“I like history but it’s too hard.”

“History is interesting but there’s too much writing.”

Year after year, I hear the same thing. Key stage 3 students who enjoy history but struggle with reading or extended writing won’t choose the subject as a GCSE option because they perceive it to be too difficult in terms of its literacy requirements and the amount of information they will need to remember.

It’s so disheartening.

Although history is ranked as the fifth most popular subject at both GCSE and A level, the data suggests it is not being equally accessed by all students. Despite the subject’s overall popularity, students from schools in areas with higher levels of deprivation are less likely to be entered for history at both GCSE and A level. 

Not only that, but personal experience tells me that this inequality of access goes further. Students with low reading ages and/or verbal reasoning scores are clearly disadvantaged by the demands of the GCSE and A-level history curriculum, regardless of their background. 

If you scroll through any history teacher community on social media, you’ll find conversation threads despairing over the complexity of exam questions. Students are expected to provide sophisticated written answers, which usually involves composing multiple paragraphs. 

No wonder students who struggle with reading and writing might be put off from choosing the subject.

So, are these students right? Are GCSE and A-level history just too hard? And if so, what can we do about it?

1. Ask the right questions

We need more research investigating the potential connection between students who attend schools in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and reduced access to history, and whether there is a correlation between student literacy levels and subject take-up at KS4.

In 2017, Ofqual started to investigate the link between students’ perception of subject difficulty and subject choice, but history was not one of the subjects that the review looked at in detail.

Most importantly, we need to ask students what they think. If we don’t understand the scale and depth of the issue, how can we begin to address it?

A key takeaway from the curriculum and assessment review’s interim report was that the current system works for some students, but not all of them. As the review enters its next phase, I can only hope that accessibility issues will be analysed in different subject areas.

2. Reduce curriculum content

A recent report from the Historical Association found that teachers think current GCSE specifications are overloaded with content. Of the teachers surveyed for the report, 81 per cent said they believed that curriculum content should be reduced. 

To give an example of the amount of information students are required to memorise, let’s look at history IGCSE, which I currently teach. For a single topic in just one of the four units we have to cover, students are required to memorise more than 20 different laws and government agencies. They need to know the full names, acronyms, purposes, key elements, positive effects and limitations of each. They need to be able to categorise them. They need to be able to rank them against one another. They need to be able to assess their relative success. 

It is an overwhelming cognitive load for a 14- to 16-year-old, and timings are so tight that they will have “studied” this content in about two lessons.

3. Reassess how we are assessing

Students who know quite a bit about the Cuban Missile Crisis or Prohibition but flounder when it comes to explaining their effects in eloquent written depth may not be able to secure an 8 or 9 in their GCSE exams, but they absolutely should not be teetering on the edge of a 3 or 4. 

I don’t believe we need to forgo academic rigour to make the subject more accessible to all; we should instead be considering a wider variety of assessments. History is not simply about writing, after all. 

Why can’t exams include more short-answer questions, like many other subjects do? Could there be a speaking element? What about the analysis of a battlefield layout, or a map-based question? 

Beyond this, should we be providing a more compassionate exam experience for our young people? Scaffolding for essay answers, rest breaks, perhaps even multiple, lower-stakes assessments across the exam course - all of these things should be considered.

Final thoughts

We live in a world where misinformation and disinformation thrive. Teenagers face a barrage of conspiracy theories online, and we are only just starting to realise the enormity of what this means. 

As social media giants dismantle fact-checking mechanisms and high-profile political figures claim that mainstream media is not to be trusted, history is one of the subjects that can play a crucial role in helping people to resist these alarming undercurrents.

As a discipline, history is steeped in critical thinking - through the analysis of source material and the interrogation of accepted narratives. History students study how societies behave, how propaganda works and what “scapegoating” means. 

Indeed, just last year, the European Commission wrote about the role of history education in countering disinformation.

The International Literacy Association argues that it’s every child’s basic human right to read for pleasure. Is it too radical to suggest that it’s every child’s basic right to study history, too? 

The post-KS3 curriculum must not become a privilege accessed by a select few because, perhaps more than ever, having the chance to study history really matters.

Evelyn Waite is a history teacher at an international school in Spain