The Status Of Irish.

deise go deo

SkepticOne wrote: »

FGs plans to drop compulsory Irish in the last two years of secondary school has to be welcomed in this respect. It will open the door for further value for money measures. This is the most important aspect of it: it breaks the taboo that you mustn't touch Irish. The beneficiaries of this will be both those who want to see the language flourish and those who think the options should be there for the studying of other subjects in the place of compulsory Irish at leaving cert level.

Two points, FG used to have droping Irish in the last two years as part of their education policy, It was suggested that doing so would help Irish grow but they never backed up that claim with evidience.
Since then they have scraped that policy and are currently formulating a new one, It is supposidly going to be based on the Sweedish model. Their position on Irish has yet to be announced.

Secondly. 'The beneficiaries of this will be both those who want to see the language flourish' FG made this argument but never backed it up, So what are you basing this argument on? I would like to see some evidince supporting this.

As for simplicity it is much simpler to teach everyone through english like we do now.

We dont, There is a small but growing percentage tought through the medium of Irish.

Was this all local parents or just those who wanted their children to be taught through the medium of Irish?

It was the choice of parents who wanted their Kids tought through Irish. Why?

Iwasfrozen

deise go deo wrote: »

We dont, There is a small but growing percentage tought through the medium of Irish.

I ment in normal primary schools. Obviously not in gaelscoils.

SkepticOne

deise go deo wrote: »

Secondly. 'The beneficiaries of this will be both those who want to see the language flourish' FG made this argument but never backed it up, So what are you basing this argument on? I would like to see some evidince supporting this.

I'm basing it on the fact that languages are best taught in the early years and that if you haven't learned it by 15 you are not going to learn it in a couple more years. All you do is build up resentment by forcing the language down throats. Makes a lot of sense I think you will agree.

astrofool

deise go deo wrote: »

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.

There are very few non state backed jobs that require Irish, it also ignores the fact that teaching French or German would give people the opportunity to take jobs in France and Germany (which would far outnumber the limited number of state jobs here).

deise go deo wrote: »

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.

To pick one subject that could be mandatory: Science (one of phys/bio/chem) should be mandatory, companies are crying out for graduates of science degrees, the smart economy needs science graduates, and is having to go further and further afield to fill that need. There are jobs in the field that pay well, and there are actually jobs in the field. Points in science have been dropping steadily over the years, leading to a reduced number of good graduates, making it harder for companies to hire staff. It is also export led (MS, Intel, Google etc.) and has very large benefits to the economy.

deise go deo wrote: »

Re-structuring the Education system and Hireing the teachers to actually teach it.

You admit the current system is broken, if we have to re-structure anyway, why not re-structure to a language with uses beyond our borders, take the hit now for future gains. I'd also imagine that the cost difference wouldn't actually be that great given the woeful condition of Irish teaching in our schools, root and branch re-org is often more difficult/expensive than just starting again anyway.

deise go deo wrote: »

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.

One media company, how much government grant money do they get (if any)? Where does their programming show? What advertising revenue does their programming generate? Do you really expect the world to demand more Irish language exports because we speak it more? Do we demand anything in Swedish (to take a native language that is actually used)?

deise go deo wrote: »

That makes no difference, the Benifit of Bi-Lingualism still apply.

So, why not make it a language that will pay back itself, rather than one that just happened to be spoken here years ago.

deise go deo wrote: »

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?

Do you ever hear spanish students speaking in English to each other in social situations? It's not something that happens to any great extent. I'm sure it does happen occasionally, but people use their mother tongue when it's available, not an additional learned language.

deise go deo wrote: »

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.

I want Irish to be promoted, I don't want it to be compulsary, one does not imply the other. The benefit of "Irish" can also be contributed to far more useful languages, there is no benefit to "Irish" over other more spoken languages.

deise go deo wrote: »

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.

There is a limited amount of money in the Irish (country, not language) market, by spending it on jobs in the Irish language sector, we reduce the money spent on other sectors. Is Nematon self sufficient, and how much of it's revenue is generated from abroad? Is there many more examples other than Nematon?

deise go deo wrote: »

What subject would you replace it with and why?

Outlined above.

deise go deo wrote: »

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.

Again, why Irish, why not French? If cost/structure was not an issue, would you support French, and French schools over Irish schools, given the greater benefits, and more widespread use of the language?

And again, why not give people the choice? What is wrong with that?

scoll

I am 19, and am currently in college to become a primary school teacher.

I absolutely love the language. I used to HATE it, but in the last few years of secondary school, I grew to love it. The idea of making it optional for the last two years in secondary school is completely ridiculous. If I had been given that option, I wouldn't have taken Irish.I would have waved goodbye to the language and set off happy into 5th year. I couldn't be happier that it was compulsory. If I hadn't done Irish, I wouldn't be in college to be a primary school teacher.

I'm not passionate about keeping Irish for the sake of "Oh... it's our duty as a country to keep our language alive. Blah blah blah", but I am passionate about keeping Irish for the sake of each and every person. For some, being able to speak the Irish language is like a talent. My parents are envious that I can speak it, and I think everyone should be. My dad constantly asks me to teach him a few words. This can't happen in the future.

Being able to speak a minority language is something amazing. Cherish it!

scoll

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm basing it on the fact that languages are best taught in the early years and that if you haven't learned it by 15 you are not going to learn it in a couple more years. All you do is build up resentment by forcing the language down throats. Makes a lot of sense I think you will agree.

Completely untrue. I only really began to learn the language when I went into 5th year. Before then, I hated the language and I was useless at it. By the time I came to 6th year, I loved it so much that I wanted to teach it to others. This was the main reason I went into primary school teaching.

Iwasfrozen

scoll wrote: »

Completely untrue. I only really began to learn the language when I went into 5th year. Before then, I hated the language and I was useless at it. By the time I came to 6th year, I loved it so much that I wanted to teach it to others. This was the main reason I went into primary school teaching.

Then you are an extraordinary case.

LordSutch

scoll wrote: »

I am 19, and am currently in college to become a primary school teacher.

I absolutely love the language. I used to HATE it, but in the last few years of secondary school, I grew to love it. The idea of making it optional for the last two years in secondary school is completely ridiculous. If I had been given that option, I wouldn't have taken Irish.I would have waved goodbye to the language and set off happy into 5th year. I couldn't be happier that it was compulsory. If I hadn't done Irish, I wouldn't be in college to be a primary school teacher.

You are an exception to the rule scoll, well done to you & good luck with your vocation, but you must be aware that the vast majority of Irish people do not share your view, neither can they speak Irish, 'The one size fits all' mentality to the language does not work, never has & never will, making the language optional will enhance its standing & promote the language in a positive light, instead of it being perceived as a torturous business that we were were made do at school :mad:

scoll wrote: »

Being able to speak a minority language is something amazing. Cherish it!

I agree, so have a word in the Education ministers shell-like & spill the beans "Many Irish people still hate the language" or should I say, successive generations have hated the way it has been force fed upon all kids for over eighty years. Personally speaking I like the idea of Irish surviving, just not at the expense of it being a mandatory subject for all children.

deise go deo

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm basing it on the fact that languages are best taught in the early years and that if you haven't learned it by 15 you are not going to learn it in a couple more years. All you do is build up resentment by forcing the language down throats. Makes a lot of sense I think you will agree.

So we should make English optional also? And Language learning in general, That is the logical extension of your argument.

You are right, If you have not learned a language by 15 you will not learn it in the last 2 years either, But as I have said several times by now

I am Not arguing that the system should be left as it is now!

I want a full and compressive reform of the system. I do not believe that Irish would not be learned to a reasonable degree by 15, it should be, however the whole point of the article I linked to in the OP shows that reducing the status of a second language it has a domino effect in all areas not just in the one affected by the change made.
This would make Learning Irish up to 15 seem even more pointless than it is now and as such would negatively impact on results.

Making the language optional will enhance its standing & promote the language in a positive light,

I believe that this has been shown to be false, Please explain how you came to this conclusion, despite the evidence to the contrary that I have provided and please feel free to back up your claim with your own evidence(assuming you actually have any)

There are very few non state backed jobs that require Irish, it also ignores the fact that teaching French or German would give people the opportunity to take jobs in France and Germany (which would far outnumber the limited number of state jobs here).

Firstly that is not the point I was making, There are more Jobs here that require Irish than any other second language, Why these jobs exist dose not take away from their existence. Do you think it matters to someone looking for a job? It is food on the table for them at the end of the day.

Secondly, Why exactly should this state fund education for people to go and work and pay tax in France or elsewhere? That is very faulty economics if you ask me.

To pick one subject that could be mandatory: Science (one of phys/bio/chem) should be mandatory, companies are crying out for graduates of science degrees, the smart economy needs science graduates, and is having to go further and further afield to fill that need. There are jobs in the field that pay well, and there are actually jobs in the field. Points in science have been dropping steadily over the years, leading to a reduced number of good graduates, making it harder for companies to hire staff. It is also export led (MS, Intel, Google etc.) and has very large benefits to the economy.

So we teach every child in the state physics. And then what, Do you think anything but a tiny proportion, No matter what the circumstance, will ever be able to avail of that? So what about the majority that will never and by the shear set up of any economy can never use, The money used to fund their education will have been wasted in the truest sense of the word, IE the money was spent with absolutely no possibility of return or benefit to the person.
This is an extremely poor solution tho the problem in science and can only apply to one of them, The others are left in the state they are in now.

Not so with Irish,or any language for that matter, The act of language learning is of benefit in its self. Every child who learns a second language can benefit from doing so. That is true of all languages and Irish no less than any other.

You admit the current system is broken, if we have to re-structure anyway, why not re-structure to a language with uses beyond our borders, take the hit now for future gains. I'd also imagine that the cost difference wouldn't actually be that great given the woeful condition of Irish teaching in our schools, root and branch re-org is often more difficult/expensive than just starting again anyway.

Indeed it is.
We don't need to re-structure the system for Irish, we need to reform what is done within the existing structure. The problem with Irish is a centralized one. its not the root and branch that is at fault. The teachers and schools are perfectly capable individuals and institutions. The problem lies with what these individuals are expected to do, their actions are restricted by the curriculum they are expected to teach. Changing the curriculum would be neither difficult nor expencive.

A root and branch re-structure would need to be undertaken to make Irish optional and French(for example) Compulsory as it would entail a change in personnel, class times being changed greatly, exams being altered and the systems for dealing with the subjects having to be altered drastically. This could well prove both difficult and expensive and all without a hint of desire from the people that it is wanted.

One media company, how much government grant money do they get (if any)? Where does their programming show? What advertising revenue does their programming generate? Do you really expect the world to demand more Irish language exports because we speak it more? Do we demand anything in Swedish (to take a native language that is actually used)?

No, one example to disprove your point. I don't know the ins and outs of this business no more than any other.

What it dose show is the quality and success of Irish language enterprises, Especially when put in contrast to the State supported English language Equivalent RTÉ.

Do you ever hear spanish students speaking in English to each other in social situations? It's not something that happens to any great extent. I'm sure it does happen occasionally, but people use their mother tongue when it's available, not an additional learned language.

Your point is very poor, think about it, the very existence of Irish as a spoken language outside the Gaelthacht disproves it. If your point stood up how could the existence of the Gaelscoil movement be explained?

I want Irish to be promoted, I don't want it to be compulsary, one does not imply the other. The benefit of "Irish" can also be contributed to far more useful languages, there is no benefit to "Irish" over other more spoken languages.

I would very much like to know how.
(unless you can show some very convincing evidence, making it optional in schools will not be accepted as promoting Irish)


There is no greater benefit to Irish in terms of Bi-Lingualism, I never claimed there was, nor is there any benefit to other languages over Irish.

There is a limited amount of money in the Irish (country, not language) market, by spending it on jobs in the Irish language sector, we reduce the money spent on other sectors. Is Nematon self sufficient, and how much of it's revenue is generated from abroad? Is there many more examples other than Nematon?

Lets take Nematon, or I suppose TG4 more properly,
In terms of the quality produced, TG4 Has its English language counterpart RTÉ which gets far more state support, well beaten. So in this case would it not be logical to put money into the higher quality option?

Again, why Irish, why not French? If cost/structure was not an issue, would you support French, and French schools over Irish schools, given the greater benefits, and more widespread use of the language?

And again, why not give people the choice? What is wrong with that?

Well first, cost is an issue, if the system is going to be changed, and its going to cost money to do so then there had better be clear benefit to doing so.
I don't believe there is any economic benefit to this country to making French compulsory instead of Irish and there is no benefit in terms of the education of the child.

As for French schools, I have no problem with them as a concept, but Im sure you agree that their setting up should be governed by the same rules as Irish schools.
As far as I am aware there is nothing preventing parents from setting up a French Medium School if they so wish, The absence of these schools then must be due to lack of interest.
Not so with Gaelscoileanna where interest is unrepresented and growing year on year.


As for your last point, I believe that reform of Irish is the best way forward, I believe that if it is reformed then the use of Irish would increase steadily.
I don't know if it is your belief, but the opinion has been expressed that no amount of reform in the curriculum will make any difference, that Irish will still not be learned. If Irish was reformed and that proved to be the case then I would have no objection to Irish being made Optional.

Dannyboy83

Not sure if you can listen online but this was discussed on The Right Hook/Newstalk today after 6.

Some guy from Enterprise Ireland was suggesting that Irish people are losing out by not being able to speak the languages of european trading partners or emerging markets.

Worth a listen.

deise go deo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Not sure if you can listen online but this was discussed on The Right Hook/Newstalk today after 6.

Some guy from Enterprise Ireland was suggesting that Irish people are losing out by not being able to speak the languages of european trading partners or emerging markets.

Worth a listen.

Any link?

Chuchoter

But we still don't know why someone going into a normal (read not makey uppy as cyclopath2001 puts it) would ever want Irish when they have other languages. I don't want to do Irish, I'm nearly 18, and you still want to make me take it when it will serve no purpose in my life.

Also, as someone who takes all three sciences in school, physics is the only one with real visible everyday applications. Mirrors, lenses, fibre optic lamps, how torches work, water, heat, kettles, cars, electricity the list goes on and on. I use it one hundred times more than I use Irish.

SkepticOne

deise go deo wrote: »

So we should make English optional also? And Language learning in general, That is the logical extension of your argument.

You are right, If you have not learned a language by 15 you will not learn it in the last 2 years either, But as I have said several times by now

I am Not arguing that the system should be left as it is now!

I want a full and compressive reform of the system. I do not believe that Irish would not be learned to a reasonable degree by 15, it should be, however the whole point of the article I linked to in the OP shows that reducing the status of a second language it has a domino effect in all areas not just in the one affected by the change made.
This would make Learning Irish up to 15 seem even more pointless than it is now and as such would negatively impact on results.

Some of those other areas have merit. It is a large and complex topic but it is the compulsory aspect of Irish that I believe to be damaging and that is what I think needs to be knocked on the head and therefore I'm likely to give strong consideration to any party that puts it forward as an election promise that compulsory classes for the final years at school be dropped.

Unless of course there are strong arguments to keep it. Personally I haven't seen any, either on this thread or elsewhere.

With regards to English, or other subjects being compulsory my view is you progress towards completing your education you should gradually be offered more choice, and if something is to be compulsory it should because of practical considerations based on what you will need outside school.

Therefore, say, history, Latin, biology and most other subjects can be dropped. English you need for day to day living. You need to be fairly fluent in reading and writing to get by in society.

A lot get to 5th year without a huge amount of literacy but this is something that can still be taught. Adults late in life can be taught to read and write and it is a valuable skill. I have seen statistics that say that 20% of adults in Ireland are not functionally literate. And even those who are reasonably literate can benefit from further training. Therefore I would keep it.

So basically in the sort of system that we have where there's a fairly large number of subjects, then a small core of useful subjects and then a good degree of choice is what I would advocate. We can debate which subjects should be in the compulsory category (England, for example doesn't even have compulsory English at A-level) but I would regard Irish language at this level to be part of the optional group like history or Latin.

deise go deo

SkepticOne wrote: »

With regards to English, or other subjects being compulsory my view is you progress towards completing your education you should gradually be offered more choice, and if something is to be compulsory it should because of practical considerations based on what you will need outside school.

Therefore, say, history, Latin, biology and most other subjects can be dropped. English you need for day to day living. You need to be fairly fluent in reading and writing to get by in society.

A lot get to 5th year without a huge amount of literacy but this is something that can still be taught. Adults late in life can be taught to read and write and it is a valuable skill. I have seen statistics that say that 20% of adults in Ireland are not functionally literate. And even those who are reasonably literate can benefit from further training. Therefore I would keep it.

There is nothing of practical benefit, applicable to every day life learned in English in the final two years of school.

You could argue that this could be changed and it could be made benifical but as it is now it isent.
Oddly, What we have here is a swap over from the Irish argument with you for and me against English remaining Compulsory with the arguments effectively swapping over too. Any argument you make against Irish for LC I can make against English, Same with any defense i make for Irish you can use for English.

I don't see English as useful in its self for LC, There is nothing practical about it, the one possible practical thing it could do, Improve literacy rates, it dosent do.(This is true)
So we have the Drop compulsion or reform curriculum argument again except the other way around, Now if you examine why you think English should remain Compulsory then I think you may find a greater insight into my arguments for Irish.


(I don't really believe English should be made optional but assume I do for the analogy.)

SkepticOne

deise go deo wrote: »

There is nothing of practical benefit, applicable to every day life learned in English in the final two years of school.

You could argue that this could be changed and it could be made benifical but as it is now it isent.

How do you know that people don't learn useful skills in English reading and writing after group cert? Adults who have been illiterate all their lives have been taught to read and write late in life and this has been of great benefit to them in their day to day existence. Obviously it is better to do this when you are young but it is not like learning a language where being below a certain age is of huge benefit. In English what is taught is not the language but literacy in the language.

Oddly, What we have here is a swap over from the Irish argument with you for and me against English remaining Compulsory with the arguments effectively swapping over too. Any argument you make against Irish for LC I can make against English, Same with any defense i make for Irish you can use for English.

I don't see English as useful in its self for LC, There is nothing practical about it, the one possible practical thing it could do, Improve literacy rates, it dosent do.(This is true)
So we have the Drop compulsion or reform curriculum argument again except the other way around, Now if you examine why you think English should remain Compulsory then I think you may find a greater insight into my arguments for Irish.

(I don't really believe English should be made optional but assume I do for the analogy.)

The reason I don't think agree with this is that English classes are not the same as foreign language classes. You are already fluent in English because you live in a country where that is the primary spoken language. Your ability to spell and form sentences is of immediate practical benefit outside of school. Irish will only ever be that way for a tiny minority. For every one else, as soon as they leave school, they start forgetting whatever they may once have learned.

Therefore, concentrate resources:
a) On the years when language learning is most effective, i.e. the primary level and
b) on those who have a bit of aptitude and enthusiasm in later years.

I still haven't seen any arguments against these principles on this thread.

deise go deo

SkepticOne wrote: »

How do you know that people don't learn useful skills in English reading and writing after group cert? Adults who have been illiterate all their lives have been taught to read and write late in life and this has been of great benefit to them in their day to day existence. Obviously it is better to do this when you are young but it is not like learning a language where being below a certain age is of huge benefit. In English what is taught is not the language but literacy in the language.

The English course for the whole of secondary school fails to affect literacy levels. 7% enter Second level education with reading any writing problems and 5-6 years later 7% leave with reading/writing problems.

Again you could argue that this need not be the case but then we are back to Reform or Optional argument.

The reason I don't think agree with this is that English classes are not the same as foreign language classes. You are already fluent in English because you live in a country where that is the primary spoken language. Your ability to spell and form sentences is of immediate practical benefit outside of school. Irish will only ever be that way for a tiny minority. For every one else, as soon as they leave school, they start forgetting whatever they may once have learned.

That dosent address the lack of anything practical being learned in the last 2 years of English in school. There is nothing of practical use learned in English so why is it compulsory, Where is the justification.

Therefore, concentrate resources:
a) On the years when language learning is most effective, i.e. the primary level and
b) on those who have a bit of aptitude and enthusiasm in later years.

I still haven't seen any arguments against these principles on this thread.

It is true that the early years are important for language acquisition, Read the reform policy advocated by CnaG, They specifically include increased exposure to Irish in primary education for that reason.

On the second point, I don't see how it being Optional is more benifical to it being Compulsory.

gimme5minutes

SkepticOne wrote: »

English you need for day to day living. You need to be fairly fluent in reading and writing to get by in society.

Irish should be optional, and English should be optional too after junior cert. Anybody who has made it past junior cert (ie the vast majority of the population) already has learned more than enough English for day to day living. Analysing some more poems and practising creative writing are not essential for day to day living.

A lot get to 5th year without a huge amount of literacy but this is something that can still be taught. Adults late in life can be taught to read and write and it is a valuable skill. I have seen statistics that say that 20% of adults in Ireland are not functionally literate. And even those who are reasonably literate can benefit from further training. Therefore I would keep it.

20% of adults are functionally illiterate because a large % of the people 55 years old+ used to leave off school after junior cert or after primary school (even before finishing primary school in some cases) 40 years ago. It certainly isn't the case that the younger generations are 20% illiterate. Even your average scanger these days is functionally literate.

The only difference between English and Irish is that there are plenty of real world jobs and applications for people who have studied English to a high level. Whereas Irish is only useful for meaningless state-backed 'made-up' jobs. Both of them should be optional.

Kiki10

Irish is a language, which can be understood in 3 months if you live in an Irish speaking area. You can be fluent if you live there longer than 6 months. Years of expensive time wasting in school has proved to be useless. Its time to teach Irish at NO cost [we don't charge our children to be Irish] in Saturday schools where a day can be spent learning how to live Irish. No child on earth learns there mother tongue through conjugating verbs, they learn it arguing with siblings demanding from moms and messing around with Friends. As long as we don't talk to each other in Irish we wont pass it to our kids

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

It was the choice of parents who wanted their Kids tought through Irish. Why?

Your statement was misleading as it gave the impression that the GaelScoil was demanded by all parents in Rathoath and not a small minority as you now admit.

deise go deo wrote: »

Read the reform policy advocated by CnaG, They specifically include increased exposure to Irish in primary education for that reason.

I think we need to take a closer look at CNaG and its objectives, according to their website:

Conradh na Gaeilge is the democratic forum for the Irish-speaking community and promotes the language throughout the whole of Ireland and around the world.
Its main aim is to reinstate the Irish language as the common tongue of Ireland.

I cannot recall any example from the past where a whole country has changed its language. The organisation itself is only democratic in the sense that its membership and policies are set by people who subscribe to the above ideal. In any other way, it is undemocratic as it callously ignores the language choice of almost all of the population of Ireland.

In practice, it is an irresponsible lobby group that bullies political parties, using the 'Irish Card' into adopting hugely wasteful and expensive plans (compulsory Irish, the Official Languages Act, subsidised TV and newspapers for Irish enthusiasts), regardless of the economic logic, to progress its goal of converting the majority English-speaking population to Irish speaking. If it were a political party, it would have to be accountable for where the money would be found to fund its plans and it would have to justify taking the money away from other things, such as hospitals and care for the elderly or generation of foreign income.

deise go deo wrote: »

]There are more Jobs here that require Irish than any other second language, Why these jobs exist dose not take away from their existence.

Tell that to the IMF and the bond markets.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Your statement was misleading as it gave the impression that the GaelScoil was demanded by all parents in Rathoath and not a small minority as you now admit.

Small minority? There is widespread support for a gaelscoil in this area, That is blatently obvious, Have you any evidence that there is desire for an English medium school? No you dont but that dosent stop you making ridiculous jibes about the local parents choices dose it.:rolleyes:

I think we need to take a closer look at CNaG and its objectives, according to their website:

So? Its the Gaelic League, What do you expect?

I cannot recall any example from the past where a whole country has changed its language. The organisation itself is only democratic in the sense that its membership and policies are set by people who subscribe to the above ideal. In any other way, it is undemocratic as it callously ignores the language choice of almost all of the population of Ireland.

Well lets see, FInland has, Israel has, and in case you have forgoten IRELAND has.:rolleyes:
How exactly is it a 'Choice' when there is only one option for the majority to chose?

In practice, it is an irresponsible lobby group that bullies political parties, using the 'Irish Card' into adopting hugely wasteful and expensive plans (compulsory Irish, the Official Languages Act, subsidised TV and newspapers for Irish enthusiasts), regardless of the economic logic, to progress its goal of converting the majority English-speaking population to Irish speaking. If it were a political party, it would have to be accountable for where the money would be found to fund its plans and it would have to justify taking the money away from other things, such as hospitals and care for the elderly or generation of foreign income.

If you are going to be going areound making rediculus arguments like this then I am wasting my time with you.

Tell that to the IMF and the bond markets.

:rolleyes:



When you are ready to make a reasonable argument, with evidence to back yourself up, I will answer you but until then I am going to just ignore you.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Have you any evidence that there is desire for an English medium school?

The fact that the vast majority of the people there and in the surrounding areas speak English?

deise go deo wrote: »

1So? Its the Gaelic League, What do you expect?

Social responsibility? A 'big picture' view of what is best for the country? Respect for the linguistic choice of the majority of the population?

deise go deo wrote: »

Well lets see, FInland has, Israel has, and in case you have forgoten IRELAND has.:rolleyes:

Indeed, Ireland has changed its language, and English was chosen. That choice has been of great benefit to us. A few die-hards (such as yourself) don't accept this choice. Now, what conditions exist in Ireland that would make it comparable to Finland or Israel (where the language is a intricate part of the religion, itself a foundation of their state).

deise go deo wrote: »

When you are ready to make a reasonable argument, with evidence to back yourself up, I will answer you but until then I am going to just ignore you.

Is this how CNaG defends its policies? By ignoring criticism? By failing to be accountable for the cost of its policies?

braftery

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again, has it ever crossed your mind that some parents may not want their children educated in Irish?

As for simplicity it is much simpler to teach everyone through english like we do now.

Simplicity is teaching all subjects through a single language.
What that language is really is immaterial.
It could be English, Irish, French, German or Spanish.
The net result in education will be the same.
The net benefit is that our children will all speak Irish as a by-product of the system.

We are Irish.
Irish is our national language.
I can never see a time when all teaching in Irish schools will be in English and Irish will not exist on the cirriculum.
I do not agree with a school system that is divisive and forces parents to choose in what language their child will be taught.
The language in which our children is taught will not effect the quality of their education, but the additional drain on resources that preparing all sylabbus in two languages will.
Our government currently pay a premium to Teachers that teach in Irish, €1583 per teacher, and €3063 per teacher in a Gaelteacht. A single language system would mean all teachers would once again be the same.

For the above reasons and others, I want to see a single language education system and since it will never be possible to do this in English, lets do it in Irish.

Dannyboy83

deise go deo wrote: »

Any link?

http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/221/wednesday/2/popup

It's part 3 from Wednesday 1st December

LordSutch

braftery wrote: »

We need a shift in our thinking in our overall education system that recognises the fact that teaching everyone through Irish will create an all inclusive and simpler education system.

But what if we the people don't want it? what if we wish to continue conversing in English? I don't want my kids spending thousands of hours doing Irish for their entire school life, I just don't want it for them!!! I want them to have a language choice, whether it be French, German, or whatever, a language that will be of practical use when they travel the world, possibly working outside the State too.

Make Irish optional I say.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The fact that the vast majority of the people there and in the surrounding areas speak English?

Yet the campaghain is for a Gaelscoil?:eek:
How can this be? Could it be that English speakers actually want their children to learn Irish? Not even possibly?

Social responsibility? A 'big picture' view of what is best for the country? Respect for the linguistic choice of the majority of the population?

Indeed, Ireland has changed its language, and English was chosen. That choice has been of great benefit to us. A few die-hards (such as yourself) don't accept this choice. Now, what conditions exist in Ireland that would make it comparable to Finland or Israel (where the language is a intricate part of the religion, itself a foundation of their state).

Is this how CnaG defends its policies? By ignoring criticism? By failing to be accountable for the cost of its policies?

In my opinion, you have been unnecessarily confrontational, Obtuse and rude, I dont want to put up with that, Every time I have had to deal with you one thing seamed clear, that no mater what argument I make you have already made your mind up, You are in my opinion close minded on this issue.


Now if you are willing to debate this issue respectfully and in a spirit of openness then I have no problem in continuing to debate with you on this issue. but if you are not even willing to back up your claims with evidence when asked I really see no point in continuing this.

deise go deo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/221/wednesday/2/popup

It's part 3 from Wednesday 1st December

Yes, I have to agree with most of what he says, China is an emerging market for Ireland and there is no reason not to offer Chinese as an option in school, I noticed that at no point did he criticize or support Irish in the education system so I don't see how it is relevant to this thread.

cyclopath2001

braftery wrote: »

Simplicity is teaching all subjects through a single language.
What that language is really is immaterial.

Since English is the primary language of most Irish children and is the language they will use in later life, it make sense and is more efficient to educate them through that language.

braftery wrote: »

We are Irish.
Irish is our national language.

Something important is missing from the above statement.

braftery wrote: »

Our government currently pay a premium to Teachers that teach in Irish, €1583 per teacher, and €3063 per teacher in a Gaelteacht. A single language system would mean all teachers would once again be the same.

So we could save a lot of money by teaching children in their native language: English.

braftery wrote: »

For the above reasons and others, I want to see a single language education system and since it will never be possible to do this in English, lets do it in Irish.

English is the language of the majority of the population, it makes no economic or practical sense to ignore this fact.

deise go deo wrote: »

In my opinion, you have been unnecessarily confrontational, Obtuse and rude, I dont want to put up with that, Every time I have had to deal with you one thing seamed clear, that no mater what argument I make you have already made your mind up, You are in my opinion close minded on this issue.

You're obsessed with making everyone speak Irish at any cost....don't you think that this is just a little confrontational? As for facts, you ignore reality and rely on propaganda generated by your own side. Please enjoy your language choice, but don't do so at huge expense to others.

braftery

LordSutch wrote: »

But what if we the people don't want it? what if we wish to continue conversing in English? I don't want my kids spending thousands of hours doing Irish for their entire school life, I just don't want it for them!!! I want them to have a language choice, whether it be French, German, or whatever, a language that will be of practical use when they travel the world, possibly working outside the State too.

Make Irish optional I say.

Having a school system in Irish will not limit your childrens choices, it will expand them.

Children in France learn German through French.
Children in Germany learn Spanish through German.

My own children started there schooling in a German language school.
They learned English, Irish and German all through German.
My oldest child was in this school for 3 years, upto 1st Class.
She has just started secondary school and during a pre entry meeting with her potential teachers, we were told that she should not take German as a subject as her German is already beyond most leaving cert students.

To my daughters mind she never even learned German, she simply spoke it. The language was never a subject it was part of her life.

However, she is now gifted an additonal exam subject without the need for class time. I would consider that a pretty major benefit.

Your child, along with all other children, will not be "doing Irish". They will be living it and "doing French or German or Spanish" using it.

To create separate schools for separate languages creates an "Us and Them" society.

Irish and Gaelscoileanna are not going away, we need to embrace them, integrate them, bring them into the mainstream and to all of society.

LordSutch

braftery wrote: »

To create separate schools for separate languages creates an "Us and Them" society.

Indeed, Us being the vast majority of the population who don't want compulsion, and 'Them' who wish to embrace a minority language!

braftery wrote: »

Irish and Gaelscoileanna are not going away, we need to embrace them, integrate them, bring them into the mainstream and to all of society.

'Gaelscoileanna are not going away' Hmm, that's great, but they are not for the majority.

Chuchoter

But why on earth Irish? Why not French or German? I'd kill to be fluent in German, instead I can hold a short conversation in Irish with bad grammar.