Irish speakers a new elite

ronanmac

There is a problem with this study, IMO, in that it doesn't recognise that there are two distinct set of Irish speakers. Gaeltacht Irish speakers, who speak Irish from the cradle and for whom it's as much a language to be consious of as English is to the rest of the population, and non-Gaeltacht Irish speakers, for whom Irish is a conscious decision.

Believe me, there is very little of the "elite" benefit in the Gaeltacht. Where I live, I would say that well over 50 per cent of the lads I went to school with are now unemployed, following the collapse in construction. If you are looking for further evidence in two different types of Irish speakers, look at the social welfare recipient figures for Ros Muc, Leitir Moir, An Cheathru Rua in Conamara, and do the same for that other bastion of Gaeilge, south Dublin.

P. Breathnach

kickoutthejams wrote: »

... Many would consider themselves Irish speakers. WOnder what criteria were used for determining Irish speakers.

The answer is in the original post: "The research team used data from the 2006 Census". In effect, the only criterion was the judgement of the person completing the form in each household.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

I don't believe that there's a causal relationship here at present, but I do think that the governments support for the Irish language is contributing towards perpetuating class differences.

As long as students are being forced to study Irish and receive preferential access to 3rd level education for doing their exams through it, we'll see a correlation between those who speak the language and higher salaries. With the societal shift towards Gaelscoileanna (something I don't really agree with tbh) we're seeing in the upper middle classes, I'd wager there's also a fairly hefty difference between these schools incomes from 'voluntary contributions' compared to those received by normal schools. I'm not aware of extra government funding for Gaelscoils but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

If we want to ensure a level playing field for children from all backgrounds we should be aiming for a homogenous, secular, education system where all schools are equally funded, resourced and teaching the same curriculum in the same manner (i.e. in the same language). I'd actualy go so far as to ban private schools, voluntary contributions, school fundraising etc. and raising taxes to make up any shortfall.

For the most part, children from wealthier backgrounds will already have significant advantages in terms of access to extra tuition (grinds, gaeltacht trips etc) and are more likely to have supportive home environments. I don't think we should be adding to these significant advantages through providing any options for their parents to ensure that their schools are better funded and resourced than any other state-funded school, never mind having a system which discriminates in favour of a schools whose main focus is on a commercially worthless language and against those without an aptitude for this same language.

I've no problems with Irish being an examinable subject at Junior Cert and Leaving Cert level but it should be an elective of no higher standing than any other. TBH, I'd rather see it removed from primary school in favour of a modern language but realise that wouldn't have much support from those who see a language that in reality is less than 150 years old as being inextricably linked to our nations culture.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

You're right to point out that this is a self-assessment. Anyone with a "cupla focal" and a sense of patriotic duty can have himself counted as an Irish speaker just by ticking a box.

Just like anyone with 12 years education in Irish who hates the language can choose to not tick the box.

T runner

Sleepy wrote: »

I've no problems with Irish being an examinable subject at Junior Cert and Leaving Cert level but it should be an elective of no higher standing than any other. TBH, I'd rather see it removed from primary school in favour of a modern language but realise that wouldn't have much support from those who see a language that in reality is less than 150 years old as being inextricably linked to our nations culture.

33% of all pupils learn at least 2 languages through Irish.
It seems your ideas would have little support from a population which clearly wants their children to learn Irish.

The idea of countries with only one language in an education system is crazy.
2/3 of the worlds population speak more than 1 langiage. Monolingualism is a myth.

Sleepy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why?

I'm not suggesting all students should study the same subjects. Just that they should all have equal access to education in so far as the state can provide it.

A society in which education levels are determined by the wealth of one's parents will move towards a near feudalistic system over time. If only the wealthy can provide their children with proper education the numbers of those succeeding from outside that elite will diminish generation on generation leaving only truly exceptional out-liers capable of breaking free of the circumstances of their birth.

Sleepy

T runner wrote: »

33% of all pupils learn at least 2 languages through Irish.
It seems your ideas would have little support from a population which clearly wants their children to learn Irish.

The idea of countries with only one language in an education system is crazy.
2/3 of the worlds population speak more than 1 langiage. Monolingualism is a myth.

link?

Did you read my post? Did I suggest monolingualism? No, I suggested that a modern language would be of more benefit to primary school children than Irish, that it should be an elective subject at Junior & Leaving Cert level and that we shouldn't be supporting Gaelscoils with what I'm sure you see as 'positive discrimination' where access to third level education is concerned.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So outlaw the unions

dlofnep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Much the same as any other subject in our educational institutions then?

You're biggest gripe from what I can see is that the state actually supports the revival of the language. Perhaps, making Irish optional for the leaving cert might even do the language more good than harm - as those who really wish to pursue it, might do so more vigorously.

Do you want Irish completely removed from state education, or just removed as a mandatory subject? And if it is the latter, would you support languages as optional subjects for all languages at leaving cert level?

And would you support all subjects being optional? Where does the buck stop? Optional geography, science, history?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dlofnep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You also need pass English and pass Maths.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But they are also compelled to study English, religion, history, geography and other subjects. So would it not be fair to say that you have a personal gripe with the Irish language itself?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would argue that many students might dislike it, because they are not getting their bang for their buck and the course content is poor. If they were able to converse in the language, they might find it more appealing, no? Which is where the new strategy comes into place, with intent to overcome that.

It has nothing to do with Anglophobia. It has to do with self preservation of our own culture and language. I don't see what the problem is exactly with stating that this is Ireland, not Britain - and that we wish to maintain our own cultural traits, the same cultural traits that allow the tourism market to boom. Music, language and culture all play a big part in tourism.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Grand, so you're for optional English. So long as you're consistent, I've no qualms with your opinion.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We have no disagreements on this issue. I don't think that Irish should count towards a course, unless it's a part of that course. But I also don't feel that maths, english or any other subject should count either, and only the subjects that are relevant. But that's not the case - and so, this isn't really an issue that's solely the fault of the Irish language. It is applicable to any subject in the curriculum.

I believe that there should be a set of core subjects taught up to the junior cert, and that the leaving cert should be more flexible to allow students to focus more on specific areas. But, the state has a core set of subjects all the way through school - so this isn't not unique to the Irish language and I feel you are using it as a premise to attack the language itself.

AJ STYLES

thats wrong i dont go to greece because they speak greece.

T runner

kickoutthejams wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0109/1224261977461.html

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

I'd have my suspicions that it might have something to do with the gentrification of the Irish language; it seems very trendy for non-Irish speakers to send their kids to gaelscoils (definetely noticed that when working in schoolbook shops)

I think I can see one correlation.

As Irish is largely classroom based people who feel they can speak Irish after 12 years education would have done well in Irish pass or honours Irish.
So speaking Irish or not Irish might relate to doing well at Irish at school or not doing well in Irish at school.
Im sure there would be a correlation between doing well at a particular subject and doing well in school overall.
There is a correlation between doing well in school and earning more money.

Therefore some corelation between speaking Irish and earning more money.

Do well in Irish -> Speak Irish ->
Do well in Irish -> Do well in Leaving Cert->Earn more money

Do poorly in Irish -> Dont Speak Irish
Do poorly in Irish -> Do poorly in Leaving Cert->Earn less money

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is clearly not true. 33% of all Irish pupils (ROI) study at least 2 subjects through Irish. This is a large minority of parents who want their children to learn not just Irish but also one more subject through Irish. Who coerced these parents?

This is the parents choice not Gaelgoirs (what do you mean by Gaelgoirs anyway?)

A majority of Irish parents want their children to learn Irish and many, many of those are happy that they learn other subjects through Irish.

You hate Irish because you see it as a parochial language. That doeant mean that it is parochial: Irish parents certainly dont think so.

Reference

Statistics
[edit] Primary level

Of the 470,000 primary school pupils in the Republic of Ireland, 34,800 do all of their school subjects through Irish while 120,000 pupils use Irish as their Normal Language of Communication for at least one other subject(except Irish). This means that 7% of the schooling population have all their subjects taught through the medium of Irish, while 33% of pupils have at least two or more subjects (incl. Irish) taught through Irish.

In the Republic of Ireland: (7.4%)

* 25,800 pupils attend Gaelscoileanna (5.4%)
* 9,000 pupils attend Gaeltacht schools (2%)

In Northern Ireland: (2%)

* 2,653 pupils attend Gaelscoileanna

[edit] Second level

Of the 335,000 secondary students in the Republic of Ireland, 9,932 do all their school subjects through Irish. This means that 3% of the schooling population have all their subjects through the medium of Irish.

In the Republic of Ireland: (3%)

* 3,030 students attend Gaeltacht secondary schools
* 5,687 students attend Gaelcholáistí
* 981 students attend Irish stream schools
* 234 students are taught some subjects through Irish

In Northern Ireland: (0.5%)

* 632 students attend Gaelcholáistí

bangersandmash

T runner wrote: »

I think I can see one correlation.

I think the correlation has already been established, at the very least in relation to certain parts of the country and the proficiency of Irish in certain professions where at least some knowledge of Irish is necessary.

As pointed out the use of self-reported census data is a problem. I wonder if aspirational types are more likely to report themselves as being fluent even if they aren't, as they might see some intellectual cache with being a Gaelgoir (or at least with being fluent in more than one language).

However there's no indication of any causation here. The best reason I could possibly come up with is that the introduction to a secondary language (not necessarily Irish) at an early age might improve academic performance. But that's pure speculation. Curious to see the same figures for native German or French speakers in Ireland.

sceptre

dlofnep wrote: »

But they are also compelled to study English, religion, history, geography and other subjects. So would it not be fair to say that you have a personal gripe with the Irish language itself?

Most of those weren't compulsory subjects when I did my leaving cert. Has this changed?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dan_d

No. Compulsory subjects at LC are Irish, english and maths aren't they? There are a couple more at JC alright - history, geography, religion, CSPE - that it?
MAybe we should take a long hard look at overhauling the way Irish is taught, and THEN ask people do they mind learning it. It's not taught well. And to be quite honest, most kids just repeat what they hear their parents saying, until they actually form an opinion on whether they like something or not.

Dyr

Chuiraimse féin fáilte roimh ár iarthiarnaí nua Gaelach. (are there gramadach gardai here? :eek:)

I hated maths in school, it caused me misery. Seems maths is failing in schools nowadays too...can we get rid of that too plz?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BlaasForRafa

T runner wrote: »

Just like anyone with 12 years education in Irish who hates the language can choose to not tick the box.

Is it any wonder that people who have had 12 years of that language pummelled into them at school hate it?

P. Breathnach

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Is it any wonder that people who have had 12 years of that language pummelled into them at school hate it?

There hasn't been much pummeling in Irish schools for quite a number of years. Many of those who hate Irish have not experienced anything like pummeling; they use the image as a post hoc rationalisation for not having been very successful students of the language.

Although I contest the rationalisation for failure, I acknowledge two things:
1. A very high percentage of those who have had Irish classes throughout their primary and secondary school years have no worthwhile proficiency in the language (my subjective criterion: they are unable to conduct an ordinary conversation in Irish);
2. It is not entirely their fault.

I base the second observation on a simple (perhaps simplistic) logic: if such an amount of school time and effort is given to something, and it does not produce an outcome that is any way commensurate with the inputs, then the effort has been misapplied.

Dostoevsky

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There hasn't been much pummeling in Irish schools for quite a number of years. Many of those who hate Irish have not experienced anything like pummeling; they use the image as a post hoc rationalisation for not having been very successful students of the language.

+ 1

nesf

bangersandmash wrote: »

I think the correlation has already been established, at the very least in relation to certain parts of the country and the proficiency of Irish in certain professions where at least some knowledge of Irish is necessary.

As pointed out the use of self-reported census data is a problem. I wonder if aspirational types are more likely to report themselves as being fluent even if they aren't, as they might see some intellectual cache with being a Gaelgoir (or at least with being fluent in more than one language).

However there's no indication of any causation here. The best reason I could possibly come up with is that the introduction to a secondary language (not necessarily Irish) at an early age might improve academic performance. But that's pure speculation. Curious to see the same figures for native German or French speakers in Ireland.

Well the question is worded awkwardly. It doesn't ask whether you are fluent in Irish only how often that you use Irish. There is a huge difference between these two things. I might use Irish daily with my children as my wife is a native speaker but I am nowhere close to fluent with the language and would be a poor adult speaker at best.

lugha

The compulsion aspect and resultant resentment is certainly a frequently used argument for the abject failure to instill any kind of competency in Irish in many school kids and on the face of it, it would seem to be a compelling factor. It might be interesting to seek the views of some of our older visitors from Eastern Europe who were compelled to learn Russian, and see if they have a similar resentment.
Whatever about this factor I find there is (or at least was) something about those that seek to promote the Irish language that is a little different from those that promote other aspects of Irish culture such as music, dance and games. To put it charitably, you might describe them as over zealous, or if you want to use stronger language, you might describe their efforts as being almost fascist like, as I once heard Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill do. And she is hardly a Gaelige-phobe. And similarly with the late John B. Keane who despite being an enthusiast himself, was once physically assaulted for daring to make a suggestion that didn't find favor with a more militant enthusiast. (I think, but I may be wrong, that he suggested that Irish would be better promoted if it were not compulsory in school). Of course, that was a single incident, but as I say, I did find something different about the promoters of the language. I happily embrace and enjoy Irish music, dance and games but there was always something a bit off putting about the over zealous way the language was promoted, which prompted me to steer clear.
As for the OP, I certainly get the impression that that is partially the case in Dublin. A friend who is seeking out a school for his daughter explained to me that before the Celtic tiger, the well heeled would stand out by sending their kids to private schools. When the commoners caught up in the last decade, and could also afford private schools, the Gaelscoileanna become the new elite for the old money classes.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Point (a) If students were allowed to skip the subjects they didnt want to study I suspect there would be little need for schools.

It is up to society (inc. parents) to decide what the child studies and society
wants Irish taught as a compuklsory subject.

The amount of parents who are educating their children (33%) through Irish in more than one subject is evidence that Irish parents want their children to learn Irish.

You can argue that about any language—but learning French gives one the ability to converse with an estimated 110 million native speakers around the world. You can go to other countries that actually use the language!

That is one advantage of French and if pearents want their children to learn French almost every secondary school will do it. Whats the problem?

It has everything to do with Anglophobia. Since the late eighteenth century—since around the time of the Declaration of Independence, in other words—the dominant language of this island has been English.

There was no "language question" in the country for more than a century: even agitators such as Daniel O'Connell saw English as the language of progress and liberation, and did not advocate a return to Irish.

Who is advocating a return to Irish?

Everybody who speaks Irish in this country also speaks English and nobody has a problem with that. Where is the Anglophobia?

But in the twentieth century a few nationalist zealots managed to push their fascistic obsession with cultural purity into government policy, and it is they who have led the charge since for compulsory Irish everywhere.

You definately ahve a problem with the langiage on a personal level.
Revival movements are symptomatic of a feeling on the ground. When the numbers of Irish speakers had fallen to a certain level it was certain that there would be a revival effort.

Blaming the Irish language revival on a few individuals is like blaming the recent upsurge in Scottish nationalism on "Braveheart".

Swedish is compulsory in Finnish schools for all pupils even though the population who speak Swedish in Finland is less than 5%. Fascists at work again?

To be honest accusing Irish language revivalists of fascism while ignoring the British State's direct legislation and policies including banning Irish from primary schools and banning the publication of Irish books is proof enough of bias on your part.

There are 6000 languages currently spoken in the world. The EU and UN are agreed that linguistic diversity is a good thing.

It is certainly not a question of anglophobia except in your mind.

But there's a difference between voluntarily participating in certain cultural movements, and relying on the state to make certain aspects of culture compulsory. Would you support the state if it mandated that everybody had to play Gaelic sports or play the tin whistle?

33% of all Irish pupils have been voluntarily enrolled in schools to learn at least 2 languages through irish.



Again, if Irish were treated as French is treated, and could be studied on a purely voluntary basis, I would have no problem with it being part of the curriculum.[/QUOTE]