From loss to learning: What national tragedies ask of the curriculum

Blog post

From loss to learning: What national tragedies ask of the curriculum

Wonyong Park, Associate Professor at University of Southampton Nigel Fancourt, Associate Professor at University of Oxford 29 Jun 2026

When should a society’s most painful events enter the classroom, and on whose terms? These questions framed an event at Westminster in March that brought together bereaved families, survivors, teachers, parliamentarians, subject associations, local authority representatives, researchers, and organisations working across education, memory and justice. People and organisations involved in Holocaust education, and gave formal presentations, and other disaster-affected communities gave insights, including on the , the and the . This wide representation gave the event a broader significance: it was not only about three cases, but about how education might respond responsibly to collective loss, institutional failure and contested public memory.

Holocaust education is the most established case of disaster education in England, yet research suggests that statutory inclusion alone has not secured deep historical understanding. In a recent national survey, many secondary students struggled with basic factual questions, leading the to argue that ‘maintaining the status quo is not enough’ (Hale & Pearce, 2026). Pearce (2017) has shown that across five iterations of the curriculum since 1991, the wording on the Holocaust remained brief and broad, leaving teaching time, content selection and pedagogy to schools. What has carried Holocaust education is not just the curriculum text but the surrounding infrastructure: museums, memorial trusts, university centres, archives and survivor testimony projects, which build teacher confidence and supply materials. Curriculum inclusion is necessary but not sufficient; without investment in memorialisation, teacher development and resources, statutory recognition risks becoming symbolic.

‘Curriculum inclusion [of Holocaust education] is necessary but not sufficient; without investment in memorialisation, teacher development and resources, statutory recognition risks becoming symbolic.’

Education projects on the Hillsborough and Grenfell disasters illustrate a parallel dynamic, with comparable work already under way for these relatively more recent tragedies, well in advance of any statutory settlement. , led by Ian Byrne MP, himself a survivor of the Hillsborough disaster as a 16-year-old boy, developed an assembly plan, teacher notes and a timeline that are now used in many Liverpool schools. The ‘Grenfell Curriculum’ Project, comprising educational researchers at Southampton and Oxford universities and community leaders, developed an ‘education for disaster justice’ framework alongside a teacher continuous professional development (CPD) programme (Park et al., 2025). Teachers from a North Kensington primary school described a year 5 lesson (children aged 9 to 10 years) on remembrance through poetry, guided by principles such as ‘start with humanity, not horror’ (Park et al., 2026). Their account also challenged a common assumption that primary-aged pupils cannot engage with difficult material; what mattered, they argued, was the quality of preparation, not avoidance of the topic.

Maureen Ungi, assistant headteacher at St Teresa of Lisieux Catholic Primary School in West Derby, reflects on her experience of facilitating a school assembly discussion on the Hillsborough disaster as part of the Real Truth Legacy Project.

Several themes cut across the contributions. Testimony, whether survivor, bereaved or community-based, should be treated as both an educational resource and an ethical commitment, helping to humanise events and honour the survivors and bereaved. Pedagogy emerged as decisive: the question is not only whether such events are taught, but how and when. Community knowledge was repeatedly identified as a condition of legitimacy, with speakers cautioning against curricular treatment imposed from outside affected communities. Across the discussions, there was also a strong sense that teaching about tragedy cannot be separated from questions of justice. These events are not simply past events to be remembered; for many communities, they are ongoing.

Debates about what tragedies belong in a national curriculum are seldom only about content. They are also about whose accounts of the past are recognised, how public institutions respond to harm, and how schools help young people understand the relationship between memory, responsibility and civic life (Park et al., 2024). Perhaps, the event’s most important contribution was to reframe curriculum as a matter not only of knowledge but also of responsibility: responsibility to evidence, to memory and to the communities whose losses continue.

This blog reports on a parliamentary event, ‘From Loss to Learning: National Tragedies and the National Curriculum’, held in the House of Commons on 25 March 2026, and hosted by Ian Byrne MP. A briefing note from the event can be accessed .

References

Hale, R., & Pearce, A. (2026, January 28). The case for clearer Holocaust curriculum guidance. UCL News.

Park, W., Byrne, I., Scraton, P., Lee, J., Lee, E., Wahabi, H., & Calamelli, E. (2024). Education and memorialisation for disaster justice: Lessons from Grenfell, Hillsborough and Sewol. University of Southampton.

Park, W., Fancourt, N., Habibi, A., & Wahabi, H. (2025). Teaching about Grenfell: Recommendations from the community. University of Southampton.

Park, W., Fancourt, N., Schulz, J., & Wahabi, H. (2026). The Grenfell curriculum: Honouring the legacy of Grenfell through teacher professional development. University of Southampton.

Pearce, A. (2017). The Holocaust in the national curriculum after 25 years. Holocaust Studies, 23(3), 231–262.

Wonyong Park, Dr

Associate Professor at University of Southampton

Wonyong Park is an Associate Professor of Science Education at Southampton Education School at the University of Southampton. His research sits at the crossroads of science, the humanities and society, with a particular interest in how science and STEM education can contribute to social justice during moments of local or global crisis. Much of his work uses cross-curricular approaches, connecting science with subjects such as history, citizenship, religious education and music. He is also committed to strengthening relationships between research, policy and practice in science education. His projects have received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, Research England, the National Science Foundation, UNESCO, the Academy of Korean Studies and the Grenfell Foundation. Since 2022, he has led projects on disaster education in the UK, South Korea and the US.

Nigel Fancourt, Dr

Associate Professor at University of Oxford

Nigel Fancourt is Associate Professor of Education and Values and the Director of Doctoral Research in the Department of Education at the University of Oxford. His interdisciplinary background spans theology, anthropology, law and education, informing research on human rights, freedom of religion or belief, educational justice, research ethics, and the role of law in educational research. He has held key leadership roles, including convenor of the Philosophy, Religion and Education Group and chair of the Departmental Research Ethics Committee. Nigel is active in several professional associations and serves on the editorial boards of leading journals in religion, values and education. He has advised schools, educational organisations, policymakers and governments nationally and internationally, and currently serves on the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights’ Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief.