Ive always wondered this, for people who live in, say the UK. Britain doesn't only have a long history, but it's full of many events. Are there more history classes to teach it or is it skimmed over more?
In the British system, history teaching is compulsory for Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 (which cover ages 5-14) and becomes an optional subject thereafter. The recommended time devoted to the subject is:
I'll go into this in detail below, but perhaps a quick tl;dr is appropriate here: the British system is set up so that it covers the whole of British (and a little bit of contextualising European and world) history from the Stone Age up to 1914 between the ages of 5 and 14 – so, nominally about 10,000 years of history in a bit less than 320 hours, not including homework (which at least doubles the time input in the last couple of years of education): that makes about 30 years per teaching hour.
In reality, it's not practical to study all British history in any depth in the time available, so students focus on the more colourful areas. The early years focus on the study of what might be termed "sample events and people" - examples given are The Great Fire of London or the Wright Brothers and flight; these are supposed to be paired together so one part focuses on long ago and the other "within living memory" - so for example, study of the history of exploration by looking at Christopher Columbus and Neil Armstrong. It's only at about age 8 that the long trek from Stonehenge to Sarajevo actually begins.
Typically a student who gives up the subject at 14 would have spent a lot of their time looking at:
Roman Britain
The Vikings
The Norman Conquest
The Tudors
The Industrial Revolution plus reforms and democratisation over the period 1815-1914
All this cues up a "GCSE" - the British national qualification studied by those aged 15-16 - in what is in about 95% of cases 20th Century World History. The GCSE is offered by several different exam boards, so the course is not absolutely uniform, but it is always split into 3 units so that students do 2 "depth studies", one on a British topic (typically "How was British society changed,1890-1918?" or "How far did British society change, 1939–1975?") and one on a world history topic, selected from a broader range of possibles (such as the Nazi state, or Communist China). They are also examined on one core element, which is international relations in either the inter-war period 1919-39, or the post war period 1945-2000.
The small minority whose schools opt for "History A" rather than "History B" (I've never found a school that offered a choice between these courses) take a less proscriptive, but perhaps more imaginative, course of study. For example the AQA exam board requires a choice between "Medicine through time" (meaning from Stone Age healing, via Galen, the Black Death, Snow, Pasteur and Fleming to the introduction of the National Health Service) or "Media through time", plus a depth study that could be The American West, Elizabethan England, Britain 1815-51 or Germany 1919-45, and a "Historical Enquiry" study that teaches basic historiography.
At Key Stage 5 (ages 17-18), called "A-level", a very wide range of papers is on offer, and recent reform has seen some imaginative changes that foreground world history to a greater extent - students now study one British, one European or American and additionally one world history paper (the latter being admittedly worth only 15% of the marks). The world history selection is quite exciting and includes topics such as "Genghis Khan and the explosion from the Steppes, c.1167-1405, "The rise of Islam c.550-750" and "African Kingdoms c.1400-1800".
The selections of British and European/American papers are typically very comprehensive and cover everything from Alfred the Great to Tony Blair, in the former case .... but in practice the decision on what to teach is taken by teachers and the combination of what they know, what they think their students will be interested in, and what will be taken seriously by parents means that only a few dozen students a year study papers such as "The Reign of Justinian." The vast majority are funnelled towards a choice that will almost always feature a decision between the Tudors ("Rebellion and Disorder Under the Tudors" or "Mid-Tudor Crises" papers are typical) or 20th century history, and in bigger schools might add the Norman-Angevin and 19th century periods.
Finally, A level students are also required to submit two 2,000 word depth studies, one a source criticism and the other a long essay on a specified topic, chosen from a list of 6-10 such topics. An example might be "To what extent was the policy of Philip II of Spain restricted by royal finances?" Students are expected to do their own reading to complete such essays and supply a bibliography - there's no text book at this stage.
By far the biggest change that has taken place in British school history education since I went through the system in the 1970s is a massively larger focus on teaching historical analysis and historiography. I wasn't let loose on a primary source till my third year at university. Nowadays source analysis is featured even in Key Stage 3, and it is examined at both GCSE and A level - a massive improvement, in my opinion. Gone are the broad, un-themed, chronological papers of yesteryear - my A-level consisted of one paper on European history 1600-1800 and one on British history over the same timeframe.
All of the above is based on the UK national curriculum, which sets out what should be studied and what learning outcomes are expected across the whole of the period from ages 5-18. (And I note in passing that while Britain is certainly not immune from political pressures to recast the study of history as a national epic of identity-forming and achievement that plugs into efforts to create "citizens", rather than prioritising independent, critical study, for the time being at least the curriculum stresses independent study and critical thinking.)
The over-arching goal is summarised as follows:
A high-quality history education will help pupils gain a coherent knowledge and understanding of Britain’s past and that of the wider world. It should inspire pupils’ curiosity to know more about the past. Teaching should equip pupils to ask perceptive questions, think critically, weigh evidence, sift arguments, and develop perspective and judgement. History helps pupils to understand the complexity of people’s lives, the process of change, the diversity of societies and relationships between different groups, as well as their own identity and the challenges of their time.
I'd also like to ask Americans what state they live and how far their high school US history class got before the end of the year. How many got past Reconstruction? Did any get past World War II?