Ferguson presented this at the invitation of the coalition government, which has sought his leadership to “revitalise the curriculum” of what it considers a failing school subject.
In an interview with The Guardian, Ferguson set out his intention to emphasise “how the nations of western Europe became the world’s dominant powers for centuries”. The Conservative secretary of state for education, Michael Gove, has praised Ferguson’s work to date on the subject of Empire as approaching “the legacy of the British empire with a balanced mind, accepting its manifold evils, but also ready to acknowledge its progressive side” (Gove gave as his only example of this ‘progressive side’ the fact that slavery existed well before any British colony was established).
As part of Ferguson’s plans for the teaching of history in our schools, he expressly encourages the use of television and counterfactual learning exercises to teach it “more like a game than … a novel”. As The Guardian reports, Ferguson has collaborated with a US software developer to create a second world war-based counterfactual video game for use as a classroom aid, with the working title Making History.
There are some valuable general observations offered in Ferguson’s vision. A repeated weakness identified by Ofsted in the teaching of history is that children lack an oversight of ‘the bigger picture’ and so may not appreciate its relevance to how we live now. It’s also true that new media (and imaginative uses of older media such as television) has a potential role in engaging students in history, bridging the gap between arid analyses of texts and those forms of communication which are more familiar to their everyday lives. As Ferguson emphasises, the study of history as a discrete subject has faltered somewhat in our schools for a number of years and there has been a decline in the number of students taking history options, whilst non-traditional subjects have increased in popularity. Creative thinking which assists history to thrive as an academic discipline is always welcome.
Yet Gove’s apparent belief that importing the grand ideas of one celebrity historian will address these issues is a cause for concern. However eminent Ferguson may be as a liberal economics-focused academic, the idea that his suggestions can substitute detailed research and the evidence-led recommendations of specialist educationalists is insulting at best and dangerous at worst. Gove’s reliance on Ferguson to ‘re-brand’ history marks a significant difference of approach from that of the Labour government. Instead of turning to one individual media personality for its answers, in 2008 Labour commissioned Ofsted to research and prepare a report to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of history in primary and secondary schools. Ofsted produced History in the Balance, a detailed paper which assessed both the state of history as a school subject and the steps that could be taken to increase its popularity and relevance.
History in the Balance led to a major rethink, encouraged by the Labour government, as to how history should be integrated into the wider school curriculum. In launching his rebranding exercise, Ferguson appears to have been unaware of the existence of this Ofsted report and its consequences. Apparently his launch presentation slideshow, on which he displayed his idea of what the national curriculum consists of was, in fact, two years out of date. The obvious conclusion is that his vision for the future of history in schools takes no account of the various significant changes implemented already since 2008.
Aside from the basic gaps of educational knowledge inherent in Ferguson/Gove’s approach, there remains Ferguson’s troubling conclusion that a sweeping narrative of ‘the ascendancy of western European nations’ is the central plank on which we should rest our teaching of history. How ancient and medieval history fit into that grand narrative is as yet unexplained. Meanwhile the deeply problematic starting-point of having one grand narrative (particularly one resolutely focused on ‘the West’) for all has not been addressed. I have enjoyed a number of Ferguson’s books, with a critical eye. In particular, I admire his ability as a writer to spread ‘big ideas’ on a canvas and engage the reader with the different thematic strands of a given subject. But none of this makes him qualified or suited to leading a solo assault on the pedagogical approach to history in our national education system. As someone with a passion for history and for learning, it concerns me greatly that the coalition government is adopting such a cavalier attitude to an apparently fundamental reassessment of the way the subject is to be taught.
In my view, the way to support history in our schools is to empower history teachers to teach what they are passionate about, by giving them the resources and time to do so. This means ending the squeeze on history as a subject, which has occurred variously though its amalgamation with other humanities and through reductions in the time spent teaching the humanities in general (particularly at Key Stage 3). Rather than prescribing a western-focused narrative, emphasis should be placed on history as a subject which is particularly well-suited to supporting children’s overall learning. Schools should be encouraged to give more space to history in the curriculum, allowing it to play the dual role of widening the curriculum and supporting literacy/numeracy at the same time.
And of course there must be a focus on the relevance of history to the world today. Yet this relevance needs to be achieved without compromising the basic touchstones of history as a discipline: thorough research and evidence-based analysis. Anthony Beevor and others are rightly sceptical of Niall Ferguson’s counterfactual approach. At the Galle Literary Festival in January, I watched Beevor deliver a blistering attack on the gradual encroachment of counterfactual ‘history’ in all areas of our media. Beevor bemoaned the merging of fact and fiction in TV, the arts, politics and other forums to suit the author’s purpose. Whilst Ferguson is right to identify the potential of new media as a resource tool, it is no substitute for giving history teachers the time and space to engage students in the basics of the subject first.
Michael Gove has made a notoriously botched start to his role as secretary of state on several fronts. Concerns persist that his abolition of the QCDA (the body that develops the curriculum at arm’s length from government) may be a sign of worse to come. Before he hastens into another new agenda for education which lacks thought and fails to appreciate the work that precedes it, he would be well-advised to pause, take stock of the actual existing situation, and then seek a diverse range of expert educational opinion.
I actually think Niall Ferguson has a point. I did history for GCSE and A Level. I thoroughly enjoy learning about the past, but I have to say that I found both as subjects thoroughly boring, badly put together, and flip-flopping from one ‘topic’ to another. Even though we are British, we were taught very little British history. Other than the First World War, we learnt about the Russian Revolution, the Eire war of independence, and the Nazis (a whole year on them!). Of course, I understand that – given Britain’s global influence – these things have often shaped and been shaped by the British. However, I cannot remember being taught anything about the British Empire, the Napoleonic Wars, the Seven Years’ War or the Glorious Revolution, among other events, that arguably, were more significant than things like ‘Medicine in the 18th Century’ (one of my GCSE topics). This was 10-12 years ago, of course, and I suspect things might have changed. Niall Ferguson is right though: the undisputedly most important event over the past 1000 years has been the rise of the European powers, with Britain often at the crux of this rise. We should not be ashamed of this. We should be proud of it – and our children should be taught about it. I remember seeing a television series during my A Levels (but unrelated to them) called ‘The Day the World Took Off’ (put together by a group of Cambridge academics for Channel 4), which really is very similar to what Prof. Ferguson seems to be advocating. I remember wondering: ‘Why can’t our history classes be more like this?’ At university, I made sure I was able to do modules in International History, but many of these issues were still apparent, even though somewhat less so. Finally, I also think History should be taught as a compulsory subject not only for its own sake, but to encourage the propagation of a national story, to bind us all together and turn us into a better, more knowledgeable society.
Ferguson is right that history at school should teach big developments that unfolded over long periods of time, not be chopped up into short, disconnected episodes. But his history of empire – and of the ‘rise of the west’ is very bad history. And at the very point the west is in decline, celebrating its brief ascendancy is a counter-productive enterprise. But Gove and Ferguson won’t get very far in foisting a eurocentric and out of date curriculum on schools. The backlash from scholars, teachers and students will stop them in their tracks.
Ferguson is right that history at school should teach big developments that unfolded over long periods of time, not be chopped up into short, disconnected episodes. But his history of empire – and of the ‘rise of the west’ is very bad history. And at the very point the west is in decline, celebrating its brief ascendancy is a counter-productive enterprise. But Gove and Ferguson won’t get very far in foisting a eurocentric and out of date curriculum on schools. The backlash from scholars, teachers and students will stop them in their tracks.
John Wilson, there is nothing wrong with “foisting a Eurocentric curriculum on schools”, as you put it. We are British and European so a disproportionate amount of History should be about us. There is nothing wrong with telling our children about ourselves. We should be nationally embarrassed when many teenagers do not know who people like Francis Drake, James Wolfe, Lord Nelson, and William Gladstone were, or that Britain once ruled North America or India, or abolished slavery, for example (many don’t). Nor should we be ashamed of our rise to prominence. Modern science, the welfare state, liberalism and mass democracy are good things and we should be celebrating them. It is the self-flagellating and contemptuous view of our history that is contributing to our decline – this will lead us down a cul-de-sac.
John Wilson, there is nothing wrong with “foisting a Eurocentric curriculum on schools”, as you put it. We are British and European so a disproportionate amount of History should be about us. There is nothing wrong with telling our children about ourselves. We should be nationally embarrassed when many teenagers do not know who people like Francis Drake, James Wolfe, Lord Nelson, and William Gladstone were, or that Britain once ruled North America or India, or abolished slavery, for example (many don’t). Nor should we be ashamed of our rise to prominence. Modern science, the welfare state, liberalism and mass democracy are good things and we should be celebrating them. It is the self-flagellating and contemptuous view of our history that is contributing to our decline – this will lead us down a cul-de-sac.
Why is the “rise of the west” considered to be “very bad history”? In China I would expect to learn about the rise of the Chinese state and in America it would be reasonable that history would be taught as a narrative leading up to the present United States. As for lacking “medieval history”, how can this be taught using “evidence based analysis” when there is virtually no source material ?
So many things wrong with this. A case of being anti something for the sake of it. Typical Labour at the moment I am afraid.
dave – if there are so many things wrong then do explain what they are! I think there is merit in making sure pupils are taught British history (I went through the system and did history of medicine, American west etc – very useful actually but I do feel we should know properly as James suggests about glorious revolution, Napolenic wars etc) but wonder if there’s a danger here in Ferguson’s curriculum becoming a cheerleader for empire rather than a positive critic. I presume, though, that history teachers won’t simply become cheerleaders as that is not the sort of system they themselves have come through.