Why can nobody speak Irish?

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

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.

Noreen1 wrote: »

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.

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





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?



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!





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?



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.




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.

Noreen1 wrote: »

But it is a valid reason. While NUIs have it as an entry requirment, then unless parents decide that their child is never going on to third level, even as an adult:rolleyes:, then Irish must be learned. It's that simple, and no amount of ifs or buts will change that fact, unless entry, and course level requirements, for third level education are changed.

We are talking secondary schools.
You may be surprised to learn that the subject range a school can offer depends on how many pupils it has.
Fewer pupils means less teachers, and less wriggle room for arranging timetables.
So, the answer is, depending on school size, they may not offer a Language, or History, or Geography, or Art - or any one (or more) of the non-compulsory subjects. Sad - but true!



You'll find that the qualifications for teaching a subject to leaving cert standard is different to that for junior cert - so one teacher isn't usually an option.
After school? What about the kids who live a distance from the school, whose parents may be working/not have transport available to collect them?




So you do not support options really! You only support those who do not wish to learn Irish, even though that will often make it impossible for those who do wish to learn it!
At least you're being open about it (though it's openly discriminatory, mind you!)- but I wonder would you feel that kids who don't want to learn a science, or foreign language subject should be allowed to make it impossible for those who do?




That's not possible for the pro-Irish side to address.
It is only possible for the NUIs, together with the Dept of Education to address.

Given the lack of resources at the best of times, together with the cuts in funding at the moment - and Good Luck with that!

CastingCouch wrote: »

Leigh anois go churamach, a scruidpaiper agus na cheisteanna.....BEEEEEP

....BEEEEEP.........CUID A.

..BEEEEEP