Ship of Fools: Gove does a big U turn. What does it mean?

Thread: Gove does a big U turn. What does it mean? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025170

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

What do ship mates think about British Education Minister Michael Gove's U turn to scrap GCSEs for an English Bac. Certificate have now been shelved?

In particular what about RE teaching is that now strengthened or not?

BBC news link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21363396

Saul

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I am disappointed that the chance to reduce the number of exam boards to one has been lost. Otherwise I am not clear that it makes much difference whether it's called an E-Bac or a GCSE or whatever.

Vaguely pleased that there seems to be a move to less coursework (which I've always thought involves an intrinsic conflict of interest), fewer modules and fewer re-sits (which I think encourage a "cram and forget" attitude).

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

It means he is a Tory, and this is a Tory policy. They make U-turns on such a lot of them, it is almost expected.

It was a ridiculous idea, and it is a good job it has been scrapped. If he could stop faffing about with our youngsters education and just fix some of the problems with exam boards, for example.

I think we are living in a chaocrity - government of utter chaos.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I find it hilarious/baffling/inconsistent (or at least all three) that Gove wanted to abolish competition between exam boards, when this government has been manically trying to increase competition in every other area, however inappropriate, wasteful or costly.

In fact, despite his name, one could say that he stands for the very opposite of small government.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

The brief answer to the two questions are 'Yipee!' and 'Yes'.

However, the reason why Gove was spectacularly wrong about replacing GCSE's was that he did not consult widely on this very important change, but relied on a very narrow group of advisers. He appears to be pushing out a whole range of purely Conservative educational policies in the hope that some at least will get through.

As a retired History teacher, I wrote to my M.P. that I thought Michael Gove was introducing changes without proper consultation. Gove's department wrote back assuring me that consultation would be very wide. Well, they can say that. Soon after he took office, Gove had announced, in the manner of a new-broom headmaster, that there was something seriously wrong with History teaching (although this was to a very large extent at odds with the most recent OFSTED report on the teaching of the subject at that time). He pointed to the content of the syllabus (not enough British & Imperial History), and to the way it was taught (too much analysis and not enough dates); whilst repeating like a mantra that he really appreciated what hard work teachers did, he turned to a number of charismatic TV History presenters to show how History should be made more attractive; he then neatly kicked the controversy he himself had stirred up neatly into touch, by making one of them 'the History Czar', and letting the various committees get on with designing a new curriculum. To the best of my knowledge organisations like the Schools History Project have been largely excluded from this process of re-thinking, and we are likely to end up with a very unbalanced curriculum which will be largely based on the ideas of retired colonels on who the greatest Englishmen … hrum …. and women were. And lots and lots of facts.

If you read newspapers like 'The Daily Telegraph', you will probably find articles about how the clever and brave Mr Gove is taking on the wicked educational establishment, including the teaching unions, who are apparently holding back our children's education. If you read 'The Daily Mail' you are likely to find articles, of the flying kite variety, suggesting that ultimately the only answer to our failing schools is to have even bigger chains of Academies, run by companies allowed to make a profit.

I find Mr Gove's educational policies deeply disturbing. For example, this is what 'The Daily Telegraph' quoted him as saying in 2011: “I was in the Far East last month, to see what I could learn …. where I am happy to confess I’d like us to implement a cultural revolution just like the one they’ve had in China. Like Chairman Mao, we’ve embarked on a Long March to reform our education system.”

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Ah yes, the Long March. How does one say "Dunkirk" in Mandarin? It was a fighting retreat which had three outcomes:

- a fall in the party membership
- a fall in the size of the Chinese Red Army
- the rise of Mao as leader

I suppose a parallel would be that Tory party membership will fall, the Tory vote will fall but Gove will become party leader.

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :

Back to the OP. what does the U-turn mean? Well it confirms the narrative of government incompetence. Though Gove fessed up rather well some of his colleagues will be rubbing their hands with glee. It also confirms that in coalition government differences are played out rather publicly.

The watered-down proposals need to make GCSEs more rigorous. A slimmed-down curriculum will give schools and teachers greater freedom.Taking on the exam boards was 'a bridge too far'. I hope the next Labour government finds a cleverer way of tackling this issue.

On the main tenor of the reforms, I think people are wrong to see Gove as an ideologue determined to impose his own half-remembered school days on everyone. The reforms are about freedom and autonomy. At the academy school of which I am a governor our head teacher is entirely free to emphasise a skills-based approach over knowledge/facts. I often point out to him that he is balancing both approaches. But the either/or attitude to everything seems to dominate education from knowledge and skills to synthetic phonics etc.

The rolling out of academies and free schools leaves facts on the ground in perpetuity. It's a programme that improves schools not just for the middle classes but for children who have been failed by schools in the past. Notwithstanding this climb-down I think history will regard Blair, Adonis and Gove as significant figures in the reform of education.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It means one of two things:

(a) Gove can't think without speaking, and people mistake his thinking aloud for policy.

(b) Like Lansley, he's under a psychiatrist and has been asked to keep a dream diary. Which he does. Unfortunately, he's been eating cheese late at night and keeping the diary on House of Commons notepaper, so it's then being confused for policy.

Note for the humour impaired - this is an attempt at humour.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

The Daily Telegraph commented yesterday 'Michael Gove may have lost a skirmish over the EBacc, but he’s winning the war'. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9855565/Michael-Gove-may-have-lost-a-skirmish-over-the-EBacc-but-hes-winni ng-the-war.html
So, still with an eye on the original question, may I add some news from another 'Front'? As I stated above, Gove delegated the work of History curriculum reform to a committee. As it happens, this committee has now produced a 'scheme of work' for children up to the age of 14:
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/h/history%2004-02-13.pdf
From the point of view of teaching it, I would say it is simply the most boring History syllabus I have ever seen, so one of Michael Gove's aims, to make History more interesting, seems somehow to have been lost in translation.

The scheme of work includes as one of its purposes this bold aspiration: ' A knowledge of Britain's past, and our place in the world, helps us understand the challenges of our own time.' One of its aims is to ensure children 'know and understand the story of these islands: how the British people shaped this nation and how Britain influenced the world'. Fair enough (although surely it is equally important to understand how the rest of the world influenced us!) Then look to see what specific History is to be taught in our relations with India. For example: 'Clive of India' [ie the Battle of Plassey and conquest of Bengal - one of the grubbiest episodes in Imperial History, and very probably the event which led within a few years to a catastrophic famine in which millions died]; the Indian mutiny [which I very much doubt would even be called a 'mutiny' by Indian historians]; Independence [a good topic only if combined with a wider view of Indian History - and there is no encouragement, let alone guidance, in the scheme of work to do so.]

This document, another legacy of Mr Gove, has been a long time in the making. It is the most illiberal and nationalistic scheme of work I have seen in 37 years of History teaching and tutoring, and I am seriously concerned about its possible effect on the next generation of children who might be exposed to it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There's a tendency for new governments to be hyperactive, and seen to be doing lots and lots of reforms. Here, 'reform' becomes a kind of religious doctrine, which has no discernible referent, but which is just a good thing. I recall Mr Blair's messianic speeches about reform, which put me in mind of a Saturday afternoon preacher down the Dalston Road.

The reference to the Long March is very very good and amusing. Comrade Gove will now give us some bracing re-education, so that the cadres are fit and ready for their Great Tasks in the Great Leap Forward of British capitalism, now sadly looking a bit limp and frail.

Is this tragedy or farce? Some quote from Marx is bubbling up, about history repeating itself.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
This document, another legacy of Mr Gove, has been a long time in the making. It is the most illiberal and nationalistic scheme of work I have seen in 37 years of History teaching and tutoring

I haven't yet read it but from that description it sounds great.

Isn't all history political though? Was Lenin a tyrant or a saviour? Should the hour-long history lesson be spent on the Battle of Waterloo or the role of women in factories? The answers to these sorts of questions depend surely on what side of the political fence you're on?

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
This document, another legacy of Mr Gove, has been a long time in the making. It is the most illiberal and nationalistic scheme of work I have seen in 37 years of History teaching and tutoring, and I am seriously concerned about its possible effect on the next generation of children who might be exposed to it.

Absolute nonsense. The document is hardly prescriptive. It enables children to grasp the broad shape of British history through the key stages and gives enormous freedom to teachers to ask precisely the sort of questions you are raising about specific parts of the content. There's nothing stopping the teacher from looking at a range of sources within this framework and taking account of a variety of ways of seeing British and imperial history. Teachers can easily present this content in an interesting and engaging way through local history, the stories of so-called heroes and heroines etc.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
This document, another legacy of Mr Gove, has been a long time in the making. It is the most illiberal and nationalistic scheme of work I have seen in 37 years of History teaching and tutoring, and I am seriously concerned about its possible effect on the next generation of children who might be exposed to it.
Absolute nonsense. The document is hardly prescriptive. It enables children to grasp the broad shape of British history through the key stages and gives enormous freedom to teachers to ask precisely the sort of questions you are raising about specific parts of the content. There's nothing stopping the teacher from looking at a range of sources within this framework and taking account of a variety of ways of seeing British and imperial history. Teachers can easily present this content in an interesting and engaging way through local history, the stories of so-called heroes and heroines etc.

Spawn. If the document is not prescriptive, and teachers could feel free to investigate with their students, say, the context of Robert Clive and of the Indian Rebellion a hundred years later - the decline of the Mughal Empire, the rise of the East India Company, Anglo-French rivalry, the B.E.I.C.'s 'annexation' of Bengal, the drain of wealth from India and the later gradual decline of its textile and iron industries, the British India Acts setting out how British India was to be governed, military operations up till 1818, 'Paramount Power', the suppression of customs such as suttee and thuggee, the introduction of English as the language of government in British India, the development of infrastructure such as railways and hospitals, the rise of the Indian civil service, the changing relationship between the British in India and the Indian people -that would be a more balanced account of the British in India up till 1857 at any rate, and what I said would indeed be nonsense. But teachers won't feel free, so it's not.

The whole point is that the document is prescriptive, and if you know different I know a lot of teachers in Secondary and Primary schools who would be very pleased to hear it. Come to think of it, if you do teach Key Stage 3 and can imagine teaching a range of Year 7 students about the Enlightenment, the Great Reform Act and Disraeli and Gladstone with equanimity I take my hat off to you, and will suggest to all the teachers I know who are in near despair because of the sheer thoughtlessness of this scheme of work to follow the advice you give in your last sentence.

One of the reasons why this scheme of work is unbalanced is simply the time available to teach History – between 1 to 2 hours a week for Key Stage 3. One of the 20 or so main headings in the scheme of work would get perhaps 4-6 lessons, within which you could perhaps have an hour and a half for Clive and his significance (but you would have to leave out most of the background I've written above).

It's not easy to make a balanced History Curriculum. The first effort, the National Curriculum that was produced in the late 80's, very wisely just divided up the years of British (and in those days World and European) History to be taught, and, apart from insisting there should be a balance with political, economic, social and cultural history, schools were expected to produce their own syllabuses. If Mr Gove really admires teachers as he says, he should let them get on with the job without these exceedingly dull headings: I've seen many syllabuses written on the proverbial back of an envelope which look better than this one put together by his chosen team.

In any case my main concern is not what it prescribes for British History, but the fact that there is virtually no World History or European History in its own right at all. Therefore it is not achieving the stated aim that students should 'know and understand the broad outlines of European and world history' or have an 'understanding the connections between local, regional, national and international history' or its stated purpose: 'A knowledge of Britain's past, and our place in the world, helps us understand the challenges of our own time.'

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

My impression of Gove is that of a controlling and out of touch government minister.

I am unclear how the abolition of EBAC will or will not affect the teaching of RE.

My simple view is that, like much of the public sector, the government has used education and health as political footballs. My limited knowledge of the current History and RE GCSEs is that they seem rigorous and balanced and students have to perform hard to get an A or A*.

I just hope Gove and his pals do take a long march............a long march to allow professionals to carry on their good work and to stop undermining children and the staff who teach them. I hope, but I am not entirely convinced he won't keep his horrid little mitts off things he knows little about.

Saul

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Come to think of it, if you do teach Key Stage 3 and can imagine teaching a range of Year 7 students about the Enlightenment, the Great Reform Act and Disraeli and Gladstone with equanimity I take my hat off to you.

Why is that harder to teach than any other historical topic?

quote:
One of the reasons why this scheme of work is unbalanced is simply the time available to teach History – between 1 to 2 hours a week for Key Stage 3. One of the 20 or so main headings in the scheme of work would get perhaps 4-6 lessons, within which you could perhaps have an hour and a half for Clive and his significance (but you would have to leave out most of the background I've written above).

But surely all school history is a bit skating, for that very reason*? Looking at KS3, my recollection (from 1997-2000) was that we went in more or less a straight line from Harold Godwinson to the Slave Trade, a survey of around 700 years. The new KS3 syllabus only covers 300 years and therefore gives more opportunity for depth.

At any rate, I got to GCSE without ever being taught about the British Empire except for a few passing references, which seems to be a fairly major omission.

quote:
In any case my main concern is not what it prescribes for British History, but the fact that there is virtually no World History or European History in its own right at all.

Is that any different from the current situation? I don't remember any European history at all at KS3, beyond a brief 'Oh by the way Europe was engaged in the Thirty Years War at this point' when we did the Stuarts.

* That's not really a criticism. The problem with history is there's so much of it; I bet you could spend your entire school years just studying history, and afterwards someone would say 'What? You've never heard of the Younghusband Expedition? Why, that's absolutely vital to understand modern Tibetan history! What do they teach them, etc ...'

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

As far as RE is concerned, it is too early to say. Although the proposed EBC (exam) is not going to happen (yet), the EBacc list of subjects continues and still excludes RE.

Gove is proposing another 8 subjects alongside the Ebacc and one of those might be RE 'if it meets the same rigorous standards as....'

What he means is that it has 'a treasure chest of knowledge.' In other words, facts. This is a retrograde step since purely factual recall gets a child only up to Level 4 on the 9-fold assessment scale - and I have heard it argued that 11-year-olds can go much further than factual recall if taught properly.

RE at KS4 will become boring but it might strengthen our had at KS3, where many schools have already dropped or reduced RE because of the EBac. and A'level might come back to some strength, as may teacher training - the EBac resulted in a halving of PGCE RE places overnight.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Come to think of it, if you do teach Key Stage 3 and can imagine teaching a range of Year 7 students about the Enlightenment, the Great Reform Act and Disraeli and Gladstone with equanimity I take my hat off to you.
Why is that harder to teach than any other historical topic?

quote:
One of the reasons why this scheme of work is unbalanced is simply the time available to teach History – between 1 to 2 hours a week for Key Stage 3. One of the 20 or so main headings in the scheme of work would get perhaps 4-6 lessons, within which you could perhaps have an hour and a half for Clive and his significance (but you would have to leave out most of the background I've written above).
But surely all school history is a bit skating, for that very reason*? Looking at KS3, my recollection (from 1997-2000) was that we went in more or less a straight line from Harold Godwinson to the Slave Trade, a survey of around 700 years. The new KS3 syllabus only covers 300 years and therefore gives more opportunity for depth.

At any rate, I got to GCSE without ever being taught about the British Empire except for a few passing references, which seems to be a fairly major omission.

quote:
In any case my main concern is not what it prescribes for British History, but the fact that there is virtually no World History or European History in its own right at all.
Is that any different from the current situation? I don't remember any European history at all at KS3, beyond a brief 'Oh by the way Europe was engaged in the Thirty Years War at this point' when we did the Stuarts.

* That's not really a criticism. The problem with history is there's so much of it; I bet you could spend your entire school years just studying history, and afterwards someone would say 'What? You've never heard of the Younghusband Expedition? Why, that's absolutely vital to understand modern Tibetan history! What do they teach them, etc ...'

These are all excellent questions, and if I wasn't in the middle of turning Luke 9 into the puppet version for tomorrow's service I would answer them all in full now. It's actually a real pleasure to answer them because your final comment about the way many people, including some parents, regard History is absolutely spot on.
To take your first point about why teaching one particular topic might be more difficult than another:
First, in terms of periods, and in theory, it shouldn't make any great difference teaching about the 11th or the 21st centuries. However, a convention grew up in English schools that as you went through school you went through the centuries. That convention is quite strong: an old History teaching manual I have (general editor Enid Blyton) has roughly the same subjects taught at the same age-group that we have today. One of the striking things about the draft curriculum is that this convention has been overturned. The new assignment of periods of History to particular school years will change. Now while in theory a teacher might be able to make a topic like the Enlightenment interesting to Year 7's, he or she would certainly have difficulty in conveying some of the more abstract concepts to a class where perhaps half of them are struggling with English and with formal thought. Making the Battle of Hastings interesting, say, would be easier, because it lends itself to 'concrete' thinking. In addition, and even more importantly, the Battle of Hastings has a tradition of teaching that goes with it, and textbooks that have improved considerably with years of feedback. The first textbooks with the Enlightenment for Year 7's (perhaps with summary facts at the end of the chapter) will have no such tradition to build on.
So I think you will find that there are many History teachers (and when I mentioned the Enlightenment, Disraeli etc. I was quoting a practising teacher) who are appalled by the puzzling change in the subject matter which will be studied in different years. I think you will also find that many History teachers in Academies are thanking their lucky stars they won't have to teach it.
While I have mainly tried to reflect the reactions of History teachers I happen to know, the bit about World and European History is, rather sadly in a sense, my own concern and not that of many History teachers. Perhaps surprisingly, 1/6th of the KS3 syllabus was supposed to be World History and another 1/6th European History in the original National Curriculum, and that was certainly still in place when you studied History. The idea was that you would study, say, the Ming Dynasty, and the French Revolution (in its own right, not just how it affected Britain!) The reason why this feature of the syllabus has disappeared is partly, I think, because most History Teachers have not themselves been taught World History. I can't think of a time in world History when there has been a greater need for it than now!
Hope that makes sense. But I would still like to discuss 'skating'!

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
The scheme of work includes as one of its purposes this bold aspiration: ' A knowledge of Britain's past, and our place in the world, helps us understand the challenges of our own time.' One of its aims is to ensure children 'know and understand the story of these islands: how the British people shaped this nation and how Britain influenced the world'. Fair enough (although surely it is equally important to understand how the rest of the world influenced us!) Then look to see what specific History is to be taught in our relations with India. For example: 'Clive of India' [ie the Battle of Plassey and conquest of Bengal - one of the grubbiest episodes in Imperial History, and very probably the event which led within a few years to a catastrophic famine in which millions died]; the Indian mutiny [which I very much doubt would even be called a 'mutiny' by Indian historians]; Independence [a good topic only if combined with a wider view of Indian History - and there is no encouragement, let alone guidance, in the scheme of work to do so.]

This document, another legacy of Mr Gove, has been a long time in the making. It is the most illiberal and nationalistic scheme of work I have seen in 37 years of History teaching and tutoring, and I am seriously concerned about its possible effect on the next generation of children who might be exposed to it.

How can it be nationalistic and imperialistic to teach children about, as you put it "one of the grubbiest episodes in Imperial History"?

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Frankly, the vitriol directed at Gove is starting to make me thing he's in the right. It makes me think that his opponents are ideologues guilty of playing politics with children's futures. This is of course the very accusation - along with accusations of various heresies - levelled at Gove by his opponents.

There aren't many, sober, succinct analyses of his proposed changes in the press - every article seems to degenerate into accusations after the first couple of lines (or in the case of the Telegraph, unconstructive praise). This is a real pity, because there is plenty to suggest that the education in the UK as a whole is in crisis and sensible reform is needed. There is evidence that UK schoolchildren's attainment in core subjects is mediocre at best and is falling behind; evidence that schoolteachers are overworked, overregulated and generally over-prescribed and consequentially ineffective; discipline problems are high and as is turnover in the teaching profession. Anecdotally, people I know here who have taught in the UK have expressed concern about the state of the schools there.

So it would seem to me that reform is needed, yet it has been my observation that whenever anyone has proposed any, a huge chorus of complaint goes up. All change is wrong, so it seems - but so is the status quo.

As for Gove himself, over the last few months I have heard him described variously as a toad, a wart, a toff, a fogey, a wrecker, a Nazi, an arselicker, a creep, an ignoramus; he needs a Chinese burn, he needs a kick in the balls, he needs special togo, posting or a wedgie, he needs to be hanged drawn and quartered: the sheer vitriol, along with the lack of alternative suggestions for reform makes me doubt not only the sincerity of some of his opponents.

It is as if the British education system has become an oversized boil, contemplated by various doctors and nurses who then bicker about whether to cut it off, lance it, or give the patient pills. Then along comes Michael Gove, and they all turn and scream at him that he isn't even a member of the medical profession and he should f- off right now.

OK, having got that off my chest, I think it's a shame that he's performed a U-turn on GCSEs. There have been complaints for years that GCSE grades have been devalued to the extent that they are not respected. It is ironic that schools here (including various other places) sometimes offer the IGCSE, which in terms of content is significantly tougher in each subject than the equivalent GCSE in England and Wales. It will be absurd if grade inflation continues to the extent that an unstarred A for an (E+W) GCSE is no longer exceptional. A new type of certificate would have allowed a fresh start.

I also think it's sensible to encourage certain subjects, although I see that what subjects should be included is a matter of debate.

I think it's sensible to stiffen up the content of courses, although I doubt whether doing so will achieve much without better training and support for teachers, and better approaches to ensuring discipline in schools. It is in theory possible to teach Shakespeare to six year-olds, if circumstances are optimal (which they generally aren't).

It is interesting that this thread has latched onto the history curriculum because Gove has been accused of brain-washing. I don't see that the Left has the sole prerogative to make that accusation, given that its force depents solely on one's politics - something reasonable people will disagree upon. I don't see that learning about the Empire is nationalistic: it can be an exercise in humility.

I just wish the debate over UK education would be a bit less shrill given that my children might end up in it.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

Well, a view from the trenches and front line.

Gove appears out of touch because he is out of touch.

My experience in education (full time since since 2008 and some earlier experiences before ) is that standards are rising in a genuine way. But I also note the political football nature of education and how it is batted around without real consideration of young people's hard work, for example, the annual slug-fest when GCSE results come out in the summer - why don't we congratulate our young people rather than denigrate their achievements?

Religious Education - it appears to me Gove and his acolytes have devalued the role and place on Religious Education in the land and are guilty as found. RE plays a key role in the development of people's understanding on many levels; Gove left it out of the EBAC and I am not sure in the new plans how it will fare?

So in a nutshell Gove deserves the oprobrium and brick bats. He is a shallow doctrinaire politician whose best action would be to dissapear off to the back benches of British politics.

I hope I have made myself clear?

Saul the Apostle

[ 10. February 2013, 06:30: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
(Snipped)

There is evidence that UK schoolchildren's attainment in core subjects is mediocre at best and is falling behind; evidence that schoolteachers are overworked, overregulated and generally over-prescribed and consequentially ineffective; discipline problems are high and as is turnover in the teaching profession. Anecdotally, people I know here who have taught in the UK have expressed concern about the state of the schools there.

This is all very well, but pretty much continuous "reform" of the Education Service has been going on since the 1980s, that is for roughly 30 years, and yet it appears that "we" still can't get it right. I long ago lost count of the various "initiatives" brought in by sundry Education Secretaries, almost all of which schools and Local Authorities were supposed to implement with no additional resources. Some of these "initiatives" were short-lived, but that didn't stop the powers-that-be from coming up with more. I shudder to think of all the expensive paper and ring binders, all the complex computer programs, that must have been developed and thrown away over those years.

And yet none of this, apparently, has made any difference as "people" are still concerned about low standards and so on and so forth.

It used to be the fault of those wicked Local Education Authorities, everyone a hotbed of Trotskyites determined to bring down our Glorious Constitution. Well, those Authorities have gradually been stripped of every vestige of "control" over schools - that control was always exaggerated - so who exactly is to blame now?

So what is the solution? More upheaval? Continuous revolution was supposed to be a Maoist concept, not a capitalist one.

I suggest that Education could do with a long period of complete stability. Maybe then we could return to the Golden Age of - oh, sorry, do remind me when it was?

[ 10. February 2013, 11:18: Message edited by: Sighthound ]

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Come to think of it, if you do teach Key Stage 3 and can imagine teaching a range of Year 7 students about the Enlightenment, the Great Reform Act and Disraeli and Gladstone with equanimity I take my hat off to you.
Why is that harder to teach than any other historical topic?

quote:
One of the reasons why this scheme of work is unbalanced is simply the time available to teach History – between 1 to 2 hours a week for Key Stage 3. One of the 20 or so main headings in the scheme of work would get perhaps 4-6 lessons, within which you could perhaps have an hour and a half for Clive and his significance (but you would have to leave out most of the background I've written above).
But surely all school history is a bit skating, for that very reason*? Looking at KS3, my recollection (from 1997-2000) was that we went in more or less a straight line from Harold Godwinson to the Slave Trade, a survey of around 700 years. The new KS3 syllabus only covers 300 years and therefore gives more opportunity for depth.

At any rate, I got to GCSE without ever being taught about the British Empire except for a few passing references, which seems to be a fairly major omission.

quote:
In any case my main concern is not what it prescribes for British History, but the fact that there is virtually no World History or European History in its own right at all.
Is that any different from the current situation? I don't remember any European history at all at KS3, beyond a brief 'Oh by the way Europe was engaged in the Thirty Years War at this point' when we did the Stuarts.

* That's not really a criticism. The problem with history is there's so much of it; I bet you could spend your entire school years just studying history, and afterwards someone would say 'What? You've never heard of the Younghusband Expedition? Why, that's absolutely vital to understand modern Tibetan history! What do they teach them, etc ...'

Good point about skating and there being too much History to teach, although it sounds, Ricardus. as though your school left off the last 150 years if you didn't get to WW2! Also, bear in mind that a History teacher will look at a scheme of work rather differently from an ordinary person, or even a non-teaching History graduate. Although it appears to be in plain English (and would that such documents were!) it is not as it seems. Each of the topics and subtopics in the scheme of work will immediately translate into a teacher's mind into all sorts of scenarios - massive investment in new books (or possibly the thought of sitting up all hours writing materials because the school is too cash-strapped to afford new books), how the topics will fit into the wider aims and objectives of the course, and what possibilities there are for making the topics interesting.

My own reaction, after reading it once through, was that it would be an extremely difficult scheme of work to implement, and I felt very, very, sorry for those people in charge of KS3 History. I also thought it will make teaching in any depth difficult – and in fact only possible if parts of the scheme are left out or skimmed through (or skated over if you prefer!) This was even before I started on the maths, working out how many hours would be available for each topic. And - a bit of anecdotal evidence admittedly - I've heard many angry reactions to the draft from practising history teachers.

Now, as already stated, whether or not these headings and sub-headings are prescriptive is key. Everything Michael Gove has said about History in the last two years suggests it will be. When setting out the difficiences of school History two years ago, Michael Gove famously, and I am sure most deliberately, stated that the existing History KS3 syllabus didn't mention a single historical figure, except William Wilberforce and Olaudah Equiano. To take a kindly interpretation, this is an example of a non-teacher misunderstanding a curriculum document. A teacher, or certainly one used to reading curriculum documents, would immediately understand that the singling out of Wilberforce and Equiano was a strong hint that some schools were not covering the slave trade or the story of its abolition, and they should be! This misunderstanding perhaps came about partly because the syllabus document was not prescriptive in the same way as the new one.

The way that topics get turned into icons and become political battlefields is illustrated by the case of Mary Seacole. The rumour that Mary Seacole was not to be included on the list of British worthies that appear on the new scheme of work led to a massive petition to restore her! And indeed, she is restored or, according to the Department of Education, was never going to be removed in the first place. It is however understood by all involved that what appears on that document is what schools will be expected to teach: that is very much the point of it, if you have followed what Michael Gove has been saying about History for the last two years.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

As for Gove himself, over the last few months I have heard him described variously as a toad, a wart, a toff, a fogey, a wrecker, a Nazi, an arselicker, a creep, an ignoramus; he needs a Chinese burn, he needs a kick in the balls, he needs special togo, posting or a wedgie, he needs to be hanged drawn and quartered: the sheer vitriol, along with the lack of alternative suggestions for reform makes me doubt not only the sincerity of some of his opponents.

It is as if the British education system has become an oversized boil, contemplated by various doctors and nurses who then bicker about whether to cut it off, lance it, or give the patient pills. Then along comes Michael Gove, and they all turn and scream at him that he isn't even a member of the medical profession and he should f- off right now.

My (perhaps rather jaded and cynical) view is that the teaching establishment and unions, who have either found a sympathetic ear in government or are safely ensconced in their quangos, have been able to peddle their dogma unhindered for a while but they are now faced with an education secretary who is willing to take them on and destroy their bases of power. The vitriol is probably because i) someone dares challenge them and ii) they're running scared.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

If the Education Secretary had some first-hand experience of English schools, as a teacher or pupil, your theory might make sense. He was educated in Scotland (which I agree has an admirable reputation for education) which means he doesn't know what it is really like in an average English comprehensive; but he has also managed to absorb a romantically nostalgic Tory view of society and, either through stupidity or arrogance, refuses to accept how short-sighted and simplistic that is as a basis for a national curriculum.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

As for Gove himself, over the last few months I have heard him described variously as a toad, a wart, a toff, a fogey, a wrecker, a Nazi, an arselicker, a creep, an ignoramus; he needs a Chinese burn, he needs a kick in the balls, he needs special togo, posting or a wedgie, he needs to be hanged drawn and quartered: the sheer vitriol, along with the lack of alternative suggestions for reform makes me doubt not only the sincerity of some of his opponents.

It is as if the British education system has become an oversized boil, contemplated by various doctors and nurses who then bicker about whether to cut it off, lance it, or give the patient pills. Then along comes Michael Gove, and they all turn and scream at him that he isn't even a member of the medical profession and he should f- off right now.
My (perhaps rather jaded and cynical) view is that the teaching establishment and unions, who have either found a sympathetic ear in government or are safely ensconced in their quangos, have been able to peddle their dogma unhindered for a while but they are now faced with an education secretary who is willing to take them on and destroy their bases of power. The vitriol is probably because i) someone dares challenge them and ii) they're running scared.

My on the ground (chalk face) knowledge is that the political ping pong match of the last 30 to 40 years does no favours to children.

The ''quangos'' as you call them don't affect ordinary teachers - they just have to get on with continual and un-needed government interference and meddling. Plus the bizarre fixation with ''data'' and OFSTED inspections that change all the time (Satisfactory is now no longer what it says it is - shades of Orwell's 1984 methinks) satisfies it seems some anally retentive civil servants in Gove's department and possibly Gove himself - but no one else.

Gove's latest fiasco is doctrinaire and divisive and for what purpose? I am glad it is not now going ahead. The EBAC was a complete disaster and it took nearly ALL the bodies involved to tell him so.

What Gove needs to do is to retire off to the back benches and have a cup of tea, a lie down and just let professionals do their job (a sentiment that could be applied to any number of public funded bodies by the way).

Saul

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
The scheme of work includes as one of its purposes this bold aspiration: ' A knowledge of Britain's past, and our place in the world, helps us understand the challenges of our own time.' One of its aims is to ensure children 'know and understand the story of these islands: how the British people shaped this nation and how Britain influenced the world'. Fair enough (although surely it is equally important to understand how the rest of the world influenced us!) Then look to see what specific History is to be taught in our relations with India. For example: 'Clive of India' [ie the Battle of Plassey and conquest of Bengal - one of the grubbiest episodes in Imperial History, and very probably the event which led within a few years to a catastrophic famine in which millions died]; the Indian mutiny [which I very much doubt would even be called a 'mutiny' by Indian historians]; Independence [a good topic only if combined with a wider view of Indian History - and there is no encouragement, let alone guidance, in the scheme of work to do so.]

This document, another legacy of Mr Gove, has been a long time in the making. It is the most illiberal and nationalistic scheme of work I have seen in 37 years of History teaching and tutoring, and I am seriously concerned about its possible effect on the next generation of children who might be exposed to it.
How can it be nationalistic and imperialistic to teach children about, as you put it "one of the grubbiest episodes in Imperial History"?

Cod. One of the reasons why I think the scheme of work is nationalistic (in a bad way) is the focus on those three dates, 1757, 1857, and 1947. I honestly don't think they've thought this through, and it sounds almost as though they were just the only three dates that could be remembered without looking it up. In my answer to Spawn on February 8th 21:52 I gave what in effect was a list of sub-topics to provide some balance. Otherwise the story is simply one of the raw application (and withdrawal) of power, i.e. imperialistic. Recent research is taking the shine off a good deal of our Imperial history, and I would like to see more evidence that this has been given some serious thought before we expand the amount of Imperial History we are teaching.

Another reason why I think the scheme of work 'is the most illiberal and nationalistic scheme of work I have seen in 37 years of History teaching and tutoring' is the disappearance of the element of choice (i.e. illiberal) and the abolition of World and European History in the KS3 section of the scheme of work (nationalistic).

With regard to your complaint in another posting about the political wrangling, I have some sympathy, but directed towards parents and children, not Mr Gove. To put it bluntly, he started it.

The politics is complicated by the fact that History teachers are to some degree divided between those of us who have been influenced by the Schools History Project, sometimes described as 'the New History', and those who haven't, so that a kind of skills v facts war has developed. Mr Gove has specifically attacked the New History. Having said that, it is worth noting that the Historical Association, a rather conservative body, is expressing doubts about the emerging syllabus.

For a sense of just how political our present Secretary of State is with regard to History teaching (in relation to his predecessors) I recommend 'The Right Kind of History' by David Cannadine, subtitled 'Teaching the past in twentieth Century England'.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
(Satisfactory is now no longer what it says it is - shades of Orwell's 1984 methinks)

I suspect the verdict of history on Gove's regime will be 'satisfactory.' In the OFSTED sense.

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

Michael Gove seems to be taking a Liberal Conservative view, in the Cornfordian sense of the term.

quote:

A Liberal Conservative is a broad-minded man, who thinks that something ought to be done, only not anything that anyone now desires; and that most things which were done thirty years ago ought to be undone.

-DS

plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

********'t:

quote:
My (perhaps rather jaded and cynical) view is that the teaching establishment and unions, who have either found a sympathetic ear in government or are safely ensconced in their quangos, have been able to peddle their dogma unhindered for a while but they are now faced with an education secretary who is willing to take them on and destroy their bases of power. The vitriol is probably because i) someone dares challenge them and ii) they're running scared.

Sorry, I don't recognise the situation you describe here at all. How and what teachers teach has been buggered about with constantly ever since the 1980s. Education has become the favourite toy for any government to play with, to prove they are doing something. If only teachers could be left alone for a bit, they might have the chance to get something done.

I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.
- Khalil Gibran

[ 11. February 2013, 18:20: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
One of the reasons why I think the scheme of work is nationalistic (in a bad way) is the focus on those three dates, 1757, 1857, and 1947. [snip] Otherwise the story is simply one of the raw application (and withdrawal) of power, i.e. imperialistic. Recent research is taking the shine off a good deal of our Imperial history, and I would like to see more evidence that this has been given some serious thought before we expand the amount of Imperial History we are teaching.

It would be nationalistic if the curriculum required the events of those dates to be taught in a pro-British manner. If not, they remain dates of significance in British history that can be addressed in a neutral or even anti-British way.

I particularly doubt that those putting together the curriculum would have intended the events of 1857 to be taught in the former manner.

quote:
Another reason why I think the scheme of work 'is the most il******* and nationalistic scheme of work I have seen in 37 years of History teaching and tutoring' is the disappearance of the element of choice (i.e. il*******) and the abolition of World and Eur***an History in the KS3 section of the scheme of work (nationalistic).

You must mean history that doesn't include Britain at all must be included. This doesn't seem to be anything more than nation-specific.

quote:
With regard to your complaint in another posting about the political wrangling, I have some sympathy, but directed towards parents and children, not Mr Gove. To put it bluntly, he started it.

I doubt his language has been as inflammatory as that directed at him.

quote:

For a sense of just how political our present Secretary of State is with regard to History teaching (in relation to his predecessors) I recommend 'The Right Kind of History' by David Cannadine, subtitled 'Teaching the past in twentieth Century England'.

Thanks. It crosses my mind that a curriculum that emphasises skills (ie, using historical method) will be less politically charged than one that emphasises content - leastways if the content is strung together into some kind of a narrative. If so, isn't it merely the case that Gove appears to have a particularly political approach because he is keen on content?

As an aside, Mary Seacole is an interesting character but surely peripheral to British history.

As another aside, my elder daughter is now entering her fourth year of primary schooling in NZ: she has learned precisely no history at all!

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
One of the reasons why I think the scheme of work is nationalistic (in a bad way) is the focus on those three dates, 1757, 1857, and 1947. [snip] Otherwise the story is simply one of the raw application (and withdrawal) of power, i.e. imperialistic. Recent research is taking the shine off a good deal of our Imperial history, and I would like to see more evidence that this has been given some serious thought before we expand the amount of Imperial History we are teaching.
It would be nationalistic if the curriculum required the events of those dates to be taught in a pro-British manner. If not, they remain dates of significance in British history that can be addressed in a neutral or even anti-British way.

I particularly doubt that those putting together the curriculum would have intended the events of 1857 to be taught in the former manner.

quote:
Another reason why I think the scheme of work 'is the most il******* and nationalistic scheme of work I have seen in 37 years of History teaching and tutoring' is the disappearance of the element of choice (i.e. il*******) and the abolition of World and Eur***an History in the KS3 section of the scheme of work (nationalistic).
You must mean history that doesn't include Britain at all must be included. This doesn't seem to be anything more than nation-specific.

quote:
With regard to your complaint in another posting about the political wrangling, I have some sympathy, but directed towards parents and children, not Mr Gove. To put it bluntly, he started it.
I doubt his language has been as inflammatory as that directed at him.

quote:

For a sense of just how political our present Secretary of State is with regard to History teaching (in relation to his predecessors) I recommend 'The Right Kind of History' by David Cannadine, subtitled 'Teaching the past in twentieth Century England'.
Thanks. It crosses my mind that a curriculum that emphasises skills (ie, using historical method) will be less politically charged than one that emphasises content - leastways if the content is strung together into some kind of a narrative. If so, isn't it merely the case that Gove appears to have a particularly political approach because he is keen on content?

As an aside, Mary Seacole is an interesting character but surely peripheral to British history.

As another aside, my elder daughter is now entering her fourth year of primary schooling in NZ: she has learned precisely no history at all!

Cod. Thank you for your comments.

'It would be nationalistic if the curriculum required the events of those dates to be taught in a pro-British manner.'

From my own experience I would say it is almost impossible to teach wars that involved Britain in a non-nationalistic way. It's a bit like wearing a white poppy during a Remembrance Day service. I never fully realised this until the day that I was asked to lecture a group of German and Italian teachers on how we taught the 20th Century Unit of Key Stage 3 History, and how I thought the standard textbook ('Peace & War') actually only really covered the latter. Ignoring my own cherished belief that I was presenting a balanced picture, they expressed their schock at the triumphalist thrust of the basic story it told. (At that time the approach to History in German schools was much more analytical in its approach.) A non-nationalistic approach to the teaching of the World Wars would require a wider range of nationalities represented in the story-telling and in the documentation.

From the point of view of teaching Indian History, the 3 prescribed topics are of the same military nature. So in a practical sense this topic will, with the best will in the world, be taught from a very British point of view, though no doubt some teachers will brave parental wrath by referring to the 'Indian Rebellion' rather than the 'Indian Mutiny', etc. (The absence of a World History Unit will also actually tend towards discouraging History teachers from developing anything other than a 'British' mindset.) National bias is extraordinarily difficult to counter, in oneself, let alone in a classroom. A very good 'A' level History Paper was once based on the fact that British and Indian historians couldn't agree on how many shots were fired, or how many people were killed, in the Amritsar Massacre. However my main point is that to get a rounded picture of an event in British History that took place in India we need time to develop an idea of the political, economic, social, cultural and religious background of India if we are to understand a military event pr***rly. That is what it actually says are the aims of the Programme of Study: it's just that it is not implemented in the choice of topics.

'I particularly doubt that those putting together the curriculum would have intended the events of 1857 to be taught in the former manner.' One of Michael Gove's original History 'kitchen cabinet' reportedly included an historian with particularly 'patriotic' views about British concentration camps during the 'Boer War'. I try to tell myself that some of the people who advise him are good people, and as far as possible I refrain from thinking about what Michael Gove intends. My anger is directed rather at what I think the outcomes are, or in this case what I think they will be.

'I doubt his language has been as inflammatory as that directed at him.

I agree with you. Michael Gove is almost a model of good manners. However, the clue to the vitriol directed against him is in the anecdote I've already referred to – his stated desire to undertake a Cultural Revolution. This implies a complete change of landscape, which in Michael Gove's world-view (not in China's where he uttered this infamous nonsense) would be from one where all the flags being waved are changed from red to blue. However, Michael Gove is also a clever politician, listens to people, mirrors what they say when he can, generally speaks with moderation, and actually quite often cloaks his more far-reaching ideas with ambiguity. All this helps disguise the fact that his plans for education are extremely right wing, and have been strongly attacked, for one, by Sir Kenneth Baker.

Having given a clue to why so much vitriol is being splashed around, I would like to suggest an explanation, and sorry, it is a long story. Two years ago Michael Gove chose his History advisers from the Right in political terms and from academic advisers who were skeptical of 'The New History' in History-teaching terms. He appealed to the public by announcing that there were things seriously wrong with the teaching of History, and kept pumping out a list of anecdotal evidence for this judgement. Much of this anecdotal evidence hit a popular chord, particularly that not enough British History being taught. (There is never enough British History taught – see 'The Right Kind of History'!) None of it was backed up by hard evidence, and indeed most of the evidence available at the time he said all this pointed in the opposite direction – that History in comparison with other subjects was particularly well taught. He then claimed that children were being bored by History teaching, and he would look to TV History presenters to suggest ways of livening the subject up. (Many History teachers felt a bit miffed at this point.) At the Hay on Wye book festival he told Niall Ferguson that he would like to give him that job, and apparently he wasn't joking. For months we were treated to Niall Ferguson and David Starkey showing the public, on TV and with varying degrees of success, how History teaching should be done. Both these historians write brilliant books (and after watching Ferguson's account of the Ming Dynasty's foray into the Indian Ocean I do actually wonder what this (right wing) historian thinks of the planned demise of world history in Key Stage 3) - and both have cultivated abrasive personalities. Ferguson quite unashamedly loves baiting marxists, and is apparently very good at it. Meanwhile 'The Daily Mail' was regularly the main source of news about what Michael Gove was doing with History, often using leaks from his department. The campaign that Michael Gove had begun, therefore, was itself highly inflammatory.

When I wrote to my MP with my concern that the History Curriculum Committee was not going to represent different points of view, the Department of Education wrote back to say that they were consulting widely. Well I don't think they did, and perhaps a more honest answer would have been 'We're going to consult, but we're are actually pretty set on getting rid of the Schools History Project approach'. The Programme of Study that has emerged two years later certainly seems to reflect this.

For teacher reaction, I recommend the History section of the Forum in 'The Times Educational Supplement'. Quite a lot of it is despair, particularly among practising teachers: from that point of view I think anger, laced with a little vitriol from time to time, is a healthier response. It's also worth looking at the ***n poll on the Historical Association as to the general opinions of History teachers on the planned changes.

'It crosses my mind that a curriculum that emphasises skills (ie, using historical method) will be less politically charged than one that emphasises content - leastways if the content is strung together into some kind of a narrative. If so, isn't it merely the case that Gove appears to have a particularly political approach because he is keen on content?'

Yes to your first sentence: because History is peculiarly conservative and subversive at the same time, a skills approach seems to many, though not to all, to be 'neutral'. With regard to your second sentence, in my view it isn't 'merely' by a very long way.

As for Mary Seacole, whom Michael Gove may or may not have attempted to remove from the Programme of Study, my feeling is that she had been the subject of a GCSE History paper, and generally speaking had been elevated into the status of an historical fact, long before any 'bandwagon' took her up as a cause, and should definitely take up her place next to Florence.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Cedd007

quote:
One of the reasons why I think the scheme of work is nationalistic (in a bad way) is the focus on those three dates, 1757, 1857, and 1947. I honestly don't think they've thought this through, and it sounds almost as though they were just the only three dates that could be remembered without looking it up.

These are the wrong dates anyway. The only two dates you need to remember in English history are 55 BC and 1066 AD, as any fule kno. Though some history anoraks also insist on remembering 1588 and 1688.

But seriously... the INDIAN MUTINY?! They want to teach 11-14 year olds about the Indian Mutiny? Perhaps I am underestimating British youth, but personally I'd want my daughter to be a lot older before learning about that. It was bad enough when she was studying World War II at the age of 8, though mercifully the teacher concentrated on the Home Front rather than the Final Solution. We had to do a lot of work at home on how the Germans are now our friends and it's much better to be friends than fight each other (the rest of the class were prejudiced against Germany to begin with, due to England's defeat in the World Cup). Last autumn they were studying the Gunpowder Plot and she was one of only TWO children in her class who argued against James I's repression of C*******s. None of the others seemed to think that tolerance and freedom of religion were important, and if I've understood her correctly none of them knew that C*******s are Christians either.

And that's why history is important; because learning about it can either reinforce or challenge your national prejudices. Nothing I have learned about Gove's curriculum so far has inspired me with confidence.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
As for Mary Seacole, whom Michael Gove may or may not have attempted to remove from the Programme of Study, my feeling is that she had been the subject of a GCSE History paper, and generally speaking had been elevated into the status of an historical fact, long before any 'bandwagon' took her up as a cause, and should definitely take up her place next to Florence.

And I guess there's the nub of the problem (again). You think Mary Seacole is on a par with Florence Nightingale. Others think Seacole was a well-meaning amateur of marginal importance (who wasn't even black) and that any comparison is an insult to Nightingale's professionalism.

Whatever is taught in history lessons is going to offend one group of people or another. The pendulum has swung in one direction, now it's swinging the other way some people are going to be cheesed off about it.

____________

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.
- Sir Winston Churchill

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

A*******'t. It really doesn't matter what my views are about Mary Seacole. And, yes, fashions change, but that is not the same thing as historical reputations changing. At the moment her historical reputation puts her up with Florence Nightingale, although as you rightly point out not in the same League. Nevertheless, historians have found her interesting - 'History Today' has run numerous articles on her. It is her reputation among historians that makes her an 'historical fact'.

Arguments are extremely vulgar, for everyone in good society holds exactly the same opinion.

[ 12. February 2013, 16:43: Message buggered about with by: Gwai ]

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

Talking of Historical facts I seem to have inadvertently knighted Kenneth Clarke. My apologies M'Lud, and good luck with your new book.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

Is it me, or is anyone who has posted on this thread and who is also currently involved in education, is quite unimpressed with Gove?

Saul

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Talking of Historical facts I seem to have inadvertently knighted Kenneth Clarke. My apologies M'Lud, and good luck with your new book.

You referred to 'Sir Kenneth Baker' above, but he's now elevated to the peerage. Clarke definitely deserves a knighthood. I'm sure one will be coming soon.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Wot no epigrams - I thought youse all were edukated.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Sorry. Won't happen again.

___________

The political health of Britain has deteriorated very sharply. The Conservative Party must do something about it. I am the man to do it.

- Rt Hon. Kenneth Clarke QC MP

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Is it me, or is anyone who has posted on this thread and who is also currently involved in education, is quite unimpressed with Gove?

Saul

We all hate him. Self-important little man.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

But seriously... the INDIAN MUTINY?! They want to teach 11-14 year olds about the Indian Mutiny? Perhaps I am underestimating British youth, but personally I'd want my daughter to be a lot older before learning about that.

I learned about the events of 1857 at the age of 11 from a history book I found on my parents' shelves. I hope you don't think them remiss for not locking it up.

quote:
And that's why history is important; because learning about it can either reinforce or challenge your national prejudices.

This I agree with absolutely. My children are half-South African and we spent Christmas over there. The elder of the two (aged 7) certainly noticed various very noticeable things about the country, specifically white = rich, black = poor. Explaining the reasons for such things is very hard. The parental sex-talk, so feared by so many parents, has nothing on it. But the choice is either a) explain in an age-appropriate way or b) allow the child to pick up odd ideas and conclusions.

quote:
Nothing I have learned about Gove's curriculum so far has inspired me with confidence.

I am grateful particularly for cedd007's contributions, but I still fail to see why a simple list of dates is as value-laden as is being made out. The history of the British Empire can be taught in a way that absolutely glorifies or denigrates Britain. Why is it assumed that the barbarous manner in which the East India Company behaved will be glossed over, for example? If the way historical events are to be taught is not prescribed, it seems that how it is taught will be down to individual teachers.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

' I still fail to see why a simple list of dates is as value-laden as is being made out. '

Cod. It's not easy to explain, but perhaps if I take a rather more obvious, South African, example it will show how dates can sometimes carry a heavy burden. Some years ago I asked the South African embassy for background materials to help our Year 9's do some document work for the Unit of South African History they were doing.
A very generous bundle of historical magazines and books arrived in response, including two well illustrated textbooks. As a student of African History, having taught in Uganda, I was rather surprised by the contents: the first date mentioned was 1652, the date when Jan van Riebeeck sailed into Table Bay, into an apparently mainly uninhabited area, the only other inhabitants being 'bushmen'.

The textbooks also made clear that bantu (who of course are the majority population of South Africa) had not arrived in Cape Colony at that point. So in the leaflet I produced I included, alongside an extract from the embassy histories, the picture of a bantu carving, found in the Cape, which carbon dating put at, as far as I can recall, about the 7th Century, ie around the time the Anglo-Saxons were consolidating their position in England. During the 80's and 90's these two dates became a political battlefield: the implications of the date of the arrival of the bantu in the Cape were huge, and very widely understood. I believe historians now date it several centuries B.C.

At the moment I don't think the implications of the list in the recently published History Programme of Study would be obvious to non-historians. But given the political background of how the Programme of Study came about, it should hardly be surprising that it is seen by some, including me, as 'tory' History. (I wouldn't want to teach 'Labour', 'Liberal Democrat', 'UKIP' or any other politically-motivated History either, by the way.) The idea of a 'list' has its own History. In the late 1980's it was suggested, in Conservative circles, when the National Curriculum was being debated, that there should be a list of dates that 'every schoolchild should know'. A representative list was circulated, consisting of the dates of battles, and generally what might be described as 'top-down' history, ie all about kings, queens, barons and knights rather than peasants. Jack Straw countered it with his own list, with the inevitable Tollpuddle Martyrs but also, to great hilarity, the Poll Tax! The list was quietly dropped, and the original History Curriculum contained no more than suggestions about content, except, at Mrs Thatcher's specific request, the Holocaust, a reminder that the original History National Curriculum did not tell teachers what they ought to be teaching. It respected their professionalism.

The idea of a list re-appeared in a different guise during the period before the last election, but this time the discussion in Conservative circles was about who the ten most important Britons were, and Michael Gove joined in by pointing out that the History National Curriculum document only mentioned Wilberforce and Seacole and not Churchill!

However, whatever the background politics the problem now is the prescriptive list of events to be taught. There are too many of them – many battles for example – 'Military' now being included in the mix of Political, Economic, Social and Cultural History that has hitherto been a valuable guide to balance.

In contrast to the existing History Programme of Study (which is actually quite good by the way) teachers have no opportunity to use their training as historians to make their own list. The list of events in the Programme of Study does't look prescriptive because each heading is followed by examples preceded by the word 'including …' - so it looks as though you can add other events that you feel are important, and even present different points of view. But you can't, simply because there isn't enough time. That was my own conclusion based on many years of writing schemes of work, and all the practising secondary school teachers I know think the same.

The only way I could see to teach these topics would be to mix in hundreds of other dates and events, the Methodist Revival for example - thus subverting the syllabus. But then I'm retired and not facing an OFSTED inspection.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Hi Cedd007,

I think I understand the point you're making - that a list of dates and facts can tell its own story. The example you give of the South African materials is a very interesting one, but perhaps it also illuminates the point I'm trying to make. The significance of 1652 can be viewed in more than one way, but either way it remains a significant date. As traditionally taught in South African schools (ie, before the end of apartheid) it was (I expect) followed with a) British acquisition of the Cape c) the Great Trek d) Afrikaners beat the Zulus e) gold discovered on the Witwatersrand f) British invasion and subjugation of Afrikaner republics g) National Party elected h) republic created. The narrative from these facts runs as follows: Afrikaners = good guys, British = perfidious, non-whites = who were they again?

Now, the thing is that 1652 and all those other dates remain significant if you turn it around and look at it from the perspective of the colonised people in southern Africa: 1652 was when it all, ie, colonisation, began. The problem with the narrative above is not so much what's in it so much as what is left out, ie, conflict between the Xhosa and Zulu, the implosion of (particularly) Xhosa society in the 1850s, the subjugation of all non-whites first by the British and the Afrikaners separately and then in tandem.

Now, applying this take on the list of dates and facts above, the question becomes, what has been left out? If one was concerned about the glorification of the Empire, one could cite the dates of dishonoured and dodgy treaties, genocide against Aboriginal Australians, Amritsar and so on. However, I hope there is scope for that within the dates provided for teachers to exploit.

By the way - did the materials sent to you by the SA embassy really use the word "bantu"? It's considered very impolite in South Africa. How old were the materials?

[ 17. February 2013, 01:58: Message edited by: Cod ]

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

Cod
' … a list of dates and facts can tell its own story.' This is my main problem with the Programme of Study. And I heartily agree with you that any story can easily be given many different slants.

This is why my second problem is also important: it is difficult to have a variety of interpretations of the story presented by the Programme of Study because of time constraints.

For example, the Programme of Study mentions South Africa once. Under the main heading of 'Britain's global impact in the 19th century' it has 5 examples that must be taught, one of which is (or should that be 'are'?) 'the Boer Wars'. By my calculation this would give you 3 hours to explain 'the Boer Wars' to a class of 13/14 year-olds. For them to have any kind of understanding they would need to understand the distinction between 'Africa' and the territories within it, and here the accompanying 'Scramble for Africa' topic would indeed be a help. How much of your account of South African History (presumably representing several years' work in a South African school) would there be time to teach? Before I tackled 'the Boer Wars' I would certainly want to spend time on each of the topics you mention (but I would add to that something about the peopling of South Africa before 1652 as well, plus your additional topic regarding the Xhosa and Zulus, which would make 7 topics in all) before tackling the wars. I would also want to do it in sufficient depth that students would have some understanding of the Afrikaaner point of view as well as the British – while simultaneously making sure that other peoples are not forgotten (or become invisible!) All this cannot be done in 3 hours, unless the aim is simply for the students to learn a set of dates and events.

I also find it odd that the list of compulsory 'independence generation' people includes Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, Kenyatta, and Nkrumah, but does not mention Nelson Mandela. I suspect this is simply a function of the chronological straight-jacket the Programme of Study gets itself in.

As for the mention of the term 'bantu', the ambassador concerned was Denis Worrall, who I discover was ambassador in the mid '80's! Denis Worrall struck me as a very polite gentleman, but the books, being freebies, probably dated from the late 60's. I even wonder whether he passed the books on slightly tongue-in-cheek! I believe the term became impolite in South Africa in the 1970's, but not, of course, in the rest of Africa where it simply denotes a people or a language.

Instead of a discussion about the National Curriculum we now have a row:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/16/historians-michael-gove-curriculum

A surprising take by a Mail online writer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2275201/Want-improve-exams-Just-ask-parents.html

Some arguments for Mr Gove by one of his earliest supporters:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/history-teaching-curriculum-gove-right?dm_i=14DE,1AE9Z,5PBA56,4D5HQ,1#sta rt-of-comments
and a reply from an experienced History teacher and textbook writer:
http://j-cduncan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/fergusson-in-fog.html

Jane R
You might be interested in this reaction from 'Mumsnet':
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_staffroom/a1679488-Anyone-else-HORRIFIED-by-the-new-history-curriculum

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I'd like to thank Cedd007 for many thoughtful contributions to the thread.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
My (perhaps rather jaded and cynical) view is that the teaching establishment and unions, who have either found a sympathetic ear in government or are safely ensconced in their quangos, have been able to peddle their dogma unhindered for a while but they are now faced with an education secretary who is willing to take them on and destroy their bases of power. The vitriol is probably because i) someone dares challenge them and ii) they're running scared.

My impression is that a.) although teachers are likely to have strong views on How Teaching Ought To Be Done, there is nothing like the monolithic consensus you suggest and they are just as likely to be in violent disagreement with each other, and b.) education in England and Wales has been so mucked about with over recent years that it's reached the point where any further change will almost certainly be harmful, regardless of the theoretical value of the desired endpoint.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

A number of prominent historians have come out in support - in principle - to Michael Gove's reforms to teaching history.

[ 26. February 2013, 22:00: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Cod:

quote:
I learned about the events of 1857 at the age of 11 from a history book I found on my parents' shelves. I hope you don't think them remiss for not locking it up.

No. We have a lot of books in our house too and none of them are locked up. But reading a book that interests you at home (with the support of parents who presumably have also read it and can discuss it with you) is a different ball game to studying it at school whether you personally are ready for it or not.

Part of the problem of specifying the content in such detail is that it leaves no room for creativity. The best history teacher I ever had once spent half an hour talking about Grand Duchess Anastasia in a lesson that was ostensibly about Perkin Warbeck. The connection is not immediately obvious (we certainly thought we were getting half an hour off the serious business of Tudor history) but she used Anastasia as an example to show how difficult it was, in the days before photographs (and DNA testing) to prove that someone was who they said they were. I am not going to tell you how long ago that lesson was, but I still remember the point she was making and it helped me to understand how the pretenders to the throne in Henry VII's reign could persuade people that they were one of the lost princes in the Tower. There's no time for that sort of thing now.

Anglican't, I'd be interested to know how many of these Eminent Historians actually have experience of teaching children. Teaching university students and writing books is not the same.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Cedd007:

quote:
You might be interested in this reaction from 'Mumsnet'...

Noooo!! I'm depressed enough already!

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Michael Gove is almost a model of good manners.

Only because he delegates the nastiness to his spads ...

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

There are not many people I instinctively dislike.

To be fair to Gove, I know little about him.

All I would say he is continuing the political ping pong that education seems to find itself in here in the UK.

It seems to me he has some sort of ''mission'' but I'm wholly unclear as to what that mission actually is.

Saul

Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :

I haven't visited the ship for a while; just popped in today and happened across this thread.
As an RE Teacher (History second subject)I fear that the current Governments education reforms have done irreversible damage to the status of RE in schools (especially in non-denominational ones).
There is no longer any clear cut position on what curriculum time should be devoted to RE in Free Schools, Academies (if any), what curriculum should be followed in those schools, and whether specialist teachers should be used. The DofE repeats the mantra that RE is compulsory at KS4 but provides no guidance on curriculum time or content or the obligations on schools. It is rarely an Ofsted focus.
What is the unintended (I would like to hope) consequence of the reforms - is that GCSE RS is increasingly being replaced by a half-hour slot in form time with a non-specialist. In local schools RS was moved out of the Humanities option block which just has History and Geography. It now has to compete with 15 other subjects. Effectively, any students who are triple scientists, double linguists, or talented at music and art cannot choose RS as a subject without losing the arts. In the past many would have chosen RS over either History or Geography or possibly in addition to. Now it is just not feasible. This has had an impact both on class size and calibre of candidates and will start to impact upon A level classes soon. Eventually, it will be hard to get quality students for Religious Studies, Theology, Philosophy courses at University because the numbers of A level students doing RS will just dwindle.
In my school a hardline atheist marxist teaches an RE session each week and declared to me, "Not only am I an atheist, but I'm an anti-theist. Even if you could rationally prove to me that there was a God I would not bow down and worship that God". He's also teaching the Philip Pullman books in English classes - in the same "balanced" way.

The real concerns of several subject associations and people involved in RE can be found here:
REthink RE
A good discussion of the issues on Radio 4

Today programme

Exact clip here

Impact of Ebacc Measure on RE 2012

All Party Parliamentary Enquiry Announcement

With regard to history. We teach it chronologically already, but I have my reservations about the pedagogy and age appropriateness of the current proposals. Especially for Primary School. It looks like something that has missed the wood for the trees. I may comment further in a later post when I have time.

[ 02. March 2013, 11:39: Message edited by: Marinaki ]

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

I have experience of some RE teaching too. I posted the original thread because where I have taught it for an academic year (I was there filling in for a staff sickness) the senior staff at this English Secondary school have, in their wisdom, abolished RE for all years 9,10 and 11. It still takes place at Year 7 and 8.

In it's place they have introduced a mish mash of poetry, spirituality, some assorted religious elements, and an eclectic mix of ''all sorts'' (It is called ''Insight''). They have withdrawn GCSE RE as a major option, but after some parental pressure, now offer it to those who specifically choose it at year 9 options stage, as a GCSE.

It seems that religious education, in my very limited experience, is withering on the vine. This seems a great pity and quite short sighted. But when I wrote to my local MP he came out with the usual ''RE is a compulsory subject'' rubbish, etc etc.

Now that the EBAC has been effectively abandoned what future for RE I wonder?

Once again education is a political ping pong ball to be hit around the ideological political corridors of Whitehall.

Saul the Apostle

[ 02. March 2013, 16:20: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

These are my notes to my SACRE concerning the current state of play:

Where we got to

survey by the NASUWT teaching union, January:

further evidence about the decline in the provision of subjects not in the EBacc

90.3 per cent indicated there had been a reduction in the provision of RE since the EBacc was introduced.

24 per cent of schools had reduced their number of RE subject specialist teaching staff

U turn in the Ebacc

not the subjects therein but the form of assessment

BUT 8 (not 5) subjects to be measured in league tables

small print in a new consultation document suggests that RE MAY be in a list of 8 subjects

IF it meets 'rigorous standards'.

I assume that means it will have to have a 'treasure chest of knowledge'.

While such content-based stuff will be less interesting to students, it will strengthen our hand at KS3 and A'level, also at ITT.

John Keast: still marginalised
If not allowed to count as a humanities subject

Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :

Saul, your school is effectively breaking the law. However, it's one of those laws like the fabled bale of hay in a London cab. It may be be required but no-one does it. Although, I would argue that good RE is infinitely more useful than a bale of hay. The law is not enforced and indeed there is no clear body that has the ability to ensure schools follow through with their obligations.
SACREs are responsible for non-denominations local authority schools. There are no checks on Academies and Free Schools as they are not answerable to SACRE. Even where schools are answerable to their local SACRE these bodies can only advise and not insist on RE being taught in accordance with the law. They have no teeth.
Moreover, given RE is still not part of the National Curriculum and, therefore, excluded from the current curriculum review, it is marginalized even further. However, given the pedagogically unsound history curriculum being proposed that might not be a bad thing.

Leo, as for the so-called U turn and the EBacc measure - Gove has still got the bones of what he wanted...just not the pretty name. Reforms and rigour are not a bad thing. However, the curriculum has been narrowed and arts etc. displaced. At the chalkface it often feels like the Department of Education has been taken over by faceless Vogons with a curriculum designed by Philistines.
But what would I know about the curriculum. I'm only a teacher after all and nobody ever asks us about education policy or reform.

[ 02. March 2013, 19:01: Message edited by: Marinaki ]

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

Marinaki said:

quote:
Gove has still got the bones of what he wanted...just not the pretty name. Reforms and rigour are not a bad thing. However, the curriculum has been narrowed and arts etc. displaced. At the chalkface it often feels like the Department of Education has been taken over by faceless Vogons with a curriculum designed by Philistines. But what would I know about the curriculum. I'm only a teacher after all and nobody ever asks us about education policy or reform.

I think that last statement hits the nail fair and squarely on the head.

I don't know Gove personally but my gut tells me he has IDEOLOGY written all over his forehead. Am I wrong here? Am I being wholly unfair? What is his motivating factors?

My earlier point was that (like other main public sector areas) education has been unhelpfully a highly political football. One example of this is the scary annual public media flagellation of teachers and indeed pupils when the GCSE results come out.

This is mind boggling. Most pupils, in my experience, are polite, good natured, hard working and committed. We then in public, in the summer when results come out, slag their efforts off as ''rapidly lowering standards in education.'' It is utterly foul and so predictable.

As far as the ideologue Gove is concerned I hope his little man's efforts peter out and he shuffles off into obscurity and the back benches. The horrid little man doesn't seem about to do that though.

Saul

[ 03. March 2013, 06:22: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :

I think we misread the situation when we make it just about one man. There are obviously others in the DfE who are facilitating this mockery of sound pedagogy and how children learn things well, and what content (across the curriculum - not just history) is age appropriate.

As long as teachers and pedagogues are not involved this is going to be an unprecedented disaster.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
I think we misread the situation when we make it just about one man. There are obviously others in the DfE who are facilitating this mockery of sound pedagogy and how children learn things well, and what content (across the curriculum - not just history) is age appropriate.

As long as teachers and pedagogues are not involved this is going to be an unprecedented disaster.

There are good reasons why Michael Gove's name keeps cropping up. First, the Education Secretary has been given unprecedented powers, and at least one distinguished name in Education has argued that this is actually the essential issue. Secondly, Michael Gove has shown no compunction in using these powers in a dictatorial way from the very start of his time in office. Thirdly, Michael Gove has made no secret of the fact that he wants to revolutionise education (not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but a good reason why he gets a lot of flak). Fourthly, there is a huge mismatch between Michael Gove's soft words, for example his expressed admiration for the work of teachers, and what he is actually doing, which needs to be highlighted - and if that involves a suggestion he is sometimes guilty of terminological inexactitudes he has only himself to blame. Finally, if people have time to read it, there is strong evidence that Michael Gove ignored the advice of his experts in the Department at an early stage in the curriculum review:http://www.bera.ac.uk/content/background-michael-gove%E2%80%99s-response-report-expert-panel-national-curriculum-revie w-england

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
...
Finally, if people have time to read it, there is strong evidence that Michael Gove ignored the advice of his experts in the Department at an early stage in the curriculum review:http://www.bera.ac.uk/content/background-michael-gove%E2%80%99s-response-report-expert-panel-national-curriculum-revie w-england

That is similar to the situation in many departments, and it has been that way since (I think) the 1960's when Harold Wilson introduced 'Special Advisors'. He didn't have so many, but they proliferated under Thatcher, eased off a bit under Major and took off again when Blair was elected.

Essentially, these are consultants to give ministers ideological back up (because, let's face it, most ministers are pretty dim compared to the average Permanent Secretary). The permanent civil servants can advise and covertly oppose but most ministers have to rely on "his" men to enable him to keep the ball rolling.

It's worth adding that while the minister has been elected and the civil servants selected and trained, the special advisors are a mixed bag of political operators and unelectable cronies.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
if people have time to read it, there is strong evidence that Michael Gove ignored the advice of his experts in the Department at an early stage in the curriculum review:http://www.bera.ac.uk/content/background-michael-gove%E2%80%99s-response-report-expert-panel-national-curriculum-revie w-england

Given that I hate Gove with a vengeance, I'd love to read that article but it doesn't work - is there a proper link please?

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

MP Tim Loughton was scathing about Gove's (mis) management at the Department of Education.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-gove-blasted-by-conservative-colleague-1544330

I don't think it is just sour grapes on Loughton's part. Gove is part of the metropolitan Tory thought police/ss if you like of Feuhrer Cameron and Loughton is now sent off back to the back benches - despite being a brilliant Minister and energetic public servant.

Strange that.

Saul

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
if people have time to read it, there is strong evidence that Michael Gove ignored the advice of his experts in the Department at an early stage in the curriculum review:http://www.bera.ac.uk/content/background-michael-gove%E2%80%99s-response-report-expert-panel-national-curriculum-revie w-england
Given that I hate Gove with a vengeance, I'd love to read that article but it doesn't work - is there a proper link please?

I think this is the link

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

Thanks,Inger; that is indeed the link I had in mind. My apologies to any who may have been frustrated in the task of pinning down Mr Gove. What led me to this information was this:
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/06/proof-that-gove-by-passed-his-own-expert-panel-to-push-through-idiotic-curricul um-changes/

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Thanks,Inger; that is indeed the link I had in mind. My apologies to any who may have been frustrated in the task of pinning down Mr Gove. What led me to this information was this:
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/06/proof-that-gove-by-passed-his-own-expert-panel-to-push-through-idiotic-curricul um-changes/

Thank you. Quite the best thing i have read all day. I feel vindicated in my demonizing of Gove and Gibb and am going to forward that link to all my education colleagues and will propose a toast in copious gin or whatever one's tipple to the person who wrote it.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I ...will propose a toast in copious gin or whatever one's tipple to the person who wrote it.

Francis Gilbert, who has the evangelical zeal of the convert. He also has what we might charitably call 'an eccentric' view that Free Schools helped cause the London Riots.

I suppose at least he had the courage of his convictions to take his child out of private school before he trashed them. Feel sorry for the child though.

[ 08. March 2013, 00:16: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

He said that segregation caused the riots.

Free schools are a symptom of segregation.

I agree with that.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0