Couldn't agree more.

I wonder if the Government's focus on Australian history is in fact for the purpose of ensuring that students _don't_ get to spend so much time studying world history.

The writer mentioned Bismarck: it happens that lately I've read a bit of slightly more recent German history. Given the current international situation and our country's participation in it, I'm sure the Government won't be wanting students to read of the writings and thinking of Bernhardi and Kaiser Wilhelm, and thinking about the numerous parallels to the present day situation.

Jeff writes: "So why force the virtually useless Bradman and ANZAC stuff on them? All its does is promote ignorance and bigotry".

It's not time to ditch the compulsory teaching of Australian history. It's time to ditch the hyperbole.

Yes, Australian history should be taught in a way that reflects the diversity of the Australian experience. Yes, Australian students should be taught world history.

But to say that teaching Australian history -- and/or particular episodes like the Bodyline cricket test series or ANZAC "stuff" -- ONLY promotes ignorance and bigotry is just not sustainable.

Here are a few other things it does:

# Helps Australian citizens and residents to piece together a story about how Australia came to be what it is today

# Helps migrants to participate in conversations and ideas that people born in Australia take for granted

# Arms students with some of the facts and ideas they need to start critically pulling apart assumptions about what Australia is and should be

Australia history should be retained, expanded and taught to all students, along with other basic fields of knowledge such as world history

It's prudent to be skeptical of any compulsory curriculum in the humanities/social studies area. Experience shows it's even more important to be wary of a State-endorsed history course.

One mediocre or sanitised course inflicted on everyone could do immeasurable harm to the national interest and to the minds of vulnerable children. If Australian history is to be made compulsory, let there be many versions of that history and let the debate about historical truth rage throughout the land.

As a retired cockie who managed an Honours in his old age studying the ravages of the colonial Tea Economy in Sri-Lanka, and later under supervision wrote a series on WA called A Land in Need, must reveal a true account of Midgerocoo, the father of Yagan shot at twenty paces outside the Perth military barracks, with all white colonists invited as well as the natives.

It is also stated that Midgericoo was executed for stealing from the whites as well as being a general nuisance as many of the local natives had become.

It was also stated that Midgericoo was shot more as a lesson or an example.

As we now own the country, it could well be asked should true events of colonial times like the above be forgotten, as it seems our present Federal Government would wish?

I've often wondered what is 'Australian history'. Sandgropers probably don't care a fig for Blaxland Lawson and Wentworth anymore than Sydneysiders care about Batman. And, apart from to tourists, what importance is Port Arthur? We (the white we) have never had a civil war nor been invaded. Sometimes I think we are still a bunch of colonies fighting against London disguising itself as Canberra although there has been some interesting politics and again its Lang, Kerr and Whitlam that are the history. The ANZAC battle was the story of the men who died for the incompetent British. Maybe it's role in history is to examine how a military disaster has been turned into a quasi-religion, an excuse to roll out the Anglo-Australian flag. As for the bodyline series, are we reduced to calling entertainment history?

Funnily I think history will see a comeback. It's one of those subjects that really lends itself to self-teaching via the internet and some interesting books on interesting characters.

Jeff Schubert may have had to learn about English kings in history, but I’ve never taught about them and, as someone who started in prep in 1958, I was never taught them. It sounds like the history taught in the 1930s or the 1830s to me.

Australian history is taught in years 9 and 10 in Victoria, and it is in a world context. You cannot understand Australian history without knowing about the world wars and the Great Depression, each of which had its genesis beyond our shores. Year 7 studies ancient civilisations. Year 8 studies the Middle Ages. History lessons are not restricted to Australian history.

The history of Australia is not just the history of the ancestors of those who now live here but the history of the institutions, which stretches back through British history to ancient Roman and Greek times.

History is not taught in a sanitised way: there are neither black armbands nor white blindfolds. No one I have ever taught the “ANZAC stuff” to has ended up ignorant and bigoted as a result. I do not see how they could be.

The danger is that the practice of the SOSE years, when teachers with no relevant subject training were given classes, will continue even though history has been returned to its rightful place in the curriculum. You can’t teach history if you don’t know it.