If you were education dictator?

smiles302

If you could completely change all or some aspects of our education system, what you would do? Assuming you had complete power to do anything you wanted. Money no issue.

I would trash the primary school curriculum. I'd make the priority of those 8 years simply to develop the interests of the child.

Imagine the progress possible if every 5 year old in the country could simply keep learning at the speed they are already learning and developing at before they step foot in school.

By the time they are 5, they have taught themselves to speak and to walk, by watching and attempting, with no fear of failing. They have learned an incredible amount about the world. Everything practical. Learnt with a fierce determination, a desire to understand and take part in the world around them.

This is long gone, for most by the time they turn 18.

So what do I propose? Honestly, I don’t really know. What I would do if I was dictator of all of education in the country would be change the layout of primary schools. The curriculum should not be what should be covered in what year but what should be covered in the whole 8 years. Classes wouldn’t be separated by age group but by subject. I’m not really sure how you would start it. The aim would be that kids could choose which subject to go to. The teacher would be there to help and not to lecture. The history room would have documentaries on DVD and books separated into eras and times in history. Nothing would be considered inappropriate for any age group. If a 5 year old wants to learn about what happened in Egypt let him, if a 10 year old doesn’t want to know any more about history leave him be.
Kids will learn how to read if you show them how many interesting things can be found in books. Kids will learn how to do maths if you show them the puzzles they can solve with maths. Some kids will love solving them, some will be bored. What do you get out of making these kids hate maths?
Within 8 years it can’t be that difficult to help kids figure out their interests, their strengths, encourage them to read, teach them the very basics of maths. The very basics being counting, adding, telling time etc. The things you actually need on a day to day basis.

I think it would be do-able. I think there would need to be a much greater selection of subjects in schools. It would mean more teachers and larger school buildings. People are crying out for jobs. Employ some builders, some more teachers and sort out the schools, once and for all, with real drastic change.

If kids had experienced enough of what is out there by the time they turn 11/12 they could make an informed choice about what to study in second level, and study things that actually interest them. Then instead of studying hard for your leaving Cert, you would be studying hard with a career goal in mind!
Imagine how much easier it would be to motivate yourself to study if you could tell yourself if I know all this stuff it will help me become a pilot. As opposed to now where you must study all this Irish to pass your exams to hopefully go on to do something completely different.

Chuchoter

Great topic!!

First and foremost I would scrap primary school Irish and replace it with Spanish or French. I learnt 0 Irish in those 8 years. Then I would reintroduce the primary cert. If you can't read and write by 6th class, you're repeating the year. I would bring in a set of 12 modules (two for each class, 1st to 6th) of really interesting things, like Geneaology, Animals, World Cultures, Media Studies. Just things to foster that whole love of learning thing.

In first year you would start Irish like we start French. You would only have 8 subjects for Junior cert. I would put in loads more project/research work for subjects like Science/History. There would be substantially less rote learning and a lot more reward for imagination and interesting points of view.

Senior cycle I would get rid of TY for starters. I would also scrap Project Maths because its stupid and I'd bring in bonus points for higher maths. Again, a lot less rote learning. I'd also introduce some kind of interview/essay thing into the CAO which would count for 150 points.

looksee

A lot of this has been tried to some extent, in the UK. Most of the ideas did not work. Children left to 'absorb' reading and writing capabilities simply failed to do so. Children left to explore education by themselves, absorbed very little. It is not true to say that primary school teachers lecture, they teach and help, which is a different thing completely.

Education will develop, and has, over the years. But I do not believe that throwing money at it, or providing over the top facilities is the way to do it.

Children should have clean, warm and pleasant surroundings, adequate equipment and facilities, and excellent teachers. At the moment if these could be provided along with the extra activity rooms that facilitate running a school efficiently, then they have the physical basis for effective learning.

If you concentrate on providing ever more complex IT facilities then the emphasis goes off the teaching and onto operating equipment. Children will get value out of a stage and their parents coming to watch their performance; or out of a room set aside for messy experiemnts, with weighing, measuring, mixing, cooking. Space to run around and play games.

Children need to be challenged by being taught and made to think. They need guidance and supervision, otherwise the weaker ones will just fall through the cracks and leave school with inadequate education.

Although they are out of fashion at the moment, it is only a matter of time before a certain amount of rote learning is re-introduced for times tables and spellings at least. One of the problems with children at secondary school at the moment is that the less able children have no experience of discipline in learning. I know its not pc to use the word discipline, but they have no idea how to structure an essay, organise a project, or understand instructions. If there were some sense of obligation to learning introduced in a bit of rote learning - obviously along with understanding what they are learning - I think it would be of value to them.

One thing I would like children to be exposed to much more is problem solving. All kinds of problems including practical and theoretical. Puzzle books should be included in lessons along with craft projects that require solutions. I think that if children learn that it is possible to 'work things out' they will become much more proactive in their education.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

1. Scrap the leaving cert. Introduce a more cumulative form of evaluation.

2 Dont force 17 and 18 year olds to choose a career at that age. Let them pick a specialty once they have entered third level.

3. Scrap religion and Irish from primary school. Bring in German and French.

4. Bring back compulsory Latin again.

5. Allow third level lecturers to implement attendance policies. Allow grants to be withdrawn if students consistently dont show up. Why pay for middle class kids not to attend class?

6.Insist in policy on parental involvement at home and with education. Or at least create schools where this ethos can be in place.

7. Better standards for infrastructure.

8. Better salaries for teachers with masters degrees.

9.Streaming for math and reading [English].

smiles302

metrovelvet wrote: »

5. Allow third level lecturers to implement attendance policies. Allow grants to be withdrawn if students consistently dont show up. Why pay for middle class kids not to attend class?

Some third level do have strict attendance policies. In NUIM, it varies per department, the Spanish department fail students who do not have a 70% attendance record and the computer science department multiply your exam result by your attendance, so unless you have 100% attendance it is reflected in your final mark.

looksee

Rote learning in the sense of learning off large chunks of Irish or the rivers of Ireland, I agree, but if students are not taught grammar and spelling and how to construct a letter or an essay then the existing lamentable state of written english will continue to deteriorate. There is an attitude that these don't matter, and the fact that it is considered inappropriate to comment on a poster's English on forums (fora ) supports this attitude. I am not suggesting that the grammar police should pick up every error, but if there were closer attention to it at school, it would eventually become less fashionable to write in an illiterate style.

I totally believe in problem solving as an essential part of education, but there is no reason to dump the routine information that is a basis to making calculations and writing literate reports.

I would also like to see more recognition of multiple intelligence. While all types should be explored intitially, there should come a stage when someone with an obvious strength in one and a weakness in an other should be able to develop the stronger one - and not with an end result of a written exam, memory is not evidence of intelligence.

mikemac

Better ICT training.
I can't say what standard is in schools now.
But I started an IT course in college not so many years ago and never used Windows or Microsoft office ever, just was interested in computers.

I wasn't on my own, the course was suspended for three weeks while we got basic training and this was 3rd level IT. Head of department was pretty angry over it.
lol, I didn't know how to save a file on a hard drive, File -> save as

So at least give students the chance to learn the basics. Many rural areas don't have broadband so students are limited what they can do at home

Truley

Schools that serve the best interests of the child not the parents, the state or the church. A large part of the day, at least two hours would be spent in the outdoors learning about and taking part in the natural world. Practical skills such as gardening, cooking, sewing and woodwork would be taught. Less emphasis would be put on exams and grades. Subjects like physical education, art and music wouldn't be considered doss subjects done on the side but proper subjects in their own right. And children would actually be taught how to read notation, and how to draw/paint rather than just copy by numbers craft projects.

So yeah I have a pretty strong idea of how I think education should be :P

Eliot Rosewater

I posted a video in the uniforms thread that I think merits posting here too. It's a funny and insightful TED video of (now Sir) Ken Robinson discussing education and creativity. It's well worth watching if you've 15 minutes to spare.

Robinson thinks that education adversely affects creativity and is geared towards job utility. As such, subject like maths are rewarded while things like dance aren't.

I don't think that's an excuse to abandon mathematics and have us dancing about all day. But it did make me think. Our current school system is geared towards academic success, and, as such, young people who are academically adept are seen as inherently more of a success that those who are not. As someone who's geared towards academics this culture has favoured me. But as I said in the uniform thread, just because I can pull off excellent grades in mathematics does not make me better or more successful than someone my age who can dance excellently. Or to someone my age who can produce great music. But in our academics-based educational system this appears to be the case.

That may be nothing more than abstract waffle. However I do think academic education fails some people. I think, for example, of friends of mine who didn't go to university. Teaching them things like Shakespeare didn't help them because it never fostered an appreciation. That's merely an argument against the current implementation, rather than the system itself. I do think, though, that freeing schools of hell-bent strict academic based rigour for those who it does not help, would be something worth considering.

rainbow kirby

- Teach Irish in the same way that modern European languages are taught, in terms of concentrating on communication rather than trying to jump straight to literature without a solid foundation. I'd also only start teaching it at the 1st year secondary school level, and teach a modern European language (French/German/Spanish) from age 5.

- All teachers properly qualified, preferably to a masters or 1st class honours primary degree level. The statistics for maths teachers (in terms of how many of them aren't specifically qualified in the subject) are an absolute disgrace.

- Proper IT facilities in all schools, well maintained, and utilised properly as a teaching tool. Teach proper research and academic writing skills to TY/senior cycle students too, it will help with the transition to third level.

- Introduce computer science, Chinese and PE as JC and LC subjects

- State-run schools should not teach religion, that should be left to private faith schools. Also, primary teacher training should not be run by religious institutions.

- 2nd class and 6th class are basically lost in Catholic primary schools due to the insane amount of time spent on preparations for the sacraments. This is silly, move the preparations outside of school hours.

- Look at possibly revamping the Leaving Certificate to something similar to the International Baccalaureate - 3 subjects taken at a more advanced level, 3 taken at a lower level, with a substantial coursework element (Theory of Knowledge - long essay).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

looksee

It may be heretical (to suggest third level is not for all) but I totally agree. It is a complete waste of resources to force non-academic people into academic slots. There is much more to life than academia, lets treat rhose alternatives with a bit of respect.

Ceart

smiles302 wrote: »

By the time they are 5, they have taught themselves to speak

No they have not. Children do not teach themselves to speak - those who speak teach them. There is proof that if a child were kept out of civilisations - with no speech of any kind - that they would not speak. How can this be if children are teaching themselves to speak by age five??

Fuinseog

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

ireland is not finalnd. thecost of lving is higher here. do the finnish teachers work after hours, ie managing sport (free of charge).

Fuinseog

rainbow kirby wrote: »

- Teach Irish in the same way that modern European languages are taught, in terms of concentrating on communication rather than trying to jump straight to literature without a solid foundation. I'd also only start teaching it at the 1st year secondary school level, and teach a modern European language (French/German/Spanish) from age 5.

- All teachers properly qualified, preferably to a masters or 1st class honours primary degree level. The statistics for maths teachers (in terms of how many of them aren't specifically qualified in the subject) are an absolute disgrace.

- ).

scool principals are interested in having a good GAA or rubgy coach, not a teacher with a masters.

Fuinseog wrote: »

scool principals are interested in having a good GAA or rubgy coach, not a teacher with a masters.



the majority of teachers have a poor education and are not really interetsed in their subjects. Business, science and maths are the exception, becaus ethey are 'serious' subjects.

Fuinseog wrote: »

scool principals are interested in having a good GAA or rubgy coach, not a teacher with a masters.



the majority of teachers have a poor education and are not really interetsed in their subjects. Business, science and maths are the exception, because they are 'serious' subjects.



irish is being dumbed down every year. a first year will learn 4 th class irish. alevaing cert wil struggle at saying 'hello'. parents do not wnat want Irish to be taken too seriously.

Earthhorse

Agree with a lot of the suggestions so far, such as removing Irish and religion from the curriculum (the former, I believe, would require a change to our constitution so you'd have to be more than education dictator ), and the introduciton of European languages at an earlier age. Would also like to see teacher-pupil ratios at a better level.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What's a math's teaching qualification? Is the number higher for maths than other subjects?

Personally, if I were in charge, my primary focus would be to introduce a comperhensive Phsyical Education programme at primary and secondary level.

I hesitate to use the word epidemic, but I wouldn't be the first to use it in conjuction with obesity to describe the rise in health problems in that area. It seems to me to be a definite case where prevention is better than cure.
Children no longer have the freedom we once did to play away for hours on the streets and are more inclined than ever to be sat on a couch staring at a TV.

We also have different attitudes to home and family; there are more single people than ever in the state, both in whole numbers and as a percentage of population, and in many families both parents are working anyway. This leads to a sort of "TV dinner" diet in a lot of homes which further exacerbates the problem.

Finally, we are more aware than ever of, and perhaps lead lifestyles which are more prone to, the effects of stress on our health. Exercise has been shown to be a great stress reducer.

As such, a physical education programme which includes:

• Warm up.
• Exercise.
• Meditation (yoga, breathing etc.)
• Biology - teaching people about their bodies in general.
• Hygiene.
• Sex education.
• Cooking, diet etc.

Would be of myriad benefit to our nation. It's already been said there is too much focus on the academic in our system, and I agree, but exercise has only been proven to boost academic performance; everybody wins. A healthier nation would also reduce the economic burden on an already strained and creaking health service which simply doesn't need the perfectly preventable phenomenom of widespread obesity presenting itself at its door.

donegalfella wrote: »

It's probably heretical to suggest that the answer is not third-level education for all. But it's clear that non–academically inclined students do not benefit much from college, while their more intellectually oriented peers could thrive better in a system that was smaller, more challenging, and had more integrity.

It shouldn't be. The problem is that college has become nothing more than a mill through which we process students - they emerge stamped "Ready To Employ". I often think I would have been better entering employment directly from school, being so much more eager to participate than I was after three years of a lifeless, dull time in college. That's speaking as someone who is, or was at the time, academically inclined.

At the very least there is something to be said for letting people venture out into the world to get an idea of what's out there before returning to college to study something they are genuinely interested in.

Eliot Rosewater

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But it is heretical precisely because going to college is perceived as being the greatest possible success a young person can achieve! This cultural perception, along with free fees and ready grants, has a lot of people going to college even though the course they are doing won't actually help them with where they plan to go, and this is something they admit.

But it's one of those perceptions that is very hard to tackle. And it negatively affects those who want to excel: if colleges and universities want to appeal to those who aren't really made for college, they will have to lower their standards.

Cuddlytroll

I just finished reading the book Sophie's World (which is a book for teenagers but I still found very enjoyable.) One of the cases the book makes was for philosophy to be made into a compulsory school subject for young people. I would be in favour of replacing religion with some kind of philosophy course, which could incorporate different people's concept of God while the particulars of faith could be taught at home.

What do people make of this idea?

Eliot Rosewater

Cuddlytroll wrote: »

What do people make of this idea?

I think a broad civics course that included elements of philosophy (such as politics and ethics), some economics and some basic theology (including atheism, and not advocating any particular religion, being rather a broad guide to students to enable them to better understand the world around them) would be very worthwhile.

looksee

the majority of teachers have a poor education and are not really interetsed in their subjects.

That is a very sweeping and unreasonable statement. Can you offer any evidence - genuine evidence, not pub talk?

Truley

looksee wrote: »

That is a very sweeping and unreasonable statement. Can you offer any evidence - genuine evidence, not pub talk?

I don't agree with that statement either and it certainly hasn't been my experience with teachers. To be honest having a masters/phd level of knowledge on a subject certainly doesn't make a good teacher.

Imposter

Why is a teacher having a masters so important? I would think anyone having a bachelor, an interest in the subject and the relevant teacher training should be qualified enough to teach any subject to leaving cert level!

How is the system in Finland? I know here in Austria most people who have gone to Uni have a Masters as that is the lowest qualification. A bachelor system is now been introduced though so I expect that to change over time.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PeterIanStaker

I'd get the Opus Dei heads out of the higher ranks of the Dept of Education.

Classes wouldn’t be separated by age group but by subject. I’m not really sure how you would start it. The aim would be that kids could choose which subject to go to.

While I don't agree with the "do what you feel like" approach suggested, I do agree classes shouldn't always be obsessing over lumping everyone of the same age together. The point of school is education foremost - surely - and ability is not chained to age.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

antidark777

Masters degree is fairly excessive to be honest. An honours degree should be and is sufficient is get into teachers training.

Fuinseog

Fuinseog wrote: »

the majority of teachers have a poor education and are not really interetsed in their subjects. Business, science and maths are the exception, becaus ethey are 'serious' subjects.

Poor education, because they might not have a masters? Hardly. If anything having a Masters is over hyped...

But in any case, lets talk teachers for a moment. I come from a family of teachers.

My sister is a primary school teacher and has a 4 year degree in teaching, and a 2 year diploma in child psychology.

My Mother has the same 4 year degree, and a masters in education. She also has tertiary qualifications in remedial teaching. She was a teacher for 25 years, and a school principle for the last 10 odd years.

My father has a 4 Degree in Commerce, and Diploma in Career Guidance. He's from the west of Galway so that covered teaching Irish for quite a while since he had done all this schooling in Irish.

Now I don't really get the need for teachers to have more than a degree in order to teach in primary or secondary schools. A masters isn't going to give them much more except for a piece of paper of dubious worth.

Eve_Dublin

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I posted a video in the uniforms thread that I think merits posting here too. It's a funny and insightful TED video of (now Sir) Ken Robinson discussing education and creativity. It's well worth watching if you've 15 minutes to spare.

Robinson thinks that education adversely affects creativity and is geared towards job utility. As such, subject like maths are rewarded while things like dance aren't.

I don't think that's an excuse to abandon mathematics and have us dancing about all day. But it did make me think. Our current school system is geared towards academic success, and, as such, young people who are academically adept are seen as inherently more of a success that those who are not. As someone who's geared towards academics this culture has favoured me. But as I said in the uniform thread, just because I can pull off excellent grades in mathematics does not make me better or more successful than someone my age who can dance excellently. Or to someone my age who can produce great music. But in our academics-based educational system this appears to be the case.

That may be nothing more than abstract waffle. However I do think academic education fails some people. I think, for example, of friends of mine who didn't go to university. Teaching them things like Shakespeare didn't help them because it never fostered an appreciation. That's merely an argument against the current implementation, rather than the system itself. I do think, though, that freeing schools of hell-bent strict academic based rigour for those who it does not help, would be something worth considering.

Loved that TED video Eliot and I played it for my students in English class today in Madrid (all adults working for a company that rents out space in shopping centres to companies). It got a great discussion going about what the students would´ve have liked to have done if they didn´t work there. One of them works in the sales department and as the class was going on, he was doodling something. At the end of the class he showed me what he´d drawn: it was an abolutely stunning portrait of yours truly (teacher´s pet, eh?)! I asked him if he ever considered doing something arty for his career when he was younger, he told me he never saw it as an option (this guy is quite talented as far as I could tell) and he was never encouraged at school (got into trouble for "doodling" in class) and now he´s working in a job he despises. He´s one of millions with the same story. Such a pity.

I think there's been some great idea's here, but I'd add one more.

In Secondary school, a soft subject. Basically "career, motivation and goals". I know some schools have them already, but its not very widespread. Career guidance is more of an afterthought instead of something step-by-step which is covered with students. In many cases, its the teacher playing up to the student rather than assessing the student and providing practical suggestions/advice.

So I'm in favor of teaching students to set targets/goals, a career plan that suits them, motivational exercises etc. Basically all the things I've had to learn on my own while working, which should have been taught when i was in school.

jackinyogrill

Deleted User wrote: »

I think there's been some great idea's here, but I'd add one more.

In Secondary school, a soft subject. Basically "career, motivation and goals". I know some schools have them already, but its not very widespread. Career guidance is more of an afterthought instead of something step-by-step which is covered with students. In many cases, its the teacher playing up to the student rather than assessing the student and providing practical suggestions/advice.

So I'm in favor of teaching students to set targets/goals, a career plan that suits them, motivational exercises etc. Basically all the things I've had to learn on my own while working, which should have been taught when i was in school.

Exactly. In my secondary school, that kind of education was actually left to a computer program that assigned possible career paths based on your answers to multiple-choice questions. I remember being very peeved when it kept telling me to become either a butcher or a dressmaker.

jackinyogrill

jackinyogrill wrote: »

Exactly. In my secondary school, that kind of education was actually left to a computer program that assigned possible career paths based on your answers to multiple-choice questions. I remember being very peeved when it kept telling me to become either a butcher or a dressmaker.

Was that "Pathfinder +HE Ireland"? My dad being an ex career guidance teacher decided to give it to me to check to see where my strength's lay or possible job industries. I'd returned to Ireland, and couldn't get work. Being a credit controller i figured it would be easy to get work, but employers in Ireland don't value experience the same way as employers in Australia. So i tried the software and it told me I should be a lecturer, librarian, or in PR. Funny results considering the stupid questions it asked.

jackinyogrill

I can't remember the name of the thing, but 'Pathfinder' sounds very plausible.

nyarlothothep

Make Irish optional
Scrap religion, introduce philosophy instead of which the study of religions would be a component like in Uni.

Introduce comp science classes

smiles302

An interesting video from ted.com on education

http://www.ted.com/talks/charles_leadbeater_on_education.html

caseyann

crayolastereo wrote: »

Great topic!!

First and foremost I would scrap primary school Irish and replace it with Spanish or French. I learnt 0 Irish in those 8 years. Then I would reintroduce the primary cert. If you can't read and write by 6th class, you're repeating the year. I would bring in a set of 12 modules (two for each class, 1st to 6th) of really interesting things, like Geneaology, Animals, World Cultures, Media Studies. Just things to foster that whole love of learning thing.

In first year you would start Irish like we start French. You would only have 8 subjects for Junior cert. I would put in loads more project/research work for subjects like Science/History. There would be substantially less rote learning and a lot more reward for imagination and interesting points of view.

Senior cycle I would get rid of TY for starters. I would also scrap Project Maths because its stupid and I'd bring in bonus points for higher maths. Again, a lot less rote learning. I'd also introduce some kind of interview/essay thing into the CAO which would count for 150 points.

And you think you have that right to speak for other families who want to learn Irish.Just because you didnt learn any?
I would turn it all around and have only Irish schools more of them and few English schools for people who dont want to learn Irish.And teach Irish history correctly.

I would invest in the sports end for children,everyday a hour of sports.Builds the mind also and the confidence and health.For every child the choice of sport they like.

jackinyogrill

caseyann wrote: »

I would turn it all around and have only Irish schools more of them and few English schools for people who dont want to learn Irish.And teach Irish history correctly.

I for one would settle for teaching the Irish language correctly, instead of relentlessly drilling in the artificially-constructed 'Caighdeán Oifigiúil,' which changes every time a new poll on the use of Irish is published.

Primary and secondary school Irish has been stripped of more and more grammar rules in the belief that this will somehow make the subject easier to learn, rather than investigate other methods of teaching it. Students who do well in second-level Irish have a vague sense that a certain sentence "sounds right," but they have no idea why.

That being said, I freely admit that I have no idea how the system could be improved. Maybe something like the Michel Thomas method in primary school?

philologos

I would change a number of things:
1) Make philosophy a subject at both primary and secondary school levels featuring all periods of philosophy from the Greeks to the present day (with optional modules perhaps).
2) Teach Irish as a compulsory subject until Junior Cert, but leave it optional for Leaving Cert.
3) Change the curriculum on the Protestant Reformation in history to make it more balanced.
4) Change the curriculum concerning Irish history to make it more balanced.
5) Teach politics or civics properly, going into electoral systems and so on and getting into debates about society. Or even just a general debating class.
6) Teach foreign languages in primary school in addition to Irish.
7) Reform the science curriculum to make it more robust including indepth teaching about evolution from primary school and the dispute that it has generated amongst certain groups in society.
8) Reform sex education, to include an indepth discussion into differing views in public on abortion, and impartially teaching different views of sexuality and gender.
9) Make the Religion course more indepth and challenging, demanding Scriptural study, and debate over topical issues involving religion and the challenges in reconciling religious thinking in terms of institutions, and in public. More emphasis on Comparative Religion. Teaching about religion in a robust manner, that doesn't just allow for students to know what it is on a basic level, but to know it well so they can make an informed choice on spirituality.
10) A much greater emphasis on Creative Writing in English, perhaps more choice as to what students want to specialise in, commentary on literature, or writing, or 50% 50%.
11) More teaching on ethics, either in the religion course, or in the new philosophy course I have suggested.
12) More teaching on Northern Ireland in the history and politics / civics curriculum, teaching on the Israel - Palestine conflict, and other notable conflicts around the world.
13) Contribute effort in allowing students to develop themselves spiritually while in school. A room dedicated to prayer should be in the school at all times.
14) Provide secular schools where there is demand for them.
15) Teaching computer science as rainbow kirby has pointed out already, emphasising how computers work on a hardware level, and looking into software development / web design.
16) Providing proper computing facilities to be able to do the above.
17) Teach subjects in terms of modules, like at university.
18) Get rid of school uniforms.
19) More continuous assessment. Mark students based on their overall time in secondary school instead of all just at the end.

ICE HOUSE

Driving lessons and a practical exam for it with a real driving test instructors and double points for it in the leaving.

metrovelvet

Public speaking, presentation, dramatic speech,and interviewing skills. Dance instead of phys ed for people who dont like contact sports.

looksee

Jackass - you would need a 40 hour week minimum to get all that in! On points 3 and 4 - more balanced which way?

philologos

looksee wrote: »

Jackass - you would need a 40 hour week minimum to get all that in! On points 3 and 4 - more balanced which way?

3) The Reformation is taught from a biased perspective, at least from what I remember of it. The English Reformation was taught as if it was just out of Henry VIII looking for an annulment. This isn't true, and there was a Reformation already under way in English churches before Henry VIII's decision. Tyndale, Cranmer, Hooker, and other English Reformers. Likewise, the German and French / Swiss Reformation weren't covered in enough detail.

Edit: I don't think the Puritans were discussed much at all despite them playing a huge role for criticising the Church of England for not reforming enough, and their exodus from England to the American colonies.

4) Irish history is often taught from the point of view of heroism. Disagreement or dissent even within Irish republicanism to violence isn't much talked about. Likewise dissent from the general public to violence that was carried out is very much hushed. I personally think perhaps it should be taught from a more impartial standpoint rather than the assumption that all acts that Irish rebels carried out were heroic.

Truley

Jakkass wrote: »

I would change a number of things:
1) Make philosophy a subject at both primary and secondary school levels featuring all periods of philosophy from the Greeks to the present day (with optional modules perhaps).
2) Teach Irish as a compulsory subject until Junior Cert, but leave it optional for Leaving Cert.
3) Change the curriculum on the Protestant Reformation in history to make it more balanced.
4) Change the curriculum concerning Irish history to make it more balanced.
5) Teach politics or civics properly, going into electoral systems and so on and getting into debates about society. Or even just a general debating class.
6) Teach foreign languages in primary school in addition to Irish.
7) Reform the science curriculum to make it more robust including indepth teaching about evolution from primary school and the dispute that it has generated amongst certain groups in society.
8) Reform sex education, to include an indepth discussion into differing views in public on abortion, and impartially teaching different views of sexuality and gender.
9) Make the Religion course more indepth and challenging, demanding Scriptural study, and debate over topical issues involving religion and the challenges in reconciling religious thinking in terms of institutions, and in public. More emphasis on Comparative Religion. Teaching about religion in a robust manner, that doesn't just allow for students to know what it is on a basic level, but to know it well so they can make an informed choice on spirituality.
10) A much greater emphasis on Creative Writing in English, perhaps more choice as to what students want to specialise in, commentary on literature, or writing, or 50% 50%.
11) More teaching on ethics, either in the religion course, or in the new philosophy course I have suggested.
12) More teaching on Northern Ireland in the history and politics / civics curriculum, teaching on the Israel - Palestine conflict, and other notable conflicts around the world.
13) Contribute effort in allowing students to develop themselves spiritually while in school. A room dedicated to prayer should be in the school at all times.
14) Provide secular schools where there is demand for them.
15) Teaching computer science as rainbow kirby has pointed out already, emphasising how computers work on a hardware level, and looking into software development / web design.
16) Providing proper computing facilities to be able to do the above.
17) Teach subjects in terms of modules, like at university.
18) Get rid of school uniforms.
19) More continuous assessment. Mark students based on their overall time in secondary school instead of all just at the end.

I think you would have got on well in a Waldorf school

strobe

I agree with a good few points people have made. I'd also personally scrap the leaving cert, the junior cert and the CAO points system. Entry to college courses would be determined by "aptitude tests" for want of a better term. Something testing knowlege on the basics of the subject. So if someone wanted to be a vetinary doctor they would only be tested on subjects realistically related to that course instead of having to score A1's in higher level French etc just to rack up a bunch of soon to be useless points.

I think this would not only mean students having a far greater interest in what they are studying in secondary school but would also cut down on the amount of students who end up dropping out of college a year into a course they realise they don't like and also ultimately lead to far better and happier vets, computer engineers, and history lecturers.

OxfordComma

Hmm, where to start?

1. I'd get rid of compulsory Irish for the Leaving Cert. Also completely change the teaching of Irish - get rid of all the awful poetry, drama etc. and teach it in much the same way as languages like French/German/whatever. Also, I wouldn't introduce students to Irish until 1st year of secondary school, or at least greatly reduce the emphasis on Irish in the primary curriculum.
2. I'd split English up into two subjects for Leaving Cert - Communication & Creative Writing, and English Literature. The former would be compulsory for college entry, the latter would be optional and would be a full subject focusing on poetry, Shakespeare and so on. Also, I'd change the way literature would be taught - a greatly reduced emphasis on rote learning, and less modern poets (of all the "great poets", Keats was the only one on the course for my LC). Both subjects would include essays/projects to be submitted before the exams, and would require a much better grasp of English than is currently required - poor grammar, spelling and punctuation would not be tolerated. It's alarmingly easy to get an A in English nowadays; this shouldn't be the case.
3. I'd introduce several new subjects - Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Law and Sociology.
4. A modern, practical language (French, Spanish, German, Chinese, Japanese...) would be taught throughout the primary curriculum.
5. I'd scrap religion from the primary school curriculum - the time would be much better spent on science/languages/something else.
6. I'd place more emphasis on mathematics and the sciences throughout.
7. I'd completely change the system of a single exam determining everything - I'd perhaps implement end-of-year exams at the end of each year of secondary school.

Just a few ideas there...

Riddickcule

Heres my go:

1.Secularize all state primary and secondary schools.

2.Scrap junior infants, senior infants, and transition year.Only 1st class - 6th class and 1st year to 6th year

3. Following on from point 2 school starting age goes up to 7 instead of 5. Finish school at 17/18.

4.Education spending no lower then 8% of GDP.

5.Uncomfortable school uniforms scrapped, replaced by trendy hoodies/tracksuits.

6. More emphasis on personal development then exams etc.

7.All JC students get a trial run of every subject they can, in 2nd year they choose what to narrow down to.

8 Subjects narrowed down again for LC

9.Far more PE time for students at both promary and secondary level, get students to experience all the sports they can.

I can go on forever but the effort of that.

Zeouterlimits

Plenty of (radical but) great ideas in this thread, even on the first page.

Personally I'd remove the compulsory nature of Irish, if not at primary eduction, definitely at secondary.

muffy

I think language learning needs to be addressed in the country- I don't think anyone should leave second level without a high level of proficiency in at least one FOREIGN language. Irish should be optional and be classed as a cultural subject. Foreign languages should be taught from the very first day of primary school and children should be encouraged to speak it from a very early stage. If we can teach children early on the skills needed to learn a new language, it becomes easier to learn additional languages.
I'm not against the cupla focal, - I just find it ridiculous we are taught it at the expense of more relevant languages.
Also, I think the use of Native speakers as teachers and conversation classes should become the norm, with more importance placed on the oral exams.
A wider range of languages should be offered at second level.

I think the LC should be completely continuous assessment (except for maths, or grammar tests where a sit down exam is the best way of assessment).

Students should be offered Literature classes, where they can learn to appreciate literature (with guidance from a teacher).

Philosophy should be compulsory at some stage of second level.

Students should explore history, philosophy, economics, and other subjects such as this through reading texts and writing pieces - much as we are required to do in college but with more guidance at second level and simplified texts. At second level, people should be encouraged to learn how write a properly structured argument and should be taught how to research, reference and generally have an appreciation of knowledge and theory.

I think there should be the option to for students if the wish to take Dance/Drama/Sport as a LC subject. Many people excel in these areas and should be encouraged. For example, Dance could include a performance assessment, and some theory or history of choreography, so that the student learns to appreciate the art of dance as well as benefit from the performance side. For sport, the student could perhaps provide a practical demonstration for assessment, for example a student could demonstrate a golf swing and then describe the muscles used, the physics of ball spin, etc to an examiner there and then. Also a something like an example of a training regime and diet for an athlete.

Someone has mentioned already the international bacculerate, I believe there is a module in this which is something like social care or volunteering? I would make a volunteerism module compulsory to the LC. The student does some volunteer work and writes a report about it.
Also work experience should be compulsory for all students at second level. The school should liase with local businesses and charities etc to help students find places to do work experience/volunteer.

I would secularise schools and get rid of uniforms.

nozzferrahhtoo

I read the thread very quickly so apologies if this has been mentioned…

Quite a few people have mentioned “languages” and teaching them earlier. I agree with this.

However the one thing either no one has said or I just missed it in my scans… was that languages should be taught THROUGH the language in question and not through English.

This is how languages are taught in Germany and France etc. They learn English in English from day 1 when the teacher walks in and points to herself and says “My name is….”.

The Germans I work with her in Germany all tell me that they were taught to paraphrase when they did not know an English word, and NEVER to revert to German. If you do not know the word “Car” you describe “the machine with wheels that you get into and travel with….” Until someone else says “Oh you mean ‘car’”.

Learning our languages through our own language seems to me to be one of the worst teaching methods we subscribe to on our curriculum in Ireland.

smiles302

Learning our languages through our own language seems to me to be one of the worst teaching methods we subscribe to on our curriculum in Ireland.

This is an awesome idea! I remember the French I needed for my oral but I can't remember any of the grammar rules lol