History no longer a core subject In Secondary Level

listermint · 25-09-2018 6:02pm #1

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.

James Brown · 25-09-2018 6:11pm

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 think it's very sad. 'Doomed to repeat' as the saying goes. I would hope political and social policy history is given attention.
I honestly have no idea what merit there is to down grading it.

banie01 · 25-09-2018 6:17pm

It's a travesty.
History, its appreciation and the effort to try and understand what shaped our past is of inestimable value in ensuring that we don't fall into the trap of repeating it.

We are a generation with access to more information than ever before, and we often waste it!
A well thought history curriculum gives students the tools to study, question and synthesize, to extrapolate!
Now we are rapidly turning to Google for the immediate answer!
Rather than using our intellect, to assess and create answers.

Heebie · 25-09-2018 6:20pm

What eejit made that stupid decision?

Obviously someone who wants history to repeat, or to ignorant to know that history does repeat when people don't know what happened!

Are they trying to make young Irish folks as ignorant as Americans?

listermint · 25-09-2018 6:21pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think it's very sad. 'Doomed to repeat' as the saying goes. I would hope political and social policy history is given attention.
I honestly have no idea what merit there is to down grading it.

Me either, hence the question as to 'why'

Is see Ruari Quinns name was attached to the original decision. Is that accurate, what was his reasoning and how did it gain any traction with every facet of its implementation saying it was a bad move.

spurious · 25-09-2018 6:22pm

The same eejit (or group of eejits) that have us blindly follow everything the UK does, 10-15 years later.

The reasoning is always to save money.

listermint · 25-09-2018 6:26pm

spurious wrote: »

The same eejit (or group of eejits) that have us blindly follow everything the UK does, 10-15 years later.

The reasoning is always to save money.

But surely as we can see demonstrated from the likes of the recent Brexit referendum, These decisions have a wider socio economic implications.

I have watched various programs recently from Sky to the bbc to Ch4 and the Guardian travelling around numerous areas in the UK to reveal that the average person on the street doesnt have a clue. About various topics. History or the wider non doorstep area being top of the list.

It doesnt make sense if we want to keep ourselves a centrist country.

martingriff · 25-09-2018 6:29pm

Heebie wrote: »

What eejit made that stupid decision?

Obviously someone who wants history to repeat, or to ignorant to know that history does repeat when people don't know what happened!

Are they trying to make young Irish folks as ignorant as Americans?

It has been for a long long time. When I did the Leaving Cert in 99 I was the only 1 who did it

Edit: Rang title wrong thought it was about Leaving Cert my bad

listermint · 25-09-2018 6:31pm

martingriff wrote: »

It has been for a long long time. When I did the Leaving Cert in 99 I was the only 1 who did it

No it has not, Its was a core subject up to Junior Cert Cycle.

martingriff · 25-09-2018 6:33pm

listermint wrote: »

No it has not, Its was a core subject up to Junior Cert Cycle.

Ops sorry read the title wrong I don't know why I assumed Leaving Cert. You are right I will edit my post

Inquitus · 25-09-2018 6:34pm

It should be a core subject up until Junior Cert imho.

banie01 · 25-09-2018 6:36pm

It brings to mind a favourite quote of mine from a book that was a backwards history lesson itself

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell,

One wonders if our Government has paid any heed to the dystopian masterpieces?

Rhineshark · 25-09-2018 6:48pm

This is a terrible idea.

What other changes were made?

Itssoeasy · 25-09-2018 6:56pm

Shocking decision. I did history is secondary school for six years and my primary school principle taught us history one day a week in 6th class. As others have said doomed to repeat comes into my head. I mean having an appreciation of history from many places is something I'm glad was passed on to me at a young age and it's something now I couldn't live without.

I genuinely feel that you can't appreciate the present without knowing the past. And I'm taking about the good and bad parts of history because we as a human race have not done everything well.

James Brown · 25-09-2018 6:56pm

It seems English, Maths and Irish are the core.

Michael D. said:

It is ironic that at a time when the State is involved in promoting the decade of centenaries programme to mark the achievement of Irish independence a century ago, one of its arms, the Department of Education, has decided to downgrade history.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/a-senseless-downgrading-1.3486069

That's partially why he's a great Pres IMO.

It seems Quinn proposed it and Jan O'Sullivan ran with it and Bruton sealed the deal.

listermint · 25-09-2018 7:07pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It seems English, Maths and Irish are the core.

That's partially why he's a great Pres IMO.

It seems Quinn proposed it and Jan O'Sullivan ran with it and Bruton sealed the deal.

Achieved nothing all the same, regardless of who said what It was still done.

For what end ?

incredible stuff when you think about it. Are we looking to create mindless drones around the country who dont have an appreciation of where we were, are and are going. Just like any town / city in the UK.

L1011 · 25-09-2018 8:11pm

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.

There's an argument for making it non-examinable but the same applies to much else of the JC, particularly Religion, Irish and the particularly odd grabbed bag subject branded as geography. That's not an argument to not teach it.

Vastly too many subjects are examined at JC level

Ghekko · 25-09-2018 8:14pm

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.

rainbowtrout · 25-09-2018 8:28pm

History was never core, it's just that most schools had it as a compulsory subject at Junior Cert. With the new Junior Cycle, students are limited to a maximum of 10 subjects which they can do for their examination. With that change, many schools (including my own) put History and Geography into their options in first year, where as previously they would have been compulsory in many schools.

The result of that in my school is that numbers taking history and geography in junior cert has plummeted. We have only one class group for each subject in first year rather than three class groups for each. Obviously that will have a knock on effect at LC level in a few years time.

Have a read of the threads on the new Junior Cycle in the teaching forum. Lots of complaints about poorly thought out courses and dumbed down material. But we will have a generation of students who are able to make powerpoint presentations and read wikipedia, who don't fail. Incidentally the lowest grade you can get in a subject in the new junior cycle is 'Not yet achieved'.

I don't know any teachers who have anything positive to say about the new course, but our opinions are not listened to, and most of what is publicised about us in the media is negative. I feel sorry for the students that have to do this course.

hotmail.com · 25-09-2018 10:06pm

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.

Blaizes · 25-09-2018 11:12pm

listermint wrote: »

Achieved nothing all the same, regardless of who said what It was still done.

For what end ?

incredible stuff when you think about it. Are we looking to create mindless drones around the country who dont have an appreciation of where we were, are and are going. Just like any town / city in the UK.

So true I was teaching in the UK before and the lack of basic general knowledge in my classes was shocking.An average student of the same age here would have run rings round them.

Fr Tod Umptious · 25-09-2018 11:16pm

I went to secondary school (vec) in the mid 80s.

History was not a subject, core or otherwise.

Mountainsandh · 25-09-2018 11:27pm

rainbowtrout wrote: »

History was never core, it's just that most schools had it as a compulsory subject at Junior Cert. With the new Junior Cycle, students are limited to a maximum of 10 subjects which they can do for their examination. With that change, many schools (including my own) put History and Geography into their options in first year, where as previously they would have been compulsory in many schools.

The result of that in my school is that numbers taking history and geography in junior cert has plummeted. We have only one class group for each subject in first year rather than three class groups for each. Obviously that will have a knock on effect at LC level in a few years time.

Have a read of the threads on the new Junior Cycle in the teaching forum. Lots of complaints about poorly thought out courses and dumbed down material. But we will have a generation of students who are able to make powerpoint presentations and read wikipedia, who don't fail. Incidentally the lowest grade you can get in a subject in the new junior cycle is 'Not yet achieved'.

I don't know any teachers who have anything positive to say about the new course, but our opinions are not listened to, and most of what is publicised about us in the media is negative. I feel sorry for the students that have to do this course.

+1

Languages in some schools have lost a class weekly (it's up to principals to allocate subjects and make time for courses and the 4 classes weekly minimum has been removed).

My students have to learn the same curriculum in the same length of time with one class less weekly than my daughter in a different school. They will have the same assessments at the same times as my daughter in the other school, with less classes clocked up.

recedite · 25-09-2018 11:36pm

rainbowtrout wrote: »

With the new Junior Cycle, students are limited to a maximum of 10 subjects which they can do for their examination. With that change, many schools (including my own) put History and Geography into their options in first year, where as previously they would have been compulsory in many schools.

There's a lot of choices for the students there alright.

Some like "coding" seem like a good idea. Its important to keep up with the times.
Some, like CSI (is that the Miami version) and Visual Arts, I suspect might be a bit of a doss. The danger with giving students too much choice is that some people will just pick the subjects that seem easy and fun.

Blaizes · 26-09-2018 12:42am

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.

I have to disagree with you there.I learned a lot of History and Geography in secondary school.When I look up a place on an atlas at home I still use grid reference.How do I know about grid reference? I learned it in 2nd year from my Geography teacher a useful skill that I have never forgotten.

And yes while it's true that many people may have forgotten the details of the History they studied at secondary school ( it's only natural especially if it was a long time ago ) they were still afforded the opportunity to explore History and Geography also; and in doing so broaden their understanding of how the world was and is shaped.Even if they didn't fully understand everything at the time they still as I have said got the opportunity and an introduction to these subjects. Later in life if they wish they can explore these subjects further through formal study or even though free open online courses ( some universities offer these now ).These subjects can even lead into hobbies for some.And if they are not interested in doing this absolutely fine but school gave them an introduction.

But by making these subjects non compulsory we now could have a generation who may never even have heard of Leonardo Da Vinci, know what a compass is etc. They might not even have basic knowledge at a table quiz. And beyond that they could be competing in a global market place ( as the world is now) with people with far superior knowledge. That's not even mentioning entry to third level. Long rant I know but just wanted to explain things as I see them.Apologies if I sound preachy but I think it's important to say.

spurious · 26-09-2018 6:29am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

I went to secondary school (vec) in the mid 80s.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

History was not a subject, core or otherwise.

Ah, the days when there was a choice in Irish schools. Originally, VEC schools offered more practical 'vocational' subjects. I transferred to a Dublin vocational school in 1990 and had to set up a History class from scratch.

Nowadays, most second level schools offer the same curriculum as the others in the area. STEM the current buzz word, regardless of a child's interest or abilities. Causes great fun for LC examiners of Biology when confronted with very poor scripts from the 'they told me to do a Science subject to keep my options open' group.

spurious · 26-09-2018 6:35am

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.

HandsomeBob · 26-09-2018 6:45am

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.

If that's true then the same could be applied to English (as in how it's currently taught) and Irish.

Kids of today and their parents are no longer willing to accept learning for the sake of it or any unneeded strife. To be fair as well I think if most of us are being honest with ourselves we can admit that did we spend these years doing subjects we felt forced to and that had no real value to us at the end of it.

History won't be forgotten; it'll just mean students who actually want to learn about it will pick the subject. Smart way of utilising resources.

listermint · 26-09-2018 6:53am

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.

Excellently put

recedite · 26-09-2018 8:50am

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.

I would not agree with this, nor would I agree with previous posters saying the English have no knowledge of history. They have knowledge of a different version of history. So while they know very little about Irish history and the "800 years of oppression" that has been drilled into many Irish minds over the years, likewise Irish students know nothing about the reigns of various kings and queens, or "1066 and all that".
Even the fact that protestant schools tended to teach a different version of history to those schools founded under the Christian Brothers ethos, while keeping to the same broad state curriculum is telling. At second level it is just about the facts being taught. Third level history is more about spotting bias and checking sources.

abcabc123123 · 26-09-2018 10:38am

HandsomeBob wrote: »

History won't be forgotten; it'll just mean students who actually want to learn about it will pick the subject. Smart way of utilising resources.

Tend to agree. My instinctive reaction to the topic title was the history-repeating-itself angle that plenty here have repeated, but what actual evidence is there to support it?

Forcing some kids to daydream through a JC history cycle doesn't strike me as being an important bulwark against populist politics in adulthood. There are plenty of places other than the US and the UK that have populist forces on the rise and I doubt they all neglect history in school. I was required to learn Irish until I was 18; I wasn't interested and I can barely speak a word now. You could argue that there's a certain element of history repeating itself with AfD in Germany; I don't really think if some of those lads had been required to learn some history by rote when they were 14 that they'd be a tolerant bunch of centrists now.

Gbear · 26-09-2018 11:45am

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 · 26-09-2018 11:59am

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 · 26-09-2018 12:08pm

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 · 26-09-2018 12:08pm

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 · 26-09-2018 3:08pm

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! · 26-09-2018 3:14pm

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 · 26-09-2018 3:27pm

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 · 26-09-2018 4:29pm

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 · 26-09-2018 4:43pm

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 · 26-09-2018 5:42pm

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 · 26-09-2018 6:01pm

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 · 26-09-2018 6:07pm

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 · 26-09-2018 6:20pm

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 · 26-09-2018 6:26pm

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 · 26-09-2018 6:36pm

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 · 26-09-2018 6:38pm

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.

26-09-2018 6:42pm

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

Blaizes · 26-09-2018 6:45pm

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 · 26-09-2018 7:00pm

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 · 26-09-2018 8:47pm

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.

History no longer a core subject In Secondary Level

Comments