It has been argued that Jerome Bruner played an important role in the development of the New History. In his book, The Process of Education (1960). Bruner emphasized the importance of mastery of the structure of the subject matter. "To understand something as a specific instance of a more general case – which is what understanding a more fundamental principle or structure means – is to have learned not only a specific thing but also a model for understanding other things like it that one may encounter." (8) As he said in a later book, "knowing how something is put together is worth a thousand facts about it." (9)

Robert Phillips, in his brilliant book, History Teaching, Nationhood and the State: A Study in Educational Politics (1998), points out: "The application of Brunerian theory to history teaching was vital in the way that it placed emphasis upon method, process and skills. Pupils should therefore be introduced to the methodology of history and be made aware of history as a discipline and unique features, processes and structures." (10)

Mary Price wrote an article that was based on research evidence generated by the Schools Council in 1966. This showed that many pupils questioned the relevance of the subject and regarded it as "useless and boring", causing a situation whereby "history could lose the battle not only for its place in the curriculum but for a place in the hearts and minds of the young." Price argued there were three main reasons for this crisis in history teaching: (i) The history syllabuses had not changed since the turn of the century and had remained "obstinately a survey of British history"; (ii) There was a "deplorable" belief that history was only suited to more able pupils. (iii) History teaching relied far too heavily upon note taking and rote learning. (11)

The History Workshop Movement, established in 1969 at Ruskin College, attempted to promote what was now known as the New History. According to Richard Aldrich and Dennis Dean: "Some of these new historians were to be found in institutions of higher education. There were new universities, as at Sussex, York and Lancaster. The most radical development, the Open University, produced both a new approach to students and a new approach to historical study." (12)

One of the pioneers of the New History, Christopher Hill pointed out that we constantly have to review the way we teach about the past: "History has to be rewritten in every generation, because although the past does not change the present does; each generation asks new questions of the past, and finds new areas of sympathy as it re-lives different aspects of the experiences of its predecessors." (13)

The authors of Learning to Teach History in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience (2022) have argued that "The rationale for school history was based on the idea that the transmission of a positive story about the national past would inculcate in young people a sense of loyalty to the state and a reassuring and positive sense of identity and belonging." (14)

Richard Aldrich and Dennis Dean have described the history curriculum in England until the 1970s as "cast in a broadly self-congratulatory and heroic, high-political mould." (15) Or in the words of Eric Hobsbawm: "Why do all regimes make their young study some history in school? Not to understand society and how it changes, but to approve of it, to be proud of it, to be or become good citizens." (16)

The Schools Council Project History 13-16 was set up in 1972 to undertake a radical re-think of the purpose and nature of school history. It sought to revitalize history teaching in schools and to halt the erosion of history's position in the secondary curriculum. As the authors of Learning to Teach History in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience (2022) have pointed out the SCHP "promoted new teaching methods in order to generate more active learning among pupils and placed greater emphasis on the use of resources in the classroom… ‘The New History', as it came to be known, focused on concepts such as evidence, empathy and cause, and used primary sources as evidence in a more pupil-centred approach." (17)

The SCPH pioneered the New History in the school classroom. The use of primary sources was an important factor in this. The historian, E. H. Carr, illustrates this point in his book, What is History? (1961): "The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation." (18)

John Slater, HMI staff inspector of history, was highly critical of the way history was taught in most schools. In an article he wrote after he retired, he said that until the introduction of the New History too much emphasis had been placed on "recalling accepted facts about famous dead Englishmen, and communicated in a very eccentric literary form, the examination-length essay." He went onto say that history "not only helps us to understand the identity of our communities, cultures, nations, by knowing something of the past, but also enables our loyalties to them to be moderated by informed and responsible scepticism… Historical thinking is primarily mind-opening, not socializing."

John Slater was highly critical of the way history was taught in most schools. In an article he wrote after he retired, he said that until the introduction of the New History too much emphasis had been placed on "recalling accepted facts about famous dead Englishmen, and communicated in a very eccentric literary form, the examination-length essay." He went onto say that history "not only helps us to understand the identity of our communities, cultures, nations, by knowing something of the past, but also enables our loyalties to them to be moderated by informed and responsible scepticism… Historical thinking is primarily mind-opening, not socializing." Slater described the Schools History Project as "the most significant and beneficent influence on the learning of history to emerge this century" arguing that this form of school history could give young people "not just knowledge, but the tools to reflect on, critically to evaluate, and to apply that knowledge. It proclaims the crucial distinction between knowing the past and thinking historically." (19)

SHP made it clear why history teaching needed reform: "As history educators we need to make our subject meaningful for all children and young people by relating history to their lives in the 21st century. The Project strives for a history curriculum which encourages children and young people to become curious, to develop their own opinions and values based on a respect for evidence, and to build a deeper understanding of the present by engaging with and questioning the past." (20)

During this period the right-wing pressure group, Centre for Policy Studies, published no less than seventeen pamphlets on education, five dealing exclusively or predominantly with history. The introduction of one of its publications on history teaching, History, Capitalism & Freedom (1979) was written by Margaret Thatcher. John Slater argued that these pamphlets set the "pace and agenda" for the debate over the history curriculum in the 1980s. (21)

Alan Beattie was especially hostile to the New History and believed it subverted respect for British culture. He argued the teacher' stranglehold on history had to be broken: "He (the history teacher) has no more authority to decide the weight to be given to different but equally respectable aspects than have parents or politicians. To the extent that what is taught as history has been changed in pursuit of ‘wider social ends', and to the extent that ideological preferences have shaped the character of the history curriculum, then to that extent have teachers exceeding their authority." (22)  

Margaret Thatcher took a keen interest in the teaching of history in schools. As Martin Kettle pointed out: "Margaret Thatcher has fought many historic battles for what she sees as Britain's future. Few of them, though, are as pregnant with meaning as her current battle for control over Britain's own history… The debate is a surrogate for a much wider debate about the cultural legacy of the Thatcher years. It is about the right to dissent and to debate not just history but a whole range of other assumptions. If the Prime Minister can change the way that we are taught history, she will have succeeded in changing the ground rules for a generation to come. It is a big prize." (23)

In 1985 the GCSE criteria specified that pupils should be able to recall historical knowledge but also that they should gain the ability to "evaluate and select" knowledge and "deploy" it in a coherent form. It went on to say that pupils should be encouraged to develop a "wide variety" of skills concerned with evaluating historical evidence. (24)

The most contentious issue was not the use of primary sources but the teaching and assessment of empathy. The GCSE's definition of empathy as "an ability to look at events and issues from the perspective of people in the past" had its origins in a Ministry of Education's pamphlet published in 1952 which urged teachers to cultivate in pupils "a quality of sympathetic imagination… humility about one's own age and the thing to which one is accustomed, a willingness to enter a different experience." (25)

Ann Low-Beer was one of those who had severe doubts about asking teachers to teach and assess empathy. She argued this was particularly demanding given that empathy was concerned with the affective rather than cognitive domains. (26) Martin Booth responded by suggesting that empathy could be encouraged through effective questioning, reconstructive techniques such as role play and the use of historical fiction, as well as the full range and variety of historical evidence. (27)

The GCSE courses began in September 1986. It was not long before all the major educational publishers began producing history textbooks to accompany the course. The New History had now entered the mainstream. According to Robert Phillips, this upset what he called the New Right and its main representative, Roger Scruton, wrote a series of articles about the threat posed by this new approach to history teaching. Scruton also attacked multi-culturalism and anti-racism and the progressive ideology which under-pinned it for undermining the promotion of the idea of a ‘common' culture through education. (28)

New Right activists became intensely interested in two areas of the curriculum in particular: History and English. Ken Jones explained why the New Right concentrated on these two subjects "English and history were strongpoints of opposition, where radical ideas were deeply embedded…. History in schools, with its relativistic methods and increasing bias towards the social and the economic reflected the work of Marxist and radical historians in creating what one critic called ‘a shop steward syllabus' of modern history." (29)

In January 1987, Kenneth Baker, Secretary of State for Education, announced the intention of the government to introduce a national core curriculum. Baker argued that England had adopted an "eccentric" approach which had left the school curriculum to "individual schools and teachers" which contrasted with the centralized system in Europe. Pointing to the weaknesses and apparent failure of the English system, he indicated that greater central control was necessary. (30)

Baker established a History Working Group (HWG) to advise him on the introduction of National Curriculum History. Baker appointed only two teachers to the HWG: Carol White was a secondary school teacher who had met Baker at a Conservative Party function and had been critical of aspects of SHP. Robert Guyver was a primary school teacher who was committed to the teaching of "discrete" history to young pupils. Two teacher trainers: Anne Low-Beer, who had already raised serious doubts about the teaching of history (see Note 61) and Gareth Elwyn Jones who had previously argued for a fusion of "traditional" and "new" history. Two academics: John M. Roberts and Alice Prochaska, and three members with LEA backgrounds. Commander Michael Saunders-Watson, was appointed as Chairman of the HWG. He was the President of the Historic Houses Association and the owner of Rockingham Castle. Saunder-Watson later admitted his appointment followed Baker staying at his castle. As Robert Phillips pointed out: "Such criteria for selection to the body that was to shape the teaching was hardly going to fill history teachers with confidence." (31)

However, as Duncan Graham later pointed out: "Saunders Watson's only obvious credentials were that he ran a stately home which was used by many schools and as a result had a keen interest in history and education. He appeared to everybody to be a peculiarly Tory choice and looked to many as the first overt political appointment. Everybody feared the worst and characterized him as a right-wing amateur who would follow the party line. He went on to be a great but welcome surprise to history teachers." (32)

Martin Roberts, the headteacher of Cherwell School, and a member of the Historical Association Council, wrote: "Imagine for a moment (in an unfashionably empathetic way) that you are a member of the history working group. You have been chosen to identify history courses which will improve on best practice and win and sustain the confidence of teachers, parents, governors and Parliament. However, you have been selected by a government famous for its ideological conviction and for its distaste for much of the contemporary professional practice at a time when teachers themselves seem both acutely sensitive about their professional autonomy yet fiercely argumentative about the best way forward for their professional autonomy yet fiercely argumentative about the best way forward for their subject in schools. And of all the major subjects of the National Curriculum history is the one most easily influenced by political values. You only have a year to prepare the report while keeping up with your normal job. Can you imagine a more thankless task? (33)

Supporters of the New History methodology had reason to be confident that their views would be expressed at HWG meetings. Alice Prochaska, the author of History of the General Federation of Trade Unions (1982) was sympathetic to recent developments in history teaching and was a member of the history workshop movement. In an article she later wrote that she was surprised that Baker had appointed her to the HWG. (34)

Roger Hennessy, HMI staff inspector of history, was appointed as an advisor of the HWG. He was also a supporter of the New History.Other good news was the announcement in the summer of 1989 that two history teachers, Tim Lomas and Chris Culpin, had been co-opted onto the HWG. They were both known to be supporters of the Schools Council History Project. (35)

The first meeting of the HWG took place on 24 January 1989. The group was told that it would have to produce interim recommendations by 30th June 1989 and then provide the Secretary of State with final advice by Christmas 1989. Newspapers began speculating about what would be in the HWG interim report. The Daily Telegraph claimed that it supported methods which neglected fact and that it advocated empathy and historical imagination. The Observer reported that although the HWG would request that children learn historical skills, it also suggested that the group had steered a "middle line" between "traditionalists" and "progressives". (36)

The HWG Interim Report was published on 10 August 1989. The report acknowledged that there was "growing public concern" about the perceived preponderance of skills-based courses at GCSE at the expense of British history but emphasized that the HWG did not "wish to take sides in these debates which seem to some extent contrived". It pointed out that the main objective was to design "a broad, balanced and coherent course of history for pupils from the age of 5 to 16; a course which will combine rigour, intellectual excitement, and planned programming, and one which respects knowledge and skills equally." (37)

John MacGregor, who had replaced Kenneth Baker as Secretary of State for Education in July 1989, wrote to the HWG to consider three issues when compiling the Final Report. Firstly, he asked the group to pay more attention to chronology. Secondly, he asked for more British history at KS3 and KS4. Thirdly, MacGregor doubted whether the recommendations put "sufficient emphasis on the importance of acquiring historical knowledge and on ensuring that knowledge can be assessed." (38)

The right-wing press supported what MacGregor had said in the letter. The Daily Telegraph reported that MacGregor had "sided himself firmly with traditionalists" and had largely rejected the Interim Report. (78) The Daily Mail said: "Get the facts straight, history men are told." (39) The Daily Express added that MacGregor had told the HWG that "Children must know dates, events and characters, and not get bogged down with too much theorizing about the nature of history." (40) Only The Guardian stood up for the HWG and warned that MacGregor's intervention "has an ominous smack about it, rather as if we were soon to return to the solid, drum banging certainties of H. E. Marshall's Our Island Story." (41)

Margaret Thatcher was also highly critical of the Interim Report: "I was appalled. It put the emphasis on interpretation and enquiry as against content and knowledge. There was insufficient weight given to British history. There was not enough emphasis on history as chronological study. Ken Baker wanted to give the report a general welcome while urging its Chairman to make the attainment targets specify more clearly factual knowledge and increasing the British history content. But this in my view did not go far enough. I considered the document comprehensively flawed and told Ken that there must be major, not just minor, changes." (42)

The History Working Group received over a thousand responses to the Interim Report, mainly from teachers and historians but also from various New Right groups. One of the main opponents of the HWG report was from Stuart Deuchar, a member of the Campaign for Real Education and a Centre for Policy Studies pamphleteer. Deuchar, educated at Repton and Cambridge University, was a farmer but had taught history in a private school for two years. In his pamphlet, The New History: A Critique (1989) he expressed his bitter opposition to the progressive methodology and the conceptional frameworks represented by the SHP. He denounced those teachers who believed that the teaching of British history had the potential to be "nationalistic" and this approach had caused "the loss of a huge slice of our national heritage". (43)

The Final Report of the HWG was published on 3rd April 1990. It was little different from the Interim Report and had not changed it in response to the criticisms made by New Right groups and the Conservative Party supporting press. The report defended itself against the attacks on the New History: "In order to know about, or understand, an historical event we need to acquire historical information but the constituents of that information – the names, dates, and places – provide only starting points for understanding. Without understanding, history is reduced to parrot learning and assessment to a parlour memory game." (44) The report pointed out the overall objective of the HWG had been to "give equal weight to knowledge, understanding and skills." (45)

In Chapter 10 the HWG dealt with the controversial subject of empathy. It outlined the ways in which field trips, museum visits, drama, role play and other simulation techniques could "convey the image of living in the past"; they could provide the opportunity to "explore, and come to imagine aspects of history"; they could show the "differences between living in the past and living in the present" and could provide the opportunity to "explore, and come to imagine aspects of history"; these could even be the "source of good, imaginative writing, and they help to bring history to life". However, these exercises had to be based on primary sources and rooted in "an uncompromising respect for evidence". (46)

As Duncan Graham pointed out: "Following the interim report, various interest groups began to battle over the reforms, and it looked as if history would end in failure. In the final report the working group stood by the fundamental findings of the interim report which caused such concern to ministers. There were many good, detailed refinements and, in an attempt to satisfy ministers, almost too many facts were included in the programmes of study, but when it came to the basic principle nothing had been altered, indeed little could be altered as the working group's conclusions were unarguable." (47)

Members of the History Working Group suspected that the Final Report to be criticized by the government. It stated with regard to future revisions of the proposals, the HWG warned that they be "undertaken in such a way as to avoid what appears to be public suspicion that school history may be manipulated for political purposes." (48)

Conservatives were disappointed with the failure of Commander Michael Saunders-Watson, Chairman of the HWG, to produce a more "traditionalist" report. He later explained his time on the HWG: "I had my eyes opened by the HWG. I had lived with history and had been taught the subject in a very old-fashioned way. Then when I heard the arguments put forward by HWG members it came as something of a culture shock. I became impressed with many of the arguments which I never knew existed. I learnt that history is not just about facts, but it is also about acquiring information, processes and learning. History involves a combination of content, understanding and information." (49)

Margaret Thatcher refused to accept defeat and wrote in her memoirs: "It (the Final Report) did not put greater emphasis on British history. But the attainment targets it set out did not specifically include knowledge of historical facts, which seemed to me extraordinary. However, the coverage of some subjects – for example twentieth century history – was too skewed to social, religious, cultural and aesthetic matters rather than political events… I raised these points with John (MacGregor) on the afternoon of Monday 19 March. He defended the report's proposals. But I insisted that it would not be right to impose the sort of approach which it contained. It should go out to consultation but no guidance should be present be issued." (50)

Conservative historians such as Robert Skidelsky, Norman Stone, Jonathan Clark, Lord Max Beloff and Lord Robert Blake, formed the History Curriculum Association (HCA) to "defend the integrity of history as a school subject". (51) All these men published articles in the press criticizing the HWG Final Report. Raphael Samuel, the founder of the History Workshop Movement, was one of the most significant supporters of the HWG report. (52)

Robert Skidelsky was aware that Raphael Samuel and the History Workshop Movement was at the heart of these proposals. Skidelsky attacked Samuel in The Independent for his over-zealous advocacy of the need to teach "history from below" (particularly the history of gender) as opposed to "history from above" (such as Nelson and the Battle of Trafalgar). (53)

The following week Samuel replied to Skidelsky. He reminded him that Trafalgar was followed a year later by the most crushing of Napoleon's victories at Austerlitz and by the subsequent collapse of the Third Coalition. As Samuel pointed out "were it not for the heroic circumstances of Nelson's death and perhaps the nineteenth century romanticization of war, it is possible that we would know no more of it than we do the Battle of Copenhagen or the battle of Tenerife." On the other hand, the Married Women's Property Act of 1882 (which Skidelsky had taken particular issue over) was "a landmark in the history of women's rights" yet hardly received a mention either in university or school history courses. (54)

Importantly, senior figures in the History Association, decided to endorse the findings of the HWG on the grounds that there was sufficient potential that the Secretary of State would reject the HWG's advice and replace the Final Report with something much worse. Martin Roberts, Chair of the HA schools' sub-committee, declared that the Final Report was "a considerable achievement" and was to be the "foundation on which durable school history courses are able to be built." (55)

Over 300 history teachers attended the SHP Conference in April 1990. Organizers of the Conference ensured that key elements of the Final Report were copied and distributed to delegates. Crucially, three former members of the HWG attended the Conference to explain the philosophy and thinking behind the report. The Conference welcomed many aspects of the Final Report. However, delegates expressed concerns about prescription, content overload, assessment, and the over-emphasis upon British history. (56)

Margaret Thatcher eventually accepted defeat and blamed Kenneth Baker for supporters of the New History winning the battle over the National Curriculum. She admitted in her autobiography: "By now I had become thoroughly exasperated with the way in which the national curriculum proposals were being diverted from their original purpose… There was no need for the national curriculum proposals and the testing which accompanied them to have developed as they did. Ken Baker paid too much attention to the DES, the HMI and progressive educational theorists in his appointments and early decisions; and once the bureaucratic momentum had begun it was difficult to stop." (57)

The Middle Ages

The Normans

The Tudors

The English Civil War

Industrial Revolution

First World War

Russian Revolution

Nazi Germany

United States: 1920-1945

(1) Emma Griffin, History Today (2 February 2015)

(2) Christos Efstathiou, E. P. Thompson, A Twentieth-Century Romantic (2015) pages 90-99

(3) E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (1963) page 804

(4) Barbara Taylor, History of History Workshop (22 November 2012)

(5) Carol Adams, Off the Record: Women's Omission from Classroom Historical Evidence, included in Curriculum Development in Action (1984) page 138

(6) History of The Open University (13th June 2018)

(7) A. W. Purdue, Arthur Marwick: Guardian Obituary (7th October 2006)

(8) Jerome Bruner, The Process of Education (1960) page 25

(9) Jerome Bruner, In Search of Mind: Essays in Autobiography (1984) page 183

(10) Robert Phillips, History Teaching, Nationhood and the State: A Study in Educational Politics (1998) page 16

(11) Mary Price, History in Danger, History Journal (October 1968)

(12) Richard Aldrich and Dennis Dean, The Historical Dimension, included in History in the National Curriculum (1991) page 106

(13) Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down. Radical Ideas During the English Revolution (1991) page 15

(14) Terry Haydn & Alison Stephen, Learning to Teach History in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience (2022) page 24

(15) Richard Aldrich and Dennis Dean, The Historical Dimension, included in History in the National Curriculum (1991) page 105

(16) Eric Hobsbawm, The Guardian (7th June 1997)

(17) Terry Haydn & Alison Stephen, Learning to Teach History in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience (2022) page 25

(18) E. H. Carr, What is History? (1961) page 9

(19) John Slater, The Politics of History Teaching, a Humanity Dehumanised? (1989) pages 1-12

(20) Terry Haydn & Alison Stephen, Learning to Teach History in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience (2022) page 34

(21) Robert Phillips, History Teaching, Nationhood and the State: A Study in Educational Politics (1998) page 31  

(22) Alan Beattie, History in Peril: May Parents Preserve It (1987) page 19

(23) Martin Kettle, The Guardian (4th January 1990)

(24) DES, GCSE: The National Criteria: History (1985)

(25) Richard Aldrich and Dennis Dean, The Historical Dimension, included in History in the National Curriculum (1991) page 99

(26) Ann Low-Beer, Empathy and History, Teaching History (April 1989) pages 8-12

(27) Martin Booth, Empathy in History: From Definition to Assessment (1986) page 8

(28) Robert Phillips, History Teaching, Nationhood and the State: A Study in Educational Politics (1998) pages 25-27

(29) Ken Jones, Right Turn: Conservative Revolution in Education (1989) pages 64-65

(30) Kenneth Baker, speech at the North of England Education Conference (23rd January 1987)

(31) Robert Phillips, History Teaching, Nationhood and the State: A Study in Educational Politics (1998) pages 54-55

(32) Duncan Graham, A Lesson for Us All: The Making of the National Curriculum (1993) page 64

(33) Martin Roberts, Times Educational Supplement (20th April 1990) 

(34) Alice Prochaska, History Workshop Journal 30 (1990)

(35) Robert Phillips, History Teaching, Nationhood and the State: A Study in Educational Politics (1998) page 54

(36) The Observer (25th June 1989)

(37) National Curriculum History Working Group: Interim Report (1989) page 9

(38) John MacGregor, letter to the History Working Group (10th August 1989)

(39) The Daily Mail (11th August 1989)

(40) The Daily Express (11th August 1989)

(41) The Guardian (11th August 1989)

(42) Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (1993) page 596

(43) Stuart Deuchar, The New History: A Critique (1989) page 4

(44) National Curriculum History Working Group: Final Report (1990) 3.4 

(45) National Curriculum History Working Group: Final Report (1990) 2.10

(46) National Curriculum History Working Group: Final Report (1990) 10.3-5

(47) Duncan Graham, A Lesson for Us All: The Making of the National Curriculum (1993) page 64

(48) National Curriculum History Working Group: Final Report (1990) 9.35

(49) Michael Saunders-Watson, quoted in Robert Phillips, History Teaching, Nationhood and the State: A Study in Educational Politics (1998) page 77

(50) Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (1993) page 596

(51) Times Educational Supplement (11th May 1990)

(52) Raphael Samuel, New Statesman (6th April 1990)

(53) Robert Skidelsky, The Independent (22nd August 1989)

(54) Raphael Samuel, The Independent (31st August 1989)

(55) Martin Roberts, Times Educational Supplement (20th April, 1990)

(56) Robert Phillips, History Teaching, Nationhood and the State: A Study in Educational Politics (1998) page 92

(57) Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (1993) page 597