Teach Secondary 13.7

teachwire.net/secondary Whose history? If we’re to teach a history that’s true to our past while speaking to today’s students, then the stories we draw on should be as diverse as possible, says Elena Stevens A s a school subject, history has great potential for helping to develop pupils’ identities. It provides opportunities to engage with ideas, values and practices in such a manner that –many education writers suggest – equips young people to navigate the challenges of adult life. History offers young people the chance, as historian Arthur Marwick put it, to find ‘their bearings’, or to anchor themselves in the present whilst claiming inspiration and affirmation from the past. Helping pupils to do this seems to be one of the most important goals of history education. However, it is important that we carefully consider the types of identities we want to help pupils to develop, and the histories that might be chosen to promote such a project. The nature of our multicultural society demands a broadening of traditional understandings of Britishness, and recent cultural and political events have challenged us, as teachers, to rethink the ways in which we transmit notions of local, national and even global identity. We realise the need to construct curricula that reflect the diversity of society around us; to plan enquiries that acknowledge a range of perspectives, yet remain accessible and engaging, and to teach lessons that are firmly historical – rather than political, ideological or civic. Faced with such challenges, however, it can be difficult to knowwhere to begin. Island story Debate about the selection of content within the history curriculumhas been ongoing since the introduction of the first National Curriculum in England in 1988. Recently, it has come to focus on the importance of broadening frames of reference to include non-British and non-European histories, and to move beyond the traditional narratives of power, nationality and political action – a curriculum characterised by historian Peter Mandler as ‘Hitler and the Henries’ (see tiny.cc/ts137-H1) . Much of this debate emerged in response to the perceived failings of the National Curriculum’s most recent iteration. In 2010, Michael Gove’s espousal of the ‘island story’ sought to move the history curriculum in a rather exclusionist, self-congratulatory direction. As Secretary of State for Education, Gove argued that the existing history curriculum denied pupils the opportunity to learn “ One of the most inspiring stories I know – the history of our United Kingdom ”. Though Gove’s draft curriculumwas hewn of some of its more jingoistic overtones, the final 2013 curriculumnevertheless prescribed a diet composed largely of British history. Reference was made to a ‘significant society or issue in world history’, but this seems to have been envisaged as something of an adjunct to the more coherent history of ‘these islands’ from ‘the earliest times to the present day’ (see tiny.cc/ts137-H2 ). Illuminatingcomplexity Pupils do, of course, need to develop an understanding of the societies in which they live. It is important that history lessons help young people to gain a sense of place, and to appreciate the social, political and cultural forces that shape modern British life. However, two aspects of Gove’s vision are problematic. The first is the notion that the history of our United Kingdom and world history are distinct from one another. The story of Britain is the story of movement, heterogeneity and integration; Britain has been shaped by successive invasions and migrations, and different peoples have coexisted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. British history is world history. Secondly, Gove presumes that ‘our island story’ is one that ought to ‘inspire’ pupils, with its litany of heroic characters conceived as contemporary role models. In reality, the history of Britain and British people is muchmore complicated. It is “People in the past didnot exist simply to stand forone thingoranother” 62