Reply to Dr. Samuel Totten

Should There Be Holocaust Education for K-4 Students? A Reply to Dr. Samuel Totten

Heike Deckert Peaceman

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am the head of a specialist working group on elementary level Holocaust Education at the Fritz Bauer Institute (Study and Documentary Center on the History and the Impact of the Holocaust) in Frankfurt, Germany. The working group is developing teaching materials for those interested in dealing with the subject at grade levels 3 and 4. In your letter of October 29, 1999, addressed to "Holocaust Resource Centers", your expressed interest in reactions to your article, "Should There Be Holocaust Education for K-4 Students? The Answer is No". Having done extensive research in this field in the USA and in Germany, I'm pleased to have the opportunity of responding to your request.

In your article you raise crucial questions as to the appropriateness of teaching about the Holocaust to younger children. In opposing Prof. Harriet Sepinwall's position presented in her own article (January 1999), you have opened a long overdue discussion.

Considering the increasing attention in the US given to the complex subject of Holocaust Education in the lower grades, including state implementation of mandates to teach the subject, I have found it surprising that there has been so little academic discussion about its integration into the elementary classroom. German educators are traditionally prone to long, often much too long conceptual debates about new ideas before even considering their implementation in curricula. American educators seem to be more inclined to make faster, innovative changes in curricula with less conceptual discussion. Being aware of the different ways in which each culture approaches education, while considering the complexity of the subject of Holocaust Education, I believe such a comprehensive debate to be absolutely necessary.

The research I have done on the various concepts about, materials for, and experiences in teaching the Holocaust in the age category of K-4 in the US has yielded a somewhat diffuse picture of various approaches of disparate quality. I was therefore very interested in Prof. Sepinwall's presentation of some of the existing curricula and the experiences teachers had with their implementation in elementary school. Such actual classroom experiences always increase the depth and breadth of the discussion about teaching goals and children's reactions to the subject. Nevertheless I share your doubts about some of Prof. Sepinwall's statements, although my conclusions, in the end, differ from yours.

In the following pages, and with reference to your arguments, I would like to illuminate my own standpoint in this discussion. To begin with I would like to take up your last question, "Is What is Being Presented as Holocaust Education Really Holocaust Education or is it Misnamed?"

My own research results confirm your impression that most curricula on Holocaust Education for K-4 do not focus on teaching the historical events. The majority of curricula concentrate on Tolerance Education and Prejudice Reduction in a diverse society. This view of the Holocaust has many problematical implications. The name Holocaust Education, given to a curriculum that either doesn't mention the historical events thereof or mentions them only as an example of one of many human rights issues, is, as you say, misleading. The consequent lack of clarity in the distinction between "lessons from the Holocaust and lessons about the Holocaust" is self evident. The conceptual and terminological ambiguities of what is meant by Holocaust Education make it apparent that a critical review of all curricula and teaching experiences purporting to deal with this subject on the elementary level is necessary. In my opinion, a clearer separation between teaching tolerance in general and teaching the Holocaust in particular would serve to improve the quality of the discussion and of the teaching itself.

Referring to Tolerance Education curricula that include the Holocaust, I share your doubts as to the adequacy of teaching of this subject removed from its historical context. These doubts seem valid for higher grades as well. In fact, ambiguity about differentiating between the moral and the historical lesson of the Holocaust seems to be a characteristic trait of American Holocaust Education in general in all grades. This view is reinforced by statements to this effect by such scholars as Bialystok, Novick and others.

1) In your article you make it very clear that you believe teaching the Holocaust as a historical event on the elementary level is highly problematical. Referring to role play examples given by Prof. Sepinwall such as having the children wear the so called "Judenstern", I would agree with your rejection. As you and Stephen Feinberg emphasised  in 1995, while discussing crucial aspects of teaching the Holocaust in High Schools, attempts to simulate aspects of the historical situation for the purpose of having the students experience the suffering of the victims can warp historical perception and are pedagogically unsound.

2) I would also tend to agree with you that visits to Holocaust memorials and museums for children under 14 are generally inadvisable. On the other hand, whereas the main exhibition at the USHHM in Washington D.C. is not recommended for young students, Daniel's story was specifically designed for children 8 years and older. It would appear that those at the USHMM responsible for Daniel's Story's conceptual realisation are of the opinion that in fact, the historical story can also be told to younger children. In other words, the standard-setting national institution on the history of the Holocaust, its remembrance, and its transmission in America considers Holocaust Education for the younger grades, at least on a certain level, to be legitimate. Thousands of younger children in America have been exposed to this exhibition and have participated in the so called 'Tiles-Project'. The accompanying psychological evaluation of these processes reported no apparent traumatic effects that would confirm your fears for younger children.

3) Similarly, evaluation of the work done at Yad Vashem and the Ghetto Fighter Museum in Israel, which both offer programs for younger children, seems to reinforce the idea that young students are neither emotionally nor cognitively overwhelmed by the historical facts, if presented in a suitable manner. (Unfortunately Sepinwall's description of a class visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum does not inform us as to whether the fourth graders saw the main exhibition or Daniel's story.)

You also ask, "Can the Holocaust Be Taught to Such Young Children?" You present many arguments to the effect that the answer to this question must be an emphatic 'no'; that younger children are incapable of understanding such historical complexity. I think your arguments are in need of clarification. I would actually prefer asking two related, but differently worded questions: Is it possible to teach the critical dimensions of the Holocaust to young children without emphasizing the most gruesome details? Is it possible to teach the essential historical context of the Holocaust to young children?

Experiences over the the last three decades in Germany have shown that the use of explicit confrontation with gruesome details and the viewing of particularly shocking photographs have proven neither to be constructive on higher grade levels nor with adults in learning about the Holocaust. Teaching the Holocaust with emphasis on the details of the atrocities does not appear to be effective and should be rejected. If true for older students and adults, then it is most certainly true for younger children as well. This is not an argument for the denial of the complete historical picture, but rather points out the necessity of finding the proper measure of confrontation with the facts for each specific age group. In regard to  elementary students, there are special criteria that need to be taken into consideration. Though the use of graphic documents of atrocities is certainly to be rejected, it does not mean that the murder of innocent people should not be mentioned. (Death in general, for example, is also a topic children often experience early on - death of a family member, a beloved pet, in a friend's family and they must, and usually do, learn to confront it.) My research, based on classroom observation in American elementary schools, has shown that younger students (age 9 and up) are in fact capable of being exposed to such aspects of the Holocaust as deportation and extermination, if the gruesome details are not specifically emphasized, without any traumatic reactions being reported by parents or teachers. The students' comments seem to indicate an adaquate understanding of the material they had heard. One of the crucial factors here appears to be the relationship between teacher and students in the elementary classroom. Open communication between students, under the empathetic auspices of the teacher in discussions about the Holocaust, is essential. Israeli studies reinforce the importance of the close relationship between teachers and children on the elementary level. It is their opinion that students are possibly better prepared to confront the subject for the first time when they are younger because their relationship to adults is still one of trust, whereas the relationship between teenagers and adults is often less stable or communication between them disturbed. Reports made by teachers and parents of their actual experience in teaching about the Holocaust in lower grades in the USA, Germany and Israel confirm that despite the omittance of explicitly gruesome details, the historical event can, in fact, be dealt with without reducing its appropriate historical substance. Teachers repeatedly mention that children seem to have fewer  problems with the subject than the adults have with the fact that the children will be exposed to the subject. These observations require some critical reflection. There still remains the possibility that younger students have, in fact, not understood what they have heard about the Holocaust in the classroom.

This brings me to my second question: Is it possible to teach  the essential historical context of the Holocaust to young children?

There is no doubt of course that younger students cannot possibly possess the amount of background information and analytical skills you mention. But do the existing curricula for High School students expect the same scope of historical background knowledge and analytical skills, which you define as fundamental, for the understanding of the past? Do you really believe that a legitimate discussion of the Holocaust can take place only when the students possess all the skills required to understand the most complex aspects of the subject? Should we perhaps stop teaching science in the elementary schools because the students are not capable of understanding the most complex theories of physics?

It is my belief that there are many different possible approaches to teaching the history of the Holocaust, approaches that can help students develop a complex understanding of the events without necessarily knowing every fact and understanding every historical theory about it. In fact, every learning process and form of teaching of any subject must take place between the two polls of the existing level of understanding brought to the classroom by the students and that which needs to be learned in order to understand the subject in all its complexity.

It is self evident that exposing students in lower grades directly to the topic of the Holocaust can only be a first step in the development of an understanding of these historical events. This understanding must be cognitively and emotionally expanded as the students go on to higher grades. Within this context it is my opinion that it is possible to structure just such a course of study that specifically deals with the Holocaust rather than usurping its name for the more general theme of Tolerance Education. Teaching the Holocaust in this manner, though, presents greater than usual challenges to the children, teachers and parents - challenges so great that I consider mandating the subject counterproductive.

One of the major challenges lies in finding an appropriate way of presenting the history to this age level. As you mentioned, there are cognitive difficulties children have with historical subjects, such as understanding concepts of time and geography and being able to view a situation abstractly from various perspectives. This is a crucial aspect of  the discussion and needs more careful analysis.

At this point it would be advisable to differentiate more specifically within the K-4 age group of children. In accordance with current theories in developmental psychology, it is quite true that children in the K-2 age group are not sufficiently mature enough, emotionally or intellectually, to be capable of understanding a systematic presentation of the past. At the approximate age of 9 years it can be expected that a child will have gone through the necessary developments that make it possible to adequately understand historical events. For this reason, I believe that specific treatment of the Holocaust in the classroom should be undertaken at the very earliest in the third grade, and only after careful observation of the individual children within the group.

Your doubts as to the cognitive capabilities of elementary students are relevant not only in studying the Holocaust but in the teaching of all historical and political subjects. Recent results of studies in the fields of developmental psychology in general 4) and of learning about history in particular 5) indicate that many of the long held assumptions about the ways children learn need to be rethought. Developers of curricula in the USA have already reacted to these studies. An example is the replacement of the widely accepted, but too static concept of, "the expanding communities curriculum sequence," an idea that was highly influenced by the theories of Piaget. Without delving too deeply into the details, there are indications that younger children are capable of far more complex thinking than previously thought.The problem is apparently more likely one of transmittance. Younger children do not possess the communicative skills with which they could give voice to the complexities in their minds, and adults, therefore, have no way of understanding these uncommunicated complexities. Studies about historical and political learning have brought to light that especially around the age of 8, children are particularly receptive to discussions on human rights and abuses thereof. There are also studies that indicate that concepts necessary to the understanding of historical and political correlations, such as the conceptual skills of time, can be activated and understood by children considerably earlier than previously assumed - if the proper methods are used. These studies take a considerably more differentiated view of the cognitive capabilities and receptiveness of children of this age than you apparently do. However this should not be seen as a justification for the integration of Holocaust Education in Elementary schools, but rather as relevant information in the setting of legitimate guidelines for such an integration.

With this in mind we need to turn to the role of the 'transmitter' of the information; the teacher and his or her role. Beyond this it is necessary to consider the context of the society in which the subject is to be taught and its collective memory. This brings me to your first question: "What is the Express Purpose of Teaching the Holocaust toYoung Children?"

Before this subject can be taken up in the classroom, a teacher must be fundamentally and thoroughly prepared; both in terms of the historical facts as well as the potential emotional effects they can have on students, parents and the teacher himself. Though I essentially share your belief that the teaching of the Holocaust should primarily be historical, in elementary school as well as in upper grades, I still believe it necessary to examine this position more closely. Historical learning in general can only become meaningful to children when it stands in a relevant relationship to questions they have about the present and the future. As you yourself concede, there are in fact, other, inherent (moral) lessons to be learned out of the material. Therefore it would seem to me more sensible to approach the subject openly from both the historical and the moral sides, rather than passively allowing the 'lessons (to) bubble up and out of the history_.'. I am convinced that an appropriate mixture of the various lessons of the Holocaust can be arrived at without losing the historical perspective. As I said above, a fundamental requirement to achieving this goal is the competence of the teacher. The teacher's position is naturally embedded in the larger context of the society and its perception of itself as it stands in relation to the subject. In this respect, since the paradigmatic change known as the "Americanization of the Holocaust" has become widely accepted, teaching the Holocaust in the USA has been linked to teaching fundamental democratic values within the American society. Even if some of the examples of Holocaust Education are somewhat problematic, I believe that teaching it within the framework of  Human Rights and Tolerance Education is still an legitimate approach - if the differences between "then" and "now" are clearly explained. This is highly dependent on the intentions of the teacher within the framework of existing social circumstances. If one is teaching lessons on Human Rights, it is almost inevitable that one should speak about one of the most horrible abuses thereof. This inevitability brings me to my last remarks.

Batsheva Dagan, Holocaust survivor and proponent for Holocaust Education at an early age in Israel said, "Today's children grow up in a world without secrets." ("Heutige Kinder wachsen auf in einer Welt ohne Geheimnisse" 6) ) Children watch television, go onto the web and overhear adult conversations. We must assume that children possess considerable information about the Holocaust today that is, however, only fragmentary in scope. If our attention is drawn to the intentions of the teacher in teaching the Holocaust, then we must not ask, "What is the express purpose of confronting children with one of the most gruesome apsects of human existence?" but rather, "How long can we allow children to be left alone in dealing with the Holocaust?" It is my opinion that it is of utmost importance to give children the necessary cognitive and emotional support in their search for understanding about the past, the present and the future. The decision to undertake such a daunting task, however, should be left up to the individual educator, rather than be mandated from above.

1) Franklin Bialystok, Americanizing the Holocaust: Beyond the Limit of  the Universal, in Rochelle Millen, New Perpectives on the Holocaust,  New York and London: New York University Press, 1996, 122-130. Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999.

2) See Stephen Feinberg and Samuel Totten, Teaching About the Holocaust: Rationale, Content, Methodology & Resources, Social Education 59 (6), 1995, 323-333.

3) See Suzanne Slesin, Through a   Child's Eyes, History and Tragedy, New York Times, 3 June 1993, C1  and C10.

4) See for example: Beate Sodian, Entwicklung  bereichsspezifischen Wissens, in Rolf Oerter and Leo Montana (ed), Entwicklungspsychologie: ein Lehrbuch, Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union, 1995 (3rd. Revised Edition), 623-653.

5) See for a summary: Jere  Brophy and Bruce VanSledright, Teaching and Learning History in  Elementary Schools, New York: Teachers College, 1997.

6) Batsheva  Dagan, Wie können wir Kindern helfen, über den Holocaust zu lernen?  Ein psychologische-pädagogischer Zugang. Warum, was, wie und wann?,  in Jürgen Moysich and Matthias Heyl (ed.), Der Holocaust: Ein Thema  für Kindergarten und Grundschule?, Hamburg: Krämer, 1998, 36-50.