Should Irish be an optional subject not a cumpulsory one

KeithAFC

deise go deo wrote: »

As is the case with many who try to obstruct the development of the language, is'nt that so, Keith old chap?

Like who? People can learn it if they want. The point is it is badly managed and badly advertised by people with an agenda.

Patriciamc93

Ok................. basically Irish is the most screwed up subject which is thought for the leaving and junior cert.

I have just finished the leaving cert so know what the course entailed. Basically if you had no basic grammer then you were screwed. I had none because I was not thought it properly in primary. The course now is all about how much you can remember not about actually learning the language. And most people know that. I among the majority of my year have no knowledge of the irish language now.

The way I think that Irish should be thought is that there are two different subjects for Irish.
1) Irish: where you learn grammer, vocab, speaking it and how to write pieces. This subject should be an exam subject but don't actually get any point in the leaving cert for it. Perhaps even doing the subject exam in 5th year so it doesn't place any extra strain. And whos gonna study for an exam that they won't get marks in if they have 6 others to study for. There would be no poems, pros or rote crap to be learned off.

2) Irish litrateur: Not everybody like this part of Irish. so for those who do have this subject that people learn about poets and plays etc. If students had a higher level of Irish by doing the above subject from 1st year then people would like to chose this. Personnally if I was taught the language properly I would love to have learned about poets and irish history.

Wibbs

Cú Giobach wrote: »

.
What's with the "however", that has no relevence to my point.

Who said it did? It was an addition to your point, the "however" part kinda giving the game away. It's not all about you you know

If you consider the various parts of countries as "niches" then yes, though that is a very odd way of describing geographical locations.

It's not a way of describing geographical locations. It's a way of describing the common usage of the language and it's a "niche market" in practical terms whichever way you look at it.

Well since it is the people of Ireland themselves who exaggerate the numbers on their census forms, it must have some cultural relevance to large numbers of people.

Ah bless, now you're joking. I hope. If it had any cultural relevance beyond lip service we'd hardly need to exaggerate now would we? And this after nigh on a century of the promotion and compulsory promotion of the language at that in many strands of Irish life.

I bet none of the more vocal "anti-Irish language" folk exaggerate their ability with the language.

Because regardless of their position at least they're not exaggerating?

Change what? The attitude of the Irish people? I wouldn't. It's not for me to want or try to do.

Well given that the vast majority of the Irish people vote with their tongues and can barely string a sentence of the culturally relevant language together, It does seem that ship has sailed anyway.

deise go deo wrote:

As is the case with many who try to obstruct the development of the language, is'nt that so, Keith old chap?

To be fair to Keith, he's not once said anything about the language should die/it's shíte/etc(certainly a lot less than some "locals"), or that it shouldn't have some support. Indeed he's described it as a nice language, but can't quite get some of the contradictions surrounding the language. He'd not be alone, nor would someone require a collection of orange sashes and bowler hats in their wardrobe to see said contradictions.

KeithAFC wrote:

Like who? People can learn it if they want. The point is it is badly managed and badly advertised by people with an agenda.

Often true, however the daftness that can follow the Irish language around pales into insignificance when compared to the daftness that follows something like Ulster Scots. As far as agendas go anyway.

billybudd

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

@Billybudd. What's this "math" craic? It's maths on this side of the Atlantic.

sorry, mats.

KeithAFC

Often true, however the daftness that can follow the Irish language around pales into insignificance when compared to the daftness that follows something like Ulster Scots. As far as agendas go anyway.

I don't promote Ulster Scots anyway.

deise go deo

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair to Keith, he's not once said anything about the language should die/it's shíte/etc(certainly a lot less than some "locals"), or that it shouldn't have some support. Indeed he's described it as a nice language, but can't quite get some of the contradictions surrounding the language. He'd not be alone, nor would someone require a collection of orange sashes and bowler hats in their wardrobe to see said contradictions.

The point was not directed at Keith specifically, just pointing out that there are many people, especially in his part of the Island, who are vocally against the Language as part of their own political agenda.

deise go deo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, you have been arguing in favour of compulsory subjects and against choice for most of the last two pages.
In what way is offer choice a half-assed policy? what problems do you see it causing?

I have not been arguing in favor of compulsion, I have been arguing against choice for the sake of choice. If the reason for introducing choice is to improve the education system and the educational outcomes of the students involved, and it is implemented a way as to prevent any negative impact, then I would be all for it.

For the record, I would have an equally poor opinion of someone calling for compulsion for the sake of compulsion.

Again, you say poorly thought out of it's some sort of self evident point. In what way is it bad?

It is poorly tought out because the reason for it is not to improve the education system, it is to give choice for the sake of it, because ot is supposedly a ''right'' regardless of the impact it has on the education of the students involved.

You don't have to look far to see a case where the introduction of choice has had an unforseen negative impact. It happened in England when the made languages optional, the number of students taking a second language as a subject collapsed dramatically accross the education system, even before the point from which languages were made optional.
Learning a second language is an extreamly important part of any education because of the cognative developmental benefits it can bring.
I would consider the introduction of choice in the English education system with regard languages to have had an extreamly negative impact on the quality of education recieved by English students.


To those that think the introduction of choice can not possibly have a negative impact, how about doing some research before demanding your opinions be put into effect.

Cú Giobach

Wibbs wrote: »

Who said it did? It was an addition to your point, the "however" part kinda giving the game away. It's not all about you you know

No it's not about me, it's about not being able to make a simple linguistic comment about the language, without someone replying "true, however <<insert anything you please that is irrelevant to the point>>".
Think about it Wibbs, why address your grievances to someone who just makes such a comment, why not to someone who says Irish is our native tongue or who want's to make the world Gaelic. You have more of an agenda regarding Irish than I do.

It's not a way of describing geographical locations. It's a way of describing the common usage of the language and it's a "niche market" in practical terms whichever way you look at it.

The way I look at Irish is based on the way I have experienced it, that is, as the spoken language and the method of communication of communities I have visited for extended periods of time, similar to my experiences of Welsh and German.

Ah bless, now you're joking. I hope. If it had any cultural relevance beyond lip service we'd hardly need to exaggerate now would we? And this after nigh on a century of the promotion and compulsory promotion of the language at that in many strands of Irish life. Because regardless of their position at least they're not exaggerating?

I'm not getting into this "if people valued Irish they would speak it" argument, it's been done to death and ignores the realities of day to day life verses the commitment needed to learn a language.
The simple fact is though people may not speak the language most Irish people do see it and value it as part of our culture and making comments like "it has no cultural relevance to the majority" is just plain wrong.
Even "polls" here in AH which has high numbers from the Eastern side of the island and a quite young following shows this.

Well given that the vast majority of the Irish people vote with their tongues and can barely string a sentence of the culturally relevant language together, It does seem that ship has sailed anyway.

See above.

SeanW

deise go deo wrote: »

To those that think the introduction of choice can not possibly have a negative impact, how about doing some research before demanding your opinions be put into effect.

Let me share with you something personal. When I was 12, I left Ireland and spent some time in the United States. There was a much larger emphasis on elective subjects and I no longer wasted a plurality of my efforts learning religion and dead languages.

From the start, one of electives I got was Computers. I was lousy at it the first year but it had grabbed my interest so I tried again, in my 2nd year of U.S. school, that being the 8th grade, or the final year of Middle school. I did much better at it there and at that time I found my calling.

My post 233 obviously had faded from the front page, so I will summarise the nub of it:

SeanW wrote:

To claim that allowing the educational experience be tailored to the interests and capabilities of individual students would be detrimental to them, as you seem to be, is both bizarre and troubling.

GaryIrv93

the reason why we have such negative attitudes towards Irish nowadays is because it's forced on students in school - so make it optional and students will give Irish a chance. It makes no difference imo whether you do Irish or not for the LC, as most people won't ever use it again. You're only learning Irish for another 2 years. (if it was optional for the LC) Maybe even take Irish out of schools, replace it with a newer more useful subject such as Driving Skills (just an idea) and let people pay for their own lessons outside of school if they want to.
The language is pointless for most people anyway. We don't need it.

gigino

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

The language is pointless for most people anyway. We don't need it.

We do not REALLY want it either. I have been in every county in Ireland and I never once saw anyone buying an Irish language newspaper or book. Never saw a menu in a restaurant in Irish. Irish is a dead and ugly language, hundreds of millions of euro are wasted on it already. Time to make it "not compulsory". Let whoever wants to study it learn it. Do not ram it down the throats of everyone else at their expense.

deise go deo

gigino wrote: »

We do not REALLY want it either. I have been in every county in Ireland and I never once saw anyone buying an Irish language newspaper or book. Never saw a menu in a restaurant in Irish. Irish is a dead and ugly language, hundreds of millions of euro are wasted on it already. Time to make it "not compulsory". Let whoever wants to study it learn it. Do not ram it down the throats of everyone else at their expense.

I have never seen anyone buying a German Language newspaper, I guess German must be dead too, you could tell me to go to Germany, and that would be a fairly valid point, but then again there are plenty of places I could tell you where to go.



Anyone get the wordplay?

saa

I don't mind it being compulsory but there should be more exceptions made, the idea that you could fail your lc or not get into a course that has nothing to do with Irish is ridiculous as we all learn differently, a more flexible ordinary level exam would be a compromise.

SeanW

deise go deo wrote: »

I have never seen anyone buying a German Language newspaper, I guess German must be dead too, you could tell me to go to Germany, and that would be a fairly valid point, but then again there are plenty of places I could tell you where to go.

Is German language education compulsory in Ireland?

deise go deo

saa wrote: »

I don't mind it being compulsory but there should be more exceptions made, the idea that you could fail your lc or not get into a course that has nothing to do with Irish is ridiculous as we all learn differently, a more flexible ordinary level exam would be a compromise.

You don't fail your LC if you fail Irish, course requirements are up the the Universities, not Irish being compulsory at second level.

pragmatic1

gigino wrote: »

We do not REALLY want it either. I have been in every county in Ireland and I never once saw anyone buying an Irish language newspaper or book. Never saw a menu in a restaurant in Irish. Irish is a dead and ugly language, hundreds of millions of euro are wasted on it already. Time to make it "not compulsory". Let whoever wants to study it learn it. Do not ram it down the throats of everyone else at their expense.

Its far from dead and one thing it aint is ugly. Its a beautiful, rich language. Book Irish isnt the nicest but what people in the gaeltacht use on a daily basis can in no way be described as ugly.

l.m

The King of Moo wrote: »

The Leaving Cert exam is also far too easy

Did you take foundation level or something

The King of Moo

l.m wrote: »

Did you take foundation level or something

Nope, honours. Relative to other subjects it's much easier, not even taking into account the amazingly easy oral and aural exams.

The problem with making the exam easier is that it doesn't solve any of the major issues with the way Irish is taught in schools and is a quick fix to artificially increase the numbers of Irish speakers.

The basics are barely covered at all, literature is brought in much too early and there are no attempts to make it interesting and fun.

On paper the exam is easy, but students are going into it not having been taught the language properly, not even knowing the different tenses, for example, and being prejudiced against the language because many teachers don't make it interesting, so in reality, it's difficult for lots of students, or seems to be.

It should be taught properly in primary school, and maybe up to Junior Cert. Some folk from the Department of Education should go to Germany or Austria and observe some English classes and talk to English teachers to see how to properly teach a second language. They could even go to a language school teaching English in Ireland to see how to do it properly.
Then it should be made optional, and anyone who keeps it on would be well-prepared for the Leaving Cert.
But even someone who had been taught Irish properly in primary school only would probably have better Irish than someone who got an A in the Leaving Cert under the current system.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

deise go deo wrote: »

I have not been arguing in favor of compulsion, I have been arguing against choice for the sake of choice. If the reason for introducing choice is to improve the education system and the educational outcomes of the students involved, and it is implemented a way as to prevent any negative impact, then I would be all for it.

That's a bit different from when you refer to choice as "not a right", as an "ideological quest" and a "poorly thought our idea."

For the record, I would have an equally poor opinion of someone calling for compulsion for the sake of compulsion.

...which is entirely in contradiction with keepign the Irish langauge compulsory forthe sake of compulsion. You also said, "what's liking it got to do it [learnign Irish]?, which to me, indicates that you really don't care what happens to Leavign Cert Irish as long it's kept mandatory.

Which, let's face it, is the crux of your argument. This is not about complsion v choice, it's about your fear that 15 year olds will drop Irish given the chance.

It is poorly tought out because the reason for it is not to improve the education system, it is to give choice for the sake of it, because ot is supposedly a ''right'' regardless of the impact it has on the education of the students involved.

The point is to improve the student. The system serves the student, tnot the other way around.

You don't have to look far to see a case where the introduction of choice has had an unforseen negative impact. It happened in England when the made languages optional, the number of students taking a second language as a subject collapsed dramatically accross the education system, even before the point from which languages were made optional.

You don't have to look far to find the exact opposite either. Just one page back would do it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77271918&postcount=260

Learning a second language is an extreamly important part of any education because of the cognative developmental benefits it can bring.
I would consider the introduction of choice in the English education system with regard languages to have had an extreamly negative impact on the quality of education recieved by English students.

So you would be completely fine if they were given the option to drop irish as long as they studied a different lanuge in it's place?

To those that think the introduction of choice can not possibly have a negative impact, how about doing some research before demanding your opinions be put into effect.

Prove to me how forcing a child to d osubjects he has no use for aids the child.

To sum up?
you do not give a **** about the system. It suits your needs, so it suits you. You do not give a **** about the students. As long as they show up, it suits your needs.
Stop pretending you do.

Nodin

gigino wrote: »

We do not REALLY want it either. I have been in every county in Ireland and I never once saw anyone buying an Irish language newspaper or book. Never saw a menu in a restaurant in Irish. Irish is a dead and ugly language, hundreds of millions of euro are wasted on it already. Time to make it "not compulsory". Let whoever wants to study it learn it. Do not ram it down the throats of everyone else at their expense.

"ugly"? Please do explain.

deise go deo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

That's a bit different from when you refer to choice as "not a right", as an "ideological quest" and a "poorly thought our idea."

You're not getting this are you.

I don't see Subject Choice in schools as being a right, there are very few education systems in the EU that do not have some compulsion at all levels.
You have also compleatly failed to put forward any compelling reason for Subject choice in school to be a right other than saying Imagin if we lived in a country where choice was not a right, well you might not like to hear it, but I don't have to imagin it, we do live in such a country.

I would see an attempt to make all subjects optional, with no thought to the potential damage that could have on the standard of education that will then be recieved by the students involved as an ideological quest, ie a quest to implement an idea ''Choice is a right''
As to the Idea, given that it may well have a negative impact on the education the students recieve, I would consider it poorly thought out.
Though as you have already admited, you don't care about that.

...which is entirely in contradiction with keepign the Irish langauge compulsory forthe sake of compulsion. You also said, "what's liking it got to do it [learnign Irish]?, which to me, indicates that you really don't care what happens to Leavign Cert Irish as long it's kept mandatory.

Indeed it would be, if at any point I had said that I was interested in keeping Irish compulsory for the sake of compulsion, I have no particular infatuation in compulsion, and have no intention of doing things for it's sake.

As for the second bit, you have taken what I said out of context to suit your own arguments, try harder.

Which, let's face it, is the crux of your argument. This is not about complsion v choice, it's about your fear that 15 year olds will drop Irish given the chance.

No, its not about compulsion v choice, its about the education system and the implmentaton of piss poor plans that could have a negative impact on it.

So you would be completely fine if they were given the option to drop irish as long as they studied a different lanuge in it's place?

Educationally that would be fine.

Obviously I am interested in the Irish language, and would prefer to see proper reforms in how it is thought before that happens, but I would not object to it on educational grounds.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

deise go deo wrote: »

You're not getting this are you.

I don't see Subject Choice in schools as being a right, there are very few education systems in the EU that do not have some compulsion at all levels.
You have also compleatly failed to put forward any compelling reason for Subject choice in school to be a right other than saying Imagin if we lived in a country where choice was not a right, well you might not like to hear it, but I don't have to imagin it, we do live in such a country.

I haven't said this. Again, stop twisting my argument to suit your responce. I am not going to provide proof for a statement I never made in the first place.

I would see an attempt to make all subjects optional, with no thought to the potential damage that could have on the standard of education that will then be recieved by the students involved as an ideological quest, ie a quest to implement an idea ''Choice is a right''
As to the Idea, given that it may well have a negative impact on the education the students recieve, I would consider it poorly thought out.
Though as you have already admited, you don't care about that.

What "potential damage"?
This buzz-phrase you seem to love "ideological quest" has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons I have presented. I can only assume you haven't read these either.

I did not make the aguument spelt out in the last line either.

Indeed it would be, if at any point I had said that I was interested in keeping Irish compulsory for the sake of compulsion, I have no interest in compulsion, I have no intention of doing things for it's sake.

I have shown this to be false. Move on.

As for the second bit, you have taken what I said out of context to suit your own arguments, try harder.

Me - Any rational mind wiill tell you that forcing a 15 year old to do something and like it is a waste of time.
You - What has liking it got to do with anything?
In context and relevant.

No, its not about compulsion v choice, its about the education system and the implmentaton of piss poor plans that will have a negative impact on it.

Spefically, which piss poor plan? Why is it piss poor?

deise go deo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I haven't said this. Again, stop twisting my argument to suit your responce. I am not going to provide proof for a statement I never made in the first place.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I'm not talking about choice versus the system. I'm not takling about choice versus the language. I'm not talking about choice making anything more or less effective. I'm talking about an individual's right to make a choice about his or her life.

You admited that you don't care about the potential impact on the educational system, its about an ideological quest for choice because you think it is a 'right'.

SeanW

I gave you personal evidence that educational systems that have a lot of elective choices do benefit students. That was in post 260.

I will question, one last time:

SeanW wrote:

To claim that allowing the educational experience be tailored to the interests and capabilities of individual students would be detrimental to them, as you seem to be, is both bizarre and troubling.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

deise go deo wrote: »

You admited that you don't care about the potential impact on the educational system, its about an ideological quest for choice because you think it is a 'right'.

Where?

And while you're at it, answer the last questions in my last post on this topic.

SdoowSirhc

AngryBollix wrote: »

If irish isnt taught in schools it wont be spoken. It will die out or there will be little pockets of the country where it will remain active

That's the current situation.. Irish is completly obslete to anybody who does not want to work or live in a Gaeltacht area. It should be a choice competing with French, Spanish and German. The latin based languages like French are useful worldwide, Irish is useful in about 4 counties..

GaryIrv93

hundreds of millions of euro are wasted on it already

.

I know, it's ridiculous. about 1 billion euro a year is spent teaching Irish. In the middle of a recesssion it's unlogical, especially when that money could be put to better uses. if it was made non-compulsory, then countless amounts would be saved in the long run.

Do not ram it down the throats of everyone else at their expense.

to solve that problem, students who don't want to learn it should simply refuse to do Irish, and not go to classes, form protests etc. Time to stand up for what we believe in: You can't force us to do Irish. lol

grindle

deise go deo wrote: »

You admited that you don't care about the potential impact on the educational system, its about an ideological quest for choice because you think it is a 'right'.

It could only impact on a portion of Irish teachers in a bad way (if they choose not to re-educate themselves or make use of their other talents), our wages in a good way (over €500 a year stolen annually, directly from my wages to pay for something I dislike (if the €1 billion is correct) and those who equate choice with freedom or vice-versa in a good way.
People who want to learn it still could. People who don't, won't.
I'm not sure why you're embarking on an ideological quest to kill freedom, or keep freedom from permeating Irish culture, but I'll wager it has something to do with your nationalist streak.
Nationalism is a choice. You have the freedom to be a nationalist. It's not compulsory.
You stop compelling some of us to accept this "albatras", we won't laugh at your antiquated mode of thought (edit: I couldn't possibly promise that. Certain ideas should be laughed at.).
Your way, one side can be happy, my way, both can be happy...
Unless your fascistic supposition "choice [and therefore freedom] is an ideological quest" speaks to your wider character, and you can't experience happiness without someone else's misery stoking the flames?
Or is your negative spiel about the only thing in life that makes a human life worth living a part of some existential quandary featuring you at the core of the Universe?

Vahevala

Personally speaking, I would make it optional, I think it is about teaching children the best subjects that will help them after they have finished school, about giving them a grounding that they can take to progress their lives further.

I think with the way the jobs market is these days, it appears the more languages you have, the better and the better salary you will get.

I knew a guy who I worked with, he was from Slovakia and he had about 8 or 9 languages he could speak fluently, He had the pick of any jobs and I was comparing that to my childhood in school, didn't start to learn French till I was 12 or 13. It is just way too late.

LordSutch

Can I just point out that a Thought is something that happens in your head 'I thought I saw a pussy cat' Taut means to be tight, as in 'the rope was taut' (very tight) and Taught is used in the context of this thread, a la teaching, 'I was taught Irish for years, but I still can't speak it' )

Down with mandatory Irish lessons, Irish should be thought taught as an optional subject!

Cú Giobach

LordSutch wrote: »

Can I just point out that a Thought is something that happens in your head 'I thought I saw a pussy cat' Taut means to be tight, as in 'the rope was taut' (very tight) and Taught is used in the context of this thread, ala teaching, 'I was taught Irish for years, but I still can't speak it' )

Irish should be thought taught as an optional subject!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63152137&postcount=20

LordSutch

OK then, whatever.

I taught i was helping.

Wibbs

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The way I look at Irish is based on the way I have experienced it, that is, as the spoken language and the method of communication of communities I have visited for extended periods of time,

Tiny communities. Hey that's cool and it should be supported in such communities, but how the hell that translates into the rest of the country is beyond me.

similar to my experiences of Welsh and German.

Seriously? Are you so deluded/subjectively biased that you can actually equate German with Irish as a language?

I'm not getting into this "if people valued Irish they would speak it" argument, it's been done to death and ignores the realities of day to day life verses the commitment needed to learn a language.
The simple fact is though people may not speak the language most Irish people do see it and value it as part of our culture and making comments like "it has no cultural relevance to the majority" is just plain wrong.
Even "polls" here in AH which has high numbers from the Eastern side of the island and a quite young following shows this.

The simple fact is that in practical terms it does have little cultural relevance to the majority beyond lip service. One would think the commitment to pick up the language would be somewhat covered by the 15 years of education in it. While the education system surrounding Irish is blamed for much of it's ills, it's hardly the whole story.

Cú Giobach

Wibbs wrote: »

Tiny communities. Hey that's cool and it should be supported in such communities, but how the hell that translates into the rest of the country is beyond me.

And I'm not here to tell you.

Seriously? Are you so deluded/subjectively biased that you can actually equate German with Irish as a language?

Since they are both full living languages, yes, of course. What on earth are you actually questioning here?

The simple fact is that in practical terms it does have little cultural relevance to the majority beyond lip service.

Stop ignoring reality to make a point. People in general don't learn another language unless they either have to, or prioritise the learning above other aspects of their life

One would think the commitment to pick up the language would be somewhat covered by the 15 years of education in it.

I think you will find most people don't realise the importance of many things till they leave school.

While the education system surrounding Irish is blamed for much of it's ills, it's hardly the whole story.

No, the realities of day to day existence get in the way.

Wibbs

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And I'm not here to tell you.

Simply because you can't.

Since they are both full living languages, yes, of course. What on earth are you actually questioning here?

Next I'll be breaking out the crayons. If you're seriously comparing Irish and German as getting within an asses roar of equitable as far as living languages of their culture goes I fear I may have to. Give me an ever living break. No really. The cultural output of German in a month would put the cultural output of Irish in the last century to shame. Never mind the daily usage among actual Germans when compared to actual Irish people. Talk about deluded. OK what language would you choose to learn if you decided to move to Bonn? Frisian? Hardly. What language would you choose to learn if moving to Waterford? Irish? Hardly. Try not to be too ridiculous in these comparison, lest readers lump you in with those who start vaguely wittering on about the languages of Scandinavia and such in the erroneous conviction that it passes for argument..

Stop ignoring reality to make a point. People in general don't learn another language unless they either have to, or prioritise the learning above other aspects of their life

And yet you miss the reasons and the irony behind that with regard to the Irish language? And you accuse me of ignoring reality? That's rich.

I think you will find most people don't realise the importance of many things till they leave school.

Funny how this realisation doesn't equate to a mass move towards Irish.

No, the realities of day to day existence get in the way.

Funny that, given a language is mostly a method of communication, seems that this day to day existence has left it behind for the vast majority. Ad we're back to square one of the mass delusion of the ardent(oft born again) Gaelgoir. It's beyond farcical at this stage.

conor.hogan.2

Some people should lay off the Kevin Meyers. Anti-Irish people are more pathetic than militant atheists.

Hector Mildew

angry kitten wrote: »

Looking at the teachers protest on the news this evening got me thinking about the teaching of Irish in schools. Generations of us went through daily Irish lessons in both primary and secondary school and while I can pronounce the names on road and housing estate signs etc, I couldn't tell you what they mean.

My point is that leaving patriotism out of the equation, would the money not be better spent retaining teachers that are actually teaching something that will be of practical use to children in their future lives. Instead of cutting remedial teachers and special needs and guidance counselors etc could the government just not take a realistic approach to education in modern day Ireland.

Yes, what you said makes perfect sense.

LordSutch

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Some people should lay off the Kevin Meyers. Anti-Irish people are more pathetic than militant atheists.

Hmm, not sure what you mean by 'anti irish people'?

Personally I am 'anti' the compulsive nature of the force feeding of the Irish language to all ages (and in all Irish schools), but that is not to say that I am 'anti-Irish', far from it, but I am against the mandatory nature of Irish lessons in all schools, for all Irish pupils, of all ages . . .

Let those who want to learn the Irish language be allowed to study & enjoy it, and those families/pupils who don't, be allowed to abstain, this would then dissapate the negative culture that has grown up surrounding the language (due to the force feeding of) over several generations.

conor.hogan.2

I spent 5 years and more effort learning French and I don't know much French nor do many of my friends.

Granted we spend 13 years learning Irish but how much Irish were you taught in primary school really? By the time you got to secondary school it was a lost cause for the majority of people for obvious reasons.

Teaching it in primary schools needs to change.

LordSutch wrote: »

Personally I am 'anti' the compulsive nature of the force feeding of the Irish language to all ages (and in all Irish schools), but that is not to say that I am 'anti-Irish', far from it, but I am anti the mandatory nature of Irish lessons in all schools, for all pupils, of all ages . . .
.

Students can and do abstain and some for little or no reason. Why should Irish not be compulsory? What country is this again? Forget how much it is used by the people of the country it is still the national language.

Place names and most of our history would be meaningless if Irish was not taught.

Namlub

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

I spent 5 years and more effort learning French and I don't know much French nor do many of my friends.

Granted we spend 13 years learning Irish but how much Irish were you taught in primary school really? By the time you got to secondary school it was a lost cause for the majority of people for obvious reasons.

Teaching it in primary schools needs to change.



Students can and do abstain and some for little or no reason. Why should Irish not be compulsory? What country is this again? Forget how much it is used by the people of the country it is still the national language.

Place names and most of our history would be meaningless if Irish was not taught.

Seems a bit of a backward stance to take imo, and I'm not sure what you mean by saying that our history would be meaningless if Irish was not taught (not that the thread was suggesting that Irish not be taught at all in the first place)

LH Pathe

What's 'whatever' in irish, Bernard dunne wants to know. compulsory or he will box you

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Some people should lay off the Kevin Meyers. Anti-Irish people are more pathetic than militant atheists.

Miltant Irish being even worse again.

LordSutch

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Granted we spend 13 years learning Irish but how much Irish were you taught in primary school really? By the time you got to secondary school it was a lost cause for the majority of people for obvious reasons.

But this is my point exactly^ 13 years doing Irish, and still not learning it - what a bloody waste of 1000s of hours . . .

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Teaching it in primary schools needs to change.

But Irish has been compulsive in all Irish primary schools since the 1920s/30s, and they still haven't changed it enough (so that it works).

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Students can and do abstain and some for little or no reason. Why should Irish not be compulsory? What country is this again? Forget how much it is used by the people of the country it is still the national language.

There are very few reasons why a student could abstain from Irish, I think being dyslexic is one reason, or if the child arrived here after their 6th birthday (I think)? otherwise 99.9% of children must do Irish < There is No escape for my children, even though they may never use it again after their school days.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Place names and most of our history would be meaningless if Irish was not taught.

Dun Laoghaire comes to mind, its got great meaning to me as a place name, but I don't speak Irish.

Doc Ruby

LordSutch wrote: »

But Irish has been compulsive in all Irish primary schools since the 1920s/30s, and they still haven't changed it enough (so that it works).

The unionists never fail to make an appearance.

jumpguy

GAA sports aren't compulsory, and yet they remain alive and very popular.

Irish music and dancing isn't compulsory, and yet both are alive and very popular.

So then you take Irish, which is the exact opposite. Whether or not you care for learning Irish or even languages in general, you must learn it from the age of 4, when you're just beginning to grasp English, and you don't have a bog who Barack Obama is, nevermind Padraig Pearse. Nobody spoke fluent Irish in my community, and pretty much everyone I knew that was an adult remembered it as a subject they hated in school.

Irish should absolutely be made optional, at least Leaving Certificate level. Whoever gives a bog about learning it and enjoys learning it should be allowed continue it on after trying it out at Junior Certificate level. You don't need Irish in almost every profession I can think of. It is not comparable to a subject like maths. Shoving it down people's throats only builds up resentment. The people on the streets protesting for it to remain compulsory wish to force their ideals on others when you strip it down.

I can think of much better subjects to put the resources that currently go for Irish into - such as bringing computer science as a science subject and Junior and Senior levels. We should be looking to the future with our education, and compulsory Irish, unfortunately, is a poor attempt to revive the past.

Seanchai

jumpguy wrote: »

You don't need Irish in almost every profession I can think of. It is not comparable to a subject like maths. Shoving it down people's throats only builds up resentment. The people on the streets protesting for it to remain compulsory wish to force their ideals on others when you strip it down.

I'm still waiting for the day when I will find it financially beneficial to use even a single quadratic equation, never mind the rest of the gobbledegook that passed as LC maths. Utterly useless. Sums, on the other hand, are useful but I learnt then in national school. Yet I had all that LC maths rubbish shoved down my throat. And don't get me started on how Shakespeare and the rest of that utterly pointless nonsense was rammed down my throat....

Maths and English compulsion = good.
Irish compulsion = bad.

Wibbs

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Some people should lay off the Kevin Meyers. Anti-Irish people are more pathetic than militant atheists.

Wibbs wrote: »

the "west brit" stuff is usually not long in coming from some quarters, if often thinly veiled.

.

44leto

I think it would be a shame to lose the language, but I do recognise that it is a dying language for a reason, it is no longer is practicable. It was in steep decline since the famine as the world was becoming more global, English then as it it is now the Global language. Culturally we were becoming English then towards the end of the 18th century as nationalism became a powerful world force we had our cultural revival, a cultural revival that gave us a separate national identity which was one of the factors that led to our independence. The Irish language played a big role in that as does the Welsh and Scottish language play a similar role in those regions striving for independence.

So to reassert our new and revived national identity the free state government tried to continue the revival in Irish and they made it a compulsory part of the educational curriculum. But we still do not speak the language, we choose to speak English and we still have an Irish identity. So in my mind it has played its purpose, it is no longer necessary.

Ironically I do plan on learning the language, I would love to be a fluent Irish speaker, but for Kids entering the the educational system there are better and nationally more strategic better uses of the time it takes to learn Irish. Science and maths or if it has to be a language why not Mandarin or German, perhaps civics and Irish cultural studies or Irish if they choose it, but not Irish because they have to.

Cú Giobach

Wibbs wrote: »

Next I'll be breaking out the crayons. If you're seriously comparing Irish and German as getting within an asses roar of equitable as far as living languages of their culture goes I fear I may have to. Give me an ever living break. No really. The cultural output of German in a month would put the cultural output of Irish in the last century to shame.
Never mind the daily usage among actual Germans when compared to actual Irish people. Talk about deluded. OK what language would you choose to learn if you decided to move to Bonn? Frisian? Hardly. What language would you choose to learn if moving to Waterford? Irish? Hardly.
Try not to be too ridiculous in these comparison, lest readers lump you in with those who start vaguely wittering on about the languages of Scandinavia and such in the erroneous conviction that it passes for argument..

First off, since you wrote this at 12:30 on a saturday night I'll excuse it as possible drunken ramblings, and wont take it too seriously.
What you have done here is exactly the same as me saying, "as Homo-sapiens Irish people are the same as Nigerians", and then calling me deluded because Nigerians have darker skin, larger lips and there are 150 million of them.

You said you view Irish as a "niche" language and I said I view Irish as I would any other living language ie, as the language of communication of the community in which it is used, and as a full living language is the same as any other living language.
Now how you got from that me saying it is as important in places where it isn't the native language as in places where it is, that it has an equal number of speakers to one any child would know has more, or that there is as much produced in a language whose native speakers number in the 10's of thousands as there is in one whose numbers are in the 10's of millions, is utterly beyond me.
I clearly asked you what you were actually questioning, and (obviously naively) didn't for one minute think you were disingenuously questioning if I was implying Irish was as widespread or has produced as much as German.

And yet you miss the reasons and the irony behind that with regard to the Irish language? And you accuse me of ignoring reality? That's rich.

What is ironic about people prioritising putting food on the table and a roof over the heads of their families over learning another language? And yes ignoring that is ignoring reality.

Funny how this realisation doesn't equate to a mass move towards Irish.

See above.

Funny that, given a language is mostly a method of communication, seems that this day to day existence has left it behind for the vast majority. Ad we're back to square one of the mass delusion of the ardent(oft born again) Gaelgoir. It's beyond farcical at this stage.

Show me one thing I have said that is a "delusion".

gigino

LordSutch wrote: »

Let those who want to learn the Irish language be allowed to study & enjoy it, and those families/pupils who don't, be allowed to abstain, this would then dissapate the negative culture that has grown up surrounding the language (due to the force feeding of) over several generations.

Well said. People hate their time being wasted and money flushed down the toiled being force fed the dead old language for 14 years. Noboby wants Irish except a few extremists. Go to any bookshop or newsagent in any county in Ireland and you have a been chance of seeing someone buy a winning lotto ticket than a book, magazine or newspaper in Irish. Yet half of what the F****g government prints is in Irish, destroying half a rainforest.