Speaking of which, Beattie has executed one of his characteristic backflips. Stand alone history is coming to Qld schools for years 9 and 10, despite the opposition of the Education Minister, Rod Welford:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20222662-2702,00.html

Beattie no doubt is just trying to neutralise a potential issue, but I wonder if it’s really all that important electorally.

In other history war matters, Greg Melleuish writes of the attempts to impose an “official narrative” on the History Summit itself:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20219300-7583,00.html

On Rob’s points above:

But what does working chronologically mean, especially as Hirst admits that his committee will only be drawing up a minimalist list of important events. Students apparently will bump into landmark events. It seems to me that this is all about sleight of hand, of appearing to have a narrative when in fact teachers will be free to be as chronological as they choose.

Teachers in exercising their creativity will be able to drive through the terrain without “bumping into landmark events”. Given that there will only be three or four themes – oops, I meant questions – taught a year, no attempt can be made to provide something resembling a comprehensive picture of Australian history. Instead, the questions will be used as the selected ingredients in a historical stew.

I studied History in Highschool – in QLD no less! – and got VHAs. I did a history double major for my undergrad degree – at UQ – and used a fair bit of history in my Masters degree. I even rely on that history knowledge in my work today. Yet even I don’t think there is some crisis in history knowledge in schools today, so what/who is this driven by?? Is it a harking back to a nostalgic past where everyone could name past Prime Ministers, and sat around the fire at night telling tales of valiant past explorers?

If we are so concerned about students’/society’s knowledge, why aren’t we lamenting the lack of science knowledge? (see Toowoomba and the lack of understanding about recycled water; see the current debates around stem-cell research which soon disintergrates into talk about ‘potential life’ and ‘mutant human-animal clones’). Or the fact that less students are choosing to study Science at a University level? Political parties of both persuasions bang on about us being internationally competitive, so why are we so hung up on learning dates of previous events and other such insular information?

I JUST DON’T GET IT!! Gold star to the first person who can make it clear for me.

His lectures were very comprehensive, and the classes were small (20 – 30) so no chance to catch a few zzzz’s thats for sure. I think the subject relied heavily on Manning Clarke – tho i’d have to check that one( it was a text for something i did back then).

Personally I loved the Art history component – Modernists vs the Establishment – Angry penguins , Ern malley affair etc etc. buts thats just me.

I dont really have any strong recollection of him – i think he was quite passionate about his subject – disciplined and intellectual…

Paul Renoylds, on the other hand, scared the heck out of me.

As Graham Young puts it, the blonde are leading the blind:

http://currumbin2cook.nationalforum.com.au/archives/001565.html

Was he a good teacher, tanja?

I got the sense he would be from his interview.

I think I also had my suspicions about him because of his long campaign targetting Stuart Macintyre over ARC grants. I still think his facts are wrong there, and Macintyre’s response convincing (Macintyre incidentally is much more reasonable and scholarly than his rep from the history warriors would suggest). But hey, anyone who’s spent time as a postgrad or a staff member in universities knows that there are lots more reasons why academics have grudges against each other than politics.

Anyway, wtf am I still doing here! Must. Go. To. Sleep.

Anyway, night, Rob, it’s way past my bedtime – big day at work today and another one tomorrow so I probably won’t have time to join in again.