Why the pursuit of history is timeless

Simon Jenkins's attack on Michael Gove's vision for school history ( Gove, like Stalin, wants to tell us what history to study. Well, let me tell him , 21 January) achieves the remarkable own goal of disproving its own point. Jenkins clearly has an impressive knowledge and mastery of history, which he uses to very good effect to lambast government ministers. But how can young people follow his lead if, as happens at present, they have not even a fraction of his knowledge of history? It is that lack of knowledge that the government wishes to address through its review of the national curriculum, and it is what the Better History Group is working to remedy. What young people do with their knowledge of history is entirely up to them. Without an extensive knowledge of the past, however, they are vulnerable to any fad in political thinking, however shallow or obnoxious. Learning history is an essential part of democratic society and it is good to have a government at long last that is taking it seriously. Sean Lang Chairman, the Better History Group • The big issue concerning history teaching at present should not be so much about the content – important as that is – but about the fact that it is being marginalised in many schools and academies, and that there is an unfortunately common view that a balanced education merely requires "a humanity" which does not have to be history. Simon Jenkins makes an interesting point about the educational needs of a modern labour market. But we need to go further. The case for history as a vital component of modern education is not merely utilitarian – meeting the needs of today's society – it is a timeless one: any society where the majority of its citizens do not know how they have arrived at their present position is impoverished. However, studying history does not merely help to provide an understanding of where we have come from but also a rigorous way of looking at evidence in order to reach conclusions that help us to understand a number of points of view. Historians who either overemphasise content or skills at the expense of the other need to unite to save the subject going into further decline. David Paterson Teacher of history 1971-2007, Nuneaton, Warwickshire • Oh dear, maybe Michael Gove is right. We need more facts in the teaching of history and those facts should be accurate. Simon Jenkins proves it with his comments on my hero, Lord Palmerston: "Palmerston remained aloof from foreign disputes until, like Walpole, he was trapped into the Crimean war." No, no and thrice no, Simon. Almost from the start of his service as foreign secretary he was active in the British interest. He threatened the French with war, and thus brought about a long-lasting settlement of the Belgian problem. He was so un-aloof that some years before the Crimean war he had been sacked as foreign secretary and I would venture to assert that, had he been foreign secretary in 1852-1853, his style of bluff and bluster might well have prevented that war. He became prime minister during the war, after the collapse of Aberdeen's government, and skilfully allowed the French to win it for us. Long live Palmerston and the pursuit of history. Michael Weaver Woodbridge, Suffolk • It is instructive that Michael Gove ( Report , 21 January) points out that the only historical figures mentioned by name in the history curriculum guidelines are the abolitionists Olaudah Equiano and William Wilberforce. These names were thought necessary to be on the guidelines because so few teachers have themselves been taught the history of enslavement. In contrast, the names of famous kings, queens and politicians have become so institutionalised as to no longer require specific naming. Indeed, Gove's own list of the people he thinks are essential for all students to know about includes not one non-white person. The inclusion of the history of enslavement has seen small improvements made in the teaching of black British history. I hope that these are not eroded under the guise of Gove's call for a return to the teaching of great historic figures. Daniel Whittall Black and Asian Studies Association • Mark Zuckerberg "would have done very well in our English baccalaureate" says Michael Gove. It is well known that the Facebook founder had an opportunity to study computer programming during his middle school years. Given that Gove's Ebacc does not include either ICT or computing GCSEs, perhaps home-grown Zuckerbergs will be thinner on the ground in the future. Paul Sperring Brighton, East Sussex • Michael Gove's decision to not have any representative from state comprehensive education to sit on the national curriculum review committee tells us everything we need to know about his and his party's views on education. His obvious inclination towards headteachers and academic researchers is a slap in the face for well-trained, experienced classroom practitioners. I am an English teacher with 14 years' teaching experience, and I would happily sit on the committee in order to give at least one mainscale teacher's views on the current education system. Gary Kaye Leeds • So Gove wishes to slim down the curriculum from its "over-prescriptive approach". The 1991 national curriculum: a whole ring binder just for history, with 35 pages on key stage 3 alone. The 2007 national curriculum: one booklet for the whole curriculum at key stage 3, with 10 pages on history. Looks like Gove has forgotten to do his homework again. Chris Culpin Castle Cary, Somerset