LAUSR

them in discussing important concepts of continuity and change. I can see how pausing to consider the uncertainties, possibilities and contingencies of developments in the history of education is useful to students, particularly when it comes to evaluating the ideological and practical basis of policy-making in education. Many a memoir or oral history concerning a person’s educational journey in twentieth-century Britain ponders what would have happened had they not passed/not failed the 11+ exam, for example. I am given pause, though, by the sense that counterfactuals encourage students to think of history as a set of causes, key features and consequences. My concern is that by focusing on ‘what if’ alongside ‘how’ and ‘why’ we leave aside longer term and more subtle elements of continuity, change and identity that mark so much of contemporary historical practice and debate. Black’s extended analysis does offer some examples here, but I am not sure I am wholly convinced of its applicability across the wide range of people embarking on undergraduate studies of history and education. Other Pasts, Different Presents, Alternative Futures will be of use to those teaching methods and sources to provoke reflection on individual teaching practice and as a tool for thinking more carefully about how we can appropriately use ‘what if’s’ in our teaching. For historians of education, Black’s ideas might be used in the classroom, with due care, to consider the alternative futures open to children in different educational settings. Students might then draw speculative dotted lines charting the ways in which these different educational presents ultimately shaped the future adults. While I cannot envisage counterfactualism taking on a large role in history teaching, awareness of when we already use it (implicitly or explicitly) and how it might contribute to shaping students’ learning can only benefit us as teachers.