The Monkey and the Crocodile

The Monkey and the Crocodile

Once upon a time, a clever monkey lived in a tree that bore juicy, red rose apples. He was very happy.

One fine day, a crocodile swam up to that tree and told the monkey that he had travelled a long distance and was in search of food as he was very hungry. The kind monkey offered him a few rose apples. The crocodile enjoyed them very much and asked the monkey whether he could come again for some more fruit. The generous monkey happily agreed.

The crocodile returned the next day. And the next. And the next one after that. Soon the two became very good friends. They discussed their lives, their friends and family, like all friends do. The crocodile told the monkey that he had a wife and that they lived on the other side of the river. So the kind monkey offered him some extra rose apples to take home to his wife. The crocodile's wife loved the rose apples and made her husband promise to get her some every day.

Meanwhile, the friendship between the monkey and the crocodile deepened as they spent more and more time together. The crocodile's wife started getting jealous. She wanted to put an end to this friendship. So she pretended that she could not believe that her husband could be friends with a monkey. Her husband tried to convince her that he and the monkey shared a true friendship. The crocodile's wife thought to herself that if the monkey lived on a diet of rose monkeys, his flesh would be very sweet. So she asked the crocodile to invite the monkey to their house.

The crocodile was not happy about this. He tried to make the excuse that it would be difficult to get the monkey across the river. But his wife was determined to eat the monkey's flesh. So she thought of a plan.

One day, she pretended to be very ill and told the crocodile that the doctor said that she would only recover if she ate a monkey's heart. If her husband wanted to save her life, he must bring her his friend's heart.

The crocodile was aghast. He was in a dilemma. On the one hand, he loved his friend. On the other, he could not possibly let his wife die. The crocodile's wife threatened him saying that if he did not get her the monkey's heart, she would surely die.

So the crocodile went to the rose apple tree and invited the monkey to come home to meet his wife. He told the monkey that he could ride across the river on the crocodile's back. The monkey happily agreed. As they reached the middle of the river, the crocodile began to sink. The frightened monkey asked him why he was doing that. The crocodile explained that he would have to kill the monkey to save his wife's life. The clever monkey told him that he would gladly give up his heart to save the life of the crocodile's wife, but he had left his heart behind in the rose apple tree. He asked the crocodile to make haste and turn back so that the monkey could go get his heart from the apple tree.

The silly crocodile quickly swam back to the rose apple tree. The monkey scampered up the tree to safety. He told the crocodile to tell his wicked wife that she had married the biggest fool in the world.

Nursery Rhymes - Johny Johny

Nursery Rhymes - Twinkle Twinkle Little Star

Nursery Rhymes - Old McDonald

Spotting the Adult Agendas: Investigating Children’s Historical Awareness Using Stories Written for Children in the Past

Spotting the Adult Agendas: Investigating Children’s Historical Awareness Using Stories Written for Children in the Past

Pat Hoodless, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

Abstract This paper summarises an investigation of primary children’s understanding of the changing attitudes and values revealed in historical stories written at different times in the twentieth century. The investigation was a small scale case study, which used ethnographic methods, and produced qualitative data from small group discussions with children aged ten and eleven in two English primary schools. The choice of texts, drawn from a specifically English context, was intended to enable primary age children to understand familiar periods from the History National Curriculum. Findings suggest that children of this age were capable of identifying changing styles of presentation and different attitudes within historical accounts and stories written in different periods. Some children were aware how adult authors writing for children transmitted their attitudes and values through historical stories. The paper argues that such historical texts are excellent sources from which children can learn about the less tangible aspects of the past. It also argues that there are wider implications for the study of children’s conceptual awareness: children revealed very subtle understanding of chronology and change, as well as a surprisingly sophisticated understanding of how texts written for children are not only a product of the age in which they were written, but also a medium for the transmission of adult values and beliefs. It is suggested that further study of the use of such sources would enable a deeper understanding of how children acquire an awareness of these very important but less tangible aspects of the past.

Keywords: Childhood, Chronology, Values, Attitudes

Introduction: the research focus

This paper investigates how reading and talking about historical stories dating from different periods can reveal children’s understanding of the past. Young primary school¹ children often work with artefacts, historic architecture and sites to enable them visualise what the past was like in practical, concrete terms. They learn from visual and tactile sources and by first hand experiences such as reconstructions and re-enactments. However, these sources do not necessarily reveal the thoughts, attitudes and values of past ages. It is in this aspect of learning about the past that texts perhaps have their most important role. Recent research has raised questions about the suitability of dated reading material for young children and whether they would be able or motivated to read it (Hicks & Martin, 1997). Hannabuss (1999) and Evans (2000) have identified the potential of historical fiction as a means of entering into the social and cultural values and practices of the time of its writing. Evans argues that the literature published for children is ‘an untapped and rich vein of data’ (Evans, 2000, p.26) that provides insights into the real experiences of childhood in the past. They also provide a source of information about how childhood itself was perceived by adults within contemporary agendas in relation to children and their learning.  Both the teaching of history in English primary schools and the style of writing about history for children have changed considerably over the course of the last century. I therefore set out to use texts about British history written at different times in the twentieth century as a tool for studying children’s awareness about the times in which the texts were written, a form of ‘unwitting testimony’. The texts provided a window through which the children might be able to ‘spot the agendas’ of authors of historical stories and how these agendas have changed over time. There were two aspects to the inquiry. Firstly, how would the children deal with texts from earlier times as historical sources? Secondly, how would they respond to them as a source of evidence about the less tangible aspects of the age in which they were written, such as contemporary attitudes and values, especially in relation to children’s historical education?

It is widely acknowledged that academic histories are a product of the age in which they are written (Marwick, 2001). Adult purposes in writing history for children have also changed significantly over time, reflecting changing views about what was deemed appropriate for children. For example, compare these two short extracts in terms of their approach to teaching about history. The first is an extract from a story about Boadicea, queen of a tribe of Ancient Britons at the time of the Roman invasion. This appeared in a book written for young children in 1930, ‘Stories from Greek, Roman and Old English History’,

Nearly a hundred years after Julius Caesar came to Britain, there lived a young British Queen called Boadicea. Boadicea’s husband Prasutagus was king of his tribe, and he and his people all lived together in and around a little town which they had built for themselves upon a tiny hill. …Not far away there were other tribes of Britons, each with its own king or chief; and the different tribes were constantly quarrelling and fighting with one another; so Boadicea’s life was not a peaceful one. But she did not mind this at all, for she loved nothing better than fighting.

(Sarson & Paine 1930, p.61)

The second extract is about the same queen, now called Boudicca, from a children’s book written in 1994, ‘The Rotten Romans’,

But the boldest of British women – maybe the bravest ever – was Queen Boudicca. That was what the Britons called her. Later generations changed her name to Boadicea. Some people say this change was made because Boadicea sounded nicer. Another story is that a mediaeval monk made a spelling mistake when he was copying an old history and his mistake was copied by later historians! Let’s call her Boudicca…                                                     

Boudicca, This is Your Life’ (Deary 1994, pp.40-41)

The purposes of the two stories are clear. The first is told in great detail, in a didactic, slightly patronising style deemed suitable for children at that time. The main purpose of the first story is the simple transmission of factual information, while the second is a humorous discussion of Boudicca’s activities, which raises the issue of different accounts of the events that took place, and the mistakes and further mistakes made over the years in writing about these. The version written in 1994 deals with history in a way that would have been quite alien to the writers of historical stories for young children during the first half of the twentieth century. At this time, the Victorian style of storytelling, moralising and hero-worship appears to have persisted in children’s historical tales. By the end of the century, it is clearly being replaced by a very different style, which invites the child reader to engage in independent, critical thought. I was interested to see whether primary school children (aged 10 – 11) were able to point out the social influences of different ages in stories written for children and whether they noticed the accompanying contemporary adult agendas, an issue eloquently discussed by Elwyn Jenkins in his work on the publication of indigenous folktales (Jenkins, 2002).

Background to the research

Two areas of interest prompted the enquiry. Firstly, there has been a resurgence of interest in the use of literature as a means of teaching history through the growing popularity of historical texts (Hicks & Martin, 1997) as part of the Literacy Hour at Key Stages 1 and 2 in England ², and the extension of the Literacy Strategy into Key Stage 3 in England. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, interest has grown in the discussion about the real value of using literature and story to engage children’s interest in the past. Following the rise of the ‘new history’ in Britain, in which learning was based mainly on the analysis of historical sources of evidence, teachers and academics have questioned the demise of story. Hake and Haydn (1995) argued that history consists of both sources and stories. The case for the use of narrative in establishing a meaningful context for children learning about the past was re-established over a period of time (Self 1991, Levstik & Barton 1997; Bage, 1999, Nelson & Nelson, 1999). These authors and historians argue that children need a narrative in learning history, and that deep understandings can be achieved if children are carefully guided by a teacher, who can help contextualise their understanding of events. I set out, therefore, to explore what these qualitatively superior, deeper understandings might entail.

The focus of the study arose from the comments of a ten-year-old child who had been reading a story by Rosemary Sutcliff, from the ‘Capricorn Bracelet’ (Sutcliff, 1973).  The story was about a British soldier working in the Roman army, who is sent to fight in Rome itself, prior to the fall of the Empire. News is eventually brought back about the soldier’s death, and is received in an almost detached manner by his family. A friend returns from Rome and gives back the family bracelet to the narrator of the story, explaining that his father is dead. The child narrator comments:

I waited a little, outside in the dark; then I went in, and showed the bracelet to my mother. And we both knew that it was time to stop pretending.

(p.147)

The child who had read the story commented,

It’s too boring, and too predictable. You wouldn’t just go ‘OK then’ if you heard that your father had been killed. You’d scream and cry – all the family. Children nowadays’, he went on to argue, ‘want blood and gore, not writing that won’t upset anybody!

What this child had recognised, from his comment, ‘Children nowadays’, was that the writing of historical stories is rooted not in the time that the story is about, but in the time when it is written. Layers of contemporary values and attitudes about literature and about what is appropriate for children shroud historical stories and texts, and here was a 10 year-old who was beginning to articulate an understanding of this. This ten-year-old had indicated the ability to go unaided and spontaneously ‘Beyond the Information Given’ (Bruner, 1973). He could see beyond the Roman time in which the story was set, and identify the writer’s attitude towards her readership, an attitude influenced by the values of the mid-twentieth century. This somewhat hardheaded response is from a late twentieth-century child, who has grown up in a media age exposed to all the harsh realities of life. His critical comments resonate with those of an American child who had just listened to a traditional telling of a fairy story. Her response, described in the findings from research by Ann Trousdale and Sally McMillan (2003) into children’s views of patriarchal fairy tales in the USA, was:

           

Cinderella was a Wuss… She could have run away, you know. 

(p.14)

The realisation that children of this age were capable of such insights prompted me to look more closely at how children make sense of the past as it is represented in story, and how much they understand about attitudes at the time in which they were written.

Methodology

The research was ethnographic and produced qualitative data; it was based on participant observation in group discussions and made use of methods encompassed by grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The quality of children’s involvement, the tone of their responses and the level of their engagement with the texts formed part of the data. Once the children had been introduced to the topic, and had examined and talked about the books and their relative ages, they each chose one story to read. I then prompted the children with open-ended questions to find out what they thought about the stories, their style, differences between them and what they had learned from them. The group discussions were tape-recorded and transcribed in order to analyse the children’s comments and, by inference, their understandings and perceptions. Illustrative examples of the different perceptions held by the children are quoted below. I used stories about Queen Boudicca, drawn from national schemes of work in England (DfEE & QCA, 1998), and familiar to children from their history lessons by Year 6.³ The research, however, focused on the way the story was written and what this told them, rather than on its content.  My own analysis of the texts was left until after the children had talked about them since I did not want my questioning to be influenced by my own perceptions, and wanted the children themselves to make their own comments.

The stories

There is a huge variety of types within the genre of historical fiction, as well as a very wide range of content areas that historical fiction might cover and a second consideration in the selection of the texts was their appropriateness for the task and for the children reading them. Aiken (1985), and Hicks and Martin (1997) have analysed the genres within this wide category, noting their complexity. I eventually decided to use different short historical stories about the same personality in the past. This would not be as exciting as pure fiction, perhaps, as I had used in earlier research, (Hoodless, 2002) but I thought it probably more appropriate for the primary children who would be reading short stories with familiar content. The selection of texts was an important part of the methodology. For purposes of comparison, I selected texts commonly used by school children aged between 8 and 10 years of age during different periods in the twentieth century.

The stories were about Queen Boudicca, a popular figure in the distant past of British history. Boudicca was Queen of an Ancient British tribe, the Iceni, and had fought several battles in an attempt to repel the invading Romans, inflicting severe damage, such as in the burning of Londinium (London). The story of Boudicca required considerable awareness of chronology and also the texts that I had collected were themselves set in a number of different historical periods. For my modern text, I chose a chapter about Boudicca from the fairly recent ‘The Rotten Romans’ (Deary, 1994) because of its popularity with children and, although not a textbook as such, its increasing use as part of history lessons in England. I had a version of the story of Boudicca from 1957, written by a well-known writer of school history texts (Unstead, 1957), and a post-war version, in a volume called ‘Our Island Story’, dating from about 1948 (Marshall, c.1948), and finally a version from 1930, from the ‘Piers Plowman’ series (Sarson & Paine, 1930). I hoped books taken from these different periods in time would give the children sufficient contrast to be able to make some useful comparative comments. A final decision was to use the original books rather than photocopied pages. The children would then be able to evaluate them as artefacts as well as texts.

Schoolbooks for the typical elementary school ⁴ pupil would have been written in the serious style of ‘Piers Ploughman’. During the 1930s in England, children would have been expected to develop a deferential attitude towards their rulers. The style of the ‘Piers Ploughman’ book underlines this view and embodies the philosophy and social attitudes of the time. By contrast, in the last decades of the twentieth century, a truly irreverent attitude towards all things linked to the upper classes and the monarchy had developed. It was becoming appropriate in society to mock great rulers of the past. ‘The Rotten Romans’ has an element of this attitude embedded within its style, particularly in the use of the popular television theme, ‘This is Your Life’, to illustrate the famous defeat of an Ancient British Queen. ‘The Rotten Romans’ has become a popular best seller at the turn of the century, and is commonly used in classrooms as part of a new, enquiry based  approach to the teaching history to young children. Comments mainly based on these two texts have been selected for analysis in this paper, therefore, on the basis that they provide a clear contrast between the two periods in which they were written.

The children

Hicks and Martin (1997) refer to the constraints of asking young children to work with out-dated texts. On the assumption, therefore, that the books, particularly the older ones, would provide a significant challenge for young children, I decided to work with the more able readers in the final year of primary school and to analyse their comments on a variety of texts. The children were 10 and 11 year-olds, all above average or very able readers for their age. They were organised for the discussions in four groups of four, for clear communication and recording purposes, and matched for gender and reading abilities. The groups were drawn from two very different schools. School A was situated in a predominantly working class estate, with high numbers of children on free school meals and with behavioural and learning difficulties. School B was in a fairly wealthy, middle class area consisting mostly of professional families living in expensive private accommodation. However, both schools placed great emphasis on the children achieving high standards in literacy. I used schools in these very different kinds of areas to ascertain any marked differences in the children’s responses and approach to the texts and also to obtain a small, but contrasting sample on which to base my conclusions. Despite the different social contexts, however, all the children in the groups were highly competent, well-motivated readers, who experienced no difficulties in reading the texts, although the children in school B were more adept at interpreting and commenting on them, since their skills in discussing the texts appeared to be more highly developed.

Findings

An extensive range of different understandings emerged from an analysis of what the children said, from which some tentative theoretical hypotheses can be drawn. The responses ranged from an initial appraisal of the books as artefacts, with children commenting on their surface appearance and detailing changes in style, to some very perceptive comments, which revealed considerable understanding of the past and of the skills and hidden agendas, or unwitting testimony of the authors.

Selections of fact

The group in school B noticed the different selections of fact in the stories from 1930 and 1994. For example, in discussing Boudicca’s death, the ‘The Rotten Romans’ clearly explains what the historical sources say, and asks children to make up their own minds,

Big Boud faced another flogging. The Roman historian, Tacitus, said she took poison and died. The Roman Historian, Dio, said she died of a disease. Believe whichever one you like … or neither. Perhaps she just died of a broken heart. Boudicca, that was your life.

(Deary 1994, p.44)

On the other hand, the version from 1930 does not mention the way she died at all:

She fought bravely and died gladly, rejoicing to think that she would be a slave no

more. 

(Sarson & Paine, 1930, p.66)

McGeorge, writing about the content of Victorian school reading books, comments how sensitive issues, such as death, were often dealt with in great detail in Victorian books, when a moral purpose underlay the story. Modern children’s literature seems to be returning to this, he argues, after a period when such issues were considered unsuitable (McGeorge, 1998). This argument is certainly borne out by the stories cited here. While the version from 1930 carefully avoids even a mention of her death, the version from 1994 explains a variety of ways she could have died and asks the child to make their own mind up about it. With some prompting, the children discussed the possible reasons for these different ways of writing about Boudicca’s death.  Most of the children noted that the oldest version tended to skim over the facts and not really give useful detail, while issues like death or suicide were openly discussed in the most modern text.

Some children also pointed out that if you wanted to know how Boudicca looked, then the 1930 version told you nothing or very little, merely commenting how ‘she had a husband’, or ‘she was a queen’, while ‘The Rotten Romans’ gave great detail:

She was very tall. Her eyes seemed to stab you. Her voice was harsh and loud. Her thick, reddish-brown hair hung down below her waist. She always wore a great golden torc [band] around her neck and a flowing tartan cloak fastened with a brooch. 

(Cassius Dio [trans E.Cary], 1917 in Deary, 1994)

The influence of the time

All the children were aware of the style of the texts and the changing devices used to appeal to the child reader, pointing out how ‘The Rotten Romans’ was ‘done like a TV show’, ‘Boudicca, this is your life’, comparing this to the romanticised story-telling style of the post war period and 1930s text. They thought that the term, ‘Big Boud’, used frequently to describe Boudicca in ‘The Rotten Romans’, sounded like slang. They thought this style would not have been acceptable in earlier times, because of the disrespect it showed to a queen. They were also aware that older versions of the story would not have used words like this or like ‘wimp’, used to describe Boudicca’s husband, the king. They compared this with the description in the oldest text from 1930, which described Boudicca as, ‘a young British Queen’. They thought the 1930 version was written ‘like a basic story’ and they found the old story more respectful to her. Whereas in ‘The Rotten Romans’, Boudicca’s husband is portrayed as a ‘wimpy king’, in the older version they noted that it says he ‘did the right thing’. They felt that the treatment of the subject in ‘The Rotten Romans’ was harsh, while Boudicca was ‘worshipped almost’ in the 1930 book – she was  ‘the best’, and ‘did nothing wrong’. Some children thought that the style of the older texts was ‘more mature’, the author writes as if she was there, whereas in ‘The Rotten Romans’ the author just uses facts from other books. Some preferred the older version, because they thought the style was better and they thought it ‘told the history better’. They liked phrases such as ‘O brothers and sisters’.

Others understood that the writer of ‘The Rotten Romans’ had used slang expressions and humorous words to make the text easier to read and to aim it at children’s interest level, ‘in a way that we can understand it’. These children, thought that the use of speech bubbles to show that it was Boudicca speaking, made it much easier to follow for the reader. Several children commented how they thought the reading was harder in the past,

There was, like, different words that we don’t use now. There was words that mean different from what they mean now.

They were conscious of the writer’s purpose and how the style had been designed to suit the intended child audience.

Because the children had been able to analyse surface features, such as changing font and illustrative styles, they had little difficulty in ordering the stories chronologically. They were not able to place them in specific historical periods, or give accurate dates, but were easily able to place them accurately in the correct sequence in terms of publication, and were able to see how old they were in relation to each other. They were aware that in the past they would not have had books written or illustrated in the style of the ‘The Rotten Romans’:

Child: There wouldn’t have been ‘The Rotten Romans’ in the 1960s would there?

Researcher: Why not?

Child: … well things like ‘Rotten Romans’, I don’t think they would have really appreciated that.

The children were aware that not only would such a book not have appeared at that time, but also that its style would not have been acceptable in an earlier age.

Viv Little (1986) points out how contemporary influences affect the writing of historical stories and comments how the heroes of G. A. Henty, whether cast in his novels as Ancient Greeks or Tudor adventurers, are always the same modern young gentlemen from English public ⁵ schools. Little recommends discussing with children how historical fiction is written, and the findings of this study appear to confirm the notion that some young children are able to understand contemporary influences on writers of history. One child in school B noted the way the stories were influenced by the prevailing spirit of the time in which they were written, ‘it seems to come out of the time’.  He commented of ‘Our Island History’:

This reads like it was just written after the war, all proud about how we defend ourselves.

The group in school B entered into an interesting debate about which text provided the most useful image of Boudicca. One child argued that:

You don’t know when you read a description of Boudicca in the older stories, whether this was really what she was like, or just the image they had of her at the time it was written.

Another commented:

You have an image of what other people thought of her, how she was very brave. The problem with that is, that because of the time it was based in, you don’t know if that’s what she was actually like …

The first child replied,

I think it’s like based on the time. Stories change in the time they’re told. If at that time you don’t think much of people, you kill people, you’d be writing about them

in a horrible way. It can completely change the image of someone.

Phrases such as ‘because of the time it was based in’ and ‘stories change in the time they’re told’ clearly demonstrate the awareness of the children in school B that the attitudes and values held at the time of writing can be more significant than the content of an historical story.

Adult agendas

During the discussion, the most able readers were able to see how the teaching of history itself has changed depending on the view of childhood held by the authors. The story telling changed from ‘here is a story that I think will be suitable for you’, in 1930, to ‘here is the gist of two sources that contradict each other. Make up your own mind’ in 1994.  The children in school B noticed how ‘different books missed different bits out’ and began to think about possible reasons for this. In talking about the way the earlier story explained Boudicca’s death, they commented,

In there it (suicide) was something they were ashamed about…not many people did it and it was kind of like a weird thing to do…if they put it down, and they probably thought it was a bad thing to do.

Also, they wanted somebody like Boudicca to set an example.

They argued it was ‘…so bad that children might think it was the right thing to do.’ They were aware of the moral purpose of the author of the 1930 version, whereas the modern version set out recorded facts, not avoiding the unpleasant details or aiming to show Boudicca in a heroic light.

Children in both schools commented how they preferred making their own decisions to just hearing ‘they did this, they did that.’ They argued that if they were constantly taught in this way, ‘children might think that everything was just a story.’ They were aware of the fact that learners can use different sources and versions to create their own image of the past. One child even suggested that they might be disadvantaged in later education by writing history in a story-like style themselves. They seemed to be beginning to grasp the quite sophisticated point that some fiction obscures and distorts the truth. At the same time they recognised that although ‘The Rotten Romans’ was written in a ‘jokey way’, there were more facts in it, for example:

The 10,000 Romans were well organised. The 100,000 Britons charged around the way they always did. The result was a great victory for the Romans. 

(Deary, 1994, p.44)

While some enjoyed the romantic tales of the past, most of the children in the discussion groups thought it was better to allow children to make their own minds up, and one child in school B pointed out that people’s opinions, written up as stories, might be wrong, a highly perceptive comment for a ten-year-old. 

Discussion

‘History stories’ from the past are an immense resource already used in teaching literacy skills in England. Children in both sample groups were able to analyse them as artefacts, noting the subtle differences in style and presentation of books published in different eras. They enabled the children to reveal sophisticated understandings of chronology and change, as well as their developing inferential skills. Some children in the sample were able to go beyond the surface features of the stories and analyse their authors’ preconceptions and also the prevalent social attitudes of the times of writing. Several children in School B related their readings of the stories to their knowledge and understanding of different historical periods, demonstrating inferential skill in distinguishing between authors’ perceptions of what was appropriate for their child readership at different points in the past. The children then began to appreciate the values and attitudes of those different times about sensitive issues such as death, war and suicide and to understand how the telling of history changes with each re-telling according to the attitudes and agendas prevailing at the time. Possibly, because of well-developed skills in source analysis, the children in School B were able to treat the stories primarily as sources and apply considerable evaluative skill to their discussion of them.

There are also wider implications of this type of learning for children in other countries in Europe and other parts of the world. Changes in values and attitudes have been very gradual in Britain and are often difficult to identify. However, in societies where there has been considerable, rapid political and social change, and where democratic values are now promoted, such as in Eastern Europe, learning about how and why life has changed can be significant at a number of levels. Children can not only learn about the material changes in their country’s past, but also the changes in values, attitudes and beliefs that underlay shifts in policy. Reading earlier history text books and stories can, for example, reveal a great deal about the values that underpinned the choice of curriculum content and the style in which it was taught.

These seem very sophisticated ideas for young children. However, it was clear from the comments they made during these informal conversations, that some are quite capable of these insights and understandings. Indeed, one child brought to the discussions considerable prior knowledge and understanding of the values and attitudes of the early twentieth century. Knowing about different attitudes towards children at different times in the past is a valid area of study for able child readers and further research to identify suitable texts would enrich the resources available to develop these important skills.  Knowledge about such texts at an international level would be useful for developing subject knowledge and with it, a deeper understanding of chronology in the form of contemporary attitudes and values. Spotting the adult agendas is another way of children ‘doing history’ and learning to appreciate and analyse the texts which transmit not only the history itself, but also the unwitting testimony of the time in which the texts were written.

Notes:

1.    Primary schools in England include children between 3 and 11 years.

2.    In the English education system, Key Stage 1 refers to children aged from 5 to 7, Key Stage 2 to those from 7 to 11, and Key Stage 3, to those aged 11 to 14.

3.    Year 6 refers to children in the final year of primary school, aged 10 to 11.

4.    Elementary School: A term used in the first half of the twentieth century in Britain to denote schools run by the State.

5.    English ‘public’ schools: private, or fee-paying schools used by the wealthy upper classes.

The Children’s Story…but not just for children” – James Clavell

The Children’s Story…but not just for children” – James Clavell

What symbols of your country do you have in your classroom or school?

What activities do you participate in your school each day or over the year to connect you to your country or your religion?

Do you know all the words to your national anthem and can you explain what they mean?

For many years American schoolchildren have started each school day with a short ceremony in their class which includes pledging allegiance to their country.

The six-year-old daughter of the author of the story below came home one day very proud that she had learned the pledge of allegiance. When her father asked her if she understood what it meant he discovered she had no idea. That day he asked several people if they knew what it meant and discovered that no one had been taught about it at school although they could all recite it by heart. This inspired James Clavell to write “The Children’s Story”.

Look at the title of the story. Can you think what James Cavell might mean by it?

“The Children’s Story…but not just for children” – James Clavell

Part I

The teacher was afraid.

And the children were afraid. All except Johnny. He watched the classroom door with hate. He felt the hatred deep within his stomach. It gave him strength.

It was two minutes to nine.

The teacher glanced numbly from the door and stared at the flag which stood in a corner of the room. But she couldn’t see the flag today. She was blinded by her terror, not only for herself but mostly for them, her children. She had never had children of her own.

In the mists of her mind she saw the rows upon rows of children she had taught through her years. But she could distinguish no one particular face. Only the same face which varied but slightly. Always the same age or thereabouts. Seven. Perhaps a boy, perhaps a girl. And the face always open and ready for the knowledge that she was to give.

The sound of footsteps approached and then stopped. The door opened.

The children gasped. They had expected a monster – like the outer-space monsters you think about when the lights are out and Momma and Daddy have kissed you good night and you’re frightened and you put your head under the cover and all at once you’re awake and it’s time for school.

But instead of a monster, a beautiful young girl stood in the doorway. Her clothes were neat and clean, all olive green – even her shoes. But most important, she wore a lovely smile, and when she spoke, she spoke without the trace of an accent. The children found this very strange for they were foreigners from a strange country far across the sea.

“Good morning, children, I’m your new teacher,” the New Teacher said. Then she closed the door softly and walked to the teacher’s desk, and the children in the front row felt and smelled the perfume of her – clean and fresh and young – and as she passed Sandra who sat at the end of the first row she said, Good morning, Sandra,” and Sandra flushed deeply and wondered with all the other children, How did she know my name? and her heart raced in her chest.

The teacher got up shakily. “I, er, I – good morning.” Her words were faltering. She, too, was trying to get over the shock.

“Hello, Miss Worden,” the New Teacher said. “I’m taking over your class now. You are to go to the principal’s office.”

“Why? What’s going to happen to me? What’s going to happen to my children?” The words gushed from Miss Worden, and a piece of hair fell into her eyes.

“He just wants to talk to you, Miss Worden,” the New Teacher said gently.

Miss Worden saw the New Teacher’s smile but she wasn’t touched by it. “Good-bye, children,” she said. The children made no reply. They were too terrified by the sound of her voice and the tears. And because she was crying, some of the children cried.

Questions

1. Why is everyone afraid at the beginning of the story?

2. What change is taking place in the children’s lives?

3. a. What surprises them about their new teacher?

    b. Mention three things they notice about her.

4. Why do you think the pupils were surprised when the New Teacher didn’t have an accent?

5. Why were the children frightened by their old teacher at the end of Part I?

Part II

The New Teacher shut the door behind Miss Worden and turned back into the room. “Children, no need to cry!” She said. “I know. I’ll sing you a song! Listen!”

And she sat down on the floor as gracefully as an angel and she began to sing and the children stopped crying because Miss Worden never, never sang to them and certainly never sat on the floor, which is the best place to sit, as everyone in the class knew. They listened spellbound to the happy sound of the New Teacher’s voice and to the strange words of a strange language. It was a child’s song and it soothed them, and after she had sung the first chorus she told them the story of the song.

It was about two children who had lost their way and were alone in the prairies and were afraid, but they met a fine man riding a horse who told them that there was never a need to be afraid, for all they had to do was watch the stars and they would tell them where home was.

“For once you know the right direction, there’s never a need to be afraid. Fear is something that comes from inside your tummies,” the New Teacher said radiantly, “and good strong children like you have to put food in your tummies. Not fear.”

The children thought about this and it seemed sensible. All the children were happy and calm. Except Johnny. He hated her even though he knew she was right about fear.

 “Now,” said the New Teacher, “what shall we do? I know, we’ll play a game. I’ll try and guess your names!”

The children, wide-eyed, shifted in their seats. Miss Worden never did this, and often she called a child by another’s  name. The New Teacher’ll never know all our names! Never!  they thought. So they waited excitedly glad that they were going to catch out the New Teacher.

But they were not to catch her out. The New Teacher remembered every name!

Johnny put up his hand. “How’d you know our names? I mean, well we, haven’t had a roll call or anything, so how’d you know our names?”

That’s easy, Johnny,” the New Teacher said. “You all sit in the same places every day. So I learned your names from a list. A teacher must work very hard to be a good teacher, and so I worked for three days learning them. That’s very important, don’t you think, for a teacher to work hard?”

Johnny frowned and half-nodded and sat down and wondered why he hadn’t figured that out for himself, astonished that she had worked three days just to know everyone the first day. But still he hated her.

Questions

1. To what is the New Teacher compared by the author?

2. How is she different from the Miss Worden?

3. What do you think the message of the New Teacher’s song is?

4. Why do you think Johnny hated her?

5. How did she surprise them?

Part III

“Johnny. Would you tell me something please? How do you start school? I mean what do you do to begin with?”

Johnny stood reluctantly. “We first pledge allegiance. “

The New Teacher smiled. “All right. So we should pledge.”

Obediently, all the children got up and put their hands on their hearts and the New Teacher did the same, and they began in unison, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of –“

“Just a moment,” the New Teacher said. “What does pledge mean?”

The children stood open mouthed; Miss Worden had never interrupted them before.

 “What does allegiance mean?” the New Teacher asked.

The children stood in silence. Then Mary put up her hand. “Well, pledge is ah, well, something like – sort of when you want to do something very good. You sort of pledge you’re going to do something like not suck your thumb  ‘cause that makes your teeth bend and you’ll have to go to the dentist, which hurts.”

“That’s very good, Mary. Very, very good. To pledge means to promise. And allegiance?”

Mary shrugged helplessly and looked at her best friend, Hilda, who looked back at her and then at the teacher and shrugged helplessly too.

So the New Teacher explained what allegiance meant. “…so you are promising support to the flag and saying that it is much more important than you are. How can a flag be more important than a real live person?”

Johnny broke the silence. “But the next thing is – well, where it says ‘and to the republic for which it stands.’ That means it’s like a like a …” He searched for the word and could not find it. “Like a well, sort of sign, isn’t it?”

“Yes. The real word is a symbol.” The New Teacher frowned. “But we don’t need a sign to remind us that we love our country, do we? You’re all good boys and girls. Do you need a sign to remind you?”

“What’s remind mean?” Mary asked.

“It means to make you remember. To make your remember that you’re all good boys and girls.”

The children thought about this and shook their heads.

Johnny put up his hand. “It’s our flag,” he said fiercely.  “We always pledge.”

 “Yes,” the New Teacher said. “It is a very pretty one.” She looked at it a moment and then said. “I wish I could have a piece of it. If it’s so important, I think we should all have a piece of it. Don’t you?”

Then Danny said, “If we had some scissors we could cut a little piece off.”

“There’s some in Miss Worden’s desk,” Brian said.

The New Teacher found the scissors and then they had to decide who would be allowed to cut a little piece off, and the New Teacher said that because today was Mary’s birthday (How did you know that? Mary asked herself.) Mary should be allowed to cut the piece off. And then they decided it would be very nice if they all had a piece. The flag is special, they thought, so if you have a piece, that’s better than having just to look at it.

So the flag was cut up by the children and they were very proud that they each had a piece. But now the flagpole was bare and strange – and useless.

The children pondered what to do with it, and the idea that pleased them most was to push it out of the window. They watched excitedly as the New Teacher opened the window and allowed them to throw it into the playground. They shrieked with excitement as they saw it bounce on the ground and lie there. They began to love this strange New Teacher.

Questions

1. How did the New Teacher break with the tradition of reciting the pledge of allegiance in two ways?

2. Why do you think she broke with tradition?

3. a. What does the New Teacher decide to do with the flag? Why?

    b. What do you think about her idea?

4. Why do you think the pupils began to love her at the end of Part III?

Part IV

When they were all back in their seats the New Teacher said, “Well, before we start our lessons, perhaps there are some questions you want me to answer. Ask me anything you like. That’s only fair, isn’t it, if I ask you questions?”

Mary put up her hand. “Why do you wear those clothes?”

“Well, it’s like a sort of uniform nurses wear. We think that teachers should be dressed the same. Then you always know a teacher. Do you like the color?”

“Oh yes,” Mary said. “You’ve got green eyes too.”

“If you like, children, as a very special surprise, you can all have this sort of uniform. Then you won’t have to worry about what you have to wear to school every day. And you’ll all be the same.”

Johnny said, “I don’t want to be dressed like that.” I’m never going to wear their clothes, he said to himself. I don’t care if I’m going to look different from Danny and Tom and Fred.

Then Mary asked, “Why was our teacher crying?”

“I supposed she was just needed a rest. She’s going to have a long rest.” She smiled at them. “We think teachers should be young. I’m nineteen.”

“Is the war over now?” Danny asked.

“Yes, Danny, isn’t that wonderful! Now all your daddies will be home soon.”

“Did you win or did we lose?” Mary asked.

“We – that’s you and I and all of us – we won.”

“Oh!”

The children sat back happily.

Then Johnny’s hatred burst. “Where’s my dad? What’ve you done to him?”

The New Teacher got up from her seat and walked to Johnny’s desk and the children’s eyes followed her.

“He’s going to a school. Some grown-ups have to go to school as well as children.”

“But they took him away and he didn’t want to go.” Johnny fought back the tears.

“He’s no different from all of you. You sometimes don’t want to go to school. With grown-ups it’s the same – just the same as children. Would you like to visit him? He has a holiday in a few days.”

“Momma said that Dad’s gone away forever!” Johnny stared at her incredulously. “He has a holiday?”

The New Teacher laughed. “She’s wrong, Johnny. After all, everyone who goes to school has holidays. That’s fair, isn’t it?”

The children shifted and watched. And Johnny said, “I can see him?”

“Of course. Your daddy just has to go back to school a little. He had some strange thoughts, and he wanted other grown-ups to believe them?”

“But my dad never thought nothing bad.”

“Of course, Johnny. I said wrong thoughts – not bad thoughts. But it’s right to show grown-ups right thoughts when they’re wrong, isn’t it?”

“Well, yes,” Johnny said. “But what wrong thoughts did he have?”

“Just some grown-up thoughts that are old-fashioned. We’re going to learn all about them in class. Shall we?”

“All right,” Johnny stared at her, perplexed.

And the other children nodded, and they wondered if all their parents should go back to school and unlearn bad thoughts.

Questions

1. Look at the quotes below from Part IV. What does each quote show us about the lessons the New Teacher is trying to teach her new pupils? What do the quotes have in common?

• “If you like, children, as a very special surprise, you can all have this sort of uniform. Then you won’t have to worry about what you have to wear to school every day. And you’ll all be the same.”
• “We think teachers should be young. I’m nineteen.”
• “Your daddy just has to go back to school a little. He had some strange thoughts, and he wanted other grown-ups to believe them?”

2. Look at the quote below.

 “Did you win or did we lose?” Mary asked. “We – that’s you and I and all of us – we won.”

Who is Mary referring to when she says “you” and “we”? What does the teacher mean when she answers “we won.”

Part V

“I have a lovely surprise for you. You’re all going to stay overnight with us. We have a lovely room and beds and lots of food, and we’ll all tell stories and have such a lovely time.”

“Oh, good,” the children said.

The New Teacher smiled. “Perhaps we should say a prayer now. But let’s pray for something very good. What should we pray for?”

“Bless Momma and Daddy,” Danny said immediately.

“That’s a good idea, Danny. I have one. Let’s pray for candy. That’s a good idea, isn’t it?”

They all nodded happily.

So, following their New Teacher, they all closed their eyes and prayed for candy.

The New Teacher opened her eyes and looked around disappointedly. “But where’s the candy? God is all-seeing and is everywhere, and if we pray, he answers our prayers. Isn’t that true?”

“I prayed for a puppy of lots of times, but I never got one,” Danny said.

“Maybe we didn’t pray hard enough.”

So the New Teacher and all the children prayed very hard. But there was still no candy.

Because the New Teacher was disappointed, the children were disappointed. Then she said, “Perhaps we’re using the wrong name.” She thought a moment and then said, “Instead of saying ‘God,’ let’s say ‘Our Leader.’ Let’s pray very hard to Our Leader for candy and don’t open your eyes till I say.”

So the children shut their eyes tightly and prayed very hard, and as they prayed, the New Teacher took out some candy from her pocket and quietly put a piece on each child’s desk. She did not notice Johnny watching her through his half-closed eyes.

She went softly back to her desk and the prayer ended, and the children opened their eyes and they stared at the candy and were overjoyed.

“I’m going to pray to Our Leader every time,” Mary said excitedly.

“Me too,” Hilda said. “Could we eat Our Leader’s candy now, teacher?”

“Oh, let’s please, please, please.”

“So Our Leader answered your prayers, didn’t he?”

“I saw you put the candy on our desks!” Johnny burst out. “I saw you. I didn’t close my eyes, and I saw you. You had ‘em in your pocket. We didn’t get them with praying.”

All the children stared at him and then at their New Teacher. She looked back at Johnny and then at all of them.

“Yes, Johnny, you’re quite right. You’re a very, very wise boy. Children, I put the candy on your desks. So you know that it doesn’t matter whom you ask, whom you shut your eyes and ‘pray to’ – to God or anyone, even Our Leader – no one will give you anything. Only another human being.” She looked at Danny.. Only I or someone like me can give you things.”

Then we don’t say prayers? We’re not supposed to say prayers?”

The puzzled children watched her.

“You can if you want to, children. If your daddies and mommies want you to. But we know, you and I, that it means nothing. That’s our secret.”

The New Teacher said, “We’re going to have lots of wonderful secrets together. You can eat your candy if you want to, and because Johnny was especially clever, I think we should make him monitor for the week, don’t you?”

They all nodded happily and popped the candy into their mouths and chewed gloriously. Johnny was very proud  as he chewed his candy; he decided that he liked his teacher very much. Because she told the truth. Because she was without fear. Because she was right about God. He’d prayed many times for many things and never got them, and the one time he did get his skates, he knew his dad had heard him and put them under his bed for his birthday and pretended he hadn’t heard him. I always wondered why He didn’t listen, and all the time He wasn’t there, he thought.

Questions

1. Why do you think the New Teacher has decided to have the children sleep at the school?

2. a. What does the Teacher suggest the children pray for?

    b. Why do the children usually pray?

3. Why was Johnny so upset? 

4. How did the Teacher explain what she had done?

Part VI

The teacher waited for them to finish their candy. This was what she had been trained for, and she knew that she would teach children well and that they would grow up to be good citizens. She looked out of the window, at the sun over the land. It was a good land, and vast. A land to breathe in. But she was warmed not by the sun but by the thought that throughout the land all children, all men and all women were being taught with the same faith.

She glanced at her watch….

It was 9:23.

Questions

1. How was the Teacher feeling at the end of the story?

2. Why did she feel this way?

3. What do you think her beliefs were?

4. Why do you think the time is mentioned at the end of the story?

In Depth

1. What methods does the New Teacher use to convince her pupils? Be specific.

2. What is good about the New Teacher’s method of teaching? What is bad?

3. With which of the Teacher’s lessons do you agree? With which do you disagree? Why?

4. Who do you think was a better teacher, Miss Worden or the New Teacher? Why?

4. Why do you think the author has included Johnny in this story?

5. Which basic values did the children come in with at the beginning of the lesson? Which ones did they leave with at the end?

Literary device - A moral or message

Children’s stories are usually written to teach children a lesson about life which is often called “the moral of the story.”

Think of at least two children’s stories that you know and explain the moral of each of them.

“The Children’s Story” came into being that day. It was then that I really realized how vulnerable my child’s mind was – any mind, for that matter – under controlled circumstances.“ 

In the quote above James Clavell explains why he decided to write his children’s story. Explain in your own words what lesson he was trying to teach his readers in this story. Why does he say that the story is not just for children?

Writing

Write an article for your school newspaper about one of the following:

• What I consider most important to learn from my teacher. You might choose from the following: subject matter, values, general knowledge, life skills, etc.

• Should teachers challenge their pupils’ beliefs about their family, their religion, their country to make them understand them better or to even change them.