Fri Jan 28 11:00:39 2011
I am so sorry to hear of the death of David Kato. I was even more sorry to hear that a number of people have died in a similar manner, and also in Mukono. I taught in the Senior School in Mukono from 1966 to 1967. The year I went back to England they repealed the anti-homosexual law regarding adults, and this has benefitted the country in all sorts of ways, for example by removing the possibility of blackmail. It never ceases to surprise me that a civilized country like Uganda hasn't done the same.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
normthestorm
The Guardian Comment
The Guardian Comment
27 January 2011 11:25PM
I am sorry to hear of the death of David Kato. I was a teacher in the Senior School in Mukono from 1966/67, employed locally, but introduced to the school through the Anglican Church of Uganda. I am also sorry to see that there have apparently been a spate of killings of homosexual people in Mukono. The colonial laws on homosexuality which Uganda inherited at Independence need to be re-thought. By coincidence it was the year that I left Uganda that the laws against homosexuality in England began to be abolished. It really is time Uganda did the same. They are essentially British laws, not African. However, to bring Uganda's laws into the 21st Century lawmakers need to listen to the academics at Makerere, not the 'Rolling Stone'.
Monday, January 24, 2011
What History teaching needs
"We don't need a big wing, or a little wing - we just need pilots!" So said Lord Olivier, playing Sir Hugh Dowding in the film re-enactment of The Battle of Britain. He said it with a world-weary sigh, which no doubt accurately reflected the feelings of the Air Chief Marshal.
I think a similar thought idea must have crossed the minds of history teachers recently, as the Air-Marshals of School History square up for a fight. It has certainly crossed mine, now happily retired from 30 years of teaching History in a Comprehensive school.
Mr Gove has made an important contribution by recognising the value of History in the school curriculum, but he is now in danger of stirring up a heated and unecessary debate.
History teaching doesn't need just the facts, or just the skills, or even just the knowledge. It just needs the time to teach it, and good History Teachers who know all about teaching a subject which is both conservative and subversive. Advice from people like Sean Lang and Chris Culpin - who know what a good syllabus and the inside of a classroom look like - is also needed.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Mr Gove and the History Curriculum - The story continues
"One of the problems that we have at the moment is that in the history curriculum we only have two names [of historical figures]", Mr Gove announced on the "Today" programme this morning. The same article on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12227491 quotes earlier pronouncements: "At the Conservative Party Conference, Mr Gove said it was a "tragedy of our time" that children were growing up ignorant of the history of the United Kingdom.
"Children are given a mix of topics at primary, a cursory run through Henry VIII and Hitler at secondary and many give up the subject at 14, without knowing how the vivid episodes of our past became a connected narrative," he said. Mr Gove has already asked the historian Simon Schama to advise on how British history could be "put at the heart of a revised national curriculum" ".
Simon Schama is, of course, a brilliant historian, with a way of weaving fascinating narratives. But he probably wouldn't last five minutes in a Comeprehensive School classroom, and even in an Academy students would probably switch off after ten. History teaching is a very different art from being a historian, and I would be more confident that Mr Gove was on the right lines if he said he was consulting history teachers, history inspectors, and history publishers. (And if we must have a TV personality as a figurehead I would in any case recommend the more down-to-earth Michael Wood.)
Mr Gove is wrong about the History Curriculum in a number of respects. The most important respect is his misunderstanding of the place of narrative. Narrative involves many things. It may be the teacher telling a story like the Battle of Hastings. It may be that a kind of 'Big Story' is revealed when a class follows a theme, such as the development of technology over a couple of centuries, during the course of a whole term's teaching.
It may be simply presenting a series of dates, like the dates of English Monarchs that used to be found on pencils, rulers, and the back of exercise books. However, one thing it cannot be is a set of facts about our history that we can all agree on. There are, at any rate outside Conservative Party Conferences, competing narratives of British History, and indeed of all History. Making sense of competing narratives - for example the story of kings and the story of peasants - is something that history teachers are pretty good at, and they do a very good job of preparing young people to make sense of an increasingly confusing world.
In fact 'knowing how the vivid episodes of our past became a connected narrative' i.e. why some historians manage to put forward particular theories of the past such as the importance of individuals, the influence of Geography or Economics, or ideas such as 'The British Empire was a good thing' are precisely the kind of very sophisticated arguments that young people are introduced to by the study of History.
"Children are given a mix of topics at primary, a cursory run through Henry VIII and Hitler at secondary and many give up the subject at 14, without knowing how the vivid episodes of our past became a connected narrative," he said. Mr Gove has already asked the historian Simon Schama to advise on how British history could be "put at the heart of a revised national curriculum" ".
Simon Schama is, of course, a brilliant historian, with a way of weaving fascinating narratives. But he probably wouldn't last five minutes in a Comeprehensive School classroom, and even in an Academy students would probably switch off after ten. History teaching is a very different art from being a historian, and I would be more confident that Mr Gove was on the right lines if he said he was consulting history teachers, history inspectors, and history publishers. (And if we must have a TV personality as a figurehead I would in any case recommend the more down-to-earth Michael Wood.)
Mr Gove is wrong about the History Curriculum in a number of respects. The most important respect is his misunderstanding of the place of narrative. Narrative involves many things. It may be the teacher telling a story like the Battle of Hastings. It may be that a kind of 'Big Story' is revealed when a class follows a theme, such as the development of technology over a couple of centuries, during the course of a whole term's teaching.
It may be simply presenting a series of dates, like the dates of English Monarchs that used to be found on pencils, rulers, and the back of exercise books. However, one thing it cannot be is a set of facts about our history that we can all agree on. There are, at any rate outside Conservative Party Conferences, competing narratives of British History, and indeed of all History. Making sense of competing narratives - for example the story of kings and the story of peasants - is something that history teachers are pretty good at, and they do a very good job of preparing young people to make sense of an increasingly confusing world.
In fact 'knowing how the vivid episodes of our past became a connected narrative' i.e. why some historians manage to put forward particular theories of the past such as the importance of individuals, the influence of Geography or Economics, or ideas such as 'The British Empire was a good thing' are precisely the kind of very sophisticated arguments that young people are introduced to by the study of History.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
'One of the under-appreciated tragedies of our time has been the sundering of our society from its past. Children are growing up ignorant of one of the most inspiring stories I know - the history of our United Kingdom. Our history has moments of pride, and shame, but unless we fully understand the struggles of the past we will not properly value the liberties of the present. The current approach we have to history denies children the opportunity to hear our island story. Children are given a mix of topics at primary, a cursory run through Henry the Eighth and Hitler at secondary and many give up the subject at 14, without knowing how the vivid episodes of our past become a connected narrative. Well, this trashing of our past has to stop.'
These are the words of Mr Gove, speaking at the most recent Conservative Party conference. He has since recruited, among others, two leading (and media-friendly) Historians to help stop the 'trashing'.
I think most Secondary School History teachers will empathise with some, at any rate, of these points. Nevertheless, this is a doomed, and divisive, enterprise, because it rests on a whole load of false assumptions.
First, 'the sundering of our society from its past' is not the fault of History teachers. Until the 1960's it was possible to teach a pretty cohesive British History where Britain also appeared to play a central role on the world stage. The history of Europe was often also taught, but as a sub-plot. During the 1960's teenagers were exposed to a confusing array of new cultural influences. 'Our island story' now had to compete with many others, the stories of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. for example. To help young people make sense of the world they were living in, some schools abandoned History altogether, replacing it with some sort of Humanities.
In the 1980's the Thatcher government over-reacted to this change, and in the National Curriculum declared History a separate subject (with no links with Geography for example) and the syllabus for 11 - 14 year olds to be mainly British History from the 18th Century to the present day. The main problem with this was that the government were perceived by schools to be dictating the History syllabus. History teachers were left with the task of trying to manufacture some cohesion into this 6 - module course, with the feeling in the back of their minds that if they didn't teach 'Thatcher' History their school might get into trouble.
The 'cohesion' of History cannot be micro-managed by government, for practical and for philosophical reasons. It can only be provided by the individual History teacher, who hopefully has had some input into the syllabus that the History Department puts together. I suspect that a cohesive, happy, History department is actually more important than the best syllabus put together by government experts. History teachers are much better at telling their personal take on the big story than trying to fit in with what the government feels ought to be done. The government needs to trust History teachers to do their job.
Secondly, it is simply not true that 'the current approach we have to history denies children the opportunity to hear our island story.' The National Curriculum for History, refined somewhat since the 1980's, continues (with its emphasis on British History) to provide just that 'opportunity' - in most schools, anyway. If the government is going to set out the syllabus it needs to set out the time in which to teach it.
Thirdly, and also referring to the above quotation, children and young people are not particularly interested in our island story. For example two legendary stories in our island saga - King Alfred burning the cakes, and the story of Robin Hood - are totally unknown. Any hope of examining the history behind the legend falls down because children have never heard of the legend in the first place. Even if they have, the stories have to compete with far more interesting stories they have played on their Playstations or seen on television.
This is not defeatest. I remember in the early 1970's a group of Basildon Year 10 lads being very impressed by the model Messerschmitt 109 I showed them, and my explanation of the relative merits of the Spitfire and Hurricane, to the point where they really listened to my account of Britain standing alone. But then this was my personal way of weaving the story of a few brave fliers into the big narrative of history (and if I was telling the story now I would say much more about the brave German fliers too); but I certainly don't need the help of government to tell stories like this.
Fourthly, as pointed out above, the government's approach is philosophically flawed. 'There is no metanarrative' is now the current wisdom with regard to History, and much else. Telling 'Our island story' should for that reason be ideally the job of the individual History teacher, or possibly a team, but certainly not a government telling laying down what the story is or what the important parts are. Modern media has opened up children's imagination to a wider time frame and a wider universe, and that is the framework within which History teachers have to make their own way.
These are the words of Mr Gove, speaking at the most recent Conservative Party conference. He has since recruited, among others, two leading (and media-friendly) Historians to help stop the 'trashing'.
I think most Secondary School History teachers will empathise with some, at any rate, of these points. Nevertheless, this is a doomed, and divisive, enterprise, because it rests on a whole load of false assumptions.
First, 'the sundering of our society from its past' is not the fault of History teachers. Until the 1960's it was possible to teach a pretty cohesive British History where Britain also appeared to play a central role on the world stage. The history of Europe was often also taught, but as a sub-plot. During the 1960's teenagers were exposed to a confusing array of new cultural influences. 'Our island story' now had to compete with many others, the stories of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. for example. To help young people make sense of the world they were living in, some schools abandoned History altogether, replacing it with some sort of Humanities.
In the 1980's the Thatcher government over-reacted to this change, and in the National Curriculum declared History a separate subject (with no links with Geography for example) and the syllabus for 11 - 14 year olds to be mainly British History from the 18th Century to the present day. The main problem with this was that the government were perceived by schools to be dictating the History syllabus. History teachers were left with the task of trying to manufacture some cohesion into this 6 - module course, with the feeling in the back of their minds that if they didn't teach 'Thatcher' History their school might get into trouble.
The 'cohesion' of History cannot be micro-managed by government, for practical and for philosophical reasons. It can only be provided by the individual History teacher, who hopefully has had some input into the syllabus that the History Department puts together. I suspect that a cohesive, happy, History department is actually more important than the best syllabus put together by government experts. History teachers are much better at telling their personal take on the big story than trying to fit in with what the government feels ought to be done. The government needs to trust History teachers to do their job.
Secondly, it is simply not true that 'the current approach we have to history denies children the opportunity to hear our island story.' The National Curriculum for History, refined somewhat since the 1980's, continues (with its emphasis on British History) to provide just that 'opportunity' - in most schools, anyway. If the government is going to set out the syllabus it needs to set out the time in which to teach it.
Thirdly, and also referring to the above quotation, children and young people are not particularly interested in our island story. For example two legendary stories in our island saga - King Alfred burning the cakes, and the story of Robin Hood - are totally unknown. Any hope of examining the history behind the legend falls down because children have never heard of the legend in the first place. Even if they have, the stories have to compete with far more interesting stories they have played on their Playstations or seen on television.
This is not defeatest. I remember in the early 1970's a group of Basildon Year 10 lads being very impressed by the model Messerschmitt 109 I showed them, and my explanation of the relative merits of the Spitfire and Hurricane, to the point where they really listened to my account of Britain standing alone. But then this was my personal way of weaving the story of a few brave fliers into the big narrative of history (and if I was telling the story now I would say much more about the brave German fliers too); but I certainly don't need the help of government to tell stories like this.
Fourthly, as pointed out above, the government's approach is philosophically flawed. 'There is no metanarrative' is now the current wisdom with regard to History, and much else. Telling 'Our island story' should for that reason be ideally the job of the individual History teacher, or possibly a team, but certainly not a government telling laying down what the story is or what the important parts are. Modern media has opened up children's imagination to a wider time frame and a wider universe, and that is the framework within which History teachers have to make their own way.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
African independence and the colonial legacy
A recent article in 'History Today' http://www.historytoday.com/ian-morris/latitudes-not-attitudes-how-geography-explains-history
argues that geography explains the dominance of the Western world. In the case of Africa, geography does seem to have set the continent up for a fall. The vast distances, the lack of ports, harsh environments and the existence of virulent diseases put Africa at a distinct disadvantage from the 15th Century onwards. European colonial occupation followed - and it was not carried out in order to help the 'natives'.
For example the upcoming vote on the possibility of splitting The Republic of Sudan into North and South might put right a problem Britain created at the end of the 19th Century. The territory was acquired in order to safeguard the route to India - from the French !!! (You might well need to look at an atlas at this point!) Then, because the Imperial budget was under pressure, it was decided to administer the Southern Sudan from the North rather from British East African territories in the South, a mistake for which many Sudanese have since paid for with their lives.
(Contribution to The Guardian)
Monday, December 6, 2010
Baker's two-dozen
At the moment I am tutoring a student on British political History 1945-1990. It's a painful period, and I'm glad I've given myself a gentle introduction - 'Fifty Years On - a prejudiced History of Britain since the War' by Roy Hattersley. Apart from the statement that Milton Obote was President of Kenya I think it's a brilliant book. I think it's good that 'A' Level History students should be confronted with the question 'Was Thatcher necessary?' As long as they come up with a well-argued and well-supported answer I'm happy.
Kenneth Baker, famous/infamous among teachers for inventing 'Baker Days' for teacher training, also came up with the idea that school History should avoid discussing the last 30 years, lest students and teachers should lose their objectivity. It is ironic that had Baker's 30-year rule been applied I wouldn't now be having a healthy debate with my tutee about the crushing of the unions or whether society exists or not. Fortunately Baker did not get his History No-Go area so students are able to discuss his education policy and the policies of his Mistress.
[On second thoughts, I think it was Kenneth Clarke!]
Kenneth Baker, famous/infamous among teachers for inventing 'Baker Days' for teacher training, also came up with the idea that school History should avoid discussing the last 30 years, lest students and teachers should lose their objectivity. It is ironic that had Baker's 30-year rule been applied I wouldn't now be having a healthy debate with my tutee about the crushing of the unions or whether society exists or not. Fortunately Baker did not get his History No-Go area so students are able to discuss his education policy and the policies of his Mistress.
[On second thoughts, I think it was Kenneth Clarke!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
