Pursuing existing deficient policies on the Irish language will not create a strong and vibrant living language, writes Enda Kenny
The Irish language is an integral part of our culture. For some, Irish is a living language, their way of communicating with family and friends every day. For others Irish is a language that they love and, although they may not be fluent, they use their "cúpla focal" with pride whenever possible.
However, for a greater number of people, Irish simply does not feature in their day-to-day routines, and they have little or no command of the language in any meaningful way.
Those of us who love the Irish language want to see it become a greater part of people's everyday lives. However, this love of Irish should not be used as an excuse to ignore the underlying difficulties that face the language. Instead, we should be asking some serious questions about the role of Irish in education and in society, so that we can support a real growth in the use of language.
The Irish Language Commissioner recently estimated that as much as €500 million is invested annually in the teaching of Irish, with 1,500 hours of tuition being devoted to the language at primary and secondary level.
However, given that so many people have so little Irish, we have to question whether these considerable time and money supports are delivering the results that we expect.
As it stands most children and young people spend up to 13 years studying Irish at primary and secondary level, and yet a large number of them leave school without having achieved anything resembling a reasonable command of the language.
It is clear that an in-depth review of the teaching and market value of Irish is long overdue. This review should be all-encompassing, and should examine everything from the philosophies that guide Irish language teaching to the "nuts and bolts" curriculum issues that determine what students are taught on a day-to-day basis.
From an educational perspective, this review should consider whether there is an underlying difficulty with the content of the Irish syllabus that is turning students away from studying it, particularly at second level.
It should also consider whether we are doing more harm than good to the language by forcing unwilling students to complete Irish to Leaving Certificate level. Does this happen because of a lack of teaching facilities, lack of interest or lack of resources?
This is a tough question, but one that we should not shy away from.
In teaching Irish at second level, I believe that there should be a clear focus upon the use of the language in a modern and applied context that is relevant to people's lives today. I also believe that the marking system should allow for freedom of expression of personal opinion, particularly in essays, where clearly bright students have to learn essays by rote to comply with the points structure.
Many will also tell you that after five years of secondary school French they are more confident in transacting everyday tasks through that language than they are through Irish.
The syllabus needs a total re-evaluation. As it stands, less than a third of students attempt the higher level Irish paper at Leaving Certificate and a far greater percentage do the "honours" in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian. Why are students so much more confident in continental languages studied for five years, as opposed to Irish studied for 13?
We also need to examine the impact of the Gaelscoil movement in promoting the language, to see if the successes of this approach should be adopted throughout the education system.
And, from a broader point of view, any review of Irish must also question the commitment of the State, especially as it has failed to promote Irish as an EU working language and does not provide a single learning support teacher of the subject anywhere in the country.
Why should a lower standard be acceptable in English or mathematics to enter a teacher training college, where honours in Irish is required. Only one third of students who got an honours in Irish in 2003 were male. This fact may well be widening the gender gap which has opened in primary- level teaching, and efforts must be made to encourage more males to enter the profession.
The Irish Language Commissioner criticises the low use of Irish in the Oireachtas. His point is well made. But as a member of the Oireachtas who is fluent in the language there are two deterrents to using it. Firstly, the practice of asking questions in Irish in the past resulted in people being called too smart because it was known that the Taoiseach did not speak Irish. Secondly, with the exception of Irish media correspondents, there is a marked reluctance to report questions raised in Irish.
Although it is clear that the Irish language is an integral part of who we are, we must accept that we need a living language, not a dying one. A full and in-depth review of the role of Irish in education, and throughout society as a whole, is long overdue. Otherwise, continuing with language policies that are clearly deficient will not help the long-term aim of having a strong and vibrant living language. I intend to look at a number of these issues in the times ahead.