nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Frontline on compulsory Irish

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Find more posts tagged with

irish language

Quick Links

Comments

caseyann

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How are they? they are fictional,for possibly art and for those who enjoy it.But not important to me.If i read something like that its for pleasure and not for education.
How does things such as Macbeth and hamlet help you in life and work.

Ostrom

caseyann wrote: »

How are they? they are fictional,for possibly art and for those who enjoy it.But not important to me.If i read something like that its for pleasure and not for education.
How does things such as Macbeth and hamlet help you in life and work.

Because the neglect of critical skills with respect to literature and classics is potentially as damaging as our neglect of science. On the 'practical' side of it, encouraging a student to struggle with literary concepts, or to develop an understanding of implicit themes and critical categories is no less valuable than mathematical/scientific ability.

Sleepy

aDeener wrote: »

will you please back up your previous ludicrous statements or retract them?

do you think it should be compulsory for LC? imo no way should it be. learning adrienne rich, macbeth etc will not help the average persons day to day living. when i was studying for it i could not help but feel that time was being wasted when i could have been learning much more relevant topics... sound familiar?

hmm well following it up into university would be making use of it.... christ. :rolleyes:

i'm arguing for a common sense approach. when you want to study medicine in college, why the hell should ts eliot be rammed down your throat and be a factor whether you do it or not?

What would you argue for then? No mandatory subjects for Leaving Cert? Or a revised English course that focused on grammar, comprehension and ability to write coherantly?

I think most student would struggle at college or later in life in the workforce without a good education in the written word. I'd like to see more focus on the areas I mentioned above myself but don't see the need to completely remove literature and poetry from the course (and I detested 95% of the poetry on the English Higher Level course).

aDeener

Sleepy wrote: »

What would you argue for then? No mandatory subjects for Leaving Cert? Or a revised English course that focused on grammar, comprehension and ability to write coherantly?

I think most student would struggle at college or later in life in the workforce without a good education in the written word. I'd like to see more focus on the areas I mentioned above myself but don't see the need to completely remove literature and poetry from the course (and I detested 95% of the poetry on the English Higher Level course).

with a half decent teacher, by junior cert level and with a bit of self application; grammar, comprehension and the ability to write coherently should not be a problem.

i think it should be optional. i mean at the moment english is mandatory, yet i think we would all agree that science is of far more importance yet none of physics, chemistry or biology is mandatory. after experimenting with subjects and future careers in TY, students should have a reasonable idea of what they would like to do in college, so yes i would be leaning towards the notion of all subjects being optional. in my own view, if ever there was a subject that should be mandatory it is economics as it has the greatest impact on our day to day lives and many people do not understand political party's fiscal policies when voting and the potential impact it will have on them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aDeener

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

have you got all the straws?? :rolleyes: metaphors are covered in the JC, im sure the doctors wont need to be flicking through macbeth notes to find out what the patient means.

your silence on your previous statements is speaking volumes btw

pooch90

Sleepy wrote: »

Uhm, are you completely ignoring the fact that there are many of us on this thread that don't agree with you.

I don't want my children learning Irish at the expense of their education in science, history, geography, written English or any of the other subjects at Junior Cert level. Given the weighting towards Irish on the primary curriculum, I think this is clearly the case at present. I've no objection to an element of Irish being on the curriculum but it shouldn't be a primary focus imho.

Without attacking anyone personally, some of the written English in this thread from those who've been educated in Gaelscoileanna would not stand up to business usage. While this is a web forum where more casual usage of language is normal, and those alumni posting here may not be representative of most of those educated in the Gaelscoileanna, it would make me curious to examine the Leaving Cert English results from Gaelscoils in comparison to schools of similar socio-economic make-ups.

I am working on the premise that irish should be maintained in the curriculum, though that I do appreciate that you disagree.

However, my main point is that what we are doing now is a waste of time and that we should either stop wasting kids time and give up on the language or teach it properly.

I believe that teaching irish up to junior cert level is not a waste of time as there is a lot of merit in honouring our culture, in having a unique language (very useful in a meeting if your lads can speak freely amongst a group of foreign bus men) and there are advantages which can be accrued by learning a language at an early age (see how there are many children on the continent fluent in 8 and 9 languages) as I believe it help the mind grow, if that makes any sense.
You could argue that they learn French instead but at that age i believe irish is a good option as every child can in the country find an opportunity to use it, whereas French could be wasted on those who would never get to go to France.

Once the children are fluent in the language by junior cert, they should at least have the option to continue studying the language though i do not believe that students with a weakness for languages should be forced to do it a LC level as it directly effects their future's.

I do not mean to dismiss your point of view at all, rather i was more interested in what I'd do to improve how it was taught.

Pace2008

pooch90 wrote: »

I believe that teaching irish up to junior cert level is not a waste of time as there is a lot of merit in honouring our culture,

Your definition of culture is my definition of history. I do not speak Irish in my day-to-day life, nor do millions of my compatriots, so I don't feel it is part of my culture, and having people telling me it is whether I like it or not only strengthens my dislike of the language brought about by 13 years of forced study.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pooch90

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's one reason. I also gave a few more.
At the end of the day, there are plenty of subjects which aren't essential in the curriculum (Geography, History - how often do you need those?) but we teach them as part of a curriculum intended to broaden and enrich young minds. How and with what will always be open for discussion.

Conversely, maybe if more Irish people had fluent French, more of them would go to France, Belgium, Switzerland, and so on? Maybe more of them could emigrate and find employment closer to home, rather than jetting off to far-flung Anglophone countries such as Canada and Australia?

Not arguing with that but for most children, while they at school, learning French will not automatically earn you a plane ticket to France. At least with irish, you can go on a day trip to a gaeltacht, where you may or may not hear some Irish by the sounds of your next bit....

I live in a Gaeltacht area, and the only time I hear Irish spoken is when I happen to come across it on TV. I don't know where you see all these "opportunities," outside of your local Conradh na Gaeilge meeting. Polish, far more widely spoken in this country, is now the de facto second language of Ireland—and one can easily find opportunities to speak it in everyday life.

However, I would argue that we are where we are (with so little irish in use) because the way it is taught breeds a hatred in many students. I believe that if we consigned it to history we would some day look back with regret but if we fix how its taught, concentrating on the spoken word and fluency, that people would actually enjoy it and as a result use it more.

Could be idealism, I know. But you have to consider this issue from both the short and long term view.

Magi11

I think the best policy with Irish is to teach it more like French. I left school with more conversational French than Irish because I wasn't taught French poetry or (God forbid) the French version of Peig! This is despite of only 5 years French and 12 years Irish. A language can only survive if its a spoken language. Let's forget about the essays and short stories and make Irish a subject that is 100% based on oral.

Pace2008

pooch90 wrote: »

Is that the only part of my post you object to?

How about the rest? Tell me, would you still hate irish if it was thought better with more emphasis on speaking it (simplistic things like incorporating it into PE for example) or is it just a blanket NO WAY?

If I was were to agree that Irish should be mandatory it might be one way to go about it, but as I've stated, I object to Irish being a compulsory subject as the "culture" argument doesn't hold any water and there are more important areas (science, economics etc.) that should be given greater emphasis. Having students speaking Irish in PE is a further extension of forced Irish so yes, I'd be against it - that's disregarding the fact that you're working largely on instinct when playing sport and trying to communicate in a second language would be a potential distraction.

From what I've read in this thread the course will be weighted more towards oral Irish in the future and this is a long-overdue step in the right direction.

pooch90 wrote: »

In case you missed it earlier, my point is teach it effectively or bin it.

Why is it an all-or-nothing scenario though? Why can't it be made optional and taught more effectively to those who wish to learn it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

caseyann

Pace2008 wrote: »

I'd have no desire for my future children to learn Irish, but I'd be even more adverse to having them excluded from the group; the odd one out, when social development is most crucial.

So just because you dont want your kids learning it the ones who do want to and their parents want them to should be the odd ones out?And they suffer?
And we are talking primary school.
What if you child turns around and says.I like Irish i want to learn it? Then what ?
By you trying to remove the option for your child to learn it as we both know no child is going to know whether or not they will like it and want it apart of their lives even the smallest amount.

Lockstep

I find it interesting reading through this thread, given that I never had Irish forced down my throat.
My school was funded by the EU so offered every EU language, the school had about 3000 students, with I'm guessing 16 doing Irish on some level. 1st and 2nd years were merged (roughly 8 students), as were 3rd and 4th (4) and 5th and 6th years (3) (7th year were taught themselves) I did it at the equivalent of honours level and was the only person in my class doing it (yeah, the class consisted of me and the teacher in my final year)
There was well over a hundred Irish students in the school, with only a minority doing the language itself so I'm personally a bit sceptical about how widespread Irish would be if it was voluntary.
However, those who did do it were extremely dedicated and had a reasonably high standard of spoken Irish (which the focus was on).

However, Irish could still be encouraged in other ways; a required functioning level for state jobs (given that it is our first official language) or the provision of low-cost diplomas (NUIG already provides this for example, offering various Irish courses aimed at different subject groupings (Irish Diploma for lawyers/Irish Diploma at varying levels etc).

loldog

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't hate Irish but I hate the institutions that forced the education of it onto me for fourteen years.

Is fíor duit.

Making Irish language compulsory in schools was the worst cultural crime committed against the Irish people ever.

Worse and more harmful than anything the British did.

.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

I've deleted about 40 posts that are nothing to do with the thread, as per previous mod reminders. That's only from the past few hours.

I really doubt this thread has long more to live. Leaving the sugarcoating at home, that's the off-topic fault of some of the people posting on it, not the topic itself.

/mod

theredletter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would you not consider your historical overview of the language shift a little limiting? English did indeed become the language of commerce and trade, particularly due to Irish speaking areas and the UK/ urban Ireland. Urban Ireland only spoke English due to the British ownership of ports.

It has been also known that Irish speaking children did get English beaten out of them at home and at school. It was known that Irish speaking parents would encourage the use of English and punish their children if they were caught speaking Irish at schools. Usually these parents wouldn't have any English themselves.

I sat a module on sociolinguistics in Irish and the professor insisted Irish was indeed abandoned by its speakers. As you noted, there is mounting evidence to suggest that Irish speakers themselves turned their back on the language. This was down to other factors. If Irish, at the time, remained independent and free from UK rule/ any other colonising power, Irish would probably still by the main language of this island. The same can be said for the Isle of Man, and the same can still be said for the northern islands of Scotland who still have native Gaidhlig speakers. It was for economic and poiltical reasons that that Daniel O' Connell said what he said...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

theredletter

Very true, donegalfella, we can't speculate about what could have been, but we can accept what has happened, why it happened and how it happened. Whether you like it or not, the Irish people did not wake up one morning and decide to speak English, there were factors involved. These factors were down to the UK's colonising position and this lead to the language shift. You can't blame Irish people for abandoning their language, but you can blame them for continuing to to abandon it.

If China becomes the superpower we all think it will, the lingua franca may just change to Mandarin. This won't be because we hate English, or because it has been taught badly, but because Mandarin will have a lot more use.

thirdmantackle

well, the standards for Irish have already fallen to an alarmingly low point in primary and secondary school for a number of reasons

all the new primary subjects have eaten into the core subjects. and when teachers have to cut time off maths, english or Irish, then its usually Irish that suffers. teachers are now expected to teach stuff to kids that parents used to take care of: manners for one thing, personal hygiene

teachers' level of Irish has fallen dramatically. so few teachers now able to speak Irish fluently. there needs to be a huge change in policy to allow and encourage teachers visit the gaeltachts to upskill their Irish every 2nd year.

parents no longer see the requirement for Irish. even 10 years ago you needed honours irish for nearly every decent university course. things are being dumbed down. it should be a requirment for all state jobs imho

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

theredletter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

First of all, I agree with you completely on your first point to an extent. I do think that preserving language is important, or at least giving people the option to use the language on a daily basis.

Your second point regarding nationalism is completely presumptuous. I am NOT and NEVER was a nationalist. My love for Irish stems not from nationalism or any beef I have with the UK, it stems from its literature, from its grammar and its sound. Secondly, Modern Irish is a Celtic language. English is a Germanic language. . Let's try and not paint everyone with one brush. You're going into dangerous territory trying to link Irish to nationalism. It might be politically protected due to nationalistic ideals, but it is NOT nationalism that drives the majority of its speakers to speak it.

aDeener

theredletter wrote: »

First of all, I agree with you completely on your first point to an extent. I do think that preserving language is important, or at least giving people the option to use the language on a daily basis.

Your second point regarding nationalism is completely presumptuous. I am NOT and NEVER was a nationalist. My love for Irish stems not from nationalism or any beef I have with the UK, it stems from its literature, from its grammar and its sound. Secondly, Modern Irish is a Celtic language. English is a Germanic language. . Let's try and not paint everyone with one brush. You're going into dangerous territory trying to link Irish to nationalism. It might be politically protected due to nationalistic ideals, but it is NOT nationalism that drives the majority of its speakers to speak it.

you should have been warned about donegalfella and his wild statements

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

theredletter

aDeener wrote: »

you should have been warned about donegalfella and his wild statements

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm, but if it was then I'd like to illustrate.

I actually work in the Irish language sector, and I have a LOT of friends who are high up in Irish language organisations. They are not nationalistic about the language. Most see it as one (of many) aspects of our culture to be celebrated.

The guys going around writing Tiocfaidh ár lá on bathroom walls and claiming fluency in the language should be completely ignored.

lila44

forgive me if this has been posted already - only read a few pages! :rolleyes:

I think that Irish should definately be offered as an optional subject, perhaps and additional subject in the Leaving Cert (my other half did Finnish as an additional subject in his LC).

I could be ignorant in saying this, but my view is that Irish is, for want of a less harsh word, useless in todays society. I did it for my entire school career, and I struggle to complete one correct basic sentence.

I certainly would not chose to study it if it was offered as optional, but I am sure that some people would!

I do not agree that students are letting their maths and english and other european languages suffer in order to study honours irish! it doesn't make sense in my head!

MonkeyMan.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We are not the uk, we have our own country, you cant bring other countries into this, we are talking ab out irish in irsih schools

MonkeyMan.

Stark wrote: »

English grammar might not be important to you but to anyone's who's ever written any sort of business letter that they don't want to see thrown in the bin (for example, when applying for a job), then it's extremely important.

Anyone who thinks "A Thig Ná Tit orm" is more important than say Hamlet or Macbeth is fairly deluded.

why wouldnt it be ????