Mr Gove’s new history curriculum: top marks or could do better?
Robert Guyver |
The key question that needs to be asked about the 'final' version of Michael Gove's history curriculum, published on 8 July, is whether it is better than what it replaces? The Coalition Government arrived in May 2010 with Michael Gove confidently promising that he could deliver a better history curriculum, but has he? The new curriculum has been hotly contested and Mr Gove has made significant changes to the first, much-criticised, draft published in February. Is the result worth it?
Key Stage 1 (KS1) history has changed very little since 1991 and still allows for teacher initiative in choice of content based around events and biographies and an introduction to historical inquiry. However, Key Stage 2 (KS2) has been altered considerably from the over-long mainly English narrative of the February draft, returning to something resembling the previous versions of 1991, 1995 and 2000, but with new ideas for connecting disparate units, as shown in the treatment of 'world' history. These include dividing-up the old unit of non-European societies, one group being re-dated to the 10th century to run parallel with the core British narrative, and another group repackaged to go into a unit on early civilizations, with overview (new) and choice of depth-studies to include for the first time Ancient China. Six and a half centuries (1066-1714) have been re-allocated to Key Stage 3 (KS3). If improvements are to be judged using Michael Gove's own criteria, then it is to be hoped that a study of Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Scots (another new idea) and Vikings can be taught with more rigour. However some schools may not see the dropping of the Tudors and of the choice between the Victorians and Britain since 1930, as an improvement. The neat device of being able to do some history, but only one unit, beyond 1066, may please some, but not all. The criteria for local history have been strengthened, with an acknowledgement that this also can go beyond 1066, so some of the histories now absent from this July curriculum could be recovered through local sites and archives.
Compared with the current KS3 curriculum, implemented from 2008, the July 2013 curriculum tightens up the central national history structure. It has been a difficult time for secondary history teachers with this impending change hanging over their heads since May 2010, less than two years into a new curriculum. There are now four sub-headings: the development of Church, state and society in Medieval Britain 1066-1509; the development of Church, state and society in Britain 1509-1745; ideas, political power, industry and empire: Britain, 1745-1901; challenges for Britain, Europe and the wider world 1901 to the present day (including the Holocaust, which is the only event specified in the whole new curriculum). Gone are Clive of India and the misplaced but enlightened Scot, Adam Smith. The Glorious Revolution, under a 'this could include' introduction, is now set in quotes to satisfy the doubts of Richard J. Evans. In addition to even more local history at KS3 these further areas address the two significant criticisms: the study of an aspect or theme in British history that consolidates and extends pupils' chronological knowledge from before 1066, and at least one study of a significant society or issue in world history and its interconnections with other world developments.
Mr Gove has achieved his wish for a structure which should 'deliver' a connected and sequential national narrative, but not without making considerable adjustments to his original plans. He has had to concede to a barrage of criticism about overloading KS2, neglecting world history, and denying study of earlier periods to older students and later periods to younger students (see for example the RHS statement and David Cannadine's article). Mr Gove has clearly and wisely accepted very critical advice from historians, teachers of history, history teacher educators and even (at last) professional bodies, with the Historical Association now expressing approval for his changes. Despite a certain triumphalism in the Conservative press, especially over the inclusion of heroes and heroines, in truth this level of detail is now, sensibly, left to the judgement of teachers. What has emerged is a framework curriculum with judicious sub-headings and not (to use Simon Schama's metaphor) relentlessly 'Gradgrindian' dot-joining. The driving principles, which met with almost universal approval, embody current pedagogical research and good practice, especially around historical thinking and inquiry. Mr Gove has fortunately received better advice since February about how to contextualise those principles without appearing to be over-prescriptive or over-political. The long-used but initially controversial attainment targets have been dropped.
Some big questions remain unanswered, however. Mr Gove has not addressed the infrastructural issues identified in Ofsted's 2007-2010 report History for All, which noted that in some cases students could give up history after just two (rather than the statutory three) years at KS3. He has not taken David Cannadine's advice to make history compulsory into KS4, as PE and ICT now will be. Nor has he yet resolved how inspection of history in academies and free schools (which do not have the follow the national curriculum) will work. What criteria will be used? If such criteria exist, why can't they be available for all schools to design their own curricula? The answer is clearly about ideology and trust. How can Michael Gove's enthusiasm for increasing the numbers of academies be squared with his evangelical commitment to greater coherence in teaching a chronological British narrative?
Please note: Views expressed are those of the author.- Tags:
- Guyver, Robert
- Education
About the author
