Tuesday 8 November 2005

Cock-up or conspiracy?

I have always tended to accept Sir Bernard Ingham's interpretation of political events:
Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.
Now, I'm beginning to have my doubts. Consider this news:
A radical review of the curriculum could see history disappear as a separate subject to avoid "overloading" pupils in the early secondary years.

Education Minister Peter Peacock favours teaching history as part of other subjects such as modern studies.

Opponents said the proposals could be a "national cultural disaster".

This proposal would only be a "national cultural disaster" if one thought that youngsters should know, for example, that the Scottish Enlightenment helped spread western values throughout the world, and that those values are good. Or, if one was sufficiently reactionary to believe in concepts like individual rights, the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, trial by jury and limited government, then the downgrading of history might be seen as a cultural disaster. But if one actually wanted to bring those western values into disrepute, to blank out any knowledge of them in the minds of future generations, and to instigate a regime that would track our every movement and control our every thought, then an attack on history would make very good sense.

Think again, Sir Bernard.

1 comment:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

Laura(southernxyl)
I disagree with Kenny. I think people know more history than you give them credit for. I know what you mean, and it's because of history being your favorite subject; it was one of mine too, and I am disappointed when people seem to have missed whole swaths of it in school; but they still know some. 
 
And it's true that proper reading and writing, and getting some maturity, are necessary to a real understanding of history. But knowledge of facts is also necessary, and that can be taught at any time. You have to have a basic knowledge of the flow of "peoples and nations" and that can start in elementary school. 
 
Because I think this: "But if one actually wanted to bring those western values into disrepute, to blank out any knowledge of them in the minds of future generations, and to instigate a regime that would track our every movement and control our every thought, then an attack on history would make very good sense." is spot-on, and scary as hell.

12 November 2005, 13:56:11 GMT
– Like – Reply





Kenny McCormack
I find it a little hard to believe that not teaching history would be a "cultural disaster", most people know sod all about it already. 
 
History was always my favourite subject so I have much sympathy for it. Surely Modern Studies (a piece of pc riddled claptrap, I know I've got the higher8)) would be better suited for the chop? 
 
However I have some sympathy for the idea of not overloading the timetable. It is necessary that English and Maths be taught along with science and foreign languages, however a subject like History does require a bit of maturity to understand, and is therefore perhaps best left alone until 3rd year. 
 
Getting kids to read and write properly (and I mean with correct grammar and spelling) along with an understanding of maths and languages are necessary if any pupil is to make any progress in the more advanced subjects like history.

8 November 2005, 20:06:02 GMT