[CuriousHistory]

Linnac

In my defence, I should point out that Mr Deary sets out his own political motivation very clearly in his article - the bit on p.37 under the heading of "Anti-Establishment". I agree he tries not to make his books too overtly party political. In "Blitzed Brits" even the Royal Family does reasonably well (only a couple of sneers). But if you concentrate almost exclusively on the bad things about a period, you are making a statement, as he declares is his aim.

My children both enjoy his books as well (the 15 year old reckons he's outgrown them, though), but they've got me to check things with. At KS3, my son was taught History by a science teacher, who was great as a form teacher and a science teacher, but had given up History at "O" Level (GCSE to you). He used Horrible Histories and was surprised when I pointed out some of the errors. That's the risk of non-specialists using the books.

As to you not having noticed inaccuracies, with respect, they are there and the fact you haven't noticed them is one of my major objections; a child reading something purporting to be a history book (even if not for schools) is likely to assume that it is accurate.

The two I quoted. The Government was not afraid of invasion in 1938, it was afraid of bombing (why issue gas masks in response to invasion)? More seriously, his remark about Coventry leaves out all the other cities away from London that suffered even more prolonged bombing (Coventry suffered horribly, but in just one night) and gives a wrong impression.

I also note, in his derogatory remarks about teachers, that he twice notes teachers were exempt from call-up. This is not true. They could be deferred but only if the school could make a very good case and for young male and female teachers, this was rare. Almost schools all through the war had difficulty keeping staff and finding replacements. Mr Deary missed one of his anti-establishment opportunities here; my form teacher when I was ten told us that one thing he did like about the Army was that he got paid more as a Second Lieutenant than he had as a teacher. But then, that would have meant admitting teachers were hard done by.

(Just had a thought. If these books aren't for schools, or schoolchildren doing historywhy does he go on about teachers so much?)

In fact, I don't think Terry Deary is opposed to facts being taught. But the facts he wants taught are the ones he puts in his books, which encourage a disenchanted view of the world, not the ones that build a narrative arc that might give a more positive impression; the "Establishment View". After all, most people put up with life in WWII, most soldiers did their jobs, and the good guys won.

Good luck with your WWII history. I hope you find some decent sources (the BBC site is not bad).

CH

[Linnac]

(BBC revision guides only take you up to a C grade.)

Sorry, I don't really understand the following paragraph. Would you mind explaining what you mean?

I also note, in his derogatory remarks about teachers, that he twice notes teachers were exempt from call-up. This is not true. They could be deferred but only if the school could make a very good case and for young male and female teachers, this was rare. Almost schools all through the war had difficulty keeping staff and finding replacements. Mr Deary missed one of his anti-establishment opportunities here; my form teacher when I was ten told us that one thing he did like about the Army was that he got paid more as a Second Lieutenant than he had as a teacher. But then, that would have meant admitting teachers were hard done by.

[CuriousHistory]

Linnac

(but you can build on the information given. I would also recommend Juliet Gardiner's "Wartime Britain 1939-45")

Not quite sure which bit you didn't understand, but I'll expand the explanation a bit. On p.28 he notes that teaching was too important to make teachers go off to fight and on p.35 he says the law said teachers didn't have to go (off to fight). I had to look into how conscription affected teachers, for some work I did on the history of a local school.

In fact, teachers were not exempt from conscription, which affected all men between 18 and 45 and all unmarried women between 21 and 41. There were no absolute exemptions from service. Instead There was a schedule of occupations where people employed in those jobs could be deferred from call-up if the need to keep them in that job was considered strong enough. Teaching was one of these, but deferrments were in the main not granted to young physically fit teachers, of the type the Armed Services (and war industry for women) needed. Teachers could also volunteer, and as Terry Deary notes, many did.

As a result, almost all schools faced teacher shortages. The public schools could frequently rely on retired staff, or recruiiting women (shock) for the first time, but the local authority schools did not have the same resource. On the other hand, women who had been forced to give up teaching on marriage were allowed back!

The teacher I referred to had just started his teaching career when the war broke out. He was also in the Territorial Army, so he was one of those who volunteered to go. But he did say he was better paid as an officer!

Terry Deary seems to like putting in digs about teachers. He might argue this is to establish a rapport with his readers and is just for fun, but I think the overall effect is to run teachers down. He does like to point out when people are hard done by, so my teacher's point about being poorly paid as a teacher might appeal to him, if it were about any other job than teacher!

That help?

Actually, the errors or otherwise in Terry Deary's books are rather off the point for this discussion.

To understand a period, you need to be taught a chronological narrative of events as well as what people experienced. For instance, if you are doing WWII, it is important to know that the Blitz came in 1940, and most people did not encounter serious bombing again, and London only got the V1s and V2s toward the end of the war (so people weren't in their bomb shelters every night for six years) and that the severity of rationing varied during the war, although overall it got more restrictive. That's the point Andrew Marr makes, and with which I agree. It is not something Deary really addresses in his article and, indeed, his books do have dates in.

CH

[Linnac]

Ah, thank you for that (and I'll be sure to look up that book). I understand now. I think I agree more with you now (although I still believe Horrible Histories is much more entertaining and in some cases more informative than current History teaching in schools).

[Dave Musgrove]

You've all seen the response from our resident history teacher Nicolas Kinlcoh to messrs Deary and Marr haven't you? It's here: http://www.bbchistorymagazine.com/featu ... ch-history

ALso, NIcolas is going to join our panel of bloggers and report about life as a history teacher on a regular basis. He's his first offering
http://www.bbchistorymagazine.com/blog/ ... lest-month

[iandevlin]

All interesting posts here, and I'm getting some good insight on how history is and was taught here in Britain. It's also quite useful to have a current student's input in Linnac, so thank you for that also!

[CuriousHistory]

Having now read Nicolas Kinloch's article and blog, some further thoughts.

I am sure History can be taught as well these days as when I were a lad. I had inspirational History teachers at prep school, and my children had an equally inspiring teacher at theirs (who has left them with an abiding interest in Ancient Egypt, an interest I cannot share despite Rachel Weisz and Patricia Velasquez).


But as an introduction to History, I was taught a chronology of British History at what is now KS 1/2 (which managed to cover things like everyday life), which underpinned subsequent topics. My children have been taught standalone topics from the start. I understand that the current curriculum makes an emphasis on chronology difficult at later stages, but if it has been taught at the start, surely that is enough to make the rest of History comprehensible?

I am not sure that History has ever been vastly popular. Only around 10% of my VIth form opted for it, despite History being a school strength (unlike Linnac's, apparently). But from reading various articles on this site and elsewhere, it would seem much of the modern problem, in the state sector at least, lies with SMT sidelining the subject (whatever lipservice is paid to soothe anxious parents). I can understand this in a target-driven environment, and the kind of focussed, progressive, go-ahead type who becomes a secondary Head these days probably is not that into History, unless a History teacher. I thought Ravenna's description of the reality of History on the school timetable was very instructive.

So we need a change in managerial/regulatory culture, that specifies that History MUST be taught for a set number of hours a week?

CH

[ravenna]

In reply to CH, I would suggest that attempting to ring-fence curriculum space for history is now a non-starter in the state sector. Too many initiatives have been forced in, on top of originally stakhanovite NC schemes of work, and history lacks influential DCFS backers.
However, state education - especially secondary education - is screaming out for radical curricular and timetabling reform all round and if integrated humanities had strong championing it coud take hold if root and branch reform were embraced.
I fear there are too many 'ifs' for this to be likely.

[CuriousHistory]

ravenna

I am intrested in your reply. Most people I have spoken to (admittedly not a representative sample of the profession!) are suspicious of integrated humanities, fearing further dilution of History teaching because any of the humanities faculty (RE, Geography as well as history) will be judged capable of teaching any subject.

Or do you think an integrated humanities faculty would be better able to stand up to Business and Science?

CH

[ravenna]

If you look at the current proposals for the Humanities Diploma, it harks straight back to pre-1988 CSE level. Under that regime, a course was quite simply what a local teacher / department made it. Some were fantastic, others laughable. The best ones succeeded because they were structured around the students, started where they were and were based around locally-recognisable topics, but also opened young eyes to the bigger picture.
'Standing up' against another group of subjects in the current curriculum immediately brings us back to the core problem, which is education interpreted as a stage for adult egos, or for justifying party politics, rather than an intention to create reflective, informed citizens. This is precisely why so much nonsense is talked and tolerated in the profession.
The vast majority of the kids I teach are not going to be historians, archaeologists, scientists or captains of industry. Or mathematicians. They will if they are lucky do one or two jobs and hold their families together. The government now proposes insisting these young people stay in full time education until the age of 18, enormous fun for all concerned if they have switched off from learning at the age of 12.
I have a personal passion for all aspects of human history and culture, but I would much rather we stripped off the blinkers and established an educational system that works at individual level rather than gratifies the passing needs of this politician or that exam board.
Look beyond formal schooling to the swathes of adults who become amateur experts in a whole range of activities, of which history is one. Yes, this is a by-product of intellect developing with age,but it is also a sad reflection on our schools that these skills are not able to flourish within them.