History and Geography

[MillyR]

I love History. I studied it as an option at school and have done related studies since. DS hates History, and I can see why. It seems to be, at KS3 in his school, mostly a soap opera about what certain rich people did in the past.

An example of this would be the Civil War. DS had to create an explanation of the Civil War and various people such as Prince Rupert, depicted as football players in a match.

To me this is a disgrace. The way that people died in that war was horrific, and many of the soldiers would have been the same age as pupils in DS's school. It seems utterly lacking in humanity, compassion or a concern for the majority of people who were not wealthy in the past.

When I compare it to the focus on social inequality and development in Geography, it seems as if Geography has a very left wing focus and History a very right wing focus.

I have wondered if this is to do with the political interest and interference in the History curriculum by Government? Surely this will only get worse when the current Government reforms the History curriculum. Governments and 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' don't seem interested in what is going on in Geography, so leave it alone.

Basically I have decided with DS that he will drop History ASAP, and just go for Geography at GCSE. I think this is a terrible shame, but feel that as I have a general interest in culture and heritage, that he will learn about it through family trips etc. But AIBU to agree that DS can drop History because of its right wing stance?

Its not like that at my DCs school. Sounds odd to me. Sorry. (DS doing geography because its less writing than history and he enjoys it more.)

Hmmm. Seems to me that the problem with your DS's history teaching is not that it is right wing, but rather that it is dumbed down.

I don't think it's right wing that History focuses on the rich and powerful - that's inevitable as it was the actions of the rich and powerful that (mostly) shaped the events of history. Really, would you expect them to spend as much time learning about the life of a kitchen maid as about the life of Henry VIII?

However I agree with you that it's daft to turn it into "soap operas" and "football matches".

If DS doesn't like History then he should drop it. But not because it's right wing...

oh god what an awful thought - Geography and History being taught together until "humanities" - I LOVED geography...........loathed History all the way through school and nearly threw a part when I got to drop it

Minipie, I think that the most interesting part of History is the lives of ordinary people, which are shaped by a wide variety of things, including the actions of powerful people.

I think studying the life of a kitchen maid would tell us a huge amount about the past: working conditions, the status of women, social structures and the household, diet and health, buildings, agriculture and food, culture and migration patterns and so on.

Well, Geography is clearly superior

I don't know if you can couch it in terms of "wing-ness", but what I do know is that an awful lot of people who study Geog at uni are into development issues, housing, environmental issues etc - things which are more ('traditionally') left wing.

Due to sheer Geography Snobbery I didn't really know any history students well!!

If that is how it is being done in your ds school, I think it implies a good Geog dept and a poor History dept to be honest - I reckon it will have more to do with the teachers than the curriculum (though as I"m not in England I can't comment on that).

Its a shame your son hates it but please be reassured that Geog is really good academic subject to take - its not GCSE Colouring In as it is sometimes portrayed, although less academically able children are sometimes pushed towards it as there is less reading!

M, why did you loathe History? Was it because you are not interested in the past or not interested in the focus on written sources of evidence? In a Humanities course you study the past as Historical Geography, and then there wouldn't be a focus on written sources.

In middle school they replaced separate humanities with Human and Environmental studies and I loved it, probably because it was essentially the Geography of the past.

oooo that's interesting about those that study Geog at uni being into that - I very nearly went to edinburgh to study Geog (had a place - just didn't go). And am into all that stuff.

btw - did you get post today (or yesterday? - can't remember when I went to town)

MillyR - I agree with you actually about it being very interesting.

However I think the way History is taught is first to teach the "big events" and then add in further detail as you get further up the educational ladder.

I can see why this makes sense - for example, it's going to be easier to make sense of some parts of a 16th C kitchen maid's life if you've already learned about the Reformation and you know roughly who's in power at the time. I don't think the focus on the big events/main characters is because the history syllabus is set with a right wing agenda, it's because they are trying to give an overview before moving on to the detail at A level and beyond.

Have to say that DS1&2 loved History GCSE, precisely because it was so political - suffrage, slavery, WWI & II.

I think it depends on the board you sit and the teacher you get TBH.

However, if you are unhappy with the teacher then I would agree that swapping subjects is sensible. Good teachers inspire and get good results. Bad teachers don't.

History is definitely something which is easier to pick up at home or as a hobby than, say, physics.

How strange. I think the civil war boiled down to a football match is just an indicator of shitty teaching, as opposed to an entrenched right wing view. IMO history teachers are by their very nature dispassionate and see both sides of an argument.

DD is in year 10 and taking both history and geography (only one of 4 kids in her school taking both). She absolutley loves both subjects and I am very glad that she goes t o a school where you can choose both (her previous school at options time made you choose just the one, and neither were obligatory anyway).

Don't write off history, I personally am enchanted by her GCSE syllabus (she is studying history of medicine, I remember studying that for MY GCSE!), local history, the industrial revolution and another subject which escapes me.

Her geogpraphy syllabus is more like sociology, and concentrates on life in different communities as opposed to teh more sciency based geology type stuff (which is covered in Physics).

Dispassionate is so the wrong word. I meant unbiased.

Milly - I think you need to get hold of the syllabus and see what they will study at GCSE before you decide. Once you know the exam board (and the teachers should be happy to provide you with the board and the code for the exam), then you can look up the spec online. I'm probably teaching you to suck eggs.

Part of the problem with history at KS3 is that one can only dip in and out and you don't have much time to cover what is essentially a very wide syllabus. I wanted more time on the Tudors as I think they were fascinating, but only had 6 lessons I think before a gallop through the civil war (great DVDs by Dan and Peter Snow on the battles) and then a long trudge through the industrial revolution which had good bits, but the students didn't enjoy as much, as it is much drier than the blood and gore and weaponry of the civil war.

Besides having my RE hat, I also taught KS3 History and Geography, and I don't think that History in school is right wing at all, I think it actually quite left wing in parts. It should be analytical, examining sources and applying them to what is known of the facts.

I am being somewhat unfair on the school's approach to History as they were allowed to write an essay on any person from the Elizabethan period and DS wrote about a thatcher and really enjoyed it.

I am not saying the approach to History is wrong; it just doesn't suit DS. They have whizzed through historical periods. The teacher told them they have done two year's worth of topics in year 7. DS was just confused because they kept moving to different periods.

DS (who is a Science type and usually not that interested in people) came home from Geography and was telling me with an unusual degree of passion about how stupid it was that people work 12 hours a day for little money in factories in the developing world, so that teenagers in the UK can wear trainers with different logos on and hate each other for it. That seems to be a valuable point to grasp and I am quite glad that the school has managed to draw it out of DS, who is not usually inclined to think in such directions.

MaMoTTaT - I went to Edinburgh to do Geog - had a ball. It was a fantastic course. What did you do instead?

Aha! Have just figured out who you are!!! It came yesterday but I didn't find it till this morning. Ta very much!

There were some articles in newspapers recently discussing the appointment of a history "czar" - Niall Fergusson - whose own personal take on history (the importance of teaching about the British Empire) was possibly going to be taken up by the new coalition (aka Tory) history syllabus. A focus on Empire might be regarded as being right-wing, rather than studying, say, the origins of the Russian revolution, French revolution, the industrial revolution and the rise of the trade union movement/human rights/slavery etc.

In the States, in many states, the history of the nation's involvement with slavery and that aspect of the Civil War is being downgraded to not being a compulsory part of history curricula. In some schools it is not taught.

Personally, I like history and geography being kept separate. I studied neither at school beyond age 13, though I have studied history greatly since.

That's what I didn't like about KS3 history, and meant by dipping in and out. You don't get the chance to do something (apart from the Industrial Revolution) in depth.

Get the specification and have a look, then decide. KS4 is totally different to KS3 and far more rigid in that there is a specific syllabus to follow and that has to be taught within a specified time otherwise they won't pass the exam.

The Civil War as a football match is probably an attempt to 'hook' boys into history. Ds hates football, wouldn't have worked with him!

DD absolutely loves studying military history, I do think that studying war the reasons arouind it is hugely interesting, probably more so to a young person than something quite dry like the industrial revolution.

But then dd came home in a state of great excitement talking about trepanning (sp?). I think she is probably just a bloodthirsty little so and so

YABU - a little. You are possibly denying him the possibility of studying it at degree level which will be far more rewarding (and balanced)

However, since you say he hates the subject, probably better for him to drop it and return to it independently at some stage