Prime Minister Cameron in happier times.
I suspect that you would have seen/heard David Cameron’s comments about the ‘Special Relationship’ this week. One comment in particular has drawn a lot of attention:
“We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis.”
On the surface, it does display a poor grasp of the Second World War but I think it shows two deeply important, but contradictory, lessons. The first lesson is that History is important. In a day and age where the threat to the subject appears to loom larger than ever, it shows that getting key events wrong can offend a large majority of the population and might even lead to questions about your ability to do your job. Pretty serious stuff.
The second lesson to be drawn from the reaction to Cameron’s comment is the difficulty teachers face in creating an ethos where mistakes are seen as a normal part of the learning process. It seems clear to me that Cameron is learning to be Prime Minister and although he may be gifted in certain areas, unfamiliar situations cause people to react in different ways. Within the context of the rest of his discussion, the comment made sense but it was a small error not a terrible threat to the social fabric of British society. It is therefore unsurprising that students can sometimes battle with a classroom environment where mistakes are seen as a necessary element of becoming better; the pressure to get things ‘right’ the first time from society seems overwhelming.
Who said teaching was an easy job?
Front and top image: The Prime Minister’s Office@Flickr
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nick Dennis, Nick Dennis. Nick Dennis said: New blog post: David Cameron and historical learning. http://bit.ly/aZCGK7 [...]
Spot on, as usual Nick, although I do feel there is a third element, a lack of respect for History as a discipline, highlighted by the Prime Minister, but prevalent throughout society. This lack of respect is shown in the attitude, that everyone knows History, that it is ‘easy’ to understand the big issues (although students are driven away from it at GCSE for even easier ‘soft’ subjects). The Prime Minister has shown a lack of understanding of European History as perceived by the majority of the UK population, and that we only became gradually more subservient to the USA from the end of the War in Europe, not the beginning. As I have said elsewhere, I feel it is more than ‘a slip’ there is a fundamental lack of understanding of how British society operates.
I agree that it shows how serious History can be and how the big issues demand a good grasp and command of it. It may be more than a ‘slip’ but it does seriously raise questions about how we educate our young people to respond to mistakes.
I agree with Nick (!),
Making mistakes are the only way to learn – playing an instrument, computer game, squash game, double entry book keeping, driving a car are all activities that we learn by making larger and then finer and finer mistakes, until our errors of judgement are correctable.
The trouble with learning history, in a classroom with 25 – 35 other young people in it, is that the feedback element (which is inherent in losing a life in halo, or scuffing the kerb in your car) is much much harder to engineer, and to get right.
The Prime Minister can be thankful that the feedback loops that affect his performance are swift and (perhaps too) sharp – I can imagine the Daily Mail’s headline …”Now, 100% of Prime Ministers think USA took part in the Battle of Britain.”
Interesting that you mention the difficulty of feedback in the classroom situation as we are developing something using the iPod Touch and Dylan Wiliam’s idea of ‘Hinge Questions’.
As for the Daily Mail, I would not be surprised although it would need a picture of the Prime Minister coming out of a night club/restaurant to really make it huge.
Does Cameron’s comment reveal another feature / element of history – namely, that it is ‘used’ (sometimes abused) by people to serve their own arguments, ideas and purposes? I wonder what word Cameron would have used to describe the relationship between America and Britain were he not keen to bolster his relations with the USA? I wonder what word he might have used if he were talking to another leader, in another country? I think I’d like to ask my students this – it could perhaps serve as an illustration about interpretations about history. It also reminded of an article I read by Christine Counsell about C.V. Wedgewood’s use of the word “reverently” to describe the carrying of the executed Charles Ist’s body in his 1964 book, which highlighted that looking at people’s choice of language can reveal an awful lot about their beliefs and motivations. Wow: one word and Cameron’s providing lots of food for thought!
Esther, I think you are right and as I said on your blog, it would make a great introduction to a larger study of the Second World War or a larger debate about interpretations at A Level/IB. I can feel some resources coming to life…