As the British education system continues to convulse, so more calls for more history have arrived. This time the voice is the 'All-Party Parliamentary Group on History and Archives', and they're asking the government to introduce a new British History qualification which could be awarded to sixteen year olds, but which could take up to five years to teach. There were also calls for history to be made compulsory until sixteen.
If you want to see more of what's being called for, the BBC have a summary. What I'm going to do here is give an opinion. You might expect that I'd favour giving every British youth more training in history, but I'm not sure. I believe in giving every child the educational opportunity they want, so if they want to do an EBacc in history they are supported and able to, the same if they want to do a degree. I'm less keen on railroading people with no interest through the subject, as I'm quite aware that people often take to history far later on, and have to overcome years of boredom. And as you might expect from someone who writes on European history, I do wonder whether the call for more British history might edge out events I studied, like the Russian Revolution, which were pivotal to everyone's history.