The Irish language is failing.

Mumha

Dughorm wrote: »

True.

I'd agree with you, but we have to be consistent here - the majority of the English course is poetry, drama and Shakespeare - topics which the majority of the public don't use either (i'm guessing... not claiming to be an expert here).

So perhaps you are of the option that all subjects should be optional - in which case Irish would be no different.

We can certainly be consistent in terms of what is vital for our kids future. The two key subjects are, a strong command of the English language and a fundamental understanding of Mathematics.

In the 90 odd years of this State, Educational Gaelgoirs have had as much power as the Catholic Church, Fianna Fail or the GAA, and have failed miserably in their task of making this an Irish speaking country. Even now, the refusal to allow the removal of compulsory Irish reminds me of the divorce referendum where, during a Late Late debate, a man in the audience said he was against divorce because he was afraid his wife would leave him ! It's that sort of skewed logic.

Dughorm

Mumha wrote: »

We can certainly be consistent in terms of what is vital for our kids future. The two key subjects are, a strong command of the English language and a fundamental understanding of Mathematics.

If your philosophy of education is "what is vital for our kids future" - then you'd need to clarify it - I think a balance between liberal arts, sciences and practical subjects is vital to have a rounded education.

Dughorm

FunLover18 wrote: »

The English curriculum can afford to be poetry, drama, and Shakespeare because we're fluent in it. It's not just about teaching us the language it's about teaching us critique and analysis which can applied to every day conversation and online discussions.

I think you suggested earlier that there could be 2 Irish subjects, a mandatory conversational class, and an optional subject for poetry and literature. I think this is unnecessary; If Irish were taught properly and conversationally in primary school students should be educated enough in it come LC to study poetry, etc. What would be the focal point of a conversation based Irish class at LC level?

It depends on what you view education for - poetry etc... teach students critique and analysis and students should be capable of it - but your argument was about practicality and what gets used every day. Plenty of subjects teach students critique and analysis, doesn't require mandatory LC English on your criteria.

Regarding whether the conversational class is unnecessary and whether students should be skilled enough in the language to handle the poetry, I happened to be but it would be arrogant to assume that everyone is.

So many people say they can't hold, and could never hold, a basic conversation in the language - I think that's tragic after all the time invested in it. Topics could be expanded based on the current oral exam.

Mumha

Dughorm wrote: »

If your philosophy of education is "what is vital for our kids future" - then you'd need to clarify it - I think a balance between liberal arts, sciences and practical subjects is vital to have a rounded education.

So you want to continue Irish being compulsory under the cover of a "rounded" education ?

What I termed "vital" was the minimum that everyone needs to learn in secondary school. Learning Irish should be an elected option, not a forced option.

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You yourself thought it was relevant when you said there's "always" time to learn a new language such as Irish (despite it being a big fat waste of time).
Are you going to explain this "always" or just retract it?
Let me guess, option three, break your arse to avoid the question. Yet again.

Yes, pretty much... don't see the relevance of it.

Dughorm

Mumha wrote: »

So you want to continue Irish being compulsory under the cover of a "rounded" education ?

What I termed "vital" was the minimum that everyone needs to learn in secondary school. Learning Irish should be an elected option, not a forced option.

There's no cover - being able to converse in all the national languages is vital in my book to getting a rounded education in this country.

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

Yes, pretty much... don't see the relevance of it.

So would you mind telling us why YOU brought it up? You regularly bring up stuff you then insist is irrelevant?

Here you go BTW in case you're about to claim you never said it:

We can always learn other things but that can be an addition

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

There's no cover - being able to converse in all the national languages is vital in my book to getting a rounded education in this country.

Other than "because it is", do you have any sensible reason?

Mumha

Dughorm wrote: »

There's no cover - being able to converse in all the national languages is vital in my book to getting a rounded education in this country.

But the overwhelming majority currently don't and it makes absolutely no difference to their lives.

I appreciate you love the language very much, but as long as you (not you personally !) chain people to compulsory Irish, they will drop it the second they have the chance to. When that happens, it is at the point where they have become adults, and will not likely change their minds.

If you did a brainstorming session for what words people associate with Irish, it would, I suspect, be overwhelmingly negative and historically negative. Things like compulsory, forced, famine, beatings, SF/IRA, Peig (!), boring etc. The positivity just isn't there for people.

briany

Mumha wrote: »

If you did a brainstorming session for what words people associate with Irish, it would, I suspect, be overwhelmingly negative and historically negative. Things like compulsory, forced, famine, beatings, SF/IRA, Peig (!), boring etc. The positivity just isn't there for people.

I think negative mindset towards Irish is not quite correct. I think it's more one of simple casual indifference. Most Irish people don't even really think about the Irish language on a daily basis if they're not studying it in school.

Dughorm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So would you mind telling us why YOU brought it up? You regularly bring up stuff you then insist is irrelevant?

Here you go BTW in case you're about to claim you never said it:

Quote:
We can always learn other things but that can be an addition

Sorry Dan, I can't satisfy your existential cravings about what "always" can and can't be done but I hope this video helps - maybe the Rolling Stones can explain it better....

Iwasfrozen

Do You Even Squat wrote: »

Never did algebra or geometry in primary school but at least i got to know how to conjugate verbs in the past tense. Spent over 3 hours a week in irish class and 3 hours a week studying irish over 6 years. Time well spent

Neither did I and it's absolutely disgraceful.

johnny osbourne

sin é an chaoi a mhac

Dan_Solo

Dughorm wrote: »

Sorry Dan, I can't satisfy your existential cravings about what "always" can and can't be done but I hope this video helps - maybe the Rolling Stones can explain it better....

Maybe you're actually funny in Irish?
So you fully admit that you have no clue what a post you yourself made means at all.
Perhaps in future you should look up a few words before typing more incomprehensible gibberish that you later have to embarrassingly agree you can't explain?

Mumha

briany wrote: »

I think negative mindset towards Irish is not quite correct. I think it's more one of simple casual indifference. Most Irish people don't even really think about the Irish language on a daily basis if they're not studying it in school.

Certainly most Irish people don't think about Irish on a daily basis (72,000 daily speaking Irish, out of a population of 4.5 million is proof of that), but when they do, it isn't positive !!!

I have actually tried to steer a neutral course with my child, and not pass on my feelings on the Irish language to him i.e. let them find his own way on Irish - if he liked it, then fair enough. However, only the other day he volunteered that the only subject he didn't like was Irish.

I'm resolved that if it comes to it, he will do the absolute minimum Irish when he gets to secondary school, and concentrate his language efforts on whatever foreign language the school does.

The Dark Side

I've a child who's just completed 2nd class.
It's actually depressing how much classroom time's being wasted on religion and the Irish language.

They're like little sponges at that age and are very keen to learn and instead teachers spend hours and hours telling them about some makey-uppy guy who lives in the sky and on a language that died out generations ago.

Such a waste.

A tiny subset of Irish language and religious fanatics have somehow managed to continue to propagate this shocking scenario.

d2ww

The Dark Side wrote: »

I've a child who's just completed 2nd class.
It's actually depressing how much classroom time's being wasted on religion and the Irish language.

They're like little sponges at that age and are very keen to learn and instead teachers spend hours and hours telling them about some makey-uppy guy who lives in the sky and on a language that died out generations ago.

Such a waste.

A tiny subset of Irish language and religious fanatics have somehow managed to continue to propagate this shocking scenario.

At the risk of going off topic, I tend to think of Religion as part of the History, Social Studies and Art classes.

The Dark Side

d2ww wrote: »

At the risk of going off topic, I tend to think of Religion as part of the History, Social Studies and Art classes.

Except that's not how it's taught in Primary School.

Mumha

The Dark Side wrote: »

I've a child who's just completed 2nd class.
It's actually depressing how much classroom time's being wasted on religion and the Irish language.

They're like little sponges at that age and are very keen to learn and instead teachers spend hours and hours telling them about some makey-uppy guy who lives in the sky and on a language that died out generations ago.

Such a waste.

A tiny subset of Irish language and religious fanatics have somehow managed to continue to propagate this shocking scenario.

That's exactly where my child is, and I 100% agree. You saw the outrageous obstruction the teachers put up against the Junior Cert reforms, this would be another sh1tfest, to try and change it. It is depressing alright.

The problem is that by stopping reforms, they artificially keep themselves in jobs, and keeps the gravy train rolling in for the Gaeltacht areas. I'd prefer if they just kept giving them the money but let our children get a better education.

LordSutch

From today's Irish Times.

Siuán Ní Mhaonaigh: Leaving Cert Irish exams need reform (via @IrishTimes)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/siu%C3%A1n-n%C3%AD-mhaonaigh-leaving-cert-irish-exams-need-reform-1.2243478

The Corinthian

d2ww wrote: »

At the risk of going off topic, I tend to think of Religion as part of the History, Social Studies and Art classes.

I remember, in primary school, something like two thirds of the day - every day - were taken up between Irish and Religion. This meant that English, maths, geography, history, PE and whatever else essentially got the remaining one third. Religion was particularly bad in that it was something like two to three hours a day, not helped by the fact that my teacher was a Legion of Mary fanatic. It's a miracle that any of us reached secondary school literate.

At the same time I do see the value in something like religion for civic reasons. At that age children are not simply information sponges, but also developing moral frameworks (let's face it, as toddlers they're little more than unrepentant sociopaths) and, within our culture, religion can supply this.

_Kaiser_

The Dark Side wrote: »

I've a child who's just completed 2nd class.
It's actually depressing how much classroom time's being wasted on religion and the Irish language.

They're like little sponges at that age and are very keen to learn and instead teachers spend hours and hours telling them about some makey-uppy guy who lives in the sky and on a language that died out generations ago.

Such a waste.

A tiny subset of Irish language and religious fanatics have somehow managed to continue to propagate this shocking scenario.

^^ This. Entirely this.

Another week, another Irish language thread and again the same old arguments from those who insist that the language isn't a lost cause and indeed it's almost our patriotic duty :rolleyes: to support (and fund!) it

In a country with limited resources, which relies significantly on foreign investment for employment, and - let's be honest - could do with improving the standards of our education system generally (the days of Ireland being right up there are long gone I fear!) we need to be preparing and equipping our children with the skills to compete in an increasingly multi-cultural globalised world.

In 2015, Irish and Religion classes have no place in our school systems... if you as a parent want little Johnny/Mary to be educated in "our" national language and your religious beliefs then by all means work away - enroll them in after-school classes, bring them to Maas more etc.. but to expect the taxpayer and Government to support your hobby and schools to force a classroom of kids to sit through it as well is nonsense at this point.

In regards the notion or examples used here that learning Irish makes you somehow more Irish.. please! Being able to sing along to the anthem at the match, or have a chat on holiday (by all accounts there's more of these Irish speakers on holiday than at home!), or knowing about the adventures of Peig or musings of some 16th century poet, are no more "Irish" than those who only speak English. I do always laugh though at the condescending attitude that generally accompanies this argument, or the suggestion that you must be a "West Brit" if you don't see the light!

As for the Catholic Church/religion.. after all the damage this institution has done to our country - not just in terms of abusing and assaulting young children, but also holding the social development of the country back for decades (something we still feel the effects of with some of the attitudes to "controversial" topics), and robbing the believers blind in a country that has generally staggered from downturn to recession (save for a brief period of madness a decade ago) - the idea that we should WANT our kids to have this stuff shoved at them is beyond bizarre!
And for what? To teach young impressionable kids that they're all "sinners" and will go to Hell unless they spend their lives worshiping a God /religion that has caused some of the most vicious and bloodthirsty wars and trouble spots on the planet.

I have a little fella as well who'll be starting school shortly and I really dislike the idea that he'll be forced to sit through hours of this nonsense and come home worrying that he's going to hell and what not - to say nothing of the time lost on a language that's been on life support for decades while kids his age in other countries are learning skills and languages that will put him at a disadvantage when the time comes for him to go to work.

The sooner this (still in so many ways - SSM referendums and what not aside!) backwards little country joins the 21st Century the better we'll ALL be!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is that not what people who are "passionate" about something, tend to do?

I don't seem to want to believe exist? Bit aggressive there, especially as I actually listed this middle ground to begin with. Question is how big is this group? Are 'we' a large number or a rapidly irrelevant demographic?

Off you go then. When you finally give up you'll understand why I did.

Evangalism is a religion. Passion is not confined to divination.

By we, I meant those of us who have posted in the thread. You dismissed us initially. We outnumber the hardliners who flat out want the language to die, and the hardliners who want it forced on every moment of education.

Go back, look at our ideas and let's discuss thise ideas, shall we?

briany

The Corinthian wrote: »

I remember, in primary school, something like two thirds of the day - every day - were taken up between Irish and Religion. This meant that English, maths, geography, history, PE and whatever else essentially got the remaining one third. Religion was particularly bad in that it was something like two to three hours a day, not helped by the fact that my teacher was a Legion of Mary fanatic. It's a miracle that any of us reached secondary school literate.

You must have been unlucky. The primary school I went to, I can barely remember doing anything day-to-day that dealt with religion or religious teachings. It was mainly limited to the priest dropping by only occasionally for a bit of an aul' chat (and we had one of those 'trendy' priests) and the first confession, first communion and confirmation being organised by the school. Besides those instances and the little bit of preparation that probably lead up to them, I can't remember ever actually studying religion in class or the teacher talking about it to us.

The Corinthian

briany wrote: »

You must have been unlucky.

Or we went to primary school in different decades.

briany

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or we went to primary school in different decades.

Well, that as well, maybe, but I'm looking at other posters complain about the amount of religion (in addition to Irish) that's getting foisted on their children even to this day, so it's a practice that's still going on, it would seem, and was going on when I attended primary, but I never saw very much of it.

CruelCoin

briany wrote: »

Besides those instances and the little bit of preparation that probably lead up to them, I can't remember ever actually studying religion in class or the teacher talking about it to us.

My parents made sure that when religion came around during the school day (approx 1hr per day in my primary school, early 90's) that i had no part in it.
I spent the time instead doing maths problems, or homework, etc.

Both parents are non-practising protestants, and they brought over the very dutch attitude of making up your own damn mind.

Its not true that kids have to partake. Just kick up enough of a fuss and instruct your children not to partake. What are the teachers going to do, strap a bible to their face?

Dughorm

Mumha wrote: »

But the overwhelming majority currently don't and it makes absolutely no difference..... The positivity just isn't there for people.

I totally agree most people don't use the language after they finish school. nor do most people use the poetry and drama they learned in English either.

But it still forms part of a rounded education which they can use as much or as little as they wish.

Perhaps the positivity comes later. I enjoy irish more now than I did in school despite the fact I know less now than I did then. I enjoy engaging with the culture, I find it meaningful.

Dughorm

Why all the talk of religion? It's not like irish and religion are interchangeable.

briany

Dughorm wrote: »

Why all the talk of religion? It's not like irish and religion are interchangeable.

Some people view them the same, in that they're both leftovers of Holy Catholic, Patriot Ireland. That their role in education is outdated and doesn't reflect the modern reality.

Iwasfrozen

Dughorm wrote: »

Why all the talk of religion? It's not like irish and religion are interchangeable.

They both are a waste of school resources and both belong to a previous era.

Mumha

Dughorm wrote: »

I totally agree most people don't use the language after they finish school. nor do most people use the poetry and drama they learned in English either.

But it still forms part of a rounded education which they can use as much or as little as they wish.

Perhaps the positivity comes later. I enjoy irish more now than I did in school despite the fact I know less now than I did then. I enjoy engaging with the culture, I find it meaningful.

There's certainly a case for looking at the use of poetry and drama within the English syllabus as well, but the study of English is vital to the future of our young people. You just can't say that about Irish. Even you see Irish as part of a "rounded" education, and even if that were true, the core problem is that it's compulsory in secondary and has too big a place in primary.

FunLover18

Dughorm wrote:

It depends on what you view education for - poetry etc... teach students critique and analysis and students should be capable of it - but your argument was about practicality and what gets used every day. Plenty of subjects teach students critique and analysis, doesn't require mandatory LC English on your criteria.

As I mentioned earlier students are not required to study either English or Maths at LC level. I wasn't justifying English being mandatory (which it isn't) was merely saying why English can afford to spend time on poetry and drama and why it's useful to students. Irish can be used to develop analysis and critique but only when students are at the right level ( I think we can agree on that).

Dughorm wrote:

Regarding whether the conversational class is unnecessary and whether students should be skilled enough in the language to handle the poetry, I happened to be but it would be arrogant to assume that everyone is.

I think anyone who wants to be should be after 10+ years of study. I did ordinary level Irish at LC and we were still conjugating verbs, that's not down to intelligence or ability, it's down to a lack of interest.

Dughorm wrote:

So many people say they can't hold, and could never hold, a basic conversation in the language - I think that's tragic after all the time invested in it. Topics could be expanded based on the current oral exam.

It is tragic but that's a problem at primary level not secondary. If you improved the teaching at primary level to be more conversational then there should be no need to keep it mandatory at LC, because the students who are interested would be up to scratch. You could keep your optional prose and poetry class and the students who willing and capable can choose to do it.

briany

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think anyone who wants to be should be after 10+ years of study. I did ordinary level Irish at LC and we were still conjugating verbs, that's not down to intelligence or ability, it's down to a lack of interest.

I think, if you've ever seen the film 'Office Space', Peter's little speech to the Bobs about his cubicle job, you could apply a lot of what he says to Irish class.

"And then (after arriving) I just sorta space out for about 40 minutes."

"Eh?! Space out?!"

"Yeah, I just stare at my desk....but it looks like I'm working. I'd say, in a given week of Irish classes, I only do about 15 minutes real, actual work."

dlouth15

Dughorm wrote: »

Why all the talk of religion? It's not like irish and religion are interchangeable.

Doesn't that depend on your philosophy of education?

Some think Irish is essential to a rounded eduction. Others think religion is essential.

In the sense that neither group feels the need to justify their opinion, Irish and Religion can be considered interchangeable.

Dughorm

briany wrote: »

Some people view them the same, in that they're both leftovers of Holy Catholic, Patriot Ireland. That their role in education is outdated and doesn't reflect the modern reality.

I think that's a real pity that people insist on conflating what are two wholly distinct aspects of life. Plenty of people from "Holy Catholic, Patriot Ireland" didn't have Irish either I think we discussed earlier.

Anyone whose philosophy of education respects difference and encourages inclusion can see that Irish can be used as a tool for this. Irish is simply there to make your own of it, it is not owned by any one group in society.

Are these people you're referring to going to have difficulty celebrating the centenary celebrations over the next few years because they conflate history and identity with religion and politics? More's the pity if that's the case.

Dughorm

dlouth15 wrote: »

Doesn't that depend on your philosophy of education?

Some think Irish is essential to a rounded eduction. Others think religion is essential.

In the sense that neither group feels the need to justify their opinion, Irish and Religion can be considered interchangeable.

Sorry, not catching your use of logic here tbh - I've substituted some words in the same sentences to show you how this doesn't make sense:

Some think Beef is essential to a rounded diet. Others think Fish is essential.

In the sense that neither group feels the need to justify their opinion, Beef and Fish can be considered interchangeable

Mumha

Dughorm wrote: »

I think that's a real pity that people insist on conflating what are two wholly distinct aspects of life. Plenty of people from "Holy Catholic, Patriot Ireland" didn't have Irish either I think we discussed earlier.

Anyone whose philosophy of education respects difference and encourages inclusion can see that Irish can be used as a tool for this. Irish is simply there to make your own of it, it is not owned by any one group in society.

Are these people you're referring to going to have difficulty celebrating the centenary celebrations over the next few years because they conflate history and identity with religion and politics? More's the pity if that's the case.

However both are throwbacks to the times when both the Catholic Church and the Irish lobby had undue influence over our education system. They are still powerful enough to block anything that reduces their influence any further.

Just like my post earlier about the man voting no in the Divorce referendum because he feared his wife would leave him, so he'd rather stay in a loveless sham marriage. Thus it is with these two subjects. There's a complete lack of honesty, and they prefer to imprison Irish children in relics of the past, rather than admit reality.

Mumha

Dughorm wrote: »

Sorry, not catching your use of logic here tbh - I've substituted some words in the same sentences to show you how this doesn't make sense:

Some think Beef is essential to a rounded diet. Others think Fish is essential.

In the sense that neither group feels the need to justify their opinion, Beef and Fish can be considered interchangeable

Neither Beef nor Fish are compulsory though !

Dughorm

Mumha wrote: »

However both are throwbacks to the times when both the Catholic Church and the Irish lobby had undue influence over our education system. They are still powerful enough to block anything that reduces their influence any further.

Just like my post earlier about the man voting no in the Divorce referendum because he feared his wife would leave him, so he'd rather stay in a loveless sham marriage. Thus it is with these two subjects. There's a complete lack of honesty, and they prefer to imprison Irish children in relics of the past, rather than admit reality.

Not really.... Irish well pre-dated the early 20th century "cultural revolution" you're referring to.

I have nothing against anyone who has an issue with political and institutional power structures of past or present Ireland but to claim that this is linked to learning Irish is a fallacy.

Dughorm

Mumha wrote: »

Neither Beef nor Fish are compulsory though !

Eating is though! Having a healthy diet is only compulsory if one in a boarding school, it's optional outside of that. What constitutes a healthy diet depends on ones philosophy of food. :P

dlouth15

Dughorm wrote: »

Sorry, not catching your use of logic here tbh - I've substituted some words in the same sentences to show you how this doesn't make sense:

Some think Beef is essential to a rounded diet. Others think Fish is essential.

In the sense that neither group feels the need to justify their opinion, Beef and Fish can be considered interchangeable

If no one was able to justify on dietary grounds why either of these were essential and it was also clear that others seemed to be able to get by perfectly well without either, then in a sense they would be interchangeable. Both would be superfluous - something that you could have if you chose to have it but not something you should be compelled to eat.

Basically if you are going to insist that people eat something the onus is on you to justify that on dietary grounds.

Likewise if you are going to insist that everyone learn something in school the onus is on you to justify it on educational grounds.

dlouth15

Two arguments so far.

1. If you do not have Irish you are not truly Irish (tippertop)

2. If you do not have Irish you are not properly educated (Dughorm).

Both of these are really the same argement. The problem is that neither can exlain why. All they can do is repeat themselves.

Dughorm

dlouth15 wrote: »

2. If you do not have Irish you are not properly educated (Dughorm).

Except that's not my argument. Sure that argument is obviously false. Plenty of people are properly educated and don't know a word of Irish.

I just think it's reasonable to educate our children in our national languages.

Dughorm

dlouth15 wrote: »

If no one was able to justify on dietary grounds why either of these were essential and it was also clear that others seemed to be able to get by perfectly well without either, then in a sense they would be interchangeable. Both would be superfluous - something that you could have if you chose to have it but not something you should be compelled to eat.

Basically if you are going to insist that people eat something the onus is on you to justify that on dietary grounds.

Likewise if you are going to insist that everyone learn something in school the onus is on you to justify it on educational grounds.

"On educational grounds" is just a synonym for philosophy of education. I've already explained mine. What's yours?

Zen65

Dughorm wrote: »

I just think it's reasonable to educate our children in our national languages.

Why?

What function does it serve?

FunLover18

Dughorm wrote:

I just think it's reasonable to educate our children in our national languages.

Just to be clear we are agreed that Irish should be taught in primary school. But there is nothing "reasonable" about insisting that students MUST continue that education through to LC. It is reasonable to offer them the option to do so.

dlouth15

Dughorm wrote: »

Except that's not my argument. Sure that argument is obviously false. Plenty of people are properly educated and don't know a word of Irish.

You said: I just think it's reasonable to educate our children in our national languages.

"There's no cover - being able to converse in all the national languages is vital in my book to getting a rounded education in this country."

So if you don't converse in Irish you haven't had a rounded education. How is that not your argument? The problem is that you aren't able to justify the statement on educational grounds.

Grayson

Dughorm wrote: »

I think that's a real pity that people insist on conflating what are two wholly distinct aspects of life. Plenty of people from "Holy Catholic, Patriot Ireland" didn't have Irish either I think we discussed earlier.

Anyone whose philosophy of education respects difference and encourages inclusion can see that Irish can be used as a tool for this. Irish is simply there to make your own of it, it is not owned by any one group in society.

Are these people you're referring to going to have difficulty celebrating the centenary celebrations over the next few years because they conflate history and identity with religion and politics? More's the pity if that's the case.

It was written into the constitution that the catholic church was the national religion. The constitution originally had a bit that says the church had a special place in Ireland. You can't deny that Catholicism isn't/wasn't a huge part of the state for a very long time.

Bayberry

Zen65 wrote: »

Why?

What function does it serve?

What function does Shakespeare or poetry serve? For that matter, what function does any mathemathics beyond basic arithmetic serve for 90% of people? When was the last time that you needed to know the volume of a sphere or the area of a trangle?

People say that kids should be learning French or German or Chinese instead of Irish, yet nobody seems to be interested in setting up the French, German or Chinese equivalent of Gaelscoil, and nobody seriously argues that pupils who go to Gaelscoileanna are in any way educationally disadvantaged, if anything they are seen to have an edge, especially in languages.

The success of Gaelscoileanna (from an educational outcome point of view) is all the proof that anyone should need that learning Irish shouldn't be a waste of time. The only valid argument for not making every single National school in the country a Gaelscoil is the resource issue - we just don't have the teachers.