Troops to man airports during 'general strike'

His warning came as it emerged at least three million children will be locked out as at least 8,000 schools close on Wednesday because of the strike.

Ministers believe Wednesday’s “day of action” will cost the economy up to ￡500m, cause the cancellation of countless NHS operations and see Whitehall grind to a halt.

It is feared as many as 57,000 NHS patients will be affected by the industrial action, with as many as 20 per cent of health service staff expected to strike.

Local councils believe between 20 and 30 per cent of their staff will not turn up to work, potentially hitting rubbish collections, leisure centres and funeral services.

Tourist attractions will also be affected, with parts of the British Museum set to be closed.

The action has been billed by unions as the biggest walkout since the general strike of 1926.

The biggest single impact will be on millions of working parents who will be forced to take the day off or arrange childcare as teachers, classroom assistants, dinner ladies, caretakers and cleaners join the strike.

Head teachers will join them, taking strike action for the first time in their history.

Some 40 per cent of schools will be shut or partially closed in the 66 local authorities that responded to a Sunday Telegraph survey, with councils predicting that more schools will announce closures tomorrow and Tuesday.

If the figures are replicated across all 152 authorities in England, it will see at least 8,000 schools closed.

With about 6.8 million children in schools in England, it will equate to a minimum of three million children left without education.

Parents groups warned last night of growing anger about the industrial action and said that the goodwill that exists between teachers and families will be destroyed.

This weekend, Nick Gibb, the schools minister, repeated warning to the unions that an improved offer on public sector pensions may be withdrawn if no deal is reached.

Ministers want workers across the public sector to pay more into their pensions, retire later and receive pensions based on their average earnings during their career, rather than their highest salary, to reflect greater longevity among the population.

The reforms, designed to reduce the crippling public pensions bill, will mean teachers who are more than 10 years from retirement will lose on average 20 per cent of their pot and pay higher contributions.

Separately, three trade union leaders overseeing the pensions strike have amassed retirement packages worth more than ￡1 million, according to analysis.

Brendan Barber, 60, the head of the TUC, was found to have the largest trade union pension pot, with a value of ￡1.8 million. Last year he received a salary of ￡98,056.

Paul Kenny and Len McCluskey, the general secretaries of the GMB and Unite, both have pension pots worth around ￡1.5 million, according to the research, which was validated by Hargreaves Lansdown, leading investment experts.

Trade unions do not publish valuations of their bosses pension pots, even though leading companies, government departments and other public bodies all do so.

By analysing the salaries, age and length of service, Hargreaves Lansdown was able to calculate how much it would cost a member of the public to buy an annuity to deliver the same retirement income as the union bosses will receive.

Tom McPhail, head of pensions research at the firm, said that this method was “conservative”. It does not take account of future years’ service or any pay rises between now and their retirement.

“The changes the government are trying to make to public sector pension are proportionate and fair,” said Mr McPhail.

“Everyone needs to get used to the prospect of retiring later, paying more into their pension and receiving less.”

The TUC said it “practises what it preaches” and provides the same defined-benefit pension for all of its staff. GMB said it did not recognise the figures. Unite did not comment.

Why we need to talk about history

Looking back: the school curriculum must give higher status to learning about historical figures and subjects such as (clockwise from top left) Henry VIII, Queen Victoria, Winston Churchill and the Bayeux Tapestry?Photo: GETTY/ALAMY

Here are two quotations that might be taken from the current debate over the teaching of history in English state schools. First: “It is surprising to find how little real knowledge of history is possessed by the average Englishman, or even by the average educated Englishman.” Second: “We need to return to an old-fashioned method which had governed the teaching of history for generations, namely 'dates, conventional divisions and an insistence upon mechanical accuracy’.” Sound familiar? It certainly does; and then some. For the first of these remarks dates from 1906, and was made at a meeting which saw the establishment of the Historical Association; and the second was made in 1924 by Hilaire Belloc.

As these two quotations suggest, complaining about the inadequacy of history teaching in English schools is nothing new: indeed, it has been going on for as long as history has been taught in the classroom, and this means back to the 1900s. So when, these days, Jeremy Paxman deplores the fact that insufficient attention is given in English schools to teaching the history of the British Empire, he is merely repeating (but perhaps does not know he is) a complaint that was made by (among others) Winston Churchill during the Second World War, by King George V in the 1920s, and by Lord Meath, the founder of Empire Day, before 1914.

For as long as it has been taught in state schools, history has always been a controversial and contentious subject. There have been those who thought it was taught well, and those who thought it was taught badly. There have been those who wanted a cheerleading narrative of national greatness, and those who wanted a “warts and all” account of the English past. There have been those who wanted to focus on this nation to the exclusion of all others, and those who wanted to situate England’s (or Britain’s) history in a broader global context. There have been those who thought history is primarily about imparting knowledge, and those who thought it is essentially about teaching skills.

Most of the arguments that are made today are merely the latest iterations of points that have already been made many times before, yet there is scarcely any awareness that this is so. How strange it is that history teaching in schools is discussed and debated, but with almost no historical perspective brought to bear. All too often, there is an easy presumption that there was once a golden age, when history was much better taught in the classroom than it is now, from which there has recently been a deplorable and catastrophic decline. But there is very little evidence to support that alarmist view.

Among other things, history teaches perspective and proportion; yet perspective and proportion are all too often lacking in the current debate on how history is taught in our schools. All too often, individual scare stories are hyped in the media, with no effort to establish whether they are in any way typical or representative; and since there are more than 30,000 schools in this country, any generalisation about what goes on in them is bound to be at best superficial. And we should also remember that the discussion and disagreements about history teaching in schools in this country is paralleled by similar discussions and disagreements in many other countries, too.

Why is this so? Why is history now, and why has history always been, such a contentious subject in the classroom? Indeed, why has it always been, and why is it now, so much more contentious than most other school subjects? Perhaps it is because history is about ourselves, about who we are, about how we define ourselves as a nation, in ways that most other subjects are not. Physics or geometry or Spanish are much the same wherever in the world they are taught. But history in England or in Germany or in Japan or in Canada can be very different, because so much of it is taught in a national framework.

These are some of the broader considerations that inform The Right Kind of History, a book that I have co-authored with Jenny Keating and Nicola Sheldon. It investigates how the subject has been taught in English state schools from the 1900s to the present, and is published this week. Drawing on a wide range of official materials, as well as interviews with hundreds of former teachers and pupils, one of our aims is to put the current debates on history teaching in a broader perspective, and to make recommendations that are soundly based on the evidence.

Across the 20th century, and on into our own time, there has always been controversy, there has always been continuity, and there has always been change.

Discussion and debate, by politicians, academics, educationalists, pundits and journalists have invariably been polarised. Yet it is clear from the evidence we have collected that in the classroom itself, most teachers just want to get on with the job. Across the whole period with which we have been concerned, history in English schools has never been a compulsory subject beyond the age of 14. Yet this remarkable continuity has been accompanied by profound changes: the advent of the wireless, the television and the computer; the creation of a comprehensive system of education; the creation of the National Curriculum; and so on.

From this evidence-based perspective, we have tried to make clear what the current key problems are in the teaching of history, as distinct from those that erroneously assume a sudden, recent collapse from a lost and lamented golden age. It is our firm belief that the major problem is not the current National Curriculum, which in our view strikes a good balance between the history of our own country and its broader engagement with the world, and the histories of other countries. As such, it should be left alone, and politicians and mandarins should resist the temptation to keep tinkering with it. The major problem we have isolated is that history is still only compulsory in English schools until the age of 14.

Here is the root cause of many of today’s problems, especially the rushed treatment of many topics during Key Stage Three, the danger of repeating subjects (such as the Tudors and the Nazis) at Key Stage Three and then again at GCSE, and the lack of time to give appropriate attention to what is termed “the big picture”. Accordingly, our most important recommendation is that history should be made compulsory in all state schools until the age of 16. This would not only mean the subject would be better taught, but it would also be in line with the original proposals of Sir Keith Joseph and Kenneth Baker when the National Curriculum was being drawn up. They were right then, and their proposals remain valid today. It is high time they were implemented. In more ways than one, there is a great deal to be said for knowing more than most of us do about what happened in the past.

David Cannadine’s book 'The Right Kind of History’ is available from Telegraph Books for ￡12.99 plus ￡1.25 p&p. To order your copy, please call 0844 871 1515 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk

Sutton Trust: social mobility in UK 'lagging behind other nations'

Schoolchildren from deprived backgrounds are more likely to underachieve in the UK than other developed nations, according to the Sutton Trust.?Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Research shows that the education gap between disadvantaged and “privileged” pupils is wider in the UK than elsewhere in the developed world.

Data suggests that children from low-income homes are more than a year behind richer classmates as they start school aged five.

The disclosure – in a study by the Sutton Trust charity – comes just days after Ofsted warned that deprivation continued to be a “significant factor influencing the quality of schools” in England.

In a blow to Labour’s education legacy, the watchdog said that schools serving the poorest 20 per cent of pupils were four times more likely to be “inadequate” than those for the wealthiest 20 per cent.

Sir Peter Lampl, the Sutton Trust chairman, said the problem was likely to get worse in coming years as children from wealthier backgrounds continue to pull ahead.

This comes despite a range of Coalition policies designed to tackle the problem, including the introduction of the “pupil premium” to reward schools taking large numbers of deprived children.

"These latest international comparisons confirm that the education gaps at every stage between disadvantaged children and privileged children are greater in the UK than in other developed countries,” said Sir Peter.

"In this country, unlike others, the educational achievement gap widens after age 11. As education is becoming increasingly important in determining prospects in adult life, these findings do not bode well for future social mobility in the UK.”

The study compares data from the UK and England with nine other countries, including the United States, Australia, Canada and Germany. It uses a series of indicators to assess children’s education and family background.

One dataset shows children’s average vocabulary scores at the age of five – when pupils start compulsory education – and ranks them from one to 100. Children with highly educated parents in the UK – those with at least a degree – were ranked in the 67 percentile on average, while those whose mothers and fathers left school with few qualifications were placed in the 29th percentile.

The 38 percentage point gap was “significantly larger” in the UK than in all countries other than the United States, where it extended to 46 points, it was disclosed.

The study also cites previous research by the Sutton Trust which showed children from “low income homes are over a year behind children from high income homes at the start of schooling in the UK”.

In a further move, researchers analysed the difference in academic standards achieved by pupils between the age of 11 and 16.

It found that gaps in achievement in the UK became “substantially bigger” at 16 compared with 11, although it found “no evidence of this… in other countries”.

The study said the differences were driven by the “social stratification that exists” in secondary education, adding: “The widening of the education gap in pupil performance after primary school appears to be related to the sorting of children into secondary schools. Better educated parents have their children in better quality schools.”

The conclusions come as a new education think-tank is launed on Monday in an attempt to promote fresh debate on the education system.

The Education Foundation – funded by a number of academics and head teachers – will seek to "inform the debate through a range of research and practical projects".

Ty Goddard, former chairman for education in the London Borough of Lambeth, and a Government advisor, said: “There’s much to celebrate when it comes to education in the UK. Millions of learners do well at school and in further and higher education, preparing for a changing world.

"But as last week’s Ofsted annual report showed, some do not, despite the resources available."

Universities with the most playing field space

Leeds University tops the list for the university with the most amount of playing field space thanks to its 51 hectares, which roughly amounts to the size of 50 international size rugby pitches.

The information shown is from the academic year 2009/10 and comes courtesy of the Estates Management Statistics, published by HESA.

Pupils 'woefully undernourished' in history, Gove says

Teacher training courses will be reformed to put more focus on behaviour management and reading?Photo: ALAMY

In a speech today, he says he is "startled" by the narrowness of the topics pupils end up studying in history.

English exam boards only offer pupils the chance to study the "modern world" or the "schools history project", he claims.

"I'm an unashamed and unapologetic advocate for the central role of history in our curriculum," Mr Gove says.

"Which is why I'm genuinely worried that - despite the best efforts of brilliant history teachers, gifted academics and the television and publishing executives who've helped to popularise history - our curriculum and examinations system mean that children thirsting to know more about our past leave school woefully undernourished."

He cites a recent survey which found around half of English 18-to-24-year-olds are unaware that Nelson led the British to victory at the Battle of Trafalgar, and a similar proportion of young people did not know that the Romans built Hadrian's Wall.

Mr Gove said: "The number of pupils taking history GCSE has fallen by 8% since 1995. There's a stark class divide, with fewer than a third of 16-year-olds taking the subject in maintained schools, compared with half in independent schools.

"But more startling than the numbers of pupils opting - or failing to opt for - history GCSE is the narrowness of the topics pupils actually end up studying. The Government doesn't specify which periods of history GCSE should cover, but the English exam boards only offer two choices: either the 'Modern World,' or the 'Schools History Project'."

Dave Prentis: no last minute talks to avoid strikes

Mr Prentis poured cold water on the idea that it might be possibe to reach deal over the Government's controversial pension reform before the planned walkout on November 30 by more than two million public sector workers.

About 30 trade unions will join the strike on Wednesday, affecting thousands of schools and causing likely chaos at ports and airports as public sector staff walk out.

Academic condemns 'tortuous' university admissions

The university admissions process is "needlessly torturous", said Professor Mary Beard.?Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Mary Beard, the Cambridge University classics professor, said the admissions system employed in Britain was “more difficult and stressful than it should be”.

She also condemned the “shameless self-marketing” candidates committed on their application forms, suggesting many personal statements were copied from the internet.

In further comments, the academic rejected criticism of the notoriously tough Oxbridge admissions process, saying that common attacks on the system by politicians of all parties were misguided.

The comments were made after the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service proposed a sweeping overhaul of the current system.

They are planning to allow students to apply for places after receiving their results for the first time in a move that would lead to A-levels being brought forward and candidates choosing courses over the summer.

Writing for the BBC News website on Sunday, Prof Beard said that the changes would involve “more upheavals than you can imagine” but insisted it could take the “unnecessary heat out of the whole process”.

“The whole business of university applications in this country, for any university, is needlessly tortuous,” she said.

“The end result might be OK - happily many kids get where they want to go.

“But the route they have to take is more difficult and stressful than it should be.

“It relies on ridiculously minute distinctions between exam grades, it demands shameless self-marketing from the students on their application forms, and it operates according to a timetable that any outside observer would say was plain bonkers.”

Prof Beard, classics editor of the Times Literary Supplement and presenter of the recent documentary series Pompeii: Life and Death in a Roman Town, said many universities now relied on students’ A-level grades and their personal statement – instead of an interview – to select candidates.

But she insisted: “Today's statements are much less concerned with good works, and are often uncomfortably corporate in style - weaving together clever quotations from Shakespeare and Aristotle with carefully constructed personal anecdotes, to create an implausibly perfect impression.

“They're so professional that they have to be put through "plagiarism detection" software - which apparently many fail.”

Currently, students are supposed to apply to Oxbridge by October – around a year before courses start – and to other universities in January. Candidates are then given provisional offers based on the proviso that they gain predicted exam grades the following summer.

Those who fail to score high enough in A-levels and other qualifications are eligible for “clearing” – the system that matches students to spare places.

But writing on BBC online, Prof Beard said: “More than anything, it is the bizarre timetable that makes the application process so preoccupying.

“When we say in January or February that someone ‘got in’ to their chosen university, we don't actually mean that. We mean that they will have got in if they achieve the grades demanded by the university in their summer exam, which even if all goes well, drags out the nail biting for a good six months.”

She added: “If it doesn't go well and they don't get the grades, they enter a whole new round of applications in August.

“This is a frenetic process, with applicants tracking down the remaining unfilled places by email and phone - then being given maybe a few hours to accept a place for a course they haven't really explored at a university they know little about.”