Education: Whats the point of it?

deise go deo

There has been much talk recently of education reform. Clearly there are many areas in dire need of it, but what needs to be done? What kind of education system do we want? Most importantly what is the role of the education system?

Is it's function to produce productive economic units? Should the education system be formed to serve the needs of the economy, with subjects that will give the best economic return emphasized?
Should the education system have a wider remit, to develop well rounded citizens, with time being spent on developing their cognative, social, cultural creative and dare I say it even spiritual aspects? Or is it ideally a mixture of both?

The education system needs reform, but reform into what?

Godge

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

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

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

southsiderosie

What do you think, OP?

deise go deo

southsiderosie wrote: »

What do you think, OP?

Personally education for me is all about developing the person, if along the way this brings economic benefits for the individual or the state, all well and good, but this is not for me the primary purpose of education.

The education system should be reformed with a view to developing a capacity for rational tought, cultural education should have a significant(but not dominant) place in education, learning of languages and an introduction to various art forms would have a role in developing the students sense of their own and other cultures as well as aiding in cognative development and helping to foster creativity.
I also believe that the three R's sould keep their position of priority as they are vital in the development of the students capacity to interact with the education process and in the development of logical tought processes.
Also the student at some point should be taught how to learn, they should be taken through the actual processes that have been shown to aid learning, it is rediculus that even though we know how much of a difference the approch to learning taken by a student makes, we never actually sit the student down and explain it to them, instead just hoping that they will stumble on it themselves.
One of the main reforms needed in my opinion would be to reform how the student is assessed, what is needed is a system that encourages actual learning. The shallow rote learning of tracts of information needed to gain points in an exam that will quickly be disgarded once the exam is over is a pointless excersise that has little value to the student.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

newmug

deise go deo wrote: »

There has been much talk recently of education reform. Clearly there are many areas in dire need of it, but what needs to be done? What kind of education system do we want? Most importantly what is the role of the education system?

Whats the point of education?:eek::eek::eek: The "role" of education is to better the lives of people, and further the development of humankind. Ever hear of the "building blocks of learning"? 40,000 years ago, 2 sets of pre-historic humans existed. One knew how to make fire, and actively educated their children in this skill, the other didnt. Those who didnt are the now extinct Neanderthal branch of our ancestry. We can now converse in complex language, fly people to the moon, conduct brain surgery, all thanks to the layers of knowledge passed on from one generation to the next, as far back as human history goes.

And even better, we have a system in place nowadays to fast-track the education of children to the level of knowledge that we humans are currently at - school. Obviously it cant cover everything, but it gives kids the tools to use their intelligence to learn things on their own. Imagine the discoveries out there yet to be made, the breakthroughs that will make everyday life easier. Look at the conveniences you have now compared to 20 years ago! Internet, mobile phones, GPS's, flat-screen TV's, MRI scanners, nano-fibres, keyhole surgery, DNA data, to name but a few! None of these things would have been possible without people having an education! The building blocks of learning is where its at!

deise go deo

newmug wrote: »

Whats the point of education?:eek::eek::eek: The "role" of education is to better the lives of people, and further the development of humankind. Ever hear of the "building blocks of learning"? 40,000 years ago, 2 sets of pre-historic humans existed. One knew how to make fire, and actively educated their children in this skill, the other didnt. Those who didnt are the now extinct Neanderthal branch of our ancestry. We can now converse in complex language, fly people to the moon, conduct brain surgery, all thanks to the layers of knowledge passed on from one generation to the next, as far back as human history goes.

And even better, we have a system in place nowadays to fast-track the education of children to the level of knowledge that we humans are currently at - school. Obviously it cant cover everything, but it gives kids the tools to use their intelligence to learn things on their own. Imagine the discoveries out there yet to be made, the breakthroughs that will make everyday life easier. Look at the conveniences you have now compared to 20 years ago! Internet, mobile phones, GPS's, flat-screen TV's, MRI scanners, nano-fibres, keyhole surgery, DNA data, to name but a few! None of these things would have been possible without people having an education! The building blocks of learning is where its at!

Thats nice, though I think you should know that the point of the thread is not a for or against discussion on education, but on what type of education system we want, with emphsis on what the values at the core of it should be.

newmug

deise go deo wrote: »

Thats nice, though I think you should know that the point of the thread is not a for or against discussion on education, but on what type of education system we want, with emphsis on what the values at the core of it should be.

Thanks very much. I think you better change the thread title so!

deise go deo

newmug wrote: »

Thanks very much. I think you better change the thread title so!

It's ment to be eye catching, and it is what the thread is about, what is the point of education, what is it for, developing the individual or to benefit the economy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Without commenting on the curricular issues, I have to agree with this.

I think at the end of the day, the core value system of an educational system should be to equip all citizens with the capacity to achieve both their professional and life goals. This would mean more options for specialization, whether that is vocational training, languages, maths, etc for older students, more options for lifetime learning for adults so they can 'skill up' in their chosen field or switch over to new fields. This allows individuals to develop into what they want to be or advance within their given fields, and this has positive spillover effects for the economy. Conversely, training people in a way that fits into the modern economy can help prevent some of the wrenching social and economic problems that come from unemployability and/or restructuring. So I don't think you can separate these issues: they are two sides of the same coin.

Chuck Stone

Chomsky's take on the point of education.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq6lFOhLJ0c

TL;DW. Eduacation's principle role is to train people to be compliant and obedient.

southsiderosie

Chuck Stone, can you please summarize for us what's in the video or what Chomsky's main point is? Not everyone can watch them from where they are posting.

Cheers,

SSR

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ain't that the truth?

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

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

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

deise go deo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That was not my intention, No doubt Well rounded Individuals will benefit the Economy, but at its base level, are the students educated to make them well rouded individules or for the benefit of the economy? Should the Education system be formed to serve the economy or should it have a wider role than that?

Should things that have little direct value to the economy but that can have a positive impact in the development of the student, music for example be tought?
Do we judge the value of what we teach by its economic return or by its value in developing the student?

Since its inception, the Irish state has used its public schools to inculcate a de Valerean nationalistic and religious agenda.

Really? Seems an odd thing for a Cumann na nGaedheal government that had just fought a Civil War against DeV to do.

hallelujajordan

deise go deo wrote: »

That was not my intention, No doubt Well rounded Individuals will benefit the Economy, but at its base level, are the students educated to make them well rouded individules or for the benefit of the economy? Should the Education system be formed to serve the economy or should it have a wider role than that?
.

Yes, the education system needs to have as its primary focus the medium to long term needs of the national economy. . . to do otherwise would be self-limiting since one of the first things to suffer in times of economic challenge is the education system.

Of course, along the way there are other goals that should be achieved (although I do not agree that developing spirituality should be one of them) but the crux of the matter is the stronger your economy is the more money you will have to focus on these aspects.

Dannyboy83

deise go deo wrote: »

That was not my intention, No doubt Well rounded Individuals will benefit the Economy, but at its base level, are the students educated to make them well rounded individules or for the benefit of the economy?

Should things that have little direct value to the economy but that can have a positive impact in the development of the student, music for example be taught?

Do we judge the value of what we teach by its economic return or by its value in developing the student?

How many years of formal education in the Irish language, does an Irish person require in order to become a well rounded individual, in your opinion?

Do you believe that an Irish individual can be well rounded, having had no formal education beyond primary school, in the Irish language?

I believe in order to be a well rounded individual, Irish people need to have:
A) a good grasp of diet and physical exercise, basic sex education
of personal finances, basic financial planning, basic political education
C) of personal computing
and
D) understanding how to plan effectively

I would consider all these highly valuable to any student.
They're not essential tho.

The basis of the school curriculum should be teaching English, maths, science, and foreign languages to very high standards, those being the skills that translate into good jobs, entrepreneurship, productivity, and international integration, as well as (yes) cultural development and personal fulfillment.

^
That's essential.

First we achieve the education in the essentials to the required standard, before seeking to add non-essentials.

deise go deo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

How many years of formal education in the Irish language, does an Irish person require in order to become a well rounded individual, in your opinion?

Do you believe that an Irish individual can be well rounded, having had no formal education beyond primary school, in the Irish language?

This thread is not about the Irish Language.

Overheal

Primarily, Critical Thinking. ensure each student is capable of thinking independently and critically. Everything else falls under that. Students fail the most when they regurgitate information without really understanding what it is they are trying to memorize. Students should be able to derive the useful information: they shouldn't be spoonfed. In fact, you have to memorize far far less information if you understand how to derive everything else from a small field basic principles. Get students to think about, critically understand, and have the ability to adapt and develop the fundamental way in which their thought process works, and you will have set them up for life.

Kinski

Overheal wrote: »

Primarily, Critical Thinking. ensure each student is capable of thinking independently and critically. Everything else falls under that. Students fail the most when they regurgitate information without really understanding what it is they are trying to memorize. Students should be able to derive the useful information: they shouldn't be spoonfed. In fact, you have to memorize far far less information if you understand how to derive everything else from a small field basic principles. Get students to think about, critically understand, and have the ability to adapt and develop the fundamental way in which their thought process works, and you will have set them up for life.

I agree that critical thinking should be one of the key skills that second-level education helps students develop, and there does need to be a move away from rote-memorisation and regurgitation in certain subjects, but we shouldn't get too negative about memory work, either.

Some stuff, like French vocabulary or the parts of the human eye, students are just going to have to learn-off. I'd like to see major reforms of the curriculum, and of classroom practice, but things shouldn't be reduced to some sort of aptitude test that measures the candidate's potential rather than their knowledge (not that you're proposing that, but some commentators seem to).

Dannyboy83

deise go deo wrote: »

This thread is not about the Irish Language.

I didn't say it was, I asked you a question based on your proposed example

deise wrote:

Should things that have little direct value to the economy but that can have a positive impact in the development of the student, music for example be tought?

Do we judge the value of what we teach by its economic return or by its value in developing the student?

How many years of formal education in music, does an Irish person require in order to become a well rounded individual, in your opinion?

Do you believe that an Irish individual can be well rounded, having had no formal education beyond primary school, in music?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

avalon68

bluewolf wrote: »

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

I both agree and disagree with this. I feel the current format of teaching religion is waste of time, however, a revised curriculum teaching about all religions, history of religion, different beliefs/ customs would be valuable, especially in primary school, and maybe up to junior cert. modern Ireland is multicultural, and many people will end up traveling and working abroad - it would help people develop an understanding of others beliefs. I dont think it should be difficult to have a class once a week or fortnight like this.

ardmacha

Primarily, Critical Thinking. ensure each student is capable of thinking independently and critically.

This increases your capacity to learn and allows you cope with changing circumstances. But this isn't even an objective for the most part in Irish schools.

By studying a foreign language, someone can gain an appreciation for the culture and literature of another country,

You would think so. But the study of Irish doesn't seem to have provided much appreciation for the culture and literature of this country for the many anti Irish posting here.

Blatter

For secondary level, I've always thought that performance based incentives should be brought in for teachers.

In my experience, there are far too many secondary level teachers that are only in the job for the decent money and holidays. So many do not care one jot for how their students perform in state exams. Late coming into classes, not making the most of time available, wasting time by correcting homework in class (they should be correcting homework outside of class time and be giving written feedback - or at least doing this 2 or 3 times a week) etc. Many teachers are just lazy in their approach, which makes it almost impossible for a pupil to reach his/her potential in the given subject.

I'm not sure how performance based incentives would be implemented, there are other people who could think of ways better than I could. But the basic idea would be to pay a teacher x amount for every A, y amount for every B and z amount for every C that their students obtain.

Another part of secondary that could do with reform is the length of class times. 40 mins is the standard for public schools afaik and it just isn't enough imo. It could take up to 5-10 mins for a teacher to make it to class, so that's the time immediately cut down to 30-35 mins. Often teachers wind down with a few mins to spare and let their class start on homework, to get ready for the next class, or have a chat etc. and this takes off another 5 mins. And a teacher often has to deal with a disobedient student(s) for whatever reason, which could easily take up around 5 mins from every class on average.

Classes, in reality, often only contain in and around 25 mins of real productivity and that isn't enough for one sitting. If every class was an hour long, things would be much better. The real productivity time in an hour long class would probably be around 45 mins. From my experience, one hour long class with a productivity of 45 mins is better than two 40 min classes with a combined productivity of around 50-60 mins. You really should be engaging with a subject for at least 45 mins at any one time in order to maximize productivity. It's not worth tuning in and out of a subject for 25 mins - it's just too little time to get into it and concentrate properly.

Kinski

Blatter wrote: »

I'm not sure how performance based incentives would be implemented, there are other people who could think of ways better than I could. But the basic idea would be to pay a teacher x amount for every A, y amount for every B and z amount for every C that their students obtain.

And what about teachers who work in schools in disadvantaged areas, where the expectations of academic achievement are lower?

Blatter wrote: »

Late coming into classes, not making the most of time available, wasting time by correcting homework in class (they should be correcting homework outside of class time and be giving written feedback - or at least doing this 2 or 3 times a week) etc. Many teachers are just lazy in their approach, which makes it almost impossible for a pupil to reach his/her potential in the given subject.

A friend of mine who's a teacher always has a pile of corrected copybooks sitting on her breakfast table. Where do you get the idea this stuff is being done during classtime?

Blatter

Kinski wrote: »

And what about teachers who work in schools in disadvantaged areas, where the expectations of academic achievement are lower?

Design an incentive based system relative to a school's performance say every 5 years (it gets reassessed every 5 years). I'm sure the powers that be could come up with something if they put their minds to it.

Incentives are included in most private sector jobs and they're included for a reason - they do increase performance.

Kinski wrote: »

A friend of mine who's a teacher always has a pile of corrected copybooks sitting on her breakfast table. Where do you get the idea this stuff is being done during classtime?

From my experience, not even most teachers are like your friend. Maybe 30% of teachers I had in secondary school consistently corrected homework outside of class time. The vast majority do it during class and it really does eat up time.

Kinski

Blatter wrote: »

Design an incentive based system relative to a school's performance say every 5 years (it gets reassessed every 5 years). I'm sure the powers that be could come up with something if they put their minds to it.

Incentives are included in most private sector jobs and they're included for a reason - they do increase performance.

It's a bad idea to tie a teacher's pay to the performance of his students, for a whole host of reasons. For one thing, we should be encouraging teachers to move away from "teaching to the exam," not giving them financial incentives to do exactly that.

And would this "pay for grades" model you envision apply when teaching years who aren't preparing for State exams? Do you imagine there aren't any teenagers in the country who wouldn't be willing to throw some fairly meaningless in-school tests if they knew it would hit that bastard who tried to teach them maths in the pocket? A school just isn't the same sort of environment as a private company.

RubyRoss

Kinski wrote: »

It's a bad idea to tie a teacher's pay to the performance of his students, for a whole host of reasons. For one thing, we should be encouraging teachers to move away from "teaching to the exam," not giving them financial incentives to do exactly that.

I agree. The obsession with performance is part of the problem; certain schools and teachers view students as a means of securing prestige by attaining many A grades. That's fine in the short term but in the long-run teaching for the test provides very little depth. Many A grade students slump in university for this reason.

The publication of performance league tables only aids this trend; under the guise of giving parents choice, it encourages schools to be exam rather than education focused.

Overheal

^Perhaps schools should be graded to a curve, then?

Kinski wrote: »

I agree that critical thinking should be one of the key skills that second-level education helps students develop, and there does need to be a move away from rote-memorisation and regurgitation in certain subjects, but we shouldn't get too negative about memory work, either.

Some stuff, like French vocabulary or the parts of the human eye, students are just going to have to learn-off. I'd like to see major reforms of the curriculum, and of classroom practice, but things shouldn't be reduced to some sort of aptitude test that measures the candidate's potential rather than their knowledge (not that you're proposing that, but some commentators seem to).

Obviously you need to have a memorized understanding of the basics. But lookit, with as much knowledge of the english language as you and I have, can you really say you've never derived a word that actually existed but was one you hadn't used or seen used before? There is a clear structure in languages that once understood allows the rest to fall terribly easy into place. Similarly the point of knowing how the brain works is to know how the brain works not know the name of each part without understanding the relationships. That, and if you think about the names of a lot of anatomy enough, you can basically derive what it is from it's name, in most cases. At secondary level though, I don't particularly care whether a student knows the name of the Vitreous Humor.

Should things that have little direct value to the economy but that can have a positive impact in the development of the student, music for example be tought?

Taught.

And yes. It again helps extrude the psychology of the mind. Music appreciation when done right - or art, or whatever you fancy - engages a student in their ability to think for themselves. Similarly I am almost 100% positive video games have had a positive outcome on my reasoning and other cognitive skills. I'm sure if I could actually play an RTS without my head exploding I'd actually make a good manager. As it is I'm more of an FPS guy and puzzle solver.

Permabear my Engineering Degree actually requires me to take several humanities (5 minimum), one of which is English Literature and a History making up two of them as a requisite; though Ethics and Psychology are considered strong secondary choices. And thats just for the Transfer to University level. Who knows what I'll have to do when I get there..

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

RubyRoss

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

kraggy

bluewolf wrote: »

Ain't that the truth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

deise go deo

kraggy wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kinski

RubyRoss wrote: »

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

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

Kinski

deise go deo wrote: »

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

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

RubyRoss

Kinski wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Cool Mo D

Kinski wrote: »

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

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

amacachi

Overheal wrote: »

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

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

Kinski

Cool Mo D wrote: »

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

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

Kinski

RubyRoss wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

RubyRoss

Kinski wrote: »

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

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

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

RubyRoss

Kinski wrote: »

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

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

Overheal

amacachi wrote: »

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

Pretty much. Honors LC Math throws too much at students at once. Trigonometry yay fine... but then eventually you miss one class and suddenly your teacher is rattling on about dy/dx anf f-prime which makes absolutely no sense to you and then 2 days later oh hai it's Integration lets do that thing you didn't quite understand and do it completely backwards. Then lets throw probability and statistics at you to see what sticks. Slow it down a bit. Those things take a good chunk of time to grasp. The earlier the basics are taught the sooner you can teach the more complicated stuff, and have more time to focus on it, rather than throwing it all at students at the end of their 2nd level education.

amacachi

amacachi wrote: »

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

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

Kinski

RubyRoss wrote: »

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

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

We don't specifically need to produce geographers, historians, literary critics, or biologists either, but we still teach these things. I wouldn't propose anything particularly challenging at that level either - just a basic grounding. They teach philosophy in French schools (in final year, I think), and there have been suggestions they may extend that to younger pupils. Personally, I think it could be a very useful subject to have in schools, particularly when you consider some of the nonsense that could make way for it...like Business (SWOT analysis! Synergy! Pro-active! Buzzwords!)

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

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

amacachi

Overheal wrote: »

Pretty much. Honors LC Math throws too much at students at once. Trigonometry yay fine... but then eventually you miss one class and suddenly your teacher is rattling on about dy/dx anf f-prime which makes absolutely no sense to you and then 2 days later oh hai it's Integration lets do that thing you didn't quite understand and do it completely backwards. Then lets throw probability and statistics at you to see what sticks. Slow it down a bit. Those things take a good chunk of time to grasp. The earlier the basics are taught the sooner you can teach the more complicated stuff, and have more time to focus on it, rather than throwing it all at students at the end of their 2nd level education.

Even Junior Cert stuff can be pretty daunting. I mean for 8 years you do the stuff you learned in the first two years over and over again with no reference to anything coming up in future. The idea that every function has a graph was something that took me a while to believe ffs. :pac:
I agree with what you say though, while I maintain there's nothing particularly difficult in the maths syllabus in this country I do think that it can be pretty daunting for someone who doesn't 100% get it. As you say, miss one day or two days and it's moved on. If students had some kind of reference point as to what each little branch was about it would be a lot easier to slip back into the fold.

bluewolf wrote: »

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

I remember that the very few times in primary school we did anything to do with notation in maths (sigma, x-bar etc. for statistics) it was prefaced with a warning about how difficult it was followed by repetition for a few hours. Calling it difficult is a bad idea obviously but as well as that it would be smarter to do a few different things each day rather than one a day while making the same weekly progress. Start having things click for them from an earlier age and their confidence would improve no end.

RandomName2

Godge wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Typo?

Otherwise +1

Pacifist Pigeon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kinski

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

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

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

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

So Plato's Academy was a business?

Pacifist Pigeon

Kinski wrote: »

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

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

Kinski wrote: »

So Plato's Academy was a business?

Yes. A not-for-profit business.

Kinski

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

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

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

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

Yes. A not-for-profit business.

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