Most of the time I was taught English (not British) history and European
history as two separate subjects, and found it very difficult to connect the
two together. The exception was when I started secondary school (c 1949)
when for two years they tried, as an experiment, teaching English and
European history as one subject. It was laid out horizontally according to
date, rather than vertically according to country and was wonderful.
Everthing fell into place and was easy to understand.
I imagine it stopped because of the structure of 'O' and 'A' levels, but it
gave a real feel for the flow of events and their causes.
> 'Children aged 11 to 14 will learn more about the British Empire, as part
> of changes to the curriculum'
> 'For the first time, the history curriculum specifically mentions the
> "British Empire". At present, pupils study, under the heading "Britain
> 1750-1900", "How expansion of trade and colonisation, industrialisation
> and political changes affected the United Kingdom". The new draft says
> study will include "The British Empire and its impact on different
> peoples". Jerome Freeman, the exam watchdog's history advisor, said:
> "Empire has been given more emphasis and greater strength. It is a
> significant part of British history and a topic that history teachers have
> to embrace more."'
> Any views - or more information - on this?