[Dan Lyndon]

I was called up by Radio 5 Live last week and asked to go on the Anita Arnaud(?) show tomorrow night between 11 and midnight to debate the idea that 'History is taught very poorly in schools', which having read this thread, I now know where this quote has come from. So I am calling on all of you history teachers out there to help me construct a powerful argument to challenge this nonsense and let the nation know what we think. Over to you ...

[Neil M]

have a look at my reply to the thread. My basic arguments are:
1) they're misrepresenting what is actually taught in history classrooms theses days - there's very little empathy actually taught, and most of the curriculum is actually about key events in british history
2) if you reduce history teaching to a list of dates and facts then you strip away many of the skills history can teach pupils (analysis, persuasive arguments, assessing evidence etc). If you strip away those skills history will probably lose its place in the curriculum, because it will lose half its raison d'etre.
3) A proportion of the population has always been pretty ignorant of our history, I'll bet it's no worse now than 10 years ago. Drumming facts into people will not really help. People will always forget much of the knowledge they learn at school, the skills they learn will stay with them forever.

Good luck, I will listen out for it!!

This post has been edited by Neil M: 27 December 2006 - 03:19 PM

[Andrew Field]

I'll try to add some ideas later this evening, but I'm sure I've read previous OFSTED reports praising the teaching of history - how it is the most technically demanding subject, how employers identify history as the one key subject that is challenging and engaging to produce worker of a higher intellectual standing, how History has led the way for effective subject use of ICT and so much more.

Might be difficult to find all these things, but I'll have a go later.

I remember you said last time that you were on you had some great ideas, but kept being cut short and were left with ridiculous soundbites. Might be an idea to construct a list of 10 quickfire things to say so you'll make some good, effective points in just a few seconds. I guess the main one to start with is that the individual who has come up with this criticism simply hasn't got a clue about the reality of history teaching.

[Nick Dennis]

Dan, I started to write and deleted whole paragraphs.

I think the first thing these people need to do is to go into schools and gather the empirical evidence for these claims. I'm not talking about coming in for a few lessons, I'm talking about experiencing it for themselves. However, this will not work as people do not necessarily believe what they see (as the article states in the figures for general ignorance of the population).

So what to do? We are all aware as professionals that there are some issues to be worked on - chronological understanding is one of these things but great strides have been made to help students (and some of them include 'modern' teaching methods). That this has been identified as a problem should not be ignored. Many of us strive for ‘big picture’ lessons where we try and tie elements together. However, when we are faced with reduced lesson times and a reduced KS3, this makes our jobs a lot harder.

However, this is not the main problem. It is one of narrative and constructing Benedict Anderson's 'imagined community'. I think the 'experts' are using 'narrative' in its narrowest sense. Yes, it does mean the study of things that follow sequentially, but we all know that in order for it to really mean something, to really deep learn something, we have to tie it to people. So, we anchor narratives to humans and their emotions. Sometimes we also do this so we can educate their sentiments as humans and as members of a national community. Does this mean that exercises that ask pupils to put themselves in Nelson’s position are useless?

What I really find revealing is that the list stops soon after 1945. The SWW was the final nail in the coffin for Britain as the leading world power. Do we stop there, as the narrative is too painful or complex to carry on? Imperial decline, post-colonial hangover, fragmentation of society and second rank status too much? Is the suggested narrative one where Britain is still ‘Great’? I think this tells us much more than any spurious claim that History is poorly taught in schools.

I think Andrew is right to point out the 'soundbite' culture the media perpetuate. Should we all tell our students that Level 1 answers are all they need to do well in life?

Another quickfire point - research shows that we learn more effectively when we find things enjoyable and tying events to people makes it easier for us to understand because as humans, we love the drama!

This post has been edited by Nick Dennis: 27 December 2006 - 05:32 PM

[larochelle]

Nick's reference to reduced lesson time is of course one of the huge problems. I know this has been discussed on the forum many times, but I wonder whether the 'general public' really take in the implications:- with year 7 (and year 8) this year I have an absolute maximum of 39 hours teaching time (taking off even 5 mins a lesson as classes settle etc brings that down to below 36). Inevitably, I have to make choices as to what I concentrate on, and things I would love to teach get left out.

It was interesting that the new QCA unit on India, discussed in this morning's papers (and predictably lambasted as being anti-British by the 'History Curriculum Association' (who? can the HA speak up as being slightly more representative/sane? please?)), would take 15 hours teaching...a slight handicap I suspect.

[DAJ Belshaw]

Granted it's not taught badly by members of this forum (because we actually care about our profession and students), but it is taught badly by some teachers across the country. Just as other subjects are.

But, Dan, you should talk figures. I think I'm correct in saying that History consistently outshines other subjects in GCSE scores. Why should it be on the curriculum? Because of the context it puts everything else in. It establishes an individual in the world, helping them to make sense of it. As Geography and other subjects can also do, it broadens the horizons of the youngster and shows what it is to be a human being per se, not just a human being at the start of the 21st century. This is the Humanities aspect, you see...

I do think the structure of what we teach in History could be a bit better, though. We should be doing things thematically so that students can make more sense than they can at present doing a chronological slog through KS3. The skills we teach, however, are valuable. Empathy is important, but obviously not to the exclusion of other things. We should be teaching about the lives of the great and the good a bit more. Showing students examples of lives that they can strive towards and qualities they can develop has to be worth doing, doesn't it?

Doug

[Richard Smart]

http://live.ofsted.g...0405/4.2.7.html

This is from the OFSTED annual report 2004/5. It is very positive about history teaching, but identifies the same problems with chronology that Willetts talks about in his article. OFSTED is much happier about History teaching than Willetts it seems.

I think that the argument about doing well with the limited resources given is a powerful one. Willetts was arguing for mandatory history to 16 in June of 2006 - I don't have a problem agreeing with that!
If the people want students to have a better conception of the "story" of history then students need more exposure to the subject.

[Giles Falconer]

Dan,

I'm glad someone is going to represent 'the voice of reason' in what sounds as if it could be a rather one sided "debate". I imagine you know the sort of approach Radio 5 tends to take - for my sins I admit to listening to it quite a lot and it really is more a tabloid radio station (whereas Radio 4 might be termed a 'broadsheet' in its approach). If you haven't listened to Anita Anand's programme before I would seek her out tonight or via the Radio 5 website so you can get a taste of her approach.

I suspect the best advice has already been given by DAJ Belshaw, larochelle, Nick Dennis, Andrew Field & especially re: the essential nature of the subject, Neil M. For what it is worth here are a few ideas I've had:

• I would have ready to refer to any statistics you can about History as compared to other subjects, and any OfSTED reports on the teaching of the subject.
  
• I would make clear & do it 'up front' just how squeezed History has become with demnands for more curriculum time for Science, Maths etc - and, of course, Citizenship.
  
• I would point out that students can give up History at the end of KS3 - age 14 - unlike virtually all other developed countries, where it is compulsory to 16 at least.
  
• I would tackle head on who exactly the 'History Curriculum Association' is - I seem to remember it was a group of right wingers who opposed the introduction of the GCSE and the abolition of 'O' Levels - are they still fighting the "battles of the 1980s"? The way they go on about empathy suggests to me that they are. In fact I'd go for their throat - when I've heard people like Chris McGovern or Nick Seaton on the radio they haven't been very prepared to listen to others' point of view etc. In fact they come over as rather arrogant, IMHO... So I wouldn't be afraid to diasagree with them!

If I think of anything else relevant, I 'll post again tomorrow,

otherwise - Good Luck!

[Dan Lyndon]

Many thanks for the comments so far, keep em coming. I have been googling the 'National Curriculum Association' and let's put it this way, I don't think that sit on the same side of the political spectrum as I do that's for sure. So I am going to gather up plenty of facts and figures, ram home the real world to them (or at least the real world of inner city Fulham!) and damn well make sure that I get more than the one sentence that I had the last time I was on the show!

[Dan Moorhouse]

McGovern has been in the papers again today. This time offering comments about the new Indian units the QCA have put together. http://www.telegraph.../nlessons27.xml
" target="_blank">
http://www.telegraph.../nlessons27.xml


Seems we are to be encouraged to make use of 'made up' evidence.

Terry Haydn's got some good stuff on the UEA website that could be of use if they move onto empathy etc.

http://www.uea.ac.uk...thy/welcome.htm

[Neil DeMarco]

Of course, it would be just fine if pupils finished KS3 with a much better grasp of the chronology of British history (from the Roman invasion? Normans? when?) than they do at present but, given the teaching time available, it's likely that they could do little more than place a series of events in the correct sequence, name some events in the 14th century, reel off a list of Kings and Queens etc. We can't do that and provide a sense of, and feel for, the subject. We have to enable them to think about what they learn, question its significance and relevance, pose questions. In short, accept nothing on face value. This is what makes history such a subversive subject and why the authoritarians (across the political spectrum) keep coming back to it like a dog to its vomit. They know its importance and so do we.

[Neil DeMarco]

Another thought: John Tosh (the Pursuit of History, Longman) had an apt phrase for those who who work their way through the past seeking 'evidence' to justify their contemporary concerns or agenda: the ransackers of the past. Our job is defend the subject from those who would seek to manipulate it to make it reflect or fit in with their political agenda. History teachers are not prostitutes - our services are not for hire. Stick it to them, Dan.

I'm off to watch Fulham trash Charlton, now.

[Andrew Field]

This is all great stuff. However, Giles makes an excellent point with

Quote

... when I've heard people like Chris McGovern or Nick Seaton on the radio they haven't been very prepared to listen to others' point of view etc. In fact they come over as rather arrogant, IMHO... So I wouldn't be afraid to diasagree with them!

Basically in these Radio 5 discussions - which I listen to frequently on the way home from work - they have a few people along and each only gets an extremely short time and can never, ever really make the well thought out, clever, backed up by evidence, persuasive points. Thus, hardly any of them can have actually studied history effectively. Perhaps this could be moulded into some comments.

You could always shout over everyone else in a really offensive and provocative manner saying "I didn't fight in two world wars" and then just stop. Always throws everyone as they're expecting additional complaints.

Seriously though, I think you should quote top author DeMarco in his exact words:

Quote

In short, accept nothing on face value. This is what makes history such a subversive subject and why the authoritarians (across the political spectrum) keep coming back to it like a dog to its vomit. They know its importance and so do we.

or as Terry Haydn has previously written that history is all about helping students develop bullshit detection.

Might also be worth looking into the employment statistics / available jobs. History, I believe, is always over subscribed whereas schools are always short of other subject teachers.

[Nichola Boughey]

I don't believe that History teaching is bad today but more that the manipulation of the topics that we are expected to teach is bad.

In addition to this History suffers in school as more time is given to core subjects and taken away from us - how can I imbue the love for History and neccessary skills to Yr. 9 in a 50 minute lesson.

A Maths teacher commented to one of our pupils last week that Maths was the most popular subject and department in school - the reply from the students - no History is but we don't have it as often as we would like to... the government should not generalise about the quality of History teaching in the UK until they have dropped into lessons!

History is one of the most loved, most opted for non-core subject at GCSE and A-level and one that all employees look upon as being essential for a person developing communication, interpretation, discussion skills and the ability to think for themselves.

If History teaching is so poor in this country why did these people take History:

- HRH Prince Charles
- Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer
- Neil Kinnoch, EEC Transport Commissioner
- Kenneth Clarke, former Chancellor of the Exchequer
- Robert Gunn, Chairman of Boots
- Lord Sainsbury, President of the supermarket chain
- Marmaduke Hussey, BBC Chairman of Governors
- John Tusa, Managing Director of BBC Worldwide
- Brian Walden, TV interviewer

and that:

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, is on record as saying:
‘I wish I had studied History at University

[Andrew Field]

Nichola Boughey, on Dec 27 2006, 07:35 PM, said:

- Marmaduke Hussey, BBC Chairman of Governors

Might be worth leaving him out tomorrow though - he died yesterday. See: http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/6211719.stm

Aside from that, quality points though!

Also, to go back to the link that Richard found - http://live.ofsted.g...0405/4.2.7.html - it has some great points to just use. When someone says something bad about history that Ofsted have said, counter it with comments from exactly the same report:

OFSTED 'FACT' 1:

Quote

Teaching is good or better in well over three quarters of lessons in Key Stages 3 and 4, making history one of the best-taught subjects. This figure is even higher on post-16 courses.

OFSTED 'FACT' 2:

Quote

[there has been a].... continuing strength of pupils' achievement, the quality of teaching, and the quality of leadership and management in the period 1998-2005.

OFSTED 'FACT' 3:

Quote

Successive Ofsted reports over the period since 1998 recognise the progress made by many pupils, their good knowledge and understanding of the topics they have studied, their ability to use and evaluate evidence, and their ability to communicate their evaluations successfully.

See, we can pick and choose from OFSTED reports too.