Massive changes to curriculum, is it too late to change this?

[nycortaki]

This is not just about stonehenge, it is massive changes to maths, science, history, literature - phrases such as moving of goal posts and rewriting history do not come close!

9 times out of ten, this person believes people can change sex

But if not thinly disguised racism, why the pussy footing around which book and why the coded reference to stonehenge, being referenced by JHB in the video? They are clearly taking umbrage at the suggestion that SH was built by Africans (as an aside, doesn’t all our DNA link back to African heritage?).

just come out and say what you mean. The initial posts lacked detail and came across as secret squirrel and Qanon ‘do the research’. The JHB clip seemed all a bit storm in a teacup for clickbait headlines.

Though I would not dispute the lack of sufficient teacher training nor the possibilities that poor-quality resources are being used to teach contested narratives. We need to invest in good quality teaching training and pay teachers more. Lifeblood of a nation.

For people new to this, I think that this article gives a pretty good summary of the issues around history

https://taarifa.rw/britains-teachers-demand-black-history-added-to-national-curriculum/

Looking at the Government Interim Report similar and other diversity and inclusiveness issues arise re all other subjects. Although they are referred to in very wishy ways and so it is difficult to know exactly what the intention is. The Interim Report is in fact more in support of the status quo and is more sensible than I had thought which is really good but there are bits of pushing for "inclusiveness" in a particular way throughout, though quite vague.

Incidentally when I was looking at Policy Exchange I noticed that they had done a paper on diversity which is worth looking at.

The other thing which jumped out at me which at first glance is relevant to diversity and inclusiveness at first look is that around 40 percent of 16 year olds do not reach the required level 3 and 15 percent of 16 years do not reach the required level for level 2. And if you look at the report in relation to level 2 it says that around 60 percent do achieve the required level - which is celebrated as it is rising - but this is basically the same thing - so it looks like the children who are being failed at level 2 do not catch up through senior - and the report then looks at them catching up 16 - 19 years but surely our focus should be on meeting their needs during level 3? Anecdotally my DC in a state school says that there is a small group who are dong fine and a fairly large group who do not engage seriously at all, and they are also disruptive and it seems clear that this is largely that they can't catch up and are demotivated and that if they were being given more small group help they would be achieving the right level in maths and english and really this should be a part of changes made at level 3.

At first glance, because you then learn that the group failing at level 3 are mainly from SEN and low socio ec groups... and it is reported in the articile I link that asian and black children are out performing whites in schools... and so it might be that this group is predominantly white. And if so ensuring inclusiveness is in fact relevant to white children.

Okay I’ll bite. I’m a conservative voter (and continually consider whether I should join the party) and very GC so wouldn’t hold myself out as woke or liberal.

First off, I didn’t think we definitely knew who built Stonehenge as it seems too technically advanced for its time?

Secondly, I could write a children’s book called The King is a Lizard and advertise it as a just buy for all schools. My doing that does not impact the state of teaching in this country.

Thirdly, I don’t know how you can say there was no open consultation as only X proportion of teachers responded. That’s on the teachers for not responding, not the government for not consulting.

Fourth, of course the curriculum should be relevant and I don’t understand why the presenter thinks there is no or lesser academic value in teaching language via rap or Shakespeare. Both are relevant and both can teach us something.

Fifth, are you saying colonialism was a good thing?! Children shouldn’t be taught about the “Great” British Empire as it was actually quite harmful. We should teach it, but it is correct to be taught with shame. Also shame is a big part of British culture, so that fits with her desire for that.

Six, when was the last time you attended mass at your local church - which is held out in the video as an important part of our British culture. Are you doing your bit to uphold it? I’m a Roman Catholic, born in Britain to (white) British parents. Can I check if I fit enough with the British culture given my church is led from Italy (or at least very close to Italy).

And finally, Britain is multicultural because we chose to make it that way. We “imported” workers as part of Windrush and from colonial countries. We can’t now get upset that those people we asked to move here now live here…

OP, I’d welcome your thoughts on each of the above

If you read my posts from this afternoon I have explained the issue around the stonehenge reference raised in the video and also raised in the report by policy exchange.

In terms of saying what I mean, I really wanted discussion with people who knew what the issues were and who wanted to discuss properly. I have dc of level 3 age and I can assure you it is really worrying, not storm in a teacup. But the only people who responded were posters who were impossible to discuss things with. But because no one else has responded I have come back with a bit more detail. The lack of detail at first was because the posters were so rude, not because I wasn't wanting to say what I meant.

Is my genuine response.

The video is intersting as are the things being discussed and most of the posters were saying it was rubbish while refusing to watch it!

I think they should teach social history.
Suffragettes
Tolpuddle Martyrs
Corn Law repeal
Right to vote
Changes in working conditions
The Riot Act - Battle of Peterloo

Is that more useful than Agincourt?

A quick response as I am running out of time - I grew up in multicultural britain and for me that is the norm. But i also experienced two schools, first the bonkers "progressive" which basically taught nothing and then a really good private school for a few years, and because of the latter I was able to move out of my poverty upbringing and become a professional, and I worked alongside many people of other cultures who were fantastic professionals - so performance not remotely linked to colour or culture.

Education is important. And I think the proposals to change the curriculum as explained in various links are potentially incredibly damaging. Dire. Beyond dire. It is something I am having to deal with in day to day life frequently with dc as some of the things they are being taught are just nonsense, inaccurate, bs, the opposite of helping children through education.

I can't respond to each of your points but the above is a summary.

It is probably worth you reading the Policy Exchange report because it is really interesting.

My DDs both did chronological history 1066-~1965 during KS3 at school.

I think flapping about who built Stonehenge is fruitless as the archaeological record can only tell you so much. (I'm a prehistoric archaeologist by training though not working in the field).

What we do know is that when we look through contemporary eyes, we are likely to grossly underestimate what humans were capable of in the past. We have evidence of successful trepanning surgery carried out in ancient Egypt. Yes, I imagine their survival rate was not great - but they knew the technique had the potential to heal and they used it successfully and intentionally.

We have evidence of very long distance trade going back as far as the early Neolithic. Who is to say that people from Africa did not travel widely and settle in Europe? It is by no means impossible that there would have been a smattering of black people among those who built Stonehenge. Screaming 'woke' when someone mentions that is just plain ridiculous.

My DC both studied History at GCSE and A level. They enjoyed parts of it (WW1, Witches), were less interested in other parts (James, Noarmans) and would both have liked to see more links in the curriculum to what was going on in the wider world. They found much of it to be very UK centred. An insular curriculum will not help anyone - we're seen where insular thinking has led the UK recently and it isn't good.

History teacher. So, re: the video:

The ex-headmaster hasn't actually read the book he's commenting on. Generally, as a historian, if we're going to look at a source like, oh I don't know, a text, we actually read it rather than imagine what it might say.

Decolonising the curriculum doesn't mean that you 'forget everything that happened in the 100s and 100s of years before [empire]'. It's not possible because otherwise you can't explain empire.

More worryingly, the two people in the video don't seem to know their history. 43AD Romans (lot of evidence of international migration across that particular empire that filtered into Britain) and they gave us our name, i.e. Britannia. The Anglo-Saxons (so also not Britons) are a bunch of Jutes, Angles and Saxons (oddly enough) who invade once the Romans leave, and they're followed by the Norse crowd who are basically Danes of one description or another - often (mis)known as Vikings. These people establish Dane Law (you know, what with them being Danes) in huge swathes of England until this is wiped out by William Duke of Normandy (1066 and all that). Last time I looked, Normandy was still in France. So that's got us 1,000 years with most of our leaders not even able to speak English ... And to the Tudors (mercantilism > beginnings of empire > industrial revolution). There's literally no part of this history where I can point to 'British' being the dominant culture.

Those 'medieval churches' he's going on about are Norman churches. Most of our laws (whether it's the common law tradition of Dane Law or the statute tradition of Feudal law) are imported. All the archaeological evidence points towards large scale movements of people across continents - for example, the 'ivory bangle lady' (black Roman in York circa 350AD) or John Blanke (black musician in Henry VIII's court) or Francis Barber (black man who incidentally invented the idea of the English dictionary with Samuel Johnson and helped write the damn thing - 1755).

"Research by Policy Exchange has found that amongst PGCSE programmes analysed, trainees receive on average just 17.8 days of subject specific training over the course of a yearlong programme. This means that too many new teachers lack the subject specific pedagogical knowledge to critically evaluate training and resources and ensure their teaching remains impartial."

Firstly, Policy Exchange was founded by a Conservative MP and the Daily Telegraph reports that it's the largest, most influential think tank of the right. They exist to advance the policies of the right. They're not a neutral source of information.

Secondly, why would you need more than 17.8 days of subject specific training on a PGCE? I spent 3 years doing an undergrad in history (I got a First) and a year doing a Masters in history (I got a Distinction). I already have 4 years of subject specific training. Isn't that enough?

You'll then notice the clever sleight of hand: 'This means that too many new teachers lack of the subject specific pedagogical knowledge ...' But they've not said how many days were spent training 'pedagogical knowledge'. You think it's 17.8, but that refers to subject specific training (i.e. history) not pedagogical knowledge (i.e. how to teach). Obviously, as someone who studies sources closely, I can see where they've tried to twist the evidence so that it matches the message they want to convey. And this is exactly what we teach in our 'woke' curriculum: 1) What's the source? 2) Who made it? When? Where? Because this will reveal the bias. 3) Why was the source made? To inform? To persuade? Once us 'woke' teachers have got the kids to figure this out, they'll be able to see that a right wing think tank is trying to influence education for their own ends.

^^ In other words, it's unsubstantiated opinion, using twisted facts, to try and create a narrative designed to attack the discipline.

If you were one of my students, I'd be worried that your approach would barely scrape you a pass at GCSE.

That is what wiki says, but they say they are independent and they are extremely clear and factual with their methodology, and comprehensive.

I am a traditional left winger along the lines of the tony benn type. We no longer have left vs right in any real sense, however, we have extreme liberal vs not extreme liberal ranging from left to right. So a lot of trad left and liberal people are objecting to what is being done by the extreme liberals.

Oh dear more gaslighting and rudeness.

There was one post I really wanted to reply to but I cannot find it. Someone said that they were 50 and that the history they learned was also limited. This is a really important point because the progressive ideas started in the 60s and 70s and yes indeed the history you learned might well have been influenced by this - extreme liberalism has been floating around for decades, ebbing and flowing in influence. Currently very dominant. This is analysed in the policy exchange report, they look at what was done in the 60s 70s and then into the 80s and beyond. It is really interesting and worth reading.

Someone also asked "which curriculum" and getting annoyed that I hadn't specified but in fact this is happening in many jurisdictions, I am aware of it happening in at least one mainland european country for sure and likely in many others.

I have to go now but will check back at some point.

Translated: Oh dear, an actual subject expert with a Master's and a teaching qualification disagrees with me. Better dismiss them with a cheap insult.

The history teaching my DD's received in secondary school in the 2010s was in my opinion far superior to that which I received in the 1980s.

The consideration of sources, bias etc.
The chronological approach in KS3.
The focus on cause and effect rather than lists of random dates.

One more post I wanted to reply to - asking "but which version of history do you teach" - in fact, the answer is all versions - teach the facts where there are well-established facts and also teach the various interpretations and versions - or at least make children aware that there are always going to be conflicting versions.

Cutting out chunks of history and teaching in only one subjective inclusive way is not helpful. same for other subjects.

@nycortaki Forgive me for quoting only a section of your post above.

“The other thing which jumped out at me which at first glance is relevant to diversity and inclusiveness at first look is that around 40 percent of 16 year olds do not reach the required level 3 and 15 percent of 16 years do not reach the required level for level 2. And if you look at the report in relation to level 2 it says that around 60 percent do achieve the required level - which is celebrated as it is rising - but this is basically the same thing - so it looks like the children who are being failed at level 2 do not catch up through senior - and the report then looks at them catching up 16 - 19 years but surely our focus should be on meeting their needs during level 3?”

In England,
Entry Level is of a standard taught in Years 7-9
Level 1 is GCSE attainment at Grades 1-5
Level 2 is GCSE attainment at Grades 6-9
Level 3 is A level or equivalent qualification.

These are not “required” levels, they are descriptive. Pupils who are not achieving at Level 2 are not necessarily “being failed”.

Taken to a ridiculous extreme, that idea would indicate that every pupil, with enough time and perfect teaching, could end up with a PhD.

'Cutting out chunks of history'

You can't teach all history, there is too much.
So you have to hit the highlights with deep dives into some topics.

Is that all you’ve got? How about going through each of the points raised?

because there are supporting minority activist groups which are heavily funded

@nycortaki which heavily-funded minority activist groups do you have in mind here, and who do you believe are funding them?

I was just checking my posts and this was written in such a rush it needs editing to make sense so below is the edited version:

For people new to this, I think that this article gives a pretty good summary of the issues around history

https://taarifa.rw/britains-teachers-demand-black-history-added-to-national-curriculum/

Looking at the Government Interim Report similar and other diversity and inclusiveness issues arise re all other subjects. However, they are referred to in very wishywashy ways and so it is difficult to know exactly what the intention is.

The Interim Report is in fact more in support of the status quo and is more sensible than I had thought which is really good but there are bits of pushing for vague changes over diversity and inclusiveness which are all to be looked at in the next stage, so the devil will be in that detail.

Incidentally when I was looking at Policy Exchange I noticed that they had done a paper on diversity which is worth looking at.

The other thing which jumped out at me which at first glance is NOT relevant to diversity and inclusiveness is that around 40 percent of 16 year olds do not reach the required level of level 3 in the core subjects of maths and english, and 15 percent of those 16 year olds do not reach the required level for level 2 (ie 16 year olds not meeting the level set for 11 year olds). If you look at the report in relation to level 2, it says that around 60 percent of 11 year olds achieve the required level - and so broadly the same percentage failing at level 2 at 11 years as are failing at level 3 at 16 years. So they are not being helped to catch up.

The report then looks at ways to help them catch up during 16 - 19 years. But surely far more emphasis should be placed on finding ways to help them catch up during level 3 (ages 11 - 16)? This would help them as individuals enormously, and would be far better than trying to patch things up at 19. And it would improve the general situation in the classes for all children and teachers as it would hopefully encourage and motivate the chidren to engage better. I really think that this should get far more focus.

I said at first glance, because you then learn that the group failing at level 3 are mainly from SEN and low socio ec groups... and it is reported in the articile I linked that asian and black children are out performing whites in schools... and so it might be that this group is predominantly white. And if so ensuring inclusiveness is in fact relevant to white children and again that focus is entirely lacking in the activism around inclusiveness. I personally don't think the activism around culture is helpful or productive as there are better ways to ensure inclusivity, but if it exists it should be balanced and relate to all cultures not just some.

Hope that is clearer.

How is the post gaslighting you?

I have watched the first minute or so of the video and read the Brilliant Book of Black British history. Which appears to be more than either you or the head teacher being interviewed in the video have.

If you all gad you would know that:
1 - the book doesn’t claim Stonehenge was built by black people. It claims it was built by brown people who settled later than the black people already here (but before the later settling white people)
2 - that claim is backed by DNA evidence, Atinuke didn’t just pull it out of his arse. The best scientists and historians have explored it.

Frankly, this is as far as I got. I don’t see the point in carrying on with the video. I don’t personally identify as woke or extreme liberal but I’d that’s a synonym for being open minded and checking facts before making an argument I’m happy to. You should try it sometime OP.

taarifa dot rw appears to be a Rwanda news site. Have you checked the quality of your source there?

This is an interesting point. The English history curriculum is extremely English focused especially in KS3. That’s not necessarily the case in other countries where the curriculum is broader.

Gove was heavily influenced by Hirsch’s core knowledge. The history in that is split 50% world history 50% US history. Largely because its goal is to develop well rounded knowledge rather than some sort of jingoistic nonsense the likes of Hartley-Brewer would like. When Civitas (another right wing think tank) brought out a U.K. version they cut the world history almost entirely except for Greeks and Egyptians.