Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

100 Schools Where Not One Pupil Studied GCSE History watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twelve)
    But if you do this, then you don't get as much detail in each topic.

    I personally studied Vietnam, Jack the Ripper, Medicine through time, and Chartism, the vote etc - i think the topic was Britain in the 1830s to 1850s or something. Can't remember the dates now haha! It gave us a pretty broad spread of topics, but we got a lot of detail into quite a bit of it.
    I am not advocating a return to a two year trudge over 200 years, more a brief overview of the main events/themes of the period over a few weeks, say 8-10 weeks, followed by the "in depth" topics which subsequently get fitted into the overview over the remainder of the two years.

    For British History you maybe could run from 1603 through "Divine right of Kings", development of Parliament, succession issues, Agrarian Revolution, Empire, Industrial Revolution the Modern World. You could touch on evolution of maritime heritage, land tenure post Feudal society, the rise of cities.

    Ten weeks looking at how society evolved prior to the period of the particular topics you then study would help paint the backdrop.

    I have certainly read that Universities have reservations regarding the study of History within schools,in their opinion it lacks breadth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I am afraid I simply glaze over to all this post-modernist stuff.
    Lol me too, still, it's kinda interesting :P
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=twelve;30503595]History is facts, thats kind of the point of it. You can analyse sources and discuess what happened, but at the end of the day, what happened, happened. There's not a lot of room for debate surely?

    History was the most popular GCSE subject in my year - I think there were 3 classes of 30 pupils, out of a year of about 160. We learnt the facts, but we did have a fair bit of discussion - although obviously the emphasis was on learning what happened and why it happened.[/

    This is ridiculously simplistic and not what history is about. ironically, it is probably the reason why people, children or not, still have not learnt the fundamental lessons of history.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    No I'm not, but I do believe there should be more British history on the curriculum.

    Is it necessary for students to learn about the Civil Rights movement in the US in the 1960s?
    I'd say it's a pretty important series of events to know about.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scriggy)
    Because it's about overcoming intolerance, gaining equality for all, and is just generally there as a reminder for what racism, intolerance and hate can lead too.

    Regardless of the nation involved, it's much more relevant than British medieval history. :facepalm2:
    Agree.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    Among the reasons given, none mention the main reason, an 'internationalist' strategy of sidelining English history to deny us a sense of identity and national pride.
    Erm no, it just means dwindling numbers of school pupils are taking GCSE history.

    I enjoyed history at school, the highlights of GCSE history for me were 20th century China and USA. AS history was a bit dry, too much Luther.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cochrane)
    A lot of historians would argue that there is no such thing as a truly objective fact, that's what makes the discipline so fascinating.
    This, part of what makes history fascinating
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    I'd say it's a pretty important series of events to know about.

    Why?


    If you are an American, it is obviously of considerable importance.

    However, the principal reason for non-specialist British students and particularly school students to study American history rather than say Finnish or Togolese history is the impact of the United States on Britain and the the rest of the world.

    The civil rights movement in the USA (with the exception of the start of the Troubles in Northern Ireland) had very little impact on the rest of the world; far less than say the breakup of the Hollywood studio system or Nixon's engagement with China.

    Yet, thousands of British school pupils learn about local laws relating to buses and school admissions in unimportant towns in unimportant states in the USA, whilst for example the impact of American culture on Britain or the America's relationship with China is ignored.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    x
    It's still more important/relevant than British Medieval History, IMO.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    It's not about knowing history, as such, it's about developing the skills required to engage in it.

    And besides, how exactly is science essential for everyday life? I'm not knocking science here, I'm simply making a point about history. Neither physics nor history knowledge is needed for everyday life, but each teaches the student valuable skills which can be transferred elsewhere.

    History is to the arts and humanities what physics is to the sciences.
    But my point is every child studies history anyway, they just aren't forced to do the GCSE, as they shouldn't be. They'll have already aquired most of those skills... But by time they get to GCSE they have to choose the subjects that they do best in and are most important to them personally to get good grades (mostly, apart from maths and english, obviously, which everyone should do).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    History? It was a joke at my school. For 3 years, we wrote essays on medieval times such as why houses were next to rivers and crop fields being circled.

    Not once in 3 years were any of the wars or anything that induced interest covered. We had nothing on any of the crusades either, we were meant to learn something about them in one planned lesson but the student teacher was not in.

    My classes had nothing to even remotely want me to choose history as a GCSE.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by History-Student)
    Would those schools happen to be faith schools by any chance?

    Because that seems like a fairly sensible thing to be compulsory if they are.
    No they are just regular state comprehensive schools.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    And besides, how exactly is science essential for everyday life? I'm not knocking science here, I'm simply making a point about history. Neither physics nor history knowledge is needed for everyday life, but each teaches the student valuable skills which can be transferred elsewhere.

    History is to the arts and humanities what physics is to the sciences.
    I like this a lot.

    However, the principal reason for non-specialist British students and particularly school students to study American history rather than say Finnish or Togolese history is the impact of the United States on Britain and the the rest of the world.

    ...

    Yet, thousands of British school pupils learn about local laws relating to buses and school admissions in unimportant towns in unimportant states in the USA, whilst for example the impact of American culture on Britain or the America's relationship with China is ignored.
    A-Level History... would you like me to tell you about the Montgomery bus boycott, and the effect of this for the Civil RIghts movement?! I enjoy and everything, but its not particulary relevant to my life, I live in the UK! I think what GCSE/A-Level History teaches doens't engage young people becase frankly it is not relevant to our lives, but we should learn the lessons from it :/
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't do history but my school's history department is very strong. People fall in love with it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I've always liked history, but then again I've always had good history teachers.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by (:Becca(:)
    I've always liked history, but then again I've always had good history teachers.
    This is a point, history does tend to depend on how good the teachers are.

    My GCSE/A Level history teachers were fantastic. About 70% of my year group took History GCSE, many probably because of how good the teachers were.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    At my school we had to choose between History and Geography. The Geography teacher was a very strict miserable old woman who seemed to hate kids while the History teacher was very enthusiastic and was one of everyone's favourite teachers. As a result there were only around 5-6 people taking Geography while everyone else took History.

    I really enjoyed the History GCSE but I doubt I would have done with a different teacher.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    thats insane only 25 kids at my school DIDN'T pick history as an option
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phantom_X)
    its sad, but Kickflip has (as usual) got the context wrong. History is not a desired subject because the way history is taught is monolithic and outdated- it focuses on reguritating facts rather than critical analysis and debate- which is something i realised when i transitioned from GCSE history to IB History.

    Perhaps if the syllabus changes so that kids can get their own opinions on history, rather than having it force-fed to them, they will enjoy it more.
    Don't you want to learn about your English ancestors and heritage Phantom_X? Oh, you aren't English. If you are not interested in England or the English why on earth are you here?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    Don't you want to learn about your English ancestors and heritage Phantom_X? Oh, you aren't English. If you are not interested in England or the English why on earth are you here?
    Oh wow, a dumb comment form an equally mentally challenged individual. Of course this isnt a novel concept coming from an individual such as yourself.

    Where did i say i wasnt interested in English culture ? My university's history programme specialises in English history, so automatically that claim goes out of the window. Furthermore, English history form your stormfrontesque perspective deviates rather considerably from the realities of mass migration, tribal mixing and continuity that you and your klansmen seem to despise. Thus, I highly doubt that despite your apparent 'full englishness', your actual knowledge of English history is probably ridiculously one sided and fragmented.

    You should also ask why many English school children aren't interested in English history, despite the fact that it constitutes a fair amount of the national curriculum, rather than make stupid comments that insinuate ignorance and idiocy. There is a reason why even the most right wing of people on TSR dont take you seriously.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.