History immerses pupils in unfamiliar worlds, and in the diversity and commonality of human experience across time and place. At the same time, history helps pupils to make sense of their own experiences, and of the world they inhabit. The study of history is complex and constantly evolving through new approaches, new lenses, and new evidence. Every pupil is entitled to encounters with the richness of the past and the complexity of the historical inquiry.
The report evaluates the common strengths and weaknesses of history teaching in the schools inspected and considers the challenges that history education faces. This evidence was gathered by inspectors as part of routine inspections and research visits. The report builds on our history research review, published in 2021.
We summarise the main findings from primary and secondary schools (see the appendix for further details) and share our recommendations. We then set out our more detailed findings from primary schools and secondary schools separately. These 2 sections focus on:
- curriculum design and organisation
- pedagogy
- assessment
- school systems and leaders’ impact on history education
- subject knowledge and professional development, and
- the impact of the above on what pupils learn
When we inspect schools, we evaluate them against the criteria in the school inspection handbooks. Inspectors will not use our findings in this report as a ‘checklist’ when they are inspecting schools. We know that there are many different ways that schools can put together and teach a high-quality history curriculum.
Pupils begin their formal history education in Year 1, where history is a national curriculum subject. Although children in Reception do not study history as a separate subject, the early years foundation stage framework (EYFS) identifies important knowledge and skills that can support their learning in the future. As part of ‘Understanding the world’, children are expected to know about some similarities and differences between the past and now, and to understand the past through settings, characters and events they learn about. The EYFS also highlights the importance of children developing vocabulary that will support their understanding across a range of areas. At key stage 1, the national curriculum sets out broad descriptors of content to guide maintained schools in designing their curriculum. Although academies do not have to teach the national curriculum, their curriculum must reflect the national curriculum’s scope and ambition. [footnote 1] Within these broad guidelines, maintained schools and academies have significant flexibility to choose what pupils will learn from Reception to the end of Year 2.
At key stage 2, the national curriculum identifies more specific content areas for pupils to study. These range from the earliest human civilisations to the early medieval period. Pupils also learn about historical concepts and the methods and approaches taken by historians and others who study the past. It is important to note that, while historical concepts should be introduced to pupils in key stage 2, this is the start of a long curriculum journey to understanding the complexity of how historians study the past. It is not expected that pupils can make complex historical judgements at the early stages of their history education.
The national curriculum also sets out specific content areas and historical concepts that pupils should study at key stage 3. This begins in Year 7, when most pupils start secondary school. Again, across key stages 2 and 3, maintained schools and academies have significant freedom to choose the content pupils will learn within the broad framework of the national curriculum.
From the beginning of key stage 4 (starting in either Year 9 or Year 10), study of history is optional. Where key stage 4 starts in Year 9, schools must ensure that all pupils have studied a broad history curriculum across key stage 3. Since 2018, the number of pupils studying history at GCSE has increased slightly. In 2021/22, 278,088 pupils were entered for GCSE history. The number of pupils studying A-level history has fluctuated. It peaked in 2019 before dropping. In 2021/22, A-level entries increased again to 42,409.[footnote 2]
Terms used in this report
In this report, we use the same terms to describe the historical knowledge that pupils learn as we did in the history research review. These terms can be useful when commenting on specific aspects of history education, but they are not simple or discrete categories.
Substantive knowledge: in history, this refers to knowledge about the past.
Disciplinary knowledge: this refers to knowledge about how historians and others study the past, and how they construct historical claims, arguments and accounts. This is not a set of generic skills, but a complex body of knowledge. Pupils need to build this knowledge over time by encountering a range of meaningful examples of how historians have studied specific aspects of the past and constructed claims and accounts about them.
When designing history curriculums, some history teachers also distinguish between:
- core knowledge: content that, within a particular lesson or topic, curriculum designers and teachers consider most important for pupils to secure in their long-term memory
- hinterland: background information that helps to make core knowledge meaningful by placing it within a rich context
Specific aspects and features of pupils’ knowledge that we comment on in this review include:
- chronological knowledge: pupils’ knowledge of broader chronological frameworks, narratives and features of historical periods
- terms, concepts and phenomena: much of what pupils learn will be unique to the historical context. However, our research review found that knowledge of recurring terms, concepts and phenomena is important in helping pupils to learn new material. Again, these are not simple or discrete categories, but it can be useful for teachers and curriculum designers to distinguish between:
- terms: labels given to particular historical events or phenomena, for example ‘appeasement’
- concepts: abstract ideas that share some features across different contexts. They can be more or less specific, for example ‘nationalism’, ‘living standards’ or ‘power’
- phenomena: events, developments or aspects of societies that share some features in different contexts, for example ways that cities can influence social or political developments or ways that rulers have projected an image of authority
- gaps in pupils’ knowledge: throughout the report, we refer to gaps in pupils’ knowledge. These relate to the specific curriculum journey of pupils in their particular school and classroom. It does not mean that there is a simple hierarchy of knowledge that pupils must systematically build in history. There are often many routes through which pupils can build knowledge to support future learning
- richness: in the best schools, pupils’ knowledge had several features that are captured by this term. Pupils’ knowledge was rich where it was (appropriately for their stage in the curriculum journey) wide ranging, detailed, connected and complex. Where we refer to pupils’ knowledge developing, we are referring to the increasing richness of pupils’ knowledge over time as a result of impactful curriculums, teaching and assessment
Main findings
In our history survey report in 2011, we raised concerns about the marginalisation and integrity of history in schools. Evidence from our recent research visits indicates that the position of history in schools is much more secure now than it was 12 years ago. In most of the schools we visited, history was highly valued by leaders and teachers, and pupils were given enough time to study the subject. The trend towards erosion of history as a distinct subject appears to have been reversed.
In recent years, there has been significant work done in the large majority of primary and secondary schools to develop a broad and ambitious curriculum in history. This work is having a significant impact on the quality of education that pupils receive in history.
The gap between the quality of history education in primary and in secondary schools appears to have closed. We were particularly impressed by the security of primary school teachers’ subject knowledge, given the pressures of teaching a wide range of subjects. The overall quality of history education has improved, but there were significant differences in the quality of history education between schools. However, in most cases, we found similar strengths and weaknesses in primary and secondary settings.
Curriculum
In the large majority of the schools we visited, leaders made sure that there was enough time in the timetable to teach a broad and ambitious history curriculum. Pupils studied a wide range of historical periods.
In almost all the schools visited, the history curriculum was carefully designed to develop pupils’ knowledge so that they could study a more ambitious curriculum over time. In a few schools, curriculum planning was less effective. In those schools, teachers focused on superficial aspects of the past, for example reducing Pharaonic Egypt (Egypt at the time of the Pharaohs) to the pyramids and mummies, without exploring deeper features of Egyptian society and culture. Here, teachers did not plan how to develop and secure pupils’ knowledge to help them learn in the future.
Curriculum plans relating to disciplinary knowledge were typically not ambitious enough. The teaching of this was less effective than it could be. The complexity of disciplinary traditions and approaches was often misrepresented. We saw just a few schools where pupils developed more complex knowledge over time of how historians study the past and construct accounts.
Pupils generally developed secure knowledge of aspects of what they were taught in schools. However, the overall impact of history education varied widely, both within and between schools. In the best schools, pupils developed rich and connected knowledge of the past. In others, pupils’ knowledge of history was disconnected or superficial, or there were significant gaps. In most schools, pupils had misconceptions about how historians and others study the past and construct their accounts.
Pedagogy
In just over half the schools visited, teachers’ pedagogical decisions were designed well to make sure that pupils could learn new material. Teachers drew on their secure subject knowledge to make the past meaningful for pupils. They used clear explanations to explore new information. Primary schools taught local history particularly well.
However, in nearly half the schools, teachers expected pupils to make their own judgements, for example on sources of evidence, without having developed the secure historical knowledge to be able to do this meaningfully. This approach typically influenced decisions about the curriculum, teaching and assessment. It often led to pupils having less secure knowledge of the past and misconceptions about the work of historians.
In all the schools visited, support for pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) was a priority. However, this support was not always as effective as it could be. In most cases, this was because teachers focused on adapting the immediate task so that pupils could complete it, instead of building their knowledge and skills and addressing gaps so that they could access the curriculum in the longer term.
Assessment
Assessment in history was not fully developed in most of the primary schools visited. Commonly, teachers made broad judgements about pupils’ progress, but did not identify or address specific gaps and misconceptions in their knowledge. In around half the secondary schools, teachers used assessment effectively to identify gaps and misconceptions in the most important knowledge they had intended pupils to learn. In the other half, this was not the case.
School systems
Whole-school systems and approaches generally improved the quality of history education. They were particularly effective in schools where leaders understood how pupils get better in history. In a few schools, however, poorly designed or implemented policies had a negative impact on history education. Leaders did not fully understand how to ensure and assure the quality of history education in their schools. They accepted superficial evidence that history education was effective, such as the presence of a lesson feature such as a retrieval quiz.
Teacher knowledge and expertise
Most teachers had secure content knowledge (knowledge of the historical content to be taught) of the topics they were teaching. In some schools, leaders supported and developed teachers’ knowledge systematically. In others, individual teachers often committed significant time outside dedicated working hours to develop their content knowledge, including those in primary schools, where teachers teach a range of subjects. In most schools, however, guidance and training on effective approaches to teaching and assessment in history were limited.
Schools where pupils developed rich and connected knowledge tended to have some or all of the following features:
- regular access to high-quality training and resources, typically through subject associations
- ambitious curriculum plans that identified the most important content and concepts to support future learning
- a clear, shared understanding among teachers of the most important content and concepts that pupils needed to know and remember
- teachers with secure knowledge of the content to be taught
- pedagogical choices that emphasised the most important content and concepts in the school’s curriculum, which were regularly revisited
- assessment that regularly and systematically checked that pupils were secure in their knowledge of the most important content and concepts, so that any gaps and misconceptions could be addressed quickly
- an approach that recognised how to balance this emphasis on ‘core knowledge’ with the importance of a rich and meaningful hinterland
Discussion of findings
In the most effective schools, there is a complex and powerful interaction between ambitious curriculum design and pupils’ developing historical knowledge. When pupils’ knowledge becomes richer and more secure over time, they are able to access a broad curriculum that increasingly represents the complexity of the past. This means that all pupils can ultimately meet ambitious curricular goals.
Effective curriculum planning is important in developing pupils’ knowledge and skills so that they can understand more challenging ideas. This is not necessarily a result of any particular type of planning. It is often the result of teachers and leaders understanding that what pupils already know can help them to make sense of new material. They understand how to organise the curriculum, teaching and assessment to emphasise the content and concepts necessary for accessing future learning.
Most schools have invested significant time in developing the history curriculum, and this has had a very positive impact on the overall quality of history education. The quality of curriculum thinking in primary and secondary schools has been noticeably raised since the time of our last history report. There is some exceptionally strong practice in a few schools, and this report sets out to outline that practice for the benefit of all schools.
Gaps remain in the quality of practice between schools. Our research indicates that, in many schools, leaders had not fully grasped the complexities of how pupils make progress specifically in history. This limited the impact of curriculum, teaching and assessment on pupils’ knowledge. In particular, some schools assessed progress in history largely through checking learning of isolated facts. This did not make sure that pupils developed rich and connected knowledge of the past.
In other schools, progress was linked to vague descriptions of skills. Put simply, the curriculum, teaching and assessment did not help pupils to develop secure knowledge about the past. Across all these schools, superficial features of curriculum plans or lessons were too readily assumed to be evidence of quality, or too heavily promoted as a way of ensuring a high-quality history education. For example, several schools at both primary and secondary level had identified ‘golden threads’ in curriculum plans. However, they did not plan and implement these in a way that helped pupils develop more secure and meaningful knowledge. In other schools, leaders mistook features of lessons, such as regular quizzes, for evidence that pupils were being supported to develop richer and more secure knowledge. In the most effective schools, leaders and teachers thought carefully not just about whether material was being taught, but also about what was being taught or revisited. They also considered the impact this would have on pupils’ future learning.
One of the great joys and most important aims of history education is to enable pupils to develop their own understanding of how claims and accounts about the past are constructed. This allows them to engage with the process of historical construction for themselves. However, in some schools, a poorly planned approach to this left some pupils with significant gaps and misconceptions. In a significant minority of lessons we observed, teachers encouraged pupils to come up with their own judgements in response to questions, when they lacked the knowledge to answer these meaningfully, rather than empowering pupils to construct judgements based on secure knowledge.
Pupils’ historical thinking emerges in complex ways from their growing understanding of the past and of how historians construct claims and accounts. Attempts to ‘shortcut’ this process by teaching ‘tips and tricks’ or by encouraging pupils to make ungrounded assertions did not produce the kinds of meaningful engagement with history that we should want for all our pupils. In many cases, these approaches left pupils with limited and patchy knowledge about the past and serious misconceptions about the complexity of historical enquiry. Subject associations offer high-quality guidance on how pupils can develop meaningful disciplinary knowledge. It is likely that subject and senior leaders in some schools would benefit from further engagement with these.
Wherever teachers took the complexity of history seriously, pupils responded with enthusiasm. In many primary schools, for example, pupils were fascinated by the relationship between local, national and international developments. In many schools, pupils were gripped by the stories of individuals and became immersed in detailed study of other times and places.
The very best schools were those where teachers carefully balanced the richness and complexity of the past with clarity about how effective emphasis on curriculum, teaching and assessment could help pupils navigate this with secure and deepening knowledge.
Recommendations
Schools should ensure that:
- Teachers and leaders understand the generative power of knowledge in history: that is, how layers of historical knowledge interact so that pupils’ knowledge of other past societies, of recurring terms, concepts and phenomena and of broader chronological frameworks help them to learn more easily about other topics.
- The curriculum that the school adopts, adapts or constructs identifies the most important content and concepts that can support pupils in future learning, so that teachers can emphasise these in teaching. This is important both in curriculum planning and in teachers’ ‘live’ decisions about emphasis during teaching.
- Teachers are confident in making pedagogical decisions that emphasise important content and concepts in a meaningful way and in revisiting these regularly so that pupils develop secure knowledge. This includes building on what pupils already know, using well-selected stories and examples to make abstract ideas meaningful and using explanations to help pupils to connect information.
- Teachers use assessment to identify important gaps and misconceptions in pupils’ knowledge and make sure that these are addressed. Although there is not a set hierarchy of knowledge that pupils need to build in history, at every point in each school’s curriculum there is important knowledge that pupils need to know in order to make sense of what they are learning. Accepting significant gaps between pupils in knowledge of important content and concepts means that these gaps will widen over time, as some pupils understand less about new topics they are taught.
- Support for pupils with SEND focuses on pupils’ ability to access the breadth and depth of the curriculum over time, rather than their ability to complete the immediate task. This includes making sure that all pupils are secure in their knowledge of important content and concepts that help them to make sense of the later curriculum.
- The curriculum gives pupils broad and rich encounters with the past, through different times, places and societies, different people, groups and experiences and through the lenses of political, social, economic and cultural history.
- The curriculum enables pupils to develop meaningful and increasingly complex knowledge about how historians and others study the past and construct their accounts, avoiding reductive or misleading representations of the complexity of historical enquiry and argument.
- Leaders plan systematically to develop teachers’ knowledge of the content they teach and of how to teach history effectively to pupils.
- Leaders assure the quality of history education by meaningfully assessing the quality of what pupils learn and remember over time. This should include the richness, connectedness and complexity of pupils’ knowledge of the past and their knowledge of how historians and others study the past and construct their accounts.
Initial teacher education providers and those who support early career teachers should ensure that:
- Teachers understand how pupils get better in history and know how to develop pupils’ knowledge so that pupils can access increasingly more ambitious curriculum content.
- Teachers understand how to help pupils develop meaningful disciplinary knowledge and are aware of the misconceptions that pupils can develop if the work of historians is misrepresented.
