History no longer a core subject In Secondary Level

Gbear

hotmail.com wrote: »

People will survive if they don't hear about Leonardo da Vinci or the US War of Independence. The crappiness of the Junior Cert curriculum makes it irrelevant if it's compulsory or not.

Most Irish people learned about the reformer Martin Luther and the Reformation and most have no idea about it now. The same could be said for most of the course.

spurious wrote: »

The educational value of History was never in the facts that were taught. It was about spotting bias, questioning sources, constructing and backing up a point of view, recognising patterns in behaviour, cause and effect etc.. All the things that would fight 'fake news' and arguably the social media lies and nonsense that swayed the Brexit vote.

The actual skill of studying history was never something I did in the Irish system.
I did a couple of years in secondary school in France, and there there was an element of that sort of critical analysis skill being developed, but in Ireland it was mostly rote learning and worthless.

It seems to me that you could have a bit of an "all of the above" course form part of the core curriculum that touches on events in history, religion, culture, philosophy, and so on, but the core skills being developed would be logic, critical thinking and analysis. There are facts worth knowing about our history, the history of the world, but the best use for those facts is as a vehicle for building key skills that are lacking in most people who don't study them.

There probably isn't a need to have these in Junior Cert, and possibly even in Leaving Cert as distinct subjects. If you want to study history, it'd be better to get into the nitty gritty in third level, having had a good foundation in the thought processes involved, and the one course would be applicable to real life, and pretty much any serious course that involves using your brain.

It's far more important these days to be able to curate and manage information than actually have it to hand.

Mountainsandh

I don't think the relevance of history is only to do with politics. Think of the challenges these budding generations are going to have to deal with.
I don't think it's that important that they should remember the facts, but that's an effective way to ensure that they're taking it in up to a point. The whole processing of all that rote learning can safely take place later on in life. (I think this is an aspect of education we are completely dissing right now, and that will emerge again in a while)

Imo history is what helps you put things in perspective, and that's badly needed everywhere. Look at how many social and yes, political decisions are made with only a short term tunnel vision here in Ireland, every year.

History helps understand consequences, cause and effect, and potential. What could potentially happen ? what's humanity's potential ? how far can this or that be pushed ?

I'm thinking of cloning, genetics and eugenics, bio-engineering, geo-engineering, AI of course, space exploration... These things are happening right now and these young people will have to make far reaching decisions.
Knowing about the past will inform the decisions of the future.

And I'm not talking about these children understanding or remembering the entire curriculum to top levels and bringing that all the way to adulthood.

I'm just suggesting that this is the groundwork, all children will take something from history classes, some more, some less. Some will revisit points they were most interested in as adults, some won't, but even the ones who don't might just have got that little spark of something in the history curriculum that oriented them one way or another in their career. That could very well be Leonardo da Vinci inspiring a budding engineer, or Christopher Columbus opening up a whole new global perspective to a little mind whose parents have never stepped a foot out of their county or country.

Blaizes

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I don't think the relevance of history is only to do with politics. Think of the challenges these budding generations are going to have to deal with.
I don't think it's that important that they should remember the facts, but that's an effective way to ensure that they're taking it in up to a point. The whole processing of all that rote learning can safely take place later on in life. (I think this is an aspect of education we are completely dissing right now, and that will emerge again in a while)

Imo history is what helps you put things in perspective, and that's badly needed everywhere. Look at how many social and yes, political decisions are made with only a short term tunnel vision here in Ireland, every year.

History helps understand consequences, cause and effect, and potential. What could potentially happen ? what's humanity's potential ? how far can this or that be pushed ?

I'm thinking of cloning, genetics and eugenics, bio-engineering, geo-engineering, AI of course, space exploration... These things are happening right now and these young people will have to make far reaching decisions.
Knowing about the past will inform the decisions of the future.

And I'm not talking about these children understanding or remembering the entire curriculum to top levels and bringing that all the way to adulthood.

I'm just suggesting that this is the groundwork, all children will take something from history classes, some more, some less. Some will revisit points they were most interested in as adults, some won't, but even the ones who don't might just have got that little spark of something in the history curriculum that oriented them one way or another in their career. That could very well be Leonardo da Vinci inspiring a budding engineer, or Christopher Columbus opening up a whole new global perspective to a little mind whose parents have never stepped a foot out of their county or country.

Very well said.

Mountainsandh

Gbear wrote: »

It seems to me that you could have a bit of an "all of the above" course form part of the core curriculum that touches on events in history, religion, culture, philosophy, and so on, but the core skills being developed would be logic, critical thinking and analysis.

Good points, but that's assuming this will be achieved with whatever "other subjects", and you could chip away some more at the curriculum with this kind of thinking, and also assuming people will reach 3rd level, which they don't always. The voice of those who didn't (reach 3rd level) will count equally to that of someone who thoroughly got the concepts of history later on in their educational journey.

James Brown

When you've Trump talking about making America great again, you need history not to fall for it. It's basic stuff IMO.
There's any number of ongoing conflicts and disputes were we get a skewed one sided version 90% of the time. If we don't appreciate the value of history the PR spin by the likes of Murdoch and Putin will become historical fact, if no other sources are readily available. We already rely heavily on Wikipedia which isn't a credible source for anything past the drift on something.

dragonfly!

listermint wrote: »

So now that history is no longer a core subject at second level. What could be the impact. Certainly from a political / social point of view I believe that having history as a core subject as allowed Irish society to maintain a more worldly outlook. It part i think it actually has assisted our view of the European project and our place within it.

So the question is, Who made this decision. Why was it made and who backed it. Certainly from a novices stand point it appears that everyone and their aunty (so to speak) was against its removal.


So why then, its Ireland joining England and Albania as european countries that doesnt have history as core to education.

I did my junior cert in 2005 and I was the only one of my friends to do History.
Everyone did it in first year and you have to drop one subject at the end of the year.
The subjects we had the option to drop were History, Science or Geography.
I also feel like you could have dropped one of the subjects you picked at the start of the year but my brain is a little fuzzy on that.
History was by far the most dropped subject

DEFTLEFTHAND

Ghekko wrote: »

No history in our secondary school for years - not even to junior Cert. Son is in 5th year and it hasn't been taught since he started there, not sure about before that. There wasn't a demand to justify having it.

Are you serious, it's not even offered as an option subject?

That's a travesty.

Blaizes

Gbear wrote: »

The actual skill of studying history was never something I did in the Irish system.
I did a couple of years in secondary school in France, and there there was an element of that sort of critical analysis skill being developed, but in Ireland it was mostly rote learning and worthless.

It seems to me that you could have a bit of an "all of the above" course form part of the core curriculum that touches on events in history, religion, culture, philosophy, and so on, but the core skills being developed would be logic, critical thinking and analysis. There are facts worth knowing about our history, the history of the world, but the best use for those facts is as a vehicle for building key skills that are lacking in most people who don't study them.

There probably isn't a need to have these in Junior Cert, and possibly even in Leaving Cert as distinct subjects. If you want to study history, it'd be better to get into the nitty gritty in third level, having had a good foundation in the thought processes involved, and the one course would be applicable to real life, and pretty much any serious course that involves using your brain.

It's far more important these days to be able to curate and manage information than actually have it to hand.

New Leaving cert. course Politics and Society.Sounds a bit like what you are mentioning.

The Pheasant2

The study of history is anathema to ignorance.

It's a disgrace that it's no longer core for JC at least. The cringe I experience sometimes listening to English/Americans going on about some issue with utter ignorance of the historical context and why things are the way they are. I'd be ashamed if my countrymen were to be afflicted with the same blindness.

Is there any possibility of this being reversed?

hotmail.com

The Pheasant2 wrote:

It's a disgrace that it's no longer core for JC at least. The cringe I experience sometimes listening to English/Americans going on about some issue with utter ignorance of the historical context and why things are the way they are. I'd be ashamed if my countrymen were to be afflicted with the same blindness.

The Pheasant2 wrote:

Is there any possibility of this being reversed?

But the same ignorance exists among Irish people towards basic Irish history. Most know little of the first government of the Free State for example.

Does anyone else think history is something that you appreciate the older you get? The complexities of history can't really be taught appropriately to 13 or 14 year olds, hence we get this watered down crappy course.

listermint

hotmail.com wrote: »

But the same ignorance exists among Irish people towards basic Irish history. Most know little of the first government of the Free State for example.

Does anyone else think history is something that you appreciate the older you get? The complexities of history can't really be taught appropriately to 13 or 14 year olds, hence we get this watered down crappy course.

I disagree entirely. You'd be talking about a minority not having an understanding of Irish history

hotmail.com

listermint wrote:

I disagree entirely. You'd be talking about a minority not having an understanding of Irish history

Britain took over Ireland, Ireland fought long and hard for independence. The end.


That seems to be the level of understanding of Irish history among many people.

listermint

hotmail.com wrote: »

Britain took over Ireland, Ireland fought long and hard for independence. The end.


That seems to be the level of understanding of Irish history among many people.

Yes you are so right.

Can I subscribe to your blog. It's fascinating

Mountainsandh

hotmail.com wrote: »

Does anyone else think history is something that you appreciate the older you get? The complexities of history can't really be taught appropriately to 13 or 14 year olds, hence we get this watered down crappy course.

Absolutely, like a lot of the content of other subjects.

I think it's fine to teach for "whatever they can understand at that moment in time", because often it's only in adulthood that they will have the maturity to process some things.

I experienced that myself. I'm French so in French primary school (in the 80s) we used to learn a lot of grammar. This was really systemic grammar, pretty intense and taxing. I never understood it, I hated it in fact and was so relieved when that all stopped in secondary school, and we concentrated on books and comprehension.

But I had gone through the motions of learning these little labels to apply to words, and how to decompose a sentence, and it all clicked when I re-approached grammar in first year of university.

I really couldn't explain it as something to do with the teacher, our university lecturers were nice and efficient, yet they did not have a spectacularly easy to understand approach.

I think it was me. My mind finally had the capacity to conceptualize all the data I had been stacking in. I was not able to connect all the dots in Primary School, but when my brain matured enough, the dots were still there and all fell into place (once revisited with a little support).

I think history and a lot of other subjects have these areas where data collection and retention is important for later use.

It's a great feeling when it all clicks together, no matter how long after

Blaizes

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Absolutely, like a lot of the content of other subjects.

I think it's fine to teach for "whatever they can understand at that moment in time", because often it's only in adulthood that they will have the maturity to process some things.

I experienced that myself. I'm French so in French primary school (in the 80s) we used to learn a lot of grammar. This was really systemic grammar, pretty intense and taxing. I never understood it, I hated it in fact and was so relieved when that all stopped in secondary school, and we concentrated on books and comprehension.

But I had gone through the motions of learning these little labels to apply to words, and how to decompose a sentence, and it all clicked when I re-approached grammar in first year of university.

I really couldn't explain it as something to do with the teacher, our university lecturers were nice and efficient, yet they did not have a spectacularly easy to understand approach.

I think it was me. My mind finally had the capacity to conceptualize all the data I had been stacking in. I was not able to connect all the dots in Primary School, but when my brain matured enough, the dots were still there and all fell into place.

I think history and a lot of other subjects have these areas where data collection and retention is important for later use.

It's a great feeling when it all clicks together, no matter how long after

Exactly that! Didn't Steve Jobs mention the dots connecting and he said the very same thing ,
' You can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking back.So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future.'

Mountainsandh

Blaizes wrote: »

Exactly that! Didn't Steve Jobs mention the dots connecting and he said the very same thing ,
' You can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking back.So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future.'

Woohoo ! Steve Jobs ? I'm a bit chuffed with myself now. Have never really listened to him so I had never heard that.

Why not keep it on the curriculum? Those who forget/overlook history are condemned to repeat it.

Blaizes

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Woohoo ! Steve Jobs ? I'm a bit chuffed with myself now. Have never really listened to him so I had never heard that.

Yes, I like that quote and find there is truth in it.We don't know everything necessarily at the time but if we trust the process we can later understand everything and the dots will connect.In a way it's applicable to history too and of course history teaching which is why it is such a shame to see history being downgraded.

Midlife

Schools in competitive areas will lose huge numbers of good students if they stick with the traditional curricula.

Tech Graph/Technology/Home ec are huge these days. The stigma that many of us would have had regarding practical vrs academic subjects has long gone.

hotmail.com

Midlife wrote:

Tech Graph/Technology/Home ec are huge these days. The stigma that many of us would have had regarding practical vrs academic subjects has long gone.

Midlife wrote:

Schools in competitive areas will lose huge numbers of good students if they stick with the traditional curricula.

Students voting with their feet. I can understand why teenagers prefer these subjects, as I said before, the complexities of history is often lost on younger people. They find history boring and irrelevant to their lives. It's only when people get older and live a bit, that they begin to appreciate the importance of understanding the past.

listermint

Midlife wrote: »

Schools in competitive areas will lose huge numbers of good students if they stick with the traditional curricula.

Tech Graph/Technology/Home ec are huge these days. The stigma that many of us would have had regarding practical vrs academic subjects has long gone.

These were all big when I was in second level and I still did history .

I actually don't comprehend the need to remove it.

rainbowtrout

listermint wrote: »

These were all big when I was in second level and I still did history .

I actually don't comprehend the need to remove it.

For the most part schools offered 11 subjects until recently. A smaller number did 12.

So a typical offering might be:
English
Irish
Maths
CSPE
Science
A foreign language
History
Geography

And three others from the likes of Art, music, home ec, business studies, woodwork, metalwork, tech graph depending on the school.

Reducing the examinable subjects to 10 would reduce the choices to two of the options above so I would imagine in many places history and geography were put into the mix rather than reduce the number of options. As there is a huge push for stem subjects now science isn’t going to be made optional and schools typically won’t drop the foreign language at junior cert when there are still a considerable number of college courses where it is a requirement. So the obvious targets are history and geography.

NUTLEY BOY

From conversation with recent years school leavers who took history they felt, in retrospect, that there was just too much work involved - in terms of volume -to get the points. They seemed to be of the view that the same amount of time could have been better invested in other subjects with a bigger pay-off points wise.

Midlife

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

From conversation with recent years school leavers who took history they felt, in retrospect, that there was just too much work involved - in terms of volume -to get the points. They seemed to be of the view that the same amount of time could have been better invested in other subjects with a bigger pay-off points wise.

Very true.

Also worth pointing out that junior history is very 'rote-learn' and contains very little of the information people in this thread rate as valuable.

Leaving cert history is really long. Project aside, it's also a lot of learning stuff off. Very hard to convince a kid looking for points why it's more valuable than say Geography or Biology.

Blaizes

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

From conversation with recent years school leavers who took history they felt, in retrospect, that there was just too much work involved - in terms of volume -to get the points. They seemed to be of the view that the same amount of time could have been better invested in other subjects with a bigger pay-off points wise.[/QU


But we're not talking about the Leaving Cert. course, this is about junior cycle history being made optional.Up to now they didn't have a choice ( see Rainbow Trouts posts above ) so by studying the subject they got some grounding in it - this will no longer be the case for many students. What a shame to deprive them of the great exploration that history is and limit their understanding of the world.Backwards it is.

RandomName2

listermint wrote: »

So the question is, Who made this decision. Why was it made and who backed it.

Labour minster and labour initiative did. Oh look, labour's history. There must be some irony in that.

Edit: This isn't the worst thing that Ruairi Quinn did. He planned for the entire removal of the Junior Certificate, to be replaced exclusively by teacher-based classroom continual assessment. Between this, and the reversal of the pre-election promise by labour not to increase 3rd level fees, I don't think their record in education did them much favors in the subsequent election.

maynooth_rules

I'm a History teacher and tbf schools have always had the option of not having compulsory History,but very few took it up.
I'm our own school it's compulsory for first year. Shameful that there are kids who get zero historical knowledge after the age of 12.
Being a parent, my biggest concern would the new Junior Cycle as a whole. It's dreadful, utterly dreadful. Seems to be only after the results this year in English that parents have finally started questioning it. Little too late unfortunatly

Rhineshark

RandomName2 wrote: »

Labour minster and labour initiative did. Oh look, labour's history. There must be some irony in that.

Edit: This isn't the worst thing that Ruairi Quinn did. He planned for the entire removal of the Junior Certificate, to be replaced exclusively by teacher-based classroom continual assessment. Between this, and the reversal of the pre-election promise by labour not to increase 3rd level fees, I don't think their record in education did them much favors in the subsequent election.

I am not automatically against removing the JC tbh. I have never been convinced that teaching to the test is a good method of learning. It also hammers kids who are not good at regurgitating reams of specific info under a time limit. It tends to stay in the head for a couple of weeks and is gone again. Continuous assessment clamps down on the reaction of coasting and then cramming in favour of slower, less pressurised and more thought-out work.

judeboy101

400 hrs of we'll bring have to be incorporated into the new junior cycle. Those hours have to come off every subject or else lose a subject. Science has never been compulsory in ireland, which beggars belief.Wait til they roll out well being at leaving cert.

Jolly Red Giant

RandomName2 wrote: »

Labour minster and labour initiative did. Oh look, labour's history. There must be some irony in that.

Edit: This isn't the worst thing that Ruairi Quinn did. He planned for the entire removal of the Junior Certificate, to be replaced exclusively by teacher-based classroom continual assessment. Between this, and the reversal of the pre-election promise by labour not to increase 3rd level fees, I don't think their record in education did them much favors in the subsequent election.

Quinn was a consultant with a vulture capital firm whose objective was the promotion of the privatisation of education.

I predicted before the 2011 election that Quinn was guaranteed to become the Minister for Education - he was going to serve the interests of his vulture capital paymasters.

The objective of the JC revision was to facilitate the privatisation of education in this country - and the framework now exists for this to happen.

On the wider issue of the new JC programme - it is a copy of what was done in Britain 20 years ago (which facilitated the privatisation of education in the UK) - and has proven to be a disaster (they are now rolling back on it - but the damage is already done).