Gove's 'Anglocentric' History Curriculum

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/16/historians-gove-curriculum

The education secretary is attempting to introduce rigour and coherence into history teaching. His proposed new curriculum has a major focus on our 'island story'. But his critics say its focus on kings, queens and the lives of great men would not look out of place in a 1950s grammar school.

Michael Gove wants to realign the History curriculum (from primary school through secondary school) such that it would be a lot more 'Anglocentric' and would cover the Stone Age through to the end of the Cold War. But critics have claimed that this new course would make the UK the only country in the western world not to teach world history; that it would appeal only to "white British citizens"; and that it would simply not be interesting enough for children.

Would this change be a good thing?

(edited 11 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

the bear

I think that Mr Gove is quite right. The history of these sceptered Isles is fascinating. Bring back 1950s grammar schools !
Does the Guardian think that in Chinese schools they avoid teaching Chinese history ?

Reply 2

Enigma Machine

Mutiny against Gove pls

Reply 3

Aj12

I don't really see the problem with a focus on British history in British schools. Most of the history I did from Year 8 onwards focused on World War Two and little else. I'd much rather have done a far more varied selection of British history.

Reply 4

TheHistoryStudent

To be fair, myself having studied History through primary & secondary school I can safely say that we didn't actually cover that much British History (bar ww2, and perhaps ww1), pretty much everything was in a world context, leaving Britain itself pretty much left out.

I honestly can't see what's so wrong about studying your own country's history, even if other academics see it as boring or what have you, it's important to have a grasp both of your own country's history as well as the wider world's, so balance is the key I think.Anglo-centric or world centric is too far either way I think.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 5

When you see it...

British history is just boring.

Reply 6

The_Internet

Original post by tjf8

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/16/historians-gove-curriculum

Michael Gove wants to realign the History curriculum (from primary school through secondary school) such that it would be a lot more 'Anglocentric' and would cover the Stone Age through to the end of the Cold War. But critics have claimed that this new course would make the UK the only country in the western world not to teach world history; that it would appeal only to "white British citizens"; and that it would simply not be interesting enough for children.

Would this change be a good thing?

I'd rather we do a lot of every thing ie: British and world history. I mean at this rate, we'd be as ignorant as the Americans are perceived to be/

Original post by the bear

We did a lot on the UK in years 7 and 8. We did some stuff on Northern Ireland in year 10, and we also learnt about WW2, medicine through time etc... as well. It was a grammar school as well..

It's not that the UK is avoiding teaching UK history, but I think that we should teach a bit of world history. To paraphrase "We are doomed to repeat the same mistakes, if we have not learnt from history"

Original post by TheHistoryStudent

I honestly can't see what's so wrong about studying your own country's history, even if other academics see it as boring or what have you, it's important to have a grasp both of your own country's history as well as the wider world's, so balance is the key I think.Anglo-centric or world centric is too far either way I think.

This!

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 7

When you see it...

Original post by TheHistoryStudent

This entire attitude seems a bit arbitrary to me.
Why your own country's history? Why not your own county? Town? Continent? State? Island? <insert man-made boundary which is utterly meaningless>?
It's not a case of 'other academics' seeing it as boring - it's a case of 99% of teenagers (they are, after all, the people who these changes will target) finding it boring. It will just lead to them resenting studying history and will put people off the subject at an early age.

Reply 8

ed-

I agree. No one knows about the English Civil War, the Magna Carter etc.
The reasons our country is democratic and has a system that works as it does. Instead people resent English culture as they're taught there isn't any English culture

Reply 9

TheHistoryStudent

Original post by When you see it...

Give me proof that 99% of the people learning the stuff find it boring and I'll give you an answer. Just because you yourself found it boring doesn't mean everyone else does/did, and aside from this, you could use your argument to expand the question to "Why study History at all"? Collecting and labelling stuff is just what we do to make things organised and easy to look at/study, be it British History, Black History, Indian History, Military History and so on and so forth, though I accept that some of it will not appeal to all :wink:

.

My argument as to why we should study British History in schools, at least up until the subject becomes and optional one, would be so that we can at least attempt to give all British kids a sense of their own past and identity, or at least of the nation to which they are members. Like it or not your past does make up part of your identity, and to lose that identity and collective memory of the nation through neglect to teach our own History in schools and leave it purely in the hands of academics rather than the general public would be a great shame to British education I think.

However to be honest though I'm not so sure that Gove's proposed way of doing it is probably the best way, judging by the article it seems to just be one looong narrative from the stone age to the fall of the Berlin wall in the space of primary and secondary school, that I think, has 3 potential problems:- 1) The sheer amount of time you're talking about would probably make it very difficult to discuss any of it in detail, 2) Because of point 1) I fail to see how kids will understand any of it by the end, and 3) It's going to be impossible to make all of it appeal.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 10

g_star_raw_1989

They need to mix it up somewhat. My A-level history course consisted of 5/6 modules on Germany.

Reply 11

DK_Tipp

I don't know anything about the British curriculum but surely any country's national history curriculum should address the triumphs and flaws of domestic and foreign policy as well giving students an appreciation of their culture.

"Island story" sounds a bit away with the fairies to me. It would seem to discount two of the most important lessons from recent history you'd imagine Britain should learn from- Northern Ireland and Middle East.

Reply 12

The_Internet

Original post by DK_Tipp

See this could be very beneficial ie: a section on "foreign relations through the ages" or something like that. It gives a balance. You study UK and world history at the same time.

Reply 13

SophiaKeuning

That is awful. There's nothing more gross than patriotic history. Kids should grow up with an understanding of the world, an empathy for other countries, instead this kid of history is largely focused on inducing britishness (bull****) and totally disregarding minorities, (women, working class, ethnic groups). I'm sorry but I'd much rather learn about Chinese history, Russia, Civil Rights Movements than 'ohmigod look at this great Englishman wasn't he great learn all the key dates associated with him.' This kind of history is boring as hell, kids should learn about the key isses/debates/ideas of the past, that's when it gets interesting and relevant.

But let's be honest here, how can you study the working class and development of the labour movement and still like the tories?

This is another reminder of why I hate the Tories.

Reply 14

AvadaKedavra

I quite like the idea that we should study more British History - I've done hardly any at school. If I recall in one sad summer in Year 8 I think we touched upon Thomas Becket - but that was basically it. Instead we've had a hodge-podge selection of bits about the slave trade, a lot about twentieth century Germany (which is very interesting but we have basically studied that for five years now), Russia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a bit about Communist China, and the Ancient Egyptians/Greeks/Romans all the way through until now looking at Medicine.

Now a lot of that was very interesting: the Communism work we did on Russia/China and the Cold War work currently going on is absolutely fascinating (but I do say that from the point of view of someone doing a degree focusing on Modern History, so I may be a tad biased)...
The problem with it is that it's so fragmented. Particularly the very random bit we did on Olaudah Equiano - seemed to have been just stuck in to fill space, and everyone was a bit confused about what point this work had. So basically I would argue for a more coherent, ordered curriculum - and perhaps one way to do that would be through a focus on British History, at least for the first few years. Through that you could probably cover most of the main themes that we've looked at across the world, and it would be a good way of looking at the basics whilst instilling some knowledge of British culture and British history - which I do think is becoming increasingly lost but is important to help give some common knowledge and a bond to the increasingly varied and diverse selection of people in our society.
Then as you progress up the key stages, the focus could always become wider, later looking at Britain in world events etc, then maybe by the time the subject is entirely optional, it could look at some more world history, no longer needing Britain.

Just an idea, but generally yes I do like Gove's more 'Anglocentric' curriculum - maybe not only Britain, but more of Britain esp in the early years?

Reply 15

The_Internet

Original post by SophiaKeuning

This. I'd much rather learn about people, than just this one posh guy. We did a module on Sir Titus Salt, and it was quite boring. I'd rather learn about people - not one guy

Reply 16

FrogInABog

I think the most disappointing thing in that article is the number of high-level academics and history professors who are calling it 'boring'. They of all people should know that most history is only as interesting as the person who teaches it; it is terrible that they want to make British history out to be dull and dry. It also worries me that we feel the need to be 'politically correct' in setting our history curriculum; how many other countries are there that go out of their way to avoid their own history at school? And what sort of criticism is "would not look out of place in a 1950s grammar school"? Nor would the teaching of calculus in maths, or Shakespeare in English, but that's no reason to remove them.

Reply 17

twinedrapier

I don't think I was taught enough about British History but I still have a pretty decent knowledge of it. The only topics I've ever been taught that I had a massive problem with are the Tudors (we have seemingly learned about them on and off for 10 years) and Medicine through time (it was just boring for me). I've learned about Ancient Greece, Weimar and Nazi Germany, the development of Castles, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, World War 1 (from most perspectives apart from the Arab/Turkish) and World War 2 (also from most perspectives apart from the Japanese, never really covered about the War in the Pacific). All of those topic areas were of great interest to me but none were British focused. The problem is really that parents do not teach their children enough about English History. Many of the students in my year 13 History class are actually either completely ignorant of it or know a lot about one specific area and nothing about any others, particularly the 'Asian' members of the class.

Reply 18

TheHistoryStudent

Original post by AvadaKedavra

I hear you on the bolded part. 20th Century is over-done in my opinion, I'm in my second year of uni now, and a little while back I worked out that I'd done 20th Century/Nazi Germany every year since maybe year 7 or 8 ish. You do it so often it just becomes boring, or you just don't care any more...

Reply 19

jacketpotato

I think its a good idea. Its important for people to have a decent understanding of their own history. I would be for 50% UK history, 50% world history. Also it should cover Victorian and early modern history, not just 1066 and the second world war with little in between.

Every other country seems to teach history in this way. Can you imagine the outrage if US history teaching didn't focus on the war of indepenence, civil war and George Washington? To me it is bizarre that some really fundamental aspects of our own history are not on the curriculum.