Sir, - Eoin Daly makes some very valid points in his letter (August 25th). I too remember the note on the exam papers, and often thought of how unfair it was. Despite having had Irish tuition from second to sixth year, I can quite honestly say I emerged from the State school system with little more than a basic, rudimentary understanding of the language.
Ten years of tuition failed to stimulate, interest or otherwise motivate me to speak and/or read the language. However, it was not language that I had difficulty with, it was the method of teaching the language. For my French classes, I was taught how to speak the language colloquially, how to ask directions, introduce myself and speak like any normal young man would. With Irish, I was dragged through PΘig and many other such awful texts, forced to learn poetry that spoke of nothing but depression. The entire curriculum had little or nothing to do with a teenager's life in today's world.
After five years of French I emerged a competent speaker, motivated to continue my studies and become fluent (and endeavoured to do so). After 10 years of Irish, I wanted nothing more than to forget the language existed.
I do not believe Irish should be dropped altogether, but I would dearly love to see the Department of Education becoming a bit more imaginative in it's methods of teaching - and as Eoin said - drop the discrimination on the exam papers.
The Constitution recognises both English and Irish as the official languages of the nation. I would dearly love to see the Department of Education justify this constitutionally unfair policy. - Yours, etc., ff
Kevin Donegan, New South Wales, Australia.