Junior Cert to be abolished

Shane L

Why do governments here not just adopt a system that actually works and has a track record ? Like the Finnish system where teachers must have a masters in a subject for second level teaching.All this extra curricular stuff is BULLSH!T.There is no way in hell most schools could cover the cost of all the extra curricular activities.

Jimoslimos

TBH I don't have a problem with the number of subjects in the current JC being culled - I just wish that extra time could be used to teach the existing ones better

Most of these could already be taught within the existing structure and the others are just bullsh1t.

The potential short course list in this document lists:

• Cultural studies - People have different beliefs. Merge with religion
• Sustainable living and resource management - Reduce, reuse, recycle
• Debating/public speaking - Done enough here, Attack the post not the poster
• Write a book - English essay skills
• Development Education - WTF is this, buzzword alert
• Leadership - Some people have it, the rest of us are sheep
• Book club - Yay! Let's all wax lyrical about the latest Twilight/teen vampire shoite.
• Making choices - Seriously?? Is this about fitting kids with shock collars, otherwise enlighten me
• Personal finance - Don't spend what you don't have
• School musical/drama performance - You like the arts, good for you! Here's a hint, master the English language first
• Coaching in the community - Again explain this
• Being innovative -Product design
• Web design - I never used a computer in secondary school, I'd like to think I'm fairly fluent in it now. Why? Because I took a personal interest
• Creating an e-portfolio - What is this? Like an electronic CV - Yes learn to use linkedln.
• Chinese language and culture - Why Chinese? Is it because the world's fastest and probably biggest economy? Bit cynical, no?
• Mathematics for living and work - :rolleyes: What's wrong with normal 'mathematics'

Mardy Bum

Shane L wrote: »

Why do governments here not just adopt a system that actually works and has a track record ? Like the Finnish system where teachers must have a masters in a subject for second level teaching.All this extra curricular stuff is BULLSH!T.There is no way in hell most schools could cover the cost of all the extra curricular activities.

Increased government funding will be spent on the extra cirriculars when they are introduced as they will be mandatory for all schools.
Your suggestion about the masters is a whole other debate.

Caraville

Shane L wrote: »

Why do governments here not just adopt a system that actually works and has a track record ? Like the Finnish system where teachers must have a masters in a subject for second level teaching.All this extra curricular stuff is BULLSH!T.There is no way in hell most schools could cover the cost of all the extra curricular activities.

Ah I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. Best teachers I ever had didn't have any masters- a few letters after your name does not automatically an effective teacher make. I think the teacher training is almost completely pointless as it stands, needs major reform- for second level anyway.

Plus, there isn't the same respect for education in this country as there used to be- and support from home is a massive indicator of how successful a student will be in the education system. Seemingly the Scandinavians still view education in this high esteem and it is reported that this is one of the main reasons for their success, as well as other things of course. I definitely think that parents still have to work alongside teachers to turn out successful students. Reading with your children, testing their spellings and times tables, bringing them on various educational trips, discussing the news with them (at a basic level)- it's so so obvious in the classroom who the students are that come from homes where this is done. I don't think it's done as much anymore as it used to be- and students have more distractions now like phones, ipods, internet, television all in the space where they're supposed to be studying. Definitely doesn't help the situation.

rainbowtrout

Ficheall wrote: »

The differences between enthusiastic, intelligent teachers in big budget schools and lazy, thick teachers in poorer schools will be more pronounced than ever.

Most of what you said there makes sense, except this. Just because a teacher teaches in a good school does not make them enthusiastic or intelligent, and similarly because a teacher teaches in a poor school does not make them thick and lazy. It takes more effort to get a student through the Junior Cert in a school where there is a myriad of social problems coming in with the students every day and no support from home and generally poor attendance than it does a student in a school with no discipline problems, where attendance is good, where the student has supportive, involved parents, where there is a culture of students progressing to third level etc etc.

There are good and bad teachers in all schools but that's not the point of the thread.

parker kent

challengemaster wrote: »

Let me use myself as an example of how this will be shíte unless they manage to cater for everyone

I can't sing, lack the timing/rhythm to dance. I don't like reading books, and would hate debating. I also hate the sports 98% of people think are the only ones that exist; soccer, rugby, GAA, and I could just about tolerate basketball.

So what was I interested in then? Techie stuff. I could spend hours in front of a computer reading things that interest me, I was building pcs since 14/15, IMO competitive online gaming requires more skill and thinking than football. Non-standard sports like MA, Archery... So what exactly would I have gotten these CA marks for under this system?

Read this post, it pretty much is as I thought it would be. Nobody is forced into anything they don't want to do.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75275416&postcount=50

challengemaster wrote: »

IMO competitive online gaming requires more skill and thinking than football.

Just because it doesn't interest you, doesn't mean that there is not skill and sharpness of mind needed. The whole "my interest is better and tougher than your interest" type debate is childish. Obviously football requires skill and quick thinking. There are enough academic studies out there to support this.

Mardy Bum

Caraville wrote: »

Plus, there isn't the same respect for education in this country as there used to be- and support from home is a massive indicator of how successful a student will be in the education system. Seemingly the Scandinavians still view education in this high esteem and it is reported that this is one of the main reasons for their success, as well as other things of course. I definitely think that parents still have to work alongside teachers to turn out successful students. Reading with your children, testing their spellings and times tables, bringing them on various educational trips, discussing the news with them (at a basic level)- it's so so obvious in the classroom who the students are that come from homes where this is done. I don't think it's done as much anymore as it used to be- and students have more distractions now like phones, ipods, internet, television all in the space where they're supposed to be studying. Definitely doesn't help the situation.

100% correct. A lot of parents now think schools are child minding facilities and also the sole basis where children should learn. Along with this the lack of respect teaching as a profession is afforded by parents rubs off on children and hinders the classroom. One of the few things parents and children interact with together now is X factor which is a tragedy, that however is the way society is going.

Caraville

Ficheall wrote: »

The differences between enthusiastic, intelligent teachers in big budget schools and lazy, thick teachers in poorer schools will be more pronounced than ever.

This is a ridiculous (and frankly insulting) statement. Are you saying that teachers in disadvantaged schools are less intelligent? What if, like me, you went from teaching in a disadvantaged school to teaching in a private school- did I suddenly become more intelligent purely because my paymaster was no longer the VEC?

Anyone can teach a class who are enthusiastic and have parental support. The teachers who manage to keep the students who might otherwise be dropouts in school and give them some sort of qualification at the end of it all are the ones who deserve most praise.

Which again brings us back to the problem of fairness with this new Junior Cert. The ones with the money will achieve more so it's not a level playing field. And surprisingly, it actually won't be the disadvantaged schools that will miss out- it's the average secondary school with no special status. The private ones get outside funding, the disadvantaged ones get extra government funds- and the ones in between are left to just get on with it as best they can. Then again, that's what happens in real life when you grow up so maybe that's the biggest lesson of all that students will learn. Practical really.

Helix

smash wrote: »

"Schools will also have the option of being able to award marks for activities currently regarded as extra curricular, such as putting on a school musical or participating in a book club."

Hardly educational...

itll be more useful to the kids in the real world than 95% of the stuff on the current junior cert course

Ficheall

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Most of what you said there makes sense, except this. Just because a teacher teaches in a good school does not make them enthusiastic or intelligent, and similarly because a teacher teaches in a poor school does not make them thick and lazy. ...

Caraville wrote: »

This is a ridiculous (and frankly insulting) statement. Are you saying that teachers in disadvantaged schools are less intelligent? ...

No, no, no - you misunderstand.
I meant that as things stand there is a difference between the education received from a good teacher and a bad teacher - but both are, essentially, teaching from the same books and syllabus.
If one has a good teacher in a school with loads of money and equipment and support, then under this new system the "education" their pupils will receive will be far superior to that from a bad teacher who has neither budget nor inclination nor ability. This difference will become more pronounced once all this money comes into play, which it will.
Obviously there are good and bad teachers in both wealthy and poor schools - I did not mean to suggest otherwise.

starlit

I am 50/50 on this. Would be worth abolishing it but to be honest, you learn so much stuff in Primary school which prepares you for the Junior Cert Don't think throwing away all you have learnt and not be examined after a period of time between finishing Primary and going into Secondary School.

It be worth adding in Continuous Assessment it ease the pressure on the exams. Its good prep though for the Leaving Cert you know what to expect and I like to know what to expect from something like that and be better prepared for it and better able to handle it.

I got very upset over my Junior Cert but all that upset was for nothing, passed everything and did very well so made sure I had my head stuck in the books and prepared well enough, studied hard enough and practised exam techniques in order to do the best I could in the Leaving Cert if anything I surpassed what I was aiming for and proved all my family wrong and excelled in college too which I thought the Leaving cert very much helped me better able to cope with the study in college.

The JC might seem rubbish to some people but its still a state exam. If it contributed to the Leaving more then it be worth keeping it but think there should be a restriction on subjects for sure. Making learning fun. I like the new proposals the government has for the new Education Regime plans for the JC.

If you have the will power and confidence to pass and believe in yourself not just the teaching offered to you but how you learn too all adds up. If you understand something makes it a lot easier to remember stuff and makes studying a lot easier!

parker kent

Ficheall wrote: »

After all the complaints about how Maths, to pick a prime example, isn't taught well enough in schools, they're now going to make it, effectively, so that instead of passing your maths exam you can join a reading group or somesuch. And if Maths and Irish are despised by so many now, it will be even moreso when the alternatives are Painting, reading, arsing about, instead of history or geography or what have you.

Just picking this out of you rant, where exactly does it say people will not be doing Maths? Read the proposals before ranting incorrectly.

Students must complete one of the following combinations for Junior Cert -
8 regular subjects
7 regular subjects and two short courses
6 regular subjects and four short courses
Students must do English, Irish and Maths, each of which will be examined at two levels and all other subjects at common level.

Ficheall wrote: »

Where on earth is the money coming from for all the new equipment, training, and staff that will be required?

Fair enough.

Ficheall wrote: »

And no offence to the "dramatic" and "musical" folk out there, but they're feck all use to anyone really, aside from, perhaps some light entertainment. I realise it's only JC, for the moment, but I can't see them igniting many of the shining lights for our supposed 'knowledge economy' with this lark.

More nonsense. Kids in their early teens will benefit enormously from that sort of education. Look up studies on the economic benefits of creative people. This type of material will spark creativity and creativity is directly linked to innovation. And innovation is regularly cited as being crucial to successful economies. Look at it with a more open mind. Just because somebody is learning the arts, does not mean they are going to spend the rest of their lives dícking around in "light entertainment". Plus if it did help some young musicians, actors etc realise they have a natural talent, what is the harm in that? Look at the money that the Arts brings into the Irish economy.

Mickjg

I think this a great idea and a step in the right direction.

I decided I wanted to do film when I was in primary school and that remained the same throughout secondary. I was stuck in a school though that was focused only on sport and some science on the side. Nothing to do with art. I was left to do classes that were of no benefit to me and I wasn't a good student but I got involved with whatever I could outside of school at the youth club or with a drama group that allowed me to be creative.

I applied to the film school at IADT, and got 520/600 for my interview and portfolio. A shoe in, I thought. Perfect material. Well I only got 260 in the leaving and wound up not having enough points for the only course I wanted or any of the other courses on my CAO.

I wound up moving to the States and going to college over here and a great film school. My leaving cert meant absolutely nothing to my college, didn't even want it. What got me in was my portfolio of work and my essay and clear determination. I received 250 dollars last night and the top prize in a festival at my college for a film I made. I owe credit to many people for that, including people from my secondary school days but I owe nothing to the LC itself (other then helping me to fail it and decided to move on with my life).

So, as you can see, the LC did nothing to help me get to college or help with my future.

The sooner an effective continuous assessment program is put in place with more options for those that want to go into the arts is made available, the better.

AdamD

Mickjg wrote: »

I think this a great idea and a step in the right direction.

I decided I wanted to do film when I was in primary school and that remained the same throughout secondary. I was stuck in a school though that was focused only on sport and some science on the side. Nothing to do with art. I was left to do classes that were of no benefit to me and I wasn't a good student but I got involved with whatever I could outside of school at the youth club or with a drama group that allowed me to be creative.

I applied to the film school at IADT, and got 520/600 for my interview and portfolio. A shoe in, I thought. Perfect material. Well I only got 260 in the leaving and wound up not having enough points for the only course I wanted or any of the other courses on my CAO.

I wound up moving to the States and going to college over here and a great film school. My leaving cert meant absolutely nothing to my college, didn't even want it. What got me in was my portfolio of work and my essay and clear determination. I received 250 dollars last night and the top prize in a festival at my college for a film I made. I owe credit to many people for that, including people from my secondary school days but I owe nothing to the LC itself (other then helping me to fail it and decided to move on with my life).

So, as you can see, the LC did nothing to help me get to college or help with my future.

The sooner an effective continuous assessment program is put in place with more options for those that want to go into the arts is made available, the better.

260 points is pretty awful though...it (to a certain extent) shows a lack of intelligence. Which they college is hardly going to be impressed with

deisedude

Moving towards continuous assesment is a great idea. It rewards a hard work ethic and is more practical for the real world than exams. At the moment students are just encouraged to learn to pass a test resulting in the likes of grind colleges making a mint spoonfeeding students material for rote learning. I'm not saying all exams should be scrapped but they shouldn't be the be all and end all

If i was to make one change to our education system as it is, i would completely change the way languages are taught. I studied German for 5 years and only in leaving cert year was any effort made to speak it for the oral! How the feck are you supposed to learn a language by just reading basic material and writing letters about your fictitious holidays. The only way to learn a language is to immerse yourself in it and that involves speaking it on a regular basis. Its embarassing how other nations are all multilingual and we can barely string a few words together

parker kent

AdamD wrote: »

260 points is pretty awful though...it (to a certain extent) shows a lack of intelligence.

Hmm....

AdamD wrote: »

Which they college is hardly going to be impressed with

OK so aside from pointing out typos in your post, I have to say you were extremely insulting towards the previous poster. Plus you are showing ignorance of the various forms of intelligence that exist. The problems that many 3rd Level Academics note with Secondary education is that it only tests a limited type of intelligence (those suited to rote learning). This type of initiative will open up Irish education to those note suited to the current system.

Also, if the type of kids that are currently disengaged from education learn to like school through this initiative, they may actually improve in the rest of their subjects. That has been the response in initiatives such as the JCSP scheme.

Mickjg

AdamD wrote: »

260 points is pretty awful though...it (to a certain extent) shows a lack of intelligence. Which they college is hardly going to be impressed with

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Not to toot my own horn but I'm a very intelligent person.

It's like the driving test, pure thick lads will spend their years at secondary school failing and slacking but pass the driving test no bother and show up every morning in their Honda Civics.

I'm an intelligent person who didn't fit in well with the system in place in Ireland. I've got a 3.5 GPA (out of a possible 4.0) at my college.

260 was me failing Accounting and French (subjects I was horrible at and got grinds in but to no avail). I couldn't drop them cause a) I needed French to get into college and b) there was no other option for me but accounting at the time.

Plenty of teachers will tell you about perfectly smart and intelligent people who are let down by the system.

spurious

An intelligent, educated person would not make a remark disparaging someone else's effort.

Mardy Bum

AdamD wrote: »

260 points is pretty awful though...it (to a certain extent) shows a lack of intelligence. Which they college is hardly going to be impressed with

How can you critique someones intelligence in a sentence that makes no grammatical sense whatsoever.

AdamD

Mickjg wrote: »

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Not to toot my own horn but I'm a very intelligent person.

It's like the driving test, pure thick lads will spend their years at secondary school failing and slacking but pass the driving test no bother and show up every morning in their Honda Civics.

I'm an intelligent person who didn't fit in well with the system in place in Ireland. I've got a 3.5 GPA (out of a possible 4.0) at my college.

260 was me failing Accounting and French (subjects I was horrible at and got grinds in but to no avail). I couldn't drop them cause a) I needed French to get into college and b) there was no other option for me but accounting at the time.

Plenty of teachers will tell you about perfectly smart and intelligent people who are let down by the system.

Driving is something people can be naturally good at, like school, but can be improved through practice, also like school. I've met people like that and if they had put half the effort into school as they did their driving tests their results would have been very different. The system not suiting you and you not putting in the effort are two very different things, and surely we must reward people for putting in the effort.

parker kent wrote: »

Hmm....



OK so aside from pointing out typos in your post, I have to say you were extremely insulting towards the previous poster. Plus you are showing ignorance of the various forms of intelligence that exist. The problems that many 3rd Level Academics note with Secondary education is that it only tests a limited type of intelligence (those suited to rote learning). This type of initiative will open up Irish education to those note suited to the current system.

Also, if the type of kids that are currently disengaged from education learn to like school through this initiative, they may actually improve in the rest of their subjects. That has been the response in initiatives such as the JCSP scheme.

A typo..well done. Its not particularly difficult for somebody of above average intelligence (as the poster has apparently) to get above 260 points in the Leaving Cert, without rote learning. There are also plenty of subjects that test other intelligences such as practical subjects/linguistic/Art, not that I'm defending the system but it has to be said that if an intelligent person is getting those results then they shouldn't look any further than themselves to place the blame.


edit: Here come the grammar police an innocently clicked Y

parker kent

AdamD wrote: »

Here come the grammar police an innocently clicked Y

Even I made fun of the typo, I was not seriously being pedantic. I was making fun of being somebody being ignorant about somebody else's intelligence and then writing a barely legible sentence. If I were being a true grammar Nazi, I would not have picked on the typo, I would have pointed out that you finished your sentence with a preposition and the sentence didn't really make sense. Naughty!

Anyway, your post was extremely rude and as pointed out above, it is not the sign of an educated, intelligent person to be so disparaging towards another person. Anybody that works in education in Ireland will tell you that there are extremely intelligent people with poor points levels in the LC.

Before somebody chirps back, of course there are plenty who actually are not that intelligent.

rainbowtrout

Ficheall wrote: »

No, no, no - you misunderstand.
I meant that as things stand there is a difference between the education received from a good teacher and a bad teacher - but both are, essentially, teaching from the same books and syllabus.
If one has a good teacher in a school with loads of money and equipment and support, then under this new system the "education" their pupils will receive will be far superior to that from a bad teacher who has neither budget nor inclination nor ability. This difference will become more pronounced once all this money comes into play, which it will.
Obviously there are good and bad teachers in both wealthy and poor schools - I did not mean to suggest otherwise.

Not necessarily. You can have all the money, equipment and resources you want in a school and still not have a student achieve if the teacher is not good or the student does not want to work or a combination of both. Similarly in the poor school you can have a lack of resources and a lack of inclination on the teacher/ students part and have poor results, but you can also have great results on little resources/no money/equipment but with a good teacher you can achieve a lot on next to nothing regardless of the situation.

There are plenty of people on the Leaving Cert forum who complain about how crap some of their teachers are and that they are getting grinds. I think it's fair to say that the demographic of your typical boards users in the Leaving Cert forum isn't one made up of students from poor schools based on their points, aspirations for college, number of extra subjects they are taking and often the fact that they are in grind schools. So it would seem that despite all the resources and money available in their schools that there is still a shortfall.

I work in a school which is the result of an amalgamation of three schools. In the year prior to the amalgamation I worked in one of the three schools. My science lab was essentially a shell - a room where the door barely locked, it had benches and chairs and windows and that was about it. There was no gas, no running water and no electricity, as in none of the sockets worked, I did have lighting but that was all. There were less than 10 pieces of glassware in the lab that were usable and most of the chemicals looked like they hadn't been opened since the mid 70s. Of course without water I didn't have any facility to wash the glassware. This was only 9 years ago. I could have said 'right I don't have to kill myself here, I can just read out of the book and write notes on the board and be done with it, not my fault I don't have resources', I chose not to. I sent students out to the locker rooms for buckets of water for experiments, did experiments with stuff I could get in the supermarket, DIY store etc, used pieces of plywood in place of proper dissecting boards. You would find if you looked hard enough that many teachers are very resourceful most of the time, and more so when they have little or no choice.

The following year we moved into our new school and I had no whiteboard for 6 weeks, so I taped a large white fertilizer bag to the wall in my classroom (again I had no access to a lab at the time) and wrote up stuff on it with a board marker. It did the same job.

Success in schools isn't always down to resources, money and equipment, but I will agree that they do help.

Ficheall

parker kent wrote: »

Just picking this out of you rant, where exactly does it say people will not be doing Maths? Read the proposals before ranting incorrectly.

My rant, eh?
Well, my understanding is that there are currently eightish subjects which a JC student will study. Mathematics is one of these, and they can study it at one of three levels. They need to pass an exam at the end of the cycle which is marked by an independent body. Some students might even like Maths and rely on it to be one of their "Top" subjects - I realise the points take on it can't be used as it's only the JC, but it seems they do eventually intend to roll this in for the LC.

Looking at the new scheme, it seems a student will study twentyish subjects, which will inevitably detract from time spent on Mathematics, whatever that bs about "240 hours dedicated to Maths" might say.
There will be only two levels at which one can study, which will lead to some being taught at a level that is more difficult for them than it would otherwise have been, and some being taught at a level that is not as interesting or advanced as they would otherwise have been studying. Not that I take issue with the abolition of a Foundation level, but some might.
Moreover, while they do sit an exam marked by an external body, there is a 40% component which is marked by the schools themselves, and as it reflects better on schools to have their students do well, the grades for this component will be artificially inflated. When this all filters through to LC, it will make college applications considerably trickier - does one accept someone to a Maths course, for example, who did a really nice project on Euclid and triangles but hasn't a notion how to differentiate? Or instead of working at Maths to get the points one needs for a course, one can scrape a pass therein and learn how to make nice jam instead and gain points from that!
Personally, I'd have picked music over Maths in a heartbeat..
Anyway - all in all, my point about the Maths was simply that: They were complaining about the lack of decent Maths teachers - this will only exacerbate the problem.

Will respond to the rest later - have to head offline now.

parker kent

Ficheall wrote: »

Looking at the new scheme, it seems a student will study twentyish subjects, which will inevitably detract from time spent on Mathematics, whatever that bs about "240 hours dedicated to Maths" might say.

I'll just post the same information again seeing as you didn't read it the first time.

Regular JC subjects will be 40% continuous assessment and 60% exam. Assessment to be carried out by teachers and externally moderated by SEC.

Students must complete one of the following combinations for Junior Cert -
8 regular subjects
7 regular subjects and two short courses
6 regular subjects and four short courses
Students must do English, Irish and Maths, each of which will be examined at two levels and all other subjects at common level.

Short courses can be from a list which has been prepared by Dept of Ed or school can devise their own short course. Short courses are 100% Portfolio and assessed by the school, no external moderation.

Do you see the bit in bold? That makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

AdamD

parker kent wrote: »

Even I made fun of the typo, I was not seriously being pedantic. I was making fun of being somebody being ignorant about somebody else's intelligence and then writing a barely legible sentence. If I were being a true grammar Nazi, I would not have picked on the typo, I would have pointed out that you finished your sentence with a preposition and the sentence didn't really make sense. Naughty!

Anyway, your post was extremely rude and as pointed out above, it is not the sign of an educated, intelligent person to be so disparaging towards another person. Anybody that works in education in Ireland will tell you that there are extremely intelligent people with poor points levels in the LC.

Before somebody chirps back, of course there are plenty who actually are not that intelligent.

I was merely pointing out, what was (most likely) the college's point of view. Sorry for being 'disparaging' towards the poster.

Ficheall

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Not necessarily. You can have all the money, equipment and resources you want in a school and still not have a student achieve if the teacher is not good or the student does not want to work or a combination of both. Similarly in the poor school you can have a lack of resources and a lack of inclination on the teacher/ students part and have poor results, but you can also have great results on little resources/no money/equipment but with a good teacher you can achieve a lot on next to nothing regardless of the situation.

Again, not what I'm saying. Very simply:
A GOOD teacher in a school with GOOD resources can, for example, put on a far more educational and rewarding musical or somesuch than a BAD teacher will in a school with POOR resources.
I've said nothing whatsoever about good teachers in poor schools or bad teachers in wealthy schools.
I was simply trying to say that the disparity between the education received by the two different groups of pupils in the example I actually mentioned will be greater if one is dealing with courses that require props, equipment etc. rather than simply a book and blackboard.

rainbowtrout

Ficheall wrote: »

My rant, eh?
Well, my understanding is that there are currently eightish subjects which a JC student will study. Mathematics is one of these, and they can study it at one of three levels. They need to pass an exam at the end of the cycle which is marked by an independent body. Some students might even like Maths and rely on it to be one of their "Top" subjects - I realise the points take on it can't be used as it's only the JC, but it seems they do eventually intend to roll this in for the LC.

Looking at the new scheme, it seems a student will study twentyish subjects, which will inevitably detract from time spent on Mathematics, whatever that bs about "240 hours dedicated to Maths" might say.
There will be only two levels at which one can study, which will lead to some being taught at a level that is more difficult for them than it would otherwise have been, and some being taught at a level that is not as interesting or advanced as they would otherwise have been studying. Not that I take issue with the abolition of a Foundation level, but some might.
Moreover, while they do sit an exam marked by an external body, there is a 40% component which is marked by the schools themselves, and as it reflects better on schools to have their students do well, the grades for this component will be artificially inflated. When this all filters through to LC, it will make college applications considerably trickier - does one accept someone to a Maths course, for example, who did a really nice project on Euclid and triangles but hasn't a notion how to differentiate? Or instead of working at Maths to get the points one needs for a course, one can scrape a pass therein and learn how to make nice jam instead and gain points from that!
Personally, I'd have picked music over Maths in a heartbeat..
Anyway - all in all, my point about the Maths was simply that: They were complaining about the lack of decent Maths teachers - this will only exacerbate the problem.

Will respond to the rest later - have to head offline now.

You clearly still haven't read the proposal and are still spouting nonsense. Students will not study 20 subjects. They can study 8 of the regular subjects which already exist or 7 of those subjects and two short courses or 6 of those subjects and two short courses. The entire list of short courses does not have to be completed by any student nor would many schools be in a position to offer every short course on the list.


At Leaving Cert the Agricultural Science and Agricultural Economics projects and I think the Construction Studies projects are graded by the students own teachers and it has been this way for years. The grades are then monitored by an external monitor from the SEC. The system works very well and the education system hasn't fallen apart. This type of system is what is proposed for all the regular subjects at Junior Cert level.

There will no doubt be standard guidelines for projects, particularly if there is going to be external monitoring taking place.

parker kent

AdamD wrote: »

I was merely pointing out, what was (most likely) the college's point of view. Sorry for being 'disparaging' towards the poster.

How do you know that it was "most likely"? Academics know better than anybody of the limitations of judging somebody based on LC points. It is a useful method, but far from the only method. Art schools in Ireland are hamstrung a little by the CAO. I'm sure they are well aware that there are extremely talented, intelligent people out there with relatively poor Leaving Certs.

Also no need to use the quotation marks, there is no real doubt that you were a bit of a díck to the poster.

Mardy Bum

AdamD wrote: »

edit: Here come the grammar police an innocently clicked Y

I think you missed the point of the post. From reading the comments you've made on this thread your grammar is not great. Does this make you unintelligent? No of course not. This is exactly the same as you insulting someone who in your eyes did bad in their LC. The LC fosters absolutely no creative talent, the other poster has a flare in film making and is obviously quite good at it. There are different types of intelligence, not the usual 'learn this essay off and you will get an A1' which the LC perpetuates.

rainbowtrout

Ficheall wrote: »

Again, not what I'm saying. Very simply:
A GOOD teacher in a school with GOOD resources can, for example, put on a far more educational and rewarding musical or somesuch than a BAD teacher will in a school with POOR resources.
I've said nothing whatsoever about good teachers in poor schools or bad teachers in wealthy schools.
I was simply trying to say that the disparity between the education received by the two different groups of pupils in the example I actually mentioned will be greater if one is dealing with courses that require props, equipment etc. rather than simply a book and blackboard.

But you're still not comparing like with like. You can put good teachers and good resources against bad teachers with bad resources all you want but it's still not a fair comparison.

If a school doesn't have the facilities to put on a musical and therefore offer the musical/drama short course option, they just won't offer it, they might offer a book club instead which requires far less resources.

It's no different from a school that offers a wide range of subjects or a narrow range of subjects. I went to what was considered a disadvantaged school (all girls). Did I receive a good education? Yes, it was excellent. Was the subject range good - well they didn't offer woodwork/metalwork/tech drawing so I never had the opportunity to do them. Would it be considered poor as a result? Maybe.

The all girls school across town where some of my friends went cherry picked students and was elitist in many respects. There were certainly more money and resources available there. Were the teachers any better? No, I would think not and from the complaints from my friends they didn't sound anything like my teachers. Did they offer any wider range of subjects? No, nothing wildly different from my own school. Did myself and my friends differ wildly in what we achieved in the LC? No, we all got about pretty much the same. We were all in primary school together so we could compare our abilities.

The comparison you make of two positives with two negatives is not a fair comparison. Give two teachers, one good and one bad, the same resources and see how they get on. Or give the same teacher a class with resources and one without and see how they get on and then make your comparison.