Antiquity teaching varies between classrooms

When Sweden’s National Agency for Education proposed in 2019 that the study of antiquity be removed from lower secondary history education, it sparked strong reactions. Critics argued that knowledge of antiquity is essential for understanding democracy, politics, culture and societal development. But what do pupils learn about antiquity in school?

A new study by Carl-Johan Svensson, Assistant Professor of Didactics (History) at the School of Education and Communication at Jönköping University, shows that the teaching of antique

ty varies considerably between teachers, even though they all work from the same curriculum.

“The public debate assumed that all pupils acquire roughly the same knowledge of antiquity. The study shows that reality is more complex than that,” says Carl-Johan Svensson.

Common foundations but major differences

The study is based on interviews with eleven lower secondary school teachers from schools in southern and central Sweden. The results show that certain aspects of antiquity recur in almost all classrooms, particularly Athenian democracy and the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.

Teachers devote roughly the same amount of time to antiquity, usually between 16 and 20 hours. However, the content differs. The amount of attention given to Greece and the Roman Empire varies, as do the perspectives emphasised. While some teachers focus on what they consider most important for understanding present-day Europe and the Nordic countries, others largely follow the structure of the textbook. In several classrooms, pupils’ interests also influence which aspects of antiquity receive the greatest attention.

The findings show that there is no clear consensus on which elements of antiquity should be included in teaching. While some teachers highlight topics such as Sparta, the Persians or the emergence of the Roman Empire, others choose to focus on different themes. According to Carl-Johan Svensson, teachers disagree about what constitutes the defining characteristics of antiquity as a historical period.

One finding is that the teachers can be divided into two clear groups. One emphasises factual knowledge and general educational attainment, while the other sees the development of pupils’ historical thinking and analytical skills as the primary goal of teaching.

For teachers who focus on historical skills, the exact content covered is of less importance. For those who prioritise factual knowledge, the selection of historical content becomes more central.

Connections to the present take centre stage

Despite the differences, there are also clear similarities. All the teachers interviewed draw connections between antiquity and contemporary society. These may relate to democracy, legal systems, language, architecture or popular culture. Many also seek to connect the subject matter to pupils’ everyday lives in order to create engagement.

By contrast, the use of history – that is, how history is employed in society – occupies a relatively limited place in the teachers’ discussions, despite being emphasised in curriculum documents.

The study also shows that teaching is largely concentrated on Greece and Rome, while non-European perspectives receive considerably less attention.

“My impression is that the teachers have strong arguments for their different approaches. The curriculum documents also allow for quite varied ways of teaching. That said, it is striking that the intense debate a few years ago about the possible removal of antiquity from the curriculum was based on an image of uniform teaching that was not really supported by the evidence,” says Carl-Johan Svensson.