Michael Gove's claims about history teaching are false, says research

Claims that the history of the British empire is not being widely taught in schools – and when it is that the content is negative and anti-British – are false, according to research.

Some historians and politicians have criticised schools for failing to teach about the empire and in particular the achievements of empire. Among them is the former education secretary, Michael Gove, who once complained that too much history teaching was informed by post-colonial guilt.

But a paper by Prof Terry Haydn of the University of East Anglia found that the study of the British empire was an “integral” part of the national curriculum in England, which stipulates that pupils should be taught about “ideas, political power, industry and empire: Britain, 1745-1901”.

Haydn’s findings are based on an analysis of curriculum specifications, text books and history education websites, as well as a small-scale survey of 15 heads of history departments. The report also concludes that neither the textbooks teaching about empire, nor the history websites used by schools, suggest an “anti-British” slant is being taught in schools.

Haydn, whose paper is being presented at the British Educational Research Association conference on Tuesday, finds that textbooks and websites used by teachers take a balanced approach, examining positive and negative historical sources, opinion and commentary.

The research challenges recent claims by historians and politicians about the kind of history British schoolchildren are taught. It quotes historian William Dalrymple saying: “At the moment our imperial history is not taught in schools – our children go from Henry VIII to the Nazis, omitting that very interesting period in-between when we had the greatest empire the world had ever known.”

But all the heads of history departments interviewed said the history of the British empire was taught to 11-14-year-olds – though some students get much more empire than others. Two interviewees said it was covered in a single lesson, while two others said their students spent between six and eight weeks on the subject.

On the context of the lessons, only one head of department said empire was taught as “a bad thing” and was treated as “a study in exploitation”. Several said the subject needed to be treated in a balanced way, while one warned: “It is not to be taught in a manner of triumphalism … It deserves to be balanced, though, and not [with the empire] as some fantasy villain in black mightily oppressing the ‘good guys’.”

Haydn said: “The data emerging from the study does not support the claim that students in English schools are not taught about the British empire. Neither does the testimony from teachers, text books and history education websites support the idea … that the British empire is taught in a negative and anti-British way.”

There are problems with teaching about empire, he said, because of the limited time given to history in the English school system. Not enough schools are teaching about the latter stages and decline of empire, including the Suez crisis of 1956, and there is not enough reference to other empires, including present-day empires which wrongly leads pupils to think they belong to the nineteenth century phenomenon.

“The draft national curriculum for history formulated in 2013 stated that school history should provide pupils with knowledge of Britain’s past, an understanding of our place in the world and of the challenges of our own time,” said Haydn. “Critics of school history should pay more heed to the challenges of achieving all three of these aims when teaching about empire, with often only one lesson a week, and with pupils able to drop history at the age of 13.”