AiBU to defend History teachers

[Wbeezer]

My social media feed is full of posts announcing surveys and petitions asking for improvement to UK history teaching in schools to include more info on slavery, racism, colonialism etc. Undoubtedly a good idea. The posts in reply are making me feel sorry for teachers because :

1. There is no such thing as a UK curriculum or exam syllabus, never has been.

2.I'm only familiar with my local history syllabus and it already has many topic areas that cover problematic British history, at least at high school level. Many of the improvements people are demanding have already happened.

3.you cant base opinions on experiences that are decades out of date. Yes learning lists of kings and Queens was boring and irrelevant but is scarcely taught now!. My DS is a current History student, he had to teach himself about King's and Queens by Reading Horrible Histories books to fill in some blanks before he went to uni as his overview of history timelines was a bit lacking. This was because he spent so much time studying interesting social and political history and learning how to analyse historical context etc.

4.i learnt about slavery and racism from the TV, in the 1970s, education doesn't just happen in schools. I'd argue that quality film and TV is more likely to reach people of all ages, more quickly.

@Mucklowe the curriculum is not the problem. There isn't a UK curriculum, as others have said, but in England there's is a National Curriculum. Someone has already posted a link to it.

That makes clear that pupils in key stage 3 should be taught about 'ideas, political power, industry and empire: Britain, 1745-1901'.

Various examples of topics that can be taught under that heading are suggested. They include 'Britain's trans-Atlantic slave trade: its effects and its eventual abolition'.

KS3 pupils also should also be taught 'at least one study of a significant society or issue in world history and its interconnections with other world developments'. Various examples are suggested including USA in the 20th Century.

Rosa Parks gets a mention in the KS1 programme of study as an example of a 'significant individual'

Obviously no history curriculum could possibly cover every single topic of potential interest, so teachers choose what to teach within the national curriculum framework. There is only one compulsory subject of study and that is the Holocaust.

If history teachers don't teach their pupils about slavery or the civil rights movement it's presumably because they think other topics are more interesting, more likely to engage their pupils.

I haven't looked at all the GCSE and A level history specifications but I can't see any reason why slavery and/or civil rights could not be included as areas of study. They would be up to the individual exam boards.

I have two children doing History in Scotland. They have done a whole unit on slavery, the triangular trade and its impact, then moved on to discuss the abolitionist movement. They then moved on to learn about Rosa Parks, the bus boycotts and MLK.

It is being taught.

Theres so much to cover, I like to think that the critical thinking aspects of teaching history, and there are lots, studying bias, sources etc gives students the independence to continue their study for life. I agree with pp, Irish history is barely touched on in the curriculum, given the complex relationship of Ireland and the UK it should be more prominent. The world wars are such big topics as is colonialism and the empire that there just isn't the time to cover everything.

So someone said some thing on twitter that you thought was unfair, why did you did respond to them? Why would mumsnet be the better place for this discussion? Have you paid attention to other threads on topics related to this subject lately? What are you hoping to achieve? Just a few questions

People are blaming teachers though

Yes, it's astonishing how many people seem to think that ordinary, individual class teachers have any input whatsoever into things like decisions about syllabus content, uniform policies, behaviour policies, whether (and in what format) schools reopen during a pandemic...

I remember doing a little bit about slavery and rosa parks and Stephen Lawrence, I think I would have enjoyed learning more about the slave trade and I'm making it an aim to research more now

We did a little kings and queens which I loved and I've read loads on as an adult

Our history lessons were mainly about ww2 but didnt really go into the causes, I remember loads about rationing and concentration camps

I found history at school so boring but in the last few years I've become really interested

@Jangirl2018 im too longwinded for Twitter and also thought that there would be more people on Mumsnet with recent experience of history teaching in schools for good or bad to be able to confirm or deny my premise. I didnt want to hijack someone elses thread either.

I suppose i wanted to confirm that young people are being taught a more balanced version of history, the problem is that too many older people in positions of authority weren't?

The school I work in covers many aspects of racism and inequality in year 4, with children learning about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, amongst others

Do you cover class inequality as well?

We still have some children who hold racist views and those are learned at home from their racist parents

How do these year 4 children express those views?

Aside from that. Is it the job of a history teacher to teach morality or to teach moral lessons? As in, we must apply this to today and learn lessons from it to avoid a repeat of historic events. I'm not so sure that it is.

@Flaxmeadow industrialisation and the rise if the labour movement is covered in the Scottish history curriculum

It is here in England but I'm just not sure how much anymore because I'm not sure how much class perspective there is. There used to be, but I don't think so much of that perspective now

My older dc never took history at gcse level but he learnt about slave trade etc and various other things when he did do it when compulsory but there is a lot of history so can't all get taught

For those who are history teachers/have children studying it at school, does the English national curriculum allow scope for study of post world war II immigration (Windrush generation) or for pre colonial Black British history? Just curious as to whether it is all colonialism/slave trade/US civil rights.

And I do appreciate that history teachers can never come close to covering all history (I studied the subject myself and hate that people assume I must therefore be able to answer any history quiz question regardless of country or century...), so this is just interest in the subject at school level currently not a slating of teachers.

@Flaxmeadow

Is it the job of a history teacher to teach morality or to teach moral lessons? As in, we must apply this to today and learn lessons from it to avoid a repeat of historic events. I'm not so sure that it is

It absolutely is. As long as the teacher is covering the curriculum they can also teach kids to be decent human beings alongside this, it costs nothing. If a child was behaving badly, it is completely normal for a child to be reprimanded. Racism falls into the category of bad behaviour and therefore they need to be reprimanded.

I think the history is such a difficult subject as a whole. I was really interested in world history rather than my own country's history. So I studied more about other countries. If you are not interested, even you learn something, it just gets forgotten. I was talking about history with some people on internet, and I seemed to know more about British history than some British people.
Looking at what my dc is learning at the moment and in the past, it just covers superficial facts and not into depth. It just doesn't seem to inspire any passion. I had a very passionate history teacher who introduced me into the fascinating world of history, but I do think it's luck of a draw.

Fully agree op. Im a history graduate and for my gcses and the year before we studied slavery the american west and segregation in america. At college i did the british empire. People just want to complain. All history is important. All of it so complaining they want specific topics only defeats the point of history as a whole.

I was taught gcse and a-level history in the years 01-09. We covered the fact that the UK started slavery and colonialism, black civil rights movement and segregation. We covered the wind rush? And the race riots and Enoch Powell. We covered it quite extensively and to be honest none of it was dressed up as a 'glorious empire' way. The only thing I wished we had studied at school was the women's civil rights movements we never did which was a real shame as I never really learnt anything about women's history till almost a decade later. A lot of girls could do with that knowledge.

History should include teaching social issues within their context, but if it simply becomes the teaching of social issues, then it's no longer history but propaganda.

I studied the Industrial Revolution for GCSE in the early 90s: it certainly covered trade unions. I also remember learning about Chartism, the Newport Rising, Peterloo and other such things. I don't remember the Empire being mentioned, but I already knew about it through my own reading. Tbh, I think it must have been, as it would have been very relevant to trade patterns during the Industrial Revolution.

The rest of the history I learned was mostly a timeline of UK history with an emphasis on WW2. In other words, a degree of kings and battles. I am going to defend this - it meant I could place events properly in context and I'm glad I studied history before what seems to be a recent focus away from timelines and towards topics. However, it was very UK-focused, nothing about other countries at all. It seems to me that it wouldn't have been very hard to build in the Empire as part of this, as it is a very important part of UK history.

I will add that if the Horrible Histories books are having to be relied on, the situation sounds pretty desperate. I'm not a fan of them at all. Apart from all the scatology I don't think they encourage any sort of engagement or empathy with the past. They're just a big Monty Python foot stamping on the idea of history as a serious subject.

The idea that the history of, say, colonialism should be one in which students are guided to form moralistic judgments about the British Empire is one that’s been common in some of the major textbooks used in English secondary schools over the past twenty years. Many schools are moving away from this now and trying to take a more impartial role in providing students with a range of views from a range of commentators and equipping them with the tools to be able to assess the accuracy and reliability of these interpretations. That’s the closest we can get to supporting students to be ‘real historians’ and think for themselves.

Re the national curriculum vs school curricula, state schools have a lot of autonomy over what they teach - the only statutory content is teaching the Holocaust during KS3, although we’re supposed to teach content within broad themes, as pp have said. The idea that we’re completely at the mercy of DfE directive is a bit misleading - we as a department are all contributing to redesigning our history curriculum from the ground up. We’re probably in the minority in having so much freedom, but most schools I know are having similar discussions at the moment.

Whatever happened to Michael Gove's infamous list of people and events?

I remember it being criticized for being a whitewash of British history, however, it included Robert Clive, and there isn't much good to be said about him.

I think ALL teachers should try and include more black history in the lessons. I was taught about slavery but not about modern-day racism. Or about the achievements of black people. There is a big issue that black people are spoken about in a few lessons in history and then the rest of the curriculum across all subject are about white people.

Obviously due to white males dominating most things in history this is not easy to do but speaking about diversity more including black people, women etc as scientists, artists, explorers ect would help.

it's stupid to blame teachers for YOUR lack of education when things like books, the internet etc exist

lazy to expect to be spoon fed every bit of information by others

There is an issue with the dominance of white males across the curriculum that should be addressed - undoubtedly - but adults can't blame school for their lack of continued learning

to add - I do agree with others that their absolutely needs to be greater diversity in all subjects - not just history

Strangely we had this conversation in my work place today about what is taught in schools. A majority thought that it shouldn’t be taught as it draws more attention to the past and makes children think that there is something wrong in not being white. I feel History should only be taught to older children so that it is understood properly, not 5/6 year olds like our school did, as it caused a problem that has continued through the school years.

@BumpBundle, thank you so much for that post. Such a great point, which I'm ashamed to say (as a history graduate) I have never really considered before.

We cover a lot in English, too

Yes, my favourite texts for GCSE were An Inspector Calls and Animal Farm, for their historical/social/political context. I wasn't that interested in the actual literature!

Also A Man for All Seasons.

I read Across the Barricades too but I think just as a library book rather than dissecting it in class.