nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

If you were the Minister for Education...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

... what changes in secondary school subjects would you make?

I made a post a while back, can't remember which thread, too lazy to look it up, about the education system not being rounded enough and needing to teach more than just intellectual sh1t and prepare for college; and was quiet surprised when it went down rather well. Anyway, it got me thinking about what should or should not be part of the junior and leaving certs.

Personally, I'd bring in meditation/spirituality (NOT to be confused with religion/catholicism), driving lessons and office studies (as in typing, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, not making tea or shagging the secretary/boss) as full syllabi, alongside history, geography and the like. I'd also downgrade ALL subjects to optional after the junior cert. Don't think I'd get rid of anything altogether though.

(I know some of these things might already be happening - it's been a while since I was in school

!

So, floor is yours. If you had the power, what would you remove or add?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SeaFields

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It's meant to be for those who are very weak in an area but most of the people who choose foundation do it because they can't be bothered doing anything more challenging.

Many of these individuals come from difficult backgrounds, be they family or social, or are not able intellectually for the level of study on offer.

The "i'm too cool for school" attitude is a just a front.

Hank_Jones

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Somehow I doubt you've went to university and studied all that they have.

Seriously, that's like "I amn't a racist but...."

To be honest I thought a bit like that in school. In hind sight I was right in some aspects, but certainly wrong in others.
They are clearly not stupid people, teachers train hard to become what they are and have to do quite a lot of book learning in order to gain their qualifications.
I suppose since they had that position of authority I expected them to be something special.
I remember doing Shakespeare, and the teacher would stop on lines when she knew what was going on and basically traslate that into modern english.
But then she would just shh anyone that was asking questions when she didn't know what something meant.
Was kind of a let down. But then again, they are only people.
Not everyone is going to be on the level of college professors.

Teutorix

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Somehow I doubt you've went to university and studied all that they have.

Seriously, that's like "I amn't a racist but...."

More educated |= smarter

You need to differentiate education from intelligence, i know quite a few supposedly educated people that arent the brightest intellectually.

Take my English teacher for example. She is presumably a qualified teacher yet I had to explain the difference between a colon and a semicolon to her, and also had to correct her pronunciation of a bucket load of words in Hamlet.

andrew

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Personally, I'd bring in meditation/spirituality (NOT to be confused with religion/catholicism), driving lessons and office studies (as in typing, Word, Excel, Powerpoint,

I dunno, is it really necessary to teach something most people figure out for themselves? It doesn't take long to know enough about word to be able to bang out a simple word document. Though at the same time, I'd probably agree with you.

I think economics should be a mandatory subject. People make too many bad decisions based on flawed economic thinking, like Purchasing assets during a bubble thinking the price will always go up*, voting for parties who spend too much (when I have it, I spend it...), opposing fiscal austerity and spending cuts when they're needed, and not getting the idea of opportunity cost in general. So on a personal level I think it'd help people allocate their money better. In general I think it'd make for better governance and perhaps an electorate who'll oppose government spending which might benefit them in the sort term but which in the long term is bad for everyone.

*Obviously people will do this anyway, but the less people who do it the better.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

andrew wrote: »

I dunno, is it really necessary to teach something most people figure out for themselves? It doesn't take long to know enough about word to be able to bang out a simple word document. Though at the same time, I'd probably agree with you.

I'm thinking here of employment level PC skills, as opposed to recreational quality. I don't think the skilsl are as weidespread as you, though.

I think economics should be a mandatory subject. People make too many bad decisions based on flawed economic thinking, like Purchasing assets during a bubble thinking the price will always go up*, voting for parties who spend too much (when I have it, I spend it...), opposing fiscal austerity and spending cuts when they're needed, and not getting the idea of opportunity cost in general. So on a personal level I think it'd help people allocate their money better. In general I think it'd make for better governance and perhaps an electorate who'll oppose government spending which might benefit them in the sort term but which in the long term is bad for everyone.

*Obviously people will do this anyway, but the less people who do it the better.

I don't think the ecnomics syllabus I did would help, but some form of basic household/personal economics wouldn't be a bad idea. The probelm though is greeedy bankers and ineffective politicans who DO know better would still encourage said people to borrow (at least during the boom the would have).

Mrmoe

Information technology skills definietly need to be improved. It has been a good few years since I was in secondary school but it literally non existant when I was there.

Teutorix

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I don't think the ecnomics syllabus I did would help, but some form of basic household/personal economics wouldn't be a bad idea. The probelm though is greeedy bankers and ineffective politicans who DO know better would still encourage said people to borrow (at least during the boom the would have).

Junior cert business studies is a very good course for practical things, house hold budgets, accounts, cheques, all sorts of bussiness related things that effect our lives.

LC business isnt as good in that respect though IMO

andrew

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I don't think the ecnomics syllabus I did would help, but some form of basic household/personal economics wouldn't be a bad idea. The probelm though is greeedy bankers and ineffective politicans who DO know better would still encourage said people to borrow (at least during the boom the would have).

Make that a (modified) economics course then. It's would overcome (partly) the problem you mention, because then people would be able to recognise those politicians who are economically illiterate and ignore them/not elect them in the first place.

rainbow kirby

Would introduce a harder maths course, with bonus points going for it. Would also introduce a computing course, introducing programming and basic CS concepts.

I'd change the Irish syllabus to make it much more about communication and less about literature, and I'd make it and English optional.

I'd also like to see a proper inclusive sex education syllabus introduced, with no church opt-outs.

PE as a proper subject for LC would be nice, possibly teaching some exercise physiology, sports psychology, coaching etc.

seanhelm

Teutorix wrote: »

More educated |= smarter

You need to differentiate education from intelligence, i know quite a few supposedly educated people that aren't the brightest intellectually.

Take my English teacher for example. She is presumably a qualified teacher yet I had to explain the difference between a colon and a semicolon to her, and also had to correct her pronunciation of a bucket load of words in Hamlet.

I'm an employer, have an IQ of 128 and have a long life experience. When recruiting i look for individuals with an open mind, who have an ability to listen, are willing to accept diversity and faults among their colleagues, show mutual respect and most importantly are team players. I adopt a challenge leadership style which gives each the space to speak his/her mind. As a consequence i learn from them and the whole organisation benefits.

Take your attitude towards LCA for example ... I presume a highly intelligent individual such as you has heard of Gardner's multiple intelligence theory? Maybe not ... never mind ... my point here is that if you fail to respect towards your schoolmates and teachers then chances are you'll fail to show respect for customers and clients in future employment.

I certainly wouldn't employ someone with your outlook on life.

As for Hamlet .... well, I'm quite sure that you can identify with his inflated sense of himself, presumptuousness, self-assuredness and a tendency to shift blame onto others, for example after killing Polonius, instead of admitting fault and feeling remorse at his mistake, Hamlet instead shifts the focus to Claudius - See Act 3.sc 4. lines 29-30).

"Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive." Nietzsche.
:cool:

bonerjams03

spurious wrote: »

A great deal of what people are suggesting here is already done in the Applied Leaving Cert..

That's irrelevant. A small amount of people ever go on to do LCA, mainly because it's looked down on and doesn't provide you with means to go to University.

Also, this Computer Lab talk. I'm in school, from Junior Cert on there are Computer classes where nobody pays attention or cares as most kids these days can use word. Excel maybe might provide a lesson or two but nothing beyond that.

What's more what would you teach in place of History, geography etc. Sometime's it's ignorant to not know history at all. There's something to be gained from learning facts, developing and broadening your mind, even if it's just about Rivers or Hitler.

I was provided with two bouts of Sex Ed. from my SPHE teacher (over a few weeks) and from an outside speaker who spoke to all of our classes.

As for tax and driving lessons, some could argue driving will become less valuable over time, and again there's only so much time you can spend on tax.

The essential framework of the system, in my opinion, is fine. There are a few things to iron out in languages in particular, but there is already a new Irish Curriculum for LC starting next year with 50% marks for spoken Irish.

It's pretty much grand.

Edit: I'm in a VEC. (just for the record)

Teutorix

seanhelm wrote: »

I'm an employer, have an IQ of 128 and have a long life experience. When recruiting i look for individuals with an open mind, who have an ability to listen, are willing to accept diversity and faults among their colleagues, show mutual respect and most importantly are team players. I adopt a challenge leadership style which gives each the space to speak his/her mind. As a consequence i learn from them and the whole organisation benefits.

Take your attitude towards LCA for example ... I presume a highly intelligent individual such as you has heard of Gardner's multiple intelligence theory? Maybe not ... never mind ... my point here is that if you fail to respect towards your schoolmates and teachers then chances are you'll fail to show respect for customers and clients in future employment.

I certainly wouldn't employ someone with your outlook on life.

"Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive." Nietzsche.
:cool:

If you had read all of my posts you would find that that was not my opinion of the LCA (which I have great respect for, more so than our ordinary LC) and the opinion of the ignorant masses in my school. And yes i have heard of Gardeners multiple intelligence theory and I have even taken a test based on the theory called the Differential Aptitude Test or DATS.

I must say that you seem to be the kind of employer I wish to work for someday.

seanhelm

Teutorix wrote: »

I must say that you seem to be the kind of employer I wish to work for someday.

Respect is the key ... not smartness, not intelligence, not degrees or a PhD .. simple respect ... been there done that .... good luck with your studies. :cool:

BOHtox

I would have a level in between honours and pass

honours maths is too hard but pass is far too easy same with Irish all other subjects are fine with a bit off hard work

El Siglo

Don't care about religion, but I would take away the emphasis placed on Irish. If you want to learn Irish, you'll learn it. I'd put more money and resources into Maths, science subjects and foreign languages. Irish is taught the wrong way in schools, it's taught almost the same way Latin used to be, as a dead language based on translating novels and plays etc... Irish should be taught as a useful day-to-day language, more emphasis on improving the spoken, probably incorporate it into business/scientific use (give Irish a purpose to learn as opposed to learning it on the basis of nationalism etc...), leave the heavy literature stuff to universities.
Maths needs to be improved drastically, every year is the same thing, thousands fail maths. This is a huge problem as nearly every technical job requires some mathematical ability. I'd definitely like to see actual computer skills being taught, how to use excel, word, powerpoint and some other technical programmes, e.g. in geography teach ArcGIS, in maths use R programming for stats, in technical drawing having the use of AutoCAD.
It's ridiculous to think that you come out of secondary school in the 21st century with as much skills as some one from the 70s. This whole hoo haw of bursting your hole in 7 subjects is ridiculous and is completely out of step with how things happen in the real world. Again though, anything that the state has power over will invariably be stuck in some arcane time warp.

BOHtox

1. I would introduce a level between honours and pass. Honours Irish and maths are too hard for me but pass is too easy . Especially in them 2 subjects. All others subjects are fine with a bit of hard work.

2. Proper sex education.
3.Mediation is a very good idea.
4.Reduce emphasis on religon and random facts and more on learning.
5.Leaving Cert Vocational Programme(LCVP) I would encourage as it teaches you how to do projects, interviews, cvs, etc
6.Less poems in Irish and more oral and grammar based exams.
7.Like the ecdl and other stuff where you learn how to use all aspects of the computer.
8.Driving lessons.
9.Proper teachers , I have 3 teachers who do not have the level of intelligence to be a teacher.
10.Maybe a compulsary transition year.

amacachi

Teutorix wrote: »

If you had read all of my posts you would find that that was not my opinion of the LCA (which I have great respect for, more so than our ordinary LC) and the opinion of the ignorant masses in my school. And yes i have heard of Gardeners multiple intelligence theory and I have even taken a test based on the theory called the Differential Aptitude Test or DATS.

I must say that you seem to be the kind of employer I wish to work for someday.

Ah the DATS, 99th percentile in all but one section, bit of a waste of time. :pac:

Also why would you want to work for someone who (mis)judges someone so hugely from a single post on an internet forum?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

IRcolm wrote: »

That's irrelevant. A small amount of people ever go on to do LCA, mainly because it's looked down on and doesn't provide you with means to go to University.

Au contraire - it's VERY relavant to people who don't want to go to university.

Also, this Computer Lab talk. I'm in school, from Junior Cert on there are Computer classes where nobody pays attention or cares as most kids these days can use word. Excel maybe might provide a lesson or two but nothing beyond that.

Do the train you to the point of bring able to use word/excel/powerpoint to professional office level?

What's more what would you teach in place of History, geography etc. Sometime's it's ignorant to not know history at all. There's something to be gained from learning facts, developing and broadening your mind, even if it's just about Rivers or Hitler.

By the time you get to junior cert (by the time you get to secondary school in some cases) you already have a basic grounding in the major events and players in history. I'm talking about going in depth, to political history and stragic develpments in wars as being optional.

partyatmygaff

amacachi wrote: »

Ah the DATS, 99th percentile in all but one section, bit of a waste of time. :pac:

Also why would you want to work for someone who (mis)judges someone so hugely from a single post on an internet forum?

Same here, According to them I had an aptitude in everything but languages where I only achieved a very good instead of an excellent....

Biggest joke of a test ever tbh.

amacachi

If it were up to me I'd shorten the whole system tbh. 8 years in primary school doing the same stuff year after year is a waste of time for a lot of people. 5 years in secondary school is a waste of time for a lot of people who have no interest or intention to pursue academics paths, and they could benefit massively from being taught and learning other skills during those years.
Irish shouldn't be compulsory.
I don't see the need for sex education to be taught in schools, parents need to step up.
I'd also like to see some kind of proper "streaming" for secondary school, but that's probably never going to happen.

Teutorix

amacachi wrote: »

Ah the DATS, 99th percentile in all but one section, bit of a waste of time. :pac:

Also why would you want to work for someone who (mis)judges someone so hugely from a single post on an internet forum?

Its difficult to judge somebody on three sentences, give the guy a break.

And yeah the DATS was a bit of a joke, i got in the 90th at least percentile in all sections apart from the one with spelling as I have trouble with spellings ( could be slight dyslexia as i read sentences all fúcked up alot) If it was more in depth it might actually be useful.

bleg

I'd also put more funding into classes for exceptional students. I feel that if we're going to fund students at the lower end of the scale then students who have higher aptitude and intelligence should also be catered for.

andrew

bleg wrote: »

If we're going to fund students at the lower end of the scale then students who have higher aptitude and intelligence should also be catered for.

A below average student isn't catered before properly, they drop out of school (or do terribly) and become a burden on society through unemployment, social welfare etc. In the absence of assistance, they find it almost impossible to do well. An above average student isn't catered for, and yeah they might hate school because of it because they're bored, but they're still less likely to drop out and become a burden on society etc. In addition, in the absence of assistance it's easier for them to cater for themselves through self education and the internet/library. So why if we're going to cater for the below average people should we cater for the above average people too? Seems to me it'd make more sense to focus on the below average people.

G_R

If i was given the job in the morning, I would edit subjects as follows:

Irish
Scrap the current LC program and replace it with an optional Irish course, where the emphasis is more on speaking and learning the language, instead of reading poems and stories that will never be of benefit to you.

Biology
More emphasis on doing experiments and forming your own opinion than learning off facts and balanced equations.

Maths
I would make the HL maths course more practical. I know its supposed to make you think logically, but atm it is ridiculously hard.

Aside from changing those courses, i would add the following:

IT
A proper computer course, where students are taught word processing, proper use of excel, powerpoint etc etc, but also taught basic computer maintenance. Think of the amount of money companies could save if they didnt have to keep hiring IT specialists for the simplest of things that people should really be able to do them selves.

Religion and Ethics
As much as I dislike religion, it is a major part of our world. As such, i think students should be taught about all major world religions equally. This will allow students to make an informed decision on what, if any, religion they would like to follow, rather than being pushed into Catholicism from the age of 5. The ethics part of the class would teach students to be able to recognise right from wrong etc,

CSPE
Civic Social Political Education. I realise that this is already taught up to Junior Cert, but the level of political social and civic ignorance out there is really ridiculous, and this needs to be thought up until leaving cert.

As well as adding those subjects and changing the others i mentioned, i would make the following changes to the Leaving Cert in general:

- After Junior Cert, all subjects are optional, except for Maths, Business, English and a Foreign Language. This may be controversial, but i think that they are all essential subjects for a knowledge economy. I know people will say what if i want nothing to do with business, but you need a basic knowledge of business and how the business world works no matter what you do.

- Scrap the points system as it currently stands. It creates a situation where only the smartest, or those who can remember the most, get the good places in college. I think college places should be awarded on a system that is part points, but the way you earn those points would be changed from the current system, and part interview/aptitude.

- Introduce a system, whereby students, parents and even fellow teachers can whistle-blow on teachers who are no longer effective, any if the concerns are proved to be true, a mechanism by which they can be removed. There are some teachers out there who are incredibly intelligent people, but are simply unable to teach.

That's a very limited list of changes but if they were made, i believe if they were made, the system would be a hell of a lot better than it is.

Whoa that was a long post, this is just an area i really think can be made substantially better with very little effort/investment.

aidan24326

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Personally, I'd bring in meditation/spirituality

That kind of thing doesn't really have much place in a secondary curriculum, and in any case can you imagine finding teachers who'd actually be competent to teach it?

I'd also downgrade ALL subjects to optional after the junior cert. Don't think I'd get rid of anything altogether though.

Absolutely not. A decent level of maths and particularly english is absolutely essential. A surprisingly large number of people have poor spelling and grammar and many are hopeless at mental arithmetic.

And Irish should NOT be compulsory for the LC, that's nonsense. Make it compulsory up to JC and then optional for LC.

BOHtox wrote: »

I would have a level in between honours and pass

honours maths is too hard but pass is far too easy same with Irish all other subjects are fine with a bit off hard work

That's a good idea. Maybe have Higher and ordinary level with an intermediate level in between. As you say honours maths for leaving cert is fairly difficult whereas ordinary level is too easy.

The curriculum overall should have more of a mix between learning rote facts, which is necessary to a point, and also teaching more in the way of critical thinking and reasoning and teaching students to question things and most of all to think for themselves.

EDIT: And Irish should NOT be compulsory for the Leaving Cert, that's just nonsense. Make it compulsory for the JC and then optional for LC.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

aidan24326 wrote: »

That kind of thing doesn't really have much place in a secondary curriculum, and in any case can you imagine finding teachers who'd actually be competent to teach it?

1 - Why not? 2- There are plenty of people capable of teaching it - courses do exist. Specialist teachers are brought in for subjects such as art and PE.

Absolutely not. A decent level of maths and particularly english is absolutely essential. A surprisingly large number of people have poor spelling and grammar and many are hopeless at mental arithmetic.

True, but I'm assuming that required levels have been reached by the age of 14 or so. Or at least, rthose who don't have them are identified and getting special help. One way or the other, those who don't have the basics by JC are NOT going to get any better under the current LC syllabus

vicecreamsundae

i like the idea of having drivers ed in the school curriculum. it's a pretty basic life skill, and not everyone can afford lessons or has a patient parent willing to let their kid behind their wheel. [coughistillcan'tdrivecough].

the main thing i would bring in is media studies. kids today are exposed to soooo freaking much media and i think it's ridiculous we are not formally teaching them how to be critical of it. the syllabus would include material on advertising and product placement, sociology and representation of gender/race/class and disabilities in the media .

Misty Chaos

* Introduce an agency that reviews if there is a high fail rate for say, maths in a particular school, then it would be fully investigated and if its as a result of a bad teacher, they would be fired without any sort of severance pay and the school fined. Any complaints in from students and / or parents would also have to be reported to this agency as soon as the school gets them. Unions would not be allowed to protest any decisions from this agency and doing so would be a criminal offence.

* Drop Irish as a compulsory LC subject and I wouldn't see the harm introducing a aural exam in JC Irish too.

* Only two core compulsory subjects in the LC; English & Maths. The rest will either be up to the school or optional.

* All courses, wherever possible, will have computer elements but this will not be taught in JC until at least 2nd year, 1st year is to be spent learning methods via traditional means.

* Make Maths more modern and relevant and as its generally seen as the hardest subject on the curriculum, it will have the most allocated time on school timetables but double classes would be frowned upon. Also, only qualified & competent teachers would be allowed teach Maths, with an even more rigiourous screening process needed to be allowed teach Higher Level Maths.

* PE, while it would not be an exam subject, would be compulsory all the ways up to 6th year, no exceptions.

* Allowing students to repeat State exams in July if they feel they got caught out on the day. This would entail the allocation of a lot more temporary staff during exam season but it would be worth it. The appeal process would also work a lot faster.

Well, a man can dream....

WoollyRedHat

Make it so that at the end of your secondary education, you are nearly fluent in at least one other language.

Also make Transition Year more practiable.

gonnaplayrugby

People would generally leave secondary school at 20 or 21. I think people leave too early. We age our population too fast here.

Leaving Cert cycle would be longer than 2 years and 4th year for all intent and purposes would be mandatory.