The Irish language

Donald Trump wrote: »

It's quite simple really
The state has an obligation and responsibility to provide a decent and broad education for children.

That doesn't mean that it has to provide a bespoke set of choices that can change on a daily basis on the whims of a 12 year old.

The state sets a curriculum. Then it implements it. Should there be mandatory subjects on it? I would strongly say "yes". Most rational people would say "of course".

Your idealistic model of allowing each and every child to set their own choices of what they want to study is scutter.

I don't think having endless choices is practical, but, I put it to you that having one mandatory subject, and that one subject being Irish (which it is), is perhaps a big bit ridiculous.

It's also funny how we have some imaginary "missed opportunity" in not forcing Irish onto the country, as if that would improve someone's quality of life, or economic prospects one iota. Irish is used as a political weapon more often than it's used as a means of communication.

irishguitarlad

I think other posters have said before about teaching It as if it was a foreign language and I definitely agree. I remember in secondary school looking at and analyzing poetry and thinking what the hell is this. Languages are primarily about communicating and learning the basics for doing that is essential.

Hotblack Desiato

irishguitarlad wrote: »

I think other posters have said before about teaching It as if it was a foreign language and I definitely agree. I remember in secondary school looking at and analyzing poetry and thinking what the hell is this. Languages are primarily about communicating and learning the basics for doing that is essential.

But that would mean facing up to the fact that for most people, it is a foreign language to all intents and purposes i.e. it's not spoken in their home. You can't expect a political system that still pretends Irish is the first language of the nation to face up to facts. This pretence and head-in-the-sand attitude has ensured that all language promotion efforts since the foundation of the state have failed.

astrofool wrote: »

I don't think having endless choices is practical, but, I put it to you that having one mandatory subject, and that one subject being Irish (which it is), is perhaps a big bit ridiculous.

It's also funny how we have some imaginary "missed opportunity" in not forcing Irish onto the country, as if that would improve someone's quality of life, or economic prospects one iota. Irish is used as a political weapon more often than it's used as a means of communication.

Maths/English/Irish are mandatory as far as I know

Although people can get exempted from Irish for certain reasons.

I think it's important to have a second mandatory language. So what do you want it to be? Maybe you think it should be French for whatever reason suits yourself. Grand so, we pick French. But then the person who wants Spanish to be the mandatory one will whinge. Or the person who wants Chinese.

What difference does it make? It's all education. Learn another language to enhance linguistic skills overall. Yeah, most people won't run with it, but some will. The same as how most people won't run with French even if they learn it for 5 years.

I'd break the argument down into steps:
1) Should there be a mandatory fixed core for a given stage of education?

2) If so, what generally should be in that core?
3) Given the general core, what specifically should be in it?

Shenshen

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think it's important to have a second mandatory language. So what do you want it to be? Maybe you think it should be French for whatever reason suits yourself. Grand so, we pick French. But then the person who wants Spanish to be the mandatory one will whinge. Or the person who wants Chinese.

Why not go the way most European countries handle it? ?Make it mandatory to have a second language, but leave it up to the student to pick which one they want to learn?

Granted, when I went to school, I only got that choice for my 3rd foreign language, not the 1st nor the 2nd, but I do think that it's the best way to serve everyone's interest.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Maths/English/Irish are mandatory as far as I know

Irish is the only mandatory subject, every other subject can be dropped by a student as part of the LC curriculum.

Separate to this, 3rd level institutions have their own entry requirements, where Maths/English and a 2nd language are required for most courses (but not all). Any NUI colleges (UCD, UCG etc.) require Irish (no real reason for it in most of the courses), any other colleges do not require Irish unless specifically set as a course requirement.

Our own leaving certificate students are actually disadvantaged when applying to 3rd level NUI colleges vs. foreign students, or even Irish students taking the BAC Laureate, where Irish isn't required.

But look, not like Donald Trump to mouth off on something without the facts, is it?

Donald Trump wrote: »

I'd break the argument down into steps:
1) Should there be a mandatory fixed core for a given stage of education?

2) If so, what generally should be in that core?
3) Given the general core, what specifically should be in it?

Curious to know why you're asking this, given that you described the idea of letting students choose their subjects as "scutter" without saying why.

Also curious to know why you're asking pretty much the same questions I asked you, given these comments on the subject of choice:

Donald Trump wrote: »

That is not a practical or workable idea - that you base education on what the individual student wants to pick and choose.

In the same way that students can't just pick and choose whatever they want without constraints to suit their own particular wants, we can't just change a system to suit your own particular viewpoint. If you don't like Irish, then tough - just deal with it. That's life.

Anyway we're talking about Irish: so even if core subjects is decided; why Irish? What does mandatory Irish offer a fifteen year old student who has studied the language and wants to drop it in favor of something he gets something more from?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Curious to know why you're asking this, given that you described the idea of letting students choose their subjects as "scutter" without saying why.

Because it's not practical to allow students to pick and choose at their own whim. There are constraints as to what the school can provide. I told you this. I don't know how you can't grasp that.

Neither is it advisable for their own education to allow them to pick everything.

Note that you never qualified your original point with an age!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Also curious to know why you're asking pretty much the same questions I asked you, given these comments on the subject of choice:

I don't get your point

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Anyway we're talking about Irish: so even if core subjects is decided; why Irish? What does mandatory Irish offer a fifteen year old student who has studied the language and wants to drop it in favor of something he gets something more from?

astrofool wrote: »

Irish is the only mandatory subject, every other subject can be dropped by a student as part of the LC curriculum.

Separate to this, 3rd level institutions have their own entry requirements, where Maths/English and a 2nd language are required for most courses (but not all). Any NUI colleges (UCD, UCG etc.) require Irish (no real reason for it in most of the courses), any other colleges do not require Irish unless specifically set as a course requirement.

Our own leaving certificate students are actually disadvantaged when applying to 3rd level NUI colleges vs. foreign students, or even Irish students taking the BAC Laureate, where Irish isn't required.

But look, not like Donald Trump to mouth off on something without the facts, is it?

That's grand. Makes you sound very smart and all until you realize that we're not talking about the LC but education in general.

If you want to be pedantic, it is not even mandatory to do Irish for the LC for two reasons:
1) You can get an exemption
2) The LC is not itself mandatory
Thanks

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's grand. Makes you sound very smart and all until you realize that we're not talking about the LC but education in general.

If you want to be pedantic, it is not even mandatory to do Irish for the LC for two reasons:
1) You can get an exemption
2) The LC is not itself mandatory
Thanks

If you're not talking about the Leaving Certificate, what are you talking about? Either way, the only mandatory item on the state's curriculum is Irish.

Donald Trump wrote:

The state sets a curriculum. Then it implements it. Should there be mandatory subjects on it? I would strongly say "yes". Most rational people would say "of course".

If you want to go further, nothing in anything for any system is mandatory, there are always exemptions. What you've started with is "There should be mandatory subjects" and ended with is "nothing is mandatory". But yes, internet, must win argument and dig further.

astrofool wrote: »

If you're not talking about the Leaving Certificate, what are you talking about? Either way, the only mandatory item on the state's curriculum is Irish.

If you want to go further, nothing in anything for any system is mandatory, there are always exemptions. What you've started with is "There should be mandatory subjects" and ended with is "nothing is mandatory". But yes, internet, must win argument and dig further.

So tell us.
What did having a few hours a week of Irish deprive you of doing?

What subjects did you have choice to pick from? And which ones did you pick? How are they benefiting you today?
Which is the one that you did not pick that you would have realistically taken instead of Irish if allowed and what would it have done to your life for today?

I liked Irish, I may have done it given the choice, but I should have had the opportunity to pick something else, or drop it, especially if it was a subject which I struggled at. Not having the choice deprives lots of students of the opportunity to do other subjects they like, or study the subjects they are doing in more depth, having Irish mandatory makes no sense at all.

astrofool wrote: »

I liked Irish, I may have done it given the choice, but I should have had the opportunity to pick something else, or drop it, especially if it was a subject which I struggled at. Not having the choice deprives lots of students of the opportunity to do other subjects they like, or study the subjects they are doing in more depth, having Irish mandatory makes no sense at all.

I don't agree. Not under the Irish system where you already study another 7 or so subjects up to the end of your second level. There is plenty of scope to study an area you *like*. I did 8 for my Leaving and that was a long time ago. I think now they have religion and PE as formally examined subjects (although am open to correction). We did those too just not as exam subjects.

How many up to JC? Is it 10 or 11 now

As for studying in more depth, that's not so relevant if you go on to study a subject at third level. When the Nordies come down, they've only taken 3 subjects and gone into more detail. But it's still only a couple of weeks headstart

You've lost your point somewhere (I could take multiple guesses as to where you're trying to go, but there'd be another nonsensical answer whatever the guess), and appear to be rambling randomly while starting some side topics.

I'm guessing something like "It was fine to study Irish in my day and it was only ~1 hour per day Monday-Friday, thus it should be fine for everyone to lose an hour a day during school, and everyone complaining would have done nothing worthwhile with the extra time anyway so it should stay the way it is, for some reason".

Replies to this include asking more personal education questions, trying to zero in on it being 1 hour, maybe it was 30 minutes, or 75 minutes, or some sort of west brit, proud to be Irish, cúpla focal type answers, to maybe just ignoring it and asking more basic education system questions who's answers are readily available on the internet.

facehugger99

Donald Trump wrote: »

So tell us.
What did having a few hours a week of Irish deprive you of doing?

Well, you definitely could have benefited from studying rhetoric instead of the wasted time you spent on Irish.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Because it's not practical to allow students to pick and choose at their own whim. There are constraints as to what the school can provide. I told you this. I don't know how you can't grasp that.

What seriously? You actually thought I meant choose... anything? Ah come on, you're making that up. It's pretty obvious I mean choose from what the school made available.

Neither is it advisable for their own education to allow them to pick everything.

Never said anything to the contrary. Don't think it's possible to do everything.

Note that you never qualified your original point with an age!

Really? I never said "15" or "Leaving cert"? Are are you going to feign full ignorance and make my quote my pwn posts again.

I don't get your point

My point is obvious: you sidestepped them because you couldn't answer them. And if that's wrong, feel free to answer them again.

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's grand. Makes you sound very smart and all until you realize that we're not talking about the LC but education in general.

**** it, I will quote my own posts.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

First point - yes. My point entirely.
I'm thinking more 15 rather than 12. At which point students know a bit more. And the certainly know what they don't want to learn and wht will be a waste of their time. And they state does provide choices at 12. I choose four subjects at 12. And another four at 15.
Three - generally speaking, what are the benefits to a 15 ear old student of mandatory subjects? Generally - as per your point - not with specific subjects.
Four - ad homeinum, dismissed.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You didn't attack my idea. In fact it wasn't even 'my' idea in the first place. (For clarifiction: my idea was not to allow them to choose, it was to allow them to drop. If they want to take an extra subject so be it. If not, up to them. This is, in fact already the case, because a student can simply ignore the course content and then not show up for the exam, or show up, sign a blank paper and leave.)

Anyway: you called it a name and made no effort to state why. You didn't even play the ball. You then even asked for a rebuttal - to what?! To "scutter"?!

Nor responsible, wasn't my post.

And yet nearly every student chooses four from seven subjects for their leaving cert...?

Are you suggesting the State should choose all seven subjects for every student for the Leaving Cert? Yes or no?

If not - or even if you say "only some" - you are accepting the role of student choice as an idea. If so, how do they know better than the individual student, at the age of 15, what the student wants to do?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

**** it, I will quote my own posts.

Grand. Not sure of your point. You also thought everyone else was talking about specifically the Leaving Cert? What has that got to do with anything other than you made the same mistaken assumption as other people?

BTW, most kids would be 16 starting LC cycle. Or 17 if they do Transition Year. At 15 they'd be starting their 3rd year of secondary

Donald Trump wrote: »

Note that you never qualified your original point with an age!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What seriously? You actually thought I meant choose... anything? Ah come on, you're making that up. It's pretty obvious I mean choose from what the school made available.

Really? I never said "15" or "Leaving cert"? Are are you going to feign full ignorance and make my quote my pwn posts again.

Below is your original quote. Which you did not qualify. As I stated. You might have got confused by my use of the word "original"

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Up to the student to choose. If they know they want to move to France, let them do French instead of Irish. If they want to go into IT and computer programming, let them code instead of learning Irish. If they want to feel more connected to their nationality and have an interest in the langauge, let them do Irish instead of French or coding.

I really don't see what the problem is.

This argument has descended into levels of stupidity.

Irish is mandatory. If you don't like it, tough shit. Life isn't fair. If a person feels that they'd be doing neuroscience rather than emptying bins because they had to do a few hours a week of Irish then that is probably to be expected. The thickness of the person to lead them to believe that is the same thickness that held them back. Not fecking Irish

cbreeze

Although Irish is a mandatory subject, nothing bad will happen if you fail it these days. Pupils have to turn up to class but there is no rule that says they have to participate or turn in assignments when time could be spent on the subjects that really matter.

jimbobaloobob

cbreeze wrote: »

Although Irish is a mandatory subject, nothing bad will happen if you fail it these days. Pupils have to turn up to class but there is no rule that says they have to participate or turn in assignments when time could be spent on the subjects that really matter.

Nothing immediately bad unless they wish to go on and pursue a job that requires a level of Irish to qualify for the course and following on from that a proficiency in speaking or writing or in the current newscycle to become president of Ireland.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

Note that you never qualified your original point with an age!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What seriously? You actually thought I meant choose... anything? Ah come on, you're making that up. It's pretty obvious I mean choose from what the school made available.

Really? I never said "15" or "Leaving cert"? Are are you going to feign full ignorance and make my quote my pwn posts again.

Below is your original quote. Which you did not qualify. As I stated. You might have got confused by my use of the word "original"

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Up to the student to choose. If they know they want to move to France, let them do French instead of Irish. If they want to go into IT and computer programming, let them code instead of learning Irish. If they want to feel more connected to their nationality and have an interest in the langauge, let them do Irish instead of French or coding.

I really don't see what the problem is.

This argument has descended into levels of stupidity.

Irish is mandatory. If you don't like it, tough shit. Life isn't fair. If a person feels that they'd be doing neuroscience rather than emptying bins because they had to do a few hours a week of Irish then that is probably to be expected. The thickness of the person to lead them to believe that is the same thickness that held them back. Not fecking Irish

Glad we're finally clear about me apparently never clearing up what age I was talking about when I specifically said 'Leaving Cert'.

So ultimately, the point is to teach them 'life isn't fair'?

I'd argue we should set the goals of both our education system and the language a little higher, but that's just me.

jimbobaloobob

Let ye call it a draw and move on. Íosa Críost.

Rubberchikken

Its mandatory because most people, with a functioning brain, know full well if given a choice few kids would do it.

The problem isnt with the language imo but rather with the curriculum and the teaching.
Also the zealots dont help. Thrusting something down otjers throats never made something attractive.

Hotblack Desiato

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Its mandatory because most people, with a functioning brain, know full well if given a choice few kids would do it.

And that would be a problem, why...?

facehugger99

cbreeze wrote: »

Although Irish is a mandatory subject, nothing bad will happen if you fail it these days. Pupils have to turn up to class but there is no rule that says they have to participate or turn in assignments when time could be spent on the subjects that really matter.

It's also very easy to get an exemption if you know which health professional to go to.

Fill out a couple of forms and bingo, you've freed up hours of your child's school day to study something else that's actually useful.

whisky_galore

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

And that would be a problem, why...?

That would be a problem for the lobby groups, language enthusiasts and armchair supporters. The notional numbers of speakers would plummet without the schoolchildren.

whisky_galore wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

And that would be a problem, why...?

That would be a problem for the lobby groups, language enthusiasts and armchair supporters. The notional numbers of speakers would plummet without the schoolchildren.

Because as it is, the numbers are soaring...?

Shenshen

To be honest, I'm not convinced that the reason why people have no interest in it is because they had to learn it at school, and it was taught badly.

I'm starting to suspect that this is just the handy excuse. After all, if you wanted to learn something, even as an adult, it's now easier than ever to do so. Just a quick google search reveals a score of free online courses teaching Irish.
Wouldn't it be more honest to just admit that most Irish people, while having a sort of nostalgic attachment to the idea of the language, just couldn't be bothered to spend 5 minutes a day actually learning it, nevermind speaking it?

Then we could maybe try and see if we can find the root cause for this complete disinterest. And I do not believe that can be found in the schools. Bad teaching may well be a contributing, reinforcing factor, but it does seem unlikely that this should have managed to put an entire country off the language.