The more I think about it, removing the strange stigma that exists in many schools around 'textbook lessons - a hangover from the grotesque 'top tips to pimp your lesson 4 OFSTED' era - will be the quickest way to improve curricula on a wider scale.

Textbooks, in their current state, are not perfect. They need to be *explicitly* presented as interpretations of the past. They need to model good historical prose. They need to be 'pedagogically neutral', not activity books.

@mfordhamhistory has some great ideas about this.

Getting high-quality historical writing aimed at 11-14 year olds 'out there' defeats the (at times fair) 'there's no time' argument. If you aren't scrabbling around for resources on TES, then there *is* time. There is no excuse to teach 'Who was Jack the Ripper?' for 8 weeks.

I like Michael's phrase 'from textbooks to books'. You have some 'keys texts' that teachers will use in lessons. Several books on the same period, even.

These are *never* framed as 'neutral' accounts of the 'facts'; rather, they are treated as what they are - interpretations.

Until we wholly reject the idea that using a textbook makes a teacher 'lazy' or 'bad', we basically give the people who say 'I don't have time to change my curriculum' (even if it is narrow and limiting) a free pass. We should celebrate good teaching from textbooks more often!

Now, on the 'autonomy' point - this is tricky, but not impossible. Open-access textbooks (or chapters about particular periods) could be written by teachers. Shared online. A true knowledge commons. Imagine that?!

It already happens loads with workbooks and PowerPoints.