Guaranteed timetabling and recognition of its success is what the subject needs now
In his article, Niall Ferguson claims that "history has never been so unpopular in British schools" ('Reduced to odds and sods', Education, 29 March). But he jumbles opinion with evidence, fails to identify cause and misinterprets consequence. I work with history teachers and trainees in the UK and across Europe and have taught in high-performing and highly challenging schools ? I know the field and the evidence.
History teaching in Britain is popular, is often excellent, and is regarded as a model of good practice abroad. Our teachers and teacher trainers are in demand elsewhere to share our success.
Ferguson (incorrectly) notes that "England is the only country in Europe where history is not compulsory for students beyond the age of 14" (he means Britain). This is regrettable but true. When the Conservatives introduced the national curriculum they stepped back from regulating the entire state school curriculum.
But Ferguson's claim that "history has never been so unpopular" is unsupportable. The major problem is that history, despite being consistently well taught and successful, does not get enough time in schools. Pressure to tackle literacy and achieve GCSE targets has eroded the history curriculum. Introducing flawed, dull "literacy" lessons took time from history (and other arts subjects) and ignored history's ability to develop literacy, knowledge, skills and understanding in context. Vapid, bland "learning to learn" courses or humanities frameworks stole more time, with the robbery completed by pressure to accelerate GCSE, and launch courses at 13, not 14. The fact that most pupils get 38 hours of history a year aged 11-13, and that some pupils get considerably less, is a regrettable but easily addressed timetabling decision ? it is not due to failing in a beauty contest.
The survival of such good history teaching is a remarkable success against the odds. History is seen as a "hard" subject but total exam entries at 16 have not significantly changed over decades. Young people want to study history, numbers progressing to university remain high, and postgrad history teacher training is massively oversubscribed.
We should be surprised that so many still do history ? and so well ? given the pressures on the subject. A guaranteed place in the timetable and a celebration of our success is what is needed. The professor has the wrong targets in his sights.
The education secretary, Michael Gove, wants all schools to be academies ? but academies need not follow the national curriculum, they have the lowest level of GCSE history uptake, and some do not offer it at all.
Inconvenient facts remain uncomfortable truths: good historians know this and do not seek to bend or deny widely based evidence. History teachers need curriculum time, not bluster.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/06/history-teaching-schools-niall-ferguson
Dennis Hastert Vaclav Havel John Howard Mike Huckabee Saddam Hussein
No comments:
Post a Comment