[Nick Dennis]

rhuggins, on Oct 8 2005, 10:36 PM, said:

I feel that one of the problems with the education system is that most teachers learning strengths are the auditory and visual. They are academic. They teach to their learning strengths. They understand and communicate well to students with similar learning styles. However, the non accademic are poorly served by a system which is not designed to recognise their learning strengths. Hence my belief that there needs to be more than one pathway through history.

What do you think or am I totally off beam?

Whenever the idea of learning styles/multiple intelligence arises I shudder at their transformation into the new 'truth' that attempts to replace 'traditionalist' methods. As I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong here), learning styles/multiple intelligences are theoretical constructs and they refer to a preference not a substantive filter. I'm very aware (and I'm sure many people on this site are) of what my learning strengths are and try to steer the students away from them as much as possible as many of them would find it incredibly dull (I like reading books).

However, History as a subject is highly reliant on verbal/linguistic skills. Admitting this is not to suggest that the students who struggle have to 'lump' it. What it does suggest is that there is a need for basic skills to be put in place before other abilities can be engaged as Gardner suggests in creating the 'rounded individual'. Unfortuantely, the society we live in values particular kinds of abilities, and we as responsible teachers must help our students to acquire these skills so they can interact with the world.

The problem you are talking about Roy is deeper than the History GCSE course/school organisation or teaching methods.

This post has been edited by Nick Dennis: 08 October 2005 - 11:20 PM

[Roy Huggins]

Good point. I agree about the learning preference, but I bring you back to a previous idea that the best way to inject fairness back into the assessment system is to have a vocational pathway through KS3 to KS4 that enables lower ability students to achieve some credit for their hard work and achievement. The old CSE and GCE 'O' Level gave students that opportunity. In the name of equality we created the GCSE, which has since been turned into an academic exam.

I believe that history had speak powerfully to students of all abilities and that it should be core, but in order to make that happen we would have to address the unfairness in the assessment system. For example, the age level of the questions, types of question etc....

Roy

This post has been edited by rhuggins: 09 October 2005 - 10:25 AM

[Nick Dennis]

rhuggins, on Oct 9 2005, 11:24 AM, said:

Good point. I agree about the learning preference, but I bring you back to a previous idea that the best way to inject fairness back into the assessment system is to have a vocational pathway through KS3 to KS4 that enables lower ability students to achieve some credit for their hard work and achievement. The old CSE and GCE 'O' Level gave students that opportunity. In the name of equality we created the GCSE, which has since been turned into an academic exam.

I believe that history had speak powerfully to students of all abilities and that it should be core, but in order to make that happen we would have to address the unfairness in the assessment system. For example, the age level of the questions, types of question etc....

Roy

Students do receive credit at the moment although it may not be an A-C pass. Maybe you should look at a short course GCSE or change the exam board to help those students who are not performing. The main issue I think is the valuation of the grades, with anything below a C seen as a fail. Society buys into it, and to a certain extent, you are too. For some of the students I teach, a 'D' grade is a massive achievement and I'm very proud of being part of that. Thank goodness we have residuals to show this to the outside (non-teaching) world. Such an achievement should be celebrated for what it is - a personal achievement. Should this not be celebrated in this era of 'personalised education'?

I have a clouded picture of the CSE exam system - all my brothers were made to sit them instead of the 'O' level. They were made to do it because (I think I can say this without a hint of controversy) they are black and were seen as incapable. A generation of young black people in the 70's and 80's were forced to sit the exam because of racial stereotyping. That is not to say ALL teachers held these stereotypes but racial stereotyping was much more obvious in society in general at the time - remember the idea of the 'Enemy Within', the various riots, the prominent role of the NF? I do, mainly because I lived in London and experienced many of the prejudices myself. Would I rather have a system that curbs the cultural predilections of the powerful but still has flaws? Yes please.

I would really like to see what a vocational GCSE History course looks like. I know OCR is running a pilot scheme that includes more practical elements. Is anyone actually running it/going to be running it?

I fear that if History became a core subject, certain restrictions would be placed on what is taught. Have you read anything by Rob Phillips? He has done a lot of work on the creation/problems of the history curriculum.

[Roy Huggins]

Hi Nick,

I shall have to watch out for Rob Phillips book. If you can recommend a title I'll get it ordered.

The issue that you raise with the CSE is an interesting one. I went to a secondary modern where the expectation placed on me by my teachers was that I would most probably become a land worker or at best an electrician. Having spent a year working on the land I decided to go back to college and do access courses for reading and writing. I then went on to do my 'O' Levels followed by my 'A' Levels. So what motivated me to want to go down the academic route? A good history teacher and success at CSE.

The problems faced by your brothers has more to do with the expectations of their teachers, not the exam which attempted to give credit and celebrate the achievements of the 'F' to 'C' students.

I am well down the road to implementing a new GCSE based on the OCR Modern World Course and kicking the AQA exam into the long grass. What annoys me intensely is that AQA have decided over the past few years to market their exam and syllabus to the more academically able with a higher reading age. A quick glance at any OCR paper and you can see a real difference in the style of questions and the literacy level. My old head of department was committed to NEAB / AQA and I have personally been teaching it for over 13 years. Looking back over the exam papers you can see the goal posts being slowly moved further and further back away from the CSE model towards the old 'O' Level. This process has accelerated over the past three years and hence the reason why we have decided to vote with our feet. I only wish that we had done it sooner. I don't mind exam boards going the GCE 'O' level route so long as there is still a vocational pathway for the old CSE.

So what do you think of the attainment target for history? How would you improve transition to GCSE?

Roy

[Nick Dennis]

rhuggins, on Oct 9 2005, 12:49 PM, said:

Hi Nick,

I shall have to watch out for Rob Phillips book. If you can recommend a title I'll get it ordered.

The issue that you raise with the CSE is an interesting one. I went to a secondary modern where the expectation placed on me by my teachers was that I would most probably become a land worker or at best an electrician. Having spent a year working on the land I decided to go back to college and do access courses for reading and writing. I then went on to do my 'O' Levels followed by my 'A' Levels. So what motivated me to want to go down the academic route? A good history teacher and success at CSE.

The problems faced by your brothers has more to do with the expectations of their teachers, not the exam which attempted to give credit and celebrate the achievements of the 'F' to 'C' students...So what do you think of the attainment target for history? How would you improve transition to GCSE?

Roy

Books by Rob Phillips:
1) Reflective Teaching of History 11-18: Meeting Standards and Applying Research
2) Issues in History Teaching
3) History Teaching, Nationhood and the State

You are making my point for me Roy - when I suggested that I would rather have a system that removed the cultural predelictions of the powerful, I was talking about teacher expectations! The GCSE course (mostly!) removes such problems in that all students are (theoretically) allowed to sit it and achieve a grade on the scale. The RE Dept in my school runs a short course and they have great exam results as they have students that would struggle with the full course. These students are given the opportunity to achieve what I think you are talking about Roy. Maybe this is something to look into as well as the board change.

The CSE also created a problem too as it was seen as second best. Unless people/society/employers understand that GCSE A-C is not the end all and be all of exam success, we will be constantly talking loud and saying nothing.

As for the NC, like many others, I would go for breadth - Dan Lyndon suggested Black peoples of Britain, Ed Waller mentioned a few other things too. This may be the way to go.

Finally, for improving transition to KS4, maybe year 9 should be seen as a pre-GCSE year - a mix of the issues/skills students should come across in the GCSE so they know exactly what is expected of them if they choose to do the course. I know some forum members do this, but in an informal way. I think it is a good idea because it leaves the decision up to the teacher/HoD about the content and the demands of that year. Formalising it through a 2 year KS3 would bring too many problems! Such transition would only be possible through proper planning and not viewing the Key Stages as distinct elements of the educational system.

This post has been edited by Nick Dennis: 09 October 2005 - 12:40 PM

[Ed Waller]

rhuggins, on Oct 8 2005, 10:36 PM, said:

The government has put at the heart of Year 9 options the concept of the common entitlement curriculum, which means that students have to get their first choice. This creates a timetabling nightmare and random sets of such vast learning styles that it makes for a challenging environment. Having a vocational pathway through KS3 & 4, would help solve that problem.

The idea of a 'common entitlement curriculum' sounds like a socialist idea, doesn't it, a 'bottom up' approach to what to teach? Or rather what to learn. Of course it's faux democracy within any kind of National Curriculum framework, like asking you to choose a chocolate bar that's best for your teeth.

And I'm SO glad that the government want every Yr 9 pupil to get their first choice. Can you imagine the length of the appeals process in most schools where the facilities don't exist for (say) ICT or Food Tech? There are enough appeals at Yr 6 into 7.

There's a heck of a lot of danger with the 'hybrid' model that goes beyond the 'entitlement (sic) curriculum'. Firstly the vocational element will need resourcing (whether that's visits to a museum... field trips... imagine how happy your Headteacher would be at having to cover all your history teachers for a week a year) or the equivalent in book or electronic media. Who's going to fund that?

Secondly if we are to make an 'easier to access' = easier to get good grades GCSE, who will then opt for the 'old fashioned' GCSE? Within significantly few years History as we know it will decline (it's worse than that, it's dead Jim), and will be the privilege of a few schools who are not obliged to offer the entitlement curriculum, the National Curriculum etc. We'd end up with people very adept at organising a display case (not to be denigrated in itself) but woefully lacking in writing history.

This of course would be a Good Thing for some, as their role in history may thus go unheard, unanalysed (no names, TONY), leaving us with the stories of the past as simple as Francis Drake: great at bowls, sailed round most of the world, single-handedly beat the Spanish to save Protestantism, Superhero of the 16th century (anyone wondering what's wrong with this statement should read more!). When someone then puts a shiny yellow deer in a cabinet to remind us of his ship, like the Bismarck, we're sunk.


Roy, I, too, have the problem with numbers that you mention. Luckily we are able to dissuade a handful of individuals for their own benefit of the wisdom of choosing different GCSE courses. It's always their choice. We have a very open approach to option evening. We show how great and important history is AND what is required over the two years, and that includes large chunks of writing, and not just coursework. Those who are weaker in the reading and writing areas normally re-evaluate their choices and pick something else. Naturally we welcome those who still want to do it, and in some ways take this as a very large compliment about our KS3 teaching. We have four sets of around 28/29 in year 10 and year 11, regularly much more than 60% of the cohort. We don't have streaming (although for a couple of years we were able to have two bands, but then again the KS3 data didn't map exactly to student ability in history). We have issues about VAK, and try to ensure that we mix up the styles over the two years to ensure that everyone has a reasonable chance to learn in their preferred style. I'm sure this is nothing new and certainly not unique. Similarly we include LOTS of AfL, again not new, not unique.

Would you suggest with the hybrid that the optimum would be History as core subject, sets 1-3 take current 'academic' GCSE and set 4 the hybrid? Would that really meet the criteria for the 'entitlement' curriculum in that everyone can (and is) doing history? What would then happen if one of set 1 has an incling about reading museum studies at uni and becoming a curator in the fullness of time? Would we say "sorry, you're too academically gifted for this option". Or the case of the 'canny' student who realises that this option is mainly aimed at (or at least the school has designated it as) the less able, and could therefore score well in the written parts against 'competitors', and breeze to the A*?

Nick is right to highlight the racial issues of the old 'split' system. It was a very effective way of confirming low expectations (just as foundation levels of English & maths are now). Put somebody in a bottom set in year 7, leave them there to year 9, having been wordsearched and coloured in and cut and stuck to death, and watch them fail to get decent grades at GCSE in 'academic' subjects. You don't correct that by making available a 'cut and stick' GCSE. It used to be the case that predominantly the CSE sets were black boys. Look to USA for where that practice, if continued, might have led. The culture of rejection can quickly work in reverse.

TO MOVE THE DEBATE ALONG A BIT
Back at the entitlement curriculum, I note that the info coming from the KS3 review team talks of a "humanities" entitlement curriculum, rather than History, Geography. While the government review seeks to maintain the number of foundation subjects, there is the danger (accepted as a danger by hums.org.uk documents, and by implication QCA as far as I can work out) that schools may reduce the timetable allowance of humanities subjects. Hums.org (and QCA??) suggests there should be a Humanities Framework (stop me if you've heard all this), and the content, concepts and skills of subjects that have a humanities base should be determined by the extent to which they contribute to the framework.

Is it my imagination or is the review which seeks to reduce the core content of the NC and increase its flexibility a 'back-door' way to introduce a humanities foundation subject? A cursory glance at the February White Paper on 14-19 Education (check out para 6) suggests more time for English and Maths. Wonder where that might come from!

Quote

History IS a fantastic subject. It is not ‘humanities’, and I will fight tooth and nail against any moves to make it so

I just hope you've got a lot of teeth and nails, Dave, and a lot of support other than me (and NicK?)... this could be quite a fight!

Ed

ps no apologies for a long post.... It's Munich, 1938 and the clock is running.

[Roy Huggins]

Hi Ed,

An interesting document which raises the issue made earlier about the position and status of history in the curriculum being under attack, hence my point that we need to argue the case for history to become a core subject so as to avoid being merged with geography into a humanities subject. In the final analysis, we can always compromise with on the current status quo with one or two changes.

Roy

[Ed Waller]

Roy,

Fully accept this point. I'm much happier arguing for history on the grounds that understanding the past better may help us to understand where we are better. Equally it's important in its own right.

It makes me hold my figurative breath to hear it being held up for its benificence in some cultural or ideological project. I don't doubt it is political by its nature; its active use in such a role has me reaching for the Anti-Nazi Spray, just in case...

Ed

ps I'm NOT calling anyone (nor everyone!) a Nazi or anything similar with this post. Feel I ought to make this clear, also just in case...

[neil mcdonald]

When talking about increased flexibility - what do we mean by this? If being a core subject is deemed an unattainable goal - what about having a greater share of curriculum time? Remove the focus from citizenship and integrate it into KS3 History? Perhaps we coudl have a better History Curriculum with more time on the task?

I do think better integration between KS3 and KS4 needs to be made though...just to be able to develop our students further.

[Roy Huggins]

I agree on both points Neil. Current transition to KS4 is poor. The Attainment Target needs rewriting and a lot of the good practice in the N/C needs transferring to GCSE. GCSE is long overdue for an overhaul. I like your idea of merging citizenship with history. So how would you go about improving transition to KS4?

Roy

[Ed Waller]

rhuggins, on Oct 10 2005, 10:10 PM, said:

So how would you go about improving transition to KS4?

When I first applied for my present post, one of the things we discussed at interview etc was this very issue. The initial question was more along the lines of 'what do you think our history department needs? what is your vision?'

My response was quite straightforward (luckily I'd been teaching there for eight months by that stage).. Think about what is required at the end of KS4.... Then plant the seeds in Year 7, tend them carefully, and water them in years 8 and 9..... (You'll be surprised that I didn't use quite such flowery language in those days!!).

That's what we did. We re-wrote the schemes of work, bit by bit, introducing the skills required to succeed at GCSE. We're still tinkering (shock, horror) building in AfL stuff, increasing amounts of ICT. It was kinda annoying to meet the NC and the resources that follow it more or less blindly, which didn't match our pursuit of skills in quite the same way as we wanted them to. They tend to cover several skills in each module. What we wanted to to focus on one in each module (obviously you have to use others as well) but we wanted to be able to say "This is a unit on the Roman Empire; It will teach you about using sources; The Assessment is a source based enquiry into why Caesar was Murdered".

As a result of tinkering etc we have shifted our GCSE (A*-C) results from 66% in 02/03 to 81% in 04/05, and our uptake has increased from just under 90 to 115 this year (over 60% of current year 10). This isn't rocket science (but I've been to Peenemunde), just lots of work, and I was again fortunate to have a department who could share the burden!

[Roy Huggins]

Hi Guys,

Coming back to the main question - what if N/C history ... Just pondering a few questions for debate?

How would you improve the programme of study?
How would you make KS3 more coherent?
What could be done to help students have a better chronological understanding by the end of KS3?
How can we increase flexiability?
Hw effective is the level descriptor at helping pupils to make progression?
How can we improve transition from KS2 to KS3?
How can we build thinking skills and accelerated learning into the N/C?

Roy

This post has been edited by rhuggins: 13 October 2005 - 11:09 PM

[neil mcdonald]

Re: KS2 to KS3 Transition - how about a unit of historical skills at KS2 so we are not teaching basic chronology and source skills?

[Roy Huggins]

Hi Neil,

That sounds like an interesting idea. It would help to save us having to repeat some of the content and skills in the first term in Year 7.

Kind Regards

Roy

[Ed Waller]

neil mcdonald, on Oct 14 2005, 12:33 PM, said:

Re: KS2 to KS3 Transition - how about a unit of historical skills at KS2 so we are not teaching basic chronology and source skills?

I know Roy likes the idea, and in principle so do I, but only if Yr 5 or Yr 6 of every Primary is staffed by a specialist historian!

What I'd like to see improved KS2 to KS3 is not so much 'this' or 'that' aspect, but more time to meet with Yr 5 and 6 teachers so that they can develop their history skills and get a feel for where Yr 7 is 'at (man)'. I'm sure the interaction would do both sides the world of good, and I dare say that such an event would help all subjects, and therefore, all students.

As a 'for instance' some of my Yr 7s told me thay had 'done' Greece. What they meant was they had learned something about Hercules (note not Herakles) and the twleve labours... So they learned a few nice stories rather than history.

It might be a little harsh to expect non-specialists to teach specific historical skills (in a manner we might like it to be done).