Peter Hoskin: Learning the lessons of history
[Peter Hoskin writes for the Spectator.]
I popped along to the History Channel debate '50 Things You Need to Know About British History' last night. 'Twas an excellent event - more than capably chaired by Iain Dale, and with an engaging panel consisting of Diane Abbot, Douglas Murray, Dominic Sandbrook and Polly Toynbee. The catalyst for discussion was the list I've included at the bottom of this post, and which will form the basis of a forthcoming TV series. But things swiftly moved onto the topic of how history should be taught in schools - whether issues are more important than personalities, and whether pupils have a good enough all-round knowledge of British history.
The exchange on the last of these points struck me as particularly politically relevant. The worry is that the current approach to history teaching - generally centred around grand themes rather than specifics, and full of empathetic comparisons of the "what it was like to be a charwoman in Victorian Britain" variety - does not give pupils a sufficient knowledge of British History as a whole. In other words, the latest generation of school-leavers may be able to talk about subtexts and metanarratives but they couldn't tell you the first thing about 1066 and all that. Lists like that put together by the History Channel are meant to redress the balance, but what can - and should - schools do? Toynbee's solution was that they should give pupils as full a grounding in British history as possible until the age of 16, and then concentrate on nunace and more detailed analysis after that. Sure makes sense to me.
But whatever you think about the current balance - and some participants last night argued that the empathetic approach is better than the checklist approach - it throws up some important questions for policymakers. The current movements in British schooling are towards decentralisation and choice. Of course, Ed Balls has done all he can to centralise the academies programme, but the academies are still a more indpendent breed of state school. And Michael Gove, with his Swedish-style reforms, would effectively put academies into overdrive, taking things further and further from state control. But what would Gove and his ilk do about the teaching of history? On the one hand, things could carry on much as they are already - and pupils will continue to be unaware of so much in British history. Or the Government could follow the History Channel by saying that "This is what you need to know about British history", and imposing curricula left, right and centre. But doesn't that latter method bring things closer to the state? Who would be deciding on the list anyway? And how long could it get?
Of course, you could respond that the choice agenda sorts things out by itself. If, by and large, you leave schools to it, some will veer towards the empathetic/thematic approach and some will veer towards to the "need to know" approach. Parents can then choose which they'd prefer their children to attend. To which I'd say: but parents probably don't choose schools on the basis of the teaching of one subject. In the end, I suspect it's a grey area, somewhere a delicate balance needs to be found. It's up to policymakers to find that balance.
P.S. Here's the History Channel's list of the '50 Things You Need to Know About British History'. Are there any items CoffeeHousers would add or remove? For me, the 1832 Reform Act is a glaring omission.
-- Stonehenge 2200 BC
-- Roman Invasion and Civilisation 43 AD
-- St Augustine and Christianity 597
-- King Alfred the Great and the Doom Book 871
-- Battle of Hastings and Norman Conquest 1066
-- Magna Carta and trial by jury 1215
-- Declaration of Arbroath 1320
-- Canterbury Tales 1370
-- Peasants’ Revolt 1381
-- The longbows at Agincourt 1415
-- Religious Settlement 1559
-- Sir Francis Drake and the defeat of the Spanish Amrada 1588
-- Gunpowder Plot 1605
-- Shakespeare 1610
-- Plantation of Ulster 1611
-- Execution of Charles I 1649
-- Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights 1688
-- The Bank of England 1694
-- Act of Union 1707
-- Britain’s first Prime Minister Robert Walpole 1721
-- Gin craze and British drink culture 1729
-- The East India Company and the Battle of Plassey 1757
-- Longitude 1759
-- Watt’s Steam Engine 1769
-- Arkwright’s Spinning Frame 1771
-- Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations 1776
-- The Siege of Yorktown and the loss of America 1781
-- Nelson’s death and the Battle of Trafalgar 1805
-- William Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade 1807
-- Battle of Waterloo and national identity 1815
-- Sir Robert Peel and the British Bobby 1829
-- Factory Acts and the British weekend 1850
-- Dr Livingstone and Africa 1855
-- Charles Darwin and evolution 1859
-- The Red House and ‘my home is my castle’ 1859
-- The laws of association football 1863
-- Suffragettes 1913
-- The Battle of the Somme 1916
-- The BBC 1927
-- Gandhi and Indian Independence 1931
-- The Blitz 1940
-- Frank Whittle and the jet engine 1941
-- The NHS and Welfare State 1948
-- SS Windrush and Multiculturalism 1948
-- The Beatles 1964
-- Monty Python and British humour 1971
-- Britain joins Europe 1973
-- Miners’ strike and Mrs Thatcher 1984
-- The Channel Tunnel 1991
-- The Good Friday Agreement 1998
Read entire article at Spectator
I popped along to the History Channel debate '50 Things You Need to Know About British History' last night. 'Twas an excellent event - more than capably chaired by Iain Dale, and with an engaging panel consisting of Diane Abbot, Douglas Murray, Dominic Sandbrook and Polly Toynbee. The catalyst for discussion was the list I've included at the bottom of this post, and which will form the basis of a forthcoming TV series. But things swiftly moved onto the topic of how history should be taught in schools - whether issues are more important than personalities, and whether pupils have a good enough all-round knowledge of British history.
The exchange on the last of these points struck me as particularly politically relevant. The worry is that the current approach to history teaching - generally centred around grand themes rather than specifics, and full of empathetic comparisons of the "what it was like to be a charwoman in Victorian Britain" variety - does not give pupils a sufficient knowledge of British History as a whole. In other words, the latest generation of school-leavers may be able to talk about subtexts and metanarratives but they couldn't tell you the first thing about 1066 and all that. Lists like that put together by the History Channel are meant to redress the balance, but what can - and should - schools do? Toynbee's solution was that they should give pupils as full a grounding in British history as possible until the age of 16, and then concentrate on nunace and more detailed analysis after that. Sure makes sense to me.
But whatever you think about the current balance - and some participants last night argued that the empathetic approach is better than the checklist approach - it throws up some important questions for policymakers. The current movements in British schooling are towards decentralisation and choice. Of course, Ed Balls has done all he can to centralise the academies programme, but the academies are still a more indpendent breed of state school. And Michael Gove, with his Swedish-style reforms, would effectively put academies into overdrive, taking things further and further from state control. But what would Gove and his ilk do about the teaching of history? On the one hand, things could carry on much as they are already - and pupils will continue to be unaware of so much in British history. Or the Government could follow the History Channel by saying that "This is what you need to know about British history", and imposing curricula left, right and centre. But doesn't that latter method bring things closer to the state? Who would be deciding on the list anyway? And how long could it get?
Of course, you could respond that the choice agenda sorts things out by itself. If, by and large, you leave schools to it, some will veer towards the empathetic/thematic approach and some will veer towards to the "need to know" approach. Parents can then choose which they'd prefer their children to attend. To which I'd say: but parents probably don't choose schools on the basis of the teaching of one subject. In the end, I suspect it's a grey area, somewhere a delicate balance needs to be found. It's up to policymakers to find that balance.
P.S. Here's the History Channel's list of the '50 Things You Need to Know About British History'. Are there any items CoffeeHousers would add or remove? For me, the 1832 Reform Act is a glaring omission.
-- Stonehenge 2200 BC
-- Roman Invasion and Civilisation 43 AD
-- St Augustine and Christianity 597
-- King Alfred the Great and the Doom Book 871
-- Battle of Hastings and Norman Conquest 1066
-- Magna Carta and trial by jury 1215
-- Declaration of Arbroath 1320
-- Canterbury Tales 1370
-- Peasants’ Revolt 1381
-- The longbows at Agincourt 1415
-- Religious Settlement 1559
-- Sir Francis Drake and the defeat of the Spanish Amrada 1588
-- Gunpowder Plot 1605
-- Shakespeare 1610
-- Plantation of Ulster 1611
-- Execution of Charles I 1649
-- Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights 1688
-- The Bank of England 1694
-- Act of Union 1707
-- Britain’s first Prime Minister Robert Walpole 1721
-- Gin craze and British drink culture 1729
-- The East India Company and the Battle of Plassey 1757
-- Longitude 1759
-- Watt’s Steam Engine 1769
-- Arkwright’s Spinning Frame 1771
-- Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations 1776
-- The Siege of Yorktown and the loss of America 1781
-- Nelson’s death and the Battle of Trafalgar 1805
-- William Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade 1807
-- Battle of Waterloo and national identity 1815
-- Sir Robert Peel and the British Bobby 1829
-- Factory Acts and the British weekend 1850
-- Dr Livingstone and Africa 1855
-- Charles Darwin and evolution 1859
-- The Red House and ‘my home is my castle’ 1859
-- The laws of association football 1863
-- Suffragettes 1913
-- The Battle of the Somme 1916
-- The BBC 1927
-- Gandhi and Indian Independence 1931
-- The Blitz 1940
-- Frank Whittle and the jet engine 1941
-- The NHS and Welfare State 1948
-- SS Windrush and Multiculturalism 1948
-- The Beatles 1964
-- Monty Python and British humour 1971
-- Britain joins Europe 1973
-- Miners’ strike and Mrs Thatcher 1984
-- The Channel Tunnel 1991
-- The Good Friday Agreement 1998