What future for history in the National Curriculum for England?
History, Lord Acton once wrote, ‘is not a burden on the memory but an illumination of the soul’.
Sadly, today, English state schools do not appear to be taking history as seriously as Acton’s quote suggests they ought. In this regard, England is something of an outlier compared to other European nations. Only 44 per cent of English pupils are examined in history at 16, and between the ages of 11 and 14, most pupils receive only 90 minutes of history teaching each week.
History first became a compulsory subject in English state schools in 1988, when Kenneth Baker introduced the National Curriculum for England. Sadly, Baker’s successor, Kenneth Clarke, reversed this expectation in 1991, and made history optional from 14 onwards.
Today, we live with the consequences of that decision, as well as widely held concerns over the quality of history education. Historian Robert Tombs has recently argued that it is vitally important to recognise the relationship between the quality of history education and the strength of our democracy. History, Tombs suggests, helps pupils to ‘understand what it means to be a citizen’ and it also instills a ‘sense of common belonging’.
OfSTED, for its part, judges that the delivery of history as a distinct subject has generally improved in recent years, but others, including Tombs, argue that the provision remains weak, and that this leaves young people open to manipulation by divisive political extremists.
Some argue that the new version of history curriculum that was introduced by Michael Gove in 2013 is to blame, with a chauvinistic focus, and too much concentration on facts and chronology, at the expense of depth.
Others counter with the accusation that the history actually taught in schools evidences a troubling left-wing bias. During the last General Election, for example, Reform proposed that all schools should teach a heritage-based ‘Patriotic Curriculum’ and that when ‘British or European imperialism or slavery’ is covered in history it ‘must be paired with the teaching of a non-European occurrence of the same to ensure balance’.
Currently, the subject of history is being looked at, as part of the Labour Party’s wider review of the National Curriculum. The body that is reviewing the curriculum has not, to date, commented in detail on history, but it has made clear that it wishes to protect academic subjects and that it believes that the school curriculum should serve our ‘collective interests’. It has also argued that it should encourage pupils to see ‘others’ perspectives’ and should play a role in ‘broadening their horizons’. All of which would appear to put the subject of history in a strong position.
So what will the future bring for history education in English state schools? Does the current curriculum get the balance right on national and world history? Should there be more or less emphasis on knowledge, imagination or skills? Is depth being sacrificed for breadth? Are teachers really using history to indoctrinate pupils? And given the evident importance of the Queen of the Humanities – for the intellectual growth of young people, and for our nation’s sense of itself – should we insist that all state school pupils study history up to 16?
SPEAKERS:
Louise Burton, school history teacher, member of the Academy of Ideas, Education Forum
Professor Zongyi Deng, Institute of Education, UCL
Doctor Nicholas Tate, former head of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
Professor Robert Tombs, University of Cambridge
Share this post