Should Irish be an optional subject not a cumpulsory one

deise go deo

deise go deo wrote: »

If you do actually look around you would be surprised at just how little support there seems to be for making Irish optional.

There is a facebook group, 'Make Irish Optional', they have about 100 members(The one to keep Irish compulsory got over 10'000) and there is a petition to make Irish optional, they got 40 signatures so far(the petition to keep Irish compulsory has around 20'000)

Seems a bit one sided really.

The reason for this is that nobody wants to actually think about it and seriously consider whether its compulsory status is just doing more to kill it off than help it. This is the attitude every government has had since independence and thanks to globalisation and the European Union, Irish has become less relevant than ever before.

If the status quo was working, we would be a bilingual nation. We are not.

MonkeyTennis wrote:

Children can learn languages more easily up to about the age of 6 but (and Im well open to correction here) I think thats if they are immersed in that language.

Pretty sure it's an urban myth that children learn languages faster than adults. Anyone can learn a language (similar to their own) in weeks via immersion.

conor.hogan.2

It is an official EU language.

Also children do learn languages better than Adults. http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/19/chomsky-noam-language-learning-comm05-cx_de_1024chomsky.html

Also 18% spoke Irish in 1926. The number of Irish speakers has risen since it was made compulsory much like how it declined when it was banned.

deise go deo

omg a kitty wrote: »

I never said make it completely optional, I said it's definitely time for a major reform.

Or you can leave at as it is and suffocate the language until complete extinction because it's the popular opinion of people who sit at home saying it's patriotism and it's part of our culture.

I don't think anyone is looking for things to be left the way they are currently. I'm certainly not.
I just dont think making Irish optional is a necessary or usefull reform.
As far as I am concerned, the problem is in the curriculum, and that is what should be reformed.

kowloon

If the majority support it then we can agree it doesn't need to be compulsory to survive and I don't think it even needs majority support. People will continue to speak it regardless of what others do as long as that's their wish.

I don't think 'everyone should do it because I like it or deem it important' is a good enough reason to keep it compulsory, even if it's the majority opinion.

Majority rule can't be allowed restrain freedom of choice in every aspect of people's lives. I fail to see why one should be forced to do anything beyond what is necessary for the maintenance of a safe and fair society.
Respecting people's rights within this framework is essential.

How does someone not studying Irish for two extra years do anything to harm your rights? How does restricting their rights achieve anything other than satisfying your selfish interests?

I suspect many, not all, wish to keep Irish compulsory not for the benefit of others but because they believe their command of the language will afford them advantages over over those with a lesser ability.

Those who believe they lost out by not knowing the language might have nobler intentions but they need to accept that their viewpoint is not always shared.

Some just have a chip on their shoulder or a superiority complex.

I think caring for pets is something every child can benefit from. I find Golf mind numbingly boring. I would never try to force anyone to do these things, even if 99% of the population agreed.

Allow people to pursue their own interests and respect diversity ffs.

deise go deo

Deleted User wrote: »

If the status quo was working, we would be a bilingual nation. We are not.

The argument is not about if the status quo is working or not, its about if the status quo should be aimed at making Ireland a Bilingual Nation or not.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

It is an official EU language.

Also children do learn languages better than Adults. http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/19/chomsky-noam-language-learning-comm05-cx_de_1024chomsky.html

Also 18% spoke Irish in 1926. The number of Irish speakers has risen since it was made compulsory much like how it declined when it was banned.

I think children learn most things faster than adults

deise go deo wrote: »

I don't think anyone is looking for things to be left the way they are currently. I'm certainly not.
I just dont think making Irish optional is a necessary or usefull reform.
As far as I am concerned, the problem is in the curriculum, and that is what should be reformed.

You're still looking at this from a language persepctive an not a student one. If a student wants to opt out and do a different subject instead, you STILL haven't given me a good reason why this shouldn't be so.

The student STILL comes before the language. The aim of the Leaving Cert is NOT the preservation of Irish, nor should it be.

deise go deo wrote: »

The argument is not about if the status quo is working or not, its about if the status quo should be aimed at making Ireland a Bilingual Nation or not.

No it isn't. The argument over whther a student would be better off being able to drop irish at the age of 15. Look at the thread title.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

The matter is not whether Irish would survive without it, of course it would.

I agree - in fact I think it would be better off - but then WHAT is the bloody problem with it becoming optinoal????!

The point is currently most people want it to stay compulsory and it can not be changed against popular will. Just because you want 100% choice that does not mean we should allow 100% choice in school because again that is not in line with what the majority seem to want.

People are not out to get you.

But you're alreay stated you don't give a **** what the students' will is.

Your second statement you have made before, and may even be right, but you STILL can NOT back it up with ANYTHING!

kowloon

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

The matter is not whether Irish would survive without it, of course it would.

The point is currently most people want it to stay compulsory and it can not be changed against popular will. Just because you want 100% choice that does not mean we should allow 100% choice in school because again that is not in line with what the majority seem to want.

My argument is that mob rule shouldn't extend to everything. There has to be limits to what the majority can dictate to the rest.

conor.hogan.2

If you think your rights are being infringed you have EU and International law to go to.

That is a freedom you do have, use it.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

But you're alreay stated you don't give a **** what the students' will is.

Your second statement you have made before, and may even be right, but you STILL can NOT back it up with ANYTHING!

Hearsay. Students have protested before and could make a stand against Irish but do not.

Which point do you want me to back up?

Wibbs

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

It is an official EU language.

Which is just as big a joke as it being our "official/national" language. It has the single lowest speaking population uptake of any official language of the EU. Christ knows how they swung that status TBH. Or swung the annual expense of translating EU documentation into it. Feck all read it in English or French or Spanish or German. With very rare exceptions those who choose to read it in Irish could happily read this stuff and likely read it more easily as Bearla.

Also children do learn languages better than Adults. http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/19/chomsky-noam-language-learning-comm05-cx_de_1024chomsky.html

Yea, they've more plastic brains compared to adults.

Also 18% spoke Irish in 1926, how would we be bi-lingual if the status qou was kept. That makes no sense.

Which says quite a bit about our attitudes to the language. In say 1910 there was zero investment by the British government of the day into the language. It was and had been contracting in use over the past two centuries. Even with the widespread and concerted efforts of the Irish state since it's foundation it continued to contract. Would it have contracted more quickly without it? Hard to say. At a guess I'd say yes, in the sense that there would be far fewer with a cupla focal/barely fluent speakers. I suspect the Irish speaking areas would still have a fair bit of Irish though. Maybe even the same level as today if the Gaelthacht funding and support for such rural areas had gone ahead.

That funding IMHO did more for the Irish language than it's compulsory presence in education or it's official status. Why? Because it was practical. It helped sustain the natural environment of the language by keeping more people in the areas. IMHO They should be redirecting the funding and focus and doing more along those lines. Bolster the language where it's strong and only then attempt to transplant it. I'd see it akin to I dunno, Giant Pandas. Zoos are great for attempting to keep an endangered speices going, but if you protect it's environment and protect said species in that environment it's a much better bet.

In any event IMHO debating if an extra two years of schooling has any effect is playing the lyre while Rome burns.

conor.hogan.2

Wibbs wrote: »

Which says quite a bit about our attitudes to the language. In say 1910 there was zero investment by the British government of the day into the language. It was and had been contracting in use over the past two centuries. Even with the widespread and concerted efforts of the Irish state since it's foundation it continued to contract. Would it have contracted more quickly without it? Hard to say. At a guess I'd say yes, in the sense that there would be far fewer with a cupla focal/barely fluent speakers. I suspect the Irish speaking areas would still have a fair bit of Irish though. Maybe even the same level as today if the Gaelthacht funding and support for such rural areas had gone ahead.

That funding IMHO did more for the Irish language than it's compulsory presence in education or it's official status. Why? Because it was practical. It helped sustain the natural environment of the language by keeping more people in the areas. IMHO They should be redirecting the funding and focus and doing more along those lines. Bolster the language where it's strong and only then attempt to transplant it. I'd see it akin to I dunno, Giant Pandas. Zoos are great for attempting to keep an endangered speices going, but if you protect it's environment and protect said species in that environment it's a much better bet.

In any event IMHO debating if an extra two years of schooling has any effect is playing the lyre while Rome burns.

Yes Irish was in decline for 100's of years before 1926.

But Irish speakers has increased since 1926. Have you any facts to say it has contracted since the 1920's or 1930's? http://www.uni-due.de/DI/Who_Speaks_Irish.htm

The reason why they increased is debatable but considering it continued to rise after it was started to be made compulsory is possibly the most important reason.

SeanW

deise go deo wrote: »

If you do actually look around you would be surprised at just how little support there seems to be for making Irish optional.

There is a facebook group, 'Make Irish Optional', they have about 100 members(The one to keep Irish compulsory got over 10'000) and there is a petition to make Irish optional, they got 40 signatures so far(the petition to keep Irish compulsory has around 20'000)

Seems a bit one sided really.

Probably because the vast majority of people are themselves finished 2nd level school and no longer care.

Just that you lot are a vocal minority and a powerful vested interest group. Like the developers and the publicans lobby.

I suspect many, not all, wish to keep Irish compulsory not for the benefit of others

QFT

conor.hogan.2

SeanW wrote: »

Just that you lot are a vocal minority and a powerful vested interest group. Like the developers and the publicans lobby.

If you think it is wrong you can lobby against it, which should be easy if you have a wide support base. There has been no lobby to keep Irish optional it simply is supported by the majority of people in Ireland and when FG started discussing making it optional people protested against it which is their right.

Wibbs

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

But Irish speakers has increased since 1926. Have you any facts to say it has contracted since the 1920's or 1930's? http://www.uni-due.de/DI/Who_Speaks_Irish.htm.

Oh god. Maybe CH you should actually read what you linked to? I quote; "This is not an easy question to answer given that official figures in Ireland have been unrealistically optimistic throughout the entire 20th century, a period of major decline in native speakers of Irish. Successive governments in Ireland have been content to publish figures which bore little or no relation to reality/The above statistics imply that between 1926 and 2006 the number of Irish speakers in Ireland more than trebled. This is plainly absurd."
Hang on and I'll dig out some figures based in reality. Though the lobby love to quote them the census figures are plainly daft(and it seems external observers agree). If they weren't we wouldn't even be having this debate.

The reason why they increased is debatable but considering it continued to rise after it was started to be made compulsory is possibly the most important reason

Pointless paragraph as it contracted over the time of compulsion.

conor.hogan.2

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh god. Maybe CH you should actually read what you linked to? I quote; "This is not an easy question to answer given that official figures in Ireland have been unrealistically optimistic throughout the entire 20th century, a period of major decline in native speakers of Irish. Successive governments in Ireland have been content to publish figures which bore little or no relation to reality/The above statistics imply that between 1926 and 2006 the number of Irish speakers in Ireland more than trebled. This is plainly absurd."
Hang on and I'll dig out some figures based in reality. Though the lobby love to quote them the census figures are plainly daft(and it seems external observers agree). If they weren't we wouldn't even be having this debate.
Pointless paragraph as it contracted over the time of compulsion.

Native Irish speakers. I said number of Irish speakers (not native). The number of monolingual speakers has also shrunk and in fact there is none that I am aware that are left and has not been for a long time.

Perhaps you should read what I said too?

540k to 1.6M is contracting? Even if those figures are inflated (which I agree) are you actually trying to argue that the number of people able to speak Irish has fallen since the foundation of this state?

omg a kitty

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

So we agree. This is happening though, slowly but it is happening because people want reform in general but not many people want to make it optional.

I still think it's unnecessary for most after Junior Cert and shouldn't be forced on them once they can understand and appreciate it
Make it compulsory until JC (or TY), teach students to speak properly rather than teaching us to speak it a little bit and then give us poems and watch us fail.
Making it optional from Primary school is way too far.

After Junior Cert give the students an option whether to keep doing it for LC or not; because face it most people have no use for it.

If it worked, the fact that it is mostly useless shouldn't stop people from studying it in Leaving Cert because they will finally like and understand their national language (or whatever makes it the first official language)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Which point do you want me to back up?

The one where you stated compulsory subects is more effective for students doing the leaving cert than optional subjects. Third time, now.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Yes Irish was in decline for 100's of years before 1926.

But Irish speakers has increased since 1926. Have you any facts to say it has contracted since the 1920's or 1930's? http://www.uni-due.de/DI/Who_Speaks_Irish.htm

The reason why they increased is debatable but considering it continued to rise after it was started to be made compulsory is possibly the most important reason.

All, all, all irrelvant (point being made to Wibbs and many others as well as yourself, in fairness) because we're talking (AGAIN) about the leaving cert. Wether or not it's in decline, is an EU official language, has been on the increase since 19x doesn't matter. We are not talking about Irish as a language, we are talking about Irish as a subject on the leaving cert.

SeanW

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

If you think it is wrong you can lobby against it, which should be easy if you have a wide support base. There has been no lobby to keep Irish optional it simply is supported by the majority of people in Ireland and when FG started discussing making it optional people protested against it which is their right.

It's not that simple. The vocalness and power of the minority, versus the passiveness or disorganisation of the majority is also a factor.

No majority wanted to guarantee the banks and spend €80bn on them. Yet it happened.

No majority wanted 1000s of Priory Hall type apartment complexes built. But the property developers self-regulated during the bubble. As a result, most of the apartment complexes that were built were of garbage standards whose unfortunate inhabitants are now paying the price, suffering a vastly reduced quality of life and paying a €500,000 mortgage for the privilege.

No majority wants continuous further restrictions on the operation of off-licenses, but the publicans do. End result = continuous further restrictions of the operation of off-licenses.

It seems to me that it's very likely the same thing that's keeping the Irish language rammed down everyone's throats.

Iwasfrozen

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Yes Irish was in decline for 100's of years before 1926.

But Irish speakers has increased since 1926. Have you any facts to say it has contracted since the 1920's or 1930's? http://www.uni-due.de/DI/Who_Speaks_Irish.htm

The reason why they increased is debatable but considering it continued to rise after it was started to be made compulsory is possibly the most important reason.

(1,656,790/4,588,252)*100 = 36% of people speak irish?! Pull the other one. :rolleyes: I'd put the figure more at 10% tops.

Chemistry Ftw

If science subjects are optional, then there should be no reason why Irish shouldn't be optional in this day and age...

Wibbs

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

But Irish speakers has increased since 1926. Have you any facts to say it has contracted since the 1920's or 1930's? http://www.uni-due.de/DI/Who_Speaks_Irish.htm.

Oh god. Maybe CH you should actually read what you linked to? I quote; "This is not an easy question to answer given that official figures in Ireland have been unrealistically optimistic throughout the entire 20th century, a period of major decline in native speakers of Irish. Successive governments in Ireland have been content to publish figures which bore little or no relation to reality/The above statistics imply that between 1926 and 2006 the number of Irish speakers in Ireland more than trebled. This is plainly absurd."
Hang on and I'll dig out some figures based in reality. Though the lobby love to quote them the census figures are plainly daft(and it seems external observers agree). If they weren't we wouldn't even be having this debate.

The reason why they increased is debatable but considering it continued to rise after it was started to be made compulsory is possibly the most important reason

Pointless paragraph as it contracted over the time of compulsion.

conor.hogan.2

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The one where you stated compulsory subects is more effective for students doing the leaving cert than optional subjects. Third time, now.

All, all, all irrelvant (point being made to Wibbs and many others as well as yourself, in fairness) because we're talking (AGAIN) about the leaving cert. Wether or not it's in decline, is an EU official language, has been on the increase since 19x doesn't matter. We are not talking about Irish as a language, we are talking about Irish as a subject on the leaving cert.

I stated compulsory subjects are "more effective"? Where?

Ok then on your last point. It is compulsory and the majority want it to stay that way. /thread

Wibbs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

(1,656,790/4,588,252)*100 = 36% of people speak irish?! Pull the other one. :rolleyes: I'd put the figure more at 10% tops.

On the native speakers try going lower. From the page conor linked to:

"Whether all the 64,265 individuals registered by the 2006 census are native speakers of Irish is unsure (there will be some people living in the Gaeltacht but who did not grow up learning Irish, especially in the periphery of the areas designated by the government as Gaeltachtaí). If one substracts about a third, because the government exaggerates the size of Gaeltachtaí and because not everyone even in the core of the Gaeltacht areas grew up speaking Irish as a first language, then one reaches a figure of approximately 45,000, but not more than 50,000, for the native speakers of the Gaeltacht (recall that only 53,130 individuals in the entire country claimed to use Irish on a daily basis outside education). This represents just over 1% of the population of present-day Ireland.

In fact this figure may in itself be too optimistic. If one considers the numbers of persons in the Gaeltacht who use Irish on a daily basis outside of education – 17,687 – and compares it to the population of the entire state – 3,990,863 – then one reaches a percentage figure of 0.44%. Given that the number of active native speakers can scarcely be higher than that of those in the Gaeltacht who use Irish on a daily basis outside education, the percentage of native speakers in present-day Ireland would be between 0.4% and 0.5%, i.e. not more than 20,000 at the most. Given this alarmingly low figure, it is understandable that the statistics office and the government in general does not wish to be more accurate in this matter. "

conor.hogan.2

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

(1,656,790/4,588,252)*100 = 36% of people speak irish?! Pull the other one. :rolleyes: I'd put the figure more at 10% tops.

People who can speak Irish, native speakers and people who speak Irish are 3 different things.

We all know the number of native speakers is low and shrinking. Has been shrinking for a long time and continues to shrink.

Seachmall

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

It is compulsory and the majority want it to stay that way.

None of which is relevant.

/thread

Are you conceding?

conor.hogan.2

CAPS, smilies and sarcasm.

The 3 stapes of pointless debate. People here are free to appeal to EU or International law if they feel rights are being impinged upon.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0209/irish.html
and
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77233469&postcount=5

It should be compulsory until the majority do not want it or the government decide to change it.

Seachmall

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

The 3 stapes of pointless debate.

This is the internet, people debate to debate, not to change the world.

Some valid points have been raised, if you can't address them at least try not to ignorantly dismiss them like a troll.

Iwasfrozen

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

People who can speak Irish, native speakers and people who speak Irish are 3 different things.

We all know the number of native speakers is low and shrinking. Has been shrinking for a long time and continues to shrink.

I was taking all of that into consideration. The number of native speaks is no where near 10%.

conor.hogan.2

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0209/irish.html
and
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77233469&postcount=5

It should be compulsory until the majority do not want it or the government decide to change it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I was taking all of that into consideration. The number of native speaks is no where near 10%.

I agree, the numbers are inflated. Always have been. The point I was making is the number who are able to speak Irish has risen but also the decline of native speakers has continued to drop.

Iwasfrozen

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0209/irish.html
and
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77233469&postcount=5

It should be compulsory until the majority do not want it or the government decide to change it.

I don't agree. On a purely academic sense the wish of the majority cannot come before the rights of the minority. In this case the rights of the minority to control their own education.

And seriously? Come on. Look at the people who conducted that poll. Comhar na Muinteoirí Gaeilge? Yeah they won't be biased. It's not like their jobs depend on it or anything. :rolleyes:

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

I agree, the numbers are inflated. Always have been. The point I was making is the number who are able to speak Irish has risen but also the decline of native speakers has continued to drop.

That's the thing though because we know the data is not accurate we cannot draw conclusions from it. Common sense though would tell you there were more irish speakers in the twenties then there are now. There may be more people claiming to speak it now but that's beyond the point.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

I stated compulsory subjects are "more effective"? Where?

Ok then on your last point. It is compulsory and the majority want it to stay that way. /thread

Hmm... actually, you stated that Irish should remain compuslory, but then evaded my requests as to why for so long I forgot what I asked. In any case, you still haven't answer it other than to say ...

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

It should be compulsory until the majority do not want it or the government decide to change it.

... which is one of the WORST worst possible reasons for maintinaing any course of action that is not giving a satisfactory result.

It also implies that if Ruari Quinn did decide to change it and make it optional, you would be okay with it.

Beyond that, what Senchmall said above about failing to counter valid arguments.