Patriotism lessons would glorify Britain's morally dubious past, say teachers.

 New study: Patriotism lessons could be introduced to foster nation pride but teachers think it could exclude non-British pupils

Nearly 90 per cent opposed plans for history and citizenship lessons aimed at fostering national identity and pride.

One of the 47 London teachers questioned said the lessons might encourage "BNP-"type thinking". Another said the idea "reeked of the old British empire".

In a report based on its findings, the Institute of Education said Britain's "morally ambiguous" history suggested patriotism should be covered as a "controversial issue" only.

The Left-leaning institute (read Communist!) polled 47 teachers and 299 students at secondary schools in the capital.

Three-quarters of the staff said they felt obliged to alert their pupils to the dangers(!) of patriotic sentiments.

"Praising patriotism excludes non-British pupils," said one.

"Patriotism about being British in my experience tends to be a white preserve so divides groups along racial lines, when what we aim to do is bring pupils to an understanding of what makes us all the same."

 
Fire any teacher who takes this line- they are not fit to be in a classroom with British kids? 

And it gets worse.

Another said: "It can be quite divisive. There is a propensity for that sort of BNP-type thinking to come through."

A third said: "Left to my own devices I wouldn't dream of covering it really, explicitly. To me it sort of reeks of the old British empire."

Despite these remarks, more than half the teachers and students in the survey agreed that it was a good thing for citizens to be patriotic.

Michael Hand, the report's author, said: "Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both called for a history curriculum that fosters attachment and loyalty to Britain.

"But the case for promoting patriotism in schools is weak.

"Patriotism is love of one's country, but are countries really appropriate objects of love? Loving things can be bad for us, for example when the things we love are morally corrupt.

"Since all national histories are at best morally ambiguous, it's an open question whether citizens should love their countries. Revamped citizenship lessons being introduced later this year will            "And now we will learn why Horatio Nelson was a cannibal and serial killer"

require secondary pupils to learn about British values such as tolerance and free speech.

They will have to study national identity "through the prism of history", including the legacy of empire.

There was an outcry last year when Winston Churchill was dropped from a list of figures which needed to be covered in history, although the Second World War remains compulsory.

Chris McGovern, director of the History Curriculum Association pressure group, said: "We are actually causing children to be unpatriotic by skewing the curriculum towards making children feel guilty about their history."

He added that lessons on the industrial revolution, for example, focused on child labour and dire conditions in factories at the expense of an appreciation of the era's achievements.

Ofsted warned last year that schools were failing to do enough to give pupils a proper understanding of British values and history.

The education watchdog claimed such lessons could help youngsters grasp the country's common values as well as appreciate its diverse cultures.

Schools Minister and arch-Labour hyprocrite Jim Knight said: "There is nothing wrong with being patriotic and proud of being British.

"We firmly believe that in today's diverse society all children should learn about events and themes which have shaped this country.

"At the same time it is important that children learn tolerance, respect and understanding of other cultures and countries.

"We see no contradiction between the two."