Can we kill Irish once and for all

Chancer3001 wrote: »

............
Cons - a 12 year old is interested in sweet feck all.
.........

You nailed it
- need to dump religion classes too and use the time for stuff like this
- make it interesting / show how all the stuff they're learning ties together , fill in the gaps and and and and

.

shane7218 wrote: »

But what use is it ...For all intensive purpose's its a dead language

'Intents and purposes'? Your English look to be on shaky ground too...

:pac:

shane7218 wrote: »

Typing on a phone

That doesn't excuse the apostrophe storm!

:mad:

I dunno shane, i think you're taking a little more flak than perhaps you should for floating the idea.

While I would agree that there is of course merit in the preservation and development of the national heritage, I must admit that there is no fully rational or logical reason for it to be a compulsory part of the education system.

Others have discussed how there are other subjects on the curriculum that are 'useless' in the real world, and I would debate near every one of them.

English is not so much about the language itself, (more's the pity I would say) but in appreciation and critical examination of literature. This not only helps develop critical and analytical skills but also exposes students to significant literary works, a part of education that will always be valuable.

History teaches students how to apply knowledge in understanding the real world issues of the world today, by examining the train of events that have led to them in the past, something that is hardly useless in the globalised geopolitical system that is the earth today. Also, history teaches students skills such as research and the value of non literary writing.

Geography teaches students about the natural processes that shape our world, as well as the sociological effects that geography have on economics and exposes them to field based and experimental research via the field study etc.

I would argue that each of these disciplines have merit in and of themselves, as opposed to what I would consider the 'cultural' value that Irish has.

It's possibly worth noting that Irish was on the way out before as well, but was reinstated as part of the drive to reforge the national identity which came about during the rise of Irish nationalism etc. (thanks history! ) and was basically forced onto people then in a brute force effort of the newly formed Irish government to supercede British culture and was entirely politically motivated.

shane7218 wrote: »

What's the point of learning a language no one speaks? If people chose to for whatever reasons that's great but it should not be forced

No-one speaks it because it's not taught properly. Honestly, 16 years of a language and all most people can do is ask to go to the toilet.

If anything schools need more Irish. Every school should be a Gaelscoil.

Alternating Current wrote: »

It's quite pathetic that we come out of school unable to converse in Irish. The education needs to hire Benny Lewis to help create a curriculum that teaches Irish properly.

Benny Hill would do better than our lot.


Before asking should irish be taught until leaving cert we need to ask if it can be. I think the last 60 years have shown a dismal failure to teach the language and continuing is just a waste of time and effort.