Joan Bakewell: The end of history (as an A-level subject)

This can't be what Francis Fukuyama had in mind. His book The End of History argued that the Whig interpretation of history had reached its zenith in modern-day free market democracy, and there was no further to go. He cannot have meant what recent headlines proclaim, the possible end of history as an A-level subject in the school curriculum, something anyone of my generation regards as simply unthinkable. So what is going wrong, that the idea should even be on the horizon? Several things. Obviously children today are given far more choice over what they study. Apart from a very few core subjects they can at the age of 14 pick and choose from a wider range of subjects than ever before. These two circumstances - younger age, and wider range - means that children who cannot possibly yet have any grasp of the scope and significance of history are allowed to drop it for the callow teenage excuse of boredom, preferring the more glamorous sounding topics of media studies and photography.

It has long been an axiom in my family when dealing with bouts of teenage boredom, that there is no such thing as boredom in the abstract - only boring people. And their failure to engage with the world represents a huge loss of human potential. So why are young people not engaged with history - it is on one level a vast story of intrigue and machinations, rivalries and triumphs to outstrip any Bourne Inheritance-style plottings and counter-plottings. It is full of colourful people, challenging ideas, deadly betrayals, terrible tragedies, soaring achievements. Where's to be bored?

So what is going wrong? Anecdotal evidence suggests there is too much about Hitler and the wives of Henry VIII, and not enough about, say, how the states of Iraq and Israel came into being, to give the subject what in modish teaching jargon is called relevance. Perhaps Israel and Iraq are seen as too controversial to deal with in any balanced way. The answer is to start way back and deal with the emergence of tribal civilisations in and around the Middle East.

How can that not have a bearing on today's world when there are those in the Muslim world calling for the revival of the ancient caliphate? Surely the more people know what that actually means, where the caliphate originated and what it signifies, the better understanding we can bring to such extreme ambitions.

There is a more general cultural shift that accounts for the apparent decline of history. The curriculum is devised - and I am quoting the Department for Children, Schools and Families - to help children "learn in ways that will motivate and engage them ... and position themselves for success in life".

That phrase "success in life" rings a thousand alarm bells. According to various surveys, it seems young people often see success in life as being rich and famous. Setting that tawdry ambition aside, this restated government objective sees education as nothing more than preparation for employment. The broader ideal of wider education for life is long gone by the board.

But not quite. In another part of the culture values are changing back from such a utilitarian point of view. Over the decades the arts world - theatre, music, visual and performing arts - have been put through hoops to demonstrate the ways in which they contribute to social cohesion, multicultural access and economic prosperity. I'm glad to say they have been able to tick all those boxes.

But the mood is that the box-ticking has gone too far. "Arts for art's sake" is back on the agenda. There's a growing consensus that the quality of the work is what matters. Excellence is the first virtue, and one that Governments seeks to sustain. Only with that firmly underpinned by those who teach, finance, sponsor and perform, should issues of access and availability be addressed. That swing in thinking is happening across the political spectrum. The rush to satisfy Margaret Thatcher's stringent criteria of economic buoyancy, swiftly followed by Labour's call for inclusiveness, are now seen as the opposite extremes of the cultural ideal that seeks the involvement of all in the best there is.

Would that this would happen across education. Training for jobs, vocational education towards a career, is all very fine. We want young people to be qualified and able to sustain their chosen work. But that is only to deal with one aspect of human existence. Education once had, and should have again, the broader aim of equipping people to lead a fulfilling life, a life made up of human understanding, self-awareness, joy in the world, pleasure in one's community and pride in one's country. History is at the heart of that and should remain so.

joan.bakewell@virgin.net

More from Joan Bakewell