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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

British History in Irish Schools

2»

Comments

  • #52
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,812 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think that's inevitable, though, isn't it? When you're studying history to a Leaving Cert. standard, it's simply impossible to study the entire range of history in every country in the world, or even begin to. You have to make some selection of places, times, themes on which you will focus, and the selections have to be narrow enough that you can focus on them in the depth that Leaving Cert. history requires. The object, I think, is to equip the student with critical, analytical and other skills that she can later employ to study other times, other places, other themes or trends.
    Sure but does the selection have to be so limited? .If you are interested in history pre-1500 then LC history has nothing for you. It doesn't need to be a chronological slog through time since we already had that with the JC but surely those skills could still be taught without ignoring the Greeks and Romans?


  • #53
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    That actually underscores the need for 'context' . A good initial grasp of the 'overview' is critical to understanding any topic. Broad brushstrokes first, then zone in on an item. e.g. in history, the rise of republicanism in the late 1700's, leading to uprisings in France, Ireland, America, etc.
    There appears to be little emphasis on a polymath-type approach to history, it seems to be event-centric.
    Yes, but anybody taking Leaving Cert history has presumably already taken Junior Cert history. It's not as though they're taught that history starts in 1494.


  • #54
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Sure but does the selection have to be so limited? .If you are interested in history pre-1500 then LC history has nothing for you. It doesn't need to be a chronological slog through time since we already had that with the JC but surely those skills could still be taught without ignoring the Greeks and Romans?
    And if the curriculum included the Greeks and the Romans, you could ask whether the skills could still be taught without ignoring the medieval period. And if that were covered, you could ask about the nineteenth century. And so on.

    The bottom line is that, from the point of view of inculcating the skills and techniques of historiography, studying any period is pretty much as good as studying any other period. From the point of view of understanding your own society and culture, it makes more sense to study the history of your own region/society than it does to study, say, Chinese history, and it makes more sense to study nearer history in more detail than more remote history. But, within the constraints of a history course for secondary school students for whom it is just one subject among six, seven or eight, you're still going to have to make choices.

    FWIW, at leaving cert level I think it's reasonable to assume that students are actually interested in history, and to structure the curriculum on the assumption that the specific time and place covered in the curriculum is not the only history they are ever going to encounter.


  • #55
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Yes, but anybody taking Leaving Cert history has presumably already taken Junior Cert history. It's not as though they're taught that history starts in 1494.

    There should be wider availability of the "Early Modern Curriculum" when it comes to the Leaving Cert though, for example I don't think any school in Galway city thought it when I did the Leaving Cert.


  • #56
    craicfiend
    Site Banned Posts: 7 ✭craicfiend


    The question could easily be reversed .. Do you think Irish history should be taught in Britain in british schools ? l was shocked when l saw a video that showed british people didnt even know where the border in NI and ROI was , The history is certainly interconnected going both ways .they are certainly more ignorant of are history then we are of theres . l think every atrocities committed by the british to ireland and every connection should be taught in schools but there's only so much time so some things just have to be brushed over especially when irish factor of history is more important in ireland .


  • #57
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Please do not post on old threads unless there is a good reason to bring them back to peoples attention. In this case there is nothing of value added by your one eyed view on reversing the threads title. Refer to forum charter.
    Mod


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement