History is among the most contested subjects taught to pupils (Phillips, 1998; Bage, 2000). The selection of content, the place and purpose of narrative, have been fiercely debated in many countries within Europe and beyond (van der Leeuw-Roord and Even-Zohar, 2008). The paper can be seen as part of a wide and developing body of research on the place and purpose of history as a discipline and aims to build on work done on the nature and power of the subject for secondary age pupils. (Barton and Levstik, 2004; Wineburg, 2001; Jenkins, 2003) The paper draws upon the work of Hayden White (1973,1987,1999) to define the place of narrative within history as a subject. White argues that history is a constructed narrative, a representation of the past rather than the past itself, this is not to say that White denies the actuality of the past, or empirical elements to historical narratives (Jenkins, 1999), rather that he questions the world’s ability to present itself in terms of “well made stories” (White, 1987, p.24) and highlights the constant presence of the narrator and their choices. The paper therefore draws upon the metaphor of Scheherazade to highlight to role of teachers as the narrators of stories they have chosen and constructed. The History National Curriculum in England offers teachers almost unlimited choice of content for children aged 11-14; there are some statutory areas to be taught but these are limited to broad titles rather than prescriptive detail. Progression and assessment as exemplified in the attainment targets for history, is however described entirely in terms of the development of second orders concepts such as causation. What is the impact of these two aspects on the ways teachers think about and develop content and narrative within their classroom? There is a dichotomy between skills and content within the history classroom (Counsell, 2000); the role of narrative can be undervalued (Hawkey, 2004, 2007). The research explores the ways in which the identity and practice of teachers within the classroom can be dissonant with experiences as students themselves and their construct of history as a discipline. The objective of the research is to explore the implications for this on history teaching across Europe and the wider world and aims to suggest potential ways to explore narrative and rethink practice. This paper examines the ways in which three female history teachers working in the English secondary state system considered their choice of content and the place and purpose of narrative within the discipline. The organising research questions are: • Which stories are female teachers telling in history classrooms? • What can this tell us about narrative and history teaching?

The paper is based upon three life histories taken from interviews with practising teachers. The data was collected in 2008 and comes from women teachers working in the English state system. The data was analysed using narrative methodologies, particularly the work of Riessman (1987, 1993). Following transcription narratives were created from the interview data for each of the three women; these narratives are explicitly emplotted by the researcher (Clough, 2002). This methodology acknowledges both the narrative nature of the past and the problems surrounding notions of truth in accounts of the past and in research.

Teachers within the English system are reluctant to be seen to make choices about content they use within their classroom practice. They appear to be both disempowered in their ability to make choices as a result of perceptions of Governmental control and the practices of managers within their schools; however they also actively resist White’s argument about the nature of accounts of the past as essentially a narrative practice. Issues about socialisation and compliance (Lacey, 1977) are explored. The paper argues that an engagement with narrative and post-structuralism offers history teachers different ways to explore and construct their practice: recognising that the place and power of narrative rather than resulting in relativism, requires instead a clear engagement in notions of ‘moral practice’ (Smith and Deemer, 2003) within education and places the teacher at the centre of such debates.