Response: Ken Osborne's "Canadian History in Schools"

Ken Osborne, like Penney Clark, makes the assumption that there is a distinct Canadian national identity.  Unlike Clark, he sees this national identity as more varied and complicated than the current curriculum or other historians have postulated before.  I think that's a helpful stance to take on the subject of history, especially when you're arguing for a reevaluation of history in the classroom. 

Again though, there are problems with some of the improvements Osborne suggests be applied to the classroom.  Several of his new teaching methods are antiquated and archaic.  They also would be ineffective for instructing students of the digital age.  Memorization and purely knowledge based examinations need to be reassessed before they are integrated back into the new classroom.  Perhaps the reason why history is such a bore and an effort for teachers and students alike is because we keep referring back to an old system of instruction, one that we cling to idealistically because for whatever reason, we think it's an accurate measure of success.  Osborne wants what Sir Ken Robinson calls reformation, not revolution.  The history curriculum requires the latter.