Jump to content

Bias in curricula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Textbook controversies" redirects here. For other uses, see Textbook controversies (disambiguation).

Bias in curricula refers to real or perceived bias in educational textbooks.

Bias in school textbooks

[edit]

The content of school textbooks is often the issue of debate, as their target audience is young people, and the term "whitewashing" is the one commonly used to refer to selective removal of critical or damaging evidence or comment.[1][2][3] The reporting of military atrocities in history is extremely controversial, as in the case of the Holocaust (or Holocaust denial) and the Winter Soldier Investigation of the Vietnam War. The representation of every society's flaws or misconduct is typically downplayed in favor of a more nationalist or patriotic view.[4] Also, Christians and other religionists have at times attempted to block the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools, as evolutionary theory appears to contradict their religious beliefs; the teaching of creationism as a science is likewise blocked from many public schools.[5] In the context of secondary-school education, the way facts and history are presented greatly influences the interpretation of contemporary thought, opinion and socialization. One legitimate argument for censoring the type of information disseminated is based on the inappropriate quality of such material for the young.[6]

Religious bias

[edit]
Main article: California textbook controversy over Hindu history

Many countries and states have guidelines against bias in education, but they are not always implemented. The guidelines of the California Department of Education (Code 60044) state the following: "No religious belief or practice may be held up to ridicule and no religious group may be portrayed as inferior." "Any explanation or description of a religious belief or practice should be present in a manner that does not encourage or discourage belief or indoctrinate the student in any particular religious belief."[7]

Gender bias

[edit]

According to the fourth edition of the annual Global Education Monitoring Report of UNESCO, 2020, depictions of female characters are less frequent and often discriminatory in many countries' school text books.[8] According to Prof Rae Lesser Blumberg women are either absent in school textbooks or depicted in subservient roles, perpetuating gender imbalance.[9] Valeria Perasso asserts Gender bias is endemic in primary school textbooks across continents.[9] UNESCO reports that pervasive sexist attitudes in school textbooks are invisible obstacles in educating girls, undermine their life expectations, careers, and gender equality.[9] Females are underrepresented in textbooks and curricula, whether counted in lines of text, proportion of named characters, mentions in titles, citations in indexes or other criteria,[9] while stereotypes of gender roles, absence from scenes, or gender-biased language is abundant.[9]

By country or region

[edit]

Australia

[edit]

A recent study of student evaluations of teaching (SET) from a large public university in Sydney focused on gender and cultural bias.[10] The dataset of more than 523,000 individual student surveys across 5 different faculties spanned a seven year period 2010-2016. There were 2,392 unique courses and 3,123 individual teachers in the dataset. The researchers concluded, "We detected statistically significant bias against women and staff with non-English language backgrounds, although these effects do not appear in every faculty. Our findings on the effect of cultural background is novel and significant because in Australia, where the population is culturally diverse, current policy and administrative actions have focused on addressing gender bias, but less on cultural or racial bias. We found some evidence that the proportion of women or staff with non-English language backgrounds in a faculty may be negatively correlated with bias, i.e., having a diverse teaching staff population may reduce bias. We also found that due to the magnitude of these potential biases, the SET scores are likely to be flawed as a measure of teaching performance. Finally, we found no evidence that student’s unconscious bias changes with the level of their degree program."[10]

Europe

[edit]

UK

[edit]
See also: The Black Curriculum

The teaching of history in the United Kingdom has been described as "arguably among the most disputed" topics in regards to the legacy of colonialism.[11] The British International Studies Association has stated that "British universities have been engaged in soul searching on a number of issues including racism, slavery, trafficking, and Islamophobia", but "the real work... has yet to full begin".[12]

United States

[edit]

Multiple allegations towards the teaching of United States history exist, from the representation of slavery in the United States[13] to the historical presentation of Native Americans across American history.[14] American history textbooks have also been accused of being Eurocentric and overly patriotic.[15]

On the political left, professors Howard Zinn and James Loewen allege that United States history as presented in school textbooks has a conservative bias. A People's History of the United States, by American historian and political scientist Zinn, seeks to present American history through the eyes of groups rarely heard in mainstream histories. Loewen spent two years at the Smithsonian Institution studying and comparing twelve American history textbooks widely used throughout the United States. His findings were published in Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your High School History Textbook Got Wrong.[16]

On the political right, professor Larry Schweikart makes the opposite case: he alleges in his 48 Liberal Lies About American History that United States history education has a liberal bias.[17]

In a landmark book called "The Trouble with Textbooks," Gary A. Tobin and Dennis R. Ybarra show how some American textbooks contain anti-Semitic versions of Jewish history and faith, particularly in relation to Christianity and Islam. The authors found that some U.S. textbooks "tend to discredit the ties between Jews and the Land of Israel. Israel is blamed for starting wars in the region and being colonialist. Jews are charged with deicide in the killing of Jesus. All in all, there are repeated misrepresentations that cross the line into bigotry."[18]

Asia

[edit]

Middle East

[edit]

Palestinian school text books have come under repeated criticism for anti-Israeli bias. An independent study of Palestinian textbooks by Professor Nathan Brown of George Washington University in Washington, DC, found that Palestine National Authority-authored books avoid treating anything controversial regarding Palestinian national identity, and while highly nationalistic, do not incite hatred, violence and anti-Semitism. It cannot be described as a “peace curriculum”either, but the charges against it are often wildly exaggerated or inaccurate.

An analysis of Israeli textbooks in 2000 by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP), found that there was no indoctrination against the Arabs as a nation, nor a negative presentation of Islam. However in 2012, Nurit Peled-Elhanan, a professor of language and education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education, an account of her study of the contents of Israeli school books, finding that Israeli school books do in fact promote racism against and negative images of Arabs, and prepare Israeli children for compulsory military service.

India

[edit]
Main articles: NCERT textbook controversies and Karnataka textbook controversy

In 1982 the NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) issued guidelines for the rewriting of schoolbooks.[19] It stipulated that: "Characterization of the medieval period as a time of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is forbidden."[20] In April 1989 the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education had issued instructions to schools and publishers of textbooks that "Muslim rule should never attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers and invaders should not be mentioned."[21] Schools and publishers have been asked to ignore and delete mention of forcible conversions to Islam. Some academicians have felt that these "corrections" were politically motivated and that they are censorship.[22]

Arun Shourie criticized these changes in schoolbooks and claimed: The most extensive deletions are ordered in regard to the chapter on "Aurangzeb's policy on religion". Every allusion to what he actually did to the Hindus, to their temples, to the very leitmotif of his rule – to spread the sway of Islam – are directed to be excised from the book. ... "In a word, no forcible conversions, no massacres, no destruction of temples. ... Muslim historians of those times are in raptures at the heap of Kafirs [sic] who have been dispatched to hell. Muslim historians are forever lavishing praise on the ruler for the temples he has destroyed, ... Law books like The Hedaya prescribe exactly the options to which these little textbooks alluded. All whitewashed away. Objective whitewash for objective history. And today if anyone seeks to restore truth to these textbooks, the shout, "Communal rewriting of history.""[21]

Japan

[edit]
Main article: Japanese history textbook controversies

Pakistan

[edit]
Main article: Pakistani textbooks controversy

Bias in education has been a common feature in the curriculum of many South Asian countries. According to Waghmar, many of the oriental societies are plagued by visceral nationalism and post-imperial neurosis where state-sanctioned dogmas suppress eclectic historical readings.[23] Issues such as the preaching of hatred and obscurantism and the distortion of history in Pakistan have led the international scholars to suggest the need for coordinated efforts amongst the historians to produce a composite history of the subcontinent as a common South Asian reader.[24] Bias against Indians and Hindus, as well as other religious minorities, have been found in Pakistani schoolbooks.[25] However, Nelson here stresses the need for any educational reform to be based at the needs of the level of local communities.[26]

The bias in Pakistani textbooks was studied by Rubina Saigol, Pervez Hoodbhoy, K. K. Aziz, I. A. Rahman, Mubarak Ali, A. H. Nayyar, Ahmed Saleem, Yvette Rosser and others.

A study by Nayyar & Salim (2003) that was conducted with 30 experts of Pakistan's education system, found that the textbooks contain statements that seek to create hate against Hindus. There was also an emphasis on Jihad, Shahadat, wars and military heroes. The study reported that the textbooks also had a lot of gender-biased stereotypes. Some of the problems in Pakistani textbooks cited in the report were: "Insensitivity to the existing religious diversity of the nation"; "Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jehad and Shahadat"; a "glorification of war and the use of force"; "Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially distort the nature and significance of actual events in our history"; "Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities, and other towards nations" and "Omission of concepts ... that could encourage critical selfawareness among students".[27]

These problems still seem to persist: The Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education rejected a textbook in December 2003 because of two serious objections: The textbook contained the text of letter of a non-Muslim, and it contained the story of a family were both husband and wife worked and were sharing their household chores. In February 2004, a textbook was disapproved by the Curriculum Wing because it didn't contain enough material on jihad.[28]

Pakistani textbooks were relatively unbiased up to 1972, but were rewritten and completely altered under Bhutto's and especially under Zia's (1977–88) rule.[29] The bias in Pakistani textbooks was also documented by Yvette Rosser (2003). She wrote that "in the past few decades, social studies textbooks in Pakistan have been used as locations to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy makers have attempted to inculcate towards their Hindu neighbours", and that as a result "in the minds of generations of Pakistanis, indoctrinated by the 'Ideology of Pakistan' are lodged fragments of hatred and suspicion."[30]

Professors who have been critical of Pakistani politics or corruption have are sometimes discriminated against. Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy, who was also a critic of Pakistani politics, had troubles leaving the country for a lecture in the Physics department at MIT, because he was denied a NOC (No Objection Certificate) necessary for travels abroad.[31]

One of the omissions in Pakistani textbooks is Operation Gibraltar. Operation Gibraltar, which provoked the Indian Army attack on Lahore, is not mentioned in most history textbooks. According to Pakistani textbooks, Lahore was attacked without any provocation on the part of the Pakistani army.[31] The rule of Islamic invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni is glorified, while the much more peaceful Islamic ruler Akbar is often ignored in Pakistani textbooks.

The Pakistani Curriculum document for classes K-V stated in 1995 that "at the completion of Class-V, the child should be able to":

  • "Acknowledge and identify forces that may be working against Pakistan."[pg 154]
  • "Demonstrate by actions a belief in the fear of Allah." [pg154]
  • "Make speeches on Jehad and Shahadat" [pg154]
  • "Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan." [pg154]
  • "India's evil designs against Pakistan." [pg154]
  • "Be safe from rumour mongers who spread false news" [pg158]
  • "Visit police stations" [pg158]
  • "Collect pictures of policemen, soldiers, and National Guards" [pg158]
  • "Demonstrate respect for the leaders of Pakistan" [pg153][32]

Turkey

[edit]

Turkish schools, regardless of whether they are public or private, are required to teach history based on the textbooks approved by the Ministry of Education.[33][34] The state uses its monopoly to increase support for the official position of Armenian genocide denial,[34][35] demonizing Armenians and presenting them as enemies.[36][37] For decades, these textbooks omitted any mention of Armenians as part of Ottoman history.[38][39] Since the 1980s, textbooks discuss the "events of 1915", but deflect the blame from the Ottoman government to other actors, especially imperialist powers who allegedly manipulated the Armenians to achieve their nefarious goals of undermining the empire, and the Armenians themselves, for allegedly committing treason and presenting a threat to the empire. Some textbooks admit that deportations occur and Armenians died, but present this action as necessary and justified. Most recently, textbooks have accused Armenians of perpetrating genocide against Turkish Muslims.[39][40][41] In 2003, students in each grade level were instructed to write essays refuting the genocide.[42]

Teachers are instructed to tell seventh-year students:

State to your students that the Russians also made some Armenians revolt on this front and murder many of our civilian citizens. Explain that the Ottoman State took certain measures following these developments, and in May 1915 implemented the ‘Tehcir Kanunu’ [Displacement Law] regarding the migration and settlement of Armenians in the battleground. Explain that care was taken to ensure that the land in which the Armenians who had to migrate were to settle was fertile, that police stations were established for their security and that measures were taken to ensure they could practice their previous jobs and professions.[36]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Sadker, David. "Seven Forms of Bias in Instructional Materials". The Myra Sadker Foundation. Retrieved January 2, 2024.
  2. ^ Strauss, Valerie (September 12, 2014). "Proposed Texas textbooks are inaccurate, biased and politicized, new report finds". Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 10, 2023. Retrieved January 2, 2024.
  3. ^ Czitrom, Daniel (March 22, 2010). "Texas school board whitewashes history". CNN. Retrieved January 2, 2024.
  4. ^ Shelton, Tracey (September 2, 2023). "Conflicting histories: The stories we're taught in school can shape our national identity, but how accurate are they?". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved July 10, 2024.
  5. ^ Masci, David (February 4, 2009). "The Social and Legal Dimensions of the Evolution Debate in the U.S." Pew Research Center. Retrieved July 10, 2024.
  6. ^ Grossberg, Michael (May 2002). "Does Censorship Really Protect Children?". The Federal Communications Law Journal. 54 (3): 591–597. Retrieved July 10, 2024.
  7. ^ "Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content, 2000 Edition" (PDF). California Department of Education: 7. September 21, 2007. ISBN 978-0-8011-1532-5. OCLC 166430950. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 9, 2014. Retrieved January 2, 2024.Open access icon
  8. ^ "UNESCO report reveals covert gender bias in school textbooks". The Tribune (India). June 29, 2020. Retrieved January 2, 2024.
  9. ^ a b c d e Perasso, Valeria (October 8, 2017). "100 Women: 'We can't teach girls of the future with books of the past'". BBC News. Retrieved January 2, 2024.
  10. ^ a b Fan, Y.; Shepherd, L. J.; Slavich, E.; Waters, D.; Stone, M.; Abel, R.; Johnston, E. L. (February 13, 2019). Ewen, Heidi H. (ed.). "Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters". PLOS ONE. 14 (2): e0209749. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1409749F. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209749. ISSN 1932-6203. OCLC 8052670379. PMC 6373838. PMID 30759093.
  11. ^ Szabó-Zsoldos, Gábor (May 8, 2023). "Decolonising history teaching in the United Kingdom: Movements, methods, and curricula". Hungarian Educational Research Journal. 13 (4): 515–530. doi:10.1556/063.2023.00139. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
  12. ^ Mason, Robert (September 28, 2022). "Decolonising the UK curriculum should be the start of a much wider process". British International Studies Association. Retrieved 13 July 2024.
  13. ^ Whisnant, Sophie (August 26, 2019). "How history textbooks reflect America's refusal to reckon with slavery". Vox. Retrieved July 12, 2024.
  14. ^ Greenlee, Cynthia (March 7, 2019). "Hidden history: How the education system overlooks harsh realities of Natives past and present". University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved July 12, 2024.
  15. ^ Nash, Gary B.; Crabtree, Charlotte Antoinette; Dunn, Ross E. (2000). History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past. Vintage Books. pp. 20, 114. ISBN 9780679767503. Retrieved 12 July 2024.
  16. ^ "A People's History United States". C-SPAN. January 26, 2000. Retrieved January 2, 2024.
  17. ^ "48 Liberal Lies American History". C-SPAN. September 23, 2008. Retrieved January 2, 2024.
  18. ^ Ben-Yechiel, Ze'ev (September 28, 2008). "US Books: Jesus was Palestinian". Israel National News. Retrieved January 2, 2024.
  19. ^ (Indian Express 17 January 1982, New Delhi; Shourie 1998)
  20. ^ Elst, Koenraad (1993) [First Published in 1992]. Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam. Voice of India. ISBN 978-81-85990-01-9. OCLC 154106685.
  21. ^ a b Shourie 1998.
  22. ^ (The Statesman, 21 May 1989)
  23. ^ Waghnar, Burzine K. (February 27, 2005). "Pakistan Studies: the state of the craft". SOAS University of London. Dawn. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  24. ^ Verghese, B.G. (June 23, 2004). "Myth and hate as history". The Hindu. Archived from the original on December 18, 2013. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  25. ^ Nasr, Seyyed Vali Reza (1994). "Entering the Political Process, 1947–1958". The Vanguard of the Islamic Revolution: The Jama'at-i Islami of Pakistan. University of California Press. pp. 121–122. ISBN 978-0-520-08369-1. OCLC 28375514.
  26. ^ Nelson, Matthew J. (September–October 2006). "Muslims, Markets, and the Meaning of a "Good" Education in Pakistan" (PDF). Asian Survey. 46 (5): 699–720. doi:10.1525/as.2006.46.5.699. eISSN 1533-838X. ISSN 0004-4687. OCLC 9970846512.
  27. ^ (Nayyar & Salim 2003)
  28. ^ Nayyar, A. H. (January–February 2004). "Twisted truth: Press and politicians make gains from SDPI curriculum report". SDPI Research and News Bulletin. 11 (1). Sustainable Development Policy Institute. Archived from the original on August 29, 2010. Retrieved January 2, 2024.
  29. ^ Makhijani, Vishnu (November 23, 2003). "Pakistani social studies textbooks creating havoc". Yahoo News. Archived from the original on January 15, 2006. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  30. ^ Rosser, Yvette Claire (2003). Islamization of Pakistani Social Studies Textbooks. Rupa & Company. ISBN 978-81-291-0221-8. OCLC 54959785.
  31. ^ a b Rosser, Yvette Claire. "Abuse of History in Pakistan: Bangladesh to Kargil". pakistan-facts.com. Archived from the original on September 26, 2007. Retrieved January 3, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  32. ^ Hoodbhoy, Pervez (April 28, 2003). "What Are They Teaching In Pakistani Schools Today?". pakistan-facts.com. Archived from the original on September 26, 2007. Retrieved January 3, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  33. ^ Ekmekçioğlu, Lerna (2016). Recovering Armenia: The Limits of Belonging in Post-Genocide Turkey. Stanford University Press. p. xii. ISBN 978-0-8047-9706-1. OCLC 936219299.
  34. ^ a b Göçek, Fatma Müge (2015). Denial of Violence: Ottoman Past, Turkish Present and Collective Violence Against the Armenians, 1789–2009. Oxford University Press. pp. 63–64. ISBN 978-0-19-933420-9. OCLC 870211367.
  35. ^ Dixon 2010b, p. 105.
  36. ^ a b Aybak, Tunç (2016). "Geopolitics of Denial: Turkish State's 'Armenian Problem'" (PDF). Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies. 18 (2): 125–144. doi:10.1080/19448953.2016.1141582. S2CID 147690827. This officially distributed educational material reconstructs the history in line with the denial policies of the government portraying the Armenians as backstabbers and betrayers, who are portrayed as a threat to the sovereignty and identity of modern Turkey. The demonization of the Armenians in Turkish education is a prevailing occurrence that is underwritten by the government to reinforce the denial discourse.
  37. ^ Galip, Özlem Belçim (2020). New Social Movements and the Armenian Question in Turkey: Civil Society vs. the State. Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 186. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59400-8. eISSN 2523-7993. ISBN 978-3-030-59400-8. ISSN 2523-7985. Additionally, for instance, the racism and language of hatred in officially approved school textbooks is very intense. These books still show Armenians as the enemies, so it would be necessary for these books to be amended...
  38. ^ Cheterian, Vicken (2015). Open Wounds: Armenians, Turks and a Century of Genocide. Hurst. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-84904-458-5. The ruling Turkish elite subsequently chose to erase any trace of the Armenians from Turkish history. In the period between 1945 and the 1980s, school textbooks in Turkey made no mention of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire or the deportation of 1915. The Armenians had simply ceased to exist.
  39. ^ a b Gürpınar, Doğan (2016). "The manufacturing of denial: the making of the Turkish 'official thesis' on the Armenian genocide between 1974 and 1990". Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies. 18 (3): 217–240 [234]. doi:10.1080/19448953.2016.1176397. S2CID 148518678. The Armenians were conspicuous by their absence in the school curriculum for decades. Their historical existence in Anatolia was deliberately dismissed... This deliberate omission ceased abruptly in the mid-1980s when a new sub-chapter was introduced tellingly entitled 'Armenian problem'... This sub-chapter depicted the 'Armenian problem' as an exploit and machination of Great Powers (i.e. Britain and Russia) who exploited Armenians as instruments to destabilize the Ottoman Empire and impose their mischievous plots."
    Dixon 2010b, p. 104. "In the 1950s, 60s and 70s, Turkish high school students did not learn anything about Armenians' existence in the Ottoman Empire or about their deportation during World War I (WWI). Starting in the 1980s, however, high school history textbooks taught Turkish students that Armenians rose up and violently attacked the Ottoman government and innocent fellow citizens prior to and during WWI, and that the government forcibly relocated Armenians in order to protect and preserve the Turkish nation. A decade later, Turkish high school students were told that Armenians were traitors and propagandists who had tried to take advantage of the weakness of the Ottoman Empire and had 'stabbed Turks in the back. And more recently, high school history textbooks in Turkey described the 'Turkish-Armenian War' that took place between Turks and Armenians following the end of World War 1,160 and mentioned that recent research and excavations have documented the fact that Armenians committed genocide against Turks."
  40. ^ Bilali, Rezarta (2013). "National Narrative and Social Psychological Influences in Turks' Denial of the Mass Killings of Armenians as Genocide: Understanding Denial". Journal of Social Issues. 69 (1): 16–33. doi:10.1111/josi.12001. The interpretations of this period of history in Turkish textbooks include accounts that may be interpreted as psychological justifications or excuses to deflect responsibility: (a) blaming Armenians for treason or for attacking Turkish–Muslim populations; (b) claiming that violent acts were in self-defense (protection from territorial loss and/or protection of the Turkish population that was being targeted by Armenian banditry); (c) shifting responsibility to external factors and third parties (claiming that Armenian deaths were a result of hardship); (d) claiming benevolent motivations behind the deportations (stopping the inter-communal warfare). These interpretations exemplify how moral disengagement mechanisms operate at the level of collective narratives. Three targets of attribution can be readily identified: the in-group (i.e., denial of responsibility), the out-group (i.e., blaming the victim), and situational factors (i.e., blaming third parties or circumstances).
  41. ^ Dixon, Jennifer M. (2010a). "Defending the Nation? Maintaining Turkey's Narrative of the Armenian Genocide". South European Society and Politics. 15 (3): 467–485. doi:10.1080/13608746.2010.513605. S2CID 144494811.
  42. ^ Dixon 2010b, p. 115.

General References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bias_in_curricula&oldid=1247054341"