Student Exposes Colonial History Curriculum Flaws
Astrid Barltrop, winner of The Guardian Foundation's 2026 Emerging Voices award and a year 13 student in Oxfordshire, has raised critical concerns about how British colonial history is taught in schools. Her experience with an A-level history essay prompt about Lord Cromer, the consul-general of Egypt between 1883 and 1907, reveals what she describes as "skewed perspectives" in the national curriculum.
The Problem with "Successful" Colonial Rulers
"Lord Cromer was a successful consul-general of Egypt. To what extent do you agree?" This essay question prompted Barltrop to question the very definition of success in colonial contexts. "Successful in forcing austerity on Egyptians to line the pockets of British financiers?" she asks. "Successful in civilising a country of people he viewed as 'subversive demagogues' and 'subject races'?"
While students can argue against Cromer's success by highlighting his imposition of unfair land taxes and restricted education access, they must still operate within the framework that colonial rulers could theoretically be successful for colonized populations. Barltrop questions why discussions don't instead center on the fundamental right to rule and the values colonial administrators embodied.
Selective Historical Memory in British Education
Barltrop notes that British secondary school curricula emphasize monarchs and Cold War treaties while neglecting equally significant histories. When colonial history is included, the focus remains on British efficiency in colonization rather than critiquing colonialism itself. Her Edexcel module "Britain: losing and gaining an empire, 1763-1914" exemplifies this approach.
"When we A-level students learn about the 1857 Indian uprising, we study the 'strengths' and 'weaknesses' of British governor generals," she explains. "Yet their role in orchestrating the 1770 great Bengal famine – killing 10 million people – is somehow absent from the specification."
Consequences of Historical Amnesia
This selective approach to history has real-world consequences. Barltrop argues that anti-immigration populism thrives on historical ignorance. When people claim Britain is being "colonized" by migrant "invasions," they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what colonization actually entailed.
"The demonisation of migrants works because few are taught about the vital, positive role that migration to Britain has played throughout history," she states. The late scholar-activist Ambalavaner Sivanandan's observation that "We are here because you were there" regarding post-colonial migration is never taught in schools.
Systemic Barriers to Truthful Teaching
Only 4% of GCSE history students take optional modules on migration and empire, while A-level empire modules remain deeply flawed. This creates a moral dilemma for teachers: choose less common modules with potentially unreliable resources, or teach beyond narrow specifications and risk hindering students' exam performance.
"In effect we have a system that seems engineered to prevent proper teaching of the British empire," Barltrop concludes. "This should alarm us all."
A Call for Urgent Curriculum Reform
With a recent curriculum review recommending changes to what is taught in schools, Barltrop sees an opportunity for long-overdue transformation. She argues that critical colonial history is urgently necessary – politically, socially, and morally.
"When I take my history A-levels in June, I can expect to write an essay focusing, absurdly, on the 'successes' of some Victorian imperialist like Cromer instead of on the larger questions about empire," she says. "My only hope is that future history students will not."
Barltrop's critique highlights how current educational approaches perpetuate harmful ideas about race and migration. By failing to teach the full truth about British colonial history, she argues, schools allow damaging narratives to persist and divide society.
