Quinn: Schools spend too much time on religion and Irish

squod

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Complete rubbish. Irish is not a stumbling block for potential teachers. In fact, it separates the wheat from the chaff. I know numerous people that wanted to become teachers and had no Irish. What did they do? They learned the language and by doing so proved how much they really wanted to teach by making the effort and sacrifice. Anyone who wants to become a teacher but uses the excuse that they don't have honours Irish, is just highlighting the fact that they are not really bothered enough to make a sacrifice for the career.

Furthermore, there is not a "demand" for teachers at the moment. There are hundreds of qualified teachers moving abroad and surviving on substitute work.

OTT benefits? Typical tripe from those jealous of teachers. For the time they spend in college they get paid far less then those of equal qualifications in other sectors. If you reduce their holidays, you can expect to double their wages.

I'm not a teacher, but I've experienced the great work and sacrifices they make for pathetic salaries. Teachers that spend hours after school preparing classes, facilitating student events, coaching. Its a difficult job especially when you have to deal with moronic parents who believe that they have all the answers. Teachers tend to get a hard time on boards.ie, but thankfully Boards.ie is not representative of the majority if the population. It's merely a window into the life of many teenagers and unsatisfied office workers.

Anyway getting back to the point. Should Irish be taught in schools? Yes of course it should. Teaching a child any language is good for their development. Many fluent Irish speakers find it easier to pick up foreign languages. In addition to this, it's the native language. I know its not spoken outside of the country but that's irrelevant. That fact doesn't stop the Scandinavians speaking their languages. Why not just do away with all languages.... Afterall everybody understands English:rolleyes:

I find it hilarious that the common argument in Ireland against Irish is, " well why don't we learn something useful like French?" The fact is they have the opportunity to learn these languages too, but guess what.... 99% don't. They don't learn any language because they are lazy. The fact that Irish is not widely used gives them an excuse... " We'll it's not really useful so I never bothered learning it." Yeah right..... sounds too much like hard work.

As for religion. The fact that the vast majority of people in the world follow a religion of some kind suggests that children should be taught about them. Anyone who thinks that children spend day after day studying the bible in school is ignorant of the education system. Should a lot of time be spent on it? Of course not. But it cannot simply be ignored.

Extra marks for the use of paragraphs. Nice essay. C+

Wibbs

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Anyone who wants to become a teacher but uses the excuse that they don't have honours Irish, is just highlighting the fact that they are not really bothered enough to make a sacrifice for the career.

One could argue you're excluding some who may want to become teachers, but the Irish requirement is another requirement too far.

In addition to this, it's the native language.

No it is most certainly not. It is one of the native languages of this country and one of the least spoken ones.

I know its not spoken outside of the country but that's irrelevant.

It's barely spoken here, outside of education and small enclaves for the language. The vast majority of daily communication in this nation is done through other languages. The old banality of "there are likely more native Chinese/Polish/Russian speakers than Irish" has more than a ring of truth to it.

That fact doesn't stop the Scandinavians speaking their languages.

Apples and oranges comparison. All "native" Norwegians speak Norwegian, all Swedes speak Swedish, all Finns... well you get the picture. How many speak fluent Irish and I don't just mean a cupla focal? 15%? 20? One could lives ones life in Stockholm entirely through Swedish and never need a word of any other language. Try doing that in Dublin through Irish, hell try doing it in Dingle. Apples and oranges. You can't equate languages like those with the Irish situation.

I find it hilarious that the common argument in Ireland against Irish is, " well why don't we learn something useful like French?" The fact is they have the opportunity to learn these languages too, but guess what.... 99% don't.

Youve had posters already note they have more French than Irish. Hell I've more schooled Latin than Irish and way more French.

They don't learn any language because they are lazy. The fact that Irish is not widely used gives them an excuse... " We'll it's not really useful so I never bothered learning it." Yeah right..... sounds too much like hard work.

The standard hectoring type argument from some Irish language supporters. It does the argument little good and merely reinforces the way too many think about the language. Which is a pity.

This;

It's merely a window into the life of many teenagers and unsatisfied office workers.

Reinforces it further.

As for religion. The fact that the vast majority of people in the world follow a religion of some kind suggests that children should be taught about them. Anyone who thinks that children spend day after day studying the bible in school is ignorant of the education system. Should a lot of time be spent on it? Of course not. But it cannot simply be ignored.

I'd say just make it part of History. As for those who follow religion, fair enough, but it's up to them to impart that to their kids(or not as the case may be).

squod

The real reason people want religion banned is because hearing about God watching over you tends to put people off their stroke.

Nothing worse than arriving home with a nice big cucumber from M&S and feeling guilty about shoving it in yer fanny. Pure waste like.

Shenshen

LordSutch wrote: »

I understand your wish for your kids to be fluent in Irish, but here's an interesting backdrop to the debate, with a bit of help from the History Forum: "Interestingly Irish replaced Science as a primary school subject as recently as the 1920s. DeValera's aim was to make all the children of Ireland speak Irish, and to become more Irish and less 'worldly' > Science it seems was a bit too worldly and free thinking for the new state to handle at that time".

Click on 25 mins, 30 seconds > > >http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A10088625%3A1475%3A25-11-2012%3A

Good grief... I know this is maybe over the top, but to me that statement made DeValera sound just the tiniest bit like Pol Pot...

podgemonster

A friend of mine went for teacher placement interview. On the interview panel was the Principal, the local priest and an elderly female teacher who only spoke in Irish.

Sure the college where teachers train in Munster is called "Mary Immaculate". The Catholic church still has a strong chokehold on this country, there's no avoiding it unfortunaltly.

It's quite clear the education system needs to be restructured.

In my primary school in the 90's we started every morning at 9.00 to 11 with Irish, 11-12 maths and then 12-12.30 on religion. Every single day, 5 days a week for 8 years. With English, History, Geography, PE, Arts and Craft and science (and knitting) were shuffled into the 2 spare hours we had everyday. Its a complete joke.

Carlos_Ray

Wibbs wrote: »

One could argue you're excluding some who may want to become teachers, but the Irish requirement is another requirement too far.

How is it a requirement too far?Every year, hundreds of mature students re-sit the leaving cert honours Irish paper in order to do primary school teaching. If you're not prepared to do it then you don't meet the requirements. Similary, if you're not prepared to sit the QFA exams ( which many consider to be a scam) you can't work in certain bank jobs. It's a requirement.... if you don't like it or are not prepared to meet it..... tough.

Wibbs wrote: »

No it is most certainly not. It is one of the native languages of this country and one of the least spoken ones. It's barely spoken here, outside of education and small enclaves for the language. The vast majority of daily communication in this nation is done through other languages. The old banality of "there are likely more native Chinese/Polish/Russian speakers than Irish" has more than a ring of truth to it. Apples and oranges comparison. All "native" Norwegians speak Norwegian, all Swedes speak Swedish, all Finns... well you get the picture. How many speak fluent Irish and I don't just mean a cupla focal? 15%? 20? One could lives ones life in Stockholm entirely through Swedish and never need a word of any other language. Try doing that in Dublin through Irish, hell try doing it in Dingle. Apples and oranges. You can't equate languages like those with the Irish situation.

But it essentially comes back to the argument about the "need" for Irish. Simply put, we don't "need it" but the Scandinavians don't need their individual languages either as they all speak English. They keep their language alive because they feel it is important for their identity. Similarly with Hebrew in Israel. At one point, less people spoke Hebrew than Irish. Now it is the main language in Israel. If we were to live our lives only with things we "need" in a practical sense we'd have very dull and boring lives indeed. Maybe we should get rid of Art, literature, and music in school too... just teach hard practical things and create a nation of western replicas geared to work and not much more.

Wibbs wrote: »

had posters already note they have more French than Irish. Hell I've more schooled Latin than Irish and way more French. The standard hectoring type argument from some Irish language supporters. It does the argument little good and merely reinforces the way too many think about the language. Which is a pity.

Yes they say they have more French, but even so, the standard is usually extremely basic. People in Ireland and Britain are notoriously bad at picking up languages. Mainly because they feel ( and perhaps rightly so) they don't technically need them. It's my view, however, that being fluent in more than one language, although not always practical, is healthy. I'll admit that Irish was taught incorrectly for a number of years, but things have changed recently. I believe that more and more children are finding the experience worthwhile now. I would agree that after 3rd year it should be optional, but I am confident that many would still choose it. [/QUOTE]

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd say just make it part of History. As for those who follow religion, fair enough, but it's up to them to impart that to their kids(or not as the case may be).

All the lessons are integrated anyway. Religion is not taught the way it was 15 years ago. Kids learn more about all religions and in context. Most classes now have children of different religions, even in catholic schools. There is no longer a heavy emphasis on religion. Even so, most parents still opt to enter their children into religious schools and have them prepped for the sacraments. The bulk of time in primary schools in spent on numeracy and literacy ( which is as it should be.)

Wibbs

LordSutch wrote: »

I understand your wish for your kids to be fluent in Irish, but here's an interesting backdrop to the debate, with a bit of help from the History Forum: "Interestingly Irish replaced Science as a primary school subject as recently as the 1920s. DeValera's aim was to make all the children of Ireland speak Irish, and to become more Irish and less 'worldly' > Science it seems was a bit too worldly and free thinking for the new state to handle at that time".

Well there was certainly the element of science was the preserve of those in the "big house". Nonsense of course. Look at our Natural History museum. It's a museum of a museum. Pickled in the aspic of the new state philosophy which didn't want anything to do with that kinda thing. A plan for a cassock shrouded Bogger* year zero. Even things like the wanton destruction of Georgian Dublin were examples of that. At one stage there was even a plan afoot to level one of the Palladian squares in Dublin to put up a catholic basilica in it's place. There was a lot of throwing the baby out with the bathwater going on at the time and up to quite recently. Add in the church which was pulling strings and which would have been only to happy to keep science and scientific thinking out of people's heads lest they ask too many awkward questions about some of the "mysteries of faith". Easier to rule the proles when said proles are ignorant. Ironic given contrary to popular the Catholic church has actually moved science forward more than once. Even Newton a Protestant theologian acknowledged the debt physics owed them.







*NOT a geographical term. A description of a kind of backward gombeenman(and woman) thinking to be found throughout Ireland, in both urban and rural settings. Thankfully dying out but going down kicking all the same.

Mardy Bum

token101 wrote: »

In place of religion you'd have another pointless subject? How many professional philosophers are there in Ireland? We'd be better off teaching soccer, you'd probably have more chance of making a living in that!


Do you mean mandatory after secondary level? You mean teach third level through Irish?

Philosophy is not pointless. An ignorance of it is though. Studies have shown it does wonders for students' critical thinking.

I meant optional for secondary schoolers.

Wibbs

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

How is it a requirement too far?Every year, hundreds of mature students re-sit the leaving cert honours Irish paper in order to do primary school teaching. If you're not prepared to do it then you don't meet the requirements. Similary, if you're not prepared to sit the QFA exams ( which many consider to be a scam) you can't work in certain bank jobs. It's a requirement.... if you don't like it or are not prepared to meet it..... tough.

Smell of the circular argument with that.

But it essentially comes back to the argument about the "need" for Irish. Simply put, we don't "need it" but the Scandinavians don't need their individual languages either as they all speak English.

No they don't. Some do, some have very good english, but many do not. That's a fallacy.

They keep their language alive because they feel it is important for their identity.

And the fact is we didn't and continue not to. Even with all the compulsion and support and time and money aimed at the language since the foundation of the state, it has declined. The Gaelthacht areas have contracted hugely since the foundation of our state. If we as a nation felt it that important to our identity one would have expected to see growth after we kicked out the British, but it didn't. There were more Irish language speakers in Ireland in 1916 under the brits than there are today.

Similarly with Hebrew in Israel. At one point, less people spoke Hebrew than Irish. Now it is the main language in Israel.

That example again. Well it usually shows up alright. However it shows an ignorance of the situation and history of the nation and language. Modern Hebrew is largely an "invented" language. It was necessary as an esperanto for Jews moving to the area, most of whom came from myriad backgrounds and cultures and had no common language. An utterly different situation to Ireland and Irish.

All the lessons are integrated anyway. Religion is not taught the way it was 15 years ago. Kids learn more about all religions and in context. Most classes now have children of different religions, even in catholic schools. There is no longer a heavy emphasis on religion. Even so, most parents still opt to enter their children into religious schools and have them prepped for the sacraments. The bulk of time in primary schools in spent on numeracy and literacy ( which is as it should be.)

Well that's good to hear, though judging by our results in comparison to other developed nations we need to do more.

CruelCoin

Opinicus wrote: »

I spent thirteen years of my life learning Irish and I still can't string a sentence together in Irish if you asked me. Learned more French in five years. We should be teaching young people HTML and logic instead of wasting their time learning something they'll never use.

As for religion, there's no place for it in a state school.

HTML is dead, long live HTML5.

Teaching programming languages at such a young age is generally redundant, as more likely than not, that language will be obsolete by the time the child leaves school.

seamus

CruelCoin wrote: »

HTML is dead, long live HTML5.

Teaching programming languages at such a young age is generally redundant, as more likely than not, that language will be obsolete by the time the child leaves school.

HTML isn't a programming language

That aside, I disagree in principle. Learning to program is 10% about the language, 90% about the technique and theory. Besides, programming languages don't really die that quickly. Java and PHP have been around since 1995 and are two of the most used and most popular languages today.

Even if they were to die tomorrow, any experienced programmer would only take a couple of weeks to transfer themselves onto the next generation; C# and Ruby.

Changing programming language is a lot like buying a new car. It basically does the same thing, but all the knobs and buttons are in different places, and you have a few new knobs and buttons. It's weird and awkward at first, but within a few hours you'll have forgotten what life was like before.

Carlos_Ray

Wibbs wrote: »

Smell of the circular argument with that.

Fact remains. The requirement is achievable with a little bit of hard work. Those who genuinely have the determination to become a teacher will have no problem doing it.

Wibbs wrote: »

No they don't. Some do, some have very good english, but many do not. That's a fallacy. And the fact is we didn't and continue not to.

Actually 90% of Danish people speak English fluently, 89% of Norwegians speak it fluently, and if we go a little further south, 90% of Dutch speak it fluently. Compare this to 95% of Americans, 98% of Irish, and bizarrely only 97% of British. You can live a practical life in any of these countries without speaking any of their native languages....

Wibbs wrote: »

Even with all the compulsion and support and time and money aimed at the language since the foundation of the state, it has declined. The Gaelthacht areas have contracted hugely since the foundation of our state. If we as a nation felt it that important to our identity one would have expected to see growth after we kicked out the British, but it didn't. There were more Irish language speakers in Ireland in 1916 under the brits than there are today.

Irish was basically killed by Government initiatives and teaching methods. That's common knowledge. Mistakes were made but attempts are being made to rectify these mistakes. Furthermore, mass emigration from Irish speaking areas played a huge part in the decline. Irish was spoken mainly in the poor areas that suffered most from our numerous recessions. It wasn't merely a case of people actively rejecting it as you seem to be suggesting.

Wibbs wrote: »

That example again. Well it usually shows up alright. However it shows an ignorance of the situation and history of the nation and language. Modern Hebrew is largely an "invented" language. It was necessary as an esperanto for Jews moving to the area, most of whom came from myriad backgrounds and cultures and had no common language. An utterly different situation to Ireland and Irish.

Its brought up because its relevant. It demonstrates that languages on the verge of death can be revived. This was done in Israel for partly practical, partly nationalistic reasons. If you've actually ever spoken with an Israeli, you'll find that they are immensely proud of their language and see it as an important part of their identity ( as most small nations with native languages do.) Most people in Ireland have lost the relevance of this. They can't speak Irish so they attack it. It's a basic human reaction I suppose. Like when a toddler can't open a box he'll break it off a wall in frustration.

Wibbs wrote: »

Well that's good to hear, though judging by our results in comparison to other developed nations we need to do more.

Not that much more. Our education system ranks among the best despite all the hysteria on Boards.ie. we're just outside the top 10 and ahead of countries such as Denmark, Australia, Poland, Germany, Belgium, and USA. We must be doing some things right so.

Osgoodisgood

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Religion should be thought as a generic topic covering all major religions and not a Catholic class. It should be a class so kids understand the belief systems of the world. It shouldn't be an exam subject. It should certainly take up less time than other subjects.

I'm not picking on you in particular here but this suggestion always gets me irritated.

Even teaching about world religions as a separate subject, as opposed to making reference to religion when relevant in history or social sciences, seems like a waste of time to me. What would be taught?

Lesson 1.
Bronze age people dreamed up some wacky stuff to explain the things that they couldn't understand. They conjured up a load of rituals that seem bat**** to us now.

Lesson 2.
See Lesson 1

Lollipops23

I agree totally- Irish should be an optional secondary subject, there's no need to waste time on it in primary when a lot of kids can barely write a coherent sentence or add efficiently by 6th class.

It's time to face it-Irish is a dead language and there's no logical reason to sacrifice important subjects at its expense.


Also, religion needs to be wiped out of all public/government establishments, be it schools, the law or the freakin post office.

Wibbs

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Fact remains. The requirement is achievable with a little bit of hard work. Those who genuinely have the determination to become a teacher will have no problem doing it.

Like I said circular argument.

Actually 90% of Danish people speak English fluently, 89% of Norwegians speak it fluently, and if we go a little further south, 90% of Dutch speak it fluently. Compare this to 95% of Americans, 98% of Irish, and bizarrely only 97% of British. You can live a practical life in any of these countries without speaking any of their native languages....

Could you "live a practical life in" Ireland with only Irish? Nope and that was my point. It's not "our" native language. It is a minority language native to the country. There's a difference.

Irish was basically killed by Government initiatives and teaching methods. That's common knowledge. Mistakes were made but attempts are being made to rectify these mistakes. Furthermore, mass emigration from Irish speaking areas played a huge part in the decline. Irish was spoken mainly in the poor areas that suffered most from our numerous recessions. It wasn't merely a case of people actively rejecting it as you seem to be suggesting.

All of us here who went through the Irish school system have been exposed it it. For many years it was a requirement for many jobs in the land. A good example being the civil service. When that requirement for the language was dropped the civil service went to english almost overnight and bear in mind these were people who already had a good command of Irish. They rejected it.

You speak of emigration from Irish speaking areas. Indeed and those emigres spread all over the world and again they left the language behind remarkably quickly. Take the US Irish diaspora. The second largest in the place at 40 million, yet those who speak the language today number remarkably few and knock the language down around 76th spoken in the US. Many more Italian americans have some Italian, Chinese Americans make their suite of languages the third most commonly spoken. There are a couple of million French and German speakers too. Those of Dutch ancestry make up only 3% of the US population and have been in the place nearly since the get go, yet nearly seven times more of them speak Dutch than Irish Americans speak Irish. As you point out emigration tended to come from poor areas and those areas were most likely to be Irish speaking yet they dropped it within a generation and their descendants showed little interest in speaking it. The same can be said of other nations that received us. In essence they rejected it.

Its brought up because its relevant. It demonstrates that languages on the verge of death can be revived.

It wasnt a language on the verge of death as you put it. It was dead. As a spoken language anyway. It was a religious language. Vaguely akin to latin used in Catholic rites. In the late 19th century Jews emigrating to Palestine needed a lingua franca for the reasons I gave before, so revived and tweaked it to that purpose.

This was done in Israel for partly practical, partly nationalistic reasons. If you've actually ever spoken with an Israeli, you'll find that they are immensely proud of their language and see it as an important part of their identity

Yes they do and understandably so, but the Irish comparison is a very weak one. Did/do we need a lingua franca? Nope we have one. It just happens to be english. Put it another way if Jewish settlers had all come from say France I doubt modern Hebrew would have taken off. It wouldn't have been required.

Most people in Ireland have lost the relevance of this.

One could easily argue that most people in Ireland simply don't see the relevance of it to them. Ditto for the worldwide Irish diaspora. Most people(myself included) would hate to see it die out, but are happy enough not to have it themselves.

They can't speak Irish so they attack it. It's a basic human reaction I suppose. Like when a toddler can't open a box he'll break it off a wall in frustration.

annnnd we're back to the condescension. I recall another thread on this where one of the Irish language supporters, a very sound chap as it happens, took me to task for suggesting that an awful lot of his fellows came out with this kinda thing very early into the debate. He reckoned they were a minority. Judging by those that have hoved into view on such threads, I suspect he doesn't see them because he naturally gravitates towards people more like himself that don't.

Not that much more. Our education system ranks among the best despite all the hysteria on Boards.ie. we're just outside the top 10 and ahead of countries such as Denmark, Australia, Poland, Germany, Belgium, and USA. We must be doing some things right so.

1 in 4 teenaged boys being functionally iliterate is not doing very well at all. Companies having to outsource jobs to non Irish because of lack of local candidates isn't doing very well either.

pickarooney

Teaching kids Russian or Italian in primary school wouldn't be any less of a waste of time than teaching them Irish. It's taught very badly but the fact it's being taught is not the problem.

seamus

pickarooney wrote: »

Teaching kids Russian or Italian in primary school wouldn't be any less of a waste of time than teaching them Irish. It's taught very badly but the fact it's being taught is not the problem.

No, it's the time spent for relatively little gain that's the problem. 12-14 years of it, at least half an hour a day, and most of the country is barely able to string a sentence together.

It's time to stop flogging the dead horse and spend at least some of that time in areas where we might be able to improve.

The ideal mandatory curriculum would include english (basic literacy skills taught and examined right up to junior cert), maths and one european language. So kids or parents can choose Irish if they wish.

Carlos_Ray

Wibbs wrote: »

All of us here who went through the Irish school system have been exposed it it. For many years it was a requirement for many jobs in the land. A good example being the civil service. When that requirement for the language was dropped the civil service went to english almost overnight and bear in mind these were people who already had a good command of Irish. They rejected it.

There's a difference between not speaking Irish because you reject it, and not speaking it because, if you do, most people won't be able to understand you. I'm speaking to you in English because it's a language we both understand. Doesn't mean I reject Irish.

Wibbs wrote: »

You speak of emigration from Irish speaking areas. Indeed and those emigres spread all over the world and again they left the language behind remarkably quickly. Take the US Irish diaspora. The second largest in the place at 40 million, yet those who speak the language today number remarkably few and knock the language down around 76th spoken in the US. Many more Italian americans have some Italian, Chinese Americans make their suite of languages the third most commonly spoken. There are a couple of million French and German speakers too. Those of Dutch ancestry make up only 3% of the US population and have been in the place nearly since the get go, yet nearly seven times more of them speak Dutch than Irish Americans speak Irish. As you point out emigration tended to come from poor areas and those areas were most likely to be Irish speaking yet they dropped it within a generation and their descendants showed little interest in speaking it. The same can be said of other nations that received us. In essence they rejected it.

And you accuse others of comparing apples and oranges? The speaking of Dutch in America is strongly linked to specific religious communities. The dynamics of their society is extremely different to those of the Irish Americans.

Furthermore, the majority of people leaving Ireland in the 20th century spoke no Irish in the first place so they didn't leave it behind or reject it. We know Irish failed in Ireland for a number of reasons. Many never had a a chance to genuinely learn Irish. I mentioned emigration from Irish speaking areas because you brought up the point that these areas were in decline without commenting on the real reason. You were trying to suggest people were merely "turning their back" on Irish.

The Irish speakers that left Ireland did not enter purely Irish speaking communities as the Dutch did. They were forced to look for jobs in cities were speaking only Irish would be idiotic and futile. Again not a rejection of the language, just a practical need to speak English.

Wibbs wrote: »

One could easily argue that most people in Ireland simply don't see the relevance of it to them. Ditto for the worldwide Irish diaspora. Most people(myself included) would hate to see it die out, but are happy enough not to have it themselves.

I agree totally. They don't see the relevance. That doesn't mean it doesn't have relevance. Out of interest why would you hate do see it die out? There's nothing in your posts that suggest you see any benefit of it existing at all.

Wibbs wrote: »

annnnd we're back to the condescension. I recall another thread on this where one of the Irish language supporters, a very sound chap as it happens, took me to task for suggesting that an awful lot of his fellows came out with this kinda thing very early into the debate. He reckoned they were a minority. Judging by those that have hoved into view on such threads, I suspect he doesn't see them because he naturally gravitates towards people more like himself that don't.

Really? You're posts are littered with condescending throw-away comments, get off your high horse.

Wibbs wrote: »

1 in 4 teenaged boys being functionally iliterate is not doing very well at all. Companies having to outsource jobs to non Irish because of lack of local candidates isn't doing very well either.

Again, Ireland's education system was recently rated as 11th best in the world. It is certainly not in meltdown as you are trying to suggest. Find another stick to beat the Irish language with.

mckenzie84

gallag wrote: »

What's the point in Irish? It's like Ulster Scotts, the child would benefit from learning French or German etc. I think sport and religion should be scrapped and sports clubs on Saturdays and religion on Sundays if required. That way children will not be sent home with houres of homework destroying family time.

Yes, more lazy, inactive, obese children is just what we need :rolleyes:

Wibbs

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

There's a difference between not speaking Irish because you reject it, and not speaking it because, if you do, most people won't be able to understand you. I'm speaking to you in English because it's a language we both understand. Doesn't mean I reject Irish.

In the civil service before the language requirement was dropped they spoke it internally and understood each other perfectly, afterwards they didn't. Explain?

And you accuse others of comparing apples and oranges? The speaking of Dutch in America is strongly linked to specific religious communities. The dynamics of their society is extremely different to those of the Irish Americans.

Not just among specific religious communities. Outside of those, Dutch speaking Americans were quite common. One President's first language was dutch. Another, Teddy roosevelt also spoke Dutch and Dutch is spoken today outside such communities. What about all the other ethnic groups and the examples I gave? All of whom have a far higher proportion of ancestral language speakers.

Furthermore, the majority of people leaving Ireland in the 20th century spoke no Irish in the first place so they didn't leave it behind or reject it.

The guts of the US Irish diaspora arrived before the 20th century and mostly from Irish speaking areas, so what happened there?

We know Irish failed in Ireland for a number of reasons. Many never had a a chance to genuinely learn Irish. I mentioned emigration from Irish speaking areas because you brought up the point that these areas were in decline without commenting on the real reason. You were trying to suggest people were merely "turning their back" on Irish.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Irish contracted in usage from the 18th century on for various reasons and has continued to contract since the foundation of the state and after all the time, effort and money thrown at the language. Does not compute for a nation so attached to it as you seem to think. During the occupation of the Soviet bloc in eastern Europe people risked their lives and were even killed for smuggling books in their native language. Books FFS. The second the Soviet bloc fell they were back speaking it.

Too short a timescale for you? Basque. It's been harried and attacked on all fronts as a language for many centuries, plus the region has had it's fair share of hardship and emigration. In the 20th century in Spain that nazi twat Franco and his cronies(inc the oul church) tried to stamp it out. At one point it was illegal to even give your kids Basque names, yet when the same twat died, Basque which had been kept undercover came back very strongly. In less than a generation(he died in 76). I mean they had an "invader language" forced upon them, so why didn't 90% of Basques just give up and speak SpanisH? We've had nearly a century of support for the language yet it didn't come back and actually contracted further. Again does not compute if we didn't reject the language at some level.

The Irish speakers that left Ireland did not enter purely Irish speaking communities as the Dutch did. They were forced to look for jobs in cities were speaking only Irish would be idiotic and futile. Again not a rejection of the language, just a practical need to speak English.

There were/are Irish quarters in various US cities and states. Large chunks of New York were run by the Irish and in the 19th century. A time when people coming from Ireland would be likely Irish speakers going to areas which should also have had Irish speakers. Just like there are Italian and Chinese and Jewish and Russian quarters etc. They kept far more of their languages than we did and they also needed to speak english. So why are we notably different?

I agree totally. They don't see the relevance. That doesn't mean it doesn't have relevance.

It's damned hard to engineer a relevance in a culture where none or little previously exists. Not without external pressures that force a relevance like in the case of modern Hebrew. It certainly hasnt worked here for the vast majority of Irish people. We may pay the relevance lip service but we do so as Bearla.

Out of interest why would you hate do see it die out? There's nothing in your posts that suggest you see any benefit of it existing at all.

I see no benefit in it's artificial life support, not if and when it interferes with other aspects of our lives. Not least financial. I most certainly see a benefit in it surviving, but only if people want it to survive and not as a narrow aspect of what defines "Irish culture".

Again, Ireland's education system was recently rated as 11th best in the world. It is certainly not in meltdown as you are trying to suggest. Find another stick to beat the Irish language with.

As the OP wrote "A recent international study ranked Ireland 17th in maths and 22nd in science out of 50 countries.

This is hardly surprising -- Irish primary schools spend 10 percent of classroom time on religion, but only 4 percent on science. Ireland is also the only country in the EU that does not teach foreign languages at primary level, even though many employers now require foreign language skills and have no use for a cúpla focail as Gaeilge." Never mind the 1 in 4 young males leaving school with functional illiteracy That's pretty damned bad.

pickarooney

seamus wrote: »

No, it's the time spent for relatively little gain that's the problem. 12-14 years of it, at least half an hour a day, and most of the country is barely able to string a sentence together.

It's time to stop flogging the dead horse and spend at least some of that time in areas where we might be able to improve.

The ideal mandatory curriculum would include english (basic literacy skills taught and examined right up to junior cert), maths and one european language. So kids or parents can choose Irish if they wish.

No. You'll still have kids learning a language for 13 years and unable to string a sentence together. Without practice, exposure and motivation they won't learn any language. Children in Southern Europe spent almost as long learning English yet their command of the language is almost universally abysmal. They don't just magically pick up a language because it's "easier".

MadsL

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

I'm not picking on you in particular here but this suggestion always gets me irritated.

Even teaching about world religions as a separate subject, as opposed to making reference to religion when relevant in history or social sciences, seems like a waste of time to me. What would be taught?

Lesson 1.
Bronze age people dreamed up some wacky stuff to explain the things that they couldn't understand. They conjured up a load of rituals that seem bat**** to us now.

Lesson 2.
See Lesson 1

Do you really need to have a modern course of study in world religions spelled out to you? Let me draw the analogy with History, what would be taught? People attacking each other for batshit crazy reasons?

In case that irony is lost on you, here's A. The current JC syllabus with sections (not enough in my view) on world religions and B. A specific world religions syllabus. Also try and appreciate the fact that your use of "us" implies that you expect students either to be from or live the rest of their lives within a white, catholic environment. That is so far from the truth.


A. http://www.curriculumonline.ie/uploadedfiles/pdf/jc_religion_sy.pdf
B. http://www.rsiss.net/syllabi/comprel1.html

DEFTLEFTHAND

books4sale wrote: »

Are you saying that you want everyone in this country using Irish on a daily basis like they use German in Germany.

I wonder sometimes what kind of fantasy 'Noddy lands' some lads live in.[/QUO

How did you pick up that from my post, I've stated on here before that the greatest thing Britain ever gave us was the English language. I just said maybe we could justify teaching the Irish language for 14 years if students actually had some grip on it's usage by the end of it.

Osgoodisgood

MadsL wrote: »

Do you really need to have a modern course of study in world religions spelled out to you?

Noooooooooo! That sounds really really dull. I get that you think it's worthwhile though. I just don't agree with you.

Let me draw the analogy with History, what would be taught? People attacking each other for batshit crazy reasons?

Your analogy is a little confused.
Religion is to History what Astrology is to Astronomy.
For the record I don't need a modern course of the history of religion, astrology, alchemy or any other debunked twaddle.

In case that irony is lost on you, here's A. The current JC syllabus with sections (not enough in my view) on world religions and B. A specific world religions syllabus.

My opinion is that religion has had more than enough airtime in the last few thousand years. It doesn't deserve the special treatment to continue in respect of education as a subject on its own or as the subject matter of an ongoing review of its place in history.

Also try and appreciate the fact that your use of "us" implies that you expect students either to be from or live the rest of their lives within a white, catholic environment. That is so far from the truth.

That was my implication? Well, well. Who woulda thunk it? Not me as it turns out.

philologos

I won't post my expected response. I think computer science and programming should be taught at both primary and secondary level. Likewise I think RE should expand to cover religious belief and philosophy. I'm not opposed to schools having an ethos though.

Wibbs

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

My opinion is that religion has had more than enough airtime in the last few thousand years. It doesn't deserve the special treatment to continue in respect of education as a subject on its own or as the subject matter of an ongoing review of its place in history.

The emboldened bit I don't agree with. Religion and the politics of it have had a huge impact on world history, ditto for various philosophies. To not have them as part of the subject matter in the teaching of history would be beyond daft.

MadsL

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Noooooooooo! That sounds really really dull. I get that you think it's worthwhile though. I just don't agree with you.

Ah. Education should be exciting and full of explosions and wonder. Got it.

Your analogy is a little confused.
Religion is to History what Astrology is to Astronomy.

The study of Religion was once referred to as the Queen of the Sciences. You, once again, are confusing the practice of religion with the study of religion. Do I have to spell out the difference?

For the record I don't need a modern course of the history of religion, astrology, alchemy or any other debunked twaddle.

Much of the 'science' you learnt in school is now in question or has been shown to be only partially true, does that mean it was worthless to study it? You are going to have a hard time with History full stop if you cannot understand the religious reasons behind the Crusades or in more recent times the religious aspects and historical divisions behind the Troubles.

My opinion is that religion has had more than enough airtime in the last few thousand years. It doesn't deserve the special treatment to continue in respect of education as a subject on its own or as the subject matter of an ongoing review of its place in history.

It has special treatment alright, any serious attempt on a student to actually study academically is derided either as a waste of time or mocked. I've seen advice being given to students not to "waste their time" studying RE/RS at an exam level even though they wished to study anthropology at university level.

That was my implication? Well, well. Who woulda thunk it? Not me as it turns out.

It wasn't? Who were you including in the "us" part then? You seem to have a rather homogenous view of Irish society. Irish society includes neo-druids who certainly don't feel those rituals are "batshit crazy", regardless of your opinion which you transpose onto a supposed everyone.

MadsL

Wibbs wrote: »

The emboldened bit I don't agree with. Religion and the politics of it have had a huge impact on world history, ditto for various philosophies. To not have them as part of the subject matter in the teaching of history would be beyond daft.

And what expertise would history teachers have about world religions in order to explain the impact if the study of religions was not included as part of a good, well-rounded education?

Wibbs

It doesn't need to be a separate subject though.

MadsL

Wibbs wrote: »

It doesn't need to be a separate subject though.

Well, you could include modules in a History course on World Religions, why does calling it Religious Studies upset everyone? If the same content was taught as History (World Religions) would everyone stop being so emotive about it?