Leading article: In praise of compulsory history lessons
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.That half of Britons in their early twenties do not know that the Romans built Hadrian's Wall, or that Nelson led the British to victory at Trafalgar, is evidence of young people leaving school "woefully undernourished" in history, Michael Gove lamented yesterday. Absolutely right. But the Education Secretary should resist the inevitable Tory temptation to take the National Curriculum back to a focus on Kings and Queens.
True, students need to learn dates and facts as well as broad themes and fashionable flashpoints. But what is wrong with the present curriculum is not its lack of rigour but the fact that there is insufficient time to teach it. Since the 1980s – and, coincidentally, another Conservative Education Secretary – what was designed to be taught in five years has been crammed into three. The answer is a simple one. The comprehensive teaching of history should be made compulsory to the age of 16.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments