On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
I don't see much of a problem with this, as a comparison implies some sort of value-judgement.
UK primary school history does tend to focus on people a lot, rather than details of historical events.
Maybe I went to the wrong sort of primary school (this was over 20 years ago now - <me looks shocked>) but we learnt about history by drawing pretty pictures and writing very short, childish essays and having them stuck on the wall for parents to read. The age range for the school was 4-11, which I think is still typical for UK primary school education (even if the teaching methods may have changed).
Remembering *what* I learnt is a bit harder!
Nelson and the Battle of Trafalgar is the only history I remember learning about, though there was more, I'm sure. But most lessons were on maths and English. The lessons that really stick in the mind are cookery lessons, art and pottery lessons, and PE and sports. All the hands on stuff. I guess everything else was boring at that age!
Once in secondary school, there were regular history lessons and a curriculum. Battle of Hastings, WW1, WW2, that sort of stuff. Then I never really looked at history again until university, and that was only briefly.
Really, Wikipedia re-awakened an interest in history for me.
But I am surprised that someone thought primary school kids would benefit from Wikipedia. The younger pupils will still be learning to read, and even the older pupils would probably benefit more from texts aimed at their level. I would have thought the first few years at secondary school (ages 11 to 13) would be more useful for Wikipedia to be used as background reading. By the time you get to GCSE and A-level, you would want students to be aware of how to use sources properly (and how to use Wikipedia properly, though that should still be taught from an early age).
And blogging and Twitter? Primary school education certainly has changed! :-)
Ah: "Every child would learn two key periods of British history" - that sounds about right.
"Of course pupils in primary school will learn about major periods including the Romans, the Tudors and the Victorians and will be taught to understand a broad chronology of major events in this country and the wider world." - that is an improvement on 20 years ago. I am almost certain I left primary school not knowing anything about the Romans, Victorians or Tudors. Actually, I left secondary school knowing nothing of British history between 1066 and 1900, but that is a different story.
The strange thing is, I picked up knowledge about the Romans and Victorians from *somewhere*. Maybe it was a form of osmosis from popular culture and museums and references in other books and from TV?
Carcharoth