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.

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.

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.