Should Irish be compulsary?

Chillwithcian

Personally i think they should have it up to Juniour Certificate but then it should be left up to you wheather you wish to pursue it for the leaving. Some people find language really difficult as its an ongoing thing you have to work at and its unfair that it brings down so many points.....

PurpleFistMixer

Maybe they should make English optional! : p
And with that, I escape this... tricky topic.

Elmo

I think it should continue to be compulsary. I don't think it will will win an election for FG, It isn't the end of the world that you have to do Irish for the leaving. It's part of your education for educations sake.

It only leads to should English and Maths be compulsary for leaving cert. Lets face it when was the last time you used an of your leaving cert maths or english. Again they are they are there for Educations sake.

I think a new system should be introduced for Lanuages for the Leaving including Irish and English.

Level 1: Beginners 60points
Level 2: The Current Pass 80points
Level 3: Advanced (The current honours for French and Foreign Lanuages) 100 points
Level 4: Fluent (Bring the French and Foreign Lanuages up to the standard of Honours Irish and English) 120points

I was surprised to see that Science isn't a Core subject on the Junior Certificate. I know my school had it as compulsary.

Surely we should make Science Compulsary for the Junior Certificate.

Also you could always do PASS Irish pass it and concentrate on another subject. NUI college still require Maths, Irish, English and a foreign lanuage. IT's, Trinity, UL require Maths, English, Irish or a Foreign Lanuage.

Foundation is the biggest cop out and should be removed. Even for people with dyslexia (I have dyslexia but was still able to do honours english, maths and pass Irish).

I let the foreign lanuage go. I hated french.

Suaimhneach

I think the whole education system needs to be changed. I think the manner/content and approch with which they teach Irish needs to be changed. I think that it is the responsibility of our governement to make this change, and to stop using cop outs like making the subject optional.

Stop addressing the problem, ie, people hate irish, and address the cause. WHY do people hate irish. Because its hard to learn, taught badly, too much pressure for points... etc etc. I could go on.

IF the system was changed, then the hatred levels would change, and peoples attitudes and abilities with the language change. Cause and effect.

This needs to be done NOW, for us to see a difference in 6 years, with the next graduated population. HOWEVER, it takes years for our government to implement anything...

so, we're fu cked.

dame

Yes it should continue to be compulsory. It is the second language of our country. In Belgium their two langauges (French and Flemish) are compulsory, even though some of the Flemish speakers hate Frenche and vice versa! :rolleyes:

Elmo I don't know where you've got the notion that honours Irish is at the same level as honours English fluency-wise....they're nowhere near the same level!!:eek: Also saying to bring French and other foreign languages up to current levels of honours English for the leaving cert just isn't going to happen. Not when people only start learning it in secondary and have about two hours a week learning it in class. That's the stage people get to after a couple of years studying a foreign language at third level. Maybe if they taught foreign languages seriously in primary school there'd be some chance of real fluency by leaving cert, but not at present.

You use your leaving cert english and maths every day without thinking about it. Every time you read a piece of literature (or even a newspaper), understand the writer's real intent, reason it out for yourself and decide whether you agree - that's your english being used. Every time you check up on your investments, bank accounts, interest rates, work out how much it'll cost to tile a room, start your own business etc - there's your maths.

Yes, I agree, science should be compulsory for junior cert.

OP, if people are worried about it bringing down their points then why don't they just do pass and concentrate on their other subjects. You only need six subjects to be counted and everyone does at least seven so you've plenty of others to do well in. Can still have six homours subjects from the rest of them and get your full 600 points.

Elmo

Elmo I don't know where you've got the notion that honours Irish is at the same level as honours English fluency-wise....they're nowhere near the same level!!

Honours Irish is far harder the Honours French? Ok so I did neither. But I assumed that the amount of Literature (even in pass) is far greater then that of a foreign lanuage. But I could be wrong. Certainly for people in the Gealtacht there should be an Irish equivalent to the English exam.

What I am suggesting is that a Fluency Level would be used for people who are fluent in a lanuage not for people who just picked it up in 1st year of Secondary school. i.e. Students coming from different countries should be able to sit a simlar exam to that of the English Honours exam but would take it in their Literature. Just a thought.

As for using english (this post might not be the best example lol) but I never use Intergration or Trig to look at my bank statement. And I liked maths in school, even did honours.

JustCoz

Irish should remain to be compulsary for the Leaving Cert. It's a slippery slope to phasing the language out if they give students the option to pick it for the LC. Lets face it, the obvious outcome would be that the majority of students would drop it which would be a shame because I think you get more of a chance to express yourself using the language for the Leaving Cert than the Junior Cert.

The whole "too many people find it too difficult" argument is rubbish. All leaving Cert subjects are difficult, but alot of students just don't bother working at Irish because they don't like it not because it's so difficult and this is the problem that needs to be addressed.

philologos

I think its important to the Irish culture, and indeed our identity to keep learning it.

Aidan Mc

dame wrote:

Yes it should continue to be compulsory. It is the second language of our country.

Irish is the first language of our country (to the best of my knowledge).

If you had asked me five years ago I would have said Irish shouldn't be compulsory. I hated doing it in school until I was in Leaving Cert. I loved it by the time I sat the orals. Yes, the system of teaching it needs to be looked at, but so do our attitudes. That's the biggest obstacle. Also, parents and teachers should try to give be more positive towards the kids learning it (even if the teacher/parent doesn't like it themselves). Why should they deny their child the chance to decide for themselves? Developing a dislike at an early age leads to percieved inability in the subject in later years.

As somebody mentioned previously, why don't we stop teaching english and maths aswell as Irish? it's all part of an education. Those among us with jobs probably find certain aspects of their work to be wasteful of time, but it's part of the job! maybe there's a more useful way of doing the same thing, and that could be the case here. is there a better way to teach Irish?

I'm so happy now that I put the effort in while at school. I now use Irish on a daily occasion, though I don't live in a Gaeltacht area. That's because I make the effort to use what I learned. Everybody else gets/got the same chance I did to learn Irish, I just make use of it. And I'm no expert at it either. I got a C in it at honours leaving cert, but I don't know the correct grammar, etc. But at least I make an effort to use what I do have.

We can't expect to keep the language alive if we don't use it.

Just last week I met a friend and we conversed for over an hour 'as Gaeilge', talking about all the stuff we usually talk about, except it was in our native language. It was a great chanec to use our Irish, and it just seemed so natural. Neither of us stopped to think about it.

We shouldn't think it strange to talk to people in our own language (even if not our most used one), yet society in general seems to look down on those of us who do.

Sé ár teanga - úsáid é!

Shane_C

This is such an old debate; i've had this out with my parents/uncles/aunties/grandparents so many times. Now I am long finished school and it seems so clear: Irish should never be compulsory for leaving cert students.
The majority of adults who insist it should be compulsory cannot speak Irish well and have no interest in learning it so why should it be forced on those who don't really care if it dies out (i.e. teenagers)?
I personally cannot speak good Irish and would like to, but if I had the choice between letting the language die out and actually doing something about it, I wouldn't bother, and I think a lot of people would be the same, even though they won't admit it.

Any thoughts on this?

Chillwithcian

PurpleFistMixer wrote:

Maybe they should make English optional! : p
And with that, I escape this... tricky topic.

That wont happen, :cool:

Aidan Mc

Shane_C wrote:

...so why should it be forced on those who don't really care if it dies out (i.e. teenagers)?

They don't know enough to decide whether it dies out or not. Do they know if they want a pension? Probably not but it's still in thier best interest to have one later in life!

Shane_C wrote:

I personally cannot speak good Irish and would like to, but if I had the choice between letting the language die out and actually doing something about it, I wouldn't bother, and I think a lot of people would be the same, even though they won't admit it.

That's exactly the problem - it's not the language, it's our ignorance and bad attitude towards it

Shane_C

Aidan Mc wrote:

it's not the language, it's our ignorance and bad attitude towards it

You are right about a general ignorance. Peoples attitudes towards the language seems to be "let someone else do it".
People like this do not deserve a national language.

But there is no bad attitude. Nobody is opposed to the Irish language.
However, forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do is fundamentally wrong, regardless of age.

And how is a full time student supposed to pay into a pension?

Milktrolley

Shane_C wrote:

The majority of adults who insist it should be compulsory cannot speak Irish well and have no interest in learning it so why should it be forced on those who don't really care if it dies out (i.e. teenagers)?

I don't think it's just a "teenager" problem, I think the same %age of adults who couldn't care less is the same as the %age of young people who couldn't care less. It's a problem with society more than a specific age group.

Elmo wrote:

I think a new system should be introduced for Lanuages for the Leaving including Irish and English.

Level 1: Beginners 60points
Level 2: The Current Pass 80points
Level 3: Advanced (The current honours for French and Foreign Lanuages) 100 points
Level 4: Fluent (Bring the French and Foreign Lanuages up to the standard of Honours Irish and English) 120points

Sounds good. The current system of teaching Irish (i.e. the same that's used for teaching English) is geared towards fluent speakers. We now have a situation where schools will happily teach English as a foreign language, but not Irish. Doesn't make sense. On the other hand, after ten years of learning the language LC students probably should have a high degree of fluency... there's problems across the board I guess.

Aidan Mc

Shane_C wrote:

And how is a full time student supposed to pay into a pension?

i don't expext a student to pay a pension. i'll put it this way... you decide you won't bother with a pension fund, then in 20 years time realise it was a huge mistake, and at that stage it's very hard to try and make up for lost time. it's the same with Irish... we stop teaching it and then in 20 years time realise it was a huge mistake, and at that stage it's very hard to try and make up for lost time.

Shane_C wrote:

However, forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do is fundamentally wrong, regardless of age.

Most kids don't like going to school, doing homework, washing their teeth, etc etc etc but just because they don't want to do it doen't mean it's not in their best interest to do so. and until such time as their capable of making an informed, mature decision they need to have somebody else make decisions for them. and I think teaching them their own language is one of those things they need to do - regardless of whether they want to or not, but because they should.

We could stay arguing over little things all day but it's pointless. for now, I think we should be looking at getting the language taught more effectively, more speaking of it, and give people the time, place and encouragement to use it. if we won't make an effort to speak it ourselves, who else can we expect to use it. if we won't bother to to make us of our education it's our own fault, not anyone elses.

is_that_so

The word compulsory will always generate negative connotations. Maths is compulsory but if you are good at it , it's not an issue.

An educational system needs a basic foundation for all learners. We can't have a scenario where every student is doing their own selection of subjects from a very early age.
Yes they do need to be offered optional choices but there must be a basic core.

To me that core would be

English
Maths
Science( up to Junior Cert and a Science subject for LC)
Irish
A foreign language

As for the teaching of Irish, there are ways to make that compulsory idea more palatable. I see this as working in primary and secondary in different ways.

Primary

Immersion programmes - as the Gaelscoilenna operate. This would be just for fun.

Here's an abstract of the famous Canadian trial on bilingualism in the seventies.

The school performance of pupils in grades K-2 of the French immersion program in operation at Allenby Public School in Toronto is evaluated in comparison with that of pupils in the regular English program. The results indicate that by the end of kindergarten pupils in both programs are equally ready for beginning school work in grade 1. By the end of grade 1 immersion program pupils taught reading in French are found to lag behind their peers in the regular program in English language skills involving English reading, but they show some ability to transfer reading skills from French to English. By the end of grade 2, following the introduction of English Language Arts into the curriculum during the second half of the year for 25 minutes a day, immersion pupils have caught up to their regular program peers in most English language skills considered, except for spelling. Throughout grades K-2 pupils in the immersion program perform equivalently to or better than regular program pupils in mathematical skills. They also reveal a considerably higher level of proficiency in French than pupils of corresponding or higher grade levels receiving daily instruction in French as a second language, and perform as well in French as immersion pupils in a more bilingual milieu. The type of program in which the pupils are enrolled does not appear to affect their level of cognitive development.

Secondary

As posted - proper language teaching that aims first and foremost to provide learners with the ability to use the language and not just an academic
subject is the key. Like the immersion programme some part of the day could be done in Irish on a generalised topic like say Civics. IMO academic treatment of Irish needs to be reviewed - I'd be inclined just to leave it to Higher Level LC. Up to that point students would be examined on how they could perform with the language in everyday life.

Aidan Mc

great post. well said!

Shane_C

After reading the post by is_that_so I realized i never quite clarified my position with regards to student age.
There is just as much reason to teach Irish as there is Maths, Geography, Religion etc up to junior cert level. It is another flavor of education and can broaden student’s horizons as to what they like/are good at.

However, once a student can see the benefit of doing homework, washing their teeth, etc etc, they should be given the choice, as it can ultimately affect their future and choices of third level education.
In the Irish education system, secondary school is just a step on the ladder and Irish can give linguistically gifted students an unfair advantage over their peers in the points system.

The implementation of such a scheme proposed by Elmo

Elmo wrote:

Level 1: Beginners 60points
Level 2: The Current Pass 80points
Level 3: Advanced (The current honours for French and Foreign Lanuages) 100 points
Level 4: Fluent (Bring the French and Foreign Lanuages up to the standard of Honours Irish and English) 120points

would further widen the gap and in fact a similar scheme was in place for higher level maths but has been abolished in the last 10 years.

The country is united in thinking Irish currenetly has an old fashioned corriculum and needs an overhaul, but no matter what is done, it will never be easier for those who do not want to or are not able to study language.

Elmo

would further widen the gap and in fact a similar scheme was in place for higher level maths but has been abolished in the last 10 years.

My thinking behind such levels:

Level 1

For Beginners i.e. Foreign Students who do not have much English or Irish. Irish people who have spent much of their education in a non English speaking country and have just returned home. Those who want to pick up a new foreign language after Junior Cert. (Aimed at speaking a new Language)

Level 2

Keeps the traditional Pass level but brings the standard of Irish and English pass down to Foreign Language Levels.

Level 3

Brings up the Honours Level of Foreign Languages but brings down the level of honours English and Irish down to Pass level (but it would need to be a higher level then Pass IMO)

Level 4

Brings all languages to the same ability in as English and Irish Honours levels (Aimed at fluency students)

Levels 1&2 would be aimed towards new students to the language.
Levels 3&4 would be aimed towards fluent speakers of the language.

Current Foundation
Level 1
Current Pass
Level 2
Level 3/Current Honours
Level 4

I don't remember such a thing in Maths, however IMO Foundation Levels in Irish and Maths should be removed. The Level 1 which I speak of would be far more difficult then Foundation Irish.

To me that core would be
English
Maths
Science( up to Junior Cert and a Science subject for LC)
Irish
A foreign language

I agree with bring Science in as a Core subject in Junior Cert but I would disagree with bringing anymore core subjects into the Leaving Certificate.

As a person with a dyslexic problem I would have hated to continue with French, at my best I would have only been able to do Pass Level in French which would put me at a disadvantage points wise (I know the same could be said for Irish). I think 5 core subjects out 7 subjects are far too many.

I think picking the other 4 subjects is more important.

Is maths not a science? And are English and Irish not Languages?

is_that_so

Maths is part of science but adding a core science subject means exposure to a wider level of knowledge. As for English and Irish, this is also true but we are in the unique situation of having two working EU languages. I personally am in favour of people learning a non-native language - taught properly.
Your suggestions for levels are interesting however I think you will find that the CEFR better defines what you have in mind.

UU

Be inspired by the Welsh......

Welsh is taught properly in Wales from when childhood in schools. It is compulsory up until around 16 but by then they are practicly fleunt in 'el Cymraeg (Welsh). Welsh is also a celtic language and has been far more successful than Irish in terms of revival and keeping it living. Maybe there isn't so much negativity behind it?

So my thoughts? Well I think our government ought to get up off their silly arses pretending everyone is brilliant at Irish based on the Leaving Cert. results and other schemes than do not work, and send a few liguistics and specialists over across the sea to Wales and see how they teach Welsh there and do the exact same thing for Irish like a mirror image. By using Welsh as a framework for keeping Irish alive!

P.S. Did you know? Around 30% of people in Wales speak Welsh as a first language and that it is the most spoken Celtic language.

Slán go fóil.
Hwyl Fawr a icchyd da!

robindch

Like classes in the supposed national religion, classes in Irish should be let die a peaceful death a long way from schools. The language has no place in a child's education because it is useless. Languages are for communicating and Irish does not increase the number of people you can speak with. It expands no horizons and adds nothing worthwhile to the national discourse as the sign-post episode in Dingle comfortably showed everyone. It's only on the school syllabus because a small group of people think it's necessary for national pride.

Comparisons with Canada and Belgium are appropriate. In both countries, the civil temperature runs high with various language groups claiming discrimination by everybody else while demanding special administrative treatment which is as pointless as it is expensive. The same with Catalunia and the Basque region in Spain, the Romanian and Russian speaking regions of Moldova and many more places.

I wasted eleven years taking classes in a language which have spoken less than once a year since I left school twenty years ago and have now largely forgotten. I live in Dublin and know only two fluent speakers. I have heard Irish on the streets of the capital six times (yes, I've been counting) since I moved here in 1993, and three of those times were from my office over Dawson Street from where I could hear chanting coming up from the occasional marches and protests in support of the language (the result of which, as far as I can tell, is to translate, at exorbitant rates, a lot of EU documentation that virtually nobody reads, into a language that virtually nobody knows).

If people want to learn Irish privately, then that's fine and the very best of luck to them. But don't put the rest of us through the misery of learning something that we know we'll never use. Let's have our kids learn something that will expand their horizons -- like starting them on French, Spanish or something else when they're tots and let's collectively do away with the embarrassment of a school system which excels in producing A-grade French-language students who are hard put to order a baguette in France.

Whew. Glad I got that off my chest

vesp

robindch wrote:

Like classes in the supposed national religion, classes in Irish should be let die a peaceful death a long way from schools. The language has no place in a child's education because it is useless. Languages are for communicating and Irish does not increase the number of people you can speak with. It expands no horizons and adds nothing worthwhile to the national discourse as the sign-post episode in Dingle comfortably showed everyone. It's only on the school syllabus because a small group of people think it's necessary for national pride.

Comparisons with Canada and Belgium are appropriate. In both countries, the civil temperature runs high with various language groups claiming discrimination by everybody else while demanding special administrative treatment which is as pointless as it is expensive. The same with Catalunia and the Basque region in Spain, the Romanian and Russian speaking regions of Moldova and many more places.

I wasted eleven years taking classes in a language which have spoken less than once a year since I left school twenty years ago and have now largely forgotten. I live in Dublin and know only two fluent speakers. I have heard Irish on the streets of the capital six times (yes, I've been counting) since I moved here in 1993, and three of those times were from my office over Dawson Street from where I could hear chanting coming up from the occasional marches and protests in support of the language (the result of which, as far as I can tell, is to translate, at exorbitant rates, a lot of EU documentation that virtually nobody reads, into a language that virtually nobody knows).

If people want to learn Irish privately, then that's fine and the very best of luck to them. But don't put the rest of us through the misery of learning something that we know we'll never use. Let's have our kids learn something that will expand their horizons -- like starting them on French, Spanish or something else when they're tots and let's collectively do away with the embarrassment of a school system which excels in producing A-grade French-language students who are hard put to order a baguette in France.

Whew. Glad I got that off my chest

Well said robindch. Too much time and money has been wasted on Irish already over the last few generations. It was rammed down our throats at school, some of us could not get in to certain careers or universities because of the Irish language requirement, and yet I have never heard anyone speaking Irish since leaving school ( apart from the odd word like " Slan" or " cupla focail" when this debate is brought up.). Even in the Gaeltacht they speak English as far as I can hear when I listen to locals there - of course when they want grants then they may use a few "cupla focail ". What a scam by the irish language industry on the rest of us.

cooker3

robindch wrote:

Like classes in the supposed national religion, classes in Irish should be let die a peaceful death a long way from schools. The language has no place in a child's education because it is useless. Languages are for communicating and Irish does not increase the number of people you can speak with. It expands no horizons and adds nothing worthwhile to the national discourse as the sign-post episode in Dingle comfortably showed everyone. It's only on the school syllabus because a small group of people think it's necessary for national pride.

Comparisons with Canada and Belgium are appropriate. In both countries, the civil temperature runs high with various language groups claiming discrimination by everybody else while demanding special administrative treatment which is as pointless as it is expensive. The same with Catalunia and the Basque region in Spain, the Romanian and Russian speaking regions of Moldova and many more places.

I wasted eleven years taking classes in a language which have spoken less than once a year since I left school twenty years ago and have now largely forgotten. I live in Dublin and know only two fluent speakers. I have heard Irish on the streets of the capital six times (yes, I've been counting) since I moved here in 1993, and three of those times were from my office over Dawson Street from where I could hear chanting coming up from the occasional marches and protests in support of the language (the result of which, as far as I can tell, is to translate, at exorbitant rates, a lot of EU documentation that virtually nobody reads, into a language that virtually nobody knows).

If people want to learn Irish privately, then that's fine and the very best of luck to them. But don't put the rest of us through the misery of learning something that we know we'll never use. Let's have our kids learn something that will expand their horizons -- like starting them on French, Spanish or something else when they're tots and let's collectively do away with the embarrassment of a school system which excels in producing A-grade French-language students who are hard put to order a baguette in France.

Whew. Glad I got that off my chest

I was just preparing myself to write a big long post on this but you did it better then I ever could.

I wasted 14 years of my life learning irish, I have yet to use it since school. English and Maths are compulsary as you will use them once you leave school. The simple fact is the irish doesn't serve a purpose for the vast majority of people, it's a waste of time and money to teach it to everyone. The sooner it's optional the better imo.

nesf

Elmo wrote:

Is maths not a science?

No. It's most definitely not. Maths is used in science, but that's about it.

simu

robindch wrote:

Like classes in the supposed national religion, classes in Irish should be let die a peaceful death a long way from schools. The language has no place in a child's education because it is useless. Languages are for communicating and Irish does not increase the number of people you can speak with. It expands no horizons and adds nothing worthwhile to the national discourse as the sign-post episode in Dingle comfortably showed everyone. It's only on the school syllabus because a small group of people think it's necessary for national pride.

Comparisons with Canada and Belgium are appropriate. In both countries, the civil temperature runs high with various language groups claiming discrimination by everybody else while demanding special administrative treatment which is as pointless as it is expensive. The same with Catalunia and the Basque region in Spain, the Romanian and Russian speaking regions of Moldova and many more places.

I wasted eleven years taking classes in a language which have spoken less than once a year since I left school twenty years ago and have now largely forgotten. I live in Dublin and know only two fluent speakers. I have heard Irish on the streets of the capital six times (yes, I've been counting) since I moved here in 1993, and three of those times were from my office over Dawson Street from where I could hear chanting coming up from the occasional marches and protests in support of the language (the result of which, as far as I can tell, is to translate, at exorbitant rates, a lot of EU documentation that virtually nobody reads, into a language that virtually nobody knows).

If people want to learn Irish privately, then that's fine and the very best of luck to them. But don't put the rest of us through the misery of learning something that we know we'll never use. Let's have our kids learn something that will expand their horizons -- like starting them on French, Spanish or something else when they're tots and let's collectively do away with the embarrassment of a school system which excels in producing A-grade French-language students who are hard put to order a baguette in France.

Whew. Glad I got that off my chest

French? If your aim is to maximise the number of people you can speak with would you not start off with the next most spoken language after English and so on, in that order?

You have a rather narrow view of what languages are "for" imho. having a conversation with a person in Irish is quite a different experience to having one in English. Each language brings its own flavour.

nesf

robindch wrote:

Like classes in the supposed national religion, classes in Irish should be let die a peaceful death a long way from schools. The language has no place in a child's education because it is useless.

Many things are useless in a practical sense. The teaching of calculus to the vast majority of students is useless since they'll a) never use it and b) probably couldn't apply it even if they had to. In fact you could argue that about the majority (if not all) of maths after the Junior Cert. It is only of benefit to the minority. Should we take maths out of the senior cycle entirely? The same could be said about the majority of subjects, most of them have large sections that are of little direct use.

robindch wrote:

Languages are for communicating and Irish does not increase the number of people you can speak with. It expands no horizons and adds nothing worthwhile to the national discourse as the sign-post episode in Dingle comfortably showed everyone. It's only on the school syllabus because a small group of people think it's necessary for national pride.

Again, your measures of worth are narrow and ill-conceived. Consider for a second the reality of the majority of subjects taken at second level. Few of them, if any, have direct practical applications. You seem to assume that academics must achieve some practical end, without actually presenting an argument for why such would be the case. Surely there is nothing wrong with education in more abstract things?

cooker3

simu wrote:

You have a rather narrow view of what languages are "for" imho. having a conversation with a person in Irish is quite a different experience to having one in English. Each language brings its own flavour.

Well I always assumed languages are for communication to each other. The simple fact is there are not many people who I could communicate with through irish and of those I could (if I spoke irish fluently) I could likely communicate through a differant language.

nesf

cooker3 wrote:

Well I always assumed languages are for communication to each other.

Do you oppose Hamlet, Heaney, Yates etc being on the English course? There is more to studying a language at second level than just learning how to speak it.

cooker3 wrote:

The simple fact is there are not many people who I could communicate with through irish and of those I could (if I spoke irish fluently) I could likely communicate through a differant language.

The reality, is that after taking any language other than English for your leaving, you probably still couldn't communicate with someone through it since in the vast majority of cases a LC student is a very long way away from fluency. At best, without doing more study outside of the LC or after, you'd be able to lumber through some simple stuff like "Hello, how are you? Could you tell me how to get to the library?"


(Note: I'm arguing against removing Irish entirely from the school system rather than arguing against having it compulsory only until the Junior Cert. Personally, I think with our present CAO and teaching system that there's not much of a point in forcing people to take it for their Leaving. However, most of the points put forward for removing it completely are very poorly made, at best. Just in case anyone was confused.)

robindch

> Should we take maths out of the senior cycle entirely? The same could
> be said about the majority of subjects, most of them have large
> sections that are of little direct use.

Claiming that other school subjects are useless does not invalidate my point that Irish is useless itself -- stick to the point!

> Again, your measures of worth are narrow and ill-conceived.

No, they are not. My post specifically documented around half of my reasons why I believe that the compulsory teaching of one specific language is a waste of time. I am not arguing against teaching other languages, or against having compulsory topics, or against teaching things which have no direct application.

> You seem to assume that academics must achieve some practical end,

Hmm... sounds to me like that you subconsciously accept that the teaching of Irish does not have a practical end. I'm tempted to rest my case right here!

> [...] without actually presenting an argument for why such would be the
> case. Surely there is nothing wrong with education in more abstract things?

Language is abstract? What *are* you talking about? Languages are for communicating, so what's the point in learning a language that does not increase the number of people we can communicate with?

Finally, I note that you didn't actually reply to any of my points at all, but instead wrote about abstract principles. This thread isn't about abstract principles, but about the mandatory teaching of one language. Stay on topic!

nesf

robindch wrote:

> Should we take maths out of the senior cycle entirely? The same could
> be said about the majority of subjects, most of them have large
> sections that are of little direct use.

Claiming that other school subjects are useless does not invalidate my point that Irish is useless itself -- stick to the point!

First, why not use quote tags? It's easier to read.

Yes it is, you are presenting the uselessness of Irish as a reason for it's removal from the syllabus (not the making of it non-compulsory). This is what I meant by narrow and ill-conceived. You can apply this reason to almost every LC subject. You can't just selectively apply it to Irish and ignore how it would be applicable many other subjects.

robindch wrote:

> Again, your measures of worth are narrow and ill-conceived.

No, they are not. My post specifically documented around half of my reasons why I believe that the compulsory teaching of one specific language is a waste of time. I am not arguing against teaching other languages, or against having compulsory topics, or against teaching things which have no direct application.

Again, a) why does an academic endeavour have to have a direct/practical application and b) apart from the smallish number of fluent speakers wouldn't you consider being able to speak Irish with someone, being able to read Irish, watch TG4 and listen to RnaG as applications? Maybe not ones that you would appreciate or want to do but I imagine that it's unlikely that the majority of people discuss Shakespeare, or use calculus to model the behaviour of systems, yet it would be invalid to say that learning calculus at third level has no application.

robindch wrote:

Stay on topic!

In some drunken haze did the admins make you a mod of here or something or do you believe that you can dictate what people's responses to you should and should not contain?

nesf

Just as a point here:

This:

robindch wrote:

Like classes in the supposed national religion, classes in Irish should be let die a peaceful death a long way from schools. The language has no place in a child's education because it is useless. Languages are for communicating and Irish does not increase the number of people you can speak with. It expands no horizons and adds nothing worthwhile to the national discourse as the sign-post episode in Dingle comfortably showed everyone. It's only on the school syllabus because a small group of people think it's necessary for national pride.

Is not arguing for Irish to not be compulsory. This is arguing for it to be removed from the syllabus.

Versus what you claim here:

robindch wrote:

My post specifically documented around half of my reasons why I believe that the compulsory teaching of one specific language is a waste of time.

Don't change what your original argument was between replies, it's intellectually dishonest and fairly damn obvious. There is no ambiguity over what you argued for originally.

FrCrilly

Chillwithcian wrote:

Personally i think they should have it up to Juniour Certificate but then it should be left up to you wheather you wish to pursue it for the leaving. Some people find language really difficult as its an ongoing thing you have to work at and its unfair that it brings down so many points.....

The Irish education system should wake up to the fact that you can’t make love of your native tongue compulsory. I know a Northern Irish Nationalist and a Leeds Irish person, both fluent speakers, because they didn’t have it shoved down their throats by compulsion. The Irish secondary school system ruined the language for me, and like most of my former classmates, I’m glad I don’t have a speak a word of it again for the rest of my life. If Enda Kenny is serious about dropping it’s compulsory leaving cert status, then I will very much vote for it. I urge the few people who read this thread to do likewise.

Tar.Aldarion

Nah, let it die. The people that have studied it and got a degree from it should be given elaborate compensation and put in special programs, as they would be redundant in society.
I would like there to be one language, Gaian.

robindch

> you are presenting the uselessness of Irish as a reason for it's removal
> from the syllabus (not the making of it non-compulsory).

I would imagine that it's difficult to have a compulsory subject which isn't on the syllabus. No?

> wouldn't you consider being able to speak Irish with someone, being
> able to read Irish, watch TG4 and listen to RnaG as applications?

I don't recall ever having wanted to speak with anybody in irish (why bother? when they already speak english), read anything in Irish (nobody writes in Irish on topics that interest me), or watch TG4 (it's subtitled, isn't it?) or listen to RnaG (what's on it?). As I said in my first post, if I'm going to go to the trouble of learning another language, I'd like to learn something that expands my horizons. That's why I learned Russian.

> In some drunken haze did the admins make you a mod of here or something
> or do you believe that you can dictate what people's responses to you
> should and should not contain?

No, you guessed wrong -- not only am I not a local mod, but I don't imagine that the boards gods (bless their souls) are drunk either -- it's a dismal monday afternoon, after all!

However, I do harbour the faintest of lingering suspicions that responses are most worth reading if they respond to what's written, not its second cousin. Hence me asking you to stick to replying to the point I made, not something that you thought I'd written! I don't believe anybody else had much trouble understanding what I was at?

Son Goku

I don't so much have a problem with Irish being compulsory, as it being a requirement for entry into the NUIMs.
What do other people think about this?

Cake Fiend

Aidan Mc wrote:

We can't expect to keep the language alive if we don't use it

If you want to keep the language alive, then the responsibility is on you to use it. Don't foist that responsibility on others who have no interest in it - you're not our mammy. You have the right to promote Irish, to raise awareness of it, ideally to provide incentive to learn it - and these would be commendable goals - but don't force it down people's throats. Not only have you no right, but you risk driving away those who might be interested in the language if given their own choice about it.

Drifting OT, but for what it's worth, I don't think LC Maths or English should be compulsory either - at that level, everyone should have a choice. As mentioned previously in the thread, it's rare that the average adult will use LC-level mathematics (when's the last time you saw an office worker working with euclidian geometry, or a bus driver going about his differential calculus?) and I don't need to have read the works of Keats to communicate effectively and efficiently. The parts of education most important for social survival have already been covered in primary school, or at JC level at the latest. Leave the specialized fields for those who choose to enter them.

Edit: before I get pwned, I do recognize (and support, believe it or not!) the value of more abstract subjects such as LC maths to the development of the human intellect; I don't agree with adults being forced to do/learn something because "it's for their own good". We're nannied enough in this country as is.

robindch

> it being a requirement for entry into the NUIMs.

There's no reason why it should be. And isn't there still an extra ten percent or so bonus which is given to people who do the leaving cert in Irish? And don't civil servants still have to do some exam in Irish?

Which reminds me of a non-national friend of mine who did an oral exam in Irish (as required for the position by the government). Beforehand, my friend was told *exactly* what questions would be asked, and in what order, so my friend learned two pages of Irish by heart, never having seen the language before. Nor since, I need hardly add.

Then there was this other chap I used to work some years ago who applied, in a fit of bloodymindedness, for Irish citizenship through Irish. That one tailspinned the entire immigration department as the application forms didn't exist in Irish. But luckily, he was a bonded translator and a DTP whiz and kindly offered to translate all the docs at his usual rates, print them professionally at his usual rates, then fill them out for free. I believe he's the only man in the history of the state who made money out of becoming a citizen

As Cake Fiend says -- if you want to speak Irish, fire away! But don't force the rest of us!

nesf

robindch wrote:

No, you guessed wrong -- not only am I not a local mod, but I don't imagine that the boards gods (bless their souls) are drunk either -- it's a dismal monday afternoon, after all!

Apologies for not adding sarcasm tags to make my point clearer.

robindch wrote:

However, I do harbour the faintest of lingering suspicions that responses are most worth reading if they respond to what's written, not its second cousin. Hence me asking you to stick to replying to the point I made, not something that you thought I'd written! I don't believe anybody else had much trouble understanding what I was at?

See, if you create straw men to argue with you can't complain if someone points out that. Though, you genuinely seem to be unaware of what you are doing and this confuses me. Surely straw men in arguments are something that sceptics ferret out not create?

nesf

Cake Fiend wrote:

If you want to keep the language alive, then the responsibility is on you to use it. Don't foist that responsibility on others who have no interest in it - you're not our mammy. You have the right to promote Irish, to raise awareness of it, ideally to provide incentive to learn it - and these would be commendable goals - but don't force it down people's throats. Not only have you no right, but you risk driving away those who might be interested in the language if given their own choice about it.

I would broadly agree with you, but at what point do we stop being their mother so to speak? Surely there's a benefit to having Irish compulsory at primary and partially at second level if not for the LC itself? I would argue that there is value to a child learning Irish up to the JC. From a cultural, historical and general intellectual viewpoint it has merit I feel. The main reason that I'd not have it compulsory at the LC is because of the way the CAO is structured (ie. all subjects are weighted equally regardless of course choice) and the large amount of stress and pressure associated with the examinations. I don't think that the cultural, historical and intellectual pluses outweigh the stress and pressure of the 'LC experience' at present.

Cake Fiend wrote:

Drifting OT, but for what it's worth, I don't think LC Maths or English should be compulsory either - at that level, everyone should have a choice. As mentioned previously in the thread, it's rare that the average adult will use LC-level mathematics (when's the last time you saw an office worker working with euclidian geometry, or a bus driver going about his differential calculus?) and I don't need to have read the works of Keats to communicate effectively and efficiently. The parts of education most important for social survival have already been covered in primary school, or at JC level at the latest. Leave the specialized fields for those who choose to enter them.

Again, broadly I would agree, for the reasons stated above. We can't discuss one subjects position as being compulsory while ignoring the other compulsory subjects.

Cake Fiend wrote:

Edit: before I get pwned, I do recognize (and support, believe it or not!) the value of more abstract subjects such as LC maths to the development of the human intellect; I don't agree with adults being forced to do/learn something because "it's for their own good". We're nannied enough in this country as is.

If you support the value of maths to the development of the human intellect then you should also, naturally, support the value of language learning to the human intellect. This is where the crux of it is for me. Education should not compose solely of 'practical experience/issues'. Education should be broader than that and have loftier goals.

The other point, is that you recognise that you can't argue specifically against Irish and pretend that the arguments can't be applied outside of it. Which is what this all comes down to, isn't it? It's a far more complex question than the die hards on both sides would like to make it out to be.

ush

Why the guilt about the decline of Irish? Languages commit suicide. Europe is full of minority languages. Many countries have minority languages. Some of these minority languages span borders and are spoken in a few country. Others are specific to a certain country, even if only spoken by a minority.

Thats what Irish is. A minority language spoken by about 20 000 people, as a native language. Quit kidding yourselves about Irish being your native language, unless you were raised in the Gaeltacht (spelling?) or had parents who were. Most Irish people probably haven't had a fluent Irish speaker in their family tree, since 18 hundred and something.

Europe is full of people who don't speak their greatgrandparents language. Why should we feel guilty about that? Why should others push Irish as our native tongue when it so obviously isn't. English is.

Sure, teach Irish as part of a curriculum. The more languages kids learn the better. But see Irish as a language the equal of others. Don't burden kids with the responsiblity of preserving a language their forefathers decided to stop speaking.

The fact that this thread is all in English says it all.

Beelzebub

Our forefathers didn't just 'decide to stop speaking Irish' it's far more complicated than that.

http://www.gaeilge.ie/language/default.asp?toggle=yes&lang=en&catID=6

The way it has been taught in schools especially in the era of corporal punishment when we were taught through fear didn't help either.

I personally feel ashamed that I am not fluent in it. And I probably never will be.

It shouldn't have to be compulsory.

Start with the children that's the only way to revive this language.
If we lose the language then we may lose our culture too.

ush

Beelzebub wrote:

Our forefathers didn't just 'decide to stop speaking Irish' it's far more complicated than that.

They decided it wasn't worth handing on. The language of power was English. There was a choice made. Society changed to English. You can't force people to stop using a language. The same way you can't force people to learn Irish.

Beelzebub wrote:

I personally feel ashamed that I am not fluent in it. And I probably never will be.

It shouldn't have to be compulsory.

Start with the children that's the only way to revive this language.
If we lose the language then we may lose our culture too.

How do we lose our culture? Why should anyone revive a language? Its not dead for those that have it as a mother tongue. What more can you expect of a language?

Its been over two hundred years since it was the majority language. We would lose a part of our culture, if all Irish speakers somehow suddenly all disappeared. That would be a great shame. But a far larger part of our culture is English language based.

UU

ush wrote:

How do we lose our culture? Why should anyone revive a language? Its not dead for those that have it as a mother tongue. What more can you expect of a language?

Its been over two hundred years since it was the majority language. We would lose a part of our culture, if all Irish speakers somehow suddenly all disappeared. That would be a great shame. But a far larger part of our culture is English language based.

Well, in most of the former Soviet states, Russian became the dominent language just like English in Ireland. Firstly, native schools were converted to Russian so the kids only leart Russian. Then, people changed over to Russian as it was the language of power, wealth, a future. So for nearly half a century or more, Russian became the majority language and the local tongues became the minority languages. Then, after the sudden collapse of the Soviet, all of the former states gained independence from Russia. In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, (E, La and Li) for example, the Russian schools were changed back to E, La and Li schools. Gradually, the younger generations learnt a tongue that was once upon a time almost extinct. So the scales changed and Russian became minority while the local tongues became majority which is still the situation today. In E, La, and Li, most people speak these languages and you'll find fewer Rusophones than you would have once found.

Maybe it's because the people of these countries and elsewhere, actually wanted to learn their native tongue. Their policies of reviving their languages were obviously successful. Maybe if Ireland also took on similiar policies, who knows? But for Irish to survive, the language must be positively encouraged. I think most Irish people would genuinely like to be fluent Irish speakers but certain factors prohibit them from succeeding.

Remember, Russian is the language of Russia, Estonian is the language of Estonia, Latvian is the language of Latvia, Lithuanian is the language of Lithuania and Irish is the language of Ireland.

Peanut

And French is the language of Quebec.

I don't believe we should be so insecure as to feel somehow inferior if the majority language in the land is also spoken by another country, it just feels like awkward absolutist-ism - "We are in Ireland, therefore we must speak Irish".
I strongly disagree with that sentiment.

ush

UU wrote:

In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, (E, La and Li) for example, the Russian schools were changed back to E, La and Li schools. Gradually, the younger generations learnt a tongue that was once upon a time almost extinct. So the scales changed and Russian became minority while the local tongues became majority which is still the situation today. In E, La, and Li, most people speak these languages and you'll find fewer Rusophones than you would have once found.

Eh, not really. Estonian has about a million native speakers, Lettish about one and a half million speakers, while Lithuanian has four million speakers. If the langauges were on the brink of extinction, when the Soviet Union broke up, this would rank as a language revival that would put the Welsh to shame.

These languages were never on the brink of extinction.

UU wrote:

Remember, Russian is the language of Russia, Estonian is the language of Estonia, Latvian is the language of Latvia, Lithuanian is the language of Lithuania and Irish is the language of Ireland.

Well actually, about a quarter of the population in both Estonia and Lithuania are Russian speaking. They are ethnically Russian. Languages don't stop and start at borders. They are not tied to passports. People speak the langauges of the socities they are raised in or move to. Some people learn a language to see the world through the eyes of another people, or to communicate with others. Languages are inclusive, not exclusive. And for that reason, both English and Irish are the languages of Ireland.

nesf

ush wrote:

They decided it wasn't worth handing on. The language of power was English. There was a choice made. Society changed to English.

I think it was far more gradual and complicated than that if you actually go and do research on it. Different parts of the country changed in different ways and the language still lives on in the everyday speech of certain areas (through words and phrases) even though the people there would consider themselves as knowing little or no Irish.


You definitely do have a point about people being forced to learn to speak Irish, but be careful of over-simplifying the past in order to back up your points, it weakens them if anything.

robindch

> Well actually, about a quarter of the population in both Estonia and
> Lithuania are Russian speaking. They are ethnically Russian. Languages
> don't stop and start at borders. They are not tied to passports.

AFAIK, this isn't true because in the Baltic states, languages *are* tied to passports because each of the three states denied its Russian-speaking minority passports if they couldn't speak the "official" language of the country. I also believe that a number (all?) of the governments set official language tests for its civil servants, and fired anybody who failed them -- even school teachers in areas where nobody spoke the official language. I don't know if this is still the case, but it certainly was a few years ago.

Meanwhile in Russia, the Russian language itself is being protected, what with Putin trying to outlaw English advertising and generally taking a regional swipe at anybody who doesn't speak the same language as him.

ush

I know its true in the case of Estonia. Estonian is related to Finnish and Hungarian. And like those two other languages its a bitch to learn. I left the fact that citzenship of Estonia required a reasonable level of Estonian, because I wanted to make a broader point of languages that stretch over borders.

nesf

ush wrote:

Estonian is related to Finnish and Hungarian. And like those two other languages its a bitch to learn.

It's more that those languages are not Indo-European and thus extremely dissimilar to the languages in the rest of Europe than anything else. From that view, Swedish is easier to learn than Irish for a native English speaker though, something that I find mildly amusing.

is_that_so

ush wrote:

Most Irish people probably haven't had a fluent Irish speaker in their family tree, since 18 hundred and something.

Europe is full of people who don't speak their greatgrandparents language. Why should we feel guilty about that? Why should others push Irish as our native tongue when it so obviously isn't. English is.

Sure, teach Irish as part of a curriculum. The more languages kids learn the better. But see Irish as a language the equal of others. Don't burden kids with the responsiblity of preserving a language their forefathers decided to stop speaking.

The fact that this thread is all in English says it all.

In my immediate family there are at least a half a dozen that I am aware of , who are capable of speaking Irish fluently. None are native speakers.
To me Irish is much these same as other languages and as you have pointed out a small number speak it as a native tongue. It is a second language and should be taught as such. What I outlined earlier allied with proper teaching at secondary level would help towards this.

As for your final comment, well there are very few countries where a discussion of this nature about a second or minor language could take place in that minor language. Quite apart from the fact that you preclude people with lesser ability from the discussion. Your own post for example.