Education Debate

What History is Being Taught in Primary?

What History is Being Taught in Primary?

, , 0

What History is Being Taught in Schools?

One of the commonly repeated, yet little evidenced, ideas is that little to no diverse history is taught in English schools. Many of these claims are based on individual experiences of the education system pre-National Curriculum and even when they are made based on the current curriculum, there is no verification of these claims.

Large scale research is required yet it is not an academic priority despite the fact that if the claims made by those critiquing the system were true, then the data could demonstrate it. 

What follows are the results of a small scale study of the history units taught in primary schools in five Local Education Authorities – Cumbria, Leicester, Lambeth, Lewisham and Redcar and Cleveland. This is based on the history curricula published on school websites. For the purposes of this study, schools that only had limited information were also included, especially if they had only published their Autumn Term curriculum maps as Black History Month falls in October in the UK. To exclude these schools would have resulted in skewed results in terms of the history that is taught. The main purpose of this research was to provide an evidence based snapshot of what history units are being taught in schools. This can enable analysis of  our education system that gets beyond assertions based on an ideological agenda. 

National Curriculum:

The Primary National History Curriculum is divided between Key Stage 1 (Years 1 and 2) and Key Stage 2 (Years 3-4). The KS1 curriculum is highly open with a focus on the four areas:

  1. changes within living memory,
  2. events beyond living memory that are significant nationally or globally,
  3. the lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievements,
  4. significant historical events, people and places in their own locality.

There are non-statutory examples given for 2 and 3 but not 1 and 4. 

The KS2 curriculum is more specific in terms of the history units that are expected to be taught with non-statutory guidance relating to the specific content that could be taught. It covers the following areas:

British History:

  • changes in Britain from the Stone Age to the Iron Age
  • the Roman Empire and its impact on Britain
  • Britain’s settlement by Anglo-Saxons and Scots
  • the Viking and Anglo-Saxon struggle for the Kingdom of England to the time of Edward the Confessor
  • a study of an aspect or theme in British history that extends pupils’ chronological knowledge beyond 1066

Local History:

  • a local history study

World History:

  • the achievements of the earliest civilizations – an overview of where and when the first civilizations appeared and a depth study of one of the following: Ancient Sumer; The Indus Valley; Ancient Egypt; The Shang Dynasty of Ancient China  
  • Ancient Greece – a study of Greek life and achievements and their influence on the western world  
  • a non-European society that provides contrasts with British history – one study chosen from: early Islamic civilization, including a study of Baghdad c. AD 900; Mayan civilization c. AD 900; Benin (West Africa) c. AD 900-1300.

The Key Stage 1 Curriculum

It is clear that in the absence of a more prescriptive national history curriculum, there is a real variance in the experience of what history is taught in primary schools in general and no where is this clearer than in KS1. 

Changes within Living Memory:

There is a continuity between the old and new curriculum – with old QCA units still being followed. Toys and Seaside are the two most commonly taught units still in KS1. Moreover there is a preference when selecting history units for Changes within Living Memory to teach about the history of ‘things’ as opposed to events or people. 

Changes within Living Memory Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Toys 45 37 30 47 41 39.9
Seaside 25 31 30 23 15 24.8
Transport 25 17 11 26 16 19.3
Home 8 12 5 19 11 11.1
All About Me 8 13 5 9 10 8.8
Grandparents 4 3 10 3 7 5.3
Family History 7 3 9 3 4.4
Holidays 2 8 2 3 3.0
Schools 2 2 5 3 2 2.8
Technology over time 6 1 3 3 2.5
Food/Farms 2 5 5 2.4
Communication 2 3 2 3 1.9
Clothes 1 3 3 2 1.7
Childhood 4 3 2 1.6
Changes within Living Memory 5 3 1.6
Timelines 1 5 2 1.5
Then and Now 3 3 1.2
1960s 2 1 2 0.9
Time Vocabulary 3 0.5
Buildings 1 2 0.5
Chronology 2 0.4
Victorian Children 2 0.3
Household Objects 2 0.3
Children’s Jobs 1 0.3
Comparing Old with New 1 0.1
Me, My Class, My School 1 0.1

 

Events beyond living memory that are significant nationally or globally:

The non-statutory guidance informs the most popular history units taught although there is cross-over between the Great Fire of London as an old QCA unit as well as being included in the non-statutory guidance. This is understandable as there is a greater range of resources available to teach these units. Without comparing old and new curricula in schools, it’s difficult to analyse the extent to which schools have changed their KS1 curriculum over time. Certainly the Gunpowder plot, Castles and Titanic were units taught pre-2014. 

Events beyond living memory that are significant nationally or globally Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Great Fire of London 76 62 65 74 82 72.0
Space/Moon Landing 20 17 15 16 13 16.0
Gunpowder Plot/Bonfire Night 14 23 13 10 15 15.0
Castles 4 15 13 5 28 12.8
Remembrance Day 20 8 10 7.5
The Great Plague 6 5 3 3 2 3.6
First Flight 8 5 3 2 3.3
WW2 3 5 5 2 3.0
Titanic 6 2 5 2.6
WW1 5 3 2 2 2.1
Norman Conquest 4 1 3 1.6
Queen’s Coronation 2 3 2 1.2
Inventions 2 3 0.9
Railways 1 3 0.8
Events beyond living memory that are significant nationally or globally 2 2 0.7
Votes for Women 3 0.5
Developments in Medicine and Technology 3 0.5
Race for the South Pole 1 2 0.5
Romans 2 0.4
The Great Exhibition 2 0.4
The Rocket 2 0.4
Victorian School 2 0.3
Victorian Zoos 2 0.3
Victorian Christmas 2 0.3
Discovering the Indies 2 0.3
The Black Death 2 0.3
Victorian Jobs 2 0.3
Stone Age 1 0.3
London 2012 1 0.3
Iron Age 1 0.1
Spread of Christianity 1 0.1
Who was the first to cross the Atlantic Ocean? 1 0.1
Battle of Worcestershire 1 0.1
Civil War 1 0.1
Industrial Revolution 1 0.1
Invention of the Motor Car 1 0.1
Invention of Penicillin 1 0.1
History of Planes 1 0.1

 

There is evidence however, that there are other units that are taught which incorporate people and events that enable a more diverse history to be taught even if they don’t fit neatly into the National Curriculum categories. While Black History Month is clearly signposted in schools in Lambeth and Lewisham, it is not clear whether there is no teaching elsewhere or it has not been incorporated into the curriculum in the same way. Whether a diverse history is taught depends on individual teachers and schools making choices to incorporate these units. 

Other Units Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Dinosaurs 16 13 5 16 18 13.4
Black History Month 10 5 3.0
Ancient Egyptians 1 3 0.8
Christmas Traditions Across the World 1 2 2 0.8
Chinese History 1 3 0.8
Circus 2 2 0.7
Incredible India 3 0.7
London 1 3 0.6
History of Music 1 2 0.5
Civilisation and Destruction 2 0.4
Life 100 Years Ago 2 0.3
African History 2 0.3
Benin 2 0.3
Chinese Emperors 2 0.3
Black Sporting Achievements 2 0.3
Climate Change 2 0.3
Great Barrier Reef 2 0.3
History of World Religions 2 0.3
Invention of Radio and TV 2 0.3
Chocolate and Mayans 2 0.3
Pompeii and the Terracotta Army 2 0.3
History and evolution of Lakes Mountain Rescue 1 0.3
Olympics 1 0.3
Conflicts 1 0.1
Historical Buildings 1 0.1
Changes Over Time – Inuit Way of Life 1 0.1
Indus Valley 1 0.1
Different Countries 1 0.1
Festivals Around the World 1 0.1
Film 1 0.1
Windmills 1 0.1

 

The lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievement:

Many schools choose to teach longer units within which they teach a range of significant individuals. However, this makes analysis difficult if they have not included the specific individuals taught. Certainly units such as ‘Nurturing Nurses’ do tend to include Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole when the individuals are specified. 

The lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievement Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Explorers 10 22 18 19 13 16.3
Significant Figures 18 15 8 7 7 10.9
Kings and Queens 2 11 5 19 8 9.1
Pirates 6 9 3 9 16 8.6
Victorians 8 3 8 9 10 7.6
The Royal Family 12 3 3 3.7
Nurturing Nurses 3 5 7 2.8
Exploration 4 3 1.3
The lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievement 2 3 2 1.2
Inventors 2 3 1.1
Changing Face of Britain 5 1.0
British Prime Ministers 1 3 0.8
Famous Britons 4 0.8
Arctic Explorers – change over time. 2 2 0.7
Significant People – Astronauts 1 3 0.6
Sporting Heroes 3 0.5
Queens 2 0.4
Superheros 2 0.4
The Suffragettes 2 0.4
Figures in History from diverse ethnicities 2 0.4
Changemakers (Years 1 and 2) 2 0.4
Great Women who Save the Planet 2 0.4
Time Travellers 2 0.4
Prime Ministers and World Leaders 2 0.3
Pioneering People 2 0.3
Black Scientists and Engineers 2 0.3
People that Help Us 2 0.3
Famous Olympians 1 0.3
Native Americans 1 0.1

 

The following analysis does not separate whether the individuals were taught as a unit in themselves or as part of one of the units outlined in the previous table. However, it does show the range of individuals taught. Florence Nightingale was a QCA unit and is still the most taught, alongside Mary Seacole. The evidence that inclusion in the non-statutory guidance leads to individuals being taught is mixed. Schools seem more concerned about teaching individuals that fit into overall units such as space or explorers. As teachers and schools make the decision at their own level, it explains why there is a wide variety of individuals taught overall and therefore the experience of pupils in Key Stage 1 varies greatly overall.

Significant Individuals – British Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Florence Nightingale 25 32 25 22 30 26.8
Mary Seacole 41 17 13 28 15 22.7
Captain James Cook 4 1 48 2 10 12.9
Queen Victoria 2 9 13 12 11 9.5
Samuel Pepys 2 10 15 10 10 9.4
Grace Darling 2 4 18 5 18 9.3
Guy Fawkes 17 15 7 5 8.7
Elizabeth I 2 7 8 7 5 5.6
Mary Anning 6 9 2 7 4.6
Elizabeth II 6 7 8 4.2
Tim Peake 3 3 3 11 4.2
Robert Falcon Scott 2 5 3 5 5 4.0
George Stephenson 6 3 8 2 3.5
Isambard Kingdom Brunel 2 2 3 10 3.3
Beatrix Potter 16 3.2
David Attenborough 4 1 2 8 3.0
Sir Francis Beaufort 2 3 10 2.9
Emmeline Pankhurst 2 3 3 5 2.4
Tim Burners-Lee 2 1 3 2 3 2.2
Henry VIII 3 3 3 2 2.1
Alice Hawkins 10 2.0
Richard III 10 2.0
Francis Drake 2 3 2 2 1.6
L.S. Lowry 2 3 3 1.5
William Caxton 3 3 2 1.5
Ernest Shackleton 2 3 2 1.4
Charles Darwin 4 1 2 1.4
Wordsworth 6 1.2
Sir Walter Raleigh 3 2 2 1.2
David Livingston 3 3 1.2
Edmund Hilary 3 3 1.2
Willam the Conqueror 4 2 1.1
Emily Davison 2 2 2 1.1
Henry Pease 5 1.0
Lord Shaftesbury 3 2 0.8
Alexander Graham Bell 1 3 0.8
Ellen MacArthur 1 3 0.8
Jane Goodhall 4 0.8
Claudia Jones 2 2 0.7
Daniel Lambert 3 0.7
George and John Cadbury 3 0.7
Lady Jane Grey 3 0.7
Thomas Cook 3 0.7
Blackbeard 1 2 0.6
Isaac Newton 1 2 0.6
Robert Louis Stevension 2 1 0.5
Alice Schofield 3 0.5
Frank Wild 3 0.5
Gertrude Bell 3 0.5
Jane Austin 3 0.5
John Walker 3 0.5
Lord Chaloner 3 0.5
Nicholas Patrick 3 0.5
Roald Dahl 3 0.5
St Hilda 3 0.5
The Beatles 1 2 0.5
Ann Bonny 1 2 0.5
Charles II 1 2 0.5
Charles I 2 0.4
James Ramsden 2 0.4
Charles Barry 2 0.4
Charlie Chaplin 2 0.4
Richard Branson 2 0.4
Sir Horace Jones 2 0.4
Walter Tull 2 0.4
Floella Benjamin 2 0.3
Frederick Horniman 2 0.3
Grinling Gibbons 2 0.3
Guy Bailey 2 0.3
John Boyd Dunlop 2 0.3
Paul Stephenson 2 0.3
Sir Mo Farah 2 0.3
Spike Milligan 2 0.3
Alfred the Great 2 0.3
Angus MacAskill 2 0.3
Boudicca 2 0.3
Gary Linekar 2 0.3
Henry Walter Bates 2 0.3
Joseph Fry 2 0.3
Joseph Lister 2 0.3
Joseph Merrick 2 0.3
Lady Diana 2 0.3
Phillip Astley 2 0.3
Richard Attenborough 2 0.3
Robert Wallow 2 0.3
Sandra Allen 2 0.3
Amy Johnson 1 0.3
Eddie Stobart 1 0.3
James I 1 0.3
Ranulph Fiennes 1 0.3
Richard Catesby 1 0.3
William Shakespeare 1 0.3
Bear Grylls 1 0.1
Canon Rawnsley 1 0.1
Christopher Wren 1 0.1
Doctor Beaching 1 0.1
Dwayne Fields 1 0.1
Edward Elgar 1 0.1
Edward Jenner 1 0.1
Elizabeth Fry 1 0.1
Jethro Tull 1 0.1
John Cunliffe 1 0.1
John Muir 1 0.1
John Ruskin 1 0.1
King Arthur 1 0.1
Leo Houlding 1 0.1
Mary Kingsley 1 0.1
Mary Queen of Scots 1 0.1
Nelly Spindler 1 0.1
St David 1 0.1
William Hiliary 1 0.1

 

Certainly there is a more ethnically diverse selection of individuals taught when studying the lives of significant individuals internationally compared to significant individuals nationally. This is unsurprising given the composition and ethnic population of Britain throughout most of its history. There is a tendency to focus on the 20th century when selecting which significant individuals to teach both British and International, and this is true regardless of the ethnicity of the individuals selected.

 

Significant Individuals – International Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Neil Armstrong 24 36 28 16 25 25.3
Christopher Columbus 16 22 3 9 20 13.7
Rosa Parks 14 5 3 5 5 6.2
Edith Cavell 4 7 2 7 3.8
Martin Luther King 10 1 2 5 3.6
Wright Brothers 6 5 3 2.8
Ibn Battuta 4 5 2 2.1
Nelson Mandela 2 2 7 2.1
Amelia Earhart 2 1 2 5 2.0
Pieter Bruegel the Elder 2 3 5 1.9
Vincent Van Gogh 2 1 3 1.3
Malala Yousafzai 3 3 1.2
Roald Amundson 1 3 2 1.1
Mahatma Gandhi 1 3 1.0
Katherine Johnson 2 1 2 0.9
Mattthew Henson 2 1 2 0.9
Marie Curie 3 2 0.8
Mother Teresa 1 3 0.8
Dorothy Vaughan 2 2 0.7
Mary Jackson 2 2 0.7
Buzz Aldrin 2 2 0.7
Mae Jemison 2 2 0.7
Louis Braille 3 0.5
Sappho 3 0.5
Bessie Coleman 2 1 0.5
Bob Geldof 3 0.5
John Van Hengel 3 0.5
Marco Polo 3 0.5
Maya Angelou 3 0.5
Ole Kirk Christiansen 1 2 0.5
Anne Frank 1 2 0.5
Paul Cezanne 1 2 0.5
Claude Monet 2 0.4
Emily Davison 2 0.4
Granville T Woods 2 0.4
Henry Ford 2 0.4
Maria Sibylla Meriam 2 0.4
Michael Werikhe 2 0.4
Annie Londonderry 2 0.3
Bob Marley 2 0.3
Christine Darden 2 0.3
Muhammed Ali 2 0.3
Shelley-Ann Fraser-Pryce 2 0.3
Usain Bolt 2 0.3
Valentina Tereshkova 2 0.3
Fatima al Fihri 2 0.3
Guion Bluford 2 0.3
Hans Christian Anderson 2 0.3
Hernan Cortes 2 0.3
Juan Garrido 2 0.3
Jules Leotard 2 0.3
King Charles X of France 2 0.3
Milton Hershey 2 0.3
Moina Michael 2 0.3
Pauline Cafferkey 2 0.3
Phineas Barnum 2 0.3
Roger Arliner Young 2 0.3
Sunita Williams 2 0.3
William Coup 2 0.3
Montgolfier 1 0.3
Albert Einstein 1 0.1
Buddha 1 0.1
John McCrae 1 0.1
Julius Caesar 1 0.1
Kate Sheppard 1 0.1
Margaret Hamilton 1 0.1
Picasso 1 0.1
Sachin Tendulkar 1 0.1
Sergei Prokoviev 1 0.1
St Valentine 1 0.1
Tenzig Norgay 1 0.1
Vasco da Gama 1 0.1
Yuri Gagarin 1 0.1

 

Local History – KS1

 

Where local history is taught, and it is not taught consistently across schools, there is tendency to link it with geography. The actual historical content is difficult to determine. Unlike KS2, there is less linking to wider regional and national events or periods of history of significance. 

 

Local History – KS1 Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Local History – Locality/City/Not Specified 30 40 37 32 29 33.6
Local History – Individuals 4 6 3 9 4.3
Local History – School 2 3 2 8 2.9
Local History – Romans 2 3 2 1.2
Local History – Windrush 6 1.2
Local History – Railway Builders 2 1 2 0.9
Local History – Harbours and Ports/Shipbuilding 2 0.4
Local History – London Underground 2 0.4
Local History – Victorian School Life 2 0.3
Local History – Castles 2 0.3
Local History – Textiles 2 0.3
Local History – Transport 2 0.3
Local History – Maritime History 1 0.1
Local History – Mining 1 0.1
Local History – Slave Trade 1 0.1
Local History – Industrialisation 1 0.1
Local History – WW1 1 0.1

 

Primary: The Key Stage 2 Curriculum

 

Clearly the national curriculum areas of study are being followed, though not always chronologically. It seems from the content that could be ascertained, there is a tendency to follow the non-statutory guidance quite closely – e.g. the teaching of Skara Brae as part of Changes from the Stone Age to the Iron Age unit. 

 

KS2 British History Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Lindow Man 2 0.4
Changes in Britain from the Stone Age to the Iron Age 87 86 80 78 85 83.1
The Roman Empire and its impact on Britain 85 87 85 79 92 85.5
Britain’s settlement by Anglo-Saxons and Scots 62 72 68 67 70 67.8
The Viking and Anglo-Saxon struggle for the Kingdom of England to the time of Edward

the Confessor

 79 75 75 60 82 74.3

 

The influence of the old QCA units can again be seen strongly in the choices made in one of the few units that schools have a direct choice in – a study on an aspect or theme in British history that extends pupils’ chronological knowledge beyond 1066. The non-statutory guidance is not followed in the same way as for other units. However, there is evidence that alongside the usual World War Two unit, some schools choose to add additional units such as Windrush but the greatest predictor of this is the population of the pupils in the LEA, though there are exceptions such as the Slave Trade.

 

The real issue however is the extent to which the units studied constitute a repetition of what they pupils will then study later on. It is unclear that there is collaboration between primary and secondary schools to ensure that this does not happen. As a result, it means that the same periods are being studied – the greatest barrier to a range of history being taught from KS1 to KS3 based on this survey. 

 

a study of an aspect or theme in British history that extends pupils’ chronological knowledge beyond 1066 Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
World War 2 62 40 58 59 61 55.7
The Victorians 38 39 25 29 30 32.2
Tudors 23 21 40 40 15 27.8
Changing power of monarchs/

Monarchy

 19 14 18 2 5 11.5
Crime and Punishment 8 11 5 9 21 10.7
World War 1 4 10 15 9 10 9.5
British Empire 8 9 9 5 6.0
Battle of Britain 7 8 13 5.5
Railway History 4 5 11 7 5.4
World War 1/2 12 9 4.0
Great Plague 12 1 5 2 3.8
Industrial Revolution 2 6 5 5 3.6
Normans 7 3 2 5 3.3
Slave Trade 6 3 3 3 3.0
Best of British/ British Heroes 13 2 2.9
Leisure and Entertainment 2 5 3 2 2.4
WIndrush 2 3 7 2.4
Transport 2 1 9 2.3
Emigration and Exploration in the Early 1900s 3 8 2.1
History of Medicine 4 5 1.8
Titanic 3 5 1.7
Buildings/Homes 2 3 4 1.7
Stuarts 2 3 3 1.6
Migration/ Immigration 6 2 1.5
Post-War Britain 3 3 2 1.5
20th Century Britain 2 3 2 1.2
14th Century England 2 3 2 1.2
Castles 2 1 2 2 1.2
History of Art Units 2 2 2 1.1
Suffragettes 2 3 1.0
What happened in Britain from 1900-1939 2 3 1.0
Settlements 1 3 2 1.0
Changing Roles of Women 1 2 2 0.9
Middle Ages 3 2 0.8
19th Century Ocean Exploration 3 2 0.8
London 1 3 0.8
Raj/Colonialism in India 2 2 0.7
History of Theatre 2 2 0.7
Tudor Monarchs 3 0.7
Restoration 3 0.7
Windrush and Migration 3 0.7
Civil War 1 2 0.6
Elizabethans 1 2 0.6
Gunpowder Plot 1 2 0.6
Education Through Time 1 2 0.6
1066 to the Reformation 3 0.5
British History/Conflict 3 0.5
Society: Recording the Past 3 0.5
The Windsors 1 2 0.5
How did Britain change after 1945? 1 2 0.5
Britain since 1950 – Civil Rights 2 0.4
English language from Iron Age to Norman conquest 2 0.4
Bristol Bus Boycott 2 0.4
History of Computing 2 0.4
Changes within Living Memory 2 0.4
What happened in Britain from 1066-1900? 2 0.4
The Great Fire of London 2 0.4
Houses of Parliament 2 0.4
Rule of Law and Murder at the Cathedral 2 0.3
Abolition of Slavery 2 0.3
Refugees and Immigration 2 0.3
Christianity and Unit of England and Scotland 2 0.3
Early Law Makers 2 0.3
Jobs 100 Years Ago 2 0.3
War of the Roses 2 0.3
Shakespeare and the Great Plague 2 0.3
British Conflict Since 1900 2 0.3
Partition of India 2 0.3
Building Bournville 2 0.3
Children in History 2 0.3
Children’s Jobs 2 0.3
The Crusades 1 0.3
The Reformation 1 0.3
Georgians 1 0.3
How Has Britain Changed? 1930 – Present 1 0.3
Children in WW2 1 0.3
1960s 1 0.3
Black History in the UK 1 0.3
History of York 1 0.3
Medieval Monarchs 1 0.1
British Queens 1 0.1
Ice Age 1 0.1
Great Britain since Roman Times 1 0.1
Farming in Britain since 1066 1 0.1
The Hanoverians 1 0.1
Irish Famine 1 0.1
Victorian Children 1 0.1
Victorian Inventions 1 0.1
Edwardian Britain and the Titanic Disaster 1 0.1
Homefront – A Child’s View 1 0.1
1950s 1 0.1
1960s and 1970s 1 0.1
World Wars to modern day 1 0.1
Impact of the Slave Trade today 1 0.1
History of Immigration in the UK 1 0.1
Commonwealth 1 0.1
Significant Turning Points in British History 1 0.1
Who Used to Live in Britain? 1 0.1
Sir Nicholas Winton and other people with courage 1 0.1
Seaside 1 0.1

 

The evidence is that schools are choosing to add additional units, those these do tend to focus on international figures more than British ones, to teach ‘black history’. This seems to be the result of the materials that have been produced by various organisations since black history month was first introduced in 1988. The breadth of figures shows the extent to which, again teachers and schools are making decisions at the most localised level, how this fits in with a systematic history curriculum is not clear.

 

While there is evidence for units such as explorers to include individuals such as Torzig Norgay, elsewhere it would seem a more politicised agenda is being driven in the choices of individuals being studied – e.g. Claudia Jones. Perhaps the drive for a ‘diverse’ history is purely ideological driven and divorced from the aims and principles of the history curriculum. This is likely in the end to lead to resistance in the actual diversifying of historical units studied locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. Moreover, the content of such units has to be questioned – is it really providing pupils opportunities to study the events and individuals concerned or are these units leading to a ‘right’ set of beliefs and views for the benefit of external politically motivated actors. 

 

Other History Units Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Important historical figures/ Significant People 33 2 2 7.4
Explorers 2 3 8 7 2 4.4
Black History Month/Week 12 3 4 2 4.0
Inventions/Inventors 4 2 3 4 2 2.8
History of Computing 3 8 2.1
Human Rights 4 1 6 2.1
Significant Scientists 4 1 2 1.3
History of the Camera/Film 1 2 3 1.1
Clothing 1 5 1.1
Communication 4 2 1.1
Dinosaurs 2 2 2 1.1
Polar Explorers 2 3 1.0
Technology 2 1 2 0.9
Change Makers (Yr 5 and 6) 4 0.8
Electricity/Lighting 2 2 0.7
Figures in History from diverse ethnicities 2 2 0.7
Seafarers 3 0.5
Everest 3 0.5
Family History 1 2 0.5
Pirates/and Explorers 2 0.4
Me too Movement/

Equality Act 2010/

Black Lives Matter

 2 0.4
Equality 2 0.4
Hidden Figures – Slavery to Martin Luther King 2 0.4
Invention of Plastics 2 0.4
Female Archaeologists 2 0.4
War Child 2 0.4
Black Scientists and Engineers 2 0.3
History of Black Lives Matter 2 0.3
History of Robots 2 0.3
Elections/Fake News 2 0.3
Do All Lives Matter? (Race and Gender) 2 0.3
History of Gardens 2 0.3
History of Numbers 2 0.3
Weapons and War 2 0.3
Refugees and Displaced People 1 0.1
Great Leaders 1 0.1
History of Sport 1 0.1
Journeys 1 0.1
History of Air Transport 1 0.1
A History of Music 1 0.1

 

Individuals – British Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Charles Darwin 4 5 11 4.0
Isaac Newton 2 1 3 11 3.2
Mary Anning 2 2 10 2.8
Richard III 13 2.6
Henry VIII 6 3 3 2 2.6
George Stephenson 4 8 2.3
Edward Jenner 10 2.0
Shakespeare 2 8 1.9
Emmeline Pankhurst 4 5 1.8
Queen Victoria 2 2 3 2 1.6
Ernest Shackleton 1 3 3 1.3
James Lind 2 3 2 1.2
Elizabeth I 2 1 3 1.2
Lord Nelson 5 1.0
Churchill 5 1.0
Marcus Rashford 2 3 0.9
Boudicca 3 2 0.8
William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect. 4 0.8
Alfred the Great 2 2 0.7
Elizabeth II 1 3 0.6
Edmund Hiliary 1 3 0.6
Captain Scott 1 3 0.6
Sam Beaver King 2 1 0.5
Captain Cook 2 1 0.5
Steve Gibson 3 0.5
Raheem Sterling 3 0.5
Preeti Desai 3 0.5
Jamie Bell 3 0.5
Gareth Southgate 3 0.5
Francis Meadow Sutcliffe 3 0.5
Dr Barnardo 3 0.5
David Kinnersley 3 0.5
Charles Smith 3 0.5
Bill Scott 3 0.5
Benjamin Zephaniah 3 0.5
William the Conqueror 2 0.4
Robin Hood 2 0.4
Paris Lees – Transactivist 2 0.4
Olive Morris – British Black Nationalist/

Activist

 2 0.4
Olaudah Equiano 2 0.4
Mary Shelley 2 0.4
Dr Harold Moody 2 0.4
Doreen Lawrence 2 0.4
David Bowie 2 0.4
Alexander Graham Bell 2 0.4
Walter Tull 2 0.3
Alexander Fleming 2 0.3
Tim Peake 2 0.3
Robin Falcon Scott 2 0.3
Robert Hooks 2 0.3
Lady Jane Grey 2 0.3
Kate Luard 2 0.3
Damien Hirst 2 0.3
William Wordsworth 1 0.3
Thomas Coram 1 0.1
Samuel Pepys 1 0.1
Robert Peel 1 0.1
Mike Parker-Pearson 1 0.1
L.S. Lowry 1 0.1
King Canute 1 0.1
John Ruskin 1 0.1
John Paul Jones 1 0.1
John Muir 1 0.1
Isambard Kingdom Brunel 1 0.1
Howard Carter 1 0.1
Gertrude Bell 1 0.1
Francis Pryor 1 0.1
Francis Drake 1 0.1
Edward the Confessor 1 0.1
David Livingston 1 0.1
Charles Rennie Mackintosh 1 0.1
Captain Shaw 1 0.1
Arthur Scargill 1 0.1
Anne Bonny 1 0.1
Aneurin Bevan 1 0.1
Alfred Wallace 1 0.1
Alfred Wainwright 1 0.1
Alan Turing 1 0.1
Admiral Robert Fitzroy 1 0.1

 

Individuals – International Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Galileo Galilei 2 1 3 10 3.0
Nelson Mandela 6 1 3 3 2 2.8
Martin Luther King 4 3 3 2.0
Rosa Parks 6 3 1.9
Christopher Colombus 2 1 3 3 1.7
Matthew

Henson

 4 4 1.6
Anne Frank 2 3 1.1
Gandhi 2 3 1.0
Amelia Earhart 1 2 2 0.8
Irena Sendler 3 0.7
Oskar Schindler 3 0.7
The Wright Brothers 1 3 0.6
Harriet Tubman 2 1 0.5
Tenzig Norgay 2 1 0.5
Hernan Cortes 3 0.5
Karl Benz 3 0.5
Nellie Bly 3 0.5
Roald Amundsen 3 0.5
Cleopatra 1 2 0.5
Leonardo da Vinci 2 0.4
Aaron Fricke 2 0.4
Barack Obama 2 0.4
Bob Marley 2 0.4
Ellie Simmonds 2 0.4
Harvey Milk 2 0.4
Jessie Owens 2 0.4
Lewis Latimer 2 0.4
Thomas Edison 2 0.4
Cabot 2 0.3
Gudred 2 0.3
Isabella Bird 2 0.3
Louis Pasteur 2 0.3
Marie Curie 2 0.3
Ruby Bridges 2 0.3
Sacagawea 2 0.3
Karl Landsteiner 2 0.3
Wagari Maathai 2 0.3
Alexander the Great 1 0.1
Alfred Wegener 1 0.1
Annie Smith Peck 1 0.1
Archimedes 1 0.1
Augustus 1 0.1
Bessie Coleman 1 0.1
Carl Linnaeus 1 0.1
Charles Francis Richter 1 0.1
Chico Mendes 1 0.1
Dorothy Vaughan 1 0.1
Elvis Presley 1 0.1
Erik the Red 1 0.1
Fanny Bullock Workman 1 0.1
Freydís Eiríksdóttir 1 0.1
Jacinto Canek 1 0.1
John Paul Jones 1 0.1
Josephine Baker 1 0.1
Julius Caesar 1 0.1
Katherine Johnson 1 0.1
Kofi Annan 1 0.1
Chris Kraft 1 0.1
Leif Erikson 1 0.1
Louis Armstrong 1 0.1
Marco Polo 1 0.1
Mary Jackson 1 0.1
Nina Simone 1 0.1
Oprah Winfrey 1 0.1
Pelé 1 0.1
Sidney Poitier 1 0.1
Sophia Loren 1 0.1
Steve McQueen 1 0.1
Tutankhamun 1 0.1
Vivaldi 1 0.1
Walt Disney 1 0.1
Zaha Hadid 1 0.1

 

Local History – KS2.

 

As in Key Stage 1, it is not clear that Local History is systematically studied across all schools. There is a greater tendency to link local history to individuals and events that are of local and national importance to enable pupils to study a greater range of history rather than an opportunity to extend an existing unit. For example, where the local history study is World War Two, then usually World War Two is not included as a separate unit of study too. Where generic local history units have been included on curriculum plans, the exact content is unknown and therefore it is not possible to state what precise content is being taught and to what extent this reflects local diversity. 

 

Local History Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Local History 20 42 42 17 26 29.4
Local History – Windrush 25 1 7 6.7
Local History – Romans 5 3 2 10 3.7
Local History – Richard III 18 3.6
Local History – WW2 10 3 3 2 3.5
Local History – Mining 1 13 2.7
Local History – Victorians 2 2 3 5 2.5
Local History – Migration 8 3 2.2
School’s Local History 4 1 3 1.7
Local History – Railways 2 5 1.4
Local History – WW1 2 5 1.4
Local History – Rivers 5 2 1.3
Local History – Tudors 2 3 1.0
Local History – Industrialisation 1 3 2 1.0
Local History – Cumbrians 4 0.8
War Memorials 4 0.8
Local History – WW1/2 1 3 0.6
Local History – Iron Age 3 0.5
Local History – Castles 3 0.5
Local History – Jarrow March 3 0.5
Local History – Grace Darling 3 0.5
Local History Standing Stones 2 0.4
Crystal Palace and the Impressionists 2 0.4
Local History – Children in WW1 2 0.3
Local History – Social and Political Reform 2 0.3
Local History – Arthur Wakeley 2 0.3
Local History – Glen Parva Lady 2 0.3
Local History – Democracy 2 0.3
Local History – Women’s Lives 2 0.3
School History – Comparison 1 0.3
Local History – Shipbuilding 1 0.3
Local History – Slave Trade 1 0.3
Local History – Economic 1 0.3
Local History – Scottish Invasion of Britain 1 0.1
Local History – Jacobites 1 0.1
Local History – Beatrix Potter 1 0.1
Local History – Entertainment 1 0.1
Local History – Comparison 1 0.1
A Street Through Time 1 0.1

 

Non-British History  – KS2 

The story of schools retaining QCA units repeats itself in the study of Ancient Greece, the most studied of the units (although it is a statutory requirement that it is). In terms of the earliest civilisations, there has been little change – the Ancient Egyptians are the most studied and where the other two suggested civilisations have been included it’s usually in addition to this unit not as a replacement for it. This is understandable given the greater teacher subject knowledge, teaching material available and likelihood that schools have resources already to support the teaching of such a unit. 

 

Ancient Greece Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Ancient Greece 80 82 88 79 85 82.9

 

Achievements of the earliest civilizations Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Ancient Egyptians 80 77 78 64 89 77.4
Shang Dynasty 8 13 8 14 5 9.5
Ancient Sumer 1 3 9 5 3.3
Overview of first civilisations 6 1 3 3 2.6
Ancient Civilisations 2 0.3

 

The non-European society unit is heavily weighted to the Mayans and this choice of unit stems primarily from the fact that it allows for a linked unit with Geography – where primary schools are expected to study North and/or South America. The local population makes a differences as to whether Benin or Islamic Civilisation is taught instead or in addition to the Mayans. 

 

A non-European society Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Mayans 14 59 53 50 48 44.6
Benin 35 10 5 22 11 16.8
Islamic Civilisation 16 6 5 16 21 12.7

 

There is evidence however, that schools do extend themselves beyond the National Curriculum with the inclusion of shorter or alternative history units and in doing so they teach a range of international history. This is sometimes linked to the local population but is more likely to be the result of the interests of the history coordinators in the school or due to the particular scheme of work that the school has bought into to teach the foundation subjects. 

Other non-European society units Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Space Exploration/Moon Landing 19 6 8 5 11 9.8
Aztecs 6 4 3 2 2 3.1
Chocolate Trade 6 3 5 2.7
Native Americans 4 2 3 3 2.3
History of Africa 6 1.2
Indus Valley 1 3 2 1.1
Aboriginal History 3 2 1.0
USA 5 1.0
California Goldrush 4 0.8
Japan 3 0.5
Palestine and Israel 3 0.5
South African History 1 2 0.5
Apartheid 2 0.4
US Women’s Soccer Team 2 0.4
Caribbean 2 0.4
India, China and Japan 2 0.3
History of the Spice Trade 2 0.3
Mughal India 2 0.3
Abbasid Civilisation 2 0.3
Muslim History 2 0.3
Civil War in Lebanon 2 0.3
American War of Independence 1 0.3
Civil Rights 1 0.3
Mayans, Aztecs and Incas 1 0.1
Mayans and Aztecs 1 0.1
History of Brazil 1 0.1
Zulu History 1 0.1
History of America 1 0.1
American West 1 0.1
China and Japan 1 0.1
A brief history of China’s revolution 1 0.1
China 1 0.1
The Middle East 1 0.1
International Studies 1 0.1

 

Other European and World History Units Average across all LEA’s
Lambeth Cumbria Redcar and Cleveland Lewisham Leicester
Holocaust 1 5 1.3
French Revolution 1 2 0.5
History of Slavery 2 0.4
Age of Discovery 2 0.4
Ocean Exploration 2 0.4
Pompeii Archaeologists 2 0.4
EU 2 0.3
History of the European Continent 1 0.1
History of Europe 1 0.1
History of Italy 1 0.1
European Conflicts 1 0.1

 

Conclusion:

 

Overall the primary history curricula taught are largely a reflection of the lack of change since 2014 and shows how much continuity remains in the system. The opportunities to branch out have mostly been taken when it has been necessary – e.g. teaching the Ancient Maya. Schools have clearly used their academy freedoms at times to include a range of units, including units that include individuals and events reflecting a more diverse history but seems to be the result of feeling the need to reflect the local population rather than in ensuring a genuinely broad and balanced curriculum. 

 

The other concern within the system is that lack of collaboration between primary and secondary schools is resulting in repetition of units that will be covered in more depth in Key Stage 3 – e.g. World Wars One and Two, the Tudors and the Victorians. 

 

A greater range of local, regional, national and international history could be taught if greater collaboration existed between the infant and junior schools and then again between the primary and secondary sector. One of the areas of study missing in both primary and secondary is the teaching of European history. Thus claims of Eurocentrism, as made by The Black Curriculum Report for example, are unfounded.

 

There is evidence that individual teachers and schools are trying to teach history that is ‘diverse’ but these are localised phenomenon. The greater politicisation of the teaching of history, as advocated by activist groups, is unlikely to have the impact regarding more diverse histories being taught. This is because some of the units proposed – e.g. Bristol boycotts – are clearly local, and because how they fit into a well sequenced primary history curriculum is not clear and is not made clear. Neither are the units themselves linked to the other areas of the History National Curriculum sufficiently in order to enable links to be made. This may be because the focus of activists is to promote an agenda rather than historical investigation and enquiry.

 

A better approach would be to shift the focus of history teaching units in KS1 to focus more specifically on people and events and away from the history of things – e.g. toys – to enable a greater diversity of history to be taught. A move away from topics would also ensure a greater grounding in KS1 of historical concepts and ideas that would support a more knowledge rich and in depth curriculum in Key Stage 2. The alternative would be to look at popular units, including explorers, and introduce a greater diversity of individuals to be studied in these units, including materials that enable comparisons to be made. This needs to be thought through in terms of the children’s existing knowledge and schema to enable these stories and narratives to be built on over time. 

 

Overall the idea that history is being ‘whitewashed’ in English schools does not match the reality of what is being taught. Moreover, it is important that in aiming to diversify the history curriculum it does not become overly focused on the twentieth century and therefore limit the range of individuals and historical periods studied. In addition, there is a clear risk that in order to meet more politicised content demands that the delineation between studying history and other politicised goals is blurred. This could lead to pupils gaining a distorted sense of the purpose of history study. Ultimately schools need to teach a broad and balanced curriculum, a requirement which is not the objective of external actors and organisations with singular agendas. 

 

I will publish the KS3 equivalent soon.

The Education System that Lost its Purpose

The Education System that Lost its Purpose

, , , , , , , , , , , , 0

Many people, including me, would have found watching Channel 4’s The School that Tried to End Racism distressing and disturbing. 

The documentary exposes what still remains utterly rotten within the comprehensive education system as fashioned by the middle class left radicals in England. Despite a decade of Conservative reforms, Gove’s optimistic vision for an education system that gives all children equality of opportunity and access to the same high quality education remains an unfinished task. But for all the schools and teachers who are trying to enact this vision, this programme was a reminder of how far we still have to go.

The Experiment

From the activist education academics who envisaged the experiment to the teachers who stood in a classroom and delivered it, the ‘progressive’ orthodoxy clearly still operates without responsibility, without accountability where it matters and any kind of moral compass as its adherents are so infected by their own politics. Covid has undoubtedly allowed the unrepentant members of the ‘blob’ to slither out again. The opportunitunists have wasted no time in attempting to use a politicised version of ‘antiracism’ to try to promote their already failed ideas to those who are not familiar with the inner workings of the education system.

We remain in a system where the personal politicised concerns of education academics are considered more important than the educational needs of the children and issues that face teachers in their classrooms. Unknown racism which we may or may not carry around in our unconscious is hardly a priority in an education system where our best efforts should focus on improving reading and writing and reversing the vocabulary and knowledge gap between the disadvantaged and the advantaged. 

The research itself was not based on the reality of racism in schools, or even that particular school or group of children, but the need to test out the pet ideas of education academics. It was they who needed to conduct this experiment to justify their own questionable, and from my perspective, pointless existence in academia in the first place. 

Why was such a morally and ethically questionable experiment on children even allowed? Kevin Rooney outlines the dubious nature of the research in this article. The ideas underpinning the training are from critical race theory (CRT) which is a hard left postmodern social justice theory – let’s make no bones about that. This was an experiment in racially politicising young children, not ending racism. It’s not the first attempt. Black History Month, which should have been about teaching black British and world history, descended into this at times. I outlined my concerns in a talk and a series of blogs a few years ago. No one should be fooled. There is teaching of the history of black people around the world (which I did) and using historical narratives to racially politicise children.

The System

Dodgy scholarship from out of touch academics seems standard in education. It doesn’t surprise me that something as basic as the fact that people have different ideas and beliefs about race isn’t even known, never mind taken into consideration, in the creation of the test or the training programme that was delivered. Instead they relied on CRT with it’s US centric ideas and assumptions. Yet the assumption that all of our racial beliefs stem from some form of race essentialism is unverified and unevidenced. A cursory glance at wikipedia would have shed light on the complexity of potential beliefs about race. A training programme based on the assumption that we all hold race essentialist beliefs, which then aggressively tries to root it out and confront it to eradicate it, does something else instead – teach it as fact to children – so many of whom clearly did not believe in this concept initially. 

The ‘progressive’ leftwing groupthink in education is so pervasive that the headteacher of the school in the programme trusted these academics without questioning the hard left ideology driving their research and may have failed in his duty to his staff and children. I say may because we do not know all the facts in this case. This is the same person sending his staff on Prevent and safeguarding training but didn’t see the danger of racially politicised left-wing radicalisation in the training programme being delivered in his school. I can see why principals under stress and pressure might have sent out newsletters using information and materials from BLM the organisation in response to the murder of George Floyd without checking. That is not the case here. This would not have been a snapshot decision.

The teachers who should have questioned the need for this experiment, again in my opinion, failed to do so. Not out of malice but because the teacher recruitment process still fails to recruit a cross-section of society which would act as an internal safeguard against the extremes. I don’t want to play into the Marxist teacher trope but that most teachers are left-leaning is true. That some of them fall prey to more radical left-wing thinking, to the point that they don’t question it, is also true. It’s also true that their training does not seem to adequately outline their professional duties to them when it comes to being politically neutral. While we refuse to allow members of the far right in teaching, we don’t do so with the far left and it’s time we fixed this. 

Why did all this happen? Because the head teacher and teachers are part of a still distorted education sphere where the most powerful people in the institutions play the radical revolutionaries against the system that they themselves control. Propping up the remnants of this charade of progressive education system is a thick layer of charlatans, hustlers, game-players, apologists, bluffers and haranguers. They act almost unanimously against the interests of the very children the left wing claim they changed the system for – those of the working class. Unable to convince the working class of their Marxist ideology politically, they helped create a system in which treating children as ideological playthings is considered the norm to the point that barely an eyelid is battered or a question raised about such experimentation on children. It was precisely the far left academics who started this process of attempting to indoctrinate because they didn’t understand, or possibly want to understand, the difference between socialisation and politicisation. 

One of the reasons why this occurs is because we don’t have a national system of testing in all subjects and our national curriculum – which is infinitely better than previous versions – still lacks thought about granular detail and at times sequencing. Too often we rely on outside materials because we as a profession are time-poor. We can’t always check everything we teach, especially in primary where we are teaching many subjects in which we have varying levels of subject knowledge. As someone who feels strongly about the knowledge rich curriculum, I am acutely aware that we are still at the beginning stages of developing CPD to meet the subject knowledge needs in primary. This does leave teachers and school prey to the charlatans out there whose materials seem sound but contain a political agenda, which those without a strong knowledge or understanding of politics and political trends may not immediately be able to detect. Parents wouldn’t know what had been stripped out either for the same reasons and because they have no frame of reference. 

The hypocrisy and betrayal by the left and the indifference of the right, which created the education system that Gove tried to reform, have been outlined in detail by Melanie Phillips and Robert Peal. Anyone who thinks this education system is traditional and conservative at this point needs to just look at the struggles that Katharine Birbalsingh had to go through and still endures at times. It’s a lie and one that is told repeatedly and very well as it still continues to hold sway. Yes there has been academisation but this started under New Labour and they did not have it in them to actually tackle the far left in the education as they should have done. 

We need to see the system as a whole for what it is, otherwise teachers and schools will always be caught in the crossfire of vested interests and government. The vested interests in the education system – including the NEU, far left academics, the local authorities and unregulated, unaccountable consultants (and yes that has included me at times in my career and yes I should have been accountable and regulated) continue to play teachers and schools off the government of the day in order to pursue their own pedagogical and ideological agendas unfettered. They rightly call the government to account when they get it wrong while steadfastly sweeping their own failures under the carpet. We can’t keep being blind to all this because of personal political preferences. 

Racial Politicisation

So what is it that we all saw in the programme? The slow but sure racial politicisation of eleven year olds at the behest of academics who were gleeful when they saw children sobbing. I’m a strict traditional teacher and not easily moved. Those were not children upset and crying because the realisation that they’d done something wrong had hit them. These were children upset and crying because they were being made to experience something they should not have had to. It’s the kind of boundary that if a teacher crosses they need to reflect on seriously, they should apologise to the child, they should explain to the parents, they should refer themselves to SLT to say that they have made a mistake. And what were the children made to experience? Real racialisation and racial segregation. What justification is there to ban the far right now? The danger they pose – politically racialising children – is the same. Why would we want to make the children feel guilty and unhappy when we can give them the joys of shared knowledge, communication and a vision of how to move forward with the ability to cope with each other and the challenging aspects of our history?

Were the parents consulted on all this? I find it hard to believe that if they had known how contested the ideas, the test and the training programme are for adults, nevermind children, that they would have agreed to it. This education system seems more concerned with parents who don’t trust us than the ones who do. I can understand that to a point (just not the lies about why they don’t trust us), but we should value those who do too. I found it hard, with one parent illiterate and the other only educated until 14, to see the extraordinary way that the beliefs and values of people like my parents were ridden roughshod over without a second thought. That does not mean that their beliefs and values should be given priority over those of society – they chose to come and live here after all. But that is not what was happening in this case. It was the racially politicised ideas and beliefs of hard left CRT that were being promoted in the classroom. 

These politicised ‘antiracist’ ideas (which are doublespeak for racist ideas) were foisted on children despite the fact that the majority of this country voted for a party that does not stand for them and in a society that has not had the ideas explained to them so they fully understood them, nevermind accepted them. This is despite the fact that even within the political party where some hold these ideas, they are not held by all. No matter how deluded the twitter woke want to be on this issue, my parents, like many others, did not stick an X in the ballot for the Labour Party because of an ideology. They, if they understood it fully, would abhor it. They voted Labour because they were unaware of it or voted despite the Labour Party containing such ideas. This has always been the case in the Labour Party. The Corbynista myth-making that their far left and current hard left ideas are those of ‘true’ Labour supporters does not hold for anyone with any kind of knowledge of the labour movement or the Labour Party in this country. It’s propaganda told to woke middle and upper class students whose votes the Labour Party are so desperate to gain and retain. I have simply never accepted that my duty as a teacher is to provide my preferred political party with voters even when I was a card carrying member of the Labour Party.

That is not to say there was nothing of importance in the training programme – examining stereotypes, discussing how race might affect oneself and others, honestly discussing experiences and interactions between children are all vital in understanding racism and how to behave towards one another. I’ve done all of these things and it does not require racially politicising children. This requires having a safe, calm classroom in which adults and children trust each other and where adults can teach and navigate a class on such personal and sensitive issues. This would be the kind of classrooms and relationships that the progressives decry because some authority is required. Well it is actually – teachers need benign authority in the classroom to ensure that they can exercise their moral, ethical and professional duties.

Duties which include asking questions like the following when an education academic proposes unconscious bias training in their classroom:

What will the psychological/social/emotional impact of this training be on children? 

What impact will it have on their relationships with each other now and in the future?

What impact could this potentially have on the relationships between children and their parents, as well as their extended families? (Yet another way the ‘lens’ of race distorts is the assumptions it makes about multiracial families – they come in many different forms which they don’t take into account. Even basic maternal and paternal bonds are discounted. This should deeply trouble us all but especially those who teach the youngest children in the system).

These questions are after all the reason why I took the risk of questioning the politically racialised narratives in resources for Black History Month that I came across. Teaching is not the arts or media where behaviour like questioning BHM is considered edgy and to be applauded. It’s a profession where a teacher would only ever take such a risk because of genuine concerns about the wellbeing of his/her pupils. I had studied politics, I could strip the politicised aspects out, I could retell the same stories with the missing knowledge which had been removed to create a racially politicised worldview. That’s not most teachers and it’s not their fault either.

Where is the training on how to spot politicised narratives? And no this isn’t a call yet another pseudo-intellectual consultant to make money. This is something that needs to be provided for free and should be part of our training if we are going to teach politically contested ideas and concepts on the curriculum. 

Where is my evidence base for all of this? Well do we need research and experiments to tell us that radicalising, racialising or politicising children is wrong? There are many real world examples of this happening around the world – be it the racialising of children in society under slavery and Jim Crow in the United States, the radicalising of young children by ISIS or even far right groups in our own society. We should not be shifted from this position of opposing the imposition of political ideas easily out of fear of being called prejudiced. There is a difference between socialisation and politicisation – what CRT adherents choose to believe. 

Also it’s time to challenge the ‘colour-blind’ doctrine that keeps being trotted out by CRT supporters. Where is the evidence that this is being taught either at home or in school? I have taught many PSHE lessons exploring race and ethnicity. The approach is not ‘colour-blind’ but it’s about exploring stereotypes and ideas about colour, ethnicity and culture. It’s a chance to learn and understand that meaning can not be attributed to skin colour as it doesn’t contain any. It’s a perfect opportunity to dispel the myth that all people of the same skin colour are the same culturally or ethnically. This does not require racialisation of the children first or for them to have segregation imposed on them. Of course this ‘non-colour’ blind approach to anti-racism does not serve the political purposes of CRT. 

The Solution

The far left, like the far right, are too ideologically driven to be trusted to act morally or ethically when it comes to children. It’s clear that the majority operating in the education academic field don’t have the first idea about teaching and they have no interest in solving the issues in schools because that would involve admitting to their own mistakes. Michael Young remains unique in his willingness to accept some responsibility for the failures that have occurred and present solutions to them. But this is the exception to the rule. It doesn’t matter on what basis they want to politicise children into an identity – class, race, sex, gender or sexuality – it’s wrong and all attempts need to be met with resistance.

My own political leanings and desire for a knowledge-rich curriculum aside, I recognise that governments will change but this issue is too important to belong to just one. It’s time all of the mainstream parties agreed to put an end to this progressive education academic to child in the classroom pipeline once and for all.

Genre Overload: rED17

Genre Overload: rED17

, , , , 2

Here are my slides from my talk at ResearchED ’17, which is a revised version of the talk I gave earlier this year.

Just to clarify a few points that were mentioned to me during and after the talk and then again on twitter.

1) Memory storage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2864034/
would suggest 3-5 items can be stored in working memory rather than 4-7 that I have seen cited most widely. This would suggest further limitations on processing capacity. What this means in terms of writing, particularly for primary pupils, it something that need further research and exploration.

2) The audio parts of the talk were not deliberate but if anyone wants to listen to them: http://www.teach-well.com/primary-writing-genres-sacrificing-depth-for-breadth/

3) The correlation between enjoyment, attainment and frequency of writing requires further research. There is a danger of assuming causation based on ideological preference from all sides. In order to move forward, we do need to see if we can establish causation.

4) There was a long comment at the end of the talk from an education consultant/LEA advisor (?) in Buckinghamshire regarding “Genre Theory” and how primary schools she works with have abandoned genres altogether instead using novel study and writing objectives alone.

I know a number of schools in my LEA are adopting a novel based approach and few publish the specifics of their writing curriculum online. The ones who do seem to be adding genres rather than shedding them. So I was genuinely interested to hear what she had to say. Unfortunately, it did seem that it was simply a return to open-ended writing with tenuous links to other subjects not a systematic approach.

The focus on expression rather than communication is a cause for concern in my opinion (which I have written about here and here). I did ask about whether there was a report that could be read about this approach, evidence to support it or assessment but she did not offer any.

After the talk, another advisor for a different LEA spoke to me how she was taking the opposite approach with genres linking to a wider knowledge curriculum.

My experience of working in inner-city primary schools was that they were usually in the throws of some initiative to raise standards, which were all too soon abandoned for the next big thing. Whatever my preferences or inclinations, I do think that it’s necessary that initiatives in schools are evaluated objectively and reported on so that they can be compared.

Ultimately rED is about the research and evidence and a move away from an era where the selling of snakeoil prevailed. I think we should welcome greater debate in this whole area to identify what works and look forward to more of it.

Load More

Subscribe


Categories

RSS Teachwell

  • What History is Being Taught in Primary?
    One of the commonly repeated, yet little evidenced, ideas is that little to no diverse history is taught in English schools. Many of these claims are based on individual experiences of the education system pre-National Curriculum and even when they are made based on the current curriculum, there is no verification of these claims.