history in education project -...
TRANSCRIPT
Summary of Recording – Jon Nichol
Importance of link between university expansion in the late 1960s and the emergence of
new thinking about history teaching as young academics unable to get positions in
universities turned instead to teacher training institutions as a career option. Influence of
Kirti Chaudhuri and Rex Walford on Nichol’s thinking about games and simulations in
history. Early career – early publishing for primary schools in collaboration with teacher
at Repton School – Blackwell History Project. Involvement in exam board work –
importance of networking and patronage in securing research funding. ‘Traditional’
content of new history courses – cultural continuity in terms of the content of history
teaching since 1904 – classroom pedagogy changes but content stays the same. Arrogant
educationists. Working as a teacher trainer alongside teachers. Role of John Fines in the
early development of the Schools Council History Project – Nichol’s work with John
Fines on Nuffield projects – Fines’ background and early work – his work on history and
drama – story-telling. Influence of HMIs Roy Wake and John Slater on development of
history teaching. Gossip about the writing of the National Curriculum and the role of the
HMI. Fines’s opposition to the National Curriculum – value of the National Curriculum in
boosting primary history teaching. Link between Plowden Report and emergence of good
history teaching at primary level. Problems of agreeing content in a multi-cultural society
– political aspects of decisions about content in history courses. Development of the
SCHP in three phases – Sylvester – Shemilt - Culpin. Opposition to Shemilt’s ideas in
SCHP. Why Sylvester’s approach is better. Contribution of Unstead to history teaching.
Importance to history teaching of having an underlying philosophy of the discipline – in
contrast to Religious Studies. How Nichol got interested in using computers in history
teaching – early work on computer simulations – demise of computer simulation work –
value of commercially-produced ICT in schools. Gifted and Talented initiative. Adapting
ideas about teaching history to the changing primary curriculum – how ideas for teaching
history come round again – Alan Blyth’s Place, Time and Society (1976) an integrated
course. Criticism of the National Curriculum as ‘Stalinised’. How teachers develop their
methods of teaching and why it is very difficult to make them change – the importance of
practical demonstration in teacher training.
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH
HISTORY IN EDUCATION PROJECT
INTERVIEWEE: PROFESSOR JON NICHOL
INTERVIEWER: DR NICOLA SHELDON
3RD AUGUST 2009
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 1
[Track 1]
Okay, I’m Jon Nichol, I have recently taken early retirement from a position as a
Professor of Innovation and Enterprise at the University of Plymouth. The history
education aspect of my work has been a sort of base interest for the last five or six years,
but has not been a central feature in what I do. Before that I was a PGCE secondary tutor
at the University of Exeter and all my work revolved and related to that and we can talk
about that in relation to question one.
Yes. Can you briefly sketch out your career in history education in reverse?
One of the arguments I put forward about the development of history education in this
country – and I’m going to use the term history education because I think it is a good one
– is that from the late sixties it had a relationship to the expansion of the universities in the
context of a host of young bright eyed and bushy tailed research students doing PhDs or
masters degrees or research degrees in general who were then unable to get employment
in the university sector following the staffing of those universities during that great period
of expansion of what are known as the plate glass/red brick universities and a significant
number of them went into teaching as a, not a preferred option, but as something which
they had to do for a variety of reasons. And I can think of several of that generation:
Bernard Barker and myself, John Fines – slightly earlier – who would fall into that
category.
Are we talking about the late fifties?
We’re now talking about the late sixties into the early seventies. And this is really quite
important because it does have a seminal influence in that you had a group of young men
and women coming into history education who were academic historians and that means
that they had a very clear and full grasp upon the nature of it as a discipline within the
context in which they were doing their doctoral/masters research. And that has had a
lasting and penetrating influence, particularly upon the skills and processes dimension of
what has been going on.
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 2
[0:02:01]
So can I ask you, did you leave university and then go straight into teaching or did you do
a PhD then?
Well I did a doctorate at Cambridge, or did the research and then ran out of money and
then ended up either, as I say, I could have been a cynic or a sceptic, and I took the
sceptical route and instead of working for the Conservative Party’s research department I
went into teacher training. And we won’t talk about my politics, which are quite
interesting but confused. So I did the, as I said, inferenced, I did the academic stuff in
terms of doing a doctorate with Eric Stokes at Cambridge, was a great privilege and a
delight.
What years was that Jon?
Oh, this would be ’67 through to ’70. ’67 through to Yes, about ’70-ish. And then I
trundled off because of, as I said, into the teaching training and one of the issues there is
that the influence of that affected the way in which I approached the teaching of history.
Remember at this point in time they were just beginning to think about the ideas of
Sylvester and the Schools Council History Project grounded in Collingwood’s thinking.
And they were also beginning to think about sort of more creative approaches and there
was a natural relationship between my PhD, in which I had again the privilege of sitting
next door to a man called Kirti Chaudhuri, who created or was Britain’s earliest and
perhaps greatest econometric historian who was interested in the modelling of the East
India Company as a commercial enterprise on the same sort of scale in its time as
Unilever or Shell or whatever, and the East India Company was operating effectively in
the mid eighteenth century and he sat at one table doing his work on the East India
Company, I sat at my desk doing my work upon the East India Company in the context of
the Conquest of Bengal with Clive of India. As I say to people who say what is your
academic expertise, I say quite happily, I’m the world’s leading expert on Bengal politics
in the 1750s, which is translated into the Black Hole of Calcutta, the Conquest of Bengal,
Clive of India and all that. But the serious point about that is that Kirti was fully engaged
in producing analytical models which were related to the computing of the economic data
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 3
and on the basis of that, when I went to do initial teacher training and came across another
major influence upon my early thinking on history teaching, I came across the new
geography where they had developed through a man called Rex Walford, games and
simulations which were based upon models of geographical situations, ie the abstraction
of the key features and then making them dynamic through the simulation mode of
operating, and so it was very logical to put Kirti Chaudhuri’s East India Company and
gaming and simulation and geography together and I came up and wrote on my teaching
practice, a simulation called Trade and Discovery, which was the first, to my knowledge,
dedicated, developed history game of simulation. And that was contemporary with those
Bernard Barker was developing with a friend whose name I’ve forgotten now. There was
this relationship between the academic and the teacher training and the development of a
form of teaching which was dynamic, interactive, engaging, intellectually rewarding, at
least for me if not for the kids.
[0:05:18]
So you started teaching 1971?
Something like that, Yes.
Where were you teaching first?
Oh vaguely, I went back … well we started off in Birmingham obviously and I went to
Birmingham to train in Birmingham schools and then I went to a small grammar school in
Shrewsbury and stayed there for a few years, about two or three years and then trundled
off down to the Institute … not Institute of Education, I had a year’s fellowship at the
School of Oriental and African Studies, working upon textbook development. That was
very kind of them, very nice, and I had a very nice year. I wrote the first lot of textbooks
I produced.
And then you went down to Exeter then?
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 4
Yes. That was in ’79, so had an interesting and varied early career. But when you said,
back to the career in history education, we go back to the development from the teacher
training phase and then on the basis of that I went and worked for three years in a school
called Repton and met a man called David Burt who was very able, very interested in
publishing. One of the things I’ve always done is I’ve tended to work with people, for
whatever reason, and I’ve always found that a catalytic idea, is that the combination of
two people in some ways is better than … the whole is greater than the sum of the parts
and David and I worked together and we had been contacted by Blackwell’s at that time
and also by Longman and the consequence, outcome of that was in one side my evidence
series of books for Blackwell’s, which are focussed very much upon the primary area, the
history of England really, in manageable chunks for kids and teachers but embodying the
ideas behind, the thinking behind what one might call the new history and the new history
teaching on the one hand. And on the other hand we did a whole series of games and
simulations for Longman and produced a small book called Games and Simulations in
History, the outcome of that. And after that it was all very much developmental work and
I came down to Exeter ’79 and ran the PGCE history programme.
So was Repton a primary school?
No, Repton is an outstanding jockstrap second division public school.
[0:07:24]
So how did you get your primary experience?
Never had any.
But it didn’t prove a problem writing for primaries?
Hilarious isn’t it?
What led you then to concentrate on history teaching in primary/middle school? Because
you’ve mainly concentrated on the sort of 7-13 age range haven’t you?
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 5
Well that might be your perception of it, but I always worked in the secondary sector.
And the books were very amenable and open to that age range and the evidence series had
massive sales inside the secondary sector. Because in fact it was a curriculum for the
secondary sector and then the next series on was what we called Blackwell History Project
– ho, ho, ho, take an original idea and steal it – as in the Schools Council History Project.
And the idea there was to apply the ideas and thinking behind let’s call it the new history
– we can come back to what that might mean – and to apply that to the GCSE phase. I
should add at this point in time I was a member of the Associated Examining Board’s
GCSE/O level/A level steering committee. There was ten to a dozen of us. We ran the
whole shooting match, the largest exam board at that time. And the point about writing
on curriculum development is you need to have your networking feet under the table to
know what’s going on, ie if you’re inside the curriculum development work inside the
examination board, you’re then in a position to actually create and develop highly
marketable and highly commercially successful resources for schools. And that’s what we
did with the Blackwell History Project, very very much so.
That was a publishing venture? The curriculum development venture?
Well it is a curriculum development venture because the two things go together, ie, but it
was a curriculum development in the sense it was reacting to changes in the examining
system which were then being introduced for GCSE. Remember we were going from
CSE and O level to GCSE and everything was up in the air of how the hell do we do that,
and being on the exam board, all the discussions, debates, arguments etc, of what was
going on, the structure and framing of the new curriculum, however that is defined, you
have the knowledge and the teachers need the resources, the books to work with the kids.
And therefore you’re in a position to write them, which is what I did.
That’s in 1989?
In the 1980s, yes. ’88, ’89, yes. So that all comes out of working through having inside
knowledge and the networking knowledge, etc, etc. In the same way that you’ve picked
up this project because of David Cannadine’s links with Lord Sainsbury. That’s not a
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 6
problem and this is how Nuffield works and my Nuffield funding, which began in the
1980s – we’ll come back to that later – is all based upon networking and I support it.
[background noise] It’s almost on the eighteenth century patronage system whereby you
actually go for good people, you obviously check the whole thing out, you then do the
proper stuff, as opposed to public competition which produces far more duds than it
provides live shells and there’s an interesting debate to be had there about … for the
funding bodies. I did go to an evening thing in Exeter on this where there was quite a bit
of fur and feathers flying around in which one of the people in the – Lord Brain – was
playing hell with the man who ran Leverhulme who was saying this is how we do it, you
know, on the Nuffield patronage system.
[0:10:38]
So back to the curriculum development in history work. All the work which was the
evidence series came off an interest in the new history. I’ve talked about the simulation
role play, and then of course being involved in the Schools Council History Project,
however tangentially, and then looking at how can you create something to get kids
thinking, to get teachers to accept it and the key here is to make something which is
radical and different, appear to be conservative and the same.
That’s something that’s interesting isn’t it, that Schools History actually did appeal to so
many people who were perhaps of quite conservative tendency, ie teachers at the chalk
face. Why do you think that was?
Well you made it look the same. So when they started looking what you were doing and
asking the kids to do, they lit up a bit because what they’d had previously was – and we
mustn’t do a parody of it – was what you called the transmission of stuff, the textbook, the
Cootes and Snellgrove, the kids working in a particular pattern and so on. I’m not going
to decry that, that approach to teaching history which is still almost universal throughout a
great deal of the world, has had certain great strengths to it and has a great, a clear and
specific purpose. But what we tried to do is to say let us take that framework of
knowledge which is in the mind of a teacher and in terms of how they can work with
children, make them, or suggest that they do it differently, but to build a different
pedagogy into it. So what you’ve got on the one side is - let’s use this word – the
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 7
substantive content side of the curriculum, look the same, Plato to Nato, here we come.
The whole entrenched curricula which have developed and in fact as I believe you’ve
come across at the International Journal of Historical Teaching Learning and Research,
there’s an interesting edition on this, with an interesting article in it looking at the origins
of the textbook in England – your good lady friend ought to look at this – where in fact
the idea of the kind of knowledge that kids take out of schools in the old state system,
there were no textbooks, there was no history on the curriculum, this is really before 1904,
but what they did have were the readers, the stories of the great and good. And that was a
wonderful insight and that was how the historical knowledge was imparted, it was
imparted through the tales and myths of these great biographical, the biographies of these
great figures. And this was a lovely idea.
[0:13:12]
So it’s a sort of innovation by stealth?
Very much so, an innovation by stealth. And in fact if you look at post 1904 textbooks -
and I’ve got the Oxford and Cambridge one from 1904 - after the 1902 Education Act,
whatever it was, if you actually look at the content it’s exactly the same content which we
have now. It’s extraordinary, the cultural continuity in terms of that which is taught. And
it surfaced again brilliantly in this Rose Curriculum, its theme of human, social – what
was the other, reading it on the train this morning – understanding. And suddenly it got
on the politician’s desk and it came back as historical, geographical and social
understanding. Back to the 1904 curriculum, which Robin Alexander has actually put that
down in his latest report. Fascinating, fascinating stuff where you’ve got a continuity of
curriculum which carries on. Men may come and men may go, but that historical
continuity and the culture of the school community has a marvellous continuum. And
therefore to bring about change you accept the mindset, the understanding, the orientation
of your teachers and you give them something which looks very, very different but when
they begin to work with it they say, yes, now this is so much more interesting, this is a
much more interesting way of doing that which I was doing anyway.
So it’s method rather than content?
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 8
It’s not method, it’s pedagogy. You’ve got to be very clear about this, it’s a pedagogy
grounded in the knowledge and understanding of the nature of the discipline. There is a
great danger of dismissing method which has been done by the arrogant educationalists
who couldn’t teach their way out of a paper bag. They know nothing about education
whatsoever, but kind of control the education world, and I can be quite virulent about
them because I think they’re a pain in the butt. They have great virtues and great
strengths, but in relation to failing to understand that the strength of faculties of education
is in those who may demean and dismiss, which are the people who are actually doing the
professional development of teachers at all phases, and they tend to dismiss that.
Do you think that teachers have adopted a new pedagogy without realising it or it’s been
…
Don’t know.
…filtered in through training?
Don’t know. The evaluation, Shemilt’s evaluation of the Schools Council suggests that
they didn’t and it was a real issue here as they would go on teaching the same way. We
just don’t know. We don’t have the evidence. Maybe you have it, I don’t. Nobody’s sat
down and looked at this as a … it’s a really serious research question. But to my
knowledge, and I may be completely ignorant, the lads in the Institute of Education might
know about it if there’s any worthwhile research being done into this.
[0:15:49]
With your trainees that you had in Exeter and Plymouth, you were deliberately developing
a pedagogy with them?
Yes, absolutely.
So is it feasible that that’s happened across the country and infiltrated?
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 9
Who knows? It’s feasible, yes. It’s a hypothesis. Got no evidence!
When you go into schools do you see lessons that …
I go into schools very little now. I haven’t done anything for six or seven years.
But when you were going into schools?
Well this is a lovely one, it’s a really good question because you don’t see anything other
than your trainees. How many teachers, how many times do you see other teachers
teaching? And what I do say is all my curriculum development research, we talked
interestingly about the primary in terms of that early stuff and never having taught it, but
everything I wrote for kids on the secondary I went and taught it with a teacher. And the
interesting issue here is I worked closely in two teachers’ classrooms over twenty years, I
have not a single piece of evidence that the work I did with their children with them
looking ever had any influence on them whatsoever. And there is a theory about the
transfer of expertise from a trainer to a trainee, however that is defined, from an expert to
a novice, which is called cognitive apprenticeship, which is actually a very powerful
model – I’ve written extensively upon this – and that, what it involves is basically
somebody looks, you kick their arse, make them do it and then they might learn. That’s to
give you theory summed up very neatly and very succinctly.
Just want to take you back to the content.
It’s called demonstration modelling review implementation. But you have to do it. You
know, you learn something by doing it. It’s a very simple idea and by looking you’re not
doing it and you’re not absorbing it, it’s a different kind of knowledge in a way and it’s
very much a hands-on, an active training experience and it’s very, very well worked out.
We ran our in-service along these lines with John Fines, but carry on, yes.
[0:17:51]
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 10
Going back to the content issue, would you not agree that Schools Council History Project
introduced a new approach to content? And of course there’s been Modern World
courses that have done this since the sixties.
Well yes, absolutely right. But the whole thing came together. What I was doing and lots
of other people were doing were taking a lot of the ideas of the Schools Council History
Project, plus what had been fuelled by our own experience in terms of our own academic
upbringing, which is not to be dismissed. And what I found very much with the Schools
Council History Project was the congruence of ideas, that what Sylvester was doing was
in some ways an intellectually valid and appealing rationalisation of that which I was
almost doing intuitively and John Fines was almost doing intuitively. And of course we
would rationalise it, but there was something going on there which we could associate
with very closely. And as I say to people in terms of John is, as John told me and in fact
at that seminar you were at Peter Lee corroborated it, John wrote the great handbook of
the Schools Council History Project. I’m sure you’ve seen Denis Shemilt, but Denis
produced this huge wodge of paper and John told me he went away and effectively he
wrote and produced the actual 13-16 book and Peter Lee said the same thing. I don’t
know what Denis says about it, what his view on it, take on it is, but I’m only second-
hand, hearsay reporting what John told me. Which is interesting.
Well it is. That brings us on to John Fines. When did you first work with John Fines?
[0:19:14]
Ah, as PGCE tutor… I’ve got no memory for dates. One of the things I did with my
PGCE tutoring was to say that there’s no point in having an external exam, it’s a complete
waste of time. You should treat them as a consultant, so you go for the best people you
can find who will then help you in terms of creating and developing your course. And
that’s how I met John, I got John to be my external and that would have been in the late
eighties, can’t remember the dates at all. And that’s when we began working together.
And then we went and we went to the Nuffield Foundation and got them to fund …
Nuffield was funding me already extensively on something else, but that’s by the way and
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 11
we’ll come back to that. And we then picked up the primary history project and the A
level project.
So how did the …
The A level project and the primary … that’s the right way round it went. Well easy,
because we were so fed up with the wretched National Curriculum that we felt that let’s
try and get something else going on primary and A level history.
And what was the chief thing that you were trying to do?
Well, introduce a methodology of getting kids doing it. Let’s take the doing history
through, and what we’d understood of the nature of historical learning and ways in which
it could affect young people and then translate that into the curriculum. So what we did is
we, both in the primary and secondary, we started from this basic premise of we wanted
kids to be doing history in terms of processes, protocols, skills, all the rest of the stuff.
And that has been an underlying conception ever since. And Jack Hexter’s The History
Primer, if you said do we have a textbook for that or single book, and really the real
driver was our own experience as historians – and I can talk about John on that in a
minute – is that there is a book by Jack Hexter called The History Primer which is a
wonderful book, which nobody seems to know about, it’s a major book on the theory and
practice of history as an academic discipline, and we used that and referred to it. And an
idea about where is the driving force coming out of history as an academic discipline
came from is, with social overtones, was John’s own story of how he … his epiphany, his
moment of conversion was John at Cambridge enjoyed life and to the extent that his tutor
– John told me these stories – his tutor wrote to every education department in the
country, said this man is unfit to teach, do not take him. Which I think is an interesting
development. And despite that somebody took the plunge and John trained, he didn’t get
a job in academia or he turned it down, I’m never quite clear which, and he ended up as
being a history teacher who fulfilled the worst, worst fears of his tutor at Cambridge. And
he was so bad that he had to keep the kids in detention, and who are we to mock anybody
else with our own earlier, even later failures in discipline haunting us? And John was
doing his PhD upon the recusants of the Tudor period and in order to pass the time of his
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 12
very large detention class, he would bring along his recusancy records, his cards, and he’d
get the kids to help him work on this stuff for his PhD. And that was all okay until
suddenly a queue formed outside the detention room of kids wanting to join Mr Fines’
club. And that was it. Getting kids engaged with resources, getting them thinking, getting
them discussing, debating, enjoying etc, and then away went John and became the great
man we all know him to be. But it’s fascinating that there was suddenly a … this
accidental, you know, rather like the person who was terrified of his wife, who discovered
how to make rubber out of the stuff which came out of rubber trees. He was
experimenting, his wife accused him of a wasteful … and trying to make, turn, you know,
this stuff into rubber. His wife came home and supper was cooking and he didn’t dare to
tell her he was still working on developing rubber and he shoved the substance into the
oven. And when it came out baked hard he said, ‘Ah!’ That’s apocryphal. John had his
conversion, but there you see is an interesting issue of the relationship between academic
history and teaching. In my case as I told you, it’s about the modelling and seeing
something and doing the creative connection between the two, the creativity is making a
connection. Often the more interesting the creativity the more unnatural and unexpected
are those connections, which once you’ve made them seem totally obvious.
That suggests a connection just between practically looking at sources and enjoying
history …
Absolutely right.
But John Fines’s ideas go beyond that don’t they?
And that’s where it started, that’s when it all started and in terms of John and the
intellectual origins of what was going on, I can help a little bit but please, please don’t
quote me because I mean it was incidental conversation. A great influence was Dorothy
Heathcote and drama and the great influence there was a man who I think was an absolute
genius, a man called Ray Verrier. And you come across Fines and Verrier. Now Ray is
still alive, he’s probably become a monk. He was a most diffident, shy, self-effacing man,
but if you read the stuff he wrote, he was something special and he worked at Bishop
Otter when John went to Bishop Otter and Ray came back and told John about Dorothy
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 13
Heathcote and Ray started doing all the drama stuff. So the driving influence there was
Ray. Where the influence on storytelling came in, I have no idea. They could have been
the same source, but certainly on drama that was Dorothy Heathcote. Where he
developed this ability to tell stories … Ray used to say, he used to do it at school because
he was always in detention, to tell stories to teachers, to amuse the teachers, and he told
some wonderful stories about his school days in that context. But when you put the whole
thing together by … he’d obviously gone into Bishop Otter and he’d then become
acquainted with Roy Wake and in particular Roy Wake picked him up – I’m just doing
this off the top of my head so I don’t know – and that very, very great man John Slater,
who picked John up. John Slater was … I came along when John Slater was stamping his
b__ on history and he was a totally benign and positive influence and a very, very great
influence. And his pamphlet on history – pamphlet, if you call it pamphlet, booklet –
History in the Primary and Secondary Year was extremely important, extremely seminal.
Are you seeing John Slater?
He’s in Australia. So I haven’t been out there. I have got an email contact…
But what a good idea. He was really very, very good.
I had the book when I trained, the History in Primary and Secondary Years and as well as
your own book.
Yes, but he was very important. He was ‘behind the curtain’ importance. And I don’t
know the politics of the Schools Council and all the rest of it and all the rest of it and all
the rest of it, but John was very influential in there. And of course a great disaster was
when David Sylvester failed to become the Staff Inspector following him You probably
know that story where he got up the nose of whoever and that extra… champagne and …
chorus girls and champagne bottles, corks, Hennessey became the HMI for History and
the man who wrote the National Curriculum for history. I’m too old to be unkind about
people, but I don’t know if you’re going to talk to Hennessey. Hennessey wrote the
National Curriculum, do you know that?
Well he’s credited with having a lot of influence.
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 14
Well it’s more than that, he actually sat down and did a lot of the writing, because Robert
Guyver was a very close friend of mine and Guyver told me all about what was going on
at the time.
I’m going to talk to Mr Guyver, so I’ll be able to find out.
Yes, Bob’s great fun. But he really … but he was very powerful and very influential and
much more so than he should have been. I mean he was not the neutral observer during
that writing that National Curriculum and Robert talked about him actually being on the
typewriter and doing things, whatever, at that time. And he was … we’ll leave it at that,
if I may. Robert’ll tell you exactly what went on.
[0:27:40]
But John Fines wasn’t completely negative about the National Curriculum was he?
Yes.
I’ve an article here from Primary History which actually – from 1994 – which is about the
Dearing Review, but he’s actually credited: ‘National Curriculum in history with its many
defects has in fact had a remarkably good effect on the education of young children’.
Well that’s absolutely fine. That’s no problem about that. Because that’s not an issue, the
issue is the first time history went into the primary curriculum as opposed to being
virtually nothing there at all of any value or interest. I mean the Peter Knight work - poor
Peter died - that ESRC project showed actually just how very skimpy and very, very
limited history as a subject in primary schools was before 1988/89. This was a revolution,
very, very important, so it had a phenomenal impact. But in terms of the National
Curriculum itself it was just a complete nonsense. John and I felt very strongly about that
and anybody who looked at it objectively said it was a scheme invented by idiots
implemented by morons and, you know, it’s like that one … oh, God you just look at it
and say, what were they playing at? But when you look at it they did actually have the
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 15
skills and processes and the substantive element side by side, so that was very, very good.
But the real impact on primary schools is they put it on the primary curriculum. That was
where the great impact came on. And just talking very loosely, in the south west of
England we only knew of two examples of good primary history practice in the whole
south west of England.
Before the National Curriculum?
Yes.
And how many did you know about afterwards?
Oh, it was a very, very large increase. Can’t put a number on it, but it was being put in
and implemented and so on. And when you look at all the stuff we did on our GEST
courses and so on, there was a major move, a major change which took place in late …
and the National Curriculum was a catalyst for that. They had this Association of Primary
History Teachers which then merged with the Historic Association. And let’s face it,
things have been looking up a bit, we’ve now got … circulation’s gone up about a
hundred or fifty or something. Primary History we’ve got 700 going out. So something’s
happening and I’m doing my very best, particularly in the context of the … and the Rose
Review to have a real whack at slamming it back into school, because as I said, the
politicians having – I said earlier about having this atavistic curriculum, looking back to
the ancestors. And he’s done it again; historical, geographical and social understanding –
whoopee! Back to 1904. Great. Great for the Historical Association. And they just
swept away any idea of change and development over the last thirty years, they just put it
into the shredder.
[0:30:23]
Well, does that mean that teachers themselves have changed the way they teach or that
they …
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 16
Well I think there is an argument they have … I think the argument about how they teach,
there’s a congruence between Plowden, the teaching and a Piagetian based teaching which
underlaid the Plowden Report and good history teaching and that is what Peter Knight
said in his research into … when they looked at the effective teaching of history in the late
seventies, early eighties, from memory. And that’s what you can pick up, so there is no
real problem. Then you have to give the teachers the critical knowledge and
understanding of the nature of the discipline and then the pedagogy related to it in order
for them to implement it and make the thing that much more intellectual. Well,
intellectually, that much more - not viable - that much more coherent, have substantive
basis instead of just being mimicry in some shape or form.
So are you saying that the politicians had been the friends of history in the primary sector
and not in the secondary?
I wouldn’t say anything about the secondary sector, but in the primary sector I’d say that
they were the friends in the National Curriculum coming in that they actually put it on the
curriculum for primary. In terms of secondary I’ve got nothing to say about it really, no
comment at this point in time. Thank you. Well it’s a National Curriculum subject, but
you will have picked up is this whole issue about the politicians harking back to the Plato
to Nato heroes, heroines, etc, etc.
So would you say that the content doesn’t matter, because you said …
No, I’m saying the opposite. Because that’s why I wasn’t going to comment on it. I think
there is a view inside the history education community, in some peculiar way, that content
doesn’t matter. Or that the content which is – Our Island Story - which I must get hold of
because I’m going to put it into my next edition of Primary History, and if you look at
Hodgkinson’s work on chronology, doesn’t really look at the question of is chronology. Is
it about dates? Is it about political education? When you actually look at what those dates
and the framework, the narrative framework, it’s a question of mythology, it’s a question
of identity, it’s a question of trying to get some of the young people of the country in
some sense locked into the key factors or features of how the country evolved and
developed so that they can get a very clear sense of where their citizenship comes from.
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 17
And that’s what that Plato to Nato curriculum is about, it’s very contentious, particularly
in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society, to put it mildly.
[0:32:51]
So what would your preferred alternative be?
Oh, I’d call it a contemporary history curriculum, but that’s another story.
I’d really like to explore that though. I mean if it’s important, how do you make the
decision about who decide … you know, how …
These are second order issues. But the second order and third order issue of actually
arguing and debating and who … then away you go, obscures the first order issue, is what
is the kind of knowledge and understanding of their past that we want youngsters in a
plural democracy to have when they leave school, and retain in some significant way
through their adult, into and through their adult lives.
And would you say that debate has not been had?
Yes, I’d say it’s been had. The politicians think they have won it, the history
educationalists think they’ve pulled the chain on it and flushed it down the whatever, and
the question is, where are we on this one?
Where are we?
Don’t know.
At the moment?
I don’t know. The argument to that, well we do know where we are, ask Peter Lee about
that children’s knowledge of history project they ran a couple of years ago. Do you know
about that one?
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 18
The CHATA one?
No, they’ve had one after that and …
They’ve not published anything from it as far as I can see.
No, but you need to talk to them about it because they actually did a survey of what kind
of historical knowledge kids have at school, who take from school. That was their last
major research project, was its latest research project. I don’t know what it was called.
They published a bit on it. And basically what they came up with is that the kids know
absolutely sod all about sod all, which is not very much of a surprise really is it? But
there is research into it, ie what kind of knowledge are these children taking away from
school in the context of a substantive dimension of it, as opposed to the syntactic skills
procedure side of it.
And does it matter if they haven’t any concrete knowledge to take away from it?
Well it depends what concrete knowledge is, or whatever it is, or if they’ve absorbed the
skills and knowledge processes side of it, maybe you’re right but there are issues here. I
wrote in editorials in Primary History on this, is how do we avoid 7/7, how do we avoid
young English citizens from blowing up the underground. That’s the political dimension
to that. And that’s why I said, you’ve got to look at this idea of a … I don’t like this idea
of frameworks, John thought they were absolute nonsense, I’m sure he was right. But
what kind of view of their own country within that historical dimension do the young
have, which they take into adult life. And the problem about The Island Story and the
politicians is it’s Rule Britannia, etc, etc, etc, you know, as in the context of history
education. Parodied as I was told by Raph Samuel – no, I’ve been talking rubbish. Raph
Samuel, that very, very great man, wonderful, wonderful man, pointed out – it may be
apocryphal again – 1066 and All That is a serious political statement about the kind of
history which led to the slaughter of the First World War. Isn’t it an interesting point? So
this is an issue and a debate which I think does need looking at with sensitivity – and I’m
not going to say there is a consensus of opinion around what kind of facts kids should be
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 19
taking away or knowledge and understanding kids should be taking away from school, but
it is not to be pooh-poohed because it’s a very difficult and contentious issue, which is
where we were coming to. And that is a problem. I’d agree with that. Anyway, I’m
being radical on that one.
That’s okay. I wanted to ask you about Schools History Project, which we’ve referred to
already. You referred to it as having three parts: David Sylvester’s, the Shemilt concepts
and then Colin Shepherd’s good works, as you describe them. So could you just elaborate
on what you mean by the three phases?
[0:36:32]
I think what we’ve got to say here is I can only talk about the first two. And I can talk
about all three, but very quickly, I mean Sylvester to me – and I hope this ties in with your
interview with him – was he had an intellectual coherence, understanding. I went to the
talk which he was giving in 1972 about it. What he was doing, what he was doing - very,
very interesting. And he was very clearly of an understanding and he took the
Collingwood Model – I hope he did do that, I don’t know if I’m wrong – about What is
History?, he looked at the idea of history, he took a lot of the things that he then tried to
translate into pedagogy off that book and said this is an alternative to the Plato to Nato
transmission model. And this was built around the idea of constructivism, the use of
evidence, the idea of representation of understanding from the perspective of a child as
historian, for want of a better term. And then Shemilt did this evaluation and so that was
phase one for Dave and his project team, etc, and he produces the What is History? packs
and so on. He then moved into creating and developing the exam course by the end of
three years, understandably, etc. And the History of Medicine course, that’s what he
knew about, etc, etc. And the ways in which different forms of knowledge; study in-
depth, outline and whatever you look at, local history came into that. We won’t worry too
much about that because we could spend all day talking about those. But then Shemilt
produced this evaluation and something happened very peculiarly because we suddenly
got this idea of history is about teaching from concepts and this was all then picked up by
Peter Lee and what they did in the context at the institute. And this then became …
Shemilt is the Schools Council History Project. I just sit there, this is bonkers. The
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 20
evaluator is the guy who created it. Now, the argument could be is the evaluator and
interpretation of the evaluation by Lee in particular with Denis, and they’re working
together in the Institute of Education paradigm, may not have led to a re-conceptualisation
of what the Schools Council History Project was, but it ain’t nothing to do with what the
original thing was and the one which I identified with. And then you move on to the
Colin Shephard period, which has effectively become basically a sort of … well not Colin
Shephard but - my brain’s gone to putty - Chris, whatever his name …
Oh, Chris Culpin.
Culpin. Chris Culpin was very, very philosophical and very sane.
[0:39:11]
Section embargoed until 2022.
[0:40:25]
So would you say that Sylvester was about engaging children and developing their
understanding whereas Shemilt is about thinking skills?
Well I’m sure, I think that the first point of your statement is probably quite right and
Sylvester’s is about the thinking of the paradigm of how historians operate and work
within the context of the world of a child. So the idea that it’s not thinking skills is a
nonsense because it is thinking skills, it’s processes, it’s concepts, it’s protocols - and
that’s one thing I come on to – is the protocols related in terms of history in different
forms like biography and local history, narrative, or whatever. And so I’d have thought
Sylvester was very much the whole thing’s about thinking, but within the contextualised
… within … then grounded in the academic discipline and the different forms which
academicians take in terms of what kind of history we’re getting the kids to do. Whereas
to me, I’m not very clear about where the Shemilt stuff came from, but then their
argument – and Counsell has carried this on – is oh, these second order concepts and
therefore we build our programmes of education around these second order concepts,
which is completely bonkers. I mean to put it simply, the Sylvester approach is holistic, ie
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 21
the whole thing is a holistic process, whereas the Shemilt/Lee approach appears to be –
and certainly the Counsell one – is to break it down, not atomise it because they’d rather
not, into these big chunks like causation and chronology, these second order concepts and
interpretations and so on. And so you’ve got these second order concepts which are
driving the whole thing forward, which is putting the cart before the horse, which is
actually getting terribly confused in the real sense about what is the nature of the
discipline.
Thank you. Makes it much clearer.
That’s mine, that’s my sort of view.
[0:42:21]
I was going to ask you what you thought had been the overall effect of SHP on history
teaching?
I think the overall effect, very oddly is to say in terms of moving on from a paradigm
which is grounded in Our Island Story and that wonderful man, Unstead, and how he
presented it, which was to freshen up, cheer it up and tell the stories and make them really
interesting and exciting and fun for kids, which is what he did brilliantly. And of course
the – and not to do this one – but all that tends to get thrown into the dustbin without
recognising its great qualities of workmanship. But it moved that on to a form which is
congruent with the idea of education getting kids to think, defending your discipline in the
context of being attacked from various sides, what is the relevance of it, what are you
doing. And interestingly, when I ran things in Exeter on a humanities programme and I
was running it with one of our religious studies people and he came along to my sessions
with undergraduates – I never teach undergraduates, I don’t stand up and do that [mimes
lecturing] little bit, very little – is making them function in terms of solving historical
problems and the procedures of questioning, investigation sources, making the …
discussion and debate and obviously with a large substantive element in what they’re
reading, well let’s call it for the want of a better term, the secondary sources on the first
hand, whatever. And based upon a clearer statement of what the discipline’s about. He
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 22
sort of said, Jon, really it’s very interesting to see you working here because compared to
religious education, you actually have an underlying philosophy of your discipline, which
never occurred to me before, but it just struck me as pretty obviously what we were doing
there. And of course there’s a great problem doing that in a university sector with these
very nice young ladies, often very bright, it had sod all to do with the kind of history
they’d had at school. Which is, again the culture is enshrined in the examination system,
which reflect the model, the successful models of teaching of those at that point
dominated, which was the transmission/transformation model. And I’m not decrying the
qualities of that, don’t get me wrong, it has great, great strengths in a certain way.
Certainly for mental training of a certain kind. I’m not going to be knocking it.
[0:44:33]
I want to come on to now your own particular interests, particularly starting the
simulation, that was an early interest, one you mentioned. Yes. So do you think that
simulation really brings the learning of history alive more to younger children or that it’s
qpplicable throughout …
It’s applicable to all age stages and it’s all phases of life. And as a training method it is
used universally across all disciplines and all areas of training. It’s the basic tool of
training people to do any professional job, if you engage them in some form of simulation
work – war games, call it what you like.
How did you come to connect simulations to history teaching?
Well I told you earlier, it was to do with the East India Company, Kirti Chaudhuri
modelling, etc. Rex Walford, historical games and then seeing how you can actually
produce models of historical situations and that was what the Longman book was about,
and it’s continued from then on. And so that’s been an underlying feature of our work.
And then you’ve developed your work in ICT. Did that spring out of simulations?
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 23
Absolutely. And that came, very interestingly – and nobody really knows this – 1982,
January and a man called - my brain is gone, completely gone – turned up from Imperial
College London. Not Reynolds, what the hell’s his name? Ennals, David Ennals. And –
Richard Ennals is David’s father, the politician, Richard Ennals - and he had been very
interested again in simulation and he had been employed by Imperial College, a man
called Kowalski, the great intellectual father of logic programming in this country, which
was going to be the thing which swept computing into the twenty-first century, and
Kowalski had been to his children’s school in Wimbledon, Wimbledon Middle School,
and had been horrified at the BBC, at the kind of inane computing which was then being
developed in the early 1980s on a language called BASIC. He tried to get the school to
teach the kids in what was called Prolog – programming and logic – failed, and he
employed Ennals to do it. Programming and logic, the logic program if you don’t know –
no, don’t have any knowledge about this? No? Why should you have any? … It’s what it
says. You get a computer language which is based upon predicate logic and the damn
machine thinks logically. You put rules in, you put data in relating to those rules and the
machine goes chug, chug, chug, chug, chug, come out with a set of logical statements and
logical conclusions. In other words it’s actually, in a recognised and human way, that
machine is thinking. And I saw that in January 1982 and thought this is fantastic because
it ties into the whole question of modelling in terms of gaming and simulation, rules,
structures, etc, and then the next stage took nine years, I spent all my time doing logic
programming and then what was knowledge based systems, expert systems with people
from Imperial College. I found it very interesting.
Did you produce commercial simulations for distributing?
No, we didn’t do anything commercial but it was all very effective and I’m sure the
thinking behind it … and I ran something called PEG, it was just called PEG – Prolog
Education Group. And I ran about nine or eleven international conferences. It was …
For teachers to …
No, these were academics. Academics mainly, across the world. Ran the last one in St
Petersburg in 2003.
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 24
So these weren’t simulations to be used in schools then?
Yes, they were. They were … that’s how we developed it, but the whole idea of logic
programming, the idea of knowledge based systems and the way in which you get things
to represent understanding and you get kids to program using logical language and their
knowledge and understanding developed from processing information in order to get it to
function as a computer program. And you got them to do it in English because you
produced what we called ‘shells’ where you could put the information in and we had
shells for simulations, we had shells for investigations, for dealing with the clarity of
databases.
So this was an international project that …
It was a project which was funded by Nuffield which had huge international ramifications
which we … and we ran these project programmes etc, very successful internationally.
Were they based on …
Prolog Education Group that was. PEG.
Were they based on children completing simulations in tandem in different international
locations?
Oh no, they were about my work with anyone who worked independently. These were
people who came together. It represented a way of thinking about the use of computers,
not only in education, widely, and the educational side, it was … we worked with some of
the very leading computer scientists in this country. People like Ben du Boulay at Sussex,
and it was another side of my life which I don’t talk about really because I rather enjoyed
doing it. But it’s only tangentially related to history education, history in my brain. But it
came out of the history education and it came through Ennals having been – who was a
history teacher – having been employed by Kowalski.
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 25
[0:49:21]
What came out of it that was actually long term?
Sod all.
Nothing. But you’ve written about simulations quite a bit haven’t you though? The use of
simulation in the classroom?
Yes, but I mean its influence affects things but in terms of, I mean in terms of information
in computing and ICT, in a way the thinking behind what we were trying to do, which is
use this as a powerful tool for thinking in a way which mapped on to the discipline, which
mapped on to substantive knowledge, that is absolutely appropriate right up until now.
And I don’t want to go into this in too … because things have moved on. But it really
was a very, very powerful set of ideas. And of course all the history education work was
going on at the same time. I did that for a very, very long time. And I’m sure we were
right, I mean you don’t spend all that time spending a huge amount of time and energy
doing something if you think it’s wrong. I’m quite happy to scrap stuff and say it’s
rubbish.
[0:50:13]
But in terms of teaching in the classroom, obviously simulation was used as … from text
originally and then computer simulations came in and then it seems to have gone off the
agenda.
It has indeed because those computer simulations were … and the simple answer is, why
can’t you do it with pencil and paper. And we had a huge war with Francis Blow and all
these people because – and also the micro-education program, the whole … there was a
completely different philosophy behind the logic program which was to get the kids to
write the computer programs and through that to develop and extend their understanding
of whatever they were looking at. You would get them to write their own computer
simulations upon whatever topic of simulation they were using, whether it was a voyage
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 26
of discovery, whether it’s Francis Drake, whether it’s the Battle of Jutland, or whatever.
And you then get them to do investigative databases and one we produced was called
Greendie, which was a murder, classic murder mystery. Oh a lot of these – done the
Princes of the Towers in as well, and the classic one, the first one we did was called
Greendie and it was John Doe’s Collingwood Mystery and it is actually a marvellous
computer simulation, we still use it and it’s online and all the rest of it. But it never took
off or never got widely adopted. Why not? Oh, probably not very good at the
dissemination side I suppose. Frankly. And it did not map on to the conventional wisdom
of the sort of – must be very careful here – information technology in education’s split
into two groups. There were those who had been working away, squirreling away on their
BBC Acorns at home and teachers had been working in their attics, okay. And then there
were the computer scientist worlds. I’ve got to be very careful about this, it’s very crude.
And the hackers, the enthusiasts took over educational computing in this country and they
got it completely wrong and it’s been a complete disaster in reality if you look at it.
Hopeless. Total waste of money in a real sense, like the National Grid for Learning was
the classic example. One billion pound project, the same as the Dome, not known about,
impact to evaluation study showed it was a complete and utter waste of money, and that
was typical. And I don’t want to get into this conversation, but the computer sciences
stuff, the work we were doing conceptually, I’m absolutely convinced was right. These
were powerful tools for supporting thinking and tools through which thinking could be
developed and extended for children.
[0:52:40]
Do you think that there has been progress made in recent times because a lot of the
surveys I’m getting back show that history teachers are using technology a lot more.
Yes, absolutely fine. The interactive blackboard stuff is very powerful, very important.
Although the research shows they’re used in exactly the same way as they used to use a
blackboard.
They do get children to do documentaries, use …
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 27
Yes, that’s fine. That is used, that is multi-modality, the idea of all my work, as I said,
why on earth do you … and this – did a lot of work on this as well – is genre is the key
thing. I’m a great fan of the thinking behind the national literacy strategy which is called
functional literacy, which is genre theory and yes, absolutely marvellous, why - and
actually my idea is for a CPD on this - why on earth shouldn’t teachers represent their
knowledge and understanding in terms of what they’re doing in schools in an appropriate
genre instead of writing these 4,000 word essays for academic education which is just to
show the academic educationalists how clever they are, it’s complete nonsense.
But you call that just a shift in mode of communication?
That’s multi-modality, mode of communication, an extremely powerful shift. And the
whole idea of using blogs, interactivity and all the rest, totally in favour of all that stuff.
No problem with that whatsoever. What we were talking about, the actual nature of
resources which are produced in the context of the computing specialists in the eighties
and nineties for history education. History education’s just a minor leaf on the whole tree
of that whole movement. And where is it all now? Basically a complete waste of time,
and money.
[0:54:13]
So do you think that there’s hope for the use of computers in the future?
Oh massively, and I go back to Andrew Hunt who ran Nuffield Science, the Nuffield
curriculum, and Andrew said very quietly one day – lovely bloke, very, very nice, very
powerful man, very powerful in his thinking – he said look Jon, he said, the only
educational use of ICT computing in schools is that which has been commercially
successful. And that is a really powerful argument. Very powerful way of looking at it.
You know, take the whole power of the, the huge amount of incredibly successful
commercial software, apply that within the context of the schools and then the thing takes
off, like the interactive blackboards, like the use of technology to produce documentaries,
the idea of interaction in terms of through webcams and all the rest of it and shared ideas
and conferences, and that’s all commercial software. The actual stuff which has been
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 28
developed by educationalists for education purposes, you’ve got to look at it with very,
very grave doubts and very grave concern. And I went to the BECTA, I was invited to the
BECTA annual, you know, giving of awards stuff, about two years ago by Tribal and you
just sat there, they gave these awards, this sort of self-congratulatory group of commercial
software writers and … and you just look at it and, you know, Mickey Mouse rules again
and they were producing stuff and clapping each other, using all the gizmos. You said,
well wait a minute, that kind of basic thinking was done way back in the eighties and
nineties, you know. Like another idea of high level, high quality thinking from the world
of computing was like Logo, the whole Logo movement in mathematics. And they were
doing Logo program … and you go along to BECTA and a lot of the stuff they said, oh,
this is primitive compared to the … Never mind, but that was all the commercial world.
But I can witter on for a bit on that. We’re not doing too well on our timetable are we?
[0:56:58]
We’re okay. I wanted to ask you about the Gifted and Talented which you told me had
been a major interest in your career over the last six or seven years.
Oh we’re quite a long way down here aren’t we, yes. It’s always very difficult to talk
about the Gifted and Talented thing, in that when … oh, getting old now. The National
Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, right, let’s go back. This is worth knowing.
Let’s go back to basics. The Assisted Places Scheme by the Tories until 1997 in effect
produced a valve for talented kids in the comprehensive system to have what was
allegedly an academic education. These are crude, brutal, simplistic and probably wrong
statements. The Labour Party in ’97 introduced an abolition of the Assisted Places
Scheme which meant that that valve for what you might call the old grammar school kids
from working class backgrounds, that valve was then turned off. Whether that valve was
ever open is … that’s why I said it might be crude and simplistic, but that would be a
perception and we’re not prepared to discuss things here because we don’t know. The
government has a most interesting minister who’s now Transport Minister, a man called
Lord Adonis. Do you know about all this stuff?
Oh yes.
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 29
Now, Lord Adonis – and do put it into Google – I’m going to tease you. Put him into
Google and get his biography from Wikipedia.
I’ve read it.
But what an amazing background. And he in fact became Tony Blair’s principal private
adviser in 10 Downing Street. Talk about a minister behind a curtain or an eminence
grise, he sat … by Tony Blair’s – I’m going to lose my brain power – by his third ministry
he had in effect become an incredibly powerful and influential figure inside 10 Downing
Street. And one of the arguments put forward of why Tony Blair’s final ministry in many
ways was more successful was because of Adonis’s influence. An interest which Adonis
developed in the late 1990s was gifted and talented education. And he promoted and
pushed it on all through ten years until he got up the nose of Ed Balls who moved him on
and now Gifted and Talented has disintegrated. And in 2001, again shaggy dog stuff, I,
with two or three other people wrote the bid for Exeter University for the National
Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth. And my role is this ability to be extremely off-
the-wall, creative thinking and I simply said to the Vice-Chancellor, you’re mad, which he
took as a compliment. The idea that we are a highly prestigious academic university
ranked along with Imperial College, Durham, Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, you know,
we’re clearly in that class. [laughs] So flick it over. We’ll go for the polyversities. Yes.
So we’ll write a bid based upon a consortium of the big polytechnics to compete against
the elitist. Get it? Turn our weakness into a strength. And the man who drove that idea
forward was a man called David Burgess, a great maths guru, major national/international
figure. And David and myself and to a certain extent a man called David Reynolds, and
the V-C himself. The V-C went into overdrive on this. Talk about club man networking
Lord Sainsbury and all that and David Cannadine. Sir Geoffrey Holland was in there, he’d
been a permanent civil servant … he was great. And so we had a whale of a time and we
won the bid for NAGTY, but Tony had promised to his mate who was V-C of Warwick.
So we were runner-up. And as a consequence to that, David who’s – David Reynolds –
who’s very, very well connected, we were offered one of the summer schools and I ended
up directing the summer school for Exeter. Now here I am. And then I wrote the bid for
the South West Universities partnership of Exeter, Bath and Plymouth Universities at
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 30
which point I’d been culled out of Exeter, had been made redundant, etc. Too old, too
expensive, too useless, and I took the bid to Plymouth, which upset Exeter no end, but
never mind, that’s history, and I’ve been massively working ever since in Gifted and
Talented Education. But also in that context applying the ideas through history education
and I run the summer schools and master … which I deliver as through history. And so
that’s been that influence. And if you look at my Primary History stuff, you’ll see quite a
bit in there about the cognitive acceleration in history education, which I believe in very
strongly. I think it’s the best of all the, what you might call the teaching theories about
how you actually get the teaching to operate effectively with kids, called CACHE.
Cognitive Acceleration in Science Education it was based upon, which is Shayer and
Adey, and that has been a major influence and in fact I’m going to put a bit on it in the
next Primary History which is, ho ho ho, Planning for Historical, Geographical and Social
Understanding, which is in the bag. Which is again on this whole business where we
started earlier, how do you do things, you go with the flow, you go with what the teachers
know and understand and therefore they’re faced with this challenge so we produce a
highly simple, practical set of ideas how they can actually implement a new thematic
curriculum in the context of historical, geographical and social understanding, which is
one of the six new themes, and take it from there.
Adapting the old curriculum to the new …
[1:01:40]
Section embargoed until 2022
[1:03:10]
Email me and I’ll send it as an attachment. Because what she’s doing there is she’s
picking up Alan Blyth’s work, which is, which we both bought, where there was a three
year project on dealing with the … and look what it says, look at the title! Look at the
subtitle, look what it says! And what’s the new National Curriculum?
Yes, history, geography and social studies. Yes.
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 31
[1:03:42]
But then what you’ve got here and this is where we’re talking about, this is quite a useful
thing to end on – or not – but this is quite interesting because what we’ve got here is, this
is really up-to-date, 2010 innit? ’09, ’08, ’10? What? You must be joking. 1976.
I suppose it’s true, what teachers say, all the best ideas come round and round.
Yes, but the sharp point on that is this was a proper academic project.
It was funded by …
Schools Council. One of the range of those … and this is the one which is stuck with us,
it’s stuck in all our minds, and suddenly we’ve blown the dust off it. And this tried to say
well, what are the kind of philosophical underpinnings to how you actually deal with this
and I was reading it this morning, you know, I said we’ll do it on the train, pass a little
Mickey Mouse booklet over because that actually is one … [pause]
I’ll stop the tape if that’s okay? I can move beyond the interview or …
Well no, because this in fact is really important for the interview and we can switch it
back on when I find it. [break in recording]
‘In discussing the place of concept’, this is Alan Blyth 1976, Place, Time and Society, an
introduction to their big book, Curriculum Planning in History, Geography and Social
Science. ‘In discussing the place of concept in children’s learning about place, time and
society the project team came to see that there might be particular advantages in looking at
their subject area to see where some common elements could be found which were
important to history, geography and the social sciences. These common elements could
be described as key concepts. There are four substantive key concepts, many concerned
with elements and processes in society, communication of power, values and beliefs,
conflict and consensus, and three methodological’ – what we would call second order
concepts – ‘Many concerns we raised were analysing society; similarity difference,
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 32
continuity change, causes and consequences’. And of course in history we’d put evidence
and chronology in as well. But so the whole project was built around these ideas.
‘Subjects can be looked at in more than one way. First, they are what is found on the
timetable of traditional secondary schools, these should be called school subjects, etc.
Secondly, behind these school subjects there are subjects in the fields of scholarship and
research. So history as a school subject is a body of information and a set of skills and
ways of thinking, which is affected more or less by what is going on in history as a
research and academic discipline. The same is true in a slightly different way of
geography.’ So how modern are we? ‘This means that they are taught, they should be
drawn upon in a balanced way in the actual programme that is followed in the middle
years’. And this is a concept, I come back on this, the idea of critical thinking, the project
emphasises critical thinking, and subjects as tools, ‘Something to be drawn upon in the
relation to the development of these concepts and understanding, both substantive and
syntactic.’ And then you go on and talked about it. This is 1976. But this is in many
ways radically new now as well because in 1988/89 the government Stalinised the
curriculum, they nationalised the curriculum and they destroyed it by putting into the
curriculum the atavistic knowledge and understanding of what education was about
through the lens of the memories of highly intelligent politicians and their advisers who
were harking back to the golden age of their prep schools. At which point I’ll shut up.
Thank you very much Jon.
[End of track 1]
[Track 2]
A big influence on me has been, well it’s been an influence because again, as with
Sylvester’s rationalisation, something called Harland and Kinder 1997, Journal of In-
Service Education, a typology. What are the factors that make change occur in the
teaching’s pedagogy? What makes an innovation change? And they produced three levels
of influence. The first is the resources, teaching approaches, tips for teachers, that’s the
bottom level. Very, very little influence whatsoever. And then the second level is dealing
with curriculum issues and planning inside the school and that has some influence, some
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009
History in Education Project 2009-10Page 33
lasting influence and importance, like when they meet and work in teams. And the top
level is values, congruence on one hand, are the values and beliefs of the teacher or the
values of the teachers congruent with those providing in-service? Do they have a shared
belief in what they’re doing and if they have that, then change is likely to occur. And the
second one is where the idea is that there is a deep understanding of the discipline or the
area of knowledge. Not just as in the history stuff, is grounded in an understanding of
what is history, what is the nature of historical study.
But when you’ve got a non-specialist teaching it, that’s really difficult to achieve isn’t it?
Well the issue then is that you’re going to have to have in-service to provide that kind of,
enough of that kind of deeper knowledge for them actually to have an understanding of
what they’re doing. And the belief side of it can come in any way related to that. But
you’re quite right and that is one of the problems of having a curriculum in which the
teachers have not been educated in relation to both the beliefs and the knowledge side at
the top level of that pyramid and when they’re dealing in a way with little tips for teachers
stuff at the very bottom end. So when we ran our GEST courses it was very much on
involving the teacher in the concept of how they’re going to develop an understanding of
history through the activities we’re doing, they were dealing with resources, problem
solving, questioning, challenge, presentation of ideas. So they got an understanding of the
nature of the discipline in relation to a very advanced pedagogy.
[0:02:03]
Section embargoed until 2022.
Transcribed by: Susan NichollsSeptember 2009