Primary History is fine, but tends to go on for a long time on one subject. Children learn about several things over and over: World War Two, the Tudors/Stuarts, Medieval Era, Greeks/Romans, Victorians. Sometimes they veer off into the Aztecs. As a colonial myself, I find it highly alarming that most children have absolutely no idea who settled in North America, Australia, Canada.

"So what people settled in Canada?"
"... Red Indians!"
"No, that's who was there before-- we call them Native Canadians or Aborginal Canadians now, not Indians usually. People came from Europe to settle in Canada. Nowadays it's full of lots of different people from all over the world, but who came at the very start?"
"..."
"Well, what language do people speak in Canada?"
"Spanish! Russian!"
"Think about me. What languages do I speak?"
"Canadian."
"Well, English. That's what people speak in Canada, as well as French. So where did people come from?"
"... Sweden?"

Exaggerated, but not far off an actual conversation I have had with otherwise knowledgeable children. They have no understanding of the meaning of the Commonwealth at all, or all the former colonies of the UK and what the connection is they have with Britain. How can they not know this? Surely Britain would benefit from having a population that understands, from an early age, how key to the world's shape today (for better or worse) the country has been? I get the sense that primary-aged Britons learn about England in isolation instead of its highly global and metropolitan history.

It's also alarming to learn that the GCSE history course actually covers the same topics covered in primary, although in greater detail. In the Ontario history curriculum, young Canadians learn quite straightforward, limited history, but at least it is designed to progress.

History lessons tend to focus on social history "how they lived", which-- to be fair-- does tend to be the most accessible and memorable way for younger children to learn history, but doesn't convey facts like who was the monarch facing off against the Armada. I've worked at an independant school where war history was taught, but that was a quirk of the teacher. I'm not surprised children didn't know these details because they are not taught, even if the Tudor era was taught-- it focused, bizarrely, on Henry VIII and his marital problems.

If anyone wants to find out more about what is taught in primary schools, these links to the National Curriculum (history) are useful:

5 - 7 yr olds
http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stage ... index.aspx

7 - 11 yr olds
http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stage ... index.aspx

don't think that kids can find any meaning in history... which means that it is boring.

Children are often very interested to learn things that aren't directly relevant to their lives, provided some connection can be made. For example, learning how people were buried in Ancient Egypt isn't at all relevant to how people live today yet many children still enjoy learning about it, because it is interesting to them.

I think it's a massive mistake to teach all children only things that are directly relevant to their life. I think there are children who have lost interest in the world for one reason or another, but most children still enjoy learning about things that aren't related to their lives-- in the same way grown-ups are interested in abstract things. If we teach children only things they "need" to know, we are also teaching them that there is no joy in learning-- that learning is something we do because we are trying to get ahead. I think everyone here probably takes joy in learning for fun and finds learning for work much less fun. Why do we expect children to enjoy doing things for work any more than we do?

Obviously, at least some of what children learn does have to be relevant and illuminate their world. I think it's very important that children understanding their surroundings on a local, regional, national and international scale. But diversity is important and other histories, totally irrelevant to life today, are interesting and fun to learn about.

I think the problem is lack of scope, especially in British primary scools. You basically learn bout what I would called R.T.N - Romans Nazis and Tudors. At least that was for me when I was in primary school. If it was not for me developing a love for history and wanting to study it. I would just, like other kids in my class, think thats all there is to it and drop when I get the chance. I'm talking about British schools by the way. We could definatly add a little bit more scope. Not too high but so kids can know stuff like how Germany was once an area of smaller states controlled by the Holy Roman Empire. Or even about the religious reformation in Early Modern Europe, just to widen the scope a litle bit.

As above. It's incredibly boring history taught before GCSE, then it's Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi. Nobody wants to learn about monarchic history at that age, it's dull, lifeless and fails to engage young people.

Gods, we learned French history, Renaissance and Reformation, Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and lots of other non-British history.