The study of myth and legend to be promoted in British schools.

The Tories have decided to follow the American propaganda method of only teaching national history in schools. In a way I shouldn't care after all everything in school is a lie to children anyway and anything of worth is taught at degree level or learnt by people off their own back, school gives you the foundations to learn more and nothing else really. But damnit I like history and while yes the overwhelming focus on WW2 is perhaps a problem but it is a subject separated to some extent from national identity and children can be encouraged to explore the range of potential reasons for the start of the war in the face of the perception it was all Hitler's fault. But with British history, especially for children up to the age of 13 parents will likely feel compelled to complain and attack teachers that send any other message than Britain was good.

This of course leaves aside problems such as inability to empathise with other cultures and the insularity only knowing your own history causes but that is very likely the aim of the Tories in doing this. Now lets look at a few quotes:

He attacked the current approach to history teaching, which he said denied children the chance to learn "our island story" in favour of a mix of topics at primary level and a brief study of Henry VIII and Hitler at secondary.

Why on earth would one want children to learn about anywhere other than a small island, who gives a shit about the vast majority of the earth and its' population?

Gove said: "Our literature is the best in the world – it is every child's birthright, and we should be proud to teach it in every school."

Following on from the previous quote one really gets a clear view of the level of nationalism going into this decision, it is a clear step backwards in understanding the rest of the world. But this is a right wing government so not really a surprise. Also if anyone can tell me how one can define how one culture's literature is better than another's please do let me know, I am keen to learn.

It is a source of dismay to Conservatives that Winston Churchill is currently left off the history curriculum for 11 to 13-year-olds, while two anti-slavery campaigners, William Wilberforce and Olaudah Equiano, are the only historical figures mentioned by name.

Not that freeing the slaves was a bad thing or anything, just really people seem to focus on it a bit too much. I mean yes human beings were stripped of all their rights, treated as property and generally abused in every manner possible but that isn't going to indoctrinate children into liking the Tories now is it?

I am very keen to know what children will get to learn about Winston Churchill, will it be his support for gassing Kurds (that which nasty old Saddam was hung for)? His desire to turn the BBC into a state propaganda organ during the General Strike? Or perhaps his (at best) total indifference to the deaths of four million Indian colonial subjects due to an avoidable famine during WW2?

LOL

Gove also said he wanted GCSE maths and science exams to be made tougher, adding: "We urgently need to ensure our children study rigorous disciplines instead of pseudo-subjects.

"In Massachusetts, 16-year-olds are asked in their science exams, to identify the shape of a carbon tetrabromide molecule as predicted by the valence-shell repulsion theory.

"In England, 16-year-olds are asked in their science exams whether we sweat through our lungs or our skin."

In both Britain and Massachusetts there aren't different levels of science exams nor are there questions weighted with different marks to acknowledge some questions are easier than others. This is a scientific fact.

Oh and the history expert who is advising on all this just happens to be a TV historian who did a rather flattering history series about Britain's history. The best person for the job was obviously chosen.