Reforms To History Curriculum

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9896725/Leading-historians-back-reforms-to-history-curriculum.html

/// The new curriculum will see children taught, in chronological order, about key figures in British history that were dropped from the syllabus by the last Labour Government. ///

Isn't this a sensible turnaround after the last Labour governments attempt to shadow British history, for their own political ideals?

[Davethedog]

Wow a whole 15 historians back it, that must be at least .0001% of all the historians in Britain

"the plans have provoked criticism from several groups, including history teachers who concluded the proposals were "arbitrary and even bizarre"

Why? Why aren't these concerns addressed by the article. Labour aren't mentioned in the article. I presume two things, note I state presumption and not state it as fact.

1) Not all the teachers or members of the historical society are "lefties"

2) There must have been a natural point of selection to what is taught.

What is being replaced by this, that it meets your full aproval, point out where it says it in the article.

The article is so biased towards Gove as to be totaly unbalanced, given Goves track record I would let him alter a menu let alone play with our childrens education.

[jake-the-peg]

ROTFL

a group of leading historians - Leading according to the Telegraph being dictated by the fact that they're just to the right of Attilla the Hun.

Niall Fegusson author of "Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World"
David Starky - serial forelock tugger and presenter of Monarchy


Well it's very sensible if the objective is to stop critical consideration of British History and attempt to indoctrinate kids with a Tory view of a common heritage!

Now because the report in the Telegraph and not the Mail there is some attempt at balance "arbitrary and even bizarre" seems the opinion of History Teachers.

Well given Gove's general level of success and the fact that this Government has a bit of a short shelf life now I dare say it'll all get caught up in discussion and be quietly dropped in a few months time

[FredPuli43]

Did they? What evidence is there? The problem is a not one of political ideals, it is that history was taught in such a peculiar way.Most is glossed over if mentioned at all. Niall Fergusson, the British Professor of History at Harvard, was reported in The Times as saying that his own children knew " a lot, well, a bit" about the Russian Revolution but were ignorant of such matters as the "Glorious Revolution" or anything else. My daughter is the same; she could do Mastermind on the factions in the Bolshevik revolution, and lecture on the Weimar Republic, but she was not aware of the Battle of Waterloo and had only a vague idea of Napoleon Bonaparte being a significant figure in history.

Fergusson was one of many historians who were signatories to a letter in The Times in which they broadly welcomed the changes proposed.

[whiskeryron]

What do we know about history or anything else for that matter ? Our children are taught by someone who was taught themselves by someone who was taught by someone---- ad infinitum so it seems to me that it's all to do with who started it all & who you personally want to believe & don't forget it's pretty well all propaganda circulated by the governments of the day. At one time everyone who was anyone believed that the world was flat until someone else came up with a better idea. Whatever I read in the news os see on tv I have not a clue what is truth & what isn't.

WR.

[anotheoldgit]

So no invasion by the Romans then, or invasion by the Normans, no battle of Agincourt, Waterloo or Trafalgar?

All hearsay eh Ron?

[Teddio]

Ron, history teaching in schools emphasises the importance of primary sources.

[Zeuhl]

/So no invasion by the Romans then, or invasion by the Normans, no battle of Agincourt, Waterloo or Trafalgar? /

Just because we know something happened doesn't mean we know what it was.

Those historical 'events' have almost as many interpretations as there are historians - and naturally they change over time as historians of different generations reassess and reinterpret.

It doesn't mean any one of those interpretations of historical events over the years has been any more 'correct' than any other - after all, we can't even agree on what is 'really happening' currently.

[pdq1]

A good idea and should be taught in all schools rather than this left wing claptrap.

[FredPuli43]

But what left wing claptrap is taught now? The Russian Revolution, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, Stalinism, are all " left wing" subjects in a way, but understanding them, and so causes and consequences of the Great War, is essential to understanding how successive generations have thought and acted since.

What other information could qualify for that description ?

[LazyGun]

~pdq What "leftist claptrap" do you imagine is being taught in the schools now? What evidence do you have for saying that?

Certainly you have to take this article from the Telegraph with a pinch of salt. The named signatories have well known and well-expressed right-wing sympathies.

I do not know, because I have not closely followed the various changes in the history curricula, exactly what it was that Labour allegedly dropped out of the curriculum. Do you? And do you have any links to that?

History should be about more than just a rote learning of dates and names - a chronology of the Monarchy.

[FredPuli43]

Professor David Abulafia

Antony Beevor
Professor Jeremy Black
Professor Michael Burleigh
Professor John Charmley
Professor J. C. D. Clark
Professor Niall Ferguson
Dr Amanda Foreman
Professor Jeremy Jennings
Dr Simon Sebag Montefiore
Dr Andrew Roberts
Chris Skidmore, MP
Professor David Starkey
D. R. Thorpe
Professor Robert Tombs

How many of those are right wing? Not many. Those are the signatories to the letter in The Times. It's facile to pick out one or two and condemn them , rightly or wrongly, as right wing, and disregard the others, thus condemning the whole letter as some pro-Gove, right wing, plot in action.

[LazyGun]

Seems like a lot of right or centre right signatories on there to me, Fred-
Burleigh is centre-right, Skidmore is a tory, sebag-montefiore, fergusson, starkey are all centre-right or avowedly right-wing. Do not know the others.

And if Gove supports it, then it can hardly be described as a left-leaning or even centrist initiative, in my opinion.

I am not an expert on the history curriculum, so I don't know what Labour supposedly cut out that this initiative is supposedly addressing. I do know that there are many historians, along with teachers and associations that are not in favour of this particular reform....

[anotheoldgit]

/// Certainly you have to take this article from the Telegraph with a pinch of salt. The named signatories have well known and well-expressed right-wing sympathies. ///

And would they be more acceptable if they had been well-expressed left-wing sympathies.

Only to the left-wing it seems, those who strenuously believe that theirs is the only 'right way' and who are not prepared to accept any other views whatsoever.

[LazyGun]

@AoG Whats funny is that you fail to see an irony at all in this statement of yours;

"Only to the left-wing it seems, those who strenuously believe that theirs is the only 'right way' and who are not prepared to accept any other views whatsoever"

So, rather like Gove and his bunch of tame academics imposing this measure on all those who object then?