Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is History Poorly Taught In School (Up To Junior Cert.)?

Options
  • 05-08-2017 11:08pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭


    I quite liked history in school and enjoy dipping my toe into history books/documentaries. But the more I read, the more I believe that Irish history is very badly taught in school (I say up to the J.C. because I didn't do it for L.C.). There's maybe a few lines about the Celts, the Normans, Cromwell being a d*ck and 3 or 4 paragraphs on the Famine, but everything else seems either Anglo-centric or American-centric.

    When I think back to my Junior Cert days (10 years ago), when they talked about say the Reformation, they talked about it from a British point of view, not what was happening in Ireland. They talked about the Normans, but not about what Ireland was like before the Normans. And afaik there was no mention at all of the Williamite wars. It just seems as if history only starts at 1916.

    Do other people get this or am I just cherry-picking?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    In my day (which was before yours) there were two quite separate history courses embodied in the Inter Cert curriculum; Irish history and European History. History was looked at from a British perspective only incidentally, where this was relevant to the Irish/European experience.

    I'd have to say, though, that the Reformation in Ireland really did play out as an aspect or special case of the English Reformation. It's pretty well impossible to understand that Irish Reformation without knowing what was going on in England, and why.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭threetrees


    I think it's unfair to suggest that history is poorly taught when you refer to the syllabus. Do you mean that the syllabus has a poor focus rather than poor teaching? If so, I disagree. My son completed the JC and there was a distinct Irish focus on the syllabus.


  • Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭mikefoxo


    Talking specifically about the Reformation, I'd agree up to a point about needing to know what was happening in Britain also, but from what I remember there was practically nothing on how the Reformation specifically changed Ireland.

    Apologies, when I say poorly taught, I mean what's written down in the textbook rather than the teachers. In many ways it seemed like quite a general overview with a strong Anglo-American lean to it. I certainly hope the syllabus has changed for the better since.


  • Registered Users Posts: 911 ✭✭✭monkeyslayer


    Taught the subject for 30 years and cringe now with embarrassment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Taught the subject for 30 years and cringe now with embarrassment.

    Maybe the embarrassment is more recent and due to your age? Here ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    mikefoxo wrote: »
    Talking specifically about the Reformation, I'd agree up to a point about needing to know what was happening in Britain also, but from what I remember there was practically nothing on how the Reformation specifically changed Ireland.

    Rightly or wrongly I’ve always considered that the Reformation itself did not have much effect on Ireland. A few of the 'leading' families lost out, others simply adapted to the new religion. Life went on for the mass of the population. I agree there were wars, but these would have happened regardless of the Reformation, caused by power struggles rather than religious crusades.

    I’ve never been able to find a record of any fines being levied on the ordinary population for recusancy. Little or nothing was done to convert the people. Education would have been a key factor in this and both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I passed laws for the establishment of parochial and diocesan schools to provide free education for all. However, the task was entrusted to the Established Church which was not inclined to spend money on such projects, so it never happened.

    During the near 150-year period encompassing the reigns of Elizabeth I to William III, the emphasis in Ireland was on suppressing rebellion, subjugating the Irish nobility, securing land for loyal Protestant planters and finally on establishing the Reformed religion in Ireland. While the first three of these succeeded, the conversion of the ‘native’ Irish and their education in the tenets of the Protestant religion was a complete failure. That was largely due to the inactivity of the Established Church and the English - Irish language difference between settler and native. Neither was it helped by the fact that many of the clergymen with ‘livings’ were non-resident in Ireland and even fewer resident in their parishes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Rightly or wrongly I’ve always considered that the Reformation itself did not have much effect on Ireland. A few of the 'leading' families lost out, others simply adapted to the new religion. Life went on for the mass of the population. I agree there were wars, but these would have happened regardless of the Reformation, caused by power struggles rather than religious crusades . . .
    Are you maybe underestimate the impact on the mass of the population of the disestablishment of the monastaries? I suggest that this might have been greater in Ireland even than in England where, as we know, the disestablishment (and consequent disruption of the social care provided by monasteries) led to significant unrest. In England a proportion of the monastic property was reallocated to other church/charitable purposes; in Ireland this happened to a lesser extent and, where assets were reallocated to the church, this was to the established church, with which the majority of the population did not identify.

    And of course there's the obvious point that, while the reformation did not succeed in making protestants of the mass of the population, the attempts to make protestants of them, and the increased distinction between the substantially protestantised upper classes and the catholic peasantry, had lasting consequences for Ireland.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    We’re gone off topic but it is an interesting alleyway. I’ve taken into account the impact of the dissolution of the monasteries – I suggest it is not a reasonable comparison because how it was managed and when it happened was so different in the two countries. The situation in Ireland at the Reformation was quite unlike that prevailing in England.
    Firstly, because Ireland had been granted to Henry II by Pope Adrian IV, the Church (Christian) in Ireland became divided on ‘Norman’ and Old Irish lines since the arrival of the former; this ‘division’ was further ratified in the Statutes of Kilkenny. [One result being the bane of many genealogists, the differing secular/church parish boundaries!] Thus, at the Reformation, the See of Armagh already was divided and throughout the land similar divided hierarchies prevailed. It also made it easier for many of the ‘Norman’ line to adapt (adopt?) to the reformed religion.
    Secondly, at the time of the Reformation, Henry’s writ covered the Pale and no further, so what went on outside +/- Leinster largely went unchecked for a considerable period afterwards and at least until senior Irish peers were brought into line.
    Thirdly, the role of monasteries in Ireland was not as important and quite different to that fulfilled by those in England. Some Irish monasteries even had a secular management, with roles of erenagh and coarb, usually with familial links to the ruling lord of the land. Irish monasteries had been in decline for decades by Henry’s reign, replaced by Friaries, which operated quite differently and outside diocesan control. This also made it more difficult of Dublin to control.
    After the Dissolution, monastic land often became part of the ‘Surrender & Regrant’ process, so the local lords received the confiscated land. (Turloch?) O’Neill’s treaty with Essex included all the Abbeys, etc., in his territory. Later, the monarch (notaby Elizabeth) did not want to put the ‘Old English’ offside by confiscating monastic land associated with their families – she needed all the support she could get in Ireland. While the dissolution gained funds for Henry in England, it did not raise much for him in Ireland, nor later for Elizabeth.
    ‘Hospitals’ as we know them today did not exist – what was there were infirmaries, better classed as ‘rest houses’, where some ill/dying were given palliative care. Medical treatment and ‘cures’ per se often were useless and frequently (through ignorance) were the cause of death or at least hastened it. People died young, usually at home. In relatively peaceful England less than 4% of the population lived beyond 65 (King’s study of Lichfield City records in the 1690’s) and probably that 4% was smaller in Ireland a century earlier. Continental Europe was different, the Hospices de Beaune being an example, and the selling of indulgences under RC kings /lords /nobles was a useful income stream. But the numbers catered for in those establishments were so small as to be inconsequential.
    After Henry’s death, the contradictory changes on Reformation made by Edward VI and Mary I did not last; Elizabeth I and the Act of Uniformity did not do much, but the Pope’s ‘Regnans in Excelsis’ screwed her laissez-faire attitude and it IMO was responsible for hardening of English views on Ireland and the alienation of its Roman Catholic faith.
    Arguably it was not until the post-Cromwell era that the Reformation began to bite in Ireland with the Act of Settlement of Charles II - he who lived as a crypto-Catholic and had a deathbed conversion. Even later – early 1700’s onwards - we still see last-minute conversions to the ‘new’ faith by the remnants of old Irish/English to conform and retain landholdings.
    For the mass of the population in Ireland I agree the Reformation was a shock, old order gone, new order in, conquest, battles and strife, but the reasons were political/economic power struggles rather than religious crusades. Almost no effort was made to convert the masses, the ministers of the Established Church sat on their ample haunches and lived richly off their tithes. As for Oath of Supremacy, the sons of small tenant farmers were not officer or university material, whether they came from Ireland or England.
    I agree that the differing religions were a barrier between the landlord/tenant relationship in Ireland, but that was a very minor one, even when a landlord was resident, when compared to all the other barriers, such as social interaction, political belief, estate walls and having a demesne & home farm as insulating factors. Just look at the pews in any C of I church – big landlord up front, then serried ranks of military, big merchants & professionals and the hoi polloi well down at the back.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,403 ✭✭✭✭vicwatson


    "The Famine", should only be referred to as "The Great Starvation", a famine is where there is a food shortage or scarcity, or course we all know there was plenty of food, but it was shipped over the Irish Sea.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    vicwatson wrote: »
    "The Famine", should only be referred to as "The Great Starvation", a famine is where there is a food shortage or scarcity, or course we all know there was plenty of food, but it was shipped over the Irish Sea.

    Were that trite remark the basis of a history class on the Famine, history indeed would have been badly taught.
    The Famine would not have been solved by closing the ports to exports. During that period Ireland switched from being one of Britain's bread-baskets to being a net importer of food-grains. Go do some research!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,403 ✭✭✭✭vicwatson


    Were that trite remark the basis of a history class on the Famine, history indeed would have been badly taught.
    The Famine would not have been solved by closing the ports to exports. During that period Ireland switched from being one of Britain's bread-baskets to being a net importer of food-grains. Go do some research!

    You could do with doing some for yourself - ignorance is bliss to you obviously, don't try be so condescending

    All you need is here - take some time to read and absorb it

    http://www.irishholocaust.org/officialbritishintent


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    Who's behind that website or need I ask? :rolleyes:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    vicwatson wrote: »
    "The Famine", should only be referred to as "The Great Starvation", a famine is where there is a food shortage or scarcity, or course we all know there was plenty of food, but it was shipped over the Irish Sea.

    Were that trite remark the basis of a history class on the Famine, history indeed would have been badly taught.
     The Famine would not have been solved by closing the ports to exports. During that period Ireland switched from being one of Britain's bread-baskets to being a net importer of food-grains. Go do some research!
    It is true though that freer trade would have alleviated the Great Hunger. The protectionist British Corn Laws restricted cheap importation of food and that fact wasn't pointed out in the curriculum when I did it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    vicwatson wrote: »
    You could do with doing some for yourself - ignorance is bliss to you obviously, don't try be so condescending

    All you need is here - take some time to read and absorb it

    http://www.irishholocaust.org/officialbritishintent

    Oh dear. By referencing that site you have dug considerably deeper into the hole of your ignorance. Is that site the best you can do after all this time to Google? You turn up a site that has been spurned by historians, scorned by academics and discredited by anyone with the smallest notion of what actually happened. It is a site maintained by ignorant Americans to feed propaganda to other idiots.

    The leading academics on the topic - Mokyr, O’Grada, Kinealy, Porteir to name just a few disagree with you.
    O’Grada is possibly the best on the economics of the Famine and much of his academic work is free, online. Those writers certainly would not only educate you but also open your eyes (and prevent you from making another silly ‘afterhours’ remark in a serious forum.
    To name just a couple of works try
    • J. Mokyr, Why Ireland Starved: A Quantitative and Analytical History of the Irish Economy 1800-1845, 2nd ed., (1985).
    • C.O'Grada, 7he Great Irish Famine (1989).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    robp wrote: »
    It is true though that freer trade would have alleviated the Great Hunger. The protectionist British Corn Laws restricted cheap importation of food and that fact wasn't pointed out in the curriculum when I did it.

    I doubt that detail on Corn Laws ever was on a syllabus below L. Cert level? I did History up to InterCert in an era when History & Geography were a combined subject. The hatred between the history teacher and me was mutual; he never gave me more than 20% and my mark in geography always was sufficient to carry me over the line. His teaching was abyssmal. I dropped history and came back to it much later. (He was a s#ite teacher of his other subject also (Irish) and should never have been allowed into the profession.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I doubt that detail on Corn Laws ever was on a syllabus below L. Cert level?
    When I did history for the Inter Cert back in the late middle ages, I seem to recall mention of the corn laws. But I may be mistaken in my recollection, or maybe I just had an unusually good teacher.
    The leading academics on the topic - Mokyr, O’Grada, Kinealy . . .
    Nitpick: Not "O'Grada". Ó Gráda.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,403 ✭✭✭✭vicwatson


    Nice to know some of us don't know everything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,403 ✭✭✭✭vicwatson


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    Who's behind that website or need I ask? :rolleyes:

    I honestly don't know, when you find out please let us know.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    On a tangent but a useful collection of essays with regard to the 16th/17th century is:

    Age of atrocity
    Violence and political conflict in early modern Ireland

    SetRatioSize745550-Edwards-Atrocity.jpg

    This book examines one of the bloodiest epochs in Irish history. Part one covers the 16th century, revealing how efforts by the Tudor monarchy to curb the powers of the autonomous Irish lords degenerated into a bitter cultural and sectarian conflict characterized by summary killings and massacres. The second part pays particular attention to the 1641 rebellion and the Confederate Wars.

    David Edwards, who lectures in University College Cork, is the author of The Ormond Lordship in County Kilkenny, 1515–1642 (FCP, 2003). Clodagh Tait lectures in history at the University of Essex. She is the author of Death, Burial and Commemoration in Ireland, 1550–1650 (Hampshire, 2002). Padraig Lenihan lectures in the Department of Government and Society, University of Limerick and is the author of Conquest and Resistance: war in seventeenth-century Ireland (Netherlands, 2000) and Confederate Catholics at war, 1641–49 (Cork, 2000).

    Reviews
    'Age of Atrocity: violence and political conflict in early modern Ireland reveals the true nature and extent of violence and atrocity in the 16th and 17th centuries as a conquering England gains territorial supremacy', William J. Smyth, Irish Times Books of the Year (2007).

    'Age of Atrocity’s title says it all. The period from 1534 to 1691 – early modern Ireland – was, indeed, an era of atrocities, war crimes and brutality that today might qualify as genocide. The hunger for land, the means used to obtain it and the hatred of Roman Catholicism were eerie precursors of the atrocities committed by the new American settlers and the US cavalry in their abominable progress across the continent and their annihilation of the original Americans … a gripping volume', J. Ardle McArdle, Books Ireland (February 2008).

    'Much has been written in recent years about 'negotiated settlement' in early modern Anglo-Irish relations and the role played therein by English reform programs; this excellent collection addresses the understudied bloody conquest elements of that society ... This collection challenges and provokes. One of its most useful features is an excellent historiographical introduction that includes a veritable laundry list of pressing research questions. Given its detailing of such a variety of savagery, it is not always an easy or pleasant read. But it is an important, even required one', Brendan Kane, Renaissance Quarterly.

    'This fascinating and enjoyable volume consists of a collection of thirteen valuable essays on the history of violence in early modern Ireland ... This is an exciting and challenging volume that should encourage historians of Ireland and Britain to engage more effectively with their violent pasts. The essays, and in particular the introduction, make a significant contribution to a severely under-developed field and will help readers to understand the violent history of early modern Ireland', Rhys Morgan, Welsh History Review (June 2009).

    ‘The collection offers some thirteen contributions all of which are in themselves of considerable interest and value … these essays add considerably to our knowledge and our understanding of the place of political violence in Irish history in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries … this is a pioneering effort in Irish history, which is laden with potential not only for further research but also for a fundamental reinterpretation of early modern Ireland … this promises to be the source of much exciting work to come', Ciaran Brady, Irish Economic and Social History (2009).

    'This book covers a long time-span … it is a fascinating book with impeccable insights and scholarship, read it; use it; learn from it', Martyn Bennett, Scottish Historical Review (2010).

    ‘For various reasons, the violence and atrocity which were commonplace in the Irish wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries have been played down. This book is an attempt to set the record straight and to set the atrocities in their broader social and cultural context … It may be harsh reading but these atrocities are not something to be swept under the carpet’, J. Ardle McArdle, Books Ireland (December 2008).

    ‘In the troubled history of Ireland, the early modern period stands out as one of the bloodiest. Five major wars occurred in Ireland between 1534 and 1691 ... the fourteen chapters in this book re-examine this period with reference to acts of violence, and, specifically, to atrocities executed against unarmed civilians or captured soldiers’, Patrick Little, English Historical Review (June 2009).

    ‘If footnotes are the infantry of an argument then this important collection of essays, featuring a formidable array of contributors, with a thousand scholarly foot soldiers in support, is well served … It is also a beautifully produced book, and Four Courts are to be congratulated on the excellent production standards for a volume whose bloody contents are presented in such an attractive skin', Willy Maley, Eolas (2009).

    Leaving that aside I've recently started reading:
    The Nine Years War, 1593–1603
    O'Neill, Mountjoy and the military revolution

    SetRatioSize745550-oneill-nine-years-war.jpg
    The Nine Years War was one of the most traumatic and bloody conflicts in the history of Ireland. Encroachment on the liberties of the Irish lords by the English crown caused Hugh O’Neill, earl of Tyrone, to build an unprecedented confederation of Irish lords leading a new Irish military armed with pike and shot. This book is an important reassessment of the military dimensions of the Nine Years War, as situated in the wider context of European political and military history.

    Backed by Philip II of Spain, Tyrone and his allies outclassed the forces of the English Crown, achieving a string of stunning victories and bringing the power of Elizabeth I in Ireland to the brink of collapse. The opening shots were fired in Ulster, but from 1593 to 1599 war engulfed all of Ireland. The conflict consumed the lives and reputations of Elizabeth’s court favourites as they struggled to cope with the new Irish way of war. Sophisticated strategy and modern tactics made the Irish war appear unwinable to many in England, but Lord Mountjoy’s arrival as deputy in 1600 changed everything. Mountjoy reformed the demoralized English army and rolled back the advances achieved by Tyrone. Mountjoy’s success was crowned by his shattering defeat of Tyrone and his Spanish allies at Kinsale in 1601, which ultimately led to the earl’s submission in 1603, though not before famine, misery and atrocity took their toll on the people of Ireland.

    This book rewrites the narrative and interpretation of the Nine Years War. It uses military evidence to show that not only was Irish society progressive, it was also quicker to adopt military and technological change than its English enemies.

    James O’Neill is an archaeologist and an alumnus of the QUB History department. He completed a two year post-doctorate fellowship in the School of History, University College Cork, before returning to Belfast where he now works as a heritage consultant, specializing in battlefield/conflict archaeology.

    http://www.fourcourtspress.ie/books/2017/nine-years-war/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    vicwatson wrote: »
    I honestly don't know,[who is behind that website] when you find out please let us know.

    The site is run by an Irish American looney called Chris Fogarty who styles himself as a historian. He wrote a book on the Famine, claiming that 5 million (!) were murdered in a holocaust. He gets publicity for it by continuously making dafter claims, including one that the Famine was genocide, the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the British to starve the "rebellious Irish” to do away with the ‘Irish Problem’. He also has claimed that huge amounts (more than half the national stock) of grain, livestock, vegetables, dairy products and poultry were seized 'at gunpoint' and shipped out of the country to England. Were all that not enough, he also claims that MI5 once tried to frame him for a Belfast murder and then planned to kill him to ‘silence his civil rights work’ in N. Ireland. Lucky for him (and the gullible who like his work) he was tipped off by a friendly FBI man and still lives to peddle his tripe.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    dubhthach wrote: »
    On a tangent but a useful collection of essays with regard to the 16th/17th century is:

    Age of atrocity
    Violence and political conflict in early modern Ireland

    I have it, a marvellous book. It was highly recommended on this forum some time back and I bought it as a result. The other looks interesting , will add it to my reading list.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Mod Note:
    This is a very informative thread, but like many topics relating to history can verge into the uncivil. Please take note of the charter when responding to other posters. Cheers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 188 ✭✭Stewie Griffin


    Interesting title.
    I'm teaching JC History for 20 years now and I love teaching it. It challenges students to think about cause and consequence. Or at least it should, if students had time to ponder and engage critically with the topics on the syllabus.

    The bulk of the problem lies in the syllabus. It's a mile wide and an inch deep. Not much time or room for students to truly comprehend much beyond a potted history of a lot of different topics.

    If this was addressed, I believe teachers wouldn't be rushing onto the next topic to ''cover'' everything in time for an exam that can be more interested in trying to catch students out than genuinely assessing their awareness of historical events.

    Is there bad teaching? I'm sure there is. However, teachers only get to deliver a syllabus and prepare students for an exam.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,295 ✭✭✭Lt Dan


    mikefoxo wrote: »
    I quite liked history in school and enjoy dipping my toe into history books/documentaries. But the more I read, the more I believe that Irish history is very badly taught in school (I say up to the J.C. because I didn't do it for L.C.). There's maybe a few lines about the Celts, the Normans, Cromwell being a d*ck and 3 or 4 paragraphs on the Famine, but everything else seems either Anglo-centric or American-centric.

    When I think back to my Junior Cert days (10 years ago), when they talked about say the Reformation, they talked about it from a British point of view, not what was happening in Ireland. They talked about the Normans, but not about what Ireland was like before the Normans. And afaik there was no mention at all of the Williamite wars. It just seems as if history only starts at 1916.

    Do other people get this or am I just cherry-picking?

    History in Primary to Secondary School, bar a few fine teachers is horrendous. It is history for dopes, not much good for students with a deep interest . Instead they sit there bored crapless while the teachers read from the books. No daring to try and treat the students like adults and offer more analysis than the books .

    Not once did any of the teachers were delve into what is actually contained in the Home Rule Act 1914 , The Government of Ireland Act 1920 or a better analysis of the Anglo Irish Act 1921 and note the key differences. Apparently what we got in 1921 would have definitely have happened if 1916 had not happened. Well, no, clearly not 1914 is a very different beast to what was on offer in 1921

    With some teachers, you wouldn't be aware that 1916 was made up of Irish Volunteers, IRB and ICA and Cumann na mBan and in small part na Fianna.

    Don't get me started on Irish history before 1800. Great point about the reformation from the Irish Point of View (and Rome's involvement or lack thereof)

    With regard to Europe, it is annoying that there was not much focuses on European History post World War 2. (left school by 2002) Just a few pages near the end of the book. I know that is still being written in a way, but the Cold War was extremely fascinating, particularly Berlin.

    I was lucky to have a good history teacher in 6th Class Primary. The two that I had in Secondary school (Junior and Leaving) were pathetic , the LC teacher was not too bad, he was good as the social issues in Ireland of 1950-1960. Come to think of it, two other Primary School teachers were pretty solid too. They took a good stab at the Williamite War and even brought us to Aughrim. I am from a town that played a dominant role in the war, to it is hard to avoid the subject, so obviously we visited the local castle as well.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,295 ✭✭✭Lt Dan


    Interesting title.
    I'm teaching JC History for 20 years now and I love teaching it. It challenges students to think about cause and consequence. Or at least it should, if students had time to ponder and engage critically with the topics on the syllabus.

    The bulk of the problem lies in the syllabus. It's a mile wide and an inch deep. Not much time or room for students to truly comprehend much beyond a potted history of a lot of different topics.

    If this was addressed, I believe teachers wouldn't be rushing onto the next topic to ''cover'' everything in time for an exam that can be more interested in trying to catch students out than genuinely assessing their awareness of historical events.

    Is there bad teaching? I'm sure there is. However, teachers only get to deliver a syllabus and prepare students for an exam.

    I am not having a go at teachers here, I have a mate who is a lecture in one of the ITs , so I have a small idea of how hard it is to keep things interesting and engaging and within a time frame, but, with a three year cycle, is it possible to reform the syllabus to cover most areas, particularly the more recent history ? I am right to point out that history is a compulsory subject from 1st year to 3rd? If so, maybe it should be optional (obviously no history teacher wants that) so that only those with a real interest could take the more intense nature of the course and be able to go through so much information but with enthusiasm?

    I never once recall any of the teachers suggesting to students , in my time, what books they ought to be reading in their spare time (I know, it is only LC exam , not a thesis and you will only get marks for what is in the syllabus) eg Joe Lees Book on Ireland , even Robert Kee on Nationalism is decent , Michael Hopkins etc

    With 5 years of doing the course , would that be enough time to cover everything, ?

    As a teacher , what would you suggest in order to change the syllabus ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 188 ✭✭Stewie Griffin


    It isn't compulsory. Most schools do it at JC level but not all. Schools from an etb ethos are the ones that tend to make it optional.

    There are proposals to change the syllabus but they haven't been introduced yet. AFAIK they are coming in the next few years, as part of the JC reform.

    However, it's hard to escape the reality that most students' (and sometimes teachers too) attention can be summed up in the question: do we have to know this for the exam? While teachers will try their best to make it engaging, you don't always have a captive audience.

    My original point still stands: the syllabus is still too exam focused and it tends to be reduced to a ''list of topics we need to know''. This reductive approach is unfortunately present and used by even good students.

    The occasional time I step off the treadmill and get the students to engage and probe with the topic at hand results in enjoyable classes, but you end up falling behind in the Yearly Plan. That's when inspectors come in and rap knuckles.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,295 ✭✭✭Lt Dan


    It isn't compulsory. Most schools do it at JC level but not all. Schools from an etb ethos are the ones that tend to make it optional.

    There are proposals to change the syllabus but they haven't been introduced yet. AFAIK they are coming in the next few years, as part of the JC reform.

    However, it's hard to escape the reality that most students' (and sometimes teachers too) attention can be summed up in the question: do we have to know this for the exam? While teachers will try their best to make it engaging, you don't always have a captive audience.

    My original point still stands: the syllabus is still too exam focused and it tends to be reduced to a ''list of topics we need to know''. This reductive approach is unfortunately present and used by even good students.

    The occasional time I step off the treadmill and get the students to engage and probe with the topic at hand results in enjoyable classes, but you end up falling behind in the Yearly Plan. That's when inspectors come in and rap knuckles.

    Thanks, that explains a lot


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Oh dear. By referencing that site you have dug considerably deeper into the hole of your ignorance. Is that site the best you can do after all this time to Google? You turn up a site that has been spurned by historians, scorned by academics and discredited by anyone with the smallest notion of what actually happened. It is a site maintained by ignorant Americans to feed propaganda to other idiots.

    The leading academics on the topic - Mokyr, O’Grada, Kinealy, Porteir to name just a few disagree with you.
    O’Grada is possibly the best on the economics of the Famine and much of his academic work is free, online. Those writers certainly would not only educate you but also open your eyes (and prevent you from making another silly ‘afterhours’ remark in a serious forum.
    To name just a couple of works try
    • J. Mokyr, Why Ireland Starved: A Quantitative and Analytical History of the Irish Economy 1800-1845, 2nd ed., (1985).
    • C.O'Grada, 7he Great Irish Famine (1989).

    It's more accurate to say the penal laws, food exports and blight caused the famine. Britain certainly made it worse.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    It's more accurate to say the penal laws, food exports and blight caused the famine. Britain certainly made it worse.

    Penal laws? Really? Please explain :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Penal laws? Really? Please explain :confused:

    Pedro can we have an intelligent discussion without smiley faces? There's no need to be patronising because my view is different to yours.

    Yes, really, the Penal Laws played a large part in the Irish famine. Although the worst of the laws had been repelled about 1790 the consequences of those laws were certainly evident through several generations. The worst and most relevant of these were:

    • Catholics could not purchase land (and most of them had been dispossessed of their holdings in the aftermath of the Cromwellian and Williamite wars of the 17th century). Further, Catholics could not lease land for a period of more than 31 years.

    • Protestants, on the other hand, practiced primogeniture so that holdings remained intact over time. But if one son of a Catholic family converted to Anglicanism, he inherited all the family land and his brothers got nothing.

    • Even if sons of a Catholic family were inclined to (illegally) forgo their inheritance so that one son could inherit and keep the land intact, there were few other options available. Many occupations, including the professions and the officer ranks of the army were closed to Catholics.

    Worst of all was the effect of a system of inheritance called gavelkind whereby a deceased person's land is divided equally among all male heirs. Therefore, Catholics’ leased landholdings became successively smaller and poorer with each passing generation (leading Catholic peasants to become dependent on potato monoculture, which had catastrophic effects in the 1840s. The crop-monoculture didn't just mean one type of crop, it meant one strain (genetic) of crop. So not only were Irish Catholics dependent on one type of crop, they were using one strain of crop. In other words one genetically similar crop. There wasn't the genetic diversity in the potato crop in Catholic holdings to survive Phytophthora infestans


Advertisement