As we can see there has been no reply from Eric De Red and there is no intellectual basis for his comments which says much about his level of educational attainment and the skills used to formulate such an opinion.

The compulsory teaching of Gaelic is immoral for two reasons:

1. It is the (attempted) enforced culturalisation of people (children no less) by the state. No state has a right to force a set of cultural beliefs on its people. Is it welcomed by the people? Certainly not given the complete lack of success of the project.

2. It’s killing the language. The real language as spoken in the gaeltachts, as evidenced by several government reports into the issue. The money spent on the language through the education system would be better spent securing the language’s survival through investment in employment opportunities within the areas in which the language is actually spoken. The education system has also created a pseudo language that now outcompetes the language as handed down from parent to child.

If enforced culturalisation is immoral surely then forcing Irish speakers to learn English is immoral. Forcing people to learn a previously dead language like Hebrew must also be immoral! Then again the Lithuanians forced children to learn subjects through the Lithuanian language and guess what it was successful in restoring their language and cultural identity. So was that immoral? Forcing kids to learn, is that immoral?

Forcing a culture on anyone is immoral.

I have no problem with the idea of Irish speakers not being required to learn English. I doubt it would benefit their employability but it would be their choice.

You haven’t posed any argument to justify the coercion by this state of children in this country. I’m against it, are you?

As for Lithuania or any other country. Perhaps the teaching of whichever language was welcomed by the people. If so, fantastic, and no doubt this contributed to the success of these projects. However in Ireland, the people have chosen not to accept someone else’s idea of Irishness being forced upon them.

Secondly, would it not be preferable to spend the vast resources that are currently paid to special interests to teach textbook Irish to preserve the genuine and historical Gaelic dialects still spoken in the gaeltachts? The language is rapidly dying in these areas and without new thinking and action will leave these dialects as nothing more than linguistic curiosities.

That argument is the same as saying that it is immoral to teach kids trigonometry or algerbra as most children have little or no use for these post schooling and for most, both had no “benefit” for their “employability”. The same argument can be made for science, history, geography ad inf. There are thousands of people employed because of their Irish language skills and so contrary to your supposition it has enhanced their “employability”.

You use the term “vast resources” but this is clearly an exaggeration to bolster a prejudiced opinion as an impartial examination of the sums involved reveals that they are almost insignificant in the totality of government expenditure.

It is obvious that you know nothing of the revival of Lithuanian or Hebrew etc. therefore proving your arguments to be ad ignorantiam.

Blathín, have you tried addressing points raised rather than simply trying to insult? It would appear my points of view do not conform to yours therefore I know nothing.

I am not aware that trigonometry is a fundamental constituent of culture. As for the employability or otherwise of Gaelic / Irish speakers, their employability is enhanced only in that the state has decided that they should be employed as Irish speakers, not for any other reason. English speakers are not employed by the state as English speakers. This is nothing more than a form of social welfare demeaning the language and its speakers. I simply argue for the state to desist from forcing its version or view of irishness on its citizens. If indeed it values the Gaelic language, which like any language is valuable, it should divert the approximately €1bn or so it spends annually (5% of our exchequer deficit and borrowed from the Troika so hardly inconsequential) into actually preserving the living language. It might do this through jobs and infrastructure in Gaelic speaking areas. Do you suggest that we continue to let the language die?

Your 5% figure is again an exaggeration and a sign of desperation as it ignores the role of the funding of Údarás na Gaeltachta for regional job creation. In its absence, that budget that would be allocated to Enterprise Ireland. Thus the savings would be nearly nil.

If “English speakers are not employed by the state as English speakers.” Why does the state not employ German speakers to run the civil service? After-all they’d probably be more efficient workers!

Current budget deficit is (rounding up) €20bn. €1bn = 5% of €20bn. At least it was when I was at school. As, fortunately the deficit is slightly smaller than this figure, 5% is an underestimate.

As for the points raised:

Do you support cultural coercion of children in any state?

Do you support this State’s allocation of resources to a text book Irish language manufactured in some government department at the expense of the living language, that actually belongs to someone, of the gaeltachts?

I look forward to your reply in the morning as unfortunately I must go now and dream of a state which serves its people rather than the narrow self interests of its political elite.

Extreme nationalism blinds you to reality. And yes every other state and parents coerces their children to go to school. The state also coerces them to learn certain subjects. As you have not realised this, one can only assume an argument from an immature perspective and hence the reason for comments incongruent with reality.

No, they really don’t. I was quite successful in my LC and it was all based on rote learning the answers to the exam questions. The trick is to prepare a good answer and then rote learn it and regurgitate it for the exam itself.

What we should be focusing on are continuous assessments where students’ understanding of the concepts are challenged and not their ability to learn the textbook off by heart. At all stages of the Leaving Cert we’re spoon fed the answers. That leaves you in a terrible position to step into a 3rd level education where it’s assumed you can think critically and find quality sources of information all by yourself.

Kevin, the “critical thinking” argument is now clichéd. However it is totallly fallacious when combined with the “no knowledge required” argument implying that learning can be done with a Google transplant. Explain to me if you would, how one would learn a second language using critical thinking alone?

@Blathin – I don’t understand…. Do you think that critical thinking is being argued for as an absolute? I don’t see the point in calling it cliched?

I think most know that the system encourages rote learning – which means that it’s biased towards knowledge. There needs to be more focus on understanding and application. Critical thinking is definitely of value when going beyond knowledge – I don’t think anyone would advocate a system that would not include any knowledge.

Without knowledge an exam cannot be passed in university, secondary school or anywhere else. Without knowledge of how to critically think, one cannot engage in critical thinking. It begs the question, does critical thinking have to be learned by rote? If it is learned by rote is it critical thinking? How is such knowledge internalised? Can a teacher not capable of critical thinking, teach critical thinking? These questions have to be answered before we change anything.

Some people might just benefit from reading skills.

And we are amazed that some people have the knowledge to know how to use a search engine in “the age of the search engine”. A skill obtained by Rote and mimicry. One cannot go beyond knowledge without first acquiring knowledge. Paradoxically to understand this point requires critical thinking skills! Alas it is a skill that eludes quite a few “educators”.

Repetition is the key…. over and over again….

Are you learning or teaching there Tomy?

both.

Well as you are doing no thinking it is time for you to go out to the playground. Now remember to do what your mother told you and stay away from them thinkers!

Ok Blathin – maybe you can teach me something in the future?

I don’t think it is possible Tomy. One has to have an open mind to learn.

Christopher Kelly, you use a false assumption. Educational standards were much higher in the past otherwise we would not have the perennial complaint about the “drop in standards” . Note the use of the word ‘drop’, implying that standards were higher at a time before the 1980s.

@Blathin I think you might be displaying a lack of critical thinking skills if you think that a “drop in educational standards” is limited only to teacher ability.

Shifting standards in education in either direction is a very very complex area and you cannot point at any one cause in isolation. There is, over the last 30 years a distinct difference in respect for the profession in parallel with parents increasingly blaming teachers when really they show little interest in their own kid’s education. The fact remains that there is a MAJOR difference in educational attainment when parents care about their kid’s education.

I’d also question any report which looked at “educational attainment” and how they attach metrics to different areas.

@Tomy Iona, critical thinking in not evident if one interprets a standards drop as the result of parents who “show little interest in their own kid’s education”. Why did parents suddenly stop caring about their childrens’ education in the 1980s?

It is true that kids from dysfunctional homes are less likely to do well in school. This disadvantage also carries over to other areas of life as well. It stands as incontrovertible evidence that education mostly takes place in the home and schooling is a mere adjunct in the totality of a child’s education. Teachers are slow to admit this fact and that is the kernel of the problem with the education system. There are indeed many other factors at play but it is time teachers got real and used that critical thinking ability they think they possess and advocate policies that are likely to improve matters rather than making them worse than they already are.

Really? You simultaneously agree that it is a complex area with many facets but begin with attempting to insult by suggesting I’m blaming it on just one area?

I’ll just point that out – I won’t begin flaming….

Regardless, much of what you’ve said is true. I can foresee a serious problem for educational change however. New entrants were not protected by the Croke Park agreement. The starting wage for teachers is significantly down and while I think this is a good thing overall, I think it should not have dropped as much as it has.
In the future this is going to cause serious hassle IMO. The amazing thing is that what will most likely happen is that new entrants will tow the line along with established teachers while they wait a minimum of 4 years to be made permanent by which time they will have forgotten about how they were not protected by the unions.
I am definitely in favour of the principles of unions but unfortunately there are situations where they have missed the target.

Ah Tomy now we see. The arguments are not about standards or the wellbeing of children they are about egocentric trade unionism. Flame all you want and blame everyone except yourselves for poor standards. If you critically examine my comment it starts by comprehensively demonstrating that blaming parents is worthy only of ridicule.

Again – perhaps you should read my post – I have highlighted that it’s a complex area, because I have highlighted one specific area which explains part of the issue in no way suggests that I believe that to be the limit of it.

As regards “egocentric trade unionism” – you’ve completely missed what I’m saying again. Like most people in this country I appreciate that unions are often necessary. I think they have been egocentric and I regard that as a problem. In no way does that absolve teachers from their responsibilities.

In fact, I would LOVE to see changes in the JC & SC assessment modes towards continuous assessment and better value in terms of understanding and application of learning also. One of the biggest problems in implementing this though is that teachers claim that them correcting their own pupils’ assessments would “change the relationship” between teacher and pupil. At least that was the findings of a paper that I can’t put my hand to at the moment.
I can understand that, but again it’s not something that cannot be resolved with some creativity.

Tomy, so you admit that you don’t attempt to understand anything because it is too complex for you and try to stymie anyone who with the audacity to critically examine the issues and point the finger at what needs fixing. Universities use the exact same system as the JC and LC especially when it comes to training teachers. Is it too complex for teachers to examine why the system is producing so many poor quality teachers?

I’ve said none of the above.

And Universities certainly DO NOT use the same system as JC & SC. Just going to regard you as a troll at this stage, it’s obvious you’d rather put words in the mouths of others and insult them in the process. Good luck to you, I won’t engage with it anymore.

P.S. If you find teachers to be of such low quality, try homeschooling.

All one has to do to get through university is to memorise information and write it down at exam time. Yes universities do try to teach critical thinking but too many would fail if it was really tested. Many people that I have questioned say that did the hDip/PGDE course is not fit for purpose. It does not teach students how to teach. Most good teachers will admit that they were “at sea” for the first few years of their teaching because their teaching course was deficient.

The evidence is manifest and abundant. The primary issue for some teachers (as we see from Tomy’s comments) is pay and terms of contract. Thus proving that the education and welfare of children are of secondary importance for some teachers.

@Phillip

A fair point although the few who are interested in Irish are already motivated and they already benefit from extra marks if they answer their exams generally through Irish.