Irish Language

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 31-07-2019 11:38pm

Garzard wrote: »

I feel very strongly about this topic. I'm happy enough with it being kept in the curriculum but absolutely not compulsory after the JC; even having it optional from the start of secondary school is something I'd see no harm in either. An overhaul is desperately needed too (although I can't answer how they'd go about carrying this out) but I personally never held an ounce of enthusiasm for the subject since my first day in school, and developed huge resentment towards the subject even though I faired quite well in languages back then as a student.

Make it optional + the overhaul and everyone wins - those with a passion for Irish get to hang onto it and benefit from greater resources while the rest of the students can pursue subjects they feel will hold much more educational value. I'd say Irish as a subject would be much more appreciated if this were the case.

I think there seems to be some misconception and almost paranoia amongst those with a pro-compulsory view that Irish will disappear from schools altogether / that everyone will lose the freedom or ability to keep learning it themselves if it's made optional.

I totally agree.

I was a good student. Irish just wasn’t for me. By JC, I knew that. I hated having to give any time to studying it for the LC.

And I agree about the paranoia. People who love the language seem to have little confidence in it. Why is that?

Edgware · 01-08-2019 6:00am

Vince135792003 wrote: »

I'm a primary teacher and have tended to teach at the senior end. It's rare to meet a class in September which really like Irish. As the grammar, spelling, verb tenses and standardized tests kick in their joy fades (understandably so). However, if you bring an ounce of fun and energy to the lesson, children buy into it like any other subject. Make the primary curriculum less convoluted and emphasize oral language. Sadly the new Irish curriculum is written in such a complicated, technical way, full of jargon as Gaeilge many teachers find it hard to fully understand, making it destined to fail.

The teachers should do more oral when teaching

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-08-2019 6:29am

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Not really, the government in reality does very little outside the education system to promote the language and within the education system you only get enough instruction to gain a basic understanding (sub-conversational level) of the language.

There is an unspoken assumption that the education system should be producing fluent Irish speakers. Some people even extrapolate from this assumption that the obvious failure of the education system to produce this result must mean that teaching methods are all wrong, or even that there is a massive conspiracy on the part of the population to reject learning Irish. What we should ask ourselves however, is why do we assume that the education system should be producing fluent Irish speakers? Why do we think the existing system should be producing anything more than it is?

The truth is that the education system is producing exactly what we should expect it to produce. In your average English medium school you only get around 1300 hours of instruction in Irish from your first day at school to the leaving cert, and that is not even close to enough to become fluent in a language.

Kids who go to a Gaelscoil on the other hand get more than enough contact time with the language to become fluent and unsurprisingly, they tend to become fluent in the language as a result. The reality is that the education system does exactly what you should expect of it. The problem is that people have unrealistic expectations of what should be achieved in an average English medium school.

The lesson to learn is that 1300 hours of language classes spread over a childs primary and secondary education is not enough to become fluent in a language, but we already knew that. Perhaps we should stop expecting the impossible of our education system.

I'd agree with you her regarding fluency being an unrealistic expectation, but given the number of hours I would at the very least expect a high percentage (80-90) to at least come out with reasonably good conversational Irish.

Although the real disgrace (if you're an advocate of the langauge, I would imagine) is that fact that the majority of students finish LC Irish with the attitude of 'thank **** that's over and I never have to look at it again."

Imreoir2 · 01-08-2019 8:33am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd agree with you her regarding fluency being an unrealistic expectation, but given the number of hours I would at the very least expect a high percentage (80-90) to at least come out with reasonably good conversational Irish.

On what basis would you expect that? Learning a reasonably good conversational level of a language should take at least twice the contact time with a language than a student receives in our education system. The education system really is producing what we should expect. Expecting more without changing something is to demand the impossible.

You could achieve what you suggest through the education system, but it would require making choices like teaching a second subject through Irish to all kids. That second subject could be Art or PE, so as to avoid disrupting a more acedemically challenging subject. Somehow though, I don't expect you will be in favour of this. But you know what they say about doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results...

Although the real disgrace (if you're an advocate of the langauge, I would imagine) is that fact that the majority of students finish LC Irish with the attitude of 'thank **** that's over and I never have to look at it again."

Not really. The education system, for all its faults, does acutally give people a fairly solid foundation in the language. The difference between teaching an adult who comes back to the language having gone through the education system, and teaching someone who never did Irish in school (non-nationals or often people in the North for example) is night and day. People who have gone through the education system are streets ahead.

General attitudes to the language, despite the complains of some people who had the language "battered into them" or "shoved down their throats" etc etc, remains quite positive. Irish would not enjoy the status that it has if it did not enjoy a wide base of support in the general population. People who object to the status of the language in Ireland are really a small, if vocal, minority.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-08-2019 8:46am

Imreoir2 wrote: »

On what basis would you expect that? Learning a reasonably good conversational level of a language should take at least twice the contact time with a language than a student receives in our education system. The education system really is producing what we should expect. Expecting more without changing something is to demand the impossible.

You could achieve what you suggest through the education system, but it would require making choices like teaching a second subject through Irish to all kids. That second subject could be Art or PE, so as to avoid disrupting a more acedemically challenging subject. Somehow through, I don't expect you will be in favour of this. But you know what they say about doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results...

On the basis that 1200 hours (or whatever the number was) should be enough time to get basic profiency in anything. This is, of course, based on quality as well as quantity. And if you're arguing the quality isn't there then there's no point forcing more and more hours.

Not is there any point in throwing more hours at it in the form of a second subject. Especially if the student who struggles in Irish excels in art. I hated Irish and loved art (am now a semi-professional artist) and if you had told me my art classes were now in Irish, toys would have been out of the pram. Large toys. So I'd advise trying to not inadvertantly **** up someone's passion with an even more repressive push for lingusitic ambition.

So yes, I would be against it. The system should serve the student, not the other way around. And ultimately, you are doing the exact same thing again (culpulsion) and expecting different results...

Not really, the education system for all its faults, does acutally give people a fairly solid foundation in the language. The difference between teaching an adult who comes back to the language having gone through the education system, and teaching someone who never did Irish in school (non-nationals or often people in the North for example) is night and day. People who have gone through the education system are streets ahead.

General attitudes to the language, despite the complains of some people who had the language "battered into them" or "shoved down their throats" etc etc, remains quite positive. Irish would not enjoy the status that it has if it did not enjoy a wide base of support in the general population. People who object to the status of the language in Ireland are really a small, if vocal, minority.

Slight contradiction here? You say 1200 hours isn't enough for converastional competency, but then it does give you a basic foudnation...?

That said, it doesn't really disagree with my point: if there's no passion or interest it doesn't really matter how good the student is.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 01-08-2019 10:05am

deirdremf wrote: »

What a load of balls.
The Gaelscoil movement is going from strength to strength. In Galway City, 24% of kids attend a Gaelscoil.

There is more demand than supply all over the country.
When demand is met, we will be producing a whole generation of Irish-Speakers. And I'd wager that demand will only be met when 80% or more of kids attend a Gaelscoil.

deirdremf wrote: »

Whose hole did you pull that figure out of?
You come across as an arrogant person who hates Irish.

Scarleh for yeh.

I must admit i did laugh quite a lot at the irony:D

Imreoir2 · 01-08-2019 10:08am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

On the basis that 1200 hours (or whatever the number was) should be enough time to get basic profiency in anything. This is, of course, based on quality as well as quantity. And if you're arguing the quality isn't there then there's no point forcing more and more hours.

That is not what the research has shown. They did a lot of research on language acquisition in Canada and they found that 1,250 hours of language learning is enough to get a basic foundation in a language. To be clear, a basic foundation means starting to understand the structure of a language, building vocab, beginning to understand simple conversation (this is different to being able to engage in basic conversation, understanding is a lower level skill) and being able to reproduce words and basic phrases. Unsurprisingly, this is what the vast majority of people who go through our education system can do in Irish.

Quality is not the issue. The education system is not ideal and there are problems around quality to be sure, but even in the ideal scenario assuming great teachers and motivated students, you will not get conversational Irish in 1300 hours of study. Conversational level requires 2,500 hours of language learning. Fluency requires 5,000 hours.

Not is there any point in throwing more hours at it in the form of a second subject. Especially if the student who struggles in Irish excels in art. I hated Irish and loved art (am now a semi-professional artist) and if you had told me my art classes were now in Irish, toys would have been out of the pram. Large toys. So I'd advise trying to not inadvertantly **** up someone's passion with an even more repressive push for lingusitic ambition.

So yes, I would be against it. The system should serve the student, not the other way around. And ultimately, you are doing the exact same thing again (culpulsion) and expecting different results...

That's fine, but you will have to accept that there is nothing odd with what we get from the system as it exists. We are getting all that we can expect from the system as it exists. Fluency, or conversationl Irish is not realistic within the existing system. Getting conversational Irish, or fluency, would require significant changes to the system. Tinkering with teaching methods or curriculum content within the existing system is not going to be enough to fundemantally change the output.

Slight contradiction here? You say 1200 hours isn't enough for converastional competency, but then it does give you a basic foudnation...?

No contradiction, see above. The basic foundation the education system gives you makes achieveing conversational Irish much easier.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-08-2019 10:19am

Imreoir2 wrote: »

That is not what the research has shown. They did a lot of research on language acquisition in Canada and they found that 1,250 hours of language learning is enough to get a basic foundation in a language. To be clear, a basic foundation means starting to understand the structure of a language, building vocab, beginning to understand simple conversation (this is different to being able to engage in basic conversation, understanding is a lower level skill) and being able to reproduce words and basic phrases. Unsurprisingly, this is what the vast majority of people who go through our education system can do in Irish.

Quality is not the issue. The education system is not ideal and there are problems around quality to be sure, but even in the ideal scenario assuming great teachers and motivated students, you will not get conversational Irish in 1300 hours of study. Conversational level requires 2,500 hours of language learning. Fluency requires 5,000 hours.

Really? I'd argue that I've got conversational German with less than 1200 hours (granted I live in Berlin, but believe me, that's not much of a help considering the lack of German spoken in this city; and I hardly every practice: I speak less German now than I spoke Irish when I studied it).

But if you are right, is it really fair to expect students to put in an extra 1300 hours for conversational Irish on top of the workload they have to put in for other subjects? If they really do NOT care for the language?

That's fine, but you will have to accept that there is nothing odd with what we get from the system as it exists. We are getting all that we can expect from the system as it exists. Fluency, or conversationl Irish is not realistic within the existing system. Getting conversational Irish, or fluency, would require significant changes to the system. Tinkering with teaching methods or curriculum content within the existing system is not going to be enough to fundemantally change the output.

I totally agree - which is why I am against any increase in the number of hours attributed to Irish. Why suggest more when you accept the the current quality is not good enough?

No contradiction, see above. The basic foundation the education system gives you makes achieveing conversational Irish much easier.

Fair enough - but again if it doesn't make acheiving it more interesting, again - why bother?

Imreoir2 · 01-08-2019 10:41am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Really? I'd argue that I've got conversational German with less than 1200 hours (granted I live in Berlin, but believe me, that's not much of a help considering the lack of German spoken in this city; and I hardly every practice: I speak less German now than I spoke Irish when I studied it).

I can't speak to your experience, except to say that you probably have no clue how many hours contact time you have had with German, unless you were keeping track of it for some reason? Perhaps you are a wonder kid, or perhaps you have gotten more contact with German in your life than you realise.

But if you are right, is it really fair to expect students to put in an extra 1300 hours for conversational Irish on top of the workload they have to put in for other subjects? If they really do NOT care for the language?

I did not say I expected students to put in anyhing extra. I merely suggested that if we are to insist of conversational Irish through the education system then the existing system is not going to provide this and other choices will have to be made to achieve that outcome. I am not actually insisting on those choices or suggesting that such an outcome should be achieved.
It's not an issue of careing. Regardless of how much you care, you won't gain a conversational level of Irish in 1300 hours.

I totally agree - which is why I am against any increase in the number of hours attributed to Irish. Why suggest more when you accept the the current quality is not good enough?

You are reading something I did not say. There are issues with quality, this is true of every subject. I had a terrible Business Studies teacher for example.

However, I was merely pointing out that these issues are not the cause of the outcome we see today. The outcome we get is the result of the structure that has been put in place. If you want to change the output, you have to change the structure. Changing quality (teaching methods, curriculum content etc) won't significantly alter the output.

If changing the output is what you want, then the only way to do it is to change the structure so that a different output can be achieved. That would require more time being given to Irish, be it through other subjects being cut back to allow more time for Irish classes, or by teaching a second subject through Irish. No one is really suggesting the first option. Some people suggest the second option, teaching a subject like PE through Irish, but that has not been adopted by the state.

Personally, I am not suggesting that either should be done. I am only saying that you would have to do something like that to get a different result.

ToBeFrank123 · 01-08-2019 11:00am

Its one thing to attend a gaelscoil. Its another to speak the language all the time at home or through work.
But a Gaelscoil gives a good foundation in fluency.

I don't think the language is dying out. Its holding its own. It would be in a far healthier state if the teaching of it was better in previous generations. There was way too much focus on academic and written Irish and not enough on spoken and the aural.

It would be ironic if one of the side effects of significant immigration to Ireland would be a rebirth and interest in speaking Irish (by way of Gaelscoileana)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-08-2019 12:09pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I can't speak to your experience, except to say that you probably have no clue how many hours contact time you have had with German, unless you were keeping track of it for some reason? Perhaps you are a wonder kid, or perhaps you have gotten more contact with German in your life than you realise.

It's considerably less than 1200. It's less than half that. Now the grammar would be awful, but people will know what I'm talking about, and vice versa.

I did not say I expected students to put in anything extra. I merely suggested that if we are to insist of conversational Irish through the education system then the existing system is not going to provide this and other choices will have to be made to achieve that outcome. I am not actually insisting on those choices or suggesting that such an outcome should be achieved.
It's not an issue of careing. Regardless of how much you care, you won't gain a conversational level of Irish in 1300 hours.

But your suggestion re: the second subject (and I accept it was just a suggestion) was for more hours, not better quality hours. Until improvement is shown in the syllabus and course content, this subject should get NO more hours.

You are reading something I did not say. There are issues with quality, this is true of every subject. I had a terrible Business Studies teacher for example.

However, I was merely pointing out that these issues are not the cause of the outcome we see today. The outcome we get is the result of the structure that has been put in place. If you want to change the output, you have to change the structure. Changing quality (teaching methods, curriculum content etc) won't significantly alter the output.

If changing the output is what you want, then the only way to do it is to change the structure so that a different output can be achieved. That would require more time being given to Irish, be it through other subjects being cut back to allow more time for Irish classes, or by teaching a second subject through Irish. No one is really suggesting the first option. Some people suggest the second option, teaching a subject like PE through Irish, but that has not been adopted by the state.

Personally, I am not suggesting that either should be done. I am only saying that you would have to do something like that to get a different result.

You won't get a different result.

Accepted, you probably need to do both, but again - your ideas only deal with quantity. Case in point: the bit in bold. And regardless, I'm totally against any increase no matter what the quality of the hours and no matter how good they are if the student does not get to choose.

Without improving the quality (and this needs to be done first), as you put it yourself, you're simply doing what you're doing. You're just doing it more.

Imreoir2 · 01-08-2019 12:26pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But your suggestion re: the second subject (and I accept it was just a suggestion) was for more hours, not better quality hours. Until improvement is shown in the syllabus and course content, this subject should get NO more hours.

That is your opinion, I don't believe there is a significant problem with the quality of Irish in the education system. At least, not such that it is the reason that kids do not become conversational in Irish. As I have been saying, we get what we get not becasue the quality is bad but because the system in which it exists is what it is and what we get for the amount of contact time allowed is what we should get. It is functioning as it should, the only problem is unrealistic expectation. Increase the "quality" within the existing system by making whatever changes you like and fundementally the outcome will be the same.

You won't get a different result.

Of course you would. The proof already exists. Gaelscoils are the same as other schools. They do the same Irish course, with teachers who went through the same teacher training, they have the same syllabus and course content. The only difference between a Gaelscoil and other schools is that in a Gaelscoil the other subjects are also taught through Irish resulting in vastly greater contact time with the language for the student. Result, students fluent in Irish.

Without improving the quality (and this needs to be done first), as you put it yourself, you're simply doing what you're doing. You're just doing it more.

Quantity is the problem if you want kids with fluent or conversational Irish. Change the quantity of contact with the language and you will change the result. Regardless of quality, if you keep the number of hours contact with Irish the same, you will not change the result.

It is a different question entirely if you want to do these things or not, and I know you don't. Fair enough, but please don't insist on changes that won't have any significant impact on the outcome for students as an argument against changes that would. Argue the case against changes honestly and done resort to a red herring like insisting that "improving quality" is the issue that needs to be addressed before all else.

Again, I am not actually arguing for the changes I am talking about, merely pointing out that they would be necessary to achieve the outcome you are talking about - students gaining conversational Irish.

ToddyDoody · 01-08-2019 1:08pm

The last post in the teach na nGealt forum was last week.

The second last post was 3 months ago.

The best of marketing techniques are what can save the Irish language.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-08-2019 1:28pm

I don’t get the whole thing of “we need to make learning Irish fun or more accessible!”. The teaching of all languages is pretty dry because it has to be. The nitty gritty of learning verbs, tenses, grammar and vocabulary is a bit dull but unfortunately necessary. I remember my English grammar lessons in primary school weren’t exactly Mardi Gras. And it’s not just languages, all subjects really just have boring bits you can’t get away from. They just have to be done. So that isn’t a satisfactory explanation for the dislike of learning Irish.

I actually think pushing and challenging students harder might help. The French teacher I had in school was demanding and quite intense and was the French teacher everyone in school wanted. She’d arrive into class, write a verb and tense on the board and give us 30 seconds to write all the different pronouns of that verb and tense. Then she’d pick another, then another. In the first five minutes of class, we already had a lot of work done.

Children learn a lot of subjects in a dry manner. And those subjects can still become their favourites. Why is Irish any different?

Garzard · 01-08-2019 1:33pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I totally agree.

I was a good student. Irish just wasn’t for me. By JC, I knew that. I hated having to give any time to studying it for the LC.

And I agree about the paranoia. People who love the language seem to have little confidence in it. Why is that?

This video from a while ago springs to mind. Some of the protesters seems to be implying that it should be kept compulsory for the sole reason that students will simply drop it for the LC if it's made optional, due to it being a longer and more complicated syllabus. In a way that's admitting the lack of interest and passion for Irish among so many students. They haven't quite explained how keeping it compulsory for the LC years has or will lead to its revival, or given solutions on how it might win the hearts and minds of students.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-08-2019 1:59pm

Garzard wrote: »

This video from a while ago springs to mind. Some of the protesters seems to be implying that it should be kept compulsory for the sole reason that students will simply drop it for the LC if it's made optional, due to it being a longer and more complicated syllabus. In a way that's admitting the lack of interest and passion for Irish among so many students. They haven't quite explained how keeping it compulsory for the LC years has or will lead to its revival, or given solutions on how it might win the hearts and minds of students.

Yeah. In my experience, the honours students in my year would have kept it on if it was optional because they all seemed to love the language. The pass students wouldn’t have but we obviously weren’t interested in it so what was to be gained from making us keep it on? The arguments against making it optional seem woolly at best.

I failed JC Irish. I got an E. I got As and Bs in my other subjects, all honours. My parents were a bit dismayed but could see how unconcerned I was by my Irish failure and just sort of trusted me. I was excelling at other things and at the time, both TCD and DIT had no matriculation requirement for Irish (and still don’t as far as I know). I had options, I was doing well otherwise and I didn’t need the subject for points. Teenagers of 15 or 16 are well able to figure out what they like and don’t like. They don’t need a paternalistic “we know what’s best for you” attitude directed at them.

And I’ll repeat - I think Maths and English should also be optional. I think something like having to pick six subjects and having to do two out of three of English, Irish and Maths would be a good system.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-08-2019 2:21pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

That is your opinion, I don't believe there is a significant problem with the quality of Irish in the education system. At least, not such that it is the reason that kids do not become conversational in Irish. As I have been saying, we get what we get not becasue the quality is bad but because the system in which it exists is what it is and what we get for the amount of contact time allowed is what we should get. It is functioning as it should, the only problem is unrealistic expectation. Increase the "quality" within the existing system by making whatever changes you like and fundementally the outcome will be the same.

Of course you would. The proof already exists. Gaelscoils are the same as other schools. They do the same Irish course, with teachers who went through the same teacher training, they have the same syllabus and course content. The only difference between a Gaelscoil and other schools is that in a Gaelscoil the other subjects are also taught through Irish resulting in vastly greater contact time with the language for the student. Result, students fluent in Irish.

Quantity is the problem if you want kids with fluent or conversational Irish. Change the quantity of contact with the language and you will change the result. Regardless of quality, if you keep the number of hours contact with Irish the same, you will not change the result.

It is a different question entirely if you want to do these things or not, and I know you don't. Fair enough, but please don't insist on changes that won't have any significant impact on the outcome for students as an argument against changes that would. Argue the case against changes honestly and done resort to a red herring like insisting that "improving quality" is the issue that needs to be addressed before all else.

Again, I am not actually arguing for the changes I am talking about, merely pointing out that they would be necessary to achieve the outcome you are talking about - students gaining conversational Irish.

Have to disagree - I knew plenty of students from my teens who had very good Irish and didn't spend all that much time in it then I did. Certainly not 1200 hours worth.

I'd also argue that a system where literature is taught before conversational ability is achieved, and where the focus is to pass an exam rather than to actually learn a language is downright stupid, let alone lacking in quality. THAT needs to be addressed BEFORE a single extra minute is wasted on the idea.

But regardless, there is no way I'd support any increase in quantity unless the student signed up for it.

Imreoir2 · 01-08-2019 2:27pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But regardless, there is no way I'd support any increase in quantity unless the student signed up for it.

Fair enough, it has also been suggested that the Irish course be split with the compulsory section forusing on spoken Irish, with an additional optional literature course being made available to students who want to go further with it, though again the state does not seem to be inclined to act.

igCorcaigh · 01-08-2019 2:30pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And I’ll repeat - I think Maths and English should also be optional. I think something like having to pick six subjects and having to do two out of three of English, Irish and Maths would be a good system.

Totally agree. Except I don't think any subject should be mandatory beyond JC.

But only in a complete overhaul of the system anyway.

Statistics is a very important subject to teach, but trigonometry not so much.

The basics of grammer and language also important, Shakespeare not so much.

Forcing failed methods of learning Irish through prose and poetry is just doing an injustice to the language.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-08-2019 2:41pm

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Totally agree. Except I don't think any subject should be mandatory beyond JC.

But only in a complete overhaul of the system anyway.

Statistics is a very important subject to teach, but trigonometry not so much.

The basics of grammer and language also important, Shakespeare not so much.

Forcing failed methods of learning Irish through prose and poetry is just doing an injustice to the language.

No, if you’re going to teach a subject, teach all of it. For some students, knowing trigonometry will really help them in their tertiary studies. I was astounded at how much my LC maths stood to me in college.

igCorcaigh · 01-08-2019 2:43pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, if you’re going to teach a subject, teach all of it. For some students, knowing trigonometry will really help them in their tertiary studies. I was astounded at how much my LC maths stood to me in college.

Yes, for you. I think the idea of partitioning out some topics of a broad subject has merit.

And you would have chosen to study maths anyway?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-08-2019 2:50pm

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Yes, for you. I think the idea of partitioning out some topics of a broad subject has merit.

And you would have chosen to study maths anyway?

Well, here’s the thing. It’s not possible for the syllabus to cater to each individual in the class. There has to be broad strokes. You can’t know what each student in the class will go on to do. So a broad grounding is necessary.

I didn’t do a Maths degree! And LC maths still stood to me.

igCorcaigh · 01-08-2019 2:53pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, here’s the thing. It’s not possible for the syllabus to cater to each individual in the class. There has to be broad strokes. You can’t know what each student in the class will go on to do. So a broad grounding is necessary.

I didn’t do a Maths degree! And LC maths still stood to me.

Yes, to JC level.

People naturally excel in different areas of study.
Why force a student to study a topic beyond JC when they clearly are keen on a different area of study?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-08-2019 2:55pm

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Yes, to JC level.

People naturally excel in different areas of study.
Why force a student to study a topic beyond JC when they clearly are keen on a different area of study?

I thought you were talking about dropping topics within a particular subject?

igCorcaigh · 01-08-2019 2:57pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I thought you were talking about dropping things within a particular subject?

No, I'm talking about emphasising sub topics that are deemed important, in the context of free choice of subjects beyond JC level.

igCorcaigh · 01-08-2019 2:59pm

So, I would advocate that English, Irish, maths are not mandatory subjects for LC.

But the essential elements of them are mandatory to a certain level.

I guess I'm arguing for a more modular system of education.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-08-2019 3:00pm

igCorcaigh wrote: »

No, I'm talking about emphasising sub topics that are deemed important, in the context of free choice of subjects beyond JC level.

I’m for free choice too. But once you choose your subjects, they’re going to be quite broad because the people that end up in the class might end up studying very different things from each other after school. So, in Maths, trig (or whatever) might not be relevant to one student but very relevant to another.

ToBeFrank123 · 01-08-2019 3:01pm

If it was to be made optional at Leaving Cert, should resources not be assigned instead to preschool, when children are learning their first language?

Children learn a huge amount of their language in their first 5 years when it becomes ingrained in them.

Given the hatred of many people towards Irish, its hard to see anything other than a very small minority keeping it on for Leaving Cert.

igCorcaigh · 01-08-2019 3:02pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m for free choice too. But once you choose your subjects, they’re going to be quite broad because the people that end up in the class might end up studying very different things from each other after school. So, in Maths, trig (or whatever) might not be relevant to one student but very relevant to another.

Exactly. I'm not talking about removing elements of a broad subject. There needs to be integrity. I just arguing for choice.

The current system is too blunt. All or nothing. And then forced.

igCorcaigh · 01-08-2019 3:06pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If it was to be made optional at Leaving Cert, should resources not be assigned instead to preschool, when children are learning their first language?

Children learn a huge amount of their language in their first 5 years when it becomes ingrained in them.

Given the hatred of many people towards Irish, its hard to see anything other than a very small minority keeping it on for Leaving Cert.

That would be the way to go. But the method of teaching needs to change.

igCorcaigh · 01-08-2019 3:07pm

I also have issues with the way English is taught.

I learned more about the structure of language in school by learning French.

jackofalltrades · 01-08-2019 3:09pm

Garzard wrote: »

This video from a while ago springs to mind. Some of the protesters seems to be implying that it should be kept compulsory for the sole reason that students will simply drop it for the LC if it's made optional, due to it being a longer and more complicated syllabus. In a way that's admitting the lack of interest and passion for Irish among so many students. They haven't quite explained how keeping it compulsory for the LC years has or will lead to its revival, or given solutions on how it might win the hearts and minds of students.

Yeah a good collection of the usual confusing arguments brought out in favour of it being compulsory.
2:45, the cultural inferiority argument, "..it's the only thing that separates us from America, England".
Obviously we hear on one hand how great Irish is doing, but then at the same time if we stop making it compulsory for two years in school it will suddenly die out.
I think there's a bit of NRA style tactics going on, they'll oppose even the most moderate changes just so they don't lose any ground.
No doubt plenty of the people in this clip who fully support forcing Irish on others would have quite liberal views on other political topics. Not seeing the obvious cognitive dissonance.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Fair enough, it has also been suggested that the Irish course be split with the compulsory section forusing on spoken Irish, with an additional optional literature course being made available to students who want to go further with it though again the state does not seem to be inclined to act.

Yeah thejournal.ie had an article on this yesterday, they also did a poll including the option you talked above.

Should Irish remain a compulsory Leaving Cert subject?

Yes (8310) 46.8%
No (6909) 38.9%
Split the subject with an optional literature component (2252) 12.7%
I don't know (295) 1.7%

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-08-2019 3:17pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If it was to be made optional at Leaving Cert, should resources not be assigned instead to preschool, when children are learning their first language?

Children learn a huge amount of their language in their first 5 years when it becomes ingrained in them.

Given the hatred of many people towards Irish, its hard to see anything other than a very small minority keeping it on for Leaving Cert.

Isn’t hatred too strong a word here? A lot of people didn’t like maths in school but I rarely hear the word ‘hatred’ rolled out.

ToBeFrank123 · 01-08-2019 3:35pm

I would have been good at most subjects but had borderline hatred towards Irish at the time. I suppose at the time I didn't see the point of it, but with passage of time, I recognise its an important part of our culture and identity and much as I disliked it, I'm now glad I had some grounding in it.

But if you gave my 17 year old self a choice or in fact my 15 year old self a choice, I'd probably have dropped it, for various reasons.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-08-2019 3:52pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yeah a good collection of the usual confusing arguments brought out in favour of it being compulsory.
2:45, the cultural inferiority argument, "..it's the only thing that separates us from America, England".
Obviously we hear on one hand how great Irish is doing, but then at the same time if we stop making it compulsory for two years in school it will suddenly die out.
I think there's a bit of NRA style tactics going on, they'll oppose even the most moderate changes just so they don't lose any ground.
No doubt plenty of the people in this clip who fully support forcing Irish on others would have quite liberal views on other political topics. Not seeing the obvious cognitive dissonance.

Yeah thejournal.ie had an article on this yesterday, they also did a poll including the option you talked above.

Should Irish remain a compulsory Leaving Cert subject?

Yes (8310) 46.8%
No (6909) 38.9%
Split the subject with an optional literature component (2252) 12.7%
I don't know (295) 1.7%

Jays, there’s some level of sanctimony in the comments section of that Journal article. A small component of Irish language enthusiasts do the rest of ye no favours. :eek:

The most interesting comment below the line was from a fluent Irish speaker who does not think Irish should be compulsory. He said there should be a core of student who want to learn the language. A very sensible point. I don’t know why it meets such resistance.

boardise · 01-08-2019 4:10pm

An interesting idea was floated in the 1970s, This was notion of Irish Studies. Generally speaking this would produce a curriculum for 2nd/3rd level that would in effect be a study if Irish civilisation in many of its cultural manifestations i.e.religion ,art ,folklore , music ,vernacular architecture etc. It would be a blend of heritage studies and social history made palatable for the target audience.
There would be a Gaelic component of course but the actual language element would be variable depending on the aptitude of the pupils/students and would certainly not be consumed with grammatical intricacies. I can't remember if it was proposed that Gaeilge ( in whatever curricular guise) would continue to be offered or how the two'subjects'would relate to each other.
It was an idea that reflected the somewhat analogous change in the subjects of Latin and Greek which were regarded as too heavily weighted towards the actual languages ( latterly seen as becoming increasingly irrelevant ) and were eventually repackaged as Classical Studies.
The whole drive fizzled out but I don't know why.
I thought the Irish Studies idea was a good one and could have been a seedbed where pupils could 'ease into'matters linguistic and possibly for a genuine interest in Gaelic to flourish.
Maybe it would be useful to look again at something like this in these different times.
Incidentally I think part of the reason for the promulgation of Irish Studies in the early 1970s was the outbreak of the violent troubles in N Ir shortly before -which led to the realisation that people in the Republic didn't have any great depth of knowledge or understanding of the whole complex of traditions at large in N Ir society .Hence, Irish Studies would also seek to address all Irish traditions of whatever origin or hue.

Garzard · 01-08-2019 4:34pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yeah a good collection of the usual confusing arguments brought out in favour of it being compulsory.
2:45, the cultural inferiority argument, "..it's the only thing that separates us from America, England".
Obviously we hear on one hand how great Irish is doing, but then at the same time if we stop making it compulsory for two years in school it will suddenly die out.
I think there's a bit of NRA style tactics going on, they'll oppose even the most moderate changes just so they don't lose any ground.
No doubt plenty of the people in this clip who fully support forcing Irish on others would have quite liberal views on other political topics. Not seeing the obvious cognitive dissonance.

I recall a post a similar thread years ago from a poster who was stubbornly in favor of the status quo, saying they believed if even just one of every thousand students had grasped a reasonable level of Irish by the end of their schooling then our current syllabus is worth it. :rolleyes:

Edgware · 01-08-2019 5:22pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, if you’re going to teach a subject, teach all of it. For some students, knowing trigonometry will really help them in their tertiary studies. I was astounded at how much my LC maths stood to me in college.

Were you really?

boardise · 01-08-2019 5:31pm

Edgware wrote: »

Were you really?

Are you in danger of going off on a tangent here ?

igCorcaigh · 01-08-2019 5:36pm

Edgware wrote: »

Were you really?

Adds nothing to the debate.

Share your thoughts. It's a debateworthy subject.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-08-2019 6:12pm

Edgware wrote: »

Were you really?

Yes, I was. Why would you doubt that? Why would I make that up?

BarryD2 · 01-08-2019 6:17pm

swarlb wrote: »

In the first 2 years we had this particular 'Brother' as a teacher, he never actually seemed to speak Irish to us, everything was about 'pronunciation' and 'phrases', huge emphasis I remember now on present, past and future tense, but very little actual 'speaking'.

Our two children went to a local community school second level less than 10 years ago - ordinary level Irish. The teachers methodology was to put up a list of words & phrases as Gaeilge and get them to write them out in their copies. Next class he put up another list and if they were lucky, he remembered not to put up the same list twice. That was the extent of this man's method and he'd been there god knows how many years. Most of the students in the class got a D in the Leaving Cert. So things don't change much in some places.

BarryD2 · 01-08-2019 6:23pm

boardise wrote: »

An interesting idea was floated in the 1970s, This was notion of Irish Studies. Generally speaking this would produce a curriculum for 2nd/3rd level that would in effect be a study if Irish civilisation in many of its cultural manifestations i.e.religion ,art ,folklore , music ,vernacular architecture etc. It would be a blend of heritage studies and social history made palatable for the target audience.
There would be a Gaelic component of course but the actual language element would be variable depending on the aptitude of the pupils/students and would certainly not be consumed with grammatical intricacies. I can't remember if it was proposed that Gaeilge ( in whatever curricular guise) would continue to be offered or how the two'subjects'would relate to each other.
It was an idea that reflected the somewhat analogous change in the subjects of Latin and Greek which were regarded as too heavily weighted towards the actual languages ( latterly seen as becoming increasingly irrelevant ) and were eventually repackaged as Classical Studies.
The whole drive fizzled out but I don't know why.
I thought the Irish Studies idea was a good one and could have been a seedbed where pupils could 'ease into'matters linguistic and possibly for a genuine interest in Gaelic to flourish.
Maybe it would be useful to look again at something like this in these different times.
Incidentally I think part of the reason for the promulgation of Irish Studies in the early 1970s was the outbreak of the violent troubles in N Ir shortly before -which led to the realisation that people in the Republic didn't have any great depth of knowledge or understanding of the whole complex of traditions at large in N Ir society .Hence, Irish Studies would also seek to address all Irish traditions of whatever origin or hue.

+1 Indeed you have to give students a context, a reason, an interest to learn the language. There are many aspects that are woven into the tapestry that makes up Irish culture and Gaeilge is just one thread. About time it was put in it's true context & place.

Dravokivich · 01-08-2019 6:55pm

So... the gist is, if someone doesn't want anything to do with the Irish Language, they still need to do it? Or instead of people who are interesting in the irish language, pursuing it, we should make sure kids have less opportunities to not be involved with it.

It's no wonder why some people dont want to see it continue to be compulsory. Why do they need to suggest alternatives? The absence of an alternative should not mean, the very thing that isnt working should continue, or have more enforcement.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-08-2019 10:39pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yeah thejournal.ie had an article on this yesterday, they also did a poll including the option you talked above.

Should Irish remain a compulsory Leaving Cert subject?

Yes (8310) 46.8%
No (6909) 38.9%
Split the subject with an optional literature component (2252) 12.7%
I don't know (295) 1.7%

I'd love to know how many of the 8,310 people who said "yes" don't speak Irish and why they feel justified in forcing someone else to learn something they can't be arsed learning themselves.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-08-2019 11:57pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Fair enough, it has also been suggested that the Irish course be split with the compulsory section forusing on spoken Irish, with an additional optional literature course being made available to students who want to go further with it, though again the state does not seem to be inclined to act.

Same answer: if the student wants to do a spoken/written course only, let them do it. If not, let them do something else.

If it's a good course, they'll want to do it. If it's a bad course, they won't.

deirdremf · 12-08-2019 8:33pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd agree with you her regarding fluency being an unrealistic expectation, but given the number of hours I would at the very least expect a high percentage (80-90) to at least come out with reasonably good conversational Irish.

Although the real disgrace (if you're an advocate of the langauge, I would imagine) is that fact that the majority of students finish LC Irish with the attitude of 'thank **** that's over and I never have to look at it again."

You may feel that, but as far as I'm aware, it takes around 5,000 hours to become fluent (not perfect, not native level, just "a good conversational level").
If the 1300 hours were in a single burst it might be different, but spread over 13 or 14 years, and with no other serious input, it doesn't produce fluency.

deirdremf · 12-08-2019 8:47pm

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

I must admit i did laugh quite a lot at the irony:D

You made an unqualified statement that less than 5% of posters understand Irish, on a thread about the Irish language.

I said "I'd wager"; which is, like, an opinion.

Do you see the difference?

BTW, you have not changed my opinion of you.

deirdremf · 12-08-2019 8:58pm

ToddyDoody wrote: »

The last post in the teach na nGealt forum was last week.

The second last post was 3 months ago.

The best of marketing techniques are what can save the Irish language.

There are alternative fora for Irish nowadays, such as Gaeilge Amháin on Facebook.
Teach na nGealt is no longer needed as a result. I doubt if anyone ever came to Boards just for TnanG, they may have posted there while on Boards for something else.

In other words, Irish is thriving on the internet, but out of sight of those who are not interested in it.

whisky_galore · 12-08-2019 9:01pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd love to know how many of the 8,310 people who said "yes" don't speak Irish and why they feel justified in forcing someone else to learn something they can't be arsed learning themselves.

Stop asking awkward questions.

Had to laugh to myself at a mother who shoved her young lad into a Gaelscoil, he didn't want to go, he hated it and he had to be taken out of it as his grades were going down the toilet, all because she would have loved to be able to speak it, but went off and lived through her kid instead.

Irish Language

Comments