Among the 84 comments posted in response to the report, Australian history was variously described as ''a form of child abuse'', a subject school kids found ''boring as bat shit'' and something only useful for pub trivia nights. When it comes to Australian history, it seems many agree with Henry Ford: ''It's more or less bunk.'' In 2006, prime minister John Howard called for a ''root-and-branch renewal'' of history teaching in schools. He said history was neglected in schools and too often questioned or repudiated the nation's achievements. ''Until recent times it had become almost de rigueur in intellectual circumstances to regard Australian history as little more than a litany of sexism, racism and class warfare,'' he said. Two years later, the Rudd government announced a national curriculum would be introduced from prep to year 12. Australian history will be compulsory in years 5, 6, 9 and 10, but there will be no stand-alone Australian history subject in years 11 and 12. The national curriculum will provide for only two senior history subjects, modern and ancient, although those states that offer Australian history courses can continue to do so. The Australian Historical Association's president, Professor Marilyn Lake, says Australian history will still be taught as part of modern history, which covers the period 1750 to the early 21st century. ''I think all students who get to that level will have undertaken quite a large amount of colonial and modern Australian history,'' she says. ''Some of us worry they might be taught too much Australian history. In years 11 and 12 they have more choice and a more focused approach to aspects of Australian history.''

But the History Teachers' Association of Victoria argues the Australian content in the draft modern history curriculum is disjointed and optional. ''It does not sufficiently cover the key events and debates in Australian history,'' says acting executive officer Ingrid Purnell. And Geraldine Carrodus, a former chairwoman of the Australian history examination panel in Victoria, asks: ''Is there any other country in the world that does not offer an examination of its own history to its senior school students?'' A prominent Australian historian, Professor Stuart Macintyre, the co-author of The History Wars, was involved in writing the draft modern history curriculum. ''The rationale was that Australian history is best taught and understood within the broader framework of world history,'' Macintrye says. Students could compare the recognition and rights of Australian Aborigines in the 20th century, for example, with those of indigenous people in New Zealand, Canada or Brazil. ''I think the idea of a separate subject isn't terribly helpful.'' He also points out that the VCE subject ''revolutions'' - the nearest equivalent to modern history - is far more popular than VCE Australian history. It is also offered at far fewer schools - 81 compared with the 334 that teach revolutions. Last year just 1170 Victorian VCE students studied Australian history, down from 2504 in 1995. Meanwhile, the number enrolled in revolutions jumped from 1779 in 1995 to 5609 last year. It seems the storming of the Bastille, Bolshevik rule, Mao and the Great Leap Forward, and America breaking free of Britain holds more appeal than the discovery of gold and the Eureka rebellion.

VCE student Sarah Charles, who is studying revolutions at RMIT, says Australian history is already studied in the earlier years of secondary school. ''People pick revolutions because it is something new, rather than repeating something they have done in the past,'' she says. Peter Collas' ancestors were goldminers in Ballarat in the 1850s, and he still has copies of their correspondence. The letters portray a different person to the stereotype of the down-trodden unionist. ''They were part of society - they weren't quite as radicalised as history has presented,'' he says. ''Eureka wasn't a union uprising, it was a bunch of guys digging mines who were a bit peeved to have to pay an extra tax.'' But he says the way his children were taught about Eureka was heavily politicised. ''I remember my daughter coming back from a trip to Ballarat talking about Eureka as if it was the formation of modern unions. I think they dumb the message down and make it establishment versus rebels, monarchist versus republicans, left versus right, the noble unwashed against the unwashed nobles. ''Australian history has become used as a mechanism for politically correct indoctrination, and that's not something I want for my kids.''

John Whitehouse, a lecturer in history at Melbourne University, believes it is important to avoid repetition of topics in Australian history. ''There is nothing intrinsically boring about Australian history,'' he says. ''The key thing is for teachers to have a passion for the subject, so that they can make it live for students.'' One teacher who makes Australian history come alive is Kate Habgood. While teaching at Braybrook College, Habgood designed her own history unit on the laneways of Melbourne, using primary source documents. She taught her students that laneways in the Little Lonsdale area were slums in the gold rush era, showing them articles from The Argus that spoke of a criminal underclass. Then she asked them to think about how Sunshine is portrayed in the media today. The students said Sunshine was stereotyped as a dangerous place, with gangs at the railway station. ''When we talked about what it was like to live in Sunshine in reality, they said it's a suburban, family area. Showing them the difference between reality and people's perceptions helped them when we looked at the early history of Melbourne's laneways. They could really understand that people writing about the laneways were not the people who used it as a family area.'' Habgood says it is possible to make Australian history really interesting, but it does require deep knowledge. ''I don't think that is acknowledged enough by school managements, who often see the humanities as something anyone can teach.''

She is disappointed that Australian history will not be offered as a stand-alone subject in the senior curriculum. ''A lot of people say Australian history can be taught hand in hand with modern history, but I think a lot of depth will be lost,'' she says. The draft modern history curriculum is highly Eurocentric, she says, fails to emphasise Australia's indigenous history and lacks postmodern forms of analysis and social and non-Western history. Caulfield Grammar School offers VCE Australian history and revolutions. Australian history teacher Rodney Knight believes his passion flows through to the students but he admits attracting students to the subject can be a struggle. ''Kids think they've done it in previous years, whereas revolutions seems a more attractive option with its guillotines and what they perceive to be radical change,'' Knight says. ''But when you look at what happened in Australian history it was just as dramatic, with the complete, rapid and violent overthrow of one social and economic system by another.'' A Caulfield Grammar student, Emily Davis, says VCE Australian history is definitely not boring. ''I find it fascinating,'' she says. Her class compared the way Australia dealt with the Depression with its response to the global financial crisis. ''I think Australian history resonated with me because it would be learning about what shapes the country I'm living in today. I think that's really interesting. I know history repeats itself.''

jtopsfield@theage.com.au