British History Curriculum (Draft) is Criticized

I actually take the view that, at primary-level anyway, only 20th-century history should be taught…

…but not for any of the reasons that you mention.

Well I do not but would ask you to share your reasons with us.:)

Sorry, missed your thread in ‘historic’; I’ll have to have a read of it later. 🙂

No problem, but good luck – it takes some time digesting the proposals! 😮

At the time of my OP the response format was very open; however by the end of March the response mechanism had become much more prescriptive, with lots of questions. At the end of the submission process you can still ‘have your say!’

One side effect of Baroness Thatcher’s passing is that most MPs have returned early, so hopefully the lobbying side of my response will get some attention slightly earlier than anticipated.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn’t British history supposed to be, well, about Britain rather than being about the history of those that now find themselves in Britain?

It would be about both, I would have thought.

It’s part of the same consultation process as I flagged in here http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=122992

Having read the proposals in depth and commented; quite frankly some of it makes you want to weep! 😡

Sorry, missed your thread in ‘historic’; I’ll have to have a read of it later. 🙂

I can tell you from bitter experience as a part time teacher of Anglo Saxon Jutish history (200 AD – 1100AD) that in the view of the left wing educationalists, English History does not/should not exist. The only permitted history is British history of recent times say, 20th century, because then by including reference to the Empire Windrush it is possible to make history inclusive and multi racial which in the view of contemporary left wing educationalists is the only allowable form…

I actually take the view that, at primary-level anyway, only 20th-century history should be taught…

…but not for any of the reasons that you mention.

…..I can tell you from bitter experience as a part time teacher of Anglo Saxon Jutish history (200 AD – 1100AD) that in the view of the left wing educationalists, English History does not/should not exist. The only permitted history is British history of recent times say, 20th century, because then by including reference to the Empire Windrush it is possible to make history inclusive and multi racial which in the view of contemporary left wing educationalists is the only allowable form….

:confused: I must be missing something here, as posted on the other thread:

“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!!

Woops! 😮 This is going to do my left-wing credentials no good at all…

…can’t seem to get the bloody lid back on this can of worms! 😀

John

Thank you.

How heartening to know that those charged with commenting on the re-organisation of the British History Curriculum have a fulsome knowledge of what a Briton is. Scholars of history, evidently.

Nothing will change until we root out left wing bias and control from state schools. That will mean taking on the unions.

WELL SAID that man!! It started years ago with Crosland and Williams and disillusioned my mother who was a lifetime traditionalist teacher and the rot drove her into the private sector which was against what she believed in but she was fighting insuperable odds. Many of the best teachers left the profession because of it.

And your statement highlighted above illustrates why the unions are so opposed to Michael Gove’s changes, and why he must continue with them and we might see the whole “profession” ( inverted commas intended ) transformed. It certainly needs to be.

Yes, correct. But, that rather ‘radical’ assumption won’t go down too well with the left wing educationalists that have inflitrated and now infect what was once one of the finest systems of education in the world.

How do I know ? A few years ago, I took myself off – as a mature student – to teacher training via the City & Guilds, Certificate of Education, B.A (Hons) and the Credit Accumulation Transfer scheme.

What an eye opener ! I thought that I’d entered some Marxist paradise. Talk about ‘lefties under the bed.’ I was there to learn to be an effective teacher. I did nothing but swallow twaddle in the form of left wing pyscho babble. Indoctrination was the name of the game – not for me ! It is not possible to teach teaching. Teaching is an art and a vocation not a science.

I can tell you from bitter experience as a part time teacher of Anglo Saxon Jutish history (200 AD – 1100AD) that in the view of the left wing educationalists, English History does not/should not exist. The only permitted history is British history of recent times say, 20th century, because then by including reference to the Empire Windrush it is possible to make history inclusive and multi racial which in the view of contemporary left wing educationalists is the only allowable form.

That which I’ve written above partially demonstrates why British State school education is in such an appalling condition. Nothing will change until we root out left wing bias and control from state schools. That will mean taking on the unions.

If sufficient private school places exist – if not, we should create them – Michael Gove should offer to parents a form of national scholarship which could take a child and with taxpayers funded help, place that child in private, non union education. A politically neutral education free from any kind of political interference or indoctrination.

It will take years but, eventually, when the ‘left’ are teaching to empty state schools the message might get home.

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.

From the group:

“It largely fails to acknowledge that Britain’s diverse population is the product of our rich and diverse history and so it threatens to alienate the 17% black and minority ethnic population of English schools”

And here are the members:

http://curriculumforcohesion.org/

Groups like this serve up some rubbish but this is among the worst. The ethnic population played no part in our history until; recent times, historically, so what an idiotic statement to make. They have a 7 year budget of just over £1 million and are short of £670,000 to date. I wonder who is donating, and for what reason?

I was taught history “conventionally” and certainly have a better knowledge of our history than my son’s generation and I look on some of my grandson’s history work with horror. Fortunately he is interested and happy to learn from those of us who can contribute outside school.

It’s part of the same consultation process as I flagged in here http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=122992

Having read the proposals in depth and commented; quite frankly some of it makes you want to weep! 😡