'One of the under-appreciated tragedies of our time has been the sundering of our society from its past. Children are growing up ignorant of one of the most inspiring stories I know - the history of our United Kingdom. Our history has moments of pride, and shame, but unless we fully understand the struggles of the past we will not properly value the liberties of the present. The current approach we have to history denies children the opportunity to hear our island story. Children are given a mix of topics at primary, a cursory run through Henry the Eighth and Hitler at secondary and many give up the subject at 14, without knowing how the vivid episodes of our past become a connected narrative. Well, this trashing of our past has to stop.'

These are the words of Mr Gove, speaking at the most recent Conservative Party conference. He has since recruited, among others, two leading (and media-friendly) Historians to help stop the 'trashing'.

I think most Secondary School History teachers will empathise with some, at any rate, of these points. Nevertheless, this is a doomed, and divisive, enterprise, because it rests on a whole load of false assumptions.

First, 'the sundering of our society from its past' is not the fault of History teachers. Until the 1960's it was possible to teach a pretty cohesive British History where Britain also appeared to play a central role on the world stage. The history of Europe was often also taught, but as a sub-plot. During the 1960's teenagers were exposed to a confusing array of new cultural influences. 'Our island story' now had to compete with many others, the stories of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. for example. To help young people make sense of the world they were living in, some schools abandoned History altogether, replacing it with some sort of Humanities.

In the 1980's the Thatcher government over-reacted to this change, and in the National Curriculum declared History a separate subject (with no links with Geography for example) and the syllabus for 11 - 14 year olds to be mainly British History from the 18th Century to the present day. The main problem with this was that the government were perceived by schools to be dictating the History syllabus. History teachers were left with the task of trying to manufacture some cohesion into this 6 - module course, with the feeling in the back of their minds that if they didn't teach 'Thatcher' History their school might get into trouble.

The 'cohesion' of History cannot be micro-managed by government, for practical and for philosophical reasons. It can only be provided by the individual History teacher, who hopefully has had some input into the syllabus that the History Department puts together. I suspect that a cohesive, happy, History department is actually more important than the best syllabus put together by government experts. History teachers are much better at telling their personal take on the big story than trying to fit in with what the government feels ought to be done. The government needs to trust History teachers to do their job.

Secondly, it is simply not true that 'the current approach we have to history denies children the opportunity to hear our island story.' The National Curriculum for History, refined somewhat since the 1980's, continues (with its emphasis on British History) to provide just that 'opportunity' - in most schools, anyway. If the government is going to set out the syllabus it needs to set out the time in which to teach it.

Thirdly, and also referring to the above quotation, children and young people are not particularly interested in our island story. For example two legendary stories in our island saga - King Alfred burning the cakes, and the story of Robin Hood - are totally unknown. Any hope of examining the history behind the legend falls down because children have never heard of the legend in the first place. Even if they have, the stories have to compete with far more interesting stories they have played on their Playstations or seen on television.

This is not defeatest. I remember in the early 1970's a group of Basildon Year 10 lads being very impressed by the model Messerschmitt 109 I showed them, and my explanation of the relative merits of the Spitfire and Hurricane, to the point where they really listened to my account of Britain standing alone. But then this was my personal way of weaving the story of a few brave fliers into the big narrative of history (and if I was telling the story now I would say much more about the brave German fliers too); but I certainly don't need the help of government to tell stories like this.

Fourthly, as pointed out above, the government's approach is philosophically flawed. 'There is no metanarrative' is now the current wisdom with regard to History, and much else. Telling 'Our island story' should for that reason be ideally the job of the individual History teacher, or possibly a team, but certainly not a government telling laying down what the story is or what the important parts are. Modern media has opened up children's imagination to a wider time frame and a wider universe, and that is the framework within which History teachers have to make their own way.