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?

I think this all started with Ken Baker's National Curriculum. There was a big fuss at the time over leftwing propaganda in schools and so all civics, social studies and politics and government were erased from the NC. History was to be used to encourage a sense of patriotism and loyalty. PSE would tell children it was wrong to tell lies, said the lying politicians.

To continue kokeshi's point. I did GCSE and A Level history. (second year of GCSE, so quite some time ago now).
In terms of colonialism, we studied the British Raj, Amritsar, The Korean and Vietnamese wars (so other countries' colonialism), US Declaration of independence, Great War, Second World War, Tudor period expansion in the new world, China from Boxer Rebellion to Cultural Revolution.

A complete mishmash! But I moved during a levels and had to start over due to the syllabus being so different in the two schools.

History curriculums are a bit of a joke these days. No one seems to want to truly engage with the subject opting to teach ‘fluffy’ areas of history like fashion or architecture on a very superficial level. It’s much easier to engage with the American civil rights movements on a superficial level. It’s much easier to go with the premise that black people don’t deserve to be treated like shit than that the way people practice Christianity is an issue worth mass bloodshed. Obviously both issues are much more complicated but educators don’t want to go beyond that so they stick to topics with easy premises and fill up time with making posters and biographical studies rather than trying to teach actual history.

@EmperorCovidula With respect, that’s utter bollocks. “Educators”, particularly history teachers, are constantly engaging with scholarship in order to work out how to tackle complex, difficult topics. Superficiality isn’t a feature of any of the schemes of work I’ve planned or taught, and if it were we’d be deservedly slaughtered by Ofsted during our next inspection.

Of course it matters how old a country is. Would we hold Italians today to account for the behaviour of the Borgias? Or for the cruelties of the Roman Empire?

@W00t

Of course it matters how old a country is. Would we hold Italians today to account for the behaviour of the Borgias? Or for the cruelties of the Roman Empire?

Do we hold the Roman occupiers of Britain to account for the crimes they committed against the Iceni? No, because that would be ridiculous.

Do we hold our national memorialising of racist policy-makers and public figures to account? Yes, because it’s still relevant. That’s why people are angry enough to push a statue into the Bristol Channel.

Please do list those fluffy topics @EmperorCovidula. I recognise nothing you say from what my children have learned in history over the last ten years.
The reform of GCSE history has made it one of the most challenging subjects now, with so much material to cover in such depth.
I advised my eldest to opt for geography over history, as the chances of a top grade were higher (she genuinely liked both and couldn't choose, too few options to choose both).

When I was at secondary school we started with pre-history and went all the way through to 1066 in my first year, taking in the Romans and Greeks, not much of the Dark Ages because there isn't that much material though there's much more now than there was 30 years ago.

2nd year I can't actually remember, 3rd year was mainly industrial revolution. I then did GCSE history which was 1870-Vietnam, with WW2 missed out. Nothing on British Empire, mainly causes of the two world wars, the First World War, the welfare state and then the Cold war - Berlin Airlift, Berlin Wall, Korean war and Vietnam.

I did mainly Tudor history for A level, so 1450 to 1600ish but not just English history, we did European history of the time too.

As part of my degree I did some post war German history.

So lots of gaps but there always will be - history is vast.

I used to read history books for fun, and remember having a very old book called "Great People" which had a real mix of people in it - no BAME people but it did at least feature quite a few women eg Florence Nightingale, Mary Anning, Grace Darling and Marie Curie that I remember.

The Norman Conquest and its confiscation of Saxon land by a ruling elite is very much still relevant in the inequitable distribution of wealth and power in British society today.

You learn stuff like that when you study (proper) History.

^^You learn stuff like that when you study (proper) History.

Since we have all said that children do learn about these things in History (often in Y7 although it is an option on one of the GCSE boards, I believe) I presume you intend this as a compliment to us in which case, thanks. I'm glad that you appreciate the high quality teaching of a broad and balanced diet of content alongside critical thinking that goes on in many British schools. Good to have an ally.

I'm 37 and we did loads on the transatlantic slave trade when I was in secondary school. Too much when I look back. The world we live in today is shaped by the two world wars so if I had to focus on something to give kids a good grounding of history it would be that. Actual teaching time is very limited in state comprehensives.

the majority will have been taught the same whitewashed history that Britain was a lovely cuddly empire that invented fair play

Could you please give us all some concrete sources showing that this has been the approach taken by most or some or actually any history teachers in the past few decades?

I don't think current or recent history teaching is flawless but I have NEVER seen this ridiculous picture you are painting here.

As I said upthread, even history curricula from the 50s and 60s were actually a lot more aware of "history from the bottom" than a lot of people think---hence, pupils being taught about the fight to abolish slavery and so on.

Surely the primary curriculum is about giving children a taster/ introduction to history and sparking an interest.
Having perused the subject while homeschooling a 6yo it seems to cover a spread of timelines and geography.
Its then up to an interested individual to research the topic more in depth.

I take the same view, TheMandalorian.

We use the Galore Park and Core Knowledge books, which aim to cover most of history in chronological order.

This necessarily means that each thing has to be done in less depth, but I personally prefer "Child knows a certain amount about most important stuff in history" to "Child has in-depth knowledge of 10 topics but has pretty much never heard of much of the rest of it."

If a child has heard of the Reformation and knows some key facts, key terminology and roughly when it took place, they will find it easier to pick up more knowledge as they get older because they are more likely to prick up their ears if they hear the Reformation being mentioned, open a book about the topic, read a news article which mentions the Reformation, stop and look at a museum exhibit which references the Reformation in some way etc. etc.. If someone knows NOTHING about the Reformation whatsoever and has not the faintest idea what it means, that may never change and people just end up with huge gaps in their knowledge.

Good to have an ally.

I like to think I do my bit.

I don't think that choice, when it's being made as many schools do both, is about 'decolonising the curriculum', but about time constraints, material availability, and relating history to current events in the news/what is being talked about.

One thing I've found frustrating is the lack of quality resources on British Civil Rights movements aimed at children and school use, while there is so much available about the US and, to a lesser extent, Australia, even from British sources like the BBC. At an adult and maybe A-level age, yes, but below that I've found really difficult to find anything. I remember being really annoyed with I think it was the BBC's True History series some years back, a bunch of White Brits and two African American women, one to discuss slavery, the other the '60s US Civil Rights movement. It did really feel like they couldn't be bothered to find Black British examples. I wish there was more will in the powers that be to move beyond the most well-known faces on the topic.

I don't blame teachers for the lack of publicly available resources, I know many are doing their best to bring together what's available in as age-appropriate way as possible that out of sight of most parents, but it does feel like some topics are considered 'proper history only for adults' and places that fund the creation of resources are going with what is already selling rather than anything new.

Looking back at my school years, WWI didn’t come up on the curriculum once, except in the poetry module in English Literature.

That’s a shocking absence.

You mean countries that are only 150 years old then?

Germany isn’t 150 years old. Germania dates back to Roman times.

@W00t from what I remember of my own education which is recent enough:
Ancient Greece: Gods and domestic matters
Ancient china: architecture and food
Ancient Romans: foods, clothes and social hierarchy

Medieval Europe: castles and clothes
Depression: food (or lack thereof)
WWI/WWII: tench warfare, conscription, Gallipoli, cursory mention of camps/nazi socioeconomic policy and h-bomb
The Khmer Rouge - genocide (lots of it)
Vietnam war - agent orange, peace/anti-war movement in US
50s/60s - pop culture and civil rights (specifically black rights in America)
Russian revolution- this was taught ok but was solely focused on the rise of communism and key events (Decembrists etc) so packed context somewhat.

My children are now in school but still very young so don’t have segregated history lesson as such (but no one is ever too young to learn!). So far they’ve learned about the
Lunar festival in China (mostly about food but also the myth of the animal race and a few other bits).
Medieval Europe - knights and castles. Literally just knights and castles. Not even a mention of kingdoms, frequent warfare/political instability etc.
Space race - not even a mention of communism. Just the Americans wanted to be the first on the moon. My poor son thought that Neil Armstrong was the first man to leave the earth’s atmosphere and that they russians’ had sent dogs instead (no explanation of why, jist oh yes, the Russians sent a dog into space, very bizarre without any context).

It’s like until there about 14/15 they’re ‘too young to learn about anything that isn’t 100% bright and happy with the occasional caveat that people used to die young and after that they focus on all the gory details and completely miss the point.

OP has a chip on her shoulder about the class system, IMO.

Probably true, but the vast majority of people in Europe, because it wasnt just Britain and Ireland, during the colonial period were working class or of an agricultural labouring labouring class. They gained nothing from colonialism.

I believe history was better when it was taught from a class perspective, as it was in the post war period and up until around the 1990s

I'm no historian but there is no balanced view of colonialism;

That's why you're not a historian

we made our wealth on the back of it,

Who is "we"?

and despite the lot of the working classes in this country still being shit, as a nation we benefited from it.

I don't doubt some did, but In what way did the people benefit from it?

The endemic, structural racism that exists in this country is one of the results.

I'm not so sure there is "endemic structural" racism. But this should have nothing to do with teaching history anyway

I'm betting OP doesn't believe in white privilege, either.

I believe it's a flawed theory

The history teachers on here are telling you that the curriculum teaches lots of the things you've complained are missing from it.

The teachers on here have been balanced in their replies and, as far as i can tell some have agreed with me that history is not taught as well as it used to be.

And, frankly, the world has moved on since the 70s. The subjects covered are right and proper in a modern context

But see the post by Kokeshi with the examples of what was being taught in the 50s and 60s.

History should be taught within the context of times, not a modern context

Do you think someone leaving school in England today should know more about US civil rights than the English Civil War?

I'm not saying US civil shouldn't be taught, I was rightly taught it in the 1970s but should it take precedence over the ECW?

I think it's their school that is the problem. I listed my DS's topics early in the thread, but they also covered the reformation and slavery/civil rights in RE/ethics. Infant school was more Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Iron Age and Bronze Age Britain, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, and personal history/timelines, their family etc.
Something like the Lunar Festival would be a one-off assembly topic.
Space race is just something they've learnt about at home.

"... as far as i can tell some have agreed with me that history is not taught as well as it used to be."

Have we...said that?? Acknowledge problems in teaching now, yes. But I don't remember anyone that is currently teaching saying that the quality of students' historical education has gone down hill.

Have we...said that?? Acknowledge problems in teaching now, yes. But I don't remember anyone that is currently teaching saying that the quality of students' historical education has gone down hill.

Thats why I said as far as I can tell. It's hard to tell who is a teacher and who isn't

I do think it has gone down hill but I haven't blamed teachers for it

As other posters have said. We do not teach enough history, of any kind, anymore

VeniVidiWeeWee

Ghandi was British? Source please.

Well, I suppose he was. As India wasn't an independant country, she was hardly issuing her own passports in her own name in 1869, when Gandhi was born.

That was how it worked. If you were born within the Empire, you were a British subject. Even after countries achieved independence and issued their own citizenship statuses, being born within a Commonwealth country in the 20th century entitled you to move to the UK and settle there without further documentation being required. We had 'special relationships'.

Then the UK changed the rules, and that's what occasioned the shitshow known as Windrush situation.

The history of UK nationality law is very interesting if occasionally fricking insane.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law

Let's not forget unless children chose History as a GCSE option, their history education stops at year 8. GCSE option courses now start in year 9. Maybe more political themes could be taught under phase which all students have to study until they leave school.