The post you are reporting:
I think you're right Barry he clearly does place country and principle before party and you have to commend the man for this. It does again raise my issue about the awkwardness of our political system. Ideally I would love to vote in an individual who best represented my views/situation/locality. This person however would not stand a chance against the party machines. So do I vote for an individual in a party, who could get ignored depending on the faction of the party he represents or do I vote for the group that most supports my ideas in the hope of solidarity in delivering my needs? The reason Labour stands by and allows Gordon Brown to ruin the country and the party is because of this (sometimes misplaced) solidarity, the Conservatives are quite happy to turn on their each other and push them out. So which would I choose? The group that most represents some my needs or the individual who says he completely represents however might not be listened to or could turn the other way, depending on his own needs.
Of course this dialectic between 'individual vs group' doesn't exist at all anymore (the healthy basis for most of our debate Barry!) The parties don't really offer any choice or representation, as groups or individuals, which is why we have arrived at this point of apathy.
As for the article by Frank Field, I totally agree. I do think History is phenomenally important and it does seem we have a society that has neglected its roots and ultimately identity. I do think children through primary school and the first part of secondary should just be given a chronological 'greatest hits' of history, allowing them to slot in other events into a framework, something that seems to be lacking. However I think where people miss the point is that education shouldn't be just about shallow learning, which is what this is.
Children (in general) do not know facts and dates of historical events and I think they should, this is foundation learning that is not being addressed properly. But in terms of use, this learning has a very limited application other than foundation. I say "When did WW2 start?" You say "1939". I say "When did it end?" you say "1945". I say "What was the Gunpowder plot?, you say "an attempt to kill the king of England by a group of Catholics" Now although I value this sort of information and people should know some of this stuff, it's sad that people of a certain generation and mentality (like Mr Field) can use it to ascertain so little. As I say these things are essential foundation knowledge and very important, however this isn't the only thing the teaching of History is attempting to do. The descriptors that Mr Fields uses for weather or not someone is being taught history properly may as well be 'capital cities of the world' , 'the works of Gilbert and Sullivan' or even his shopping list from last week. This is exactly how people teach their dogs to seemingly do arithmetic.
'I say this, you say that' does have a place and it is key to further learning (this is why agree with him primarily) but it really isn't the only thing education is attempting to and these people need to realise the naivety of their statements. In later life the main use of this shallow learning Mr Fields is putting emphasis on is winning pub quizzes, which some people (usually with beards) find impressive! By just teaching information and not skills it actually makes certain 'academic subjects' indistinguishable, reducing them to the regurgitation of information. The ability and skills to use and understand this information is what education should try and do, especially in an age when information is so accessible. Any of the children could have answered Mr Fields questions with a simple internet search, probably (I don't for a minute think this should be necessary for such easy questions). What they need to be able to do, as much as 'know' the facts, is assess the reliability of this information, be able to research further, examine bias and tie this info in with other facts. These skills that are developed (unfortunately but with fairly good reason) within small chunks of history, a reason their knowledge is generally limited.
Mr Fields seems to think History can be taught with the emphasis on objectivity, again fairly naive. 'The facts' I was given at school about say Oliver Cromwell, I should imagine differ from those given to PaulB or Bern. I had a friend take great offence about a book on the subject in my bookcase...he is from Drogheda. He also shows the limitations of his own understanding of subjectivity (or 'touchy feely') when he starts with a line concerning Good Friday, do you think he went on to talk about this celebration predating Christianity in this country? Probably not, that might lead to questions and all we want 'collective memory'...does that mean we have to have a common belief system too?
As I say, I do agree in principle but this sort of thing is always cropping up and none of these self-promoters even bother to ask decent questions, just produce obvious, agreeable rhetoric.