What should children be taught? (History)

[MagicTeatowel]

Greetings All!

After watching this that shares the same name as the thread title, I would like to ask you your thoughts on the subject.

The way I feel is that History is largely seen as learning a set of facts and truths in class, and then churning out a carbon copy in an exam with little interpretation skill or originality needed. Furthermore it often perceived as mundane as it largely associated with white men of a certain age with bushy beards and generic WW2 documentaries. This has ultimately led to the conclusion of many students that History is a boring subject, whereas I believe the complete opposite.

To me, history is about firstly, discovering the past with the goal being to find what makes us who we are and why the world is the way it is . . . and secondly to interpret past so we can see what was good, what was bad, learn from our mistakes, and make better decisions in the future. The association with history as a synonym for boring has resulted with less and less people taking it, which is quite sad  (sheds tear). In the first minutes Niall Ferguson himself says that more people take D&T at GCSE than History and more people take psychology at college than History (nothing against you psychologists). This has resulted in some interesting facts.

Nial Ferguson also says in the first few minutes these facts about candidates for a welsh university . . .

• 34% knew the monarch at the time of Spanish armada
• 31% knew the location of the Boer War
• 16% knew who the commander was of the British forces at Waterloo
• 11% could name a single British prime-minister of the 19th century

In my eyes . . . . everyone walks out of secondary school knowing loads about the Rise of Hitler and the Tudors + nothing else!
(It is also worth noting that this is not the fault of the teachers, they are fantastic, but of the learn-for-the-exam mentality and national curriculum).

If I were to be in charge  it would work like this . . . . 45% on learning the past . . . . . 30% on interpreting the past . . . . . and 25% on skills (critical reasoning, judgements, source analysis etc.) I think 40% home history and 60% foreign history is a good mix.

There would also be equal time spent on ancient, medieval, early modern history with a little bit more emphasis on modern history. There should also be opportunities to specialise in History at school e.g. archaeology. + MOAR DEBATES 

So I ask you, A: what do you think about history and the way its taught at your education institution? B: If it could be, how would you improve it?

[Mr T]

Theres far to much focus of the World Wars in British schools/society.

[Captain America]

What we need in the UK is less focus on Empire and the wars, and more focus on world history. So basically the opposite way Gove's going

[TWking]

For me it should be getting people interested in history in the early years.
Schools can not teach students everything. Pre GCSE should be about the fun stuff with skills mingled.
In GCSE students should pick a topic and learn independently, using laptops and books etc- this will sort the historians from the rest. Teaching during GCSE have more focus on skills. Near the end of the year/s there should be some course work on the the students chosen subject.

Giving the students a choice will ensure that they enjoy History(key to success) because in my opinion it is too diverse a subject to be one school subject.

[John Price]

I agree, For too much time in school is put into learning about world war 1 and world war 2, When there are many other things we could go into the worlds history, If teachers must focus on wars, Then there is the Crusades, Singoku Jidai and the american civil war which is hardly touched by our school which are truly fascinating.

[AeroNinja]

I agree, For too much time in school is put into learning about world war 1 and world war 2, When there are many other things we could go into the worlds history, If teachers must focus on wars, Then there is the Crusades, Singoku Jidai and the american civil war which is hardly touched by our school which are truly fascinating.

<3

[TWking]

I agree, For too much time in school is put into learning about world war 1 and world war 2, When there are many other things we could go into the worlds history, If teachers must focus on wars, Then there is the Crusades, Singoku Jidai and the american civil war which is hardly touched by our school which are truly fascinating.

but even then they barely even touch the war part. It is usually the homefront or how it started/ended (interesting in its own right). That is one of the major factors. People are told that they will learn about world war 2. Instantly they thing about the epic battles, equipment, commander and the ton of footage that they will watch. They are then let down when all we are taught are the "boring" parts

[Captain America]

To be fair, I just did an entire year on the Development of Warfare from 1792 - 1945, Napoleon right through to Hitler, quite a blast I can tell you

[John Price]

I agree, For too much time in school is put into learning about world war 1 and world war 2, When there are many other things we could go into the worlds history, If teachers must focus on wars, Then there is the Crusades, Singoku Jidai and the american civil war which is hardly touched by our school which are truly fascinating.

but even then they barely even touch the war part. It is usually the homefront or how it started/ended (interesting in its own right). That is one of the major factors. People are told that they will learn about world war 2. Instantly they thing about the epic battles, equipment, commander and the ton of footage that they will watch. They are then let down when all we are taught are the "boring" parts

Very true, but that proves my point, personally the 1st and 2nd world war was all they taught throughout my years of school, Thats the reason it being boring, Not the fact that people wont learn about the "epic battles", More the fact that we spend 5 years minimum on it, So what would be the harm in learning about things that are actually interesting, the WW's are a major part to our history, but 5 years being told the same thing over and over again? This shows what little imaginations teachers have, just following the code's set to them by the union.

[Friedrich]

pls can you add to the subject that this is mainly a british discussion? 

In german school you learn following:

greek philosphy & olympics - roman empire - medieval society - french revolution 1789-1793 (rarely Glorious Revolution and American War of Independence as foreplay) - Congress of Vienna & European (French & German) Restoration - british & german industrial revolution (sometimes including the British Empire in general) - Otto von Bismarck's diplomacy & forming of the German Empire (Reichsgründung) - Emperor Wilhelm II & causes of World War 1 - WW1 aftermath (including October Revolution) & struggle (Treaty of Versailles) of the first German Republic (Weimarer Republik) - seizure of power of the Nazis (Machtergreifung) - Nazi terror (mainly Holocaust/Shoah) & causes of World War 2 - Germany 1945-1990 (including Cold War & Iron Courtain in Europe) & German Democratic Republic (DDR) - Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany 1990 & German reunification (Wiedervereinigung)

In german classes you do not learn about wars or warfare. More about the causes and reasons of them. You learn about treaties & societies.

[Captain America]

very German focused, would an international slant not be better?

[Friedrich]

To be fair, you can't talk about world politics between the mid 19th century and the Cold War without talking about Germany. The forming of the German Empire in 1871 is one of the reasons of the imbalance of powers in Europe until 1945, a main cause for WW1 and the main cause for WW2. But yes, more focus on the Russo-Japanese War as foreplay for WW1, Colonial Empires outside British, French & Germany, especially the end of the British & French colonial empires in the aftermath of WW2 or the Japanese & American colonial empires), or the Korean War and its aftermath compared to the german partition would have been nice. But outside the 19th and 20th century, the focus in history classes in germany is allready not in germany. We rarely talk about the Thirty Years' War or Seven Years' War. Maybe sometimes the Peace of Westphalia, but that's it. Main focus is in this time period the French Revolution as the mother over every following revolution.

[Duuring]

Pff. The Batavian Revolution was years earlier.

[The Nutty Pig]

There is not really enough time in History classes to focus on a lot. I think that maybe when it comes to GCSE's there should be different types of history that focus on different things, like ancient medicines, governments etc. One thing people forget is that there is a lot more to history then just wars.

[Friedrich]

Pff. The Batavian Revolution was years earlier.

Errrr... WAT? plz mark irony next time.

There is not really enough time in History classes to focus on a lot. I think that maybe when it comes to GCSE's there should be different types of history that focus on different things, like ancient medicines, governments etc. One thing people forget is that there is a lot more to history then just wars.

But wars produces world politics & treaties (or the other way around). So wars are a part of world politics. It's something different to talk about the causes and reasons of a war or what happened in the war.