Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Education: Whats the point of it?

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭kraggy


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Ain't that the truth?

    Have a look at a thread here on primary school hdip mock exam questions:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056553324

    Total nonsense. If you want your child to be taught religion, do it in your own time, it's your choice and your responsibility


    I spent 3 years doing a B.Ed and have taught in primary schools (temporary contracts and subbing) in Ireland. The aspects of ownership and rights of the church were never explained to us.

    We were asked to swallow the most ridiculous crap. Also there was an extra Relgion dip that was studied along with the degree. We were warned that we would not get a job if we didn't have it. Again, I stress, it has nothingn to do with the degree itself.

    I chose not to do it on principle and alas, I could not get a job and had to move abroad. The fact that Parish Priests are the Chairperson's of the Boards of Managment means that if you don't have the Religion Dip done, you're behind the pecking order from the start. A principal, the one with all the experience of running a school and working with teachers, can have chosen what he/she considers the best candidate for the job after all the interviews. But the priest has the final call. He can override the principals choice. If you don't have the Religion dip, you're screwed.

    Add to that, on my final teaching practice which lasts 4 weeks of full time teaching, I was assessed by 3 people. Teaching practice constitutes 25% of the degree and if you have to repeat one of them (there are 5), the best you can get is a 3rd class degree. No matter how well you do in the other 75% of the marks over 3 years of study, you can't get a 2.2 or 2.1. Which is fair enough seeing as it's a teaching degree. But imagine my horror when I found out that the head supervisor on my final teaching practice was not even a teacher and had no education-related qualification. This is the person who sees you teaching more than the other supervisors and who has the final say on your mark.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problems with education in Ireland. You wouldn't believe some of the other stuff if I told you.

    Can someone explain what's invovled in getting the Catholic Church out of the education system in Ireland?

    I mean specifically in relation to, what components do they own? The DES pays the salaries and owns the schools (as far as I'm aware), so why is getting the Church out such a difficult proposition?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    kraggy wrote: »
    I spent 3 years doing a B.Ed and have taught in primary schools (temporary contracts and subbing) in Ireland. The aspects of ownership and rights of the church were never explained to us.

    We were asked to swallow the most ridiculous crap. Also there was an extra Relgion dip that was studied along with the degree. We were warned that we would not get a job if we didn't have it. Again, I stress, it has nothingn to do with the degree itself.

    I chose not to do it on principle and alas, I could not get a job and had to move abroad. The fact that Parish Priests are the Chairperson's of the Boards of Managment means that if you don't have the Religion Dip done, you're behind the pecking order from the start. A principal, the one with all the experience of running a school and working with teachers, can have chosen what he/she considers the best candidate for the job after all the interviews. But the priest has the final call. He can override the principals choice. If you don't have the Religion dip, you're screwed.

    Add to that, on my final teaching practice which lasts 4 weeks of full time teaching, I was assessed by 3 people. Teaching practice constitutes 25% of the degree and if you have to repeat one of them (there are 5), the best you can get is a 3rd class degree. No matter how well you do in the other 75% of the marks over 3 years of study, you can't get a 2.2 or 2.1. Which is fair enough seeing as it's a teaching degree. But imagine my horror when I found out that the head supervisor on my final teaching practice was not even a teacher and had no education-related qualification. This is the person who sees you teaching more than the other supervisors and who has the final say on your mark.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problems with education in Ireland. You wouldn't believe some of the other stuff if I told you.

    Can someone explain what's invovled in getting the Catholic Church out of the education system in Ireland?

    I mean specifically in relation to, what components do they own? The DES pays the salaries and owns the schools (as far as I'm aware), so why is getting the Church out such a difficult proposition?



    The church in the vast majority of cases own's the land, and I'm fairly sure they own the school building too, in most cases.
    Schools in Ireland are not state schools with church involvment, they are church schools with state involvment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    RubyRoss wrote: »
    I've been of the view that algerba should be pushed more at a younger level and intergrated with a critical thinking/logic subject. Once students are thought to think, the subjects they choose are not so significant. Even those who are not naturally good at school would benefit from this emphasis on thinking over learning the right answer.

    IMO, the simplest route is just to teach philosophy as a core subject.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    The church in the vast majority of cases own's the land, and I'm fairly sure they own the school building too, in most cases.
    Schools in Ireland are not state schools with church involvment, they are church schools with state involvment.

    And it would cost the State an awful lot of money to take over all the primary schools currently run by the Catholic Church.


  • Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭RubyRoss


    Kinski wrote: »
    IMO, the simplest route is just to teach philosophy as a core subject.


    Philosophy can get out of hand though - witness the first-year philosophy student who becomes swept up in each successive big theory. In fact, that's one of the problems with universities: too much big theory without an adequate grounding in basics.

    Working with basic principles of reasoning could be a basis for teaching other subjects and subjects such as civics could develop a stronger basis in political philosophy and ethics.

    It would be like Plato's academy but without the naked gymnastics.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Kinski wrote: »
    And it would cost the State an awful lot of money to take over all the primary schools currently run by the Catholic Church.

    The State already pays the entire cost of running the schools, except for whatever fundraising the parents do. The church doesn't pay a penny.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Overheal wrote: »
    Oh, and as for special attention areas of school curriculum: Math, Math, Math. Particularly Algebra. If students aren't confident in Algebra they are more likely to be afraid of taking higher level math, all of which is required for the vast extent of higher level education and skilled labor.

    The only thing about maths that's pushed is how hard it apparently is. Primary school is spent learning nothing then in secondary it changes completely and everyone is convinced it's really hard and parents will agree with them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    The State already pays the entire cost of running the schools, except for whatever fundraising the parents do. The church doesn't pay a penny.

    They wouldn't hand over all that property for nothing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    RubyRoss wrote: »
    Philosophy can get out of hand though - witness the first-year philosophy student who becomes swept up in each successive big theory. In fact, that's one of the problems with universities: too much big theory without an adequate grounding in basics.

    Working with basic principles of reasoning could be a basis for teaching other subjects and subjects such as civics could develop a stronger basis in political philosophy and ethics.

    It would be like Plato's academy but without the naked gymnastics

    Undergraduate philosophy courses are designed by people who have dedicated their professional lives to studying this stuff; personally, I'm content to mostly defer to them when it comes to deciding what first year students do and do not need to cover.

    The history of philosophy, covering the major schools, the most prominent thinkers and the contexts in which they worked, and some central questions which philosophy as an ongoing discipline seeks to address, are the basics.

    An attempt to incorporate these things by tacking political philosophy onto Civics (or Double Math, second period, as it was known in my school) or shoe-horning informal logic in somewhere sounds half-hearted to me, and potentially half-assed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭RubyRoss


    Kinski wrote: »
    The history of philosophy, covering the major schools, the most prominent thinkers and the contexts in which they worked, and some central questions which philosophy as an ongoing discipline seeks to address, are the basics.

    I would see greater benefit in teaching basic reasoning/logic - mostly in the form of problem solving - over the historical development of major schools of philosophy.

    Our schools need to breed people who can think clearly - not specifically philosophers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭RubyRoss


    Kinski wrote: »
    Undergraduate philosophy courses are designed by people who have dedicated their professional lives to studying this stuff; personally, I'm content to mostly defer to them when it comes to deciding what first year students do and do not need to cover.


    I'm not questioning the value of university courses or the authority of those who teach them. I was simply making the point that philosophy students are very impressionable when they first attend to the subject as they have not yet developed the skills and concepts to offer substantial critiques. This three year university level stuff - not, in my view, suitable or necessary for schools.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,124 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    amacachi wrote: »
    The only thing about maths that's pushed is how hard it apparently is. Primary school is spent learning nothing then in secondary it changes completely and everyone is convinced it's really hard and parents will agree with them.
    Pretty much. Honors LC Math throws too much at students at once. Trigonometry yay fine... but then eventually you miss one class and suddenly your teacher is rattling on about dy/dx anf f-prime which makes absolutely no sense to you and then 2 days later oh hai it's Integration lets do that thing you didn't quite understand and do it completely backwards. Then lets throw probability and statistics at you to see what sticks. Slow it down a bit. Those things take a good chunk of time to grasp. The earlier the basics are taught the sooner you can teach the more complicated stuff, and have more time to focus on it, rather than throwing it all at students at the end of their 2nd level education.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    amacachi wrote: »
    The only thing about maths that's pushed is how hard it apparently is. Primary school is spent learning nothing then in secondary it changes completely and everyone is convinced it's really hard and parents will agree with them.

    Indeed, maybe if people would stop telling children from go that it's the hardest thing in the whole world ever, they might have more hope


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    RubyRoss wrote: »
    I would see greater benefit in teaching basic reasoning/logic - mostly in the form of problem solving - over the historical development of major schools of philosophy.

    Our schools need to breed people who can think clearly - not specifically philosophers.

    We don't specifically need to produce geographers, historians, literary critics, or biologists either, but we still teach these things. I wouldn't propose anything particularly challenging at that level either - just a basic grounding. They teach philosophy in French schools (in final year, I think), and there have been suggestions they may extend that to younger pupils. Personally, I think it could be a very useful subject to have in schools, particularly when you consider some of the nonsense that could make way for it...like Business (SWOT analysis! Synergy! Pro-active! Buzzwords!)
    I was simply making the point that philosophy students are very impressionable when they first attend to the subject as they have not yet developed the skills and concepts to offer substantial critiques. This three year university level stuff - not, in my view, suitable or necessary for schools.

    That's true. I think that happens more with students who are taking modules in Continental philosophy for the first time, doing Heidegger one week and Foucault the next. I don't think anyone emerges from an introductory lecture on Descartes or St Anselm going "Of course! It all makes sense now!" And it's something the students themselves become conscious of very quickly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Overheal wrote: »
    Pretty much. Honors LC Math throws too much at students at once. Trigonometry yay fine... but then eventually you miss one class and suddenly your teacher is rattling on about dy/dx anf f-prime which makes absolutely no sense to you and then 2 days later oh hai it's Integration lets do that thing you didn't quite understand and do it completely backwards. Then lets throw probability and statistics at you to see what sticks. Slow it down a bit. Those things take a good chunk of time to grasp. The earlier the basics are taught the sooner you can teach the more complicated stuff, and have more time to focus on it, rather than throwing it all at students at the end of their 2nd level education.
    Even Junior Cert stuff can be pretty daunting. I mean for 8 years you do the stuff you learned in the first two years over and over again with no reference to anything coming up in future. The idea that every function has a graph was something that took me a while to believe ffs. :pac:
    I agree with what you say though, while I maintain there's nothing particularly difficult in the maths syllabus in this country I do think that it can be pretty daunting for someone who doesn't 100% get it. As you say, miss one day or two days and it's moved on. If students had some kind of reference point as to what each little branch was about it would be a lot easier to slip back into the fold.
    bluewolf wrote: »
    Indeed, maybe if people would stop telling children from go that it's the hardest thing in the whole world ever, they might have more hope
    I remember that the very few times in primary school we did anything to do with notation in maths (sigma, x-bar etc. for statistics) it was prefaced with a warning about how difficult it was followed by repetition for a few hours. Calling it difficult is a bad idea obviously but as well as that it would be smarter to do a few different things each day rather than one a day while making the same weekly progress. Start having things click for them from an earlier age and their confidence would improve no end.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Godge wrote: »
    At primary level, the amount of time spent on teaching Irish and religion needs to be reduced with a greater emphasis on science and generic language skills focussing on modern European languages. A move back towards the teaching of basic maths and English literacy skills is also needed - if necessary more focus on tables and grammar.

    At second-level, in contrast, a move away from rote learning is required. The requirement to study Irish and English to Junior and Leaving Cert should be dropped - only one of the two languages should be mandated. This would leave it open for someone to take say, Irish, Spanish and French at Leaving Cert but not English. Setting of the exam and correcting of the exam should be taken away from teachers and the exams should become more generalised and random as the current situation leads to the teaching to the exam. I am slightly wary of continuous assessment unless proper quality assurance can be brought in. Teaching of religion at second level should be stopped.

    The reduction in the amount of time spent on Irish and religion is probably the most crucial change needed in our education system.

    Make English an option for the Junior Cert? :eek:

    Typo?

    Otherwise +1


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    Hypocritical as it may sound of me being a student who's benefiting from state subsidised education, I don't think education should ever be funded by the state.

    I think that our modern welfare state puts a greater emphasis on the quantity in education, rather than the quality of education. In the long run, this will and is leading to a decline in the quality of graduates and school-leavers.

    Education should not be a right, such a rights is unnatural. You're not born with the right to education, it is given to you at the behest of some state or organised body.

    Education is and always has been the voluntary improvement of oneself. It is a choice. To have an individual choice sustained shouldn't be held as natural rights, but rather the right to choose should.

    We have to realised that schools/colleges/universities are business and operate as such; always have always will - no matter how rosy an academic idealist might like to frame it.

    If no education was publicly funded (absolutely none of it), I'd argue that while the quantity of graduates would diminish somewhat, the quality of graduates would improve greatly. I'd also argue that the price of education would decrease relative to competition, in comparison to private schools/colleges/universities nowadays. This will make it affordable (and don't point out the US as an opposing example because the state gets involved in the funding of student loans, which has a backlash on competition).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    Education is and always has been the voluntary improvement of oneself. It is a choice. To have an individual choice sustained shouldn't be held as natural rights, but rather the right to choose should.

    Four-year-olds lining up for their first day of school are not engaged in the "voluntary improvement" of themselves. Should they therefore be denied an education?
    We have to realised that schools/colleges/universities are business and operate as such; always have always will - no matter how rosy an academic idealist might like to frame it.

    So Plato's Academy was a business?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    Kinski wrote: »
    Four-year-olds lining up for their first day of school are not engaged in the "voluntary improvement" of themselves. Should they therefore be denied an education?

    Well in that case, it's the parents decision to educate their child in a particular institution. And who's "denying" someone an education?
    Kinski wrote: »
    So Plato's Academy was a business?

    Yes. A not-for-profit business.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    Well in that case, it's the parents decision to educate their child in a particular institution. And who's "denying" someone an education?

    Your argument is that education can't be regarded as a basic right because it "is and always has been the voluntary improvement of oneself," which is inaccurate, because children are not capable of engaging in such voluntary improvement. No one could ever improve themselves in such ways if they had not been educated as a child (when it was not their decision).

    So your actual position appears to be that children should not have a right to an education, rather their parents or some other guardian should decide on their behalf whether or not they receive one, correct?
    Yes. A not-for-profit business.

    So far as I'm aware, Plato did not even charge fees to his students. In what sense was it a business?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭RubyRoss


    If no education was publicly funded (absolutely none of it), I'd argue that while the quantity of graduates would diminish somewhat, the quality of graduates would improve greatly.

    On top of what Kinski has already written, your reasoning isn't very clear.

    The quantity of students would not just 'diminish somewhat' if all subsidy was removed but instead drop dramatically as few could actually afford 20 years of education.

    I can only assume you expect the quality to improve because the class-sizes will be miniscule. Apart from that there is no relation between being wealthy enough to afford education and actually being a good student.

    No too long ago only wealthy people could enter the professions and there was no examination of ability for entering just money. Dr Ivor Browne recalls doing Medicine because law was too difficult and he describes a class peopled with not very bright but rich students who didn't really want to be doctors in the first place.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    Kinski wrote: »
    Your argument is that education can't be regarded as a basic right because it "is and always has been the voluntary improvement of oneself," which is inaccurate, because children are not capable of engaging in such voluntary improvement. No one could ever improve themselves in such ways if they had not been educated as a child (when it was not their decision).

    My argument that it isn't a basic right because it isn't a natural right. It is something that can only be given to you by a state or an organised institution. These sort of rights are fallacious as they assume the infinite supply of resources to provide such education, when in fact there is only finite resources available.
    Kinski wrote: »
    So your actual position appears to be that children should not have a right to an education, rather their parents or some other guardian should decide on their behalf whether or not they receive one, correct?

    At that age, yes.
    Kinski wrote: »
    So far as I'm aware, Plato did not even charge fees to his students. In what sense was it a business?

    What are the characteristics of a not-for-profit business, isn't boards.ie an example?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Hypocritical as it may sound of me being a student who's benefiting from state subsidised education, I don't think education should ever be funded by the state.

    I think that our modern welfare state puts a greater emphasis on the quantity in education, rather than the quality of education. In the long run, this will and is leading to a decline in the quality of graduates and school-leavers.

    Education should not be a right, such a rights is unnatural. You're not born with the right to education, it is given to you at the behest of some state or organised body.

    Education is and always has been the voluntary improvement of oneself. It is a choice. To have an individual choice sustained shouldn't be held as natural rights, but rather the right to choose should.

    We have to realised that schools/colleges/universities are business and operate as such; always have always will - no matter how rosy an academic idealist might like to frame it.

    If no education was publicly funded (absolutely none of it), I'd argue that while the quantity of graduates would diminish somewhat, the quality of graduates would improve greatly. I'd also argue that the price of education would decrease relative to competition, in comparison to private schools/colleges/universities nowadays. This will make it affordable (and don't point out the US as an opposing example because the state gets involved in the funding of student loans, which has a backlash on competition).


    Why should the children of wealthy people be favored over the children of poor people?

    There is no difference in the potential ability of the offspring of the two groups, so why should one be allowed an advantage in succeeding over the other, surely it would be better to foster genius wherever it comes from rather than allowing those with money to unbalance the playing field.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    MOD NOTE:

    This topic of this thread is "what is the point of education". It is not, "should education be publicly funded". If anyone would like to start a thread on that topic, then feel free. Otherwise, let's re-focus on the topic of this thread.


Advertisement