History? Who needs it?

It’s Waitangi Day and you’ve got time on your hands. If you’re looking for something to do on the day we celebrate the birth of a vibrant, young nation, you could take a peek at the New Zealand Curriculum. It’s the blueprint for how we teach our children and future leaders, from year 1 all the way to year 13.

On the contents page you’ll find references to ‘‘learning areas’’. The usual subjects are there: English, maths and science; there’s also mention of the arts, physical education and technology. But not one reference to history. Further on, each learning area is explored in a little more depth; there’s even a reference to social sciences. But again, not one mention of history.

As expected, there are plenty of pedagogical nods to the Treaty of Waitangi, our founding document, but nothing in the framework – ‘‘important for a broad, general education’’ – that would provide context to the historic meeting of two great cultures on February 6, 179 years ago.

We know you’re highly unlikely to look through the curriculum; it’s boring and you have better things to do. But that’s kind of the point.

Graeme Ball, who chairs the History Teachers’ Association, is a passionate educator seeking a greater slice of school time for history, particularly of this country.

He knows it’s a hard slog getting students excited about the subject, especially if they’re being asked to learn, not about what happened on their own shores, but about Tudor kings or the Russian Revolution.

He says we are not alone. People in other countries also find their own history ‘‘boring’’.

That’s a shame, but apathy and indifference are hardly appropriate excuses for a lack of action and direction; if they were then English, maths and science would also get short shrift.

Ball and other history teachers want more support from the Education Ministry, although he sensibly stops short of calling for compulsion.

That lack of compulsion extends to the national curriculum. The ministry describes it as a flexible ‘‘framework’’ in which teachers are given resources to teach some elements of history but are not necessarily required to do so. History as a subject does not even make an appearance until year 11, when it is merely an option.

That’s wrong, but the ministry says much of the curriculum is decided and provided at a local level, allowing schools ‘‘to deliver lessons relevant to their communities’’.

Ball calls that a ‘‘cop-out’’. We call that an opportunity. Especially if the ministry were compelled to seize it.

History is often considered boring because of the tyranny of distance and time.

Imagine history delivered at a very local level, as an engaging, exciting introduction to a wider context; how issues and incidents in your town, on your street, played a role in the bigger story; one that culminated in a historic day 179 years ago.

It just needs a little imagination and some effort. Ball and others are willing to give both; the ministry needs to play its part.

Lest it find itself on the wrong side of history.

Imagine history delivered at a very local level, as an engaging, exciting introduction to a wider context; how issues and incidents in your town, on your street, played a role in the bigger story.