My public U.S. high school history classes all included conflicting accounts from contemporary sources. Additionally we were several times asked to write position papers from an arbitrarily assigned side, regardless of our own opinions or those of the teacher, using those contemporary sources as a model for the arguments.

I would assume that that level of discourse in a history class is not the most common, but the opposing viewpoints were expressed directly in the textbooks as a standard appendix to each chapter, which were adopted district wide and probably statewide in Texas. This was not a special curriculum that our teachers designed, although they probably expanded on the concept more than most, given that it was a magnet high school.

I wish I had a history class like that in high school. I took AP American History and there was a lot of attempt to discuss alternative viewpoints that was constantly shut down as "not being on the test."

Similar story from my high school history education. We had a good focus on historography and understanding the nature of different types of sources.

I feel as though things like this are not valued as they could be in our wider education system, or at least in what society values in the education system.

I believe you are talking mostly about conflicting rhetoric. I’m talking mostly about conflicting accounts of fact. In every level of education, even after the facts changed over time, there was always a canon. This is because history is taught by induction of stories versus deduction of fact. The former is indistinguishable from well-crafted propaganda. The latter is what makes a great defense attorney. But if you look at what history class is all about, it’s the story, which is considered true if it can’t be disproved. We should know that this is logically backward. The burden of proof beyond all plausible alternatives should fall on the storyteller, and in many cases the evidence is sparse enough to support many. And if there are alternative possibilities, the record of our own deceit tells us that we should be less righteous with opinions and more comfortable with uncertainty. For instance, there are entire generations of population labeled as patently stupid or evil for their beliefs and actions, which should induce a stack overflow recursion upon self-reflection.

My history education was mostly one-sided like this in primary school, but not in secondary & post-secondary school. Perhaps the difference is that I wasn't studying in the US, but I don't remember any grave epistemological chaos.

History is full of things that can't be proven. We'll never be able to know for sure if the (battleship) Maine was destroyed by Spanish sabotage or if it was simply a tragic accident. Or take for example, the question "Did Germany start WWI". It sounds like a yes or no question, but the reality is far more complicated. Failure to understand this complication causes real problems (in this case WWII).

edit: removed American sabotage theory regarding the Maine, as it is rather unlikely.

When did your history education end? Because this stuff happens literally constantly once you leave the 100-level undergraduate classes.

Assuming the truth of this, that's exactly the problem. This stuff is something every single person needs to be taught, not just the 1% choosing a history major of the 36% of the people who go to college.

I feel what you’re saying is an exaggeration. In highschool history class we definitely had conflicting viewpoints on the causes and blame for WW1, varying perspectives on the use of gas in warfare, the arguments about the ethics of bombing civilian targets in WW2, and the debates about the necessity and ethics of the conflicts between “western” and communist powers during the Cold War. This hardly unleashed “chaos” - it was an above average but otherwise normal Canadian highschool history class.