Is the real problem with history the fact that it is not really a problem at all? Surveys throwing up findings about children not knowing who Nelson was or thinking that Drake was a cricketer lead to cyclical bouts of outrage, but never lead to crises of the first rank.

Poor sporting or economic performance do lead to major discussions about the curriculum, along with statistics about functionally illiterate adults, crumbling classrooms and the crisis in teacher recruitment and retention. Quite rightly these cause widespread concern. It is perhaps surprising that the shaky awareness pupils have about Agincourt, Wellington and Churchill register any anguish at all.

The headline performance of history in schools hardly suggests difficulties - good teaching, positive OFSTED assessments, impressive results, training places being filled and serious fields at interviews. But history is being undermined. The Department for Education and Skills states that history is safe in its hands, but the problems are many and complex. Three issues need to be discussed widely and publicly.

First, how serious a place should the subject have? The original national curriculum had a rationale that was widely praised. Do we now feel that this is superfluous? What is its relationship with citizenship, with literacy and with other initiatives? Do we need toemphasise its role as the “people” element of a broad and balanced curriculum? The word “community” is common in government thinking. Should the debate seriously consider how history is vital to this?

Second, how much more can history be squeezed? New initiatives such as literacy and numeracy clearly achieve results, but history teachers have often lost out. Disapplication, reduced inspection of the subject, ICT, citizenship, education action zones, specialist schools and the like do not seem obvious allies for history in the curriculum. Will we soon have secondary school history down to 15 hours a year, which a recent Historical Association survey showed was the case in a number of primary schools?

Third, can we maintain the quality? Proposed changes to primary initial teacher training have caused alarm in the ranks of the Historical Association and our colleagues in the Geographical Association. The lack of opportunity for continuing professional development in history teaching also hints at future difficulties. The old system of local specialist advisory support has all but disappeared. As the subject is squeezed, so are the number of specialist teachers. Departments of one or two are by no means unique. Where is the stimulus? Will publishers continue to devote resources to a subject where there is less money to be made? Will museums, archives and local studies libraries be able to continue their support? How are we to attract ethnic minority teachers to the subject?

History in schools has been in some sort of danger for many years. A valid attempt was made with the national curriculum to stop it withering on the vine. The vine now shows signs of disease. Platitudinous words of encouragement rarely work in suchcircumstances.

The authors are committee members of The Historical Association, 59a Kennington Park Road, London SE11 4JH.Tel: 020 7735 3901. E-mail: enquiry@history.org.ukWeb: www.history.org.uk