DIVERSIFYING THE CURRICULUM: Ushering a New Era – Sukhjit Kaur Townley Grammar School

This statement will resonate with many people – and they may argue to this day, colonial sentiments still exist. Some view the Union Jack as a daunting symbol of empire, and the Commonwealth as a neo-colonial organisation. But the strategic omission of colonial history in UK schools, and the wider world, in former years, are all little things which hide Britain’s dark past.  

Growing up, not being taught about crimes committed against your forefathers is disheartening – but to have seen it blatantly disregarded in the curriculum is deplorable. This leads me to a common question – why don’t we hear much of the British Empire in school at GCSE? 

An interview with Ms Kathleen O’Hanlon, the head of history at Townley Grammar School, can give us a better insight into the challenges of teaching such an important, yet sensitive topic. Over the past few years, the history department at Townley has been working towards decolonising the curriculum, and providing foundational knowledge of the British empire to KS3 students. In-depth programmes have been developed for A-Level History students.  

Do you think the curriculum now covers the colonial period adequately, until GCSE? 

“The KS3 curriculum gives quite a lot of freedom, as a teacher, so it’s not particularly prescriptive. Therefore, you can take the curriculum where you want to go – however, the national curriculum doesn’t necessarily cover it for GCSE.”  

As the timetable is created to accommodate a wide range of subjects at KS3, Ms O’Hanlon mentioned it is difficult to cover a lot. However, in year 9, a study has been developed, where students spend half a year learning about the empire. When creating it, it was “very important to look at the overarching story of the British empire, but also to not make any diverse histories all about victimhood.”  

She spoke out about how when she entered teaching, there was minimal guidance on the depth in which the empire was to be covered in. A key point to be covered was the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but there was very little beyond that spec.  

“There’s still work to do, there’s always work to do, but it has gotten better over the years. In the national curriculum, the empire is mentioned, but how different schools wish to interpret that, is up to them. So definitely, there is a lack of emphasis on diverse histories throughout, and the intertwining of the British narrative.” 
 

Therefore – it is no surprise – that there is such a large disparity amongst students, in terms of how educated they are in the empire.  

If there were developments in the curriculum, and an in-depth study, what would be the challenges of teaching it? 

The response to this question was surprising, to say the least, as in this ongoing debate, teacher’s voices and standpoints are arguably not always taken into account. 

“Teaching controversial history is very difficult, because it evokes quite a strong response in pupils. It is very tricky to teach these topics – covering topics in an adequate fashion whilst not offending pupils has been very hard to manage.”  

History is a subject where you find strong criticisms – purely because of the interpretive nature of it. Therefore, for some teachers, it is difficult to deliver what can be triggering content with very little guidance provided by the national curriculum.  

Many students feel that instead of learning about atrocities that took place abroad, concentration is diverted to events which evade the concept of the empire’s reach in Africa and Asia. For example, we go into great emphasis on Henry VIII, Francis Drake, the Battle of Hastings, and various schemes during the Tudor period. Moreover, some topics are swiftly touched – like the first contact with India and settlement in the New World.  

There is a pattern here – history focused on just England, and history all pre-Victorian.  

But this all comes back down to the lack of focus on empire in the GCSE history curriculum.  
 

A survey conducted by YouGov revealed that a staggering 49% of Britons believed that the empire was a good thing, and were actively proud of it. Alarming as it is, this only conveys the urgency of much needed change in our curriculum. For not only better education – but for reforming public attitudes towards it.  

Do you think the lack of education in schools factors into societal attitudes towards the empire?  

“There will be people of all different ages and backgrounds in the survey – but they won’t have experienced the same history lessons that students experience in this school, or even that I experienced. Some people just don’t know about the atrocities – those who respond to the survey might see it in a very economical way. Resources were taken from these countries, but in return they were given this and this. But few know about the Mau Mau uprising, the Indian ‘Mutiny’ etc, because they haven’t had the spotlight shone on them.”  

This leads me to another point – what people learnt 30 years ago will be vastly different to what is taught today. Nevertheless, the momentum of the movement for colonial history being implemented into the curriculum is unparalleled to the slow changes being made in departments across the country. Not only is this an injustice to those affected by the empire – but to those still negatively impacted by its legacy too.  

How can we look forward to a modernised, multicultural, and accepting Britain, when the curriculum refuses to acknowledge the, albeit horrendous, means it was built up from? The importance of decolonising the curriculum is greater than ever, as recent voices have played an active role in diversifying it and bringing the truth to light. 

For many, the first step towards moving on from colonial history is first coming to terms with it – and schools have a vital role in this.  

The national curriculum has a vital role in this.