Interview broadcast on COPE Valencia with Carles Villeta and our teacher of History in Secondary, Evelyn Waite

In a world that lives hooked on immediacy, why argue that looking back is the best way to see the way forward? What can History offer a 21st-century young person?  

I think it’s so easy to look at history as a collection of dusty old dates and dead kings and queens, when in fact we should see it as a precious gift. We live in an era of such rapid change and information overload, of fake news and social media algorithms, and history is the subject that forces us to slow down and not be intimidated or overly influenced by all of this ‘noise’. Especially when young people today are constantly bombarded online with dubious sources who claim to have all the answers. History is a subject that teaches you how to analyse information and where that information comes from. Students learn to ask questions like: who wrote this and why? What was going on in the world at the time? How do I know if this person is saying something accurate? History students don’t just take one person’s word for it. They look for multiple perspectives, they weigh up arguments, they think through complex ideas.

And every single thing that our students read about, or are interested in, has a history. We can understand no current conflict, no government decision, no piece of technology, without understanding its past. 

All of this is a gift because it gives young people intellectual independence to think for themselves. And, really, that’s such a superpower.

Based on your experience in the classrooms of Caxton College, what ‘fears’ or prejudices do students face today when choosing History as a subject? Does that reputation as a ‘tough’ or overly dense subject still hold weight?

I think, unfortunately, History as a school subject has a bit of an image crisis. Students are sometimes blinded by the fact that it involves a lot of reading and writing, and I’ve got to be honest - some students are put off by that because their immediate instinct is that it’s boring or difficult, or both! They also sometimes struggle to see the connection with a future career. So they say things to me like - I want to be an engineer/doctor/run my own business, so I don’t need History. When actually, as I’ve already mentioned, the skills students learn in their History lessons are absolutely essential for understanding the world we live in. And if those students want to be engineers, doctors, scientists et cetera, I always say the same thing - it doesn’t matter what career you want to have, because whatever career you choose you will need to navigate data, make decisions based on evidence, weigh up the credibility of masses of information. You will need to understand people, power structures, the cultural landscape of our world. How can any of us possibly begin to do that without the skills of analysis and critical thinking that we gain from studying history? And of course with that does come reading and writing, as we learn to articulate our thoughts with precision and persuasion. It’s no coincidence that the most influential people in the world are almost always the most well-read - because if they’re not, then they’re giving their power away to someone else’s interpretation of things.

One thing that is very attractive about the British system is that it doesn’t expect students to be a walking encyclopaedia, but rather to learn to question sources and analyse the "why" behind things. Is it that depth that makes the difference in how you teach History?

Here at Caxton College, we teach our students that the truth is rarely on the surface - and, anyway, does ‘truth’ even exist as a concept? We have to dig for understanding, and this can take time. We have to be patient! Obviously we need to know dates and names and places, but this knowledge only scratches at the surface of what history really is. We want to train our students to be able to sit with a text, ask it questions and read between the lines. We also want students to work with each other, because that’s fundamental, too - to share ideas with someone who might not have the same view, challenge them about what they think and, perhaps most crucially, be challenged ourselves, too. That’s the beauty of this subject. We teach our students to be active participators in what we teach, rather than passive consumers of knowledge. It’s challenging for our young people, I think, because they are much more comfortable with solid, concrete answers - and we really try to push them outside of their comfort zone.

You have been very clear in your article in 'Tes' magazine: the current examination model can be a barrier. How would you evaluate your students so that they can demonstrate their analytical ability?

Yes, the current structure of the British exams for History is tough - it demands a lot of our students. That’s why it’s a subject that’s valued so highly in elite Russell Group universities like Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics. I studied History at two of these universities myself. I do strongly believe that History exams need to be rigorous, but I would make some significant changes. For example, I would provide more opportunities for students to evaluate primary source material, but with a much less rigid framework. I’d love for our students to be able to have a professional conversation with their examiner about a historical source like a diary extract, letter or speech - I really think a speaking element could be such a brilliant way of putting students’ skills of analysis to the test. It’s probably also time for us traditionalist historians to be a bit more innovative, too - why not include a more creative element to an examination like curating a museum exhibition on a given topic? A project like this would give students so much scope for really getting to grips with the complexity of history like the power of narrative and selection, and it would push them to consider the plurality of historical voices that should be heard and the ethics associated with that.

In recent years there has been a lot of talk about STEM subjects—that is, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—but is there room for History in the age of algorithms? How do we convince society that the Humanities are the essential complement to that technology?  

I think we are often sold the idea that the future belongs almost exclusively to STEM subjects, but humanities subjects are not their rival. It’s absolutely the opposite - subjects like history, philosophy, literature make science and technology ever more meaningful in today’s society. The scientists and engineers shouldn’t just be asking, ‘can we build this’ or ‘how do we develop this’, they should also be asking, ‘should we build this?’ ‘What impact will this have on society?’ And if we are speaking about algorithms, we can make all sorts of powerful code, but what’s the point for society if we can’t debate the ethics for the framework of that algorithm, or evaluate how it’s being used? We are already seeing the dangers that algorithms can do on social media, and it’s pretty frightening. A successful algorithm that spreads misinformation is a failure of bad data, and that has such profound implications for society as a whole. Because, let’s face it, words and narratives are probably the most powerful tools ever invented - and students of humanities are the safeguards for those tools. Science and technology can change the world, but humanities ask - how can we ensure that those changes are for the better?