true, the teachers (or teacher) should be disciplined.

[Queso]

Is this for real?
Based on the article's source, I guess no. The Daily Mail is a sensationalist rag that likes to stir up bad feeling towards one group after another. Obviously it's the Muslim's turn this week, but next week they'll move on to Eastern Europeans or single mothers etc.

[Ugg]

link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979)

Is this for real?

Anyone who quotes the daily mud as an authoritative source, has no idea what the dm is all about. It's a muck raking, right wing reactionary rag.

[princealfie]

Yawn, next...

[FleurDuMal]

The Daily Mail makes baby Jesus cry :(

[obeygiant]

Anyone who quotes the daily mud as an authoritative source, has no idea what the dm is all about. It's a muck raking, right wing reactionary rag.

I hope you don't think I quoted the DM as an authoritative source.

[EricNau]

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
~ George Santayana

[solvs]

April Fools?

I assure you, if the Holocaust was ever dropped from curriculum, there would be public outcry. What was the point of this article? Anti-Muslim propaganda?

[princealfie]

April Fools?

I assure you, if the Holocaust was ever dropped from curriculum, there would be public outcry. What was the point of this article? Anti-Muslim propaganda?

Yeah, but it's ironic that we don't teach about the other holocausts like Pol Pot and some of the other regimes in school.

Talk about inherent biases in history lessons.

[Swarmlord]

Yeah, but it's ironic that we don't teach about the other holocausts like Pol Pot and some of the other regimes in school.

Talk about inherent biases in history lessons.

That's true. I'd like to see a lot more emphasis on the history of the rise of tyrannical leaders and the effects they had on the country or region myself rather than the battle centered history I learned while in school.

[princealfie]

That's true. I'd like to see a lot more emphasis on the history of the rise of tyrannical leaders and the effects they had on the country or region myself rather than the battle centered history I learned while in school.

Yep, that's why I prefer to do a lot of outside reading. Authority figures make poor teachers.

[miloblithe]

That's true. I'd like to see a lot more emphasis on the history of the rise of tyrannical leaders and the effects they had on the country or region myself rather than the battle centered history I learned while in school.

Agreed. Historical context is important. Which hills various soldiers stood on is pretty unimportant. The problem is, history is politics, so it's easier to go for the safe or meaningless subjects.

[princealfie]

Agreed. Historical context is important. Which hills various soldiers stood on is pretty unimportant. The problem is, history is politics, so it's easier to go for the safe or meaningless subjects.

But why play things safe? Isn't education about provocation and being aroused to action?

[zimv20]

I'd like to see a lot more emphasis on the history of the rise of tyrannical leaders and the effects they had on the country or region myself rather than the battle centered history I learned while in school.

i would fully support a mandatory high school class on nothing other than examinations of historical (and modern) instances of tyrrany.

it could easily be fit in by sacrificing just one of the 4 years learning about the pilgrims.

[princealfie]

i would fully support a mandatory high school class on nothing other than examinations of historical (and modern) instances of tyrrany.

it could easily be fit in by sacrificing just one of the 4 years learning about the pilgrims.

Yeah, who cares about the pilgrims anyways?

[Swarmlord]

If I hadn't taken four years of Latin I don't know how I would have learned ancient history at all, and I went to private schools! I'm grateful for the strong math and science background I received, but I don't think any school is exactly preparing kids for geography or history competitions.

[obeygiant]

Yeah, who cares about the pilgrims anyways?

those damn pilgrims. :D

[princealfie]

If I hadn't taken four years of Latin I don't know how I would have learned ancient history at all, and I went to private schools! I'm grateful for the strong math and science background I received, but I don't think any school is exactly preparing kids for geography or history competitions.

I would love to learn Latin someday. I am jealous :)

[trebblekicked]

i'm with zim. down with the pilgrims.

[zimv20]

i'm with zim. down with the pilgrims.

ha! miserable freedom seekers...

i should mention that, way back when i did grade school / junior high / high school, we had american history every year. it was always the same time period, mentions of columbus, but concentrating on early 1600's to modern day.

only we *never* got to modern day; usually the school year would end just as we got to the 20th century. it was the same information every year and it felt like a complete waste to me.

maybe such repetition has gone away, or maybe that was just a "growing up in indiana" thing.

[Swarmlord]

I would love to learn Latin someday. I am jealous :)

I probably spent more time on Latin homework than on all my other subjects combined! I know you can still take it in Jesuit run schools, but I'm not sure how available it is at other schools.

[Lau]

I disagree massively with censoring history in this way, but it's worth noting that the way the national curriculum works (or at least it was in my day ;) ) is that certain periods or events in history are studied as blocks, and so for a term or a year you'll focus on a certain event, and then the next year it'll be a totally different event from a different era.

Because of this, it's kind of pot luck what you end up learning, depending what's on the curriculum at that point, and if a certain period or event gets missed out it could be just as much to do with the way things have worked out. Not trying to get drawn into this, just a comment on how a curriculum anomaly could be exaggerated into something more sinister, especially if the Daily Mail got its grubby little fingers on it.

[princealfie]

I disagree massively with censoring history in this way, but it's worth noting that the way the national curriculum works (or at least it was in my day ;) ) is that certain periods or events in history are studied as blocks, and so for a term or a year you'll focus on a certain event, and then the next year it'll be a totally different event from a different era.

Because of this, it's kind of pot luck what you end up learning, depending what's on the curriculum at that point, and if a certain period or event gets missed out it could be just as much to do with the way things have worked out. Not trying to get drawn into this, just a comment on how a curriculum anomaly could be exaggerated into something more sinister, especially if the Daily Mail got its grubby little fingers on it.

Yeah, that's why I don't need no education :)

[trebblekicked]

ha! miserable freedom seekers...

i should mention that, way back when i did grade school / junior high / high school, we had american history every year. it was always the same time period, mentions of columbus, but concentrating on early 1600's to modern day.

only we *never* got to modern day; usually the school year would end just as we got to the 20th century. it was the same information every year and it felt like a complete waste to me.

maybe such repetition has gone away, or maybe that was just a "growing up in indiana" thing.

the "groundhog day" approach to american history. i remember that. we had it in pittsburgh, too. i think one year we got up to world war 2. even if we had more time, that was it though- our textbooks ended at 1945.

[zimv20]

i think one year we got up to world war 2.
lucky!

the highlight of each year for me was 'interchangeable parts'. i reckon we could have skipped that one year and studied, i don't know, geography? that wasn't even offered at my HS.

[princealfie]

So that's why no one knows anything about the vietnam war :)

[Phat Elvis]

So that's why no one knows anything about the vietnam war :)

There was a war in Vietnam? Was it anything like Iraq?;)

[zap2]

There was a war in Vietnam? Was it anything like Iraq?;)

Yes...they both went very very well!

[princealfie]

Yes...they both went very very well!

Yep, apparently we are happy with our debt ratio. WooT!

[takao]

..., i don't know, geography? that wasn't even offered at my HS.

no surprise US pupils are notoriously bad at geography

i had geography for 8 years and history for 7 ... both mandatory
i also had advanced geography as extra course for 2 years on top of that where we had project works and more specialized topics like avalanches or "kurdistan"

and i chose both as my specialized subjects for the final exams (on top of geometry)

but in 7 years we barley got beyond ww2 too.. there simply is too much to cover ... and ww1 and ww2 simply take up too much time

[ReanimationLP]

Wow.

I never even got to the 20th century in all of my years of middle and high History classes!

Those damn pilgrims, outlaws, and Civil War guys held it back! :p

I knew they were conspiring together. :D

[psychofreak]

I probably spent more time on Latin homework than on all my other subjects combined! I know you can still take it in Jesuit run schools, but I'm not sure how available it is at other schools.

I take Latin, as do many people here England.

We were not allowed to freely choose our GCSE subjects, as we had to choose one subject from each given group (and one was Latin, Religious Studies and Classical Civilisation) so I got stuck with this dead language.

[skunk]

so I got stuck with this dead language.Be thankful you don't have to translate Greek verse into Latin verse as I did. Actually, Latin is incredibly useful as a foundation for English, the Romance languages, Zoology and Botany, as well as enabling you to understand what that old space cadet in the Vatican is raving about.

[takao]

I take Latin, as do many people here England.

We were not allowed to freely choose our GCSE subjects, as we had to choose one subject from each given group (and one was Latin, Religious Studies and Classical Civilisation) so I got stuck with this dead language.

since i took the "realistic" branch of my school i had for my final exam only to choose between "french and english" as the foreign language... on the other side the humanist branch had to choose 2 out of english, french and latin
i choose the "realistic" just to avoid latin alltogether and gladly took more chemistry, biology, physics and geometry over it

if you really need latin (medicine,law,biology and history) you can always learn it later .. no need for learning it 6 years, 4-5 hours a week like most pupils in gymnasiums still have to do around here

how many hours are there on the schedule per week in a typical US high school ? i always wondered abotu that since i don't know what you have instead of history and geography