Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Snrub wrote:
So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?

Hahahaha. Our learning of Australia basically boiled down to. "We raped and killed their native population, then we filled the land with slaves and prisoners."

djones520 wrote:Another thread discussion made me curious about a bit of your education.

How much of it is centered on things like the American Colonies, the Revolutionary War, and the eventual War of 1812? Given your nations rather long history, I'm sure they don't receive the same emphasis that they get on this side of the pond, but something I just saw kinda surprised me and made me curious.

I was in a state school some seven to eight years ago. The curriculum then was roughly:-

-Romans
-The Tudors
-The Slave Trade
-World War 1
-Weimar Republic and Rise of Hitler
-World War 2
-The Cold War.

When I went back a few years later to consider teacher training, the English Civil War had been added to the list. With regards to college(16-18 year olds in this country), my particular college offered three options, Early Modern History, Modern History, and American History, each as separate 2 year A levels.

Da Boss wrote:
It was shocking to me how ignorant most of the schoolkids were about the shared history of Ireland and Great Britain, but when I thought about it, it revealed more about our obsession with our relationship with the UK than anything else. Could do with a paragraph on the potato famine to prevent so many rude comments and jokes though.

I never learnt a thing about Ireland in History. We did a play called 'Translations' in English GCSE, but that was the extent of our knowledge of Ireland's history.

Compel wrote:I didn't continue on with History as a subject at school 10 years ago in Scotland, picking Geography instead for my standard grades.

However, in the 3 years I did take it...

We started off with the Scottish Wars for Independence (aka Braveheart)

Then we did the events around The Battle of Flodden

Then, we stopped talking about fighting the English for a while, moving on to political intrigue, with a focus surrounding Mary, Queen of Scots, Lord Darnley and all that sort of hijinks.

That brought us up to the Union of The Crowns. We then had a light touch on Oliver Cromwell, and the Glorious Revolution, but didn't go into too much detail at all. (It happened.)

That brought us onto the Jacobite Rebellion again, which, the way we were taught, wasn't particularly about the Scots fighting the English, but more about the different Kings with a mix of Catholics V Protestants.

We then had a particular focus on the Massacre of Glencoe, the Battle of Prestonpans and finally The Battle of Culloden.

Then, we sort of stepped away from full scale battles, but funnily enough, not violence, as we looked at The Highland Clearances along with historical life in the isles.

The last major module of my history class was a surprisingly down to earth, and, to be honest, pretty heartwarming focus on the Industrial Age as demonstrated by life in New Lanark, which we visited.

As my last year in history drew to a close, they were beginning lessons about World War 1 and, particularly Archduke Ferdinand.


One would be forgiven for thinking that Scottish history is particularly violent...

Funny. We did none of that Scottish history. I presume that's something added to the curriculum by the powers that be up north?

Palindrome wrote:

Not exactly convincing evidence of the teaching profession being riddled with the 'far left' though are they.

The teaching establishments have been stuffed full of the left wing for a long time now. It's more or less common knowledge. I mean, have you seen how many unions they have?

Snrub wrote:So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?

You got a few mentions with regards to criminals and the slave trade.

 Riquende wrote:
I think I'll run an experiment tomorrow, the two guys in my office are reasonably intelligent but have no particular historical interest. I'll ask them to list as many things as possible about these things as they know. Names, years, places, battles etc. See what comes up.

On the colonies: Nothing

On the AWI: Someone running along saying "the British are coming", something about tea, and Benjamin Franklin "was involved somehow".

On the War of 1812: Never heard of it

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Snrub wrote:
So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?

Hahahaha. Our learning of Australia basically boiled down to. "We raped and killed their native population, then we filled the land with slaves and prisoners."

Exalted. That is just brilliant.

In Scotland, the most we focus on America is during the 14-15 year olds when they look at Martin Luther king, if you go on to study history, then there is the option to learn about the American wars of Independence, however most schools teach about Mary Queen of Scot's, the inter-world war period, the Liberal and Labor reforms of the late 1800's to early 1900's, and the Russian revolution, I think America is only taught in 2 schools.

When I was at school, 40 years ago, we followed a traditional history curriculum that pretty much skimmed through the whole of British Isles history from pre Roman Conquest up to the 20th century. It concentrated on England until we got to the Union with Scotland, then it became properly British.

We also did some major European stuff like the Crusades and the Reformation, where these affected Britain, and naturally we did some stuff about the Empire. There wasn’t any emphasis on the AWI, probably because when you have to get through 2,000 years you can't do things in much depth.

My daughter’s history curriculum is very different. She did a bunch of stuff about the formation of the first Chinese Empire. She did the colonisation of Australia, and the Slave Trade. Now she is doing a lot of First World War. There doesn’t seem to be an idea of teaching history as a progression. I don’t think she’s done any AWI.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
She did the colonisation of Australia, and the Slave Trade. Now she is doing a lot of First World War. There doesn’t seem to be an idea of teaching history as a progression.

I have found this talking to parents. Little concept of teaching progression and lots of focusing on "What we did wot woz wrong". I understand that the slave trade and colonialism were major events, but there dose seem to be a tendency to not give them any context, either historic or social, and just focus on a guilt trip.

Anyway, when I was at school we did allot on the Greeks and romans, and what they did for the world, along with a little about the rest of the ancient world. Then we moved to the 11th century, skipping about 1000 years with some mumblings about "The Dark Ages" at the start of a lesson, saying we have very little information and implying they were unimportant, which I now know is nonsense, but I think was a widely held view at the time.

We started with 1066 and all that, and a few of the events that lead up to the Norman invasion, the doomsday book etc.

I think there was a lesson or two on the following 200 years, mostly covering the magna carta.

Then the period of the Hundred years war, in quite allot of detail, especially the major battles, the black death, peasants revolt etc.

Then we jumped to the Tudors, and the Renascence. We looked at the reformation in quite a bit of detail and the shift from Christian art to secular art, along side the shift in power from the holy sea to individual countries.

After that we started on the Agricultural Revolution and industrial revolution, and worked forward in a bit of detail looking at industrialization of the UK (Handily ignoring the empire and wars) focusing on the wool and coal industry through the Victorian era. We also did some stuff on the the American west and Indian Wars (I got a good C in GCSE history, in part thanks to an excellent critique of Custers tactics at little bighorn - thanks to wargaming. And people think it is a waste of time). There was a bit on the slave trade. I think one lesson about slave transportation.

Then we looked at WW1.

There wasn't much on WW2. I think we did a little on the war on the home front, but nothing much.

In general in the early to mid 90's they stayed well clear of anything controversial.

Not a God damn thing back in the nineties, but I went to a... Naughty school as it were and we had other issues getting in the way of education, I for example, was told that I would never be able to read or write..now I am (sadly) one of the most intelligent people in a very large group of friends, the reason why I'm saying this? Simple, I wanted to learn about the American civil war 1 (just.kidding haha) and there were plenty of avenues open to me thankfully, so while it may not be part of the English curriculum but if you show an interest there are plenty of ways to learn

 Ketara wrote:

The teaching establishments have been stuffed full of the left wing for a long time now. It's more or less common knowledge. I mean, have you seen how many unions they have?

In my experience 'common knowledge' tends to be based o anecdotal evidence. Either way it still doesn't mean that state schools are staff by the far left, although given how far to the right the country, or at least England, as a whole seems to have gone in recent years maybe moderate left leaning views are now class as far left. It also doesn't mean that the curriculum has a leftist agenda.

 Ketara wrote:

Funny. We did none of that Scottish history. I presume that's something added to the curriculum by the powers that be up north?

As it should be, in fact local history should also be taught in schools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
so while it may not be part of the English curriculum but if you show an interest there are plenty of ways to learn

This is very true. As I said I did standard and higher grade history but most of it was uninteresting or irrelevant to me so I simply taught myself once I left school.

In my experience (Did GCSE in History), the syllabus we had killed pretty much any interest I had in history of any form that occured after 1900 (I guess 'modern history' would be the appropriate term).

My history lessons in a nutshell:
primary school:
Basically the same content as the 'horrible histories' books, but with all the gross/violent and vaguely interesting stuff cut out (so as not to offend or upset anyone)

secondary school (pre GCSE):
These are the Tudors, rather than looking at anything interesting, we are instead going to make you learn and regurgitate a long list of important dates, oh and a bunch of stuff that is factually inaccurate, but everyone believes that it happened so it did...

GCSE level had two parts:
'World War 1 and 2' - lets ignore most of the context, about 90% of the actual details of the wars (such as tactics, technology, specific battles of note, the political tensions and climate). Instead, here a large list of dates and places, all in isolation and out of context, that you must regurgitate:
'American History' - America didn't exist until WWI, here is a massive list of bills the government passed during the great depression, not that we are actually going to learn about it, just memorise these names & dates. Here is a few pages on the least interesting parts of the Watergate scandal, JFK got shot, the end...
p.s. these are the presidents, recite them in the correct order

This is why I started a history blog, to give people an idea that there's a whole lot of history out there that shaped who we are and ignoring it all doesn't do anyone any good.

Bearing in mind I left school over 20 years ago, we didn't touch on America at all
We mainly covered the slave trade, the industrial revolution, First World War, Roman Empire, Norse raids up to William the bastards invasion of England, Ancient Greece, Egypt.
My school is over 1000 years old, America barely counts as history yet...

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
She did the colonisation of Australia, and the Slave Trade. Now she is doing a lot of First World War. There doesn’t seem to be an idea of teaching history as a progression.

I have found this talking to parents. Little concept of teaching progression and lots of focusing on "What we did wot woz wrong". I understand that the slave trade and colonialism were major events, but there dose seem to be a tendency to not give them any context, either historic or social, and just focus on a guilt trip.
...
...
.

I haven't got the guilt trip thing from my daughter's history homework.

The slave trade module showed Britain's involvement and also the fact that Britain was instrumental in putting a stop to it.

They looked at Australian colonisation and concluded after researching the topic that it had been a bad thing for the aborigines, which clearly is true.

Not true, I defy you to find one Tasmanian aboriginal who thinks it was a bad thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trick question, they are all dead.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
She did the colonisation of Australia, and the Slave Trade. Now she is doing a lot of First World War. There doesn’t seem to be an idea of teaching history as a progression.

I have found this talking to parents. Little concept of teaching progression and lots of focusing on "What we did wot woz wrong". I understand that the slave trade and colonialism were major events, but there dose seem to be a tendency to not give them any context, either historic or social, and just focus on a guilt trip.
...
...
.

I haven't got the guilt trip thing from my daughter's history homework.

The slave trade module showed Britain's involvement and also the fact that Britain was instrumental in putting a stop to it.

They looked at Australian colonisation and concluded after researching the topic that it had been a bad thing for the aborigines, which clearly is true.

Possibly just the way schools near me teach, or the parents I know have a complex about these things (teachers are all lefty loonies and this must be pushing an agenda etc.) I have no first hand experience as I don't have children and am just going on what I have been told by people at work etc.

 djones520 wrote:
Another thread discussion made me curious about a bit of your education.

How much of it is centered on things like the American Colonies, the Revolutionary War, and the eventual War of 1812? Given your nations rather long history, I'm sure they don't receive the same emphasis that they get on this side of the pond, but something I just saw kinda surprised me and made me curious.

Were the Nazis involved in the American Revolution? Then, British schools are not interested in it!

As far as Britain is concerned, it wasn't a war, anyway - just a minor skirmish!


History teaching in British schools can be summed up as thus: Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII, Spanish Armada, Dunkirk, and tweaking Hitler's moustache! Nothing else gets a look in.

 motyak wrote:
Not true, I defy you to find one Tasmanian aboriginal who thinks it was a bad thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trick question, they are all dead.

So... you won?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Were the Nazis involved in the American Revolution? Then, British schools are not interested in it!

As far as Britain is concerned, it wasn't a war, anyway - just a minor skirmish!

The Americans won't understand that. They haven't invaded enough places to have enough history yet:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

History teaching in British schools can be summed up as thus: Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII, Spanish Armada, Dunkirk, and tweaking Hitler's moustache! Nothing else gets a look in.

Don't forget Agincourt and Cresse!

Serious question, what do kids in the US learn about in history?

I learned that Prince Albert is sold in a can.




We learned about the feudal system, various kings/queens and dates, historical events like the Spanish Armada and Hastings, WWI and II. Also the how the Church of England came about, Henry VIII, 100 years war, and so on. As KK said, our history is "shared" up until the revolution, then it becomes either World History or American History, as you have classes for both.

.... I'm so relieved that the picture is of that kind of Prince Albert.

Doesn't every country follow their own history to teach? The whole America thing is just a tiny fragment of British history.

Same here. The only thing I got taught in school is that they bought the place that is now New York for a few dollars from the Dutch. And that's it.

Plus we infiltrated England and put a Dutchman on throne... something like that.

Ps. Why does my account show a British flag. I'm in the Netherland last I checked.

 Snrub wrote:
So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?

They just put up a poster with Australia and "Hazardous Animal Quarantine Zone-Do not Enter" written across it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Snrub wrote:
So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?

They just put up a poster with Australia and "Hazardous Animal Quarantine Zone-Do not Enter" written across it.

Beware of the dog drop-bears

I can say from my schooling that we touched upon the AWI - I did A-Level History which focused on British Military History, the French Revolution and, rather weirdly, the Unification of Italy. It was good because the history of the British Military is basically the history of Britain as it involves all the nations/peoples we invaded/stole from and other nasty things. I had a rather intense course from just before the Napoleonic Wars onward, up until the Suez Canal Crisis (having done things like the Hundred Years War/Civil War in Secondary School), so we even touched upon the British perspective on the American Civil War, as well as military developments of weapons/naval vessels etc. Looking back it was probably the best academic thing I've done, even touching upon various tactics etc.

My main teacher was from Wales and didn't hold back on all the gak we did, even putting forward his belief that we sent the Lusitania into waters where we knew German U-boats were operating to drag America into the 1st World War (which isn't too far a stretch of the imagination given all said gak). As for the War of 1812, we looked at it briefly, though it wasn't in the exams if I recall. I vaguely remember learning about Lord Liverpool, the Corn Laws, Peterloo, the Embargo Act and things like that, but no real details about the war itself, just its causes and the fact we burned Washington up a bit...

Actually for my AS-level we even covered Vietnam

Come to think of it we went through a lot of stuff in a relatively short amount of time. I was lucky in that I had some great history teachers over the years I was at school, so for me history was never dull, going into stuff like the Cold War and JFK's assassination, the Great Fire of London and the Bubonic Plague and a notable demonstration of what a Pike would do to a charging horse. I guess I was lucky

Went to School in Both England and Scotland. And the way History was taught was very different. In England because I was in the NE we focused a lot on The Romans, Saxons, Normans and Vikings and how they shaped the culture, identity and language of the area through fair means and foul. Also the various invasions and warmongering carried out by the evil Scots

In Scotland History started and ended with the Battle of Bannockburn and the English are all evil, Scotland was a benevolent fairytail land etc. Scotland was never mentioned again until we did the Clydside Blitz (which my teacher also blamed on England). Then we did all American 20th century History for some reason, oh and Americans were all evil too :l

Had a member of the SNP for a History teacher go figure.

As for the War of Independence and 1812 there events that happen against the backdrop of a much larger decades long Global War with France and her Allies, so dont be surprised that they get little mention.

 reds8n wrote:
.... I'm so relieved that the picture is of that kind of Prince Albert.

I found I enjoy posting here...

We don't cover the American backstabbing. We study and plan "British Empire 2 - This time you keep drinking the tea"

 Palindrome wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

... and no Daily Mail or Daily Express quotes either.

Not exactly convincing evidence of the teaching profession being riddled with the 'far left' though are they.

If you are going to flatly dismiss comments by the Minister of Education, on the subject of education, without an attempt to give a reason, then its clear that you have nothing valid to say. Pity, but hardly suprising then that you resort to namecalling to shut down opposed opinion; its all too often the strategem of the dogmatised fanatic.

For the record its not 'tinfoil' to agree with the publically claimed point of view of senior officials in their own field of authority.

Very little. At primary and secondary level (elementary and middle school for you Yanks) we did typical things like the Romans, Tudors WWII and the like. At college (high school) we focussed on 20th Century China, the Vietnam War, post-war Britain and the Cold War. Neither myself, nor any of my friends have had any in-depth teaching on the pre-revolutionary US/UK relations.

Edit: I will add though that a we've had a few lecture in our "Geography of Empires" module last month on the development of colonial settlements in America/Canada, and the subsequent conflicts against other European nations as well as the colonists. While interesting, I would still prefer to learn about one of the periods I've studied before this.

Literally none.

I only did history classes up to the age of 14, but from what I saw, those who took it later didn't cover those periods either (there might have been some modules that you could take though).

From primary school through to secondary when I stopped, I remember War of the Roses + Tudors & early Stuarts (Shakespeare time period), Victorians (industrial revolution), Crusade era and WW2. There might have been some 100 years wars and Romans/Ancients too, though I get the feeling the latter was taught under 'classics' rather than History.