Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

It is very useful to have people from both sides of the debate to discuss the issues, because I think everybody present is extremely passionate about the subject of history. Is there any evidence as to why the class divide in England became more pronounced in the choice of history as a subject than in any other subject? I suppose part of the debate concerns compulsion versus opportunity in terms of the provision of history in a school. It is interesting that only 50% of schools require students to take history as a junior certificate subject; the assumption that history is compulsory does not stack up. The statistics provided by Mr. Kevin McCarthy are fascinating; some 54,000 students take junior certificate history and geography, but twice as many students take geography as history at level certificate level. There seems to be a problem with history that must be addressed in some way. We are obviously discussing whether these proposals provide an answer. Is there a sense that the history examination at leaving certificate is too onerous? It is at least 20 years since I was in the school system - sometimes, in fairness to politicians, one is trying to comment on the system from memory - but I remember that in the leaving certificate the history exam was a writing race, more necessary than the exam. Does the history examination have a reputational problem at leaving certificate level? People have spoken about enthusiastic teachers, but fundamentally one needs enthusiastic students. One is trying to find a balance in giving the students the opportunity to learn something, but what if they have no interest in the subject?

We see what has happened to the Irish language. I am a great believer in the language and I have a degree in Irish, but the major policy failure of the education system, going back to the 1920s, is the teaching of Irish. It has worked for some people but it has not worked for the vast bulk of people.

There is a suggestion that Chinese might be offered instead of history. How many schools offer Chinese? Is that a choice that is not necessarily fair? Will the vast bulk of schools not find it easier to provide history as a subject choice at junior certificate level than Chinese, classics or Jewish studies? Is that not the reality on the ground because of the number of people who have the capability to teach history? There is a great opportunity, certainly now that a second year of study is being rolled out for the higher diploma in education.

The decade of commemorations was mentioned. I can remember every land Act from 1870 to the Wyndham Act of 1903. However, I did not know very much about social history until I went to Dr. Ferriter's class and learned about TB and the housing crisis in the 1940s. The linear history of Ireland and the national struggle has a history of overtaking the history syllabus. I want to comment on the depth of our study of the social problems and tensions behind history rather than the dates.