France's school curriculum

La fin de l'histoire

Enough of history, decides the state

See article

Readers' comments



@ Frog

This is hot a "cheap" shot, I am giving you numbers and arguments. You only say how bad the British (or others) were elsewhere, and I agree. That does not make Napoleon any better.
This article is not about military misbehaving, but about FRENCH history and how it is taught and you are an example of the results.

Your comment only confirms what I said: The French are still proud of Napoleon.

To say that: "They ALL died on the battle field".
So, you say that:
1) there were ZERO civil casualties? I do not think so.
Please, let me know your sources for this information, you must be the only person in the planet to know this.
2) everyone joined up the army voluntarily? That is just NOT true.

Was he really a GREAT general?
He sent his troupes to Russia (about 660.000) badly equiped and in the middle of the russian winter.
It is known that only between 50.000 to no more than 100.000 come out alife.
Say no more...

I would like to suggest that you read a history book (not written by a French).

By the way: I am NOT British.


To Alpin,

Yes, Napoleon is a French national hero.
He ended the regime of terror that followed the revolution.
He restored the power of the french army just in time to repel the comon attacks of English, German and Austrian forces who didn't want see anymore crowned head roll.
He introduced a legal code and institutions that still stand today in many European countried.
Yes there were death,thousands, even millions, but none died in concentration camps or cold blooded executions.
They all died on the battle field.
So if that makes him a dictator, so are Churchill, Truman, General Grant and many other great soldiers.
Please spare us your cheap shots. Too many in UK keep forgetting that Napoleon was a great general and he often won battles against all odds.
He is too often vilified in UK and refered to in very innacurate terms.
I suspect it makes it easy to forget that this verticaly challenged Corsican kicked Britishs where it still hurts...

On the matter of military misbehaving, you should rather study the Boer war and how the British created the first concentration camps to exterminate en entire population.


Lets add that Napoleon introduced metric system and he established national government instead of religion to rule the lands.


@ Alpin

It seems that nationalistic history lessons are not limited to the French but t times also includes... the British? Napoleon's wars freed millions of people in Germany and Northern Italy, breaking up the "Holy Roman Empire," and spreading a legal system that introduced stability and protection against an often oppressive nobility and Church. Among his contributions were a stop of the excesses of the French revolution while institutionalizing a lot of its accomplishments. As you rightly say, though, this came with a bloody price tag.

No, I am not French, and I acknowledge and reject Napoleon's egomaniac tendencies. But at the same time the British were out there in the world, also directly or indirectly killing millions of people in the name of Empire, while encouraging European powers to fight each other in the name of a Balance of Power. They also actively worked with suppressive royals in trying to STOP and roll back the accomplishments of the French revolution. Nobody's perfect...

As an Indian friend of mine said a few years ago (I am quoting here, Economist, so don't censor this because it may sound anti-British or anti-Indian): "The Brits killed tens of millions of my countrymen, but the only things working in India were introduced by them. So maybe we would have benefited from them staying around a bit longer."

There are few simple truths. Napoleon being the "Hitler of his time" is not one of them.


Recently, a friend of mine, a retired english teacher living in France, was invited to talk to some 12-14 year old pupils in a local French School to assist them in their speaking of English. During the course of the discussion with them she referred to the Code Napoleon. At that point the French teacher interupted and asked the class if any of them had heard of Napoleon. Not one pupil did. So much for French history teaching! despite the best efforts of the central government dictates.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but what about US curriculums that in some states don't teach the Theory of Evolution? Whether the courses are dictated by the government or not, its content is what counts, and it cannot be denied that in any country there will be national bias. And regarding history, France and Germany have made agreements to teach European history using the same history books, in their respective languages.

For French students aiming towards a career in science, focusing their final year on their necessary subjects may be an advantage?

uncle clive

Nearly all social and political thinking, the important stuff, consists in the interpretation of history. If you lack a grounding in history, you cannot develop your own intellectual position. You are not a free man. You can argue or daydream, but you cannot think. You have to suck whatever the media stick in your mouth.


sanmartinian wrote:
Dec 23rd 2009 11:15 GMT

I'm must be getting really old! It's the second time in two days that I recommend my own post. Sorry!
Yeah, blame it on old age :)


The average American and Briton amazing ignorance of geography and history should have made the author refer to French schooling as an example to both English speaking countries.

Notwithstanding the saying in my youth that the French knew no Geography. Now imagine what it is thought of British and American level of general education.
As a well brought up Sussex English lady said to me on a whale watching boat in Iceland: "You must think of us as very ignorant but isn't (a well known European capital) the capital of an equally well known country?
It wasn't by a couple of thousand miles...


The short article touches very briefly on why this particular reform measure is being instituted; the article only references the uproar as a result of its introduction. This flaw in the writing prevented me from fully grasping the issue at hand.

Personally, I feel that the government has taken too large of a step in enforcing the curriculum; it seems a bit odd for a government to dictate the time spent on each subject when, in reality, it should be working to improve the quality of the education. Nevertheless, this particular issue might even be seen as inconsequential since history is only being scrapped as a “compulsory” subject, and those 69% of students opposed to this change are at no loss as it can probably be taken as an optional course.

On a different note: Another reader pointed out that the French education system, which is federal, is a lot more efficient than the comparative American system, which is dictated by state and local governments. This assessment is inherently flawed as the local municipalities in the United States are far greater than those in France, and therefore it would be near impossible for the government to standardize education in every location. Also, a high school diploma in the United States does grant the holder a fair degree of knowledge, it is up to student to determine whether the information is pertinent and worth remembering.


No harm being versed in history. It all depends on how totally objective the history taught actually is. If anyone wants a history lesson visit the WW 2 section of the Musee d'Armee in Paris. Charles De Gaulle ( Liberator of France !) with only 200 French marines landing on June 6th 1944. How about the Americans,British,Canadians,Poles etc who landed in their thousands ? Incidentally De Gaulle refused these marines a medal on the grounds that he had not given permission for them to land and therefore they were "British" troops. The museum is a great example of history massaged. Don't worry - other nations do much the same. The Japanese with Nanking,the Turks with the Armenians,the Belgians with the Congo,the Americans with their native Americans,the British in Ireland and on and on. Quite understandable - history taught is often to bolster national pride.


I have lived in France for 6 years and I was trully shocked when, for all their knowledge of history, many French people (even youngsters in their 20s) consider Napoleon as a national hero on the basis that he introduced the Frech "code civile" or "law system" of the country and made a lot of things for France.
Rather than thinking of him as an 18th century Hitler, who sent loads of people to their deaths without other reason than his fool megalomania.
It seems like justifying Hitler by saying that he built many of the German motoways.

The numbers speak for themselves:
Dead of missing:
France ~1.000.000
Rusians 400.000
Germans 400.000
Austrians 200.000
Spaniards 300.000
Brits 200.000

Total: ~2.5 million people dead and all the pointless damaged to civilians and monuments in all these countries.

No point teaching that kind of "history".


Mike, what brainwashing are you refering to?
If you intend to post such comments the least would be to illustrate them.
Also what exactly was it that your sons didn't like?


Everything you said in your comment was mentioned in the article.

"In fact, it may not be quite as abrupt as it seems. Those taking the Bac S will have one-and-a-half hours more history a week in their penultimate school year than now, and will take the history-module exam early. The goal is to turn the Bac S into a more narrowly scientific option."

The article is trying to demonstrate the
1. misinformation of "philosophers" who are "stupefied" by the "curriculum change" (that doesn't actually remove history from the curriculum), and
2. the fact that the French central government meticulously sets standards for French schools.

For the record, I don't oppose the second fact - France after all has very good schools, as my fellow American commenter J. Kemp freely admits, and I strongly believe that you get better results by setting higher standards.
However, the Economist article did point out that history was not getting short thrift in the French curriculum.


This article is ill-informed...

For students following this scientific "baccalauréat", the proposal consists in:
1) moving the existing history programme one year earlier than now (in ref. to the final year).
2) in addition, offering an additionnal history programme as a new possible option in this final year (=> potentilly more history than currently),
3) instead of having all the exams in the final year, focusing students on History programmes and exams one year before the final year (as it already exists for the French discipline, as language), and to focus them on scientific exams on the final year.

Thus, the government propose at least as many history lessons as before and, with an additionnal option, potentially more history than before.

Furthermore, it gives back more value to the history programme than before... by making of History THE important discipline of this year...

PS: I'm not at all a partisan of Sarkozy... but also not partisan of misinformation...


The French system of secondary education reminds me of George Orwell's 1984. Its one advantage is that if a child in France moves to another school/town then the same chapter in the same textbook in the same subject is been taught simultaneously everywhere. Thus there are zero transitional problems, at least at the subject level.On the other hand the brainwashing that results reminds me of Stalinist Russia. 2 of my sons attended state secondary school (Primaire and College) in France whie we lived in Paris. It was not an enthralling experience for them!

J. Kemp

"Perhaps the most striking thing about this row is not that French scientists will learn less history. It is that the central government still dictates to all schools exactly how much time to devote to each subject every week, down to the last minute."

Yes, an in America, where "state and local government" is allowed to determine the content of "education", one finds that the French Bac is the educational equivalent of the average college diploma (or better), while the American high school diploma, guarantees shockingly little knowledge is possessed by the average high school diploma holder.

America should take a lesson from Napoleon, and set real educational standards at the Federal level. State government is a disaster in education just as it is in virtually every other aspect of America which it touches.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

