it is safe too say that no one in government is more dangerous than Michael Gove to this countries future. The steps he is taking are seriously damaging our schools and pupils. I do not want to focus on cutting the EMA or building schools for the future today, although they will I suspect have dire consequences for schooling in the future. Instead the focus today is the national curriculum. More specifically the national curriculum in History.
I have a vested interest in what happens to history. I am a undergraduate studying history and politics at De Montfort university. I got an A* in history at A level last year and my dad is a history teacher. It would not be an unfair assertion to suggest I have been around history all my life. Perhaps it is this proximity to the subject that has left me' so incensed by Gove's proposals for the subject I love.
Gove wants history to do two things firstly he wants to see a return to 'facts'. Perhaps more sinisterly he also wants to focus on a 'national identity'. Both of these points are worth reflecting on.
Firstly the fact question. It seems that three problems immediately jump out.
Firstly the teaching of facts as the sole role of history negates the finest part of history. The ability to think independently (obviously caveats exist to this you cannot escape the society you live in, so as such independent thought is impossible. Really it should be the ability to think semi-independently) and critically analyse. The development of these skills are the strongest things history at school level has to offer. This development is lost when looking at history solely as the recording of fact. In a sense it matters less that William of Normandy won the battle of Hastings in 1066 and more that we remember this event because it was immortalised in a tapestry and as such the history written is heavily reliant on a peice of cloth created to celebrate the victory. It matters less what happened and matters more why it is in the public consciousness. Taking this analysis out of history then seriously weakens the role history plays in producing well-rounded individuals.
Secondly and heavily linked to the first point it seems counterintuitive at a time when government is focusing university spending on the so called economy driving areas such as science etc. That they should turn something from teaching life skills, to solely teaching little peices of information that have little relevance to everyday life unless you happen to be on a quiz show. The logic behind this seems to be lacking, so much for joined up government.
Finally on facts what constitutes a fact is interesting. Firstly by the very nature of the world we live in and the way we operate facts are subjective. As Carr rightly points out 'a fact is like a sack, it won’t stand up without something in it'. History then cannot solely rely on fact in, instead history according to Carr is 'a dialogue between a historian and his fact'. As such it would be incredibly difficult to teach 'pure fact' as pure fact does not and indeed cannot exist.
On this idea of a 'national identity' created by some kind of common history again I have concerns. It sounds politically motivated. Even if it is innocent (which I fear it isn't) it sounds like something to be hijacked by the jingoistic.
Secondly whose identity will we choose? It seems, perhaps predictably, that Gove's choice is the history of monarchs not ordinary people. To this end the identity being created for us is the identity of kings and great battles. It is by very nature a fallacious identity, one created for people, not by people.
Equally the 'British' identity created will be focused on England, particularly the pre 1707 parts, it is unlikely that the history of other areas of The British Isles will get any coverage. This is a further troubling thought.
History has always been used for political agendas, but the teaching of history should not be subjected to manipulation by politicians. Certainly it should not be manipulated in a way which claims 'objective truth' as Gove seems to be doing. History is about the interpretive process as well as facts, only doing half of this will short change students and lower the standard of historical thinking in this country, not improve it.
I know next-to-nothing above Gove's agenda(s), but he seems to be in the positivist school of thinking when it comes to history - Elton, Popper and that lot if he's talking about 'objective facts' as if they exist beyond historians and interpreters in general.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, I agree with you completely on this, and I actually enjoyed reading it.
I hope he doesn't focus on Monarchs in particular - the history of democracy (voting and voting influences before the Secret Ballot was introduced into the 1838 Great Reform Act) would be far more interesting in my opinion, though I don't object too much with learning about Monarchs.