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?

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

But only in very small amounts. Linen was the early version of cotton and the raw materials for that was flax and it was home produced . Leeds, a larger city by population than Manchester, was built on industrial flax and linen production

The British Empire just wasnt touched upon in school for me, at all, apart from the fleeting reference in the context of the US civil war. It wasnt really that we got a white-British-centric approach to the Emprie, it was just never covered at all.

I think that two big problems are that a) English (I am leaving Scotland and Wales out of this as I don't know about their curricula) schools don't devote enough time to history and b) England has no set, "content-specific" curriculum for history.

Yes, there is a curruculum which sets out aims and suggests topics. But there is no curriculum which sets out "Year 1, autumn term; Study the Ancient Britons, covering X, Y and Z". Rather, schools create their own curricula which vary widely. I've looked at the primary schools in my hometown-some schools don't have a discrete history subject at all, just "topic work" which supposedly includes some history. Most do have some sort of discrete "history"-but it is so different from school to school, and varies from year to year. Then you get pupils from a bunch of different primary schools going to different secondary schools whch also don't have a single standardized history curriculum. You can easily see how repetitions and gaps occur---how pupils could wind up "doing" the Mayans twice or WWII three times, but study nothing on the Anglo Saxans or the civil war or the British Empire or the modern slave trade or.....

There is a good article called "The strange death of history teaching" which I read a few years ago. As the author pointed out, it's persistently claimed that traditioanl history teaching approaches did not teach the Empire, the slave trade, Ireland, women/gender and other areas, but it's simply not true. The following are given as just a few samples of the kind of questions that were constantly set on exam papers in the 1950s and 1960s.

Give an account of the Revolution settlement either in Scotland or in Ireland. (Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board, GCE O level, Paper II English Outlines, 1399-1714, July 1951, Q 15).

‘Sugar, spices and slaves were the basis of the first British Empire.’ Discuss. (Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board, GCE A level, II English History Outlines, 878-1939, July 1965, Q 28).

Account for the growth of the movement either for the abolition of slavery or the improvement of working conditions, and explain their success. (Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board, GCE A
level, II English History Outlines, 878-1939, July 1966, Q 34).

Discuss the economic consequences of the extension since 1914 in the employment opportunities for women. (AEB, British Economic and Social History, 1969, Advanced Level, June Paper II 1851-1960,
Q 10).

Illustrate and account for the progress made before 1919 towards the emancipation of women. (Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board, GCE A level, II English History Outlines, 878-1919,
June 1953, Q 36).

In what respects did the treatment of the poor change between 1750 and 1850? Do you consider the general position had improved or deteriorated? (AEB, British Economic and Social History, Advanced
Level, June 1969, Paper I, 1750-1850, Q 2).

Teach MORE history, spend more time on the subject---that is what we need to do.

I think history and similar subjects get sidelined due to the pressure to spend almost all curriculum time on maths and English (which are seen as being the "serious" subjects, while history is often seen as a bit of larking about in the afternoon).

I live overseas and take care of my daughter's English education at home, and I take the approach of "devote much of your time to teaching science and history and geography BUT in ways that involve loads of reading and writing, so that the child learns English literacy AND also learns lots of content and knowledge at the same time." I love this approach and my daughter knows a lot of history (UK and global) even though she has grown up overseas and the amount of time we have available for English-language instruction is a fraction of what the average British child can enjoy.

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

Erm, no it is not. Our history goes back thousands of years. For most of that time we weren't colonizing anyone. Sometimes we were colonized by other people.

It sounds like your child's school has a one-track mindset and a deeply distorted curriculum.

All the above questions are from O level or A level papers. I went to school in the 90s and dropped history at the end of year 9. Its quite possible that the empire was on the GCSE or A level curriculum, but it's an optional subject by that point.

Kokeshi123

Thanks for your detailed post and the sample exam papers from the 50s and 60s. That's really interesting

How many children studied GCE history in the 1950s though, given that education was only compulsory until the age of 15?

The problem is that there is just so much history, it's really impossible to do it justice. Choosing what to teach is a political and cultural issue. I would hope a key aim is to help children understand how both our own country and the modern world was shaped - without such knowledge you cannot really understand the world as it is. History is a massively important subject (and, no, I'm not a history teacher!) One thing I'd like to add to the curriculum (wasn't there in my day, doubt if it is now) would be a foundation in anthropology - if you go back 150,000 years or so we ALL have a common ancestor. Regardless of race, we are all related. Isn't the history of homo sapiens a good place to start?

We did the history of medicine, the American West, and Ireland for GCSE, there must have been another topic but I can't remember it. Didn't study anything to do with colonialism at all throughout school, definitely didn't learn it in a good light, just didn't learn it at all.

Mysteriesoftheorganism - exactly! There is so much history that even if you teach "purely the facts" in robotic fashion, you are inevitably encouraging a moral or ethical perspective because of the facts you have chosen to select for teaching. History teaching has never been apolitical.

There is a lot of discussion of the troubles of the working class in the UK. We did enclosure with GCSE students in relation to Elizabethan poverty and the Poor Law but that, in itself, pushes an agenda about who is responsible for poverty. All of which is why the teaching of history is such a political football!

In Wales I pretty much only studied Welsh history, ancient history and modern US stuff at GCSE (1930s onwards). I vaguely remember a term on WW2 in Year 4 and Henry VIII in Year 6 but it was mostly Romans, Celts, Aztecs and then 19th century reform stuff. I couldn't tell you anything about 1066 or kings and queens.

The issues has two main strands...firstly what gets taught is difficult to choose as there is such a variety and secondly teaching it in a way that brings meaning.

Personally we have to teach the Romans and we focus on the rise of empire, attitudes of discrimination to barbarians, how the Romans invaded places and what they did to modernise them and also focusing on the relationship between the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians in terms of empires rising and falling.

As a Tudor specialist it makes me sad when people 'just' recite the names of Henry VIII's wives as 'doing' the Tudors. It was a time of massive upheaval for England and the start of the Church of England. The swing to religious conservatism and new learning caused the number of wives and should be taught in that context. They are also crucial in understanding the implications of infant mortality and so discussion of medicine is important.

I agree more teaching of the British Empire is important with an emphasis on sources of both sides.

In secondary, I have done studies on Morebath Church looking at the English Reformation and not at all about the wives! I think our students were a bit disappointed when they thought they "knew it" when I said we were doing the Tudors and then we started talking about the position of altar tables! Partly due to broader cultural changes I think children really struggle with the Reformation. In my experience lots of them are atheists, have never been in a church and certainly can't imagine getting angry about statues.

History of medicine is such a popular option at GCSE too so at least those bits do get some coverage later (assuming that is the option that the department has picked of course!). I love the 18th Century and the Restoration and that almost gets missed out in its entirety so I feel the pain. At least, I don't get as many opportunites as I'd like to talk about men in wigs!

Unrelated to your point Wilding is that the good thing though is that children are capable of understanding nuance. It is possible to say that Churchill was a good British wartime leader and understand the French position on him re Mers-el-Kebir and see that he had personal views that we would no longer see as at all acceptable. I think we do children no service when we imply that they can't see historical actors beyond one dimension . It's what makes teaching history so interesting!

@Sophiafour I'm not sure how old you are but at my bog standard comp we covered the English civil war, Vietnam, the US civil rights movement, the suffragist movement, socialist history of Britain and Thatcherism etc alongside the topics you highlight.

Oh yes reminded by a PP history of medicine was an incredibly interesting topic also covered

You will be told by the majority that YANBU because the majority will have been taught the same whitewashed history that Britain was a lovely cuddly empire that invented fair play and that we got rich because the people were the best in the world and we had some great kings and queens including the colourful King Henry the 8th and everything was awesome until WW1 which happened out of nowhere then we kicked the Germans arse, mostly on our own twice.

The British people have been so brainwashed that even the people at the bottom with nothing think they’re superior to everybody non-British and that they should accept their ‘place’ and not believe in meritocracy because monarchy and tradition etc.

The British minds are probably the most colonised in the world that’s why Brexit was voted for because the Brexiters really believe the countries they raped and pillaged for centuries like India cannot wait to do trade deals with and play second fiddle to Britain (England really) again.

Country’s like Germany don’t whitewash their history they tell it warts and all, the good and the bad which is why their populace is more realistic. We will get a true history lesson post Brexit when we realise the rest of the world has a different version from history from our own.

History teaching about the civil rights movement in England is so American-centric. Even during Black History month, children learn about the same 4 American civil right heroes and maybe one Brit. This is why so many people today seem to view racism as an American issue. Children don't learn about the British Civil rights movement and the lives of black and brown Britons.

The British people have been so brainwashed that even the people at the bottom with nothing think they’re superior to everybody non-British and that they should accept their ‘place’ and not believe in meritocracy because monarchy and tradition etc.

Do they? Have you spoken to every single person and ascertained this, must have been exhausting. Or are you just assuming so you can put out a powerful statement?

Yes Britain teaches its people that they are superior to every other country in the world. That’s why many people accept a sub-standard life because ‘at least they’re British’.

The teaching of British superiority is great because it also works against those at the lower end of society who will work hard to maintain the status quo even if they’re so skint they only have a couple of pounds at the end of the month to treat themselves to watching football at ‘Spoons.

How many times do we have to say it? No, your experience of being at school in the 1970s doesn’t make you an expert on how history ‘should’ be taught. No, having done A-Level history at some point in the last 20 years doesn’t mean you understand the failings of the English national curriculum.

The national curriculum for secondary schools is not prescriptive about what has to be taught within broad themes, except requiring all students to learn about the Holocaust. That means schools have the freedom to plan a KS3 curriculum which best suits their demographic of pupils - some schools do this better than others, but as PP have said, if you were to look at any of the professional publications/attend any teaching conferences you would know that designing a successful curriculum is complex and requires balancing the need to deal with colonialism, working class British history, world history, social history, women’s history... the list goes on. In my school, we teach US civil rights, the English Civil War AND the miners’ strike, do I get to shout ‘bingo!’?

In most schools, humanities subjects are limited to 2-3 hours per week of teaching time. We have to be selective about the content we’re able to teach. We juggle considerations such as: how can I best equip my students to understand the world and community they currently live in? How can I best equip my students to go on to study history at A-Level or university? How can I include literacy, numeracy and oracy in my lessons? How do I ensure that ‘British values’ are taught through the history curriculum? What cross-curricular links are there in our curriculum to what the students are studying in English, maths, media studies...?

At GCSE the options history departments tend to go for are the ones that are best resourced and which the teaching staff are best equipped to teach - for us, that means the history of medicine (used to include ancient history, Mary Seacole, etc - all removed after Gove’s reforms), Anglo-Saxon and Norman England (including resistance to the Norman Conquest), Germany 1918-39, Cold War. We could have chosen Mao’s China or Mughal India or the American West or Elizabeth I. This is not to say the GCSE curriculum is good - quite the opposite. Would you like to persuade the government it needs to change? We’ve been trying.

We can’t teach everything, we do our damned best, and we are constantly, as a profession, lobbying government for changes to the exam syllabus, discussing how to improve the curriculum, and trying to fix all the many and varied ways the teaching of history has been problematic in the past. Think you could do a better job? Excellent! We could always do with engaged, motivated colleagues to help turn this ship in whichever direction it ought to be sailing.

Pulsefinger - yes!

60,000 excess deaths, massive corruption with government cronies being given millions of ponds worth of contracts during the crisis, disastrous no-deal Brexit on the horizon, economy falling off a cliff, absent PM yet most people seem to be more concerned with a 20 year old programme being removed from one channel and the statue of someone who died 400 years ago who they’d never heard of until last week being chucked into the water. We must protect our betters at all costs even if they died 400 years ago and their descendants are set for life for generations anyway.

Why are the far right more concerned with a statue of someone they’ve never heard of (and who when he was alive would probably have had their ancestors flogged for looking at him) than care homes?

The colonisation of the British mind through our jingoistic curriculum is a sight to behold. The aftermath of Brexit will be the lesson we all need in order to grow and become more realistic.

OP has a chip on her shoulder about the class system, IMO. I'm no historian but there is no balanced view of colonialism; we made our wealth on the back of it, and despite the lot of the working classes in this country still being shit, as a nation we benefited from it. The endemic, structural racism that exists in this country is one of the results. I'm betting OP doesn't believe in white privilege, either.

The history teachers on here are telling you that the curriculum teaches lots of the things you've complained are missing from it. And, frankly, the world has moved on since the 70s. The subjects covered are right and proper in a modern context.

Country’s like Germany don’t whitewash their history
You mean countries that are only 150 years old then?

Doesn’t matter how old Germany is. They’ve owned the world wars and don’t pretend everything they did was right and great. The populace is more emotionally mature regarding their country than the British as a result. Imagine Angela Merkel trying to pass off some third rate, failing track and trace system as ‘world beating’? Teaching reality is beneficial for all.