Anyone else HORRIFIED by the new history curriculum?

(79 Posts)
corblimeymadam Fri 08-Feb-13 10:55:51

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ohfunnyhoneyface Fri 08-Feb-13 11:01:54

Whattttt?

I have only read what has been taken OUT.

Academies aren't following this, are they?

Makes you wonder if he's making it so awful so as to make all of the remaining normal schools move over to academy status...

partystress Sat 09-Feb-13 11:15:45

Yup, that is the only explanation that comes close to making sense. How anyone with a shred of intelligence thinks that it will be possible to engage under-11s in topics like the constitutional monarchy and union of parliaments is unfathomable. Please Mr Gove, spend a weekend planning, and give us a term's worth of plans which will engage children, enable them to demonstrate knowledge and core skills on the changing relationships between Scotland, England and Wales. Your plans should include cross-curricular links, ways of addressing different learning styles, provision for SEN, EAL, G&T, proposals for educational visits and other 'wow' factors.

TheNebulousBoojum Sat 09-Feb-13 11:18:44

Got any links?

TheNebulousBoojum Sat 09-Feb-13 11:21:05

On the BBC website it says :

'As expected, children will learn a complete history of Britain under the new curriculum.
The youngest children, as today, will be taught about key historical figures and from seven, youngsters will be expected to learn a detailed chronological history of Britain, from the Stone Age through to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall.'

YellowAndGreenAndRedAndBlue Sat 09-Feb-13 11:23:06

Oh lawks, what can I say? He's an embarrassment really.

History seems to stop at the Glorious Revolution in KS2.

No WW II sad just acres of topics that are going to be completely wasted on that age group.

Abra1d Sat 09-Feb-13 12:09:37

I am glad there is less emphasis on WW2 (and I say this as one who has a professional writing interest in the subject, so I know how important it is). My two children have now studied it three times: in primary school, secondary school and then again later on in secondary.

I would love them to know more about the English Civil War, which seems to be somewhat neglected. I also think that they could do with more knowledge of 1848 and how all those revolutions and uprisings across Europe led to the rise of nationalism, with its attendant consequences in the next century.

But getting back to the seventeenth century, I would think that the chopping off a King's head would be very interesting to primary school children! They certainly seemed to relish the head-chopping element of studying Henry VIII.

InTheoryBut Sat 09-Feb-13 15:16:44

I am the History Coordinator at my school. I just read the link in abject horror, and have now resorted to hysterical laughter. Apart from anything else, how much time does Gove think we have available to teach such detailed and complicated History lessons in an already crammed curriculum? All that across 4 years, aged 7 - 11? Absolutely bonkers.

This is the first time I'm feeling relief that as of September next year we'll be an academy, and not bound by this.

Picturesinthefirelight Sat 09-Feb-13 15:23:55

Hmmmm. Well my first thought was that's how I did it in chronological order. However in juniors we did selected topics.

Yr3 equivalent - 1066 & the Norman Conquest
Yr4 - The Tudors
Yr 5 - The Victorians
Yr 6 Ww1 & 2

mirry2 Sat 09-Feb-13 15:31:43

I actually agree that history should be taught in chronological order. My knowlefge of history has always ben totally muddled by the fact that I don't know when the crusades took place, or what happened before or after 1066, or which century Henry 8th lived, or was Nelson living at the same time as Napoleon and so on.
I got an A at GCES grin

Picturesinthefirelight Sat 09-Feb-13 15:36:27

We started again in complete chronological order at secondary starting with I think the Iron Age.

CabbageLooking Sat 09-Feb-13 15:49:00

You know the current curriculum? You know, the one that is pleasingly vague and allows teachers to create a syllabus that is appropriate to their particular intake. Why don't we stick with that? I liked that.

Flisspaps Sat 09-Feb-13 15:56:00

DH is horrified (KS3-4)

corblimeymadam Sat 09-Feb-13 15:57:47

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Jux Sat 09-Feb-13 15:59:47

Pictures, that sounds like how we were taught in primary not quite 50 years ago. Fairly sensible.

DD is in secondary, and for GCSE would be doing WWII for the third time. She's just been offered ancient history as an alternative, which is what she'll do.

InTheoryBut Sat 09-Feb-13 16:30:46

I think the idea of teaching chronologically is a good one, but for me, the horror comes from the sheer volume of it, and the complexity of the concepts that need to be understood to appreciate the historical significance.

By just vaguely splitting the new content into 4 groups, one for each year group across KS2 we're looking at...

Y3 -
Early Briton settlers including the Stone Age, Iron Age and Bronze Age, Celtic culture and patterns of settlement, the Roman conquest and rule of Britain including Caesar, Augustus and Claudius, the decline of the Western Roman Empire, Viking and Anglo Saxon invasions, the spread of Christianity, heptarchy, key developments in reign of Alfred, Althestan, Cnut and Edward the Confessor, the Norman conquest and Norman rule including the Domesday book, feudalism and Norman culture.

All that for 7-8 year olds!

And in just one subject, when mornings are full of English and Numeracy, leaving us 5 afternoons of approx 2 hours (one of which is for PE), so 4 afternoon slots to teach all that PLUS RE, Geography, Art, DT, Computing and Science. We scrape by at the moment with cross-curricular themes that combine learning across subjects, but with a History curriculum that detailed and extensive, I can't see how it'll work.

This is still just a draft, isn't it?

corblimeymadam Sat 09-Feb-13 16:59:00

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

It is for consultation (says so in the document title) unless there is a document that supercedes the one ive linked to. Hopefully those who are being consulted will fall about laughing hysterically and tell who ever wrote it that they are clearly completely off their rocker.

corblimeymadam Sat 09-Feb-13 17:11:13

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

InTheoryBut Sat 09-Feb-13 17:11:51

Oh, and I'd forgotten the civilisation of Ancient Greece is casually mentioned at the start of the document, so in chronological order that needs to be covered as well in Y3.

We could add that (democracy, citizenship and politics and all) to Y3, but shove the Norman Conquest into Y4 with The Crusades, Plantagenet rulers of the 12th and 13th Century, including the key developments with the reign of Henry II, and covering the murder of Thomas Beckett, the Magna Carter, de Montford's parliament and relationships between England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, Robert the Bruce, William Wallace and the Hundred Years War.

blush hmm

corblimeymadam Sat 09-Feb-13 17:15:01

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

how to respond to consultation

You know what, primary school teachers are amazing already, but now they seem to have to become in depth historians and well as all their other skills. And what about the resources needed for all of this?!

InTheoryBut Sat 09-Feb-13 17:21:50

My mistake smile, you're so right.

No Ancient Egypt. hmmThat's the one our Y4s are most engaged and fascinated by. Not sure that learning about de Montfort's parliament will cut it in the same way.... I'd already started thinking "How could I approach that in an engaging way?" And then very quickly realised that actually I just need to get the key facts, write them out and get the children to memorise and regurgitate.

Welcome to Gove's world.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now