British History Curriculum (Draft) is Criticized

Easily. As I and my generation did. Sequentially – bite sized chunks. First five hundred years – sticking my neck out here – 100BC to 400AD. Covers the arrival and departure of the Romans and the arrival of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes.

Nope, sorry, they’ll be bored stupid by five-hundred years when nothing much changes…

…and somewhere during those primary-school years they’ll start playing ‘Call of Duty’ on their iPhone and you’ll have lost them forever!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoKU6UeP7W4

I gave-up being taught history before my O-levels and although it is a hobby of mine I’ve no idea what ‘the first five centuries’ means…

…so I’m not sure how the average four-to-eight year-old will cope! 😀

Five-hundred years in early British history just about covers the Roman period doesn’t it? That’s a big score for ticking-off the years but in terms of technological change or impact on today’s society I’m not sure how it would score.

Ooops – typo – I meant 15!:o – actually 17 if TO’s comment is correct….

Five years to ten years – 15 terms so just a bit more than a century a term. It means that by the time they are 11 they do actually know something of the history of their country. Broad brush strokes no doubt, but to my mind better than no brush strokes.

RE 31

…. “how they’ll cope ..” ?

Easily. As I and my generation did. Sequentially – bite sized chunks. First five hundred years – sticking my neck out here – 100BC to 400AD. Covers the arrival and departure of the Romans and the arrival of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes.

Indeed the thinking being that the first five centuries will be taught to Key Stage 2 I suppose…

I gave-up being taught history before my O-levels and although it is a hobby of mine I’ve no idea what ‘the first five centuries’ means…

…so I’m not sure how the average four-to-eight year-old will cope! 😀

Five-hundred years in early British history just about covers the Roman period doesn’t it? That’s a big score for ticking-off the years but in terms of technological change or impact on today’s society I’m not sure how it would score.

Good teaching will always produce good results.

My problem, if I understand the proposed curriculum changes correctly, is that primary-school children wouldn’t be allowed to be taught much of that in future!

That’s about the sum of it – sadly the older they become i.e. when they move up to Secondary School the Curriculum becomes so full they rarely venture out on visits!

Utter madness, especially when so much has been invested all over the country in recent times to cater for Primary School aged young people!! 🙁

Still, I’m now an Artsaward Advisor so everything might be alright!!!

Yes, of course sequentially. It enables ‘links’ which enable ‘flow’. Flow of information and narrative and hence interest. There is no other way, especially for history.

No, sorry, I absolutely cannot agree that history should be taught sequentially.

I’m not saying that any period of history is more important than any other or that all major periods of British history shouldn’t be taught as children progress through school but at primary-school level, if the periods taught are going to be limited, then they should be limited to the more modern period.

A basic chronological framework should be provided, in a graphical manner, but primary-school children, in my limited experience, are just not going to remember a long list of names and dates. It is all too abstract and similar for them.

Good teaching will always produce good results.

My problem, if I understand the proposed curriculum changes correctly, is that primary-school children wouldn’t be allowed to be taught much of that in future!

Indeed the thinking being that the first five centuries will be taught to Key Stage 2 I suppose…

Re 17

Creaking Door

Yes, of course sequentially. It enables ‘links’ which enable ‘flow’. Flow of information and narrative and hence interest. There is no other way, especially for history.

Re16

Around 1107AD – some forty or so years after 1066, an Anglo Saxon Jutish army defeated a Norman army at the Battle of Tinchbrai (there are various spellings) This battle was described at the time and is still known as ‘the revenge for Hastings’.

I quote this as an example and a correction to your inference of possible discontinuation of Anglo Saxon Jutish history at 1066. Yes, William was a Norman but with an impeccable Scandinavian bloodline. His great grandfather being Hrolf the Gangar, a Northman (Viking) who settled in Northmandy (Normandy) around 920AD.

Andy, Funny enough, I was wondering exactly the same thing as you.But didn’t Post is, as there are some who may have given it the “Race Card”.As you stated, just an observation.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Nothing to do with a ‘racist’ issue – although I made that statement knowing that I was likely to be accused of it, such is the world today.

It is, rather, a matter of actual historical fact. The definition of ‘Briton’ is quite specific although it has recently become diluted to encompass anyone who lives here. It doesn’t. However, I don’t become Asian if I live in China anymore than somebody from another ethnic background becomes a Briton if they live here. Yes, they may be British. But that is another thing entirely and I feel that the panel who made this statement (the composition of which I will not comment on, here!!) are attaching ethnic origins incorrectly so as to suit their political agendas.

Good teaching will always produce good results.

My problem, if I understand the proposed curriculum changes correctly, is that primary-school children wouldn’t be allowed to be taught much of that in future!

“Under the proposed curriculum changes 18th, 19th, and 20th century history (including the First and Second World Wars) would no longer be covered in primary schools at Key Stage 2. Instead these would form part of Key Stage 3 taught at secondary school level.”

So it is being taught at present (I deliver such education activities for History of Flight; World War II; Evacuation etc.) and under the proposed changes that could be stopped!!

I don’t think that primary-school children have any problem whatsoever at working out the order that history came in, so long as it is explained in an appropriate way.

Without any doubt! And your post in response to mine was interesting but I still believe that children should be exposed to just as much of their “older” history as the relatively recent. A local school teaches a specific period from the Roman Conquest to WW2 each term from the first year. Not in chronological order – last year, for example the three terms were Victorians, Tudors and WW1. There is both a high level of attention and of results. And of course the teaching is good.

And by ‘the beginning’ you mean somewhere in the middle;

What made British history different from everywhere else, the wheel or the steam-engine; which came first?

The Wheel Warren, otherwise where would they have placed the Boiler 😉

In my limited experience what they didn’t know was that when I was their age the mobile-phone didn’t exist (gasp!!!), every home didn’t have a computer in it and that, horror-of-horrors, you could only watch TV when it was on, there were only three channels and it wasn’t on in the morning before we went to school!

AND we had to WALK to school, no 4x4s then, to cart you around, or many cars come to think of it. Misbehave, and you got the cane, (Bring it back) Many the time I have had to go to the local coal yard, on my bicycle, pedal the 2 miles there, and then put the sack on the bike frame over the crank, and walk home. Dinner was put in front of you, and if you didn’t eat it all, you sat at the table until you did. Pocket money, my Grandson gets £10.00 per week, for doing naff all, I used to do a paper round before school, one after, and go round the houses with a local grocer in his van, after the evening paper round.
Kids today?, they don’t know they are born.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Quote:

“A draft history curriculum for England is ‘list-like, prescriptive and omits the histories of Britons who are not white Anglo-Saxons’.”

Pardon my ignorance, but isn’t a “Briton” a white-anglo saxon individual, or of celtic origin? Or am I being ignorant?

If I am correct, then surely those who are not white anglo-saxons (or of Celtic orgin?) cannot be ‘Britons’?

British, or Britishers perhaps?

And no, this isn’t a racist comment. Just an observation.

Andy, Funny enough, I was wondering exactly the same thing as you.But didn’t Post is, as there are some who may have given it the “Race Card”.As you stated, just an observation.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

If you want children to know how this nation evolved, where else can you start, but at the beginning?

And by ‘the beginning’ you mean somewhere in the middle; at a point that there are enough tiny fragments of bone and pottery to make an educated guess about what was happening back then…..well, probably?

What made British history different from everywhere else, the wheel or the steam-engine; which came first?

I don’t think that primary-school children have any problem whatsoever at working out the order that history came in, so long as it is explained in an appropriate way.

In my limited experience what they didn’t know was that when I was their age the mobile-phone didn’t exist (gasp!!!), every home didn’t have a computer in it and that, horror-of-horrors, you could only watch TV when it was on, there were only three channels and it wasn’t on in the morning before we went to school!

Of course it is possible to patronise children but that doesn’t depend on the subject matter does it?

I once sat in on a history lesson for seven-year-olds who were studying ‘the Vikings’; they were told that Vikings made good warriors because they believed that if they died in battle they would go to Valhalla so they didn’t care if they died…

…the children spent the rest of the day making Viking helmets…..think about it! 😉

I agree entirely about the point of teaching well and in my, fairly limited, experience the best way (the only way?) to teach is to make the subject interesting. I think modern history can be more interesting because it changes faster and it is more tangible to young minds. And young minds have a lot of competition for their interest.

On my first day in the school I had a very interesting conversation with some eight-year-olds about how to get a good score on the video game ‘Grand Theft Auto’ (Certificate 18)…..running down old ladies, apparently! :rolleyes:

I also had to explain that a popular song of the time, which the children sang incessantly, ‘Poker Face’ had absolutely nothing to do with poking anybody…

…well, not in the face anyway!!! 😀

CD – your reasoning makes a lot of sense but I wonder if it also patronises youngsters to some extent. My experience – non professional I hasten to add – is that they will lap up almost anything if it is taught well. Children of some other European countries seem to have a far greater kmowledge of their history than ours do.

If you want children to know how this nation evolved, where else can you start, but at the beginning?

I was beginning to have high hopes for you until you mentioned your support for primary pupils to study 20th century history. I’ve seen mature students struggle with that. As for history being sequential – we won’t bother with that!

I’m not a teacher but I have had the privilege of ‘teaching’ primary-school aged children something about my hobby, military history, and my profession, engineering.

You can teach children anything so long as it is taught appropriately for their age; so I’m not suggesting teaching primary-school children anything that ‘mature students’ would manage (or struggle with).

My main reason for suggesting teaching 20th Century history to primary-school children is that it is more varied, more interesting (to them) and therefore more memorable; they learn more and, most importantly, (hopefully) develop an interest in history. Their history, or at least the history of their parents and grandparents; history they can reach out and touch!

Question: to an eight-year-old what is the difference between a Roman, a Celtic, a Saxon, a Viking, a Norman, a Medieval, a Renaissance and a Victorian horse-and-cart?

Answer: there isn’t any ******* difference; I just have to remember all those stupid ******* names!

I’m not sure but are you suggesting that history can only be taught sequentially, starting at the beginning?

The big problem with displaying your equality credentials, is that they may come back to bite. If only Anglo-Saxon history is to be taught, then 1066 will disappear from the syllabus, since, as far as I’m aware, William was a Norman.

Re 10

Creaking Door

I was beginning to have high hopes for you until you mentioned your support for primary pupils to study 20th century history. I’ve seen mature students struggle with that. As for history being sequential – we won’t bother with that !

Re 12

Mr. Totty

Quote: “…..those that now find themselves in Britain….”

As far as these islands are concerned, ‘they’ don’t have a history.

C’mon Totty catch up !