[Canterbury Bob]

Putting the specific politics on one side, otherwise this could run and run, it seems to me that Terry Deary is following the well trodden path of accusing those with whom he disagrees of wanting or believing something they do not want or believe in, thus undermining their position and allowing him to attack them from a position of strength, concealing the weakness of his own argument.

So, in reality nobody wants schoolchildren taught a succession of "dates" but many of us do feel that they ought to be taught a sequential understanding of British and related history before they are taught to empathise with historic figures or to analyse historic documents or any of the other in depth ways of understanding history which, to be frank are wasted on junior school age children.

A school year contains 39 weeks and its not beyond the wit of mankind to devise a sequential history programme that in the first year at juniors and in the first year at seniors could cover an outline of British history in that time; leaving later years to cover things in more depth that can the be plugged in or out of the sequential history of which children will already have an understanding. 39 weeks I estimate, will also allow enough time for history teaching to look sideways, so for example in teaching the stone age to bronze age history of Britain, sideways reference can be made to the civilization of the Greeks and the building of the pyramids. These subjects could then be covered as more in depth projects in later years.

Of course at junior level this may not be overwhelmingly popular with teachers who have to teach the same subject over and over again but after all it will only be for a year and imagine the fascination that could be derived from working out whether the class are "celts", "saxons", "norse", "normans", "african" and so on and how they came to be here!

Canterbury Bob

[kjnichols]

Terry Deary's remarks seem to me rather one-sided. As a long-term contributor to his 20 millions sales I have recommended his books as a hook for children to become interested in history. Once fascinated children's interest can be kept by teaching how the past (places, events and people) relates to their lives. Only then should the academic rules polish off that interest for those who intend to enter the professional field. This is the stage where facts and fiction separate. For the interested amateur a grounding in history is a life-time interest and so useful for local and family history seekers. The ability to analyse and interpret information is a transferable skill.

I failed my O level History - the Wars were to blame - whilst reading about the Tudors and Georgians. Now, as a graduate in Scottish Historical Studies, working in the heritage tourism industry I disseminate historical information for a living- and I do it with a passion. I was traumatised to know that my passion would upset the author whose books lined full shelves in my child's room! I do however agree that the politicians are not the ones to set the curriculum. I have long believed that any subject that does not contribute to the GDP of the economy is deemed irrelevant by government. Hence the reduction of history in the school curriculum and the variety of subjects and periods included. Saying that there are less exams taken in the subject is to ignore the fact that there is less of it taught. My school had no pupils taking Russian language - for the simple reason it wasn't taught!!

Andrew Marr's opinion that chronology is essential is far more nearer the mark. How many people can recognise the threads that lead from the Reformation to the Battle of Culloden? Integral to chronological understanding is the regionalisation of history. Taking the UK as an example, the chronology of a period has different perspectives depending on whether you lived in Wales, Ireland, Scotland or England. Teaching that there are 2 sides to every story is a fundamental aspect to life itself. Understanding the past leads to greater understanding of the present.

[lewesexile_74]

Very interesting thread. Children should never be pumped full of facts in their primary years! Instead they should be taught the importance of 'historical enquiry' based on a wide range of hopefully exciting and motivating activities from source work, historical empathy through role play, lively trips and visits, art work etc.

I love teaching history and tend to use history a vehicle for learning in other subjects, e.g. literacy.
Good subject knowledge on behalf of the teacher should never to underestimated! I used the recent magazine article on the Gunpowder plot to enrich my teaching of newspaper report writing recently-my class enjoyed learning about some of the key facts and events surrounding the Gunpowder Plot, and the additional information made me more confident in my teaching!

[ruby]

I studied history for GCSE, A-level and for my degree (and had great teachers for the most part). I love the subject and now work in a museum. I agree that children shouldn't be overloaded with facts and prefer to find out the stories from history. However chronological displays in museums seem to help people trace changes in our heritage and relate to different periods more easily than a thematic approach. Understanding the generally chronology of history is certainly important.

My biggest regret concerning my history education was not finding out more about the heritage of the region that I was born and brought up in but I'm changing that now by doing some self-led studying!