Idiosyncrasies The Holocaust in curricula

1 idiosyncrasies

1.1 federal education systems
1.2 curricula in state of transition
1.3 irregular naming of victim groups
1.4 curriculum annexes

idiosyncrasies

several curricula not entirely conform recognizable pattern , therefore require further explanation. these may categorized follows.

federal education systems

one example here switzerland, education holocaust obligatory not contained in curricula of regions , cantons because, davis , rubinstein-avila suggest, no constraints on how event should taught imposed in face of complex national story; in switzerland, example, jews partially accepted refugees, partly turned away @ border, , banks collaborated nazi regime. here, ‘self-reflexive approach’ taken teaching holocaust. brazilian ministry of education issues national guidelines stipulate teaching holocaust. however, these guidelines not binding , function recommendations content can adapted , extended locally. curricula primary school level @ age 9 in brazil provided on municipal level, whereas provincial states determine curricula content secondary school level, while schools have final decision on taught in classrooms. following attacks on synagogues , jewish cemeteries, porto alegre first municipality introduce compulsory education holocaust public schools in 2010.

curricula in state of transition

the history curriculum of 2003 in finland prescribes teaching of ‘european extremist movements, crisis of democracy , persecution of people [in] different countries; second world war , consequences’, , contains context no direct reference holocaust. however, amendments made ministry of education in 2010 have led shift towards more explicit stipulation of teaching holocaust in context of human rights education. in section concerning ethics school years 7 nine, curriculum stipulates teaching of ‘human rights violations such holocaust’; in section devoted history, ‘human rights, human rights violations such genocide, holocaust, , persecution of people in different countries’. likewise, in section concerning ethics, curriculum upper secondary school levels stipulates teaching ‘human rights, human rights conventions , history, human rights violations such holocaust’, , in section on history, ‘human rights, genocide, holocaust , persecution of people in different countries’. testifies shift towards contextualized teaching holocaust, 1 section of upper-level history curriculum stipulating direct education history of holocaust.

irregular naming of victim groups

mentions of holocaust not accompanied clear references groups of victims (examples in context australia, bulgaria, canada (alberta), ethiopia, italy, mexico , usa (texas)). in curricula, jews group of victims named (the curricula of walloon , german authorities in belgium, côte d’ivoire, germany (bavaria), hungary , panama); others point out connection of holocaust antisemitism [albania, canada (ontario), ireland, liechtenstein, namibia, portugal , spain], or make explicit mention of several groups of victims such sinti , roma (costa rica, ecuador, france, south africa, trinidad , tobago , usa (california)), homosexuals (south africa, trinidad , tobago, , usa (california)), political opponents (south africa , german land of lower saxony) , further groups subsumed under ‘other minorities’ (germany (lower saxony , north rhine-westphalia), namibia, singapore , swaziland) or summarized ‘others failed meet aryan ideal’ (california).

curriculum annexes

côte d’ivoire not include holocaust part of core curriculum, makes explicit reference in example syllabus in appendix curriculum.