John Howard On History

Sydney Morning Herald

Friday January 27, 2006

IT IS easy to dismiss the Prime Minister's criticism of history teaching as a populist rant. John Howard's attack was ludicrously short on detail. What history curriculums did Mr Howard mean, and for what years, in what states? He did not say. Yet that does not mean the speech can be simply dismissed. There will be more than a little sympathy with Mr Howard's view that Australians know too little of their past - and that inevitably compromises their future.

Mr Howard wants a "root and branch renewal of the teaching of Australian history in schools". History should have more space on curriculums and in classrooms. Mr Howard wants no "fragmented stew of theme and issues", but a clear chronology emphasising "pivotal dates"; history taught in "a narrative style". And none of that postmodern relativism, either. But who does Mr Howard have in his sights? NSW history teachers have been quick to deflect the attack. They say the Prime Minister's view of history is history, and they have urged him to catch up with the way history is taught today in the schools of Australia's first state. Primary classes are taught 19th-century Australian history. Years 9 and 10 are taught 20th-century history. And yes, it is taught chronologically. In between, pupils study indigenous Australian history, ancient history, medieval history and historical method. For the HSC they do, indeed, study topics, rather than the chronological sweep of events, but teachers say senior students want history in depth, and that means narrowing the focus. High school history, like other areas of the syllabus, has had a major overhaul in the past few years.

However, no defence of curriculums is likely to satisfy the Prime Minister. Mr Howard prefers to judge by results. And he finds Australians wanting: "We don't understand enough about our history." Ignorance, Mr Howard says, "is everywhere apparent". That assessment may itself be historic. Perhaps, as teachers say, schoolchildren today are gaining a more coherent understanding of what shaped this nation. That is the first question that should be addressed by Mr Howard's planned "coalition of the willing" to investigate history teaching. And if as a nation we are as ignorant as Mr Howard thinks, how much is the fault of schools? What, for example, of a popular culture - particularly film and television - that has so little to tell us about our past?

We should not delay learning where history teaching has gone wrong; after all, not to learn from our mistakes condemns us to repeat them. Isn't that what history teaches?