Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Status Of Irish.
Options
Comments
-
deise go deo wrote: »Look, This is a 26 county issue for the time being, If the language was properly reformed and effectively tought here then should Unification come in say 20 years, The school system would have to be negotiated with the orange community, They might want to do Ulster-Scots, By then they may have no problem with Irish, or they might be as opposed to it as ever, What I would suggest however is that it can be worked out that if a family from an Orange background dosent want to do Irish they should not be forced to, The time could be used for any number of things, It would really be up to the Orange community to decide, They may want to do Ulster-Scots, If so, I say let them, They may not, they may prefer to do something else like have a class for learning about other aspects of orange culture and history,
If you want detail then your going to be disappointed, I dont have any, why would I, Its not a relevant issue now this is a long way off and has little relevance to the question of weather or not people favor Irish being compulsory in light of the up coming election.
I think you're underestimating how relevant it is to the long term sustainability of the compulsory status of Irish.
Even if in the next 20 years ni remains in the UK - there will still be lots of arguments/plans/debates etc about reunification. Unionists will use this as an argument against reunification. Could be the 21st century version of 'home rule is rome rule'
As a strong majority of Irish people indicate in polls they would vote for reunfication this is something that needs to be considered when discussing the future of teaching Irish.0 -
+1Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »Even if in the next 20 years ni remains in the UK - there will still be lots of arguments/plans/debates etc about reunification. Unionists will use this as an argument against reunification. Could be the 21st century version of 'home rule is rome rule'
Apart from compulsory Irish being a pillar of the Irish-language lobby, I'd suggest that it's their 'Shannon stopover'.
We've lavished billions on Irish over the decades, It's time for the language to stand on its merits.0 -
deise go deo wrote: »Well for one thing, having 100,000 people competent in economics isent that useful to anyone, it may even become problematic, too many people specialized in one area, too many people going on to do business courses etc
Having 100'000 competent Irish speakers on the other hand is a good thing. The more there the more useful it becomes.
The benefits of Bi-Lingualism is well established, We could get this from any languages, but It would take time for the pool of teachers to build up and the nation it self would never become bi-lingual because there would be people learning different languages,
We already have a system that can deliver mass Irish education, All it needs is reform, which if implemented properly would be a relatively quick process, and you have students with working knowledge of a second language, and the opportunity to use it in this country when they leave school.
If this done Irish becomes, instead of a self fulfilling prophesy, ie people learning Irish only to teach Irish and the loop to go on ad infinitum,
You have a self justifying system, where by as numbers of competent speakers grow, services provided by the state become financially justified, And all for not a cent extra than we are spending on it anyway.
But we'll continue to teach at least two languages, so it should have no effect on bi-lingual ism. There isn't enough depth at secondary level to force people down a path as you imply, otherwise everyone would be doing third level Maths and English (and Irish) courses. Having everyone educated in basic economics may even have allowed us to avoid the current money problems the state is in. But economics could be chemisty/business/accounting/physics/biology, all of which I would deem as more useful than a third language.
We already got into trouble spending money selling each other houses, Irish is something that we cannot export and would only increase the cost of trading with other countries.
And, we already pretty much have a system for mass French education, along with a larger pool of teachers (France). The level of teaching in Irish is already pretty woeful (you admit this yourself), so I wouldn't say having a broken system in place is any big benefit over any other subject. And remember it's only proposing to drop compulsary Irish for the last two years, and the question is why should that third compulsary subject be Irish, rather than another subject, what are the benefits that Irish gives over every other subject other than English and Maths.
Again, the question is why specifically Irish?0 -
deise go deo wrote: »The school system would have to be negotiated with the orange community, They might want to do Ulster-Scots, By then they may have no problem with Irish, or they might be as opposed to it as ever, What I would suggest however is that it can be worked out that if a family from an Orange background dosent want to do Irish they should not be forced to . . .
Indeed, but I'm not from an Orange background and I dont want my kids to be forced to do Irish either! and as with most of the Irish population we are not an Irish speaking family, I dont know anybody who speaks Irish (cupla focal aside). I want the choice not to put my kids through thousands of hours, over fourteen years doing something they may never use, and I say that in the context of an Irish family.
I want the choice, > Irish lessons or not, as the case might be, I would like my children to do German instead of Irish because for our family that would fit right in, (we have family & friends in Germany) but I'm afraid that Irish will be totally wasted on our little ones.
Sadly we have no choice.0 -
But we'll continue to teach at least two languages, so it should have no effect on bi-lingual ism. There isn't enough depth at secondary level to force people down a path as you imply, otherwise everyone would be doing third level Maths and English (and Irish) courses. Having everyone educated in basic economics may even have allowed us to avoid the current money problems the state is in. But economics could be chemisty/business/accounting/physics/biology, all of which I would deem as more useful than a third language.
Yes, making Irish optional will not affect bi-lingualism, It will stay as bad as it is now. Ireland has very poor bi-lingualism by comparrision to Europe, Keeping a reformed Irish Compulsory is the best way to change that.
It is pure falicy to claim that having more people educated in Economics would have changed anything about the current economic crises, It was caused by the banks and a run away property market with poor regulation of both. How exactly do you propose Irish being optional would change that?
Lets try to keep things with in the realms of logic.We already got into trouble spending money selling each other houses, Irish is something that we cannot export and would only increase the cost of trading with other countries.
Would you care to explain how that one works?And, we already pretty much have a system for mass French education, along with a larger pool of teachers (France). The level of teaching in Irish is already pretty woeful (you admit this yourself), so I wouldn't say having a broken system in place is any big benefit over any other subject. And remember it's only proposing to drop compulsary Irish for the last two years, and the question is why should that third compulsary subject be Irish, rather than another subject, what are the benefits that Irish gives over every other subject other than English and Maths.
We dont actually, Every school teaches Irish to every student as it is now, The same is not true of French or any other second language. Yes we could expand the French teaching system, but to do that the state would have to hire more teachers. When there is already a system for teaching a language to every one in place it seams pointless to do that to me.
Before you try and point out that these languages are more useful than Irish let me point out that there are more jobs available and more opportunities to use Irish in this country than any other second language.
Tell me what possible benefit would there be in teaching Every child Geography Or Accounting Or Physics? These subjects will be useful to some, but they cannot be useful to all, no matter how well the economy dose or how well the subject its self is tought, Irish on the other hand can be used by anyone, That is the point. If Irish is tought properly, then by the time students leave school they will have a firm grasp of a second language.
With that in place Ireland can develop over time into a Bi-Lingual Nation.Again, the question is why specifically Irish?
-The system is already in-place to teach Irish to every student.
-Bi-Lingualism has proven benefits
-It wont cost anything extra for Irish to be the third compulsory subject.(Any other subject would cost more to set up)
-Unlike any other non language subject, The more people who have a firm grasp of Irish the more useful it becomes.
-There are more opportunities to Use Irish in Ireland than any other second language.
-The nation its self can become bi-lingual.(ensuring that students don't lose the language due to lack of use after school)0 -
Advertisement
-
Firstly, I don't think changing the curriculum is going to make a huge difference.You seem to ignore the fact that we have a different curriculum for German, French and other European languages despite this Irish students leave school with very little knowledge of those languages. Language learning needs intrinsic motivation because it takes a long time and is difficult. Unless the child wants to learn it he won't you can't trick them into it despite having a wonderful curriculum. Immersion education works however as in this case the child has no choice.
I completely disagree with the state coercing people into speaking Irish in primary schools, however I understand that there is a desire to promote the language. Hopefully as the gaelscoil movement grows other primary schools will be allowed to teach solely through English as the Irish needs of students are already well catered for in the gaelscoil. Why continue with an inferior and failed model?0 -
Firstly, I don't think changing the curriculum is going to make a huge difference.You seem to ignore the fact that we have a different curriculum for German, French and other European languages despite this Irish students leave school with very little knowledge of those languages. Language learning needs intrinsic motivation because it takes a long time and is difficult. Unless the child wants to learn it he won't you can't trick them into it despite having a wonderful curriculum. Immersion education works however as in this case the child has no choice.
I completely disagree with the state coercing people into speaking Irish in primary schools, however I understand that there is a desire to promote the language. Hopefully as the gaelscoil movement grows other primary schools will be allowed to teach solely through English as the Irish needs of students are already well catered for in the gaelscoil. Why continue with an inferior and failed model?
The cause of the failure has been clearly identified and can be rectified.0 -
How has it been rectified?deise go deo wrote: »The cause of the failure has been clearly identified and can be rectified.0 -
-
deise go deo wrote: »Read what I wrote, The problem has been identified and Can be rectified.
I have read the thread I have not identified anything that convinces me the problem can be rectified nor that such an solution is even warranted.
You are learning Irish but you've also said you did pass Irish for the LC so I assume that your grasp of the language is quite poor. Can you speak any other language? Have you ever taught in a primary school? If not you are in no way qualified to be making far reaching statements about how the curriculum or teaching needs to be changed as you have no deep understanding of either the language or the classroom dynamic.
I can speak a foreign language to a very good level and understand the amount of work and the motivation required. This idealistic idea that by changing the curriculum suddenly everyone will want to speak Irish and we'll have hundreds of gaelgeoirs roaming the land is ridiculous.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have read the thread I have not identified anything that convinces me the problem can be rectified nor that such an solution is even warranted.
There is quite obviously a problem with Irish in the Education system, It dosent work, Students do not have a grasp on the language when they leave school, Even the language commissioner said that the system as it is now is not working and is not value for money.You are learning Irish but you've also said you did pass Irish for the LC so I assume that your grasp of the language is quite poor. Can you speak any other language? Have you ever taught in a primary school? If not you are in no way qualified to be making far reaching statements about how the curriculum or teaching needs to be changed as you have no deep understanding of either the language or the classroom dynamic.
I am a learner of Irish, I have improved greatly in my ability in the two years since leaving school. The argument I am making is based on the education policy put forward by Conradh na Gaeilge, which i linked to in the OP, As for my qualification, I have never tought in a primary school, but I am studying to be a teacher in University.
In any case this entire paragraph amounts to nothing more than ad hominum,
Attack what i am saying, not me;)I can speak a foreign language to a very good level and understand the amount of work and the motivation required. This idealistic idea that by changing the curriculum suddenly everyone will want to speak Irish and we'll have hundreds of gaelgeoirs roaming the land is ridiculous.
The Idea that if tought correctly, a language cannot be learned to a reasonable degree over 12 years is far more ridiculous.
Do you believe that anything but a tiny minority have a problem with learning Irish? Many may resent the way the subject is tought, but understandably so, As it is now, learning Irish in school is an exercise in futility and frustration.
This need not be the case.0 -
Yes it has been a failure for 90 years we all know this. This is generally what happens when a state tries cultural coercion,.deise go deo wrote: »There is quite obviously a problem with Irish in the Education system, It dosent work, Students do not have a grasp on the language when they leave school, Even the language commissioner said that the system as it is now is not working and is not value for money.
Well what about the fact that huge numbers of people in Ireland are illiterate or the fact that most have a very basic level of maths. Most of these subjects are taught for 12+ years, Irish is a very small part of educational failure in Ireland. The fact that we spend so much time on Irish with all the other educational failures is shocking especially at the crucial 9-12 age range.The Idea that if tought correctly, a language cannot be learned to a reasonable degree over 12 years is far more ridiculous.
Do you believe that anything but a tiny minority have a problem with learning Irish? Many may resent the way the subject is tought, but understandably so, As it is now, learning Irish in school is an exercise in futility and frustration.
This need not be the case.
Ireland has far more problems in its education system than Irish as you'll soon find out. Try teaching another subject through Irish when in many cases of the majority of the class only speaks English as a second language or dealing with disruptive children as they get bored as they can't understand what you're saying and start acting up. Not a teacher btw.0 -
Attitude altering drugs?deise go deo wrote: »The cause of the failure has been clearly identified and can be rectified.0 -
Yes it has been a failure for 90 years we all know this. This is generally what happens when a state tries cultural coercion,.
I think you will find poor curiculum is by far the biggest problem, not Compulsion. The Education system its self is state coercion, Yet this has been a success, I dont see why compulsion would react differently in cultural areas than any other, nor do I think the term Cultural Coercion is apt for Irish as it has negative connotations that imply that it is harming people, Or is strongly unwanted by a large section of the population, Neither of which are true.Well what about the fact that huge numbers of people in Ireland are illiterate or the fact that most have a very basic level of maths. Most of these subjects are taught for 12+ years, Irish is a very small part of educational failure in Ireland. The fact that we spend so much time on Irish with all the other educational failures is shocking especially at the crucial 9-12 age range.
Thats an exageration. Ireland has comparativly good rates of literacy, however it is true that the education system is failing to help those who have problems with reading and writing, 7% enter secondary school with problems with reading and writing and 7% leave with the same problems, That is why I have mentioned several times that English also needs reform.Ireland has far more problems in its education system than Irish as you'll soon find out. Try teaching another subject through Irish when in many cases of the majority of the class only speaks English as a second language or dealing with disruptive children as they get bored as they can't understand what you're saying and start acting up. Not a teacher btw.
Indeed it dose, but this thread is about Irish, feel free to start another thread about the education systems problems in general if you want to discuss them.
Have you any evidience for the problems you cite in teaching students another subject through a second language?
References of where it was problematic in other countries? Or is that just your opinion?0 -
cyclopath2001 wrote: »Attitude altering drugs?
If you have nothing useful to say why bother posting? If you have a point to make, make it, childish jibes like that don't do much for your credibility.:rolleyes:0 -
deise go deo wrote: »I think you will find poor curiculum is by far the biggest problem, not Compulsion. The Education system its self is state coercion, Yet this has been a success, I dont see why compulsion would react differently in cultural areas than any other, nor do I think the term Cultural Coercion is apt for Irish as it has negative connotations that imply that it is harming people, Or is strongly unwanted by a large section of the population, Neither of which are true.
Thats an exageration. Ireland has comparativly good rates of literacy, however it is true that the education system is failing to help those who have problems with reading and writing, 7% enter secondary school with problems with reading and writing and 7% leave with the same problems, That is why I have mentioned several times that English also needs reform.
Indeed it dose, but this thread is about Irish, feel free to start another thread about the education systems problems in general if you want to discuss them.
Have you any evidience for the problems you cite in teaching students another subject through a second language?
References of where it was problematic in other countries? Or is that just your opinion?
Let's just agree to disagree.0 -
deise go deo wrote: »-The system is already in-place to teach Irish to every student.
The system is also pretty much in place for French, which has benefits beyond Ireland.deise go deo wrote: »-Bi-Lingualism has proven benefits
More benefits than blanket knowledge of chemisty/physics/geography etc.?deise go deo wrote: »-It wont cost anything extra for Irish to be the third compulsory subject.(Any other subject would cost more to set up)
What cost? The legislation needed? What else?deise go deo wrote: »-Unlike any other non language subject, The more people who have a firm grasp of Irish the more useful it becomes.
But it's barely useful these days, why create a false need when there isn't one. And again, it's not something we can export, it does nothing to our balance of payments, the money used to support Irish is completely internal to Ireland.deise go deo wrote: »-There are more opportunities to Use Irish in Ireland than any other second language.
Everyone who knows Irish also knows English, where are the benefits? Who can they now communicate with that they couldn't before?deise go deo wrote: »-The nation its self can become bi-lingual.(ensuring that students don't lose the language due to lack of use after school)
But why would they use Irish when they can use hiberno-English, which every generation is 100% fluent in? In Germany, which is fairly bi-lingual, do they speak English to each other for any other reason than to learn English? Why would I speak in Irish to my mother, for example?
If Irish wasn't already compulsary, it would be at the bottom of the list of all subjects were we to choose one to make compulsary, it gives us nothing other than a sense of self worth that we are using the language that people a few hundred years ago, used to use. It will do nothing for joblessness (any jobs created would only be taking money away from other sectors, as again, it cannot be exported), there is no money there to support it anyway, and the number of people who speak it in the public sector is dwindling (and likely to dwindle more as the oldies take retirement).
I am still to see a good reason for making Irish compulsary over other subjects.
Look, you like Irish, yay. Others don't, but setting out grand dreams of a bi-lingual Irish/English nation is pie in the sky. If people aren't going to choose to do Irish, why should we force them?0 -
The system is also pretty much in place for French, which has benefits beyond Ireland.
What benifits? The Benifits from Bi-Lingualism come from all languages, As I said there are more oppertunities to use Irish, and More jobs using it in this country.More benefits than blanket knowledge of chemisty/physics/geography etc.?
Yes more Benifit than Blancket Knolage of one of those subjects. Everyone knowing Geography is not any more useful than some people knowing geography so there is no point in teaching it to every one.What cost? The legislation needed? What else?
Re-structuring the Education system and Hireing the teachers to actually teach it.But it's barely useful these days, why create a false need when there isn't one. And again, it's not something we can export, it does nothing to our balance of payments, the money used to support Irish is completely internal to Ireland.
I think this company would disagree with you there.
Nemeton
Their Business is run through Irish by the way;)
They have produced piecies for the BBC and an American TV company before.
And its not creating fa;se need, It is creating actual need.Everyone who knows Irish also knows English, where are the benefits? Who can they now communicate with that they couldn't before?
That makes no difference, the Benifit of Bi-Lingualism still apply.But why would they use Irish when they can use hiberno-English, which every generation is 100% fluent in? In Germany, which is fairly bi-lingual, do they speak English to each other for any other reason than to learn English? Why would I speak in Irish to my mother, for example?
Why wouldent they use it? If two people can speak in a language odds are they will, if they can both speak English then they will speak in English but if they can also both speak in Irish do you not thin it makes sence that Irish will also be used?If Irish wasn't already compulsary, it would be at the bottom of the list of all subjects were we to choose one to make compulsary, it gives us nothing other than a sense of self worth that we are using the language that people a few hundred years ago, used to use. It will do nothing for joblessness (any jobs created would only be taking money away from other sectors, as again, it cannot be exported), there is no money there to support it anyway, and the number of people who speak it in the public sector is dwindling (and likely to dwindle more as the oldies take retirement).
If, But, Irish is compulsory. That is the situation as it is now. The Evidence that has been presented suggested that the vast majority want Irish to be promoted, Having Irish compulsory is by far the best way to do that.
It dosent make sence to make the majority of subjects compulsory, As I said, There is no benifit to having every one learn Geography over having some pepple learn it as is the case now. There is benifit in having every one learn Irish.
How would jobs created take mony from other seactors. Take Nematon for example, They are in the TV Sector, How are they taking money from that sector? They are not, they are generating employment and profit.I am still to see a good reason for making Irish compulsary over other subjects.
What subject would you replace it with and why?Look, you like Irish, yay. Others don't, but setting out grand dreams of a bi-lingual Irish/English nation is pie in the sky. If people aren't going to choose to do Irish, why should we force them?
Pie in the sky?
Step 1
Reform Irish in the Education system and leave it compulsory,
Step 2
Support the Gaelscoil movement and allow it to grow in line with demand.
This will increase the use of Irish steadily in Irish society. Why? Because the pool of people capable of Using Irish will be Increasing.
Simple Actually.0 -
Sorry if my humourous/sarcastic jibe was too subtle. The reality which you cannot accept is that the reason why compulsory Irish has failed is not 'bad teaching', it's because the kids don't want to speak Irish. No amount of 'good teaching' will change that.deise go deo wrote: »If you have nothing useful to say why bother posting? If you have a point to make, make it, childish jibes like that don't do much for your credibility.
These would be the jobs created by the compulsory Irish rule and the Official Languages Act?deise go deo wrote: »As I said there are more oppertunities to use Irish, and More jobs using it in this country.
Niche interest at best. Not a justification to make everone to speak Irish though.deise go deo wrote: »And its not creating fa;se need, It is creating actual need.
You can bring a horse to water, but....deise go deo wrote: »Irish is compulsory. That is the situation as it is now.
The 'Evidence' is from one survey commissioned and interpreted by your goodselves.deise go deo wrote: »The Evidence that has been presented suggested that the vast majority want Irish to be promoted,
No one knows what the 1000 respondents had in mind when asked if they agreed with 'support' for Irish. What we be sure of is that, for the majority, this 'support' does not involve them actually speaking Irish.0 -
cyclopath2001 wrote: »Sorry if my humourous/sarcastic jibe was too subtle. The reality which you cannot accept is that the reason why compulsory Irish has failed is not 'bad teaching', it's because the kids don't want to speak Irish. No amount of 'good teaching' will change that.
I do not accept it because you have provided no evidience to support it.
Irish is tought very badly in our schools, People who are open to learning Irish like I was do not learn Irish. I wanted to learn Irish in School, yet I learned very little there, I learned more in 3 weeks in the Gaelthacht over the summers than I did in class. That is not because I dident want to learn in class, it is because of a poor curriculum which ecpected me to rote learn answers to stories with out learning what those stories even ment, Same with poetry and essays etc.
I have heard the same from many people who are interested in Irish.
So, Irish in school is failing to Teach Irish to people who have a clear interest in the Subject.
Good teaching will certainly change that, and will allow those who dont mind learning it to learn it as well, I have yet to see any evidince from you that there is any sizable section who are not open to learning Irish in school. Most are open to it even if they are not activly trying to learn it themselves.These would be the jobs created by the compulsory Irish rule and the Official Languages Act?
Some. there are others like the link I provided who work through Irish by choice.The 'Evidence' is from one survey commissioned and interpreted by your goodselves.
No one knows what the 1000 respondents had in mind when asked if they agreed with 'support' for Irish. What we be sure of is that, for the majority, this 'support' does not involve them actually speaking Irish.
I had nothing to do with that survay.
Indeed it dosent, But then if it did, would they need to support the promotion of Irish?
I am still waiting for you to provide ANYTHING To support your position.0 -
Advertisement
-
deise go deo wrote: »If Irish is tought properly, then by the time students leave school they will have a firm grasp of a second language. With that in place Ireland can develop over time into a Bi-Lingual Nation.
If Irish is taught properly . . . yes indeed, but after eighty+ years why hasn't it worked? and what makes you think the 'Irish project' will work in the following decades? and when will the majority of pupils leaving secondary school actually be able to speak Irish fluently? What's the 'Big Change' that's going to happen in the teaching that will transform the language from a minority curiousity into a mainstream spoken language?0 -
Surely the benefits of being a bilingual nation are mostly to do with other people around the world speaking those languages too?0
-
After 80 years of forcible Irish-language education, only a small minority speak Irish in their daily lives and the number of native speakers is diminishing. Worse still, the Irish-language community is so lacking in numbers and commitment, it cannot afford to support any newspapers ot TV stations. It relies instead on the English-language community to pay for these.deise go deo wrote: »I do not accept it because you have provided no evidience to support it.
Mere anecdotes, not sufficient to justify compulsory Irish lessons for everyone.deise go deo wrote: »I wanted to learn Irish in School, yet I learned very little there, I learned more in 3 weeks in the Gaelthacht over the summers than I did in class. That is not because I dident want to learn in class, it is because of a poor curriculum which ecpected me to rote learn answers to stories with out learning what those stories even ment, Same with poetry and essays etc.
I have heard the same from many people who are interested in Irish.
People who want to learn Irish, do so. Anyone else is merely being polite to you and trying not to hurt your deeply-held beliefs.deise go deo wrote: »Most are open to it even if they are not activly trying to learn it themselves
Well, if you want to continue to deceive yourself that inside every English-speaking Irish person is an Irish speaker waiting to get out, nothing, not even cold facts, will convince you that compulsory Irish is a massive waste of resources and an abuse of those subjected to it against their will.deise go deo wrote: »I am still waiting for you to provide ANYTHING To support your position.0 -
cyclopath2001 wrote: »After 80 years of forcible Irish-language education, only a small minority speak Irish in their daily lives and the number of native speakers is diminishing. Worse still, the Irish-language community is so lacking in numbers and commitment, it cannot afford to support any newspapers ot TV stations. It relies instead on the English-language community to pay for these.
Irish language education has been set up to fail for the last eighty years, It has consistently been tought badly, These problems have been apparent for years and yet there has been barely any reform.
As for Native speakers, I don't believe their numbers have reduced to any significant degree over recent years, what has happened is that native speakers no longer speak Irish on a daily basis, This is due to several reasons and mainly due to native speakers leaving the Gaelthacht to find Employment and no longer having the opportunity to speak Irish on a daily basis.Mere anecdotes, not sufficient to justify compulsory Irish lessons for everyone.
You are taking what I said out of context. That is not what I was defending with that point, I was countering the argument that no matter how well Irish is tought it will still not be learned.
The education system as it is now dose not even facilitate those with a strong desire to learn the language to actually Learn it. It is not an effective way to teach a language.
Better teaching methods and a reformed curriculum will change that and will allow students who are open to learning Irish to do so. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the vast majority are not open to learning Irish.People who want to learn Irish, do so. Anyone else is merely being polite to you and trying not to hurt your deeply-held beliefs.
Not in school they dont, I wanted to learn Irish in school but was unable to, The same is true of a great many people. Only people who are very committed to learning Irish and are actually in a position to do so can do it outside of school.Well, if you want to continue to deceive yourself that inside every English-speaking Irish person is an Irish speaker waiting to get out, nothing, not even cold facts, will convince you that compulsory Irish is a massive waste of resources and an abuse of those subjected to it against their will.
If you want to continue to deceive your self that everyone who comes out of the education having failed to become fluent in Irish has rejected it then fine but that is not reality.
Cold facts would make a welcome change from your usual unsupported assertations.
Is it that you will not or that you can not support your claims?Surely the benefits of being a bilingual nation are mostly to do with other people around the world speaking those languages too?
No, Bi-Lingualism is beneficial in its-self.If Irish is taught properly . . . yes indeed, but after eighty+ years why hasn't it worked? and what makes you think the 'Irish project' will work in the following decades? and when will the majority of pupils leaving secondary school actually be able to speak Irish fluently? What's the 'Big Change' that's going to happen in the teaching that will transform the language from a minority curiousity into a mainstream spoken language?
It hasent worked because it has been poorly tought with a curriculum that is never going to effectively teach the language.
Irish is poorly tought now, but even 15 years ago it was much worse, We have all heard the horror stories of Christian Brothers beating(literally) the language into students.
The 'Big Change' is major reform of the curriculum, Irish should be focused on teaching students to speak as Gaeilge, The majority of class time should be devoted to oral. Literature, poetry etc should be split from the class and put in a second optional class.
Gaeilscoileanna should be supported and allowed to grow in line with demand, There are currently 10 campaigns for new gaeilscoileanna that have the numbers that are still waiting for state recognition. Despite demand there hasent been a new Gaeilscoil recognized since 2008
If both these steps were taken then the use of Irish would increase in Our society.0 -
The frustrating thing for me about these discussions (and I have just read through the entirety of this thread) is that even if someone felt (erroneously imo) that the most important educational outcome of the school system was that a reasonable knowledge of Irish was attained, it still wouldn't make sense to have compolsory Irish from day one of primary school to the very end of the leaving cert. The reason for this is that it stretches teaching resources in an inefficient way. All the research suggests that language learning occurs best at a young age. In fact you can acquire fluency at a very young age simply by being exposed to a language. That is how we learn our first language.
This thread is incorrectly titled, imo. It is not the about the "Status of Irish" it is about the status of compulsory Irish teaching. The only goal the policy of compolsory Irish achieves is that of the continuation of compulsory Irish classes, i.e., it is pointless. If you haven't learned the language - any language - by 15 when it has been taught to you from the age of five, you are not going to learn it in those last two years.
This post will probably be attacked for being anti-Irish language. It is not. The reason it will be considered anti-Irish language is because we have put up with the failure of the Irish language policy for so long that we have forgotten what the purpose of a language is and we now think that compulsory classes are an end in themselves. Meanwhile the actually language itself dies (in fact to all intents and purposes it has been dead for some time). But I don't think those advocating compulsory Irish till the end of leaving cert actually care about that.0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »The frustrating thing for me about these discussions (and I have just read through the entirety of this thread) is that even if someone felt (erroneously imo) that the most important educational outcome of the school system was that a reasonable knowledge of Irish was attained, it still wouldn't make sense to have compolsory Irish from day one of primary school to the very end of the leaving cert. The reason for this is that it stretches teaching resources in an inefficient way. All the research suggests that language learning occurs best at a young age. In fact you can acquire fluency at a very young age simply by being exposed to a language. That is how we learn our first language.
This thread is incorrectly titled, imo. It is not the about the "Status of Irish" it is about the status of compulsory Irish teaching. The only goal the policy of compolsory Irish achieves is that of the continuation of compulsory Irish classes, i.e., it is pointless. If you haven't learned the language - any language - by 15 when it has been taught to you from the age of five, you are not going to learn it in those last two years.
This post will probably be attacked for being anti-Irish language. It is not. The reason it will be considered anti-Irish language is because we have put up with the failure of the Irish language policy for so long that we have forgotten what the purpose of a language is and we now think that compulsory classes are an end in themselves. Meanwhile the actually language itself dies (in fact to all intents and purposes it has been dead for some time). But I don't think those advocating compulsory Irish till the end of leaving cert actually care about that.
The Title 'The Status of Irish' Deals with the reduction in the status of Irish relative to English should Irish be made optional. Why that is bad is outlined in the article I linked to in the OP.
Irish is not dead, by definition or any other accepted standard Irish is not dead. It is a Vulnerable Minority Language.
I wont attack you for being Anti-Irish, But, Going by the evidence put forward by the article I linked to in the OP, Making Irish optional would be very 'Anti-Irish'0 -
I will address some of the points in the article but first, please address my point about misallocation of resources, i.e. that resources should be concentrated on the early years.deise go deo wrote: »I wont attack you for being Anti-Irish, But, Going by the evidence put forward by the article I linked to in the OP, Making Irish optional would be very 'Anti-Irish'
As for the article:
The fundamental mistake of the article linked is in the use of the word "status". In a sense we might consider compulsory Irish (like compulsory anything) to be in some sense of a higher "status" than an optional subject. This might be true in some respects within the narrow context of the educational system, but the big mistake is to assume this has something to do with the status of Irish as a living spoken language in wider Irish society.
From the article:It is this quality, perceived to pertain to a particular language by the vast majority of the members of the society, which makes the highest status language objectively compulsory in education and in every other sphere of social living. In our case, of course, the socially compulsory language is English. The highest status language does not require any constitutional, statutory or other form of compensatory support.This is fine. It is indeed not the love of a language that makes people want to learn it, it is the status of the language as a spoken means of communication. The article goes on to argue this point which I think most people already agree with.
But here's where the big error comes:It is this quality, perceived to pertain to a particular language by the vast majority of the members of the society, which makes the highest status language objectively compulsory in education and in every other sphere of social living. In our case, of course, the socially compulsory language is English. The highest status language does not require any constitutional, statutory or other form of compensatory support.So what the article is trying to argue here is that the genuine status of English as the dominant language needs to be balanced by some corresponding "status" raising mechanism somewhere else and of course the method they advocate for this is by keeping it compulsory in schools.
Given the power of the social status of a language, it is inevitable that in the absence of the strongest possible balancing status supports and status-interventions, the subordinated language in any society will in time be driven out and replaced by the dominant one, regardless of the level of peoples’ commitment to the endangered language. Throughout the world thousands of languages are at this moment in the process of being driven to extinction by higher status languages. But like the destruction of the natural environment, it does not have to happen.
The truth is that, yes you can raise the "status" of something by making it compulsory, but that is simply status within a very narrow context. It has nothing to do with status in the real world, but you know, I suspect for people who want compulsory Irish lessons for everyone, the real status of the language is unimportant. The sort of status they want is the status of something forced. It is not a case of the Irish language being a great language and therefore needs to be compulsory, it is great because it is compulsory and any retreat from compulsion is to be resisted even if it is a good thing for the language in the real world.
But please address the points in my earlier post first.0 -
I'd favour making it optional. I fail to see the point in forcing people with poor aptitudes for leaning foreign languages to learn Irish. And yes is it a foreign language to them.
Let it be something that only those interested in it pick to learn and quality of teaching and the level of Irish taught in the classroom can rise accordingly resulting in people with LC Irish having something better for their time spent at the subject.0 -
You persistantly ignore the possibility that the children do not wish to speak Irish and are callously determined that they can be forced to speak Irish through 'better teaching'.deise go deo wrote: »Irish language education has been set up to fail for the last eighty years, It has consistently been tought badly, These problems have been apparent for years and yet there has been barely any reform.
Indicating a limit to their commitment to maintaining Irish as a spoken language in the community. Commitment to a cause requires effort and sacrifice.deise go deo wrote: »what has happened is that native speakers no longer speak Irish on a daily basis, This is due to several reasons and mainly due to native speakers leaving the Gaelthacht to find Employment and no longer having the opportunity to speak Irish on a daily basis.
Other than the cold fact that the majority of Irish people don't speak Irish and make no active effort to learn it?deise go deo wrote: »I have seen no evidence to suggest that the vast majority are not open to learning Irish.
So, by your logic, anyone who does not speak Irish, is simply an Irish speaker who does not speak Irish? That's one way to keep your numbers up.deise go deo wrote: »If you want to continue to deceive your self that everyone who comes out of the education having failed to become fluent in Irish has rejected it then fine but that is not reality.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why not flip this whole debate on its head ..
Lets campaign for all teaching, for all subjects, in all schools, to be in Irish.
Why ?
1. At 4 years of age, no child knows what they want to be taught and has no boundaries in what they are willing to learn. It will make no difference to the kids what language they are taught in. At that age it will simply be the norm and they will all be fluent in a matter of months.
2. If a child learns a language at this age, it will not be a burden or a hinderance to learning of any other subject in later life. In fact is likely to make learning 3rd and 4th languages considerably easier.
3. We will no longer have to pay any extra money to any teacher to teach through Irish, because they all will have too.
4. We can merge all the Gael schools back into the main stream schools, making much better use out of our very limited resources. This will reduce the class size average throughout the country.
5. It is my understanding that all our primary school teachers are already trained to teach in Irish, so there is no retraining to do.
6. It is our national language and we should all be able to speak it.
This could be instigated in the next school year for junior infants and rolled up year after year. This allows time to work on the syllabus for the later years now.
For the record;
I dont speak Irish.0
Advertisement