Transcript of historian Simon Schama’s address to the Hay Festival on 30th May 2013: http://historyworks.tv/news/2013/05/31/history_curriculum_debate_updates_new_bbc_r3_night/
In a discussion of the Coalition government’s history curriculum reforms Simon Schama angled his remarks as if he was primarily addressing teachers. I suppose this pro-teacher stance is a reasonably valid choice for him to make, and at the end he says: “Parents too, you’re absolutely part of this debate!” But what of taxpayers like myself? Are we supposed to just fund the education system and keep quiet about the content of the courses? Sorry Mr Schama, as long as I am helping to pay for schools I’m going to have a say in what the teachers get up to. If you and the wider coterie of state teachers want exclusive control over schools then you must fund them yourselves.
As for the address itself:
I liked the idea of history being about “…how we feel about each other as a connected family of memory” but felt less comfortable with his statement “we’re also at a time when issues of allegiance are very distressing.” As a taxpayer I absolutely want an educational system that makes young children feel secure about who they are. I see this as one of the key tasks of the history curriculum – to make children feel positive about their identity. Independent fee-paying schools are able to instill this sense of self-confidence, so why can’t the state sector manage it? Of course, I know academics (and to a much lesser extent teachers) are paid to be critical, and an inquisitorial approach is one of the best ways to arrive at the truth. But too often state history teachers seem to be ideologically motivated and take a jeering sneering approach to cultural tropes and signifiers (as Simon Schama proved with his silly diatribe against “Clive of India”).
“I know also, because look at all of you here, that many of you are passionate about giving our kids a sense of the kind of country or countries to which they belong”. Er excuse me Mr Schama but deciding what sort of country we are and who belongs here is not a task I want left to teachers. Otherwise we are going to end up in a society where the general population sheepishly allows itself to be endlessly lectured by know-it-all experts making decisions on our behalf without ever consulting us.
(Criticising the new history curriculum) “All you can do, is put salient facts up on the board, have the kids remember them - and see if they remember them - or have forgotten them next week - or the week after”. I quite like this mildly Gstalt approach to teaching as it should allow the young children (or “kids” as they are arrogantly referred to by Simon Schama) to be able to mix the facts in their mind and form the chronological themes for themselves. This will encourage original insights will it not?
“Think of what Britain is like now… How did this happen to be? How did we come to be British?” Indeed, this is a question that very many people would like an answer to Mr Schama. How did the policies come about that allowed immigration and later created multiculturalism (and thus changed everything for everyone) without anyone ever voting on the issues? – do please tell us, as this is the most important historical question of our time.
“The glory of history in the western tradition, about which we need not be apologetic for a minute, goes back to its founding fathers, Herodotus and Thucydides”. Not in England it doesn’t. The glory of history in England goes back to the Venerable Bede (and Bede is a lot more trustworthy than Herodotus, who often just made things up).
In a discussion of the Coalition government’s history curriculum reforms Simon Schama angled his remarks as if he was primarily addressing teachers. I suppose this pro-teacher stance is a reasonably valid choice for him to make, and at the end he says: “Parents too, you’re absolutely part of this debate!” But what of taxpayers like myself? Are we supposed to just fund the education system and keep quiet about the content of the courses? Sorry Mr Schama, as long as I am helping to pay for schools I’m going to have a say in what the teachers get up to. If you and the wider coterie of state teachers want exclusive control over schools then you must fund them yourselves.
As for the address itself:
I liked the idea of history being about “…how we feel about each other as a connected family of memory” but felt less comfortable with his statement “we’re also at a time when issues of allegiance are very distressing.” As a taxpayer I absolutely want an educational system that makes young children feel secure about who they are. I see this as one of the key tasks of the history curriculum – to make children feel positive about their identity. Independent fee-paying schools are able to instill this sense of self-confidence, so why can’t the state sector manage it? Of course, I know academics (and to a much lesser extent teachers) are paid to be critical, and an inquisitorial approach is one of the best ways to arrive at the truth. But too often state history teachers seem to be ideologically motivated and take a jeering sneering approach to cultural tropes and signifiers (as Simon Schama proved with his silly diatribe against “Clive of India”).
“I know also, because look at all of you here, that many of you are passionate about giving our kids a sense of the kind of country or countries to which they belong”. Er excuse me Mr Schama but deciding what sort of country we are and who belongs here is not a task I want left to teachers. Otherwise we are going to end up in a society where the general population sheepishly allows itself to be endlessly lectured by know-it-all experts making decisions on our behalf without ever consulting us.
(Criticising the new history curriculum) “All you can do, is put salient facts up on the board, have the kids remember them - and see if they remember them - or have forgotten them next week - or the week after”. I quite like this mildly Gstalt approach to teaching as it should allow the young children (or “kids” as they are arrogantly referred to by Simon Schama) to be able to mix the facts in their mind and form the chronological themes for themselves. This will encourage original insights will it not?
“Think of what Britain is like now… How did this happen to be? How did we come to be British?” Indeed, this is a question that very many people would like an answer to Mr Schama. How did the policies come about that allowed immigration and later created multiculturalism (and thus changed everything for everyone) without anyone ever voting on the issues? – do please tell us, as this is the most important historical question of our time.
“The glory of history in the western tradition, about which we need not be apologetic for a minute, goes back to its founding fathers, Herodotus and Thucydides”. Not in England it doesn’t. The glory of history in England goes back to the Venerable Bede (and Bede is a lot more trustworthy than Herodotus, who often just made things up).
No comments:
Post a Comment