| [quote=kath2407]
However, what really annoys me is that during my school history lessons I learnt about Red Indians and the Battle of Little Big Horn, Medicine Thro Time but absolutley nothing about British History.
You should have learned this in Key Stage 3 (1066- 20th Century), and if you did not, your school was very remiss. Medicine Through Time is just one of many sylabuss choices and, if taught properly, is an excellent topic.
Why is it that every child in America can resite all of the presidents in order but I personally wasn't taught who was Prime Minister before Maggie.
There is no inherent value in remembering lists of names. History has come a long way from parrot fashion teaching and there is now more emphasis on evaluation. I don't want to drop into national curriculum dogma. We have also shifted from learning about all the pink bits on the map. You should have been taught what was thought relevant for the topic you were stuying. If you needed to know the PM at a particular time you should have been told/found out about it.
You should also have been taught "the stuff that shaped our country and the people in it". Remember the agricultural and industrial revolution, Chartism, extension of the franchise and the Suffragettes, causes of the world wars and the rise of fascism, Nazism, Communism and the Cold War? This is all taught, but not all fourteen year olds are receptive to it and it History is an option at GCSE level.
"I hated history becuase I couldn't see the relevant of General Custer to my life". I can understand you feeling like this, but the topic you took was designed to hone you analyitical, investigatory and evaluation skills. The subject matter was really immaterial.
The education system is just another way of telling the people of Britain that our history isn't good enough. We have nothing worth learning about so lets learn about the Americans instead.
No, I have to disagree. History is not "Britain good, others bad" History is very often very uncomfortable and sometimes extemely painful, (Britain's role in the slave trade). but to understand the present, we must understand the past, or we will repeat the mistakes of the past. This is why I take an inordinate amount of time to teach the Holocaust in History and why I will be showing the BBC proramme, that Bren referred to, to my year 11 RE groups, because I still don't think that the enormity of the Holocaust has sunk in. To be honest, I still find it very difficult to comprehend the mind set of the people, who perpretated this horror.
Politicians would love, to fully control the teaching of History. I suppose that is why, after revolutions, we are the first ones against the wall. We are not even supposed to cover anything later than twenty five years ago, which is very helpful when teaching the Conflict in Ireland. I have avoided that thread on here as I have just spent two months doing the coursework and after explaining, for the umpteenth time that Sinn Fein is not a bloke. my patience quota is severely depleted.
My rant over.
Jim.
Oh bugger, I only came on here for ten minutes, to wind down, after marking Y9 WW1 work.  |