BSc Hons Psychology, MSc Health Psychology Mother of 4, angry at the state of education in Ireland.

Joined November 2022
"Critical Pedagogy" Does anyone in Irish Govt know what this means? Are they comfortable with Marxist educational philosophy being promoted through official NCCA research and guidance for teachers? They shouldn't be. Because they are sowing the seeds of their own demise. This is educational marxism. Invented by Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator and Marxist philosopher. Best known for "Pedagogy of the Oppressed", in which he reimagines "teaching as a political act of liberation rather than critical cultural transmission of values". Read that again. According to the NCCA, "Paulo Freire’s (1970) concept of critical pedagogy is essential to multicultural education" Students are to be taught to create social change. The national Primary Curriculum Framework, page 12: “Recognising injustice and inequality and ways to take action”. "This requires shifting the traditional teacher-student dynamic from a hierarchical model to a more participatory one, where students contribute to knowledge production" This as educational Marxism. Does anyone in Fianna Fail or Fine Gael actually understand any of this?
I highly recommend following K. She writes in incredible detail about the rapid changes to the education curriculum. We all need to focus more on those in charge of education system DCU is has been infested by powerful ideological academics. This Govt commissioned report: Page 11: Schools should address hard-right populist “White victim” narratives. Page 30: Pupils should explore Irish identity “beyond white, settled, Catholic”. Page 85: Describes an “activist-oriented level of curriculum reform” aimed at social change. Page 123: Cites kindergarten research suggesting young children need support to “engage in activism against injustices”. Page 132: Defines anti-racism education partly through confronting “white supremacy in education”. There is a HUGE difference between teaching children to respect others and using classrooms to promote political ideology.
14
32
3
115
3,578
People offended by objections to this stupid ad show a lack of awareness of the state’s boundaries.
14
30
1
353
8,004
Let’s be clear: If I’m not going to sleep with you, I don’t need to know anything about your sexuality. And children—who are not going to sleep with anyone—certainly don’t. Your sexuality is not sacred. It’s not a personality, it’s not a protected class of performance art, and it’s not the center of anyone’s moral universe but your own. Unless we are in a relationship, I am not obligated to acknowledge, affirm, or be exposed to your private desires—especially not in public, and especially not in front of children. This used to be understood. Now it’s called hate. No, We Don’t Owe You an Audience Sexuality belongs in the private realm. It is intimate by definition. If you feel compelled to wear your kink on your sleeve—or on a float, or in a first-grade classroom—you are not inviting understanding, you are demanding submission. You are violating others’ right not to participate. Consent doesn’t vanish because your fetish is “progressive.” If anything, the burden is higher. No one consents to being flashed on the subway. No one consents to a stranger’s arousal. No one consents to a stranger telling their child about masturbation, kink, gender identity, or pornographic categories under the guise of “inclusive sex ed.” Yet all of this is happening now—in public parks, in classrooms, in televised programming. It is not tolerance. It is invasion. Children Are Not Here to Validate You Children are not queer. Children are not sexual. Children do not need to “see themselves represented” in a spectrum of adult desire. This idea—that identity is only valid if sexualized and mirrored—is narcissism, not pedagogy. There is no legitimate reason to initiate a child into the language of sexual preference, gender identity, or alternative lifestyles. The only people who benefit from that dynamic are those looking to normalize boundary violations. Let me state it plainly: Children who are not going to have sex do not need to be exposed to sexuality. Period. Any adult who insists otherwise is not confused. They are grooming. Public Fetishism Is Not Liberation There is a vast difference between being gay and demanding the right to simulate sex acts in front of children. Between being transgender and insisting on teaching kindergartners about breast removal. Between being proud of who you are and insisting the whole world observe your kink play in the street. This is not diversity. This is decay. Men in dog masks being walked on leashes by their lovers are not brave—they are forcing strangers into their psychodrama. This is exhibitionism, and when children are present, it becomes criminal exhibitionism. We used to know this. Peeping, flashing, voyeurism—these were considered red flags. Dangerous behaviors. Early signs of escalation. Now they’re filmed, hashtagged, and funded by public grants. Stop Calling It Love—It’s Entitlement This is not about who you love. It’s about how you demand to be seen. If you need the entire public to witness, applaud, and adapt to your sexuality, you’re not a pioneer—you’re an emotional colonizer. Love does not demand a captive audience. It does not parade past toddlers. It does not demand that schools teach four-year-olds about “preferred pronouns.” Love protects children. Love guards modesty. Love waits. And if you can’t wait—if you need to be seen, affirmed, and obeyed—you’re not talking about love. You’re talking about power. Consent Applies to Culture, Too We teach children that consent is sacred—so why are we failing to apply that lesson to public life? No child consents to drag queen story hour. No parent consents to leather harnesses on city floats. No woman consents to being exposed to male sexuality in the ladies’ room, or in the school library, or anywhere she cannot opt out. Consent is not just for sex. It’s for everything. Attention. Language. Presence. Ideology. Imagery. And we are done pretending we don’t notice when it’s violated. The boundary is back. And we are drawing it in bold.
557
4,750
571
18,019
683,496
The Progressive Left isn't dangerous just because of their ideology; it's far worse: they genuinely believe their actions are morally righteous and they can do no wrong. As C.S. Lewis warned: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive; those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
35
235
6
875
9,901
I highly recommend following K. She writes in incredible detail about the rapid changes to the education curriculum. We all need to focus more on those in charge of education system DCU is has been infested by powerful ideological academics. This Govt commissioned report: Page 11: Schools should address hard-right populist “White victim” narratives. Page 30: Pupils should explore Irish identity “beyond white, settled, Catholic”. Page 85: Describes an “activist-oriented level of curriculum reform” aimed at social change. Page 123: Cites kindergarten research suggesting young children need support to “engage in activism against injustices”. Page 132: Defines anti-racism education partly through confronting “white supremacy in education”. There is a HUGE difference between teaching children to respect others and using classrooms to promote political ideology.
The systematic dismantling of Irishness. @john_mcguirk and @sarahcatryan make an excellent point of on today's episode of @JohnandSarahIrl about the "don't hug your grandkids" ad and Family A - we are being subjected to consistent messaging intended to deconstruct Irish cultural identity. Even Micheál Martin's recent comments about the 1916 leaders are more of this effort to rewrite history in order to redefine what it means to be Irish. This is not happening by accident. This is the influence of specific critical social theories, forced on us by academics and NGOs. It's about to get a lot worse for our children. They are going to be bombarded with this anti-Irishness in schools. I implore people to read the newly published NCCA-commissioned literature review on Intercultural Education. It's all in there. Woven into every aspect of schooling, they want children to "unpack and problematise ethnocentric, essentialist, and exclusionary understandings of Irish identity and culture". They want children to "see alternative visions of and possibilities for what it means to be Irish (e.g., including but also beyond white, settled, Catholic)" so as to "create an inclusive sense of Irishness". The Family A exercise shows us exactly what this looks like when it put into practice. Certain cultural markers are represented in an incredibly stereotypical and offensive way, and are equated with intolerance and close-mindedness. The NCCA literature review does the same - "rural, White and Catholic" are problematic. These representations of Irish cultural identity "perpetuates the false assertion of cultural homogeneity in Ireland prior to the 2000s". Ultimately, it takes issue with the Irish, as the dominant culture group, being positioned at the centre of the Irish cultural map because this has the effect of "‘othering’ of racialised minorities in Ireland". It sees parents and children who resist as having succumbed to "hard-right populist 'White victim' narratives", which the literature review says needs to be carefully addressed with education. This is not ok. Let's do something about this before it gets any worse.
27
143
8
764
24,628
The systematic dismantling of Irishness. @john_mcguirk and @sarahcatryan make an excellent point of on today's episode of @JohnandSarahIrl about the "don't hug your grandkids" ad and Family A - we are being subjected to consistent messaging intended to deconstruct Irish cultural identity. Even Micheál Martin's recent comments about the 1916 leaders are more of this effort to rewrite history in order to redefine what it means to be Irish. This is not happening by accident. This is the influence of specific critical social theories, forced on us by academics and NGOs. It's about to get a lot worse for our children. They are going to be bombarded with this anti-Irishness in schools. I implore people to read the newly published NCCA-commissioned literature review on Intercultural Education. It's all in there. Woven into every aspect of schooling, they want children to "unpack and problematise ethnocentric, essentialist, and exclusionary understandings of Irish identity and culture". They want children to "see alternative visions of and possibilities for what it means to be Irish (e.g., including but also beyond white, settled, Catholic)" so as to "create an inclusive sense of Irishness". The Family A exercise shows us exactly what this looks like when it put into practice. Certain cultural markers are represented in an incredibly stereotypical and offensive way, and are equated with intolerance and close-mindedness. The NCCA literature review does the same - "rural, White and Catholic" are problematic. These representations of Irish cultural identity "perpetuates the false assertion of cultural homogeneity in Ireland prior to the 2000s". Ultimately, it takes issue with the Irish, as the dominant culture group, being positioned at the centre of the Irish cultural map because this has the effect of "‘othering’ of racialised minorities in Ireland". It sees parents and children who resist as having succumbed to "hard-right populist 'White victim' narratives", which the literature review says needs to be carefully addressed with education. This is not ok. Let's do something about this before it gets any worse.
20
110
10
403
26,676
Full literature review can be found here: curriculumonline.ie/getattac

8
1
34
2,195
Douglas Murray is spot on with his assessment of what is happening in France.
168
2,333
114
8,910
253,360
Just in case it wasn't absolutely, 100 per cent, crystal clear... . The @NCCAie is not fit for purpose. In its current form, its work should be subjected to external enquiry and review, and the Education Act amended to abolish it in its current form. #edchatie
6
1
42
1,320
Ireland is now a country where grandparents naturally expressing their affection for their grandchildren is dubious, but men chestfeeding babies for sexual gratification is perfectly fine.
The latest ad from the Irish Government to the Irish people, who are the font of all problems in the country and desperately need to be stopped from their bad behaviour. This time, it's hugging your grandkids.
19
166
5
915
11,401
Take the time to read @Casey5122dark excellent post. I would add a further question: what happens when mass immigration coincides with an education system that deliberately seeks to weaken young people's connection to their cultural inheritance and sense of a shared national identity? This is what is to happen under the redeveloped national curriculum. An NCCA-commissioned literature review advocates for intercultural education that “permeates all aspects of school life”. It promotes “critical/radical” frameworks organised around power, white supremacy, systemic oppression and decolonisation, and criticises educational practices that it claims "privilege" the dominant cultural group. Ireland already had Intercultural Education Guidelines, published in 2005 and 2006. Yet the review critiques them for having “a problematic nationalistic framing" which supposedly “essentialises Irish national identity as rural, White and Catholic” and positions “the dominant cultural group at the centre of the Irish cultural map”. But why on earth should the historical Irish people and their culture not occupy the centre of Ireland’s cultural map? Resistance to having your culture and national identity eroded is characterised as holding an "exclusionary construction of Irishness" and a "hard-right populist 'white victim' narrative". This framing leaves Irish people having no legitimate way to express their concern for cultural continuity without it being dismissed as prejudice. This is not the only instance where the NCCA has endeavoured to undermine children's connection to their history and Irish identity. In the development of the primary history curriculum, a “transformative history education” was favoured, which involves moving away from “creating and maintaining national identity through the learning of a national story”. This was described as having “been used to legitimise the nation state through the dissemination of narratives promoting identity and values”. Instead, children are expected to deconstruct and interrogate power within historical narratives rather than learn a shared account of the past. The Leaving Certificate History background paper frames nationalism only as an extreme political movement, contrasting it with social justice movements for climate, migration and equity. Global citizenship and multiple identities are emphasised rather than national identity and responsibility to one's own nation. Students are asked to engage in critical (as in critical theory) historical enquiry, interrogating Western and European historical narratives and interpreting everything through the lens of power and oppression. What happens when young people are consistently taught that newcomers’ cultural identities must be recognised and respected, while their own must be relinquish and redefined by strangers? What will the Ireland of the future look like when there is no one left to appreciate, embody, enrich, and pass on it's unique culture and history because the desire to do so has been systematically trained out of its citizens within the education system? 'Irish' ceases to have any meaning whatsoever.
What does it mean to be Irish? Answers to this question have a tendency to produce more heat than light, not least because what it means to be Irish means different things to different people. I’d like to suggest that there are three ways in which one can be said to be Irish: ancestrally (IA); culturally (IC) and legally (IL). You are Irish ancestrally (IA) if your parents (or, at least, one of your parents) are Irish. You are Irish culturally (IC) if you have been brought up and live/work in Ireland, speak Irish or English as your native language, and understand and employ Irish cultural norms. You are Irish legally (IL) if you are an Irish citizen. Most people living in Ireland are Irish in all three ways although, because of mass immigration, combined with a high-incidence of naturalisation, this is becoming less normal than it used to be. A significant number of people are legally Irish (IL) who are neither Irish ancestrally (IA) nor Irish culturally ( IC). The question that should be at the heart of any sensible discussion of immigration is: what is, or what will be, the economic, social, cultural and political effects of the importation of relatively large numbers of strangers into a relatively stable social and cultural whole? Here’s a thought experiment: consider a country that is largely socially and culturally homogeneous and that has exactly 5 million people living in it. Now add to this country another 5 million people of different ethnicities, speaking different languages, with different social and cultural norms. What would be the result? Whatever the long-term prospects for integration—and the experience of other countries tells us they must be moot—the short-term results would almost certainly be economic disruption, social tensions and cultural frisson. Memory is constitutive of human personality—without memory, we are still human beings but our personalities shrink and may eventually disintegrate. Similarly, history is constitutive of a nation’s cultural personality, without it, a people is just a haphazard collection of individuals living in a particular area. A people’s history must be that people’s history, that is, it must be the product of the experiences of their ancestors, not, as in the film Total Recall, implanted memories, or the memories of someone else’s ancestors. History, then, is to a people, a nation, a culture, what memory is to an individual. This history expressed in a nation’s customs, habits, conventions, often unstated and perhaps even unstateable, in its language or languages, its music and its sports, gives rise to and sustains a sense of being related one to another. No people can preserve its culture, its identity, if it forced to absorb a significant number of unassimilated or unassimilable strangers. No one can say what precisely this number might be but whatever it may be, numbers matter. Multiculturalism is not something that can actually exist except in the most trivial of senses. There can be only one dominant culture in any coherent society and, perhaps significantly, in any stable political entity. Independent TD for Offaly Carol Nolan has established that more than a quarter of a million people have been granted Irish citizenship through naturalisation since 2011. "These figures represent a very substantial demographic change over a relatively short period of time and is a matter that deserves open, honest and mature public discussion," Deputy Nolan said. In an interview from 2019, Sir David Attenborough said: “I don’t think any human society is prepared to make decisions which they may not like if they’re made by people who don’t speak the same language
.It’s very easy, as we all know, to be very tolerant of minorities until they become majorities and you find yourself a minority. It’s easy to say ‘Oh yes, these lovely people—I love the way they wear such interesting costumes.’ You know, that’s fine until some day you find they’re actually telling you what to do and that they’ve actually taken over the town council and what you thought was your home was not.” Attenborough made it clear that he wasn’t supporting this way of looking at things but, nonetheless, he expressed these concerns very accurately. Every generation in a nation must appropriate its history and culture, embody it, enrich it, and pass it on to the next. These cultural traditions aren’t lumpish material objects but vital and dynamic ways of thinking and speaking, ways of living together as a people. [mention place as well, love of place] As Yoram Hazony writes in The Virtue of Nationalism, “The overwhelming dominance of a single, cohesive nationality, bound together by  indissoluble bonds of mutual loyalty, is in fact the only basis for domestic peace within a free state.” What are some of the effects of the slow-motion invasion and colonisation that is mass immigration? Perhaps most evidently, the exploitation of social welfare programmes created for and paid for by citizens of host countries, a significant increase in sexual and other forms of violence, and random acts of intimidation and disorder in public spaces that leads to their functional abandonment by the native population. Somewhat less spectacular but nonetheless tangible is an overall deterioration in the society’s fabric of common understandings and social conventions with a resultant impoverishment, even a sense of estrangement, from one’s homeland. When we import people from elsewhere, we don’t import blank slates on which we may write whatever we choose. Along with the people, we import their tribes and their tribal loyalties, their cultures, their divisions, their conflicts and, on occasion, their criminal networks. Thomas Sowell puts it with his characteristic succinctness: “Europe is belatedly discovering how unbelievably stupid it was to import millions of people from cultures that despise Western values and which often promote hatred toward the people who have let them in.” To be a citizen of a state one must be the beneficiary of powers or privileges that do not accrue to just anyone who happens to be resident in the state, otherwise, there is no difference between being a citizen and being a sojourner, a visitor or a tourist. Obtaining a state passport makes you a legal citizen of a country, but it doesn’t make you a member of the nation. If I were granted a Chinese passport, it wouldn’t make me Chinese, no matter how long I lived in that country and however well I managed to speak the language and adapt to its social mores. The representative democracies that are characteristic of Western countries can function only if there is some basic, common, shared sense of identity and in which voters exercise their votes in a way they believe to be best for their countries. But if, as in the recent dramatic Garton by-election in the UK, voters vote along religious or ethnic lines, then our so-called representative democracies are in trouble. How are our democracies supposed to respond when their voters split along ethno-religious lines? As Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of Singapore wrote, when rejecting the standard parliamentary model of democracy for Singapore, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” It is foolish beyond permission for Western countries to be profligate with the award of citizenship to all and sundry on the basis of minimal criteria. Long ago, St Thomas Aquinas wrote that among the Jews, “when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship
a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher (Aristotle) says (Politics iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.” (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 105, a. 3, c) Every individual human being, made in the image and likeness of God, deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, but when it comes to the economic, social, cultural and political implications of mass immigration, it isn’t individuals that matter, but numbers—numbers matter.
4
1
27
894
What is Irish? We seem to be having a “what is a woman?” moment with national and cultural identity. First, we were told that “woman” was not a category that, by definition, excludes men. They lied and told us this was an obvious truth everyone has always accepted. They denied that "woman" has been radically redefined. Those who objected to this absurd redefinition were accused of being morally reprehensible and have been treated like pariahs. Under relentless pressure, enough people have gone along, whether out of fear or ignorance, and the consequences to society have been severe. Now they are applying the same playbook to Irish identity. They want us to accept a definition so amorphous that ancestry, citizenship, cultural integration and shared values and history have no bearing on what it means to be Irish. Whether someone has ancestral roots here, is here legally, integrates into Irish society or identifies with its values is treated as irrelevant and offensive even to discuss. Anyone who challenges this is liable to be labelled far-right, ethnonationalist, xenophobic or exclusionary. We are expected to pretend that there was never anything meaningful about the relationship between a people and their shared history, homeland, language, traditions and values. They're going to keep insisting that mass immigration is beneficial, even as we are forced to watch the cultural heritage of our neighboring nations burn. I write this as an American who has lived in Ireland for more than two decades, since I was eighteen. I have now spent most of my life here. I am an Irish citizen and believe I have integrated culturally. But I am not ancestrally Irish, and I do not describe myself as Irish. My children, however, are Irish - ancestrally, culturally and legally. They are half Irish and have never lived anywhere else. The distinction does not offend me. I have never needed to demand that the Irish redefine Irishness to include me, or to feel welcomed or accepted. The Irish have allowed me to make this country my home. I will defend the right of the Irish to be Irish, and for that to mean something real. I will defend it for my children, for the people and the culture that I have come to love, and out of gratitude for those who have welcomed me. I will defend the same for all those across the West who are being told that their culture must be deconstructed and that to refuse equates to some moral failure. It wasn't so long ago that saying men cannot be women was unremarkable. It also wasn't very long ago that nations maintaining their borders and preserving their cultures was the norm, and perfectly acceptable rather than considered extreme and exclusionary. Let's not let those demanding these redefinitions pretend that everyone else has suddenly become radical. It's them, not us, that have lost their damn minds.
2
9
3
45
1,062
Last week, the NCCA very quietly published its new Intercultural Education Toolkit and the literature review used to support its development. Its not your standard approach to celebrating diversity and promoting kindness. In fact, it critiques universal human rights and liberal approaches and instead adopts a critical race and decolonial theoretical lens. It asks that intercultural education "permeate all facets of school life" by integrating it across all areas of the curriculum and school setting. Children are set to learn to understand how their "white, settled, Irish" identity affords them unearned privileges and power. The guidance for implementing Intercultural Education slots directly into the 4 key areas of wellbeing promotion outlined in the Department of Education's Wellbeing Policy and Framework for Practice. This isn't the first time we have seen this framework used as a justification to push schools to teach contested ideologies. On the back of 2024 "research", Belong To developed the LGBTQ+ Inclusive Primary School Pilot Programme, specifically designed to slot into the Dept's Wellbeing Policy and Framework as well, which would require schools to integrate gender ideology into the classroom and adopt a queer theoretical lens in teaching. Why is this happening? The Department of Education has been in the process of reviewing their Wellbeing Policy and Framework and to support this, the ESRI was commissioned to undertake a literature review on wellbeing promotion in schools, which includes recommendations. One of the recommendations is that "a greater emphasis should be placed on centralising equity, inclusion and diversity in school wellbeing promotion; indeed, this should be viewed as a precondition for promoting wellbeing at school and a measure of the success of school ethos." So, the new Wellbeing Framework can be understood as an enforcement mechanism within a larger coordinated policy infrastructure. If successful integration of DEI ideologies into the 4 areas of wellbeing promotion (curriculum, culture, policy and planning, and relationships) is framed as a precondition to wellbeing promotion, it does not seem like schools will have much choice in whether or not they teach contested and controversial ideologies. Making DEI a part of wellbeing promotion and the teaching of these ideologies a requirement under the Dept's Wellbeing Policy, also provides a way to get around parental objections. There was no press release on the NCCA or Curriculum Online website announcing the publication of the new Intercultural Education Toolkit. Despite the fact that it asks for incredibly controversial approaches and topics to be integrated into every aspect of schooling, from the early years through to Senior Cycle, there was no public consultation on the matter. How is this acceptable? Something that is intended to have this magnitude of impact on the entirety of our children's education should surely be openly discussed and debated. When the Dept publishes their new Wellbeing Policy and Framework, will it go for public consultation before it is implemented? How many people are aware of the ESRI review and the other concerning recommendations that have been made within it, including the routine collection and sharing of our children's sensitive mental health and demographic data (such as gender identity and sexuality) obtained via classroom administered questionnaires? The Dept of Ed and the NCCA need to be reigned in, and reigned in quickly, because things are rapidly getting out of control. Everything that they are doing is a recipe for disaster. I don't just mean the politicisation of the curriculum and teaching of controversial ideologies. The turn towards student-directed, inquiry and project-based learning, and a less prescriptive, less knowledge rich curriculum will significantly harm students learning. While a less prescriptive curriculum is framed as a positive that supports "teacher autonomy", it will increase the burden on already overloaded teachers and, as we have seen happen elsewhere, lead to standards and student outcomes varying wildly from one school or teacher to the next, ultimately leading to greater inequality in academic achievement. The overemphasis on wellbeing means that teachers are now being asked to operate outside their competencies and there is significant risk that students' mental health and wellbeing will be negatively impacted instead of improved. @Nick_Delehanty @mullallyelaine @PaulTreyvaud @DavQuinn @ExCllrRedmond @sarahcatryan @john_mcguirk @griptmedia @Ben_Scallan @Niall_Boylan @JasonOsborne_GM @GL_Kavanagh @declanganley @CormacLucey @Toibin1 @1PaulLawless @kenoflynnTD @CNolanOffaly @JohnandSarahIrl @timcrowley_ @EoinLenihan
12
43
12
102
10,795
In 'Beyond the Pale' this week, @CormacLucey and I discuss, among other things, the public pay dispute. I argue that if successive budgets had offered us bigger tax cuts, then the public might not be quite so angry about the cost of living. (Link in replies).
6
6
53
2,475
“We are not a science-based industry. We are, at best, an industry in the arts that wants the credibility and respect that science holds - we just want that accolade without the actual work. Shame on us.” The @APA is an embarrassment. Full article link below.
1
5
1
21
529
In the first episode of our new podcast, 'Beyond the Pale', @CormacLucey and I discuss the budget, and reveal why Santa is bad and Scrooge is good. Find it on Spotify, Apple, YouTube etc. Please listen in and share! @AnMailleach @OHanlonEilis @ExCllrRedmond @karldeeter
5
8
22
1,599
There are academics who have built their whole career on making the teaching of simple arithmetic unnecessarily complicated. Practice has been turned into a bad word in math & explicitly teaching is often something that’s supposed to be avoided. Children have suffered for it. Math has suffered for it. Universities and academia are partly to blame by often rewarding the publication of flawed education research. The problem is that these academics can be hugely influential on curriculum, textbooks, teacher education, and professional development. Because who would think an education expert isn’t really an expert? When someone has built their whole career on bad ideas, it’s going to be hard to get them to change course. That is why it is true that math needs a phonics-style revolution.
34
64
14
430
17,659
A podcast the @ncca and its academics could do with listening to... Inquiry-based, discovery, and project- based learning seem to be all the rage with them at the minute, while they also strip essential knowledge out the curriculum and wage war on "rote" learning. They are ripping apart our curriculum to follow an educational fad that has already proven disastrous elsewhere.
The first Sold a Story was crucial in fueling a huge push for the Science of Reading. Now season 2 is poised to do the same for Direct Instruction.
1
2
10
596
Trigger warning: Imelda May's infantile, poorly written & logically nonsensical "poem" 'You don't get to be Irish and racist' is on the Junior Cycle literature curriculum. Right there beside Heaney & Wordsworth. Shameful, utterly shameful.
69
106
12
1,028
23,130