History no longer a core subject In Secondary Level

badtoro

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

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).

Where can people see how he was involved with a vc fund? I presume this was after his time in politics? I have the unfortunate luck of seeing him around on holiday.

Edgware

What gave me great enjoyment with Quinn was that he criticised the reburial of Kevin Barry and one of his first functions as Minister was unveiling the Kevin Barry window in U.C.D.
Another gob****e who pulled the plug on the Reynolds government and then lost the election 2 years later to Bertie. Stuck in opposition for three terms instead of getting to spend the boom money.
Aided and abetted by Howlin. Another loser

Jolly Red Giant

badtoro wrote: »

Where can people see how he was involved with a vc fund? I presume this was after his time in politics? I have the unfortunate luck of seeing him around on holiday.

The register of members interests

and it was while he was an opposition TD up to 2011

Odhinn

Edgware wrote: »

What gave me great enjoyment with Quinn was that he criticised the reburial of Kevin Barry and one of his first functions as Minister was unveiling the Kevin Barry window in U.C.D.
Another gob****e who pulled the plug on the Reynolds government and then lost the election 2 years later to Bertie. Stuck in opposition for three terms instead of getting to spend the boom money.
Aided and abetted by Howlin. Another loser

In fairness to Quinn, it was the timing of the re-burial (at the end of a FF ard fheis) he had a problem with, rather than the reburial itself.

Edgware

Odhinn wrote: »

In fairness to Quinn, it was the timing of the re-burial (at the end of a FF ard fheis) he had a problem with, rather than the reburial itself.

No it wasn't. He was whinging that it would damage the Peace Process. If it was James Connolly he would have had no problem with it.
He was too shortsighted to see it was all part of the process much the same as getting Paisley to visit the Boyne

badtoro

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

badtoro wrote: »

Where can people see how he was involved with a vc fund? I presume this was after his time in politics? I have the unfortunate luck of seeing him around on holiday.

The register of members interests

and it was while he was an opposition TD up to 2011

Interesting, I'm surprised such a thing would be allowed.

Mr.Nice Guy

I heard about this a couple of months ago and thought it was a travesty, and so did everyone I spoke to about it.

I think a situation like Brexit for instance serves to highlight the importance of being aware of our complex history, and how having a knowledge of it can shape our actions today. The ignorance of Irish history from politicians across the water ought to act as a warning. Take the Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, admitting she didn't know the difference between unionists and nationalists - and this is the person with the authority to call a border poll under the GFA. Why subject our own citizens to this kind of ignorance?

I worry about the consequences for our society years and decades down the line.

Midlife

A lot of people on this thread have the wrong idea about History in second level.

1: History was never core (as previously mentioned)

2: Junior cycle history was mandatory in a number of schools but it was up to the schools.

3: Junior cycle history contains very little of what people here are lauding about the subject. it's mostly remembering facts about the life of a knight and what a motte and bailey is. You get a small bit about the plantations and 1916 but it's very superficial and fact-based. Not much analysis at all.

4: Looking at examinations.ie, 16 years ago only 1 in 4 were sitting history at leaving cert level. How can we expect the subject to be compulsory if that's the uptake?

Just to add, I'm all for history. My children will do it and know about it. It's just hard to make that argument for everyone else's kids too. Back when everyone did 13 subjects, sure but nowadays I don't know how you find the space.

Midlife

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I heard about this a couple of months ago and thought it was a travesty, and so did everyone I spoke to about it.

I think a situation like Brexit for instance serves to highlight the importance of being aware of our complex history, and how having a knowledge of it can shape our actions today. The ignorance of Irish history from politicians across the water ought to act as a warning. Take the Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, admitting she didn't know the difference between unionists and nationalists - and this is the person with the authority to call a border poll under the GFA. Why subject our own citizens to this kind of ignorance?

I worry about the consequences for our society years and decades down the line.

With due respect, I think the problem with Brexit is that British national history is probably overly and incorrectly taught in British schools. Less of a focus on the past and more of an awarenessof exactly Britian is today would have helped.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I heard about this a couple of months ago and thought it was a travesty, and so did everyone I spoke to about it.

I think a situation like Brexit for instance serves to highlight the importance of being aware of our complex history, and how having a knowledge of it can shape our actions today. The ignorance of Irish history from politicians across the water ought to act as a warning. Take the Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, admitting she didn't know the difference between unionists and nationalists - and this is the person with the authority to call a border poll under the GFA. Why subject our own citizens to this kind of ignorance?

I worry about the consequences for our society years and decades down the line.

Karen Brady case to mind when I first heard this as well. Why are we following the mistakes of other societies.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Midlife wrote: »

With due respect, I think the problem with Brexit is that British national history is probably overly and incorrectly taught in British schools. Less of a focus on the past and more of an awarenessof exactly Britian is today would have helped.

It’s ckearky not teaching much about Ireland. I don’t tgink anyway that a yearning for empire was at the root of Brexit.

James Brown

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.

The problem is education is for life not what's the current job lure. A mix would be good. I remember everyone and their dog getting into IT just before that market collapsed. Lots of lads with degrees nobody wanted at the time.

listermint

Midlife wrote: »

A lot of people on this thread have the wrong idea about History in second level.

1: History was never core (as previously mentioned)

2: Junior cycle history was mandatory in a number of schools but it was up to the schools.

3: Junior cycle history contains very little of what people here are lauding about the subject. it's mostly remembering facts about the life of a knight and what a motte and bailey is. You get a small bit about the plantations and 1916 but it's very superficial and fact-based. Not much analysis at all.

4: Looking at examinations.ie, 16 years ago only 1 in 4 were sitting history at leaving cert level. How can we expect the subject to be compulsory if that's the uptake?

Just to add, I'm all for history. My children will do it and know about it. It's just hard to make that argument for everyone else's kids too. Back when everyone did 13 subjects, sure but nowadays I don't know how you find the space.

I think everyone is aware it's mandatory in most schools it was actually the minority that chose not to make it such .

And the argument has been made.

Ireland joins now an illustrious few countries that do this includes the UK. And yes it does have an impact on social outlook and indeed politics.

A dimmer education tbh.

I'm in hold no favour of following anything the UK does regards education

Midlife

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s ckearky not teaching much about Ireland. I don’t tgink anyway that a yearning for empire was at the root of Brexit.

I disagree quite a lot. Older people looking back with nostalgia towards a more dominant Britian carried the vote.

It's not empire as much as an idea of English exceptionalism. But very nationalistic.

https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2018/may/26/secret-teacher-history-bias-school-fear-student-future

recedite

Midlife wrote: »

I disagree quite a lot. Older people looking back with nostalgia towards a more dominant Britian carried the vote.

It's not empire as much as an idea of English exceptionalism. But very nationalistic.

https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2018/may/26/secret-teacher-history-bias-school-fear-student-future

The history teacher who wrote that lefty article for the Guardian is a bit of an eejit.

Claiming that there is "inherent bias in the curriculum" and "This generation only has one side of the story."
Then he/she says "I teach mostly white boys and girls" followed by...

When a pupil asked me how a new module about slavery was relevant to this country, I explained that it was the British who facilitated and spread the slave trade across the world. “That’s nothing to do with me,” he replied. “Why should I be bothered about stuff that happened miles away to people that are long gone?” It’s a different story in lessons about Winston Churchill and the second world war, when that same class will be captivated.

The British did not invent slavery, but it was largely the Royal Navy that put an end to it by bombarding slave trading outposts and capturing slave ships, and then releasing the slaves.
So you get a bad teacher like this, with a particular lefty agenda, trying to make kids feel bad about themselves. Instead the teacher ends up helping to polarise society.


Also the numerous posts on this thread criticising English/British nationalism, while pushing Irish nationalism/victimhood are equally ridiculous.
As is the assumption that if everyone was better educated in history, they would think and vote exactly like you.


Face it, its just not going to happen. People with the opposite opinion to you are often just as knowledgeable, and often more so.

listermint

recedite wrote: »

The history teacher who wrote that lefty article for the Guardian is a bit of an eejit.

Claiming that there is "inherent bias in the curriculum" and "This generation only has one side of the story."
Then he/she says "I teach mostly white boys and girls" followed by...
The British did not invent slavery, but it was largely the Royal Navy that put an end to it by bombarding slave trading outposts and capturing slave ships, and then releasing the slaves.
So you get a bad teacher like this, with a particular lefty agenda, trying to make kids feel bad about themselves. Instead the teacher ends up helping to polarise society.


Also the numerous posts on this thread criticising English/British nationalism, while pushing Irish nationalism/victimhood are equally ridiculous.
As is the assumption that if everyone was better educated in history, they would think and vote exactly like you.


Face it, its just not going to happen. People with the opposite opinion to you are often just as knowledgeable, and often more so.

Yeah, that is exactly what we wanted from the discussion.


You have form for ludicrous statements and this is up there.

Blaizes

recedite wrote: »

The history teacher who wrote that lefty article for the Guardian is a bit of an eejit.

Claiming that there is "inherent bias in the curriculum" and "This generation only has one side of the story."
Then he/she says "I teach mostly white boys and girls" followed by...
The British did not invent slavery, but it was largely the Royal Navy that put an end to it by bombarding slave trading outposts and capturing slave ships, and then releasing the slaves.
So you get a bad teacher like this, with a particular lefty agenda, trying to make kids feel bad about themselves. Instead the teacher ends up helping to polarise society.


Also the numerous posts on this thread criticising English/British nationalism, while pushing Irish nationalism/victimhood are equally ridiculous.
As is the assumption that if everyone was better educated in history, they would think and vote exactly like you.


Face it, its just not going to happen. People with the opposite opinion to you are often just as knowledgeable, and often more so.

Not about that at all, it's about being able to make more informed choices and weigh up different factors, critical thinking skills.

recedite

Blaizes wrote: »

Not about that at all, it's about being able to make more informed choices and weigh up different factors, critical thinking skills.

The assumption that Brexiteers lack these is faulty reasoning.
As is the assumption that Irish students are better in these areas as a result of the way history has been taught in this country. Or that they have a more objective view of history than people in other countries.

listermint

recedite wrote: »

The assumption that Brexiteers lack these is faulty reasoning.
As is the assumption that Irish students are better in these areas as a result of the way history has been taught in this country. Or that they have a more objective view of history than people in other countries.

They do lack these skills though. It has been plain to see in various Interviews with same individuals. Clueless about social norms and clueless about international relations and history.

Irish students are emphatically better in these areas as demonstrated by our ability to punch above our collective weight on the international stage.


In short, you are wrong.

recedite

listermint wrote: »

They do lack these skills though. It has been plain to see in various Interviews with same individuals. Clueless about social norms and clueless about international relations and history.

Irish students are emphatically better in these areas as demonstrated by our ability to punch above our collective weight on the international stage.


In short, you are wrong.

Don't delude yourself. Irish people know more than foreigners about Irish history, and that's about it.
Irish politicians have tended to get rewards within the EU by

(a) riding on the coat tails of the UK and claiming whatever derogations and concessions they had already negotiated.
(b) sycophantic cow-towing to powerful eurocrats.


I wouldn't call that "punching above our weight".


A classic example of delusion in international relations is the way we are being used by continentals in the Brexit negotiations to punish the UK.
We insist on "Backstop with no Irish borders" and Eurocrats use that as a reason to prevent a Canada style free trade deal. Such a deal could be offered to GB, but not to the UK as a whole, because of us.
But this insistence vastly increases the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit. If that happens, it will be the EU that imposes a hard border in Ireland; at their new EU frontier.

Hardly anyone in Ireland seems to realise that the so-called "backstop" will evaporate completely if there is no deal. Yet again we see anti-Brit sentiment and self-delusion win out in this country against national interests.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

A classic example of delusion in international relations is the way we are being used by continentals in the Brexit negotiations to punish the UK.
We insist on "Backstop with no Irish borders" and Eurocrats use that as a reason to prevent a Canada style free trade deal. Such a deal could be offered to GB, but not to the UK as a whole, because of us.
But this insistence vastly increases the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit. If that happens, it will be the EU that imposes a hard border in Ireland; at their new EU frontier.

Hardly anyone in Ireland seems to realise that the so-called "backstop" will evaporate completely if there is no deal. Yet again we see anti-Brit sentiment and self-delusion win out in this country against national interests.

Someone needs to read the Brexit threads on this forum. All of them. From the start.

listermint

recedite wrote: »

Don't delude yourself. Irish people know more than foreigners about Irish history, and that's about it.
Irish politicians have tended to get rewards within the EU by

(a) riding on the coat tails of the UK and claiming whatever derogations and concessions they had already negotiated.
(b) sycophantic cow-towing to powerful eurocrats.


I wouldn't call that "punching above our weight".


A classic example of delusion in international relations is the way we are being used by continentals in the Brexit negotiations to punish the UK.
We insist on "Backstop with no Irish borders" and Eurocrats use that as a reason to prevent a Canada style free trade deal. Such a deal could be offered to GB, but not to the UK as a whole, because of us.
But this insistence vastly increases the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit. If that happens, it will be the EU that imposes a hard border in Ireland; at their new EU frontier.

Hardly anyone in Ireland seems to realise that the so-called "backstop" will evaporate completely if there is no deal. Yet again we see anti-Brit sentiment and self-delusion win out in this country against national interests.

I stopped reading your nonsense about this line right here.

It is evident you have not got a clue about Ireland nor Irish diplomats. how long have you lived here? did you even study in Ireland or is self deprecation your thing.

riding on coat tails. Quality! :rolleyes:

Odhinn

Edgware wrote: »

No it wasn't. He was whinging that it would damage the Peace Process. If it was James Connolly he would have had no problem with it.
He was too shortsighted to see it was all part of the process much the same as getting Paisley to visit the Boyne

I've gone and checked, and I'm afraid you're wrong here, as far as I can tell. You might have a link or access to information that says otherwise - if so please provide it.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1584349.stm

https://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0906/18523-funeral/
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ahern-defends-re-burial-of-independence-war-heroes-26628.html

Chips Lovell

It's probably going off the topic of History in Secondary Education, but the UK isn't looking for a Canada-type deal, and if it were, it wouldn't be dependent on the backstop being accepted. Instead, it's been told that if there is no backstop, a Canada-type deal is probably the best it could hope for.

Back on topic, I'm only half joking when I say that the rot probably started when they stopped teaching Latin.

Midlife

recedite wrote: »

The history teacher who wrote that lefty article for the Guardian is a bit of an eejit.

Claiming that there is "inherent bias in the curriculum" and "This generation only has one side of the story."
Then he/she says "I teach mostly white boys and girls" followed by...
The British did not invent slavery, but it was largely the Royal Navy that put an end to it by bombarding slave trading outposts and capturing slave ships, and then releasing the slaves.
So you get a bad teacher like this, with a particular lefty agenda, trying to make kids feel bad about themselves. Instead the teacher ends up helping to polarise society.


Also the numerous posts on this thread criticising English/British nationalism, while pushing Irish nationalism/victimhood are equally ridiculous.
As is the assumption that if everyone was better educated in history, they would think and vote exactly like you.


Face it, its just not going to happen. People with the opposite opinion to you are often just as knowledgeable, and often more so.

recedite wrote: »

Face it, it's just not going to happen?

What exactly are you talking about?

recedite

Midlife wrote: »

What exactly are you talking about?

"If everyone was better educated in history, they would think and vote exactly like you." - that won't happen.

listermint

recedite wrote: »

"If everyone was better educated in history, they would think and vote exactly like you." - that won't happen.

You said that.

No one else did.

recedite

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's probably going off the topic of History in Secondary Education, but the UK isn't looking for a Canada-type deal, and if it were, it wouldn't be dependent on the backstop being accepted. Instead, it's been told that if there is no backstop, a Canada-type deal is probably the best it could hope for.

Unfortunately you have that arsewise.
See here.

Brexit backers have embraced CETA as a sound alternative to Ms. May’s plan. They argue the Prime Minister’s strategy would keep Britain too closely tied to the EU. Instead, they argue Britain should leave the EU and negotiate an even better deal than CETA; or “Canada plus, plus, plus.” Mr. Rees-Mogg said Britain would have an easier time negotiating a trade deal with the EU than Canada, because the British and EU economies are already completely intertwined and there are no protected industries, such as Canada’s dairy and cultural sectors.

The only fly in the ointment to this is the insistence on a frictionless Irish border within any deal. So a CETA type deal could only be approved by the EU if it applied to GB only, and not to the UK. Which no British PM will accept unless a border poll in NI has mandated a united Ireland.

Ergo, by insisting on an invisible border, we prevent that free trade/soft border deal from happening. And give ourselves a hard border instead. Which is fine as far as the eurocrats are concerned, because it will teach any other EU doubters on the continent a salutary lesson.


Its nothing to do with history, but it shows a lack of critical thinking. And an inability to punch for ourselves, even at our own light weight.

listermint

This thread is about history and politics not brexit.

I know you have a penchant for brexit and all things UK but take the brexit discussion to the other thread were it belongs.

Alternatively you can argue in here how history education has no impact on critical theory which youve failed at so far by my count.

recedite

listermint wrote: »

You said that.
No one else did.

The idea that people in other countries (especially Brexiteers and Trump supporters) make poor decisions because of their poor grasp of history was implied by many of the posts on this thread. Here's a few examples...

L1011 wrote: »

The general English ignorance of, well, everything outside their own country and lots of that within is ably assisted by their poor teaching of history.

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.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

When you've Trump talking about making America great again, you need history not to fall for it. It's basic stuff IMO.

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

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.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I think a situation like Brexit for instance serves to highlight the importance of being aware of our complex history, and how having a knowledge of it can shape our actions today. The ignorance of Irish history from politicians across the water ...

listermint wrote: »

Irish students are emphatically better in these areas as demonstrated by our ability to punch above our collective weight on the international stage.

In fact, other people can have the same intelligence and the same educational attainment as you, but still have the opposite opinion. Its because they have a different perspective.
My point is that you should learn to accept that.

BTW you won't find me in the Brexit thread, not recently anyway. I mentioned it in the context of all the posts already mentioning Brexit in this thread.