Confronting Myths and Monsters: Early Childhood History Education and the Challenge of Intellectual Honesty

• In Event: Histories, Hopes, Myths, and Monsters: Critical Humanities in Early Childhood

Abstract

The famed educational psychologist Jerome Bruner (1960) wrote that “Any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development.” Yet, there is little theory about what constitutes intellectual honesty in early childhood education when it comes to the topic of violence. Although children live surrounded by the echoes of the past, educators are given few conceptual frames in supporting young children to sort through how the violent past shapes the world they live in.

What are the responsibilities of an educator in teaching young children about violence? Seeking to disrupt normative expectations of young children, I present a theoretical argument grounded in empirical evidence drawn from a six-year study of the treatment of the topic of colonization in elementary education. My data included state-approved textbooks, interviews with young children and teachers, and observations of classroom instruction and trips to colonial history museums.

Theory
Violence is inextricable from history. Thus, teaching history to young children necessarily raises questions about whether and how to talk with children about human atrocity. Education scholars appear to agree young students can begin to make sense of the violent past (Schweber, 2008; Silin, 1995; VanSledright, 2002), but offer no consensus as to how to approach this difficult task.

The common notion of protecting children from the troubles of the world relies on an essential idea of childhood innocence. Historian Robin Bernstein (2011) suggests this is a modern development intertwined with racial formation in the U.S. Presenting an examination of the “scriptive things” of children’s material culture, Bernstein (2011) argued that in the 19th century, white childhood was framed in opposition to the construction of Black youth as outside of childhood. Using Bernstein’s concept of “scriptive things,” and Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernandez’s (2013) theory of the curriculum project of replacement, I analyzed the curricular script teachers are offered to teach their young students about violent histories.

Methods
My data was drawn from a six-year study of teaching about colonialism in elementary schools across California, including a content analysis of state-mandated textbooks’ representation of colonial violence (Author4, 2019), and observations of classroom instruction and school field trips (Author4, 2018). In the tradition of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1994; Charmaz, 2014), I used empirical evidence from a case study of the curricular treatment of colonization in order to contribute to pedagogical theory that may be more broadly applicable.

Findings and Significance
Drawing from a wide range of empirical evidence, I argue 1.) the standard school-based curriculum typically betrays intellectual honesty and is often in direct contrast with the historical record, which 2.) fails as a preparatory version of historical learning, and thus 3.) calls upon early childhood educators to reexamine the core responsibilities of our work with children. Ultimately, this paper deals with a fundamental dilemma (Cuban, 1992) in early childhood education, and complicates and deepens the work of early childhood and elementary teacher preparation.

Author

• Harper Benjamin Keenan, University of British Columbia