History, the Nation and the Schools

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Types, Research, History | Downloads: 25 | Comments: 0 | Views: 225
of 20
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Proceedings of a Conference held atBishopsgate Institute in London onJune 30th 2012 .What is happening to History education in Britain today? Some people, inside and outside government, argue that the teaching of History in British schools is in a parlous state, and want to revise the curriculum to deal with this crisis. Others maintain that the teaching of History remains strong but that its availability is narrowing, especially in schools with large numbers of students from low income families. New initiatives such as the English Baccalaureate have been introduced to help ensure that all students have an opportunity to study history at Key Stage 4, but will this work? What kind of History should be taught in British schools, and to whom?

Comments

Content

HISTORY, THE NATION AND THE SCHOOLS

Proceedings of a Conference held at Bishopsgate Institute in London on June 30th 2012
PLEASE NOTE: A FILM OF THIS CONFERENCE MAY BE VIEWED ON www.historynationschools.co.uk

What is happening to History education in Britain today? Some people, inside and outside government, argue that the teaching of History in British schools is in a parlous state, and want to revise the curriculum to deal with this crisis. Others maintain that the teaching of History remains strong but that its availability is narrowing, especially in schools with large numbers of students from low income families. New initiatives such as the English Baccalaureate have been introduced to help ensure that all students have an opportunity to study history at Key Stage 4, but will this work? What kind of History should be taught in British schools, and to whom? On June 30th 2012 these issues were discussed at a national conference co-sponsored by the Royal Historical Society, the Raphael Samuel History Centre (University of East London/Birkbeck College University of London/Bishopsgate Institute/Queen Mary University of London) and the Historical Association.

Conference Programme
10 – Welcomes and housekeeping: Michelle Johansen (Bishopsgate), Barbara Taylor (Raphael Samuel History Centre) 10.15-12. Visions of History Education. Roundtable with: Michael Riley (Schools History Project), Seán Lang (Better History Group), Richard Woff (British Museum), John Siblon (Black and Asian Studies Association), Onni Gust (Young History Workshop), Martin Spafford (George Mitchell School). 12-1 – lunch (sandwich lunch provided) 1-2.30 – workshops and workshop facilitators:
    



Transitions from School to University: Nicola Miller (University College London), Onni Gust (Young History Workshop) Black and Ethnic Minority History: Caroline Bressey (University College London), Dan Lyndon (Schools History Project) Global History/British History: Donald Cumming (Holmfirth High School), Yasmin Khan (Royal Holloway, University of London) History Beyond the Classroom: Lynda Agard (Museum of London, Docklands), Michelle Johansen (Bishopsgate Institute). Examinations: Flora Wilson (Acland Burghley School), Dermot Allen (King Alfred School) History and Media: Arthur Chapman (Edge Hill University), Richard Grayson (Goldsmiths College, University of London)

2.30-3: coffee 3-3.30-feedback from workshops 3.30- 5: Government Policy and the Future of History Education. Roundtable with: Simon Harrison (Historical Association), Michael Maddison HMI (Office for Standards in Education), Steven Mastin (Sawston Village College), Flora Wilson (Acland Burghley School), Nicola Sheldon (Institute of Historical Research), Peter Mandler (Royal Historical Society), Mary Beard (Cambridge). 5pm: Conference End ** The conference was filmed; this film may be viewed on www.historynationschools.co.uk
Some of the conference speakers and workshop facilitators have provided written versions of their contributions, and these are below.

Roundtable 1: Visions of History Education:
Michael Maddison HMI, Ofsted’s National Adviser for history 1. Caveat • It is not the job of the inspectorate to tell the government of the day what its policy should be in respect to education and in this case history • It is our job, though, to point out what is going well, what is going not so well and what is the likely impact of policy proposals based on its evidence 2. Inspectorate’s view was summarised in the report History for all published in 2011 • Report revealed mixed picture • On the one hand: a successful subject in schools – much to praise in relation to the development of young people’s historical knowledge, thinking and understanding • On the other hand: there are considerable concerns because it is a subject under pressure especially at Key Stage 3 Message: despite the problems, in our eagerness to improve and deal with what needs to be put right, we must recognise, and not undermine, all that is good in our classrooms, i.e. let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater Note: the inspectorate is doing much to support history in schools – keep up to date with Ofsted’s subject work in history by visiting the dedicated history web pages on the Ofsted website at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/our-expert-knowledge/history-0 3. Primary • We need to tackle the episodic curriculum which leads to episodic knowledge • We need to strengthen pupils’ chronological understanding to ensure that they develop a mental map of the past and have a greater sense of overview • We now know that history will remain as a compulsory subject in primary schools – that is for six years which is far longer than it is likely to be in secondary schools Message: we must not ignore the primary dimension 4. Secondary • We do not know whether history will be compulsory to 14 or beyond but we do know it is under pressure at Key Stage 4 as well as Key Stage 3

• The EBacc has led to increased numbers of students taking history at GCSE. However, it is having some unintended outcomes. There is evidence of an increasing number of schools considering and implementing early entry in Year 10 and even Year 9. The younger students are not obtaining the highest grades and schools are in danger of allowing young people to underachieve. Message: current government policy is having a mixed impact and early entry is an issue for history 5. The wider context: improving young people’s literacy and numeracy • History is in an ideal position to strengthen in particular young peoples’ literacy – oral, written and visual • However, history lessons must not be subordinated so that the literacy element dominates and the development of historical knowledge, thinking and understanding is forgotten Message: history matters 6. Content of the curriculum and prescription Two key questions: • What do we want young people to be able to do, know and understand at the end of their compulsory study of history that they couldn’t do, didn’t know and didn’t understand at the start of that process? • How should this be best staged so that, their historical experiences cover overviews, depth studies and themes, as well as knowledge of events and individuals, courses are coherent, there is sufficient time, assessment is appropriate and focuses on what they know and understand, and teaching and learning develop historical thinking through enquiry? Message: it is vitally important that we: • consider primary and secondary history as a whole and not as discrete entities • remember that history is a subject to be investigated and discovered and not one to be received 7. Training • As reported in History for all, links between secondary schools and their local primary schools were weak, so that expertise in the secondary schools was not exploited to support nonspecialists in teaching history in the primary schools • We recommended that all schools should develop formal and informal networks, clusters and federations to provide greater opportunities for teachers of history to work together on subject-specific training Message: in an era of self help, schools need to do much more to help each other and there is an important support role here for the whole history community 8. Inspectorate’s view The view of the inspectorate is that history must be for all: accessible by all, meaningful to all and achievable by all Michael Riley, Director, Schools History Project I want to start my vision where the Schools History Project started its thinking 40 years ago – with the needs of young people, or as they were called then, adolescents. Thinking about their needs, their place in the adult world, their future lives is still, it seems to me, the best starting point for developing a vision for school history. My vision is one of a subject that’s so fascinating, so intriguing, so thought-provoking that huge numbers of young people choose to study history beyond school.But my vision also includes the rest – those youngsters whose first passion is not history, but biology, or business studies, but for

whom history will continue to be life-enhancing. Life-enhancing because their holiday reading might be be Max Hasting’s ‘All Hell Let Loose’ or a novel by Sebastian Barry; life-enhancing because after a hard week’s work they might choose to watch Michael Wood’s ‘The Great British Story’ rather than the latest celebrity-driven drivel; life -enhancing because they might take their own children to the British Museum or their local Iron-Age hill fort. And my vision for these teenagers is that studying history will enhance their lives because its helped them to become people who ask interesting questions, people who will challenge the status quo because they have developed a long view of human history, people who are comfortable with difference because at some point in their school history lessons they half-inhabited the mind of a medieval peasant, a Roman legionary or a Mughal Emperor. But, most of all, my vision for the majority of young people who don’t go on to study history beyond school is that they will enter the adult world with their critical faculties sharpened. They’ll be able to spot bullshit and will have the courage and clarity to speak out. In my view, no other subject in the curriculum sharpens the critical faculties of young people more than history. So, if this is my vision of what school history should be doing for young people, how can that vision be achieved? How should government, The DfE, Ofqual, Awarding Bodies and school leaders help to provide a context in which school history can thrive? 1. Secure an entitlement to study history for all. The results achieved by the coalition government have been very mixed in terms of securing the place of history in the curriculum. It appears that history will remain as separate subject in the primary curriculum, but we need t see how the programmes of study shape up and what support will be provided in teaching the new curriculum. We wait to hear what Michael Gove’s plans for the secondary curriculum, but if the leak to the Daily Mail is anywhere near the truth Gove’s desire for return to O levels and CSEs, and the chance that this will be blocked by the Lib Dems, means that the opportunity for the real reform that is so desperately needed at GCSE has been squandered. And what about the National Curriculum at Key Stage 3? Gove was never going to be able to square the circle of revising a curriculum that the majority of schools would no longer be required to teach. But, if his leaked plan to scrap the National Curriculum becomes reality it will mean that tens of thousands of children may well be denied the opportunity to study history in their first years of secondary school. It seems to me that any vision of history teaching in our schools has to begin with entitlement for all. At the moment, future entitlement is far from certain and I’m far from optimistic. 2. The second aspect of my vision for school history is improved progression and continuity. One of the great strengths of school history is the way in which progression is defined through a combination of growing substantive knowledge and deepening understanding of the concepts and processes that underpin our discipline. At the moment we have a healthy balance, although the knowledge requirement could, in my view, be enhanced. But tip the scales too far in one or other direction and you place a ceiling on students’ understanding in history. The real problem is terms of progression is at GCSE – it’s a problem of course structure ( and of assessment – particularly the boring and pointless questions which Awarding Bodies choose to ask about items they wrongly describe as ‘sources’. I want to make it crystal clear that SHP is wedded to our principles, not to the current GCSE specs or to silly and spurious forms of assessment.

3. The third and final aspect of my vision is of an enriched school history: enriched by closer links with university historians and by other professionals involved in history; enriched by a wider range of on-line resources provided by national and local institutions as well as by commercial publishers; enriched by the kind of creative pedagogies that anyone who comes to the SHP Conference in Leeds sees in abundance; enriched by teachers who to think rigorously and creatively about teaching history because they have had the best possible training and are provided with inspiring continuing professional development in teaching history. John Siblon: I want to argue that ‘black’ people of African, Asian and Caribbean heritage are part of our ‘island story’ as well as part of world history. I don’t think there is a dichotomy between the two. I want to see an inclusive and representative history at the heart of any school curriculum. British history is not hermetically sealed off or unconnected with other nation states or regions of the world and Britain’s imperial connections underline this. By way of example: my paternal grandfather was born in India in 1885. He was ‘persuaded’ to leave India in 1900 aged 15 to work for the Liverpool –based Sugar plantation owners and shipping firm Bookers-McConnell in British Guiana. He was indentured labour and did not return to India. During the First World, he served in the British West Indies Regiment. My father was a policeman in British Guiana and my mother a teaching assistant. The only history learned at school was British history. They emigrated to Britain in 1961. There was little reference to or acknowledgment of British Guiana in British history and they felt excluded. I was born in London and, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, I also felt excluded from the ‘national story’ as everyone I studied was white. The history I learned at school was Eurocentric, and had little relevance to me. I did not learn of a multi-ethnic dimension to Britain’s past until I read Peter Fryer’s ‘Staying Power’ years after I left school. The black presence in British history dates back two thousand years. There has been a settled presence from the time of the Tudors. Some examples of this are: the African legions led by the black Roman emperor, Septimius Severus, stationed in the the Scottish Highlands. There were West regiments of black soldiers who served in the Caribbean and Africa in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. At the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, 18,000 sailors fought for Britain; 1,400 were foreign and, of these, at least one-third were black. Some of the most notable personalities of the eighteenth century were black such as the Chartist, William Cuffay and the nurse, Mary Seacole. Britain’s first Asian MP, Dadabhai Naoroji, was elected in 1892. During the First World War, 11,000 black soldiers died fighting for Britain in Africa, alongside as many as 250,000 carriers. In the Second World War, 2,500,000 Indians served on the British side and 87,000 were killed. 400,000 Africans served in places such as Burma. I asked some current students what history they learned at secondary school. They do look at black history but it is usually only slavery, American civil rights or apartheid South Africa. In this way, black people are shuffled away from Britain geographically and historically. I then asked the students if they thought the curriculum was inclusive. Most students stated that they felt the curriculum to be Eurocentric and not relevant to ethnic minority students. In our sixth-form college, we chose a board for A Level that allowed us a measure of inclusivity. Our students follow a thread of British history, as well as studying Africa, Asia and the Americas. We now have seven classes studying in Year 12 and five classes in Year 13. We believe history is a popular subject to study, increasingly onto university, because of its inclusivity. A former student contacted me this year to say he chose to study Olaudah Equiano for his degree dissertation.

We need to do more to make the history syllabus more interesting and relevant to our students. They are fed of diet of European dictators and the Cold War when fascism and communism isn’t foremost in their minds. Perhaps, this is because there is a tie-in between publishers and exam boards. Although there are a few resources on the black presence out there; they are few and far between. The diminished role of local authorities hasn’t helped here either. There is also too much teaching to the test. I blame league tables for this. Their abolition would lead to far more creativity in teaching. I do worry about Academies squashing three years’ history into two. This can only lead to ‘light touch’ history where the multiethnic element will be consigned to a few tokenistic references. I also think a return to old-style O and A levels will lead to less comprehensive and inclusive curriculum if we use the Pre-U, the closest thing to them, as a model. A recent OFSTED report stated that too much work on multiculturalism was at a low level. Schools may argue that they hold a ‘Black History Month’ in October but this is often a licence not to include ethnicities for the rest of the year. The aim was always integration of the black presence into the curriculum not its segregation. I am concerned that there will be a narrowing of the curriculum under any future review and that the only time black people are mentioned is in the period of the transatlantic slave trade. Ignorance about the black presence often surfaces. Brian True-May, the producer of ITV’s long-running ‘Midsomer Murders’, claimed in 2011 that Midsomer was “the last bastion of Englishness and I want to keep it that way”. I would hate to see a similar mentality shaping a future curriculum Everyone has a right to an inclusive history. Professor Richard Evans states “the present curriculum for children 5-14 offers an image of Britishness that pays at least some attention to the multiethnic composition of British society” and so we must defend all that is good in the current curriculum. However, it can be improved. Professor Stuart Hall has written, “National heritage is a powerful source of meaning; those who can’t see themselves reflected in the mirror are therefore excluded.” We cannot continue to consign our future history students to ‘more of the same’ or go back to a mythical white past and ‘island story’ which is exclusive in practice. Politicians and historians: Chris Skidmore: The History GCSE is woefully inadequate, and doesn’t offer a comprehensive knowledge of British history David Starkey: Students should study “how our liberal constitution based on responsible government was adopted worldwide” Michael Gove: wants British children to be inspired by ‘our island story’; Olaudah Equiano and William Wilberforce as only names mentioned in compulsory history curriculum (in British Empire and its impact on different people and overseas) No Churchill, Queen Elizabeth, no Gladstone, no Disraeli, no Florence Nightingale, no Horatio Nelson Wants Britain portrayed as “a beacon of liberty for others to emulate” The current approach to history denies children the opportunity to hear our island story Wants school history teaching to place more emphasis on factual knowledge, including the lives of kings and queens Simon Schama: wants the ‘national memory’ strengthened in children through a British-centred history with a traditional chronological approach We need citizens who grow up with a sense of our shared memory as a living, urgently present body of knowledge Barbara Taylor: I am concerned about the any narrowing of the history curriculum which would deprive young people of one of the principal ‘lessons of history’ – that people did things differently in other times and places – market competition – ‘hot topics’ – the 2 world wars & the European dictators – possible to study only 20C H between Yrs 9-13 - half of all a level papers taken on 20C history – Myth that England is falling behind in the national-identity sweepstakes because our children haven’t learnt properly their ‘narrative national history’

Content brief – British, European & World History – only prescription is to study the slave trade (WW & OE); the world wars; the Holocaust and decolonisation Sean Lang – Possibilities - Empire (India) & Slave trade in Y9? Empire & Commonwealth in Y1011 (post-war immigration) – Local history – throughout curriculum in fact? Modern World History – Africa only taught in relation to slavery – unless in WW1 or WW2 – v little to say on A levels – more ‘British’ as opposed to English David Cannadine: real problem is that there is not enough time to teach everything; Maths & Physics seen as objectively neutral but history seen as important for the national psyche; history loaded with a moral narrative – a means through which we tell stories about ourselves and shape our national identity; “History should never be used merely as a means of relaying a desired national narrative” Richard Evans: current curriculum 70% content – 30% skills – analysis, argument & presentation; A return to narrative in the classroom – to passive consumption instead of active critical engagement – is more likely to be a recipe for boredom and disaffection; the demand is for ‘celebratory history’; OFSTED: History for all History in English schools 2007-10 – the view that too little British history is taught in secondary schools is a myth. Pupils in the schools visited studied a considerable amount of British history and knew a great deal about the particular topics covered. However, the large majority of time was spent on English history rather than wider British history Martin Spafford: I remember a couple of years back going to a fascinating exhibition at the Wellcome Institute not far from here on Identity and one of the items in that was a diary that had been written by somebody who had lost their memory. The diary consisted of the same sentence hundreds and hundreds of times, each sentence written about an hour after the one before by a man who could not remember that he had written that sentence an hour or so before. Without a sense of memory, without a sense of his own past, this man had no sense of his own identity. Who we are is determined by our past. How we understand ourselves as human beings is determined by our own memory and sense of our past. What we have experienced and what we have been told about ourselves – by our parents, our friends, our families and so on – the decisions we make as to who are our friends, how we relate to people, are based on our past experience of them. Our families’ or small communities’ understanding of ourselves is based on a sense of history and also of key moments that have shaped our family or have shaped our identity. Our sense of our local community is the same. Our sense of our nation depends on our understanding of a past and of key moments in that past. Our sense of the world is the same. For every single one of us it is crucial that we engage with history. Without doing so we don’t know who we are. Malcolm X said that and so did lots of other people. So, first of all, history matters to every one of us. One of the problems about the discussions about history teaching in schools is so often the assumption is that we are teaching children history so they can go on to do history at a higher level and go on to be historians. And yes, we have a huge responsibility to those few young people who will do that - to train them to do so – but that’s not what most of our young people are doing. Most of our young people are going out into the world to do lots of different things and why history is important to them is what it gives them to do that. And, therefore, at the heart of it is not the skills we give them to take forward to higher education: it is how we help them live in the world that they are going to live in. All our young people: not just the ones who choose to go to university, not just the ones who do A Level, not just the ones who do GCSEs. There is a young man called Rizwan who is now 32 who was talking to me recently about a project we did when he was in Year 7 and he was aged 11 and 12. It was a history of refugees and asylum

seekers coming to East London, and he said ‘I’m a computer geek, I work in computers and just the other day I was filling in a form and was being asked ‘What are you really proud of that you have done in your life?’ and I found myself writing down our Year 7 project that we did when I was 12.’ Here is another thing. Michelle Johansen worked with a group of our Year 10 students four years ago on an oral history project. None of them are studying history, not all of them have gone to university, but she meets with them once a month and they go to different historical sites. They are young Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Somalians from East London – none of them are historians – but they love history and they are following it on because of the love generated by the fact that they’ve been to the Bank of England Museum, a stately home, the Tower of London and so on, just to enjoy history. Another reason we enjoy history is because stories matter to us. We read stories because they help us connect with our own experience. History is full of stories because through stories from the past we connect with our experiences of the present to make decisions about the future. Knowledge is important, but the question is which knowledge? There is no dispute about key moments in British and world history – the Black Death, the British Empire, the Second World War – but also what other histories? How do we ourselves become part of that history? It has to be a history that makes every young person feel ‘It’s my story, it’s our story’. So here are examples of important pieces of knowledge that can connect with young people, The fact – as John referred to – that there was a Moorish regiment near Hadrian’s Wall of which there is key archaeological evidence that Michael Wood dealt with in The Great British Story a couple of weeks ago. It’s lovely to see ‘history from below’ from Michael Wood, Mary Beard and The Secret History of our Streets coming out at the moment on TV at last. There’s the fact that in the 18th century the ship that took some of the ‘black poor’ of London on that failed expedition to Sierra Leone included black and white working-class couples – white women with their black husbands, black women with their white husbands and white women looking for black husbands. There were mixed communities in 18th century London thriving. We forget that there is nothing new about those mixed communities. The fact that the leader of the group who beheaded Simon of Sudbury in the Tower of London during the Peasants’ Revolt was a woman, Johanna Ferror. The fact that in the 1980s during the Miners’ Strike, when a Black gay and lesbian organisation went to the South Wales mining community that they had worked in solidarity with – and it was very embarrassing at first because at first the miners weren’t sure how to talk to these young black gay men and lesbians that they knew had been supporting them – but by the end of the weekend the discussion got down to the miners recognising and remembering their own gay past and the places where meetings took place in their working-class South Wales mining village. The fact that there was a girl in my class fifteen years ago who, when she went back into her own personal history, discovered that her ancestors included – on her mother’s side – a working-class East London man from Leyton who had been one of the paratroopers dropped from gliders at Arnhem and went missing in that failed operation in the Second World War (the family got a telegram of condolence from King George); she was descended from this man and – through her father – from the family of Leopold Senghore, the poet and first President of Senegal. How would those two families have ever dreamt that they would have a common descendent? Or the fact that if you were a working-class man in 18th century England the only chance you would have of voting for your government would be if you were a pirate. Or the fact that if you walk into St Mary’s church in Leyton which – to my shame – I only ever visited for the first time this week, this church which is surrounded by densely populated 1960s, 70s and 80s housing estates, it is full

of the monuments of the rich 17th, 18th and 19th century families who filled that church with their monuments because then it was surrounded by great houses with their parks and estates. Grange Park Road is so called because of the country estate that once stood there; and the monument outside to Sir Fisher Tench is a monument to a man who ran a slave plantation in Barbados , and in the records of the parish there are records of the baptisms of some of his servants who came from Barbados, some of the earliest black residents of Leyton. All of those factors begin to enable young people to see a presence, a body of knowledge that links with their own lives’ experience. What knowledge is important, but also important is that history gives young people skills that they can use in their lives whatever they are: the skills to make decisions that are informed, to know how to judge what they are told, to understand why there are different interpretations of events in the past, present and future, to look at the way in which the news is presented to them, make informed decisions in the businesses that they may work in based on an understanding of history. To be critical, to be informed, to use evidence as a basis for their own decisions. I am going to read, in conclusion, if I may, three statements. The first you may recognise and I think it’s pretty good: ‘History fires pupils' curiosity and imagination, moving and inspiring them with the dilemmas, choices and beliefs of people in the past. It helps pupils develop their own identities through an understanding of history at personal, local, national and international levels. It helps them to ask and answer questions of the present by engaging with the past. Pupils find out about the history of their community, Britain, Europe and the world. They develop a chronological overview that enables them to make connections within and across different periods and societies.’ Where have I got that from? The ‘Importance’ statement of the Key Stage 3 National Curriculum which many teacher skip because they go straight to the ‘Range and Content’! I still think that’s a beautiful statement. I think it can bring together many of us who disagree about many aspects of history. My second quotations are taken from some of my Year 9 students who wrote these down for me when I asked them what they thought we were trying to achieve in a unit we finished Year 9 with a few weeks ago. They said: ‘make us think more about our choices and the world we live in’ ‘how different people see things and how our society and other societies are affected by people’s actions’ ‘to get us to think about our own actions and get into the minds of others’ ‘to reflect other stories on my life; to show us what happened in the past and near past, to help us change the present to make a better future.’ And finally: ‘Broadly speaking, the aim of education is to make everyone as complete a human being as possible. ... education has to prepare us for the three main sides of life: we all have to earn our living; we are all citizens of a democracy; and each of us is an individual with thoughts and interests of his own.’ That is a quotation from The British Way and Purpose which was a series of documents prepared by the British Government to run education workshops for soldiers during the Second World War all over the world, and it was written by F.A. Cavenagh, Professor of Education at London University. I would say one or two of our politicians could do with going back and looking at some of those

documents where at the height of the war soldiers were being asked to think very deeply about what sort of world we were creating, including education. I therefore conclude by saying that I believe absolutely that we have got to start by remembering that we are not teaching pupils primarily to be historians: we are educators working with young people to see how history has to be at the centre of their understanding of themselves and our understanding of the world we live in. For that to work we all have to be part of it.

Roundtable 2: Government Policy and the Future of History Education
Simon Harrison, Historical Association: In November 2011 Michael Gove stated that he wanted history to take a central role in the curriculum. How are we doing? Impact of Government Policy • E-Bac • Increase in pupils opting. • HA survey, around 50% not changed at all. • Accountability agenda mentioned by Barbara & Katharine this a.m. And also Alex p.m. And the narrowing this leads to. More moving towards 2yr KS3, 2011 OFSTED report highlights problems with this for History • Increase in non-specialist teaching at KS3 as history specialists moved to staff increased numbers at KS4 • NC review • Great news to have place secured in Primary curriculum • Uncertainty or review process, e.g. compulsory to 16 or not? • Academies - everyone to be an academy, but creating a new curriculum they don't have to bother with? If NC matters, why? • Possibility there will be no Secondary NC= carte blanche for senior leaders to reduce/remove history, lost in o-levels fuss. Where does this leave us with coherence Ks1-4? • Reduction in Training places • Major theme of contributions this morning. Loss of supply, networks and expertise (compounding loss off LA support). Replacing with the 'apprentice' system, possible reduction in quality of new teachers? Katharine Burn highlighted growing issues with supply this morning. The real issues? The curriculum was never the issue... • Subject specific CPD for history teachers • Increasing amount of non-specialist teachers at KS3 • Coherence, progression and continuity • History for all – unequal access for pupils, factors such as perceived ability, geographic, inclusivity , John Siblon emphasised this a.m. • TIME – fundamental issue, will not matter what the curriculum looks like if history teachers are not given enough time to deliver it Irony is that in the Dec 2011 expert group report on the curriculum we had the answer to many of these problems, in making History compulsory to 16. But now this looks unlikely. Chris Skidmore

and work of APPG History and Archives may help, when their report is published? I worry the policy makers are not listening, and they are not here today. Maybe we need to be shouting a little louder, but at present it is hard to see how Government policy is helping, or is going to do much to help History in the future. Gove: "Unashamed, unapologetic advocate for the central role of history in our curriculum" Intent Is to support us, but an unintended consequence of his reforms may be to leave history further from the centre of the curriculum than ever. Nicola Sheldon: Thank you for inviting me to join the panel today. I am here because of my role as an academic researcher for the History in Education Project from 2009-11, out of which came the book ‘The Right Kind of History’ and the history in education website. In November 2011, the book was launched at a conference at which Michael Gove, the Secretary of State, spoke, so first I want to refer to some of the points Mr Gove made in his speech about the teaching of history:• ‘While there never was a golden age, we can do better.’ • ‘There is a thirst for historical knowledge amongst young people that is currently unslaked.’ • ‘There is evidence … that what they are being fed is thin gruel intellectually.’ • ‘The truth is … what is written in the National Curriculum isn’t often what is taught in our classrooms … it is often twisted out of shape by the requirements of exam boards.’ • The GCSE is … not satisfactory. There are problems with what we examine and the way we examine it.’ The number of pupils taking GCSE has fallen since the 1990s. • Without knowledge, the cultivation of skills is exceptionally difficult.’ And finally, • ‘We value history because history tells us something about our own values.’ These very interesting statements reveal a lot about the government agenda for history and for the school curriculum generally. That is to say, there is a belief there that history teaching is lacking, not meeting the interests of students because students are being taught the wrong things in history and the root cause of this is not the National Curriculum but teachers’ selectivity (shall we say) and the GCSE which focuses on skills and not knowledge. Finally we have a statement which illuminates the prime purpose of history teaching in Mr Gove’s view – that is to enable student learn ‘something about our own values’. To what extent did our research back up or challenge Mr Gove’s views? Firstly, let’s take the golden age of history teaching, which possibly existed sometime before the 1960s, where children learnt British history chronologically, knew all the names of the kings and queens of England and an outline of all the key events of national history – from the development of parliament and the struggle for the vote, to the growth of empire and the birth of the industrial revolution. I have to admit that it did exist, mostly in grammar schools both before and after the Second World War. But it was hardly a golden age as many of our survey respondents and interviewees confirmed – hours spent listening to a teacher dictate notes, or copying them down from the board, then memorising and regurgitating them in the O level or CSE exam. Of course, good teachers could still bring home to their pupils the drama and significance of history, by engaging in vivid story-telling. For those lucky pupils, history was a fascinating adventure but for

most this was not the case, so much so that many of our respondents only grew to love it in adulthood and some never at all. One thing our research confirmed is that good teachers will always make history interesting, whatever the content of it is – and they will always teach their students to question, to think, to delve into the world of the past and imagine. So yes, no golden age – and we can do better – and perhaps have been doing so for some time. Next we ought to deal with the assertion that history in schools has become intellectually undemanding – as Mr Gove says, ‘thin gruel’. During his speech he referred critically to the Schools History Project, set up forty years ago in response to a crisis of popularity in school history – yes! History was next to the bottom of a league table of subjects liked by students in 1969. They were going off in droves to study social studies, business studies, even geography! The SHP represented a total rethink of what history in school should be about – instead of a national story, it substituted an individual journey of discovery about the past, during which the pupil learned to question the evidence, construct their own account and dip into the culture, values and mindset of past societies, both British and overseas. SHP certainly incorporated the liberal educational values of the sixties with its emphasis on students’ individual viewpoints, the thinking skills and scepticism of ‘historical authority’. Indeed the inclusion of a history of medicine course was an explicit rejection of political history which tended to focus on conflict and war. The irony is that the SHP has been recognised as a demanding course, rewarding thinking rather than recall and criticism rather than orthodox accounts of the past. Once GCSE incorporated the ‘evidence skills’, it was inevitable that secondary school history would be dominated by SHP-style approaches to the subject. Mr Gove is right of course that examination courses do affect what is taught lower down the school. Therefore, what happens in GCSE courses affects the way history is taught from the age of 11 onwards as teachers prepare long-term for their students to be successful in ‘the test’. I suspect that Mr Gove could not be critical of the National Curriculum because of course it was introduced by his fellow-Conservative, Lord Baker, in 1988. And in fact, despite the debate at the time (which we are commemorating in this very conference), it has since proved uncontroversial. We interviewed former critics of the National Curriculum – some of them still believe it has damaged history education. But most teachers certainly do not think so. Indeed, when we interviewed younger history teachers who themselves had studied history in the National Curriculum, they thought it the most natural thing in the world! Neither did they regard it in its current form as an objectionable constraint on their autonomy as a history teacher. So how come the GCSE is the villain of the piece? Has it really skewed the history taught in schools so that it is superficial and lacking in challenge? Here Mr Gove seems to have some support from our evidence. GCSE today covers less content than when it was introduced in 1987. There is little choice in syllabus – for the most part, it’s either SHP or the Twentieth Century World. And there is a problem of repetition as most teachers cover the twentieth century conflicts in Year 9 as well. This is a product of the fact that history is not compulsory at KS4. Which brings us to the issue of numbers taking GCSE. This is taken as an indicator of a decline in popularity of history amongst Year 9 students nationally. However, the evidence is that history is hugely popular amongst students, and that it is well-taught, much better than in the 1950s and 60s. The evidence is that the decline in GCSE numbers was a product of the league table culture in schools – the simple truth is that History GCSE is relatively difficult to pass at grade C and therefore you don’t enter those students who won’t get a C. Mr Gove agreed that the rise in numbers at A level was a good sign – today more students take A level history each year than since A level was introduced in 1951. Now I want to address those final two statements of Mr Gove’s – that without knowledge, skills

cannot be cultivated – who could disagree with this? Do students today have less knowledge of history than they did in the past? They certainly have less knowledge of the type of history Mr Gove quoted in his speech – the Great Reform Act, the Glorious Revolution and the signing of Magna Carta (though they will all have covered the latter at KS3) because British political history is not studied as much as it used to be. However, they will have more knowledge of the slave trade, the Holocaust and World War Two than their student forebears (I didn’t study any of those topics at school). They probably know more about less – because a longer time is spent on these topics than would be the case for the Great Reform Act or the Glorious Revolution in an outline British history course spanning 1603-1789 or 1789-1914. But this difference is quite telling. Mr Gove seems to be saying that history should tell us something about our own values’. Who could disagree with that? So what values do children learn when they study the slave trade, the Holocaust and World War Two? Presumably they learn about those British values of individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance as well as the safeguarding of democracy and civil rights [values which are at the heart of the new standards for teaching]. Does the history of history teaching have anything to tell us about the way history teaching should change in the future (and Mr Gove seems to want to change it)? Actually it does not offer any sort of guide to an optimal curriculum – whatever we put in the curriculum, there will be far too much left out and not enough time to teach it. We can only give children an introduction to the past and an enthusiasm for it – they have the rest of their lives to find out the rest. **

Workshops:
Transitions from School to University Workshop led by Onni Gust (Young History Workshop) and Nicola Miller (University College London) A mix of schoolteachers and university teachers had a lively and productive discussion, the main outcome of which was to make us all realise how little we knew about what actually happened in each other’s institutions. This lack of understanding could undermine attempts, particularly by Russell Group universities, to widen participation, which was a theme running throughout the whole discussion. University teachers know little about what or how students learn at A level (or other sixth-form courses). With only three exam boards it would be relatively easy to inform themselves about the syllabuses, but different schools, even within the state sector, have widely diverging levels of resource and therefore teaching methods vary. Schoolteachers, in turn, find it difficult to obtain the information they need to help their students prepare for university learning, and the diversity of the university sector makes that even harder. So students and their teachers at both levels have widely diverging expectations, particularly abouthow students will learn. One telling example was the dismay first-years at university express when told that they cannot submit drafts of work that is to be formally assessed, which they will have been used to doing in many schools. More attention needs to be given to helping students make the shift from the ‘targets to improve’ they are given at school to the criticism, however constructive, of their written work that they receive at university. Moreover, what is required to do well is very different: at A level, exam markersare liable to penalise a student who departs from the expected answer whereas at university being intellectually adventurous is encouraged. In short, there is a significant mismatch at present in the way history is taught in schools and universities. The best way of introducing school students to university-style independent study was generally agreed to be the extended projects, which it was suggested could be a focus for the selection process at universities which receive many highly

qualified applicants. In general, our conclusion was that both schools and universities need to be far more explicit about the fact that very different models of learning are in place in the two institutions and students need more help in adjusting. It was suggested that universities could help by putting material online, especially podcasts of lectures and seminars, so that everyone could see what the experience of university learning would be like.It was agreed that getting students to visit universities early in their time at secondary school was crucial, with age 14 being cited as the latest moment at which to catch them. ** ‘History Beyond the Classroom’ Workshop led by Michelle Johansen Our workshop was made up of around a dozen women and men involved in learning, teaching or promoting history ‘beyond the classroom.’ Many types of organisations were represented in the room, including museums (V&A), galleries (National Portrait Gallery), archives (Bishopsgate Institute), school tour organisers (Anglia Tours [Barb, this affiliation may need checking on the sign-up lists!]), funding bodies (Heritage Lottery Young Roots) and local history societies (Leyton and Leytonstone Historical Society). The enthusiasm and expertise in the room made for a really useful and interesting discussion to which all present offered thoughtful contributions. There was broad agreement on what were viewed as the key challenges facing history teaching and learning beyond the classroom today. These were as follows (with some suggested solutions or additional points in parentheses): *Concerns were expressed about forthcoming changes to the National Curriculum (although it was noted that many schools are no longer bound to the NC in any case). It was recognised that already the logistical difficulties of leaving the classroom (‘rarely cover’ policy, risk assessments, red tape) had an impact on young people’s access to history learning off-site. *Many fear that this access will be further limited if expected changes to the NC and/or the examinations system do not actively support or directly facilitate off-site learning opportunities. *A perceived tension between delivering off-the-shelf sessions off-site and meeting schools own needs and expectations. How can history learning providers attract large numbers of schools without compromising their own vision/s of what to teach in their particular setting using their specific treasures, objects, archives, etc.? And how far or often can or should providers adapt sessions in response to teacher needs and requests? *The struggle to interest young people in local or grassroots history (how to link up history teaching in schools and the work of local history groups) *There is a notable inequality in provision. The phrase ‘entitlement for all’ was popular. *Currently positive and regular experience/s of history learning beyond the classroom occur only with the support of schools (more usually individual enthusiastic teachers) making the difference between visits taking place or not taking place. It was suggested that bursaries might be made available to level the playing field (funding both the costs of trips and staff cover to enable them to take place) and ensure all students and pupils across Britain enjoyed equal access to history learning off-site. *The best type of learning beyond the classroom takes place following meaningful dialogue with teachers about students’ and pupils’ needs and requirements. This was not always easy to achieve. Because of the pressures of teaching and the demands of the NC, teachers can be difficult to reach or enthuse. There was some disappointment expressed at the fact that that no classroom teachers had attended the history learning beyond the classroom workshop. Most galleries, museums, libraries and archives now offer high quality and dynamic off-site learning to schools. Could a ‘beyond the classroom’ module be embedded within the PGCE to ensure teachers take full advantage of these opportunities both now and in the future? *Finally, it was recognised that effective engagement with young people is skilled work. There was

agreement that more formal or accredited training for the growing numbers of history learning beyond the classroom educators and providers might be beneficial. Having discussed challenges or tensions, we then moved on to assess the positives. The following points were agreed: *There was a great and growing enthusiasm for learning history beyond the classroom, in part fuelled by popular history programmes on television. It was perceived that history as a subject of enquiry was a 21st Century ‘hot topic’. Heritage Lottery support for heritage learning, in particular, meant that there were now more opportunities than ever for young people to engage (often free of charge) with ‘real’ history beyond the classroom whether through one-off visits or workshops or through more extended, in-depth project work. *It was acknowledged that those providing history learning beyond the classroom were in a privileged position, able to use and promote creative, novel and lateral ways of thinking about history as a subject. The opportunities were there to work in ways which engaged pupils and students in genuine historical enquiry, using objects, archives, paintings and buildings. The impact/s and rewards of this were reflected in the enthusiastic, mature and thoughtful responses of young people both during and following off-site visits, workshops and tours. *History learning in a different setting or space, and with an unfamiliar ‘teacher’ leading the learning, provided individual young learners with opportunities to subvert classroom expectations of them in positive and valuable ways (e.g. the quiet pupil contributes to whole-class discussions at a gallery visit or the challenging student is silently absorbed in a 19th century document during an archive workshop). *Finally, formal evaluations of tours, visits and workshops provided concrete evidence that history learning beyond the classroom had real educational and social value for all types and abilities of learners from a range of cultures and backgrounds.

Speakers from the Floor:
Dezna Marks: Is there a crisis in history education? Last summer, as a history undergraduate with ambitions to enter the teaching profession, I had the opportunity to work with Barbara Taylor as a research intern in preparation for this conference. The research was meant to address one particular aspect of the so-called ‘crisis’ in history education: how, if at all, had access to the study of history changed in the last ten years, particularly for society’s poorest students? Despite all sides of the political spectrum claiming a commitment to raising educational standards and ensuring equality of access for all socio-economic groups, successive governments have not severed the connection between educational attainment and economic wealth.[i] For a number of reasons this link seems to be hardening and now is directly impacting on opportunities to study history for those in the lowest socio-economic groups. I would suggest that history education is in crisis in the sense that it appears to be in danger of becoming an ‘elite’ subject, perhaps following the same path as Latin and Classics, destined to become largely the preserve of grammar, independent, and those state schools which are located in more affluent catchment areas. This has been driven by corporatization and competition within state education, leading to - as Professor Peter Scott has argued - an increasingly instrumentalist education system for the masses partnered with ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations.’ [ii] We have an increasing number of private organisations running our schools. For example The Harris Federation, one of the largest academy chains, although an exempt charity (it does not have to present accounts to the Charity Commission), also runs an associated business Harris Academy Project Management Limited, which manages construction of the chain’s schools, produced a £337,000 profit last year.[iii] Harris academy schools like many of the first schools established

under the last administration are located in our most deprived areas. These schools have been aided by private qualification corporations such as Edexcel to produce what is in many cases a façade of improved educational attainment levels compared to the so called ‘failed’ maintained schools they replaced. This now well-known practice of ‘Gaming the League Tables’[iv]has been effected by restricting or even axing history and other academic subjects in favour of ‘easier’ vocational qualifications. The 2011 Wolf Report[v] confirmed what many outside the education sector, like myself[vi] already knew, that many VRQs (vocational related qualifications)were not valued by employers, as their preference is for candidates with GCSEs in academic subjects rather than a BTECs. The number of VRQs rose from 1,882 in 2003/4 to 462,182 in 2009/10.[vii] The qualifications market is competitive and profitable. Edexcel, the largest exam board, achieved a six fold increase in profits in the last six years[viii], which corresponds directly with the increase in VRQs. Michael Gove’s English Baccalaureate - introduced in 2010 to boost traditional academic subjects including history - has not been universally well received. Vocational subjects have champions from both sides of the political spectrum. The former Shadow Education Minister, although a humanities graduate from Cambridge, attacked the Ebac, suggesting it was irrelevant in the 21st century. Andy Burnham stated, Gove repeatedly talks about ‘facts, kings, queens, rivers, capital cities, history in chronological order….the government is in danger of preparing young people for a world that no longer exists’.[ix] Former Education Minister Lord Adonis stated that ‘competence in vocational skills is at least as useful as knowledge of Tudors and Stuarts’[x]. But a report taken from a survey of teachers and lecturers in 2011 contests this attack on the utility of history and other Ebac subjects.[xi]In the report 60% of those surveyed thought that the Ebac would be valued by not only HEIs but also employers. This compares with only 38% who thought the same of vocational awards.If employers value traditional subject qualifications then surely all pupils should be studying these subjects? One history teacher I spoke to wondered if the presence of a hairdressing training centre on the school premises perhaps ran contrary to the school’s mission of raising pupils’ aspirations. Last summer I decided to research history education in my home borough of Waltham Forest in North East London. What this revealed was a close correlation between educational success, access to the study of history, and wealth. Ranked the twenty-fifth of the most deprived of the 354 English boroughs[xii], WalthamForest has its own ‘north – south divide’. Social deprivation is concentrated in the south of the borough, while the north, which borders Essex and Epping Forest, is suburban and more affluent. The GCSE results in 2011 broadly align with this socio-economic geographical divide. For example, of the schools with the lowest GCSE results all were based in south of the borough: • Norlington Boys doesnot offer History GCSE to any pupil and 61% of pupils did not achieve 5 GCSE A*-C (excluding equivalents).3% of pupils attained Ebac qualifications. [xiii] • Lammas School and Sports College did not enter any pupils for the Ebac and 65% did not achieve GCSEs A* - C (excluding equivalents).[xiv] This school had only three pupils entered for GCSE History in 2012.[xv]

The socio-economic make-up of these two schools is as follows: • 30% of pupils at Norlington Boys’ Schoolare recipients of Free School Meals (FSM), and 70.3% of pupils have English as a second language. The SEN and School Statement Plus pupil population is nearly 16%.[xvi] • 36% of pupils at Lammas School are FSM recipients. 62% of pupils have English as

a second language and nearly 20% of pupils are identified as SEN or School Action Plus. [xvii] Contrast this with Highams Park School in the north of the borough, the best performing state school (formally Voluntary Aided, converted to Academy early 2012): • 75% of pupils were awarded five GCSE’s A*-C (none were entered for equivalents) and 30% pupils were entered for Ebac subjects.[xviii] The school’s demographics: • 13% of pupils were recipients of FSM and 16.5% of pupils spoke English as a second language. 7.3% of the school’s population were identified as SEN or School Action Plus pupils.[xix] However, the most successful school, where 100% of pupils were awarded 5 GCSEs A*-C (no equivalents) is an independent school[xx] whose fees are £14,502 per annum.[xxi] (It is notable that eligible families for Free School Meals in Waltham Forest have an annual income of less than £16,190 p.a.[xxii]) In 2011 History attracted the largest number of pupils awarded A*-A grades at A-Level.[xxiii] This demonstrates that in this school History is not in crisis, but is indeed a thriving subject. This is only one London borough, but it does appear to be representative of many areas of the country. As a council-estate child with an immigrant ancestry attending a large inner city comprehensive in the 1970s, I was able to study O-Level and A-level History. I find it alarming that today pupils from a similar background may not have the same opportunity. I find myself agreeing with Niall Ferguson; the disparity between the numbers of History GCSE students from independent schools compared with those from state schools is cause for alarm.[xxiv] Restricted access to history within the state sector is symptomatic of an increasingly two-tier education system. Driven by competition in the league tables, pupils are steered to subjects which improve the schools league-table position, sometimes to the detriment of their future prospects. While it is debateable whether competition has raised standards in schools, it has certainly raised profits for corporations such as Pearson, who can sell to schools a vast range of vocational qualifications which, while they can benefit the league table positions, they are of dubious benefit to the pupils. It is pupils from the lowest socio-economic group who are being denied access to the study of history even in Key Stage Three. While of course vocational training has its place, Professor Nicholls comments that many of our country’s most influential people across numerous businesses and industries are, like Lord Adonis, history graduates.[xxv] I am also inclined to agree with Professor Peter Scott’s suggestion that this educational policy is politically motivated, the intention being to turn ‘the masses’ into ‘well trained helots of the knowledge economy, wielders of vast technical expertise, but with their access to symbolic power and cultural capital strictly rationed.’[xxvi] References Author Unknown, Harris Federation – Spotlight on Sponsors, (Anti Academies Alliance 2012). Online: http://antiacademies.org.uk/2012/03/harris-federation-spotlight-on-sponsors/ [Accessed: 30th May 2012] Author Unknown, Local Socio-Economic/Demographic Context, (London: Waltham Forest 2011). Online: <http://walthamforest.gov.uk/1_local_socio_economic_demographic_context.pdf> [Accessed: 1st July 2011] BBC, Gaming the League Tables, (London: BBC, Education Section, 2011). Online: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12914964> [Accessed: 12th August 2011]

BBC, Secondary School League Table Waltham Forest, (BBC Education 2012). Online <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/education/school_tables/secondary/11/html/five_gcses _320.stm?compare> [Accessed: 1/5/12] Department for Education, Highams Park School, (Department of Education School & Local Statistics 2012). Online: http://www.education.gov.uk/cgibin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=103107> [Accessed 31/5/12] Department of Education, Lammas Sports College, (Department of Education School & Local Statistics 2012). Online <http://www.education.gov.uk/cgibin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=133287> [Accessed 1/5/12] Department of Education, Norlington Boys School, (Department of Education School and Local Statistics 2012). Online <http://www.education.gov.uk/cgibin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=103098> [Accessed: 1/5/12] Ferguson, N., History Has Never Been So Unpopular, (London: The Guardian Education Section, 29/3/11) Forest School, Exam Results 2011, (Forest School 2012). Online <http://www.forest.org.uk/resource.aspx?id=2610&officeint=on> [Accessed 1/5/12] Forest School, School Fees, (Forest School 2012). Online <http://www.forest.org.uk/admissions/school-fees> [Accessed 31/5/12] Helm, T., Labour Call for Schools to Teach ‘Route into Work’ (London: The Observer, 10/7/11) Hodgson, A., Spours, K., Wickenden, C.,The Curriculum and Qualifications for 14-19 Year Olds: Teacher and Lecturer Perspective, (London: Institute of Education, 13th April 2012) Lammas Sports College, Skeleton Timetable-Timetabled Components, London: Lammas Sports College 2012). Online <http://www.lammas.waltham.sch.uk/wpcontent/uploads/GCSE%20Summer%20-%20Timetabled%20Components2012.pdf> [Accessed: 1/5/12] Newell, C., Watt, H. Exam boards; Edexcel went from charity to £1bn business, (London: The Telegraph, 9th December 2011) Nicholls, D., The Employability of History Graduates (University of Warwick 2011). Online <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/heahistory/resources/br_nicholls_employmentu pdate_20110320.pdf> [Accessed 2/6/11] Scott, P., Time to Tackle Double Standards in Education, (London: The Guardian Education, 2nd August 2011) Shepherd, J., Vocational Education Gets A New Champion, (London: The Guardian Education, 21st June 2011) Smithers, A., Robinson, P., Worlds Apart, Social Variations Among Schools, (Sutton Trust Centre for Education and Employment Research, Buckingham University 2010) Waltham Forest, Free School Meals, (Waltham Forest 2012) Online <http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/Pages/Services/Education-grants-free-schoolmeals.aspx?l1=100005&l2=200086> [Accessed 31/5/12] Wolf, A., The Wolf Report, (London: Department for Education, March 2011)

[i] Alan Smithers, Pamela Robinson, Worlds Apart, Social Variation Among Schools, (Sutton Trust Centre for Education and Employment Research, Buckingham University 2010) available at: http://www.suttontrust.com/research/worldsapart/ Accessed 14/7/11 [ii] Peter Scott, Time to Tackle Double Standards in Education(London: The Guardian, 02/08/11), available

at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/aug/01/education-double-standards Accessed 05/08/12

[iii]Anti Academies Alliance, Harris Federation – Spotlight on Sponsors (25/5/12), available at: http://antiacademies.org.uk/2012/03/harris-federation-spotlight-on-sponsors/ Accessed: 30/5/12 [iv]BBC, Gaming the School League Tables (London: BBC Education Section, 2011), available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12914964 Accessed 27/7/11 [v] Alison Wolf, The Wolf Report, (Department of Education, 2011), available at: http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/w/wolf%20review%20of%20vocational%20education %20%20%20government%20response.pdf Accessed: 25/7/2011 [vi] For over twenty years I worked in the recruitment industry. [vii] Alison Wolf, 2011 [viii]Claire Newell, Holly Watt, Exam boards: Edexcel went from Charity to £1bn Business(London: The Telegraph, 9/12/11), available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/8943761/Exam-boards-Edexcelwent-from-charity-to-1bn-business.html Accessed 31/5/12 [ix] Toby Helm, Labour Call for Schools to Teach ‘Route into Work’ (London: The Observer, 10/7/11), available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/10/labour-schools-work-michael-gove Accessed 12/7/11

[x] Jessica Shepherd, Vocational Education Gets a New Champion, (London, Guardian Education, 21/6/11) available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/20/vocational-qualifications-andrew-adonis Accessed: 22/7/11 [xi]Ann Hodgson, Ken Spours, Caroline Wickenden, The Curriculum and Qualifications for 14-19 Year Olds: Teacher and Lecturer Perspective, (London: NUT, IoE, UCU 2012) available at: http://www.ioe.ac.uk/Post14_1419_Education_and_Training_report.pdf Accessed 1/8/11 [xii] Author Unknown, Local Socio-Economic/Demographic Context, (London: Waltham Forest ) available at: http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/1_local_socio_economic_demographic_context.pdf Accessed 1/7/11 [xiii]BBC, Secondary School League Table Waltham Forest,(BBC Education2012) available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/education/school_tables/secondary/11/html/bacc_320.stm?compare Accessed: 12/8/11 [xiv] Ibid [xv] Lammas Sports College, Skeleton Timetable- Timetabled Components, (Lammas Sports College 2012), available at: http://www.lammas.waltham.sch.uk/wp-content/uploads/GCSE%20Summer%20-%20Timetabled %20Components2012.pdf Accessed 1/6/12 [xvi] Department for Education, Norlington Boys Schools, (Department of Education School & Local Statistics 2012), available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=103098 Accessed 1/5/12 [xvii] Department of Education, Lammas Sports College, (Department of Education School & Local Statistics 2012) available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=133287 Acccessed 1/5/12 [xviii] BBC Education 2012 [xix] Department for Education, Highams Park School, (Department of Education School & Local Statistics 2012), available at http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=103107 Accessed 31/5/12 [xx] BBC Education 2012 [xxi] Forest School, School Fees, (Forest School 2012), available at: http://www.forest.org.uk/admissions/school-fees

Accessed 31/5/12. [xxii] Waltham Forest Free School Meals(Waltham Forest 2012), available at: http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/Pages/Services/Education-grants-free-school-meals.aspx?l1=100005&l2=200086 Accessed 31/5/12 [xxiii] Forest School, Exam Results 2011, (Forest School 2012), available at: http://www.forest.org.uk/resource.aspx? id=2610&officeint=on Accessed 1/6/12 [xxiv] Niall Ferguson, History has never been so unpopular, (London,The Guardian, 29/3/11) available at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/29/history-school-crisis-disconnected-events Accessed: 26/6/11 [xxv] David Nicholls, The Employability of History Graduates (University of Warwick 2011), available at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/heahistory/elibrary/internal/br_nicholls_employability_200502xx_01/ Accessed: 2/6/11 [xxvi] Peter Scott 2011

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close