Question for anyone educated in Europe...

[Lucy in Australia]

Before I say anything, I will admit I'm generalising here. There are always exceptions and I'm just saying this based on observations I've made.

 

I completed my primary school education in France and then we moved to Australia. I still have a lot of family and friends in Europe and I've been pondering a question: do you feel you are well educated when it comes to history and if so, how was this achieved? I'm puzzled as to how my peers in Europe, and now their children (including the very "non-academic" ones) have such a good grasp of history, including retention of dates (admittedly, mainly European but also a reasonable knowledge of world history) when my peers in Australia seem to have had such a ... hazy history education. The situation seems to be even worse for the next generation. Is it to do with the method of education or simply that not enough emphasis is placed on the matter?

[Melissa in Australia]

Well I wasn't educated in Europe; I went to school in Australia. I went to a high school that did a 4 year world history cycle from year 7 to year 10. I learned heaps of history.

Have you looked at the new national Curriculum they are trying to implement? Australian history for all of primary cram the world into 2 years during year 7 & 8, and then back to Australian history for the rest of school. HOW BOORING!

[Melissa in Australia]

I have no idea why the writing has gone so tiny in my post above.

sorry about that.

[keptwoman]

We have a similar problem in the states and I think that it is a function of 1. being geographically removed from European history and 2. a school system that focuses myopically on US history to the near exclusion of the rest of the world.

I was about to say the same thing, I imagine people simply absorb a lot more history when it is literally all around them, and Australia is similar WRT the myopicness (is that a word LOL)

 

And I'm disappointed about the new curriculum, originally it was World History right through school, and I was doing a little happy dance about it.

J was at school for 7th grade, and the history he was doing was exactly the same in scope and content as we were covering with my Gr1 kid doing SoTW, I was appalled!

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Before I say anything, I will admit I'm generalising here. There are always exceptions and I'm just saying this based on observations I've made.

 

I completed my primary school education in France and then we moved to Australia. I still have a lot of family and friends in Europe and I've been pondering a question: do you feel you are well educated when it comes to history and if so, how was this achieved? I'm puzzled as to how my peers in Europe, and now their children (including the very "non-academic" ones) have such a good grasp of history, including retention of dates (admittedly, mainly European but also a reasonable knowledge of world history) when my peers in Australia seem to have had such a ... hazy history education. The situation seems to be even worse for the next generation. Is it to do with the method of education or simply that not enough emphasis is placed on the matter?

 

When we lived in Germany, most of the people we knew were our work and social peers, ie, professionals who were university educated and who had often traveled and worked abroad. In the US, we tend to know a much wider circle of people, from those who are doctors and lawyers down to office workers and blue collar workers. So I wonder if partly one tends to not be comparing knowledge across similar groups of people.

 

However, I think another part of it is that because Europeans tend to travel widely across Europe, they are exposed to sites related to history through the ages. It is far easier to retain bits about Roman or Greek history, for example, if you've been to Rome and Athens.

 

Germans were often very uninformed about US history beyond the Civil War and George Bush (Oh, and the American West, which in popular German culture is associated with a long series of books by Karl May, who I'm pretty sure had never been to America. But there are Cowboy Towns and American Indian reenactors in Germany. It's pretty funny to meet someone dressed like a Civil War soldier who is asking you for commentary on his costume, in German of course).

[Joker]

I can't believe how much history I missed out on now that I am hs'ing my dds. The only things I learned in my entire high school experience, with regards to history, was about JFK and the great depression. There was not any world history involved. My dds, at 10 and 8, already have learned more than I ever did as a student.

[Rosie_0801]

I was beaten over the head with three topics in Australian history in primary school, did a bit of Egyptian history in year seven, some local history in year eight and picked a WW2 subject as an elective in year 9. The history teacher after that was so ridiculous I didn't dare choose it.

 

That would be why I barely learned history at school, but I gave myself a good overview in my own time, just because I liked to.

 

My cousins went to a private school and were dished up the Egyptians then the Romans in year seven. No wonder they didn't like history! Oops, forgot to mention the Greeks! SOSE was the worst thing to happen to history teaching. My other cousins' year ten SOSE books didn't contain a scrap of history. It was all what dh would call the "lies to small children version" of economics.

 

Rosie

[Laura Corin]

I don't think I had a good history education in the UK. I seem to remember doing some vague history topics all the way through to age fourteen (Vikings, Romans, Egypt, etc.) then dropping history for two years (it conflicted on my timetable with geography) before taking it up again at sixteen and studying the period of English (vaguely British, but really English) history from 1485 to 1714. I'm good on that period for England, but was very vague otherwise until I started home educating.

 

Current history education in UK schools is very focused on the last two hundred years, but at least it covers other countries too.

 

Laura

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't think I had a good history education in the UK. I seem to remember doing some vague history topics all the way through to age fourteen (Vikings, Romans, Egypt, etc.) then dropping history for two years (it conflicted on my timetable with geography) before taking it up again at sixteen and studying the period of English (vaguely British, but really English) history from 1485 to 1714. I'm good on that period for England, but was very vague otherwise until I started home educating.

 

Current history education in UK schools is very focused on the last two hundred years, but at least it covers other countries too.

 

Laura

 

That surprises me Laura. All the characters in my favorite British cozies are so well versed on history!:D

[Peela]

Nowadays history is only one part of the subject "SOSE" here in West Australia, and they try to cover so many things in SOSE, it's no wonder they can't fit in much history. Especially since so many people think history is irrelevant- except perhaps your own country's more recent history, so you can vote.

[Laura Corin]

That surprises me Laura. All the characters in my favorite British cozies are so well versed on history!:D

 

If you look back to the era of Our Island Story, the history might have been bigoted, but it was there. By the time I was in school (late sixties through seventies) things had changed.

 

Laura

[Deb in NZ]

At least History is taught...here in NZ it is possible to go all the way from NE-Year 13 & NEVER take a history course! If you do choose to take history, it isn't full World history as WTM recommends. Year 11 History is a comparison of the American Civil Rights, South African Apartide, & the NZ Treaty of Waitangi. How can students truely understand these 3 events without a solid background of World History? Social Studies is a subject from NE-Year 10, but it doesn't cover true history as we know it. I remember ds#1 studying Hamburgers in social studies in primary school. The next social studies unit was on shoes :confused:

 

I recieved a fairly good History education in my education (in the States) This may be because I had an interest in History & took extra History courses in highschool. (I began uni as a history major) But even my education K-8 was a nice balance between American, Canadian, & world history.

[lailasmum]

I was educated in England in a state primary and secondary school. The amount of history we did in school was pretty minimal. At primary school we mostly did history that related to our local history. So Normans (lots of local Norman castles), Elizabethans & Sir Francis Drake (He was born in the town we live in, his house is a few miles away, plus we are close to Plymouth.), a little about the local Benedictine monastry and the odd bit about WW2.

 

We did a bit of history at secondary school but I can't remember what was covered at all. If you chose to do History GCSE or A Level you obviously did a lot more. I did neither so only did history for 2 yrs from 11-13 approx. My sister did continue history and studied WW2 in depth.

 

It was definitely not taught in a chronological way or any way that allowed us to get the bigger picture. Just topics here and there. I know that is the same now in the primary school I went to as my mum still works there.

 

Most of my knowledge of history prior to starting history with my daughter was picked up from TV (Time Team and other documentaries and period dramas) and from visiting castles and stately homes and talking with my parents. I a picked up lot more as an adult than I did as a child. There is a lot of history all around us where we live.

[keptwoman]

And I'm disappointed about the new curriculum, originally it was World History right through school, and I was doing a little happy dance about it.

J was at school for 7th grade, and the history he was doing was exactly the same in scope and content as we were covering with my Gr1 kid doing SoTW, I was appalled!

Actually, come to think of it, J has just chosen his VCE (Last 2 years of school) subjects, and there were some pretty decent choices for history, 20th century history in Gr 11 and Revolution and/or Australian History in Gr 12. Plus International Politics and International Studies.

 

At least History is taught...here in NZ it is possible to go all the way from NE-Year 13 & NEVER take a history course! If you do choose to take history, it isn't full World history as WTM recommends. Year 11 History is a comparison of the American Civil Rights, South African Apartide, & the NZ Treaty of Waitangi. How can students truely understand these 3 events without a solid background of World History? Social Studies is a subject from NE-Year 10, but it doesn't cover true history as we know it.

That's disappointing. When I went to school in the 80's I got a decent chunk of history in Form 3-4 (erm Yr 9-10) Social Studies, and after that it was an elective, but one I did choose.

[mazakaal]

Agreeing with the other posters about British schools' coverage of history. From what I've gleaned from friends who are parents, current school coverage in history is limited to Roman history, Vikings, Elizabethan times, and World War II. I was shocked when I put my oldest in school and he had to choose GCSE subjects. Math, English, and science are required, but not history. So after age 13, a child learns nothing of history unless he elects to take GCSE history. IMHO history is more important than science at that age because everyone is a voter and everyone needs to be able to make wise choices. How can they make wise choices for the future if they haven't learned anything from the past? There is no government or economics required. There is a 'citizenship' class, but that is just about drugs and s*x ed, not how to function as an educated and responsible adult in society.

[Alessandra]

I went to a private school in New York City (a long, long time ago) and we had lots of history, required every year. Grades 2-4 went from 'cavemen' to explorers. Grade 5 = U.S history.

 

Grade 6 Ancient History (mainly Greece & Rome)

Grades 7-10 English history

Grade 11 American history (required by state regulations)

Grade 12 Modern (i.e. since the Renaissance) European history

 

Our English history books were from England, with one being a textbook and one being a book of primary sources. Teachers emphasized the importance of primary sources, which I now appreciate.

 

But: the early Middle Ages were called the Dark Ages; the Crusades were noble; Russia was not part of European history; colonialism was OK; non-European history was not covered at all. Needless to say, no African American history was ever mentioned.

 

Grade 12 history had a text and lots of other reading. The Pirenne Thesis has stuck in my mind (well, not the thesis, actually, but the design of the book cover, lol).

 

But I don't think I paid enough attention sometimes -- I still learn new info from kiddie history books.

 

So ---- more is not necessarily better!

Edited September 30, 2010 by Alessandra

[Pixie]

I grew up in France.

We had some French history in elementary school, I don't remember much organization about it, it was more like bits and pieces.

Then from 6th to 12th grade we had a history/geography class every year (mandatory). From 6th to 9th it basically follows the wtm cycle of ancient to modern. Then from 10-12th we started another cycle but I don't recall covering ancients again. In 12th grade I know we had to cover from WWII to 10 year before the current year for the baccalaureat exam.

It was all very european centered, I learned nothing about china, africa, south america... The U.S. didn't enter the picture till WWI...

[In The Great White North]

Year 11 History is a comparison of the American Civil Rights, South African Apartide, & the NZ Treaty of Waitangi.

 

One of the local private school's American history course is a comparison of 1760, 1860 and 1960 and who was disenfranchised in each!?!?! And that's their only history requirement.

 

However, I think another part of it is that because Europeans tend to travel widely across Europe, they are exposed to sites related to history through the ages. It is far easier to retain bits about Roman or Greek history, for example, if you've been to Rome and Athens.

 

Germans were often very uninformed about US history beyond the Civil War and George Bush (Oh, and the American West, which in popular German culture is associated with a long series of books by Karl May, who I'm pretty sure had never been to America. But there are Cowboy Towns and American Indian reenactors in Germany. It's pretty funny to meet someone dressed like a Civil War soldier who is asking you for commentary on his costume, in German of course). __________________

 

Distances are definitely part of it. I know all the history of the area within 500 miles of where I grew up. For me that was US and a bit of Canada. Europe is outside of that range. If I had been born in Germany, it would have been all of Europe and the US would have been outside of that range.

 

European (generally) are at least as ignorant of American history as Americans (generally) are of European history.

[Laura Corin]

A So after age 13, a child learns nothing of history unless he elects to take GCSE history.

 

The history may well still be narrow. The teacher can choose from various time periods, and most seem to choose the most modern. Calvin is studying early 20th C history for GCSE (UK, Germany, US). Many teachers also choose relatively modern history (more 'relevant') for A level. My boys are heading for IB, and I don't yet know what the history choices will be.

 

Laura

[Dandelion]

I grew up in Germany and attended German schools from 1st-8th grade and then attended a private American high school (also in Germany).

 

My education in the German school system was excellent, including the coverage of history - but as others have pointed out, we learned almost nothing about U.S. history (when the Germans think of the U.S. it's either the "Old West" or Hollywood ;)) . I'm very well-versed in European history though, and it did help that we traveled extensively across Europe while I was growing up - so I could put the history in context.

 

I'm now learning U.S. history along with my kids - it's fun! :)

[juelle]

I went to a British 'public school', which is really a private school (girls only, at mine - loved that!). I did History A-level. My real knowledge of the times and topics is hazy.

 

What I really know comes from my own reading, and from the movies and documentaries I watched with my Dad, who wanted to pass on his love of history to me, and to make sure that I knew some American history, since we're American. He was successful.:001_smile:

[Ester Maria]

Ancients were covered way more thoroughly than anything else, particularly Romans. Italian history was studied in the context of the European history. Other continents mentioned briefly when relevant, but prior to 20th century not very much; US history was covered briefly, as well as old Eastern civilizations, but overall, the Italian and European bias was very obvious.

[southcarolinamom]

Speaking on behalf of my husband, who was living in Sweden in junior and senior high - he has a strong background in European history, but the Swedish school system taught very little US history.