Argument: History teaching will reflect the erroneous preconceptions and aims of those who set the curriculum

History is not objective and, in schools, historical fact is at the mercy of those in control of the curriculum. Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of history suggest all history teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that history taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of "Britishness" by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage1. The Education Secretary at the time asked schools to 'play a leading role in creating community cohesion' by doing so1. Even if no historical events are invented as such, this will nevertheless lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information, whether implicit or explicit, can be taught to children is dangerous. 1 BBC News. "Schools 'must teach Britishness'." BBC News. January 25, 2007. (accessed July 14, 2011).

Candidate 1: "The teaching of history does not either to the maintenance of memory or the learning of lessons. Examples have shown that states can use history lessons to in fact erase certain memories, denying any lessons to future generations. Furthermore, teaching history encourages people to become obsessed with past conflicts and alleged wrongs inflicted upon them; it is more productive to forget the past and to seek friendship in the present. For example, modern tensions would be reduced if pupils in Ireland were no longer taught about the Battle of the Boyne (1690) and pupils in South Asia stopped learning about conflicts following the Partition between India and Pakistan (1947)."
Candidate 2: "History does offer a source for understanding oneself and one's nation, but that no reason to teach it at school. In fact, the centrality of history to identity is an argument in favour of leaving history lessons until students are old enough to weigh sources and evaluate arguments themselves. Australian school children don't need to be taught specifics about the history of their nation at school in order to develop into well rounded, reasoned adults. In fact, they are more likely to better understand the plight of the native aboriginals if they are only introduced to the historical specifics of the case at a later, more mature age."
Candidate 3: "Where there is uncertainty, this can and should be highlighted if pupils have the intellectual capacity to understand the debate. Much of the benefit of studying History is that it is not (or should not be) solely based upon the learning of facts. Rather, History develops the ability to evaluate and challenge different interpretations. If historical study were postponed to adulthood, this would mean that most people would learn no History, unless they chose to study for a History degree. And it is impossible to escape any discussion of History in adult life - there are many television programmes and press articles devoted to historical subjects every day, and politicians constantly refer to past events to justify their actions. Only if citizens are equipped at school to question such historical interpretations can the public avoid being misled."
Candidate 4: "History teaching is a waste of time, particularly at school, where it often revolves around the learning of names and dates. Antiquarian knowledge is of no practical use; pupils should spend more time learning sciences and vocational subjects. It is dangerous to both pupils' employment prospects and the economy as a whole for time to be spent studying History at school."
Candidate 5: "What is taught in history will never be 100% accurate, but it is possible for historians to achieve a considerable degree of objectivity, especially if they seek to be aware of the influences upon their own thinking. Part of most secondary school history curricula is the consideration of how historians are affected by the context in which they write: this equips pupils to consider critically what they are being taught and why they are being taught it. Moreover, it can be argued that worthwhile ends (e.g. the good relations between different ethnic communities sought by the British government) justify some selection of the history that is taught to schoolchildren. After all, it isn't possible to teach children everything about all historical periods, so there must be some criteria for making choices about what would be most valuable to study. A 'British' history curriculum will aid integration and encourage multi-culturalism within the country, without sacrificing truth, merely breadth."
Candidate 6: "Historical facts cannot be established to a sufficient degree to justify history being taught as a subject in school. Though there are certain facts that are beyond question, history is about more than the accumulation of facts but the creation of a narrative. Narratives in history are constantly subject to changes as further evidence comes to hand. Young students should not be forced to learn a narrative that may become redundant in the week between history lessons. Furthermore, though Eisenhower meant well, he could only ever control events in the United States, if Germany had decided to censor their textbooks, as the Japanese did, in the wake of World War II, his protests would have fallen on deaf ears and done little to ensure the German youth knew of the horrors of the Holocaust. As such, it is necessary to restrict history lessons to the youth; once mature and reasoned, they will be much better placed to evaluate and study history in depth."
Candidate 7: "Isolated instances in which history has been used for propaganda purposes do not reflect a dangerous subject, merely dangerous regimes. The vast majority of History teaching does not seek to promote such agendas. It is common sense to tailor the national history curriculum to the nation in which it is being taught, and very easily achieved without constituting propaganda. Recent studies have shown it is common for states to focus heavily on their national history, 'setting out key events that shaped the national story as compulsory knowledge'1. Furthermore, all subjects can be distorted if the State and its teachers are prepared to try hard enough - for example, under the Nazis German children were taught Mathematics with a heavy emphasis upon military applications (e.g. calculating angles and ranges for artillery). Instead of banning the subject, what is needed is proper inspection of schools and monitoring of the curriculum, under the control of a democratic government. 1 Baker, Mike. "History study needs fact first, analysis later." The Guardian. February 18, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011)."

What is taught in history will never be 100% accurate, but it is possible for historians to achieve a considerable degree of objectivity, especially if they seek to be aware of the influences upon their own thinking. Part of most secondary school history curricula is the consideration of how historians are affected by the context in which they write: this equips pupils to consider critically what they are being taught and why they are being taught it. Moreover, it can be argued that worthwhile ends (e.g. the good relations between different ethnic communities sought by the British government) justify some selection of the history that is taught to schoolchildren. After all, it isn't possible to teach children everything about all historical periods, so there must be some criteria for making choices about what would be most valuable to study. A 'British' history curriculum will aid integration and encourage multi-culturalism within the country, without sacrificing truth, merely breadth.
