Should we suppress the Irish language.. ?

javaboy

astrofool wrote: »

It should be optional, if culture is the sticking point, then we should make history compulsary and not Irish. You get far more in the history course about what it means to be Irish then you get when learning Irish.

Good point. Learning Irish taught did nothing for my opinion of Irish culture except to resent the language.

I do think we should be taught another language at an early age (french for example), when we are most receptive to other languages, but half the problem with Irish, is that by making it compulsary, people hate it, especially if they are not much good at it.

+1. I wish I had learned another living language from age 4.

I'd all be in favour of making Maths and English non compulsary also, as long as the third level courses were the ones who could make the decision on their entry requirements (and I bet 99% would require Maths and English, including vocational).

+1. Let the market dictate what subjects people study from secondary school on at least.

dlofnep

astrofool wrote: »

It's also freaking hilarious that a bunch of people here realised they loved Irish AFTER they no longer have it forced upon them, yet still aren't fluent in it. Do they not see that forcing it on them at a young age, might have been a big part of their lack of learning Irish?

Look, it's nothing to do with it being forced. The reason they weren't fluent is because the curriculum failed them. It was boring, mundane and didn't focus enough on the most important aspect of a language - The conversational aspect.

Whether we like it or not, it is our duty to preserve our language. So instead of trying to shun away the language, we should look at it in a positive light and be constructive, outlining new ideas to improve the curriculum so that fluency is prevelent across the board.

I know a few people on here are more than happy to see it as an optional language. But then you have to ask - At what age should it be optional? 5? That would be the parent's choice, not the child's. At 10? The child would rather play Nintendo than be in school, so any class less is a good idea for him.

So if you realistically want to make it "optional". I would only consider it at leaving cert level. Which there could be an argument made for. I've no inherent problems with it being optional at leaving cert level, but I certainly wouldn't subscribe to it at the current moment, when the Irish curriculum is still in an awful state. Once the Government can resolve the curriculum crisis, then I'd have no problems with people making it optional at leaving cert level - And at least then, most children would be fluent enough to appreciate the language and could make a better judgement on whether to study it for leaving cert or not. Doing it now while the educational is dismal will only kill the language, and I won't go along with anything like that while the language is in it's current state.

The Chessplayer

It's worth noting that Irish is not unique as a European language facing extinction. There are several other European languages that were widely spoken just 1 generation ago which are in a worse state than Irish. Irish, afterall, was phased out about 250 years ago.

Given that it is being taught in school suggests that it will survive to some extent. They are revamping the school curriculum, so that should help. I would say that the likes of the OP's bumbling historical references do nothing to help the language.

javaboy

dlofnep wrote: »

Look, it's nothing to do with it being forced. The reason they weren't fluent is because the curriculum failed them. It was boring, mundane and didn't focus enough on the most important aspect of a language - The conversational aspect.

I think it's a combination of both. People naturally resent being forced to do things so they're already at a disadvantage when it comes to learning. The rubbish curriculum is also definitely to blame.

I know a few people on here are more than happy to see it as an optional language. But then you have to ask - At what age should it be optional? 5? That would be the parent's choice, not the child's. At 10? The child would rather play Nintendo than be in school, so any class less is a good idea for him.

I assume they don't mean optional as in "Would you like to do Irish or go home instead?" I think the idea is "Irish or French?". If my parents had had that option when I was 4, they would have picked French and I would probably have a much stronger foundation of French than I do Irish.

So if you realistically want to make it "optional". I would only consider it at leaving cert level. Which there could be an argument made for. I've no inherent problems with it being optional at leaving cert level, but I certainly wouldn't subscribe to it at the current moment, when the Irish curriculum is still in an awful state. Once the Government can resolve the curriculum crisis, then I'd have no problems with people making it optional at leaving cert level - And at least then, most children would be fluent enough to appreciate the language and could make a better judgement on whether to study it for leaving cert or not. Doing it now while the educational is dismal will only kill the language, and I won't go along with anything like that while the language is in it's current state.

How many fluent Irish kids come out of second level schools? I bet the number is pretty low. If there's 1 kid in a class who wants to learn Irish and 29 who don't, that 1 kid gets a much worse education in Irish than they would if it was optional. I imagine the teaching methods and subsequently the curriculum would also improve dramatically if only voluntary students were in the class.

As it stands, the few students who want to learn Irish and might become fluent if taught properly leave school nowhere near fluent because the teacher spends most of their time going slow for people who have no interest in it.

Improve the curriculum and make it voluntary and we will see far more fluent speakers coming out of second level schools.

Marcus.Aurelius

dlofnep wrote: »

Doing it now while the educational is dismal will only kill the language, and I won't go along with anything like that while the language is in it's current state.

If the language needs such crutches to survive, it probably doesn't deserve to.

Enough of people squawking about saving it out of a sense of national pride, i.e. "my lump of dirt is better than the other guy's lump of dirt".

It's meaningless. Let it survive without govt funding etc., if it does, great.

If it doesn't, it wasn't worth trying to save.

dlofnep

javaboy wrote: »

I assume they don't mean optional as in "Would you like to do Irish or go home instead?" I think the idea is "Irish or French?". If my parents had had that option when I was 4, they would have picked French and I would probably have a much stronger foundation of French than I do Irish.

My point was that it isn't the child making the choice, so it's hardly "optional".

javaboy wrote: »

How many fluent Irish kids come out of second level schools? I bet the number is pretty low.

That's exactly my point. If the curriculum forcused more on conversational Irish, then people would be near-fluent going into secondary school. And when the time came at 15 or whatever when they are choosing subjects for the leaving cert, they would be in a much better position to decide whether or not they want to continue Irish.

I feel that if you make it optional right now, it will hurt the language. But more importantly, rather than this being an agenda against optional Irish - It's more my agenda against the current Irish curriculum which doesn't work.

Once Irish is on a platform where it's taught correctly, then I would have no problem in making it optional. Doing so right now is a bad time, and until the curriculum is revamped - I wouldn't be in favour of it. However, I can appreciate WHY you would like to make it optional and I understand exactly where you are coming from.

Some people in society are awfully passive when it comes to the language. And while I understand why, I'm greatful that the greater population supports the language as a mandatory subject.

dlofnep

Joker wrote: »

If the language needs such crutches to survive, it probably doesn't deserve to.

Jaysus, great logic there champ.

So anything that requires support to survive, don't deserve to exist in the first place? The language needs crutches to survive because it was banned from schooling, phased out by a foreign Government and suffered a major setback when the greater population of speakers were killed during a horrific famine. The fact that it's still going through all of this is a testament to the language and the people who have supported it.

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

Whether we like it or not, it is our duty to preserve our language.

Says who? It is no more my "duty" to preserve Irish than it is my "duty" to eat boxty every day while listening to the Wolfe Tones.

dlofnep wrote: »

But then you have to ask - At what age should it be optional? 5? That would be the parent's choice, not the child's. At 10? The child would rather play Nintendo than be in school, so any class less is a good idea for him.

It should be optional at second-level and removed from the curriculum at primary level (possibly to be replaced by science). If people want their kids to learn Irish, they can teach them themselves, or send them to the Gaeltacht, or whatever.

dlofnep wrote: »

Once the Government can resolve the curriculum crisis, then I'd have no problems with people making it optional at leaving cert level - And at least then, most children would be fluent enough to appreciate the language and could make a better judgement on whether to study it for leaving cert or not.

By that logic, all subjects that are available as options for the leaving cert should be compulsory up to junior cert level, so as students can appreciate the subjects in question and are in a better position to decide which subjects they should study at leaving cert level.

Marcus.Aurelius

dlofnep wrote: »

Jaysus, great logic there champ.

Thank you, I thought it was good too.

If it was useful, it would survive by its merits. If it's useless, it will die a natural death.

Sense,

this makes a lot of it

dlofnep

djpbarry wrote: »

Says who? It is no more my "duty" to preserve Irish than it is my "duty" to eat boxty every day while listening to the Wolfe Tones.

That's fine, you're passive about the language. The majority of people have no problem sending their children to school to learn Irish and ensure it survives.

djpbarry wrote: »

It should be optional at second-level and removed from the curriculum at primary level (possibly to be replaced by science).

Yes, because we all want to be scientists. :rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote: »

If people want their kids to learn Irish, they can teach them themselves, or send them to the Gaeltacht, or whatever.

Oh yeah, I'm sure all the parents are fluent enough to teach their kids, or can afford trips to the Gaeltacht to teach them. What you said just there is an assinine idea, and not realistic by any stretch of the imagination.

djpbarry wrote: »

By that logic, all subjects that are available as options for the leaving cert should be compulsory up to junior cert level, so as students can appreciate the subjects in question and are in a better position to decide which subjects they should study at leaving cert level.

Not really, because the fate of the other subjects is already set in stone, while the Irish language is on shakey grounds. Which is more the reason why to teach it during primary. The fact that you'd suggest to remove it altogether from primary school is a ridiculous idea.

dlofnep

Joker wrote: »

Thank you, I thought it was good too.

If it was useful, it would survive by its merits. If it's useless, it will die a natural death.

Sense,

this makes a lot of it

It requires a curriculum to survive. The same way science, or history or anything else would. Please take onboard my intended sarcasm next time you decide to take an undeserved compliment.

astrofool

dlofnep wrote: »

That's fine, you're passive about the language. The majority of people have no problem sending their children to school to learn Irish and ensure it survives.

If the majority of people would choose it anyway, whats the problem with it being optional then?

It's a necessary pain for Irish to go through, but making it optional would ensure that the people that want to speak it will, and those that don't, won't.

While it's also nice to blame the curriculum for all of Irish's woes, this is a curriculum that was developed at the same time as English/Maths/French/Sciences/Business where Ireland has had nothing but success in education standards. Irish is the odd subject out, yet, receives a disproportionate amount of time and funding. It's very easy to blame the curriculum, when the real answer is that the kids didn't want to learn it in the first place as it's of no use to anyone beyond getting a college place (for artificial reasons). It also gives foreigners an advantage when coming to Irish 3rd level education, as they don't have a complete waste of a subject on their points totals.

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

If the curriculum forcused more on conversational Irish, then people would be near-fluent going into secondary school.

That's wishful thinking, to say the least. Changing the curriculum may bring some positive results, but it's not going to suddenly result in everyone becoming fluent. If kids don't want to learn the language, they ain't gonna learn it. Same applies for any other subject. Take maths for example; you can do what you want with the curriculum and get the best teachers in the world to teach it, but you're still going to get a whole load of people who detest the subject and will do their utmost to avoid it.

dlofnep wrote: »

The language needs crutches to survive because it was banned from schooling, phased out by a foreign Government and suffered a major setback when the greater population of speakers were killed during a horrific famine. The fact that it's still going through all of this is a testament to the language and the people who have supported it.

Bollocks. It's been force-fed to the entire population for, what, 80 years? More? Yet it's still lagging behind Polish and Chinese in the popularity stakes.

dlofnep

astrofool wrote: »

If the majority of people would choose it anyway, whats the problem with it being optional then?

It's a necessary pain for Irish to go through, but making it optional would ensure that the people that want to speak it will, and those that don't, won't.

That's a good question.

I believe that some children then would not be abale to avail of the language and later on regret it in life. I don't think it's in anyway constructive to remove the language in primary schools. Not in the least.

javaboy

dlofnep wrote: »

My point was that it isn't the child making the choice, so it's hardly "optional".

But the parent would choose so it wouldn't be quite compulsory in the way it is now. If the parents could choose in primary and the child could choose in secondary, I know I wouldn't have done Irish at all. My parents would have preferred I learn a language that might be of practical use some day.

That's exactly my point. If the curriculum forcused more on conversational Irish, then people would be near-fluent going into secondary school. And when the time came at 15 or whatever when they are choosing subjects for the leaving cert, they would be in a much better position to decide whether or not they want to continue Irish.

Why waste the first 10 years teaching kids something that has little or no practical use though? Both I and my parents would have chosen a more useful subject to learn in those years given the choice.

They would be in a better position maybe but a biased one. If I was 15 and had spent 10 years learning something, I might continue with it for the leaving cert simply because I'm more likely to do well in it than in a brand new subject. That's not really a pure choice.

I feel that if you make it optional right now, it will hurt the language. But more importantly, rather than this being an agenda against optional Irish - It's more my agenda against the current Irish curriculum which doesn't work.

I think the exact opposite (except about the curriculum which is sh1te ). I think the compulsory status is killing the language. My best subjects in secondary school were consistently my optional ones. Forcing kids to learn an impractical subject just breeds resentment imo.

Once Irish is on a platform where it's taught correctly, then I would have no problem in making it optional. Doing so right now is a bad time, and until the curriculum is revamped - I wouldn't be in favour of it. However, I can appreciate WHY you would like to make it optional and I understand exactly where you are coming from.

I see your point too but I think a curriculum geared towards a class of about 10 who chose to be there would be vastly different to a curriculum made for 30 kids who may or may not want to be there. The two changes would need to go hand in hand.

Making it optional without a change in curriculum would mean the students would outgrow the coursework very quickly and improvements to the curriculum are always going to be inhibited by the fact that a lot of the target students don't want to do Irish.

dlofnep wrote: »

Jaysus, great logic there champ.

So anything that requires support to survive, don't deserve to exist in the first place? The language needs crutches to survive because it was banned from schooling, phased out by a foreign Government and suffered a major setback when the greater population of speakers were killed during a horrific famine. The fact that it's still going through all of this is a testament to the language and the people who have supported it.

Similar to the way we should probably try to bring back the Dodo (which we killed off) but not the dinosaurs (which we didn't), I do believe the language should get government aid.

It does need a crutch in the form of funding and promotion to survive. Mandatory teaching is just a stick to beat the language to death with.

Marcus.Aurelius

dlofnep wrote: »

That's fine, you're passive about the language. The majority of people have no problem sending their children to school to learn Irish and ensure it survives.

I'm not passive, I'm downright against it.

Yes, because we all want to be scientists. :rolleyes:

Actually, with the new knowledge-based economy, this is fast becoming essential

Oh yeah, I'm sure all the parents are fluent enough to teach their kids, or can afford trips to the Gaeltacht to teach them. What you said just there is an assinine idea, and not realistic by any stretch of the imagination.

Grow up and realise that if the language is to survive, it will do so unaided by govt payouts and indulgences. Either it's useful and enjoyable or it isn't.

Not really, because the fate of the other subjects is already set in stone, while the Irish language is on shakey grounds. Which is more the reason why to teach it during primary. The fact that you'd suggest to remove it altogether from primary school is a ridiculous idea.

Why? Irish is a waste of time that could be spent inculcating the basics of infinitely more useful subjects like the sciences, higher english and mathematics skills, improved foreign language skills, the list is endless.

Marcus.Aurelius

dlofnep wrote: »

It requires a curriculum to survive. The same way science, or history or anything else would. Please take onboard my intended sarcasm next time you decide to take an undeserved compliment.

You think I misplaced the typical snooty gaeilgoir sarcasm?

It was not lost on me, do not worry :pac:

dlofnep

djpbarry wrote: »

That's wishful thinking, to say the least. Changing the curriculum may bring some positive results, but it's not going to suddenly result in everyone becoming fluent.

Well, it depends. It will definately improve fluency, and thus - if you listened to the point I was making - Would give people a good basis on whether or not they wanted to continue studying the language. If not, then nothing to fear. They can go hang out with you. But if they did - What's the harm? What skin is it off your back to see the curriculum crisis resolved, and then allowing for the language to be optional?

djpbarry wrote: »

Bollocks. It's been force-fed to the entire population for, what, 80 years? More? Yet it's still lagging behind Polish and Chinese in the popularity stakes.

Which is attributed to a poor and non-functional curriculum. Lagging behind polish and chinese in popularity stakes? Doubtful. I doubt any Irish people are picking up Polish & Chinese in anyway comparable to the Irish language. If you are referring to the Polish & Chinese nationals who moved here, then that's absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand and a total red herring.

javaboy

While you're here dlofnep. How do you feel about the special position Irish enjoys when it comes to bonus marking on other subjects?

dlofnep

Joker wrote: »

I'm not passive, I'm downright against it.

I'm pleased about this. You'll notice that most people don't give a **** and it's only the typical few usual suspects who come in parading around when it comes to the language.

Joker wrote: »

Actually, with the new knowledge-based economy, this is fast becoming essential

Wrong. I've got on just fine without it. Science is not "essential". It's practical, not essential.

Joker wrote: »

Grow up and realise that if the language is to survive, it will do so unaided by govt payouts and indulgences. Either it's useful and enjoyable or it isn't.

Grow up?

The reality is the language needs support to survive. If you can't see this, then you are seriously blinded by your hate for the language.

Joker wrote: »

Why? Irish is a waste of time that could be spent inculcating the basics of infinitely more useful subjects like the sciences, higher english and mathematics skills, improved foreign language skills, the list is endless.

LOL @ using an argument about how much a language is a waste of time, but using "Higher English" as a counter-subject. I never studied leaving cert level English and I get on just fine in life. It's hardly a practical subject, unless you're going into teaching or one of the other miniscule areas that require it.

dlofnep

javaboy wrote: »

While you're here dlofnep. How do you feel about the special position Irish enjoys when it comes to bonus marking on other subjects?

Are you referring to the exam? It's been 8 years since I did my leaving cert. My understanding is that you get extra marks for the conversational aspect of the exam, is that correct?

javaboy

dlofnep wrote: »

Joker wrote:

Grow up and realise that if the language is to survive, it will do so unaided by govt payouts and indulgences. Either it's useful and enjoyable or it isn't.

Grow up?

The reality is the language needs support to survive. If you can't see this, then you are seriously blinded by your hate for the language.

I think it might be pertinent to ask Joker exactly why he has a hatred for the language.

dlofnep wrote:

Are you referring to the exam? It's been 8 years since I did my leaving cert. My understanding is that you get extra marks for the conversational aspect of the exam, is that correct?

There are extra marks awarded in other subjects like Maths for answering in Irish. It's something like 5 or 10 percent of the marks you missed out on. Not a huge amount but significant enough. I'm just wondering if you're for or against.

Marcus.Aurelius

dlofnep wrote: »

Wrong. I've got on just fine without it. Science is not "essential". It's practical, not essential.

I said the future, not the 1990s and early naughties. Are you aware of the economic outlook, both bullish and bearish?

The reality is the language needs support to survive. If you can't see this, then you are seriously blinded by your hate for the language.

I know it does, that's why I want to pull the plug, its useless and a waste of money, we should let it die with some shred of dignity. (I don't hate the language, I hate the way people passively support it out of a twisted sense of entirely misplaced national pride)

LOL @ using an argument about how much a language is a waste of time, but using "Higher English" as a counter-subject. I never studied leaving cert level English and I get on just fine in life. It's hardly a practical subject, unless you're going into teaching or one of the other miniscule areas that require it.

Eh, our command of english is chief among the reasons for our recent economic success within the EU. Get with the times sir.

Practical subject?? And you're suggesting irish is?

That's not even hilarious, its epically sad.

dlofnep

I'm not interested in why he hates the language. But I do know that most people aren't bothered either way, as evident by the results of this poll - But that a few usual suspects will prance on and on about how useless it is, when in reality - the majority of people want it to survive.

javaboy

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not interested in why he hates the language.

I am and tbh I think you should be. I imagine it has some bearing on this debate.

@Joker: Why do you hate Irish? Also did you have to do it to join the Gardai?

Scoobydoobydoo

Having been educated in both English speaking, and Irish speaking schools, it's clear from my own experience, that the way it's taught in English speaking schools is dreadful, and most of the students haven't a clue what's going on! I always noticed that the majority of students in these schools had a hatred for the language, but it was purely because they were lost and not getting a grasp on it. I have to say, I felt pretty similar in my French lessons, so I feel that generally, the way languages are taught needs to be looked at again very seriously.
I don't know what the answer is, maybe we should be doing more Irish, and at a younger age, where it can become perhaps almost second nature. Maybe some kind of immersion could be arranged. I'm not sure that confining Irish to a 40 minute lesson here and there is enough. It's too rigid or something!
I think it should remain a compulsary subject but shouldn't be as daunting as it is for many students. It is sad that people have a negative attitude towards the language, but I can understand why they would.

dlofnep

Joker wrote: »

I said the future, not the 1990s and early naughties. Are you aware of the economic outlook, both bullish and bearish?

I'm aware that science is not an essential subject, nor will it ever be. It is a practical subject at best, for those who wish to pursue a career in it. If you are suggesting that ever career will require a science background, then you're stretching.

Joker wrote: »

I know it does, that's why I want to pull the plug, its useless and a waste of money, we should let it die with some shred of dignity. (I don't hate the language, I hate the way people passively support it out of a twisted sense of entirely misplaced national pride)

Oh I know you do. Thankfully you're in the minority.

Joker wrote: »

Eh, our command of english is chief among the reasons for our recent economic success within the EU. Get with the times sir.

Yes, and we don't require leaving cert level English to get by. It's a nice bonus. I didn't study leaving cert level English. And I'm with the times, studying application development, in an age where computers reign supreme. I don't need to quote Shakespeare or some other historical hogwash to get by in life, neither does anybody else.

Marcus.Aurelius

javaboy wrote: »

Why do you hate Irish? Also did you have to do it to join the Gardai?

Eh, I said I was downright against it, I don't hate it. I hate its status. (See last post pls).

----

And yes, I needed it for AGS, which as you know, is a very modern organisation altogether.

(Now that's sarcasm!)

Pride Fighter

One of my lecturers in history said that Notre Dame University in America produces 1,000 Irish graduates a year. That one US uni produces more than our Uni's combined. So the problem is all throughout the educational spectrum.

javaboy

Joker wrote: »

Eh, I said I was downright against it, I don't hate it. I hate its status. (See last post pls).

Sorry not hate. I was using dlofnep's words not yours.

So you hate its status? Well I hated the language itself. I don't hate it anymore but I used to. In fact I still hated it for a couple of years after leaving school. It's only in the last couple of years that I've stopped hating it and become passive about the language itself while retaining a healthy hate for its status.

My hate stemmed from being made to learn it in school when I didn't want to. I expect a lot of other people's negative feelings are for the same reason.

And yes, I needed it for AGS, which as you know, is a very modern organisation altogether.

(Now that's sarcasm!)

Out of interest have you had cause to use it in AGS? And is it required for AGS anymore?