THE Battle of Hastings is back on the blackboard after the Government made an unexpected call for the return of dates, timelines and chronologies in history.

Those schooled during the 1970s had dates of battles, reigns of monarchs and Prime Ministers drilled into them and will no doubt welcome the return of traditional methods.

Those who studied the subject more recently may see the move as a retrograde step, revisiting an era where you learn parrot-fashion rather than discuss and dissect the past.

In fact the Government has sought a canny middle ground, pick and mixing the best of both worlds.

Timelines will firstly be taught to provide pupils with a framework to build their knowledge around, then the teaching of "social history" - a modern practice - will be favoured.

Youngsters will be taught how everyday people lived and worked during different periods, and how their lives were affected by the major historic events.

This is a move away from "traditional history" - where pupils learn facts and key events of a period from the point of view of the king, queen or leading statesmen of the day.

It will also be a move away from the Hitler and Henry-dominated era since the 1970s, when pupils have learned select periods in detail but failed to grasp the wider picture.

According to Neil Morris, headteacher at Christopher Whitehead High School, the plans are a positive step.

"Teaching does seem to go in circles, but I think this idea is a good thing," he said.

"Worcester has a great history but people seem to get stuck just studying the 100 years up to the Civil War. If you want to specialise you can do so at A-level or degree level - at 14 it far better to have a broad knowledge.

"It is like learning languages. Why just offer French, if we can also offer Spanish and German to our pupils? The wider choice the better."

An Ofsted report last July was critical of current teaching, claiming some schools devoted too much time to the question of what history is, instead of what actually happened.

Other critics have claimed the rise and decline of the British Empire is not taught extensively enough, the nation's heritage is not well known and that the history of black people and slavery is also shied away from.

Overall, the trend in history has been a move from learning a brief amount about a great deal of the past, to a more detailed examination of limited periods.

So the Government took stock and announced the new, impressive-looking guidelines last week. The big question is how schools are to achieve this balance?

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), who have drawn up the guidelines, suggest the following trial questions for 11 to 14-year-olds:

Students may also be asked to place events on the horizontal axis of a graph, with corresponding feelings, attitudes and emotions on the vertical axis to bring the events to life.

Impressively, the Government has not only re-evaluated how history will be taught, but it is also planning to modernise the subject by making it more relevant in the job market.

A pilot course to be run next year will see history courses run jointly with subjects such as tourism and museum management.

Pupils may be asked to design and write a series of pages for a local history website or critically assess a museum display.

Again, Mr Morris is all for the experiment.

"History has become more vibrant but education is preparation for life and anything that brings history to life and makes it more relevant is great," he said.

And as the New Year begins, the early preparations seem to be well on track.