US firms call for overhaul of Irish education

Sleepy

ninty9er wrote: »

I have no interest in English literature, yet I no doubt benefitted from having to study it. Get real, there will be times in every adult's life when they will have to do something they don't want to. If the system was modularised, maths English and Irish would be the first 3 subjects most second level students would drop. I never liked maths, I was never great at maths, and it took probably 40% of all my Leaving Cert study time and 2 grinds a week (on top of 4 hours extra class teaching from the teacher from her own time) to get a C3. I was happy with that, but considering I got an A1 in German for much less input hours, I feel that was a time investment mush more worthwhile. However all of these things encourage pupils to THINK. Cognitive activity is what these US firms are after, and I believe a broad system like ours encourages that more than say the A Level system where 1, 2 or 3 subjects can be taken.

What the fu<k has Pythagoras Theorem got to do with modern day maths. If you want to learn that to be an engineer or waht not, then I think appied maths is the place to do it.

Are you actually suggesting that compulsory Irish is more advantageous to students than compulsory mathematics?:eek:

ei.sdraob

What the fu<k has Pythagoras Theorem got to do with modern day maths.

i stopped reading there

ninty9er

Sleepy wrote: »

Are you actually suggesting that compulsory Irish is more advantageous to students than compulsory mathematics?:eek:

Not more, but equally in different ways.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i stopped reading there

Very conscientious:rolleyes:
I've never used it since leaving school? I studied accounting, a trade working with numbers a lot, but not requiring that level of maths.

Pythagoras is of no relevance to me, but then again, there's some lesson in the learning of it that probably benefits the generalities of life.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Not really, the systems built with private sector groups would be licensed for sale by said groups, tech companies do it all the time. The only place costs for the government would really come in is with initial R&D, and we already have programmes in place to sponsor that. Might even end up making a profit on the operation.


See above.

Nothing there belongs to the Department of Education, meaning there would be an ongoing outlay of more than currently goes out on prefabs.

R&D costs a hell of a lot. Are any of these proposals costed. Have any of them got the suppot of the technical companies required?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

@ninty9er

maths (and Pythagoras you referred to) makes kids learn how to solve problems, you might not see the value in it, but its there, some people only come to appreciate maths later on in life,i used to hate it myself but now i regret not putting in more work

science opens their eyes to how the world around the works, and is extremely interesting subject if taught well

religion teaches about a man who died 2000 years ago, a grand fairytale


once again making irish and religion optional would be a step in creating a modern education system, its not bad but having theses 2 subjects as compulsory is downright "medieval" imho

yet again i will have to say i have nothing against these subjects being taught, its the fact that they are compulsory, thats time that could be spend learning anything from history to business, to science and maths

#15

dkin wrote: »

We need to have streamed schools, ie the top percentage of students are streamed in better schools at an early age where they are no longer surrounded and held back by their more average peers. Entrance to these schools should not however be based on a single access exams but rather pupils should be encouraged regularly to try and reach a required standard. Excellence in education should be something that students strive for unlike the current culture in many schools were gifted and motivated students are actively persecuted by jealous peers and their achievements degenerated.

A well connected meritocracy will drive a successful knowledge economy in the future not a system based on providing everybody with the same education system in this case you don't allow the elite to be elite and they are our only hope. Ireland understands this in a sporting context, sporting clubs all around the country don't give every little jonny the same time and respect they have graded teams A,B,C because they know where they need to concentrate their resources to be successful and these resources aren't spent on children with limited interest or ability. However as in all cases the children who are genuinely eager and strive to do better should be given the space to try to achieve their goals, although resources will be concentrated elsewhere.

Streamed schooling would be a disaster, they have it in Germany and most people hate it and/or want to get rid of it.

Most of the children in the lower streams would probably have little home support, and dumping them into 'low expectation' schools would result in poor outcomes.
Trust me, if you expect crap from kids, you'll get crap.

The children in the higher stream schools are the same children who would do well in mixed schools anyway, as they have access to parental support, resources, life expectations etc.

The Irish system really isn't too bad.

It needs some fixing*, but the base is solid and it doesn't need to be torn down.

*methodologies, resources, class sizes, curriculum revision, new subjects...

#15

Amhran Nua wrote: »

We've a fairly new take on teaching in one of the policies here, using a centralised knowledge pool and letting advanced students learn more inside and outside the classroom for extra credits, while ensuring a basic standard of education, any thoughts on that would be great.

Fair play for coming up with so many ideas. The enthusiasm is great.

Some of the ideas are not so good though.

http://amhrannua.com/irish-politics-policy?page_id=25

1) Over a number of years cut the pupil to teacher ratio in half.

I'm not so sure about the need for this. Where would the focus be? A blanket cut on PT ratio could be a waste of resources.
Research (haven't got it to hand, sorry) shows that a low PT ratio is most useful in the younger classes.
I can confirm that from my own experience too!
As the kids get older, the importance of PT ratio drops.
So target young children, 2nd class and below!!

2) No principal should serve for more than ten years.

I'm not sure what the benefit here would be. In an effort to remove 'stale' principals, you could be removing principals who are doing solid work.

3) There will be an increased emphasis on the involvement of parents in the role of education.

In what way??

4) Require trained teachers to work in the private sector before starting teaching, to ensure a broad base of experience.

I see there was a thread on your website about this point. I felt that the point was poorly addressed by your team.

If you want more mature teachers, with a broader outlook on life, give them a wider education and make entry to teaching by postgrad only. It would force all teachers to have a background in something else. Requiring them to work in the private sector is a little bit too much like 'oh, let them work here, then they will see how good they have it in their cushy jobs'.
Or at least, thats how it appears.

5) Ensure every child can get three nutritious meals a day while in school

It is a nice idea, but really, teachers are educators, not childminders or substitute parents.

Since when did it get too difficult for parents to provide a nutritious lunch for their kids, and to ensure that they are well fed before and after school?

I know one school that started a 'breakfast club' for kids, and children who had previously brought food to school, stopped doing so, as the parents realised they could get free food in school.

The only way this scheme could work is if everyone paid for the food that they get in school.

6) The teacher has to be able to develop a lesson that is appropriate for the grade level, cognitive ability for the students in that classroom, and that covers the standards being taught.

The vast majority of teachers can do this already. The ones who cannot, well, a few summer courses are unlikely to help!

7) An increased emphasis on teaching the Irish language

Really?

dan_d

There currently is science on the primary school curriculum. Along with music.

The thing is that 10-11 year olds - while I may have been exaggerating - are still learning the basics of Maths, the English language (though not being taught grammar, as it's not on the curriculum, so I'm not sure how that works for them) and Irish. You can teach them science and all the extras to a point, but you've got to be realistic about it. Kids are absolute sponges for knowledge yes. But firstly there's only so many hours in a day. And secondly, they need the basics known WELL first. You can't bombard them with hundreds of different lessons every week, or they won't remember anything. Why do you think they spend weeks learning tables and practising sums? Repetition is teaching. You can dress these things up any way you like, but at the end of the day, you teach things through repetition - be it games, excercises, rote learning, tests, whatever. Every child is not going to remember in detail something they did for 40 minutes last Monday.

Irish is just another language. So what if it's not in use etc,etc? It's most children's first experience of learning a language other than their mother tongue. Yes we should teach European languages aswell, I totally agree. And it would be good to have more science on the course. But if you want to make things like religion and Irish compulsory, you would need to do it on a school by school, rather than a class by class basis. What would you do with the other kids while those classes were going on? How would the time be made up, and how would those kids catch up on what the rest of the class did while they were in religion and Irish? Who would look after them? In terms of Irish, the system is badly designed and run, and not helped by the overall attitude to the language. And before I'm accused of anything, let me make it quite clear that I view Irish as just that - another language. I had no problem learning it and no major difficulties with it. And I went on to do engineering.

I'm not disagreeing with the points being made. As I've said before, I think the basics in our school system are quite good. I don't think it's broken as such - improvements could be made. I do think streaming schools would be a disaster, even just from the point of view that it's an education in itself for kids to be in a mixed bunch and learn that not everyone is the same. Have you ever seen a class of kids who have a very slow child, or a Down's Syndrome child among them? There is often (not always, but frequently) a level of care in the class for that child from the others - they understand that the child is not the same as them and needs to be looked after and encouraged. It can be amazing to see. I do agree that more time and effort needs to be put into special resources to help these children while not disturbing the learning of others. But I don't think that calls for entirely re-adjusting our system.

The thing about all this debate is that at the end of the day, these are kids. And for a certain period of their lives, adults have to make the decisions for them. Our current education system actually gives our children a very wide base of knowledge. Compared to say the UK, where they study only 3 subjects to high level in secondary school. It might be in-depth, but it's extremely specialised and leaves them wanting in many other areas.

As for the Irish Times "League Tables" - in my opinion, they mean next to nothing and are counter productive. Statistics can prove anything, and to be quite honest, the selection of statistics they go for mean nothing. In the absence of actual exam results, they have to be seen to print something, as they seem to be on a mission to be personally responsible for changing our education system - regardless of whether it's for the better or worse.

ninty9er

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@ninty9er

maths (and Pythagoras you referred to) makes kids learn how to solve problems, you might not see the value in it, but its there, some people only come to appreciate maths later on in life,i used to hate it myself but now i regret not putting in more work

science opens their eyes to how the world around the works, and is extremely interesting subject if taught well

religion teaches about a man who died 2000 years ago, a grand fairytale


once again making irish and religion optional would be a step in creating a modern education system, its not bad but having theses 2 subjects as compulsory is downright "medieval" imho

yet again i will have to say i have nothing against these subjects being taught, its the fact that they are compulsory, thats time that could be spend learning anything from history to business, to science and maths

English is necessary to function in our ssociety, fair enough, but the elements of English such as poetry and dissection of Baz Luhrman's "Strictly Ballroom" have very little to do with it, yet they are deemed to be of benefit. I was recently in Sweden, where everyone has near perfect English, and they often use it amongst themselves, should they stop teaching Swedish?? Of course not, that would relegate a part of their culture. It has happend already here, and removing Irish from the curriculum would do nothing to undo that.

Studies also show that having a second language from an early age makes learning
further languages easier than it is for monolingual children. Irish is a benchmark language that all children are taught, and as much as you might disagree, the benefits of this are not only to the language itself but to the brain development of the nation's children.

Your view of the teaching of religion is outdated and uninformed. I suggest you pick up the curriculum.

ei.sdraob

ninty9er wrote: »

English is necessary to function in our ssociety, fair enough, but the elements of English such as poetry and dissection of Baz Luhrman's "Strictly Ballroom" have very little to do with it, yet they are deemed to be of benefit. I was recently in Sweden, where everyone has near perfect English, and they often use it amongst themselves, should they stop teaching Swedish?? Of course not, that would relegate a part of their culture. It has happend already here, and removing Irish from the curriculum would do nothing to undo that.

Studies also show that having a second language from an early age makes learning
further languages easier than it is for monolingual children. Irish is a benchmark language that all children are taught, and as much as you might disagree, the benefits of this are not only to the language itself but to the brain development of the nation's children.

how does

making Irish optional == removing Irish from curriculum

??

maybe you should have paid attention in math class

ninty9er wrote: »

Your view of the teaching of religion is outdated and uninformed. I suggest you pick up the curriculum.

what do they teach in Religion nowadays so? please oblige

/

#15

ninty9er wrote: »

Your view of the teaching of religion is outdated and uninformed. I suggest you pick up the curriculum.

There is no state curriculum for religion.

Each faith has a religious program for teachers.

Any of the ones I have seen, are complete rubbish.

Let parents teach children about religion, its not the job of a state employee to instruct any child in any faith.

Plus, its a waste of time. There isn't even any academic value in religious instruction.

#15

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what do they teach in Religion nowadays so? please oblige

/

Nothing that has any academic value or usefulness.

ninty9er

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how does making Irish optional == removing Irish from curriculum

maybe you should have paid attention in math class

what do they teach in Religion nowadays so? please oblige

Religion lets see:

Christianity - broad overview

Judaism - broad overview

Islam - broad overview

Hindi - Broad overview

Humanity - philosophical discussion

Sexual matters to an extent also depending on the teacher.

Religion is no longer learning about the Pope, Bishops, College of Cardinals etc...

ninty9er

#15 wrote: »

Nothing that has any academic value or usefulness.

The same could be said for music, art, English, history. It's about education, not academia.

ei.sdraob

ninty9er wrote: »

The same could be said for music, art, English, history. It's about education, not academia.

:rolleyes:

sigh

history gives people an understanding how we got where we are, and more importantly gives them an opportunity to learn from mistakes

music and art develops the artistic side of the brain, there was an interesting show on RTE1 last night about kids in Dublin schools learning to play instruments outside school time and with no funding

english literature expands the vocabulary and more importantly helps kids reading comprehension


anyways history and music/arts are optional subjects in schools, religion is not, you are taught various mumbo jumbo, the historic aspects of religion can be taught in history classes the rest can be relegated to sunday school

i still remember religion classes in school where all we heard was that abortion is evil bleh bleh and of course not hearing the other side of coin, disgusting! it was more of a brainwashing than an educational experience, no attempt was made to explain any of the other religions either btw

Brian Griffin

I think some people are getting close to what needs to be done.

Firstly i believe these company who employ people in this country or are planning to have a right to comment on what ability's they want there staff to have, regardless of the state of there own country.

I believe there comments are related to the quality and skills of the staff they are looking for and not just the subjects being thought.


Ways to tackle the problems in education (going from my own experience in school,i'm in mid 20s):

Firstly its more the style in which things are thought, that i believe to be the problem. This is not a fault of the teachers. I think that its more the way the course are designed. There is not enough emphasis put on understanding the principles behind a lot of the subjects but more on the learning off things. I think a teacher on here might have mentioned somthing along these lines. where students will only try questions that they have learned off(no fault of there own, there in a game to get most points).

People on here have being talking alot about the subjects being thought.

my opinion is that these do need to change a bit but not too much. Irish should be thought up to primary and even to 4th year but after which it should be a choice. About keeping the language alive the course should focus on teaching modern day ability to speak the language and not the crap thought in secondary school.

Religion. It should have no place in any modern day society. If you need the thing it should be thought at home or in your personnel life. What should be in its place is a subject which help understand culture, our own and that of others from around the world. this would give peole a clear understanding of the world and how its different. It would help people to question things. Religion would have a place in this but only as, this is religion and its many forms.

Business should be thought.
Modern languages should be thought.
Science should be thought.
And from an early age.
Longer hrs in school, and more days? i think yes.

Again i think its the focus of the course thats very important. It should be on understanding principles and not learn this off to pass the exam. More pride should be placed on achievements in school from a lot of parents side as well.

When you have this people will naturaly what to learn and spend time and effort learning .

#15

ninty9er wrote: »

Religion lets see:

Christianity - broad overview

Judaism - broad overview

Islam - broad overview

Hindi - Broad overview

Humanity - philosophical discussion

Sexual matters to an extent also depending on the teacher.

Religion is no longer learning about the Pope, Bishops, College of Cardinals etc...

I take it you are talking about secondary schools?

Have a look at the primary programmes.

No state teachers should be spending time preparing children for religious ceremonies, when that time could be better spent actually teaching them things.

You are talking about religious education I believe.

The problem that most people have is with religious instruction, which happens in 90%+ of our primary schools.

ninty9er

#15 wrote: »

Nothing that has any academic value or usefulness.

#15 wrote: »

I take it you are talking about secondary schools?

Have a look at the primary programmes.

No state teachers should be spending time preparing children for religious ceremonies, when that time could be better spent actually teaching them things.

You are talking about religious education I believe.

The problem that most people have is with religious instruction, which happens in 90%+ of our primary schools.

Yes, secondary, but from having dealings with younger cousins it seems to be making a breakthrough into primary schools.

Religious instruction for the purposes of Communion/Confirmation seem fine given the culture we live in. There are non- and multi-denominational schools within reach of most people now. Given that the majority of children get these sacrements, it would suggest their parents agree with it.

It also allows for an easier logisitcal experience and allows the day to be shared with others.

There are arguments for and against, but while 85% + of the population is Catholic, I don't see it changing. It would be different if religion were all that was being taught as has been the case in some non-Christian religious schools in the past, but it isn't.

Sandvich

When even the americans are calling for an overhaul of the education system, you know something's wrong.

It guess poor education would explain a lot of how people act in this forum too.

dkin

ninty9er wrote: »

I have no interest in English literature, yet I no doubt benefitted from having to study it. Get real, there will be times in every adult's life when they will have to do something they don't want to. If the system was modularised, maths English and Irish would be the first 3 subjects most second level students would drop. I never liked maths, I was never great at maths, and it took probably 40% of all my Leaving Cert study time and 2 grinds a week (on top of 4 hours extra class teaching from the teacher from her own time) to get a C3. I was happy with that, but considering I got an A1 in German for much less input hours, I feel that was a time investment mush more worthwhile. However all of these things encourage pupils to THINK. Cognitive activity is what these US firms are after, and I believe a broad system like ours encourages that more than say the A Level system where 1, 2 or 3 subjects can be taken.

Well who cares if the majority decide to drop them the point of my post was that's it's not important if the majority do as it is not feasible to have the majority of the population working in knowledge economy jobs that require an advanced knowledge of calculus or great English skills.
It is far more important to have a smart well educated and connected minority who are the best and can compete internationally. American multinationals don't care if every person in the country has a knowledge of quantum mechanics what they want is a pool of good people who do.
No doubt everyone benefits to a limited extent from studying hard subjects but trying to force people with a limited interest who in some cases are disruptive retards the development of better students. It is possible that an interest in the subject will be fostered but in the majority this won't happen so it's a waste of resources and negatively effects others.

What the fu<k has Pythagoras Theorem got to do with modern day maths. If you want to learn that to be an engineer or waht not, then I think appied maths is the place to do it.

Depends on your definition of modern day maths. If you are implying maths that people use on a daily basis I would agree that Pythagoras has limited use. I would encourage probability and basic financial literacy such as compound interest calculations.

Streamed schooling would be a disaster, they have it in Germany and most people hate it and/or want to get rid of it.

I wonder if it has any relation to the fact that Germany is Europe's largest economy, the world's largest exporter, headquarters of 37 of the fortune 500 etc. etc. Germany has a fantastic economy and they have had build it from scratch in the last 60 years.

As an aside this notion that all American schools are useless and the country is full of hicks is just simply wrong. Ireland has plenty of disadvantaged schools and no shortage of gombeens.

#15

dkin wrote: »

I wonder if it has any relation to the fact that Germany is Europe's largest economy, the world's largest exporter, headquarters of 37 of the fortune 500 etc. etc. Germany has a fantastic economy and they have had build it from scratch in the last 60 years.

Its rather simplistic, and quite a leap to make, to say that streamed schooling=great economy.

If you can prove it, lets see the evidence.

I'd imagine their success is because they don't waste time forcing people to do subjects of questionable value, rather than streaming children.

#15

ninty9er wrote: »

Yes, secondary, but from having dealings with younger cousins it seems to be making a breakthrough into primary schools

.

The religious programs have not changed in quite a while. At least, the Catholic one has not. The Alive-O program for primary schools is still rubbish. And it is still indoctrination.

Religious instruction for the purposes of Communion/Confirmation seem fine given the culture we live in. There are non- and multi-denominational schools within reach of most people now. Given that the majority of children get these sacrements, it would suggest their parents agree with it.

What, a modern republic? Religious instruction has no place in such a society. If parents and priests want to do it, fine, but keep it out of schools.

And there most definitely are not multi- and non-denominational schools within reach of everyone.

I teach in a school where we have almost 50% non-Catholics. The nearest non- or multi- denominational school is an hours drive away. Hardly realistic.

And how many of those children would be getting the sacraments if the schools didn't help out?
If parents had to do all the work themselves (as they should) I'd be willing to bet that the number of people taking the sacraments would go way down.

It also allows for an easier logisitcal experience and allows the day to be shared with others.

There are arguments for and against, but while 85% + of the population is Catholic, I don't see it changing. It would be different if religion were all that was being taught as has been the case in some non-Christian religious schools in the past, but it isn't.

Well, the biggest argument is that about 10% of my week is wasted because I have to give religious instruction to children, half of whom are not even catholic.

I'm sure that is replicated in schools right across the country.

Imagine if we had those 2 and a half hours to work on Maths, Science and/or a foreign language?

dkin

#15 wrote: »

Its rather simplistic, and quite a leap to make, to say that streamed schooling=great economy.

If you can prove it, lets see the evidence.

I'd imagine it is because they don't waste time forcing people to do subjects of questionable value.

I'll have a look for some evidence later but most people on this thread are arguing that a good education system is a vital component in a knowledge economy and streamed schooling is a major difference between the Irish and German systems.
I disagreed with the previous poster who seemed to imply that the German education system is substandard and I refuted that. I never meant to imply that streamed schooling was the single and sole reason for Germany's industrial might but rather a positive contribution.

#15

dkin wrote: »

I'll have a look for some evidence later but most people on this thread are arguing that a good education system is a vital component in a knowledge economy and streamed schooling is a major difference between the Irish and German systems.
I disagreed with the previous poster who seemed to imply that the German education system is substandard and I refuted that. I never meant to imply that streamed schooling was the single and sole reason for Germany's industrial might just a positive contributory factor.

OK fair enough.

I think other differences (staying in school until 20, foreign languages, no religious instruction, less holidays) are more important than streamed schooling.

From what I have been told by my German mates (all mid to late 20s, well educated, streamed at the highest levels), the streaming system does not work and pigeon holes young people. Admittedly, its only an anecdote, but it wasn't a positive experience for them, and they are the 'elite' students.

byhookorbycrook

#15 wrote: »

.
I teach in a school where we have almost 50% non-Catholics. The nearest non- or multi- denominational school is an hours drive away.

No such thing as a non-denominational school in Ireland,even ET schools must teach some form of ethical curriculum.

dkin

#15 wrote: »

OK fair enough.

I think other differences (staying in school until 20, foreign languages, no religious instruction, less holidays) are more important than streamed schooling.

From what I have been told by my German mates (all mid to late 20s, well educated, streamed at the highest levels), the streaming system does not work and pigeon holes young people. Admittedly, its only an anecdote, but it wasn't a positive experience for them, and they are the 'elite' students.

OK there are a couple of issues here.
First of all my concept of streaming is slightly different from what goes on in many countries where huge emphasis is placed on a few large exams like the leaving cert and a student is then labelled and put into a certain category based purely on their results of one off exams.

I don't agree with the stress placed on students or the perceived educational value of such exams.

I instead advocate changing the culture in schools so that students are actively encouraged to work hard continuously to try to gain entry to a better stream. There is not one sole chance of entry with all it's associated stress and catastrophic failure but rather a system where you continuously strive to reach a certain standard in order to gain entry to a better stream.

In this way over time the students who work hard and study are slowly separated from those who don't but at no time is the option closed for lower students if they start to apply themselves and reach the required standard.

I'm basing this on what goes on in most sports clubs there are different grades of team but a player who is willing to really work and strive to be better can rise up the teams even if he initially was put into a 'poor' stream.

Also as you mentioned in your post your friends are all well educated as a result of the system despite their lingering guilt over the advantages they were offered that others weren't.

DublinWriter

The US complaining about standards of Irish education?

Irony much.

This from a country that conducts final year degree programme exams on the 'multiple-choice' system and considers calculus to be esoteric enough to be only taught at third-level?

Oh please.

southsiderosie

DublinWriter wrote: »

The US complaining about standards of Irish education?

Irony much.

This from a country that conducts final year degree programme exams on the 'multiple-choice' system and considers calculus to be esoteric enough to be only taught at third-level?

Oh please.

The US Chamber of Commerce has been complaining about the American educational system for YEARS - it's not just Ireland. If the US 1) didn't have such a big population and 2) couldn't pull the best graduate students and faculty from around the world, the country would be absolutely screwed; so much innovation comes out of the university system, and top schools are closely linked to big tech firms (like Google and Microsoft) and to venture capital groups. For example, almost 40% of graduate students at MIT are international students (predominately Asian), and in some of the engineering departments it's over 50%. And over a quarter of tech start-ups in Silicon Valley are founded by foreign nationals. It's precisely because the US system is so ****ty that companies are desperate for well-trained workers abroad who can preferably speak English...and why they are crying loudly when foreign labor pools start looking just as unprepared as the domestic workers.

imme

US firms and the US Chambers of Commerce Ireland are not one and the same, maybe the OP might change the thread title, it might mislead.

ei.sdraob

imme wrote: »

US firms and the US Chambers of Commerce Ireland are not one and the same, maybe the OP might change the thread title, it might mislead.

the title is directly from the newspaper