Truly appalling and saddening, what is British education coming to?
I love England more than any place on earth, but they need to do something FAST about this. Almost makes me want to become a history teacher over there. When the line from political correctness to utter illogical stupidity is crossed, it's beyond unacceptable, it's dangerous. What a mess they've gotten into.
From the Telegraph
From the Telegraph
Is it really primary school? the article mentions not teaching the Crusades to 13 and 14 yr olds, that's middle school at least.
Even so, I don't see how lying to children about world history is breaking their spirits. Adults who had been taught fabrications or whitewashed accounts of things are set up for even greater disapointment, spirit breakage, and cognitive dissonance when confronted with reality. This is what is happening every time an adult refuses to acknowledge or believe something that is blatantly true while clutching to an old idea they can't bear to dismantle.
I completely agree with you that history is bleak and children don't need every gory detail but to pretend for years that a significant event that affects people's lives to this day never happened is not okay.
I knew about the holocaust and who Adolf Hitler was at least by age 7 or 8. The knowledge did not harm me, nor any other child who was aware, in any way.
My main concern with the article and the described approach to education is that it is extremely problematic to pander to extremist at worst, ill-informed at best, ideas as if they deserve equal consideration to facts. That's incredibly harmful to a child's education.
Reply
The crusades on the other hand may drop off the syllabus from time to time. But then there's thousands of years of human history and the crusades are only a small part so what makes them so important that they have a guaranteed spot on the syllabus? Time is limited and there's no shortage of subjects to cover all of them important to someone.
As for at what age they cover it, as long as they cover it once what's the difference? I can't see the point of re-teaching the same periods of history for every different level of schooling.
They aren't teaching about Hitler and leaving out the holocaust. They are teaching about something completely different. There's no lying involved. If they were re-writing history to fit their needs I'd agree with you but all they are doing is focussing on other less brutal topics like the industrial revolution.
Besides WWII is so ingrained into our national consciousness that it's hard to imagine a child of 8 that doesn't know all about Hitler anyway.
There's plenty of history to learn, even up to the age of 14 that is less emotive and besides isn't it better to teach them this stuff when they are old enough to really appreciate the magnitude than innoculate them against it by bringing it up in a sterile format for young children?
Reply
Teenagers already know all about sex, no point in sex ed! yeah, no...
The point of covering a period of history multiple times through school levels is to allow students to broaden their understanding of the relation between events and their effects on the world or a country, etc. Critical thinking skills are not a one time lesson. They have to be cultivated over years and looking at historical events again as the brain matures allows for gradual increased understanding of the world.
Critical thinking skills do not come naturally to people.
What exactly in students do you think is in need of protection from "emotive" topics? Should they not worry their pretty little heads about terrible things that happen? I'm not advocating freaking them out, but implying that the world is a fair, just, equality-ridden, oppression-free, rosy place and the good old days weren't so bad (which is what glossing over the unsettling topics does) is a slap in the face to every child that knows otherwise based on their and their family's lived experiences.
Avoiding the holocaust is a perfect example of how to erase something that is significant to the lives of Jewish children, and exclude them from what counts as relevant history. It also teaches non-Jewish children that acknowledging the experiences of others is less important than preserving one's own comfort.
Reply
I may not have a fully objective perspective on this though as both my parents are history teachers so when it came time to actually cover things at school I generally already knew all about it from them.
They aren't erasing anything they just aren't getting to it until later. It's not like not eating your vegetables it's like eating them last. However it is your journal so I will concede the floor.
We'll agree to disagree :)
On a sideways and only slightly related note are your schools still teaching the propaganda based 'woo america is great' syllabus or have they now started teaching proper history?
Mind if I friend you? I'm not usually this argumentative.
Reply
That's good your parents took the initiative to try to teach you things before they were addressed at your school.
Are you Jewish? If you aren't then "They aren't erasing anything" is a pretty bold statement to make. Deciding that certain events are more relevant than others to cover in a world history classroom, and then presenting as neutral IS erasing. I'm not sure you really understood what I said in the past paragraph of that comment.
I have been out of the US public school system for 7 yrs but I am assuming that similarly to Britain's methods, not much has changed. Teaching anything that would not suggest the US as the most amazing and best country EVER would be unheard of in many places. Some fauxgressive schools might be teacing kids how the US is the worst country ever. I would like to see a school system that teaches "proper history," I don't think one exists yet, sadly.
Reply
That's not what they are doing. They do teach it they just teach it later. Which is why I said they aren't erasing anything, it's still there just later. If they were doing what you are saying it would be bad, but they aren't. They teach about other completely unrelated things.
It makes sense if you think about it. You leave the most important and significant things until last because by that time the kids are old enough and clever enough to really understand, and you can do it in much more detail. How much of the holocaust is a 7 year old going to understand anyway?
That article is written with the sole intention of causing drama, which is what passes for journalism these days. It gives the false impression that the holocaust is being totally written out of the syllabus when in fact it's simply being held off until later.
Like I said if they were writing it out of the syllabus it would be appalling but I have no problem with it not being covered in the early years just as long as it gets covered fully at some point.
English history classes are more the other way round to american history classes. We generally focus on the bad things we did and the great military mistakes we made and then attempt to make apologies for them. We're odd like that.
Reply
You verify that this is true, so I'm not concerned with the article anymore. My interest is in what is happening in real life.
"Which is why I said they aren't erasing anything, it's still there just later."
That's the part I meant about you not getting it. It doesn't matter that they "save it for later" the act of prioritizing is what I was referring to as erasing. If you still don't understand that concept you need to do some research on national identity development, national narrative, othering of minority groups, racism and anti-semitism basics, etc.
some relevant resources:
http://www.chgs.umn.edu/webBib/biblio/holocaustEdu.html
if you google any of the above topics as well as holocaust edcation, teaching holocaust young children, etc. you will find information with which to educate yourself. I don't want to go around in circles and repeat myself.
With regard to the English history classes, that's the fauxgressive method I was referring to when I said some American schools are probably doing that now too.
Although different schools in both countries employ either that or the old, "we're the best" mantra. I know when my sister took a world history class yr 10 or 11 in England, the teacher was of the older school of thought where England was also the best and did no wrong.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment