Status of history in Icelandic upper secondary schools

Abstract

The topic of this article is the current status of history education in Icelandic upper secondary schools (ages 16–19), following changes in curricula and the compression of education time down to three years from four for the matriculation examination. The school administrations issue school curricula and have more freedom than before when compiling study programme descriptions. No research is currently available with pure focus on history education and the impact of reduced study time on teachers, students and courses. The topic was researched in the context of a scholarly discussion on history education with Icelandic and foreign participants, as well as a historical overview of discourse on the matter of compression. Special emphasis is placed on history in Icelandic curricula and overviews of different curricula are presented.

The research is presented in two parts. The former part is an overview of the current status of history in study programmes. The 31 schools were divided into two groups, those with history included in all programmes and those where students can complete their matriculation examination without attending any history courses. For more comprehensive results, the schools were also divided by area and different study programmes. The latter part of the study comprises interviews with four history teachers, two from each group. Here, the goal is to explain different emphasis between schools on history education and reasons for its changing status. The findings were analysed using qualitative methods and three themes were put forward: Compression of education time and teachers’ attitude towards this; the status of history education in upper secondary schools; and the future of history as a subject and teachers’ vision in this regard. These themes were also discussed in the context of the former part of the research.

The main findings are that the extent of history education has declined following changes in curricula and the curtailment of education period at upper secondary school level. One out of three upper secondary schools does not include history courses in all its study programmes. The supply of courses differs greatly between schools and the comparison between study programmes reveals notable results. History is compulsory in all programmes emphasising humanities and languages but has declined in other programmes. The extent of compulsory history has declined most in new “open” study programmes, where students have more variety when selecting courses only half of which are mandatory. The interviewers’ views of the curtailed curriculum are generally negative and most want to take a step back. Their perception is that teachers compress the original material into fewer subjects with the aim of graduating as knowledgeable students as before. This may adversely affect students, who teachers feel are under much more stress than before and which may have a negative effect on their mental health. The interviews indicate a difference between schools where history is cut back. One reason mentioned by interviewers is that fewer students are now in upper secondary schools which appears to have a direct effect on the supply of history education. School administrations and school traditions seem to strongly influence the choice of subjects on offer and this research indicates that history is turning into an optional subject in many schools and often designated as belonging to specialized study programmes. This can raise questions on the status of other subjects in different schools and whether new curricula can adversely affect other than core subjects. This research indicates lack of general dialogue on the status of history education in upper secondary schools and it is to be hoped that teachers and others can have an open discussion on the future of history education as well as how the implementation of cutbacks in secondary education has turned out.