Down with History?

Here is a contentious American article (picked up by Andrew Sullivan in the Daily Beast) questioning the worth of studying History, believing that anyone with a basic reading comprehension can teach themselves the basics - maybe even through watching documentaries on TV! It goes on to compare the subject with art, which it believes is a "skill which requires careful instruction" and is a "more practical real world subject". What are your thoughts?

History in Decline? (Plus a quiz!)

Niall Ferguson has written a grumpy article criticising a recent Ofsted report which had stated that there was much that was "good and outstanding" about the way History is taught in this country. He has responded by arguing that it is hard to make this case if increasing numbers of schools are reducing the time they spend teaching the subject and fewer candidates are taking the subject at GCSE and A-Level. He also follows the "Daily Mail" route by expressing his concern for the "widespread historical ignorance among school leavers", with evidence for example from a recent survey suggesting 89% of history undergraduates could not name a 19th century Prime Minister. You can test your ignorance yourself with this quiz - although Nonsuch HP is proud to say that a Year 12 History class today scored an impressive 9 out of 10. Ferguson's particular criticism is over the "smorgasbord" of subjects taught in a seemingly "random" order which do not provide a true sense of chronology. The "long arc of time" has been replaced by "odds and sods" which do not allow students to place important events and developments in their proper context.

What is your opinion? Is he right? Is History in crisis? And if so - what should we do about it? (274 people have already added their comments to his article)

PS: Don't forget to try out that History quiz!

Disastrous History Teaching

Nonsuch HP has just discovered this extract (5 minutes long - well worth listening to) from an discussion that took place over Christmas on the Today Programme. On it the historians Niall Ferguson and Tariq Ali (shown above) are both in agreement that the current teaching of History in schools is "disastrous" and a "disgrace". Ferguson argues that History is taught in a very fragmented way, wih no narrative structure, and students are giving it up too soon. Ali says that students come away from school with "virtually worthless" knowledge and standards are considerably lower than anywhere else in Europe, India or China, a problem that is continuing into university as well.

This connects in with the coalition's ongoing interest in reforming the curriculum, as discussed before in the blog. Do you agree with these views? Has your education been disastrous? What should be changed?

Simon Schama's vision

The historian Simon Schama, who is advising the government on revising the History Curriculum, has written this article in the Guardian about his vision for his vision for how British History should be taught in an increasingly globalised culture. "Even during the toughest trials it's our history that binds us together as a distinctive community in an otherwise generically globalised culture," he writes. "Mother Teresa and Lady Gaga are multinationals; Oliver Cromwell and Margaret Thatcher are peculiarly ours."

The six subjects he thinks every child should know are:

1. The murder of Thomas Becket
2. The Black Death and Peasants Revolt
3. The excecution of Charles I
4. The British Empire in India
5. The Irish Conflict - in particular the relationship between Charles Parnell and William Gladstone
6. The Opium Wars between Britain and China

Nonsuch covers the first four topics at Key Stage 3. Should we include the others? What other subjects do you think are essential for every child to know?

Simon Schama gives his advice

Michael Gove has spoken at the Conservative Party Conference of his intention to overhaul the History curriculum. He attacked the current approach to history teaching, which he said denied children the chance to learn "our island story" in favour of a jumbled mixture of topics. "Children are growing up ignorant of one of the most inspiring stories I know – the history of our United Kingdom," he said. "Our history has moments of pride and shame, but unless we fully understand the struggles of the past we will not properly value the liberties of the present." He has asked Simon Schama, the historian who presented the BBC's "The History of Britain" to provide advice on how to instil "excitement and joy" into the curriculum. Schama himself has said, "A return to coherent gripping history is not a step backwards to dry as dust instruction." This is not the first time Gove has spoken on this subject, always a popular topic with the Tories, but it looks like substantial change to the way History is taught will soon be on the way. What do you think, and what do you think should be included?

PS: Here is an interview between Simon Schama and David Cameron from the FT Magazine.

PPS: Here is Gove's speech in full

The History Debate continues...

Fun and war games in History? The Western ascendancy and battlefield trips? Niall Ferguson in a Guardian interview continues the debate over History in schools with more suggestions on how to engage pupils. What do you think? Is it too male an agenda, ie rejecting school trips to stately homes and enhusing about the value of video games? Or is he realistic in his suggestions in an environment where more pupils are taking up Design & Technology than History?

Niall Ferguson and the History Curriculum

The historian Niall Ferguson has been invited by Michael Gove to overhaul the way history is taught in schools. Ferguson has spoken regularly about the need to teach the "Big Story" in history, encouraging a greater sense of chronology and connection between more popular school topics such as Henry VIII, Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King. He is working on a four year syllabus (supported by a Channel Four series) that would emphasize in particular the rise of Western European society. Michael Gove is certainly impressed by this, although he has stopped short of supporting Ferguson's call for History to be made compulsory. Here is one response to his comments. What are your thoughts on this?

PS: Here is a comment from Martin Kettle who believes modern multicultural Britain lacks a common culture to support the sustainable teaching of a common history. Do you agree?

PPS: Here is a Daily Mail article from 2009 that believes "Trendy teaching is 'producing a generation of history numbskulls"

PPPS: The Radio 4 Programme "Analysis" has just covered this issue, asking whether Ferguson's proposals can really be a force for social cohesion. You can listen to the programme here and read a summary of it here.

History and Heritage

Here is a passionate article by Professor Richard Overy who is concerned that his subject is splitting into populist "Heritage" history and what would be regarded as inaccessbile "academic" history. It provides some interesting food for thought about the nature and direction of the subject - worth a read (as is this response) if you are preparing a UCAS personal statement!

PS: If you find any other useful / thgouht-provoking articles for UCAS preparation, please let us know.

PPS: The image is from the Tobu World Square Park in Japan - where 42 of the world's historical landmarks have been reproduced in miniature...

Conservatives and History Teaching

As we hope you've noticed, the blogs we feature on the right hand side of this page are an excellent source of information and content on what is happening in the world of history and politics. Politics Etc (Sutton Grammar School's Blog) has discovered that grassroots Conservatives consider the "proper teaching of British history" to be their 2nd highest priority. The author has a good grumble about this as the vast majority of Key Stage 3 teaching is already devoted to British history, but it does suggest that core Tory values may not have moved as far as David Cameron may have hoped. Here is a direct link to the report and more from the Conservative Home Page on their views on history teaching (by the MP for Bognor Regis).

PS: The Conservatives are keen to promote the new History section of their website, so here it is.

Is "Our Island Story" being told?

Here is a further article (From Dominic Sandbrook in the Telegraph) worrying about the decline of history teaching in schools. He criticises the government's "Yo! Sushi" approach to the subject, "in which schools randomly pick unrelated historical topics like saucers from a conveyor belt, instead of studying our national story as a continuous narrative, which is how any sensible person sees it."

He believes students would be better served by a more narrative approach giving a greater overview of our national story, and recommends H E Marshall's "Our Island Story", although this was first printed in 1905. The complete text is now available here on the internet, so please have a look and tell us what you think!

UPDATE! Too busy to read? You can download the entire book for free and listen to it on your MP3, alongside other classic books. Have a look here!

Mixed signals

The weekend has thrown up two contrasting stories about the state of History at the moment. The Booker prize shortlist has been announced and is entirely made up of historical fiction, including "Wolf Hall",Hilary Mantel's account of the rise of Thomas Cromwell. Clearly there remains a great interest in popular history within the general public and amongst more serious literary figures.

However, the same edition of the Observer also announced that the teaching of history as a standalone subject is declining, with 30% of schools now combining it with other subjects to create "humanities" lessons or similar. The Historical Association, which organised the report, has announced that "History faces Extinction" unless action is taken. (Futher comment from the editor of History Today here)

Is this an exaggeration? Should history teachers be worried? Or will the British public always have a fascination with the past, whatever they learn at school?