Should the history & process of British Politics be part of our Education System

Yes I agree Paddyanne,I think we should all be aware of our own country’s history & also our collective history .

Glad it was helpful Bridgeit.
I also think that knowing the broad outlines of the programmes of study helps us to help them where we can. We are off to Agincourt soon to visit the museum and help GD get a feel for what it was really like (she is doing Henry V in English). If this weather carries on the mud will be very authentic!

That’s brilliant have a great time Mamie, I do hope the weather improves & that you only have to imagine the mud & drudge they would have lived with.

I agree with Lemongrove there needs to be a lack of bias when teaching such a subject. If I examine my own education, although I didn't realise it at the time, history was taught from a catholic viewpoint, certain people were vilified, Elizabeth I for example, conversely we were taught that Mary Tudor was a wonderful queen it was only later on that I realised the former was regarded as one of our most illustrious monarchs and the latter wasn't. My granddaughter is enthusiastically learning about the Romans at the moment but I'm not sure she understands just how far back 2000 years is. In retrospect I realise that for me that going to a religious school where the birth of Jesus was hammered into us did a least prove a very good historical reference point. From an early age, particularly as we had a lot of history books at home, I had a mental picture of a timeline knowing pre BC civilisations such as Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, the latter straddling a pre Christian period and overlapping into AD by 400 years. Followed by Anglo Saxons and Vikings After that. 1066 was another reference point and similarly the Reformation which of course loomed large in the convent school I went to. Although we barely touched on modern history. My own children did loads, particularly the two world wars and the Weimar Republic, the latter which I had little knowledge of and found myself learning about vicariously through them. I think history and politics are relevant subjects to understand something of the world we live in, the past shapes the present of course. Nevertheless whoever is teaching it needs to remember it is not their prerogative to imbue the pupil with their ideologies.

I am delighted to see that the syllabus is teaching chronologically and thoroughly, but there has been a generation of young adults come through the system who have been taught history in this random, episodic manner and have no understanding of either chronology or how movements develop and change, or don't over centuries.

DS was at school in the Thatcher years. He loved history but absolutely hated the way it was taught randomly on a project system and couldn't wait to get to secondary so, as he said, 'he would be taught things properly and in order'. (the problem was not just history)

The day the HM from the local school came to talk to us Year 6 parents and explained proudly that to ensure the children adjusted and integrated properly they would continue to be taught using the project methods was the day DH and I looked at each other and decided, come hell or high water, he was going to private school.

Well done Monica, I don’t understand why the powers that be have to mess about with teaching methods , it’s not rocket science to teach in chronological order surely.

It wasn't a question of 'the powers that be' messing about with teaching methods. It was that project based teaching was very fashionable with teachers in the 80s and 90s. With lots of 'empathising', "Imagine you are living in London during the Great Plague" sort of thing. and 'interpretation' of sources... Lots of 'discovery learning' and not much teaching of facts... Much as I dislike the tories I am thankful that they've tried to reinstate a knowledge based curriculum in schools.

for a long time I really learned all my history from historical novels....
So did I MaizieD - Jean Plaidy ones were good!
I did manage to scrape a 4 at GCE so I must have learnt something along the way.
And a lot more since I should add.

When DD was at secondary school in the 90s they seemed to spend the whole first term of history lessons learning about castles. Not who built them or why - just about the structure.

She had already done that in primary school.

We learned Scottish history in England
and Scottish songs

Our first year at senior school was spent studying 'From Ur to Rome'
but don't ask me any questions

In our Scottish school in the 1950s we had two history textbooks - a hefty tome called "The Story of Scotland" and a slender companion volume called "the Story of England". The main thing we learned was that in 1603 King James VI of Scotland took over the throne of England. We were therefore the "top dogs".

Nowadays the Scottish history syllabus seems to be deliberately designed to make Scots children feel like the underdogs. It is all about victimhood and fostering a sense of grievance. I heard one father complain that his fourteen year old daughter was studying the Highland Clearances for the FOURTH time in her school career.

Although it should be possible, perhaps it is just too difficult to keep political bias away from the history curriculum.

I agree that history should be taught chronologically, how else can children form an understanding of how we gave evolved as a society both nationally and internationally. I also wholeheartedly agree that parents have a responsibility to help their children to understand the world we live in. Far too many people demanding that everything is taught by schools these days imo.

It should be taught but at the moment it seems that even the British Constitution isn't even taught to the extent that a shocking number of people believe that we don't even have one.
You can see if from the demands people make online - for example, there have been over 20 petitions demanding a no confidence vote. It is clear that a lot of people think that it is the electorate that would vote. Others simply cannot understand how this ties in with the government majority. It wastes a lot of time and effort that could be spent in more effective forms of protest.

History is, in my opinion, a valuable lesson. Politics on the other hand I think could be risky. Any subject taught has the teachers spin on it and I fear that many teachers would find it difficult to teach politics without bias .

MOnica, our history did NOT start with the Normans! Please go back to school and learn history properly. Just some names for you to be going on with: Harold Godwinson. Alfred the Great. Aethelflaed, Lady of Mercia. Boudicca of the Iceni. The Venerable Bede. Caedmon. King Aethelstan. And why do you think the wall between England and Scotland is called 'Hadrian's Wall'. And who built Stonehenge - the Normans?

Mauriherb I agree about the teaching of politics but it should be possible to teach the constitution and the system, ie. what it takes for a political party to be registered as such. Most other countries seem to manage it.

We only got as far as the Stuarts, but I did get a GCE pass (before GCSE). I am very interested in history and over the years have learnt a lot but would have liked to learn more at school.

I was amazed when I learnt schools were covering ww2 and going on trips to concentration camps which I think is very important for them to know but it doesn't seem like history as I am sure many of us were alive then.

Also we have to remember history is usually told by the winner.

Mamie don’t you find there is SO much to be taught at GCSE? My husband is also a teacher and inspector. His is helping his niece with Physics GCSE ATM and is horrified by the level of information needed for the higher levels. Many science teachers will not have covered it themselves. ( sorry, off the OP!)

I loathed history at school and didn't take it at O level preferring geography. I do think that children/young people should be taught how the past affects the present and the future. So often I hear that 'we're studying the Stone Age/ Tudors/Victorians etc' but with no reference to the impact on modern day. I've since developed my own interests in history and see history as a 'living' subject.
On a parallel issue there was an interview on BBC Breakfast this morning about maths - another subject I loathed at school. The interviewee was highlighting the need to make it relevant to our lives and I couldn't agree more! Why aren't schools making subjects more relevant to their youngsters? As an ex employer I've been appalled at the lack of basic knowledge some of them have.
Crumbs I am being grumpy today

I do JaneD3. I think the amount of content is huge and the level of maturity needed to deal with the conceptual understanding is very high. I have an Arts background, my OH Maths and Science and my DD Politics and we can all see stuff in the new GCSEs that we did at A level and even degree level. If people have GCs at secondary school I would really urge them to have a look at what is required.
I meant to ask Jura what she thought of the new MFL requirements too?
I am not sure any teacher would have time to share their own political opinions, there is too much to cover.
My GD is in top set and doing one GCSE this year and nine next year. She is already attending lots of extra revision sessions. The families have all been told not to go away next Easter.
This is an ordinary comprehensive school.

The GCSE 2018 thread on Mumsnet is a real eye-opener too.

The other thing I find fascinating is how many support materials are on-line now. So instead of the book of revision (crib) notes that we might have had, you can go to YouTube and see a scientist or mathematician explaining a concept that you haven’t quite grasped, you can use the GCSE Bitesize revision notes, you can see detailed explanations of how best to structure your answers etc etc. It is a different world!

Everyone seems to feel History was really badly taught in school and, if they come to it at all, come much later via novels or tv programmes or visiting places or whatever. I think personally that education is wasted on the young, we should teach folks to read, write and calculate, then employ them inba generic type if job for ten years and then, in their middle twenties, offer everyone the opportunity to do technical or academic or vocational train8bg for five years in whatever subject they like with a ‘return of service’ over the next five or ten years working in the field they chose to study. That would sort us out in two generations.

There is a side of the political spectrum that does not want citizens to know where events lead, to be able to contextualise or compare or to realise what liberating, cultured and just societies were engendered by western Christian (mainly Protestant) values - and I speak as a Catholic baptised atheist so I have no interest here.

Thus, 'History' as taught up until very recently has been a smorgasbord of unrelated, non chronological topics promoting PC values as if they were some kind of truth. Propaganda, in other words.

It always amused me that in the cockamamy world of History-lite the Roman Empire gave us language, institutions, philosophy and culture while the British Empire was nothing but oppression and tyranny. Ho ho ho.