Science in Schools

dirkmeister

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Clearly I am going to have to do science as homeschooling throughout primary school, teach critical thinking and proper ethics .

Why, since Science is already taught in Primary Schools?

LittleBook

From a recent study of primary schools:

On the teaching of science, the study finds below average levels of confidence among teachers in teaching the subject.

It also finds Irish trainee teachers not spending enough time on science at college.

Over a three-year teacher training course it found just between 12 and 40 hours in total was spent on science.

The study found Irish ten-year-olds spend far less time studying science in school - 7%, compared to an international average of 10%.

They spend more time on religion than any other country except Israel.

Also primary students aren't taught key maths skills.

In maths, it found that not enough time was spent on teaching problem-solving, the curriculum was outdated and that Irish pupils were not learning key skills being taught in other countries.

There's feck all point in lamping an extra 25 points on for anyone who does Higher Maths at the end of school if the basics are being neglected in the beginning.

robindch

^^^ Last time the forum looked into that, it turned out that the time spent on religion and science/maths varies widely around the country. And where the time spent on either was higher or lower average, it was clear from the stats that that schools which spent more time on religion subsidized that time by taking it from science/maths.

No great surprises there, but still disappointing.

Brian Shanahan

MagicMarker wrote: »

No one thought to tell me that by dropping a language I'd be excluding myself from applying to about 85% of 3rd level courses. :mad:

[rant] I was told by my principal that there would be no problem for me getting into uni without a foreign language. He kept this up even after I pointed out that without a language I was ineligible for the NUI colleges, leaving me with only UL and DCU as options (aside from the Regional Tech. Institutes, not an option really for academic courses in the 90's). All simply because his meddling as a first year principal destroyed a LC scheduling system which had been working for twenty years.

He also wanted me to do Woodwork (I had, and have to this day, no skill with tools), I ended up doing Chemistry in the local convent (had to walk a half mile there and back every day), and had to drop my second choice subject (German) in order to do my first (Accounting). In all of my 6 chosen subjects I was given two and had to fight hard for a third (Chemistry) and a language I didn't want to do (French, because the teacher spent more time flirting with the handsome students than teaching). It was a mess. [/rant]

Kiwi in IE

dirkmeister wrote: »

Why, since Science is already taught in Primary Schools?

One hour a week? In a subject that also includes history and geography which also get an hour each? And 2.5 hours on religion apparently? I might employ a science tutor to go into his school for 2.5 hours a week to supervise him and teach him science, while the rest of the class have their heads filled with nonsense.

Peregrine

It wasn't compulsory for us in Junior Cert but out of 60 or so students, all but 2 still did it.

In the Leaving Cert, I know it's not compulsory to take up a science subject but in my school it is. Most of us do 2 to be honest. But then again we don't really have a great choice(Have to pick three from the three sciences, Geography, History, Business and Art). Our labs are quite new but resources are still poor.


Everything varies between schools and teachers. Like in primary I did little or no religion (and Irish) and it was a CBS school. Whereas another school would spend 3 hours a week on religion.

My old secondary school changed recently so that Science and Business Studies are now optional. They have students just doing 10 subjects instead of the 11 I did, despite there being more subjects to choose from. Off the top of my head there are at least 5 of the Science teachers who were there when I was still there and I'm sure one of the 10 or so new teachers could do it.

To be honest one informal class per week with a teacher who gave a **** would be better than the current JC science course. It never quite gives enough information to be satisfactory and in a classroom setting it was always completely pointless asking a question from outside the syllabus. This was a teacher who retired then came back to do Chemistry after school for a couple of years due to demand being too low for a full timetabled class so I even the decent ones are very hemmed in by the syllabus.

As far as I'm concerned all the syllabi in the subjects I did at LC level were badly broken for various reasons but a shift in the attitude to dividing classes up would be required to begin to address any issues. The continuous assessment idea doesn't address things either, it just means that rather than learning to do well in an exam you learn to do well at a few little things spread out without needing to understand a whole lot.

equivariant

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

One hour a week? In a subject that also includes history and geography which also get an hour each? And 2.5 hours on religion apparently? I might employ a science tutor to go into his school for 2.5 hours a week to supervise him and teach him science, while the rest of the class have their heads filled with nonsense.

Good idea about the tutor!

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

My old secondary school changed recently so that Science and Business Studies are now optional. They have students just doing 10 subjects instead of the 11 I did, despite there being more subjects to choose from. Off the top of my head there are at least 5 of the Science teachers who were there when I was still there and I'm sure one of the 10 or so new teachers could do it.

To be honest one informal class per week with a teacher who gave a **** would be better than the current JC science course. It never quite gives enough information to be satisfactory and in a classroom setting it was always completely pointless asking a question from outside the syllabus. This was a teacher who retired then came back to do Chemistry after school for a couple of years due to demand being too low for a full timetabled class so I even the decent ones are very hemmed in by the syllabus.

Too true! I'm still driven demented by a line in my JC science book; "Some water is not attracted by the moon, but repelled. We won't be going into that in this book". Is there anything worse for a young knowledge seeker to read than "Here's something really interesting, that we're not going to tell you about"?

I have to hand it to my secondary school though, despite being a convent school Chemistry, Physics, and Biology were all offered to LC, higher level and ordinary.

Zombrex

While I think it would be really good that a chid does a science subject, I would be opposed to the notion of forcing any child to do a subject for the LC because of the effect it could have on the LC.

I am dyslexic and I really struggled with languages. I would love to have been able to take the type to learn French properly, with the help of a teacher specialising in teaching dyslexic students. But that was just not possible in the structure of the LC. I did no language for LC other than Irish*, which ruled out a number of colleges for me. But I knew if I had done French or German it would have taken up so much time from my other subjects and probably still resulted in hardly any points. Not only would it have contributed nothing to getting to college, it would have taken time away from all my other subjects.

The issue is not science, it is the structure of the Leaving Cert and the points system. As it stands, in the current system, students should be given as much freedom to pick the subjects they want in order to set their own balance.



*don't get be starting about that f**king bulls**t, forcing a useless hobby language on students

Malari

We had all three sciences and two languages* available up to LC in our school. You had to take science to JC, and could not drop all three sciences or both languages in the senior cycle. I think it was a really good school. They taught Applied Maths after school for those who wanted to take it and facilitated the exams for others taking subjects outside the school.



*Not including Irish, obviously.

robindch

Zombrex wrote: »

I am dyslexic and I really struggled with languages.

Really? If so and based upon your postings here in A+A and elsewhere, I have to say you've overcome it with knobs on

Mark Hamill

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

One hour a week? In a subject that also includes history and geography which also get an hour each? And 2.5 hours on religion apparently? I might employ a science tutor to go into his school for 2.5 hours a week to supervise him and teach him science, while the rest of the class have their heads filled with nonsense.

Maybe you should approach other parents and see if they want their kids to join yours? You could spread the cost that way.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Really? If so and based upon your postings here in A+A and elsewhere, I have to say you've overcome it with knobs on

Firefox spell check ftw

My English is pretty good. But after 12 years of Irish I can say about 2 words. And my French is about the same. My problem is I don't pick up languages based on the "sure you'll just pick it up as you go" principle. Immersing myself in the language doesn't help. Its very frustrating. At some point if I ever get the time I plan to try and learn French the way I go about learning a programming language, from first principles building up the language as I go. Just don't have the time at the moment, and certainly didn't have the time in school

spurious

Malari wrote: »

We had all three sciences and two languages* available up to LC in our school. You had to take science to JC, and could not drop all three sciences or both languages in the senior cycle. I think it was a really good school. They taught Applied Maths after school for those who wanted to take it and facilitated the exams for others taking subjects outside the school.



*Not including Irish, obviously.

Sounds like a good policy for a school to have. Unfortunately so much depends on staffing levels and allocations. I'm sure people outside education believe that if student numbers go up, they employ more teachers and are able to offer more choices.

However, the cutbacks and changing the goalposts re children needing extra help and the PTR in general means our school has 60 more children than we had five years ago and ten less full time teachers to provide the same subjects and choices. It's nigh on impossible without really large classes, or dropping subjects/levels.

Science hasn't been hit yet, but that's just the luck of the draw rather than policy.

KyussBishop

How powerful are the lobbyists that enforce Irish and Religion as part of the curriculum?

Considering the entire country is fully of both parents and students, who would want to discard with both and replace them with something more useful, it seems like an issue which could be made reach a tipping point, without too much effort.

Kiwi in IE

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It seems as a parent here you cannot rely on the education system to inform and prepare your child properly at all. Clearly I am going to have to do science as homeschooling throughout primary school, teach critical thinking and proper ethics (as opposed to religious 'morals'), and become an expert on exactly what is needed for entry into which college course when he hits secondary school! Well I guess it's good I know that now as he is starting primary school rather than find out too late.

I might order the science text books used in the equivelant of junior and senior infants from NZ.

If you look at the actual report, Irish kids spend MORE time learning science than kids in New Zealand,
63 hours per year compared to 52 in NZ,

http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/national-schools-international-contexts.pdf
Irish Kids also score better than average in science,

lazygal

KyussBishop wrote: »

How powerful are the lobbyists that enforce Irish and Religion as part of the curriculum?

Considering the entire country is fully of both parents and students, who would want to discard with both and replace them with something more useful, it seems like an issue which could be made reach a tipping point, without too much effort.

The dept. of ed. is notoriously conservative. I'd also imagine the teaching lobby are pretty happy with the status quo, plus most patrons are religious like bishops. The Irish lobby are powerful too, and link themselves to patriotism and keeping the language alive. Its not hard to see why change is slow.

KyussBishop

lazygal wrote: »

The dept. of ed. is notoriously conservative. I'd also imagine the teaching lobby are pretty happy with the status quo, plus most patrons are religious like bishops. The Irish lobby are powerful too, and link themselves to patriotism and keeping the language alive. Its not hard to see why change is slow.

That is pretty ingrained alright, but what is to stop (for example) a direct campaign by students/parents, to lobby against this, and even engaging directly with schools to remove their kids from Irish and Religion classes, and refusing to sit exams on Irish?

If it happened on a large enough scale, it would be pretty hard to fight against; you don't necessarily need government support, just create the pressure against them.
It (superficially) appears like something that would not take much momentum to get started, especially considering students would love to get rid of Irish in particular.

Sarky

Zombrex wrote: »

But after 12 years of Irish I can say about 2 words.

I wouldn't worry, most people who went through the Irish curriculum can't speak more than "Ciunas bothar calín bainne", and that's only because they saw it on an ad for alcohol.