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

Junior cycle history

Options
  • 19-02-2020 1:36pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭


    What do people feel about this being made a core subject? Will it have much effect on your school?

    Our school has had the subject as optional from 2nd year for years, so this will be a big change for us. History is very much a minority subject at junior and leaving cert. all of our history teachers have history as their 2nd subject as a result, with 2 rotating leaving cert classes, so at a staffing level I think this will be a huge change.


Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,115 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    Is it still intended to have a common level exam? That will kill it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    spurious wrote: »
    Is it still intended to have a common level exam? That will kill it.
    Why should a common level exam kill the subject? Personally, I’m for more common level exams, provided they’re structured in such a way that failure is still possible, and that strong students can still excel. They’re rarely implemented that way, but they’re not a bad thing, in theory.

    On the OP’s question, I think there are about eight subjects that should be core to junior cert/cycle. History is one of them. The core should be fact based. Social engineering should not be part of the core. The principle responsibility for teaching kids to be decent citizens should be out back on the parents, because they’ll be the ones the kids actually learn that from anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭Random sample


    spurious wrote: »
    Is it still intended to have a common level exam? That will kill it.

    Yea. Current 1st and 2nd years are already doing the new spec at common level. We’ve had no indication of what the exam will be like though.

    Training has been very pie in the sky and documents based. I don’t know if that’s an indication of what the exam will be like.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭Random sample


    I think they’ve gone about the Jc in the wrong way. There doesn’t seem to be any joined up thinking.

    240 hours each for English, Irish, maths, 400 for wellbeing, a separate 200 for religion (deeds of trust in our school, not sure if this is across the board) and now 200 for history... it'll be difficult to get time for science and practical subjects on top of that.

    They’ve rowed back on so much I think they would have been better off starting from scratch than amending a flawed plan.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,115 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    RealJohn wrote: »
    Why should a common level exam kill the subject? Personally, I’m for more common level exams, provided they’re structured in such a way that failure is still possible, and that strong students can still excel. They’re rarely implemented that way, but they’re not a bad thing, in theory.

    At JC level (even with massaging) there is already a large group for whom the current HL exam poses very little of a challenge, while at the other end, there are those who have difficulty with the OL paper.
    I just can't see a paper that can be all things to all students.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,215 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    I've never taught in a school where history was reduced or not a core subject. No change for me. Common sense change though.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    spurious wrote: »
    At JC level (even with massaging) there is already a large group for whom the current HL exam poses very little of a challenge, while at the other end, there are those who have difficulty with the OL paper.
    I just can't see a paper that can be all things to all students.
    I’ve been an examiner for one of the subjects that is now common level. There were not enough low marks for my liking, but it still took a strong student to get a distinction. There did seem to be a lot getting a ‘higher merit’ but that’s probably to be expected of those who would have been decent higher level students, I imagine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,836 ✭✭✭doc_17


    Geography has a better case to be a core subject than History.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    doc_17 wrote: »
    Geography has a better case to be a core subject than History.
    Geography is also a subject I’d consider a subject that should be core.

    For the record, the subjects I think should be core to junior cycle are Irish, English, maths, history, geography, science, business/commerce, and a foreign language (other than English). There’s an argument that home economics should be too, but to my mind, the first eight are definites.
    Anything obvious I’ve left out?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,115 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    When did the Department stop seeing History Geography as the one subject (for technical reasons)? Anyone remember switching between the short History/long Geography course and the Long History/short Geography course?

    Was it with the 'old' new JC?

    Perhaps I am showing my age.

    I would argue for a place for Art or Music on the mandated list too.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,555 ✭✭✭Treppen


    doc_17 wrote: »
    Geography has a better case to be a core subject than History.

    I sense a subject-off coming.
    Make Latin compulsory I say.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,215 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Treppen wrote: »
    I sense a subject-off coming.
    Make Latin compulsory I say.


    Fac Iterum magna Latine?

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 894 ✭✭✭Corkgirl18


    I think science and business should definitely be mandatory. Students are excluding themselves from 6 leaving cert subjects without even knowing it. This is besides the fact that both are very important for a students general education.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,792 ✭✭✭Postgrad10


    I definately think there should be a compulsory study of home economics by all students. There’s so many parts of it that set students up with life skills cookery, sowing , budgeting ,consumer studies. Vital skills.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,381 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    RealJohn wrote: »
    Geography is also a subject I’d consider a subject that should be core.

    For the record, the subjects I think should be core to junior cycle are Irish, English, maths, history, geography, science, business/commerce, and a foreign language (other than English). There’s an argument that home economics should be too, but to my mind, the first eight are definites.
    Anything obvious I’ve left out?


    That basically says only an academic education is worth having, and practical subjects are of no use. Some kids are just not good at theoretical subjects or have no interest in them. Some have amazing talent when it comes to woodwork, metalwork, art, music.

    Too many core subjects would effectively kill creativity.


    Regarding my own school, history and geography went into the mix of option subjects when the JC was reduced to 10. English, Irish, Maths, Science and a foreign language are compulsory in my school and choose from the options for the rest. Woodwork and Home Economics are the most popular subject choices by a country mile.


Advertisement