[Beekeeper]

The First Reading of the following Bill will halt at 7pm on the night of 25 January (24 hours)

Education Reform Bill 2006

A Bill that makes the studying of History, compulsory in all state schools up to and including Key Stage Four.
Private Members Bill: Ossie1707 (Liberal Democrats)

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

• Students aged 11-16 (Key Stages 3 and 4) will have one History lesson per week.
• This should include elements of mainly British History, but will also include a range of History including that of Europe, World, gender and ethnic Histories. A complementary study of British Politics could also form part of this weekly programme.
• The History studying should be diverse and range across the spectrum of History and not necessarily concentrate upon 20th Century History.
• Pupils do not have to be working for a General Certificate of Secondary in History or equivalent qualification.
• The weekly History lessons should form part of the pupil’s social and personal development, giving them a better understanding of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
• These could replace any citizenship/PSE (Personal and Social Education) lessons that the pupils may be currently receiving – this again is at the discretion of the school.
• The lessons should be implemented by the start of the academic year 2006/7.

[RK]

Several points I would like to make:

While it would be nice to have people studying history up to the age of 16, it appears the current Bill would allow schools to in fact cut the number of hours history is taught for each week. Many schools currently teacher an average of two hours of history a week at KS3, this Bill will mean they only have to teach 1 hour.

Politics 'could' form part of the weekly programme...at what expense if it does? Will it cut out certain periods of history? Who will decide where or not to include politics? What if the specification content cut to allow politics results in missing out one of those areas identified earlier in the same paragraph.

Also, including all those elements/areas in anything other than the briefest of details will be near impossible in just one hour a week. Current history teaching is tough enough at the moment to get enough topics in and then to cover them in enough detail for pupils to see the relevance to the modern day and their place within wider history.

So surely all the Bill will do is skim over most areas leaving pupils with no real knowledge or understanding. I feel that depth and understanding of several major topics is better than a glance at all sorts of different things.

Citizenship is a vital part of all pupils education and has a National Curriculum content which is already so vast that it is hard to find the time in the timetable to fit it all in. Already most teacher of other subjects are encouraged to include aspects of citizenship within their own lessons to try to cover all areas.

This Bill appears to neglect the importance of citizenship and doesn't appreciate the breadth of the areas it covers.

If the Bill as to be implemented, it would leave some students missing vital aspects of citizenship in their education (with them only focusing on 'understanding of the UK) while others would have to cut other subjects from their time table, post 14, in order to fit both an lesson of citizenship in as well as the history.

Also, what if the person is doing GCSE history? Will they be required to do this extra history lesson also? If not and if the school chooses to replace citizenship with history then where will these pupils get their citizenship education from? The exam boards are not required by the Bill to change their history specifications to 'fit' with the new history ideas the Bill lays out. So the Bill is essentially going to fail some pupils on delivering to them important aspects of their education.

Also, planning for the Bill to come into effect in the 2006/07 year would be too soon. Already schools are planning for that year. To make dramatic changes like this on such short notice is preposterous. It will leave schools with either too many or too few history teachers, it will leave them with no time to even think about never mind prepare syllabuses for the new history lessons ~(which are extremely far detached from anything we have now). There will be no resources or textbooks prepared by outside sources for use in school, meaning already under-prepared teachers (due to the short notice) will essentially left alone to teach many new areas (often not in which they are trained or have much knowledge). This will surely lead to undue pressures on the teachers and schools and result in a poorer education for all pupils involved.

[Ossie1701]

With regards to the bill being too soon, now that I think about it, yes I do agree, it will not give enough time for change.
But, on the topic of Citizenship, the majority of teachers I have spoken to, as well as pupils (and I am not making this up) seem to feel, as do most politicians, that it is a waste of time. The idea of this Bill was to raise some respect in pupils of society via History, rather than citizenship lessons, which have little or no effect - You cannot teach someone how to be a 'good citizen', but, via History - you could allow students to have a fully understanding of the society they live in - and thereby create some form of respect for it.

--------------

Also, the fact that it is one hour a week (minimum) is to try and help, I can appreciate that there are timetable constraints - but I do believe that one hour learning about History is better spent than one hour a week in citizenship lessons - which, most schools either totally ignore: For instance, I have read about students actually doing crosswords etc. during these periods - surely these periods could be better spent having even a 'brief' over view of History?!

[JonathanH]

You didn't put 'minimum' in the Bill.

"Students aged 11-16 (Key Stages 3 and 4) will have one History lesson per week."

Will have one. Makes it sound like no more, no less.


Furthermore, who defines how long a lesson is? I know at my school a single lesson was only about 40minutes, but at other schools it is longer or shorter. Surely it should be done, to some extent, by time?

[Ossie1701]

Ah, I see, that was a typographical error - I will make several minor changes to the bill, but I still believe that the fundamental idea of the bill is good - Citizenship is new, and by all standards, is useless - you cannot teach someone to be a good citizen - that is done by the parents/guardians of the child and by the way they have been taught/environment.

[Ossie1701]

No, I do not think the Government should say how long a lesson is, that is a school's perogative - But, I believe that some minor reforms should be made to the bill:

(i) The Act is implemented in the academic year 2007/8.
(ii) It is a 'minimum' of one lesson per week.
(iii) Politics will not form part of the Bill.

** With regards to the number of teachers with a PGCE in History (or politics) according to recent figures, there are in fact too many (i.e. not enough spaces for teachers)! So I do not believe a shortage of teachers is a likelyhood in History.

--------------

If you increase the 'minimum' number of lessons a week to two, for example, you run the risk of blocking up the time table with History - one lesson a week should be enough for pupils doing a short-course in GCSE History, if they wanted to. Two lessons a week may be too much.

[Beekeeper]

Please note that no amendments will be made unless you PM me the entire, edited Bill yourself.

[randdom]

There are many problems that I see with this bill, most of them have mentioned by Robert Kirk. However the aspect that I am worried about is where you say that these history lessons would resplace PSE lessons. PSE fills a very important part of education it covers sex education, drug education and citizenship. If that one hour has been taken up with this extra history lesson where would these things (which in my oppinion are more important) fit in?

[Ossie1701]

ok, no problem Beekeeper.

[Stikatoo]

What is the current system with regards to history teaching? I used to have 4 lessons a week, or so. So I cannot see the logic in cutting this down to one in schools.

(Original post by Roger Kirk)
Several points I would like to make:

While it would be nice to have people studying history up to the age of 16, it appears the current Bill would allow schools to in fact cut the number of hours history is taught for each week. Many schools currently teacher an average of two hours of history a week at KS3, this Bill will mean they only have to teach 1 hour.

One lesson does not necesserily equal one hour. Surely a time constraint would be better than the rather ambiguous '1 lesson' proposal?

(Original post by Roger Kirk)
Citizenship is a vital part of all pupils education and has a National Curriculum content which is already so vast that it is hard to find the time in the timetable to fit it all in. Already most teacher of other subjects are encouraged to include aspects of citizenship within their own lessons to try to cover all areas.

This Bill appears to neglect the importance of citizenship and doesn't appreciate the breadth of the areas it covers.

If the Bill as to be implemented, it would leave some students missing vital aspects of citizenship in their education (with them only focusing on 'understanding of the UK) while others would have to cut other subjects from their time table, post 14, in order to fit both an lesson of citizenship in as well as the history.

You seem to be neglecting the fact that many schools do not actually do citizenship at all.

I disagree anyway. Citizenship is often regarded as a 'doss' subject in schools and very few students seem to take it seriously. I think that history is far more important.

I have never had a citizenship lesson and yet represent the BNP.

(Original post by Roger Kirk)
Also, what if the person is doing GCSE history? Will they be required to do this extra history lesson also? If not and if the school chooses to replace citizenship with history then where will these pupils get their citizenship education from? The exam boards are not required by the Bill to change their history specifications to 'fit' with the new history ideas the Bill lays out. So the Bill is essentially going to fail some pupils on delivering to them important aspects of their education.

The exam boards have already written next year's exams in most cases so it couldn't be implemented 06/07 year (as you pointed out), but I think that in subsequent years the boards would change their exams to fit the bill - it seems absurd that they would not do so.

[Ossie1701]

Sex Education is often taught in Science lessons, as often, is Drug education - this will not place extra pressure on science teachers, as it is already part of many GCSE courses. It is also often covered in KS3, so I do not see an issue being raised with that.

Again, as I said before, I do not believe that the teaching of citizenship is valid to the education of pupils. It was introduced, in 2002 and so I do not believe that its withdrawl, if the school chooses to, will have much effect on the NC or a childs education.

As the above right honourable gentlement said, it is often regarded as a 'doss' subject - which, to some extent is true.

[RK]

(Original post by Stikatoo)
You seem to be neglecting the fact that many schools do not actually do citizenship at all.

I disagree anyway. Citizenship is often regarded as a 'doss' subject in schools and very few students seem to take it seriously. I think that history is far more important.

I have never had a citizenship lesson and yet represent the BNP.

All schools are required by law to cover citizenship. It is part of the national curriculum. All schools will teach it in one form or another, alongside PSHE (Personal, social and health education) which is a different from citizenship and cover, but is not exclusive to the religious education, sex education and often careers education elements of the National curriculum. These lessons may not be in separate timetabled lessons, but may well be at other times such as form time or other lessons. In such schools with not timetables PSHCE lesson, the implementation of the history lesson each week would result in some other lesson being cut from the timetable.Whcih subject deserves to have time for a change such as this? Shall it be maths (nope as apparently our children are bad enough with numbers) , English perhaps? (nope again as literacy is meant to be poor). What about PE ? (nope, as it helps fight obesity). The list could go on. The truth of the matter is that even if citizenship and PSHE was expendable, some schools don't teach it separately and so would find it hard to time table the history.

But anyway, even the fact that citizenship might be considered a doss subject doesn't mean it's worthless. It does in fact cover many different topics which many people wouldn't otherwise spent time becoming aware of. Just because the attitudes towards a subject are bad doesn't meant he subject is worthless. It might equally mean that attitudes towards the subject need to change and with Citizenship and PSHE I've realised that this is the case.

Plus, I do not think that history and citizenship can really be compared as to which is most important. Both have their own reasons why they should be studied. And while they go well together and often overlap on subjects (even if tackled from different directions and with different emphasises) one cannot really be replaced with the other. Both need to be part of most pupils education, certainly at KS3 and below. At KS4 it would be nice to have every student study history, but many do not wish to and many are unable to progress any further in their skills and knowledge after KS3, so it would be futile. On the other hand, citizenship and PSHE is such a vast subject that by the end of KS3 no pupils can really have covered the syllabus in enough detail and understanding to say they should drop the subject.

[gideon2000uk]

Whilst I agree with the general tone of the bill, I do not feel it is actually appropriate to force people to take Histroy as a discipline if they do not want to. This party, of which i am a member has a history of standing up for liberty. The liberty of schools, parents and pupils.

I would urge members to take this bill on board, but it must surely be rejected as yet another state interference in setting the curriculum of schools.

Surely, it would be better to have as loose a general curriculum as possible in order to allow schools to specialise in whatever areas they wish. Surely, it is best to extend parental choice in the schools they send their children and surely it is better that children at least have the option of dropping history if they so wish.

I'm for choice. tHis bill is about state control. I might consider drafting my own education bill at some point in fact...

[randdom]

Sex education is often not done correctly in science, it covers the basics but not the emotional side of it how to use contreception etc. Are you really suggesting the valuable time teaching science should be used to teach things that should really covered in PSHE?

[Stikatoo]

(Original post by Roger Kirk)
All schools are required by law to cover citizenship. It is part of the national curriculum. All schools will teach it in one form or another, alongside PSHE (Personal, social and health education) which is a different from citizenship and cover, but is not exclusive to the religious education, sex education and often careers education elements of the National curriculum. These lessons may not be in separate timetabled lessons, but may well be at other times such as form time or other lessons. In such schools with not timetables PSHCE lesson, the implementation of the history lesson each week would result in some other lesson being cut from the timetable.Whcih subject deserves to have time for a change such as this? Shall it be maths (nope as apparently our children are bad enough with numbers) , English perhaps? (nope again as literacy is meant to be poor). What about PE ? (nope, as it helps fight obesity). The list could go on. The truth of the matter is that even if citizenship and PSHE was expendable, some schools don't teach it separately and so would find it hard to time table the history.

But anyway, even the fact that citizenship might be considered a doss subject doesn't mean it's worthless. It does in fact cover many different topics which many people wouldn't otherwise spent time becoming aware of. Just because the attitudes towards a subject are bad doesn't meant he subject is worthless. It might equally mean that attitudes towards the subject need to change and with Citizenship and PSHE I've realised that this is the case.

No subject should be dropped to make room for citizenship because it's utterly useless. It's all very well and good saying that attitudes should change, but, as with any compulsery non-examined subject, I think this is impossible. If students know that what they do in the lessons will have no effect on them then why should they sit there and actually listen?

Plus, I do not think that history and citizenship can really be compared as to which is most important. Both have their own reasons why they should be studied. And while they go well together and often overlap on subjects (even if tackled from different directions and with different emphasises) one cannot really be replaced with the other. Both need to be part of most pupils education, certainly at KS3 and below. At KS4 it would be nice to have every student study history, but many do not wish to and many are unable to progress any further in their skills and knowledge after KS3, so it would be futile. On the other hand, citizenship and PSHE is such a vast subject that by the end of KS3 no pupils can really have covered the syllabus in enough detail and understanding to say they should drop the subject.

History is very important:

"The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes"

Whereas I fail to see the worth of citizenship because it appears to be yet more multicultural PC brainwashing which is not needed. In fact, rather than citizenship lessons why not just teach children to have more respect for this country in different ways? Such as flying the flag and being proud, not ashamed, of being British!

I think that drug/sex education are important but they do not fall into citizenship.

(Original post by Ossie1701)
As the above right honourable gentlemen said, it is often regarded as a 'doss' subject - which, to some extent is true.

*cough*

[Ossie1701]

I am sorry to tell you this, but as late as 2004, and at the moment (my brother is at a state secondary) I can tell you of at least one school that teaches neither PSHE or Citizenship, and they had an OFTSED inspection in January 2004, and tbh passed with flying colours. Also, very few private schools - who lets face it, are much better than state schools (more often than not) teacher citizenship.

I agree there are more worthy subjects, but the point of the bill is not to say 'History is more important than Maths' because it obviously is not. The point is that Mathematics, English, the sciences and Games or physical education are compulsory post 14 -History, which is arguably important to an individuals understanding and pride in their country, is not compulsory. Citizenship was brought in, in 2002 - it is relatively new, and so if it is removed, it will do little, if any damage. The fact that it is viewed at a 'doss' quite rightly shouldn't have an effect on its status, but the fact that pupils view it as such suggests that it is not doing what it is supposed to do!

KS4 it would be nice to have every student study history, but many do not wish to and many are unable to progress any further in their skills and knowledge after KS3, so it would be futile.

You say this, but I would argue, for many students it is a similar situation with English, maths or Science. The idea that pupils are unable to 'progress any further' is not one I am willing to accept. Given the right encouragement and help, any child will improve in any subject. The idea of motivation also comes down to another issue here - a pupil is only as motivated as the teacher - fair enough you get the few exceptions who totally hate a subject, but if the teacher is enthusiastic, then I would be willing to gurantee that the pupil will have more enthasis for the subject.

[RK]

(Original post by Ossie1701)
Sex Education is often taught in Science lessons, as often, is Drug education - this will not place extra pressure on science teachers, as it is already part of many GCSE courses. It is also often covered in KS3, so I do not see an issue being raised with that.

Firstly, it is covered in Biology and not science when they get ot KS4. Not all students study Biology (a significant number may not even do a traditional science in years 10 and 11, but some science related subject)- these pupils would not cover drugs and sex education beyond KS3. But both are subjects which need to be returned to as pupils themselves develop. I mean most pupils cover sex education in some sort at primary school. Why don't we say we should never return to the subject beyond primary school as they've already covered the work.

That aside, the sex and drugs education is tackled in an entirely different way in science lessons than it is in PSHCE lessons. Sitting through one of each, a science lesson will take on a scientific view, describing things and explaining what occurs.

The PSHCE lesson looks more at the effects sex and drugs have on you a s a person, on your life and on your relationships. Making science teachers cover these aspects is creating an addition to their work load and making them teach something for which they are not trained for.

Again, as I said before, I do not believe that the teaching of citizenship is valid to the education of pupils. It was introduced, in 2002 and so I do not believe that its withdrawal, if the school chooses to, will have much effect on the NC or a child's education.

As the above right honourable gentlement said, it is often regarded as a 'doss' subject - which, to some extent is true.

As I said above, just because something is considered to be a doss subject doesn't make it one and doesn't mean the subject is not available.

And are you asking us to take the word of some pupils doing the subject over that of professionals within the fields of education and social development over whether a subject is important or not? That is what it seems to be you are essentially saying that 'some pupils (and maybe teachers) think citizenship is a doss subject. Therefore it should be removed from the National curriculum despite the fact many professionals looked into our education just a couple of years ago and found we were failing our pupils on providing education in areas currently covered by citizenship.' I cannot go along with such thinking.

EDIT: I would just like to point out that i all my posts in this thread I will normally be referring to PSHE, PSHCE and citizenship all as the same thing, as despite them being different subjects, the initial Bill at one point treated them together jointly and in many schools the provision of both PSHE and citizenship is combined together

[Ossie1701]

(Original post by Stikatoo)

*cough*

Apolgies.

[Ossie1701]

Firstly, it is covered in Biology and not science when they get ot KS4. Not all students study Biology

No, I am sorry - completely wrong. I studied BOTH separate Science Biology and Double Science and the Sex/drug education was on the double science part, so ensuring all students who sit a Science GCSE do learn about drugs and sex. If you do not believe me - visit www.edexcel.org.uk and look under their Science GCSE Module list.

hat aside, the sex and drugs education is tackled in an entirely different way in science lessons than it is in PSHCE lessons.

I agree that a scientific view is different. But, lets be frank - most teachers will cover it in a pretty sameish fashion - i.e. if you drink too much ... if you take this drug .... etc. which is practically the same as science.

And are you asking us to take the word of some pupils doing the subject over that of professionals within the fields of education and social development

Actually, yes. I am sorry, but maybe I am old fashioned but pupils who are actually sitting in the lessons for this subject will know much more about how effective it is than a professor that has just studied it. And, it is ironic, that if the Labour Government is using social development 'experts' - they are showing themselves to be failing - the ASBOs have been more or less useless and are infringements upon human rights.

--------------

Also, it is not just the word of some pupils - many teachers see it as a doss subject - As a trainee teacher I imagine you have read the Independent's Educational Supplement on Thursdays - it is often described in letters in their by parents/teachers and even pupils.

It is seen by most as a useless attempt to invoke some form of respect for society in pupils - and it does not work - all I am suggesting with this Bill - is that History will try and attempt to do what this subject is not doing.

[randdom]

Yes I did the tiny about of sex education that is covered in GCSE science but it didn't even cover contraception. How is that acceptable. In PSHE we covered contraception, the emotional aspects where our local sexual health clinics were and everything you could really think of. All these aspects of sexual health are important and if you take away PSHE then it would make sense that you would have to add extra time in science to cover things which really aren't a science topic.