I wrote an answer to this question regarding how economists evaluate a specific subject in a given curriculum.
Subjects which develop skills that have labour market significance are valuable to a curriculum from an economic perspective. However as an armchair economist I find it difficult to argue a for a reason why to teach a country's history or any world history at all if it has no labour market implications.
However we find that many high schools and universities require students to take electives in history. Why is this the case?
Please provide sources for your reasoning.