British History Curriculum (Draft) is Criticized

Hi paul178. The method I used to get my students remember the Black Hole of Calcutta you would need a risk assessment nowadays!

I sense the whole class nodding off, so I’ll repeat the comment I made in the Telegraph to the Telegraph article: Because of the way Michael Gove chose not to consult from the beginning, we have not even begun to have a proper debate. Just clichés: either facts or interpretation; either Churchill or Mary Seacole; either British History or World History; either chronology or themes; either Gove’s way or Marxism; either remembering details or studying in depth. What’s wrong with consensus, and why wasn’t Michael Gove seeking one from the beginning?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10139136/You-cant-teach-history-without-imagination.html

All I remember about India from my school days was the wicked Indians put the British in the Black Hole of Calcutta and it was chopped up into bits in 1947. If I was told anything else I probably was bored and daydreaming.(I did that a lot at school)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jun/21/michael-gove-history-curriculum?INTCMP=SRCH

Snoopy
I am not sure your long post has added greatly to the debate.
Bias is of course inevitable whenever you deal with causes. I can fully accept that some teachers, probably many, might disagree with Gove’s bias.
I seem to recall learning the incomplete story of our period in India. I can’t say that it did me much harm and over the subsequent years you discover the whole story.
Personally I don’t see how anything related to historical events can be boring but I’ll take your word for it and am glad you found a happier outlet for your talents.

Charliehunt

Thanks for the opportunity to present the case for many Secondary History Schoolteachers re Michael Gove’s new syllabus.
At the very least people will have a better idea what they disagree with!

I think we more or less agree on the role of parents.

My comment about how teachers might react to this syllabus needs some explanation. Teachers have, of course, contractual obligations. But they (as well as Headteachers) also have moral ones. With regard to ‘dereliction of duty’ I would be looking at the other side of this particular coin, and it is noticeable that a couple of days ago 100 History teachers and lecturers sent a letter to ‘The Independent’ newspaper accusing the Secretary of State for Education of breaching his statutory duties by introducing political bias into the History Curriculum.

History teachers have the task of introducing a narrative, story, or at the very least a vision of the past in the course of a school year. This story may be challenging, must never be cynical, and has to be true. Now the new Programme lists 4 main topics in Anglo-British relations – Clive, the Indian ‘Mutiny’ (as it was called by us at the time), Independence for India, and Gandhi. Taken on their own (which because of constraints of time they have to be) these provide a nonsense account of our relations with the Sub-continent, ignoring such matters as what we were doing there in the first place, how we changed from trading to acquiring territory, how the nature of British rule of India changed until we became the ‘Paramount’ power, how Britain introduced railways and a civil service … and much besides. So far my MP has kindly passed on 3 letters from me to the Department of Education on the subject, and I am not so far impressed with their answers. Were I still teaching I would be considering asking my Head if I could teach a different subject.

I’m not sure if we are disagreeing on the subject of ‘being interesting’. I think it’s essential to be interesting and this new Programme of Study clearly isn’t. The most boring syllabus I once had to teach was the one devised by a couple of Geography teachers who were in charge of our Humanities Department, who managed to produce a History syllabus without any guns and drums at all. I got pretty good at presenting boring material in an interesting way, but it’s no coincidence that it was the year I took up gliding.
Boring material can defeat the best of us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qQL5L31-1E

Charliehunt.

A little unpicking.

What I was getting at is that the new Programme of Study has a quite disproportional amount of Politics. 40% is far too high a proportion. Michael Gove may think that politics is the most important aspect of life, but in this he would be out of step with the majority of people, the general public, the common man or woman, or, as I rather loosely put it, ‘the public’.

I can imagine the parental complaints. I do think parents will recognise if their son or daughter is bored to tears and will have a right to know why.

Incidentally I don’t actually think that the above scenario will really happen, even if Michael Gove’s proposed syllabus becomes a reality. One reason is that Academies, Free Schools, etc. will take full advantage of their right not to teach the National Curriculum. In fact some Academies have already dropped GCSE History as a subject simpy because it’s ‘too difficult’.

“And secondly isn’t it part of the teacher’s job to make whatever he/she is teaching interesting?” You have backed up this up with a classic description of a good teacher, while recognising that the true description is more like the swan – cool and serene on the visible outside but actually paddling like mad underneath. From my own experience I can only report that I always found it much more difficult to be interesting facing a class of 20-30 children than I did in my time as an advertising copywriter.

As a general point I would say the earlier the classroom teacher is involved in the process of devising a lesson that’s to be taught the better. It really won’t be good enough for Michael Gove to decide, without consulting teachers properly, what History should be taught to children and then step back and say: ‘It’s now up to you to use your professional creativity.’ Teachers can only be interesting when they are teaching something they believe in their hearts and heads. If this syllabus goes ahead some of the very best History teachers will, I am quite sure, simply ignore it, and let OFSTED do their worst.

I take your point in the first paragraph and accept it.

I still maintain that it is one of the, admittedly, more difficult aspects of a teacher’s job to make sure his class are not bored. Parent involvement in the life of the school is important as it is for their offspring to understand that they take an interest, but too much parental influence is wrong, in my view. Parents are there to parent and teachers to teach and although there is some blurring between at the edges it is important for there to be a fundemental separation of roles.

Your next point is very well made and emphasises the need to replace the long-mourned grammar schools with institutions which can provide a similar education for pupils who will most benefit from it.

As to your last sentence, dereliction of duty and irresponsibility come to mind, although I know you were not trying to force the point.

I wonder if there are any teachers at all, especially in State schools, who have any knowledge or understanding of any History, apart from the second World War?

Re 65

Charlie, your last sentence is absolutely correct.

Charliehunt.

A little unpicking.

My comment on ‘what the public regard as proper history’ was in response to your previous observation that children don’t really notice the politics in History, and don’t remember it that way even when they’re older. At any rate, that’s how I read “I have no recollection of the dates I learnt as a child – many years ago – and those I have come to know in later life. But even now none of them registers with any political overtones. They are just dates when events happened.” Well, that sounded as though you didn’t do much political History, or, if you did, you remembered it as ‘History’ rather than ‘Politics’. What I was getting at is that the new Programme of Study has a quite disproportional amount of Politics. 40% is far too high a proportion. Michael Gove may think that politics is the most important aspect of life, but in this he would be out of step with the majority of people, the general public, the common man or woman, or, as I rather loosely put it, ‘the public’.

I can imagine the parental complaints. At the first Parents’ Evening for Year 7’s using the new History Programme of Study parents will be asking why their Sharon is having to learn so much about late 18th Century infantry tactics. (Too much military History!) Two years later they will be asking why their Sharon, who used to love History, seems to be doing boring Politics all the time … why can’t she do more about how people lived? (Too much Political History!) While, I too, can see possible mayhem if we took into account “what the public regard as proper history” in the production of a syllabus, I do think parents will recognise if their son or daughter is bored to tears and will have a right to know why.

Incidentally I don’t actually think that the above scenario will really happen, even if Michael Gove’s proposed syllabus becomes a reality. One reason is that Academies, Free Schools, etc. will take full advantage of their right not to teach the National Curriculum. In fact some Academies have already dropped GCSE History as a subject simpy because it’s ‘too difficult’.

“And secondly isn’t it part of the teacher’s job to make whatever he/she is teaching interesting?” You have backed up this up with a classic description of a good teacher, while recognising that the true description is more like the swan – cool and serene on the visible outside but actually paddling like mad underneath. From my own experience I can only report that I always found it much more difficult to be interesting facing a class of 20-30 children than I did in my time as an advertising copywriter.

As a general point I would say the earlier the classroom teacher is involved in the process of devising a lesson that’s to be taught the better. It really won’t be good enough for Michael Gove to decide, without consulting teachers properly, what History should be taught to children and then step back and say: ‘It’s now up to you to use your professional creativity.’ Teachers can only be interesting when they are teaching something they believe in their hearts and heads. If this syllabus goes ahead some of the very best History teachers will, I am quite sure, simply ignore it, and let OFSTED do their worst.

If it is true that the focus should be on the experience and perception of the student, this would certainly suggest that Michael Gove’s History Programme of Study is out of touch with what the public regard as proper History to be taught in schools. Nearly 40% of the proposed Key Stage 3 syllabus, for example, is on purely political topics, such as “the 1920s and 1930s, including the first Labour Government, universal suffrage, the Great Depression and the abdication of Edward VIII and constitutional crisis”. While as a retired History teacher I can see some potential interest there, I can see even more potential for boredom in what appears to be a list of events rather than a teaching programme

Interesting points as from an ex-teacher. But firstly I can see mayhem if we took into account “what the public regard as proper history” in the production of a syllabus. And secondly isn’t it part of the teacher’s job to make whatever he/she is teaching interesting? I well recall a discussion with one of my old history teachers a few years after I had left who came clean about the aspects of the curriculum he dreaded teaching because they bored him. But he never revealed those feelings and made everything he taught interesting and engaging. Casting no aspersions on present company, in my experience as a pupil and the son of a teacher, good, committed teachers and good teaching are the cornerstones to a successful education.

This is an interesting discussion, from an adult’s perception. As a child you are just taught dates and I don’t think any sense of politics enters the head until GCSE/O Level as was. And even then it is of limited impact. I have no recollection of the dates I learnt as a child – many years ago – and those I have come to know in later life. But even now none of them registers with any political overtones. They are just dates when events happened. Aren’t we reading too much into all of this?

If it is true that the focus should be on the experience and perception of the student, this would certainly suggest that Michael Gove’s History Programme of Study is out of touch with what the public regard as proper History to be taught in schools. Nearly 40% of the proposed Key Stage 3 syllabus, for example, is on purely political topics, such as “the 1920s and 1930s, including the first Labour Government, universal suffrage, the Great Depression and the abdication of Edward VIII and constitutional crisis”. While as a retired History teacher I can see some potential interest there, I can see even more potential for boredom in what appears to be a list of events rather than a teaching programme. I personally have my suspicions that the final version of the History Programme of Study was written by politicians or civil servants unfamiliar with the inside of a classroom.

So what sort of History should 4 – 14 year-olds be taught? Well, this is the question that the ‘Schools History Project’ (now based at Leeds Trinity University) set about investigating about 40 years ago. They did a lot of research into how children and young people related to History, and out of this came a number of ideas about how History could be made more interesting for students. This led to some completely new ‘O’ Level and CSE History courses – often much more relevant and therefore interesting to students than traditional ones. Oddly enough, many of these new topics, ‘the American West’ for example, have been instrumental in introducing students – who otherwise wouldn’t have been interested – to political issues.

The Powers-that-be tend not to like the critical and documents approach of the SHP. The SHP is non-political, as are the majority of History teachers as far as their teaching of History is concerned – often fiercely so. With a wider allied movement known as ‘The New History’, SHP has provided the basis for much of the History teaching that goes on in schools today. It is in my opinion a tragedy that Michael Gove has chosen to attack and ignore both the wider ‘New History’ movement, and the organization that has come to exemplify it.

As for ‘reading too much into this’, Michael Gove has been quite open about wanting a ‘Revolution’ in the way History is taught. (Whilst in China he even compared what he was doing to the Cultural Revolution!) He is apparently not concerned with the disruption he is bringing to students and teachers – and possibly parents – if (or should I say ‘when’) these innovations go wrong.

This is an interesting discussion, from an adult’s perception. As a child you are just taught dates and I don’t think any sense of politics enters the head until GCSE/O Level as was. And even then it is of limited impact. I have no recollection of the dates I learnt as a child – many years ago – and those I have come to know in later life. But even now none of them registers with any political overtones. They are just dates when events happened. Aren’t we reading too much into all of this?

Hi, Moggy C. I didn’t actually rate my chances on this thread very highly, so I’m delighted that I seem to have revealed to you the idea of ‘tory’ facts and dates, ‘labour’, ‘liberal’ and, yes, most certainly ‘whig’ ones too. It’s a whole new way of detecting bias in people’s apparently neutral statements! I count this as a small success.

Facts, and especially dates, would seem to be neutral. But I’m afraid that all philosophers and professional historians would tell you that in any presentation of History someone is trying to sell you something. However, I think there are particular mindsets that find it hard to accept that you cannot separate facts from the interpretation of History (even if you try to do it in all honesty, and for the sake of the children trying to learn the subject). I’m happy to think, for example, that the pilot who landed me safely at Gatwick this morning probably generally thinks in terms of there being a single correct answer to the technical problems he faces during his professional activities, and it would not surprise me if he adopted this very successful way of thinking in other areas of life, even in his view of History perhaps.

When the History National Curriculum was first introduced by the Education Minister Kenneth Baker in the late 1980’s, he suggested that there should be a basic list of British History dates to be taught. Apart from ‘1066’, I can’t remember exactly what the other dates were that he eventually listed, but they certainly included a lot of English or British victories over the French. Jack Straw, in Opposition, then suggested in Parliament some completely different dates, one relating to the Tolpuddle Martyrs and another, more pointedly, the Poll Tax and Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. It was a very clear case of ‘Tory’ dates versus ‘Labour’ dates. The result was Kenneth Baker withdrew the idea of insisting on a prescriptive list of dates, so that for many years there hasn’t been one.

What most History teachers would like – if they must have a prescriptive list – is one that is manageable, balanced, and doesn’t imply there is only one way of looking at British History. Incidentally, Michael Gove’s list does include the Peasants’ Revolt and the Tolpuddle Martyrs. But I’m afraid the vast majority of History teachers still find the list unbalanced. It may be surmised from the sheer numbers of teachers who voted in the Historical Association poll on the subject that many of them are Conservative voters.

I’m quite taken with the new-found knowledge that historical “dates and facts” can be tory (and presumably labour, liberal and for all I know, whig)

Fascinating.

Moggy

As a newbie, I’m looking forward to discussing aeronautical topics. However, I couldn’t help noticing this thread on a topic touching my former profession. So here’s my twopennyworth.
If I had a child beginning his or her secondary education I would be a little alarmed to find his or her first half-term filled with Wolfe at Quebec, Clive at Plassey, the American War of Independence, the Jacobite rebellions, the French Revolution, the French Revolutionary Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, and great figures of the Enlightenment. It’s not actually a very healthy list even if your child was contemplating a career in the armed services. I certainly wouldn’t like it being taught at the breakneck speed envisaged in the proposed Programme of Study; look at the sheer number of topics:
https://media. education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/h/history%2004-02-13.pdf
As a former KS3 History teacher, I can tell you there are so many prescribed topics being taught that there wouldn’t be any time left, say, for a detailed study of the RAF bombing campaign in WW2 (probably a subject more relevant to 21st Century children) illustrated perhaps with Flight Simulator X with the Dam Busters add-on – or anything else creative and exciting for that matter. This is why most History teachers, about 90% of them it seems, are not impressed with this proposed syllabus which is for 4 to 14 year-olds. While some in the teaching profession are outraged by this list of tory dates and facts, it’s the fact that they are being told to teach just these, and there won’t be time to teach anything else, that has produced anger and despair, whatever their political views.
The existing scheme of work, incidentally, is a development of the one devised by Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1988:
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/h/history%202007%20programme%20of%20study%20for%20key%20stage%203.pdf
I actually think it’s much better than Mr Gove’s in all kinds of ways, the detail of which would bore you. This is why in the past you have paid History teachers to devise syllabuses. Letting politicians do it is dangerous.

Re 57

Teaching British history is completely different from and almost totally separate in outcome from that of our European neighbours. You infer that British and French/German/Dutch histories are without difference to the British? Apart from the competition for colonies, they are very dissimilar.

What do you think are the events that have made most difference to our lives? Do you mean ‘our lives’ following the impact of the ‘event’ or the difference to our present day lives allowing for the accumulative total of the events? Events that mean much to you and others might not mean as much to me. The teaching of history is such a subjective matter that the chronology of events assumes a greater importance and gives the subject some verifiable structure.

More lobbying underway on the proposed changes!

Please don’t be condescending, and, no, that isn’t what I meant. Start at the very beginning, when this island was swept from a completely different place, on this planet, dumped near Europe (with all the trouble that’s brought,) then take them through the various ages, even, if possible taking them to the south coast, to hunt for fossils and (if they strike really lucky, as a child did recently) dinosaur bones. For some reason, children are fascinated by the dinosaurs, and, get them interested in some (any) form of history, and you’ve got a better chance of holding their interest as you advance towards modern times.

My apologies, I wasn’t trying to be condescending.

I honestly don’t think the average school would have the resources for the programme that you have outlined and I’m certain that no school would have the time. Also if you’re teaching British history how is that programme any different from the history of any other European country?

Surely in teaching history it would be better to start with the things that have made the most difference to our lives?

……I’ve taught Early English history – by invitation – at private schools. My teaching aids were flags, symbols and modern made copies of various artefacts from the relevant period. My students were animated and asked a huge number of intelligent questions more than demonstrating their interest….

Out of interest when did you last deliver a session and was the private school following the National Curriculum?

The following news item also adds a little more grist to the mill on this topic http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8542551/Private-schools-preparing-to-dump-the-National-Curriculum.html

For reference the ‘worst’ group that I ever hosted was from a private school with a ‘military focus’.

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?

Please don’t be condescending, and, no, that isn’t what I meant. Start at the very beginning, when this island was swept from a completely different place, on this planet, dumped near Europe (with all the trouble that’s brought,) then take them through the various ages, even, if possible taking them to the south coast, to hunt for fossils and (if they strike really lucky, as a child did recently) dinosaur bones. For some reason, children are fascinated by the dinosaurs, and, get them interested in some (any) form of history, and you’ve got a better chance of holding their interest as you advance towards modern times.