Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
We must rid ourselves of our ludicrous language laws
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Well this at least is being resolved, the Dept. have finally listened to the so called 'fundementalist Gaelgiori' and are developing a proper curriculum for Gaeltacht schools. There was a public consultation over the summer and the dept. have invited people to take part in public meetings to discuss the proposals. The fact that Gaeltacht schools up to now had to teach the one size fits all course was one of the main reasons that literature was such a significant part of the course. The result was that you had one course being taught to two vastly different groups of students, native speakers of the language and those who could barely tell you the time in Irish. The course was not really fit for purpose for either group in reallity.
Once the Gaeltacht course is in place, the standard course can be made to further focus on developing spoken Irish for learners in English medium schools, people are already talking about the necessary reforms.
Would be a very welcome breath of fresh air, to be fair. I would hope that the nesscary reforms are put into place ASAP.
By "fundamenalist" though, I should clarify, I refer to their compelte opposition to optional Irish for the Leaving Certificate on the basis that it would undermine the "status of the langauge" without any consideration for the students who just want to give it up as soon as possible, or for the idea that the langauge might benefit from the resouces being put into students who actually enjoy the langauge.?? You think Conradh is radical? I think you should lie down.
https://cnag.ie/en/info/conradh-na-gaeilge/what-does-conradh-na-gaeilge-do.html
Organisation's Mission Statement
To reinstate Irish as the common language of Ireland.
I'd consider this radical as they have made no research into whether or not the Irish people actually want Irish to be reinstated as their common langauge.
Their attitude towards education could also be considered radical.Conradh na Gaeilge recommends that all trainee teachers should be taught through Irish in an all-Irish environment, learning through and about immersion education in Irish, for the equivalent of one academic year of their training course.that one subject as well as Irish, should be through the medium of Irish to every primary school student (this can be done on a pilot basis at first to develop and offer the necessary support and training needs). Physical education, drama or art should be the second subject of choice to encourage and excite the students.
https://cnag.ie/en/campaigns/current-campaigns/education-policy.html
This clearly puts the needs of the langauge far ahead of the needs of the student, which is not the purpose of education.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
When they change English to the official and first language of the country through a referendum then we can forget about Irish. It's as likely to happen as VRT being abolished.0
-
The most obvious reform would be to allow English-speaking families a choice whether or not they want their children to learn Irish as their second language.Once the Gaeltacht course is in place, the standard course can be made to further focus on developing spoken Irish for learners in English medium schools, people are already talking about the necessary reforms.
Who are the 'people' you say are 'talking about the necessary reforms'? Where are these talks taking place? Who is allowed participate in the talks?0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »By "fundamentalist" though, I should clarify, I refer to their compelte opposition to optional Irish for the Leaving Certificate on the basis that it would undermine the "status of the langauge" without any consideration for the students who just want to give it up as soon as possible, or for the idea that the langauge might benefit from the resouces being put into students who actually enjoy the langauge.
Do you often go around labeling those with a difference of opinion to yourself as being fundamentalist?
The two points you make are also quite weak, simply allowing students to take the path of least resistance does not make for a better education system. At the end of the day, doing things you don't like, or things you perceive as being hard is part of life.
As for your second point, I know for a fact that that argument has been looked at and found to be false. There is actual real world experience of an education system that tried to follow that exact idea, it was a disaster. Call Conradh fundamentalist for not wanting that mistake repeated in our education system if you want.
Learning a language is a valuable part of any education, if a high quality education is what we want then we should be looking to improve the quality of language learning in our schools rather than undermining it. Personally I don't see why Irish should be optional any more than Maths or English should.
I could equally label you as being a fundamentalist for wanting Irish to be made optional regardless of the damage that would be caused to the language, not to mention the worse education that would be provided in this country as a result.I'd consider this radical as they have made no research into whether or not the Irish people actually want Irish to be reinstated as their common langauge.
Their attitude towards education could also be considered radical.
By that definition just about any civil society group could be labeled as being radical. What you have outlined is not what radical means. And as it so happens there has been plenty of research into peoples attitude to the Irish language, unsurprisingly it turns out that people are supportive of it.
Their attitude towards education could also be considered quite moderate.
Though its interesting to see that peoples perceptions have changed, there was a time when Conradh was seen as a bastion of arch conservatism.This clearly puts the needs of the langauge far ahead of the needs of the student, which is not the purpose of education.
I would disagree, learning a second language is beneficial, measures to ensure that teachers are more competent to teach that language, and that the student will have a greater opportunity to learn that language without taking time away from other subjects improves rather than harms the education that children here will get.
Who knows, maybe that is radical, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.0 -
By "fundamentalist" though, I should clarify, I refer to their compelte opposition to optional Irish for the Leaving Certificate on the basis that it would undermine the "status of the langauge" without any consideration for the students who just want to give it up as soon as possible, or for the idea that the langauge might benefit from the resouces being put into students who actually enjoy the langauge. Do you often go around labeling those with a difference of opinion to yourself as being fundamentalist?
The two points you make are also quite weak, simply allowing students to take the path of least resistance does not make for a better education system. At the end of the day, doing things you don't like, or things you perceive as being hard is part of life.
You're not doing a great job at promoting Irish by saying "we all have to do things we don't like".
Can you give any examples of the "X should be optional so that resources can be better distributed to those who want to study it" argument and its alleged failures?As for your second point, I know for a fact that that argument has been looked at and found to be false. There is actual real world experience of an education system that tried to follow that exact idea, it was a disaster. Call Conradh fundamentalist for not wanting that mistake repeated in our education system if you want.
Also, I'd call CnaG "fundamentalist" for their unchanging belief that the current approach to teaching Irish needs to be ramped up even more, almost like the "Overly Attached Girlfriend" trying to make you love her.
First of all, "radical" is defined as "relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough." Funnily enough, there's such a thing as "radical conservatism", albeit the preferred term is "reactionary", i.e. someone who wants to reverse social progresses made in recent times. From a quick Google search, it seems that the last time Irish was the majority language here was in the 18th century.By that definition just about any civil society group could be labeled as being radical. What you have outlined is not what radical means. And as it so happens there has been plenty of research into peoples attitude to the Irish language, unsurprisingly it turns out that people are supportive of it.
Their attitude towards education could also be considered quite moderate.
Though its interesting to see that peoples perceptions have changed, there was a time when Conradh was seen as a bastion of arch conservatism.
So, why not make a second language, not just Irish, compulsory in schools?I would disagree, learning a second language is beneficial, measures to ensure that teachers are more competent to teach that language, and that the student will have a greater opportunity to learn that language without taking time away from other subjects improves rather than harms the education that children here will get.
Who knows, maybe that is radical, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.0 -
Advertisement
-
Irish is not as essential as English or Maths. A better comparison would be between Irish and Latin or Irish and Greek.Learning a language is a valuable part of any education, if a high quality education is what we want then we should be looking to improve the quality of language learning in our schools rather than undermining it. Personally I don't see why Irish should be optional any more than Maths or English should.
Who are the 'people' you refer to? Are these the same 'people' you mentioned before, the ones who decide on ways to impose Irish on English speakers? Conradh's main objective has not changed since it was founded in the 19th century. Its policy on compulsory Irish has not changed in over 80 years.Though its interesting to see that peoples perceptions have changed, there was a time when Conradh was seen as a bastion of arch conservatism.
This will be more like to succeed and be more beneficial if the familes get to decide which second language they will learn.learning a second language is beneficial0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,170 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 36072
?? You think Conradh is radical? I think you should lie down.
This sort of comment is not welcome here. Please read the charter before posting again.We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.
H. H. Asquith
0 -
If you wish to debate, please debate the points I made. I'm not going to debate points I didn't make - there's no point to this. Specifically, to recap:
- students will choose something else as the point of last resistance
- leanring a secondlanaguge is not beneficial.
Examples are quoted below.Do you often go around labeling those with a difference of opinion to yourself as being fundamentalist?
No, just those who take a fundametal approach to an issue.The two points you make are also quite weak, simply allowing students to take the path of least resistance does not make for a better education system. At the end of the day, doing things you don't like, or things you perceive as being hard is part of life.
Strawman, as stated above. I have never rmade a point referting to the students' reasoning for not contiuing to study Irish, let alone use the phrase "the path of least resistance"As for your second point, I know for a fact that that argument has been looked at and found to be false. There is actual real world experience of an education system that tried to follow that exact idea, it was a disaster. Call Conradh fundamentalist for not wanting that mistake repeated in our education system if you want.
Learning a language is a valuable part of any education, if a high quality education is what we want then we should be looking to improve the quality of language learning in our schools rather than undermining it. Personally I don't see why Irish should be optional any more than Maths or English should.
1 - I assume you're refering to the strategies outlined on their websites. If there spproach is false and CnaG don't want to repeat mistakes made by other systems (please secify which if you wish to continue), why is it quoted on their website?
2 - Again strawman: where have I ever said that learning a langauge was not benefitial?
I'd agree with the last line - they should all be optional once the student has learnt suffient knowledge for real-wrold useage.I could equally label you as being a fundamentalist for wanting Irish to be made optional regardless of the damage that would be caused to the language, not to mention the worse education that would be provided in this country as a result.
Now we've gone from strawman to compelte assumption: wanting choice is not fundamental. I have no right to impose my core values on someone else.
If I wanted to scrap Irish completely, THAT would be fundamental, because it's a firm base which forces everyone to accept my core belief. Also - what studies have you made to conclude that education wouold be worse as a result?
You could argue that wanting people to be allowed to choose is fundamental - in which case go for it - but you can't impose a will to choose on people.By that definition just about any civil society group could be labeled as being radical. What you have outlined is not what radical means. And as it so happens there has been plenty of research into peoples attitude to the Irish language, unsurprisingly it turns out that people are supportive of it.
Their attitude towards education could also be considered quite moderate.
Though its interesting to see that peoples perceptions have changed, there was a time when Conradh was seen as a bastion of arch conservatism.
It's anythign but moderate. It takes the very firm fundamental base that Irish is the most important thing and built from there. How would trainign teachers entirely in Irish help them with teaching Geography, History and so on? Why, strictly from an educational point if view and NOT that of tha langauge, is that beenficial?I would disagree, learning a second language is beneficial, measures to ensure that teachers are more competent to teach that language, and that the student will have a greater opportunity to learn that language without taking time away from other subjects improves rather than harms the education that children here will get.
Who knows, maybe that is radical, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Again, never made any argument to the contrary. Radical can be good - but it needs to have core support from an entire nation. Or at least the majority of those who will be effected by the cahnges - i.e. the students.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »Can you give any examples of the "X should be optional so that resources can be better distributed to those who want to study it" argument and its alleged failures?
Yes, the learning of a second language was made optional in the English education system about 10 years ago, the reasons given were much the same as those put forward now for making Irish optional. Ie, promote a love of language's by not forcing it on people, focus resources on those who are interested in learning them, remove students from the language class who are not interested in learning the language thus leaving a better learning environment for those who are interested in the language etc.
Of course the British government was warned that it would not work before hand, but they didn't listen and it was a complete failure.
Even in the few years before the policy was officially put into force achievement levels in languages started to drop like a stone, even at age groups below which it was made optional, because it had been clearly signaled that you wont have to keep doing it and as such students came to the conclusion that there is no point putting in any effort now.
Once the policy was put into effect and languages were made optional, huge numbers of public schools dropped languages altogether within a few years, especially those in disadvantaged areas, conversely private schools by and large maintained languages as compulsory for their students which resulted in a class divide in language learning.
With the dropping numbers of students taking languages, and the emerging class divide in the students going on to third level to do language courses, universities started to scale back their language programs, with some closing completely.
Here is an article from a couple of years ago that gives a good overview of what went wrong.
(I can't post the link, but its the top result if you google 'England optional languages disaster')Britain's foreign languages skills are in crisis. During the past month alone, ministers, university representatives, exam chiefs and industry bodies have each voiced their concern as entries to degree and A-level modern foreign language courses plummeted. So few young people are learning languages that in 10 years' time as many as 40% of university language departments are likely to close. Where did it all go wrong for UK language teaching?
The watershed moment came in 2004, when the government decided to make languages optional at GCSE, according to Shirley Lawes, subject leader for PGCE languages at the Institute of Education in London.
Of course, simply having compulsion does not fix everything, both in England when languages were compulsory, and here now, there are problems with learning outcomes. It is far from sufficient to make learning a language compulsory and leave it at that. But as has clearly been shown in the example of England, making it optional is not the solution.Also, I'd call CnaG "fundamentalist" for their unchanging belief that the current approach to teaching Irish needs to be ramped up even more.
CnaG don't support the current approach, they support dividing the curriculum in two, with one for native speakers in the Gaeltacht and a reformed course that is fit for purpose for learners of Irish in English medium schools, lets be clear that is not the current approach and never has been. They also support a number of other changes, which have been called 'radical' on this thread.
Compulsory/Optional is not the only issue, just because they don't support making it optional does not mean they don't support any change, clearly they do.So, why not make a second language, not just Irish, compulsory in schools?
Why? We already have the infrastructure to teach Irish, what is to be gained from firing a bunch of Irish teachers and bringing in a bunch of teachers from Germany or France? If you are happy to have something compulsory as long as its not just Irish, then clearly your problem is not with compulsion.
Personally I would prefer if Irish, English and Maths remained as part of the core curriculum, with studying a third language also being compulsory.0 -
England is not Ireland. We're better: right?But as has clearly been shown in the example of England, making it optional is not the solution.
Are these the 'people' you often refer to? You seem to know these people quite well, but you denied that their main aim was to reinstate Irish as the common language of Ireland.BCnaG don't support the current approach, they support dividing the curriculum in two, with one for native speakers in the Gaeltacht and a reformed course that is fit for purpose for learners of Irish in English medium schools, lets be clear that is not the current approach and never has been. They also support a number of other changes, which have been called 'radical' on this thread.
Compulsory/Optional is not the only issue, just because they don't support making it optional does not mean they don't support any change, clearly they do.
As you have argued that knowing a second language enables people to acquire other languages and as the Irish teachers are not themselves, native speakers, they would easily learn other languages and be just as effective as imported teachers. Problem solved.We already have the infrastructure to teach Irish, what is to be gained from firing a bunch of Irish teachers and bringing in a bunch of teachers from Germany or France?
Why do you want to deny choice to puplis? surely their needs trump any argument about jobs for teachers or preserving your favourite language?I would prefer if Irish, English and Maths remained as part of the core curriculum, with studying a third language also being compulsory.0 -
England is not Ireland. We're better: right?But as has clearly been shown in the example of England, making it optional is not the solution.
Are these the 'people' you often refer to? You seem to know these people quite well, but you denied that their main aim was to reinstate Irish as the common language of Ireland.CnaG don't support the current approach, they support dividing the curriculum in two, with one for native speakers in the Gaeltacht and a reformed course that is fit for purpose for learners of Irish in English medium schools, lets be clear that is not the current approach and never has been. They also support a number of other changes, which have been called 'radical' on this thread.
Compulsory/Optional is not the only issue, just because they don't support making it optional does not mean they don't support any change, clearly they do.
As you have argued that knowing a second language enables people to acquire other languages and as the Irish teachers are not themselves, native speakers, they would easily learn other languages and be just as effective as imported teachers. Problem solved.We already have the infrastructure to teach Irish, what is to be gained from firing a bunch of Irish teachers and bringing in a bunch of teachers from Germany or France?
Why do you want to deny choice to puplis? surely their needs trump any argument about jobs for teachers or preserving your favourite language?I would prefer if Irish, English and Maths remained as part of the core curriculum, with studying a third language also being compulsory.0 -
Personally I would prefer if Irish, English and Maths remained as part of the core curriculum, with studying a third language also being compulsory.
This makes up more than 50% of the standard syallabus - how in the hell are you going to produse a workforce with a wide variety of skills and respect the cretivy of a wide range of people if you insist on making everyone do the same?
And how in the hell is three compulsory langauges in seven subjects (standard Leaving Cert requirement) not creating an imbalance? Surely Irish OR a third lanaguge would suffiice?Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
England is not Ireland. We're better: right?
No England is not Ireland. However it is hardily irrelevant that the very policy that you are proposing was tried by our nearest neighbor and that it turned out to be a disaster. What makes you think it would work here when it failed so badly there?
What makes you think we are better than they are?Are these the 'people' you often refer to? You seem to know these people quite well, but you denied that their main aim was to reinstate Irish as the common language of Ireland.
Well the first time you asked me the question, when I mentioned that people are talking about reforming the structure of how Irish is taught, I was actually referring to politicians, (yes politicians are people too) I specifically recall Mícheál Martain making the suggestion a couple of weeks ago. This is in the context of a new curriculum being developed for native speakers of Irish for the first time.
The second time you asked me that question, in which I was talking about peoples perception of Conradh na Gaeilge, I was talking about people in general. I found it rather surprising that the poster I was talking to would consider Conradh to be radical as the perception in my experience that is expressed most often is one of a rather conservative group. Indeed even within the Irish speaking community its largely perceived as more of a social organisation for old people. There genuinely was a perception of it mainly consisting of committees of old people sitting around discussing who died since the last meeting. A perception which landed the organisation with the label 'Cónra na Gaeilge'. Though to be fair that has changed over the last decade as a few younger people finally started getting involved. Admittedly, it might be a little rash of me to take that posters perception as a sign that peoples perception in general has changed, perhaps I should have said something more along the lines of 'I think you perception is quite unusual'.
As for the most recent time you asked the question, I didn't actually mention 'people' at all, and as should have been clear from the post itself, when I said 'they' etc, I was referring to Conradh itself.
Hopefully that clears it up for you.As you have argued that knowing a second language enables people to acquire other languages and as the Irish teachers are not themselves, native speakers, they would easily learn other languages and be just as effective as imported teachers. Problem solved.
Another proposal that seem doomed to failure if you ask me. Expecting teachers to learn and teach a new language from scratch strikes me as being unrealistic. And of course its also entirely unnecessary, why we should do so in the first place, we are already teaching a perfectly good language?Why do you want to deny choice to puplis? surely their needs trump any argument about jobs for teachers or preserving your favourite language?
They need a good education. Their education does not need to be disrupted by making unnecessary changes like expecting language teachers to needlessly learn and teach a new language from scratch as you suggested, nor do they benefit from their education being degraded by dropping languages altogether.
Given that you and other posters here don's seem too concerned at the prospect of a language being compulsory, as long as it is not Irish, then might I suggest that it is not compulsion that you have a problem with, but the Irish language itself.0 -
Another proposal that seem doomed to failure if you ask me. Expecting teachers to learn and teach a new language from scratch strikes me as being unrealistic. And of course its also entirely unnecessary, why we should do so in the first place, we are already teaching a perfectly good language?
Because some students may choose to learn a different langauge. Given thate your argument is that language is essential to a good ecucation, then why do you care what langauge siad student chooses to speak?They need a good education. Their education does not need to be disrupted by making unnecessary changes like expecting language teachers to needlessly learn and teach a new language from scratch as you suggested, nor do they benefit from their education being degraded by dropping languages altogether.
It's still yet to be proven that compulsory Irish as opposed to a required language is in some way disrupting education.
I'd also argue that CnaG's idea of training techers in Irish is a massive unnessecary change. (Whether you support such an idea or not, I don't know - I respect that it's not something you've commented on.)Given that you and other posters here don's seem too concerned at the prospect of a language being compulsory, as long as it is not Irish, then might I suggest that it is not compulsion that you have a problem with, but the Irish language itself.
Absoultely - been saying it all along. But then so do kids.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »This makes up more than 50% of the standard syallabus - how in the hell are you going to produse a workforce with a wide variety of skills and respect the cretivy of a wide range of people if you insist on making everyone do the same?
And how in the hell is three compulsory langauges in seven subjects (standard Leaving Cert requirement) not creating an imbalance? Surely Irish OR a third language would suffiice?
The idea of education as being merely training for the workforce is entirely outdated. The rate of change in technology and in the economy is such that we simply don't know at this point in time what jobs kids in school now will be doing when they are thirty or what tools they will be using to do them. One of the few things that we do know is that creativity, language and the ability to work hard and solve problems will be of vital importance. Learning a second and third language is not only useful for the mere fact of knowing those languages, it also gives the student an insight into their own native language and its been shown time and again that students that study other languages do better when tested on their own native language as well. Creativity does not stem from allowing people to do whatever they want, or facilitating kids to take the path of least resistance, and it certainly is not helped by being limited to knowing only one language.
Native language plus two is seen as best practice when it comes to language provision in an education system, what we have now, two compulsory with an option to do a third, is not bad. But personally, I would be happy to see a third language make its way into the core curriculum.0 -
Advertisement
-
The idea of education as being merely training for the workforce is entirely outdated. The rate of change in technology and in the economy is such that we simply don't know at this point in time what jobs kids in school now will be doing when they are thirty or what tools they will be using to do them. One of the few things that we do know is that creativity, language and the ability to work hard and solve problems will be of vital importance. Learning a second and third language is not only useful for the mere fact of knowing those languages, it also gives the student an insight into their own native language and its been shown time and again that students that study other languages do better when tested on their own native language as well. Creativity does not stem from allowing people to do whatever they want, or facilitating kids to take the path of least resistance, and it certainly is not helped by being limited to knowing only one language.
Maths and science subects teaches implied practical langauge and thinking methods far better than language. Art subects tech creativty better.
Conversly: is it wise (or fair) to force an intelligent and creative student who is not good at langauges to spend 40% of his time learning langauges?
Saying a syallabus hsuld have three langauge subjects is as bad as saying it should hve three sceince subkects or three business subkects. Have one langauge, one science and one business.
Your idea is seriously unbalanced.Native language plus two is seen as best practice when it comes to language provision in an education system
And you can back this up with studies, can you? Three lanaguge subjects out of seven? Because I was advised very wisely be a very skilled and respected educator not to take on a third lanaguge when I was already struggling with Irish.
(Unfortauntely, I was not given to option to drop Irish and take on French instead)Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Because some students may choose to learn a different language. Given that your argument is that language is essential to a good education, then why do you care what language said student chooses to speak?
I don't mind in the slightest if some students want to learn another language, our education system is structured to allow them to study an additional language other than Irish or English. Lets be clear, I don't want students to be limited to Irish and English only, if they want to take on a third language, I am all for that.
Yes, learning languages is essential for a good education, but as you say just about any language would do in terms of the benefits that accrue from learning a language.
There are, however, good arguments for why Irish should be one of the language students in this country learn. Firstly we may as well mention practicality, for the benefits of learning a language, Irish is as good a language as any, and we already have the infrastructure to teach it. What is to be gained from changing it to some other language?
You can be damn sure the unions will have a thing or two to say about the mass dismissal of their members if large numbers of Irish teachers found themselves surplus to requirement. Then you have the cost of hiring in new language teachers from other countries. So replace Irish with something else and what do you have, a lot of disruption without any tangible benefit.
Then of course there is the issue of identity, this is Ireland after all, these are Irish students that we are talking about, Irish is their language. Not to teach Irish would leave those students cut off from the language spoken by countless generations of Irish people. For the vast majority of Irish people, members of their own family were native Irish speakers within only a handful of generations. An education system that leaves people ignorant of who they are and where they came from is not a good one.It's still yet to be proven that compulsory Irish as opposed to a required language is in some way disrupting education.
My point relates to the practicality of making the change. The poster suggested that you simply require the existing teachers to learn and teach a new language. This strikes me as being unrealistic, and would undoubtedly cause disruption if it was tried.I'd also argue that CnaG's idea of training techers in Irish is a massive unnessecary change. (Whether you support such an idea or not, I don't know - I respect that it's not something you've commented on.)
My own opinion would be that if your going to teach Irish, you should at least do it right. Ensuring that the teachers are competent in the language is an important part of that.
I would defiantly support the aim of the proposal, ie ensuring that teachers are competent to teach the subject. As for weather or not I support the idea as presented, i'm not sure, I don't have the expertise to judge weather or not it is realistic or would work, though in my opinion the idea does have some merit in that it would mean that course time would not be taken from other areas to be given to specifically learning Irish.Absoultely - been saying it all along. But then so do kids.
So you do have a problem with Irish? Well at least your honest about it, so often people try to hide their true intentions behind claims that their proposals are meant only in the best interest of the language.
All the evidence I have seen however suggests to me that the majority of people do not agree with you. Peoples attitude to Irish as assessed frequently enough, I can't remember ever seeing one with a majority against.0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Maths and science subects teaches implied practical langauge and thinking methods far better than language. Art subects tech creativty better.
There is absolutely zero point in learning maths and science if you do not also learn how to communicate that information effectively. For that, you need some sort of command of your native tongue and that requires putting some work into it. Hence, for the most part, yes, English belongs on the syllabus and for most people, it doesn't count as second language acquisition but as a tool for communication. Many people who are strong in maths and science related subjects are also extremely poor in communications related skills.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Conversly: is it wise (or fair) to force an intelligent and creative student who is not good at langauges to spend 40% of his time learning langauges?
The same argument can be made for the current craze for trying to turn everyone into a computer programmer. It just doesn't interest everyone.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Saying a syallabus hsuld have three langauge subjects is as bad as saying it should hve three sceince subkects or three business subkects. Have one langauge, one science and one business.
I strongly disagree with your narrow approach to this. In the grand scheme of things, there is an argument in favour of discussing the education system as a whole and identifying what we want people to be able to know by the time they have finished negotiating it. Unfortunately, many discussions focus on petty detail things like "No one needs blah blah blah".
Ultimately, a syllabus would be better placed if it put an emphasis on literacy, numeracy and basic communications and soft skills. From English, and to a lesser extent, students tend to get, or should be getting, the communications skills. However, this does not generally count in terms of second language acquisition. For that reason, I'd be of the opinion that our young people would be benefited by having to take a course in their native language and a course in a language which is not an official language of the State. The argument that the study of your native language and the study of a second language takes no account of the different expected outcomes of both.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Your idea is seriously unbalanced.
And yours is seriously shallow.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »And you can back this up with studies, can you? Three lanaguge subjects out of seven? Because I was advised very wisely be a very skilled and respected educator not to take on a third lanaguge when I was already struggling with Irish.
(Unfortauntely, I was not given to option to drop Irish and take on French instead)
The point which most people would make - and Ireland is not unique here - is that there is a general cultural benefit in ensuring both national languages are taught in the school system. For this reason, Finnish students take both Finnish and Swedish, and for this reason, Swiss students wind up learning two of the other three local languages. Most people's argument against Irish appears to be that it is fundamental useless in a way that perhaps French, German, Italian and Swedish are not to those who wind up using them.
In other words, Ireland is not unique in having more than 1 official language, it is not unique in having kids learn both through the school system, but it is unique in that a significant number of people are meh about languages in general, and Irish in particular. Even if the average Finn is meh about Swedish, quite a lot of them manage to acquire some other second language skills instead.
I'd be interested to see how successful a pilot study might be in terms of compelling people to acquire a second language from a pool of options. As in, you must learn a language, end of, no argument, but you can at least choose what that language might be and you have to carry it through the school system. My guess is that given that Irish people are in general, pretty awful at languages apart from Irish already, it wouldn't make much difference what the second language is.
While we're at it, by the way, even allowing for the increase in the number of points awarded for maths grades, there is an issue in that our maths skills have been slipping. My personal opinion is that there needs to be a wider discussion on the question of the education system in Ireland and what we want it to achieve. I'm not in favour of making it completely narrow such that we produce 60,000 Java developers every June despite the fact that there is ongoing screaming about school leavers not having enough skills. It is worth noting, by the way, that in England and Wales where second language acquisition has slipped massively since it was removed from the GCSE requirements, one of the core skills which the business organisations are looking for are language skills.0 -
My point relates to the practicality of making the change. The poster suggested that you simply require the existing teachers to learn and teach a new language. This strikes me as being unrealistic, and would undoubtedly cause disruption if it was tried.
One of the key issues with Irish is that is supported through the primary school system which is supported by generalist teachers.
Ultimately if you were to replace Irish with other languages, in the primary system at least, you would need to look at bringing in specialists as it is unrealistic to assume a generalist teacher will acquire several languages in order to teach them through our current primary system.
Becoming reasonably competent in a foreign language is not a six month course, particularly if people are still working their day job. While I am all in favour of supporting teachers in adding a skill set in this way, I would take the view that it would be very unrealistic to assume that many of them will want to do it. If you want it faster, we're going to have to send a lot of teachers for serious immersive training. That costs money.0 -
I don't mind in the slightest if some students want to learn another language, our education system is structured to allow them to study an additional language other than Irish or English. Lets be clear, I don't want students to be limited to Irish and English only, if they want to take on a third language, I am all for that.
Yes, learning languages is essential for a good education, but as you say just about any language would do in terms of the benefits that accrue from learning a language.
Nice try but again - that's not what I suggested.There are, however, good arguments for why Irish should be one of the language students in this country learn. Firstly we may as well mention practicality, for the benefits of learning a language, Irish is as good a language as any, and we already have the infrastructure to teach it. What is to be gained from changing it to some other language?
You can be damn sure the unions will have a thing or two to say about the mass dismissal of their members if large numbers of Irish teachers found themselves surplus to requirement. Then you have the cost of hiring in new language teachers from other countries. So replace Irish with something else and what do you have, a lot of disruption without any tangible benefit.
Then of course there is the issue of identity, this is Ireland after all, these are Irish students that we are talking about, Irish is their language. Not to teach Irish would leave those students cut off from the language spoken by countless generations of Irish people. For the vast majority of Irish people, members of their own family were native Irish speakers within only a handful of generations. An education system that leaves people ignorant of who they are and where they came from is not a good one.
Not true - we already have teachers teaching other languages. the infrastruture is there to teach - my question is: why all three? Why Irish instead of French when both are available to the student?
My own opinion would be that if your going to teach Irish, you should at least do it right. Ensuring that the teachers are competent in the language is an important part of that.
I would defiantly support the aim of the proposal, ie ensuring that teachers are competent to teach the subject. As for weather or not I support the idea as presented, i'm not sure, I don't have the expertise to judge weather or not it is realistic or would work, though in my opinion the idea does have some merit in that it would mean that course time would not be taken from other areas to be given to specifically learning Irish.
Again: how does this benefit the education from a purely non-lingusitic point of view? And how can you say "why change?" and then say you want a fairly fundamental change in the way teachers are trained?So you do have a problem with Irish? Well at least your honest about it, so often people try to hide their true intentions behind claims that their proposals are meant only in the best interest of the language.
All the evidence I have seen however suggests to me that the majority of people do not agree with you. Peoples attitude to Irish as assessed frequently enough, I can't remember ever seeing one with a majority against.
Personally? Yes. I hated it. But I still respect it and those who speak it. Although this has no relevance to my opinions stressed above or my belief that a student shuold be allowed to shoose what they study.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Maths and science subects teaches implied practical langauge and thinking methods far better than language. Art subects tech creativty better.
Any evidence to back up those assertions?Conversly: is it wise (or fair) to force an intelligent and creative student who is not good at langauges to spend 40% of his time learning langauges?
'Good at languages' Can I ask where you got the notion that there is such a thing? Have you ever met someone who is supposedly 'bad at languages' who failed to master their first? I never have. The idea that people can be good or bad at languages is a falicy. Human beings, by their nature, have an aptitude for language, more than anything else, language is what defines our species. The notion that someone is bad at languages is just an excuse for laziness, or inept teachers. The proof that everyone can learn more than one language is there for everyone to see, there are whole communities in many parts of the world that speak multiple languages, and please don't misinterpret me, i'm not talking about some small tribes somewhere, I'm talking about whole countries full of people. Monolingualism is actually quite abnormal. The majority of people alive today have more than one language.Saying a syallabus hsuld have three langauge subjects is as bad as saying it should hve three sceince subkects or three business subkects. Have one langauge, one science and one business.
Your idea is seriously unbalanced.
You might want a 'balanced' education system, personally i'm more concerned that we should have a good education system. If you want 'balance' then perhaps we should have a creationism class as well as a science class?And you can back this up with studies, can you? Three lanaguge subjects out of seven? Because I was advised very wisely be a very skilled and respected educator not to take on a third lanaguge when I was already struggling with Irish.
Unfortunately, being a new user I am unable to post links, but mother tongue plus two is official EU policy in relation to language learning.0 -
There is absolutely zero point in learning maths and science if you do not also learn how to communicate that information effectively. For that, you need some sort of command of your native tongue and that requires putting some work into it. Hence, for the most part, yes, English belongs on the syllabus and for most people, it doesn't count as second language acquisition but as a tool for communication. Many people who are strong in maths and science related subjects are also extremely poor in communications related skills.
Em... we can already communicate our ideas. We're doing it right now.The same argument can be made for the current craze for trying to turn everyone into a computer programmer. It just doesn't interest everyone.
Completely agree. It's probably more practical, but yes - it simply doesn;t interest everyone.I strongly disagree with your narrow approach to this. In the grand scheme of things, there is an argument in favour of discussing the education system as a whole and identifying what we want people to be able to know by the time they have finished negotiating it. Unfortunately, many discussions focus on petty detail things like "No one needs blah blah blah".
Ultimately, a syllabus would be better placed if it put an emphasis on literacy, numeracy and basic communications and soft skills. From English, and to a lesser extent, students tend to get, or should be getting, the communications skills. However, this does not generally count in terms of second language acquisition. For that reason, I'd be of the opinion that our young people would be benefited by having to take a course in their native language and a course in a language which is not an official language of the State. The argument that the study of your native language and the study of a second language takes no account of the different expected outcomes of both.
It's narrow to focus on balance and a wide range of skills...? Also, you don't say why studying Irish and a third language beenfits more than two subjects from different fields or for allow the student to choose whather they want to do a second langauge and a subject from another field.And yours is seriously shallow.
Again - how is priortising balance "shallow"?The point which most people would make - and Ireland is not unique here - is that there is a general cultural benefit in ensuring both national languages are taught in the school system. For this reason, Finnish students take both Finnish and Swedish, and for this reason, Swiss students wind up learning two of the other three local languages. Most people's argument against Irish appears to be that it is fundamental useless in a way that perhaps French, German, Italian and Swedish are not to those who wind up using them.
In other words, Ireland is not unique in having more than 1 official language, it is not unique in having kids learn both through the school system, but it is unique in that a significant number of people are meh about languages in general, and Irish in particular. Even if the average Finn is meh about Swedish, quite a lot of them manage to acquire some other second language skills instead.
I'd be interested to see how successful a pilot study might be in terms of compelling people to acquire a second language from a pool of options. As in, you must learn a language, end of, no argument, but you can at least choose what that language might be and you have to carry it through the school system. My guess is that given that Irish people are in general, pretty awful at languages apart from Irish already, it wouldn't make much difference what the second language is.
Interesting that you bring up Finland: they base their entire education system on as wide a range of "topics" as possible. And as much variety within those topics.
Also, the langauges aren't compulsory after abotu 15.While we're at it, by the way, even allowing for the increase in the number of points awarded for maths grades, there is an issue in that our maths skills have been slipping. My personal opinion is that there needs to be a wider discussion on the question of the education system in Ireland and what we want it to achieve. I'm not in favour of making it completely narrow such that we produce 60,000 Java developers every June despite the fact that there is ongoing screaming about school leavers not having enough skills. It is worth noting, by the way, that in England and Wales where second language acquisition has slipped massively since it was removed from the GCSE requirements, one of the core skills which the business organisations are looking for are language skills.
In a multicultural society such as the UK, they'll hire native speakers where possible. Langauges, in a professional capacity, tend to be more useful when you move to a foreign country rather than in your home country.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Compulsion has been tried here and that has been a disaster.No England is not Ireland. However it is hardily irrelevant that the very policy that you are proposing was tried by our nearest neighbor and that it turned out to be a disaster.
That is the conceit on which CnaG was founded.What makes you think we are better than they are?
Why did you not say it was him in the first place? I note that this was not in the context of respecting the language rights of native English speakers, a point on which you appear to be moot.Well the first time you asked me the question, when I mentioned that people are talking about reforming the structure of how Irish is taught, I was actually referring to politicians, (yes politicians are people too) I specifically recall Mícheál Martain making the suggestion a couple of weeks ago. This is in the context of a new curriculum being developed for native speakers of Irish for the first time.
The big problem with CnaG is its Main Aim. It has not changed since it as founded. Same wrong policy, just younger fanatics driving itThough to be fair that has changed over the last decade as a few younger people finally started getting involved.
Why do you describe Irish as 'perfectly good'? Surely this can only be decided in terms of the needs and preferences of the students and their families?...teaching a perfectly good language
You misrepresent my views. I am quite happy for students to choose Irish if that is what they and their families want. CnaG does not want people to be allowed not to choose Irish. This demonstrates a lack of confidence in their cause. They rule by force, not consent. As you know, this eventually failed for the British.Given that you and other posters here don's seem too concerned at the prospect of a language being compulsory, as long as it is not Irish, then might I suggest that it is not compulsion that you have a problem with, but the Irish language itself.
You appear to be putting the promotion of Irish as more important than meeting the needs of students and respecting their language rights. Your priorities are wrong.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement