| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate, although it has been an
5 Jun 2006 : Column 1122
all too short discussion on such an important and interesting topic. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken. We have heard about the personal experiences of Members of your Lordships' House with history and history teachers which I am sure were the foundation stones for the thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions made today.
It is clear that as a nation there is a subconscious reaction to a deep-seated desire to know our history; we need only to look at the popularity of history programmes in the media and the wealth of historical novels on the shelves in bookshops. Yet there is an underlying nervousness that when it comes to teaching history in schools and universities, this Government are going down what my colleague in another place called "the drab, utilitarianism route". An example that springs to mind is that of the comments made by Charles Clarke three years ago when he was the Education Secretary. He reportedly described medieval historians as ornaments and suggested that their departments did not deserve state funding. While he claimed that his words had been misinterpreted, it is wise to remember that it was during those Dark Ages that classical learning was lost in the West. As Anthony O'Hear said,
Without a sense of medieval history, how can we fully understand the current impasse the West finds itself in with regard to its dealings with Islam?
My noble friend commented on the announcement made in April this year that A-level history is now to focus on Britain's past in a broad and balanced manner. Members on these Benches welcome the measure, as has the Historical Association, but I will hold judgment until we see how the new rules from the curriculum advisers pan out. As noble Lords have highlighted, the Government's stance on the value of history is sometimes a little misleading. I hope that the Minister will take on board much if not all of the brilliant speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who suggested that there should be a chronological survey of what has happened in our realm.
It is clear that some teachers need the confidence, in this era of political correctness gone mad, to teach British history without the fear of getting involved in political interpretations of the acts of our forebears. But one of the joys of history is that it is open to interpretation and should stimulate thought and analysis. It should stimulate a student's ability to form an argument which supports their interpretation and to communicate that argument fully. Indeed, in this regard I share the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. When he referred to the late and much lamented Lord Russell, I have to say that I wished he was in his place tonight. I miss his brilliant speeches and he would have made a very valuable contribution to this debate. I have referred to just a few of the skills one learns through the study of history, not the least of which is the ability to explore. I worry when noble Lords talk about what they were not taught at school. Something I remember is being taught to want
5 Jun 2006 : Column 1123
to learn, to read and explore around a subject. We must appreciate that we are talking about skills that are vital in adult life, particularly in politics.
One should not consider a rounded history of our sceptred isle too complex or diverse in our multi-ethnic classrooms, but be proud of the significant and all too relevant links and themes it can provide. I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Pilkington who passed the comment that history is rather like the study of other religions. A person can understand other religions only if he has some understanding of his own. I noted too the thoughts of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. He spoke of the sense of belonging to a common humanity that he learnt through studying and taking a degree in history. I agree entirely with him that in terms of the woolly concepts of national identity and citizenship, a proper teaching of history would provide the much stronger connection that is so desired and needed in this country. My twin sons are sitting the AS-level in history. I am worried that their learning has become very specialised and narrow, and that what they are being taught is how to pass examinations. It is a huge problem. Students are not being given the time and space in which to learn and to be excited by their subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to the need to excite. I agree too that having brilliant teachers, which my sons are lucky to have, really does make all the difference.
As my noble friend Lord Luke surmised, history is the most important building block for our society and citizenship. It enables students to have a sense of time and progress and provides a foundation of knowledge that can only underpin a greater intellectual richness, and that is something we should all aspire to.
I well recall attending the opening of the wonderful Commonwealth and Empire Museum in Bristol a few years ago. I noticed that there was not a Member of this Government in sight. When I inquired who from the Government had been invited to support this brilliant initiative, I was told that the Government had declined all invitations; it was felt to be too politically incorrect. How ridiculous is that? Young people, in particular, want and deserve to know more about their history, their ancestors' achievements and challenges, and their sense of place in today's world. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said, young people in particular need to learn about the consequences of empire—some good, some bad. Whatever happens, we should not be ashamed to admit what was bad.
Much of British history needs to be celebrated as well as taught. The role of the British Empire in abolishing slavery, of such physicians as Jenner and Lister in fighting disease, and of heroes such as Nelson in protecting Britain should be taught in ways that encourage a sense of pride, and shared ownership of our great country. In essence, we should also not be shy of accepting the need for children to gain, through learning history, a sense of national identity. My noble friend Lord Luke talked about an important building block of our society and citizenship. We cannot expect young people from different ethnic backgrounds to
5 Jun 2006 : Column 1124
integrate and thereby become integral to our nation's future unless we give them an identity in which they can ground themselves.
I was one of those who, many years ago, had to give up learning history at 14. Since making that difficult choice between history and geography—and choosing geography—I have always felt somewhat on the back foot. Like many, I have taken time and a lot of effort to learn around the subject. I believe that it is so important for children to have the opportunity to learn as much as possible in school, and to be given not only the chance to study history, but for it to be a compulsory part of the curriculum up to the age of 16. Those two extra years would have made a huge difference to me, so I will do all I can to influence thoughts in relation to changes to the curriculum. I look forward to the Minister's reply to the concerns and questions put to him by your Lordships' House on this matter. I hope that this time the reply will be enough for my noble friend not to feel the need to table his question again in a year or two.
8.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis): My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for this opportunity to discuss the current state of history teaching in our schools. Like almost all other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, I was a history boy at school. I studied history at university and the study of history has remained a central part of my life. I have written books on the history of your Lordships' House, which, I have to confess, have not proved bestsellers. In this debate, we all share a passion for history and, indeed, for historical controversy—which is in the very nature of historical study—and a concern that schools should transmit a strong and rich historical consciousness to the next generation.
A straightforward answer to the question on the order paper can be found by quoting Ofsted's most recent report on history teaching, published last autumn:
"Teaching is good or better in well over three quarters of lessons in Key Stages 3 and 4, making history one of the best taught subjects in the curriculum".
This figure is even higher on post-16 courses. To give further statistics in support of Ofsted's conclusion, I should say that at GCSE and A-level the number of pupils taking history has risen notably since the late 1990s, and indeed since the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Luke. Last year 66 per cent of GCSE entrants achieved grades A* to C, compared with 60 per cent in 1999. At A-level, just over half of all entrants achieved a grade A or B last year, a substantial improvement on 1998, when 38 per cent achieved grades A or B. History also remains a very popular choice at university level, with over 60,000 students choosing the subject. Ofsted reports that the teaching of history in primary schools is improving. Therefore the short answer to the noble Lord's question is yes, the teaching of history in our schools is broadly satisfactory. Of course, we should
5 Jun 2006 : Column 1125
not rest content. The Government are alive to the scope for further improvement—including in many of the areas raised in the debate—and we have measures and training to bring that about.
Let me start with the early years of secondary education and the provision for 11 to 14 year-olds within the key stage 3 phase, an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred. A review of key stage 3 is under way, looking at each national curriculum subject for the appropriate balance of knowledge, skills and understanding, with a view to revising the curriculum content and the accompanying programmes of study which the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority makes available to schools. In respect of history, the QCA has been consulting closely the Historical Association and others about improvements—in search, I suspect, of that elusive broad consensus which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, urged on us—and the agency has submitted first drafts of revised programmes of study to my department. These draft programmes propose to reduce the degree of central prescription, particularly the perceived requirement to teach history in chronological blocks rather than by developing themes, and deal with the study of local history as teachers feel appropriate, in the way set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
Progression from key stage 3 to GCSE is a critical issue so that fewer have the misfortune to suffer the fate of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, of having to give up history at the age of 14. While 30 per cent of pupils go on to take history GCSE, these pupils tend to be from the higher end of the ability range. With the Government's strong encouragement, the QCA and the examining board, OCR, are developing a new pilot GCSE which will enable schools and pupils to approach history from a more vocational angle. The pilot, to run in 70 schools, will start in September and the full GCSE should be available to all schools from September 2008.
Within this new GCSE, pupils will, for example, be able to consider history from the viewpoint of running a museum, curating a collection, or presenting to the public a National Trust property—or, indeed, Norwich Cathedral or some of the ancient sites of Yorkshire. The pilot GCSE will allow pupils to look at the way in which history is presented through documentaries, films, plays and other media—an important theme raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—rather than only through textbooks as in the past. This is not, I should stress, about creating a soft option but about providing an alternative and, in some ways, more modern course, offering more choice and relevance to history teachers and their pupils.
Two frequently raised issues of concern about school history—these have been mentioned in the debate as well—are, first, that the curriculum is too narrow and, secondly, that there is no requirement whatever to study history, even recent British history, beyond the age of 14. Perhaps I may deal with these two issues in turn.
5 Jun 2006 : Column 1126
On the issue of breadth, concerns have been raised that school history from key stage 3 through to GCSE and A-level is sometimes too narrowly and repeatedly focused on limited topics, not least the hardy annuals mentioned today of Tudor England and Nazi Germany. To encourage a greater breadth of study in 20th-century European history, the QCA has produced a new unit for key stage 3 on modern German history from the end of the Second World War to the present day. This unit has been developed with assistance from the German Embassy and I thank the previous German ambassador, Thomas Matussek, for his help in developing it.
Materials for teaching post-war European history at GCSE and A-level are also now increasingly good. Speaking personally, I cannot, for example, think of a better book for A-level or undergraduate students than Tony Judt's brilliant new book Postwar, not least its concluding chapter on the theme of the Holocaust and its long-run impact on post-war European ethics, institutions and politics.
The new pilot GCSE I mentioned earlier also encourages a broader approach to history. It offers broad options in British medieval history, local history and international history. In this context, I should mention that the Government have commissioned the Historical Association, together with leading university departments, to prepare materials on the teaching of important but emotive issues in history—for example, slavery and the slave trade and perceptions of Islam, both issues specifically mentioned by my noble friend Lord Parekh, and the Holocaust. We expect these materials to be available next year and to encourage a much wider sense of historical study than often applies in schools at the moment.
The QCA has just finished consulting on the new draft criteria for A-level, with a view to ensuring that the history specifications are broader. This will be achieved partly through the reduction of the A-level from six discrete units down to four units, which we hope will lead to less compartmentalisation. Ministers have also agreed with QCA a new requirement that A-level candidates study at least 25 per cent British history, which I was glad to see welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. We wish to see a similar 25 per cent British minimum observed at GCSE, although I am assured that the exam specifications for GCSE achieve this in most cases already. We hope that all these measures that I have outlined will help teachers acquire the knowledge, confidence and skills to teach a more diverse and inclusive history syllabus.
Let me turn, secondly, to the compulsory study of history, particularly modern British history, beyond the age of 14. There have been repeated calls for history to be compulsory through to the age of 16 instead of 14, as has been the case since the national curriculum was put in place by the previous government. We have given serious consideration to this issue, particularly in the context of the concern, which we share, that young people in our increasingly diverse and multiracial society develop a strong sense
5 Jun 2006 : Column 1127
of shared British values, which can come from an understanding of the development of Britain's modern political institutions and society. Rather than make history itself compulsory until 16, which would be a major reduction in the flexibility of the curriculum, particularly for young people wishing to pursue vocational courses, we are looking instead to embed a British history element within the already compulsory requirement to study citizenship until the age of 16. I should stress that our aim is not to concoct a "potted history" course tagged on to the end of citizenship, but rather—precisely to take up the points mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich—to consider how including modern British cultural and social history in the citizenship curriculum can strengthen young people's understanding of British values and institutions, including those of its devolved institutions and the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Parekh so rightly said, these British values are indeed civilised values which have much wider roots and hold sway internationally.
To this end we have asked Keith Ajegbo, the head teacher of Deptford Green School, which has an outstanding reputation in the teaching of citizenship, to report to us, after wide consultation, on how such an historical element could be incorporated within the citizenship curriculum, and within the teaching of history itself before and after the age of 14. Keith Ajegbo will also be reviewing practice and presenting advice to us on how the school curriculum promotes an understanding of the diversity of modern Britain. QCA states in its 2004–05 report on history,
"in many schools too little attention is given to the black and multi-ethnic aspects of British history".
That is another theme raised by my noble friend. Keith Ajegbo's review will look at that, too.
We have also asked the QCA to review the role of coursework at both GCSE and A-level. I know that some are concerned about the possible elimination of a coursework option in A-level history, which is widely regarded as an effective means of enabling students to start to deal with source material and historical records directly, not least with the aid of ICT as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. Many in higher education support the retention of coursework at A-level as it provides a good model preparation for university history in these ways. The QCA has yet to report on this issue, but it is one in which I shall take
5 Jun 2006 : Column 1128
a keen and close personal interest, to ensure that opportunities for students to engage in original research are encouraged, not discouraged, by changes.
In primary schools, pupils' achievements and teaching standards of history have improved since 1998. History teaching is now good or better in just under half of all primary schools, with only a small percentage rated unsatisfactory. Primary history promotes an understanding of the richness of ancient civilizations—the broader sweep of history invoked by the right reverend Prelate, including the Greeks, the Romans, ancient Egypt and the Aztecs, among others. The evidence is that children and teachers find this highly enjoyable. A local history study and a broad component of British history, such as Victorian Britain or Britain since 1930, are also within the primary syllabus. In the best primary schools, history is taught across the curriculum. Our policy is to encourage this approach in the support provided for primary-level teachers, who are more than likely to be non-specialists themselves.
In conclusion let me pay particular tribute, as have other noble Lords, to the work of the Historical Association, not least as a subject association of immense value to history teachers and in upgrading their own skills in teaching their subjects. I was glad last year to be able to support the association's successful petition for a Royal Charter to coincide with its centenary.
At the celebrations for the centenary last month, in the magnificent if sombre historical setting of the Banqueting House in Whitehall, Professor Barry Coward, the Historical Association's president, quoted the great Geoffrey Elton's words,
"All who study history gain skills that are vital in all aspects of life, like the ability to think critically and formulate and present clear arguments. History matters too because it provides a sense of the past, an awareness of the development of different values, systems and societies, and the inculcation of critical yet tolerant personal values. In short, history matters because it contributes to the development of responsible active citizens".
I endorse that view entirely. History matters. It is a vital element of the school curriculum, and our policy is to see it strengthened further still.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |