Don't mention the war
-
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=379066[^] "History lessons for secondary pupils are now dominated by the study of Adolf Hitler and the Second World War, the Government's school inspectors have found. A report by Ofsted, the school inspection body, warned that the "Hitlerisation" of courses threatened to damage understanding of history, and could result in pupils leaving school ignorant of key events. Of all the history lessons monitored during the last school year, more lessons focussed on Hitler's Germany than on any other topic." Now I don't really wonder why some British 'newspapers' still can't turn down their anti-German paroles in whatever situation the British opinion differs from the German. Or am I too close - minded? What's your impression? Is history education too one-sided? And does the education support old prejudices, forming the student's opinion?
-
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=379066[^] "History lessons for secondary pupils are now dominated by the study of Adolf Hitler and the Second World War, the Government's school inspectors have found. A report by Ofsted, the school inspection body, warned that the "Hitlerisation" of courses threatened to damage understanding of history, and could result in pupils leaving school ignorant of key events. Of all the history lessons monitored during the last school year, more lessons focussed on Hitler's Germany than on any other topic." Now I don't really wonder why some British 'newspapers' still can't turn down their anti-German paroles in whatever situation the British opinion differs from the German. Or am I too close - minded? What's your impression? Is history education too one-sided? And does the education support old prejudices, forming the student's opinion?
Well, IMO it is not good to repeat the same subject and not cover others. Studying Hitler can be good if done in the right way. An educated people driven to desperation can go down paths they regret latter. I would also suggest a study in McCarthyism to go along with it. Here in the US (at least around me) each level of the courses has guidelines to the areas they should focus on so these repeats do not occur. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=379066[^] "History lessons for secondary pupils are now dominated by the study of Adolf Hitler and the Second World War, the Government's school inspectors have found. A report by Ofsted, the school inspection body, warned that the "Hitlerisation" of courses threatened to damage understanding of history, and could result in pupils leaving school ignorant of key events. Of all the history lessons monitored during the last school year, more lessons focussed on Hitler's Germany than on any other topic." Now I don't really wonder why some British 'newspapers' still can't turn down their anti-German paroles in whatever situation the British opinion differs from the German. Or am I too close - minded? What's your impression? Is history education too one-sided? And does the education support old prejudices, forming the student's opinion?
Schlaubi wrote: Is history education too one-sided? "Sadly, it must be suspected that in few cases would that reflect the interest and enthusiasm of pupils; mostly it reflects the lack of imagination of teachers" (from the leading article) Teaching without having talent, i think that is the problem. I remember my history teacher explaining the Ancient Egipt's society or the Alexander of Macedon's campains during some magical hours when i was 12. Usually we were as cheeky as all the kids but nobody made a move or a sound while listening to those stories. The guy was gifted enough not to mention "Hitler" in order to make his lessons as attractive. I also remember the less-gifted fellows playing the old-fashioned teacher role, desperately claiming respect and attention while offering some boring information in exchange. Unfortunately these are the majority and they are tending to use any possible trap to construct their respectable career X| or to avoid the premature psychotic retirement :rose:. Solution at first glance: "Hitler", the power in everybody's pocket. A stupid illusion if we consider the fabulous disaster that ended his dreams, career, life, Germany, milions of lives... rechi
-
Well, IMO it is not good to repeat the same subject and not cover others. Studying Hitler can be good if done in the right way. An educated people driven to desperation can go down paths they regret latter. I would also suggest a study in McCarthyism to go along with it. Here in the US (at least around me) each level of the courses has guidelines to the areas they should focus on so these repeats do not occur. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Here in the US (at least around me) each level of the courses has guidelines to the areas they should focus on so these repeats do not occur. The same is here in Germany. We've plans guiding the teachers through all grades. And it's mostly done in a logical order - starting at primitive times and ending in the late 20st century. For sure we're taught much about WW2 and Hitler. But we also focus on European history in general as well as on important American / Asian events. And I think the mixture is important to get an objective view on history accross to the students.
-
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=379066[^] "History lessons for secondary pupils are now dominated by the study of Adolf Hitler and the Second World War, the Government's school inspectors have found. A report by Ofsted, the school inspection body, warned that the "Hitlerisation" of courses threatened to damage understanding of history, and could result in pupils leaving school ignorant of key events. Of all the history lessons monitored during the last school year, more lessons focussed on Hitler's Germany than on any other topic." Now I don't really wonder why some British 'newspapers' still can't turn down their anti-German paroles in whatever situation the British opinion differs from the German. Or am I too close - minded? What's your impression? Is history education too one-sided? And does the education support old prejudices, forming the student's opinion?
Schlaubi wrote: Or am I too close - minded? What's your impression? No I don't think you are wrong. I believe this Hitlerisation is a remanent of the past, however it is used for polarising the minds of the generations. History recorded is normally the History of the victor and the powerful. The Brits are probably still using Hitlerism as a justification for the sacrafices that the childrens Grandfathers passed through. It must make it hard for a student who has been learning about Nazism to visit Germany almost 60 yrs on and still not be influenced by the past and associate the past with the people. Revisiting Hitler in school must make it incredibly boring. However most countries history courses seem to be greatly inwardly looking and self serving. On another note my son at his age of 9 has an incredible broad knowledge of history compared to myself at his age. The reason is simply AOE, AOK, and AOC from ensemble studios. Who said games weren;t beneficial in education? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:
-
Schlaubi wrote: Is history education too one-sided? "Sadly, it must be suspected that in few cases would that reflect the interest and enthusiasm of pupils; mostly it reflects the lack of imagination of teachers" (from the leading article) Teaching without having talent, i think that is the problem. I remember my history teacher explaining the Ancient Egipt's society or the Alexander of Macedon's campains during some magical hours when i was 12. Usually we were as cheeky as all the kids but nobody made a move or a sound while listening to those stories. The guy was gifted enough not to mention "Hitler" in order to make his lessons as attractive. I also remember the less-gifted fellows playing the old-fashioned teacher role, desperately claiming respect and attention while offering some boring information in exchange. Unfortunately these are the majority and they are tending to use any possible trap to construct their respectable career X| or to avoid the premature psychotic retirement :rose:. Solution at first glance: "Hitler", the power in everybody's pocket. A stupid illusion if we consider the fabulous disaster that ended his dreams, career, life, Germany, milions of lives... rechi
Bogdan Rechi wrote: I also remember the less-gifted fellows playing the old-fashioned teacher role, desperately claiming respect and attention while offering some boring information in exchange. Unfortunately these are the majority and they are tending to use any possible trap to construct their respectable career or to avoid the premature psychotic retirement . Solution at first glance: "Hitler", the power in everybody's pocket. A stupid illusion if we consider the fabulous disaster that ended his dreams, career, life, Germany, milions of lives... That's an interesting fact. For sure teachers that try to teach the dominant way, perhaps even being old enough to having themselves experienced the war (direct or indirect), aren't able to provide the children an objective point of view. Teachers having a one-sided view too strange to be taught should either be forced to retire or get restrictions on what they teach. Plans containing the main events to be taught could possibly prevent constantly recurrence of favorite themes like Hitler. And teachers not following these rules have to retire.
-
Bogdan Rechi wrote: I also remember the less-gifted fellows playing the old-fashioned teacher role, desperately claiming respect and attention while offering some boring information in exchange. Unfortunately these are the majority and they are tending to use any possible trap to construct their respectable career or to avoid the premature psychotic retirement . Solution at first glance: "Hitler", the power in everybody's pocket. A stupid illusion if we consider the fabulous disaster that ended his dreams, career, life, Germany, milions of lives... That's an interesting fact. For sure teachers that try to teach the dominant way, perhaps even being old enough to having themselves experienced the war (direct or indirect), aren't able to provide the children an objective point of view. Teachers having a one-sided view too strange to be taught should either be forced to retire or get restrictions on what they teach. Plans containing the main events to be taught could possibly prevent constantly recurrence of favorite themes like Hitler. And teachers not following these rules have to retire.
-
Schlaubi wrote: Or am I too close - minded? What's your impression? No I don't think you are wrong. I believe this Hitlerisation is a remanent of the past, however it is used for polarising the minds of the generations. History recorded is normally the History of the victor and the powerful. The Brits are probably still using Hitlerism as a justification for the sacrafices that the childrens Grandfathers passed through. It must make it hard for a student who has been learning about Nazism to visit Germany almost 60 yrs on and still not be influenced by the past and associate the past with the people. Revisiting Hitler in school must make it incredibly boring. However most countries history courses seem to be greatly inwardly looking and self serving. On another note my son at his age of 9 has an incredible broad knowledge of history compared to myself at his age. The reason is simply AOE, AOK, and AOC from ensemble studios. Who said games weren;t beneficial in education? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:
Colin Davies wrote: History recorded is normally the History of the victor and the powerful. I can even understand that. It's neither fun to talk about historical defeats nor to hear about them. But every nation should cover that, too. It's important to show the mistakes that have been done in the past. And nearly every country has had a time of big mistakes. Colin Davies wrote: The Brits are probably still using Hitlerism as a justification for the sacrafices that the childrens Grandfathers passed through. It must make it hard for a student who has been learning about Nazism to visit Germany almost 60 yrs on and still not be influenced by the past and associate the past with the people. And that's what I don't understand. Both British and German youth doesn't have to do anything with what happened 60 years ago. So one must be really close-minded to keep or rebuild old prejudices. Colin Davies wrote: On another note my son at his age of 9 has an incredible broad knowledge of history compared to myself at his age. The reason is simply AOE, AOK, and AOC from ensemble studios. Who said games weren;t beneficial in education? Someone should have told that my parents when I was in his age ... ;)
-
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=379066[^] "History lessons for secondary pupils are now dominated by the study of Adolf Hitler and the Second World War, the Government's school inspectors have found. A report by Ofsted, the school inspection body, warned that the "Hitlerisation" of courses threatened to damage understanding of history, and could result in pupils leaving school ignorant of key events. Of all the history lessons monitored during the last school year, more lessons focussed on Hitler's Germany than on any other topic." Now I don't really wonder why some British 'newspapers' still can't turn down their anti-German paroles in whatever situation the British opinion differs from the German. Or am I too close - minded? What's your impression? Is history education too one-sided? And does the education support old prejudices, forming the student's opinion?
Schlaubi wrote: Is history education too one-sided? And does the education support old prejudices, forming the student's opinion? Well I stopped doing history at secondary level in year 10 when I made my GCSE choices, so that would have been about 1998, so unless things have changed drastically then that is suspicious (the article appears to talk about pre-choice education). Granted I did go to a pretty good school, and it wasn't one of those inner city joints that always seem to be failing, but I must have spent about a month on WWI and WWII together, 1 hour per week. The rest was on Victorians, Romans, Normans, Celts, the Middle Ages, the formation of the United States and the slaughter of the indigenous population, the main indian "tribes", and various other notable European and world events. In fact I think I learnt more about WWII through Religious Education (the moral side of it, the holocaust, etc), and English Lit (analysing various poems from both wars, etc). However, if I had gone on to study at a GCSE level, I could have chosen from "History" or "Modern World History", the latter of which concentrated almost exclusively on the two World Wars, the Cold War, and other similar 20th century events, mainly European. That was a choice though, you knew what you'd be covering before you signed up. This "Hitlerisation" they talk of may be the result of inner city "type" schools where the kids can't be taught anything useful so they just choose something that might keep them in the lessons for most of the day.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I'm waiting for Big Brother III" - JoeSox losing his credibility
h.a.s: 0.0.4
-
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=379066[^] "History lessons for secondary pupils are now dominated by the study of Adolf Hitler and the Second World War, the Government's school inspectors have found. A report by Ofsted, the school inspection body, warned that the "Hitlerisation" of courses threatened to damage understanding of history, and could result in pupils leaving school ignorant of key events. Of all the history lessons monitored during the last school year, more lessons focussed on Hitler's Germany than on any other topic." Now I don't really wonder why some British 'newspapers' still can't turn down their anti-German paroles in whatever situation the British opinion differs from the German. Or am I too close - minded? What's your impression? Is history education too one-sided? And does the education support old prejudices, forming the student's opinion?
I can't speak for the current curriculum but when I did 'O' Level History we covered the period from the Russian Revolution though to the late 70s. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++