Robert Tombs, who has longstanding interests in this subject, led the History Reclaimed submission to the review, which is published here.
Labour must not leave our children ignorant about Britain’s past – that way division lies
Evidence submitted on behalf of History Reclaimed to the Curriculum and Assessment Review
England, like the United Kingdom generally, is unusual by international standards in the little space and emphasis it places on the study of history in schools. It may be that a knowledge of history seemed less urgent in a country that had experienced relatively few upheavals and disasters, and where a broad consensus on national identity and national values could in the past be assumed.
In countries where that was not the case – which includes most of our European neighbours – history has long occupied a much more prominent place in the school curriculum. It is the norm for history to be a core subject at all levels and in all types of school, and hence commonly to be a compulsory part of study right to the school leaving age. In Italy, for example, the main themes are repeated at each of the three stages of secondary education to ensure sufficient mastery, and focus on the Mediterranean and Italy. In France, where the teaching of history focusing on France and Europe is strongly emphasised, including in technical and vocational schools, it was recently voted the second most popular subject among students.
Given that history in English schools is regarded as a core part of education only to the age of 13 or 14 and the hours devoted to it even during that period are few by comparison with our neighbours, it is hard to see how a further reduction can be contemplated. If the experiences of other countries are any guide, we should be aiming at augmentation. The experiences of other countries are of more than passing interest, because they help us to appreciate why history is taught in schools.
Ever since the beginning of the age of democracy and the age of mass education – the two are closely linked – the teaching of history to schoolchildren has been seen as essential for two reasons. First, to help future citizens understand what it means to be a citizen. Second, to create a sense of common belonging as sharers in what has been called ‘a rich heritage of memories’, both positive and negative. Other benefits of studying history, such as learning to assess evidence and present coherent arguments, also need to be borne in mind. Creating citizens with a shared sense of belonging is a political project, though not a party political project, and not indeed an ideological project – except in so far as democracy is an ideology.
Any democratic government must surely see it as a duty to foster well informed citizens with a sense of common belonging. History is not the only way to do this, but it has almost universally been considered an indispensable way. This is all the more true at a time of major change and instability such as that which we are now experiencing. It follows that the choice of what is taught is also political. As such it has been, and often is, abused: whoever controls the present control the past; whoever controls the past controls the future. Whatever the temptations, It must again be the concern of any truly democratic government to guard against the use of history as a means of indoctrination. This is certainly a danger in Britain today.
Unusually, it comes not from an authoritarian government trying to bolster its power, but from a range of groups whose aim seems to be to undermine both citizenship and common belonging. Or if that is not their conscious intention, it is the inevitable consequence of their actions. The ultimate aim seems to be to discredit the past – and certainly Britain’s particular past – and make it an instrument to inculcate shame, cynicism and division. This is done most directly by distorting and even falsifying the historical record, or indirectly by simply ignoring large parts of it.
The justifications given for such distortions are varied: that we must ‘face up to’ negative parts of our past (usually very well-known already); that we can and should create new ‘narratives’ to please certain lobbies or political movements; that we should undermine national identity and replace it by something else; and that we must please customers and consumers (including school children) by giving them a view of the past assumed to accord with their prejudices, expectations or cultural background. The view that all versions of the past are of equal merit challenges our grasp of historical truth and opens the door, for example, to Holocaust denial, which appears to have risen significantly in several countries.
Any national history curriculum in a truly democratic country should have very different aims to these. It must be accurate, balanced and comprehensive. It must explain how the past can be rationally explored by the use of evidence. It must show how ideas, beliefs, social conditions and values change over time, and will continue to change. It must explain the origins and purposes of institutions. It must challenge assumptions that the present is in every way superior to the past, and that the future is knowable. It must understand and value the subject of history as part of our intellectual and cultural heritage which to which the younger generation have a right as part of fostering a sense of common citizenship in a multiethnic society.
If this may seem high flown, let us reflect on the importance of basic historical understanding for active and informed citizenship, by making it possible for everyone to understand and take part in a national democratic conversation. Surveys have repeatedly suggested an alarming absence of even elementary knowledge. It must surely be the first aim of a history curriculum to dispel gross ignorance and misunderstanding by ensuring familiarity with basic concepts and events so that political discussion does not become impoverished or even meaningless to many.
This does not require an overloaded curriculum containing masses of detail to be memorized for examinations, but rather a well thought out and well planned programme appropriate to age. It should not try to do everything, but rather to provide an attractive and accessible introduction to what every educated citizen needs to know. Many excellent schools today are enabling children from a wide range of social and cultural backgrounds to enjoy and take possession of the riches of our shared history and culture. This should provide inspiration for the Curriculum Review.
However, the recent OCR report chaired by Charles Clarke, Striking the balance A review of 11–16 curriculum and assessment in England, gives cause for serious concern. While it contains detailed practical proposals for reforming the examination system, it also emphatically shifts the balance from education to indoctrination. It casually dismisses great literary culture (‘the canons of knowledge which have been built up over centuries’) and study of the past (‘what is learned needs to be focused far more on the world as it now is and is going to be.’) We are astonished at the degree of self-assurance which assumes an understanding of both the present and the future. Cultural treasures are not, it seems, for the masses. Mr Gradgrind posthumously applauds. We are also told that ‘the literary canon should better reflect the range of cultures and experiences of all young people.’ What about their common experiences? Why not aim to widen their experiences? Such lack of intellectual ambition undermines our sense of how we have become what we are from what we were. To know who we are we must be familiar with the route by which we reached our present condition. ‘The world as it now is’ has been created over millennia of human history. We do not live in Year Zero – at any rate, not if we live in an open society. What should a History curriculum focus on if its aim is both to foster a common sense of belonging and to widen knowledge?
Primarily, it should ensure a reasonable understanding of the overall pattern of English and British history. Living in England and for the most part being future citizens of the United Kingdom is the fundamental thing – perhaps the only thing – that all schoolchildren have in common. The present National Curriculum for England is intended to provide a foundation of English and British history over a long period – similar to the approaches taken by the National Curricula of Wales and Scotland for their own nations. No revision of the National Curriculum should depart from this principle.
The present curriculum provides for local history and necessary elements of ancient history and non-European history. The report Striking the Balance concluded that ‘The aim should be to achieve a balance in preserving those things about our culture and history that unite us while reflecting the diversity of our society and culture, and the differing interests, talents and abilities of our young people’ (p 85). We broadly endorse this conclusion – who wouldn’t? -but emphasise that it is of crucial importance where the balance is struck. It is intellectually essential to continue to aim at coherence, and not to provide a pointless miscellany of unconnected topics. There should not be an impossible attempt to provide a ‘World History’ course, which would inevitably be superficial and over-simplified. Nor should the course be broken up into fragments aiming to cater to every group, ethnic or other. We are far too diverse a society for this to be possible. Nor would it be desirable: ‘diversity’ requires a uniting thread if it is to produce common citizenship. That common thread must in large part be historical. We believe that most citizens, and most parents, would agree with these general principles.
Each country has its own distinctive approach and curriculum. What should that in England be? Much valuable work has already been done by a Model History Curriculum group on developing a ‘knowledge-rich’ history curriculum. We do not wholly agree with the balance of the content in the original draft which, we recognise, makes significant demands of both children and their teachers. Not all of this curriculum has to be delivered: schools may wish to choose from among the topics suggested. However, the pedagogical approach taken, especially in the early years, shows what can and should be done in a comprehensive and sophisticated manner. We advocate the use of a modified version of this work, which unfortunately remains incomplete. For the final stage (Key Stage 3) we advocate a development of the present National Curriculum.
Our suggested outline curriculum is as follows:
Key Stage 1 (ages 5-7)
Year 1 • The life of Queen Elizabeth II • Learning about the recent past through our communities and families • Using photographs to learn about the past • Ships and seafarers through time
Year 2 • Stories of famous rulers (before 1550) • Life in London in later Stuart England • Change makers of the world • Queen Victoria and the Victorian period • Children’s lives in Victorian times
Key Stage 2 (ages 7-11)
From this point on, it would be highly desirable for children to be taken on regular visits to local historical sites (a church, a cathedral, a stately home, a museum, an archaeological site etc.) which could form part of their local study.
Year 3 • First humans in Africa and the first migrations (Autumn 1) • Ancient Egypt (Autumn 2) • The civilization of Sumer and Indus valley (Spring 1) • Bronze Age in Britain and northern Europe (Spring 2) • A local study or another Bronze Age civilization (Shang or Maya) (Summer 1) • A local study in England (Summer 2)
Year 4 • Ancient Greece (Autumn 1) • Persia in the ancient world (Autumn 2) • The Roman republic and empire (Spring) • Iron Age Britain becomes Roman Britain (incorporating a local study) (Summer)
Year 5 • The Abrahamic religions and their societies (Autumn) • The creation of Europe (Spring) • Angles, Saxons and Jutes (Summer 1) • The birth of England (Summer 2)
Year 6 • Major turning points in English history (Norman conquest, Black Death, Reformation, Civil war, creation of the Union, the coming of democracy) (Autumn) • Introduction to the history of the Second World War: enemies and friends; men, women and children at war; the Holocaust; social changes (Spring) • A theme through time (Summer): either art and architecture 2800 BC to c 1920; or war and peace-making 2700 BC to 1945; or cities AD 79 to c 1870s; or religious beliefs and societies; or a study of a locality through time
Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14)
The present national curriculum expresses the aims of KS 3 well: Pupils should extend and deepen their chronologically secure knowledge and understanding of British, local and world history, so that it provides a well-informed context for wider learning. Pupils should identify significant events, make connections, draw contrasts, and analyse trends within periods and over long arcs of time. They should use historical terms and concepts in increasingly sophisticated ways.
Year 7 • The development of Church, kingdom and society in Medieval England 1066-1509 (Autumn) • Religious and political conflict in England and Europe, c 1520-1688 (Spring and Summer)
Year 8 • A local or thematic study (Autumn) e.g. Either: an in-depth study of any aspect of the Year 7 course in one locality or: a significant society or issue in world history (e.g. Mughal India 1526-1857; China’s Qing dynasty 1644-1911; Russian empires c.1800-1989; USA in the 20th century; the history of ancient and modern slavery) • Ideas, politics, industry and empire: Britain and the world, 1707-1901 (Spring) • The age of violence, 1914-89: war, totalitarianism, genocide (Summer)
Year 9 • British democracy and its changes, c 1900-2000 (Autumn) • British society and the economy c 1830-2000: from industrialization to post-industrial society; from Poor Law to Welfare State; emigration and immigration; children and education; work, leisure and the development of modern sports (Spring and Summer)
Conclusions:
In summary, we urge the Curriculum Review to bear the following principles in mind:
- The primary aim of a National Curriculum in History should be to educate future citizens in a democracy
- It should enable children to have basic knowledge of the development of the political and social systems in which they live, to understand political discussion (in which historical references are so often a part); and this requires a primary (though not exclusive) focus on English and British history, both local and national
- It should also give basic knowledge of the broader European culture and history of which England and Britain form part (including ancient civilisations), and provide some comparative knowledge of non-European civilizations, both ancient and modern
- In doing all this, it should aim to prepare children to assess and criticise the many over-simplifications, anachronisms, falsehoods and distortions that are so frequently found in the media, from political activists, in works of popular history and textbooks, and even from major cultural institutions such as museums These are aims that we believe every democratic country accepts, and indeed in most cases applies more seriously and systematically than in England.
On behalf of History Reclaimed:
Professor David Abulafia CBE, is Emeritus Professor of Mediterranean History at Cambridge, a Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Visiting Professor at the College of Europe, a Fellow of the British Academy, a Member of the Academia Europaea and a winner of the Wolfson History Prize.
Professor Lawrence Goldman, Emeritus Fellow of St. Peter’s College, Oxford, former General Editor of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and former Director of the Institute of Historical Research, University of London.
Dr Alka Sehgal-Cuthbert is an educator, academic, author, and Director of Don’t Divide Us. She has served as a member of the Ofsted Advisory Panel on English, and until recently taught English with the Civitas Education Charity supplementary schools project.
Professor Robert Tombs is a Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge, and Emeritus Professor of French History, University of Cambridge. He is a Chevalier of the Ordre National des Palmes Académiques, and a former editor of the Historical Journal.
History Reclaimed is an independent group of scholars with a wide range of opinions on many subjects, but with the shared conviction of the importance of history, and the necessity for careful interpretation of complex evidence. We oppose the use of history for purposes of propaganda. History Reclaimed is a non-profit making company limited by guarantee.
