Reluctance to teach history of empire should end, say MPs and historians

A reluctance to teach British history, and the rise and fall of the British Empire, must be overcome so that the history and citizenship curriculum can explain how we became the nation we are today, argue leading MPs and historians in the Fabian Review Britishness Issue (published on Tuesday 20th December 2005).

The reform proposals are being considered as Education Ministers and officials review the history curriculum and will be debated by leading historians at a major Fabian Future of Britishness conference on January 14th to be headlined by Gordon Brown. A conference panel 'History lessons: who do we think we were' will see Gordon Marsden debate his proposals with Tristram Hunt, Paul Gilroy, Humayan Ansari and Francesca Klug.

School history fails to reflect the 'growing public appetite for history and heritage' says Gordon Marsden, MP for Blackpool South and a member of the Education Select Committee setting out proposals for reform. John Denham MP, Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, writes that 'telling the story of empire as fact rather than good or bad thing has an important role to play. A greater honesty about our migrant history would bring surprising unity among those who currently see themselves as divided between the naturally British and others', while leading historian Linda Colley says that the immense popularity of TV history shows not just an intense curiosity but also people's 'sense of deprivation', because the way history is currently taught in schools gives them 'a very uncertain sense of the past'. Colley also says that 'both main political parties caricature the past' and that 'New Labour's tendency to see history as the enemy and to confuse interest in history with being old fashioned and reactionary' must be replaced by recognising that a confident, modern Britain needs a informed sense of its past.

What needs to change? Problems with how we teach history and citizenship

'Yo Sushi' experience of history from curriculum of unconnected modules

'A central problem is the structuring of history courses around an often unconnected set of narrowly drawn modules, which can last as little as six weeks on some A-level courses. This risks offering a 'Yo Sushi' experience of historical understanding – with students gobbling up titbits as they come round on the module conveyor belt but able to make little connection to the broader picture once the dishes have done the rounds', writes Marsden.

Wariness of teaching British history contributes to 'Hitlerisation' of history

Marsden says that overconcentration on the Third Reich in school history has been is in part due to a fear that teaching British history will prove divisive: 'We also need to acknowledge, and overcome, a certain wariness about teaching British history. While the school history focus on the 'Great Dictators' can convey important moral lessons about citizenship and human rights, teaching a rounded history of the rise and fall of Britain's empire has often been regarded as too tricky, complex or divisive in our multi-ethnic classrooms – despite the important themes and links it offers'.

Lack of historical content risks 'hobbling potential' of citizenship education

Marsden welcomes the inclusion of citizenship studies as a major step forward, but warns that 'If we want citizenship to play an important role in our schools, we must admit that we haven't got it right yet …. I fear we risk hobbling the potential of citizenship education. Its lack of prescribed historical content and the failure so far to ring-fence time for it could make this a major missed opportunity' Reform proposals: 'Strong emerging consensus among history professionals'.

Marsden, who is a former editor of History Today, has been convening an informal advisory group to make recommendations about the history curriculum to Education Ministers and officials as part of the post-Tomlinson report review of 14-19 education. Marsden says there is 'a strong emerging consensus among history professionals' for change and calls for a broader public debate about 'the history that we think we should know and share'.

He proposes:

• A broader span of British history to be taught as a central component of how we got where are today, reducing the number of modules and the 'yo sushi' effect.
• Overcome wariness about teaching British history, especially the rise and fall of Britain's Empire, to rebalance school history focus on the 'Great Dictators'.
• Closer links between school and university teachers.
• Public 'History Oscars' to celebrate the most imaginative use of archives, museums, oral history and heritage sites, and the best outreach with schools and the public.

Quotes from the Fabian Review Britishness Issue:

"This new British history will be quite different from the old national story of the imperial pink on the map. We can now see that history from all sides and see how it made us who we are today. This is the new global national story we need to share today. For only through Britons honestly examining their more complex and muddled past will the crucial lynch-pins necessary to make EM Forster's 'Only Connect' a reality"

—Gordon Marsden MP

"We need to learn to tell our history so that it explains why so many people have roots in other parts of the world. Telling the story of empire as fact rather than good or bad thing has an important role to play. A greater honesty about our migrant history would bring surprising unity among those who currently see themselves as divided between the naturally British and others"

—John Denham MP

"The enormous popularity of history programmes on television, as well as indicating people's intense curiosity about the past, also shows a sense of deprivation on their part. History is not as much part of the national curriculum as it should be so people are growing up with a very uncertain sense of the past. Particularly at a time of intense change, people want a sense of roots'. Colley says 'both main political parties caricature the past'. Conservatives claim that Britain (often meaning England) has always been a conservative country and aloof from Europe and Labour can 'over-react and seem to think that we should abandon the past entirely':'Part of the problem stemmed from New Labour's tendency to see history as the enemy … There was a tendency to confuse interest in history with being old fashioned and reactionary. Yet it is perfectly possible to have a modern society that is aware of its past not in a retrograde, nostalgic way but in a way that makes people feel more secure and more aware of who they are"

—Linda Colley, leading historian of Britishness