The Irish Education System

Rezmuter Duane

This is an idea which has been formulating in my head for a while, and I was wondering what people thought about this. It is an educational system which involves extensive streaming. I'm not sure about my financing figures below.

I actually believe in allowing each student to get the best education possible, however I feel that separating people of different abilities is essential to create this. In a nutshell, this is how the separation should be done:
a) Firstly, the students who want to learn shall be separated from those who don't. Those who don't shall be placed in the equivalent of a prison cell for the duration of school
b) Then we allow the students who wish to learn to choose what they are best at, be it skills, creativity or academics.
c) Each of these groups will have a school system catered to allow them to develop to the best of their potential.
d) Within this system, in each category there shall be five subcategories which shall allow for ability (Levels would be: 1: Outstandingly Gifted, 2: Gifted, 3: Proficent, 4: Weak, 5: Extremely Challenged) and shall allow for different ways to teach each category. Within the current system, we already recognise that people of different abilities learn in different ways in so far as we have remedial classes which teach weak students differently. What some fail to realise, and perceive to be elitism is that gifted students, and normal students learn differently as well. Whether it simply is the pace of the class or through different teaching methods, it is vital, to achieve the best from all students that they are taught in the correct fashion.
e) It goes without saying that there will be NO discrimination over what teachers the categories get. ALL categories and subcategories will be financed fairly and will receive no special extra financing.
f) There shall be different qualifications from each of the categories, not only focusing on examinations but on continuous assessment. These qualifications will prepare the students to qualify in a field which they are most suited to and will allow them to hone their best skills to enable them to provide for their families throughout life.
g) As the state education system, this shall be provided free to all, with absolutely NO consideration as to the social status of students (Private Schools will be reigned in too).
h) As an addition to the above, through the NEA (National Employment Agency) all job applications will be considered under merit only, allowing us to destroy the Irish culture of "It's not what you know, but who you know." and the other one, "Money talks."

Steven

Hmm, interesting.

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

a) Firstly, the students who want to learn shall be separated from those who don't. Those who don't shall be placed in the equivalent of a prison cell for the duration of school

Err, you might want to reconsider your wording of this. Even if they don't want to learn they should still be taught. If your suggestion was followed through, there'd be a lot of people in that class creating (or at least vastly increasing) a class of completely uneducated people. You'd only be lowering the standard of education with that suggestion.

b) Then we allow the students who wish to learn to choose what they are best at, be it skills, creativity or academics.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Is it that they should only pursue education in these areas? If so, I'm a firm believer that everyone (if capable) should have at least a basic grounding in all three areas. As much as I hated woodwork, at least I don't have to call a carpenter every time a drawer falls out or when I buy something that comes unassembled.

You're probably not suggesting that, but you're essentially still asking children to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives.

Within this system, in each category there shall be five subcategories which shall allow for ability (Levels would be: 1: Outstandingly Gifted, 2: Gifted, 3: Proficent, 4: Weak, 5: Extremely Challenged) and shall allow for different ways to teach each category. Within the current system, we already recognise that people of different abilities learn in different ways in so far as we have remedial classes which teach weak students differently. What some fail to realise, and perceive to be elitism is that gifted students, and normal students learn differently as well. Whether it simply is the pace of the class or through different teaching methods, it is vital, to achieve the best from all students that they are taught in the correct fashion.

I agree with this up to a certain point (opens up a path for some serious employee discrimination though), but it would require a ridiculously high teacher:student ratio. I wouldn't think it'd be economically feasible.

g) As the state education system, this shall be provided free to all, with absolutely NO consideration as to the social status of students (Private Schools will be reigned in too).

Hear Hear!

h) As an addition to the above, through the NEA (National Employment Agency) all job applications will be considered under merit only, allowing us to destroy the Irish culture of "It's not what you know, but who you know." and the other one, "Money talks."

Mandatory state-run employment? I'd prefer the alternative

Rezmuter Duane

Err, you might want to reconsider your wording of this. Even if they don't want to learn they should still be taught. If your suggestion was followed through, there'd be a lot of people in that class creating (or at least vastly increasing) a class of completely uneducated people. You'd only be lowering the standard of education with that suggestion.

When I say prison cell, I really mean 9.00 - 3.30 detention daily, with a lunch break in between. As to creating an uneducated class, if they don't wast to learn, they merely sit in a classroom and disrupt others. You cannot force someone to learn, you can only make them sit in the room. If they are sitting in a classroom disrupting others, they may as well be in a seperate room. We have to realise the rights of the students who want to learn.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Is it that they should only pursue education in these areas? If so, I'm a firm believer that everyone (if capable) should have at least a basic grounding in all three areas. As much as I hated woodwork, at least I don't have to call a carpenter every time a drawer falls out or when I buy something that comes unassembled.

You're probably not suggesting that, but you're essentially still asking children to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives.

I am suggesting that we would have certain compulsory subjects, (Basic Maths, Basic English, Basic Financial Knowledge, Cultural Studies etc.). The system would be constructed in modules, allowing students to pick and choose from all three fields, but also allowing them the ability to specialise in a particular field of study. As to asking children to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives, I believe that choice in the education system is paramount and that it is pointless teaching students things that they will never use. Only through allowing students to choose topics they have an interest in, will they be interested in school and learn to the best of their ability. For those who are unsure, there would be 1 term modules in each field, allowing students to find out their interests, and then, using that experience pick topics which they enjoy.

I agree with this up to a certain point (opens up a path for some serious employee discrimination though), but it would require a ridiculously high teacher:student ratio. I wouldn't think it'd be economically feasible.

I believe that the student/teacher ratio should be 15:1. Under this system, I believe that this is a realistic figure. As to the discrimination, I believe that I may not have put this in above, but the classification of categories does not apply to the student themselves, but to the students ability in a particular module. For example, a student who is rated Outstandingly Gifted in Quantum Mechanics, may only be rated Weak in German. Through this system, the concentration would not be so much on the results, but on allowing students to learn what they like and to mature as individuals. Of course, I realise that some students may well be gifted in many fields, but overall, it can't be any worse than the discrimination that goes on at the moment both within school and soceity. Also, there would be a social edge, as students would all be in the same schools, activities would be organised to promote integration and to break down any barriers which may exist between students.

Mandatory state-run employment? I'd prefer the alternative

Employment wouldn't be mandatory, its just that we wouldn't have working citizens subsidising people who are too lazy to work. The state wouldn't run the employment, all that it would do is act as a centre for providing job applicants to companies, just like recruitment companies.

ArthurDent

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

When I say prison cell, I really mean 9.00 - 3.30 detention daily, with a lunch break in between. As to creating an uneducated class, if they don't wast to learn, they merely sit in a classroom and disrupt others. You cannot force someone to learn, you can only make them sit in the room. If they are sitting in a classroom disrupting others, they may as well be in a seperate room. We have to realise the rights of the students who want to learn.




Employment wouldn't be mandatory, its just that we wouldn't have working citizens subsidising people who are too lazy to work. The state wouldn't run the employment, all that it would do is act as a centre for providing job applicants to companies, just like recruitment companies.

When you're sending out application forms for your new world order, count me out please.
I'm trying hard to resist the "we have ways of making you work/think, big brother references", but you're not making it easy.

You say you want to provide an education system that accomodates all abilities - very laudible, but I don't see much respect in detention daily for those you say don't want to learn. How is this helping?

And I'd love to live in your world where the only people that are unemployed are those that are too lazy to work. I'm sure any of the workers in the Sugar plant in Carlow that are to be made redundant soon, would be delighted on your take on this area.

dinoflagellates

as with regards to your comment on streaming it generally works well for the brighter students in the streaming. When a year is split into groups into groups according to their academic ability those in the lower class streams at the top of their class however perform worse than if they were in a mixed ability group. Competition between students results in better grades. I do however think you are correct in separating those from who want to learn from those who dont. I went to a fairly rough school i think at the moment the department have designated it to be deprived and found it hard to learn anything in common classes such as english, irish, because the teacher had to be continually trying to keep people from messing, while in my option classes such as physics and chem generally people who had an interest did them and we got a lot more done and performed better.

Rezmuter Duane

You say you want to provide an education system that accomodates all abilities - very laudible, but I don't see much respect in detention daily for those you say don't want to learn. How is this helping?

It is helping by keeping these 16 year olds and under off the streets during the day. Also, my education system would allow for students who wished to enter the working world, to go and work. Also, I would provide a, for want of a better word, "wage", for those who were in the school system, to allow them to choose what is best for themselves, whether it be work, or education. What I disagree with is having disruptive students in classes preventing others from learning. The students who wish to learn, have a right to a decent education. It may be necessary to note that, in the main, those who would be in the detention would have been transgressing the rights of other students. If students want to remain uneducated, then that is fine. (Maybe that calls for insertion of a provision that they must have transgressed someones right to education or broken some law first. Rehab opportunities would, of course, be provided) For them to become adults and claim unemployment benefit off those who work hard and pay taxes, it is not fine. Taxpayers are not here to subsidise people who lounge on their couches all day.

And I'd love to live in your world where the only people that are unemployed are those that are too lazy to work. I'm sure any of the workers in the Sugar plant in Carlow that are to be made redundant soon, would be delighted on your take on this area.

I never said that the only people who were unemployed are the ones who are too lazy to work. There are some, however, and the system which I envisage would read them out. Briefly, all those receiving unemployment assistance would submit a CV to the NEA. Then they would receive unemployment assistance until such time as a job offer came in for them. Companies would be obliged to pick from all suitably qualified candidates (Of course, distance from the job etc. would be accommodated, for example, if the job was outside a certain radius from their home, they would not be obliged to accept it). If they refused this job, then, and only then, would their unemployment benefit would stop. I believe that those in the Carlow Sugar plant wish to work, and as such would receive unemployment benefit.

as with regards to your comment on streaming it generally works well for the brighter students in the streaming. When a year is split into groups into groups according to their academic ability those in the lower class streams at the top of their class however perform worse than if they were in a mixed ability group. Competition between students results in better grades.

That is, however, not allowing bright students to develop to the best of their potential because of other students. Why should we refuse to allow bright student to learn to the best of their ability. In mixed ability classes, a bright person has so little to do, they just die of boredom. And as to competition, the factor would still exist, as the competition would be to be put up a class, therefore, not holding back our bright students and allowing competition in the weaker classes. Also, there are more effective ways of teaching different ability students. It is generally recognised that the best way to teach weaker classes is through allowing them to experience what they are learning, whereas in brighter classes, reasoning and discussion is often the best way of enabling them to learn as they each bring their own knowledge into it and teach each other.

found it hard to learn anything in common classes such as english, irish, because the teacher had to be continually trying to keep people from messing, while in my option classes such as physics and chem generally people who had an interest did them and we got a lot more done and performed better.

Hear, hear.

chewy

a) Firstly, the students who want to learn shall be separated from those who don't. Those who don't shall be placed in the equivalent of a prison cell for the duration of school

and i won't bother to read any further?

what are you on?

infact when I look at a profile I see a thread you started was locked, and its seems to be your because of similar thoughts there, so now you move here to spread your idiotic and dangerous ideas?

aidan_walsh

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

This is an idea which has been formulating in my head for a while, and I was wondering what people thought about this. It is an educational system which involves extensive streaming. I'm not sure about my financing figures below.

I actually believe in allowing each student to get the best education possible, however I feel that separating people of different abilities is essential to create this. In a nutshell, this is how the separation should be done:
a) Firstly, the students who want to learn shall be separated from those who don't. Those who don't shall be placed in the equivalent of a prison cell for the duration of school
b) Then we allow the students who wish to learn to choose what they are best at, be it skills, creativity or academics.
c) Each of these groups will have a school system catered to allow them to develop to the best of their potential.
d) Within this system, in each category there shall be five subcategories which shall allow for ability (Levels would be: 1: Outstandingly Gifted, 2: Gifted, 3: Proficent, 4: Weak, 5: Extremely Challenged) and shall allow for different ways to teach each category. Within the current system, we already recognise that people of different abilities learn in different ways in so far as we have remedial classes which teach weak students differently. What some fail to realise, and perceive to be elitism is that gifted students, and normal students learn differently as well. Whether it simply is the pace of the class or through different teaching methods, it is vital, to achieve the best from all students that they are taught in the correct fashion.
e) It goes without saying that there will be NO discrimination over what teachers the categories get. ALL categories and subcategories will be financed fairly and will receive no special extra financing.
f) There shall be different qualifications from each of the categories, not only focusing on examinations but on continuous assessment. These qualifications will prepare the students to qualify in a field which they are most suited to and will allow them to hone their best skills to enable them to provide for their families throughout life.
g) As the state education system, this shall be provided free to all, with absolutely NO consideration as to the social status of students (Private Schools will be reigned in too).
h) As an addition to the above, through the NEA (National Employment Agency) all job applications will be considered under merit only, allowing us to destroy the Irish culture of "It's not what you know, but who you know." and the other one, "Money talks."

I'm reading this (except g) and to be honest I'm thinking US Republicans, possibly because I had a conversation like this with one before...

Lemming

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

When I say prison cell, I really mean 9.00 - 3.30 detention daily, with a lunch break in between. As to creating an uneducated class, if they don't wast to learn, they merely sit in a classroom and disrupt others. You cannot force someone to learn, you can only make them sit in the room. If they are sitting in a classroom disrupting others, they may as well be in a seperate room. We have to realise the rights of the students who want to learn.

Children sometimes don't actually know what is best for them. So when do you tell them to cop on, shut the f*ck up, sit down and LISTEN?

I went to a community school and one of my classes (pass level Irish) was not the mae west, yet those same people stayed quite and listened whilst learning maths.

Similar patterns? I think not.

The system would be constructed in modules, allowing students to pick and choose from all three fields, but also allowing them the ability to specialise in a particular field of study. As to asking children to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives, I believe that choice in the education system is paramount and that it is pointless teaching students things that they will never use. Only through allowing students to choose topics they have an interest in, will they be interested in school and learn to the best of their ability. For those who are unsure, there would be 1 term modules in each field, allowing students to find out their interests, and then, using that experience pick topics which they enjoy.

Hideously, hideously foolish and utter pip-dream drivel. Complete and utter drivel.

First of all, lets look at your mention of those who are unsure about what they want to do. This means that they actually have *less* time in which to learn something than those who *think* they know what they want to do. Exactly how many years do you plan on children spending in secondary level education?

Next, and quite importantly: Children can, and do quite frequently, change their minds on a whim. Suddenly what they thought they wanted to do isn't, but it's too late since they've just wasted three of their formative educational years specialising. Specialisation is good, but not at such an early level of development. The point of secondary level schooling is not to specialise, but to prepare you to cope with the day-to-day grind of life. Making children specialise before they even really know what they want to do is, to put it mildly, a really f*cking bad idea.

And logistically: how do you intend for all this to be set up? If students can pick and choose modules as they see fit - then where are all the teachers and facilities for this going to come from?

The rest of what you've written I wont even pay the effort to respond to.

Utter, and absolute, pipe dream excrement.

Hobbes

As a troll I only rate you as a B-. Rather then sending them to a prison it would be better to ground them up into a heathly food meal which can be used to give the deserving kids more energy.

:rolleyes:

Lemming

Hobbes wrote:

As a troll I only rate you as a B-. Rather then sending them to a prison it would be better to ground them up into a heathly food meal which can be used to give the deserving kids more energy.

:rolleyes:

Can we have flavoured healthy food? I want strawberry flavour!!

Rezmuter Duane

a) Firstly, the students who want to learn shall be separated from those who don't. Those who don't shall be placed in the equivalent of a prison cell for the duration of school

Clarified in a previous post, there is no point in having students in classrooms when they don't want to learn, because they simply won't. So it is as well to put them in detention during for school hours.

I went to a community school and one of my classes (pass level Irish) was not the mae west, yet those same people stayed quite and listened whilst learning maths.

This is because they have no interest in Irish. Under this system they would not be forced to do a particular subject. Then this problem wouldn't have arisen and those that wanted to learn Irish could have without the unnecessary disruption.

First of all, lets look at your mention of those who are unsure about what they want to do. This means that they actually have *less* time in which to learn something than those who *think* they know what they want to do. Exactly how many years do you plan on children spending in secondary level education?

Question. How much of our secondary education do we use in our adult life? Many adults do not speak Irish, use trigonometry, algebra and poetry. Most of the knowledge aquired in secondary school is never reused and people simply specialise in university. People will spend 5-6 years in secondary school. We don't use all the stuff we learn in school. If we allow students to cut out the parts they don't want and choose what they do want, then we can attract their interest back to education.

Children can, and do quite frequently, change their minds on a whim. Suddenly what they thought they wanted to do isn't, but it's too late since they've just wasted three of their formative educational years specialising.

They waste three years learning things they will never use already: Irish, Trigonometry, Algebra, Poetry etc.

The point of secondary level schooling is not to specialise, but to prepare you to cope with the day-to-day grind of life

How does trigonometry, poetry, Irish, algebra etc. help you to cope with the day to day grind of life? At least if they have marketable skills, they can make a living for themselves.

Making children specialise before they even really know what they want to do is

This was referred to before, if they are not sure, then they can complete a general course over a term or a year. If they are still not sure, then there will be a second year general programme and so on, until they are sure of what they want to do.

And logistically: how do you intend for all this to be set up? If students can pick and choose modules as they see fit - then where are all the teachers and facilities for this going to come from?

I don't think we should place funding over the education of our citizens, and I believe that a tax increase of 2% (upper & lower) should cover all necessary expenses.

As a troll I only rate you as a B-. Rather then sending them to a prison it would be better to ground them up into a heathly food meal which can be used to give the deserving kids more energy.

Indeed.....(laughs and decides to write this in to get an A+). But seriously, I think the phrase prison cell is giving off negative vibes. I have tried to clarify this, but have decided to edit the post to describe it more accurately.

Rezmuter Duane

....Tries valiantly to edit post but fails........

Lemming

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

Clarified in a previous post, there is no point in having students in classrooms when they don't want to learn, because they simply won't. So it is as well to put them in detention during for school hours.

Some men are more entitled to basic education than others eh?

This is because they have no interest in Irish. Under this system they would not be forced to do a particular subject. Then this problem wouldn't have arisen and those that wanted to learn Irish could have without the unnecessary disruption.

It was never a question of no interest in Irish. To be honest, the teacher couldn't control them. Nothing more. So, it had nothing to do with the subject and everything to do with learning boundaries. Another useful little thing learnt at school but not on the curriculum.

But then again, under your scheme kids wouldn't learn anything other than the absolute sterile minimum. Sure they'll be good at topic X, but utterly unable to grasp the most basic tenants of topic Y because you're making them specialise and ignore everything else. Narrow focus on life and what-not. At this stage I shouldn't be havign to draw a map of where this argument is going ......

Question. How much of our secondary education do we use in our adult life? Many adults do not speak Irish, use trigonometry, algebra and poetry. Most of the knowledge aquired in secondary school is never reused and people simply specialise in university. People will spend 5-6 years in secondary school. We don't use all the stuff we learn in school. If we allow students to cut out the parts they don't want and choose what they do want, then we can attract their interest back to education.

What you are ultimately suggesting is that we cut out secondary level education and skip right to third level. Right .... where do I begin with this?

Ok.

1. I have used everything that I have learnt in school at some point in my life already, despite having left only 8 years ago. What I learnt in school has given me a far larger outlook on life and (more importantly and ultimately where I want to go with this argument) given me a greater ability to form and abstract notions to further what I am trying to do/understand/etc at any given moment in my life. It also gave me a far better ability to choose what I actually wanted to do with my career - something I would not have been able to do given such a short-sighted plan as yours.

2. You are asking children what they want. Lets be clear on this. "Children".

3. You are asking children what they want. Lets be clear on this. "Children".

4. In relation to my comment on skipping straight to third level schooling, children aren't ready for such a lax environment where everything is up to you. Indeed I've seen many friends andpeople I know go crazy as soon as they entered third level simply because they weren't prepared for the change in operating environment. Despite these people being young adults and responsible for their own actions & choices. Frankly, how the f*ck do you expect a child to cope when who they are is still being shaped?! Most don't even know who they are yet alone what they want. Secondary level education also provides a framework for controlling boundaries and learning personal accountability for ones actions. Things they have never even had to imagine before and will not be expected to until they become young adults. Yet you want them to be treated as adults for their most important learning years?

They waste three years learning things they will never use already: Irish, Trigonometry, Algebra, Poetry etc.

I've used Irish with foreign friends who were curious to hear the language. I've used trigonometry & algebra (both work and recreationally related), and I've quoted and discussed poetry with people on a social basis. Who says they're a waste?

How does trigonometry, poetry, Irish, algebra etc. help you to cope with the day to day grind of life? At least if they have marketable skills, they can make a living for themselves.

See ... this is where it all goes back to opening your mind to a wider world and providing you the ability to make a more informed choice. Something you obviously haven't figured out yet judging by what you are advocating and the extrordinarily detrimental effect it would have that you cannot see despite it being so blindingly obvious.

This was referred to before, if they are not sure, then they can complete a general course over a term or a year. If they are still not sure, then there will be a second year general programme and so on, until they are sure of what they want to do.

So .... what happens to those who don't know what they want to do? Or what about those who "think" they do only to realise it's not what they want to do? You are also failing to take into account social influences on children where they may start opting for the "soft" subjects so they can have more free time out of school hours. Of course, this has nothign to do with their future other than them being children and wanting to have fun.

Further - you are failing to take into account the pressure that parents may put on their children to do certain subjects - thus stifling their personal development because they can only do very very specialised subjects.

I don't think we should place funding over the education of our citizens, and I believe that a tax increase of 2% (upper & lower) should cover all necessary expenses.

You believe wrong. Lets look at the fiscal implactions here.

1. More space required.
2. An unfeasibly low student:teacher ratio that would not be economically sustainable.
3. Far greater insurance required simlpy because of the expanded space & teaching requirements

Now on top of that, if no students are doing the exact same curriculum for a given subject - and they probably wouldn't given your idea of the extent of modularisation, how are exams set? Not local exams - but ones that are recognised at a national level and used by third level institutions for entry purposes?

How are syllabi set also?

But seriously, I think the phrase prison cell is giving off negative vibes. I have tried to clarify this, but have decided to edit the post to describe it more accurately.

"But seriously", nothing! What you are advocating here is detention all day every day. And on that note - what will they be doing in this "prison cell" all day every day? Allowed to run wild and be unsupervised? I'll say no more on that particular point and will let the ramifications sink in by themselves.

Rezmuter Duane

Some men are more entitled to basic education than others eh?

I never said that. All people are entitled to an equal education. However, when they transgress the rights of others to an education, then it becomes a problem.
"With equal rights come equal responsibilities!"

Sure they'll be good at topic X, but utterly unable to grasp the most basic tenants of topic Y because you're making them specialise and ignore everything else. Narrow focus on life and what-not.

Why does a nuclear physicist need to know about biology?

What you are ultimately suggesting is that we cut out secondary level education and skip right to third level. Right .... where do I begin with this?

Ok.

1. I have used everything that I have learnt in school at some point in my life already, despite having left only 8 years ago. What I learnt in school has given me a far larger outlook on life and (more importantly and ultimately where I want to go with this argument) given me a greater ability to form and abstract notions to further what I am trying to do/understand/etc at any given moment in my life. It also gave me a far better ability to choose what I actually wanted to do with my career - something I would not have been able to do given such a short-sighted plan as yours.

Well thats all fine and dandy, but ask the homeless people on our streets what use poetry is to them, how often do they speak Irish and how often algebra puts food on the table? This "insight" is great, but I don't see it feeding the homeless, or empowering the poor in our country.

something I would not have been able to do given such a short-sighted plan as yours

As to this, if you were unsure about your future, you could do one of the multi-functional classes.

You are asking children what they want. Lets be clear on this. "Children".

Place some faith in young people!

In relation to my comment on skipping straight to third level schooling, children aren't ready for such a lax environment where everything is up to you.

Could I ask when I ever said anything about a lax environment. Surely the fact that I originally mentioned prison cells comes into play. The discipline would be as strict, if not harsher within these schools.

controlling boundaries and learning personal accountability for ones actions

They're not going to disappear just because students can choose what topics to study.

You are also failing to take into account social influences on children where they may start opting for the "soft" subjects so they can have more free time out of school hours.

The current Leaving Certificate allows for restricted choices and there are definitely easy options in the L.C.

You believe wrong. Lets look at the fiscal implactions here.

1. More space required.
2. An unfeasibly low student:teacher ratio that would not be economically sustainable.
3. Far greater insurance required simlpy because of the expanded space & teaching requirements

It comes back to this, do you want to live in a society where money is placed before education??? As a matter of interest, the pupil teacher ratio would be between 10/15:1, and thats allowing for a lot more than is necessary.

"But seriously", nothing! What you are advocating here is detention all day every day. And on that note - what will they be doing in this "prison cell" all day every day? Allowed to run wild and be unsupervised?

"With equal rights come equal responsibilities." - If a student is exercising his right to learn by sitting in a school classroom, then they must observe the responsibilities of being in that school, by adherence to the rules, and by allowing others to work in an environment conducive to learning. If they transgress these responsibilities, they have in fact broken the rules and therefore should be treated as such. If they wish to break the law, then they should be placed within a controlled environment with supervision, ie. the detention halls. If they show a willingness to work again, then they shall be reintroduced, with grinds provided to bring them up to scratch.

And as to the rest of your argument, it goes along the lines of the current system providing you with an "insight". If people want this generalised "insight", then they can do the generalised courses.

In conclusion, I say to you, What good is this "insight" to people on the streets?, what good is this "insight" to those who can barely raise enough money to keep food on the table?, what good is this "insight" to those on the very margins of our society? We need strong, decisive action to create an environment where people can learn skills in schools, so as these people can put food on the table, put a roof over their heads and live a happy, peaceful life where they don't have to be worrying about a loan shark beating them up because they can't repay money they borrowed at Christmas.

Teneka

Looking at how the Hitler Youth operated, we should have a similar system. Not so much focusing on the educational side of things but on the physical well being of our youth. The only thing I have to say about the education system is the way in which Irish is thought. Truely appalling. Complete revamp needed. Make it interesting. Mingle it with our history, our past. Teach our youth of what we've achieved. Make them aware.

Big Ears

Lemming wrote:

Can we have flavoured healthy food? I want strawberry flavour!!

Sure you can be Strawberry.......................I mean.......have......Strawberry .

Lemming

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

Inane and highly dangerous drivel

Signature time for you. Your "insight" comment speaks volumes.

Rezmuter Duane

Answer the question: When does this "insight" help to feed the homeless?????

billy the squid

Looking at how the Hitler Youth operated, we should have a similar system. Not so much focusing on the educational side of things but on the physical well being of our youth.

The idea behind the hitler youth was to train children to fight for war and not have the education or the intelect to question whether or not hitler was good or evil.

although more physical education is needed in the educational system, it should not replace the educational aspects one bit.

Lemming

Rezmuter Duane wrote:

Answer the question: When does this "insight" help to feed the homeless?????

Honestly, are you a troll or just f*cking stoned?

"insight". Tell me. What is insight exactly? Or to be more specific, what is insight by it's other-known aliases?

Knowledge.
Wisdom.
The ability to "think".
The ability to make a sane, sensible choice on an issue with the best possible knowledge of said issue.
The ability to solve a problem (BIG UBBBBBBBBBER F*CKING HINT)

Now, tell me - what use is someone who can't do the above to an employer?

And incidentally, most homeless are homeless for social reasons - not educational reasons, so you can stop right there with the emotive theatrical bullsh*t

bonkey

Calm down.

Stabshauptmann

What you've got there is a mix and match of other education systems in a way which seems great but doesn’t take into account behavioural psychology.
A)Children aren’t capable of doing what you ask. A child shouldn’t have to decide what area they should focus at. I prefer our system because it keeps options open to a very late stage in life.
B)People rarely want whats good for them, children especially. There are reasons why some choose to distract others, solve the problem not the symptoms.

Benifits
I also think its great the way we offer students such a broad education base. Specialising in one or two areas doesn’t make you a balanced individual or all that well educated (in the strict sense of the word). There are major issues in education which you are missing. The differences between subjects for example Irish and French enhance student’s power of reasoning, the benefits of which are passed on to areas such as mathematics.
What I’m trying to say is that nothing exists in isolation; we are affected by so many variables that are so intricately intertwined.

Personally I feel that Irish and Physical education are neglected in our system. In Wales they had a total revolution in terms of fluency in their native tongue when the issue was dealt with properly.

As for the Hitler youth I very much opposed to that system. It was based on manipulation, a very easy thing to do with children and practised in many schools but a practice which I believe to b unethical. If we take the issue of physical education all the way back to Greece: The Spartans believed it to be a priority and their academies turned out the finest specimens of soldiery and athletics, many of whom were illiterate. The Athenians turned out scholars, not exactly renown for their fitness. While a health balance is preferable the point of equilibrium in arbitrary. In the end though it is worth pointing out that Athens became the dominant power.

Stabshauptmann

And one other thing:
Specialisation is being advocated as a way to get a job and succed in life, but with an uncertain future, how can you be sure to specialise in the wrong area. your specialisation if combined with a major market shift (an easy thing in a small nation like Irelands) could very well land you unemployable

Lemming

Well said Necromancer, although I think you're wasting your breath with this one. He can't see that specialisation without any sort of base to draw knowledge from is playing russian roulette with a child's future.

Rezmuter Duane

Just thought I'd add a note to this. The N.C.C.A. (National Council for Curriculum Assessment) are recommending increased modularisation and specialisation for the Leaving Cert examination. A step in the right direction!!!!