On average, only 4% of curriculum time at primary school is allocated to history. It might seem therefore that the Rose proposals will have only a minor effect on pupil experience of the subject.
However, Rose needs to be put in the context of a series of cuts that have been introduced since Kenneth Baker's abortive attempt to make history a compulsory part of the national curriculum twenty years ago and which have seen history's place within the overall school curriculum progressively shrink.
As things now stand two-thirds of pupils do not study any history after the age of 14 – a national disgrace.
Moreover, many schools have cut the time spent on the subject between ages 11 and 14.
The Rose proposals will therefore exacerbate an already unsatisfactory situation. It is not that there isn't a need for reform of the history curriculum but it needs to be done in a holistic way, addressing issues of continuity and content across the whole of the 5-19 curriculum, rather than in the piecemeal manner that has characterised recent reforms.
Policy has been akin to periodically replacing bits of a Ford in the hope that you'll build a Rolls Royce. The danger is you end up with a Trabant.
• David Nicholls is professor of history and economic history at Manchester Metropolitan University
