Models of state control in history education: Curriculum, learning materials and delivery

When surveying history curricula and textbooks around the world, it is worth acknowledging the existence of fundamental differences in the ways the state controls or influences what is taught and how. Broadly, we can distinguish between control of:

• Curriculum content;
• Learning and teaching materials (traditionally textbooks);
• Delivery.

Curriculum content

With respect to curriculum content, the state can have varying levels of control, including:

• Defining guidelines from which curricula can be developed at regional or sub-population level. Examples of countries adopting this approach include Australia, Canada, China, Germany, India, Israel (between state-provided and religious/Arab systems), South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, United States. Often this reflects a federated approach to other aspects of governance.
• Defining a single fully specified curriculum that the whole country or region has to follow and for which textbooks are written. Examples of countries adopting this approach include Cuba, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel (state-secular and state-religious systems), Japan, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom. The extent to which the specified curriculum is followed exclusively also varies. For example, in Israel, the “core” curriculum is only expected to take up 70% of the time, allowing autonomy over how to spend the remaining 30%; in the United Kingdom, different examination boards can introduce supplementary topics and choose which topics to emphasise.

Often, when a country is first established, the history curriculum is developed at national level, but over time, different regions or sub-populations are given some degree of control over their curriculum content.

Learning and teaching materials

With respect to learning and teaching materials, the state often has some role to play in the development and/or adoption of textbooks. This might include:

• Mandating the adoption of a single set of textbooks throughout the country or in a given region (state designation system). These textbooks might be produced by the state itself or by a contractor. Examples of countries adopting this approach include Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Korea.
• Authorising and/or banning textbooks, which might also be at regional level (state authorisation system). Examples of countries following this model include China, Egypt, France, Japan, Israel, Russia, Turkey.
• Accrediting textbooks so that they are deemed to be fit to meet the curriculum requirements of the country or a region (state approval system). Examples of countries adopting this approach include Australia, Canada, Germany, India, United States.

Delivery of the curriculum and learning materials

To some extent, both the curriculum and the learning materials can greatly influence how history education is delivered, hence the influence of the state can follow as a consequence of its influence over these aspects.

In addition, in some countries, the state can also explicitly define guidelines on how the curriculum should be implemented with respect to the content of each lesson, the teaching and learning methods that should be adopted, and how much time should be dedicated to different topics. Examples of countries that provide pedagogical guidelines include Cuba, China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Korea.

Contextual factors behind state control

Much research on history education is dedicated to studying shifts in state control with political transitions and external events. We can observe, for example, that state control tends to be stronger when a nation first comes into existence or in conflict situations (see, for example the narratives in Israel and Palestine, the “rationalisation” of India’s history syllabus and textbooks or the recent urgent revisions made in Russia’s textbooks following the invasion of Ukraine), and changes in government often come with educational reform. One plausible explanation for this is that history education provides the state with “weapons of mass instruction” for building and maintaining national identity. Many see this strong sense of national identity as prerequisite for mobilising action, whether this be directed inwards to nation-building activities or outwards to combative activities. Perhaps this premise is worth revisiting if humanity needs to mobilise around global concerns.

This article is part of the World School History project, which studies the content and underlying principles driving history education in different populations over time, with a view to better understanding different narratives and perspectives. Readers are warmly invited to comment on this article, point out mistakes and omissions (I’m sure there are many), and engage in a respectful conversation with other readers. For those who would like to give deeper feedback or have a more extensive dialogue, please use the World School History Project participation form.