How practical was our education, really?

Stepping Stone

I think that I took lots away from my secondary education. I went to a mixed school though, so that might be the difference.

English: absolutely essential! It’s such a vitally important life skill to be able to read and understand what you’re reading. Often an issue on Boards with posters. Lots of important info picked up in my six years in secondary school. I utterly despised poetry and Shakespeare but it all adds to the general fabric.

Irish and French: Brutally taught. Couldn’t say a sentence in either at this point but we did learn about French culture and go there to experience it.

Maths: I have a technical role, so I use maths loads. It’s important to know the basics well but also to know the more advanced stuff to a certain degree.

Sciences: So important. Basic physics, chemistry and biology are essential. You can’t understand the world properly without them.

Geography: How can you know how things like mountains and oceans are formed without physical geography. How do you understand regional economics without geography?

History: All important. You can’t understand anything unless you know the history.

Home arc: Learned how to work in a team, cooked, learned to sew. Learned about how appliances worked and in-depth nutritional stuff. Should be compulsory really.

Business, etc.: Not my strong point but plenty of very practical knowledge here. Basic life skills in some cases. Always found it horribly dry but I liked the excitement of science. Still think it’s all worth it.

Art: Aptitude or not, there’s so much to learn. It all feeds into general cultural knowledge.

Music: Niche one in my school. Was only taken by the very musical but if you’re talented, why not make the most of it? I’m tone deaf, but I never minded the opportunity to learn and explore.

Woodwork, metalwork, etc.: Brilliant. Learning how to think things through and make them. Planning, calculating and understanding your materials are great skills.

We spent TY learning loads of practical life skills. First Aid, typing (I’m old), basic photography, mini company, community work, big art project, etc. Lots of teamwork and lots of great skills.

I still have a love of learning now, at nearly 40. School didn’t dampen it at all. It just showed me that there was always something to learn. I was terrible at some things and really good at others, I didn’t find it easy but I enjoyed it. Ironically, my OH went to an all boys school and has nothing positive to say about his experience. He was and is very academic too.

Obviously depends on the school but my mixed country school was pretty great in hindsight.

alroley

completedit wrote: »

Education system is terrible. History, Geography, Economics, Business. Then Maths, English, French, Irish and Spanish.

I'll never understand why people say business studies is "terrible" or useless.

Learning about budgeting, interest rates, how to understand a payslip are all very important for anyone after school.

Tell me how

Are people complaining about subjects which they did for the Leaving Cert cycle?
Wasn't that your choice?

I had the opportunity to do arts/music/home economics along with technical graphics/engineering/woodwork for 6 week blocks up to Christmas in 2nd year before then choosing which ones I wanted to focus on which I think was a good approach.

I think there could be a lot of elements covered which are more relevant for real world scenarios but not sure within what class or whether they should be just within junior cycle.
Driving theory, basic house/car maintenance/debug, personal financial planning, internet safety, etc
Think it is difficult to have a syllabus in which everyone gets exposure to a topic without some feeling that it is irrelevant for them or to fund more teachers to facilitate smaller class sizes to allow them to split up and focus on their own areas.

I have a small awareness of the US and UK education systems and still think our Leaving Cert program stands up when compared to those.

Expect that in future we will see classes or topics introduced in relation to mental health and consent and expect there will be no shortage of up roar at those practical elements being thought in a school environment.

completedit

The Leaving Cert points system ruins the learning process. I don't think the school's know what they're trying to impart upon the students tbh. The whole idea of grind schools to me reflects how bad the educational aspect of our school system is. The intistute has its reputation because it basically strips down the courses and takes away the meat. It's like the equivalent of those apps that give you 15 minute synopsisis of books

Smacruairi

It would be sad if education was assigned a utilitarian role for the future. As someone said, it's there to cater for the broadest range of minds at all levels and interests,and to that degree, I think it does a great job. Growth mindset, imagination, fun, not lads for the machines. To that end I think the college cao system really did a number on schools, its now "what did you get in your test" rather than "what did you learn today".

However it's the unwritten curriculum, negotiation, interpersonal skills, patience, dealing with emotions, resilience, they are things which are constantly taught but not assigned a designation. To omit the soft skills learned through secondary is to do a great disservice.

I do think we have a massive issue in terms of attitudes to schooling in this country.the amount of times you hear "rote learning, peig, Catholic Church, waste of time, doss year" etc. I think there is a real negative mindset bred into a lot of people who don't value the strong skillset they develop. We have extremely high literacy and numeracy scores, particularly for our gdp spend, and our graduates are in extremely high demand.

I don't know if people just have a hard time looking back on their school days with mature reflection or they genuinely feel aggrieved, but anyone who says secondary is poor, then says history or business studies is a waste of time really needs to peel back that layer.

jimmycrackcorm

Sierra Thoughtless Mulberry wrote: »

Didn't it set you up for getting out of bed going somewhere and obeying orders 5 days a week.

Actually that's not correct.
Michael o Leary send to have done well out of our education system as have the collinson neither who founded stripe.

Can't say that the Irish education system just makes drones

Tell me how

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Actually that's not correct.
Michael o Leary send to have done well out of our education system as have the collinson neither who founded stripe.

Can't say that the Irish education system just makes drones

Jaysus man but this isn't showing the Irish education system in any great light.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Actually that's not correct.
Michael o Leary send to have done well out of our education system as have the collinson neither who founded stripe.

Can't say that the Irish education system just makes drones

I rememeber Jonahtan Philbin Bowman saying he learnt more in is first three days on the job than he did in his entire secondary school life.

It's not that it makes "drones" it's the fact that it's the one-size-fits-all mentality; and the idea that if you don't do well on the day, you're a failure.

Padre_Pio

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I rememeber Jonahtan Philbin Bowman saying he learnt more in is first three days on the job than he did in his entire secondary school life.

It's not that it makes "drones" it's the fact that it's the one-size-fits-all mentality; and the idea that if you don't do well on the day, you're a failure.

Fluent in French and Irish is he?

Should write a book about his method.

Tell me how

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I rememeber Jonahtan Philbin Bowman saying he learnt more in is first three days on the job than he did in his entire secondary school life.

It's not that it makes "drones" it's the fact that it's the one-size-fits-all mentality; and the idea that if you don't do well on the day, you're a failure.

Even many people say the same when they come out of college and in to the workplace.
Have read books/articles from Dr's who have said the same about medical school.

I've felt that education gives you the tools, (aptitude, focus, methodology and the skeleton of information on a topic) to allow you to develop that with real world exposure but rarely will produce someone who can hit the ground running without any learning curve.

niallers1

Kids leave school practically financially illiterate. Financial literacy should be one of the most important subjects.

Especially compound interest. (the greatest force known to man :-)
If somebody put away a 270 euro a month over their working life into a pension they would have over a million euros by aged 65.. Instead we have most of the country retiring dependent on the state pension. Financial illiterates I tells ya.

https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/compound?p=7&pp=yearly&pn=45&pt=years&rd=270&rt=deposit&ci=monthly&c=2

Padre_Pio

niallers1 wrote: »

Kids leave school practically financially illiterate. Financial literacy should be one of the most important subjects.

Especially compound interest. (the greatest force known to man :-)
If somebody put away a 270 euro a month over their working life into a pension they would have over a million euros by aged 65.. Instead we have most of the country retiring dependent on the state pension. Financial illiterates I tells ya.

https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/compound?p=7&pp=yearly&pn=45&pt=years&rd=270&rt=deposit&ci=monthly&c=2

If you learned about PAYE you'd know that 270 only costs you 160 if you're on the higher rate

RandomViewer

niallers1 wrote: »

Kids leave school practically financially illiterate. Financial literacy should be one of the most important subjects.

Especially compound interest. (the greatest force known to man :-)
If somebody put away a 270 euro a month over their working life into a pension they would have over a million euros by aged 65.. Instead we have most of the country retiring dependent on the state pension. Financial illiterates I tells ya.

https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/compound?p=7&pp=yearly&pn=45&pt=years&rd=270&rt=deposit&ci=monthly&c=2

Did compound interest in fourth class from memory, don't know if they still do it

RandomViewer

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Fluent in French and Irish is he?

Should write a book about his method.

Think he's dead

RandomViewer

Tell me how wrote: »

Jaysus man but this isn't showing the Irish education system in any great light.

Thought the same, maybe there's a capital letter shortage?

niallers1

RandomViewer wrote: »

Did compound interest in fourth class from memory, don't know if they still do it

They probably do but they need to link it to real world applications and make sure everyone understands it before they leave school.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Fluent in French and Irish is he?

Should write a book about his method.

We're talking practical - I'm not saying he wasn't intelligent.

Tell me how wrote: »

Even many people say the same when they come out of college and in to the workplace.
Have read books/articles from Dr's who have said the same about medical school.

I've felt that education gives you the tools, (aptitude, focus, methodology and the skeleton of information on a topic) to allow you to develop that with real world exposure but rarely will produce someone who can hit the ground running without any learning curve.

It should - but it doesn't.

They are useful tools IF you go on and train/study in the profession reguired (e.g. - studying biology and becoming a doctor).

But there is no practical useage for learning, say, Wuthering Heights or Shakespeare. Now, it would be a useful developmental tool if people studied a wide range of seven or eight novels or plays.

Same with Irish or French: why not have a two year course where you spend a few months learning the basics in three or four different languages? THEN it would be a useful tool.
Irish on its own - nothing practical or useful - but if it was actually taught as a lanaguge with the idea of lingusitic development rather than nationalism and patriotism, then it coudl be a useful tool.

Smacruairi

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But there is no practical useage for learning, say, Wuthering Heights or Shakespeare.

No practical use for learning literature, the way we communicate our understanding of the world, the way we relate to one another, the way we share our experiences of existence.

As Wilde said, there will always be people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Smacruairi wrote: »

No practical use for learning literature, the way we communicate our understanding of the world, the way we relate to one another, the way we share our experiences of existence.

As Wilde said, there will always be people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

I'd argue there is a practical use in the form of self-expression and understanding of the estheic world around you.

Smacruairi

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd argue there is a practical use in the form of self-expression and understanding of the estheic world around you.

Yeah... So why then is studying Shakespeare impractical? Am architect doesnt just learn to draw lines and angles and maths, he observes excellent examples for inspiration and to demonstrate good practices.

L1011

Entire system is dysfunctional and the patchwork to try fix it doesn't help. Primary is primarily baby sitting; was brought in to stop young kids getting broken by hard labour and ensure they could read and write; secondary was either designed for pure academia or technical work and nothing in between.

Both systems need to be re-engineered from the ground up; preferably by people who have NEVER worked in education before so they have no affection for anything. No ex-teachers, no ex-administrators. Some bits will be similar; some totally won't.

*Rote learning has to go, in all subjects, in all contexts.
*"that's what the book says" has to go - if a teacher needs to rely on the text book they are not competent to teach the subject.
*Teaching Irish as if it is English has to go, if you want an Irish literature/poetry/commentary subject, bring that in as a subject. An optional one, if you keep Irish as compulsory at all that is.
*Teaching anything technical without showing how it is of use to you has to go. Nearly everything does have a practical use, but it is rarely if ever explained. I'm thinking primarily of maths here.
*Teaching late teenagers as if they are children has to go. If a teacher can't handle that; go back to teaching actual children.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Yeah... So why then is studying Shakespeare impractical? Am architect doesnt just learn to draw lines and angles and maths, he observes excellent examples for inspiration and to demonstrate good practices.

Shakespeare would not meet the definition of an "excellent example" or "good practices".

He's taught purely because he has always been taught.

Padre_Pio

L1011 wrote: »

Shakespeare would not meet the definition of an "excellent example" or "good practices".

He's taught purely because he has always been taught.

I disagree with that. By the same token, musicians study classical composers "because they have always been taught".
Shakespeare is timeless and so much of modern literature draw on his themes and style.
They're still making movies based on his work.

Out of interest, what do you believe is a good example?

angel eyes 2012

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Fluent in French and Irish is he?

Should write a book about his method.

He died young unfortunately but was a fascinating broadcaster.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Smacruairi wrote: »

Yeah... So why then is studying Shakespeare impractical? Am architect doesnt just learn to draw lines and angles and maths, he observes excellent examples for inspiration and to demonstrate good practices.

Fair point: what I mean was, studying one shakespeare play - why not a range of plays? By other playwrights as well? (Sorry - didn't explain that bit very well)

I did King Lear for two years - wasn't all that practical. But had I done a few plays in less detail, that would have been better.

In any case: as long as the whole aim is to get points for university, then the overall scope of secondary school will be impractical.

completedit

Why is the LC 2 years? It feels the JC could be condensed and LC cycle extended.

Smacruairi

L1011 wrote: »

Shakespeare would not meet the definition of an "excellent example" or "good practices".

He's taught purely because he has always been taught.

That quote alone. Shakespeare is timeless, has been translated into almost every language, inspires new meaning for countless people every day... But you deem it irrelevant.

You want to overhaul a system.. But not have any experience of the system in actual operation party to its redesign. Wouldn't seem like it meets your own criteria of everything having to be practical and grounded in reality does it?

I agree that schooling needs to evolve, it always does, but that type of myopic fixation on what you didn't enjoy is too facile. Do you think the limitations of thr educational system exist because people want schools designed that way? There are compromises owing to economics, ethics, health and safety etc.

One thing i would say is that teachers are terrible at curriculum design, I wouldn't leave it to each teacher to design their own course, it would make existing gulfs even bigger. And the text book is a crutch used to keep a student chugging along independently if possible.

Target the leaving cert and college process and you are on to something radical. Saying "schools are bad, teachers are lazy and kids know nothing" is cliche, incorrect, and clutching at facile answers to very very large questions.

What is the purpose of a school? What is the purpose of the leaving cert. Then you can start changing things.

L1011

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I disagree with that. By the same token, musicians study classical composers "because they have always been taught".
Shakespeare is timeless and so much of modern literature draw on his themes and style.
They're still making movies based on his work.

Out of interest, what do you believe is a good example?

Classical music is still comprehensible to a modern audience.

Needing an ever increasing set of footnotes to explain just what the hell a work means (in the eyes of the person writing the footnotes) does not make for a work that someone is ever going to actually comprehend; and leads to people never actually doing so. Much easier to remember what the person who wrote the footnotes / the Cliff notes / whatever study aid you end up buying thought of it rather than figuring it out yourself

The movies being made are "based on" the work in the manner of reading a one paragraph summary generally.

You're not going to ever find a single playright & poet to replace with the volume of work, which is probably another element of being reliant on Shakespeare in the curriculum - its the easy way out. Examiners and markers know the works cause they've been doing them since the dawn of time.


The slavish reliance on Shakespeare to make up so much of the English course is probably the number one sign that the education system is dated and not meeting modern needs. Even Peig got the boot, and that's in the worst taught subject possible!

Smacruairi

L1011 wrote: »

The slavish reliance on Shakespeare to make up so much of the English course is probably the number one sign that the education system is dated!

What %of the English course is devoted to Shakespeare? How many marks of a leaving cert paper as a % is ascribed to studying him, if you want to look at it in raw figures?

You didn't enjoy him, that's fine. I personally loved him and I think Hamlet and the idea of prevarication holds up to today, just look at our handling of Covid!

L1011

Smacruairi wrote: »

What %of the English course is devoted to Shakespeare? How many marks of a leaving cert paper as a % is ascribed to studying him, if you want to look at it in raw figures?

You didn't enjoy him, that's fine. I personally loved him and I think Hamlet and the idea of prevarication holds up to today, just look at our handling of Covid!

Its the permanent position that's the issue; and that not studying leaves you in a very precarious position to complete the paper.

Additionally, its not a case of not enjoying; its a case of realising that it was a massive waste of time compared to what could have been taught instead.

I didn't particularly enjoy many of the works I covered (indeed, JC English actually ruined one I'd read for leisure beforehand by over-analysing it to death) but there was a practical value to all of those; whereas the time spent on Shakespeare was primarily being instructed to trust the footnotes in the specific edition of the text we'd had to buy and not working on any of the skills that studying English literature should require. And its not that I don't enjoy literature, there are in excess of a thousand books in this house and I think there's only about 40 I haven't read - yet.

Leave Shakespeare to a university course on Early Modern English Literature where it belongs; not a catch all "English" in secondary school

joe40

L1011 wrote: »

Entire system is dysfunctional and the patchwork to try fix it doesn't help. Primary is primarily baby sitting; was brought in to stop young kids getting broken by hard labour and ensure they could read and write; secondary was either designed for pure academia or technical work and nothing in between.

Both systems need to be re-engineered from the ground up; preferably by people who have NEVER worked in education before so they have no affection for anything. No ex-teachers, no ex-administrators. Some bits will be similar; some totally won't.

*Rote learning has to go, in all subjects, in all contexts.
*"that's what the book says" has to go - if a teacher needs to rely on the text book they are not competent to teach the subject.
*Teaching Irish as if it is English has to go, if you want an Irish literature/poetry/commentary subject, bring that in as a subject. An optional one, if you keep Irish as compulsory at all that is.
*Teaching anything technical without showing how it is of use to you has to go. Nearly everything does have a practical use, but it is rarely if ever explained. I'm thinking primarily of maths here.
*Teaching late teenagers as if they are children has to go. If a teacher can't handle that; go back to teaching actual children.



Shakespeare would not meet the definition of an "excellent example" or "good practices".

He's taught purely because he has always been taught.

Any thoughts on assessment. Rigorous, unbiased, standardised assessment. Our system is far from perfect but I really can't think of workable alternatives.

I would love to see a greater emphasis on teaching/training for practical subjects especially post 16. But that takes money. It is much cheaper to put a teacher in a room with 30 kids but that doesn't work for practical learning.