COMMENTS:
To be fair, we actually learnt little if anything of English History when I was at school.
The two major topics we studied and kept coming back to were Nazi Germany and the Russian revolution. If anything MORE English history should be taught, and less European (assuming as is realistic that only a limited number of modules can be studied)
Voted : Bad idea
^ Sounds similar to my experience. For a start, when they say learning about events from 'all sides' what they rerally mean is learning what the French believe. You only have to look at Napolean, a national hero in France, an arrogant meglomaniac who caused the needless death of hundreds of thousands, to everyone else.
^So wouldnt that give the Brits an opportunity to show the french what they think about Napoleon?
I can't say this should be required, since learning the history of one country well can be a challenge.
"To be fair, we actually learnt little if anything of English History when I was at school."
Same here, I wasn't taught a lot about English history either. And god forbid that someone should suggest teaching about the British empire...
Voted : Good idea
It sounds like common sense. Anyone who has studied history at a university level at any good university around the world already does this. Comparing perspectives is in general important. I say extend it to more than just Europe. Make it global. For example, Vietnamese perspectives of French colonialism, etc. Certainly, it would be good for high schools to embrace as well.
Thery already give others perspectives, so why do we need a europe wide textbooks? It seems to me like more interference from an organisation that is supposed to be about economics, not what we should or shouldn't be teaching our kids. Frankly, its none of their buisness.
*Business
|
