This paper examines the way high school students, particularly those from minority ethnic backgrounds, in two English schools feel about the history curriculum, and whether they sense any personal connection to what they are taught.  Moreover, it also explores the extent to which the history curriculum develops any sense of personal and/or collective identity. The focus on students' understanding of history is important in light of the differences between professional and public discourses (Harris 2013, Osler 2009); the professional discourse of history educators often focuses on developing students’ understanding of history as a discipline, whereas the public discourse often focuses on the unifying capacity of history to foster a sense of national identity. Examining whether these discourses shape how young people understand history is an area that deserves further exploration.

Debates about the nature and purpose of school history have sparked, and continue to spark, extensive and, at times, impassioned. Such debates are not confined to a particular place, for as Taylor and Guyver (2011) show, arguments about history occur across the globe. In many ways this is unsurprising, as history’s power to shape identity, collectively and individually, has been seen as one of the major reasons for its study (Barton and Levstik 2004, Marwick 1989).  Although there are many studies that question the value of adopting a narrow nationalistic history curriculum (Barton 2012, Berger 2012, Grever 2012, Hansen 2012), there is still a strong emphasis in much public discourse that focuses on teaching a national, often political, story, with a view to promoting a stronger sense of national identity (Harris 2013). Yet there is a gap in our knowledge regarding what is taught in schools and the interaction between school history and students’ sense of self. In England, despite the existence of a National Curriculum for history and Ofsted, which inspects school provision across England, little is known about what specifically is taught in schools, and therefore what impact this has on young people who are required to study the subject. This lack of insight is particularly concerning because history is seen to be a subject that contributes to young people’s developing sense of identity and it is presumed that this would be influenced by what children actually study and the issues with which they are asked to engage. These are issues which affect all educational systems in their debates about what history could/should be taught to young people, but the research in this area is very limited.

For the purposes of this paper the focus is on pupils and their responses to the curriculum. To address this the following questions were formulated:

1)            What do young people see as the purpose and value of history and to what extent is this related to their sense of belonging in society?

2)            Which historical topics in the school curriculum do young people relate to most strongly and why, and which topics would they like to study?

Barton and Levstik’s (2004) four stances for the study of history and Seixas’ (2000, 2007) collective memory, disciplinary and post-modern approaches to history were used as a framework for exploring students’ understanding of the purpose and value of history. Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) theory about social identity was also utilised to understand the way in which students position themselves in regard to the history they study.

Barton, K. and Levstik, L. (2004) Teaching History for the Common Good (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers). Harris, R. (2013) The place of diversity within history and the challenge of policy and curriculum. Oxford Review of Education, 39 (3), 400-419. Haydn, T. and Harris, R. (2010) Pupil perspectives on the purposes and benefits of studying history in high school: a view from the UK. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42 (2), 241 – 261. Marwick, A. (1989) The Nature of History, 3rd edn. (Basingstoke: MacMillan) Osler, A. (2009) Patriotism, multiculturalism and belonging: political discourse and the teaching of history. Educational Review, 61 (1), 85–100. Seixas, P. (2000) Schweigen! die Kinder! Or does postmodern history have a place in the schools? In P. Stearns, P. Seixas & S. Wineburg (eds.), Knowing, Teaching and Learning History (New York, NY: New York University Press), 19-37. Seixas, P. (2007) Who needs a canon? In M. Grever & S. Stuurman (eds.). Beyond the canon: history for the twenty-first century (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), 19-30. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (Monteray, CA: Brooks/Cole), 33-48. Taylor, T. and Guyver R. (2011) History wars and the classroom: global perspectives (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing). VanSledright, B. A. (1997) And Santayana lives on: students’ views on the purposes for studying American history. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29 (5), 529–557.