-:Undertaker:-
23-06-2013, 11:38 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10136732/Eminent-Victorians-dropped-from-history-curriculum-in-Gove-U-turn.html
Eminent Victorians dropped from history curriculum in Gove U-turn
Eminent figures from the Victorian era including William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli and Florence Nightingale are set to be removed as compulsory elements of the new history curriculum for schools after a U-turn by Michael Gove, the Education Secretary.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02597/Florence-Nightinga_2597542b.jpg
Florence Nightingale had figured prominently in a planned shake up of history teaching unveiled by Mr Gove, but he has been forced to redraft the plans in the wake of a campaign of opposition from teachers and prominent academics
The pair of prime ministers and the “Lady with the Lamp”, who tended to victims of the Crimean War, figured prominently in a planned shake up of history teaching unveiled by Mr Gove earlier this year in an attempt to ensure children had a solid grasp of Britain’s past.
However, he has been forced to redraft the plans in the wake of a campaign of opposition from teachers and prominent academics which saw the proposals branded “insulting and offensive”.
More emphasis will now be placed on world history rather than a concentration on British events and figures. The new draft is understood not to insist on the study of a range of figures, also including Clive of India, Isaac Newton and Baroness Thatcher, all of whom featured in the original proposals.
Winston Churchill, however, will still feature as a compulsory element of the new-look curriculum after the wartime leader won a late reprieve. An education department source said: "There will still be a strong narrative of British history."
The latest revision of the plans is now awaiting the approval of David Cameron and Nick Clegg, Mr Gove has signalled. Schools are likely to be given more freedom in what to teach, while the planned history curriculum for primary schools is being scaled down.
Instead of being forced to learn about Newton and Christina Rossetti, the Victorian poet, five-to-seven year olds may learn about more modern figures - including Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the internet, and Rosa Parks, the US civil rights activist.
Secondary school pupils, meanwhile, may learn about Charles Darwin along with lessons on immigration and Islamic history.
The first draft of the history curriculum, published in February, was backed by some historians, including Anthony Beevor, Niall Ferguson and David Starkey. Others, however, panned it.
Simon Schama, speaking at the Telegraph Hay Festival last month, attacked it even though he had been a member of the group which helped the Department for Education (DfE) draw it up. He dubbed it “Insulting and offensive,” “pedantic and utopian”, and accused Mr Gove of constructing a “ridiculous shopping list.”
Malorie Blackman, the new children’s laureate, said the original proposals were “dangerous” and warned that pupils could become “disenchanted with education” if they felt what they were being taught was not relevant.
Under the first draft, children aged between seven and 11 were expected to be taught British history in chronological order, from the Stone Age up until the Act of Union in 1707 - with a series of 48 bullet points mapping out compulsory events and personalities for teachers.
History for secondary school pupils aged between 11 and 14, meanwhile, was to cover the period between 1707 and 1989.
A new draft presented to history teachers by civil servants sees extra topics from world history included while the prescriptive bullet-point regime has been turned into a series of suggestions.
The original plan said five-to-seven year olds should be taught the “concept of the nation”. This appears to have been dropped - with a new section suggesting they should be taught about “changes within living memory.”
Pupils in key stage 2 (those aged between seven and 11) and key stage 3 (between 11 and 14) will under the latest plans have to be taught a world history topic and “local history” alongside learning about British events and personalities. Primary school pupils could learn about “early Islam” or the culture of Benin in west Africa.
The Crusades, meanwhile, could be studied by younger secondary-school children.
Clive of India appears to have been dropped after Prof Schama described him as a “sociopathic, corrupt thug” who would be a compulsory part of a curriculum which was like “1066 and all that, but without the jokes.”
Other figures no longer expected to be compulsory for key stage 2 children include Newton, the scientist who formulated the theory of gravity, Christopher Wren, the architect of St Pauls’ Cathedral, Adam Smith, the Scottish philosopher and economist, and Olaudha Equiano, the anti-slavery campaigner. A list of prime ministers, including Thatcher, Gladstone, Disraeli and Clement Attlee no longer features.
Churchill was removed from the late draft - but sources said he would definitely be in the final version of the curriculum after last-minute discussions between ministers.
One of the few personalities included in the new draft is Charles Darwin, who laid the foundations of the theory of evolution. Instead of specifying major historical figures, teachers will be told to focus on topics including World War II, the “development of the British Empire” and the slave trade. The imperialistic sounding phrase “Britain and her empire” has been replaced with “the British Empire”.
For primary-school children, Newton and Nightingale are not expected to feature in the final version of the curriculum - and neither are Rossetti and Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the Victorian engineer.
However, Armstrong, Parks and Berners-Lee are set to be mentioned, along with LS Lowry, the artist famous for his paintings of stick-like people, and Emily Davison, the sufragette.
I'm absolutely fuming reading this, absolutely fuming.
The proposals where children learnt British history from the Stone Age to 1989 would have been such an amazing course throughout school to teach our children so that they actually know something about the nation in which they live and so that we have children who are educated and who know who Winston Churchill was rather than morons who idolise Nelson Mandelson the convicted terrorist (thats something they dont tell you in school) who has nothing to do with our history and is a mere footnote. And you know, even if you think Mandela etc ought to be taught in schools then fine - but why is the 'other side' never taught when it comes to him? with the history of the Empire we are taught both the good and the bad yet with Mandela it comes as a shock to teenagers that he was head of the armed wing of the ANC which targeted innocent people and murdered them. WHY IS THIS NOT TAUGHT OR SPOKEN ABOUT ON THE BBC????
I'm fed up of our country being ashamed of its past and children being fed politically correct ******** concerning African 'history' (of which there isn't much) along with propaganda on Islamic history and - horror of horrors - immigration.. which you just know will consist of how wonderful mass immigration has been to this country. I'm absolutely sick of it.
Does it make me narrow minded or a bigot to think that the next generation (of all colours, religions etc) of British people should be taught the history of these islands like the Magna Carta and Acts of Union rather than politically correct garbage or told how they should feel bad that Britian once ruled the waves? if so, then take a walk.
Gove was just about the only minister who has shown any promise in this government and now he's caved in like a spineless jellyfish - which means in the end nothing has changed despite promises to begin with - which sums up the history of the supposed patriotic Conservative Party.
Thoughts?
Eminent Victorians dropped from history curriculum in Gove U-turn
Eminent figures from the Victorian era including William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli and Florence Nightingale are set to be removed as compulsory elements of the new history curriculum for schools after a U-turn by Michael Gove, the Education Secretary.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02597/Florence-Nightinga_2597542b.jpg
Florence Nightingale had figured prominently in a planned shake up of history teaching unveiled by Mr Gove, but he has been forced to redraft the plans in the wake of a campaign of opposition from teachers and prominent academics
The pair of prime ministers and the “Lady with the Lamp”, who tended to victims of the Crimean War, figured prominently in a planned shake up of history teaching unveiled by Mr Gove earlier this year in an attempt to ensure children had a solid grasp of Britain’s past.
However, he has been forced to redraft the plans in the wake of a campaign of opposition from teachers and prominent academics which saw the proposals branded “insulting and offensive”.
More emphasis will now be placed on world history rather than a concentration on British events and figures. The new draft is understood not to insist on the study of a range of figures, also including Clive of India, Isaac Newton and Baroness Thatcher, all of whom featured in the original proposals.
Winston Churchill, however, will still feature as a compulsory element of the new-look curriculum after the wartime leader won a late reprieve. An education department source said: "There will still be a strong narrative of British history."
The latest revision of the plans is now awaiting the approval of David Cameron and Nick Clegg, Mr Gove has signalled. Schools are likely to be given more freedom in what to teach, while the planned history curriculum for primary schools is being scaled down.
Instead of being forced to learn about Newton and Christina Rossetti, the Victorian poet, five-to-seven year olds may learn about more modern figures - including Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the internet, and Rosa Parks, the US civil rights activist.
Secondary school pupils, meanwhile, may learn about Charles Darwin along with lessons on immigration and Islamic history.
The first draft of the history curriculum, published in February, was backed by some historians, including Anthony Beevor, Niall Ferguson and David Starkey. Others, however, panned it.
Simon Schama, speaking at the Telegraph Hay Festival last month, attacked it even though he had been a member of the group which helped the Department for Education (DfE) draw it up. He dubbed it “Insulting and offensive,” “pedantic and utopian”, and accused Mr Gove of constructing a “ridiculous shopping list.”
Malorie Blackman, the new children’s laureate, said the original proposals were “dangerous” and warned that pupils could become “disenchanted with education” if they felt what they were being taught was not relevant.
Under the first draft, children aged between seven and 11 were expected to be taught British history in chronological order, from the Stone Age up until the Act of Union in 1707 - with a series of 48 bullet points mapping out compulsory events and personalities for teachers.
History for secondary school pupils aged between 11 and 14, meanwhile, was to cover the period between 1707 and 1989.
A new draft presented to history teachers by civil servants sees extra topics from world history included while the prescriptive bullet-point regime has been turned into a series of suggestions.
The original plan said five-to-seven year olds should be taught the “concept of the nation”. This appears to have been dropped - with a new section suggesting they should be taught about “changes within living memory.”
Pupils in key stage 2 (those aged between seven and 11) and key stage 3 (between 11 and 14) will under the latest plans have to be taught a world history topic and “local history” alongside learning about British events and personalities. Primary school pupils could learn about “early Islam” or the culture of Benin in west Africa.
The Crusades, meanwhile, could be studied by younger secondary-school children.
Clive of India appears to have been dropped after Prof Schama described him as a “sociopathic, corrupt thug” who would be a compulsory part of a curriculum which was like “1066 and all that, but without the jokes.”
Other figures no longer expected to be compulsory for key stage 2 children include Newton, the scientist who formulated the theory of gravity, Christopher Wren, the architect of St Pauls’ Cathedral, Adam Smith, the Scottish philosopher and economist, and Olaudha Equiano, the anti-slavery campaigner. A list of prime ministers, including Thatcher, Gladstone, Disraeli and Clement Attlee no longer features.
Churchill was removed from the late draft - but sources said he would definitely be in the final version of the curriculum after last-minute discussions between ministers.
One of the few personalities included in the new draft is Charles Darwin, who laid the foundations of the theory of evolution. Instead of specifying major historical figures, teachers will be told to focus on topics including World War II, the “development of the British Empire” and the slave trade. The imperialistic sounding phrase “Britain and her empire” has been replaced with “the British Empire”.
For primary-school children, Newton and Nightingale are not expected to feature in the final version of the curriculum - and neither are Rossetti and Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the Victorian engineer.
However, Armstrong, Parks and Berners-Lee are set to be mentioned, along with LS Lowry, the artist famous for his paintings of stick-like people, and Emily Davison, the sufragette.
I'm absolutely fuming reading this, absolutely fuming.
The proposals where children learnt British history from the Stone Age to 1989 would have been such an amazing course throughout school to teach our children so that they actually know something about the nation in which they live and so that we have children who are educated and who know who Winston Churchill was rather than morons who idolise Nelson Mandelson the convicted terrorist (thats something they dont tell you in school) who has nothing to do with our history and is a mere footnote. And you know, even if you think Mandela etc ought to be taught in schools then fine - but why is the 'other side' never taught when it comes to him? with the history of the Empire we are taught both the good and the bad yet with Mandela it comes as a shock to teenagers that he was head of the armed wing of the ANC which targeted innocent people and murdered them. WHY IS THIS NOT TAUGHT OR SPOKEN ABOUT ON THE BBC????
I'm fed up of our country being ashamed of its past and children being fed politically correct ******** concerning African 'history' (of which there isn't much) along with propaganda on Islamic history and - horror of horrors - immigration.. which you just know will consist of how wonderful mass immigration has been to this country. I'm absolutely sick of it.
Does it make me narrow minded or a bigot to think that the next generation (of all colours, religions etc) of British people should be taught the history of these islands like the Magna Carta and Acts of Union rather than politically correct garbage or told how they should feel bad that Britian once ruled the waves? if so, then take a walk.
Gove was just about the only minister who has shown any promise in this government and now he's caved in like a spineless jellyfish - which means in the end nothing has changed despite promises to begin with - which sums up the history of the supposed patriotic Conservative Party.
Thoughts?