Has Decolonise the Curriculum Gone too Far

[Flaxmeadow]

Just watching a Sky news item where a question was asked about a complaint that in England/UK in some schools, USA civil rights is taught, but not the English Civil War/Wars of the Three Kingdoms

I don't think this should be happening. I think our own civil war should be taught and take precedence over US civil rights being taught, though agree that USA civil

rights is an important history topic too

AIBU?

History and humanities teaching is all over the place with no context, timelines or critical thinking.

Very much so, especially no context or timelines

And by British history, I mean: British imperialism, slavery, Ireland, Palestine and the ME, India & Pakistan, WW1, WW2, etc.

KS2 History curriculum states children should be taught about Britain in terms of:

• changes in Britain from the Stone Age to the Iron Age
• the Roman Empire and its impact on Britain
• Britain’s settlement by Anglo-Saxons and Scots
• the Viking and Anglo-Saxon struggle for the Kingdom of England to the time of Edward the Confessor

(amongst other things.)

That's the statutory bit. The detail for each of those sections isn't statutory, but includes things like

• successful invasion by Claudius and conquest, including Hadrian’s Wall
• British resistance, for example, Boudica
• ‘Romanisation’ of Britain: sites such as Caerwent and the impact of technology, culture and beliefs, including early Christianity
• Roman withdrawal from Britain in c. AD 410 and the fall of the western Roman Empire
• Scots invasions from Ireland to north Britain (now Scotland)
• Viking raids and invasion
• resistance by Alfred the Great and Athelstan, first king of England
• a significant turning point in British history, for example, the first railways or the Battle of Britain

So there is the chance for teaching at primary to include an interesting range of stuff. The problem is, many schools have resources from the old days of the QCA schemes of work which were pretty bland for the most part and, as a consequence, many schools still follow the fairly traditional definitions of the topics from the QCA, so focussing on how they lived and particular people from those times. Squeezing those aspects into the timetable is hard enough, let alone having time to give enough of an overview the children understand what period in history you're talking about AND then doing some in-depth discussion/research/work about it.

I remember when I was doing GCSE (a couple of decades ago) we did the History of Medicine, the American West and the Northern Ireland conflict. I found them all incredibly boring and, tbh, irrelevant. And my school was in an area linked closely to Cromwell - could have been a perfect learning opportunity!

@Flaxmeadow

History and humanities teaching is all over the place with no context, timelines or critical thinking.

Very much so, especially no context or timelines

You are mistaken. But clearly don't want to listen.

It would be quite good I'd women got a bit more of a mention in history lessons as well.

I studied history at university. In my last year, I took a course on women's history. In the first lesson the tutor took us into the library and asked us to find any mention of women in the (vast) history section. About half an hour later, all 20 of us had come up with a couple of Queens and nothing else. The worst thing was that until we'd done this activity, it simply hadn't occurred to me that women just weren't referred to in all the books I'd read and the lectures I'd attended.

Flaxmeadow - we had timelines on the wall and timelines they added to in books to show that events don't happen in a vacuum. In fact, my y8s spent time studying the French revolution in the context of the rise of British economic power in the 18th Century. So, you know, context...

And pretty much all schools do work relating to Black History Month, often choosing prominent and important Black (often British but sometimes American or other nationalities too) people to learn about.

@Greenleavesawash

BlessYourCottonSocks - this is nothing to do with academic ability but lack of focus in English (can’t comment on devolved administrations) curriculum. Nor is it a criticism of teachers. History and humanities teaching is all over the place with no context, timelines or critical thinking.

Another statutory aspect of the KS2 curriculum is:

• a study of an aspect or theme in British history that extends pupils’ chronological knowledge beyond 1066

Timelines are very important in primary history. But they can be tricky for pupils to understand. Time is a difficult topic to teach, because some just get it easily and some don't.

Yes this!! Explained so well and yes history squeezed out of the curriculum as a subject

TomPinch The problem is that history isn't seen as a useful subject like English or maths, and so it has been squeezed out of the curriculum.

It seems that in response people are trying to find a reason for saying history is useful, and they have wrongly alighted on the idea using it to teach civics, ethics and morals and passing judgment on the past, or using it to explain the present or present injustices. This is entirely wrong. The point of history should simply be learning about the past and that's it. It should be about the study and the understanding of past societies, preferably ones with an association with the locality where it's taught. If the facts are harrowing, they should be allowed to speak for themselves. If the facts are packaged to support some kind of moral initiative, the result is propaganda, not history.

Society should absolutely support BLM. That's because it is an issue of injustice now and any reference to history should be taught in school as part of a civics class. The history curriculum should be left alone.

As for the OP, even if it is right that history be "relevant" in the sense that it affects modern times, I would suggest that the Wars of the Three Kingdoms is a hell of a lot more relevant than the American civil rights movement. The development of the UK legal system, constitution, and the modern states of the UK and Ireland depend on it, as does the British attitude to religion, attitudes to government.. I could go on and on.

My DS is Y6. In the last two years (so Y5 and Y6) he has learnt:
Romans in Britain
Norman Conquest
War of the Roses
Tudors
English Civil War
Founding Fathers
Trans-Atlantic slave trade
First World War
Second World War

By contrast, I was at junior school in the 1980s, and we didn't do history, we did "topic". The only history we studied in KS2 (pre-national curriculum) was ... Norman conquest.
That's it!

Missed out DS also did:
Industrial revolution
Victorians

And I also did industrial revolution in junior 3.

I think it's great that the curriculum is varied but I do think primary years and the first few years of secondary should focus on British history including slavery, colonialism, etc.
My DD learned about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks (which I think is a great topic at an older age) in year 5. My issue is she learned about notable figures in African American history but nothing about British Afro-Caribbean history!
I do feel British children should be taught as much of British history (especially the last 300 years) as possible, which would form the basis for 20th/21st history and geo-politics today. It would help put a lot of today's issues (black movement, wars, etc) in a lot of context.
In primary school, topics seem very patchy and not chronological.

And by British history, I mean: British imperialism, slavery, Ireland, Palestine and the ME, India & Pakistan, WW1, WW2, etc

This is interesting

You want grass roots movements taught such as MLK and Rosa Parks. Peoples history, social history, peoples struggle abroad, USA, Middle East, India etc... but ...you want the British history taught to be political history, government, conquest, rulers etc

I might have misunderstood but shouldn't British children be taught the struggle of their own people too?

I was also educated in the 70s and have a child going through the history curriculum at the moment and I just don't recognise your points. At all. And I'm increasingly peed off by the number of threads both here on MN and on facebook making proclamations about history teaching that are based on absolutely nothing at all.

British history IS the history of colonialism. That's not a bad thing, or a cringe thing, it just is 'a thing'. DS has learned around that and focused on various different bits and pieces, but now in senior school it's cause and effect (shout out to any Chalet Girls on thread). So they're doing slavery just now and next term that will link directly into the American civil rights movement. That's a brilliant way to teach because it shows how world events hundreds of years apart shape each other.

(We've also done the clearances in primary school. Also colonialism.)

History teachers - you are getting it tight from all corners but I am actually thinking of sitting the N5 exam, I'm enjoying the home learning so much. So thank you.

Flax--other people's history is relevant to British history, wouldn't you say?? Especially the topics I've mentioned above because there is a massive relationship between the issues in India & Pakistan, Palestine, etc, which are resultant of British colonialism. So this ties in with modern day issues (Kashmir, Israel and Annexation as examples.)
Which I feel is far more relevant that learning about the Ancient Greeks and Ancient Egyptians!
I don't really care if US Civil Rights don't get taught here (although might be good as a GCSE option) but I do think British kids should benefit from knowing about British Afro-caribbean history, which would tie in with slavery.
British children be taught the struggle of their own people too?
What struggles would that be? The Celts, Romans, the Norman invasion, the civil wars, Scotland, the English in Ireland?? Yes, absolutely.
I'd rather my DD learn as much as British history as possible but I also feel British history between, say 1700 to 1950 is crucial due to it's impact on the world today.

I think the fact you believe ordinary people didn't benefit from colonialism shows the limits of your 70s education to be honest.

The whole move from an agricultural society to an industrial one was predicated on the colonies. The colonies provided the raw materials, labour (often slave) and market for almost everything we made or built. Cotton. Ship building. Sugar production. Manufactured goods. We weren't just selling them to each other OP.

Flax--other people's history is relevant to British history, wouldn't you say??

Yes I agree

Especially the topics I've mentioned above because there is a massive relationship between the issues in India & Pakistan, Palestine, etc, which are resultant of British colonialism. So this ties in with modern day issues (Kashmir, Israel and Annexation as examples.)

Yes

Which I feel is far more relevant that learning about the Ancient Greeks and Ancient Egyptians!

Yes

I don't really care if US Civil Rights don't get taught here (although might be good as a GCSE option) but I do think British kids should benefit from knowing about British Afro-caribbean history, which would tie in with slavery.

Yes absolutely.

What [British] struggles would that be?

Working class struggle and the rise of the trade unions.

For starters, too many to list

The Celts, Romans, the Norman invasion, the civil wars

Yes

Scotland, the English in Ireland?? Yes, absolutely.

The Irish and Scots were also involved in colonialism but like England they have their "peoples struggle" history too

I'd rather my DD learn as much as British history as possible but I also feel British history between, say 1700 to 1950 is crucial due to it's impact on the world today.

Yes especially the British working class and the impact of their unique trade union history

British history IS the history of colonialism. That's not a bad thing, or a cringe thing, it just is 'a thing'.

It is certainly a critically important part of British history from the 1500s to 1999, but it's going too far to say that's all it was about.

In the past, people might have said only kings and battles mattered, ie, Big Politics. It wasn't true then and it isn't now. I studied the Industrial Revolution for GCSE. Colonialism got a mention, as did the slave trade, to an appropriate level, which was a good deal less than things like technological advances, development of the factory system and so on.

I worry that there are some out there who would want to explain everything about it in terms of class or/and race oppression, ie, not objectively.

It's the adults' version of Horrible Histories, which explains history though a lens of farts, toilets and cynicism.

I think the fact you believe ordinary people didn't benefit from colonialism shows the limits of your 70s education to be honest.

I disagree

The whole move from an agricultural society to an industrial one was predicated on the colonies.

It really wasn't

It was predicated by the agricultural revolution and the factory system.

The colonies provided the raw materials, labour (often slave) and market for almost everything we made or built.

We had our own raw materials, and labour, to build industry.
Coal
Wool
Iron ore/steel
Flax
Clay/brick

The labour was provided by the working class. Millions of men, women and children

Cotton. Ship building. Sugar production.

Raw cotton did not come from our colonies, it came from the USA, and sugar was a luxury item few could afford until the latter part of the 19th century. Rum and tobacco maybe affordable earlier for some but industrialisation did not depend on them, or on raw cotton

Not sure what you mean by ship building

Manufactured goods. We weren't just selling them to each other OP.

No we sold them across the world. England was the biggest coal exporter in the world prior to WW1. Who slaved to provide that and who gained nothing from that labour ?

British history IS the history of colonialism

No it isn't

When we began importing cotton it came first from the West Indies, then from the Americas, definitely colonies of Britain.

"No we sold them across the world. England was the biggest coal exporter in the world prior to WW1. Who slaved to provide that and who gained nothing from that labour ?"

No doubt that the working class dug up the coal. It was then put on boats built by the working class and sold to the colonies and former colonies because we were the biggest coal exporter in the world. Can't you see how that's circular? Without the massive markets of the colonies and the export and import of goods and raw materials, the industrial revolution wouldn't have been a revolution, it would have just been a bit of a blip. Same with the cotton mills, same with a lot of food production.

W00t _When we began importing cotton it came first from the West Indies, then from the Americas, definitely colonies of Britain

It came from the USA. The West indies produced sugar and tobacco

LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett _No doubt that the working class dug up the coal. It was then put on boats built by the working class and sold to the colonies and former colonies because we were the biggest coal exporter in the world. Can't you see how that's circular?

No I can't see
Your original point was that the British people benefited from colonialism, or rather what is actually under discussion is trade. Just because these goods were sold and some merchants somewhere made money out if, it doesnt mean that the labourer, often women and children, gained anything from their labour or the trade in goods.

Nor you but what did they gain, apart from a hovel to live in and a loaf of bread and sometimes they even had to riot for the bread

What did they gain from the trade?

Without the massive markets of the colonies and the export and import of goods and raw materials, the industrial revolution wouldn't have been a revolution,

But what has this to do with the condition of the working class?

it would have just been a bit of a blip. Same with the cotton mills, same with a lot of food production.

It was coal, wool, flax and steel that started industrialisation. Cotton was only one part of it

What is this thing about cotton and industrialisation that gets repeated over and over again? We would have industrialised without cotton. Easily

...that last paragraph wasn't aimed at anyone in particular but it does seem to be part of the "decolonise the curriculum" movement

Britain started importing cotton in the 16th century- there was no USA then.

We had a module on the US civil war in school, that was about 25 year ago.

It was literally the only thing we learned that was related to British colonialism.