The government wants to toughen up the education system, except when it comes to the history of World War One

Considering that the education of yesteryear was so superior, one wonders what they taught in history class at Maria Miller's school.

Not the origins of World War I, that is for certain. For if they had, our Culture Secretary wouldn't have been as mealy-mouthed when announcing the commemoration of its centennial this week. Miller's mission was to avoid judgment and strike the right tone.

Will that be how the subject is taught in Education Secretary Michael Gove's brave new world, too? Back to basics with our teaching, unless those basics upset our European allies.

Education: When it comes to history children learn only when, what, where and how. Not the most important question in any historical study: why?

And he reckons GCSEs were dumbed down. Fritz Fischer is the name you should know, kids. Don't let them shelter you.

Fischer was the first historian to examine the entire archives of the Imperial German government and, for this reason, his 1961 work Germany's Aims In The First World War rendered just about every other book on the subject obsolete.

Before Fischer, the powder keg theory held sway. Europe was a barrel of dynamite waiting to be set off. An arms race, lust for power and complex treaties involving all of the major nations meant it needed only a spark and the Continent would explode.

Fischer contended that the match was tossed intentionally by Germany. He argued, using much documented evidence, that Germany instigated the Great War in an attempt to become a world power.

The German government used the crisis caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand to act on plans for a war with France and Russia. It took a chance that Britain would stay out.

In announcing the centennial of World War One Culture Secretary Maria Miller's mission was to avoid judgment and strike the right tone

The ambition was the creation of a German-dominated Europe: Mitteleuropa. Fischer's work did not go down well in his homeland. His publisher's office in Hamburg was firebombed.

Other German historians, including Gerhard Ritter, attempted to refute his views. Germany took the rap for World War II, sure, but two in one century?

It was almost as if they were making a career out of it. Ritter successfully lobbied the West German foreign ministry to cancel travel funds allocated to Fischer for a trip to America.

Ritter claimed Fischer was 'anti-German' and his views 'a national tragedy'. His work is controversial, yes, but still the most authoritative on the subject - to all but our Government, who wish World War I to be remembered, but not well. Hardly a flying start for the education upgrade.

Children will go to the battlefields, but will learn only when, what, where and how. Not the most important question in any historical study: why?

One of my sons has just spent several years on GCSE and A-level history, getting good grades in exams he is now told were not fit for purpose.

The irony is that in his dumb world, it was all about why. A lot of modern history teaching is not just the stupor-inducing memory test that I endured, but an exercise in evaluating source material, to better understand the reason events happen. Is this source reliable, can that source be trusted? What is the motivation of the speaker?

And, no, he probably can't recite every English king and queen in order, but who cares? This isn't a game show. It's about learning.

There are a lot of knees being jerked around education these days. A lot of received wisdom, heads nodding, without too much thought. Consider Gove's abhorrence of retakes.

Retakes bad, we are told. But why? Did you pass your driving test first time? No? Can you drive now? Yes? So you retook it? How many times: two, three, maybe even four? And does that initial stumble make you a bad driver now? Do first-time passers not have accidents or convictions, too? So what difference does it make?

The failure gets there eventually and demonstrates the required knowledge to earn a licence. Statistics from 2010 showed first-time passers are 15 per cent less likely to have an accident, but more likely to amass violations, particularly those linked to aggression behind the wheel.

So retakes are not the worst, and are certainly permitted in adult life, particularly in vocational qualifications. So why should a teenager have to nail every exam straight out when grown-ups go back time and again?

Why should the standards for mathematics at 15 be different to plumbing at 25? You weren't very good first time around. You felt nervous. Maybe you had multiple exams in one day. You were wiped by the time the last one came around.

Interpretation: Fritz Fischer was the first historian to examine the entire archives of the Imperial German government and he concluded that Germany provoked World War I

Do have another go, see if you can do better. As long as the required knowledge sinks in eventually, what harm does it do?

Why do schoolchildren take two or three exams in one day anyway? My eldest son recently sat two important AS levels, history and geography, morning and afternoon.

He did the lot: four essay-based subjects, with two papers in each, over ten days including a weekend.

A friend had three exams in a day. If Gove wants to make tests tougher, fine, but how about a little help with the schedule? He set out his grand plan in a column in The Times this week. Just the one, though.

He couldn't be found elsewhere pontificating about the performance of England's Under-21 football team, or whether Simon Cowell was killing music. One column was enough, same as always. To do more would-be kid's stuff.