[charlatan]

Denial? Of what exactly? I was merely offering a different viewpoint to Terry Deary. His suggestion that the children of today are pumped full of facts in history lessons is just not true. Nor is it true that a new government of whatever party would seek to do this.

I am not sure how or where Tony Blair fits in with this but he certainly seems to be popping up much more recently.

Also where did I state that history teaching was good? I can find no mention of any suggestion that I stated it was good, bad or indifferent. I would imagine it can be all three depending on the abilities of the individual teacher and the importance placed on it at the particular school.

As for why numbers for GCSE are declining, who really knows? One possible reason is that history is seen as a harder subject and some schools are keen to 'preserve' their exam pass rates.

[Yorkie]

Hi,
I am a recent History graduate and thought I would chip in with my relatively recent experience of history teaching.
History GCSE was one of my least favourite subjects; I began my A-levels with the idea of studying a science subject at university. I took history A-level simply because I loved history outside of school. I was an avid reader of Terry Deary's books when I was younger and loved reading history books, visiting historical sites and watching historical documentaries. But the GCSE was depressing. The syllabus was predictable - (pre-war) Nazis, Cold War, Russian Revolution, etc etc. The only British history we studied was in our courseworks on the Suffragettes and Jack the Ripper; the latter was gruesomely interesting, but not especially educational. The assessment method was simply inadequate for brighter students with a passion for the subject. Neither our opinions nor detailed recall of facts were necessary, or even desirable. Instead, we had approximately 18 minutes to write each "essay" in which we wrote a few facts in the right order, and gave the only answer the examiner was looking for. It was a matter of jumping through very narrow hoops. Naturally, history teaching at GCSE level is tailored towards this extremely flawed assessment method.

A-level was a huge improvement - until exam time! While far better than the GCSE exams, the emphasis was still on jumping through hoops. An 'A' standard essay could be (and frequently was!) marked down several grades simply because one box was not properly ticked. Again, this encourages teaching to the (flawed) exams, instead of independent thinking and accomplished essay-writing.

The only positive I can think of for history at schools is that the range of topics is quite comprehensive - GCSE being the exception in my case. During my time at school we covered Medieval England, the Medieval Islamic world, the Reformation, the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the slave trade, WWI, the rise of the Nazis, etc.

It is a shame, however, that I didn't truly love being taught the subject until university, where for the first time I wasn't being taught to the exam.

[Yorkie]

In reply to Charlatan, I do believe that history rates are declining in part because other humanity subjects, such as geography and religious studies, are perceived as easier. In my experience this perception is correct!

[Hilary Yewdale]

I would agree with Yorkie - in our grades driven climate pupils are often encouraged to take subjects that will get them the best grades. History GCSE is harder than say BTEC travel and tourism and so middle ability students are steered towards the courses that will get them the grades. Of course students that love History will still choose History but many will want the best chance of good grades. A shame because an understanding of 20th century History provides a backdrop to our present world.

[ravenna]

Prior to the introduction of GCSE, the old CSE exam allowed schools to set and assess accredited courses aimed exactly at building on the enthusiasm of less-able pupils. This was an area where site visits and local history really flourished.
There is a hint that the new Humanities 14-19 Diploma will serve a similar audience in a similar way - if it ever gets to draw breath.

[pgturner1979]

I think it is a shame that many people feel qualified to comment about History teaching in schools when they have little knowledge of what actually happens in the classroom. Many of the commentators have not been in a classroom since their own school days, and as Historians we know how much time can alter a memory. Also, how many went to independent schools and have no knowledge of the state system? Opinion, as we all know, often needs no grounding in facts, but to pass opinion from a distance, separated by both time and personal circumstances may often mean that the opinion is unreliable or not valid. Many of the students that we teach might be able to pass comment on this - you never know!

History is actually taught in many different ways in schools across the country. The 2008 review of the National Curriculum has given many teachers the freedom to teach the Historical content that they believe is most relevant and useful to the pupils that they teach. Many teachers have been very brave in entirely re-writing their schemes of work in the last twelve months. I have written a number of books over the last couple of years that suggest that History should be taught thematically as it allows pupils to see more clearly the links between events and allows pupils to see change, continuity and causation a bit more clearly. We can also teach interpretation and importance more easily. Others still feel that teaching History chronologically is the best way - I can see the argument for both methods.
A-Level History is actually more disjointed in terms of chronology. Over two years I now teach the Black Death and the Peasants Revolt, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Charles I and a study of medicine over 1000 years. Far too much leaping about for my likings.
GCSE History is not as popular as it was - mainly because the emphasis has shifted away from the subject in favour of literacy, numeracy and learning skills. Also, the modern options system in schools in often "streamed" not allowing everybody an open choice - therefore quite often only a proportion of all pupils are even offered the chance to take History. Also, there is far more choice than there ever was. Children struggle to choose. At my own school History is as popular as ever. Perhaps Terry would like to come and see some actual History lessons. He might be surprised to see how much things have changed.

[ravenna]

Everyone has an experience of education, so in my books anyone is entitled to join a debate about education. It would be excellent to be able to bring in teachers as well as 'civilians'.....but can we be sure from posts who is which? PG has come clean, so I will too - 20 years secondary history teaching plus more in a local authority - but the salient point I would like to offer here is that to progress professionally I had to move into IT because there simply aren't the volume of jobs teaching history. I'd love to say I've got no ambition but it is not true, and I didn't have the patience for dead men's shoes.
I fear that the recent changes allowed to the History teaching scheme of work were too late as the support for the subject at strategic level does not exist.

[Linnac]

Hi. I just the article in the magazine just a few minutes ago and I thought that I really would like to get my view heard.
I'm 14 years old and currently studying History GCSE in a public school. Quite frankly, I'm appalled at the way it is taught. Our teacher makes things interesting and yet I was shocked at all the predjudices that we are being pumped with. Although the tests tell us to state our opinion, we are given set answers with which to reply. For example, the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh on the Germans. There is no other way to look at it.
Even the sources we study... What do they teach us? OK, this is a source in a textbook. It is a poster used at the time of the war- propaganda (and for all we know they might be lying about that). Explain what it shows. And then we pour over this little cartoon trying to interpret it. Then we go home and pick up a real newspaper and try to interpret the propaganda in that. And the conclusion? This is one person's view (the cartoonist's) and probably also the editor of the newspaper's view. And even then, we could be looking too deep for answers. For all we know Hitler really could have a massive head- mayeb it doesn't mean a thing.
Expanding on that, we aren't taught much outside of the World Wars. I agree with Andrew Marr that we should at least know some order of events (none of my class even know if the Victorian or Elizabethan era came first) but I also agree with Terry Deary (whose books have probably taught us more than the teachers have) that giving us facts is rather useless. The whole point of History at a young age, in my belief, is not to record events in our minds that we could easily google. We should learn from it too. The way we are being taught is like using children as human calculators and telling us nothing of how to apply maths to everyday life.
Because when it comes down to it, my History class is far more interested in learning what life was like during the Blitz than what political events made it happen. To be honest, I don't believe even one person fro my class of about 25 is going to be a politician. We could learn far more if they told us how people lived their lives at certain points in History. Let politicians research the past politicians and learn from their mistakes. Let Historians document events from the World Wars. And bloomin' let kids learn things that will actually make us use our brains!

[CuriousHistory]

I think Dr Musgrove is being slighlty disengenuos calling this a debate. Andrew Marr got one column, at the end of an article on his new series, tgo make his case. Terry Deary was given two pages, even if he did waste most of them in a prty-politic whine.

I side with Andrew Marr. Both my children (one now in his GCSE year, the other at KS3) have been baffled by the lack of chronology in their History lessons, which has not allowed them to make connections between the different topics they are taught. In particular, they have had to ask me whether Queen Victoria became before or after the Tudors. As a comparison between Gloriana and the Queen-Empress is surely a valid historical exercise, whatever your politics, the fact that this was not taught is a major flaw.

Even within a topic, not knowing the order in which events happen will cause confusion and risk alienating a class who cannot make sense out of what they are being told. (For instance, I spoke to a group of Yr 6 pupils last year, some of whom did not know at what stage of WWII Britain was threatened by invasion.

It is, of course, useful to make the historical era relevant to children's own experience as a tool for making the subject accessible, but this is wasted effort if the significance of events and developments in the period are lost.

Mr Deary claims his books are not intended to be used in teaching. There is no such disclaimer on the books themselves, and they are often used by non-specialist teachers at KS2 and 3, desperate for something "engaging" and without sufficient knowledge to spot the errors or agenda. Not do I see Mr Deary contacting schools to urge them not to use his books.

This is important as I find his books do contain basic errors. "Blitzed Brits" (first one to hand) announces (in its timeline - so facts do have a place) that in 1938 the Government fears Nazi Invasion. In November 1940, air raids switch to Coventry "for a while" - no mention of Liverpool or Plymouth, then? He pursues his digs at teachers with the famous story of the stolen Kit-Kat, while not mentioning that teachers were responsible (and made heroic efforts) for the children they were evacuated with. (That teachers were evacuated is mentioned, but "to carry on the same classes in quiet country schools).

Mr Deary also admits he has a political anti-authority, left-wing agenda. I am deeply suspicious of adults who try to impose their politics on children, particularly children of the young age his books appeal to. He may feel this is a valid political tactic, I do not. I have the same objection, incidentally, to Michael Morpurgo's novels, also widely relied on in schools.

Of course, used properly and with thier faults pointed out, Deary's books are useful and do encourage children to take an interest.

A more fundamental problem with history teaching is that for most children, it will not be taught by a history specialist until KS4, by which time it is probably far too late. But that is a different, and wider debate.

CH

p.s. I am not a history teacher, indeed not a teacher at all.

[Linnac]

In response to CuriousHistory's observations, I agree that children should be given an understanding of the eras in which events happened and that Terry Deary's books are vague at best but I object to how you say that Mr Deary uses his books to encourage people of my age and younger to take a specific stance on politics (although he clearly gives some very strong opinions of how school dinners are disgusting). In fact, to interest the younger years, he barely touches on politics in his books. I feel inclined to defend his books because I would probably have never have developed any interest in History had it not been for the series.

In the past, teachers I've had in Primary school have used his books to teach certain points of History and why not? Children of that age are hard to interest when given many facts and dates. Although it is certain that many important events are excluded from the books in favour of less academic details, so far I haven't seen anything that I would call inaccurate.
(I do, however, agree that using Michael Morpurgo's books as reading guides for the younger students is somewhat crude- they are neither interesting to any particular age group or informative.)

Whatever view you choose to take, History teaching could definitely need improving. I'm currently studying WW2 in great depth and no one's bothered to point me to a source that even says that Britain was threatened with invasion (unless they deemed it unnessecary to study).

In fact, all the sources they give us are brief. I believe that I learnt more about the interwar years from the last issue of BBC History magazine than actually from what they gave us to study.