Trends in Irish-Medium Education in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland

since 1920: shifting agents and explanations

Sara McAdory and Jan Germen Janmaat

Some recent studies have suggested a significant bottom-up or parental component to recent movements for autochthonous minority language-medium education (MLME). This study takes MLME as the outcome of interest and seeks to explain trends in Irish-medium education (IME) in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland since 1920—a unique opportunity for double comparison over space and time—as an example of MLME. A comparison of data from government statistical reports in the Republic of Ireland, and from government publications and previous studies in Northern Ireland, shows markedly different trends in IME before 1970 but convergence in patterns since. Theoretical analyses suggest that theories focusing on the individual are more valid for explaining trends from the 1970s, while those focusing on the collective have more explanatory power regarding trends from the 1920s to the 1970s. This supports the idea that the initiative for heritage language instruction has shifted from the state and other 'official' agents to grassroots agents such as parents. At the same time, it raises the question of whether the new positive trend in IME is lasting, or just a fad that can be easily exchanged for a new marker of distinction by aspiring social groups.

Keywords: Irish-language policy, minority language education, Irish-medium education, minority languages, Gaelscoileanna, Irish language

I. Introduction

Autochthonous minority language-medium education provision has been

compared across a variety of cases and has been approached from angles ranging from

the pedagogical to the attitudinal to the sociolinguistic. This study takes minority

language medium-education (MLME) as the outcome of interest and seeks to explain

trends in Irish-medium education (IME) as an example of MLME. While some studies

have suggested that recent movements for MLME have a significant bottom-up or

parental component (Rogers and McLeod 2007, Jones and Martin-Jones 2004), nobody in

the field has approached this question by undertaking a double comparison in both space

and time. By comparing the cases of IME in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland

since partition in 1920, we will provide more solid evidence for the insight that the

1

initiative for heritage language instruction has shifted from the state and other 'official'

agents to grassroots agents such as parents.

The Irish language has been spoken on the island of Ireland for at least 2,000

years and was the predominant language of the island’s people for most of their history,

until changes wrought by the coming of English settlers during the Tudor period caused

the language to decline. By 1920, native Irish-speaking communities were largely

confined to areas in the far west of the island, called the Gaeltacht. Since this time, the

government of the Republic of Ireland has made efforts at language revitalisation, but

with limited success (see Crystal 2002, May 2012).

Education through the medium of autochthonous minority languages such as Irish

has become more popular in recent decades. For example, education through the medium

of Welsh, often cited as a success story in language revitalisation, originated during the

first half of the twentieth century but has grown rapidly and increasingly attracted

students from English-speaking homes in recent decades (May 2000, Lewis 2008).

Education through the mediums of Breton in France and Gaelic in Scotland has also

become increasingly institutionalised (Rogers and McLeod 2007). In Aotearoa/New

Zealand, Māori-medium education dates from 1982 (May and Hill 2005). Similarly, in

Spain, Basque and Catalan have become increasingly common as mediums of education

in their respective regions, both among autochthones and allochthones, in the case of

Basque, based on parental choice (Vila i Moreno 2008, Cenoz 2008).

With this burgeoning of MLME has come a concomitant increase in research on

the topic, including some comparative studies. May (2000) has examined institutional

and attitudinal difficulties in Welsh language policy. Heller (1994, 2010) has approached

2

French-medium education in Canada from an ethnographic and historical perspective. Ó

Riagáin (2007) has studied the relationship between attitudes and socio-religious

identities in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in addition to his earlier work

(1997) on the relationship between language policy and social reproduction in Ireland.

Some of this research has examined reasons behind the growth of minority

language-medium education in various locales. Rogers and McLeod (2007), for example,

have investigated how the development of public Breton- and Gaelic-medium education

has been influenced by policy and politics in Brittany and Scotland, respectively, and

found that although the situations differ in many ways, a grassroots element was

important in both. Similarly, Ó Riagáin (1997, 24), with reference to the Republic of

Ireland, writes that

… recent establishments [of Irish-medium schools] differ in significant respects from the

earlier generation of all-Irish schools. They were founded in response to parent groups

rather than state pressure and they are, by and large, additions to the school system rather

than reconversions of the existing schools to bilingual teaching.

The cases of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland share many similarities

that make them good candidates for a comparison using the logic of the Most Similar

Systems Design (Landman 2008). The basic idea of this design is that selecting cases that

differ in the outcome of interest but that otherwise are as similar as possible should

facilitate the identification of factor(s) that can explain the variation in the outcome.

Although operating as separate polities for almost 100 years, the Republic of Ireland and

Northern Ireland existed as a single administrative unit under the auspices of Great

Britain for centuries until partition under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Thus, in

spite of the diverging political trajectories ever since, the two polities share not only a

3

common heritage language but also similar histories and cultures. Furthermore, the fact

that these two polities have operated under separate and distinct political systems since

1920 makes any similarities in IME that much more remarkable, as it helps to eliminate

the political situation as a major influence on the outcome.

This paper will argue that the impetus for IME has shifted from the state to

parents, or from a collective to an individual basis, and demonstrate this by comparing

the provision of primary and secondary-level IME in the Republic of Ireland and

Northern Ireland since 1920 and testing this data against several collectivist and

individualist theories. Data for the Republic of Ireland is mainly drawn from annual

statistical reports published by the Department of Education and Skills of the Republic of

Ireland, while data on Northern Ireland comes from various sources, including

government publications and previous studies. It should be noted that in addition to all-

Irish schools, others have taught partially through Irish; however, all-Irish schools have

been chosen for examination in this paper because they would seem to indicate the

deepest level of dedication to IME, and because the statistics are more comparable

between time periods and polities.

Collective Theories

Cultural Division of Labour

Theories that can be loosely termed ‘collective’ have been used to explain aspects

of the histories of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, including the situation of

the Irish language. Hechter’s (1978) cultural division of labour, along with the related

idea of internal colonialism (Hechter [1975] 1999), is one such theory. The cultural

4

division of labour is the idea that when cleavages based on salient cultural markers—

especially language, skin color, or religion—coincide with socio-economic divides, the

solidarity of culturally distinct disadvantaged groups in particular is likely to increase

(Hechter 1978). In industrial societies a person’s occupation is the main indicator of

socioeconomic status and an important determinant of one’s social contacts (Hechter

1978).

Often, a cultural division of labour has been the result of internal colonialism,

which occurs when industrialisation sweeps unevenly across a state, allowing the core to

dominate peripheral regions, which become economically dependent on the core (Hechter

[1975] 1999); when these peripheral regions are inhabited primarily by people of a

different ethnic group from the core, a cultural division of labour is the inevitable result

as this group takes up lower-paying jobs in a sector determined by the internal colonialist

situation. This, according to Hechter, is the situation that arose in unified Ireland under

Britain in the centuries leading up to partition in 1920, and that continues, arguably, in

Northern Ireland today (Byrne and Irvin 2002).

Although a cultural division of labour begins by penalizing members of one group

for their cultural markers, including language, these markers can eventually become the

basis for socialization, political mobilisation, and the often concomitant cultural rebirths

(Hechter [1975] 1999). Indeed, drives to promote or revitalise a heritage language, such

as IME, are often concomitant with these cultural rebirths (Spolsky 2010, 174). Thus, in

the Republic of Ireland, where the cultural division of labour continued until 1920, we

would expect, on the basis of Hechter’s theory, to find a high level of solidarity as well as

a likelihood of political or cultural mobilisation among Catholics (a common label for

5

those who would identify as ethnically or culturally Irish as opposed to British Protestant;

see Maguire (1991, 15)) in the years leading up to independence. This trend would

probably continue for at least some time after independence, given that the independence

movement’s leaders took prominent government roles. This suggests a high level of

support for IME during this time along with, after independence, the means of realising

it. In Northern Ireland, on the other hand, we would expect high levels of solidarity and a

likelihood of political or cultural mobilisation among Catholics up to the present, with an

accompanying drive for IME, although its realisation might be hampered by political

realities.

Nationalism

A global trend with a collective element, the ideology of nationalism, could also cast light

on trends in IME. Nationalism is widely seen as a major contributor to the Irish language

revival movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Williams 2010,

238-239). Indeed, it would be surprising if the government of the independent Irish state

after 1922, a result of a nationalist movement, did not institute policies to support the

legitimacy and revitalisation of the national language. However, after World War II,

Western Europe saw a ‘temporary demise of nationalism’ due to its association with Nazi

Germany (Hoffmann 1966, 870). Thus, we would expect an IME to be more prevalent in

the decades following independence and less prevalent after World War II.

Individualist Theories

6

Other theories that could account for the distribution of Irish-medium education

provision have in common a focus on individual rather than collective values.

Bourdieu’s Linguistic Market

According to Bourdieu (1991), language choices basically work on a market

principle. Elites’ (generally unconscious) choices about language use are an attempt to

maintain their position as elites; their language choices become socially valuable because

these high-status group members are the only ones who can speak the code flawlessly.

This results in the upwardly mobile imitating elites’ language use, which then leads elites

to make new language choices in order to maintain their linguistic distinctions. This

mechanism could help explain the shift from Irish to English in past centuries and could

also explain trends in Irish-medium education as changes occur in the social value of the

Irish language. Bourdieu does not seem to specify that the language choices made by the

elite and upwardly mobile must have cultural significance to the group; the only

requirement is that the language choice enables distinction for the elites and imitation for

the upwardly mobile.

While in the distant past, almost everyone on the island spoke Irish; and in the

more recent past, Irish was seen as the language of the rural poor; today, even in the

Republic of Ireland, few people use Irish frequently outside the education system

(Government of Ireland 2012, 40) and those who study it as a subject in English-medium

schools increasingly fail to reach competence (Harris 2008, Harris et al. 2006). The use

of Irish is even lower in Northern Ireland (Mac Giolla Chríost 2006). Thus, Irish

proficiency and Irish-medium education—not exactly the same thing, but still a form of

7

cultural capital—could be seen as choices made by the elite to distinguish themselves or

by the upwardly mobile imitating the elite. Given this, we would expect that as the Irish

language became further removed from the ‘common man’, increasing numbers,

especially of the elite and upwardly mobile, would begin opting to learn Irish as a

distinguishing characteristic in both polities.

Personal Cultural System

Another individualistic theory is Smolicz’s idea of core cultural values, or, more

specifically, his related concept of the personal cultural system. Core cultural values

‘generally represent the heartland of [a group’s] ideological system and act as identifying

values which are symbolic of the group and its membership’ (Smolicz 1981, 75);

language and religion are two of the most common. Core cultural values tend to become

most salient when a group experiences external pressure or outsiders attempt to change

traditional culture (Smolicz 1981, 77). Thus, core cultural values would seem to operate

on a collective level.

However, Smolicz (1981, 1988) maintains that an individual creates a personal

cultural system by selecting from among the core cultural values available in a society—

whether those of his or her own cultural group or of others in a plural society—to rank

cultural values in a way that best suits the individual’s interests. Smolicz (1988, 392) sees

this as an attempt to maintain a link to one’s cultural heritage while successfully

navigating the political, economic, and social realities with which one is faced. The

concept of the personal cultural system would suggest that during times when it was more

advantageous (however this is understood) to maintain one’s link to one’s cultural

heritage through an ancestral language—in this case Irish—education through the

8

medium of that language would be more popular.

While Bourdieu and Smolicz both invoke the interests of a group as a prime

motive of language choice, their theories differ on two important points. First, culture is

rather irrelevant to Bourdieu’s theory, while for Smolicz’s, culture joins interest as the

basis for one’s choices. Secondly, Smolicz does not mention social class or social

mobility in connection with the personal cultural system—in fact, he does not specify

whether the interests he invokes are social, cultural, or economic, except insofar as they

are ‘a mediator between the culture of the group and the private world of the individual’

(Smolicz 1980, 7) whose interests in the wider society may differ from those of the

group.

Given the concepts of core cultural values and the personal cultural system, we

would expect that a group as a whole would embrace cultural values most tightly during

times of outside pressure, such as in the decades before independence in the Republic of

Ireland and continuing to the present in Northern Ireland. That the Irish chose

Catholicism rather than language as core cultural value makes sense from the perspective

of this theory as the out-group pressure for a long time primarily concerned religion—at

least until 1829, when finally the subordinate position of Catholics was abolished in the

British Empire. However, the theory cannot explain why throughout the remainder of the

nineteenth century language did not become a more prominent cultural value as the Irish

language was pushed back further and further in the rural periphery by English. In any

case, in the Irish State after 1922, decreased pressure on Catholicism, perhaps coupled in

more recent decades with Church scandals, may have created a more prominent place in

the personal cultural systems of some for Irish. Furthermore, in Northern Ireland, while

9

pressure on Catholicism has continued, developments in the situation coupled with

changes in the perception of the church could have opened up room for language in some

individuals’ personal cultural systems, leading to an increase in IME.

Neoliberalism and Glocalisation

Like nationalism discussed earlier, the rise of neoliberalism and glocalisation are

global trends that could give another perspective on trends in IME. The latter part of the

twentieth century saw increasing globalisation, or the reorganisation of the world due to

the increasing instantaneity of communication, travel and trade (Held et al. 1999).

Counterintuitively, one result has been that ‘increasingly, the local is couched in

universalistic terms, or tied to global networks’ (Boli 2005, 385). This idea can be termed

glocalisation, or ‘the tailoring … of goods and services on a global or near-global basis to

increasingly differentiated local … markets’ (Robertson 1995, 28), markets which are

often constructed specifically to increase sales. As Robertson (1995, 29) puts it, ‘diversity

sells’ and can become ‘a significant basis of cultural capital formation’. This universal

commodification, including of education, can be seen as an outcome of neoliberal trends

that swept much of the world in the 1980s (Brancaleone and O’Brien 2011). From this

perspective, IME can be seen as a local incarnation of the growing global interest in

autochthonous minority language education during the last few decades, and we would

expect to find it in both polities during this period.

III. Republic of Ireland: trends from the 1920s

10

Before independence, some children in rural parts of Ireland where Irish was

widely spoken were taught partially through Irish under the Bilingual Programme of

Education instituted in 1906 (see O'Donoghue 2006).

However, the government that took control of independent Ireland in 1922

immediately began working toward the goal of a compulsory program of education

through the medium of Irish. This policy was driven largely by the widely held idea that

the education system under British Rule had been responsible for the decline of Irish.

This system had for the most part proscribed the Irish language from the classroom.

Because education had (in people’s minds) been responsible for the decline of Irish, the

reasoning went, the education system could also fix the problem (Kelly 2002). The

details on Irish in the government statistical reports, which provide the primary data

source for this section, reflect the intensity with which the government undertook this

project.

From 1922, the new government began requiring Irish as a subject in all standards

(i.e. grade levels) in primary schools. Kelly (2002, 15) writes that all arguments

supporting this policy related to the historic and cultural significance of the Irish

language, rather than to ‘economic or social development, the areas of life of most

immediate concern to the people’. Soon, policies for IME began to appear. Early

government reports on education statistics discuss this topic at length; for example, the

1924-25 report outlines the plan, and expected success, of the government’s policy to

require infant (i.e. kindergarten) classes to teach using the ‘direct method’ (i.e. through

Irish) while older classes in places where English was the predominant language would

learn most of their subjects through English and the rest through Irish until students’

11

grasp of Irish was strong enough to reverse this order (Saorstat Eireann 1926, 23-24).

Presumably as a result of these efforts, by 1933-34, 7.3 percent of primary schools

taught primarily through the medium of Irish; by 1938-39, this figure reached a high of

13.7 percent, when 704 schools were classified as all-Irish. Through the end of the 1940s,

the figure hovered between 10 and 13 percent.

Although relatively few primary school students continued on to secondary

education during the 1920s, the government also strongly promoted the use of Irish in

these institutions through a three-tiered payment system established in 1924 (Kelly 2002).

In Class A schools, Irish was used as the medium of instruction and for everyday

operations; in class B schools, Irish was used as a medium of instruction for some

classes; and in class C schools, Irish was taught as a subject only (Kelly 2002, 61). In

1941, however, the government reduced the amount of these grants (Kelly 2002, 63-64).

The decline that took place in the numbers of Irish-medium schools seems not to be

directly related to this reduction of funding; rather, it seems to line up with the expansion

of secondary education which only accelerated in 1967 when post-primary education

became free. In any case, by that time, enrolment in secondary schools had already

increased almost four-fold since the early years after independence (O'Connor 1986, 141-

155, 191-192).

In the early 1950s, Irish-medium education in the Republic of Ireland began to

decline. By 1952-53, the percentage of primary schools teaching entirely through Irish

had declined to 10 percent; the next year saw a further drop, to 7.8 percent. This same

year, the number of schools in the Galltacht (areas with fewer native Irish speakers)

teaching through Irish halved from 183 in 1952-53 to 91 in 1953-54, while the number of

12

Gaeltacht schools decreased only slightly. The Galltacht figure returned to the 150s by

1956 and remained over 100 until the mid-1960s, but this was likely the result of a

reclassification of certain Gaeltacht areas as Galltacht areas in the mid 1950s (Ó Riagáin

1997). In any case, the percentage of all-Irish primary schools in the Republic of Ireland

continued to decrease until reaching a low of 4.9 percent in 1976-77 and hovering at this

level for several years. Irish-medium secondary schools, including vocational and

comprehensive/community schools, reached a low of 26, or 3.2 percent, in the early

1980s.

It was not until the mid-1980s that the number of Irish-medium schools began to

increase again substantially. From 4.9 percent, or a low of 161 schools, in 1981-82, the

figures for Irish-medium primary schools have increased more or less steadily to a high

of 7.9 percent (250 schools) in 2009-2010. Figures for the 2012-2013 school year

indicate that 7.8 percent of Irish primary schools, or 246 institutions, are Irish medium.

The number of secondary IM schools has also increased to the current high of 45 (6.2

percent), which has remained steady since 2007 (Department of Education and Skills

2013).

Figures for Irish-medium primary schools show not only changes in the numbers

of such institutions but also changes in their locations. From the beginning, such schools

were located more heavily in the rural, more heavily Irish-speaking Gaeltacht than in the

Galltacht, which includes most urban areas in the Republic of Ireland. Figure 1 illustrates

how, after early heights, IM primary school numbers fell more rapidly in the Galltacht

than the Gaeltacht through the mid-1970s, before beginning to climb again from around

1980 while Gaeltacht numbers continued to fall for the next three decades. In 1997-98,

13

the share of IM schools in the Galltacht passed that of the Gaeltacht for the first time,

with 113 schools to the Gaeltacht’s 110. In 2012-2013, 58 percent of IM schools, or 142,

were located in the Galltacht, while only 42 percent, or 104, were located in the

Gaeltacht. Furthermore, the patterns of IM secondary schools in the Gaeltacht and

Galltacht reflect those of primary schools, albeit more weakly, as such figures are only

available from the mid-1990s (Department of Education and Skills 1923-2013). It is

important to remember that the proportion of schools teaching through Irish is still higher

in the Gaeltacht than in the Galltacht, as the total number of schools (and pupils) in the

Gaeltacht is much smaller.

Figure 1 about here

Statistics on student numbers in IME, important given the relative rurality of

many Gaeltacht schools, show the same trends.

In any case, the shape of Irish-medium education at both levels seems clear: After

a rapid increase with the strong support of the government of newly independent Ireland,

centered more heavily in the Gaeltacht, the numbers of Irish-medium schools and

students fell over several decades, especially in the Galltacht. However, Irish-medium

education began to rise again in the latter decades of the twentieth century, driven

primarily by an increase in the number of IM schools in the Galltacht, and this growth

has continued to the present, especially at the primary level.

A number of reasons for these trends have been put forward. Kelly (2002, 47-48)

writes that opposition to Irish-medium education began building in the 1930s from both

14

political parties, especially the Fine Gael party, as well as from the primary-level

teacher’s union, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO). The basis for this

opposition was the belief that the policy was both educationally unsound and detrimental

to language revival efforts. The Department of Education’s failure to investigate the

effects of these policies during the 1930s reinforced the opposition, as did its subsequent

dismissal of the results of studies in the early 1940s that found that teachers saw the

policy as unbeneficial to children and that the children were not old enough to benefit

from such teaching (Kelly 2002, 49-53).

During the 1950s, the balance of political power changed as Fianna Fail’s

political dominance ended and a Fine Gael member was appointed as minister of

education in 1948. With this came a shift in the Department of Education’s attitude, and

as a result, research was carried out on the topic. This led to several policy changes, one

of which was permitting the teaching of English for half an hour daily in infant classes

(Kelly 2002, 54-55). In 1960, the Department of Education put out a circular that

essentially served as ‘an invitation to teachers to abandon teaching through Irish’

(O'Connor 1986, 44). The circular emphasised achievement in spoken Irish over written

Irish and allowed teachers to decide for themselves whether students’ skills in spoken

Irish—the chief point on which teachers would be assessed—would benefit more from

conversation classes than from Irish-medium teaching (O'Connor 1986, 44-45).

As we have seen, the number of Irish-medium schools began to increase again in

the 1970s. Ó Riagáin (1997, 24) suggests that this surge in Irish-medium schools is not so

much a reversal of the decline but the start of a new trend. In fact, whereas early Irish-

medium schools had been created at the mandate of the government, some of the new

15

Irish-medium schools had to take the Minister of Education to court in the 1990s in order

to gain recognition from the state (Ó Laoire 2008, 224). Furthermore, at least among the

urban, Dublin-area schools surveyed by Ó Riagáin and Ó Gliasáin (1979), a high

percentage of fathers—51 percent—had jobs as government or semi-state employees,

suggesting an overall higher socioeconomic status compared with the general population.

Kennedy (2012) later found in a survey of parents whose children attended two Irish-

medium and three English-medium schools in the Republic of Ireland (as well as two

English-medium schools in Northern Ireland) that the parents of 8-year-olds in the IM

schools were more likely to have attended college than parents whose children attended

the EM schools, although no such difference was seen among parents of 12-year-olds in

IME. He also found no significant difference in income level between parents whose

children of either age attended IM or EM schools in the Republic of Ireland. However,

the studies by both Ó Riagáin and Ó Gliasáin (1979) and Kennedy (2012) contained a

limited number of schools; thus, these results must be viewed with caution. Indeed,

Kennedy suggests, following Borooah, Dineen, and Lynch (2009), that little or no

systematic research has been conducted on the socioeconomic status of primary or

secondary IME attendees and that the elitist reputations of such institutions are based on

anecdote or opinion. On the other hand, Watson and Nic Ghiolla Phádraig (2011)

maintain (albeit without solid quantitative evidence) that attendees of Gaelscoileanna

have a higher level of cultural capital than the average student, and particularly than

students from Irish-medium schools inside the Gaeltacht.

Indeed, at the preprimary level, Hickey (1997, 35-39) found in a large, nationwide

survey of parents of children attending naíonraí, or Irish-medium preschools, that while

16

the group was ‘not a homogenous educated elite’, the parents had, overall, significantly

higher education levels than the general population of parents. She also found that

naíonra parents have in general a higher occupational status, an effect more pronounced

in the Galltacht, although again, a significant number were involved in manual

occupations.

Furthermore, Coady and Ó Laoire (2002) also found that, compared with the

1970s, an increasing number of students in IME primary schools came from English-

speaking homes, from about 75 percent in the 1970s (see Cummins, 1974 in Coady and Ó

Laoire, 2002) to more than 90 percent in 2000.

While O’Doherty had maintained in 1958 that the compulsory-policy neglected

‘pedagogical, psychological, and social’ factors for the sake of ‘emotional, political, and

historical’ ones (in Kelly 2002, 57), the new trend has seemed to be based more on the

former than the latter. The website and publications from Gaelscoileanna Teo, a

prominent group promoting the development of Irish-medium education, seem to show

this; they emphasise the educational and other benefits of Irish-medium education while

stating more than once that they welcome children from all cultural backgrounds—even

to the point of providing brochures not only in Irish and English but also in French,

Polish, Portuguese, Russian, and Romanian (Gaelscoileanna Teo. 2013, Gaelscoileanna

Teo n.d.). Parental motivations, at least at schools surveyed by Ó Riagáin and Ó Gliasáin

(1979), also support this, with 63 percent of parents giving both language- and education-

based reasons for choosing their child’s Irish-medium school (see also Ó Riagáin 1997,

212).

IV. Northern Ireland: trends from the 1920s

17

Irish-medium education emerged later in Northern Ireland than in the Republic of

Ireland. Presumably because of this, as well as the lower degree of government support,

statistics for Northern Ireland are less plentiful and broad. However, supplementing

government documents with information from several researchers and pro-IM groups, a

clear picture develops.

The first Irish-medium school in Northern Ireland was founded in the Shaw’s

Road community in Belfast by a group of Catholic parents who had learned Irish as

adults and decided to raise their families through Irish. Although this had been done

already by a few families scattered throughout Belfast, this group of parents, mostly of

working-class origins, wanted to create a community where Irish would be the natural

language of interaction. In the 1960s, they bought a plot of land on the edge of heavily

Catholic West Belfast and proceeded to build homes there. Schools are a vital part of

most communities, so in 1971, these parents, despite government opposition, opened the

first Irish-medium primary school in Northern Ireland with nine students (Maguire 1991,

Ó Baoill 2007). Maguire (1991, 71) writes that the Bunscoil’s founding families viewed

IME as ‘a basic human right which would never be granted [by the government] and

must be realised by themselves’.

Even before the families moved into Shaw’s Road homes, they had been working

on securing government recognition for the Bunscoil (primary school), without success.

In fact, not until April 1976, more than five years after opening, did the school receive

temporary recognition as an independent school, and it was 1979 before it was able to

register fully as an independent school. Maintained status, entitling the school to financial

help such as teacher salaries and per capita funding, was granted in 1984, ending a saga

18

that, from the point of view of Maguire (1991, 78-80), resulted from ‘ill-concealed

cultural hostilities on the part of the authorities’.

Around this time, other Irish-medium schools had begun to appear, all lacking

government support at founding. Although the Irish stream set up in 1983 at Steelstown

Primary School in Derry/Londonderry was granted immediate funding before developing

into a free-standing maintained school with in ten years (Iontaobhas na Gaelscolaíochta

n.d.), schools not begun as streams in English-medium schools did not receive the same

advantage. Gaelscoil na bhFál, for example, which opened in the late 1980s, received

funding in 1992 (Department of Education Northern Ireland 2008, 14); Bunscoil

Cholmcille in Derry/Londonderry opened in 1985 and became funded in 1995; and

Bunscoil an Iúir in Newry, which opened in 1987, received funding in 1997 (O'Reilly

1999, 22).

The Irish-medium sector continued to grow during the 1990s. In 1971, Northern

Ireland’s only Irish-medium primary school had housed only nine pupils. By 2002-2003,

25 Irish-medium schools and units within otherwise English-medium schools enrolled

3,250 students (Ó Baoill 2007, 412, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta n.d.-b). From 2004 to

2009, the number of schools fluctuated between 31 and 32 (Comhairle na

Gaelscolaíochta n.d.-b). In 2012-2013, there were 28 stand-alone Irish-medium primary

schools and 7 Irish-medium units in otherwise English-medium primary schools;

together, these 35 schools educated 3,055 pupils through Irish (Department of Education

n.d.).

In spite of this enormous increase, Irish-medium schools continued to face

difficulties, particularly from the Department of Education, at least into the 1990s. These

19

challenges are most clearly evidenced in the case of the first successfully established

Irish-medium secondary school in Northern Ireland, Meánscoil Feirste (now Coláiste

Feirste). The first IM secondary school remained open for only two years before shutting

after parents decided it was unsustainable.

The organisers who opened Meánscoil Feirste in 1991 had expected to receive

funding rapidly, since by this time, the funding process for IM primary schools had

become easier (O'Reilly 1999, 126-127). However, they were mistaken. Although the

school doubled its intake every year during its first three years, enrolment remained short

of the 300 pupils, or 60 pupils per year, required for funding by the Department of

Education.

Supporters of the school accused the Department of Education of prejudice and

discrimination against Irish speakers and contrasted the situation of Irish-medium schools

in Northern Ireland with those of Welsh-medium schools in Wales and Gaelic-medium

schools in Scotland, which received more government support. The school finally

received government funding and recognition in 1996 (O'Reilly 1999, 128-133). In the

meantime, in 1994, an Irish-medium secondary school was founded in

Derry/Londonderry, receiving funding in 2000 only after becoming a stream within St.

Brigid’s College, an English-medium school (Department of Education Northern Ireland

2008, 15). As of 2012-2013, one Irish-medium school and three Irish-medium units

educated 796 secondary students in Northern Ireland (Department of Education n.d.).

Table 1 about here

20

Although the number of students studying through Irish remains low, it is clear that

percentages have increased every year but one and have more than tripled from 1996

onwards (see Table 1). Additionally, Irish-medium education as a whole, as in the

Republic of Ireland during this period, seems to be concentrated more in urban areas and

less in rural ones, with 10 of the primary schools in the Belfast area alone (Comhairle na

Gaelscolaíochta n.d.-a).

Another notable point is that, while the families who founded Shaw’s Road were

‘mainly working class people with minimal financial resources’ (Maguire 1991, 71), the

socioeconomic profiles of families whose children later attended the Shaw’s Road

Bunscoil varied widely. Families at either end of the socioeconomic spectrum—the

professionally qualified and unskilled manual workers—were overrepresented

significantly in the Shaw’s Road Bunscoil compared with Belfast overall when Maguire

(1991, 92-93) conducted her study in 1985. She interprets this as a signal that

socioeconomic factors cannot explain the cohesion of the community involved in the

Bunscoil and thus the explanation must lie ‘within the deeper realms of culture and

identity’. Furthermore, as the numbers of students at the school increased, parent

motivations seem to have changed and became more varied. This is evident in reasons

given by parents in 1985 for sending their children to the Shaw’s Road Bunscoil: The top

reason was ‘quality of education’ with 73.5 percent, followed closely by ‘Irish identity’

with 71 percent. ‘Language survival’, meanwhile, was only mentioned by 26 percent of

parents (Maguire 1991, 99). Students at the Bunscoil also increasingly came from

English-speaking homes, a development which led to an increase in the school’s status in

the community (Maguire 1991, 81).

21

Also worth noting during this period is the 1972 change in government from the

devolved government at Stormont dominated by the Protestant Ulster Unionist Party,

which had ruled since 1921, to direct rule by Westminster (Mac Póilin and Ni Bhaoille

2004, 3-4). This was the result of worsening relations between Protestants and Catholics

(Carmichael and Osborne 2003). Although this government was likely less hostile to the

Irish language than the previous one, Carmichael and Osborne (2003, 207-209) note that

although responsibility for Northern Irish legislation fell to Westminster at this time,

most Direct Rule Ministers—not Northern Irish themselves—took a hands-off approach.

This, they say, gave the civil service much leeway and allowed local notables to influence

policy despite their lack of electoral mandate.

The political climate did change significantly with the signing of the Good Friday

Agreement in 1998 (Mac Póilin and Ni Bhaoille 2004, 3-4). The Agreement states that

‘[a]ll participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in

relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-

Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the

cultural wealth of the island of Ireland’ (the Good Friday Agreement in Mac Póilin and

Ni Bhaoille 2004, 4). Furthermore, the British government pledged to take ‘resolute

action’ to promote Irish, including in education. Yet, helpful as the agreement

undoubtedly has been in creating a political environment favorable to IME, the growth in

IME in Northern Ireland clearly predated the agreement. As such it cannot explain the

rise in IME in the 1980s and 1990s.

V. Discussion and Conclusion

22

Early trends in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland differ markedly. The

Republic of Ireland experienced a rapid rise in IME after 1920, followed by a more or

less steady decline from the 1940s to 1970s, with IME taking place more heavily in rural,

Irish-speaking areas than in urban or more English-speaking ones. Conversely, IME was

absent from Northern Ireland during this period, probably at least partly due to

demographic differences and accompanying policy differences.

After 1970, however, convergence can be observed. In both cases, growth is seen

in Irish-medium education, concentrated more heavily in urban areas. Furthermore, in

both cases, parents took the initiative for new schools after 1970, at least at first

(sometimes even in the Republic of Ireland) in defiance of the state. In addition, aside

from the initial group of Shaw’s Road Bunscoil parents, similar groups of parents—urban

and from higher socioeconomic groups than the general population—seem to have

enrolled their children in Irish-medium education, although a more comprehensive study

of such schools could provide firmer evidence. These parents seem to have had similar

motivations, both linguistic-cultural and educational, and in both cases, the proportion of

students from English-speaking homes seems to have increased over time. Taken

together, this suggests that the initiative for Irish-medium education has shifted from the

state to individual parents.

Confronting the empirical material with the theories and global trends outlined

before supports this view. Hechter’s cultural division of labour, one collectivist theory,

seems to explain the trend in the Republic of Ireland from 1920 to 1970. During the

earlier part of this period, leaders who had experienced the cultural division of labour

under British colonialism were making policies designed to increase participation in IME,

23

which had the desired effect. Later in this period, however, participation declined,

perhaps as those with memories of the cultural division of labour left power.

Furthermore, in Northern Ireland, where policymakers during this period were largely not

members of the disadvantaged group, no IME took place, although the initial group of

Shaw’s Road parents could have been motivated by their position in the cultural division

of labour. However, the cultural division of labour cannot explain the subsequent rise in

Irish-medium education in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland, especially

considering parents’ stated motivations and socioeconomic status.

The trend in IME in the Republic of Ireland also fits neatly with the global trend

of nationalism (and its fall) during the first three-quarters of the twentieth century. As

expected, government support for IME was high during the early decades of independent

Ireland, when nationalist leaders were in power, and decreased in the decades following

World War II. The global trend of nationalism cannot explain the surge in IME from the

1970s, however.

The individualist theories seem better able to account for this recent increase in

both polities. Bourdieu’s linguistic market suggested that people would use language, in

this case Irish/IME, in ways that would maintain their elite status or help them to imitate

the elite. The higher-than-average socioeconomic status of parents who engaged their

children in IME during this period in surveyed schools in the Republic of Ireland in

particular, as well as the emphasis they have placed on educational advantages in addition

to cultural/linguistic ones, supports this as the mechanism for increases in IME from the

1970s.

24

Smolicz’s idea of the personal cultural system can also explain this phenomenon.

This theory predicted that some people would prioritise the Irish language as the foremost

core cultural value in their personal cultural system if they saw some advantage for

themselves in doing so, or if other core cultural values, such as religion (i.e. Catholicism),

became less advantageous or desirable. Although it is difficult to evaluate this theory

completely without delving more deeply into Irish and Northern Irish social changes,

such changes—including declining church attendance (Hayes and Dowds 2010),

globalisation, and changes in indicators such as the employment rate of Catholics in

Northern Ireland (e.g., Blackaby, Murphy, and O'Leary 2008)—make it seem that parents

in recent decades would be more likely to prioritise language and choose IME for their

children. The fact that parents who took the initiative to found IME schools in Northern

Ireland came from a variety of backgrounds and stated many different motivations for

enrolling their children in IME schools supports Smolicz’ idea that the advantages that

people see in making a certain cultural choice are not restricted to socio-economic ones.

Although Bourdieu and Smolicz are no neoliberals themselves, the results of this

analysis also fit neatly with the global trends of glocalisation and neoliberalism that took

hold especially from the 1980s, which is when IME numbers really began their positive

trend in both polities. The pamphlets produced by Gaelscoileanna Teo promoting IME in

several different languages also speak to this trend. The perspectives by Bourdieu,

Smolicz and the glocalisation theorists can thus be seen as complementary, with each

highlighting different aspects of the consequences of enhanced individual agency for

MLME. Another point worth noting in this respect is that the trends in IME in both

polities are perfect illustrations of a global development towards more grassroots

25

involvement in MLME (as alluded to in the introduction). In this sense, there is nothing

unusual about these trends.

Our analyses thus suggest that theories focusing on the individual are more valid

for explaining trends from the 1970s, while those focusing on the collective have more

explanatory power regarding trends from the 1920s to the 1970s. This also strongly

supports the idea that at the same time, the initiative behind IME has shifted from the

state to individual parents. In a sense this change need not surprise us as it is consistent

with wider changes in society, including the diminishing salience of vertical lines of

authority and of collective institutions such as the family, the church, political parties and

unions. Today’s society is characterised by fluidity, compressed hierarchical structures,

individual agency and shallow group loyalties. This fluidity does raise the question,

however, of how lasting the new positive trend in IME is. Is IME just a fad that is easily

exchanged for a new marker of distinction by aspiring social groups in their frantic search

for educational strategies giving them and their offspring a competitive edge over other

people?

26

References

Blackaby, D. H., P. D. Murphy, and N. C. O'Leary. 2008. "Employment Discrimination in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement." Economics Letters 99 (2): 282-285. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2007.07.003.

Boli, John. 2005. "Contemporary Developments in World Culture." International Journal of Comparative Sociology 46 (5-6): 383-404. doi: 10.1177/0020715205058627.

Borooah, Vani K., Donal A. Dineen, and Nicola Lynch. 2009. "Language and Occupational Status: Linguistic Elitism in the Irish Labour Market." The Economic and Social Review 40 (4): 435-460.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Ed. and introduced by J. B. Thompson. Translated by Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brancaleone, David, and Stephen O’Brien. 2011. "Educational Commodification and the (Economic) Sign Value of Learning Outcomes." British Journal of Sociology of Education 32 (4): 501-519. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2011.578435.

Byrne, Sean, and Cynthia Irvin. 2002. "A Shared Common Sense: Perceptions of the Material Effects and Impacts of Economic Growth in Northern Ireland." Civil Wars 5 (1): 55-86. doi: 10.1080/13698240208402495.

Carmichael, Paul, and Robert Osborne. 2003. "The Northern Ireland Civil Service Under Direct Rule and Devolution." International Review of Administrative Sciences 69 (2): 205-217. doi: 10.1177/0020852303069002006.

Cenoz, Jasone. 2008. "Achievements and Challenges in Bilingual and Multilingual Education in the Basque Country." AILA Review 21: 13-30.

Coady, Maria, and Muiris Ó Laoire. 2002. "Mismatches in Language Policy and Practice in Education: The Case of Gaelscoileanna in the Republic of Ireland." Language Policy 1 (2): 143-158. doi: 10.1023/A:1016102201242.

Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta. n.d.-a “Schools.” Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta. Accessed 7 August 2013. http://www.comhairle.org/english/schools/

Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta. n.d.-b. “Statistics.” Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta. Accessed 7 August 2013. http://www.comhairle.org/PDFs/statistics_E.pdf

Crystal, David. 2002. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Department of Education and Skills. 1923-2013. “Statistical Reports.”Department of

Education and Skills. http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Statistical-Reports/

Department of Education Northern Ireland. n.d. “List of Irish-medium Schools.” Department of Education Northern Ireland. Accessed 22 November 2013. http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/schools-and-infrastructure-2/schools-management/10-types_of_school-nischools_pg/schools_-_types_of_school-_irish-medium_schools_pg/schools_-_types_of_school_lists_of_irishmedium_schools_pg.htm

Department of Education Northern Ireland. 2008. “Review of Irish-medium Education Report.” Department of Education Northern Ireland.

27

http://www.deni.gov.uk/review_of_irish-medium_education_report__english_pdf_.pdf

Gaelscoileanna Teo. n.d. “Gaelscoileanna” Accessed 18 April 2013. http://www.gaelscoileanna.ie/?lang=en

Gaelscoileanna Teo. 2013 “Information for Parents” Gaelscoileanna Teo. Accessed 26 November 2013. http://www.gaelscoileanna.ie/en/resources/eolas-do-thuismitheoiri/

Government of Ireland. 2012. “This is Ireland: Highlights from Census 2011, Part 1.” Edited by Central Statistics Office. Dublin: Stationary Office. Accessed 27 August 2013. http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011pdr/Census,2011,Highlights,Part,1,web,72dpi.pdf

Harris, John. 2008. "The Declining Role of Primary Schools in the Revitalization of Irish." AILA Review 21: 49-68.

Harris, John, Patrick Forde, Peter Archer, Siobhán Nic Fhearaile, and Mary O'Gorman. 2006. “Irish in Primary Schools: Long-term National Trends in Achievement.” Dublin: Department of Education and Science. http://www.gaelscoileanna.ie/assets/Irish-in-Primary-Schools.pdf

Hayes, Bernadette C, and Lizanne Dowds. 2010. "Vacant Seats and Empty Pews." ARK Research Update 85: 1-4.

Hechter, Michael. 1978. "Group Formation and the Cultural Division of Labor." American Journal of Sociology 84 (2): 293-318.

Hechter, Michael. (1975) 1999. Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development. New Brunswick, N.J. Transaction Publishers.

Held, David, Anthony G. McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Heller, Monica. 1994. Crosswords: Language, Ethnicity and Education in French Ontario. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Heller, Monica. 2010. Paths to Post-Nationalism: A Critical Ethnography of Language and Identity. Oxford University Press.

Hickey, Tina. 1997. Early Immersion Education in Ireland: Na Naíonraí. Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann.

Hoffmann, Stanley. 1966. "Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe." Daedalus 95 (3): 862-915. doi: 10.2307/20027004.

Iontaobhas na Gaelscolaíochta. n.d. An Ghaelscolaíocht - Irish Language Schooling. Accessed 18 June 2013. http://www.iontaobhasnag.com/history-of-the-sector/irish-language-schooling/

Jones, Dylan V, and Marilyn Martin-Jones. 2004. "Bilingual Education and Language Revitalization in Wales: Past Achievements and Current Issues." In Medium of Instruction Policies: Which Agenda? Whose Agenda?, edited by James W. Tollefson and Amy B. M. Tsui, 43-70. Abingdon: Routledge.

Kelly, Adrian. 2002. Compulsory Irish: Language and Education in Ireland, 1870s-1970s. Dublin: Irish Academic Press.

28

Kennedy, Ivan Anthony. 2012. “Irish Medium Education: Cognitive Skills, Linguistic Skills, and Attitudes Towards Irish.” PhD Diss., Bangor University.

Landman, Todd. 2008. Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction. Abingdon: Routledge.

Lewis, W. Gwyn. 2008. "Current Challenges in Bilingual Education in Wales." AILA Review 21: 69-86.

Mac Giolla Chríost, Diarmait. 2006. "Language Planning in Northern Ireland." In Language Planning and Policy in Europe, Vol. 2: The Czech Republic, the European Union, and Northern Ireland, edited by Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. and Robert B. Kaplan, 257-308. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Mac Póilin, Aodán, and Ròise Ni Bhaoille. 2004. Irish: The Irish Language in Education in Northern Ireland, edited by Tsjerk Bottema. Mercator-Education. http://www.fryske-akademy.nl/fileadmin/mercator/dossiers_pdf/irish_in_northernireland2nd.PDF

Maguire, Gabrielle. 1991. Our Own Language: An Irish Initiative. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

May, Stephen. 2000. "Accommodating and Resisting Minority Language Policy: The Case of Wales." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 3 (2): 101-128. doi: 10.1080/13670050008667702.

May, Stephen. 2012. Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language. Abingdon: Routledge.

May, Stephen, and Richard Hill. 2005. "Māori-medium Education: Current Issues and Challenges." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8 (5): 377-403. doi: 10.1080/13670050508668621.

Ó Baoill, Dónall P. 2007. "Origins of Irish-medium Education: The Dynamic Core of Language Revitalisation in Northern Ireland." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10 (4): 410-427. doi: 10.2167/beb452.0.

Ó Laoire, Muiris. 2008. "The Language Planning Situation in Ireland." In Language Planning and Policy in Europe, Vol. 3: The Baltic States, Ireland and Italy, edited by Robert B. Kaplan and Richard B. Baldauf, Jr., 193-255. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Ó Riagáin, Pádraig., and Míchaél Ó Gliasáin. 1979. All-Irish Primary Schools in the Dublin Area. Dublin: Institillid Teangeolafochta Eireann.

Ó Riagáin, Pádraig. 1997. Language Policy and Social Reproduction: Ireland, 1893-1993. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ó Riagáin, Pádraig. 2007. "Relationships Between Attitudes to Irish, Social Class, Religion and National Identity in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10 (4): 369-393. doi: 10.2167/beb450.0.

O'Connor, Sean. 1986. A Troubled Sky: Reflections on the Irish Education Scene 1957-1968. Edited by Thomas Kellaghan. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

O'Donoghue, Tom. 2006. Bilingual Education in Pre-Independent Irish-Speaking Ireland, 1800-1922: A History. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.

29

O'Reilly, Camille C. 1999. The Irish Language in Northern Ireland: The Politics of Culture and Identity. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Robertson, Roland. 1995. "Glocalization: Time-space and Homogeneity-heterogeneity." In Global Modernities, edited by Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash and Roland Robertson, 25-44. London: SAGE Publications.

Rogers, Vaughan, and Wilson McLeod. 2007. "Autochthonous Minority Languages in Public-sector Primary Education: Bilingual Policies and Politics in Brittany and Scotland." Linguistics and Education 17 (4): 347-373.

Saorstat Eireann. 1926. An Roinn Oideachais Tuarasgabhail Ar an mBliain Scoile 1924-1925 agus ar na Blianta Airgeadais agus Riarachain 1924-25-26. Department of Education. Dublin: The Stationary Office. http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/stats_statistical_report_1926_1927.pdf

Smolicz, Jerzy Jaroslaw. 1980. "Language as a Core Value of Culture." RELC Journal 11 (1): 1-13. doi: 10.1177/003368828001100101.

Smolicz, Jerzy Jaroslaw. 1981. "Core Values and Cultural Identity." Ethnic and Racial Studies 4 (1): 75-90.

Smolicz, Jerzy Jaroslaw. 1988. "Tradition, Core Values and Intercultural Development in Plural Societies." Ethnic and Racial Studies 11 (4): 387-410.

Spolsky, Bernard. 2010. "Second-language Learning." In Handbook of Language & Ethnic Identity, edited by Joshua A. Fishman and Ofelia García, 172-185. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vila i Moreno, F. Xavier. 2008. "Language-in-education Policies in the Catalan Language Area." AILA Review 21: 31-48.

Watson, Iarfhlaith, and Máire Nic Ghiolla Phádraig. 2011. "Linguistic Elitism: The Advantage of Speaking Irish Rather Than the Irish-speaker Advantage." The Economic and Social Review 42 (4): 437-454.

Williams, Colin H. 2010. "The Celtic World." In Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, edited by Joshua A. Fishman and Ofelia García, 237-254. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.

30

Table 1: Percentage of Northern Irish students in Irish-medium education, 1996-2008

Primary Secondary1996-97 0.47 0.121997-98 0.56 0.151998-99 0.63 0.171999-2000 0.68 0.202000-01 0.82 0.252001-02 0.98 0.252002-03 1.11 0.272003-04 1.31 0.312004-05 1.38 0.342005-06 1.47 0.382006-07 1.63 0.412007-08 1.67 0.43Source: Department of Education (2008)

Department of Education (2008). Review of Irish-medium education report.

31

Figure 1. Development of Irish-medium education in the Republic of Ireland

32