Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The History Wars: now for the hard part!

By Mervyn Bendle - posted Wednesday, 23 August 2006


The Australian History Summit was convened in Canberra last Thursday to find a solution to the crisis in the study and teaching of history that has blighted intellectual and cultural life in Australia.

Its work assumed even greater importance in the light of the latest British terrorist outrage. The attacks, planned by “disaffected British citizens” of Pakistani descent, demonstrate that liberal democracies must work harder to integrate their citizens around the values upon which their political systems are based. In an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world, Australia desperately needs to promote a unifying sense of national identity. It appears it is no longer possible to indulge those politicians, academics, teachers, and intellectuals who wish to promote a fragmented, distorted, and destructive view of our nation’s history.

The 23 prominent historians, educationalists, and other stakeholders met at the invitation of federal Education Minister Julie Bishop. Guiding their deliberations were two detailed discussion papers specially prepared by leading historians. Neither paper provides any support for the critics who have insisted that the summit is an attempt to impose a right-wing interpretation of history on Australian schools.

Advertisement

Indeed, they revealed the extent to which the History Wars are not just about ideology, but are also about bureaucracy. It is now clear that the defenders of the status quo are not just defending a distorted and fragmented view of Australia’s history.

They are also defending a set of ramshackle and inefficient education systems operated by the states on behalf of special interest groups with little or no recognition of the nation’s requirements in the crucial area of history education.

This is clear from the detailed overview of history education provided by Associate Professor Tony Taylor of Monash University. This paper confirms the worst fears of critics, showing that “there is absolutely no consistency of curriculum approach” to history education around Australia, with history usually buried within the highly diffuse “Studies of Society and Environment” curriculum area (SOSE).

Moreover, teachers are pressured into ignoring history as other areas are given a higher priority. Where history is taught, it is often done so by teachers with “little or no background in the subject”. Consequently, Taylor concludes, “by the time they reach leaving age, most students in Australian schools will have experienced a fragmented, repetitive and incomplete picture of their national story”.

The other paper, written by Associate Professor Greg Melleuish of the University of Wollongong, provided a vision of a way forward. Melleuish argued that the study of history equips people “to live useful and dignified lives as citizens and members of Australian society in the twenty first century”. However, for many students, schools offer “the only significant contact with the study of history during their lives”.

He therefore identified three essential components of Australian history to which all school students should be exposed by the end of year 10: a knowledge of the significant public events and developments that have shaped Australian history; a basic knowledge of the global environment within which that history has unfolded; and an appreciation of the texture of everyday life in Australia at strategic times over the past two centuries.

Advertisement

He went on to provide a detailed outline of a model curriculum that could be the basis for a uniform national approach to Australian history.

The summit was an excellent initiative that has clarified the depth of the crisis. However, it made few discernible proposals for concrete action in the immediate future. Instead, the summit communiqué concluded with vague calls for the development “of a series of open-ended questions to guide further curriculum development”, along with a “chronological framework of key events”. This suggests that the summit participants see the problem only in intellectual terms and don’t recognise the strategic and logistical dimensions of the crisis.

(Of course the Minister has since spoken of withholding a share of some $13 billion in education funding from those states that refuse to co-operate in reforming history education, but it is unclear if she would ultimately proceed with such a threat, and the fact that it was made further politicises an already volatile situation.)

This outcome is not good enough, because all the government’s apparently good intentions will count for very little unless a concrete strategy is quickly developed and implemented to ensure that the basic educational infrastructure is put in place to support the promised reforms. This is especially the case with the provision of properly trained and motivated history teachers. The selection and training of such personnel involves a substantial lead time and the effects of the reforms, should they finally emerge, could easily be delayed for about four to five years.

In other words, much really hard, detailed work still needs to be done - quickly.

To fully comprehend the scale of the undertaking it must be recognised that the crisis in history education in primary and secondary schools is reflected in a similar crisis in the universities, particularly within the education faculties.

On the very day of the summit, I was discussing its possible implications with some university students who professed a real interest in history and who were undertaking education degrees. I was told by several that they had been advised to drop all hopes of becoming history teachers because there were simply no opportunities available for them. Others said that they had been told that the SOSE area (in which history is buried) was effectively being phased out in schools in favour of other priorities.

As it is, SOSE is often taught within education faculties by people whose qualifications may not be in history, politics, sociology, or geography, but rather, for example, in law. The message that students are given by such a casual approach is that history is merely a residual area of teaching that it is not taken seriously by the system, and that offers very little chance of employment, much less a career.

This problem is magnified by the fact teacher training in Australia has been dominated for several decades by four-year Bachelor of Education degrees, which focus on a multitude of education subjects and leave little room for substantial studies in disciplines such as history (or other areas of academic study). Consequently, students are hardly likely to use up their precious allocation of elective subjects to pursue an in-depth interest in history when they can foresee little chance of actually teaching the subject, or even getting a teaching job.

Recently, there has been some movement back to the earlier system where education students can do a postgraduate teaching qualification after first completing an undergraduate degree in an academic discipline, but there is no evidence yet that this approach will produce a new generation of properly trained history teachers in the foreseeable future.

Moreover, the academic study of history is itself now commonly pursued within university schools made up of various disciplines - a tertiary version of SOSE. This is a situation largely flowing from a down-turn in student demand for non-vocational studies in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Consequently, academic staff in these areas are being laid off and there is little evidence that the system now has the capacity to train a new generation of history teachers, should the federal government’s reforms be implemented on any significant scale.

These deeply-rooted systemic problems could easily leave the federal government’s reforms dead in the water. Fortunately, there are various possible solutions, but these will require some immediate action to provide the educational infrastructure that is required if the federal government’s stated objectives are to be achieved and the battle for the hearts and minds of Australia’s future generations is to be won.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

20 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mervyn Bendle is a senior lecturer in history and communication at James Cook University in Townsville.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mervyn Bendle

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Mervyn Bendle
Article Tools
Comment 20 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy