The Heritage Alliance
submission re:
Reform of the National Curriculum in England
Department for Education
1
The HeritageAlliance is a company limited by guarantee in England and Wales no 4577804 and registered charity no 1094793.
Deadline: 16 April 2013
About the Alliance
The Heritage Alliance promotes the interests of the independent heritage movement. It brings together over 90 heritage bodies ranging from specialist advisers, practitioners and managers, volunteers and owners to national funders and organisations leading regeneration and access projects. They are supported in turn by thousands of local groups and over five million members with a huge volunteer input at all levels. Together these members own, manage and care for the vast majority of England’s heritage. Their specialist knowledge and expertise is a valuable national resource, much of which is contributed on a voluntary basis for public benefit.
Question 2. Do you agree that instead of detailed subject-level aims we should free teachers to shape their own curriculum aims based on the content of the programmes of study?
The Alliance agrees that teachers should guide the education of our children. Teachers understand the needs of their students and are well-placed to adapt general course aims to a teaching strategy that suits all abilities.
However, concerns have been raised about the prescriptive nature of the ‘aims’ governing the teaching of History. When compared to other subjects – such as English or Geography –those aims concerning History are both complex and lengthy, covering a great deal of difficult ground considering the relatively small amount of time allotted to History in school schedules.
The nature of these ‘aims’ leaves teachers little room to manoeuvre. Far from allowing them to set their own curriculum aims, the current format would pressure them into attainment targets that would be difficult to meet – a familiarity not only with the ‘broad outlines’ of European and world history (as well as the ‘follies and achievements of mankind’) but also concepts such as ‘civilisation’ and ‘empire’ and the chronological history of the British Isles from the Bronze Age to 1989.
Question 3. Do you have any comments on the content set out in the draft programme of study?
The Alliance, representing as it does 90 bodies that protect and preserve the nation’s historic environment, has some serious concerns about the change in content and subject emphasis for History. The removal of any specific mention of learning through historic sites, museums or heritage assets is particularly troubling, asa close relationship between education and the historic environment has proven mutually beneficial in the past. Immersivelearning techniques have been popular with both students and teachers and careful adaptation by those running such assets have resulted in interdisciplinary benefits for multiple subjects.
Moreover, while the expansion of the curriculum to include periods such as the Civil War or the Glorious Revolution should be welcomed, this places a great deal of pressure on teachers – particularly primary school teachers, many of whom will not be history specialists but who will nevertheless be charged with teaching 5-11 year olds about such concepts as ‘nationhood’ and ‘war’, as well as British history from the Bronze Age to the Glorious Revolution.
Given History’s position in school timetables, many within the sector also have serious reservations about the detail in which periods or issues will be covered. The Government’s desire to teach as much British history as possible –in a chronological context – is commendable, but such a strict timelinewith limited teaching time and resources available risks marginalising critical thought in favour of testable facts. Though the framework document does point out that “teaching of the content should be approached as a combination of overview and in-depth studies”, it does not indicate which periods are more likely to be examined and relies on teachers making subjective assessments of relative ‘importance’ – thus potentially disadvantaging their students.
There are also concerns around the suitability of the subject matter for the ages in question. There is likely to be some difficulty in engaging the interest of the youngest children in relatively abstract areas that may be beyond their ready comprehension and have not previously had curriculum priority, therefore suffering from a lack of resources or educational aides. What is more, the chronology leaves no leeway for teachers to adjust content to suit differing levels of ability or interest within a classroom – technical topics such as late 19th-century politics, for example. The difficulties are compounded in mixed-age classes.
There may be great benefit in exploring the possibility of a spiralling curriculum, allowing the revisiting of the same topics with different emphasis as pupils develop during their schooling, and in longitudinal study within certain topic areas.
Engagement with local heritage is an excellent means of illustrating history in an understandable social context and is an opportunity not to be missed. From a heritage perspective, the Alliance applauds the inclusion of an “opportunity to study local history” – but the phrasing of this particular clause makes it clear that this is not a priority, with the emphasis on dates and events of national importance taking precedence.The diminishing of Victorian and economic history also means that industrial history – a vital part of community heritage in many places around the UK – has little exposure.
The inclusion of prehistory and ancient societies does give access to some under-recognised areas of study, although these are expected to be at the start of a child’s school career and not to be revisited. Here, as in some other areas of the draft curriculum, the naming of periods and features is at times erroneous or outmoded.
Finally, members have pointed to a general lack of recognition of ‘alternative history’ and a much-diminished focus on migration, international connections and ethnic communities - including less attention being paid to the histories of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The current curriculum makes specific mention of pupils studying “the social, cultural, religious and ethnic diversity of…societies in Britain and the wider world…” Nowhere is this apparent in the new draft. The Alliance’s concerns in relation to this are covered more comprehensively under Question 9.
Question 4. Does the content set out in the draft programmes of study represent a sufficiently ambitious level of challenge for pupils at each key stage?
Ambitious is certainly an appropriate word to use for the content laid out in the draft programmes of study – again, particularly in relation to History. Other subjects, such as English or Geography, seem to strike a balance between challenging students and giving teachers sufficient licence to adapt content through broader subject aims. An explicit commitment to the chronology of British history means an enormous amount of content is expected to be conveyed in Key Stages 1-3.
Question 5. Do you have any comments on the proposed wording of the attainment targets?
The wording of attainment targets for History –pupils “are expected to know,apply and understand the matters, skills and processes specified in the relevant programme of study” –is vague and does not indicate how or when this knowledge, application or understanding is to be properly assessed.
Question 9. What impact – positive or negative – will our proposals have on the ‘protected characteristic’ groups?
Serious concerns have been raised on the proposals’ lack of emphasis on the history and culture of the diverse communities which now make up modern Britain. A diminished focus on world history and an increase in content concerning empire and conquest might result in such groups feeling disenfranchised. Though specific mention is made of the influx of East African Asians and the Windrush generation, as is the discussion of the legalisation of homosexuality, these come at the end of a hectic Key Stage Three timetable that runs from the conquest of Canada in the mid-18th Century to the fall of the Berlin Wall. In such circumstances, it is all too easy to imagine that certain topics might be dropped or rushed through in an effort to cover the appropriate ground.Insufficient attention to these topics would be deeply unfair to ‘protected characteristics’ students as proper coverage helps not only historical but also social education.
Contact:
1
The HeritageAlliance is a company limited by guarantee in England and Wales no 4577804 and registered charity no 1094793.
Kate Pugh
Chief Executive
020 7233 0500
The Heritage Alliance
Clutha House
10 Storey’s Gate
London SW1P 3AY
1
The HeritageAlliance is a company limited by guarantee in England and Wales no 4577804 and registered charity no 1094793.