Public school history

[sknox]

This seems like a good place to ask this. Addressing this to all non-U.S. members.

Here in the U.S., at least when I went to public school (ca. 1956-1969), we got two doses of history. One came in fourth or fifth grade and was State History in some form or other. The second came in high school (or maybe middle school) in the form of U.S. history. The history of other nations was offered as an option, usually in the form of "world history", so you got them all in a glop. In some places maybe there was a version of Western Civilization, but not where I went.

Anyway, I've long wondered how nations handled this in their own public schools. Is there a local history variant? I can see that getting rather complicated, but feasible. I'm assuming there's a national history, but that would be a much bigger undertaking. Over here we only have to cover two or at most three hundred years. Much more complicated for Italy, say, or Spain. Even figuring out where to start. And then, do you try to fit in other national histories? European History, for example?

These questions apply to anyone with knowledge of Asian or other cultural regions, too. In general, I'm interested in how history gets handled at the level where schooling is compulsory. Once you get to college, history is handled as an academic discipline, a far cry from how it is presented in public school.

 

[Montero]

Up to age 11 I don't remember there being much history taught.
I started secondary school at 11, parents moved house at my age 13 to a totally different area. At that time there was no national syllabus like there is today. At O Level (age 16) there were multiple competing exam boards, who worked to (roughly) the same standard, but had their own syllabus and there might have even been several different history syllabuses from the same board. So:
At 11 to 13 I remember we did some schools council projects - which were deducing what happened from a book full of evidence, and that was The Tollund Man, and Who Killed the Princes in the Tower. I definitely remember doing neolithic and people in animal skins building StoneHenge. We did the Roman invasions of Britain. I think we then gaily jumped over a thousand years to the Renaissance, including a dodgy film/photos of Michaelangelo's statues, with black blobs stuck over the naughty groin bits. Though there was the Bayeaux Tapestry in there somewhere, so maybe we stopped off at 1066.
In the background, I read a lot of Rosemary Sutfcliffe books and learnt quite a bit of intervening history from fiction.
Then I changed schools and landed in the new one at the start of the second term, and they had just finished doing WW1. I think they then did a schools council project on the Tollund man.
I did history for O Level and that was Social, Political and Economic History, 1815 to 1914 - but we only reached about 1890 as the teacher mis-timed the lessons. That was focused on the UK, but did take in Crimean War for example. It was primarily about industrial development and the reform of parliament and all the ills of the penal system and health problems.
In the background I read a fair bit of Ellis Peters Brother Cadfael, various historical novels, and Sharpe books, which filled in some of the UK gaps.
In geography at age 11 we had to memorise all the exports and imports of the various continents - as in Brazil, copper, nuts, etc etc. Did also watch documentaries at home. Also read memoirs of British expats in India and Africa. I think American history came largely through series like "Roots" and "North and South" and "How the West was Won". There was an awful lot of WW2 on in dramas and documentaries. Things like Tenko, and all the naval battles and army battles of WW2. Oh, and Baroness Orczy and The Scarlet Pimpernel covered the French revolution for me. Hornblower also did Napoleonic Naval battles.
Oh and Ronald Welch's Carey series - that did a neat run across mostly UK history from a largely military but with some domestic parts starting with the Crusades and finishing with WW1. Were beautifully written, well informed and quite varied on personality of main character books. The US/Canada made an appearance with wars between French, various Indian nations, and British Settlers and already settled born in America westerners. There was one on the Indian Mutiny. I also read MM Kaye's various books such as "Far Pavilions" and later her autobiography.
To be fair a lot of my book reading came from the well stocked school library, the rest from the public library in town.

ETA Now remembering that I did do Captain Cook's voyages - and I think that was in one of the later years of primary school - so maybe age 9 or 10. We then visited relatives in NZ for several months and I got plunked into the local school - where we did Captain Cook's voyages in excrutiating detail, including what he ate for various meals.

Some UK schools, where there have been major historic events nearby will do vast detail on that event. I once worked with someone who grew up in Newbury and had done the two civil war battles there in vast detail - and the school was in a converted historic house complete with period bullet holes in the walls.

 

[sknox]

Thanks, Montero. I moved very often (26 different schools) and encountered shifts in coverage like you did. This is because curriculum is set primarily at the state level, and secondarily at the local school district. As a result, if you change schools, you might find the subject you were studying is already over at the new school. Or just beginning and you get to do the same thing again. Some fun.

Anyway, I very much hope to hear also from folks lots of other countries.

 

[The Judge]

Up to age 11 in junior school in the 60s in England we would have done some history, and though I can't recall any of it now, I'm pretty sure it would have been strictly English stuff, with probably an emphasis on one's locality (I can recall visiting a museum in a hosiery merchant's house literally just around the corner from my home.)

In those days there was then a split in secondary schools from the age of 11, and what happened in the grammar schools may well have been very different from the secondary moderns or comprehensives, and as Montero says, each exam board may well have had a different syllabus.

In my grammar school History was an obligatory subject up to O-level (age 16 or so). I can recall in my first term we seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time on English architecture (Norman, Early English, Decorated, Perpendicular). I suspect we did some other medieval stuff, and definitely we did the Tudors, but I can't recall any European history, let alone anything world-wide **, save ancient Greece and Rome (and that might well have come about in Latin and Classical Studies lessons rather than History as such). I also recall that in Art we did a project about Thomas Cook (the founder of the travel company) and/or the early railways, since there was a huge wall decorated with our takes on Stephenson's Rocket and Victorian ladies in crinolines, but whether that was tied in with our History syllabus, I've no idea, though I imagine there must have been some Victorian history done -- though again only English -- as I've vague memories of things like the Peterloo Massacre and the Corn Laws, and Montero's remark about Social, Political and Economic History rings a faint bell.

After O-levels, I chose to do History A-level which was split in two, with one part the Stuarts and the English Civil War (very little about the Scottish and Irish dimensions), and the other was C17th-18th European History, including the Seven Years' War, Frederick the Great and Gustavus Adolphus. Definitely nothing of wider world scope, though, not in the Exam Board we used.

(By the way, don't forget that for us "Public School" means something very different from "State School" -- the latter is run by local Education Authorities, and is (mostly) free at the point of use, whereas the former are prestigious private schools which are fee-paying. Their curriculum would likely have been very different from ours)



** literally as I was about to hit "Post Reply" I had a sudden recollection of having to find out about the Aztecs -- a homework project or something, I imagine, which was presumably linked to a history lesson, but I've no idea if that was junior or secondary school work.

 

[paranoid marvin]

We were taught the history of our school at primary, but other than this it was just the three Rs. At secondary, History was compulsory for the first two or three years, and I fell in love with the subject instantly.

Along with Enhlish Language and English Literature, they were the only three subjects that I liked (and put all my efgort into being good at). Mathematics I put the effort in to pass at an acceptable level, as I knew I had to.

Being British, there was a ton of historical era that could have been covered. From memory we mainly studied the main events such as 1066, Vikings, the rise of castles; basically all the fun stuff.

If I had a choice, I would choose the 15th and 16th Centuries, as that was when all the really interesting bits took place.

 

[The Judge]

I've asked my husband about this. He recalls doing local history of the city and surroundings in his first year or so at his grammar school (the castle, various Roman remains, the Battle of Bosworth and so on), and also he recalls doing the Tudor period and the civil war, and coming up to the O-level he was doing C19th and early C20th history, but English again, touching on politics (Prime Ministers and so on) and WWI, possibly also WWII. He can't recall doing any European history, not even Ancient Rome or Greece save where it might have impacted on Britain, and certainly not world history.

 

[CupofJoe]

I was taught mainly British history as I was growing up.
My junior school teacher was an ancient history nut and we got to go on day trips to Stonehenge and Avebury [and maybe Butser Ancient Farm?].
I think we got as far as the Romans and before they lost interest, or I moved schools...
When I got to secondary school it became more centred on the British Empire and the unparalleled success it was for all concerned.
Britain was cast as the victor and bringer of freedom to the world.
About the only "loss" that was admitted was the American colonies in the 1770s and even that was framed more as a getting rid of a nuisance so the British Empire could concentrate on beating the French [any where, any time] and gaining Canada.
There was a lot made about the British "ending" the Slave trade but nothing about how much the Empire benefited from it.
This was not the well-round view of the British Empire [let alone the rest of the world], but the view of those still smarting from the loss of Empire and the effects of at least one world war.
I don't think I was ever taught local history, but there again not much happened near where I was. There was a minor ECW siege about 20 miles away and that about it

 

[Montero]

oh we went to Avebury too. Really enjoyed all that, and the artificial hill in the area that you could tell predated the Romans, because the Roman road went around it.
My father was quite keen on engineering history and I got to hear a fair bit on his great hero Brunel, a bit on Telford and some enthusiasm about the industrial revolution.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

This seems like a good place to ask this. Addressing this to all non-U.S. members.

Here in the U.S., at least when I went to public school (ca. 1956-1969), we got two doses of history. One came in fourth or fifth grade and was State History in some form or other. The second came in high school (or maybe middle school) in the form of U.S. history. The history of other nations was offered as an option, usually in the form of "world history", so you got them all in a glop. I

In California it was different, when I went to school at about the same time as you did. In third grade we did local history (local, in our case, meaning Los Angeles county), in fourth grade we did California history, in fifth US history, and World History in sixth. Then in Jr. High we started again (without the local history), with California history in seventh, US in eighth, and World History in ninth. Then in grades 10-12 we repeated the pattern again. Each time through with greater depth, as we were old enough to understand more, and (unfortunately) with fewer fun art projects.

 

[Danny McG]

I'm glad I don't have to study history anymore - there's another 53 years to learn about since I took it

 

[Montero]

@Teresa Edgerton Saying fewer art projects, reminds me of the fever around the Tutankhamun Exhibition - every class at my primary school was drawing Tutankhamun's death mask. (I bet blue and yellow wax crayon sales went through the roof). My mother took us to see the actual exhibition, and after a long train ride, queuing all morning to get in - the queue started out on the pavement, in through the big gates, and then snaked backwards and forwards across the big area at the front of the British Museum, between lots and lots of crowd barriers (we ate pork pies and buns standing in the queue) and finally got in. All the gold, enamel and lapis lazuli was fabulous, but the exhibit I loved the best was a back lit, gently luminescent alabaster statue of someone spear fishing from a punt. About a foot high and exquisite.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I saw that exhibition when it came to San Francisco. It was amazing. I still have the catalogue somewhere.

 

[Montero]

I have the glossy photo book my father bought when he went round separately. Glossy photo books were not something he bought that often.

 

[sknox]

No one from Italy or Germany or Spain? Poland? I'd love to know how history was taught in their public schools.

Another angle: in the U.S. there was--maybe still is--a pitch for the importance of national history. The stock phrase was "education for citizenship". By which was meant that a citizen needed to know their own national history (and local history, by which was meant state history) in order to be a good citizen, by which was meant someone who participated in the political life in an informed manner.

It was more than mere propaganda, however unlikely it is to be realized in practice. But, reach and grasp and all that. It certain informed the choices in curriculum. There was little point in teaching European history, still less Asian or African history, because those had little to do with American civic life. But that logic works less well for a Slovene or Spaniard or Dane.

Conversely, I wonder if American History is a course offered in public schools of other countries. If it is, it's probably as an elective. But it'd still be interesting to compare a Japanese or Greek textbook of American History with one of our own. I would not be surprised to learn that for the most part, folks are learning about other cultures primarily through popular media (movies, novels, TV, music).

 

[hitmouse]

UK
Primary school: Tudors and Stuarts, some WWI/WWII ( one of my teachers had been a desert rat; another, a Quaker, had been a conscientious objector), the “Irish Problem”, secondary school where I had history lessons for the first couple of years but opted out from O level: the events leading up to 1066, and the power struggle between the monarchy and Robert Walpole are all I remember.
There was lots of informal history of ideas in my chosen disciplines, especially in respect of physics and biology, which I found fascinating, and read around widely.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I grew up in Wales and I remember we did a fair bit about things Welsh, like the Industrial revolution (Coal and Steel) and Owen Glyndŵr and the subjugation of the Welsh by Edward 1 and things like the Rebecca Riots... but it was over 50 years ago. I remember very little about it at all.

I imagine if I had grown up in Scotland I would be well versed in Robert the Bruce and the Clearances etc. School history varies around the UK. (actually, thinking about it, it probably varies depending which kind of school you go to in parts of the UK. I don't suppose the history taught in Catholic Schools in Northern Ireland is taught from the same angle as that in state schools. )

 

[CupofJoe]

I worked with a Japanese Researcher for a few years. Their view of what happened in the first half of the 20C was VERY different from what I had leant [and assumed to be true]. For them, Japanese expansion was a near existential battle for the continuing existence of the Japanese world. The Empire had to expand to match the power of the US, British, and Russian Empires and not get destroyed.

 

[beccabear67]

I remember in Canadian elementary (K-7 where I was), circa the 1970s, we had history blocks on 'The Age Of Explorers' with focus on conditions in Western Europe before and during, and Native/Aboriginal history followed by Canadian history on Upper and Lower Canada/Colonization/1812 (pre-Confederation), then 'The Settling Of The West' and Confederation, but we also learned about modern Canada in Geography not History.

Junior High (8-10), early 1980s, I remember we did The Industrial Revolution followed by WWI/The Great War.

Yes, the Japanese don't, or at least didn't, talk about WWII but a greater Pacific Conflict where the WWII part was more a continuation of a story begun with the Emperor Meiji restoration and building a navy that could and did face Russia.

 

[sknox]

Here in the US there is, or was, a standard offering of "World History" or "Western Civilization". The former was basically, let's include Asia, whereas the latter was Europe until the Age of Exploration when we include brief glimpses elsewhere. But if you live in a European country, do you get "European History"? For that matter, are you offered "American History"?

Do the English offer "History of the Continent"? <wink>

 

[CupofJoe]

Do the English offer "History of the Continent"? <wink>

No! Unless it involved a British General or Admiral trouncing Johnny Foreigner somehow.