Teaching of WW1 in schools

[Mark Hone]

I have been asked to give a talk for my local WFA branch in a few months time on the subject of how the Great War is taught to schoolchildren. I intend to cover its presentation not only in History but also in English, through the widespread teaching of the war poets and novels such as 'Regeneration' and 'Birdsong'. I'll also be saying a few words about the growth of battlefield tours. I'd be very interested in comments by fellow teachers or anyone else with views on the subject, either through this forum or by direct e-mail.

[Mark Hone]

In particular I'd be interested to get hold of the supposedly very biased and inaccurate material produced by an LEA in (I think)the North-East encountered by a WFA member who got chatting to a school group in a CWGC cemetery. It was the subject of some correspondence in the WFA bulletin a couple of years ago. Any other similar stuff would be gratefully received.

[Paul Reed]

Mark - I also saw some of this material while I was out on a tour; one of the questions posed was 'why will you not find the graves of officers in WW1 cemeteries?'. The answer, the children were told, was that officers didn't go anywhere near the fighting, but lived in plush chateux behind the lines...

This is in marked contrast to another school from Horley in Surrey which gets their students to 'adopt' a soldier from the local memorial, research them and then visit the name/grave as part of the school tour... the memorial includes, of course, Henry Webber, DOW aged 68.

Sadly I don't have material from either of these - have you thought of contacting the Schools Tour Operator Galloways? They might be able to help?

[John_Hartley]

Mark

I'm a Lancs & Cheshire WFA member and am looking forward to your talk. Not least, because one of the two local secondary schools has "come across" my memorials website. The Head of History is certainly intended using the site for a project and has invited me to go and talk to the students. I will be talking to him about how/what level he wants me to pitch the talk, but Tom Morgan suggested that I could use a "then & now" slant. Comparing say the sort of jobs people did; the change from small villages to suburban sprawl as well as military stuff. Particularly interesting social change is that it's a Roman Catholic school compared with the fact none of the 200+ men on the menorials seemed to be Catholic.

I rather like the idea of research a name or two and then consider school trip to visit the grave, as suggested by Paul (and, no, I'm not trying to nick his or Tom's business !)

John

[Simon_Fielding]

Dear Mark,

I teach A level English Literature at Cirencester College (FE). You might find the materials used for the OCR board A2 level Synoptic Paper Module 2713 of interest. One of the target genres is 'The Great War in British Literature'. The book produced by Cambridge UP to support study of this unit is 'Contexts in Literature: The Great War in British Literature' by Adrian Barlow Cambridge 2000 ISBN 0521644208.

I feel it is a fairly sound account of the literary interpretation of the war, giving students a clear idea that the depiction of the war in literature tells as much about the period in which it was written, as it does about the war itself.

Sadly, my colleagues plumped for 20th Century American Prose and Poetry!

It's a useful book if you don't know it already.

Cheers

Simon

[Paul Reed]

I rather like the idea of research a name or two and then consider school trip to visit the grave, as suggested by Paul (and, no, I'm not trying to nick his or Tom's business !)

I can't claim to have dreamt this one up, and I would also point out that I don't do school groups anymore (expect for a few schools I know well and have connections with)... I leave the school groups to others who have more patience than I do!!

[Mark Hone]

Our tours are based around the former pupils of the school who died in the two world wars, local units (eg Lancashire Fusiliers, Manchesters, East Lancs) and relatives of boys on the tour. We average three to four special visits every trip, often the first time the grave in question has ever been visited by a relative. For example our tour in October included a special ceremony at Rocquigny-Equancourt Road, where the two Bury Grammar School pupils killed in the Cambrai offensive are buried, and visits to the graves of a great-uncle and great-great grandfather of boys on the tour. The local/personal angle makes all the difference in my view. It requires a lot of research but it's well worth it-we now have details of all 97 BGS World War I and 46 World War II dead, including photos, obituaries from the local press, war diary extracts etc.

[Mark]

At the beginning of this year my 13 year old son said that he was covering WW1 in History as part of this term's history syllabus. At last I thought, the chance to pass on some of my (limited) knowledge and perhaps help him research a local lad. How wrong I was. The course covered, of course, the causes of WW1, a little bit on trench warfare and a great deal about the Christmas Truce. That was all. What a wasted opportunity to bring the War to life, after all many who went to fight were not much older than he is now.

[Guest J.Woodward]

I remember much the same from my schooldays - an awful lot on the causes of war, likewise on the treaty of Versailles and again on war poets (with emphasis placed heavily on the 'horror of war' poets - Owen, Sassoon, Blunden and Rosenberg, little or no mention on the others, Brooke, Service, McCrae etc). The realities of trench war received no attention and all that was learnt of the fighting was the first day of the Somme, with the old lions led by donkeys cliches given a good airing. Not sure if that was the masters individual slant on the war or the war as specified by the curriculum but most dissapointing.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

I envy what I have read in this thread. In the states I was exposed to about 2 hours of war history in the most general terms possible. It was an unpleasant part of the history course due to the lack of interest in the school curriculum as well as with the lack interest with the students and teacher.

It seems that the U.S. participation was not important and the rest of the European war was covered in a few terse statements, then on to the big subject, the Depression and WWII.

I am glad to see that it is taught somewhere.

Ralph

[john w.]

Mark

What is your brief? age? ability? degree of motivation?

What is the aim of the lecture?

How do you bring it alive when much of that which is taught is preordained?

I am not a historian but have covered some lessons when they have been doing aspects of the Great War. Year 9 students who are disaffected, 30 of em staring at you daring you to teach, more interested in MTV than what you have to offer. Do you capitulate or go for it...

Make it live.....

John

[Myrtle]

Mark

I would like to add another dimension to this debate. The visual arts in WW1. The work of Paul and John Nash for example plus others such as Bomberg. It is clear looking at their work before and after the war how their experiences had such an effect on them and their paintings. There are also the German painters such as Max Beckmann ( one of my favourite painters). "Die Nacht" is one of the strongest depictions of the nightmare of war that I have come across. Beckmann volunteered for paramedical service and following time in East Prussia went to Belgium where he worked in a typhus unit and then in an operating theatre. He then suffered a physical and mental breakdown in 1916. There is an excellent exhibition of his work at Tate Modern Bankside at the moment.

Although I am not a History teacher, at those times when I have found myself teaching history or assisting history teachers I have always found even the most "disaffected" (as John puts it ) have taken a positive interest when they have been given objects such as medals or original photographs to look at. I remember one of the most awkward lads in a History lesson in which I was assisting was not interested in anything other than trying to 'surreptitiously' munch crisps and divert his friends attention from the lesson. I always found the History teacher (dare I say it rather dull) so one week I took a WW1 medal in with me and some other things that I thought might be of interest. I showed the lad the medal and told him the story behind it after which he started to talk about his grandfather who was in his 90s and the stories that he had told him. We had a good discussion and were not interrupted once by his friends. They didn't dare !

Myrtle

[Mark Hone]

Just to clarify-I am trying to give a general survey of how the subject is dealt with in British schools today, adding my own perspective and comments. In History it is most commonly taught at Key Stage 3 Year 9 (ie 13/14 year-olds) and as part of the 'Modern World History ' GCSE syllabus. In English war literature seem to be dealt with mainly at A-Level but that's one thing I'm trying to clarify, not being an English teacher. I am aware that my perspective is a little slanted, being a teacher at a selective Boys' school. However I did invent and pioneer a teaching unit based on the experiences of the Sheffield City Battalion which I used in two Sheffield mixed Comprehensive schools while on teaching practice in 1989/90, elements of which have been used by other teachers in the city since.

Thank you for all your comments. Myrtle raises a very valid point. I am pleased to say that a veteran of several of my battlefield tours(but not someone who took History to A-Level) opted to study war artists like Nash for his A-Level Art coursework this year.

[Martin Hornby]

Mark.

I have come to this thread a little late. All I can say is your pupils are getting a balanced view of the Great War.

My eldest 2 children studied the Great War in year 9.

They attend one of the best state schools in Somerset (80% of pupils score A - C grades at GCSE). But one has to doubt exactly what the National Curriculum teaches youngsters.

The below is taken from a work sheet looking at Haig.

I will let you draw your own conclusions.

GENERAL HAIG AND THE BATLE OF THE SOMME.

The Battle of the Somme in 1916 was one of the most horrific battles in the war. Thousands of British soldiers were killed. Many people were quick to blame the man in charge, Field Marshal Haig, calling him "The Butcher of the Somme". His tactics were to bombard the German trenches and then send the men 'over the top'. Even when it became obvious that these tactics were not working, he still carried on, sending even more men to their deaths. Was he really that cruel or was he just unaware of what was happening?

Now read these sources about Haig's role in the Battle of the Somme!

SOURCE A:

"While Haig slept in a cosy bed in a quiet country country chateua and was dined on the best food available his men lived in muddy, noisy trenches sharing their bully beef and biscuits with big bloated rats. It apparently did not bother Haig that his war was so much more comfortable than that of the men he commanded."

WRITTEN IN 1988 IN A BIOGRAPHY OF HAIG BY GERARD DE GROOT.

SOURCE B:

Capt Blackadder..."My instincts lead me to believe that we are at last about to go over the top."

Lieut George..."Great Scott Sir! You mena the moment has arrived for us to give Harry Hun a darn good British style thrashing, six of the best, trousers down?"

Capt Blackadder..."You mean "Are we all going to get killed." Yes. Clearly Field Marshal Haig is about to make yet another giant effort to move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin."

SOURCE C:

"

[Martin Hornby]

Sorry about this my computer went down!

SOURCE C:

"The nation must be taught to bear losses.... the nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty lists.

HAIG.

SOURCE D:

"Very successful attack this morning....All went like clockwork....The battle is going very well for us and already the Germans are surrendering freely."

REPORT BY HAIG ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE ATTACK, 1 JULY 1916.

The soldiers however did not see it that way. Men were being killed as soon as they got out of the trenches. The Survivors were angry and frightened.

SOURCE E:

"My tunic is rotten with other men's blood and partly splattered with friends brains. It is horrible....I believe that Goldie (a mate) and many others were murdered through the stupidity of those in authority."

LT. J.A. RAWS IN A LETTER TO HIS FAMILY SHORTLY BEFORE HIS DEATH ON 23 AUGUST 1916.

SOURCE F:

"Our High Command had not advanced beyond the tactics of the Stone Age. They could not think of any other form of warfare except to throw into battle large numbers of men month after month."

LOVAT FRASER. A SOLDIER 1919.

Some people however have praised Haig. Here are two views.

SOURCE G:

"If being a successful general is about winning wars, Haig must be judged a success. The cost of victory was appalling but Haig's methods were in line with the ideas of the time when attrition (wearing down the enemy) was the method all sides used to achieve victory."

PHILIP WARNER IN THE BOOK "FIELD MARSHAL HAIG" 1991.

SOURCE H:

"The Battle of the Somme was a great triumph for the genius of British Leadership."

COLONEL J.H. BORASTON - HAIG'S PERSONAL SECRETARY DURING THE WAR, SPEAKING IN 1922.

So what do you think then? Hero or Villain?.

using your knowledge and the sources provided discuss the following statement:

'The suffering and horror experienced by the British Tommy in the trenches during World War One can be blamed firmly on Field Marshal General Haig!"

Comment.

Can we not wonder why so many people grow up with this sort odf distorted view on the Great War!

What do you think?

Martin

[Mark Hone]

Martin-This worksheet seems to be at least partly based on material produced by a bunch called 'Co-ordination Group Publications' who market a range of el cheapo revision materials. Their GCSE Modern World History 'revision guide' contained a host of inaccuracies and misinterpretations which showed that their acquaintance with the study of History was superficial to say the least. I seem to recall that the section on Haig contained a 'list of 10 facts', six of which were actually opinions.

I would be interested in the provenance (good technical term) of the source that you quote. Was it a school-produced piece based on info from different textbooks or was it reproduced from a specific work? With your permission I might use it with my GCSE people ( and my WFA audience) as a classic example of a totally biased source pretending to objectivity!

[john w.]

I share Myrtle's feelings on this having faced similar situations myself.

My other problem and one increasingly faced by many of my colleagues is how you teach such a subject when faced not only by disaffected students, but also those who dont speak English and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

If faced with a highly motivated class of students much can be achieved in a variety of ways and at a variety of levels, and there is satisfaction all round.

All students regardless of ability need to be stretched it just means that in some schools the spectrum seems as wide as the Grand Canyon.

John

[Hedley Malloch]

A word in the defence of history teachers: one cannot expect them to share our passion. One should expect them to be passionate about something, but not necessarily the Western Front.

Myrtle mentions the effects on WW1 on Art and I would be inclined to include sculpture in this, especially Henry Moore who served as an bayonet instructor - hence his interest in recumbent forms with holes in them. Also war memorials and the work of Jagger as compared with the more idealised forms.

I take Martin's points, but I don't think it is the job of the teacher to impart the 'truth' about an area such as this, where there is no accepted truth. All one can and should do is introduce a variety of opinions and leave them to think about it.

Choosing a local soldier is a great idea. I would be inclined to take four names; one each from the Regulars of '14; the TF; the Pals; and the conscripts and trace each of their experiences. One could make the point that there were four armies invovled and that their experiences were very different.

Finally, I would say something about technoogical developments and their effect on how the subject is taught. The two major ones have been the DVD and the video (cue for you to show selected bits and pieces of your favourite vids) and the internet - cue for a review of some of the major sites and what can be found on them. You cold tie the internet into a growing distinction between teaching and learning about WW1.

[Alan Lines]

Mark and Martin

My son also came home with the same work sheet last year, and I was very pleased to see it. I personally didn't feel as a parent it was particularly one-sided. He was also given other information to help form his own opinion.

A more balanced opinion always seems to me to mean that we end up with the opinion that Haig & Co. were a great bunch. Fortunately the current syllabus doesn't say this and it hopefully never will.

WW1 is just one part of the syllabus and is of no more importance than any other area to the majority of the kids or the teachers, which is right and proper.

Also I assume for a teacher to seriously question the current beliefs would mean they would have to have some knowledge of the subject beyond the minimum state requirement? With regard to WW1 the teachers at my childrens school certainly don't have that knowledge. I wonder how unusual this is. Having seen so many school trips on the battlefields over the years I was begining to think this was the norm, but my daughter's history teacher told me last week a trip to the IWM was beyond their capabilities! ("Day's out like that are the parents responsibilty")I wonder why she wants to drop history next year?!

My experiences of history teachers at my childrens school is they can all talk a good job but any interest they have is solely on getting the kids a good pass mark and the majority of the parents are happy with that too.

[john w.]

My mum was a teacher for 38 years and I am coming up to 28 in the profession... the neat trick is to make the subject interesting... whatever it is... capture their imagination and you can make dustbins fun if you want.

To think that all there is to school is results is a real shame, what an opportunity missed, what fun lost when all you do is teach for an end of year test or key stage exam...

John

[Alan Lines]

Hear hear John.

Unfortunately there is a queue a mile long to get into the school because of their good exam results.

[Mark Hone]

I try in my little way to grab their interest beyond exam results. For our tenth anniversary battlefields tour next year I am holding a dinner for the proud members of our 'Fives' club-boys who foolishly volunteered to come on several of our battlefields jaunts. While a number are boys who went on to study History to A-Level or degree level, there are others who didn't even do the subject at GCSE. They know a lot about the World Wars and subjects like the CWGC though!

[Myrtle]

Hedley

I agree sculpture should be included. I was aware of the vast amount of forum space I could take up if extending from 2d to 3d but was tempted to include the sculptors Henry Moore (who survived) and Henri Gaudier- Brzeska (who didn't) in my original posting.

Henry Moore was with The Civil Service Rifles 15th London Reg. He was at the Battle of Cambrai and following a gas attack was sent to hospital for two months. After he recovered he became an Army Physical Training Instructor.

With respect, it is rather unlikely that Moore produced holed sculptures following his experiences with bayonets. He was not the first English sculptor to use holes in his work. Barbara Hepworth produced a sculpture in 1931 called "Pierced Form". Moore produced his first piece of holed sculpture in 1932. These two artists trained together in Leeds and then at the Royal College. Their reasons for working in this style was to do with allowing the sculpture's surroundings to physically become a part of the sculpture. They were interested in the relationship between space and form. If you look at Moore's sculpture following WW1 it is solid and bulky.

Henri Gaudier-Brzeska, born in St. Jean de Braye near Orleans, had lived in England for a few years prior to the war. His father had been the village carpenter and Henri had won two scholarships at the age of fifteen to study abroad. By the age of seventeen he was fluent in three languages and was learning Russian but much to his father's dismay Henri decided to become a sculptor rather than go into commerce.

He joined the French army in September 1914 and was killed in a charge at Neuville St. Vaast, on June 5th 1915. At the time he was a sergeant.

Regards

Myrtle

[john w.]

Just wish I taught in a school that had decent results, but thats another story.

To generate the enthusiasm in the student then allows the teacher to push further and the natural personality and enthusiasm one has, pushes the students on. Often as has been said here that may manifest itself in a student taking it on into further studies, but I have found that those who are well motivated are good managers of time and have a level head. Consequently, they find it easy to juggle things about and that in turn allows them to begin to take things on for themselves. Inevitably they leave you behind as they develop in their own way... but and this is the real reward of teaching you started them off... no one can take that away from you.

For me Im afraid it isnt school exam results its the achievement of the pupil that counts and whether they went on to achieve what they wanted to when they left and just didnt let themselves down. If I was a part of that well thats my reward

John

[Simon_Fielding]

Mark:

I have just acquired a copy of _The Unquiet Western Front: Britain's Role in Literature and History_ by Brian Bond CUP Cambridge 2002 which has some material on the teaching of GCSE history and English.

Glad to photocopy if required - Let me know.

Simon