Teach Secondary Issue 14.2

ERA DEFINING With the National Curriculum set to undergo extensive reform, now is the ideal time to extend the history offered at secondary school – and have students study the subject for longer, says Louise Burton ... L abour’s imminent curriculum review, “ Will breathe new life into learning for all children, by ensuring that what they are taught is engaging and allows them to achieve and thrive at school ”. That’s according to a spokesperson for Bridget Phillipson, as quoted late last year by The DailyMail (see tiny.cc/ts142-TP1 ). It also proposes that all secondary school students will follow a National Curriculumup to the age of 16 – and that this should include academies and independent schools, marking a break with the recent past. ‘History for all’ The history taught in schools today can be traced back to an Ofsted report on history teaching in England commissioned by the Conservative-Liberal coalition government back in 2011. This ‘History for all’ report (see tiny.cc/ts142- TP2) highlighted some serious issues. The fact that history was mostly being taught in primary schools by non-specialists, it argued, meant that, “ An increasing number of students are taught by a specialist history teacher for no more than two or three of their 11 years of compulsory education. ” This wasn’t helped by many secondary schools only teaching history at KS3 for three years – or even as little as two, so that students could spend three years on their GCSE courses – thereby potentially resulting in some giving up history at the age of 13. It remains the case that history is typically an optional subject when students take their post-KS3 options, thus bringing many students’ formal study of history to an end once they’ve turned 13 or 14. As it stands, pupils inmost English schools study history for around three hours per fortnight. Achronological understanding England’s last major set of curriculum reforms, which were led byMichael Gove and took effect in schools from 2015, were criticised by many as ‘list-like’, and even ‘jingoistic’, with their emphasis on British history. They did, however, set out a programme of study, followed to this day, that is chronological in approach and covers four broad periods of British history. Within each area, teachers can decide what to teach and in howmuch depth, and there’s also scope for wider world studies and some local history. Personally, I’ve found that this emphasis on developing a chronological understanding of history has resulted in less focus on ‘skills based’ approaches and the associated obsessions with source analysis and interpretation, and reduced those long periods of time spent on one enquiry. Over the last 10 years, there’s been a growing focus on curriculum content, and demands on teachers to develop coherent curriculum plans with substantive knowledge at their core. The introduction of a ‘200’year rule’ as part of the 2015 reforms broadened the range of historical periods studied by pupils (though a number of history teachers will maintain that this came at the expense of loading the curriculumwith too much content). On the whole, there’s been an increase in the range of topics studied – which now regularly spanmedieval, early modern and modern – more appropriate short- depth studies and longer- term development studies, and acknowledgement by the government that teachers have brought their subjects alive with ‘knowledge-rich teaching’. This can be seen in Ofsted’s latest subject report report for history, which notes how “ The trend towards erosion of history as a distinct subject appears to have been reversed. ” (see tiny.cc/ ts142-TP3). ‘Canons of knowledge’ More recently, however, there have been criticisms of the existing approach. For example, a September 2024 OCR review led by former education secretary, Charles Clarke (see tinyurl.com/ ts142-TP4), stated that “ What is learned needs to be focused far more on the world as it now, is and is going to be, than on the past. ” Another talking point to have emerged ahead of the curriculum review is a perceived need for more teaching around critical thinking. The riots that took place across 27 British towns and cities during summer 2024, following the stabbing of three young girls in Southport, underlined for many the importance of educating the public, and particularly young people, in how to detect disinformation. In an interviewwith the Telegraph following the riots, Bridget Philipson claimed that, “ It’s more important than ever that we give young people the knowledge and skills to be able to challenge what they see online. ” (see tiny.cc/ ts142-TP6). Campaigning organisation The Media and Information Literacy Alliance subsequently welcomed these words as “ A real prospect for media and information literacy to be properly built into the future school curriculum. ’ (see tinyurl. com/ts142-TP7). Charles Clarke would presumably agree, given his argument in the OCR review that the school curriculum “ Should be more about enabling young people to develop the skills and confidence to meet the challenges which they will face in the future, than simply acquiring the canons of knowledge which have been built up over centuries. ” “We’ve seenan increase in the range of topics studied...and acknowledgement by the government that teachers have brought their subjects alive with‘knowledge-rich teaching’” 12 teachwire.net/secondary