國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.2 Backgrounds of History Education
History education in the ROC and USA have gone through considerable changes over the course of the two countries’ histories. This study will examine the background of history education in these two nations beginning in the 1980s. Although they changed in different ways and for different reasons, this period represents a significant milestone for both nations’ educational systems which has led to the current paradigm therein. This section is divided into two parts, the first of which addresses the background of history education in the ROC, beginning with the democratization and concluding with the current state of history education. The second section addresses the background of history education in the USA during roughly the same period, beginning with the Nation at Risk report, (Gardner
& al., 1983) and concluding with the current state of history education.
2.2.1 ROC History Textbooks and Curriculum
History education in the ROC has gone through numerous changes since the government fled to Taiwan in 1949. History education in the period between that year and the mid-1980s was characterized by a “narrative of restoration,” wherein, “Taiwan was imagined as reborn to be the model child of Chinese descent that was obligated to emancipate all Chinese compatriots from Communism and to ultimately realize the goal of Chinese reunification,” (Huang & Chen, 2019). Democratization in the 1980s and 1990s opened the debate about national history to the public and, in turn, begun to democratize the ROC’s culture. This has brought out a large amount of controversy which has even manifested into public protests over education, and specifically about the narratives in official history textbooks and curriculum, (Wees, 2016; Chou & Ching, 2012).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
ROC textbooks still in use in the 1990s continued to promote the exceptionalism of Han Chinese culture in terms of the, “…unique length of Chinese history…, the capacity of the (Han) Chinese for assimilating other ethnic groups…, an emphasis on ‘propriety’, and a love of peace,” (Vickers, 2009). Problematically, national identity in the ROC is an immensely controversial topic, and none of the existent interpretations of it satisfy the island’s people as a whole. In 1993 the ROC Ministry of Education decided to overhaul history education, and add courses specifically devoted to Taiwanese history, separate from the required Chinese history courses. After a long review process, the Knowing Taiwan course was approved in 1997, but was subsequently attacked for (1) ‘glorifying’ Japanese colonization (specifically for its effects toward modernization), and (2) working for the de-Sinicization of the ROC by de-emphasizing its connection with China, (Chang, 2011). This controversy is characteristic of the ongoing debate over history curriculum in the ROC which pits those who call for more Taiwan-centered history against those who see the ROC’s identity as inextricably linked to Mainland China.
The most recent revisions to history textbooks in the ROC took place in 2014 under the Ma administration. A few small protests broke out when the content of the new textbooks was revealed, with opponents critical of the apparent emphasis placed on the link between the ROC and the mainland through very specific word choices around particular events and figures. Koxinga (國姓爺), for example, a military and political leader who is famous for having driven the Dutch off the island in 1662, established his own short-lived dynasty between 1662 and 1683 on the island, called the Zheng (鄭) Dynasty in previous iterations. The new textbook, however, labeled this brief episode the Ming Zheng (明鄭), promoting a narrative wherein Koxinga was a Ming loyalist during the Manchu, or Qing,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
conquest of China, intending to use the island as a staging ground to eventually retake the Chinese mainland for the Ming. The implication here is that the Ming controlled the island of Taiwan at any point, an assertion for which many argue there is no other evidence, (Tsoi, 2015). It is unclear which narrative is more accurate. Koxinga was, indeed, a military leader associated with the Ming Dynasty, and he and his progeny did control the island for a short time, but weather his motivations were out of loyalty to the Ming or out of a desire to establish his own kingdom is still a matter under debate.
Other critiques of the text included issues with the portrayal of the ‘228’ incident and the ‘White Terror,’ all of which have political implications related to the KMT party.
The Tsai administration, which is currently in power and a member of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), has commissioned the revision of textbooks, (Wees, 2016), but these new iterations are not yet in use. Rhetoric in the media surrounding these controversies often villainizes the KMT party as colluding with Beijing, while other sources condemn the DPP as incompetent, impractical, or secretly focused on achieving de jure independence. The irony in this controversy is that regardless of what policies are followed in the political debate, the historical narrative should be a topic for discussion within classrooms where students would benefit from the open debate. Instead, an official interpretation of history is preferred. It is debated openly in the public sphere, but that privilege is not widely afforded to students in the classroom. Despite several reforms to history education over the last three decades, pedagogy in ROC history classrooms still tends to be didactic, moralistic, and prescriptive, (Liu, Hung, & Vickers, 2005).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.2.2 USA History Textbooks and Curriculum
Since the early stages of American public schooling in the nineteenth century, national history has been a part of the curriculum. In order to understand the current state of history education, and indeed the whole American educational system, it is necessary to consider the impact of the movements and reforms that have their roots in the 1980s, after the Nation at Risk report, (Gardner & al., 1983). By constitutional mandate, education is under state jurisdiction, not federal, but ever since the Johnson administration of the 1960s, states have been required to adhere to a handful of federal regulations and mandates. Before the 1983 report, the Reagan administration had been pushing for the abolition of the federal Department of Education, (Bell, 1993). Although the report silenced that initiative for a time, it precipitated a series of reform movements and initiatives that have extended into today.
History education has been no less affected by movements since that report. Peter Seixas writes, “By the end if the 1980s, many felt that [social studies education] was
‘adrift’, buffeted between tradition and reform, and that the return to history might provide coherence,” (Seixas, 2006). Policy makers and curriculum specialists looking to history found a field of study that had been in a state of near constant flux and uncertainty over the decades preceding the early 1990s, (Novick, 1988). History was pushing itself to include and consider the perspectives of actors who had previously been overlooked or undermined. In American national history, this especially referred to African-American and Native-American voices. The integration of these perspectives undermined the traditional national origin narrative in parts. This, as well as a drive to raise achievement and close the racial performance gap, brought about a movement in social studies
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
education, as well as in general education, to enforce more intense standards of accountability on teachers and students, which culminated in the No Child Left Behind act of 2002. Linda Darling-Hammond, as well as many other scholars and educators, have reflected on the effects of the 2002 law, concluding that it has resulted in, “narrowed curriculum, focused on the low‐level skills generally reflected on high stakes tests;
inappropriate assessment of English language learners and students with special needs; and strong incentives to exclude low‐scoring students from school, so as to achieve test score targets,” (Darling-Hammond, 2007). In terms of history curriculum specifically, high-stakes testing has had the effect of further standardizing historical narratives in textbooks and curriculum which prepare students for the test, and in other ways, has marginalized social studies education as emphasis on math and language trumps history and social studies on standardized tests, (Fitchett & Heafner, 2012).
In addition to their alignment with standardize tests, US history textbooks are also one of the main subjects of the discourse on nationalism and nation building, which is,
“defined and controlled by the ambivalent nexus between ideology and political expectations (that history textbooks contribute to national identity and patriotism), curricular assumptions (that quality history textbooks impact on pedagogical outcomes) and academic rigor and objectivity,” (Zajda, 2015). These forces explained by Zajda (2015) continue to color the debate over national history textbooks in the USA and elsewhere. One political advocacy group, the American Textbook Council, expressly advocates for more narrative based history textbooks, and makes recommendations to educators based on their own evaluations. Their characterization of most contemporary textbook publishing practices is that it is substandard and lacks rigor or narrative structure, (American Textbook
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Council, 2018). This debate shows no signs of relenting as policy makers and educators continue to address problems that are not even agreed on in all cases. Although the gamut is somewhat diverse in the USA, narratives do continue to be embedded in many national history textbooks, many of which are exclusionary, prescriptive, and didactic.