'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.

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)

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!]

Bloody bishops

Bishops should be history. As a matter of fact, they are largely history, their present odd, anachronistic and arbitrary status being very largely the legacy of the shrewd political brain of Elizabeth l. Identifying modern bishops with those who emerged in New Testament times, and who were even beginning to strut around a bit by the end of the lst Century, rests on faith alone. An ex work colleague of mine part-timed as the secretary of an area official of the Baptist church, who appeared to do much the same job as a bishop, but without the silly costume and fuss.

- 17th June comment on ‘Ditch the bossy-boot bishops’ in online ‘Guardian’.

BNP and 'British Pride'

Some months ago the British National Party ran a website trying to demonstrate links between their ideology and the Christian Faith. It ended up as a series of headings. The story Jesus Christ told of the Good Samaritan makes nonsense of any such attempt to bring these two belief systems together. Equally striking are the frequent references in the Old Testament to the need to be kind to aliens. (So if they land, and 'want to see our leader', it's good ethics to be kind to them: don't be put off by 'The War of the Worlds' - the book, the picture, or the remake!)

More recently I stumbled across a BNP website called 'British Pride', which tries to make the link between their party's beliefs and what might be called British heritage. I was rather put off by the comment 'British history is no longer taught in schools', because I know from my own teaching experience and from my continuing reading of what goes on in schools that this is untrue. What is true is that far less history is taught in schools than it used to be, so that getting a balance becomes ever more difficult.

However, reading further I discovered that the BNP were confronting the fact that we are, historically, a nation of immigrants. They mention the DNA evidence that points to the stability of the population for thousands of years, and that therefore 'we', the white ones that is, are not Anglo-Saxons or even Celts but people who have been here since the dawn of time, as it were. If so, it is certainly very striking. But the website draws the wrong inference. What this demonstrates is that our history has always been heavily influenced by immigrants, the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons for instance, who made a cultural contribution out of all proportion to the much larger aboriginal population. So in a very real sense we have always been a nation of immigrants.

As any teacher knows, you can create instant hostility in the classroom by telling children to divide themselves into those with blue eyes and those with brown (and instant alienation for those who don't fit into either of those two categories.) Tribes and nations had their place in history, but are not an ideal survival mechanism in a world of weapons of mass destruction and of climate change.

The Inca Empire is a popular History topic. In recent years archaeologists have begun to fill in some of the gaps in the story. Global warming has helped: melting ice in the Andes has recently brought to light teenaged sacrifical victims, a grim but very human link with another world.



In general, we are not good at linking with other worlds: we spend too much of our time trying to make sense of our own situations. Other civilizations are for 'leisure reading', akin to Science Fantasy. History, especially as taught in school, must, we are constantly told, be 'relevant'. So, History as taught in school today, certainly in schools in the United Kingdom, tends to be the History of our own country. The 'World' suddenly impinges on this in 1940 - but apparently only because the German panzers threaten to disrupt the national story.



'The day the war ended' by Martin Gilbert is a book about the end of that war, or a part of it, on May 8th 1945. For me this is an example of how any reading of History tends to be personal, as this happens to be the day of my birth. Alongside the record of the rejoicing that the war in Europe was over, the book presents a picture of a world where other armed struggles, often fuelled by hatreds much like those nurtured by the Nazis, were only just beginning. A group of German secondary school teachers once told me that English History teaching struck them as 'triumphalist'. I agreed with them, and still do.



The purpose of History seems to be the same as it must have been in prehistoric times: it was the history of the tribe, warnings from the past, and highly relevant because it was ultimately about survival. We need to wake up to the globalisation of the world and therefore of History. In the 21st Century we need, as a matter of survival, to draw from the stories of the whole tribe - the human race - not just on our own 'clan'.