Do we focus on the wrong periods in British History

[Flosshilde]

But the greater fault for me is that there is simply too great an emphasis on the history of Britain

Not even as wide as Britain; England almost exclusively (and not only in England - pupils in Scotland don't neccessarily learn much Scottish history, but English/British)

[Historian]

Not even as wide as Britain; England almost exclusively (and not only in England - pupils in Scotland don't neccessarily learn much Scottish history, but English/British)

This is true as far as English schools go (I cannot comment on the Scottish education system), as are the other comments above about the relatively limited scope of History.

However, I would point out that there will always have to be choices made about what can be taught in the time available. Pupils at secondary school should all study history until the end of the third year (Year Nine) at which point many of them drop it as a subject and their study effectively ceases. In those three years (assuming that they do not have to start GCSE courses in Year Nine as many do now), most schools will timetable History lessons at one to one and a half hours per week, very occasionally two hours. If History in schools is not to become hopelessly superficial there must surely be limits as to what can be studied. So, more British (as distinct from English) history, certainly, more World history and more examination of the influence of geography and the other issues mentioned by RT would all be a good idea. However, then you would have to decide which areas of what is currently studied you would drop and believe me this is not easy.

I have concentrated on Key Stage (KS) 3 as GCSE and A-Level courses inevitably become more specialised. There has been earlier discussion on history teaching in schools on this forum, I believe. I will try to find the thread.

[Serial_Apologist]

The thing entirely missing from my own history education (to degree level) was any understanding of environmental issues - of the sort discussed by Jared Diamond in his books - the effect of climate, ecosystems, natural resources, agriculture, disease (of people, animals, crops) as well as cultural and anthropological issues on the rise and fall of civilisations. The tendency to specialise at university didn't help. Looking back I knew a great deal but understood little - thanks to the overwhelming emphasis on political, economic, social, diplomatic and military history, rather than the environmental building blocks of people's lives. Perhaps some of this lies at the interface between different subject areas - history, geography, biology etc., and I confess I have little or no idea of how history is taught in schools these days.

Landscape history: how agriculture changed; land ownership; the Landscape School of the C18; how imported flora and fauna changed our landscapes; bio-renewal, etc etc.

No one taught me anything of this until I did a hort degree in my 50s; and it was only my antiquarian grandfather's interest in architecture and its history that kindled my continuing appreciation of this area.

[Historian]

Landscape history: how agriculture changed; land ownership; the Landscape School of the C18; how imported flora and fauna changed our landscapes; bio-renewal, etc etc.

I would imagine that there are degree courses where this is studied. There would perhaps be some discussion of medieval agriculture, enclosure and the 'Agricultural Revolution' in Years Seven and Eight, but at a rather lower level.