Why can nobody speak Irish?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If people would just stop opening their replies to my posts with the word "So what..." or "So you think..." that would be ****ing awesome. Really awesome.

Your propositions are being tested by putting them to a practical test.

You mentioned 'kids', which I inferred as early teenager or pre teen. You say you are "open to the possibility of secondary school" for handing down optionality.

That is too young an age at which to allow children to make far-reaching decisions about their educational futures.

So far, what you're saying isn't coming off as practical.

Education should not just be an entance examination for third level.

Then you should start by campaigning for a change in the public University entry requirements and a constitutional amendment to relegate the importance of Irish in the eyes of the State. That would seem the logical place to start, as others, like BognarRegis have agreed.

Asking for optional Irish as a starting point because little Johnny doesn't understand tuiseal ginideach is unworkable and devoid of any rationale... a bit like tuiseal ginideach.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In what way is 12 too young to make a decision?

A twelve year old cannot be expected to know his future educational direction.

A 12 year old should not, by being allowed to drop Irish, be shunted into a class of persons that has no chance of matriculating to any NUI University or its its non-University colleges. He is not a fit person to make such a restrictive decision about his future direction.

BognarRegis wrote: »

Parents decide what school children attend, they decide on nutrition, health care, sporting activities, extra classes, who they socialise with, what they wear. They determine a great many things that will affect the child's future.

Why, in the case of Irish, should the state be permitted to interfere in the parent's role?

Because the parents' right to choose how they raise their child has to be set against the child's right to be raised in accordance with his own rights... this includes a right of education "in view of actual conditions".

"Actual conditions" in the constitution mean the relevant conditions of the day; these simply must include the real-life practicalities like the wide-spread requirement to have Irish in order to matriculate.

An Coilean wrote: »

Its unlikely, its not likely that the Minister will be willing to interfeer with how the NUI sets their requirements, it would stirr up quite a bit of hostility. I also dont believe the NUI have any desire to do this, there was a call a few years ago within UCC for the Irish requirement to be dropped which was firmly rejected by the University authorities. They said that such a move would be entirely contrary to the ethos of the institution.

So they are a powerful vested interest, protecting the Irish language franchise.

Do they ever waive the Irish language requirement?

If an employer demands an Irish language qualification for a position which does not require the use of Irish, is that allowed?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Good students, wanting to do university courses finding they can't because of a useless clause. (I'm assuming, here, Irish is nessecar for the course, but not for the job).

Said student then applies to the UK where there is no such course and lives over there.

Ya, its much easier to pay 8,000 - 15,000 sterling every year in fees than pass an Irish exam, dont know of many 'good students' who would choose to do something like that. Good students be defination tend to be capable of fulfilling matriculation requirements for cources they want to do, unless there is some legitimate reason preventing them from doing so, in which case exemptions can be gotten.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

as long as you don;t need Irish to start the course - the last thing you want is Irish talent being shipped abroad on a technicality.

Ya, its Irish that is driving people to emigrate.

Far to many flaws in this line of argument to even bother with.

An Coilean wrote: »

unless there is some legitimate reason preventing them from doing so, in which case exemptions can be gotten.

What, in the opinion of the NUI would be a 'legitimate reason' for them to relax their 'Irishness' requirement?

Crea wrote: »

The reason why parents want Irish made optional is simply because it is so hard to pass because it's so badly taught.

This is the argument made by the Irish lobby to avoid the appalling vista that the majority simply don't want to speak Irish.

They simply cannot face the truth.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How can you say "forcing" someone to do something is "less restrictive"?

Because I am concerned with the educational restrictions that will follow.

Little Johnny might be delighted with not having to learn na tuisil, but he might be quite frustrated down the line, as a young adult, when he finds himself barred from entry to the NUI Universities and their non-University colleges. It's a lot less restrictive to scrape the matriculation requirement in Irish than it is to face the prospect of being unable to matriculate.

As An Coilean has said, matriculation requirements are the decision of the Senate of the NUI. It would be an absurd situation if the NUI Universities and colleges were to abrogate the Irish requirement, in light of its Constitutional and official prominence. Nevertheless, that is what you must argue for. Suggesting that Irish is simply taken off the curriculum, taken alone, would seriously damage young children's educational prospects. It is downright stupid to make this argument.

Crea wrote: »

The NUI need to change it's requirements for pass Irish to get into it's courses. Irish for engineering - ridiculous.

I think this is so stupid. When I put in on that course they took a foreign language off as a requirement, but they still kept Irish? I'm a fluent speaker of Irish but even I can see the stupidity in that, and at the very least if they want a language requirement it should be a foreign one like French, German or Spanish.

BognarRegis wrote: »

But you're ok with the idea of forcing younger children to speak Irish against their own and their parent's wishes?

Do you mean that unless everyone is forced to learn Irish, those who wish to speak Irish won't have anyone to talk to?

I actually couldn't care less whether parents who object to their children learning Irish apply for an exemption, or not!
I do, however, believe that those parents would be doing their child a great disservice, given the matriculation requirements for entry to NUIs.
In the same way, I believe that children who do not get the opportunity to study a foreign language are being done a great disservice, for the same reason.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Sounds like a cop out. I've come across this attitude a few time on this thread! "I'm not in favour of compulsory Irish, but...." and then list a vague fear, or some mythical compromise that must be met.

Every child has to learn Irish as it is. Demand is pretty much 100% and supply is meeting it.

It is absolutely not a cop out, for reasons I will enlarge on below.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, it doesn't: primary school teachers have to have it.

Of course they have to have it! How else would you ensure that every child who wants to learn Irish can choose to do so?
You've said you're in favour of the option being there - so how would that option be available if the teacher was unable to teach Irish?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The rest of it is fallacy: teachers teaching more subjects increases the options. Teachers don't get made redundant: if the demand for a subject is is not there, they just teach the other subjects that can teach.

And this does not compromise rights - as long as one teacher has one subject that's Irish, it's available.

Actually, you'll find that it's a little more complex than that.

Secondary school teachers choose which subjects they teach, and their qualifications determine whether they teach to Junior cert. or Leaving cert. standard.

It makes sense to allow teachers to choose their best subjects in which to qualify to teach.
That's a no-brainer.
That means that most teachers are qualified to teach two subjects, occasionally they may be qualified to teach three subjects, but that's unusual.
That makes it very difficult for schools to both recruit a teacher with qualifications in the required subjects, or, conversely - keep a range of subjects available to the students when pupil/teacher ratios mean they have to reduce the number of teachers they employ.
So, if a teacher retires who taught, say, Irish and Geography - the replacement teacher must be qualified to teach those two subjects.
Now, if the school has to lose two teachers because of current cutbacks in the pupil/teacher ratios - the existing teachers are unlikely to have the qualifications to teach the necessary skillsets, so, if, for example, the teacher selected for redundancy taught French and Irish, then there might be another teacher available to teach one of those subjects, but it is extremely unlikely that there would be a teacher available to teach both - and that's long before you start to take account of maximum class sizes, which would then limit even further the actual range of choices available to the students.
It sucks, but it's the way the system works.

Add the fact that younger teachers are usually "let go" more readily than those who have a number of years service at that particular school - and schools have nowhere near the amount of choice with regard to subjects being offered that you seem to think they have!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Strawman - I neve said anything about consigning it to the dustbin, and I'm all for all subjects being optional for the leaving, possibly for the junior (provided a strudent can demonstrate enough maths, english and irish for everyday life)

Nor do you answer the points I raised about prioritsiing the education and not the language.

You don't think the points above would effectively consign it to the dustbin in an awful lot of schools?
My time on parents committees tell me that it most certainly would!

I'm absolutely in favour of prioritising education - but the system is far from perfect.
I can only speak for what I want to be available for my children - I don't control the system!
For example, why does someone studying Engineering or Science need a foreign language? If it's ridiculous for the NUIs to require Irish for entry to a course in which it is of no benefit, is it not equally ridiculous to have a requirement for a foreign language?
Of course it is!
But I don't make those rules - the Universities do!
Strangely enough, I don't hear any complaints on behalf of those who don't want to study a foreign language. Why is that?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'll asnwer it because I don't think you have the right answer: it's because they prioritise what is more interesrting to them.

"We have to keep it compulsory because...." means you are supporting compulsory Irish. And your reasons are inaccurate and disprestful to the kids and their education.

Precisely! It's one of the principles of learning - and it's not being applied to the teaching of Irish, while it is being applied to the teaching of foreign languages.

You will find, if you check, that my reasons are entirely accurate, and truthful.
If you want the system to change, you might be better addressing your concerns to the Dept. of Education.
I don't want an "English vs. Irish" competition.
I just want the option to be available.
Current Dept. of Education limitations, together with NUI matriculation requirements, however, mean that, unless things change - it's unavoidable, for the forseeable future, at least.
The extra resources required to satisfy both groups are just not available - so, for yourself and Iwasfrozen to attain your objectives, would mean that the option to learn Irish would not be available to all students who wanted it.

If you can suggest an alternative that would ensure that both groups were satisfied, and the Dept. of Education were willing to adopt those suggestions, I'm certainly willing to listen.
On a practical level, though, I don't think it's attainable.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How can you say "forcing" someone to do something is "less restrictive"? Anyway moot point. I was arguing that 12 years old is old enough to say whether or not you need something.

And if you need Irish to do a universtiy course that qualifies you to do a job for which Irish is not requied somethign is seriously ****ed with the system and no one can seriously defend that.

In any case, I'm more in favor of optional at the start of the leaving: how would you feel about that?

Forcing someone to learn Irish is less restrictive, long term, than denying them a chance of a level 8 degree.
Irish speakers don't make those rules. The Universities do.

I don't personally believe that 12 years old is mature enough to have researched the various career choices, or Uni requirements, to make such a choice.

I've had children who loved a particular subject at primary level, who detested it when it became more complex at secondary level.
I've also had children who detested a particular subject at primary level, who excelled at it at secondary level, purely because the teaching methods were different.

The careers guidance teacher at my local school was amazed that two of my children knew exactly what they wanted to study in Uni. at the start of 4th year! In her experience, most kids haven't decided at that age.
I know what she means, because my third child hasn't a clue what she wants to do, and she's starting 4th year.
Her subject choices are not her best subjects. They're the subjects that ensure she has the broadest possible range of Uni courses available to choose from.
That means she has a Science subject, Maths, English, Irish, and German pretty much "forced" on her - because some courses have a science subject as an entry requirement, even though science may have nothing to do with the course being studied, and the same applies to the other subjects!

I would agree that something is seriously "f****d up" with the system.
Many of the entry requirements to a course are nothing more than an exercise in shortening the list of potential candidates for a course.

For instance, one of my daughters friends wanted to do a level 7 course.
She failed English, because she's useless at the poetry and prose elements - neither of which are necessary for the course she wanted to do.
Her spoken English is more than adequate for the job she wanted to do - but she has been refused entry to her course because of it.

The system needs a radical overhaul - but Irish isn't the main problem, far from it!

ps. I'm dropping out of this thread, now, because of time constraints.
I'm even considering closing my Boards acc., for the same reason!
I'll drop back in, and read the replies, but I just don't have the time for posting in a long running thread, atm.