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3.you cant base opinions on experiences that are decades out of date.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.

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

I agree but then these adults then become the problem and the issue continues. Lots of people who are anti-equality aren't going to stop and think maybe they are wrong and they should open their minds by looking things up.

I’ve been teaching history for 20 years. The Transatlantic Slave Trade and the British Empire/colonialism have been taught the entire time.
Don’t forget that non-core subjects have had their timetable allocation squeezed and squeezed for years.

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

Yes it is.its the job of all teachers to do this, but some subjects make it easier to do than others - history being one.

Trouble is, history, like others humanities subjects, has been sidelined in favour of maths, English and science and kids are often removed from humanities classes to do extra lessons in EMS to boost exam results.

It's very dangerous that many children are growing up in ignorance of key issues in history.

@haverhill

Do you teach anything about the achievements of black people in History?

It has been a while since I took History but I have friends who have said their children learn mostly about black people as slaves and segregation which is good it's taught but then as a PP pointed out could this give an impression that black people are somewhat 'less' than white people and they subconsciously grow up with this idea. I think the timetable being squeezed of non-core subjects has and will definitely continue to stop the teaching or discussions of so many important topics.

Maybe the Irish history angle could get a bit more traction? Few know the background and history there.

Just wondered why it's so low down on the list. Well it's probably not that flattering really, but history should include a lot more than it does.

We covered slavery, British colonialism, apartheid in both South Africa and the USA along with the agricultural and industrial revolution and WW1 up to 1939, including the uprising and separation of Ireland.

History is such a vast subject and all of the above in my mind are hugely important, in particular how easily nazism arose and generally through legal methods, note the word generally here.

However, we didn’t cover the highland clearances and the impact that had on huge numbers of people in this country, my family included and a subject I’ve had to read up on myself.

So basically what I’m rather clumsily saying is that a lot of history is hugely important but how, given the tight timescales do you decide which is the most relevant at any given point, e.g who knew that Nelson Mandela would be released a year after me studying apartheid in SA? Or a few years later the ceasefire in NI?

Yes, we teach about Mary Seacole; the kids find her story fascinating.

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.

I am curious as to what problem it caused and how??

I am already looking through kids history timeline books with my 3 year old and visiting historical sites (when we are allowed out again). Obviously you have to think about which bits of history you talk about with younger children and it had to be done in an age appropriate way - I'm not about to break open a discussion about the Holocaust with a toddler!

So basically what I’m rather clumsily saying is that a lot of history is hugely important but how, given the tight timescales do you decide which is the most relevant at any given point,

This. You absolutely can't teach everything. Even at university you can end up with huge gaps in your knowledge. I know very little about the 18th century. The question of what gets taught really says a lot about society at the present time. How history gets used and presented as part of a communal identity and shared memory is a fascinating area of study in itself.

So basically what I’m rather clumsily saying is that a lot of history is hugely important but how, given the tight timescales do you decide which is the most relevant at any given point,

I think this is the major issue and as others have pointed out the non-core subjects time is being reduced so there is less time to cover these things. Many black people I know have an issue that so little time is spent talking about black people and when it is it is usually something to do with slavery - like that is the only thing they are known for. But I don't know what the answer would be as it would mean replacing something else.

Ireland and home rule is one of the suggested topics for study in the national curriculum at key stage 3.

One of the problems in terms of choosing what topics to teach must be lack of time. Many schools squeeze key stage 3 into 2 years instead of 3. So anyone not opting to study history GCSE will have only 2 years of history teaching at secondary school. No wonder there's so much missed out.

There seems to be very little British, particularly English, working class history being taught here

Tbf history is full of one group exerting power over another. Many of these inequalities still exist in present day society, gender, sexuality, class, educational attainment, race, religion, being disabled etc. Any period you study will show what happens when one group hold too much power and one group too little.

Even when I was at school the British Empire (and a lot of the other Many many Empires which have risen and fallen over the centuries) were part of the standard teaching as was the slave trade.

The most important lesson that can be learned in the teaching of history is the analysis and evaluation of sources, the applicatIon of critical thinking.

Well said @Lifeisgenerallyfun

I think there are lots of opportunities to teach 'working class history', especially in the 1901- present day section. The National Curriculum's example topics for key stage 3 include:

the peasants revolt;
Britain as the first industrial nation - the impact on society;
party politics, extension of the franchise and social reform;
interwar years: the Great Depression and the rise of dictators;
the creation of the welfare state;
social, cultural and technological change in post war British society

I have no idea how often these options are taught in practice though.

I'm not a teacher (or any sort of educator) but I do worry, not just that history isn't given adequate time, but that as a subject, people want it to do too much.

History is the study of the past. While I accept that what is studied is a choice, it's wrong to take that to mean history must be, basically, lessons in civics, ethics, morality or so forth, for example, to say that the slave trade was "good" or "bad". I wouldn't think the role of history is to do that: only to establish and teach the facts appalling as they are, and let them speak. Anything else is imposing too much of a burden on the subject and the time it requires.

My DS is doing slavery and the triangular trade now in history (Scotland) and I am learning alongside him. I'm actually really enjoying it and it's helping me fill gaps in my knowledge. I'm impressed by how 'decolonialised' the learning is too.

I have no idea how often these options are taught in practice though

This is what I wonder about too. Not often if the replies are anything to go by

I agree about the wider learning opportunities for history. Perhaps while slating schools who simply can't cover everything, there could be room made to strengthen museums and libraries again. Most local museums are run on a voluntary basis now, or with large volunteer input.

Another thing that puzzles me is how history has been crowded out by literacy standards. After all, it's a subject that involves reading and writing, isn't it? So, it teaching history has the automatc effect of teaching literacy, doesn't it?

I have seen similar posts about the English GCSE, with a complete ignorance of what is taught in English.

What people are taught in school about history or English should be a tiny fraction of what they end up knowing about they know about these subjects.

Kids are under enough pressure with the challenges of the new GCSEs. They shouldn’t have to bear the burden of learning every possible thing in a 5 year period just because adult society can’t be bothered to learn anything or have adult conversations.

History is the study of the past... it's wrong to take that to mean history must be, basically, lessons in civics, ethics, morality or so forth, for example, to say that the slave trade was "good" or "bad"

A great teacher will teach history so it’s unavoidable not to be a lesson in morality to. You cannot/should not teach history without it pointing out what is right/wrong. So many lessons to be learned from teaching the factors that led to the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust, the Slave Trade and the Abolitionists, Injustices and Civil Rights movements across the world, Bubonic Plague and responses etc
History can’t just be a study of the past, it has to be taught so it can shape a better future. Teachers are teachers of morality and in doing so, we hope they shape young minds to be responsible citizens and critical thinkers.

History is such a vast subject that it is impossible to cover everything.
I am retired, and my DC, adults, so it has been some years since knowledge of history teaching. However, my perception is that history is often taught as 'topics' which may not give a clear overall sweep of the historical narrative. My inderstandong is, that Anglo Saxon history and the Early Medieval period are barely covered. (England)
When I was at school, we studied political history in roughly the Victorian era, whereas a parallel class studied social history during the same period. As you can see, that was a huge difference in subject matter.
To an earlier poster, there was a lot of trade in the 18th century that was NOT slavery. My own ancestor's brother - a sailor- was a 'tea man'. I assume that to be on one of the tea clippers bringing tea back, like the cutty sark.

I did a history degree. I mean, history is literally the story of everything human beings have ever done and recorded about themselves. All of it.

All the racism, sexism, classism, politics, scientific and technological shifts. All. Of. It.

You can study history for years and still have enormous gaps in your knowledge.

And this is from someone who largely focused on race issues as soon as I had a choice.

I hated History at school, it did not interest me. I now find it really interesting. History teaching should start with a timeline of history around the world. Start with the development of what is called civilisation across the world, Turkey, Mesopotamia , China, etc. And go through the developments, wars, invention of writing, the wheel etc through time. This would be far more interesting than the learning dates of kings and battle.

The last teenager I discussed history teaching in school, had been taught about slavery (but not Roman, Greek, slavery that had existed for thousands of years), the Second World War and that was about it.

Nothing about ancient history at all such a shame