I don't remember much about my Canadian history textbooks. I do remember that they, like most of my textbooks, were worn and that many students before me had used them. If a new textbook did come out, it was simply a new edition of the same book with grammatical errors fixed. Often, parts of the class used a second edition, while other classmates used a first or third. The content and page number rarely differed by much.
History is, as it is said, written by the victor, so I take for granted whether or not the Canadian history I was taught leaned left or right. I like to think it simply moved through the center and provided a broad understanding of a subject that any interested student could then delve into independently or focus on at university. I also like to think that I was afforded teachers who, if they did not agree with a statement or positions expressed within the textbook, provided alternative interpretations and ideas. That, to me, displayed their passion for the subject they were teaching. By the middle of high school, I knew if a teacher was conservative, liberal, or didn't give a fuck and was simply waiting for his/her pension.
Nevertheless, I am sure there are groups in Canada who don't want evolution taught in schools, want various novels banned because a few pages mentioned feltching or some other 'vulgarity'...but I just didn't notice. Despite my Roman Catholic elementary and high school education, I was taught evolution. I was also taught 'religion', but that was simply a subject included alongside science, math, history, politics, English, etc. I think the only time I felt religions evil hand was when my school refused to install 'ministry of health mandated' condom machines in the bathrooms.
It's not that I didn't give a shit, I just didn't rely on the education system to provide me with 100% of my information. I also don't think that my education was politicized to the point where books were being edited, re-edited, changed, burned, corrected, or replaced due to who was sitting in government at the time. I read books on my own, read a newspaper everyday, and discussed various topics with teachers whom I respected and friends who had the same interests. Most of my classes involved writing essays which required me to actually enter a library and research topics on my own, and so over the course of my high school life, I gained more knowledge outside of the classroom than I did inside it.
Now that I am older, I understand that I was afforded an education quite a bit better than the education provided in other countries. I don't think I am smarter than everyone else because of it, as I didn't really take school/marks very seriously. I just think my high school education, in hindsight, was provided to me effectively. Those who excel in different systems would, in my opinion, excel even more in the system I participated. Why? Because students were encouraged to ask questions.
Asking questions is so critical to education because it keeps the teacher on his/her toes, and may indeed help the teacher to improve his/her teaching methods. Asking questions and questioning the status quo is what makes any system good (Democracy is an example), and while I was in high school, asking questions was important, as it made up what was called 'the participation score'. That is what I excelled at. I always questioned and challenged my teachers. Some of them hated me for it, but some of them enjoyed my banter. From what I can tell, questioning a teacher in Korea is pure suicide, as Korea is a
rote learning system and what the teacher says (hence, the textbook) is LAW, and should not be questioned.
I still remember coming to Korea in 2002 and seeing a TV commercial for YAHOO Korea. The commercial was set in a university lecture hall. A student put his hand up and asked the professor a question. When he finished his question, the teacher scowled and grimaced and the entire class fled in panic, leaving the questioning student sitting all alone looking scared. The message? Don't embarrass yourself by asking the teacher a question; ask YAHOO! One might shrug and say "bah! It's just a commercial", but of all the skills my students lacked, it was asking questions. Very rarely did a student tell me they did not understand something in class. Very rarely did a student put up their hand to ask a question other than "can I go to the bathroom?". If, after explaining something, I went around the room and asked individual students if they understood, they would answer truthfully, but rarely did they stop me to express their opinion, ideas, or question me. I can only imagine how scared they were to do such things in the actual school system, let alone a language institute.
Perhaps this is why textbooks are such a steamy issue in countries that use the rote learning system. Textbooks have been at the center of controversy in Korea, Japan, and other rote learning systems because the textbooks are biblical, and students study them as 100% factual and are not encouraged to question what they say.
"In recent years, high school textbooks of United States history have come under increasing criticism. Authors such as Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States), Gilbert Sewall (Textbook Publishing), and James W. Loewen (Lies My Teacher Told Me) make the claim that U.S. History textbooks contain mythical untruths and omissions, which paint a whitewashed picture that bears little resemblance to what most students learn in universities. Inaccurately retelling history, through textbooks or other literature, has been practiced in many societies, from ancient Rome to the Soviet Union. History textbooks are not subjected to review by professional academics, nor can authorship of a high school textbook be used to advance an academic toward tenure at a university. The content of history textbooks thus lies entirely outside the academic forum of fact and social science and is instead determined by the political forces of state adoption boards and ideological pressure groups." (wikipedia)
The above states that "the content of history textbooks thus lies entirely outside the academic forum of fact and social science" and that the contents are "determined by political forces" which can't be good for a country like Korea. I say this because I have noticed that with every new President comes new Ministry heads, and when they are appointed, they want to make a lot of changes and are pressured to tow the party line. Thus, with each new administration, talk of text book content becomes and issue, and text books are changed.
Donga.com illustrates this point with an
article published on their English website.
"In response to criticism over the biased contents of modern history and social studies textbooks, the government has decided to overhaul their contents. To this end, the government will add governmental and non-governmental agencies and relevant experts to the Council for Better Curriculum and Textbooks created in 2005, and correct textbooks from the first semester of 2009."
How is this plan good for those learning history and social studies NOW? Why doesn't the government simply provide teachers with supplemental material that incorporates the "different" or "corrected" point of view? Isn't this cheating students who won't be learning the same material in 2009?
"The Gwanghwamun Cultural Forum held a luncheon forum entitled ¡°The Lee Myung-bak Government¡¯s Policy on Education and Science¡° at the Sejong Center for the Performing Arts on Wednesday. At the forum, Education, Science and Technology Minister Kim Do-yeon announced his decision to correct lopsided textbook contents."
They don't even bother to hide the fact that the new policy is in direct correlation with the new administration. Thus enters the fact that "
The content of history textbooks thus lies entirely outside the academic forum of fact and social science and is instead determined by the political forces of state adoption boards and ideological pressure groups."
"In response to the comment, ¡°Some people have argued that students have biased knowledge of history since textbooks approved by the former education ministry have some problems,¡± Kim said, ¡°Korea¡¯s modern history should be a source of pride. Therefore, it is not right to look down at our modern history. I think our history textbooks and education are a bit biased to the left.¡± "
Exactly, the previous Minister had it wrong, but the NEW Minister is going to CORRECT his/her mistakes simply because towing the party line means moving from the "progressive left" to the "pragmatic right".
"At the same time, the ministry believes that recently used history textbooks do not reflect a diversified historical consciousness since they were written and reviewed only by historians. It plans to encourage social scientists to participate in textbook writing and reviewing to ensure content diversity."
A history textbook written by a historian? That is an abomination!!! Until the Korean government stabilizes education, makes it less of a political issue, and places more emphasis on deep understanding, critical thinking, and problem solving rather than the cramming and mere memorization of facts, I fear the textbook controversy shall be an issue society-at-large will have to deal with whenever a new President is voted into power.
