For many years the history of education had a prominent place as a subject in courses for the education and training of teachers. At least three major aspects are discernible in the history programmes in question: the ideas of the ideologues of the subject, the history of institutions nourishing them, and a narrative study of education systems with the focus on Acts and "Great Men". One of the foci in each case was the curriculum. By the late 1960s the subject was so firmly entrenched in courses that Simon (1969: 91) could argue as follows: "There is no need to make a case for the study of the history of education as an essential aspect of the course offered to intending teachers. It has long been accepted as such in most colleges and universities and is almost universally taught in itsIt own right as part of the education course." Within a few years, however, such an argument was no longer acceptable. Increasingly, it was being argued that just because something has been studied and taught for a long time does not mean that it should continue to be taught. The development of psychology and philosophy and their application to educational issues seemed to approximate more to the everyday concerns of teachers while sociology and comparative education seemed to offer more valid perspectives than history on the workings of educational institutions and systems.
O'Donoghue, T. A. (1993). CLIO and the Curriculum: History and the True Professional. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.1993v18n1.4