Teaching History

[pilamenon]

Did anyone listen to the Night Waves discussion on this? I had hoped to catch up with it on iplayer but unfortunately it is playing the programme that followed it - Belief (I did click on the report problem button on the pop-up player but don't know whether this will prompt a correction or not).

I think History is very well taught on the whole - Ofsted consistently praises the quality - and am sad to see it getting besmirched by the Education Secretary, and thus via the uninformed mainstream media. Mr Gove's unnecessary shake-up will generate huge amounts of extra work for teachers over the next three years, with the changes to the Key Stage 3 curriculum particularly drastic in order to reinforce the teaching of Britain's island story (already well covered by the current National Curriculum). I am not against all of Mr Gove's proposed changes, but do others agree that he is going too far with promoting his radical, ideologically driven agenda?

[eighthobstruction]

Gove still has 2 more years ,there may be more changes....out of the blue....

[Tevot]

Tried to listen again but got some Joan Bakewell interview instead

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I try not to listen to Gove.

[MrGongGong]

I try not to listen to Gove.

Though if we all did we would be able to win a pub quiz ........ which is more or less what he thinks education is for

[Historian]

I try not to listen to Gove.

The Secretary of State did not take part. His views were represented, I think it is fair to say, by Sheila Lawlor of the Politaea think tank.
Other participants included Professor Dinah Birch, a literary critic, Tristram Hunt, MP and historian, and Stephen Drew, Headmaster of Brentwood County High, marshalled by the presenter, historian Rana Mitter. The discussion was preceded by an interview between Mitter and David Cannadine.

The problem with IPlayer has now been corrected. I would urge anyone interested in this subject to listen, as the debate was conducted at a rather higher level than many considerations of History in schools. In particular, it contrasted very favourable with the recent 'Moral Maze' on the same subject.

Whether it will have any effect on the proposed changes to the History curriculum, I have my doubts.

[pilamenon]

Thanks for the update on iplayer. I was glad that the headteacher pointed out the seeming lack of awareness amongst some politicians and guests on the programme of how History is actually taught and how much time is devoted to it in the current secondary curriculum. A great pity, as it would have been evident that History teaching is in relatively good hands. And as he also said, the proposition to teach everything up to the Glorious Revolution in primary school, in any kind of meaningful way, must also stem from utter ignorance of practicalities and demands on primary teachers.

I didn't agree with much of what the think tank guest said, but she did at least stress the need to relate British history to its European context, although she might have extended that context. I wonder what others think of references to the Indian Mutiny? Does that historical event need to be re-worded?

An ill-conceived and ill-thought out reform.

[Thropplenoggin]

There was a very interesting piece on this in the TLS recently.

"The history lessons outlined in the draft National Curriculum are too prescriptive, Anglocentric and narrow – the only way to make the subject better, David Cannadine argues, is to give it more time in the classroom"

It's available to read online here:

http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1228938.ece

[Historian]

I didn't agree with much of what the think tank guest said, but she did at least stress the need to relate British history to its European context, although she might have extended that context. I wonder what others think of references to the Indian Mutiny? Does that historical event need to be re-worded?

An ill-conceived and ill-thought out reform.

Your point about the general ignorance of what is studied is a valid one. Very few of the academic historians cited as supporting the proposed changes seem to have any clear idea of what actually goes on in English schools (I believe the proposals will not apply to other parts of the United Kingdom). An exception is David Cannadine, whose views have been ignored by the Secretary of State.

Sheila Lawlor may well be sincere in her desire to relate British history to that of Europe, however the proposed new curriculum [pages 166-172] seems to do little to resolve this problem. Relations with other countries would seem to focus on conflict, in the main, although right at the end comes:

Britain’s relations with Europe, the Commonwealth, and the wider world

This has been an issue for a long time; the current intention to focus even more narrowly on Britain (primarily England) would not seem to be the way forward.

The correct title for the 'Sepoy Mutiny' or the 'First War of Indian Independence' is still a matter for dispute. Its cause and progress are viewed very differently in India and Pakistan than they are in Britain. The nomenclature of historical periods and events is, like the rest of historical studies, 'work in progress'. For example, on a recent visit to Berlin I was informed that the 'correct' title for 'Kristallnacht' in presentations at the Jewish Museum is now the 'November Pogrom 1938'.

I believe that the point about Mr. Gove's use of certain outdated historical terminology is that reflects and outdated view both of what is taught in many of England's schools and of what History should be taught.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i am ignorant of how history is now taught except to say that it does not seem that the history of humanity, our diversity over time, and the role of eg climate gets much of a look in .... am i right in my prejudice that it is rather narrow and parochial and Gove is making it more so?

[Historian]

i am ignorant of how history is now taught except to say that it does not seem that the history of humanity, our diversity over time, and the role of eg climate gets much of a look in .... am i right in my prejudice that it is rather narrow and parochial

Well, yes and no. Given what your post implies about what is important to you in the study of History, I fear that you may find the current 'programmes of study' rather limited. However, the current curriculum, while by no means perfect, is a good attempt at giving some breadth and depth.

I don't feel that the current history curriculum is that narrow, given that history has to compete with many other subjects with limited teaching time. At many primary schools History is not taught as a discrete subject, but forms part of 'topics' which might combine aspects of History, Geography, English, Music, Religious Studies and Art. The current 'programme of study' for Key Stage 1 (Years 1 and 2 - the first tow years of primary school, so children aged from 5 to 7) can be found here. It doesn't specify much in terms of specific periods to be studied. Rather it aims to help pupils begin to understand chronology, historical terminology, causation, the different ways the past has been represented and how to find out about History. Indeed, these are constant themes throughout the History National Curriculum. In terms of 'breadth of study' this means:

a. changes in their own lives and the way of life of their family or others around them
b. the way of life of people in the more distant past who lived in the local area or elsewhere in Britain
c. the lives of significant men, women and children drawn from the history of Britain and the wider world (for example, artists, engineers, explorers, inventors, pioneers, rulers, saints, scientists)
d. past events from the history of Britain and the wider world (for example, events such as the Gunpowder Plot, the Olympic Games, other events that are commemorated).

At Key Stage 2 (Years 3-6, aged 7 to 11), the skills taught are similar, although at a more developed level. Pupils should undertake a Local History study, three British History studies, one European History study and one World History study. The British studies are as follows:
Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings in Britain
Britain and the Wider World in Tudor Times
Either Victorian Britain or Britain Since 1930

The European History study is of Ancient Greece. The World History studies are a choice from: Ancient Egypt, Ancient Sumer, the Assyrian Empire, the Indus Valley, the Maya, Benin, or the Aztecs.

[This is becoming an essay, which was not my intention.]

In the first three years (sometimes two) at secondary school (Years 7-9, ages 11-14) I feel that I will restrict myself to giving the location of the programme of study, which is here.

With regard to the part of your question which asked;

and Gove is making it more so?

Yes; in my opinion.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

...thank you for that considered reply Historian

when i was at Grammar School in the late 50s we ploughed our way through what was then known of pre-history [not much] and then down the time line with Kings and Wars etc .... it became quite enthralling for me when we reached the mid 17th century and the explosion of puritan thinking and other such dangerous stuff like being equal before god etc ... by then i had committed to science at A level and have regretted leaving the study of history ever since ...

[Historian]

There was a very interesting piece on this in the TLS recently.

"The history lessons outlined in the draft National Curriculum are too prescriptive, Anglocentric and narrow – the only way to make the subject better, David Cannadine argues, is to give it more time in the classroom"

The Department for Education did take the trouble to consult with a range of different groups and interests, including professional historians. Having done that, it seems that Mr. Gove decided to ignore most of them. Almost alone among academic historians, David Cannadine has taken the time to examine how History has been taught in English state schools since the beginning of the last century in his The Right Kind of History: Teaching the Past in Twentieth-Century England (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). He speaks from a position of knowledge rather than hindsight and hearsay.