News

"Even for a jaded pollster like me these are jaw-dropping statistics," the Dominion Institute's Rudyard Griffiths writes today in his column Let's not be a rootless nation of amnesiacs

"Only one in four Canadians 18 to 24 -- the graduates of some of the world's best-funded school systems -- can give the date of Confederation.

"Less than half can name Sir John A. Macdonald as our first prime minister. If there is any solace for the Old Chieftain in these dismal findings, it is that barely one in four young adults are familiar with his arch-nemesis, Louis Riel.

"These results, compared with an identical survey we conducted a decade ago, indicate that young people's knowledge of Macdonald, Confederation and Riel is declining, on average, a percentage point a year.

"Given what we know now about the links between civic literacy, political participation and the cohesiveness of diverse societies, our latest 10-year benchmark study raises the question: What can be done to stop us from becoming a rootless nation of amnesiacs?"

What do you think? What suggestions do you have?

Mr. Griffiths was online today to answer your questions. Your questions and Mr. Griffiths's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Griffiths is the co-founder of the Dominion Institute . He is also the co-director of the Grano Speakers Series and an advisor to the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Griffiths is a political affairs commentator for CHUM Television and writes an occasional column on national issues for the Sunday Toronto Star. He has edited eight books on Canadian history and politics.

He also serves on the boards of the Stratford Festival and Adrienne Clarkson's Canadian Institute for Citizenship. In 2006, he was recognized as one of Canada's Top 40 under 40.

Sasha Nagy, globeandmail.com: Dear Rudyard: Thanks for taking questions about this important topic. My first gut reaction is to dismiss the results of your poll and assume that my kids are learning enough about Canadian history. However, on sober second thought, I do worry that if I was to give my 12-year old son a quiz he may not fare well because we so rarely discuss Canadian history. Has the study of Canadian history fallen off the educational map in Canada. If so, why?

Rudyard Griffiths: Thanks for your question. The quiz was created to measure the knowledge of high school graduates so if your 12 year old answer half the questions correctly he is way ahead of his age group.

I would argue that yes the teaching of history is continuing to "fall off the map" and things have got worse not better over the last 10 years. In B.C. for example the Grade 11 mandatory social studies course used to have a mandatory history unit. This unit was recently made an elective and is just one of series of examples of how less history is being taught in Canadian schools then in any time in our past full stop. Why is this happening? I think has a lot to do with curricula focusing more and more on the goal of employability as opposed to good citizenship. Math and the physical sciences are seen as being more important to providing young people with the practical knowledge they will need to survive in a competitive, high technology workplace. History is the big loser when this "calculus" is applied to curriculum development.

Mike Gorman from Halifax writes: Every few years, one fo these studies comes out slamming 'young Canadians' for their supposed vast ignorance…

But how many of you could, say, tell me which Bronte sister wrote Wuthering Heights, or the name of the third man on the Apollo 11 mission who sat above the moon piloting the CM? Without the need for application, all of this is needless trivia, making such studies (and the following 'woe is us' choir) about as necessary and in depth as Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader (Canadian Edition).

Could 1 in 4 'old' Canadians identify a national, or even Native artists or musician, aside from those who've made the jump south fo the border, or hosted a Juno Awards? Possibly, but what would it matter? All of this can easily be learned with a little interest.

What about 'young Canadians' who don't understand the electoral system? Or where current drug laws originate from? Would those not be worse ignorances? The date of Confederation is immaterial to the fact of Confederation.

Rudyard Griffiths: Mike you and I are going to disagree on this one…

Civic literacy is the lifeblood of our democracy. Ensuring that every citizen shares a basic familiarly with the country's history, its foundational documents such as the Charter, its political systems and geography is a fundamental social responsibility. The fact is that if you don't know what happened in 1867 or who our head of state is or what a law is called before it is passed by Parliament then you are at a disadvantage when it come to understanding let alone participating in the major debates shaping your society. The grim reality is that civic illiteracy also erodes the political efficacy of those who need democracy to work — the poor and undereducated.

For instance, should the rich by virtue of their higher levels of education enjoy increased rates of civic literacy and a greater commensurate ability to participate in our democracy and influence its future direction? Should we scrap the citizenship exam and let newcomers struggle on their own to overcome the knowledge barriers that all too often discourage recent immigrants from taking part in our democracy?

What I find interesting about people who attack the argument that mastering a body of factual knowledge about the country is a basic responsibility of every citizen is that they most often are Progressives. These are the very same folks who, like I do, bemoan low voting rates, the decline of trust in government institutions and the increasing decentralization of our federation.

The quixotic campaign that the Dominion Institute and other groups have been leading for the last decade to promote civic literacy in our schools and public debates is a natural ally to the Progressive cause. Study after study show the correlation between high levels of civic literacy and increased political participation. Also, surely, we can agree that in a country as regionalized as Canada and dependent on high levels of immigration that ensuring we share basic knowledge about who we are as a people and what we've accomplished together is a basic act of nation building?

jdm stewart from Toronto writes: As you know, Rudyard, I am not happy about these poll results either. One of the things that has fascinated me about this issue, however, is how the teaching of Canadian history has been strangely absent from the debate. Clearly, it is teachers who have the first line of contact with the students of the country and it is in large part teachers who can make a difference. I am curious about your views as to why the quality of teaching Canadian history has not been examined as a possible aspect of the problem. Let's assume that we all know there are some very dedicated and excellent history teachers out there. But what about after that? Maybe this needs to be examined when we think about solutions.

Rudyard Griffiths: Mr. Stewart, good to have you as part of this discussion. You are right there are some excellent history teachers out there and the purpose of our polls is not to lay the blame on "front-line" educators. As I mentioned in a previous answer I think the problem is one poor curricula that don't give history its due. But there is one important professional development issue that I think Ministries of Education need to tackle and that is the pre-qualifications of history teachers. To be math or science educator at the high school level in Canada you need a pre-qualifying degree (e.g. a BSc). To teach history on the other hand one is required have not previous qualifications and I really think this hurts the subject overall. As you know, as a teacher of history, it is a complex subject that can't be learned on the fly from ministry approved curriculum guides. Having good background in history you are teaching is an invaluable tool to making the people, stories and larger themes come alive for students.

D Mores from GTA writes: Good afternoon Mr. Griffiths, I commend you for your work and I truly believe in your cause. Having grown up learning about Canada, I also wish people today continued to do the same, if not more.

But I am also having my crisis of faith in this need. Having seen the failures of Canadian policy -- different ones, depending on who you ask -- and being faced with the economic challenges of globalization, maybe we really should consider how to look at ourselves in a different way in order to find the future.

If we try to understand Canada more, we ponder our inherent habits and prior success stories which all seem so long ago, and based on old business and social models. How can this help?

Rudyard Griffiths: As Mark Twain said "History does not repeat itself it rhymes." We have gone through periods of economic globalization in our past — think the late 1840s and 1850s — that had huge implications not just for our economy but domestic politics and French—English relations. The struggle that I for one think is always worth fighting is trying bringing the models, ideas and historical experiences of previous generations to bear on the issue we face as a country today. We are an old country — the 2nd or third oldest federal democracy in the world — and I think our history contains volumes of lessons about how we should be confronting the challenges of economic globalization.

If you are interested in exploring this connections between our past and globalization and the future have a look at John Ralston Saul's LaFontaine-Baldwin lecture.

www.lafontaine-baldwin.com

Donald Redhorse-Ripley writes: I don't know about present educational policy in the rest of Canada but in Nova Scotia we were stuck with boring old English history about the House of Tudor, etc. One of the H/S history teachers was a hard core Brit [supporter] AND any mention of Canadian history was frowned upon. World War II was another insult as the Field Marshall Montgomery led forces were called British Forces and most of the big medals went to Brits while Canada was ignored.

I recall in one of Montgomery's books he said: 'the Canadian troops were reasonable adequate' or words to that effect. In short Canada has great events and people but Nova Scotia schools ignored those events. My father was a member of the Canadian 3rd Div in World War II and Montgomery was most famous for his failure in the Market Garden campaign.

Rudyard Griffiths: Donald thanks for comment. Nova Scotia is an interesting case when it comes to the teaching of history in schools. Half a decade or so ago the province adopted a mandatory history credit at the high school level — a welcome development that was largely the achievement of the Royal Canadian Legion. The province however decided to allow students to chose between three mandatory courses: one on Canadian history, one on Acadian history or one on Micmac history. Call me a purist but I think Nova Scotia copped out re: the value of having a single course that all students are required to take that could impart a common knowledge of the country and the province.

Andrew McFarlane from Toronto writes: Rudyard - The polls are shocking indeed, particularly given that almost every single person interviewed would have had a number of the questions asked drilled into their heads repeatedly during the years of their primary and high school education. I wonder whether these polls say something not only about our collective willingness to remember great occurrences in the public life of our nation, but also about the raw capacity of people to remember in this age of staccato yet fleeting informational bombardment. Or perhaps it says something about our (in)ability to privilege certain types of information over others in the face of this information overload. Your thoughts?

Rudyard Griffiths: Andrew, thanks for the question it is something I have thought about in the context of our most recent poll. … Specifically is a larger cultural shift in our attitudes about the value of public memory. As incredible as it seems, I often hear from our detractors that young people don't know the date of Confederation because they can look it up on the Internet! While it is true the we are as a society increasingly outsourcing our collective memory to Google, it also is a reality that the loss of common body of civic knowledge cannot be substituted by the World Wide Web. The real value of a shared public memory is the interconnections between cultural and historical touchstones so that a person who can give the year of Confederation also knows that Macdonald was our first Prime Minister and maybe can even say something intelligent about the political and economic forces that brought about the union of British North America. I think this is the level and type of civic literacy we could be aspiring to as a society.

Kevin Desmoulin from TO writes: I read this story and I think it is kind of troubling, I think the problem lies a bit in the lack of respect for anything older than the age of 30, and it could be just the way people are at that age. I must admit, I probably was more unaware of things that happened in Canada's history in my 20's but I certainly knew some facts about Canada (the first Prime Minister, John A) and I was not in university (never got that chance when I was young). I did have an interest in history though. I'm just wondering if there is a survey for older Canadians to see how well they do. I did the the Globe test, and yes I got a Maple Leaf on my chest. I noticed that when you are younger it is harder to relate to anything older then yourself. Because I think you do not have any reference in time, Nothing that places you in context to what was going on.

Rudyard Griffiths: Kevin: We have polled older people (have a look at www.dominion.ca under "polls") and they do evidence higher levels of knowledge — not light years ahead of their young counterparts but more than the group that our latest study focused on that being 18 to 24 year olds. What I find interesting is some of the comparisons we have been able to make between what all ranges in Canada know versus a cross-section of the U.S. population. On all the basics — first president/PM, form of government, constitutional rights, etc. — Americans outperform Canadians which is remarkable when you think of the geographic, racial and socio-economic division in American society. In fact the higher levels of civic knowledge in the U.S. as compared to Canada makes me hopeful to the extent that it shows that it is possible, through the school system and popular culture, to educate diverse societies about a common history and the mechanics of democratic institutions.

K S from Toronto writes: In your article, you focused on the education system, but I think that the domination of our popular culture by foreign product is also major part of the problem. Unlike other countries such as the U.S. and Britain, our stories simply don't get told on our television and movie screens. We need to somehow invest much more in this area if we want to popularize Canadian history. A successful blockbuster about Vimy Ridge would do more to raise awareness of that event than any other initiative.

Rudyard Grifffiths: KS, this is a great question. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need to do a much better job of telling our own stories. We have to acknowledge that competing with the vast budgets and marketing muscle of Tinsel Town requires an ongoing and substantial investment in Canadian culture by governments. My wish is that we would take a fresh look at what our cultural policies are when it comes to subsiding and regulating film and television production in Canada. Too much government funding in the space of Canadian culture as become corporate welfare for large business enterprises that program our TV and to a lesser degree our local movie theatre. History Television especially has become a real disappointing in recent years (e.g. showing reruns of CSI and JAG) and should be taken to task. On the movie front we are proud at the Dominion Institute to be working with Paul Gross on his $20-million+ World War One epic that will be in Canadian cinemas within the year.

Bruce Chatwin from Victoria writes: If the purpose of learning the history of one's nation is to garner a better understanding of that nation, is knowing an arbitrary fact like the date of Confederation really an important issue? If this is indeed the purpose of learning the history of one's nation, which I think it is at least in part, it seems that more recent cultural and social history gives a better idea of a nation's 'spirit.' I'm sure many young people, like me, know the significance of people like Leonard Cohen, Mike Myers (where would we be without Wayne's World?!) and Charles Taylor; or Canada's important role in the environmental movement of the 90's. To me, a topic like the history of the marijuana industry in B.C. is much more interesting and relevant to my identity as a Canadian today, than is the history of fur trapping, though the integration of the cannibis industry into B.C.'s economy is not a topic a government quiz would focus on. Although a 19th century, modernist attitude to history might consider my points but trifles and dismiss them for more 'important' trivia like how many Canadians were sent to die at Vimy and in what year that happened, I think that history as a discipline has changed to accept other aspects of our culture as equally if not more important subjects of study. Perhaps asking people to write what they know/are interested in about Canadian history (including intellectual, social, music... history) might be a better way of testing knowledge of Canada's history.

Rudyard Griffiths: Well Bruce, I expect you and I will have to inhale deeply and then hold our breaths for quite a while before the B.C. government will feature the history of marijuana production in its high school curriculum. In all seriousness, it is not that I think we should only be teaching political and military history. If you look at the question on our poll we had an equal portion of queries exploring young adults knowledge of social history. Our argument is for more space for Canadian history in school curricula with a good balance between social and political and military history and a mix of regional and national themes. This is want our polls show Canadians, including teachers, want to see taught in schools.

Sasha Nagy: Rudyard: One of the things I noticed in the days following the release of your poll results, was the vigorous debate that many of the issues brought out. I think that this is a good thing, as debate and conversation is the only way to help create the collective awareness that you have been speaking about. For this, your recent poll is clearly a valuable tool. Thanks for taking the time to answer these varied and intelligent questions today. Any closing thoughts?

Rudyard Griffiths: Sasha, as always it was a pleasure to come on globeandmail.com and converse with fellow readers of the paper. History at is best should be catalyst for informed debate. We certainly have had a great couple of days of discussion of our poll in your news pages, cartoon, op-ed page and now online. Thanks again.