This article was written in the days preceding and following February 15, 2015, the 50^th anniversary of the adoption of Canada’s official flag. It may seem surprising to readers from more established nations, but Canada was not in possession of its own flag until 1965, almost 100 years after its confederation in 1867. Canada began as a colony of Great Britain and the flag debates centered on the issue of whether to keep the Red Ensign, which incorporated the British Union Jack, or adopt a flag entirely of Canadian origin. Many English-Canadians, including war veterans’ organizations and the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire (IODE), argued vociferously that the adoption of the red maple leaf flag was a rejection of Canada’s allegiance to the mother country.1 French-Canadians, in contrast, were largely ambivalent. Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson argued that the maple leaf would symbolize the new Canada, with one-quarter of its nearly 20 million population being descendants of French Canadian founders and another quarter immigrants from nations with neither British nor French heritage. The passionate debates surrounding the decision to adopt a new flag (and the much later decision to replace “God Save the Queen” with “O Canada” as the country’s national anthem) highlighted many of the questions related to national identity which have beset the nation: What is the place of national symbols in a divided nation? What do our national symbols say about us? How do immigrants fit within a nation that already has competing allegiances? What is the role of the two founding nations with regard to Canadian identity? To what degree should we consult history in order to help inform contemporary decisions?2

In the collection Contemporary Public Debates over History Education (Nakou and Barca, 2010), the editors classify international debates over history education into three categories: smooth, moderate, and passionate. Debates in Canada appear in the smooth category, although a debate over the current curriculum in the predominantly French-speaking province of Quebec was deemed to be passionate (Cardin, 2010). Debates in the province of Quebec have been more passionate because history there is so intricately tied to assertion of identity. After all, Quebec’s motto, inscribed on every vehicle license plate, is “Je me souviens,” although what precisely Quebecers are intended to remember has prompted much debate in itself. The ‘national history’ taught in Quebec is a history of the Quebecois ‘nation’ first, set within the larger context of the Canadian confederation. Debates in English-speaking Canada, although they are indeed passionate at times, tend to exhibit less longevity. It may be that there is thought to be less at stake.

Debates in English Canada have generally not been as “smooth” as characterized in Debates, although the establishment of the “Benchmarks of Historical Thinking” Project, discussed in this chapter, was smoother than most (Seixas, 2010). Perhaps Canada’s debates have not been as warlike as those in other national contexts (Clark, 2009).3 However, whether wars or debates, history and history education have certainly encountered challenges.

Contention in the public domain has centered on museum exhibitions (Conrad, 2008; MacMillan, 2008), commemorations and memorials (Seixas and Clark, 2004) and filmic portrayals (Smith, 2006; Waiser, 9 March, 2006). In the domain of academia, debate has focused on whether political, military, or social history should provide the predominant framework for historical accounts (Bliss, 1991-92; Dummitt, 2009; Granatstein; 1998). In education, curriculum (Cardin, 2010; Éthier and Lefrançois, 2011; Granatstein, 1998; Létourneau, 2011; Neatby, 1953; Osborne, 2000; Osborne, 2003; Osborne, 2004; Osborne, 2006; Osborne, 2011) and textbooks (Conrad and Finkel, 2003; Clark, 2006; Clark, 2008; Clark, 2009; Clark, 2014; Helyar, 2014; Humphries, 1968) have been at the center of the storms.

The controversies that have swirled around textbooks have been about as contentious as it gets in this country. As social studies educator Geoffrey Milburn put it in 1972, “Almost every aspect of history teaching has been attacked. Sending textbooks scuttling for cover is a seasonal occupation among critics” (p. 122). By the late 1960s, there was deep concern about how Canadians were representing themselves in school history in general and their history textbooks in particular. There was a need to respond to the increasingly multicultural nature of Canadian society, the rise of second-wave feminism, and Aboriginal activism, as well as French/English dualism and the growing threat of Quebec nationalism to Canadian unity. There was a deluge of textbook analyses during the 1970s, conducted by provincial departments of education and human rights commissions, women’s and Aboriginal organizations, and national royal commissions.

There were three key studies in 1970 and 1971, each representing a separate area of concern. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism found stark differences between the Canadian history textbooks used in Quebec and those authorized in English-speaking Canada. English and French-language texts focused on different eras in Canadian history. The authors found that after the British Conquest of 1760 the texts did “not even seem to be talking about the same country! The English-speaking authors do their best to give an overall history of Canada, while the French authors. . . . hardly talk about anything but the history of Quebec and its expansion beyond its borders” (Trudel and Jain, 1970, p. 124). The survival of French culture and religion and the Roman Catholic Church, prominent themes in the French-language texts, received little attention in the English-language texts. The Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada concluded that women’s roles were not represented fairly or accurately in elementary school textbooks (Bird et al., 1970, p. 175). Teaching Prejudice (McDiarmid and Pratt, 1971) was sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Education and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Garnet McDiarmid, a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and his graduate student, David Pratt, after examination of 143 history textbooks authorized in Ontario, concluded that “we are most likely to encounter in textbooks devoted Christians, great Jews, hardworking immigrants, infidel Moslems, primitive Negroes, and savage Indians” (p. 45).

There were many studies that examined depictions of Aboriginal people. The Shocking Truth About Indians in Textbooks, a 1977 study by the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, sadly concluded that, “the main failure of the textbooks under review is their tendency to treat the Native as an impediment to be removed so that the goals of European ‘progress’ can be realized” (p. iii). Other studies found errors of fact, glaring omissions and negative stereotyping (Paton and Deverell, 1974; Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, 1974). Alberta’s 1981 Native People in the Curriculum, a study of 264 social studies textbooks used in that province, reported that, “63% of all materials which dealt with native issues were found to be either seriously problematic or completely unacceptable” (Decore et al., 1981, p. 2). As a result of this study, a number of texts were removed from authorized lists.

Textbooks used at the post-secondary level have also been criticized for racism (Stanley, 2000), but discussion has mostly centered on the degree to which political and military events should constitute the framework around which the text is built. The question is: What do students in an undergraduate history survey course need to know? Textbook authors Conrad and Finkel (2003) ask: “How far could historians go in revealing the warts on our national past without compromising national unity? Should they worry about such unity in the first place? Did they have the right to suggest that the so-called ‘losers’ in the human struggle for power and dominance deserved equal time with the ‘winners’” (p. 13)? The textbooks used in post-secondary courses are less controversial than those used in elementary and secondary schools for several reasons. First, their student readers are older and presumably have a greater ability to think critically about textbook content. Second, post-secondary instructors have autonomy over textbook choice because there is no official authorization process as there is for texts used in schools. Third, taking a history course in post-secondary is more a matter of individual student choice than in secondary. Finally, textbooks are often a less central part of a history course at post-secondary, where lectures are typically of equal or greater importance.

The decade of the 1990s was the nadir of history education in Canada. In 1996, Ken Osborne, a prominent historian and history education scholar, captured the zeitgeist when he warned that in his province of Manitoba, “social studies, history, geography, and the arts and humanities in general, are ignored or downgraded” (p. 28). He continued on to say that this was neither “an aberration nor an accident. It is part of a wider move to sweep the very idea of democratic citizenship aside” (p. 30).

The Dominion Institute added to the acrimony of the debates. It was established as a charitable organization in 1997, with a mandate to promote history and citizenship goals in curricula. Its surveys “chronicled a national malaise about our past. These surveys point to a troubling ignorance about our country’s history, particularly among young Canadians.” Eighty-two percent of young Canadians aged 18 to 24, failed a 1997 test of Canadian history knowledge. For example, fewer than half (46%) could name Canada’s first prime minister and only one-quarter (26%) knew the year of Canada’s Confederation. The Dominion Institute got off to a rocky start because its negative, publicity-mongering approach alienated history educators at every level. The organization seemed to have nothing to offer but criticism. A low point was its publication in 2009 of a “report card” which rated each province’s history or social studies courses. However, its 2009 merger with Historica, another public history organization which has taken a more positive approach, organizing summer institutes for teachers and offering the Historica minutes (originally funded by the Bronfmann Foundation), brief video segments dramatizing particular historical events and people, signaled an encouraging shift in direction. At this time, the joint organization has a number of useful and popular programs, including the Historica Minutes. Now known as Historica Canada, the organization is described on its website as, “the largest independent organization devoted to enhancing awareness of Canadian history and citizenship.”

Controversy erupted full force in 1998 with the publication of the provocatively titled Who Killed Canadian History? In it, historian J.L. Granatstein criticized both history and history education. He blamed historians for their narrow research interests, which sundered the traditional national narrative. He blamed provincial/territorial curriculum policymakers for choosing social studies instead of history courses and interest groups for lobbying for inclusion of their own interests. In his view, the history that did manage to make its way into the school curriculum represented “the grievers among us” (p. xiii), with the result that students were left with very skewed understandings of our past. Perhaps it was timing, because the book appeared shortly after a Quebec referendum in which voters decided by a very narrow margin to stay within the Canadian Confederation. Perhaps it was the widespread blaming that sparked the backlash, but the book ignited a storm among historians, educators, and the public at large. In response, a number of historians proudly declared themselves to be “killers” of Canadian history and argued articulately as to why it was necessary to “kill” the narrow and exclusive nation-building narrative (Stanley, 2000). Others, such as Desmond Morton (1999), pondered the question, “If [history] is dead, why does it look so lively?” At the very least, people’s attention was focused on school history.

Canadian history education has been characterized by four distinctly different aims over time, each of which has competed for space in the curriculum. There is a chronological component in that each of the first three has enjoyed a period of greater prominence and then lost ground. This is not to suggest, however, that any of these has disappeared entirely. Each remains evident to varying degrees.

In Germany, historical consciousness is “widely discussed in academia, but [it] also has left deep footprints in educational practice” (Köbl and Konrad, 2015, p. 17). Neither is the case in Canada.7 The concept first appeared in English Canada at a 2001 international conference that marked the establishment of the Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness at UBC and resulted in the 2004 publication, Theorizing Historical Consciousness, the first Canadian book publication on the topic. The book took its definition of the term from German philosopher, Jörn Rüsen, a participant in the conference and book contributor. According to Rüsen, “history is the mirror of past actuality into which the present peers in order to learn something about its future. Historical consciousness . . . render[s] present actuality intelligible while fashioning its future perspectives” (p. 67).

The concept has garnered greater interest in Quebec than in English-speaking provinces, perhaps due to that province’s closer ties to Europe. Quebec researcher Catherine Duquette (2015) has investigated the relationship between historical consciousness and historical thinking, using both a theoretical analysis and an empirically based assessment. She administered a complex four-stage assessment of historical thinking to 148 Quebec students in their final year of secondary school. She began with Rüsen’s model of historical consciousness, but did not find it useful for measuring progression in historical consciousness. Using a four-tiered model she developed, she found that growth in historical consciousness and growth in historical thinking progressed in tandem. This study makes a significant contribution to the literature for two reasons: 1. It tests Rüsen’s model empirically. 2. It suggests that it is reasonable to see students’ level of historical consciousness as an indicator of their ability to think historically. Given that history assessments that do not rely on specific content knowledge are rare, Duquette’s model could serve as an exemplar for future assessments of students’ historical thinking.

Michael Marker (2011) has identified indigenous historical consciousness as an area needing greater attention. He identifies “four themes of indigenous historical consciousness that travel outside of ways that history courses are constructed and taught” (p. 97). These are 1. a circular concept of time versus a linear one, a view that contradicts the Eurocentric sense of progression of people and ideas in time; 2. a view of plants and animals as being unsegmented from humans. This differs from the economic context in which they are presented in Canadian history textbooks – a context that presents them as economic commodities in resource industries such as the fur trade; 3. indigenous attention to local concerns and the relationship between these concerns and concepts of protection of traditional territory and land claims; 4. colonization, including misunderstandings originating in contrasting worldviews. Marker has urged that these indigenous perspectives be incorporated in curricula and textbooks so that indigenous students are not alienated from the official curriculum.

Peter Seixas (2012) has pointed to the significant degree to which these characteristics of indigenous ways of understanding the past pose difficulties for Western historiographies. There is not sufficient space to deal with these ideas here, but perhaps most notable is that this notion of historical consciousness allows no room for teaching students to “assess the significance of stories, how to analyze the evidence behind stories, how to relate micro-stories to larger pictures of historical development, and how to unearth stories’ underlying structures and implicit ethical messages,” (p. 135), all of which are central to a critical disciplinary approach to history education. The authority of authors demands a critical stance. “There is little room for exclusive claims to insular knowledge” (p. 136). He observes that if indigenous ways of knowing can form the basis for historical narratives, then “who will be able to object to histories based on Islamic cosmology, Biblical fundamentalism and Haitian voodoo?” (p. 136). This is the beginning of troubling, but necessary, dialogues that need to take place as we consider the nature of knowledge and the place of different views of historical consciousness. This particular discussion may be unique to Canada.

In the absence of a national history curriculum and the presence of 13 separate educational jurisdictions (ten provinces and three territories), each with its own curriculum mandate, generalizations about education often must be qualified. While there have been attempts from time to time to unite several provinces in a joint curriculum endeavour, these have been limited in scope and in some cases quietly abandoned after significant time, effort and financial outlay. One complication is that many provinces and territories have chosen to eschew history for the interdisciplinary subject of social studies, which encompasses history, but also geography and a smattering of other social science disciplines. There is a range of responses to the history/social studies dilemma across jurisdictions and the content and approach of social studies courses vary considerably across the country (Shields and Ramsey, 2002; Shields and Ramsey, 2004). Only Alberta has a mandatory social studies curriculum for all grades. Ontario offers social studies at the elementary grades and history at secondary. Quebec has a History and Citizenship curriculum. Other provinces offer social studies courses, with electives that include history and geography. Only four provinces require that students take a separate course in Canadian history in secondary school. The territories rely predominantly on particular provincial curricula, although they have their own curricula as well.8

There have been calls for a national history curriculum accompanied by national textbooks since the late 19^th Century. At that time, the Dominion Education Association, provincial teachers’ associations, and provincial governments sponsored a contest for a history textbook that would be acceptable across the country. The winner, The History of the Dominion of Canada, declared that it was intended to “unite the various currents of provincial history into the broader channel of the Dominion” (Clement, 1897, v-vi). In the end the book was authorized in only four provinces, the others apparently resisting this effort to direct them into “the broader channel of the Dominion.” Trudel and Jain (1970), in their Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism Report, recommended that a national history textbook be developed by a collaborative team of French-and-English-speaking historians. This project was not carried out.

More recently, in a 2007 presentation to the National Forum on Canadian History, sponsored by Canada’s National History Society, historian and history educator Ruth Sandwell made a passionate plea for what she called, a “model history curriculum.” Her rationale was: “The work of historians, history educators and teachers from across the country, as well as those from our own province, territory or region, can provide a better foundation for understanding our role in this participatory, pluralist democracy than one based only on those coming from our own province”. Sandwell stopped short of calling for one national curriculum, instead, proposing that a model be developed from which the provinces/territories could draw for their own purposes. She noted that a model curriculum would include generalizations about Canadian history, while also recognizing “what Jocelyn Létourneau has called the ‘dissonance and fragmentation’ that lies at the heart of Canadian history”. She also noted that the curriculum should not be solely about knowledge, but should incorporate effective teaching practices intended to lead to increased historical understandings.

Teachers of social studies and history in K-12 schools have provincial organizations, with professional journals and annual conferences, but there is no national organization.9 History education scholars have no national organization, national journal, or national conference, therefore lacking a formal forum for dissemination of research, scholarly critique, and exchange of ideas.10 Academic historians do have a national organization, the Canadian Historical Association, which provides a journal and an annual forum for presentation and discussion of papers and also acts as an advocacy group. However, there are yawning communication gaps between historians and history education scholars in faculties of education, and between both groups and teachers at the Kindergarten to grade twelve levels, which makes dissemination of research findings challenging (Sandwell, 2005).

There are a number of private nonprofit national organizations in Canada that work to influence history education across provincial/territorial boundaries, often with a mandate to influence the public-at-large as well. They include Historica Canada and Canada’s National History Society (now called Canada’s History), mentioned prevously, and The Association For Canadian Studies. They obtain funding in a variety of ways, including individual donations, endowments, magazine subscriptions, and federal government grants. Their approaches to history education vary, but a nation-building mandate is more the norm than not.11 Contributions made by these organizations are primarily in the areas of offering conferences for history educators, conducting surveys, recognizing excellent teachers, and promoting student engagement with historical topics through essay contests, excursions, and teaching resources. It seems that private initiatives are becoming more influential on history curriculum and classroom practice over time, but we do not have empirical evidence regarding their impact. This is an area for future research.

Although the Canadian federal government does not have a formal educational mandate, it often enters the educational conversation by the back door, so to speak. This occurs by means of resources supplied through federal entities such as the National Film Board of Canada, funding for nonprofit organizations such as Canada’s History and Historica Canada, provision of funds to commemorate historically significant events, including the 200^th anniversary of the War of 1812, the 150^th anniversary of Confederation, and the 100^th anniversary of the beginning of World War One (in which Canada had significant involvement), and school materials developed to support these commemorative activities.

The federal government also exercises influence through its distribution of research funds; providing grants that have supported both new research and dissemination of research findings through means that may ultimately influence classroom practice at all levels. The Historical Thinking Project was one such project. Since the mid-2000s, the government has encouraged research dissemination through its Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grants. One of these has supported The History Education Network/Histoire et éducation en réseau (THEN/HiER) over an eight-year period from 2008 to 2016, under the leadership of Penney Clark at the University of British Columbia.12 THEN/HiER has held symposia that have provided opportunities for scholars to share their research findings about how teachers teach and students learn history, organized workshops for teachers, and supported the development of innovative educational resources. Its website at www.thenhier.ca provides a crucial clearinghouse for research findings and opportunities to engage in debates about applications of these findings.

The Network’s series of five scholarly edited books is unique in the history of Canadian history education and could only have been developed by means of sustained funding. New Possibilities for the Past (2011) is a broad look at the field, examining the contested terrains of Canadian historiography and debates about history education in English Canada and in Quebec, and the inclusion of indigenous perspectives. It considers implications of research for history learning in a variety of settings, including, but not limited to, schools. Pastplay (2014) investigates ways in which technology can enrich history education. Becoming a History Teacher in Canada (2014) explores history teacher education. New Directions in Assessing Historical Thinking (2015) addresses approaches to assessment of historical thinking and historical consciousness in various nations. Museums and the Past (2016) explores critical public engagement with historical narratives in museums. The sixth book, to be authored, will consider current and potential roles for the arts in history education, as well as ways the arts use history.

The outcome of the debates about history and history education has been increased emphasis on history education and a more nuanced understanding of its purposes in the school curriculum. This increased interest has resulted in support for new ideas about what is important in teaching history. There have been a number of exciting initiatives in history education over the past two decades. There is a thriving history education research community that has managed to connect with Canadian and international historians, teachers, public historians, and museum professionals, to conduct joint research projects, exchange ideas at symposia and conferences, contribute to joint publications, and develop classroom resource materials.

History education research is flourishing, with scholars investigating areas such as the use of technology (e.g., gaming, virtual environments) to teach history, how to build historical thinking into museum exhibitions, how to teach with primary sources, and how to assess student progression in terms of understanding historical thinking concepts (Clark, 2014). Dissemination of research findings is receiving greater attention, as new vehicles for dissemination and critique are explored. What sets Canada apart from European nations is its limited attention to historical consciousness. With the exception of work in Quebec, there is no empirical research intended to determine the relationship between historical consciousness and historical thinking.

My co-authors and I ended a recent article with the comment that, “While it is impossible to predict where we will be a decade hence, the prospects [for history education] seem almost limitless” (Clark, Lévesque, and Sandwell, 2015, p. 211). That article was written in 2012, but the prospects remain limitless. Many were discomfited when The Historical Thinking Project’s funds were not renewed by Canadian Heritage in March of 2014 and indeed, this was a setback. However, as noted previously, the work of the project has found its way into curricula and authorized textbooks across Canada. Almost every province is implementing some version of historical thinking concepts; moving away from a solely nation-building emphasis to one that promotes understanding that history is constructed and contested. The work of The History Education Network has helped academic historians, history education scholars, public historians, museum professionals, practicing teachers, curriculum developers, and textbook publishers to see where they have common aims and it has provided opportunities for them to collaborate in efforts to attain those aims. The onus is on all of these constituencies to continue to collaborate with others nationally and internationally to develop the best history education possible for Canadian students.