Anyone else HORRIFIED by the new history curriculum?(79 Posts)
Thank you Badkitten. Will think carefully and respond appropriately.
This is how I was taught history ; chronologically instead of the obsession with WW2 and the Tudors.How can you possibly contextualise modern history without understanding the earlier stuff. I remember making a replica Magna Carta at primary school .
I vividly remember being taught about Richard The Lionheart and the crusades in about the equivalent of year5 , it was also a good way to start to learn about where the Countries around the Med are etc .,plus about the long term impact of people trying to impose alien cultures etc and when I came to do the Ottoman Empire and the First World War my basic knowledge from primary came in useful .
The problem with the curriculum at primary level is the paucity of expectation in it.I have discussed philosophy, politics religion etc with all of mine from the when they first began to talk you just do it in an age appropriate way.Have just had a very interesting discussion with my year 6 ds about why we have an established church and what the impact of that is on our system of democracy .Yesterday he was interested in what we mean when we talk about 'the Crown' in a court of law .
By the looks of that curriculum, I can probably replace the entire history section in our junior school library with a few copies of 'Our Island Story'....
My view on primary education is that it should be laying down the foundations for future learning and a very important foundation is that they need to be interested! Unless we are going to send them all down the pits at the age of 11 there is plenty of time in life to learn about the heptarchy and all the rest of it. In primary history it doesn't actually matter which periods they learn as long as a) it's interesting and b) it helps them develop tools and understanding for studying things in depth in the future.
And the curriculum seems so imperialistic
I am utterly baffled by the idea that Gove has decided that children leaving primary school will be able to spout dates, tell you when the Peasants Revolt was (with probably not a clue why it happened because there was no time to cover anything in depth) yet will not have the foggiest who Queen Victoria was. or Mary Seacole. Or Churchill. Or Hitler. Or have the remotest interest in history because they have been fed facts and dates and not much else throughout their primary years.
Seriously, what can we do to stop this madness? Please can Gove go and speak to someone who has a clue? Or who will be affected by his stupid, prescriptive and blinkered ideas. Like teachers. Or children. Or parents. What a tit.
I'm sure Ofsted will adore the future history lessons where we sit kids in rows and learn dates by rote cos we don't have time for anything else.
Think the current curric is illogical. Why Norman conquest at secondary school ? Why ww2 at primary ?
Well, it is a consultation, y'all are free to complain thru appropriate channels.
I disagree with chronological teaching as best, I prefer the dip and dive approach.
I'm glad Peasants Revolt is in there, though. It's big in local area history (we live a ten minute walk from an important battle field).
Then again, yr8 DS is learning all about Witchfinder General. I got deliriously excited telling him about the evidence I have that my mother's G-x-many)-parents were among Hopkins' victims: was DS interested? Was he Fig. (Sulk).
I'm thinking that it is his way of encouraging all schools to convert to academies - then they can give up following his stupid curriculum!
I say this as a teacher which welcomes the computer studies inclusion but even the suggested topics for KS1 & 2 are not possible for non specialists to cover with any confidence
I'm with outtolunchagain.
Fortunately ds has a brilliant y3 teacher this year.
Am I being stupid ... why are the crusades such a big deal?
I can understand that they are very interesting to study, and teach all sorts of geographical and religious concepts. Is it just that? I mean, I'm sure I could come up with a rousing defence of studying them, but if they are going to be one of the few topics children study before they drop history at GCSE, are they that worthwhile?
Sorry, I just noticed where this thread is. It came up in active.
None of my business, ignore me.
LRD i think you get a view even if you're not a teacher? It would be weird if teachers saw themselves as a closed community.
Oh, that's very nice of you to say. I just felt a little rude barging in here to insist someone justify teaching the crusades to me! I will rephrase given where this thread is:
I wonder why the crusades is given this prominence. Is it because it's a convenient topic to study religion and geography as well as history? That might be fair enough. It seems - to me - a slightly odd point of medieval history to choose to bring to prominence. It might be I've got a bit of a feminist/class objection here - would children study what happened to the people who didn't go off fighting, too, do you think?
Surely the point about history is that everything is related. How can you seriously understand the Irish question without understanding how the partition of Ireland came about and in turn how can you understand how partition came about if you don't understand how Ireland was unified and the hatred engendered from the Cromwell years.
Learning the chronology is important because we have a generation , probably two, who see history as a series of snapshots rather than a series of interlinked and dependent events .
I learned history as a massive thrilling story and I was never bored and didn't find it dull , far more teenagers seem to find it dull now because its just random events , the thrill in history is in the interdependence of events and spotting the links and understanding how one action several centuries ago still has implications today .
Sorry that was a bit of a rant but we have lost the art of this and it really saddens me .
But nationally the numbers taking GCSE history are falling at least they were until Gove said everyone has to do history or geography for Ebacc ( don't agree with that) no local state schools around here actually even teach it as a separate subject in year 7 and 8 .
A huge proportion of GCSE students study the causes of the Second World War and the same is true at A level . Surely that can't be right .
Think ind rev and empire needs far more stress. And post war. Too many end at 1945
Feel a bit naughty going into the staffroom unbidden, but as the mother of 3 history buffs it makes me sad to think, if you are all correct, that they will have to turn into date learning robots. They love the dip into approach at the moment, dd1 (7) is looking at the 60s and really enjoying it.
I don't in principle have a problem with a chronological approach, as long as dd2 gets to do the Egyptians at some point, although she will probably know more about them than her teacher, having been obsessed with them since she was 4.
I do think though at primary school this should be very much a 'selected highlights' approach. Giving teachers a range of suggestions covering a date range, and they need to select 3-6 topics to cover during that year would be ideal. You would then end up with primary school chidren who were excited about history, and you can go back and teach it all in more detail in Secondary school.
Having said that I don't think chronology matters too much as young children cannot really grasp how long ago things happened, as dd2 (5) demonstrated by asking dh which era of the stone age he was born as, and how old he was in the Stuart Era.
Join the discussion
Please login first.