So, istead of whining about how tests are 'traumatic' for youngsters, Ofted (the body supposed to uphold educational standards in the UK) has decided to make a valid point about the teaching of history in British schools. From personal experience I can definitely say that the Empire is not taught sufficiently (or at all) in schools. The only two subjects I have studied (at school, at any rate) from the period 1750-1900 are the Industrial revolution and slavery.
Now, the industrial revolution is a very important part of history. But it was taught with no historical context and with the simplest details repeated over and over. And the slavery section was even worse; virtually all that was done was the Middle Passage and some stuff about the life of slaves in the West Indies and America. Nothing about the abolition movement (except in the vaguest sense) and nothing about the long campaigns against the slave trade and slavery itself waged by (primarily) the British Empire.
From what I can see, there are two factors at work here. The first is the politicisation (sp?) of teaching. For too long it had been regarded as politically incorrect or insensitive to teach issues that may be slightly controversial. The British Empire is perhaps the area of history that has suffered most from this; a surprising number of people still believe the hackneyed and out of date view that the Empire was universally a 'bad thing'. I believe it is necessary to teach children about the history of their particular country. The empire was, I think you'll all admit, a pretty important part of that history. I don't think anything is achieved by covering it up for silly political reasons.
Secondly, history teaching is neglected in schools. One hour a week in yeras 7-9 (11-14 years old) is simply not enough. Granted, other subjects are probably as important, especially the 'core subjects' of maths, English and science. But 30-odd years ago it was not uncommon for 2-3 hours (or even more) per week to be spent on history. I really do feel that more time should be spent on teaching history. RE and IT lessons could be cut back to start with (noone ever learned anything in an IT lesson below GNVQ or A-level standard). The only reason RE is even studied is because it is a statutory requirement. Most of the content could be covered in a more relevant and interesting way through history anyway.
Historical study and knowledge provides people with a vital sense of identity, as well as helping them to understand what is going on in the world around them. In addition, the analytical skills gained are incredibly useful in all sorts of careers. Finally, it's nice just to know stuff. Perhaps the best example of the way in which general historical knowledge has declined comes from an Indian tattoo parlour of all places. In World War 2 Imperial forces were stationed in India to guard against the Japenese and, ultimately, to liberate Burma. One of the most popular tattoos among these troops bore the writing 'Cawnpore Well', a reference to the massacre at cawnpore during the Indian Mutiny. That British and Commonwealth enlisted men, not exactly renowned (then or now) for their studious nature, knew the significance of this shows a dramatic difference to the situation today, where hardly anyone (of my age (18) anyway) would even know there was an Indian mutiny.
I'll let you all post any opinions while I go and calm down...
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh, well. If it's about the British Empire, then feel free continue.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
It�s been my experience that people like the myth of history rather than the reality of history. Since history is based on interpretation of events, often those who challenge commonly held myth history are viewed as revisionist historians come to destroy treasured traditions.
Deeply held cherished traditions are hard to change. Culture, and the traditions it engenders, shape popular perceptions even when based on myth. I would argue that societal elites tend to use popular misconceptions of historical events to their advantage to harden class roles and to consolidate social and political power.
My advice is don�t tear your hair out about it.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think they should teach a semester on British history with UK tectbooks....followed by a semester using history books from India.
Just to see what the viewpoint diffrene is on the "Empire".
Same with the US: there should be lessons taught from Native American texts....not that they have any, but you get the idea.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I think they should teach a semester on British history with UK tectbooks(sic.)....followed by a semester using history books from India.
That should be a fun semester, assuming they don't translate the textbooks
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Same with the US: there should be lessons taught from Native American texts....not that they have any, but you get the idea.
I agree wholeheartedly.
However, I seem to recall the uproar that happened not so very long ago when historians tried to move some of the focus off of the �Great White Men" and onto the often overlooked "others" that make up the historical narrative.
Such change will be a painfully slow process and will not happen soon because the focus of American education is well away from the humanities and on to teaching toward standardized tests.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The hour a week is only for the years when it's compulsory. Obviously it's more for GCSE and A-level. At the risk of sounding like a hard-right tory, I think at least some of the reason for the minimalisation of history in British schools is the (notorious) left wing domination of the teaching profession.
quote: It�s been my experience that people like the myth of history rather than the reality of history. Since history is based on interpretation of events, often those who challenge commonly held myth history are viewed as revisionist historians come to destroy treasured traditions.
Quite right. Obviously it is difficult to teach the most up to date research in schools but not teaching something for predominantly political reasons is blatently wrong. Especially when it's such an important period of history. Imagine the American West was no longer taught in the US. I know some people are having a hard time accepting new views of World War one and the Empire in particular.
quote: I think they should teach a semester on British history with UK tectbooks....followed by a semester using history books from India
Leaving aside the fun of 18th century geo-politics in Hindi... Most UK textbooks on other subjects (the only ones I've seen) do take a multi-view point approach that is commendable. The American West texbooks were particularly good at this, despite the relative lack of native American primary sources. I do know that some of the Indian stuff has been hijacked for political purposes in some of the states though; I read about one 'historian' who claimed that the Black Hole of Calcutta never happened and was just an excuse for whites to take over the subcontinent.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
We were taught about many of the more shameful aspects of how the Native Americans were treated (the Trail of Tears in particular) but theres no real teaching about how other cultures view the world (even in World History classes).
There just is no time for teachers to teach it: not with all the standardization (FCAT here in Florida) and the focus is always on topics that will be addressed on the ACT/SAT.
All many kids see of other cultures is what's represented (oftem stereotypically) on TV.
I'd love to hve learned about the beginings of the first civiliazitions in China and the middle-east.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I got a chance to dive deeper in that regard last year, brushing up on my history. The migrations and events of southern europe (especially greece) up until Alexander Teh Great, very interesting.
I was able to take a philosophy-class at the same time, which started with the greeks as well, the pre-socratians and whatnot. So the two classes kept a nice parallel pace.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, but I do think the history of the country it's being taught in should be taught first and is, in some ways, slightly more important, at least in the first few years of secondary school. After that there should be more of a balence. My A-level corse was split between Tudor England and Soviet Russia for example.
Of course, teaching the Empire would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: ...RE and IT lessons could be cut back to start with...
So call me an undereducated American, but what are these specifically? I see IT and think 'Information Technology', but that's because I am a geek and have no social life.
I loathed history at the end of high school (Ages: 13-18) as our teacher basically pressed us through a chapter a week of primarily US History with memorization of names and dates (followed closely by forgetting) with little consideration/context of just how cool history can be. The History Channel is now one of my favorite things on TV. It's an inherently interesting subject, I just think that so often it is taught unimaginatively and incorrectly. And one hour a week just seems criminal.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:My A-level corse was split between Tudor England and Soviet Russia for example.
Aren't they one in the same?
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yep. Great, eh? Although you're supposed to start specialising from year 10 onwards; GCSE English, Maths, Science and RE are compulsory, you also have to do a technology and a language (usually French or German but some schools offer Spanish). When I did my GCSEs IT was compulsory as well. Ultimately I was limited to two actual choices and took history and geography. A/S level you get to choose four or five subjects and then carry on three or four to A level.
quote: So call me an undereducated American, but what are these specifically? I see IT and think 'Information Technology', but that's because I am a geek and have no social life
IT is information technology. The problem is, before A/S level (Year 12/lower 6th form/16-17 years old) you basically learn how to use word and excel and stuff like that. I have never taken an IT lesson where I didn't already know haow to do the stuff we were being 'taught'. Same goes for pretty much everyone else I know.
RE is Religious Education which these days means a brief swing through the major faiths in years 7-9 then Islam and Christian Ethics (not PC to teach straight Christianity anymore- insert your own jokes) in years 10-11. Just about the only reason people do it is because it's compulsory. And easy.
I think these two subjects could be collapsed into an alternating one hour slot per week and the extra hour given to history.
There was a very good article in the Telegraph today but it's not on the web site yet; I'll post it when it is.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
