I think this is worth an A-

Before I tell you what is worth an A-, I suppose I should provide you with a quick re-action to Mr. Cameron's speech.  In summing it up, one word springs to what passes for my mind - intelligent!  It was intelligent from an electioneering point of view in that it made no effort to hide the pain that would accompany the climb to the mystical summit to which he promised to lead us.  Thus, if the Tories are elected 'The Great British Public' will have no cause to complain when the various axes begin to fall on services and the taxman cometh.  Of course, they will complain, they always do, but they cannot accuse the Tories of having sold them a dud bill of goods.  Secondly, it was intelligent in its content.  I had my caveats on certain points, and I wouldn't trust that bunch of scrounging crooks who sat behind him further than I could piss into a gale, but the overall ideology, if you like, the philosophy, that drove the speech was entirely sensible, honourable and proper.  Within a few months words will give way to deeds and then shall we see "power being power what our seemers be."

Additional: I have just read Fraser Nelson's take on Cameron's speech and, as you would expect, he sums it up much beter than I did.  Worth a read.

I am obliged to the ever-excellent Paul Waugh for asking the shadow education minister, Michael Gove, for his notion of what constitutes an ideal history syllabus.  To be fair, I must also thank Mr. Gove for putting his ideas out for inspection:

THE GOVE HISTORY LIST

The people who make up Britain - Celts, Anglo-Saxons.

The Roman Invasion

Dark Ages

1066

Liberty and the Magna Carta and Simon de Montfort

War of the Roses

Tudor revival

Henry VIII

Elizabeth I

English Civil War

Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights of 1688

Union of Parliaments in 1707

The Growth of Liberty in the early 18th century

Beginnings of industrial revolution

Napoleonic Wars

The Struggle for the Vote in the 19th century, including Great Reform Act, Chartists

Queen Victoria and Great Victorian scientists such as Darwin and Faraday

Growth of the mass media and the mass franchise in the Edwardian Age

Great War

Great Depression of the 1930s

World War Two, including Churchill's role

New Elizabethan Age,

SSWindrush and the New Britain

Modern history to the present

I think that is a pretty good list and most importantly, it tells a sequential story.  What do you think?

Comments

[Bearded Socialist]

I'm with you on the history actually, that gives a good account of how our country came to be as it is.
I'd query the content of the last two. What's the New Britain, and what's Modern History to the present?
I'd probably do 1945-1979 and 1979 onwards. I pick 1979 because of the real seachang that that election brough and the subsequent changes still felt today. I was trying to think about another event around that time of 60s-70s, but that seems the most important to me.

Also, what about the rest of the world? Birth of civilisation, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Europe etc. etc.

On the speech, I agree that he tried to tell a traditional Conservative story, but I think he kept straying. I think, personally, he needs to try to alienate some people in order to firm up support. I'm one of those who believes in not trying to please everyone all the time, but that means trying to alientate people too.
While he was largely putting together a Tory Story, he didn't quite reach the heights he was after. I think Osborne has come out of this conference better and looking far more serious

[David Duff]

Yes, there is always the difficulty of where to draw the line between history and contemporary affairs. Bring it too up to date and you land il-trained teachers with a real problem of avoiding their own prejudices. Mind you, one of the objects of teaching history is to explain the route by which we reached our present location and condition, and the rate of change over the last 60 years has simply accelerated beyond imagining. It makes sense, I think, to explain quite why British society is so multi-ethnic now.

I'm pretty sure he alienated some people not a million miles from 10 Downing St.! For me, it is not so much a question of trust, more that I remain to be fully convinced by either of them, although I do think that on the whole it was an honest-ish speech and an intelligent one, too. We shall see.

[Bearded Socialist]

Perhaps because i'm a geek who loves his head in books and history, politics, and anything else that involves lots of essays, but i think these events very important. I'd probably try to squeeze too much in because i thought it too important to leave out.

I would put in recent history as it shows where we are, but i would not focus too much on our own other than Huge things (detail to follow)
But i certainly think there needs to me a more world-centric view. I loved things like Egypt at school, and the Roman empire.

He alientated some, of course. He did try to tell a Tory story.
On trust, i try to set my bias aside (very difficult) and on that I'm all in favour of Osborne's approach.
On competance (if i may address your being convinced in those terms) I personally favour Darling as i think he's a good, steady pair of hands. Osborne, to me, is a very skilled politican who i think will be Tory PM one day. But on economic matters i don't trust him, partly because i disagree with his philosophy and partly because imporant serious comentators like Blanchflower and Martin Wolf (never thought i'd agree with him) think he's bonkers in the same way i do.
I believe people should be trusted to do something well, even if it's something i agree with. I should disagree with ends, not the means in some ways. But if those who should agree with Osborne on philosophy AND means think he's off track, then that worried me about his handling

[dearieme]

That's OK for primary school children. What's he planning for the Secondaries?

[David Duff]

Oh dearie me, you're definitely back, 'Dearieme'!