[Roy Huggins]

Hi folks,

Today's consultation meeting with QCA went really well. Jerome Freeman took onboard many of the points raised above.

Anyway, points raised, discussed and to be carried forward as proposed action points:

New National Curriculum for history with be launched in 2008
Purpose and aims of N/C History to help create a shared cultural heritage and sense of national identity based upon toleration and respect for human rights.
Central to the new programmes of study will be reinforcement of flexibility
Much of what we remember of the old prescribed content will be deleted from the orders to encourage innovation and creativity to encourage schools to create a curriculum that suits the needs of their students.
The ideas of Ian Dawson were discussed several times by Jerome and others as a model of our the curriculum could be redesigned by departments.
The new order will encourage teachers to focus on a thematic approach. For example, conflict and power or protest and change within the 1066 - present day time frame.
Recognition by QCA that the AT in history is muddled and needs simplification
Need for the AT to be revised to put it on a par with other subjects
Level 6 = GCSE 'C' in history whereas in every other N/C subject its a level 7
The AT to be possibly brought into line with GCSE assessment
The 20 year rule does not exist! We can teach right up to present day!
Some changes to the 20th C Module to encourage broader coverage after 1945
Departments to be encouraged to make sure that there is less repetition of content at KS4 & 5. (Prevent the practice of continually covering 20th C history from Yr 9 to Yr 13)
Further meetings are planned to discuss the future of GCSE and 'A' Level with the principle aim of improving progression and transition between the key stages.


However, this is of course subject to the overriding control of the politicians at Whitehall. There will be another consultation meeting next week in London with a different panel of history teachers to discuss the same issues and put forward proposals which will be usef by Jerome Freeman to draft the new draft N/C.

I left the meeting feeling very positive about the future of N/C History. There is nothing stopping us following a thematic approach now to the content of history. The new order will underline the fact that we can do it now!

Also raised at the meeting, apparently Gordon has promised to make history into a core subject when he becomes PM.


Heath warning: Remember the golden rule - this is my interpretation of what was discussed and agreed and nothing is set in stone, the other panel may have a different perspective!

Roy

This post has been edited by rhuggins: 17 October 2005 - 11:57 PM

[JohnDClare]

Well done, Roy, on this - and particularly thank you for keeping us in touch.
All very interesting if somewhat unsettling.

[Ed Waller]

JohnDClare, on Oct 17 2005, 10:09 PM, said:

Well done, Roy, on this - and particularly thank you for keeping us in touch.
All very interesting if somewhat unsettling.

hear hear!! it's been a blast!!!!

How good would it be for there to be a Jerome Freeman seminar on the future of History?

[Andrew Field]

JohnDClare, on Oct 17 2005, 10:09 PM, said:

Well done, Roy, on this - and particularly thank you for keeping us in touch.
All very interesting if somewhat unsettling.

I agree - although care is obviously needed to appreciate that we cannot be seen as entirely representative of all history teachers - we are a collection of teachers who use this forum. For example, similar discussions have gone on elsewhere - see http://educationforu...?showtopic=5082

[Ed Waller]

I think you'll find that that post is a discussion about this discussion for the benefit of those beyond this forum, and to encourage readers there who may not be of this forum to come and take part, Andrew, rather than a "similar" discussion. I'm left wondering why you made that post...

[Nick Dennis]

As I've said in 'other' places, the whole process of consultation is political. The result that we see at the end may look very different for a variety of political reasons!

I was going to post before, but decided that what I wanted to say was too pessimistic. What I will say is that the feedback from Roy is encouraging. I really like the notion of themes - perfect for diachronic narratives!
We will have to see what the end product looks like.

This post has been edited by Nick Dennis: 17 October 2005 - 10:04 PM

[Andrew Field]

Ed Waller, on Oct 17 2005, 10:50 PM, said:

I think you'll find that that post is a discussion about this discussion for the benefit of those beyond this forum, and to encourage readers there who may not be of this forum to come and take part, Andrew, rather than a "similar" discussion. I'm left wondering why you made that post...

I was simply try to make us not appear too arrogant here - I was concerned that Roy has said that this forum was the hub of the history universe. It isn't! I was trying to prove that others are also debating and discussing the issue. Obviously it is great to see so many interested parties, but was trying to make the point that the issue is worthy of a much wider discussion. Anyone can read these posts - and it is great that the widest audience as possible can discuss the issues. That is the key thing.

I agree completely with Nick too - I'm certain the finished product will look very different and it would be easy to be pessimistic about the whole thing.

What I'm concerned about is that surely all the teachers who post here - i.e. those willing to post ideas and suggestions, to get involved with their work outside of work, are obviously those teachers keen and willing and able to make a difference. Most of such teachers will be able to adapt the existing curriculum accordingly anyway - in the way JDC has been talking about. What a new curriculum has to to is really shake all history teachers up and inject a new vigour into the whole subject. Ideas such as themes, continuity through time and links to current events are all marvellous opportunities.

To be honest, massive proposed changes make me a little bit scared. This is a good thing! I just hope the new curriculum is too.

[Roy Huggins]

I mentioned the possibility of posting on schoolhistory.co.uk to Jerome and he seemed very egar to consult as widely as possible.

Roy

This post has been edited by rhuggins: 17 October 2005 - 11:11 PM

[neil mcdonald]

Having watched both Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister I always see the possibility that just because we talk about it, that is all we will get - talk! I am all for a more inventive and innovative Key Stage Three curriculum chiefly due to the fact that we do need a subject tht looks our cultural heritage but also makes students more globally aware citizens.

Our key stage two curriculum needs to fit hand in glove with KS3 and likewise KS3 to KS4 - they do not and it is a shame.

Do I want History to be a core subject? Of course I do. I dislike the fact that RE is a core subject - what does it teach? History is the subject of choice to make students more aware of their sense of identity. I keep thinking that what we need is a GCSE short course in History - something new and exciting -

One exam and one piece of coursework. Something modern and something from another era - one of the two units featuring a global element. Think of the possibilities!

Students could look at topics we tend to look at only at KS3

Peasants Revolt and the Black Death
The Chartist Movement
Unification of Germany - think about it a course about Germany and not involving a war, a holocaust or Hitler!
How about looking at the Chinese Revolution or Cuba!

I don't want change for change sake but rather to make a system which I believe is flawed better

Levels of Attainment - why! What about source compentencies - in htree major skills

Source Analysis
Historical Interpretation
Knowledge and Understanding

Students move through the competencies for each one not as an overall level!

[Roy Huggins]

Hi Guys,

the primary purpose of the new orders is to allow people to be creative and innovative in the delivery of the curriculum.

For example, the freedom exists to take a course like the Black Peoples of the Americas and take a thematic approach which broadens the curriculum whilst allowing for depth studies. For example, at Mexborough we look at the issue of slavery, the fright for freedom, justice and equality from Roman times to present day. We ask questions like why did ancient societies have slaves? The fright for freedom: spartacus and the Jews in Egypt. We then move onto the rediscovery of America and why the Europeans enslaved black people, impact of slavery, middle pasage, life on the plantation and then move onto the fright for freedom. We then move onto the impact of the industrial revolution, class conflict and the fight for freedom chartism, unions etc followed by women's suffrage and the Civil Rights movement in the USA and Jamaca. Finally, we look at the white slave trade, child poverty and drugs in the modern world and how our students can make a difference. So end up with a vibrant course that is relevant and gives students a broader sense of chronology, change and continuity.

Now this course touches on a number of N/C modules. However, you could even weave the French, Russian or Chinese Revolutions into the course or even the Palestinian issue. You could even be really clever and fit some Marxist historiography into some of your G & T lessons!

Kind Regards

Roy

This post has been edited by rhuggins: 18 October 2005 - 06:22 PM

[Roy Huggins]

Hi Neil,

The issue of source compentancy was discussed. The key criteria to bring the N/C into line with good practice at GCSE. One idea discussed is a favourite promoted on www.schoolhistory.co.uk and that was the varying levels associated with looking at origins, nature and purpose of a source.

One of the many interesting conversations I had with Jerome Freeman was the issue of exam boards contunually blaming QCA for bad exams. He argues that the reverse is true.

Kind Regards

Roy

[Ed Waller]

rhuggins, on Oct 18 2005, 07:20 PM, said:

He argues that the reverse is true.

I think that whilst "he would say that, wouldn't he" there is a point. If it were a QCA issue, presumably the various boards would be of the same standard (whether good, bad or indifferent) rather than an apparent mix of levels, target reading ages etc. Witness the number of centres who consider changing board each year.


On the 'broadening of issues' post, Roy, when I was younger (ie a PGCE student in 2000/01) I began to look at the SoW across a complete school, and womdering if there was potential for cross-curricular themes. There is enormous benefit in this approach, examining more fully all aspects of historical periods and progressionand links between them.

While my brief look suggested the potential existed quite clearly - History and RE, Geog, English, Tech, Art, Science at different stages of the year(s), then as now, people felt over-busy to pursue the ideas, and concerned lest co-operation became something close to merger with resourcing following suit. That said, it is still my preferred option in an ideal world (should one magically fall into existence!)

[Roy Huggins]

Hi Ed,

This issue was raised at the QCA meeting. However, the danger is that if you allow other subjects to teach history then all it takes is one head who then says - ah ha! Why do we need a history department and you end up ina mess called humanities which the N/C and Keith Joseph were trying to avoid!

Good or bad the N/C put history back on the curriculum map as separate subject. You can pursue common cross curricular themes, but I like teaching history as oposed to geograghy and settlement patterns!

One of the issues that came up in the QCA meeting was that georgraphy is facing a serious meltdown crisis nationally. They were holding a geography OCA review meeting next door. They were a merry bunch, but not very happy about the current status and position of geography. History is so well taught nationally that kids are voting with their feet!

Roy

This post has been edited by rhuggins: 18 October 2005 - 07:16 PM

[Ed Waller]

rhuggins, on Oct 18 2005, 07:55 PM, said:

Hi Ed,

This issue was raised at the QCA meeting. However, the danger is that if you allow other subjects to teach history then all it takes is one head who then says - ah ha! Why do we need a history department and you end up ina mess called humanities which the N/C and Keith Joseph were trying to avoid!

Good or bad the N/C put history back on the curriculum map as separate subject. You can pursue common cross curricular themes, but I like teaching history as oposed to geogragh and settlement patterns!

Roy

Roy,

Mais oui, naturellement!!

This danger of closure is precisely what keeps us all from thinking along these lines. What might be nice is that (for example) English taught Dickens to Yr 9 while we taught industrial rev. In return we might put into Yr 9 a section on Scottish History to assist with 'The Scottish Play'... While the Colouring-in dept might do a map showing where Scotland is (only joking people!).

I wouldn't want to teach anything but history either (although one has to teach other things as part of that, I know). Back in that ideal world, a bigger overview of a plan (driven by history, naturally - it is an ideal world ) might enhance the idea of chronology by reinforcing it.

Regards

Ed

[Roy Huggins]

Hi Ed,

I accept your point, you gave an excellent example of good practice. We do similar cross curricular links at Mexborough things with the English department who do a Dickens in Yr 8 when we do Industrila Rev and the Underground Railroad to Canada in Yr 9 when we do Black Peoples. ICT department often do our newspaper reports on public health as as well as spread sheets on living conditions based upon previous census reports.

Roy

This post has been edited by rhuggins: 18 October 2005 - 08:55 PM