The National Curriculum: The Dangers of Nationalism and ‘Muscular Liberalism’

Volume 4 | Issue 3 - History in the Public Eye

Article by Chris Johns. Edited and researched by Rob Russell.

The National Curriculum is always under scrutiny and for good reason. It is perfectly natural and sane to want the best education for children. When this starts to become a little more irrational, even potentially problematic, is when politicians and public figures begin associating the education of children with their own agenda. I draw attention to the commitment of both Michael Gove and David Cameron to bring British History more into the centre of the curriculum and Benjamin Zephaniah’s criticism that the National Curriculum is not diverse enough. In my opinion, both these statements are flawed; not because I am a vehement defender of the current curriculum (although I do think it’s pretty good), but because when you start utilising nationalist rhetoric to forward your own agenda, issues can arise.

Upon entering into parliament the Conservatives did not waste any time in launching their attack on Labour’s education legacy. Michael Gove was first to insist that young people were leaving school with a greater knowledge about Civil Rights and Adolf Hitler than certain figures in British History. But my question is, why is this a problem? Gove argues that, “people live here, they spend most of their time here, they need to understand this place.” While this nationalist rhetoric might appeal to some members of our population, I am not convinced.

Currently, children in Britain are being taught a multitude of topics and approaches including the Crusades from both perspectives; the Tudors and other monarchs; the Magna Carta; slavery, the abolition of, and the founding of America; the Vietnam War; the Cold War; the development of crime and punishment as well as medicine in Britain; the World Wars; various genocides in the twentieth century and loads more. From this list alone, there is a fairly decent mixture between British History and international history allowing students to engage with a more comprehensive version of the world’s history. Of course, it is impossible to fit in everything, but surely a diverse curriculum is only aiding the students of Britain, not hindering them. Otherwise, we may wind up with a population who will not be able to locate China, India or any other country on a map. Is that what we want?

Maybe that is a bit extreme; but my point is that if you start forcing a citizen building agenda into the curriculum, it could do far more harm than good. For one, the government will run the risk of ‘conveniently’ leaving out certain aspects of the story. Take Admiral Horatio Nelson for example. Admiral Nelson is renowned for being one the greatest heroes of Britain. While I would agree that including Nelson in the curriculum is a good idea (because let’s face it, he’s awesome), the fact that he was an adulterer might get overlooked. I am not suggesting that Nelson’s womanising is of overly historical significance, but my point still stands that we run the risk of teaching a rose-tinted approach to history. Michael Gove has consistently argued for the need to glorify the British Empire, when only a fleeting glimpse at the history of our ‘glorious’ empire will reveal that it was not all hugs and glory.

Is deluding children really the right way forward? The curriculum as it stands is not exactly a beacon of truth in regards to the darker side of our history, so if we focus entirely on the history of Britain, then we are essentially robbing children of the true story, not only of the world, but of Britain too.

While I believe introducing nationalist rhetoric into a national curriculum is wrong (moronic at worst), taking it too far the other way is just as bad. Benjamin Zephaniah came out in the October of last year to warn of the dangers of teachers who “cannot name any early African philosopher.” His concerns make sense, in a way, as giving more attention to Socrates, Plato and Foucault in the curriculum, whilst spending no time at all on African philosophers is wrong. I feel that someone ought to point out, though, that we do give them the same attention: no attention. Luckily for you Zephaniah (or maybe unluckily), philosophy is not included within the majority of scheduled timetables. My point is though, that while it can be dangerous to focus too much on our own history, trying to incorporate everything and be too ‘liberal’ is both impossible and unnecessary. How exactly are we supposed to get the majority of our children engaged with history if we are teaching them about something that is only relevant to a select few? I suppose we could segregate schools or classes based on cultural heritage, but something tells me that might create more problems than it solves.

To reiterate, I do think there are problems with the National Curriculum in schools and there are things that are not included or over looked that should be…or shouldn’t be. But trying to rectify this by only adding in British History is not necessarily the answer. In my opinion it will do much more harm than good. The fact is that if you want to incorporate more of British History, something has to be taken out and the question then arises; what does the government regard as important enough to keep? What I do think is that teaching a diverse history reflects what Britain is; a multi-cultural society. If we deny a wider view of the world to our students, we run the risk of creating a generation completely lacking in respect and understanding of each other and the wider world. With this in mind, I also do not think we should get carried away with liberalism in our curriculum. Not only because it is important to have an understanding of your own country, but because we will run the risk of discouraging our students from relating to the subject matter.