Making history compulsory to matric is bunk
DO YOU think our pupils in South Africa should be required to take history all the way to matric? It is already compulsory for six years from Grade 4 to Grade 9. Would you extend its “compulsoriness” for another three years?
My own answer to this vital question is “No, I would not”.
My reasons do not have to do with how valuable history is – it’s already compulsory for six years, so it’s obviously worthwhile.
It’s not about teaching our pupils to become conscious and informed South Africans who understand our heritage and struggle. That can be done in six years.
It does not take more than six years of time in the history curriculum to find space for our story and identity. It does not need nine years.
If our national history is being done poorly, then structure the six years so it’s done properly. Don’t extend the time into the Further Education and Training (FET) band and say we need nine years to do it.
Making history compulsory takes up space. History is worthwhile, but so are many other things. The question is not about whether history is worthwhile or not, but what gets left out by making history compulsory in the FET band of high school.
Arguments that passionately defend the value and importance of History completely miss this point.
What gets lost is not so much the freedom of choice to do another subject, but the ability to focus on a chosen field and begin the process of specialisation. And here lies the nub of the debate for me.
Should Grade 10, 11 and 12 emphasise the early process of specialisation, or should they still emphasise a generalist introduction to life? If you feel that the FET band is about starting the process of specialising consciousness and skill towards adult career demands in a complex society, then making history compulsory will infuriate you, because it directly takes away, time, energy, and resources from the process of enacting a specialist path.
If you feel that the last three years of high school should still be about a generalist education that produces upstanding citizens and well-rounded human beings, then the call for compulsory history through to matric will make more sense.
My argument is that whether you want a specialist or a generalist education, both options are threatened by making history compulsory through to matric.
I used to be a high school history teacher before becoming a professor, and I still look on those days as some of the best of my life. Most of my matric learners loved history with a passion – they were committed to it because they chose it as an option in Grade 10. All those pupils who found history was not for them in the earlier grades had fallen away. Left were the committed few.
I can assert from 10 years of teaching teenagers, that if we make history compulsory for Grades 10, 11 and 12, we will kill it.
Those who found history was not for them will win the day in high schools across the country. History will become dull, difficult, and draining to teach and learn. And this is not only because of the weight of teaching all 16, 17 and 18-year-olds history, but because we will have to find the teachers to do it properly.
A good history teacher is hard to find. Being taught history by a teacher who does not live history is dull and draining. History becomes all about memorisation and generic skills. A good history teacher knows so much about why the world has become the way it has, that every day is lit up with why we are where we are.
A good history teacher knows the fascinating details that take a historical episode from mere recount to wonderful story. We do not have enough of these teachers and now we want to expand history and make it compulsory all the way to matric. We want to include all those pupils who hate history at the same time as not having enough passionate history teachers to carry the day.
Destroy
By expanding history to all, we will destroy it for all. In so doing history will lose the ability it currently has to shape the consciousness of our youth. History will go the tragic way of life orientation.
At the same time, making history compulsory will take away time, energy and resources from other vibrant options pupils might choose. It will dent the time available to start specialising consciousness and skills towards a specific path.
We don’t live in a simple society where simple skills get high paying jobs. Our children have to specialise and learn to do difficult skills that are in demand, and they have to do so in competition with others. Our country has to produce specialised people in all sorts of different areas to take us forward. This takes time – time that is taken away by doing what will be a boring, rote, forced three extra years of history.
I am deeply supportive of producing proud, upstanding citizens, I am deeply passionate about history, and I am deeply committed to specialising our youth for a complex society. Making history compulsory all the way to matric directly threatens all three commitments.