dumb and dumber. americans hostile to knowledge?

[Jazzmoose]

In all honesty, I'm not sure history should be taught in elementary and high school anyway. All it does is teach the students that history is irrelevant. It's sanitized, falsified, and is nothing more than indoctrination. It has nothing to do with the actual study of history. History, prior to college, and even there unless you're a history major, is the only subject I can think of that doesn't even bother to tell you 'how it's done'. At least here in the states, the study of how history is studied is an upper level college course. An example of the misconceptions of how history works is the constant complaint about 'revisionist historians', as is there were any other kind. What's the point of writing about history if you're not bringing something new to the table?

[danasgoodstuff]

I don't think there is any/much hostility to knowledge as such here or in the UK, but there is an ingrained tradition of anger at being told (or thinking that you're being told) that knowledge, or anything else, is good AND YOU CAN'T GET IT. That would make anyone hostile. And being told what's wrong with you, you're so hostile, while denying the reality of the AND YOU CAN'T GET IT, doubly so. Even if you personally don't mean the AND YOU CAN'T GET IT, it has to be dealt with before any progress can be made on this point...

[A Lark Ascending]

(though queues at post 16 vocational courses doesn't seem to match very well with a majority of working class kids fearing education post 16)

Most kids have little choice - and will soon have no choice - about some sort of post-16 education or training. It's after 18 that they become deterred (as they once did at 16...or 15...or 14 (depending on the school leaving age at the time)).

I'm sure you saw this last week:

BBC News: Debt fears 'deter poor students'

But I think it misses the point Allen was making, which is that YOU (and me and us) shouldn't undervalue intellectual pursuits by thinking of them as innately suitable only for the middle classes, because that attitude - and, because of your position, yours more than his or mine - is catching (or has been caught already). And, even if the pass has indeed been sold and the position is hopeless (but is it?), we should continue to resist.

That wasn't actually what I said...at least it wasn't what I intended to say. Intellectual pursuits are not more suitable for middle class kids any more than practical mechanics are more innately suitable for working class kids. But the cultural context that is likely to prepare a kid to become inquisitive about literature, theatre, non-popular music etc is much more likely to exist in a middle and upper class family.

Schools have been attempting to address that for decades - to try and provide some of that cultural context in order to give kids of all backgrounds the opportunity to choose from the full range of possibilities (and that equally means allowing middle class kids to follow an enthusiasm for car maintenance). If I didn't believe that I'd have upped sticks thirty years ago and found a leafy suburb somewhere to teach history in, where I wouldn't have to work so hard to try and provide the sort of cultural background that's needed before you really start to understand the history; the sort of cultural background my nephew was already acquiring from parents who travelled with him to out of the way places, explained what was being seen, took him to the opera and ballet at 5 etc, etc i.e. middle class parents.

Allen initially present the idea that it was a middle class idea that things had to be 'relevant', 'good for you' to be worthwhile:

I've always rejected the very middle class idea of history/tradition being "good for you" and thus necessary - to me the old stuff is important because it's so worthy and fascinating and because it feeds me - enough of "relevance"

All I'm saying is that his ideal:

the old stuff is important because it's so worthy and fascinating and because it feeds me

is just as middle class. It is not an outlook I meet very often amongst working class parents who are more concerned with their children getting a start in life that will afford them the financial security that they have generally lacked.

The school I work in is still quite old fashioned in a way - every child has to study a humanities subject, a language and a creative arts subject to GCSE. We have always had battles with parents who don't see why their kids should do music or drama or art when they could be doing something 'useful' like another science (their words, not mine). We continue to stick to our guns. But we are swimming against the national tide.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[A Lark Ascending]

In all honesty, I'm not sure history should be taught in elementary and high school anyway. All it does is teach the students that history is irrelevant. It's sanitized, falsified, and is nothing more than indoctrination.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. A central part of the study of history from at least 11 onwards is the critical study of source material to detect bias and assess reliability. The study of historical interpretation lies at the heart of everything we do in secondary school. My 12 year olds will, for example, study the 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' story to evaluate two competing interpretations - was he a glorious hero or a selfish fool. My 13 year olds have just been looking at the Great Depression to decide if 'The Hungry Thirties' is actually an accurate picture of all of Britain at the time - exploring the way that myths can actually obsure the complexities of what really happened. I'm currently preparing 17-18 year olds for a paper on the Cold War where demonstrating an understanding of conflicting interpretations of the Cold War and supporting that understanding with source references is vital for success.

In what way does that sanitise, falsify or indoctrinate?

I'd have hoped it was teaching the sort of critical thinking that we need in young people! Quite disappointed to be told I'm teaching a bunch of lies and propaganda.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

In all honesty, I'm not sure history should be taught in elementary and high school anyway. All it does is teach the students that history is irrelevant. It's sanitized, falsified, and is nothing more than indoctrination.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. A central part of the study of history from at least 11 onwards is the critical study of source material to detect bias and assess reliability. The study of historical interpretation lies at the heart of everything we do in secondary school. My 12 year olds will, for example, study the 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' story to evaluate two competing interpretations - was he a glorious hero or a selfish fool. My 13 year olds have just been looking at the Great Depression to decide if 'The Hungry Thirties' is actually an accurate picture of all of Britain at the time - exploring the way that myths can actually obsure the complexities of what really happened. I'm currently preparing 17-18 year olds for a paper on the Cold War where demonstrating an understanding of conflicting interpretations of the Cold War and supporting that understanding with source references is vital for success.

In what way does that sanitise, falsify or indoctrinate?

I'd have hoped it was teaching the sort of critical thinking that we need in young people! Quite disappointed to be told I'm teaching a bunch of lies and propaganda.

Good on yer, Bev! But it isn't the way I was taught history in the fifties and apparently isn't the way Mark was taught, either. 'Course, we still had an Empire, then...

MG

[A Lark Ascending]

Good on yer, Bev! But it isn't the way I was taught history in the fifties and apparently isn't the way Mark was taught, either. 'Course, we still had an Empire, then...

MG

It's nothing special to me, MG. It's how the National Curriculum and exam syllabi are set up. A great deal of thought has gone into this since the 70s. Though I'd imagine that there have always been teachers who have worked this way - I had very good history teaching in the late 60s/early 70s and my memory is of the teachers trying to encourage us to find ways to reach balanced judgements on historical issues.

However, look at the Daily Mail every few months and you'll find a strong body of opinion that dismisses what we do, demanding a return to the 'proper' learning of 'proper' facts. Like who Nelson and Wellington were, Britain's great achievements etc.

[sidewinder]

I had very good history teaching in the late 60s/early 70s and my memory is of the teachers trying to encourage us to find ways to reach balanced judgements on historical issues.

They certainly don't do history teaching like they used to do. My first history teacher was phenomenal - and graphic. Images of 'snotty nosed anglo-saxon kids huddled around fires in storm-blasted huts whilst outside the Conqueror's men went on the rampage harrying the North'. Those images remain with me vividly !

Those early lessons took history from the time of the Sumerians and Ur through to the Middle Ages in great and glorious detail. Do they do that now?

Edited February 21, 2008 by sidewinder

[A Lark Ascending]

I had very good history teaching in the late 60s/early 70s and my memory is of the teachers trying to encourage us to find ways to reach balanced judgements on historical issues.

They certainly don't do history teaching like they used to do. My first history teacher was phenomenal - and graphic. Images of 'snotty nosed anglo-saxon kids huddled around fires in storm-blasted huts whilst outside the Conqueror's men went on the rampage harrying the North'. Those images remain with me vividly !

Those early lessons took history from the time of the Sumerians and Ur through to the Middle Ages in great and glorious detail. Do they do that now?

No. I recall doing the same and remember none of the detail! I do recall going outside to try to build an Anglo-Saxon hut. This was in Singapore!!!!!

A colleague of mine did his lesson on Victorian crime last week dressed up as a 19thC policeman. I have a feeling his classes will remember the images of his lessons as vividly as you remember yours.

[Jazzmoose]

In all honesty, I'm not sure history should be taught in elementary and high school anyway. All it does is teach the students that history is irrelevant. It's sanitized, falsified, and is nothing more than indoctrination.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. A central part of the study of history from at least 11 onwards is the critical study of source material to detect bias and assess reliability. The study of historical interpretation lies at the heart of everything we do in secondary school. My 12 year olds will, for example, study the 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' story to evaluate two competing interpretations - was he a glorious hero or a selfish fool. My 13 year olds have just been looking at the Great Depression to decide if 'The Hungry Thirties' is actually an accurate picture of all of Britain at the time - exploring the way that myths can actually obsure the complexities of what really happened. I'm currently preparing 17-18 year olds for a paper on the Cold War where demonstrating an understanding of conflicting interpretations of the Cold War and supporting that understanding with source references is vital for success.

In what way does that sanitise, falsify or indoctrinate?

I'd have hoped it was teaching the sort of critical thinking that we need in young people! Quite disappointed to be told I'm teaching a bunch of lies and propaganda.

I think our disagreement reflects a big difference in the way history is taught in the U.S. and in Great Britain rather than any disagreement of history's value. Sounds like you're way ahead of us in this area. The history taught in the U.S. still contains such "undeniable truths" as the "fact" that everyone believed the world was flat until Columbus proved it otherwise and such. High school history (as far as I know) is still extremely sanitized in this country due to the fact that each state must approve school texts, and of course, the publishers are unwilling to alienate big markets like Texas. So we end up with history books that are designed to not offend the most conservative of states. I don't think they're still teaching that slavery was good for the slaves any more, but it hasn't progressed as far as it should.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Jazzmoose

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I think our disagreement reflects a big difference in the way history is taught in the U.S. and in Great Britain rather than any disagreement of history's value. Sounds like you're way ahead of us in this area. The history taught in the U.S. still contains such "undeniable truths" as the "fact" that everyone believed the world was flat until Columbus proved it otherwise and such. High school history (as far as I know) is still extremely sanitized in this country due to the fact that each state must approve school texts, and of course, the publishers are unwilling to alienate big markets like Texas. So we end up with history books that are designed to not offend the most conservative of states. I don't think they're still teaching that slavery was good for the slaves any more, but it hasn't progressed as far as it should.

Correct me if I'm wrong Bev, because I left education administration in 1979 and haven't kept up to date, but I think that there's no government input into curricular details (as opposed to setting a core of specific subjects to be studied). These are set by examinations boards, which are supposed to be independent, though I think there's a role for HMInspectorate in monitoring them for consistency.

MG

[Niko]

I think our disagreement reflects a big difference in the way history is taught in the U.S. and in Great Britain rather than any disagreement of history's value. Sounds like you're way ahead of us in this area. The history taught in the U.S. still contains such "undeniable truths" as the "fact" that everyone believed the world was flat until Columbus proved it otherwise and such. High school history (as far as I know) is still extremely sanitized in this country due to the fact that each state must approve school texts, and of course, the publishers are unwilling to alienate big markets like Texas. So we end up with history books that are designed to not offend the most conservative of states. I don't think they're still teaching that slavery was good for the slaves any more, but it hasn't progressed as far as it should.

thinking of my months as an exchange student in the US i would tend to agree; history and english were both much more "facts" oriented, history i found pretty surprising i was used to working with original texts, interpreting them and stuff (from 10th grade on, before it was mostly facts, too) and the american history class in the US was just reading some text book carefully and then answering multiple choice questions... the english class was in a way similar we read many books and it was mostly the teacher who discussed them (he was excellent at that however) while in germany (both in english and in german) we would spend much more time with a book discussing in the whole class 200 pages for like three months which was often very very boring (in the US i read like 6 novels, 2 plays, 5 longer stories in the time in which we'd have read like one novel in germany)

(to finish, physics in the US i find better than what i knew, more playful, stronger focus on how it's done in the US, (with the consequence however that we didn't get very far) mathematics in the US was by far the weakest class (but the teacher was also really dumb so i don't think i can say much about the systems here)

[A Lark Ascending]

I think our disagreement reflects a big difference in the way history is taught in the U.S. and in Great Britain rather than any disagreement of history's value. Sounds like you're way ahead of us in this area. The history taught in the U.S. still contains such "undeniable truths" as the "fact" that everyone believed the world was flat until Columbus proved it otherwise and such. High school history (as far as I know) is still extremely sanitized in this country due to the fact that each state must approve school texts, and of course, the publishers are unwilling to alienate big markets like Texas. So we end up with history books that are designed to not offend the most conservative of states. I don't think they're still teaching that slavery was good for the slaves any more, but it hasn't progressed as far as it should.

Yes, I actually thought you meant something like that...I wasn't really getting upset!

Correct me if I'm wrong Bev, because I left education administration in 1979 and haven't kept up to date, but I think that there's no government input into curricular details (as opposed to setting a core of specific subjects to be studied). These are set by examinations boards, which are supposed to be independent, though I think there's a role for HMInspectorate in monitoring them for consistency.

The National Curriculum is set by the government through QCA - however, it is now a set of broad skills and topic areas, giving considerable room to shape.

GCSE and A Level syllabi have to be approved by QCA - there are a set of standards that all syllabi have to meet to be approved; but each exam board is free to shape its syllabus within that framework. There's plenty of choice.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I think our disagreement reflects a big difference in the way history is taught in the U.S. and in Great Britain rather than any disagreement of history's value. Sounds like you're way ahead of us in this area. The history taught in the U.S. still contains such "undeniable truths" as the "fact" that everyone believed the world was flat until Columbus proved it otherwise and such. High school history (as far as I know) is still extremely sanitized in this country due to the fact that each state must approve school texts, and of course, the publishers are unwilling to alienate big markets like Texas. So we end up with history books that are designed to not offend the most conservative of states. I don't think they're still teaching that slavery was good for the slaves any more, but it hasn't progressed as far as it should.

Yes, I actually thought you meant something like that...I wasn't really getting upset!

Correct me if I'm wrong Bev, because I left education administration in 1979 and haven't kept up to date, but I think that there's no government input into curricular details (as opposed to setting a core of specific subjects to be studied). These are set by examinations boards, which are supposed to be independent, though I think there's a role for HMInspectorate in monitoring them for consistency.

The National Curriculum is set by the government through QCA - however, it is now a set of broad skills and topic areas, giving considerable room to shape.

GCSE and A Level syllabi have to be approved by QCA - there are a set of standards that all syllabi have to meet to be approved; but each exam board is free to shape its syllabus within that framework. There's plenty of choice.

Ah, thanks. The QCA is a QUANGO - they vary as to the amount of political input there is in their operations. I assume from what you say that there's not much into the QCA.

MG

[A Lark Ascending]

Ah, thanks. The QCA is a QUANGO - they vary as to the amount of political input there is in their operations. I assume from what you say that there's not much into the QCA.

MG

I don't understand exactly how it works but it has considerable power.

Most annoyingly, in order to satisfy QCA the exam boards have to write their specifications in jargon. Decoding exactly what they want us to do can be irritating.

OFSTED tell us we should share marking procedures with students - good advice. But I always have to translate them into English first. Even then they often don't make much sense, being intended to impress QCA with the boards' 'intellectual rigour' rather than demonstrate to teachers and students exactly how they can attain the standards they are being assessed by.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Ah, thanks. The QCA is a QUANGO - they vary as to the amount of political input there is in their operations. I assume from what you say that there's not much into the QCA.

MG

I don't understand exactly how it works but it has considerable power.

Most annoyingly, in order to satisfy QCA the exam boards have to write their specifications in jargon. Decoding exactly what they want us to do can be irritating.

OFSTED tell us we should share marking procedures with students - good advice. But I always have to translate them into English first. Even then they often don't make much sense, being intended to impress QCA with the boards' 'intellectual rigour' rather than demonstrate to teachers and students exactly how they can attain the standards they are being assessed by.

Interesting. Glad I got out into something nice and easy like economics when I did

MG