Norman Pratt

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100086001/gcse-courses-have-been-teaching-children-that-osama-bin-laden-was-no-worse-than-the-americans/

Just what my over-chatty tutee needs tomorrow. Many thanks.

I think the unequal distribution of wealth among different nations comes a close second to the issue of wealthy individuals. International and regional organisations that might help even things out are growing, but very slowly. It is unfortunte that nationalistic History is taught in most schools round the world: its replacement by the teaching of human History would be one small step in the right direction.

And thanks for keeping the picture up-to-date throughout. This one manages to make things even clearer!

John, I too make it 88/47. I am also slightly embarassed that I have made it difficult for you to beat me by a margin of 5 or less. However, I can assure you that as a learning experience it couldn't have been better. By the end of the game, of course, I had a much better idea of how I should have started it, and I suspect I failed to grasp some of your helpful hints along the way. I haven't quite got to the point of analysing this game from the beginning, so I would be very interested to know the stage of the game where you nearly lost. I am intrigued by the general approach to ending and assessing the game, which I think would have a lot to offer to the education system system over here which is fixated on 'norm' - referencing rather than formative assessment! I am also intrigued by the handicap system that allows an expert to play a novice, and while I think the particular area of the country where I live may be something of a 'Go' desert I am fairly sure I will find a means of continuing.

Yes John, I agree. A seki, and neutral territory. My 'Go' book helpfully comments: 'As the proverb says, "Strange things happen in the 1-2 points in the corner" '

Thanks, John. These terms do seem to cover this situation. Even not tired, first thing in the morning, I'm still struggling! How can a game with a few simple rules get so complicated?

Good idea.

Thanks, John, for introducting me to this game. I particularly remember your comments at the start, which were, amongst other things, a warning to me that there is more to this game than meets the eye! (My latest 'Go' reading is called, appropriately, 'Go, more than a game'.) I can't find, so far, in any of the books I've looked at, an example of 'the besiegers being besieged' as we have got on the top right hand of the board. I was inclined to think that, if the position was fought through, the stone that filled the last of the three liberties - whether black or white - would be the winner - a procedure that seemed to me fraught with danger, so I didn't attempt it! I look forward to getting to grips with the score!

GO

B - S 19

B - M 12

B - G 12

B - G 11

B - K 13

B - R 18

B - F 3

B - P 8

B - L 11

Sean Lang, who has contributed to this Forum from time to time, is to be congratulated on being appointed to the committee set up by Michael Gove, the Education Minister, to reform History teaching. Sean's 'Better History Group' has a clear agenda http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/faculties/alss/deps/hss/news_and_events/better_history.html and is certainly one of the contributers who needs to be heard if History is to survive as a school subject. Having myself retired after 30 years teaching History in secondary schools, my interest (apart from a personal bee in my bonnet about the almost total disappearance of World History from the curriculum) is that we are about to make a terrible mistake. Who 'we' are in this context is a moot point. A readable left-wing account of what has been happening in History teaching can be found here: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=704&issue=129 but I assume is not one of the points of view that will be heard by Mr Gove's committee. The last 'reform' of History by a Conservative government, at the time of the introduction of the National Curriculum in the late 1980's, was characterised by an attempt to confine History curriculum topics to pre-modern History. I think it was a 30-year rule that Kenneth Clarke had in mind, at a time when if a teenagers' 'free market' was applied this would have ruled out much of the History they were interested in. The launch of the current reform has been characterised by a demand for the teaching and learning of 'The Facts' (apparently to counter all that touchy-feely Left Wing opinion) and for greater emphasis on 'Our Island Story' and 'The British Empire'. Unlike the previous reform, which in the end was carried out competently enough if unimaginatively, by a committee of teachers and educationalists, this one was heralded by the appointment of historian and TV History presenter Niall Ferguson. As an article in 'The Guardian' put it: 'Niall Ferguson, the British historian most closely associated with a rightwing, Eurocentric vision of western ascendancy, is to work with the Conservatives to overhaul history in schools.' http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/30/niall-ferguson-school-curriculum-role By the time the committee presents its work (2014?) it is possible that a balanced scheme of work will appear, but at the moment I have a number of concerns. Many of these are mentioned in the 'International Socialism' article referred to above. History teachers in Secondary Schools, however, like to 'get on with the job', and like to believe they will always be free to teach what they wish - except for those rare occasions when an OFSTED inspector is actually sitting at the back of their classroom with a notebook! In any case, many are simply pleased that Mr Gove has a passion for History and wants to preserve it as a distinct subject. There are several things they ought to be very concerned about. One is the balance of topics that has been suggested. World History, on paper part of the existing curriculum but in practice noticeable for its absence, is likely to be totally eclipsed by 'The British Empire' and 'The rise of the West' - and no, these two topics are really not the same as World History; the three need to be taught together. Even then is this a balanced overall view of History if there is not a regional History - the Middle East or China perhaps? Then there's European History, and local History, all to be woven into a convincing overall narrative. Oh yes, and it's got to be chronological. The need for all the different strands of 'Our Island Story' to be visible is also important. However, I am not clear how this is going to happen. I suspect the strand that includes the Tolpuddle Martyrs is going to be rather thin; my first reaction to an early list of topics I saw, for example, had me wondering where the Suez Crisis was. There is a tension between teaching 'The Facts' of History and making sure that youngsters are proud of their English/British heritage. It is a tension that has to be managed in the classroom, not in a syllabus or scheme of work. A classic example of this is how teachers should teach slavery. Michael Gove insists that one of the main reasons for teaching History is to give children pride in their heritage. Realising that there is a difficulty here in relation to slavery, he has pointed out that slavery was already going on in Africa, and also that it was the Royal Navy that played a leading role in ending it. This ignores the fact that Britain played the leading role in the Atlantic slave trade in the first place, making a fortune out of it, and finally abandoning it when its value was beginning to wane. Nor is it helpful, when you're trying to cast a list of British heroes that part of Lord Nelson's early career was devoted to the preservation of Britain's slave plantations from the French. African chiefs confused the rights and wrongs of their own slavery with that of the much worse European-style slavery practised in the Americas, but we shouldn't. If a History teacher wants to end the topic of slavery by showing the 'Amistad' video clip, of a British warship destroying a West African slavery fortress, that is up to him or her. But already there's an implication that those History teachers who think that some of our national history is shameful will be given a very hard time. In fact I don't think the 'British Empire' should be a major part of the History Curriculum at all. British India began with the conquest of Bengal in 1757, and the devastating famine in Bengal in 1770 was a direct result of East India Company policy. (Perhaps those in the Company who argued that they should concentrate on trade and avoid conquest should have been listened to.) British India ended with the massacres of the Partition, where the 200 year policy of divide-and-rule probably played a part. A few years before that, in 1943, Bengal suffered another devastating famine, which followed an order to raise the price of food in order to help deny it to the enemy should he invade. No doubt if teachers read more Niall Ferguson they might find some positive things to say about the Empire, but I worry that as we get nearer to the time when the new curriculum is published they might actually be under pressure to read his books in order to do this! Then there's the issue of teaching facts and knowledge, giving young people 'the big story', and ending the emphasis on Historical skills. This should not be an EITHER/OR situation. There is a genuine need for an over-arching narrative to tie History together. But a glance at all the topics involved shows that this is not easy, and busy History departments or History teachers have had to come up with their own narratives and their own over-arching stories, and with diminishing curriculum time in which to do it. I suspect it was almost entirely the time factor which gradually removed connecting narratives. With respect to Simon Schama's story-telling skills this should remain the classroom teacher's problem, not his. Simon Schama is the Historian/Presenter who was prevailed upon to lead Michael Grove's History group. I fear that he will preside over an unbalanced crew. So far I've seen no sign that the Schools History Project, an important strand in the teaching of History over the last 30 years or so, is represented at all. (The fact that an article in 'The Sunday Express' http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/226070/Return-to-traditional-history-is-in-danger- could confuse Sean Lang with 'New History' advocates would certainly seem to suggest this.) Finally, there's the Empathy issue. Empathy, according to one dictionary definition, is 'the power of understanding and imaginatively entering into another person's feelings'. Put like that - almost a definition of being human - it is startling that its use as an 'Attainment Target' or anything else was forbidden in the National Curriculum. Every historian and everybody who thinks about History uses empathy all the time. Something has gone wrong with the History debate if the word needed to be removed from Educational vocabulary.

B - P 6

Jean. Fair comment. However, this piece I came across the other day http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43240.html suggests to me that scholarly articles like the Cambridge Assessment document are not the only kind involved in this kind of educational debate! At the secondary school where I taught one of the best In-servicee Training sessions on the subject of classroom control was headed by an Australian gentleman who suggested that the initial way to challenge bad classroom behaviour was to state simply what was going on, or, as he put it, 'the SotBO', rather than yelling at the child concerned - for example (in firm but measured tones) 'Darren; you're throwing glue sticks at the polystyrene ceiling tiles.' Putting aside the habits of a lifetime, I followed his advice and found this worked very well. I am trying to follow this restrained path with regard to the Coalition's education policy. They do appear to be acting in an irrational and dangerous way, and I don't want them (no, really!) to be hurt - or, more importantly, our nation's children. The problem is I can't fathom out what is going on. Part of my problem is with educational jargon as it sometimes obscures serious issues. Occasionally educationalists seem to fall over themselves to give added authority to their ideas by insisting on making their language obscure. For example the Cambridge Assessment document says at one point: "The term ‘coherence’ does not carry the meaning typically associated with a ‘broad and balanced curriculum’ but is a highly precise technical term: a national curriculum should have content arranged in an order which is securely based in evidence associated with age-related progression, and all elements of the system (content, assessment, pedagogy, teacher training, teaching materials, incentives and drivers etc) should all line up and act in a concerted way to deliver public goods (Schmidt & Prawat op cit)." Slightly over-simplified this would appear to mean "Coherence needs to be applied not just to the range of subjects children are taught, but to the whole system that delivers it." Did they really need to invent 'a highly precise technical term'? My second major problem is applying international comparisons to the teaching of a subject like History. Is successfully filling young people with nationalistic myths in order to produce motivated soldiers good History teaching? Does it make a difference when some of the countries we are comparing have populations of half a million and others 60 million?

B - R 4

B - L 1

B - N 4