Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The real question surrounding this Private Members' motion is what do we or, in particular, what young people need to know in order to understand how the world became what we perceive it to be today. They will not learn this through technology or the "X Factor". One of the most radical and extraordinary thinkers in education was Neil Postman. He believed that for education to be meaningful, young people, their parents and teachers must have a common narrative. The question I put to those Senators who have turned up for this debate is "Do we have a common narrative?" If we do, how could the Department of Education and Skills, when the History Teachers Association disagrees so vehemently, change history from a core subject to a discrete subject in the junior cycle? There are many false gods of modern education lurking around and trying to get attention. One of them is economic utility. Others include consumerism; technology - a type of plug-in messiah wiring schools for personal computers; multiculturalism, when we should be talking about diversity; and a list of aspirational verbs when we should be talking about the "how" of great teaching and training. There are many other bogus objectives but few "hows" in all of these pamphlets.

We have not for a long time had a conversation in this country on the types of subject or knowledge that are fundamental to a quality of life and others which are not. If we did have a real conversation about this, history would not be becoming a discrete subject, music would be compulsory up to 18 years, the arts would be examinable, formed and standardised and not a parallel of the television, and dance would probably be a core subject. Most of all, as we are a talking people and speech is our greatest need and means of communication, aurality would be an independent subject with the foundation of human and vocal communication and engagement. Amidst all of this, the National Council for Curriculum Assessment has created the most outstanding and, might I say, incredible statements of learning for the new changed junior cycle. These statements arise out of a core concept of innovation and identity within that cycle. The statements of learning include words like "communicates", "reaches", "creates", "appreciates", "critically interprets", "recognises", "uses", "describes", "illustrates", "predicts", "improves", "values", "learns", "understands", "makes" and "takes". There are 24 statements of learning in all. Two verbs have been omitted, namely, "imagines" and "feels". Imagination has its own rewards and to feel we have to be able to think. I believe "feel" and "imagine" should have been given an airing. Some subjects will lock into some of these aspirations and others will lock easily into others. However, great subjects do them all. The study of history does not involve just one, two, three or four of the aspirational verbs, values and recognitions but all of them. How it is possible to justify art forms or core fundamental knowledge to this formula? It is not possible to get knowledge to fit a formula regardless of how aspirational the formulaic the verbs. Knowledge is its own reward. The NCCA should have argued the brilliance of subjects and the "why" and "how" of them.

In the midst of all this aspiration and valuing innovation and identity, history is to become a discrete subject, a short course choice. Short courses do not work for young minds. Young minds need joined-up education. That is how their minds are engaged. They only work at mature and postgraduate level, as anybody who knows anything about teaching knows. The only areas the students at DCU learned were their core modules, the ones that lasted for two years. The short courses became a kind of entertainment. Young minds need a broad sweep of history and a defined and lengthy foundation block to encourage the study of the subject later or it will become the preserve of the elite. According to Diarmuid Ferriter, all children have a public ownership of history and a public ownership of their own history. It can never become the right of the elite.

The Department of Education and Skills is in my opinion re-aligning, repositioning, downgrading, cupboarding and cloaking history behind what it calls a discrete subject. Discretus means separated or set apart - the very educational concept we are supposed to be trying to avoid. I will elaborate on why this is completely wrong specifically, and fundamentally wrong generally. At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection, Mr. Gerard Hanlon, president of the History Teachers Association of Ireland, Catriona Crowe and Diarmuid Ferriter, who must have some clue about what they are talking about, said that every child has an entitlement to history, not as a dip-in and out facility. History education is the entitlement of every child. The Department of Education and Skills cannot say that young people will get this entitlement from a short course: they will not. History is more important than most subjects. It is our heritage. It explains ourselves to us in that it tells us who we are, what we are, how we are and why we are. As pointed out by Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, it creates citizens not consumers. That is all we need to know about it. That is all the justification we need, not 24 statements of learning.

Why did the NCCA not argue on that basis? History is a discipline not an entertainment. It is a skill, a crafted knowledge, a form, a learning, a thought process, a language, a memory, a fact, an evidence, an interpretation and a culture. It is our lives, a life, the local, the national, the international. It is our place. It is the reason we live the way we do. It is beyond essential for all young adults beginning life in the middle school cycle. In addition, history is taught by specialist teachers. What happens when it becomes a short course, short module or a choice rather than a core subject? It becomes less coherent. It becomes more represented in the middle class areas and less represented in working class areas where subjects considered more useful and easier will take its place thereby becoming the preserve of the elite. History as a short course in the junior cycle will not be studied at leaving certificate level or at university or third leaving, thus the numbers of teachers in the system will fall. They fell considerably when the subject was removed from the core curriculum in the UK. Discussion is now taking place in the UK on how to bring it back.

We are so busy copying New Zealand, Queensland and Finland. Why do we not lead the way? If one wants to reform the junior cycle there are many other changes that can be made. I am not against change. However, this change has not been thought out. If change is what is required, music should become compulsory for every child. Then we would have a skill, love, passion, creative activity, maths, history, sound, score and melody all in one. Imagine that? Therein are statements of learning. The Irish Chamber Orchestra is doing this in Limerick. Why do we not copy what it is doing? That would be something worth copying. Why are we applauding fragments of knowledge? That is what short courses are. We do not need short courses, we need educational revolution and an educational rethink. If the history syllabus is over-laden with content and that is the greatest reason for the decline in the number of pupils taking history between junior and leaving certificate level, then throw it into fresh combinations, use imagination, creativity and do not relegate it to choice and short courses. Re-examine the subject and hold it as a core. Ms Catriona Crowe called all of this what it is, "the greatest elephant in the room." She asked why we bother having core subjects at all. Why do we bother regarding some subjects as essential and fundamental to the rights to knowledge for all young people? Why not teach the Beano?

Some knowledges must be compulsory. Maths, English, the arts and languages are not disposable and cannot be disposed of or shortened. Why does it accepted that history can be? Is it because it is difficult or hard? Perhaps, it takes up too much time and requires reading, writing, study and memory and we cannot have that. It is the very thing we need now more than ever. History is not cut and paste. It is not Internet, 500 channels, Facebook, Twitter and all that other nonsense of the great technological revolution information highway, the tablets of Moses turned Apple. Technology may be the mechanics of the brain but history is the mind. It is evidence and informed thought. It is outside the garbage of the information highway, the antithesis of the lies on the Internet, the tabloid press, the glut and garbage of saturated information. It is the counteraction against immediacy. It is evaluation, real resource and reasoning. It is primary sources, arduous debate, politics, democracy and lack of it. Unlike the Internet garbage information glut, it teaches that there are no easy answers. Catriona Crowe asked if we really wanted to live in a country where many children over the age of 12 know nothing of their history? Are they to know about De Valera and Collins through film? As I said earlier, just as we are about to remove history as a core subject, the UK is putting it back on its curriculum as a core subject.

There is a craziness in that proposition. If we argue that history is not a core subject, it is not based on an educational argument. Why argue that one subject should compete against other subjects? To do this is to argue that core knowledge in any one area is of greater significance than in another area, which is not true. This brings us back to the question as to why we should not teach the Beano. The Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect, needs more advice. Above all, he should invite some of the directors of the curriculum in England here to explain the reasons they decided to reinstate history as a core subject.

History must continue to be held in its rightful place. If we are supposed to make young people more intelligent and smarter, the big question is how we can counteract technologies which are defining our progress and who we are, as human beings. Do we ever question the effects of technology, technological innovation, millions of televisions, the Internet, the information highway and the interactive everything? Do these things improve us? No, we are lonelier and more isolated than ever. Technology may be able to tell us how things work but can it tell us how to live? Human progress does not necessarily mean technological progress. What does more information to more people in more diverse forms solve?

We stake so much of human advancement on technological advancement while failing to raise enough educational questions about it. Do we believe the Internet and the digital economy amount to liberation? We have international pornography, the adultification of children, a glut of meaningless information and advertising and information as garbage. We view the Internet as the centre of the world to which we turn for everything. We are surrendering our culture to it and we are about to surrender education to it. In doing so, we will also surrender history to it. This is where history finds its force.

As a result of technology, we have a decline in literacy, socialisation and politics. We are dependent on our schools to counteract these trends. This cannot be achieved through short courses. An outcry is needed about this from all teachers, not only history teachers. The media have altered social responsibility, psychic habits and political processes. We are dependent on subjects such as history to counteract incoherent meaninglessness. We need it for perspective, to prepare students for what is ahead and to show them what has been. The world's history is the world's judgment and without the former, young people will not have the latter.