Understanding and Teaching Primary History

James Percival

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781526479198
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Kunst & Geisteswissenschaften unterrichten

Primary history is one of the richest areas of teaching and learning, but in order to teach it well you need a strong understanding of key historical concepts and the content of the national curriculum.

Combining a detailed focus on the core skills and principles underpinning good history teaching, this book will help you to:

· appreciate the key concepts that underpin historical understanding

· engage deeply with the programmes of study for Key Stage 1 and 2

· understand the links between historical reasoning and constructivist accounts of how children learn

· apply a cross-curricular approach to your teaching

· assess children's historical understanding

Chapter 1 Introduction

How will this book help my practice?

The book is essentially written for primary teacher trainees, or early career teachers, who entered teaching through a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) or school-based routes and who may not have studied history in any form since they were in Key Stages 3 or 4. It is also equally useful for teachers and those who have studied history to ‘A’ level, and possibly continued to study the subject at university, who are unlikely to know the content and concepts covered by the National Curriculum, and who may appreciate an opportunity to think more deeply about the nature of the subject they have studied for several years. It also contains some useful content for subject coordinators who may wish to find out more about curriculum design and implementation, including assessment practices.

The reduction of university-based training for prospective primary teachers may be based on sound pedagogical reasons, but it does mean that to learn ‘on the job’ requires high levels of dedication and independent study from trainees. A related point is that in times of uncertainty, especially given the new powers available to state-funded schools to determine differentials in terms of pay and conditions, it is arguably ever more important that qualified teachers can demonstrate the ‘value-added’ they bring to the classroom in terms of subject knowledge and pedagogical expertise. State-funded primary schools have always been required to deliver a ‘broad and balanced’ curriculum in which history should play a full part. It is surely not coincidental that several of the world’s top-performing educations systems, for example Finland, South Korea and Singapore, have very competitive and highly regarded teacher recruitment and training systems; and certainly, in the case of Finland, a commitment to a broad and balanced curriculum.

A further impetus in support of the previous point is the consideration that at the time of writing, in the summer of 2019, Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) have revised their school ‘Inspection Framework’. Under the direction of Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman (Ofsted, 2018, 2019), the focus has changed from an emphasis on the core subjects and educational standards to a broader remit concerning the whole curriculum, including teachers’ planning skills and children’s progress. Given that Ofsted can be described fairly as the tail that wagged the educational dog and is therefore more responsible than any other organisation for the obsession with standards in literacy and mathematics, this shifting focus might legitimately be viewed rather cynically. However, the principal outcome of the revised Inspection Framework is that state-funded primary schools will now have to demonstrate a deep-rooted commitment to the whole curriculum, including history, based on sound and original planning and delivered by skilled teachers.

Although there are several well-regarded primary history texts in print, none of the established books deals directly with the revised National Curriculum (DfE, 2013) for history, which was introduced relatively recently and without the level of support and official guidance that the early forms of the National Curriculum received. Although it is argued in Chapter 2 that an overview of the requirements for primary history demonstrates high levels of continuity rather than change, nevertheless there are important differences. Essentially, the main distinctions can be found in ideological beliefs in the primacy of transformative forms of knowledge, and in the importance of children knowing a chronological overview of British history.

It is also the aim of this book to attempt to re-establish some of earlier debates about the nature of history, particularly the often heated discussions from the 1970s. There is a danger that some of the important discussions that took place, often based on lengthy research projects, will be lost and replaced with a passive acceptance of decisions made by career politicians and civil servants, almost all of whom lack personal experience and knowledge of teaching and primary education. If this sounds a little hyperbolic, would doctors, for all the current scrutiny of the National Health Service, allow politicians to determine how they carry out their professional practice?

This book therefore aims to summarise, in a readable and informed style, the main findings from the research base into the teaching and learning of history in the primary (or elementary) years. A related aim, and one arguably under-emphasised in earlier primary history texts, is to supplement the research into history pedagogy through the inclusion of reflections and debates from within the philosophy of history. In some chapters the underpinning philosophical foundations, aimed at supporting professional practice, are relatively extensive. This essentially means that a considerable amount of time is dedicated to introducing and explaining the main concepts of history, and how these might be introduced at primary level to shape and support children’s historical understanding.

Recent changes: social realism, powerful knowledge and the place of chronology

The primacy of knowledge has deep roots, some of which will be explained in Chapter 2, but in terms of influence on the former Secretary of State for Education, and chief architect of the revised National Curriculum, Michael Gove, one name stands above all others: E.D. Hirsch. In many respects Hirsch has become a polemic and misunderstood figure, and his arguments are certainly more robust and nuanced than his many critics would allow, but his principal concern, accepted by Gove, was that students from poorer, culturally deprived backgrounds were often unable to engage with challenging texts or high-level discussions because of their lack of specific forms of knowledge (Abrams, 2012). Thus, in his landmark text, Cultural Literacy (1988), Hirsch argued that schools have neglected to teach the knowledge that could possibly unlock the path to academic success for disadvantaged children. While some critics have attacked Hirsch for his increasingly entrenched position, arguably more credence should be given to the position of Michael Young, who has accepted that his former belief in the efficacy of teaching for understanding, rather than teaching for knowledge, was simply misguided. In several publications (e.g., Young, 2008, 2011), Young has moved to a social realist position and now accepts the transformative potential of what he has termed ‘powerful’ and specialist forms of knowledge and the importance of disciplinary boundaries, such as history.

Michael Gove certainly heeded this positional shift from experienced academics: in a 2009 speech to the Royal Society of Arts (RSA), when he was shadow Secretary of State, he not only acknowledged the influence of Hirsch and the libertarian historian and philosopher, Michael Oakeshott (1962), he outlined his belief in the efficacy of important and hierarchical forms of culturally rich knowledge, and that this aim was correlated with the promotion of social justice. Once in power and in a position to carry out his stated policies, Gove unquestionably took a particularly keen interest in the history curriculum, which bolstered the status of the subject; indeed, the proposed reforms to primary history generated much comment and considerable attention.

The second major change, which was also linked to knowledge, but also predominately associated with ideology, has been the introduction of a chronological (time-ordered) overview of British history in Key Stage 2, presumably based on Gove’s own personal beliefs and the practices of the private school sector. In the 2008 Conservative Party conference, Gove criticised state schools for not teaching children ‘our Island story’ (Edgar, 2013); and it became increasingly clear that his aim was that publicly funded schools should teach a broadly factual overview of British (principally English) history in chronological order and with few elements of European or World history. Although predominately ideological in origin, the debate around the efficacy of covering history in a chronologically coherent way generated support from several eminent historians, such as Niall Ferguson and David Starkey in an open letter to The Times (Sellgren, 2013), yet also admiration from liberal journalists such as Kettle (2012) and Jenkins (2011).

The background to this debate can be found in the deliberations of the History Working Group, which was formed to determine the nature of history within the first iteration of the National Curriculum. The History Working Group (DES, 1990, pp. 9–10) discussed many possible approaches regarding the teaching of chronology. They considered several alternative ideas, including teaching chronology in reverse order so contemporary history would be taught to the youngest pupils, and they also considered the main objections to starting with ancient history, not least the assumption that the younger children would find the content of earlier periods more accessible, a point reinforced by Chris Husbands (Sellgren, 2013) in his critique of chronological approaches. Nevertheless, until the final draft of the National Curriculum was approved and published in 1991, the History Working Group was still recommending that the history units with the National Curriculum would be taught in a broadly chronologically way. For mostly practical and organisational reasons this did not happen, and from that point onwards there were several critical voices, mostly from senior politicians. To be scrupulously fair to the critics, the fact that children might be learning about the ‘Ancient Greeks’ unit in Year 3 followed by ‘Britain since 1930’ in Year 4 before hopping backwards to the ‘Egyptians’ in Year 5, the so-called ‘Dr Who’ approach to the past (Burns, 2012), with the classroom presumably acting as a metaphorical Tardis, prevented many children from gaining a coherent overview of historical time and change. Ofsted reports (2007, 2011), which had largely been complimentary about history in primary schools, noted that chronology was often inconsistently covered and one of the weakest aspects of primary practice.

Once in power, during the coalition government of 2010, Gove acted quickly to drive through his educational reforms. He consulted several eminent historians, notably Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson, even if he did largely ignore wider consultation from the world of education. It would be an understatement to suggest that the early proposals were controversial, but rather than getting diverted into the detail and heat of the debate, which featured strong criticism from equally eminent historians, such as David Cannadine (2013) and Richard Evans (2013), over its narrow and selective content, it is simply necessary to state that the counter-arguments had some success because the final version of Gove’s curriculum overview was considerably revised. The detail, of course, will be explained in Chapters 2 and 8–10, but in summary, primary-aged children in Key Stage 2 are now required to learn a chronological overview of British history from the Stone Age to 1066. The introduction of ancient British history was a new element, and the decision to end at 1066 received widespread criticism due to the fact it removed some of the most popular Key Stage 2 history units, such as the Tudor and Victorian periods. Almost certainly as a form of compensation, schools are able to select a theme in British history ‘Beyond 1066’. However, the reason for this seemingly puzzling and arbitrary decision to end at 1066 and the death of Edward the Confessor is because secondary schools are required to continue to teach ‘this Island story’ from 1066 to the end of the twentieth century. The strongest analogue can be found in National Curriculum geography where three continent studies in Key Stage 2, Europe and North and South America, are completed by the remaining four continents in Key Stage 3.

Nevertheless, there are several key questions that have not been systematically researched or answered:

• Since state-funded academies and free schools are not required to follow the National Curriculum, to what extent is adherence to the National Curriculum being followed?
• Are secondary history departments following on from the work of primary schools? If not, why should primary schools keep to their side of the bargain?
• The new elements, such as ancient British history, have not been funded or resourced, nor have schools received resources for training (for example, compared with the extensive levels of support for the literacy and numeracy strategies of the late 1990s).
• The revised National Curriculum is meant to be trimmed down to allow schools to develop their own detailed curriculum, but there is no convincing evidence to suggest that primary schools have the subject expertise or resources to develop the non-core subjects to the extent that they must cover literacy and mathematics.
• Has history received enough development time and funding to teach the subject thoroughly and consistently?

Quite apart from these important organisational elements, the decision to begin Key Stage 2 with ancient British history can be questioned on sound pedagogical and educational grounds. The practical considerations that initially thwarted the introduction of a chronological approach in primary classrooms remain. The principal barrier is that in smaller primary schools, or in larger schools that may choose to combine year groups in one class, often termed ‘vertical grouping’, it is not always possible to cover the content chronologically due to the necessity of a two- or three-year rolling programme. For example, if a child beginning Year 3 were introduced to the earliest period, and subsequently followed this chronologically into Year 4, the newly joining Year 3 children would necessarily start at the later time. To go back would result in repetition for the Year 4 children. In medium-sized schools and above, with clearly delineated year groups, the History Working Group was concerned that all children studying the same unit at the same time would place a strain on resources. This is arguably less of a consideration now due to virtual resources.

The chronological overview of British history is important, but arguably it ought to have been introduced in Key Stage 3, thus allowing primary schools to concentrate on the things they have done very well, which are essentially working with children’s natural curiosity and enthusiasm about the past and challenging them with creative and conceptual approaches to each historical unit of study. However, this did not happen, and so primary schools will have to make necessary adjustments to make the content accessible for younger children.

The case for history

History is an important subject, not least because of the significance of historical knowledge in terms of the cultural literacy argument outlined above. The brief introduction to the background to the National Curriculum, and the importance afforded to history, involving scrutiny from the senior politicians, rather reinforces Robert Phillips’ (2000, pp. 15–17) point that the extensive debate around the form and content of history reflected the ‘battle for the big prize’ of determining Britain’s heritage and cultural legacy. This point is discussed further in Chapter 3, but it is worth considering that this discussion involves a lot more than just what children ought to know. I quoted from Gove’s RSA speech in 2009; in it he also stated that he was disappointed that children were ‘taught to put Britain in the dock’ (Edgar, 2013) rather than celebrating British achievement. History is undoubtedly an important curriculum subject, but it can be used for narrow and questionable aims. A counter-argument for the importance of open and critical forms of history is that the training of the mind in historical forms of enquiry will act ...