This Vote is very important. It is important because of the subject with which it deals, and it is important because it is one of the largest Votes that we will be called upon to discuss during the Committee on Estimates. There is a particular reason why this Vote should get a very thorough examination. Some of us have been complaining from time to time that we were treated to an avalanche of legislative measures emanating from the various departments of the State. That is a charge which we cannot level at the Ministry of Education. Most of its activities are carried out by way of administrative work, and that is a particular reason why the administration of this department should receive a good deal of attention from the Dáil. The Dáil is at a disadvantage—a considerable disadvantage—in discussing this important Vote, inasmuch as for a reason which has not been vouchsafed and for which we are entitled to demand an explanation, no report has been issued during the past two or three years. Certainly no report has been issued since the present Ministry took charge of the administration of education. We are, therefore, at a loss because we have not before us the vital statistics concerning education, which would help us to form some proper idea of the work which the department is concerned with. For instance, we have no report supplied to us, as was done in this department under the old regime, giving us the number of children under instruction in the schools, the ages of those children, their classification in the various standards according to their ages, the number of schools in operation under the Ministry and the number of teachers engaged in those schools. All these, as I say, are vital statistics. The statistics are collected and supplied to the department quarterly and annually as heretofore, and I think it is right we should say that it is highly advisable that the public should be made aware, through the publication of the annual report, of these statistics. I think it was Deputy Cooper who a few days ago complained of the "dignified deliberation" of the Board of Works because they had not issued a report since their report of 1922-23. I wonder what would Deputy Cooper say in this case if he were here? On the last occasion on which the Votes for education generally were under discussion, I called attention to the fact that no move had been made up to that time to bring about a proper scheme of co-ordination between the various departments engaged in educational work. That has been done to some extent under the present Ministry and I hope it will be carried on to a greater extent under the powers given to the Ministry under the recent Ministers and Secretaries Act. We are in this position, that the old complaints which were made in pre-Treaty days about the various departments of education working in watertight departments and more or less independently on one another are more or less true up to the present time. I think anyone who knows anything about educational administration or educational matters must admit that that is not a satisfactory state of affairs and that it is a state of affairs which ought to be remedied. In pre-war times there was issued with the annual report an appendix which contained the reports of the divisional or senior inspectors. These were long, detailed reports in which the state of education in the particular districts was discussed at very great length. These reports were very valuable and it is a pity that the practice of compiling them and issuing them for the information of the public generally should not be revived. I hope it will be possible to revive that practice.
They were, in my opinion, very valuable for what they contained, and sometimes instructive for what they did not contain. What I have said with regard to the report, applies to the rules and regulations of the Department, and what I might call the code. In the old times it was possible for a teacher to be supplied with a code of rules and regulations so that teachers, managers and everyone else knew exactly where they were. That is not the case now. The teacher who knows all the rules and regulations under which he is carrying out his duties at present is a rarity. I doubt even if there are many at the headquarters of the Department who are in a position to know these, because, for the past five years or so there has been no regular publication of the code, no codification. What rules and regulations have been made are issued to the schools and managers by way of advertisement in the newspapers. It is not a matter of surprise that these circulars get mislaid and that the advertisements are forgotten. The rules and regulations, consequently, are not always observed, and somebody gets into trouble. I strongly urge on the Minister the necessity of immediately codifying all the existing rules and regulations and putting them into one volume. That is one of the things which call for immediate attention. If somebody took up the old code they would find regulations that have been deleted and abolished for the past seven years. There is, in consequence, a good deal of confusion.
There is another point I would like to draw attention to. I am not quite certain whether it is within the administrative powers of the Minister, but I rather think it is. It is the question of the setting up of an advisory council or some form of council, consultative or advisory. Personally I am of opinion that such a council should have more powers than mere advisory or consultative ones. In any case, I believe there is a tendency to centralisation, and bureaucracy, if you like, in the fact that there is no machinery at present whereby bodies naturally interested in education are in a position to be consulted and give direct advice to the Ministry. It is highly advisable that steps should be taken in that direction, if, as I believe, it is within the present powers of the Minister to set up such a body.
Our whole scheme of education centres around the child. It does not matter very much what kind of machinery you have, or how perfect that machinery is, if the child is not there to be taught. One of the most common complaints at present, and one which has been continually made during the past two or three years, has reference to this question of attendance. I do not want to be ruled out of order by being told this is a matter which must be dealt with by legislation. I admit that. But as the Minister's salary is on this Vote, I think we might draw attention to the fact that the Minister has not been as active as some of us would like in pushing on this legislation, and I think we are entitled to criticise him for that. It is admitted on all hands, it is not a question of dispute or discussion any longer, that the position whereby 30 children out of every 100 on the school rolls are absent every school day in the year is not a satisfactory one. I say on the school rolls, but that does not include all who are absent, as any one acquainted with the problem knows. I will leave that particular question by saying that there is considerable disappointment amongst those who are keenly interested in education that the Government has not taken steps long before this to deal with this very vital problem. In speaking of that I would like to say, more or less in opposition, if you like, to the views which are naturally held about compelling children to attend school, that it does not seem to me to be just to compel children to attend who are either hungry or ill-clothed. Nor does it seem to be just to compel children to attend and spend a great part of their youth in buildings which are unhealthy and insanitary.
That brings me to the question of the present school buildings. Again I must complain that I am not in a position to say how many schools there are in the country. I am not in a position, except from my own experience in going through the country and seeing the schools, of saying how many of these schools are suitable for the purpose for which they are used. I do think it is necessary and advisable that the Ministry should take steps at the earliest possible opportunity, through their inspectors, to take a census of the school buildings and give them at least a rough classification. Some could be classified as satisfactory, more would be decidedly unsatisfactory, and you might have a middle classification such as "tolerable." But it is essential that we should be in a position to know definitely how many of the present school buildings are entirely unsuited, from the point of view of health and sanitation generally, for purpose to which they are being devoted and which are in fact a danger to the community, to the children, and to those engaged in teaching. I have seen some of these schools. I know there are some very fine schools, splendid institutions that cannot be bettered in any country. But we also have hovels doing duty for schools, the like of which would not be found in any country. That is a problem that the Ministry ought to deal with, by finding out first of all what is necessary in the way of providing new schools or replacing unsuitable, insanitary ones, and then, by pressing forward for the necessary supplies, to make good that necessary accommodation.
And in this connection I would like to point out that we have a very primitive method indeed for the maintenance of our schools. Our schools are maintained, heated, cleaned, furnished and repaired largely by voluntary effort and voluntary contributions. It is well known that the vast majority of our schools are under clerical management. The local parish priest or the local rector is the manager. Sometimes—the number is few—they are under lay managers, but I would like to say this, that these managers have been in the main struggling against great difficulties, and in the main, they have done their best and done good work towards raising the funds which are necessary to maintain the schools in a more or less satisfactory condition. There have been exceptions, of course. There have been schools which were totally neglected in that respect, but in the main, the managers have made great efforts to raise these voluntary funds. But in my opinion the system of raising funds by voluntary methods for the upkeep of the schools has broken down. The managers find it a task that is too great for them to face. It is impossible to continue much longer raising these voluntary funds, and we know that no matter how earnest they are and no matter how anxious they are to do it, the amount they have been able to raise in the past has not been at all sufficient to meet the necessities of the case. I do not know whether or not it is within the power of the Minister, without seeking fresh legislative authority, to make arrangements for the proper maintenance and upkeep of the schools. My own opinion is that legislative powers are needed. I think that the school-house ought to be the care of the locality in which it is. It ought to be the duty and not only the duty but I should say the privilege of the locality to look after its school buildings and to keep them in the state that they ought to be kept in. In this connection I would like to say that some of our school buildings, even where they cannot be said to be unhealthy, can certainly be said to be ugly, and some of them seemed to be built, as somebody said, like fortresses which would withstand not only the ravages but the improvements of time.
There is the question of the supply of teachers, and on this point I would like to criticise the policy—the want of policy, rather—of the Ministry. At one end teachers are being trained and turned out for the service. At the other end teachers are leaving the service, and there does not seem to be any proper relation between the numbers admitted and the numbers who may reasonably be estimated to leave in any particular year. Teachers were trained and they are still trained in private institutions, subject, no doubt, to a certain amount of control by the Education Department. If these got appointments in this country, well and good. If not, they sought appointments in England or Scotland, or in Canada, South Africa or somewhere else, and perhaps it might be argued that at that time it did not matter very much whether the relation between the entrants to the profession and those who were leaving would be observed. But that is not the position now. It has changed, and teachers trained under the new conditions and the new provisions will not be in a position to get employment outside the Saorstát.
I always held that it was a wrong policy that we should train teachers for export, but that will not be the position now, and it is essential, I think, that each year the department should estimate—and there is no great difficulty about estimating—the number of teachers who are about to retire in any given year and the number of vacancies which will thus be created, making allowance for those people who leave the service for any reason other than simply retiring on pension, and that a corresponding number of vacancies should be announced, that the number who would enter the training colleges in any given year should correspond as closely as possible to the probable number of vacancies. In this way there would be no wastage and no unemployed teachers.
In this connection I would like to stress that the Ministry should not in future appoint teachers who are untrained. Some women teachers are still appointed who are technically called untrained. They have a certain standard of education, of course, and they must pass a certain examination, but they have not the hall mark of training, and I think it is no longer necessary that they should be appointed, because so far as women are concerned a sufficient supply of trained teachers is available. In connection with the matter of the supply of teachers I would like the Minister, if he is in a position to do so, to give us some information regarding the conditions which were complained of a few years ago, and complained of with very great reason and on very good grounds, namely, that the students coming forward for entrance to the teaching profession were not all of the type which one would wish to see. When some years ago a new and approved salaried scale for teachers was introduced, it was hoped that as teaching was being—anyhow was then being—adequately remunerated there would be a marked improvement in this direction. I did not hope that the improvement would come rapidly. Others thought that students would be knocking in crowds at the doors of the training colleges for entrance. I would like the Minister to tell us what is the decision on that matter. I think the time has come when the Government should make plain what exactly their position is with regard to the programme which is taught in the schools, or which they have introduced. We hear a good deal about the programme from time to time, and I think there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding with regard to the aims and the objects of the Ministry.
I take it that, candidly, their object is, at a future date, to make this country largely, if not entirely, an Irish-speaking country. If that is their intention, in my opinion they should say that distinctly and clearly, and let the people understand, because there is a considerable amount of doubt among people as to what their children are being taught in the schools, and as to the value of what the children are being taught in the schools. Therefore, I think it is highly advisable that the Minister should avail of an opportunity of this kind to say what exactly is the object aimed at by the changes which have been made, the very revolutionary changes that have been made in the curriculum which is now being taught in the National schools. I may say right off that I do not for a moment agree with those who put it this way very bluntly, that the children are learning a few things in the way of education, and that Irish is thrown in —as much as to say that the Irish language in fact is not education at all, but is something outside of that. That is not my view, and I do not think there is any necessity to argue that matter here. I will, however, say this much, that let their aim be what it is, the Ministry must recognise that we are in a period of transition, and that they will not reach their goal any sooner by trying to rush towards the goal. That is my candid view of the matter. There are complaints, and some of them substantial complaints, that there is a tendency to undo in a year or two what has been the work of forty, fifty or sixty years. I do not believe that we can revive the Irish language in a year or in two or three years. I would be very satisfied if I felt that we could revive the Irish language in twenty or thirty years. A period of that length is not very much after all in the life of a nation. I do believe that there is a tendency to try and get ahead in a spirit of enthusiasm possibly, but in my opinion that is a wrong line to take. I say that especially in reference to the idea of using the Irish language as a medium for teaching other subjects.
In the case of a teacher who is a native Irish speaker, or who has acquired a good speaking knowledge of Irish, a man who can speak Irish as freely as he could speak any other language, and who has to deal with pupils who are able to speak the Irish language, and understand quite clearly what the teacher is saying to them, I agree that in such a case there is no reason why the ordinary subjects of the programme should not be taught through the medium of Irish as the ordinary language of the school. But it is nothing but the height of foolishness, apart from anything else, to expect a man who has only a half knowledge of Irish, who may be only struggling through it, and possibly only able to read it, having to pause now and again for a word or term, to teach the ordinary subjects of the programme through the medium of Irish, and to teach pupils who, possibly, do not understand a quarter of what he is saying. I think if that is not only asked for, but if it is allowed to go on, a very grave injury will be done, not only to education but to the Irish language itself. I believe that the Ministry recognise that fact, but I think that they have not made it sufficiently clear to those who are engaged in the ordinary work of the schools, either to teachers or inspectors. I know teachers who, in their enthusiasm for the language, or in their anxiety to carry out what they believe to be the wishes of the Ministry, are doing what I have attempted to describe here, and in that way they are not doing a service to the language, and are certainly not doing a service to education. I think it is the duty of the Ministry to call special attention to the fact that only is such a thing not expected but that it should not be allowed.
I must apologise for taking up so much of the time of the Dáil in dealing with this matter, but the subject is such a wide one that it is hard to condense what one has to say on it. There is only one other question that I will deal with at the moment, and that is the question of inspection. Now, inspection is necessary, and no matter how much people may object to being inspected, and I suppose that is a natural feeling, there is nobody but must admit that inspection is necessary.
While that is so there is inspection and inspection. In the old days, under the education system, the inspector was really a policeman or a detective who came into the school. He visited the schools to find out what was wrong in them, not to find what was being done, whether it was good or otherwise, but rather to catch the teacher as it were in some little breach of the regulations, and much was made out of these breaches of the regulations. I readily and willingly admit that that spirit has now decreased very considerably, but it is hard to kill an old tradition, and there is, to some extent, evidence that that tradition has not been finally killed in our schools. There is first in this matter the question of the spirit which should underline the system of inspection. I have no hesitation in saying that the main object of an inspector should be to act as a co-worker with the teacher, to be what you might call the guide, philosopher and friend of the teacher, a man who, from his wider knowledge, wider experience, higher scholarship and higher attainments generally, should be in a position to direct the teachers in the various schools which he visits as to the best method and best way of getting on with the work which they are charged to perform. I would prefer that instead of being called an inspector he should be called a Director of education for his particular district, a man who is charged primarily with seeing that the education of his district is up to the standard, and a man who would be the first to be blamed by the department if education in that particular district was not up to the standard. But that is not the conception which the ordinary inspector of National Schools has of his duty. I am afraid that all the blame, if anything is not up to the standard, is put on the shoulders of the teacher, and that is supposed to be the last word.
I do not think that should be the spirit underlying the system. Both Inspector and teacher should regard themselves as co-workers, and it should not be so much that the Inspector is the boss or Commanding Officer, as that he is the general director or general manager of the schools in his particular area. He should be a man to whom the teacher would be always ready and willing to turn for advice and help in any difficulty in which he might find himself. You cannot have that when the Inspector has, as part of his duty, to go round to all the schools in his district, and in the classrooms examine every subject that is taught by the teacher, and then stick labels on each particular subject—"This is good,""this is very good,""this is fair,""this is very fair,""this is middling," or "this is bad." While that may be all right in theory, it is really beyond the power of any man to go into a school and spend two or three hours, and at the end of the visit to take up seven, eight, or ten subjects taught there, and label them, making the very nice distinction between "good" and "very good,""fair" and "very fair," and "very fair" and "good."
All these things bring with them definite rewards, if you like, and a definite benefit to the teacher. The question of his annual increment might depend on whether the report for a particular subject is marked "good" or "very good." I think that is trying to shave the matter altogether too much. The Inspector should be in a position to sum up in a broad, general way his impressions of the school, whether it is satisfactory, whether the man is doing his duty in a satisfactory manner, or in a highly satisfactory manner. He should be in a position to detect negligence or inefficiency where there is negligence or want of skill on the part of the teacher, and he could give directions as to how such a state might be improved or reformed.
To think that the Inspector can stick labels like you would on a lot of jam-pots, around the room, and do that justly and fairly, and leave no sense of irritation behind, is expecting too much from an ordinary mortal whom we must trust for our inspection work. There are several other matters which I would like to mention, but perhaps I would get an opportunity later, and I do not want to monopolise the time of the Dáil.
