I see, today, that all secondary school students in the UK will have to study 'Britain's involvement in the slave-trade', as from September.
Now, to be clear, i'm not claiming this as a case of 'political correctness gone mad', but this thread did seem like a good place to discuss the politicisation of education. My point being that i was - and am - a bit of a history buff. Whenever given the options at GCSE, A-Level, Degree and postgraduate level, i've opted to study subjects which would be broadly classifiable as a) Historical and b) British-based. What troubles me is that even after A-levels (and i wasn't a bad student) i still had no broad conception of British History. There were swathes of it that had never been mentioned. Even taken as a greatest hits (and misses) of the British, there were gaping holes in my knowledge which i've since been making an effort to plug. I have enough experience to compare my own historical education with adults of comparable age and education in at least two other countries: South Korea and the United States, and i've got to say that our system is a bit of a mess. Both, in fact, deliver what we do not: a broad-scope idea of history - as it pertains to their own country. Now, i'd take the criticism - from any with comparable experience - that both these countries don't 'do' international well-enough (esp. the US), but they push out students with an understanding of the history of ideas, systems, things, places, and people that they are most likely to encounter. We focus on 'study skills' where frankly - most people will never apply these to any great degree and be left with no information on which to exercise these skills.
It strikes me - and i know UK teachers today who support the view - that we impart no historical unity - no grand narratives - just a succession of isolated parts which someone - for political reasons - has dubbed 'most important. I'm no whig, but if i were asked to make suggestions as to the shape of a syllabus it would probably aim at explaining the key steps that have been taken historically to explain where Britain and Britons find themselves today: 1066 and all that? Well, to some extent, perhaps.
Apparently, the only compulsory secondary-level subjects at the moment are: British Empire, two world wars and the Holocaust.
As to what 'British Empire' will cover, I'm not sure - though, loosely-speaking it's a very important area...
I was listening to a debate on Radio 4 the other day and the apologist for the current mess was explaining that - across the range of subjects - the focus is and should be skills and not 'knowledge'. I wasn't entirely sure where to start with a critique of this (there are so many choices) but the list would run fairly long.
Sorry if this is slightly meandering; had a few last-night...
The one thing i would say that seems to have changed [for the better] - and seems to be covered very well, is local history.
Edit: i'd be very interested to hear thoughts from teachers.
Now, to be clear, i'm not claiming this as a case of 'political correctness gone mad', but this thread did seem like a good place to discuss the politicisation of education. My point being that i was - and am - a bit of a history buff. Whenever given the options at GCSE, A-Level, Degree and postgraduate level, i've opted to study subjects which would be broadly classifiable as a) Historical and b) British-based. What troubles me is that even after A-levels (and i wasn't a bad student) i still had no broad conception of British History. There were swathes of it that had never been mentioned. Even taken as a greatest hits (and misses) of the British, there were gaping holes in my knowledge which i've since been making an effort to plug. I have enough experience to compare my own historical education with adults of comparable age and education in at least two other countries: South Korea and the United States, and i've got to say that our system is a bit of a mess. Both, in fact, deliver what we do not: a broad-scope idea of history - as it pertains to their own country. Now, i'd take the criticism - from any with comparable experience - that both these countries don't 'do' international well-enough (esp. the US), but they push out students with an understanding of the history of ideas, systems, things, places, and people that they are most likely to encounter. We focus on 'study skills' where frankly - most people will never apply these to any great degree and be left with no information on which to exercise these skills.
It strikes me - and i know UK teachers today who support the view - that we impart no historical unity - no grand narratives - just a succession of isolated parts which someone - for political reasons - has dubbed 'most important. I'm no whig, but if i were asked to make suggestions as to the shape of a syllabus it would probably aim at explaining the key steps that have been taken historically to explain where Britain and Britons find themselves today: 1066 and all that? Well, to some extent, perhaps.
Apparently, the only compulsory secondary-level subjects at the moment are: British Empire, two world wars and the Holocaust.
As to what 'British Empire' will cover, I'm not sure - though, loosely-speaking it's a very important area...
I was listening to a debate on Radio 4 the other day and the apologist for the current mess was explaining that - across the range of subjects - the focus is and should be skills and not 'knowledge'. I wasn't entirely sure where to start with a critique of this (there are so many choices) but the list would run fairly long.
Sorry if this is slightly meandering; had a few last-night...
The one thing i would say that seems to have changed [for the better] - and seems to be covered very well, is local history.
Edit: i'd be very interested to hear thoughts from teachers.