History is a staple element of any nation’s curriculum, since historical knowledge is central to a nation’s sense of identity – the ‘means by which the idea of the nation is made a reality in the minds of its citizens’ (Tosh 2008) – but rarely is there a consensus about what this identity should be, and how it should be dealt with in the history curriculum. The result is that debates about history curriculum are perennial and widespread (Little 1990; Foster 1998; Symcox 2002; Zimmerman 2002; Osborne 2003; Evans 2004). The debates take a number of forms. Some can be classed as ideological, such as claims about objectivity and bias, or the balance between a critical and a triumphalist approach to the nation’s past. More fundamental debates relate to the nature and warrant of historical knowledge (Evans 2000; Curthoys and Docker 2006). Of particular importance to the school curriculum are attempts to identify the key concepts or understandings which are central to historical understanding (Barton and Levstik 2004; Lee 2005; Seixas, 2006). Other issues of a more pragmatic kind include the relative emphasis on information or inquiry or on local, national, global perspectives. Given the range of these debates, it is not surprising that there is little consensus about the aims of history (Levesque 2005) or about the most desirable emphasis in the curriculum (Simpson and Halse 2006). History’s contentious nature raises problems for curriculum in a number of ways. First, clarity of purpose is an obvious need for successful curriculum development and teaching. Clarity is also needed to identify the pedagogical content knowledge which is required of teachers, and for the kind of precision in the curriculum which will ensure an emphasis on deep knowledge. In all these areas, the lack of consensus about history curriculum is problematic. This paper evaluates the arguments about the nature of history and history education from the perspective of clarity of aims, required pedagogical content knowledge, and the design of curriculum. Drawing on an international literature, with particular illustration from recent developments in history education in Australia, the paper distinguishes persuasive and unconvincing claims about history education with a view to improving the clarity of focus of history education.

The paper uses a form of critical discourse analysis to analyse arguments in debates about the value of history and history education which have appeared in international debates in recent years, with particular illustration from the development of a national history curriculum in Australia.

The paper will show that some of the claims made for history and history education are either unfounded or inappropriate as educational goals. It will further identify aspects of history curriculum which need clarification if adequate guidance is to be given to the development of effective history curricula and appropriate teacher pedagogical content knowledge. The paper will conclude with suggestions about desirable approaches to history curriculum development.