THE PUBLIC debate about the teaching of history has, concentrated on that subject alone. But it is only part of a much broader discussion on the core curriculum at Junior Cert level which involves many disciplines, including geography, modern languages, science/technology and the arts.
At the moment, Irish, English, maths, history and geography are compulsory Junior Cert subjects for secondary schools only. In vocational and community/comprehensive schools, Irish, English and maths are the only compulsory subjects because of the pressure that practical subjects put on curriculum space in these schools.
Neither history nor geography has ever been compulsory in the latter schools. And at Leaving Cert level the only compulsory subject in all schools is Irish.
However, in the period leading up to the publication of the White Paper on Education, there were strong lobbies for making a modern language and science or technology part of the compulsory core. The employers' group IBEC argued for modern languages, and the seminal OECD report was strongly critical of the lack of science and technological education.
Others argued for the development of "entrepreneurial skills" through business studies. The relative absence of provision for arts education drew heated criticism from many cultural bodies. And it was also argued that civic and social education and health and relationships education should be included in the core curriculum.
As Albert O Ceallaigh, director of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), puts it "Hew do you create space in the curriculum for all of these desirable subjects?"
The NCCA finally recommended that a science or technology subject be added to the compulsory core of five and that this be applied to all second level schools. They also proposed that, all students should have, the opportunity" to study modern languages and experience the arts. The NCCA put forward the idea of a series of shorter courses or modules as a means of getting over the "crowded curriculum" syndrome, as O Ceallaigh describes it.
Thus, for example, he says Students might take shorter courses in both history and geography, and perhaps an arts or technology module, and broaden their education in that way - rather than limiting themselves to, say, eight traditional length subjects.
When the White Paper was finally published last year, it proposed that students be exposed in first year, in particular, to "the widest possible range of subjects". Each school should provide students with experience in languages and literature mathematical studies science and technology civic, social and political education arts religion PE and health, social and personal development.
Some of this would be done through the formal timetable more could be achieved on a cross curricular basis or through short courses.
The development of modules or short courses in different subjects was recommended the White Paper said "a combination of full and short courses could meet the curricular principles of breath and balance".
It identified a compulsory core of Irish, English, maths, and a science and technology subject and said in bold type that "all students should have access to the study of a modern European language and to a recognised full course in at least one creative or performing art form".
THUS HISTORY and geography are not specifically mentioned as core subjects, though clearly they would come under the broad headings of social and political education and science/technology.
When criticised on the proposal and nothing has happened since the publication of the White Paper to implement this proposal the Minister for Education spoke over Easter of the crowded curriculum, referred again to the possibility of shorter courses and promised to have the NCCA look at the issue again.
In a sense she is damned if she does leave history compulsory and damned if she doesn't for the pressure to include the performing arts, technology, civic and social education, modern languages, business skills and all the other equally laudable subjects will not go away. And while failing to champion history brings criticism of "denying students access to their heritage", the OECD, for example, is even more trenchant in its comments on denying students access to the dramatically expanding world of science and technology.
Of course history is an important and enriching subject to teach. But the educational debate is not about the teaching of history in isolation from the rest of the curriculum, it's about the broad package of knowledge, information, skills and values we want to transmit to our children in those vital three years of compulsory second level education.
Some other states have gone down the road of shorter courses and modules in Northern Ireland and Britain, for example, this has happened to an extent. Some leave a very open, flexible approach others set a compulsory core programme for all. The choices are not simple should a child with a flair for technology and computers be forced to take history instead? Or a gifted artist have to substitute history for art? Or indeed given our experience with Irish is making it compulsory the best way to transmit an appreciation of history?
It's interesting to note, incidentally, that the vast majority of students in the vocational and community school sector, where history is not compulsory, do in fact take it for the Junior Cert.
