Shock, dismay, sadness, anger… these have been the reactions of many history teachers to the long-awaited review of National Curriculum for History. This is the weakest and potentially the most damaging iteration of the National Curriculum since it began in 1991. It is hard to believe that over two years of thought, discussion and ‘consultation’ could have resulted in a document that reads like a badly updated list of Ladybird books on British history. Yet it could be worse. If we are looking for any glimmers of sense, rigour and hope in the draft they surely lie in the final four bullet points under ‘Aims’. These ensure that the disciplinary framework of school history will be maintained. The second-order concepts of change/continuity, cause/consequence, similarity/difference and significance are still there. So too is an understanding of how evidence is used, and of how and why different interpretations of history are constructed. In our rush to criticise the proposed curriculum we should be aware of its strengths.
It is not difficult to see how such a poorly-constructed document has transpired. The first National Curriculum and the reviews of 1995, 2000 and 2007 were conducted within a clear and open framework. In each case, the process brought together history teachers who had taken practice forward, professional historians with knowledge of school history and leading educators from our national museums and heritage organisations. These ‘expert groups’ were known, accountable and worked to a clear timetable. In contrast, the current review has been murky and shambolic. In 2011 we were told that Simon Schama (then Niall Ferguson) would tell us what history we should teach and how we should teach it. Since the early departure of the Titans, the process of review has remained largely hidden. Whatever has been happening in the depths of the DfE, it has clearly not worked. In the view of the Schools History Project the proposed curriculum provides an inadequate foundation for children’s learning in history and will result in lower educational standards. It has five major weaknesses:
- The purpose of study statement is pathetic. It is an insult to teachers of history in England’s primary and secondary schools. Have officials at the DfE looked at the purpose statement in the 2008 National Curriculum? If so, can they not see that this is a statement with passion and depth that can inspire teachers to plan meaningful and fascinating history courses for their pupils? The geography purpose statement in the consultation document is so much better than the one for history. Surely, a 2013 statement on the purpose of history should be an improvement on earlier attempts and parity should be achieved between subjects.
- The long list of bullet points relating to British history will do little to foster a shared understanding of our past. The Schools History Project believes that, by the age of 14, all pupils should have a secure knowledge the people, events and changes that have shaped Britain’s history. However, the inclusion of so many bullet points in the proposed curriculum, each apparently accorded the same status, will result in a superficial scamper through Britain’s history. The document makes no attempt to discern trends and themes across time that would provide a helpful framework for building enduring knowledge. The list of content is quite arbitrary and, in some cases, bizarre.
- It is ludicrous to think that starting with the Stone Age at the beginning of Key Stage 2 and finishing with the election of Margaret Thatcher will do anything to develop chronological understanding. As Simon Schama wrote in his Guardian article of 9 November 2011, “It can’t be a good idea to treat school age as if it ran on parallel tracks to chronology”. All the research evidence supports his view. In each Key Stage pupils should be entitled to study the long arc of British history. Surely, the National Curriculum for History should encourage eight-year-olds to talk to their grannies and grandpas about life in Britain since the war, and should develop a passion for archaeology in 13-year-olds.
- Pulling back so much content from the current Key Stage 3 into Key Stage 2 will cause huge amounts of work and massive disruption for no gain whatsoever. It’s hard to know who to pity more: the secondary history teachers who would have to ditch their carefully-crafted and well-resourced schemes of work on Medieval and Early Modern Britain or the non-specialist primary teachers trying, for the first time, to make the Glorious Revolution meaningful to ten year olds. The 1700 divide between Key Stage 2 and 3 must be reconsidered. Instead, a coherent structure should be provided that will enable Key Stage 3 teachers to build on the knowledge and understanding established at Key Stage 2.
- The content is far too narrow. The revised curriculum represents a reversal of all the progress that has been made over recent years in ensuring that Britain’s diverse history is recognised and taught in schools. The proposed National Curriculum rightly places British history at its core, but this should be more inclusive and there should certainly be a place for the study of other cultures and civilisations. Knowledge and understanding of the past achievements of other people should surely be part of a civilising education for all children growing up in twenty-first century Britain. A more inclusive history curriculum must be reinstated.
I shall be submitting SHP’s formal response to the National Curriculum Consultation Document before the end of March, so please respond to this blog and let me have your views.
Dr Michael Riley
Director, Schools History Project
15 Responses to “The unthinking history curriculum”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
A reasoned and reasonable response. I think that in secondary schools the proposed list of content will potentially have a negative impact on uptake at KS4 and A level. If this is what the new national curriculum will look like then I fear for the more rigorous GCSE that is on its way. I also am concerned with the statement tha leads the content that children will be ‘taught’ all this content. Not that they will learn it, understand it, connect with it in any way. Just taught. Filling a bucket rather than lighting a fire. One hopes that there will be a listening ear in Mr Gove’s department and that there will be substantial changes. As head of department in an Academy I sincerely hope I will be allowed to construct a curriculum that appeals to our students and fosters a love of history and a desire to continue with it beyond KS3. This means I will be able to use existing resources and SOWs, existing expertise and excellence within the department. I will be banking on primaries following the NC to be only able to offer the most superficial survey of the several thousand years they need to cover in KS2 so I can build on some sketchy knowledge and not duplicate. Philosophically it is all wrong, pedagogically it is unsound, the content is decidedly little Englander and edging towards xenophobic.
Bravo! I agree with every word.
I was specifically informed in May 2011 via a letter to my M.P. from Nick Gibb that they were going to ‘engage with teachers and their representatives to secure their input …’ before ‘the public consultation’. Anyway, I am a retired teacher with plenty of time and opportunity to vent my anger, and I shall take your report with me, together with a copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary just to check we all agree on what a ‘representative’ is.
An excellent summary of the opinions of the majority of teaching professionals and concerned members of the public. Very well said indeed. In addition if visitors would like another forum where they can air their views I invite them to visit our facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/saveschoolhistory
In all the time I have been teaching history, in all the years that we have had a national curriculum, I have never, ever, seen anything as inept as this. Neither has anything so lacking in transparency been dumped on history teachers. The oneheartening aspect of this is the response of our profession, and our different subject communities. I’m not given to exaggeration (I hope) but I think that the dislike of this foolish curriculum is almost universal. What should happpen is that these proposals are quickly strangled but that arrogance of Gove makes me wonder. If reason doesn’t work I guess history teachers will have to draw on all the powers of subversion we have at our disposal. Perhaps SHP might be willing to publish an ‘Anarchists Guide to Teaching History’.
As a PGCE tutor I’m not inclined to start examining how this might be taught with next years’ trainee history teachers.
What a measured and appropriate response to the NC proposals - could this not somehow be circulated to the world at large - before it is too late to halt the Gove(ernment)’s behemoth? To your response should be added the fact that, even if worthy, the proposed curriculum is, quite simply, unteachable in the time available (probably two periods a week) - it will become ‘Your Hundred Best Facts’ and be assessed largely on knowledge of their dates and a Soviet style interpretation of them.
A further factor related to the piecing together of the overall KS jigsaw. The original NC (not just History) was bedevilled from the start by the sequential adoption of the various working party reports as they were delivered to Ken Baker - hence those subject panels reporting later found that there was less and less of the cake to go round, especially after the scientists, mathematicians and IT had bagged nearly half the teaching time. To pursue a culinary metaphor, Ken should not have baked his cake until he had added all the ingredients to his recipe. Point of story: the Ministry is on the cusp of (nearly) repeating the mistake, albeit in a different fashion, by considering the Key Stages as discrete issues and approving developments as they evolve…..what shape, for instance, are the GCSEs and A-levels of the future going to take - and how will they bear any relation to the new KS3 prescription (whatever it may be)?
A beautifully crafted response, I agree with every word!
‘Unthinking’ sums up these superficial and ignorant proposals. There is no apparent awareness of the extensive research into finding more effective means of promoting historical understanding through teaching in schools. The faith in ‘facts’ and the merits of history to promote a particular view of national identity would be pathetic if it were not so disturbing. Perhaps the listof approved topics should have included a number of banned areas, or persuasive suggestions as to how the slave trade can be represented as evidence of the British entrepreneurial genius? Surely other interpretations would raise questions as to just what is our sense of national identity?
I fully endorse Michael’s thoughtful response to the draft proposal and am pleased he has been able to identify some positives. My own initial reaction was so negative that any remarks I made would have been incoherent and ill-judged. Gove is far more likely to listen if feed-back is measured and, if there are points worth keeping, they will provide the starting place for further debate.
Sadly, it is hardly possible to use the two words Gove’ and ‘listen’ in the same sentence. Like King John, he seeks to impose his will on the nation….we can only hope that he will schedule a visit to Lincolnshire!
I agree completely- Gove’s proposal is an utter disgrace. Is there a counter- petition in circulation? It would be worth extending its signing to students too given how much these proposals effect them as well.
Yes – there is a counter-petition in circulation, an e-petition entitled ‘Keep the history curriculum politically neutral’. Find it at:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/46338
There is also a website dedicated to opposing these ludicrous and damaging proposals, at best a dry chronicle which will kill all interest in the subject and at worst a vehicle for nationalist indoctrination. Visit:
http://historynotpropaganda.weebly.com
Having endured much of the same upheaval and educational disruption here in Massachusetts in the 1990s over the state curriculum frameworks for history, I heartily endorse Dr. Riley’s response. The “Gove curriculum” would seem to be the very type of what we here call “rah, rah nationalistic, patriotic” history that our initial curriculum guidelines sought to promote, at least in the US history curriculum. As a teacher of Modern World History, I still have to ‘correct” some of the erroneous patriotism that still managed to find its way into the US History curriculum even after significant revisions and greater input from teachers not belonging to politically conservative think tanks. It is a curriculum that would appear to promote divisiveness amongst peoples rather than examine how events in history cut across all racial, ethnic, gender and cultural divides. I hope that the UK can avoid going down this path until the next general election…
From EURYDICE re France
“During primary education, children learn about pre-history, ancient times, the middle ages, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, the French Revolution and the 19th and 20th Centuries. These periods are illustrated by key people and events in French history which is a deliberate attempt to foster a sense of common national culture. The study of these areas is consolidated, deepened and enriched in later phases of education.”
As a teacher in an inner city comprehensive, I am absolutely appalled by the new History curriculum. It is hard enough trying to teach year 8 the finer points of the industrial revolution (canals anyone?) without having to teach the finer points of Disraelis work. I teach History to inspire, enthuse and educate historians. I want to give students relevant role models from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds. I do not feel the new curriculum allows us to do that.
As a Subject leader I am also massively concerned about the huge cost implication of the new curriculum-a new set if class text books for 30 students costs in the region of £300. Lets say two class books per year group, £3000? Not a chance.
I am seriously considering leaving the teaching profession. I refuse to teach a politically loaded curriculum. This is not a ‘consultation’. It is a Diktat.