If you were the Minister for Education...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

... what changes in secondary school subjects would you make?

I made a post a while back, can't remember which thread, too lazy to look it up, about the education system not being rounded enough and needing to teach more than just intellectual sh1t and prepare for college; and was quiet surprised when it went down rather well. Anyway, it got me thinking about what should or should not be part of the junior and leaving certs.

Personally, I'd bring in meditation/spirituality (NOT to be confused with religion/catholicism), driving lessons and office studies (as in typing, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, not making tea or shagging the secretary/boss) as full syllabi, alongside history, geography and the like. I'd also downgrade ALL subjects to optional after the junior cert. Don't think I'd get rid of anything altogether though.

(I know some of these things might already be happening - it's been a while since I was in school !

So, floor is yours. If you had the power, what would you remove or add?

MaybeLogic

+1 on the meditation.
Proper sex education.
Proper drug education (no chance).

Scrambled egg

More emphasis on actual education rather than on remembering useless information.

K4t

Sexual education obviously but also alcohol awareness. It really can take over in college. Some of the things I've seen and experienced in one semester of college as a result of alcohol abuse is frightening.

Teutorix

Eliminate the presence of all mentions of any form of spirituality from classes, including religion.
Schools are "educational" institutions not religious ones.

SeaFields

An emphasis on subjects which will aid in our building of a knowledge economy...
and make it more of a culture.

- More business orientated languages
- Programming

I'm sure others could add to this.

I wouldn't downgrade all subjects - a high level of maths is a must I think (taught by qualified teachers)

pablomakaveli

With Irish i would change it so students would spend less time reading poems and stories and instead put more focus on teaching them how to converse in Irish.

Maybe change the religion class to a type of culture class where the students learn about other cultures and beliefs.

Proper sex education.

A class where kids can learn basic computer skills which is essential these days. I was lucky enough to have a computer lab in my school where we were taught how to use excel and word etc.

bleg

I'd take the current higher level maths programme for the leaving cert as the benchmark. The exams frequently involve encountering a tough problem looking at it logically and using what you've learned to solve the problem. Requires actual thought and not regurgitation. Critical thinking is essential.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Teutorix wrote: »

Eliminate the presence of all mentions of any form of spirituality from classes, including religion.
Schools are "educational" institutions not religious ones.

There is a BIG difference between "religion" and "spirtuality"!!! I'd leave religion in, but as an optional, and teaching about ALL different faiths. It;s no less relevant in understanding cultures and ways of the world than history or geography.

---

Interesting point about the maths. I think, though, a seperate problem-solving course would be needed, because with maths, it doesn't train you how to actually transfer it to everyday situations. I did honours maths, so I see what you mean, but it's way to evolved.

Still think they should all be optional though - if you're going for a career that needs it, fine, then choose it, but that doesn't mean that everyone should.

I'd include relationship issues in the sex education (but that was probably implied anyway)

rantyface

Scrambled egg wrote: »

More emphasis on actual education rather than on remembering useless information.

Like history, geography, maths, science, languages, music, art...? Why are people so opposed to learning facts and skills? Personal development happens naturally. It can't be forced. Any attempts by my teachers to start philosophical debates in class were met with scoffing and eye-rolling. Also people were generally too embarrassed to voice their opinions.

My experience of a science degree is that it involved a LOT of learning for the first three years, and then for my thesis I applied what I knew to design new drugs. They didn't work... but it was great fun all the same and I couldn't have done it if I hadn't "remembered information". Same for music- scales, theory classes and technical exercises are boring but you can't play Beethoven if you don't learn the hard stuff first.

I have forgotten most of the History I learned for junior cert, but I liked it at the time, and people who enjoyed it more went on and studied it more. Remembering information is also a skill in itself- some people don't know how to study!

I think the standards will go up with the increased competition. Only half of the students applying to go to university will get in now. I don't really think Irish should be mandatory for leaving cert provided you study at least one language other than English.

What do you mean by "actual education" then?

partyatmygaff

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Maybe change the religion class to a type of culture class where the students learn about other cultures and beliefs.

That's what it is already...



Anyways for the Leaving Cert Anyways


-More Computer based subjects, Programming e.t.c. Not "Office Skills" or some BS like that
-Driving class as a non-exam subject
-Splitting Irish into two electives, one for Literature and one for Conversational Irish
-Pushing the marks weighting of the Oral and Aural exam to 60% for all exams.
-Revising the business/accounting syllabus to modernise it by adding computer systems (Not the crap that it is now a la "What does RAM stand for?")

SeaFields

partyatmygaff wrote: »

-Splitting Irish into two electives, one for Literature and one for Conversational Irish

That's a very good idea. Perhaps the latter a junior cert subject and the former an optional leaving cert program.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

rantyface wrote: »

Like history, geography, maths, science, languages, music, art...? Why are people so opposed to learning facts and skills? Personal development happens naturally. It can't be forced. Any attempts by my teachers to start philosophical debates in class were met with scoffing and eye-rolling. Also people were generally too embarrassed to voice their opinions.

No problem with this, but at the moment there is a top-heavy imbalance is knowledge and fact based. What's the point in having this knowledge if you can't use it to form an opinion, and what's the point of having one if you can't express it?

My experience of a science degree is that it involved a LOT of learning for the first three years, and then for my thesis I applied what I knew to design new drugs. They didn't work... but it was great fun all the same and I couldn't have done it if I hadn't "remembered information". Same for music- scales, theory classes and technical exercises are boring but you can't play Beethoven if you don't learn the hard stuff first.

I have forgotten most of the History I learned for junior cert, but I liked it at the time, and people who enjoyed it more went on and studied it more. Remembering information is also a skill in itself- some people don't know how to study!

I think the standards will go up with the increased competition. Only half of the students applying to go to university will get in now. I don't really think Irish should be mandatory for leaving cert provided you study at least one language other than English.

You seem to think that the whole point is University. Well, a lot of people have no interest in further education: should they just be dragged along until? Why does it have to be a competition...? (Not saying NONE of it should be, which brings me back to my original point of introdicing a bit of variety)

If you're writing a thesis in something, you're not in secondary school. By that stage things are a LOT more specific and you've CHOSEN to go down that path.

What do you mean by "actual education" then?

Can't answer this, as I never said it.

Hank_Jones

Certainly think that they should be taught about giving presentations.
This will allow them to get better confidence infront of crowds from an early age and prepare them for a large part of business etc.

I honestly can't remember ever having to stand in front of a group of people and deliver a speech.
Certainly got a shock when I reached college and I was expected to do it pretty much every week/month.

Teutorix

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

There is a BIG difference between "religion" and "spirtuality"!!! I'd leave religion in, but as an optional, and teaching about ALL different faiths. It;s no less relevant in understanding cultures and ways of the world than history or geography.

That was my point, I am sick of my religion teacher rambling on about god and all that other fairytale ****e. the class is about studying the religions of the world, their structure their beliefs etc. ITS NOT FÚCKING SUNDAY SCHOOL

bleg

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Interesting point about the maths. I think, though, a seperate problem-solving course would be needed, because with maths, it doesn't train you how to actually transfer it to everyday situations. I did honours maths, so I see what you mean, but it's way to evolved.

Still think they should all be optional though - if you're going for a career that needs it, fine, then choose it, but that doesn't mean that everyone should.

Well it's the logical thought processes that I would take as benchmark i.e. transfer it to other subjects. I know it would work well in Biology, Chemistry and Physics at LC level.

It definitely stood to me in university when I was dealing with more complex logic.

spurious

A great deal of what people are suggesting here is already done in the Applied Leaving Cert..

pablomakaveli

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's what it is already...

It mainly only deals with different beliefs or at least when i was in school it did. In terms of culture it was only culture that was related to belief. I'm talking about learning about cultures without being limited to the cultures of belief for example learning about culture in the Far-East or African culture.

SeaFields

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Still think they should all be optional though - if you're going for a career that needs it, fine, then choose it, but that doesn't mean that everyone should.

I think there are essentials that should make up the curriculum. Maths being one. Its brings a different type of thinking....one that is different from the identical culture of regurgitation that most subjects involve.

I don't think subject should be chosen at this level with one eye on a career. We pick these at 14 or 15 years of age. Too young IMO to be considering a future career but other may beg to differ.

Hank_Jones

spurious wrote: »

A great deal of what people are suggesting here is already done in the Applied Leaving Cert..

Ahh yes, but what percentage of students are doing the applied leaving cert?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

bleg wrote: »

Well it's the logical thought processes that I would take as benchmark i.e. transfer it to other subjects. I know it would work well in Biology, Chemistry and Physics at LC level.

It definitely stood to me in university when I was dealing with more complex logic.

In other words, further study. But I see what you mean: I just don't think it works as well within a specific subject. Students who don't like/aren;t good at a particualr subject won't benefit.

bleg

Students should be thought how to think and not spoonfed. Especially the brighter ones.

Teutorix

spurious wrote: »

A great deal of what people are suggesting here is already done in the Applied Leaving Cert..

Most people view the LCA as "loosers cant achieve" or "lets count apples" and other such funny reverse acronyms

bleg wrote: »

Students should be thought how to think and not spoonfed. Especially the brighter ones.

This is my biggest problem in school, the teachers talk to me like im 5, not to sound cocky but im probably smarter than almost all of them. (-_-)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Teutorix wrote: »

Most people view the LCA as "loosers cant achieve" or "lets count apples" and other such funny reverse acronyms

Oooh.... do I detect a wiff of intellectual snobbery...?!

Teutorix

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Oooh.... do I detect a wiff of intellectual snobbery...?!

I said most people... like the same people that take the piss out of me because im an atheist.

phasers

Yep, LCA was always seen as the idiot's Leaving Cert in my school, probably because out of the class of 15 6 of them were pregnant by the end of 6th year, and 12 of them are now on the dole


I'd make Irish optional and teach it like French is taught, Bring in Driver's ed, proper sex education, and overhaul several of the courses to focus more on actual education than people just remembering facts.

amacachi

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Oooh.... do I detect a wiff of intellectual snobbery...?!

When most of the maths paper is Primary-School level stuff I find it hard to blame people who feel that way.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Teutorix wrote: »

I said most people... like the same people that take the piss out of me because im an atheist.

Fair enough - but I think the LCA has its place. However, judging by your ealier post lumping religion in with athiesm, I am of the felling that "other people" might just include yourself.

In other words (and apologies if wrong) you seem to think that if you don't get something from it, it's pointless to everyone.

spurious

Teutorix wrote: »

Most people view the LCA as "loosers cant achieve" or "lets count apples" and other such funny reverse acronyms

Of course they do and most of them know nothing about it.

The same people think 'the VEC' isn't good enough for them at 12, but charge for places at PLCs in VEC schools when their 'oh so much better school' didn't result in them getting enough points to get directly into college.

Irish snobbery - one of the many things that holds us all back.

partyatmygaff

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Oooh.... do I detect a wiff of intellectual snobbery...?!

Well, the fact that most people who do LCA (In my School at least) are the laziest "I don't care about school, look at how cool I am" retards that you could find.

It's the same as foundation level subjects tbh. It's meant to be for those who are very weak in an area but most of the people who choose foundation do it because they can't be bothered doing anything more challenging.

partyatmygaff

Teutorix wrote: »

This is my biggest problem in school, the teachers talk to me like im 5, not to sound cocky but im probably smarter than almost all of them. (-_-)

Somehow I doubt you've went to university and studied all that they have.



Seriously, that's like "I amn't a racist but...."

SeaFields

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It's meant to be for those who are very weak in an area but most of the people who choose foundation do it because they can't be bothered doing anything more challenging.

Many of these individuals come from difficult backgrounds, be they family or social, or are not able intellectually for the level of study on offer.

The "i'm too cool for school" attitude is a just a front.

Hank_Jones

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Somehow I doubt you've went to university and studied all that they have.



Seriously, that's like "I amn't a racist but...."

To be honest I thought a bit like that in school. In hind sight I was right in some aspects, but certainly wrong in others.
They are clearly not stupid people, teachers train hard to become what they are and have to do quite a lot of book learning in order to gain their qualifications.
I suppose since they had that position of authority I expected them to be something special.
I remember doing Shakespeare, and the teacher would stop on lines when she knew what was going on and basically traslate that into modern english.
But then she would just shh anyone that was asking questions when she didn't know what something meant.
Was kind of a let down. But then again, they are only people.
Not everyone is going to be on the level of college professors.

Teutorix

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Somehow I doubt you've went to university and studied all that they have.



Seriously, that's like "I amn't a racist but...."

More educated |= smarter

You need to differentiate education from intelligence, i know quite a few supposedly educated people that arent the brightest intellectually.

Take my English teacher for example. She is presumably a qualified teacher yet I had to explain the difference between a colon and a semicolon to her, and also had to correct her pronunciation of a bucket load of words in Hamlet.

andrew

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Personally, I'd bring in meditation/spirituality (NOT to be confused with religion/catholicism), driving lessons and office studies (as in typing, Word, Excel, Powerpoint,

I dunno, is it really necessary to teach something most people figure out for themselves? It doesn't take long to know enough about word to be able to bang out a simple word document. Though at the same time, I'd probably agree with you.

I think economics should be a mandatory subject. People make too many bad decisions based on flawed economic thinking, like Purchasing assets during a bubble thinking the price will always go up*, voting for parties who spend too much (when I have it, I spend it...), opposing fiscal austerity and spending cuts when they're needed, and not getting the idea of opportunity cost in general. So on a personal level I think it'd help people allocate their money better. In general I think it'd make for better governance and perhaps an electorate who'll oppose government spending which might benefit them in the sort term but which in the long term is bad for everyone.

*Obviously people will do this anyway, but the less people who do it the better.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

andrew wrote: »

I dunno, is it really necessary to teach something most people figure out for themselves? It doesn't take long to know enough about word to be able to bang out a simple word document. Though at the same time, I'd probably agree with you.

I'm thinking here of employment level PC skills, as opposed to recreational quality. I don't think the skilsl are as weidespread as you, though.

I think economics should be a mandatory subject. People make too many bad decisions based on flawed economic thinking, like Purchasing assets during a bubble thinking the price will always go up*, voting for parties who spend too much (when I have it, I spend it...), opposing fiscal austerity and spending cuts when they're needed, and not getting the idea of opportunity cost in general. So on a personal level I think it'd help people allocate their money better. In general I think it'd make for better governance and perhaps an electorate who'll oppose government spending which might benefit them in the sort term but which in the long term is bad for everyone.

*Obviously people will do this anyway, but the less people who do it the better.

I don't think the ecnomics syllabus I did would help, but some form of basic household/personal economics wouldn't be a bad idea. The probelm though is greeedy bankers and ineffective politicans who DO know better would still encourage said people to borrow (at least during the boom the would have).

Mrmoe

Information technology skills definietly need to be improved. It has been a good few years since I was in secondary school but it literally non existant when I was there.

Teutorix

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I don't think the ecnomics syllabus I did would help, but some form of basic household/personal economics wouldn't be a bad idea. The probelm though is greeedy bankers and ineffective politicans who DO know better would still encourage said people to borrow (at least during the boom the would have).

Junior cert business studies is a very good course for practical things, house hold budgets, accounts, cheques, all sorts of bussiness related things that effect our lives.

LC business isnt as good in that respect though IMO

andrew

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I don't think the ecnomics syllabus I did would help, but some form of basic household/personal economics wouldn't be a bad idea. The probelm though is greeedy bankers and ineffective politicans who DO know better would still encourage said people to borrow (at least during the boom the would have).

Make that a (modified) economics course then. It's would overcome (partly) the problem you mention, because then people would be able to recognise those politicians who are economically illiterate and ignore them/not elect them in the first place.

rainbow kirby

Would introduce a harder maths course, with bonus points going for it. Would also introduce a computing course, introducing programming and basic CS concepts.

I'd change the Irish syllabus to make it much more about communication and less about literature, and I'd make it and English optional.

I'd also like to see a proper inclusive sex education syllabus introduced, with no church opt-outs.

PE as a proper subject for LC would be nice, possibly teaching some exercise physiology, sports psychology, coaching etc.

seanhelm

Teutorix wrote: »

More educated |= smarter

You need to differentiate education from intelligence, i know quite a few supposedly educated people that aren't the brightest intellectually.

Take my English teacher for example. She is presumably a qualified teacher yet I had to explain the difference between a colon and a semicolon to her, and also had to correct her pronunciation of a bucket load of words in Hamlet.

I'm an employer, have an IQ of 128 and have a long life experience. When recruiting i look for individuals with an open mind, who have an ability to listen, are willing to accept diversity and faults among their colleagues, show mutual respect and most importantly are team players. I adopt a challenge leadership style which gives each the space to speak his/her mind. As a consequence i learn from them and the whole organisation benefits.

Take your attitude towards LCA for example ... I presume a highly intelligent individual such as you has heard of Gardner's multiple intelligence theory? Maybe not ... never mind ... my point here is that if you fail to respect towards your schoolmates and teachers then chances are you'll fail to show respect for customers and clients in future employment.

I certainly wouldn't employ someone with your outlook on life.

As for Hamlet .... well, I'm quite sure that you can identify with his inflated sense of himself, presumptuousness, self-assuredness and a tendency to shift blame onto others, for example after killing Polonius, instead of admitting fault and feeling remorse at his mistake, Hamlet instead shifts the focus to Claudius - See Act 3.sc 4. lines 29-30).

"Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive." Nietzsche.
:cool:

bonerjams03

spurious wrote: »

A great deal of what people are suggesting here is already done in the Applied Leaving Cert..

That's irrelevant. A small amount of people ever go on to do LCA, mainly because it's looked down on and doesn't provide you with means to go to University.

Also, this Computer Lab talk. I'm in school, from Junior Cert on there are Computer classes where nobody pays attention or cares as most kids these days can use word. Excel maybe might provide a lesson or two but nothing beyond that.

What's more what would you teach in place of History, geography etc. Sometime's it's ignorant to not know history at all. There's something to be gained from learning facts, developing and broadening your mind, even if it's just about Rivers or Hitler.

I was provided with two bouts of Sex Ed. from my SPHE teacher (over a few weeks) and from an outside speaker who spoke to all of our classes.

As for tax and driving lessons, some could argue driving will become less valuable over time, and again there's only so much time you can spend on tax.

The essential framework of the system, in my opinion, is fine. There are a few things to iron out in languages in particular, but there is already a new Irish Curriculum for LC starting next year with 50% marks for spoken Irish.

It's pretty much grand.

Edit: I'm in a VEC. (just for the record)

Teutorix

seanhelm wrote: »

I'm an employer, have an IQ of 128 and have a long life experience. When recruiting i look for individuals with an open mind, who have an ability to listen, are willing to accept diversity and faults among their colleagues, show mutual respect and most importantly are team players. I adopt a challenge leadership style which gives each the space to speak his/her mind. As a consequence i learn from them and the whole organisation benefits.

Take your attitude towards LCA for example ... I presume a highly intelligent individual such as you has heard of Gardner's multiple intelligence theory? Maybe not ... never mind ... my point here is that if you fail to respect towards your schoolmates and teachers then chances are you'll fail to show respect for customers and clients in future employment.

I certainly wouldn't employ someone with your outlook on life.

"Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive." Nietzsche.
:cool:

If you had read all of my posts you would find that that was not my opinion of the LCA (which I have great respect for, more so than our ordinary LC) and the opinion of the ignorant masses in my school. And yes i have heard of Gardeners multiple intelligence theory and I have even taken a test based on the theory called the Differential Aptitude Test or DATS.

I must say that you seem to be the kind of employer I wish to work for someday.

seanhelm

Teutorix wrote: »

I must say that you seem to be the kind of employer I wish to work for someday.

Respect is the key ... not smartness, not intelligence, not degrees or a PhD .. simple respect ... been there done that .... good luck with your studies. :cool:

BOHtox

I would have a level in between honours and pass

honours maths is too hard but pass is far too easy same with Irish all other subjects are fine with a bit off hard work

El Siglo

Don't care about religion, but I would take away the emphasis placed on Irish. If you want to learn Irish, you'll learn it. I'd put more money and resources into Maths, science subjects and foreign languages. Irish is taught the wrong way in schools, it's taught almost the same way Latin used to be, as a dead language based on translating novels and plays etc... Irish should be taught as a useful day-to-day language, more emphasis on improving the spoken, probably incorporate it into business/scientific use (give Irish a purpose to learn as opposed to learning it on the basis of nationalism etc...), leave the heavy literature stuff to universities.
Maths needs to be improved drastically, every year is the same thing, thousands fail maths. This is a huge problem as nearly every technical job requires some mathematical ability. I'd definitely like to see actual computer skills being taught, how to use excel, word, powerpoint and some other technical programmes, e.g. in geography teach ArcGIS, in maths use R programming for stats, in technical drawing having the use of AutoCAD.
It's ridiculous to think that you come out of secondary school in the 21st century with as much skills as some one from the 70s. This whole hoo haw of bursting your hole in 7 subjects is ridiculous and is completely out of step with how things happen in the real world. Again though, anything that the state has power over will invariably be stuck in some arcane time warp.

BOHtox

1. I would introduce a level between honours and pass. Honours Irish and maths are too hard for me but pass is too easy . Especially in them 2 subjects. All others subjects are fine with a bit of hard work.

2. Proper sex education.
3.Mediation is a very good idea.
4.Reduce emphasis on religon and random facts and more on learning.
5.Leaving Cert Vocational Programme(LCVP) I would encourage as it teaches you how to do projects, interviews, cvs, etc
6.Less poems in Irish and more oral and grammar based exams.
7.Like the ecdl and other stuff where you learn how to use all aspects of the computer.
8.Driving lessons.
9.Proper teachers , I have 3 teachers who do not have the level of intelligence to be a teacher.
10.Maybe a compulsary transition year.

amacachi

Teutorix wrote: »

If you had read all of my posts you would find that that was not my opinion of the LCA (which I have great respect for, more so than our ordinary LC) and the opinion of the ignorant masses in my school. And yes i have heard of Gardeners multiple intelligence theory and I have even taken a test based on the theory called the Differential Aptitude Test or DATS.

I must say that you seem to be the kind of employer I wish to work for someday.

Ah the DATS, 99th percentile in all but one section, bit of a waste of time. :pac:

Also why would you want to work for someone who (mis)judges someone so hugely from a single post on an internet forum?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

IRcolm wrote: »

That's irrelevant. A small amount of people ever go on to do LCA, mainly because it's looked down on and doesn't provide you with means to go to University.

Au contraire - it's VERY relavant to people who don't want to go to university.

Also, this Computer Lab talk. I'm in school, from Junior Cert on there are Computer classes where nobody pays attention or cares as most kids these days can use word. Excel maybe might provide a lesson or two but nothing beyond that.

Do the train you to the point of bring able to use word/excel/powerpoint to professional office level?

What's more what would you teach in place of History, geography etc. Sometime's it's ignorant to not know history at all. There's something to be gained from learning facts, developing and broadening your mind, even if it's just about Rivers or Hitler.

By the time you get to junior cert (by the time you get to secondary school in some cases) you already have a basic grounding in the major events and players in history. I'm talking about going in depth, to political history and stragic develpments in wars as being optional.

partyatmygaff

amacachi wrote: »

Ah the DATS, 99th percentile in all but one section, bit of a waste of time. :pac:

Also why would you want to work for someone who (mis)judges someone so hugely from a single post on an internet forum?

Same here, According to them I had an aptitude in everything but languages where I only achieved a very good instead of an excellent....

Biggest joke of a test ever tbh.

amacachi

If it were up to me I'd shorten the whole system tbh. 8 years in primary school doing the same stuff year after year is a waste of time for a lot of people. 5 years in secondary school is a waste of time for a lot of people who have no interest or intention to pursue academics paths, and they could benefit massively from being taught and learning other skills during those years.
Irish shouldn't be compulsory.
I don't see the need for sex education to be taught in schools, parents need to step up.
I'd also like to see some kind of proper "streaming" for secondary school, but that's probably never going to happen.