Teaching History

[Sheilbh]

I listened to an Irish podcast recently where they were talking about the knowledge gap between Brits and Irish people about Ireland which is immense. And one thing they flagged was a lack of awareness of the history. This has also been an issue with BLM and the lack of knowledge among Brits about Empire, which isn't really covered in people's education.

This gels with my own experience too.

They then went into some of the reasons in terms of education so at the age of 18 about 40% of English kids take a history A-level, while about 90% of Irish kids do history as part of their leaving cert. In neither country is it mandatory but it's far more common in Ireland than England. But what was really interesting was the difference in syllabus and I'm genuinely not sure what's best (not looking into the content of the individual courses).

So the Irish approach is that there is a set syllabus which applies nationally and seems to be a sort of national and European story - you either do Early Modern or Later Modern history which are:

Irish history, 1494-1815
1.   Reform and Reformation in Tudor Ireland, 1494-1558
2.   Rebellion and conquest in Elizabethan Ireland, 1558-1603
3.   Kingdom versus colony — the struggle for mastery in Ireland, 1603-1660
4.   Establishing a colonial ascendancy, 1660-1715
5.   Colony versus kingdom – tensions in mid-18th century Ireland, 1715-1770
6.   The end of the Irish kingdom and the establishment of the Union, 1770-1815
History of Europe and the wider world, 1492-1815
1.   Europe from Renaissance to Reformation, 1492-1567
2.   Religion and power – politics in the later sixteenth century, 1567-1609
3.   The eclipse of Old Europe, 1609-1660
4.   Europe in the age of Louis XIV, 1660-1715
5.   Establishing   empires,   1715-1775
6.   Empires in revolution, 1775-1815

Irish history, 1815-1993
1.   Ireland and the Union, 1815-1870
2.   Movements for political and social reform, 1870-1914
3.   The pursuit of sovereignty and the impact of partition, 1912-1949
4.   The Irish diaspora, 1840-1966
5.   Politics and society in Northern Ireland, 1949-1993
6.   Government, economy and society in the Republic of Ireland, 1949-1989
History of Europe and the wider world, 1815-1992
1.   Nationalism and state formation in Europe, 1815-1871
2.   Nation states and international tensions, 1871-1920
3.   Dictatorship and democracy, 1920-1945
4.   Division and realignment in Europe, 1945-1992
5.   European retreat from empire and the aftermath, 1945-1990
6.   The United States and the world, 1945-1989

The English approach is totally different. Basically there are a set of standards that you're assessed against and it's primarily skills-based. But actually coming up with a syllabus is privatised (but regulated to make sure each exam board meets the criteria/standards). Schools then choose which exam boards they use for each course and teachers choose which options they teach - there is no requirement to teach a "national" story (you need to do at least 20% about Britain and at least one unit focused on another country). So in my experience while I never covered Empire in my A-levels I didn't really cover much British history - the only units I remember were one on late Tudor foreign policy (basically post Henry VIII) and one on social history in the 19th century, industrialisation, urbanisation, Chartists and social unrest etc. But I did units on the rise of Nazism in Germany, the rise of Fascism in Italy etc - I remember being annoyed we didn't do the Russian Revolution option.

The structure of the courses varies but, as an example this is Cambridge Internationa's syllabus options - I think you do one from each, the first three are exams and the last is coursework:

Component 1 Document question (source-based)
Liberalism and Nationalism in Italy and Germany, 1815–1871
The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861
The Search for International Peace and Security, 1919–1945
Component 2 Outline study
Modern Europe, 1789–1917
The History of the USA, 1840–1941
International Relations, 1871–1945
Component 3 Interpretations question (source-based)
The Causes and Impact of British Imperialism, c.1850–1939
The Holocaust
The Origins and Development of the Cold War, 1941–1950
Component 4 Depth study
Europe of the Dictators, 1918–1941
The History of the USA, 1945–1990
International History, 1945–1991
African History, 1945–1991
Southeast Asian History, 1945–1990

The other really striking thing in comparison with Ireland is there's no real focus on the UK in the context of Europe or generally of a specific European history.

And as I say I'm not sure which is the better approach. And it's weird because I feel like the "national story" version is actually the more conservative option. To me a "national story" history class screams Michael Gove getting involved, but maybe without that you basically get huge ignorance about British history - so you have this knowledge gap and people saying, correctly, that they didn't learn anything about Empire. But then my instinct (probably because it's what I know) is that a skills-based approach that tries to teach more than UK history is probably better and more interesting to kids than lists of kings and queens etc. So I was just wondering how do other countries' systems work? And you know is it more important to teach a national story (warts and all) or a broader set of options? Is it about providing a common set of knowledge or just trying to develop skills. Particularly interested to hear if Oex or G have any thoughts.

[PDH]

I just made it all up when I taught.

[The Brain]

In my experience non-Swedes know a lot less about Swedish history than Swedes.

[Sheilbh]

In my experience non-Swedes know a lot less about Swedish history than Swedes.

I mean the level of ignorance is really suprising. There are a lot of Brits who are not really aware that either Ireland is an independent country or that Northern Ireland is part of the UK.

And given that it was an integral bit of the country until 1922 (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and that there was an active conflict in most people's lifetime over this, it is kind of surprising how ignorant Brits are of Ireland.

Similarly every Irish person I know in the UK has a story of a very awkward conversation at some point about Cromwell. Because he's a political figure in the UK, who killed a king (and did some bad stuff in Ireland). In Ireland, to this day, Cromwell is used as a curseword.

[The Brain]

I hear you. A somewhat similaresque thing I think is Swedes' knowledge about Finland, which is abysmal when it really shouldn't be.

[Valmy]

I mean hell from what you have told me the English are shockingly ignorant about Scotland, Wales, and many parts of England. If they are not even that informed about people they share an island with, I can see why they wouldn't know much about Ireland.

Are they even aware places like Jersey exist?

As an American I totally get that.

[The Larch]

I hear you. A somewhat similaresque thing I think is Swedes' knowledge about Finland, which is abysmal when it really shouldn't be.

Similar situation with Spain and Portugal.

[Valmy]

Portugal is kind of funny from a world history type of perspective. It is never mentioned at all, even as a part of the Roman Empire or Cordoba or anything, and then suddenly shows up around 1450 then vanishes again into the mists around 1580 and never gets mentioned again...but Brazil speaks Portuguese for some reason. At some point it became a republic.

Like why is it even called Lusitania? Nobody knows or at least doesn't consider it important enough to mention

[merithyn]

I mean the level of ignorance is really suprising. There are a lot of Brits who are not really aware that either Ireland is an independent country or that Northern Ireland is part of the UK.

And given that it was an integral bit of the country until 1922 (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and that there was an active conflict in most people's lifetime over this, it is kind of surprising how ignorant Brits are of Ireland.

Similarly every Irish person I know in the UK has a story of a very awkward conversation at some point about Cromwell. Because he's a political figure in the UK, who killed a king (and did some bad stuff in Ireland). In Ireland, to this day, Cromwell is used as a curseword.

I remember a very heated argument that I got into with my brother about 20 years ago. I mentioned something about Ireland being its own country, and he flipped out on me. Told me that I was an idiot, etc. I just looked at him while he railed, then picked up the nearby encyclopedia at my mom's house and handed him the book for the letter I. He was thrilled to find it to show me up, but the moment he started to read, I saw his face fall.

He closed the book and said, "Yeah, well part of it is still the UK." Then stormed out of the house. It occasionally comes up, but he's since married a woman whose parents are from Ireland. I'm not allowed to tell this story in front of his in-laws.

[Valmy]

This is because since most American History classes tend to run out of steam after the American Civil War he never got all the way to 1921.

[Syt]

I guess it's the same for many countries in that they primarily focus on their national history.

From memory, my history education over the course of 6 years was (most of which touched on briefly; I highlight the "bigger" topics with a *):

- basic overview ancient Egypt (agriculture and monuments)
- basic overview ancient Greece (basic democracy, Alex the Great)
* basic overview ancient Rome (Republic, Empire, expansion, collapse)
- Migrations period
* Charlemagne and Empire of the Franks
- split of the Frank Empire
* early HRE
- monastic life, investiture controversy
- Crusades, Frederick Barbarossa
- medieval cities
- Age of Exploration and Colonialism
* Reformation & 30 Years War
* Absolutism => French Revolution + Prussian reforms
* 1848 revolution
* German unification & Bismarck
* Imperial Germany & industrialization
- WW1
* Weimar Republic (politics & economics)
* Third Reich & Holocaust
- WW2
* Post-War German partition
* European Integration, Ostpolitik
- German unification (we finished our curriculum in 1992, way ahead of schedule and were the only class in school to cover events from two years ago )

We learned little about, say, France, except when it intersected with Germany, or the UK, the Netherlands, or Poland. Some countries were covered in geography class. E.g. we had a semester about the GDR. Or in one year we covered USA, USSR, and Japan. In another semester we might look at India, or Kuwait (pre-Gulf War).

Around the middle ages, the focus of content moved away from social history towards political history.

[Barrister]

I think it's fairly common for a small country to teach the history of its large neighbour, but for the large country to just focus on itself.

In Canadian schools you'll get a decent bit of US history, whereas I'm positive the reverse is not true.  I'm not surprised when Brain says the same dynamic exists with Finland-Sweden.

[Valmy]

Yeah Canada is ridiculously ignored. The only time it is mentioned is as a destination for runaway slaves.

[Josquius]

I'm surprised the numbers doing a level history in England are so high. Is the system different now and you don't just get 4 options?
As for sure at my college history was just another subject. Not a especially huge one at that. It only had 2 classes vs e.g. 4 for maths.

But yeah. The British system sucks. Given the controversy around the empire however and the likely version your average history teacher will teach its not totally a bad idea its avoided altogether.

My big memory of history at school was there being so much in the text book we just never touched. Aside from small mentions of the industrial revolution at a young age, 1603 to 1906 just never happened.

I remember at gcse we covered the rise of the nazis, which is a good topic and worthy of study, the causes of WW1, again decent, and.... The Vietnam War. Which is just bizzare. Malaya wasn't mentioned at all as part of it and I had to be sneaky and go off syllabus behind the teachers back to include that in my coursework first draft. I was told to take it out.

Have to say though, through my encounters with people who've been through the Irish school system I'd hate to see the UK follow that path. When you're teaching to the population as a whole you can't expect the bulk to have nuanced thoughts about history so many of them just boil things down to a simple goodies and baddies, Irish and British, believing utter nonsense like the potato famine genocide. Ireland could do with reform in itself to tone down the nationalism,  something which Britain really doesn't need more of....

[Sheilbh]

I think it's fairly common for a small country to teach the history of its large neighbour, but for the large country to just focus on itself.

But that's my point - England doesn't focus on itself. In England the course only needs to be 20% British focused (from memory mine was 1/3 - Tudor foreign policy and British social history, I want to say from 1815 to 1914).

And as I say I'm focusing on the exams you'll do when you're 18, but even the (non-compulsory) OCR curriculum isn't Britain focused or trying to tell a "national story". So below is from OCR (definitely did exams with them) the first unit is 50% and the other two units are 25% each:

Component Group 1
International Relations: the changing international order 1918–2001 + one depth study →
China 1950–1981: The People and the State or
Germany 1925–1955: The People and the State or
Poland 1956–1990: The People and the State (This definitely wasn't around when I was a kid and I think is probably a response to Polish immigration) or
Russia 1928–1964: The People and the State or
South Africa 1960–1994: The People and the State or
The USA 1919–1948: The People and the State or
The USA 1945–1974: The People and the State

Component Group 2
Migration to Britain c.1000 to c.2010 (1) or
Power: Monarchy and Democracy in Britain c.1000 to 2014 (2) or
War and British Society c.790 to c.2010 (3)

Component Group 3
The Impact of Empire on Britain 1688–c.1730 with Urban Environments: Patterns of Migration (1) or
The English Reformation c.1520–c.1550 with Castles: Form and Function c.1000–1750 (2) or
Personal Rule to Restoration 1629–1660 with Castles: Form and Function c.1000–1750 (3)

(1), (2) and (3) go together. While there's more "national story" here it's still sort of a bit more broken up and skills based I think.