Progression in history – looking at specific strands

In this highly-rated post , with really important attachments,we show how it is even more important , in this post-levels world of 2016, to get a really strong grasp of progression in all the  main concepts.

In the general section on progression, the point was made that we need to develop a clear understanding of progression beyond just broad principles, and that whatever model we develop it must be a scaffold and not a cage (to use Peter Lee and Dennis Schemilt’s phrase from their excellent article in Teaching History). So how do we help colleagues to pitch their learning objectives without creating some spuriously precise system that does more harm than good?  We have all entered the shark-infested waters of sub-levels in history even though our instinct is to tell us not to go there.  It is a strong department that can resist a Senior Leadership Team’s insistence on ‘breaking down’ the levels into 3 sub-parts so that small step progress can be measured.  Some poor departments even have to decimalise!  That way insanity lies. So what do we do instead? As Christine Counsell once said, as soon as the levels took over, departments stopped thinking for themselves about

You need to be logged in to view this content in full. Please Login or register