Politicaly correct history?

[Bob696]

Found a story on sky this morning
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1207634,00.html

and it got me to thinking about another story I read a couple of weeks ago
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1206894,00.html

I was a little annoyed by the 2nd story as it struck me as being akin to a 'boy racer' telling me how to improve my Land Rover.

It annoyed me on several levels.
It is VERY difficult to teach younger teenagers anything that has no direct relevence to their own life experiences hence the current sylabus covers WW2 (relatives, hollywood etc), Henry 8th (CofE), black immigration and slavery (recent population demographics).
I am at a loss as to what other 'black history' could be tought that is relevant to todays youth AND gives good role models.
Certainly we could cover Idi Amin and his expulsion of the asian communities to the UK (fundamentaly changed the way we shop for instance) but I dont think the PC brigade would like that sylabus to much :oops:

I was going to write a whole load more about PC and history and modern day life/education but i am starting to tread on ground where I should not go for my own sanity.

Sorry if I bored anyone (guess if I did you wouldnt have read this far anyway :lol: ) but I needed to waffle a bit before I go back to lesson preperation.

[gords]

Well, the first article gives a small glimmer of hope that the "PC" tide may be turning ... at last!!

This paragraph

The report said the trend has been exacerbated by dividing up A-level courses into units, which reduced the time for wider reading and reflection.

appears to have some merit. If you break down learning too much, without flow from one unit to the next, then you'll not be able to study anything to any great detail.

It is VERY difficult to teach younger teenagers anything that has no direct relevence to their own life experiences

But doesn't that mean you potentially "dumb down" to the lowest level? Shouldn't they be taught what's relevant rather than what they might take notice of?

Not getting at you Bob696 - just debating

[Ja1983]

i do like a mass debate from time to time.  :lol:

IMO political correctness is over applied. could rant on quite easily.... but i wont (supposed to be working!) :lol:

[Bob696]

If you break down learning too much, without flow from one unit to the next, then you'll not be able to study anything to any great detail.

I agree. Unfortunatly the current trend is for "greater choice" and the only way to do this is to offer courses that have interchangable modules. You could offer seperate courses but they would all have the same key areas/skills but this would have pretty much the same outcome and be a nightmare to administer.

Shouldn't they be taught what's relevant rather than what they might take notice of?

In order to teach a child you must take them from something they know to something they dont know. In the case of Henry 8th (a very relevent topic as regards modern UK society IMHO) you can start with the current CofE and go backwards. It might be great to teach a class about Shaka Zulu but where do you start from? What relevance does it have to anyone?
Whilst we are at it, what is relevent as regards history? I find the history of the Peloponisian wars fascinatiing but I could find easier and more relevent ways of educating kids about one man one vote.

Not getting at you Bob696 - just debating

I am all for that

[gords]

In order to teach a child you must take them from something they know to something they dont know. In the case of Henry 8th (a very relevent topic as regards modern UK society IMHO) you can start with the current CofE and go backwards. It might be great to teach a class about Shaka Zulu but where do you start from? What relevance does it have to anyone?

I'm not a teacher so can't comment - but surely, you must be teaching young children "new" things all the time!? Can you not start at the beginning? As to relevance - stuff we know might be relevant every day, or just once when we're 90 years old - you need to have been taught/told about it first though

Whilst we are at it, what is relevent as regards history?

Ideally, we should be continually learning from history - trouble is it's an ever increasing subject

[Bob696]

I'm not a teacher so can't comment - but surely, you must be teaching young children "new" things all the time!? Can you not start at the beginning?

There is a difference between "Knowing" something and "understanding" something.
Sure, you can teach a kid that the battle of Hastings was in 1066 (and they might even remember it the next lesson) but they wont understand anything. If, on the other hand, you can take a modern example of the norman invasion such as a local castle that they can actualy SEE, then you can work backwards to the invasion and it puts the date into context. If you start at the begining the kids will lose interest and stop listening as it was sooooooooooo long ago and by the time you get to the castle they have forgoten what you were talking about in the first place.  

As to relevance - stuff we know might be relevant every day, or just once when we're 90 years old - you need to have been taught/told about it first though  

You cant teach a kid everything. All we can do is teach them the basic building blocks and the skills to carry on learning for themsleves as the need arrises. It is strange to think that the vast majority of kids I teach look on the first gulf war as ancient history as it was fought before they were even born, yet to me it is still fresh(ish) in my mind. Same with the Falklands. I dont remember the Vietnam war though so that is REAL history  :lol:

BTW I dont teach history