Organizing Curriculum – Why History?

“The medieval mind was quite ahistorical.  The study of history did not figure in the seven Liberal Arts of the Middle Ages, neither in the trivium nor in the quadrivium.  And the mentality of the Renaissance too, contrary to general belief, was not very historical either: Certainly it was not historical in the way in which our mentality is accustomed to the past.  The meaning of historical development, of a constant continuity with the past, was alien to the Renaissance mind.”  - John Lukacs, Historical Consciousness

 It seems that virtually all classical curriculum models use history as their organizational principal; typically using a cycle of three to six years to cover the history of civilization over the course of grades K through twelve.  One of the obvious benefits of this type of organization is that it has already been provided to us by many current classical educators and it is an organizational principal that can be used by those who aren't classically educated themselves – like me.   I can take a list of accepted classics and arrange them in an historical order.  But why use history as the organizing principal – especially if it has never been part of classical education in the past?  I've been thinking about this question ever since I read the preface to Norms and Nobility.  David Hick’s writes, “Although in my curriculum proposal I use history as the paradigm for contextual learning, the ethical question ‘What should one do?’ might provide an even richer context for acquiring general knowledge.”   Unfortunately Hicks does not expand on his statement, but it is thought provoking and raises good questions.  Why has the classical education movement stuck with history as the organizing principal?  What does the model itself communicate to students?   What other possibilities are there for organizing curriculum?