History in the curriculum: principles, priorities, practicalities

The recent correspondence in newspapers and comments in blogs on the place of history as a subject in the national curriculum are misplaced and premature.

Yet, ironically, they make a positive contribution because they highlight the challenges that curriculum reviewers must address and resolve when they consider the claims of various experts for priority and a just allocation of curriculum space for their particular subjects.

The task of the reviewers is rendered even more difficult when the changing context requires the introduction of new subjects while students and teachers complain about a crammed curriculum.

The criticism is misplaced because the correspondents protested on an example of a curriculum scheme in the consultation document Transition from Primary to Secondary Schools in Malta: A Review, which was presented for public discussion last November and about which reactions were invited up to February.

The main thrust of the document was a review of alternatives on "how to eliminate the staccato if not abrupt manner by which students move from primary to secondary schools in the state system".

The document's aim was not to propose a curriculum framework for secondary education. The curriculum scheme was given to show how secondary schools that receive students with mixed abilities can organise their curriculum to address the needs of all students irrespective of their level of achievement.

In fact, the document emphasised flexibility in the curriculum and stated that "it is understood that individual schools may modify the scheme, adjust the number of lessons and options on offer according to the students' needs and the available resources".

It should also be noted that rather than presenting this scheme as the final word on the curriculum, the document's recommendation 14 went on to propose an evaluation of the current curriculum, which it described as urgently needed, and the need to prepare for necessary changes.

The document described the secondary school curriculum as consisting of core subjects and a range of optional subjects, including vocational subjects. History and geography appear in the core curriculum to ensure that all students study these subjects in all years of the secondary school. They also appear as optional subjects for students who wish to study them in greater depth.

The critics' main concern is the number of lessons allocated to history, geography and social studies in the example, which was reduced from the current provision to accommodate other subjects. Unfortunately, they ignored the main focus of the document. Instead, they decided to focus narrowly on one subject in a scheme that was presented to illustrate how the secondary school curriculum could be organised.

Their criticism was premature because the curriculum framework is still being developed and the allocation of space for the learning areas is still being discussed. In fact, following the document's recommendation 14, a committee was set up about a year ago to review of the national curriculum.

The committee is still deliberating and its intention is to propose a coherent curriculum framework covering education in the early years, the primary and the secondary levels. The proposed framework will be presented for discussion, and all educators, subject experts, subject associations, and interested individuals will be invited to give their reactions before final decisions are taken.

Given the above, it should be clear that the critics' strident accusations were misplaced and the scheme was not an "affront to our identity", a devaluation of our "sense of nationality and nationhood", the systematic erosion of the teaching of History or a "politically motivated shift to give more importance to Europe's identity as opposed to Malta's" as was claimed.

This unfortunate episode highlights the difficult task of the Curriculum Review Committee. Their task entails:

• reviewing the aims of education;

• updating the guiding principles and values;

• considering and deciding on the range of learning areas, learning processes and effective pedagogies that enable the achievement of those aims;

• suggesting suitable methods of assessment and evaluation, and the supporting infrastructure.

This clarification is being made for two reasons. Firstly, to dispel any idea that devising a curriculum simply means selecting subjects to be taught and allocating a number of lessons per week for each.

Secondly, because one must understand that the new framework will be different from the present curriculum to take into consideration the changes in the local and the global socio-economic context.

In practice, these changes could mean that priorities may change, new learning areas may be introduced and the limited curriculum space may have to be shared between more subjects.

It is understandable that the changes will be criticised and resisted by those who perceive them negatively. Yet, it must be understood that change is inevitable and staying put is not an option, as this could result in a regress in our general educational level and our prosperity as a nation.

Hopefully, the debate on the curriculum framework will be conducted in a civil manner and final decisions will be made on the basis of cogent arguments and not on sectarian interests.

Prof. Ventura is chairman of the Matsec board and a member of the University of Malta's Faculty of Education and the Education Ministry's Curriculum Review Committee.