Should history be compulsory to 16?

 

Medieval but not European for a change: the world famous examination system of imperial China under the Song Dynasty (960 - 1279)

So in a previous post, I explored what the History Curriculum for Key Stage 3 (11 - 14 year olds) is like in mainstream UK schools. There I argued that despite the way that politicians and the media often caricature it, its a lot broader, diverse and more enriching than just a narrow fixation on Henry VIII and Hitler. That's not to say that history teaching in lower secondary school (what folks across the Pond would call Middle School) does not have its problems, but its not in the state of general decay that a lot of people think it is.

But when we get to the teaching of history at Key Stage 4 (14 - 16 years old), when pupils are being prepared for the standardised exams known as GCSEs that they take at the end of Key Stage 4 when they are 15 - 16, we encounter problems of a different kind. Indeed, I think its here that those who complain about the curriculum being all about sixteenth century England and the Second World War are slightly more justified in their criticisms.

Now I may need to remind my North American and Continental European readers that, highly unusually among first world countries, in the UK any kind of formal study of history stops being compulsory at the age of 14. In England, about 47% of 15 - 16 year olds sit GCSE history exams in June every year. That's still a very large number, indeed significantly larger than was the case 20 years ago, but that still means that GCSE history is a course that less than half of British children take. Thus for a lot of people, including politicians, journalists, academic historians, educationalists and, last but not least, a minority of secondary school history teachers, the biggest problem with GCSE history is that its optional.

Here I must say where I stand on this. I do not support making GCSE history compulsory. This may seem odd for some of you. I am after all an lifelong obsessive enthusiast for the subject, who studied history at GCSE, A Level, undergraduate degree level and master's degree level. I am also a trainee history teacher and a paid-up member of the Historical Association. And to state the obvious, I am writing these words on my very own history blog. So why should I be arguing for something that's surely going against my professional interests? Arguably, in the eyes of some, this would make me a traitor to my subject, worthy of being tarred and feathered.

The reasons why are as follows. The first is that we all need to show a little self-awareness. I am all too aware from teaching children in two mainstream, non-selective schools that most children are not at all like I was when I was their age. The people who are clamouring from the rooftops for history to be compulsory till 16, if not 18, are people like myself and need to realise this. And the fact that most teenagers don't have wide-ranging knowledge and intellectual curiosity for the past can't simply be blamed on the quality of history teaching or that they can drop it at the age of 14. 

We've got to remember that factors outside of schools contribute so much too. To go from my own experience, I was reading about historical subjects as wide ranging as Alexander the Great, the Romans, Feudal Japan, the Aztecs and Incas, the British Empire and the World Wars from the age of 8. I obsessively looked at the globe in my room and at books of maps, finding out where everything was and who controlled which countries at any given time. I was also taken to ancient sites, castles, palaces and museums by my parents. Whether my passion for the past is innate, a product of my middle class upbringing or the result of something else entirely I don't know. Though I am pretty sure its not a result of the the history teaching I've received. While I remember it was always very good, from primary school through to degree level, I'd never say it was ever the main reason why I loved the subject. And most of my substantive knowledge of history does not come from formal study of any kind, but from reading for pleasure. Disciplinary knowledge (use of evidence, source analysis, reasoning with historical concepts) has been where good teaching has really made the difference for me. I'm sure many professional historians could say similar. Indeed, there are a few who admit to having found school history boring. This isn't to cast doubt on the ability of good teachers at secondary level to inspire a passion for the past in pupils - after all, that's part of the reason why I'm in the job.

Now this part of the discussion is perhaps completely missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing for a compulsory history GCSE because we need more historians. Let's not forget that there are proponents of every other non-core subject (geography, music, art, PE, drama etc) who would love to see their numbers bolstered. And if the real aim of the game were to inspire a passion for history among the youth, then surely history GCSE would not need to eb made compulsory anyway?

The reasons why people support compulsory history at GCSE really are twofold:

1. It provides invaluable transferrable skills to help the younger generation in the world of further study, work and adult life.
2. A more historically-informed public makes for better citizens.

The transferrable skills is the one I have the least time for. Don't get me wrong. I think that actual historical reasoning is an invaluable thing to have learned, and not just if you want to become a professional historian, a history teacher or anyone professionally involved with history in any way. Being able to weigh up different testamentary accounts of what happened is of course invaluable to the lawyer, and thinking about how multiple causes and factors can lead to an event makes for good journalism. And just generally, historical thinking allows you to look at contemporary society in a more critical, long term perspective. It also enables you to understand how interpretations of the past, which we encounter all the time in politics and the media, come about and how to look at them with a critical eye too. At the same time, historical thinking is a huge challenge to teach and learn, and as any history teacher knows, even more challenging to assess using standardised testing rubrics. Furthermore, all the elements of historical reasoning are encountered through the Key Stage 3 curriculum, when history is still compulsory.

Then we come to the generic skills that are easiest to learn, easiest to assess and most desirable to employers of all shapes and sizes. Stuff like coming up with a structured argument, analysing evidence, evaluation etc. These have very little to do specifically with history. Evaluating views is something you have to do if you take any humanities subject at GCSE, like Geography or Religious Studies. Likewise, questions that require you to analyse evidence are sure to come up on any Biology, Physics or Chemistry paper. And essay-writing is fundamental to English Language and Literature, which are the core, compulsory subjects par excellence. If the case for studying history were to be reduced to these, then we would be doing a massive disservice to the subject. Reducing secondary education, especially but by no means exclusively in the humanities, to the acquisition of generic, transferrable skills for work and future study is of course a huge problem that I don't have the space to tackle here. Fortunately others have already done so. Indeed, Michael Fordham, a veteran history teacher and tutor at Cambridge's Institute for Continuing Education, has made it his mission to fight against genericism in the world of secondary education. 

The latter reason is where the case for complusory history to the age of 16 might appear stronger, but its also where it gets most politically-charged. There's the argument, going back to Cicero in the first century BC, that the study of history is essential to being a good citizen. Indeed, that's one of the reasons why the history is a  compulsory subject from the ages of 5 - 14 (Key Stages 1, 2, 3) in the UK. It is also for that reason that many people end up asking the question "why stop there, then?" They argue that surely the children of today will be better adult citizens tomorrow if they continue to study history till at least the age of 16, or indeed to the very end of their secondary schooling. 

Yet when it comes to the exact purpose of this, there are essentially two different views on this. 

One is an essentially nationalistic view. Children need to study history because they need to learn how great the UK is and why they should cherish their British citizenship. This is essentially the argument Michael Gove put forward back in the early 2010s, when he set out his master plan for root and branch reform of the history curriculum. Gove believed, and presumably still does today, that children need to know about the UK's ancient and unique traditions of parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, religious tolerance and individual liberty. History in schools, according to him, "ought to celebrate the distinguished role of these islands in the history of the world" and portray Britain as "a beacon of liberty for others to emulate." Gove's main attention was focused on history at Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 (7 - 14 years old), where he resolutely failed to implement his vision and ended up with a curriculum fundamentally similar to the one before. He was also supportive of the idea of compulsory history at GCSE, lamenting in one of his keynote speeches that pupils get to drop the subject at 14. Gove neither succeeded in radically reforming the GCSE nor making it compulsory either, though he did succeed in boosting the numbers taking it through the English Baccalaureate scheme. Under this, schools were given ratings according to how many pupils were taking GCSEs in academic subjects, namely English Language and Literature, Mathematics, Combined or Triple Science, a Foreign Language (Ancient or Modern), and a Humanity (History or Geography). In practice, this has meant that in all English state schools hoping to be rated "Good" or "Outstanding" by OFSTED (the government inspectorate for schools), the top 90% of pupils have been told they have to choose either History or Geography at GCSE. On this account, Michael Gove maybe deserves some credit for the currently very high number of pupil studying history at GCSE. In 2019, 47% of 15 - 16 year olds in England sat History GCSE exams, compared to less than a third in 2011. As a history teacher, I generally think this is one of the better things to come out of Gove's bungled reforms, though it does highlight a lot of the problems that would arise should history become compulsory. 

The second variant is a more progressive, left-wing one. Under this perspective, pupils need to study history until the end of their compulsory schooling in order to understand the roots of modern day injustices and try and fight for change. A key moment here was Black Lives Matter, especially the toppling of the seventeenth century slave trader Edward Colston's statue in Bristol on 7th June 2020. This generated a public debate over the UK's imperial history and how it should be remembered in the twenty-first century. Many people saw the school history curriculum as being at the heart of the solution to the current ignorance and amnesia. For example, Sam Freedman, an expert on educational policy, tweeted in response to Colston's fall "days like today are why I think history should be a compulsory subject to 16. You can't participate in the present if you don't understand the past." Indeed, before Colston's bronze likeness was taken for a swim in the Bristol Channel and just a week after the extrajudicial killing of George Floyd catalysed it all, an online petition was presented to Parliament. It demanded that history be made compulsory at GCSE, and that the history of Britain's involvement in slavery, colonialism and racism be taught. Needless to say, it was rejected.  

Ultimately, as I've said before with the closely related issue of what should be on the Key Stage 3 curriculum, I'm in agreement with neither. To allow either side of the political spectrum to tightly prescribe the content of the history curriculum to any age group, based on their own ideological version of British history seems highly dangerous. R.A Butler, the Minister for Education under the National Government during WW2, who essentially created secondary education in England and Wales as we know it today with the Education Act of 1944, had the foresight to see the dangers in this. Winston Churchill wanted the central government to prescribe the curriculum for history and other subjects - "tell the children that Wolfe won Quebec" is what he said to Butler. Michael Gove and his fellow travellers would applaud Churchill for this today. But Butler successfully resisted this, and it was only after the 1988 Educational Reform Act that a National Curriculum for history began to be developed. And as I've said before, in practice this has given English state schools a lot of autonomy over what history content their pupils learn at Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 and long may that continue. 

And reforming the content that pupils learn at GCSE/ Key Stage 4 is much less straight forward that people might think anyway. In practice, what actual historical content pupils study for their history GCSEs is dictated by what periods and topics the four exam boards (Edexcel, AQA, OCR and Eduqas) offer. Edexcel is a for-profit organisation (owned by the publishing company Pearson), while AQA, OCR and Edquas are private charities under the law. All four are in competition with each other and are essentially driven by market forces. Thus they offer whatever content secondary school history departments across England are most comfortable teaching, not what Westminster and Whitehall dictate. While some people want to the government to stop the outsourcing of GCSE exams to private companies and would like to see a single public-funded examboard, until this happens it effectively puts the dampers on any kind of radical reform of GCSE curricula. And that, by extension, removes part of the impetus for a compulsory history GCSE, as what's currently on offer from the main examboards is not the historical content that any of supporters of a compulsory history GCSE on the right or the left would want to see. More about that another time.

Now I'm going to stop waffling and really cut to the chase. I simply don't think compulsory history to 16 is right on the principle of freedom of choice. Obviously pupils need GCSEs in English, Maths and Science if they're going to be at all employable, but beyond that they should have freedom to choose which subjects they like. But more importantly, even if complusory history to 16 was the right idea in the abstract, I don't think its at all feasible in practice. 

I have not been a teacher for very long at all (two school terms as a trainee). But already from teaching in two very good but very normal London state schools, I know that compulsory history would be detrimental for many pupils. In my Key Stage 3 classes (11 - 14 years old), when history is still compulsory, I've taught pupils with the reading age of an 8 year old, refugees who can barely speak English and pupils with all kinds of other complex learning needs. For these pupils, being in mainstream education is itself an immense challenge. What matters for them is that they can get 5 grades 9 - 4 (A* - C in the old parlance) at GCSE, including English and Maths, so that they can succeed in adult life. Everything else for them really is an added bonus at best. Forcing them to do history at GCSE could very well be a nightmare for them. Alternatively, you could say that since even the core subjects they have to take already (especially English) place such huge demands on their literacy as is, perhaps having a humanity in the mix is a good thing as it helps build and reinforce those cross-curricular literacy skills. Indeed they might find it more interesting and fun writing essays about the Harrying of the North or the Cuban Missiles Crisis than "Macbeth" or "Pride and Prejudice." But alternatively, that subject that lights the spark of their interest and helps them build their literacy skills might be volcanoes and earthquakes, comparing Christianity and Islam or Greek mythology. Once again, while I can totally agree that studying a humanity (besides English Literature if we're counting it as one) is invaluable and something at all GCSE students should do, it shouldn't have to be history. Geography, Religious Studies and (where it is offered) Classical Civilisation are just as worthwhile. Indeed, and really I ought to have made this argument before, if we make history compulsory at GCSE why not just make all mainstream humanities subjects compulsory, as indeed they are in those countries where history is compulsory till school leaving age.  

Now for the vast majority of pupils in mainstream secondary education, there's no doubt that they could get a decent pass under the current GCSE history exam specifications if they had the motivation to. And here motivation is the key word. If pupils get to choose their subjects, they're a great deal more enthusiastic than if they're forced to them, by the same logic that volunteers make better fighters than conscripts. And for the subjects they are forced to do, namely English, Maths and Science, they at least have a powerful form of negative motivation there - if they fail them, they'll be virtually unemployable. I know this from experience, as I hated GCSE Maths but I knew I had to do well at it, and in the end I did. That kind of negative motivation can't exist for non-core subjects like history, which aren't seen as essential by most employers. What that then makes for when a non-core subject like history is made compulsory is one hell of a lot of disaffected learners. Anyone who has taught any academic subject at Key Stage 3, when they're all still compulsory, knows how pupil disaffection manifests itself - poor effort and poor behaviour in the classroom. On a bad day with a particularly difficult Key Stage 3 class in a non-academically selective school, a significant portion of lesson time can be taken up with the teacher managing pupil behaviour. But at least at Key Stage 3, disrupted lessons can be written off as the pupils don't have to pass external exams, only internal assessments set by the school/ subject departmental leadership. Whereas at GCSE, every bit of curriculum time is precious, especially in a subject like history. It is thus really important that your pupils are with you, almost from the moment they enter the classroom, so you can maximise on you actually teaching and them actually learning content. 

Linking to all this talk of motivation and subject content is the final reason why history should not be compulsory at GCSE, and that is a simple logistical one. There simply aren't enough trained history teachers for every 14 - 16 year old in the country to be studying it, especially in the current teacher recruitment crisis in England. This hasn't hit history nearly as badly as some other subjects high in demand, like physics, computing or design and technology. But it demonstrably has all the same. What this means is that, already at Key Stage 3, many schools are getting non-specialists, whose actual subject specialism may be Geography, Religious Studies, Sociology, Psychology, Business Studies etc, to teach history. This situation really isn't ideal, but its just about workable at Key Stage 3 with the right kind of subject leadership, staff training and resources. However, if GCSE History were to be taught by non-specialists, it would be letting the pupils down, plain and simple. In order for pupils to be motivated and do well at GCSE, they need teachers who possess good knowledge both of the content of the periods they're studying and of history as a discipline. 

Indeed as Kristian Shanks, a history teacher and deputy head of a secondary school has pointed out in an article arguing for exactly the same position I am now, we've seen the horrors this can bring with another subject - Religious Studies. Lots of state schools used to make Religious Studies compulsory at GCSE, in order to meet their statutory requirement of providing for the Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development of 14 - 16 year olds. What this led to was a dumbed down course in which pupils could receive as little as one lesson a fortnight, taught by non-specialist teachers and with lots of disaffection and poor behaviour. Indeed, as someone who took Religious Studies for GCSE at a private school where it wasn't a compulsory subject and was given much more curriculum time, we were able to cover all the content we needed to get As and A*s in just two terms. For the whole of year 10 and some of year 11, we spent our Religious Studies lessons discussing Kierkegaard and Batman, or watching movies like "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" or "Kingdom of Heaven." Indeed, when the EBacc was created, the government couldn't countenance making Religious Studies eligible for the humanities component - it just wasn't intellectually stimulating or challenging enough. The same cannot be allowed to happen to history!