Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
31 August 2009
10:0928326Labour MP Frank Field has written a very interesting article on something close to my heart, the teaching of British history, in an article with which I agree wholeheartedly. It is well worth reading and the link is below....
The 'first' - well that is because he wrote this article for Conservativehome.com, the first Labour MP to do such a thing, what is more he will probably find a great deal more support for this on Conhome than Labourlist...
Politics aside, it is a good and interesting article well worth a read.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/08/frank-field-mp.htmlGuest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
31 August 2009
10:1628327Like Hannan frank field has also been the rebel of the labour party, but not this time like skinner/benn of the left, but frankie baby is of the right of the party.
You will recall blair asked frank f to look into social security abuse, he came back with a realy radical reform much of which barryw and I could probably agree with.
Sadly this issue is something neither labour nor tory will tackle for fear of losing votes.
so it was quickly shelved.
he will always be outspoken and of course because of some if his more right wing views the tories will love it.
rather strange to go on a tory site
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
31 August 2009
15:3728333Nothing to say about the article then Keith?
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
31 August 2009
18:1428340my computer playing up cant view it but whe i do i will comment
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
31 August 2009
19:3728346it depends on what history you want to look at.im iclined to look at 20th century history as a rule,but do ocasionly delve into the 19th century as a matter of recource.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
31 August 2009
21:5628349frank field has been passed over for the promotion that he has always thought that he deserved.
just a maverick that likes to be in the news.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
1 September 2009
07:5428357Im afraid that Frank Field is a bit of a disappointment to me. He comes across as an engaging fellow, very intelligent and so on, but he is almost always permanently at odds with the Labour Party and the Labour Movement. He is much more at home with Conservatives like Mr Soames and so on. Guys like him should try running for parliament under an Independant banner without the party machinery and then lets see where he gets. He purposely appears Conservative in an effort to get up peoples noses and indeed he does get up peoples noses so it works.
The more that MP's become mavericks as Howard rightly says he is, the more they become newsworthy but the less effective they become as Party members. TV companies always love someone who will go against the party line with as much outlandishness as possible... hence FF being very familiar to all of us. His engaging personality is wasted and the green green grass of home will welcome him back soon...one hopes!
As for the item on history and school kids I dont know enought about it to comment with any sense, but just to say kids have to take onboard so much more these days that its impossible for them to absorb everything. School used to be about readin ritin and rithmetic once, but not anymore.Now the kids know a smidgen of everything but are experts in nothing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2009
08:0828358Perhaps, PaulB, he places country and principal before Party.
Guest 684- Registered: 26 Feb 2009
- Posts: 635
1 September 2009
10:3728363Great article again by the ever-brilliant Frank Field - that rarest of Westminster beings, a conviction politician.
As many of the respondents to his blog said, what the hell is he still doing in that clueless cadaverous beast which is the so-called Labour Party?
A top bloke, Mr Field. Wish there were more like him. Perhaps then this country would have a chance.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
1 September 2009
10:4828367I think you're right Barry he clearly does place country and principle before party and you have to commend the man for this. It does again raise my issue about the awkwardness of our political system. Ideally I would love to vote in an individual who best represented my views/situation/locality. This person however would not stand a chance against the party machines. So do I vote for an individual in a party, who could get ignored depending on the faction of the party he represents or do I vote for the group that most supports my ideas in the hope of solidarity in delivering my needs? The reason Labour stands by and allows Gordon Brown to ruin the country and the party is because of this (sometimes misplaced) solidarity, the Conservatives are quite happy to turn on their each other and push them out. So which would I choose? The group that most represents some my needs or the individual who says he completely represents however might not be listened to or could turn the other way, depending on his own needs.
Of course this dialectic between 'individual vs group' doesn't exist at all anymore (the healthy basis for most of our debate Barry!) The parties don't really offer any choice or representation, as groups or individuals, which is why we have arrived at this point of apathy.
As for the article by Frank Field, I totally agree. I do think History is phenomenally important and it does seem we have a society that has neglected its roots and ultimately identity. I do think children through primary school and the first part of secondary should just be given a chronological 'greatest hits' of history, allowing them to slot in other events into a framework, something that seems to be lacking. However I think where people miss the point is that education shouldn't be just about shallow learning, which is what this is.
Children (in general) do not know facts and dates of historical events and I think they should, this is foundation learning that is not being addressed properly. But in terms of use, this learning has a very limited application other than foundation. I say "When did WW2 start?" You say "1939". I say "When did it end?" you say "1945". I say "What was the Gunpowder plot?, you say "an attempt to kill the king of England by a group of Catholics" Now although I value this sort of information and people should know some of this stuff, it's sad that people of a certain generation and mentality (like Mr Field) can use it to ascertain so little. As I say these things are essential foundation knowledge and very important, however this isn't the only thing the teaching of History is attempting to do. The descriptors that Mr Fields uses for weather or not someone is being taught history properly may as well be 'capital cities of the world' , 'the works of Gilbert and Sullivan' or even his shopping list from last week. This is exactly how people teach their dogs to seemingly do arithmetic.
'I say this, you say that' does have a place and it is key to further learning (this is why agree with him primarily) but it really isn't the only thing education is attempting to and these people need to realise the naivety of their statements. In later life the main use of this shallow learning Mr Fields is putting emphasis on is winning pub quizzes, which some people (usually with beards) find impressive! By just teaching information and not skills it actually makes certain 'academic subjects' indistinguishable, reducing them to the regurgitation of information. The ability and skills to use and understand this information is what education should try and do, especially in an age when information is so accessible. Any of the children could have answered Mr Fields questions with a simple internet search, probably (I don't for a minute think this should be necessary for such easy questions). What they need to be able to do, as much as 'know' the facts, is assess the reliability of this information, be able to research further, examine bias and tie this info in with other facts. These skills that are developed (unfortunately but with fairly good reason) within small chunks of history, a reason their knowledge is generally limited.
Mr Fields seems to think History can be taught with the emphasis on objectivity, again fairly naive. 'The facts' I was given at school about say Oliver Cromwell, I should imagine differ from those given to PaulB or Bern. I had a friend take great offence about a book on the subject in my bookcase...he is from Drogheda. He also shows the limitations of his own understanding of subjectivity (or 'touchy feely') when he starts with a line concerning Good Friday, do you think he went on to talk about this celebration predating Christianity in this country? Probably not, that might lead to questions and all we want 'collective memory'...does that mean we have to have a common belief system too?
As I say, I do agree in principle but this sort of thing is always cropping up and none of these self-promoters even bother to ask decent questions, just produce obvious, agreeable rhetoric.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2009
11:0428368I think you are oversimplifying what FF is saying. I dont think he is suggesting that the 'why's' or deeper meanings should be forgotten at all, what is is saying is that the core chronology is now lost. For instance there is no reason why the key events and dates of WW2 should not be taught with a 'why' attached. I seem to remember learning history as a timeline with a focus on major events such as wars and battles and for each period talking and discussing deeper issues, whether it was the reasons for the Claudian invasion, to what motivated Napoleon to devastate Europe. What was important was the chronology that held it together placing events into a broader context and in so doing sparking a deeper interest and appeciation of history. It meant I was able to pick up a book, fiction or non-fiction, and to place that into the chronolgy and immediately relate to the age concerned. It was reading a Dennis Wheatley novel about a spy working for Pitt the Younger that led me, for instance, to understand the role of Tallyrand (prompted by the fiction to delve into non-fiction). As a 14 year old I am not sure that I would have been able to relate to quite heavy adult fiction if I did not have a little background from what I learnt in history at school.
History is regarded by many as boring these days but there is no reason why it should, if taught properly. To learn about Wellington's victories in the Penninsular Campaign can spark any boy's imagination and generate a greater interest if done properly. You cannot say the same about having to 'imagine yourself a 14th century peasant'....
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
1 September 2009
11:4828370On the contrary, I think he is oversimplifying. As I say I agree with him but I don't think he understands how things have changed which is why conservative types like this sort of article.
Yes you need a chronological framework, something I personally was not given as a result of the National Curriculum..err when was that introduced again, to produce a 'free-market' approach to schooling?...can't think who'd use terminology like that?
I agree with what you say Barry but I think you make too many assumptions. Would having a great PE teacher have made you enjoy football? I know it didn't for me! History has always been regarded by some to be boring, Art by some to be pointless or Algebra a waste of time-"when am I going to use this?". This is the problem with that supposed objectivity FF talks about. Things are different and he is measuring them by his evaluation of his own education, from a time we no longer live in. Perhaps if someone had developed his sense of 'touchy feely' empathy he could see this.
I'm with you Barry, however things are different and making 'things the same as they were' is a not the answer to everything. Boys do still love war, but history isn't just about conflict! Many children know of conflicts, dates and details through computer games, I'd argue that these suppress their imaginations but this is the time in which we live, something advocates of back to basics forget!
Guest 687- Registered: 2 Jun 2009
- Posts: 513
1 September 2009
14:0028371As a politician Frank Field is to be admired, but the moment he offers an alternative point of view to those in power in his party they turn on him like baying wolves. It never occurs to those members of the Labour Party that perhaps their leaders at both national and local level could be wrong, or perhaps they do but are afraid of incurring the wrath of those who select them prior to an election.
It will be interesting to see what the fate is of those Labour councillors on the Dover Town Council, who voted against the parties nominee for mayor.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 September 2009
17:4728378ken
your logic seems to be here that one man, frank field, is right and that national and local leaders are all wrong.
if that is right why does mr field not leave the party?
?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2009
19:3728390Actually Howard, I would trust Frank Field to tell the uncomfortable truth rather than anyone in the present Labour regime and I am sure that is true of most people.
In having a dig at him you did not address the actual issue here, the teaching of history, dont you have a view on that?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 September 2009
19:5628391i will leave the subject of history teaching to the academic chaps and chapesses.
when i was at school the world map was mostly pink and i was told that all these johnny foreigners were eternally grateful for that.
later i learned that this was not totally true.
history will always change to suit who is talking about it.
now barry, why do you trust mr field so much, he has never had a job in the real world, a couple of tax payer funded sinecures, then 30 years as an honourable member?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2009
21:4428394He is a hell of a lot brighter than the typical Labour MP, thats why... Almost up to Tory MP standard
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 September 2009
21:5728395so why is it that when a blue MP turns renegade, it is because he has a chip on his shoulder about being passed over for promotion?
when a red one does likewise it is because he is brighter.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2009
22:1428396Just this particular one, howard - it is self-evident....