Why Junior Cert History Ought to be Compulsory

The Folly of Making History Optional

Minister for Education, Ruairi Quinn, recently challenged historians to show the country why their subject mattered. He proposes to make history an optional subject at Junior Cert level.

As a young historian and as a secondary school teacher, I would like to briefly respond to Mr, Quinn’s challenge. I am firmly against this move, as are all history teachers in Ireland. I believe that the removal of history as a compulsory subject can only have a detrimental effect on the study of history in general. History is important on one level as a practical subject: it teaches one how to research, how to evaluate sources and viewpoints and how to argue. More importantly it teaches us who we are and where we have come from - it links us with the past and brings a sense of order and continuity to our existence. 

Mr. Quinn tells us that making history is simply a logistical decision - one part of a long overdue revamp of the junior cycle. Questioning the position of history however is far more than simply to do with timetabling and finances. Rather it has to do with power, underpinning political belief and ultimately an attempt to create a different Ireland. 

We all know how important our history is to our identity. As a small and relatively new nation, Ireland is still establishing itself as a young democracy and at this time of change and upheaval in Europe, it is important to realize that our strength lies in maintaining our Irish uniqueness and individuality. In order to fully understand why we are unique, it is crucial that we as a nation, and as individual citizens, have an adequate knowledge of our history. The old proverb says, You don’t know where you’re going unless you know where you've been’ - if we want to remain respected as a credible state among the nations of the world, which as a clear idea of how it wishes to develop in the future, the we must have a firm grasp on where we have come from and how we have got to where we are.

In England, history is optional at GCSE level. Statistics show that in 2011 only 30% of students in state schools studied the subject. The result has been a shocking fall in the quality of historical knowledge among British teenagers, with a recent survey revealing that many did not know which countries had taken part in World War II. Historian Eric Hobsbawn wrote that when history is not taught, young people ‘grow up in a permanent present, lacking any organic relation to the public past of the times they live in’. This results in a disinterest in sustaining community, and little awareness of one’s own responsibility as a public citizen. Healthy interest in politics and public development will fall and the domination of certain, inadequate world views becomes probable. Debate dies away because national knowledge is no longer deemed important.

Mr.Quinn’s proposals are therefore worrying. When one downgrades history and other ‘knowledge’ subjects, and places heavy emphasis on practical aspects of the curriculum such as literacy and numeracy, there is a real danger that upcoming generations will lack ‘higher order’ skills such as analysis, critical thought and creativity. They will be able to perform simple maths; they will be able to write; they will be able to read; they will be able to follow instructions; but if they have not been allowed to experience and become acquainted with the lives of those who came before them, the development of society, the power of propaganda, the signs and effects of dictatorship and tyranny, the causes of war, the changes in religion, the Reformation movement, the potential of revolutions and rebellions, the acquisition of power, the importance of knowledge, they will have no precedent to refer to, no sense of societal continuity, and indeed no knowledge of the mistakes and successes of the past to aid them in their evaluation of the present. Life can then become very simple. Society can become very orderly. A population with no troublesome criticisms based on historical knowledge can become a useful ‘human resource’. People can content themselves with a regular wage, food on the table and access to leisure pursuits. Without a knowledge of the past, there is little impetus to change, criticize, suggest better ways, demand a better life or to engage in critical thought. 

Finally, Mr. Quinn encourages us, as history teachers, to lure students rather than coerce them. While this is an admirable sentiment, and indeed it would be hugely desirable that students choose to study history of their own accord, it must be pointed out that it is 12 and 13 year olds in question here. It is out of character for this age group to want to study most subjects that are important, including Maths and English. Let us be careful of treating children like 3rd level students. It is our duty as teachers to choose the subjects for our pupils that will enable them to develop into fully-formed , capable, well-educated citizens who are an asset to the country. Many national leaders were one-time students of history and it must be remembered that Winston Churchill declared that it was through the study of history that ‘statecraft’ would be learned.

The study of history is vitally important for the future of Ireland. The recent decision by Mr. Quinn to make it simply optional is to be regretted. The parents and teachers of this country owe it to our nation to demand that history be maintained as a compulsory subject in our schools, and to ensure that our talented children be given the opportunity to know who they are and where they have come from. 

AislingNB
https://twitter.com/AislingNb