Emminent Victorians dropped from history curriculum in Gove U-turn

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ve-U-turn.html

Eminent Victorians dropped from history curriculum in Gove U-turn

Eminent figures from the Victorian era including William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli and Florence Nightingale are set to be removed as compulsory elements of the new history curriculum for schools after a U-turn by Michael Gove, the Education Secretary.

Florence Nightingale had figured prominently in a planned shake up of history teaching unveiled by Mr Gove, but he has been forced to redraft the plans in the wake of a campaign of opposition from teachers and prominent academics

The pair of prime ministers and the “Lady with the Lamp”, who tended to victims of the Crimean War, figured prominently in a planned shake up of history teaching unveiled by Mr Gove earlier this year in an attempt to ensure children had a solid grasp of Britain’s past.

However, he has been forced to redraft the plans in the wake of a campaign of opposition from teachers and prominent academics which saw the proposals branded “insulting and offensive”.

More emphasis will now be placed on world history rather than a concentration on British events and figures. The new draft is understood not to insist on the study of a range of figures, also including Clive of India, Isaac Newton and Baroness Thatcher, all of whom featured in the original proposals.

Winston Churchill, however, will still feature as a compulsory element of the new-look curriculum after the wartime leader won a late reprieve. An education department source said: "There will still be a strong narrative of British history."

The latest revision of the plans is now awaiting the approval of David Cameron and Nick Clegg, Mr Gove has signalled. Schools are likely to be given more freedom in what to teach, while the planned history curriculum for primary schools is being scaled down.

Instead of being forced to learn about Newton and Christina Rossetti, the Victorian poet, five-to-seven year olds may learn about more modern figures - including Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the internet, and Rosa Parks, the US civil rights activist.

Secondary school pupils, meanwhile, may learn about Charles Darwin along with lessons on immigration and Islamic history.

The first draft of the history curriculum, published in February, was backed by some historians, including Anthony Beevor, Niall Ferguson and David Starkey. Others, however, panned it.

Simon Schama, speaking at the Telegraph Hay Festival last month, attacked it even though he had been a member of the group which helped the Department for Education (DfE) draw it up. He dubbed it “Insulting and offensive,” “pedantic and utopian”, and accused Mr Gove of constructing a “ridiculous shopping list.”

Malorie Blackman, the new children’s laureate, said the original proposals were “dangerous” and warned that pupils could become “disenchanted with education” if they felt what they were being taught was not relevant.

Under the first draft, children aged between seven and 11 were expected to be taught British history in chronological order, from the Stone Age up until the Act of Union in 1707 - with a series of 48 bullet points mapping out compulsory events and personalities for teachers.

History for secondary school pupils aged between 11 and 14, meanwhile, was to cover the period between 1707 and 1989.

A new draft presented to history teachers by civil servants sees extra topics from world history included while the prescriptive bullet-point regime has been turned into a series of suggestions.

The original plan said five-to-seven year olds should be taught the “concept of the nation”. This appears to have been dropped - with a new section suggesting they should be taught about “changes within living memory.”

Pupils in key stage 2 (those aged between seven and 11) and key stage 3 (between 11 and 14) will under the latest plans have to be taught a world history topic and “local history” alongside learning about British events and personalities. Primary school pupils could learn about “early Islam” or the culture of Benin in west Africa.

The Crusades, meanwhile, could be studied by younger secondary-school children.

Clive of India appears to have been dropped after Prof Schama described him as a “sociopathic, corrupt thug” who would be a compulsory part of a curriculum which was like “1066 and all that, but without the jokes.”

Other figures no longer expected to be compulsory for key stage 2 children include Newton, the scientist who formulated the theory of gravity, Christopher Wren, the architect of St Pauls’ Cathedral, Adam Smith, the Scottish philosopher and economist, and Olaudha Equiano, the anti-slavery campaigner. A list of prime ministers, including Thatcher, Gladstone, Disraeli and Clement Attlee no longer features.

Churchill was removed from the late draft - but sources said he would definitely be in the final version of the curriculum after last-minute discussions between ministers.

One of the few personalities included in the new draft is Charles Darwin, who laid the foundations of the theory of evolution. Instead of specifying major historical figures, teachers will be told to focus on topics including World War II, the “development of the British Empire” and the slave trade. The imperialistic sounding phrase “Britain and her empire” has been replaced with “the British Empire”.

For primary-school children, Newton and Nightingale are not expected to feature in the final version of the curriculum - and neither are Rossetti and Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the Victorian engineer.

However, Armstrong, Parks and Berners-Lee are set to be mentioned, along with LS Lowry, the artist famous for his paintings of stick-like people, and Emily Davison, the sufragette.

I'm absolutely fuming reading this, absolutely fuming.

The proposals where children learnt British history from the Stone Age to 1989 would have been such an amazing course throughout school to teach our children so that they actually know something about the nation in which they live and so that we have children who are educated and who know who Winston Churchill was rather than morons who idolise Nelson Mandelson the convicted terrorist (thats something they dont tell you in school) who has nothing to do with our history and is a mere footnote. And you know, even if you think Mandela etc ought to be taught in schools then fine - but why is the 'other side' never taught when it comes to him? with the history of the Empire we are taught both the good and the bad yet with Mandela it comes as a shock to teenagers that he was head of the armed wing of the ANC which targeted innocent people and murdered them. WHY IS THIS NOT TAUGHT OR SPOKEN ABOUT ON THE BBC????

I'm fed up of our country being ashamed of its past and children being fed politically correct ******** concerning African 'history' (of which there isn't much) along with propaganda on Islamic history and - horror of horrors - immigration.. which you just know will consist of how wonderful mass immigration has been to this country. I'm absolutely sick of it.

Does it make me narrow minded or a bigot to think that the next generation (of all colours, religions etc) of British people should be taught the history of these islands like the Magna Carta and Acts of Union rather than politically correct garbage or told how they should feel bad that Britian once ruled the waves? if so, then take a walk.

Gove was just about the only minister who has shown any promise in this government and now he's caved in like a spineless jellyfish - which means in the end nothing has changed despite promises to begin with - which sums up the history of the supposed patriotic Conservative Party.

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

Wow do you genuinely believe yourself when you say Africa doesn't have much history? Also I think you're probably the only person in the country who thinks Gove is a good minister. This course would have been a disastrous minefield of misinformation without a doubt as you simply can't properly learn all you need to know about the stone age to the 18th century in 48 bulletpoints. You froth at the mouth about Mandela's past not being widely taught and then in the same breath express admiration for a course that would leave huge gaps in knowledge by necessity; most likely about the damaging parts. Furthermore the newer draft is going to be less rigid and more open to personal teaching styles - isn't that something you should be supporting rather than a government mandated indoctrination of generalisations?

[dbgtz]

I can't understand why kids are learning the history of other countries yet key figures of this country are abolished. I mean, did someone like Rosa Parks really have a greater impact on the world than Newton? Not only that, but I wish they wouldn't focus on what they deem as good and also show the nastier parts of history. This U turn also seems like it will condition children to think "the right way" rather than allow them to form their own opinions.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Wow do you genuinely believe yourself when you say Africa doesn't have much history? Also I think you're probably the only person in the country who thinks Gove is a good minister.

The history of Africa (barring the north) in pre-colonial times is, and i'm a history buff, rather dull. Africa (apart from the north) has produced nothing like the achievements that great civilisations such as Britain, France, America, China, the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, Japan and India have - and to even pretend that it is on the same level of historical interest is an insult.

Some civilisations are better than others, lets face it rather than pretend otherwise.

This course would have been a disastrous minefield of misinformation without a doubt as you simply can't properly learn all you need to know about the stone age to the 18th century in 48 bulletpoints.

No it wouldn't have - anybody who knows anything about Primary history and early secondary school history knows that it is very broad points and at the moment, and this is the major problem, it has no structure meaning one minute children are learning about the Zulu Kingdom, then Red China, then the Cold War, then World War II, then World War I and then the Tsars. The proposed course would have had the following benefits, that (a) it would have been based in British history which would give many a sense of identity - something that is badly needed in areas that have been flooded by mass immigration & (b) it would have been in chronological order which, anybody who wants to learn the history of the British nation needs to understand, is vital for understanding say why we fought the Nazis in WWII; it wasn't "for democracy" as schools teach - it was over the balance of power in Europe (a historical foreign policy of England and later Britain) along with our liberties which differ greatly from the continent.

But I only know of that (despite having done WW1 & 2) because I have a keen interest in history - by leaving out vast swathes of the history of these islands we leave our children open to both misinformation and outright lies to peddle an agenda.

What agenda? well take the example i've provided. Children are taught that we simply fought the National Socialists to preserve democracy - which is wrong. And we heard the same arguments being put forward in favour of the Iraq war, that unless we took down the undemocratic Saddam Hussein we were essentially allowing another Hitler to remain in power. Many fell for this, because they wrongly linked it to WWII when it's a non-comparison.

You froth at the mouth about Mandela's past not being widely taught and then in the same breath express admiration for a course that would leave huge gaps in knowledge by necessity; most likely about the damaging parts.

I fail to see why it would leave out great swathes - i'm a firm believer that the Empire for example should be taught, but the bad bits (such as the General Dyer massacre in the British Raj) should almost certainly be included. I think this is a fair position to take and if we are to teach Mandela (whether its in Geography, History or RE) the bad parts of him should be included.

My sister in primary school came home a year or so ago and basically stated what a great man Mandela was - not once was anything taught to the children about Mandela and the armed thugs of the ANC killing innocent people of both black and white colour. Can you imagine the reaction if schools only taught the good bits of the British Empire? so why the selective outrage?

Furthermore the newer draft is going to be less rigid and more open to personal teaching styles - isn't that something you should be supporting rather than a government mandated indoctrination of generalisations?

Which generalisations would I want taught? I haven't argued for any specific ideology to be taught and want the bad bits taught. Take the Industrial Revolution for example - teach it from both perspectives, that it lifted millions out of working on the fields but also the marxist position that it plunged millions into appalling working conditions.

Let the children decide - but whatever stance they arrive at, at least they will have an opinion on the history of our islands as opposed to no opinion at all on their own history. That children are unaware of the Magna Carta, Barons Revolt, Bill of Rights, House of Tudor, Industrial Revolution, the British Empire, Boer War, WW1, WW2, Winston Churchill and Suez Crisis is a disgrace.

I can't understand why kids are learning the history of other countries yet key figures of this country are abolished. I mean, did someone like Rosa Parks really have a greater impact on the world than Newton? Not only that, but I wish they wouldn't focus on what they deem as good and also show the nastier parts of history. This U turn also seems like it will condition children to think "the right way" rather than allow them to form their own opinions.

Thank you! someone who actually believes in the teaching of the virtues of this great nation along with the bad.

As I have said - would you rather learn of Zimbabwe, Mandela, Rosa Parks and Neil Armstrong (of whom have no great link to our country and are only taught for politically correct reasons) or would you rather learn your own history of the Act on Union, Industrial Revolution, Empire and Churchill? The fact we're even discussing this amazes me - no other nation would spit on its own history in such a way just to appear 'diverse'.

[Inseriousity.]

Surely the biggest flaw in Gove's proposals is that it assumes that children aren't being taught enough about British history when my primary school history consisted of WW1, WW2, Florence Nightingale, Industrial Revolution, more WW1, more WW2, the Great Fire of London, more WW1, more WW2.

[iBlueBox]

I've always loved history, a-level was one of the most interesting courses, I loved learning British history especially the monarchy of Elizabeth, James, Charles, Civil War and Cromwell.

But the other side I enjoyed as we focussed on America and its influences from communism to civil rights.

[Chippiewill]

In reality the flaw with Gove's proposals is that the CONTENT of the curriculum is completely meaningless. The purpose is to give the students historical skills. Now we should surely focus on the topics which allows us to do that rather than focussing on British history for the sake of patriotism. Now certainly, there's no reason why we cannot do both, but we should also use it as a vehicle to experience other cultures.

One of my favourite topics in history was Native Americans, manifest destiny and that kind of stuff because it was very different from what can only be described as the self congratulatory coverage of the world wars.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In reality the flaw with Gove's proposals is that the CONTENT of the curriculum is completely meaningless. The purpose is to give the students historical skills. Now we should surely focus on the topics which allows us to do that rather than focussing on British history for the sake of patriotism. Now certainly, there's no reason why we cannot do both, but we should also use it as a vehicle to experience other cultures.

One of my favourite topics in history was Native Americans, manifest destiny and that kind of stuff because it was very different from what can only be described as the self congratulatory coverage of the world wars.

I don't mind parts of other nations' history thrown in, maybe more so at A-Level as an optional course - or a essay type thing that children can choose whatever subject, but the broad sweep of history (certainly compulsory years) should be heavily weighted towards a chronological order of what makes the British nation.

All other nations know their own history because they teach it to their young, we ought to know ours.

[Chippiewill]

I don't mind parts of other nations' history thrown in, maybe more so at A-Level as an optional course - or a essay type thing that children can choose whatever subject, but the broad sweep of history (certainly compulsory years) should be heavily weighted towards a chronological order of what makes the British nation.

All other nations know their own history because they teach it to their young, we ought to know ours.

Why?

[MKR&*42]

I don't mind parts of other nations' history thrown in, maybe more so at A-Level as an optional course - or a essay type thing that children can choose whatever subject, but the broad sweep of history (certainly compulsory years) should be heavily weighted towards a chronological order of what makes the British nation.

Although I don't agree with the claims, I imagine quite a few people would make claims of an ethnocentric curriculum and say that it provides a massive disadvantage to coloured individuals etc etc.

What I find bizarre at the moment is that when I did Sociology AS, almost everyone in my class thought history in school had no relatio with coloured people... as far as I can remember, I was taught about how Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Rosa Parks etc. were all saints (which is untrue for at least two of those) and on the flip side how Henry VIII + Bloody Mary were ruthless murderers.