Enda Kenny to make irish optional?

Dan_Solo

deise go deo wrote: »

I have put forward a large body of evidence to support my position, on what basis do you ignore this?

None of it shows a benefit any different from electively doing any other extra subject.:rolleyes:

deise go deo wrote: »

I have shown study after study, all agreeing that there is a positive overall impact to second language learning. You have shown nothing to suggest that these study's are in error. You are simply burying your head.:rolleyes:

None of it shows a benefit any different from electively doing any other extra subject.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
This is quite simple: show me which study took two sets of academically similar children and randomly assigned them to extra second language or extra classes of some other subject Then show me their later overall academic progress. The fact that you cannot shows that either this data doesn't exist or you don't know what the data you are presenting says at all.
Tall people tend to have more money. People who smoke are less likely to get Alzheimers. Do you have any idea why these studies are deceptive? If you're not able to analyse data properly then you shouldn't be let near it!

Insect Overlord

Aard wrote: »

I don't think 18 year olds should be laboured with the task of propping up teachers, lecturers, parents, bookshops, policy makers... And I am someone who can and does speak the language! Turning 13 years of compulsory Irish into 11 isn't going to have such awful knock-on effects. Indeed, it might even give researchers a new line of study.

They're already "laboured with the task" of propping up the music industry, large proportions of the film, clothing and cosmetic industries and, via their parents' wallets, the private tuition/grind-schools sectors. The difference? All of these get mainstream media and advertising attention.

I did not, at all, imply that children/teenagers/young adults should be given any responsibility for the groups that I listed. The young poster suggested that nobody else would be affected by changes to the current system. I just pointed out that such groups potentially could be affected, rather than just the poor little secondary students.

Dan_Solo

Insect Overlord wrote: »

They're already "laboured with the task" of propping up the music industry, large proportions of the film, clothing and cosmetic industries and, via their parents' wallets, the private tuition/grind-schools sectors.

You know what, they aren't.
They can CHOOSE to buy these things if they want, they can't CHOOSE whether to do Irish or not without it most likely ruining their future career in something to which Irish has zero relevance.

Krusader

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You know what, they aren't.
They can CHOOSE to buy these things if they want, they can't CHOOSE whether to do Irish or not without it most likely ruining their future career in something to which Irish has zero relevance.

I doubt anyone's future career has been ruined 'cause they couldn't speak Irish, where the language is not relevant in that career :rolleyes:

Dan_Solo

Crosáidí wrote: »

I doubt anyone's future career has been ruined 'cause they couldn't speak Irish, where the language is not relevant in that career :rolleyes:

Which isn't what I said, so you should try opening your eyes instead of rolling them.
You put bold on one part of my post and invented the rest of what you'd pretend I said around it.

subedei

Ado75 wrote: »

The laughable thing is that as a citizen of this "Republic" you can be discriminated against for a lack of Irish. Especially when it comes to public sector jobs. Sections of middle class Ireland use the language and the fact they send their kids to fee paying Irish schools as a tool to maintain a British type "Old School Tie" system of elitism. Those who say this is BS have their heads in the sand. These realities are ever present in places like UCD and TCD with the D4 set and carry on into society as a whole. When you are not born to these sections of society it is as plain as the nose on your face. I remember in school teachers speaking Irish in front of parents from working class areas as an in your face form of elitism.

Im sorry but I have to comment on this one:

It is worth pointing out that while there are two all-Irish schools in upper-class Ranelagh there are three in Tallaght, two in Clondalkin, two in Cabra, two in Ballymun and one, newly set-up in September, in Finglas... Indeed the salient sociological fact and one of the strengths of the gaelscoileanna movement is that it is rooted in every social class and is present in all parts of the country: urban and rural working class, middle class and upper class

'Current attitudes to Irish' Ciarán Mac Murchaidh, Lecturer St Patricks College, Drumcondra, Dublin, 2008

Also I would like to say that you are more strongly discriminated against if u dont use english in this country too.

dubhthach

given that Labour is tipped to get Education we can see this topic parked for another 5 years -- Labour policy is to continue compulsion at Leaving cert cycle.

Salty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Asking opponents to prove an absence is a common Christian fundamentalist ploy. It is idiotic of you to not see that that is what you are doing.

So I'm automatically a Christian fundamentalist because I inadvertedly used one of their "ploys".
And by the way, I said that your question was idiotic, not that you were an idiot, so your little insult is unnecessary. You've a nasty habit of talking down to people here.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Wrong on what point? That learning a second language is unproven to aid overall academic progress in a study using proper controls? Of course I might be wrong on this, but then again we know for a fact that nobody has presented any evidence that proves this theory, so it remains unproven..

No wrong as in saying that I explicitly stated learning Irish as being the causative factor in overall higher academic achievement, when I didn't.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The only hard evidence provided so far is that students do better learning a language as different as possible from their mother tongue. So thank you for showing that under no circumstances should Irish be taught in Irish schools to benefit students' other skills as it is far too similar English.

Irish and English are completely different languages. Where in English do you find an equivalent to tuisil ginideach, beaninsineach & firinsineach. Sentence and verb structures are completely different.

And I never said Irish doesn't benefit students. I've been arguing the contrary FOR THE WHOLE THREAD. Don't twist that to suit yourself.

Salty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You know what, they aren't.
They can CHOOSE to buy these things if they want, they can't CHOOSE whether to do Irish or not without it most likely ruining their future career in something to which Irish has zero relevance.

How could Irish possibly ruin their future career!? All that's required in most third level courses is a pass in the subject. That's not likely to ruin anything. And if they're really REALLY not able for it, an exemption can be sought, and third level institutions will still cater for them in this situation. Not everything's black and white. There is a grey area.
Students can also choose whether or not to count Irish in their points.

deise go deo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

None of it shows a benefit any different from electively doing any other extra subject.:rolleyes:

a project designed to ,measure performance in thinking tasks, supported Peal & Lambert in finding that students studying a foreign language in elementary school perform significantly better on divergent thinking tasks than students who do not (Lambert, 1974). Related research performed in San Antonio revealed that bilingual children prove to be more effective problem solvers than unilingual peers (Kessler & Quinn, 1980)

A possible explanation of this neuro-cognitive benefit from second language instruction was implied when a research concluded that second language learning enhances listening and memory skills (Ratte, 1968), suggesting a link to improved attention span. The neuro-cognitive benefits of learning a second and third languages strongly imply an enhancement of the actual functioning intelligence of the student. Such findings were more recently underscored when it was found that fluent bilingualism contributes substantially to the cognitive growth of children (Latham, 1998).

students who had studied a language other than English in their high school year performed significantly better on the verbal portion of SAT than students who had studied any other subject for the same period of time (Cooper, 1987).

students results on district and provincial tests have been tracked for the students in bilingual programs and can be compared to others who have not been exposed to intensive second language instruction. There is a very distinct mark differential on all standardized tests in favor of the bilingual program students. This even follows for programs which have a significant special needs population. The spread between the bilingual students and those in regular programs becomes more pronounced with time.

A compilation of findings from a number of studies shows a strong correlation between students achievement and the number of hours spent learning a second language. Furthermore students who begin learning a second language in kindergarten or grade one perform better than those learning at grade four and much better than those who begin at grade seven (Halsall, 1998)

Halsall found that while English skills can lag behind in the early grades (1-3), the lags disappear by grade five. Over time, immersion was found to enhance the student’s skill with English, as well as contribute to the development of multilingual capability. Interestingly Halsall also found that once established immersion programs are, in reality, no more expensive to operate than regular programs.

Another very thorough study showed that all second language programming serves to enhance reading skills, English vocabulary and communication skills (Albanese, 1987). The argument therefore that postulates learning a second language inhibits development of the first language is not only false, but research finds the very opposite true.

http://www.frenchforlife.ca/images/Impact%20of%20Second%20language%20on%20Intellectual%20Development.pdf

A study of 13,200 third and fifth graders in Louisiana public schools revealed that, regardless of race, gender, or academic level, children taking foreign language classes did better on the English section of the Louisiana Basic Skills Test than those who did not. (Dumas 1999)

Strong evidence shows that time spent on foreign language study strongly reinforces the core subject areas of reading, English language literacy, social studies and math. Foreign language learners consistently outperform control groups in core subject areas on standardized tests, often significantly. (Armstrong & Rogers 1997; Saunders 1998; Masciantonio 1977; Rafferty 1986; Andrade 1989; Kretschmer & Kretschmer 1989)

Foreign language learners consistently score higher than their non-language-learning peers in measures of English vocabulary, particularly when the language studied has Latin roots. (Masciantonio 1977)

Foreign language learners have better listening skills and sharper memories than their monolingual peers. (Lapkin, et al 1990, Ratte 1968)

Language learners show greater cognitive flexibility, better problem solving and higher order thinking skills. (Hakuta 1986)

Research indicates that children who are exposed to a foreign language at a young age achieve higher levels of cognitive development at an earlier age. (Bialystok & Hakuta 1994; Fuchsen 1989)

People who are competent in more than one language consistently outscore monolinguals on tests of verbal and nonverbal intelligence. (Bruck, Lambert, Tucker 1974, Hakuta 1986, Weatherford 1986)

Students who studied four or five years of a foreign language scored higher on the verbal section of the 2004 SAT than students who had studied any other subject for the same number of years. (Cooper 1987; Eddy 1981)

http://www.ncssfl.org/papers/BenefitsSecondLanguageStudyNEA.pdf




This is why Learning a second Language is a standard part of the vast majority of educational systems in Europe.

All but two countries in the European Union mandate the study of a foreign language

Can you put forward a shread of Evidience to support your claims? No you can not. It is utterly rediculus that you are still trying to argue your compleatly unsupported position in the face of such a clear body of evidence.

You are nothing more than a troll and a bad one at that. I will not be bothering to deal with you again.

Dan_Solo

deise go deo wrote: »

Can you put forward a shread of Evidience to support your claims? No you can not. It is utterly rediculus that you are still trying to argue your compleatly unsupported position in the face of such a clear body of evidence.

And yet again you completely fail to comprehend that I do not have to provide a counter claim in order to show your claim has not been proven. Why do you continue to insist this in post after post when this has been shown to be false?
This lack of insight into proper scientific process is evident in every post you make.
Oh, and the answer is "No, you can't". Which one of those studies show what you are claiming? (here we go AGAIN) That in otherwise academically equal students, time spent studying a second language is better for overall grades than time spent studying another subject? Is that so hard? Can you even understand the question?

Please, spare us the random bold attack.
Hint: If you have to highlight small bits of 20 different references, there's a good chance you don't have one that shows all of the things you're looking for at the same time.

Yes, students who take a second language as an extra subject do better overall academically. Nobody disputes this.
But what if they take another science as an extra subject? Where is your evidence that the second language study is better? Oh, you don't have any.

Yes, students who take a second language as a subject have better overall language skills. Nobody disputes this.
But where is your evidence that the second language study gives overall academic performance benefit? Oh, you don't have any.

deise go deo wrote: »

You are nothing more than a troll and a bad one at that. I will not be bothering to deal with you again.

And since you are repeating the same useless references that don't back up your claim, when it has been repeatedly shown so, you must also be a troll.
What's that rule again about the first to whine "troll" being the one losing the argument?

Dan_Solo

_meehan_ wrote: »

And by the way, I said that your question was idiotic, not that you were an idiot, so your little insult is unnecessary. You've a nasty habit of talking down to people here.

Ahem.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Asking opponents to prove an absence is a common Christian fundamentalist ploy. It is idiotic of you to not see that that is what you are doing.

So I'm saying what you are doing is idiotic. Not that you are an idiot.
You really have a nasty habit of inventing personal attacks against you to gain support from the mods here.
Either that or somebody's second language skills really have impacted on their primary!

Dan_Solo

students who had studied a language other than English in their high school year performed significantly better on the verbal portion of SAT than students who had studied any other subject for the same period of time (Cooper, 1987).

Do I have to go through all of these one at a time?
This says "VERBAL PORTION". (I notice you didn't put bold on this bit. Wonder why?:rolleyes:)
How did they do in the rest of their SATs and overall? Better? Worse? The same? Who knows? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED THIS DATA.

Insect Overlord

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Do I have to go through all of these one at a time?
This says "VERBAL PORTION". (I notice you didn't put bold on this bit. Wonder why?:rolleyes:)
How did they do in the rest of their SATs and overall? Better? Worse? The same? Who knows? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED THIS DATA.

You are pointing out minor flaws and limitations. Unfortunately for your increasingly weakening attempt at argument, that is not the same as disproving the data in front of you. I actually feel embarrassed for you at this stage. Shouting in capital letters because you're not getting your own way? You poor little thing. Diddums.

Dan_Solo

students results on district and provincial tests have been tracked for the students in bilingual programs and can be compared to others who have not been exposed to intensive second language instruction. There is a very distinct mark differential on all standardized tests in favor of the bilingual program students. This even follows for programs which have a significant special needs population. The spread between the bilingual students and those in regular programs becomes more pronounced with time.

Another study where students who have ELECTED for "intensive" EXTRA study have been shown to be better academically. What if they studied flower arranging for the same period? Would that give the student overall better or worse "standardized test"? WHO KNOWS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED THIS DATA.
Wow, students who want to study more are better academically overall. Great finding that.

Dan_Solo

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You are pointing out minor flaws and limitations. Unfortunately for your increasingly weakening attempt at argument, that is not the same as disproving the data in front of you. I actually feel embarrassed for you at this stage. Shouting in capital letters because you're not getting your own way? You poor little thing. Diddums.

Usual double standard whining when a poster agrees with another. Why don't you have a go at your mate for using bold in his posts? Not getting his own way then I guess by YOUR OWN THEORY.
Minor flaws? As in "they don't prove that a second language is better than any other subject for overall academic performance?" Oh, yeah, minor flaw that!:rolleyes:

EDIT: Oh, and I think it's you that's getting embarrassed. Your "minor flaws and limitations" line pretty much proves you know you're on a hiding to nothing.

Dan_Solo

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Shouting in capital letters because you're not getting your own way? You poor little thing. Diddums.

_meehan_ wrote: »

And I never said Irish doesn't benefit students. I've been arguing the contrary FOR THE WHOLE THREAD. Don't twist that to suit yourself.

I thought you were on _meehan_'s side, Insect Overlord? Now you're calling him "poor little thing" because he's "shouting in capital letters"?
Not very nice that, is it?

deise go deo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And yet again you completely fail to comprehend that I do not have to provide a counter claim in order to show your claim has not been proven.

I have put several sources forward that back up my claims, That you deem them to be in error is really irrelevant as you have not shown them to be.

Which one of those studies show what you are claiming? (here we go AGAIN) That in otherwise academically equal students, time spent studying a second language is better for overall grades than time spent studying another subject? Is that so hard? Can you even understand the question?

Have you even read my last post? If you had then you would see that the answer to this question is comprehensively dealt with in it, or do your eyes just glaze over when they see evidence that contradicts your opinions?

For the slow learners amongst us, I will repost the answer to this.

Foreign language learners consistently outperform control groups in core subject areas on standardized tests, often significantly. (Armstrong & Rogers 1997; Saunders 1998; Masciantonio 1977; Rafferty 1986; Andrade 1989; Kretschmer & Kretschmer 1989)

Yes, students who take a second language as an extra subject do better overall academically. Nobody disputes this.
But what if they take another science as an extra subject? Where is your evidence that the second language study is better? Oh, you don't have any.

Where are you getting this 'Extra' subject stuff from. The quotes I have provided deal with students who take a second language as a school subject, not an 'Extra' subject.

And yes, I do have evidience that second language study is better, and I even posted it in the last post, Maybe you missed it?

There is a very distinct mark differential on all standardized tests in favor of the bilingual program students.

Salty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So I'm saying what you are doing is idiotic. Not that you are an idiot.
You really have a nasty habit of inventing personal attacks against you to gain support from the mods here.
Either that or somebody's second language skills really have impacted on their primary!

"Inventing" personal attacks am I? I'm sure there are plenty of other posters who would agree that you have been nothing but condescending and sarcastic. Remember all those lovely comments about the "kiddies" you were on about? I certainly haven't forgotten.

See that in bold above? Insult on my intelligence. Thanks. Really needed that. Funny, I'm regarded as gifted at English, and one of the best in my Irish and French classes. Languages are my "thing" shall I say, and none have impeded on others, I'll have you know.

Salty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I thought you were on _meehan_'s side, Insect Overlord? Now you're calling him "poor little thing" because he's "shouting in capital letters"?
Not very nice that, is it?

I believe the "poor little thing" comment was aimed at you, not me, so it harbours no relevance with me.

Dan_Solo

deise go deo wrote: »

I have put several sources forward that back up my claims, That you deem them to be in error is really irrelevant as you have not shown them to be.

Er, I have shown that they show no evidence that a second language contributes any more than any other subject to overall academic achievement. That you like to copy and paste, with quite random bold bits, 20 references that don't say what you think they say is irrelevant.

deise go deo wrote: »

Have you even read my last post? If you had then you would see that the answer to this question is comprehensively dealt with in it, or do your eyes just glaze over when they see evidence that contradicts your opinions?

No, none of them say that a second language is better than another subject. They simply don't. 20 things that say something else do not add up to your claim.

deise go deo wrote: »

For the slow learners amongst us, I will repost the answer to this.

Don't suppose any of your double standard whiner mates here will pull you up on that personal attack?
Nah. Biased is biased, isn't it?

deise go deo wrote: »

Where are you getting this 'Extra' subject stuff from. The quotes I have provided deal with students who take a second language as a school subject, not an 'Extra' subject.

No, it says "control". It does not say anything about what that "control" is, whether it is an extra subject or not. Loads of the studies you have referenced refer to EXTRA language study. Of course these are now invisible to you.
If this data says what you claim it does, you are incapable of demonstrating it.
Quite simple (again)

The study MUST have two groups of students of similar academic skill.
One group does a second language for X time. The other groups does another subject for X time.
Overall academic success is measured.

You still don't get it. I have to assume at this stage you are incapable of understanding this.

deise go deo wrote: »

And yes, I do have evidience that second language study is better, and I even posted it in the last post, Maybe you missed it?

SECOND LANGUAGE STUDY AS AN EXTRA SUBJECT.
How many times? Do you even know what a "control" is in a study? Is this the standard of research they teach in linguistics?

Dan_Solo

_meehan_ wrote: »

"Inventing" personal attacks am I? I'm sure there are plenty of other posters who would agree that you have been nothing but condescending and sarcastic. Remember all those lovely comments about the "kiddies" you were on about? I certainly haven't forgotten.

Show it or shut it. Another baseless claim. If you're so sure you have a personal attack to quote then by all means get the mods in.
Go on. I dare you.

_meehan_ wrote: »

See that in bold above? Insult on my intelligence. Thanks. Really needed that. Funny, I'm regarded as gifted at English, and one of the best in my Irish and French classes. Languages are my "thing" shall I say, and none have impeded on others, I'll have you know.

You were incapable of understanding that you calling a my post "idiotic" is the equivalent of me calling your post "idiotic". I think it's pretty fair to say you have a comprehension problem if you think there's a difference between those or either one is a personal attack.

Dan_Solo

_meehan_ wrote: »

I believe the "poor little thing" comment was aimed at you, not me, so it harbours no relevance with me.

Ah, but he said it was because I was using capital letters. Therefore it equally applies to all users of capital letters. i.e. to you too.
Sorry!

Salty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Respect works both ways?

(and "thanks" from meehan)
I notice that when people who you agree with are trolling, and admitting it, there isn't a peep out of you, so don't pretend you've a problem with me because of my "tone".

Seems you were the first to cry troll. I got this from page 15 or 16. What was it you said again about that?:rolleyes:

bmarley

lads, lads ... as gaeilge

Dan_Solo

_meehan_ wrote: »

Seems you were the first to cry troll. I got this from page 15 or 16. What was it you said again about that?:rolleyes:

Yes, the guy I called a troll admitted he was trolling. That's what

Crosáidí wrote: »

Not really, i couldn't give a monkey's what you think or did, i'm enjoying winding you up to be honest

means.
If he admits he's trolling, then I'm pretty sure it's OK to call him a troll, is that OK with you?
:rolleyes:right back at you yet again.

Salty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Show it or shut it. Another baseless claim. If you're so sure you have a personal attack to quote then by all means get the mods in.
Go on. I dare you.

I posted a reply ages ago highlighting where you were being condescending to me and others. You obviously ignored it if you can't recall it. And I'm not the only one to have pointed out your insulting inclinations.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You were incapable of understanding that you calling a my post "idiotic" is the equivalent of me calling your post "idiotic". I think it's pretty fair to say you have a comprehension problem if you think there's a difference between those or either one is a personal attack.

"Incapable of understanding." Bull. That's what that is. It was a simple mis-reading in the heat of the moment. As if you haven't made a few errors of this nature from time to time yourself. I've obviously proved my competence in English. These posts alone illustrate that. Ridiculous that you should say that I have any comprehending problems at all.

Dan_Solo

_meehan_ wrote: »

Seems you were the first to cry troll. I got this from page 15 or 16. What was it you said again about that?:rolleyes:

deirdremf wrote: »

He's just looking for attention, and I'm sorry to say that I'm as guilty as anyone of "feeding the troll"

FROM PAGE 10.

You were saying about "first to cry troll"???:D

Salty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, the guy I called a troll admitted he was trolling. That's what .

Dan_Solo wrote: »

means.
If he admits he's trolling, then I'm pretty sure it's OK to call him a troll, is that OK with you?
:rolleyes:right back at you yet again.

If you were to look back, you actually said that everybody agreeing with this poster was trolling.

And sorry to break it to you, but you are indeed a troll.

Níl aon dul as, a chara.:rolleyes:

Dan_Solo

_meehan_ wrote: »

"Incapable of understanding." Bull. That's what that is. It was a simple mis-reading in the heat of the moment.

Well then maybe you should cool down mate if you're so upset you can't read properly?
Needless to say you don't have the decency to apologise for accusing me of a personal insult now you've been proven wrong.

_meehan_ wrote: »

I've obviously proved my competence in English. These posts alone illustrate that. Ridiculous that you should say that I have any comprehending problems at all.

Shouldn't that be "comprehension problems"? Just, you know, saying...