Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Nov 1925

Vol. 13 No. 2

POLICY OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION. - MOTION BY THE PRESIDENT.

I move: "That the Dáil approves of the policy of the Minister for Education."

I undertook, when the Estimates were under consideration last year, to afford the fullest opportunity as soon as the House met again for a discussion on the Education Estimates. It was my intention at that time to have put forward a token vote which would enable Deputies to approach the consideration of the Ministry of Education from every possible angle, and to deal with all the Votes which affect Education just as if the entire Estimates were before them. A supplementary Estimate in respect of the Ministry of Education will be introduced before the end of the year, and in consequence, as I did not like to introduce a supplementary Estimate now, I put down this motion: "That the Dáil approves of the policy of the Minister for Education." In moving that, we afford an opportunity for the fullest possible discussion of the Ministry just as if the several Estimates of that Ministry were before the House. I just make that explanation in order to make clear that any undertaking we have given in connection with the administration of this Ministry is now fulfilled, and I accordingly move.

On a point of procedure, the President in June made a very definite promise that the first business of the Dáil, after the resumption, would be to deal with the Estimates of the Ministry of Education, and he promised to introduce a token vote, so that all the departments of the Ministry of Education might be dealt with as they would be dealt with if we were discussing the original Estimates, and if the Minister for Education had been able to be present. I think it is not a fulfilment of that promise to say that there is to be a supplementary Estimate for this Ministry introduced before Christmas. That Estimate, in any case, would deal with something specific. I think, apart from the discussion which the motion itself would probably involve on the general policy of the Ministry of Education, the promised opportunity to discuss the Estimates in detail will not be fulfilled by the President's statement now. I would ask that in the discussion on the motion which he is now moving we should have an opportunity to go through the Estimates on a token vote in fulfilment of the promise of the President.

I have no objection to that except to this extent, that whatever details in connection with the token vote are necessary, I could not promise immediately for the token vote, but if the Ceann Comhairle would agree, I could take it that we are prepared to go over every item in detail in the Estimates as if the Estimates were now before the House, or after this discussion has ended, in order that every opportunity would be afforded of discussing the Estimates in detail.

Am I to understand that the President is finding some technical difficulty in dealing with this matter by way of a token vote?

Immediately, yes, but it might be possible to get over that within the next week or ten days. Just now I find a little difficulty in that, but I do not find any difficulty, subject to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle, in discussing the Estimates as if such token vote were before us, or as if the entire Estimates were before us.

I am not concerned so much as to the manner if a legitimate excuse, shall I say, can be provided within the Standing Orders to allow us a thorough examination of the Estimates as was promised. I would not like to bind the President to his promise in regard to the technical point that he would introduce a token vote if he can find any other means of fulfilling his promise. But I do ask that an opportunity should be provided at once of fulfilling the undertaking.

There are now under the Department of Education, as far as I can see, six Estimates—Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46. In the ordinary way, if the Estimates had been taken and discussed under the first one that would have arisen—that is Vote 41 for the Office of the Minister for Education, which provides for the salary of the Minister —a general discussion would have been in order at the beginning identical with the discussion which would normally take place on a motion such as the President has just moved. This motion provides at least for that general discussion. It is embarrassing, from the point of view of procedure, to open the Estimates and go through them presumably in Committee and under the rules which obtain in Committee without any motion whatever, but if the Minister for Education is prepared to answer on the Estimates, and if Deputies generally want to do that, my point of view is that we will have to do it. I take it that that actually can be done; that is to say, we can take under this motion the general discussion that usually arises on the first occasion when a Minister's Vote comes up in Committee on Finance in discussing the Estimates, and then proceed to Estimate 41 and go through the sub-heads in Committee as well as through all the other Estimates if that is exactly what is required.

That is what I am agreeing to. May I take it that Deputy Johnson is satisfied that my undertaking in this respect has been fulfilled?

I have already said that I am not going to ask the President to fulfil an undertaking on a technical point, namely, that he would allow this to be opened on a token vote, provided an opportunity is given for full discussion.

This discussion, therefore, takes place on the principle that one speech will be allowed to each Deputy on this motion. The Estimates will be discussed in detail in Committee procedure, when Deputies will be allowed more than one speech. If the Minister for Education now speaks he will be allowed the right to reply, at the conclusion of the debate, if he desires to do so, just as if he was the mover of the motion.

I am not quite sure that I have grasped the order as proposed. Are we to have a discussion now on the President's motion and then go into Committee?

The discussion now will be on the President's motion, and then we will go into Committee to discuss the sub-heads of the various Estimates accounted for by the Minister for Education.

At this stage, then, I am not quite certain at what length, or in what detail, I may be expected to deal with the President's motion. The discussion on the Estimates will, no doubt, take very largely the form of criticism, and I imagine that the greater part of what I shall have to say then will probably be in reply to the criticisms of members of the Dáil. Just now I presume Deputies will expect from me only a brief preliminary statement.

We would like a statement of policy.

A statement of policy, I take it, has two aspects. First of all, there is the administrative plan of education. I do not say it is the first in order or importance, and along with that there is the general aim of education. These are very wide generalities, and I did not come prepared at this stage to go into a general exposition of these matters; that is to say, I did not come specially prepared, but I am quite willing, according to the best of my ability, to state in general terms, to the members of the Dáil what, I think, most of them probably appreciate in a large degree already, I regard as the proper policy, and, therefore, the actual policy of the Department for which I am responsible.

I have described elsewhere, under circumstances when I am more at my case than standing up to explain myself in speech— that is to say, when I have a pen at the end of my fingers—what I think is the proper policy of the Department of Education and its proper function. I have described it in general terms as a conservation and a building up of the particular type of civilisation which is suited to the genius of the people of this country and concurrent with their traditions, and suited also to the lines of development that are before them. And I have said, also, that in my conception, the two things are identical with the type of civilisation which is suited to us and our nationality and that, consequently, the business and main functions of the Department of Education in this country are to conserve and to build up our nationality, and I look upon that in every aspect—cultural, economical, political, and in any other way that it can be described.

I thought it necessary to state that position because of the kind of counter position, or different aiming, which I could see underlying many things that were said on the subject of Irish education. How that is to be done in detail I do not propose to attempt to expound here. The exposition of it takes the form of administrative measures which are known to the public and in any other form than these measures I presume that the explanation of a policy of that kind might be described in the familiar phrase as merely window dressing. In July last, when I was not able to be present, the President, on my behalf, made a statement here which covered in general terms the ground of the administrative reform and proposals of this Department. I need hardly recapitulate now or repeat what was said by the President then. Briefly I recall to the minds of Deputies that it was pointed out by him that you are now in a position to deal with the work of the Department of Education as a united whole.

Under your ruling, sir, the Estimates for education now come as one group together for the first time, under the consideration of the Dáil. The President's statement dealt with the unification—I prefer that word to co-ordination—of the different branches of education which were formerly run practically as quite distinct branches. Almost at the root of that unification has been the joining together of the inspectorate of the different Departments. It will be agreed, I think, by those who have experience in education that a measure of this kind, bringing all the inspectors engaged in educational work under the Department into common counsel, is a valuable measure. I ought perhaps to congratulate the representatives of one party here on having produced a statement on educational policy for the country. I have this statement. I have read it carefully—Labour's Policy on Education. I consider it an admirable document. I do not agree with every word and every syllable in it, but I think it is an excellent thing that, I suppose, we may say, a political party has for the first time concentrated its mind on the general problem of education. I suppose it may be assumed that those who represent educational work in the Labour Party and are associated with it, are entitled to the chief credit for the production of this statement of policy that I refer to. If that be so, I congratulate them, in particular, on it. I have long personally looked forward to the time when those who were engaged on the work of education would themselves endeavour to shape out a policy of education for the public in general, and I wish to give an assurance that if other bodies of public opinion, and other bodies of public representatives, follow this excellent example, I will do my best to study and understand every line and every word of any statement that they will produce on the subject. That applies to the Farmers' Party, and it applies to the business men, and if there be any other sections that are not defined I shall also be glad to read and learn from any proposals that they may make.

The President's statement explained, first of all, that matter of unification, and then what had taken place with regard to the programme of primary education drawn up in its original form some years ago by a representative conference which, I think, originated from the National Teachers' Organisation. The statement also dealt with the secondary programme. With regard to primary and secondary education, with regard to education generally— for I never liked to separate them into these departments—I have in mind that the system should be—I might quote the words of a circular which was issued along with the programme to the schools—"such as to turn the minds and the efforts of the bulk of the pupils towards the land of Ireland and the great agricultural industry on which for generations to come the economic life of the nation will be based." I feel that a very large part of the policy of the Department of Education will consist in close co-operation and concordance with the development schemes put before the country by the Departments of Agriculture and of Industry and Commerce, a much closer concordance than anything of the kind that had existed, if anything of the kind has existed, in our experience in the past. The question of attendance at schools has been brought before you time and again.

Mr. O'CONNELL

It did not get beyond that.

I explained on a previous occasion that I am no great believer in using the compulsory powers of the State either to compel children to attend school or to compel them to learn any subject, no matter what that subject may be, when they attend school.

That is a good promise for the Compulsory Education Bill.

I do not perhaps take as much satisfaction in the fact that that promise is to have its fulfilment as some Deputies may. Perhaps I have a different idea from them of the relation between the State and the individual. However, there is agreement on that as a practical measure, whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the principles that underlie it, and as the President's announcement to-day has made known to you, a Bill providing for compulsory attendance will very shortly be presented to you. The President's statement also dealt with steps that are to be taken to improve the training of teachers. There is one matter of the greatest importance, with regard to which I know criticism will be forthcoming, and I will welcome that criticism—the more effectively it draws attention to the present condition of things the better it will please me—and that is the actual provision of school buildings. It is a subject upon which I do not like to let myself go. Other Deputies, no doubt, will say, and say as forcibly as I should like to say it, the necessary things about it, and I am willing to yield the place to them. I certainly shall be very well pleased if the result of this discussion is to focus public attention on the actual school accommodation that exists, and also on how that provision will suit when, as I hope, more effective means are available for securing an adequate attendance.

With regard to administrative measures for development, it may be well that I should outline for you the kind of measures which I consider desirable and for which provision ought to be made. The aim of the Department, which in part has already been carried into effect, and with which these various measures are regarded as fitting in, is to provide a clear educational highway from the most elementary to the most advanced stages of education, to provide for connection between the end of each stage and the beginning of the next stage or stages. In some cases there is, naturally, a branching of the ways, and the progress is not continuous in all directions. In actual practice the system, when completed, should provide first of all that the primary stage should bring all pupils to the point at which they would be fit to enter into a more advanced stage, and prepare them so that they would be able to take full advantage of the instruction given in the continuation stage.

To that end it is contemplated that the primary system should provide the final test in the shape of a leaving examination and a leaving certificate, and that these should form the ordinary means of entrance—the entrance door —to the initial stages of the post-primary system. In the secondary system there are two well-defined stages, a four years' course of general education ending with the intermediate certificate examination, and a two years' course of more specialised, though still general, education, ending with the leaving certificate. The technical and continuation stage is to have a post-primary or intermediate stage and a higher stage, and the post-secondary or university stage, entrance to which can only be obtained by passing the tests in respect of the primary leaving certificate examination.

As regards the secondary, technical, or intermediate examination and the higher secondary or technical leaving certificate examination, this technical system would have at the end of each of these stages a suitable examination similar to those already in existence in secondary schools. For the building up of that continuous process provision has already been made in part by the intermediate certificate examination in the secondary system, and by the coordination of the top stages of the primary system with the lower one of the secondary system. The power is given to good primary schools to proceed at the end of the primary stage to give secondary education up to any stage which their teaching power and pupils' capacity permit. There are the coordination of programmes of secondary schools with those of the training colleges, the acceptance of a leaving certificate examination of the secondary system as entrance to the university, and the results of the test for awarding scholarships to the university, the acceptance by the university of training college course and examination as equivalent to part of their lower university courses and tests. It is not possible at present to carry out completely all that this plan of education involves. We have at present sitting a primary programme conference and we have before us this question of better school attendance, and we have, further, the organisation and re-organisation of technical and continuation education. Until some definite progress has been made with these things it will not be possible for us to complete the system that I have outlined, but when we have reached that stage it will be possible to complete the plan by arranging, in the first place, for a primary leaving certificate examination as the door by which pupils will have to pass into any part of the post-primary system, and, secondly, by having the post-primary system thoroughly co-ordinated with the primary system and with the university. That will give you three definite stages, marked best, perhaps, by the approximate ages of those who will pass through, namely, primary up to 14 years of age, intermediate from 14 to 16 years of age, and secondary from 16 to 18 years of age.

I have spoken of branches of post-primary education. The branches in contemplation are:—(1) Part-time continuation education up to 16 or 18 years of age for those who cannot get whole-time education after the primary stage; (2) for those who, though they remain under instruction and have not to take up work for their livelihood immediately after the primary stage, require immediate vocational, or semi-vocational, training, full day-time technical education; and (3) full day-time general intermediate education for those who can take advantage of it. Such general intermediate education will be given as at present either in a secondary school or, where the circumstances permit it, in a suitable higher section of a primary school. As I have said, part of this plan is actually in operation, and the system in operation has in view the completion of this plan. The technical side of the plan, I admit, is one which is still undeveloped, and it is one the development of which will require competent investigation. These remarks give you, imperfectly, I admit, a sketch first of all of the general aim of educational policy and, secondly, of the framework of the plan of education within which that aim is to be carried out. I have read in the Press a great deal of controversial matters with regard to the policy of this Department. I may say I have been glad to find attention directed to that extent on the problem of education. I do not propose in this statement to enter into those controversies, or any controversy. I have no doubt that in the discussion that is before us, whether on the question of general policy, or on the question of detail arising in Committee out of the Estimates, I shall meet with a great deal of valuable criticism, and there will be opportunity for those who disagree with the general policy, or with any aspect of it, or with any part of its plan of working, to express their criticism on the matter. I undoubtedly will find myself in a better position to meet the views expressed by Deputies, or through Deputies, when I hear them in criticism, than I am at the moment. I consider myself at present as merely supplying the Dáil with a general statement upon which, and towards which, and, if necessary, outside of which, the criticism of members can be directed. I trust myself that while I recognise the right, and even the duty, of hostile criticism, that most of the criticism, or at all events of the criticism I shall have to meet, will be constructive and helpful. Before I leave this part of the discussion, and leave the field to other Deputies, I should like to express my sincere regret if my necessary absence has caused any public inconvenience, or any inconvenience to the representatives of the public here.

The motion before the House is: "That the Dáil approves of the policy of the Minister for Education." I wonder how many in the House know what the policy of the Minister for Education is? I am beginning to wonder whether we are really serious in this matter and whether this motion has been seriously proposed this evening. I take it that I am in as good a position as any member of the House to be thoroughly acquainted not only with the policy, but the practice and administration of the Minister, and I certainly confess that I am not in a position to say what the policy of the Minister for Education is. I would like to know what the innermost feelings of any person in the Dáil will be who will vote for this motion, if we do not hear, when the motion has been fully discussed, something that will let us know more exactly than what we have heard up to the present as to the policy the Minister stands for. As I said, I wonder whether the Government are really taking this question of education seriously. Honestly, I do not think they are. In the absence of the Minister, when the Estimates were up last July, I complained seriously. I said then, what I will say now when the Minister is present, that it was not in my opinion, or in the opinion of a great many people, treating education fairly to have the Minister who was charged by this Dáil with the responsibility for carrying on the work of education and taking charge of the education of the country, so long absent from his duties.

Education above any other subject, above any other matter, was the one thing, because of neglect in the past, that required to be fostered by an Irish Government. It was one of the things that we hoped the establishment of a home Government would do more than anything else to foster. We looked forward to the home Government fostering Irish education, and now we find that the Ministry responsible for the Government of the country takes that subject so lighly that it can detach from his duty the Minister for Education. I wonder what would the farmers say if the Minister for Lands and Agriculture were sent to do other work for twelve months. I do not wish to dwell upon that aspect of the question any further. I would like to emphasise that the Government is now in office for almost four years; it has charge of the education of the country for almost that time. What it has done in that time for education is very easily summed up.

The Minister more than anybody else has stressed the necessity time and again of associating the people with the work of education, bringing to the people the necessity for educational improvement and for attention to educational work. One would think, seeing the necessity for this so admitted, that it would be the special subject to which the Department would devote its attention. I wish the Minister for Education would take a leaf out of the book of the Minister for Justice and come down to brass facts, as the Minister for Justice often asks us to do. I have been reading very attentively a series of articles written by the Minister for Education which have appeared in a Journal. I wish in those articles, such as they were, that he did come down to brass facts. I wish we could gather definitely what he was aiming at, what he was hoping to secure. I wish that he would be more definite than he was in his statement here this evening when he said that the main business of the Educational Department, and his main policy, was to conserve and build up our nationality. That is a very vague, a very general statement, It could be held that there were very many different ways, numerous ways, by which that end could be achieved; it could also be held, and undoubtedly it is held, that there are different ideas and different views—some of them even almost opposing views—as to what one is to understand by nationality. The Minister should know, if he were not, as he seems to be from his writings and statements, wholly detached from practical affairs, living in the air, as it were.

Surely the Minister should know that the one question that is agitating the minds of the people at present is the question of compulsory Irish in the schools. The Minister has completely ignored that question in his statement. He has not said one word in defence, or in explanation, of his policy. Forgetting that there is a positive motion before the House which requires argument to recommend it, he has taken the line of sitting tight and waiting to be asked questions which he promises to answer on this and on other matters. That is not the proper way to treat the House on a very important motion of this kind. I think it is for somebody on the Government Benches to make a case for the support of this motion; that case has not been made, I respectfully contend. The Minister referred more than once to a programme, what is known as the National Programme, and he also referred to the President's speech on the occasion of the Estimates. If I would be allowed to make a comparison, it was a much clearer and, to me, more satisfying statement of policy than I have listened to this evening from the Minister for Education.

At the same time that speech, boiled down, dealt almost entirely with two matters, the question of the school programme and the question of co-ordination. Co-ordination has been secured in the upper regions of the system by the joining up of the inspectorate; but there is very little evidence of co-ordination in practice where the co-ordination is really wanted. As evidence of that fact we had statements made in the Press a few days ago to the effect that a number of children presented themselves for examination at the Technical Schools and only a very small percentage was able to pass the examination. There is nothing to show whether the examination had any relation to subjects being taught in the primary schools. We do not know that. There is no evidence of co-ordination there.

The main purport of the President's statement had to do with the question of programmes. The Minister, in one of his very few statements on educational policy, stated definitely in Clare that the programme of the National Conference was to be carried out in its entirety. I wonder did the Minister realise exactly what he was saying, because the programme of the National Conference which the Minister says will be carried out in the schools—and he will insist on that as part of his policy—contained much more than a programme. There was something set out in it that the teachers of the schools were to carry out. If the Minister reads the programme carefully—I hope he did read it—he will find also that there was a good deal in it that the Minister for Education was to carry out. If the teachers or the schools were expected to do their part, it is only natural that the Minister and the Educational Department would do their share. The National Conference that sat in 1922 had under consideration the question of attendance at the schools. A definite report was drawn up, and in the programme issued to the schools by the Minister himself, recommendations were made with regard to the question of attendance.

They said it was impossible to do any work while the attendance remained as it was. What has been the history with regard to that recommendation?

The people who signed that programme on that occasion and who have made the best efforts to carry it out were evidently assured that such a measure as would secure good attendance in the schools would be put into operation immediately. Things dragged on, and in 1923 we had a statement from the Minister as to his own personal views with regard to compulsory attendance. It was a statement of his own philosophy with regard to compulsion and the right of the State to interfere and so forth, perfectly discouraging to those looking forward for help to secure good attendance in the schools. By 1924, however, the Minister had been brought around to the necessity for a compulsory attendance measure, and if he takes the trouble to read up the debates of 1924 he will find he was converted.

I have not changed my view.

He was converted to the necessity for a compulsory attendance measure. He shakes his head now, and we have listened to him this evening practically reading his recantation. I do not know what the policy of the Minister for Education is with regard to compulsory attendance. A Bill will be introduced. We have the promise of the President for that, but the Minister for Education does not believe in compulsory attendance. The Bill need never be introduced if this is to be the policy of the Minister for Education. It is damned at its inception.

There were other things recommended by this conference which dealt with education besides the mere school curriculum and the matter I mentioned a few moments ago. There was the question of the school buildings and the question of equipment. Again it was pointed out that proper equipment would have to be secured and proper school accommodation. Four years have gone by since that programme was introduced or signed, and what has the Minister to report this afternoon with regard to providing those things which are so necessary to have any programme adequately taught? He has not given us any statistics with regard to the position of education in the country.

I complained last year of the delay in publishing statistics and making them available. The complaint may be made this year, though not to the same degree, but still we have no report available for 1924. It is only brought up to April, 1924. There are no reports with regard to the position of education generally in the schools and in the country. There was a declaration of policy with regard to children generally made by Dáil Eireann and I believe I am right in saying that the Minister was present at the time the declaration was made and that he subscribed to the declaration and policy then outlined. The democratic programme of the first Dáil declared:—

"It shall be the first duty of the Government of the Republic to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual welfare of the children, to secure that no child shall suffer hunger, or cold, from lack of food, clothing or shelter, but that all shall be provided with the means and facilities requisite for their proper education and training as citizens of a free and Gaelic Ireland."

I put it to the Minister for Education, the Government and members of this Dáil, to say how far has that policy been carried out? How far even has it been attempted? I have had the advantage of seeing certain reports from the officials of the Minister's own Department which I understand are being published and should be available in a few days. They should have been available long ago. It is one of the complaints I make that these things are not available. If I were to go into any details on this occasion, to read extracts from these, they would show quite definitely that children are attending school cold and hungry and that there is no provision in the school when they go there, certainly no adequate provision for their relief either from cold or hunger. Reports are available to show that very often what is deemed to be the low standard in some schools is due entirely to the fact that the children are very poorly nourished. The state of the school buildings to which the Minister has just briefly referred can hardly be adequately described. In a great many cases they are nothing more than thatched hovels. Here is what one official of the Minister has reported with regard to school buildings in his area:—

"It is with regret I have to record that a considerable proportion of the schoolhouses are of a poor and primitive type. Old buildings with thatched roofs are not uncommon, and I have visited several quite unsuitable for school purposes."

Those are the buildings that do duty for schools. The Minister referred in his statement to a little booklet published lately by the Labour Party: "Labour's Policy on Education." I might say in passing that what I might call the people directly entrusted with education are not entirely responsible for the production of this document. It is the considered policy of the Party as a whole, considered by the annual Trades Congress and adopted and approved by them. In that document there are definite recommendations which I commend to the consideration of the Minister — recommendations especially which will tend to solve this problem which the Minister evidently has found insoluble up to the present, that of providing adequate school accommodation.

He will find there also a suggestion which has been made on many previous occasions in the Dáil and which has not been referred to in any way in the statement of the Minister. It is not an unusual thing—in fact it is quite usual—for Ministers to set up councils of one kind or another—consultative or advisory—and they bring into those councils people who are directly concerned with the matters dealt with by the Minister. Before they take action in any particular direction it is the practice to consult such advisory bodies. Repeatedly the Minister has been asked to set up in connection with education some advisory body: in some way or another to bring the people generally into touch with what is being done in educational administration. There is no such body in connection with education, although one would naturally think that as education concerns the life of all the people, this Department more than any other would find the necessity for such a body absolutely compelling. There is no mention of any intention on the part of the Minister to set up such a council or to associate his administration in any way, directly or indirectly, with the people. After all, the people of the country should be interested in education, and the Minister will be the first to agree with the statement that they are not sufficiently interested in educational matters. I wonder will the Minister agree that some of the blame, at least, for that state of affairs must be laid at the door of his own Department. He has not told us what attempts have been made to associate the people, either nationally or locally, with the work of education, outside whatever discussions may take place in the Dáil. That is not sufficient. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether, in fact, he has any intention of taking any steps to set up an advisory council of education or to introduce legislation which will set up in local areas some bodies which will have something to do with the administration of local educational services.

It has been pointed out more than once that it ought to be the duty of a locality to look after the upkeep of its schools. Some four or five weeks ago I had occasion to address a series of questions to the Department of Education, the object of which was to endeavour to fix the present responsibility for the provision of fires in the schools. I have been unsuccessful. I have not had any reply to my queries. Possibly the Department is not in a position to give a reply. It may be that they cannot say at the moment who is really responsible for the keeping of a fire in a school. It is stated in one of their regulations that it is the duty of the local manager to supply a fire. Supposing the local manager does not do that, or has not the means to supply a fire, what is to happen? At least one case occurred in which no fire was provided. That did not occur under the present regime, but it is possible for it to occur as we are as much at sea in that particular matter as we were under the old regime. In that case the teacher, out of pity for the children, simply closed the school. The result was that the Commissioners stopped a day's salary from the teacher. There is no machinery available at present whereby such a simple duty as the keeping of a fire in a national school can be definitely provided for. It is left to the voluntary effort of the local manager. Local managers have such calls on their energies and finances nowadays as to have nothing left over for the provision of fuel or for the cleaning and general upkeep of a school. A small grant is available from the Oireachtas, a grant carried over from the British regime, but, as the Minister must know, that is practically useless for the heating, cleaning and general upkeep of the schools. Obviously it ought to be the duty of the localities to see that the schools in which the children spend the greater part of the day are at least comfortable and, above all, that they are clean. But the Minister knows that there is no machinery, and no steps are being taken to provide machinery. The Minister has not told us that he proposes to take steps to provide machinery; yet we are asked to support the policy of the Minister. I would ask the Minister has he any policy with regard to the provision of suitable schools and the upkeep and equipment of school buildings. If he has such a policy, what machinery does he propose to provide for this very necessary service?

Then there is the question of the health of the children and the sanitation of the schools. Possibly that comes more within the purview of another Department than that of the Minister; but, at least, it should be known, and I am sure it is known to the Minister, that there is an Act of Parliament on the Statute Book since 1919 that has never been put into operation providing for medical inspection and treatment of school children. It ought to be the constant duty of the Minister for Education to bring pressure to bear on the Department responsible, which I take to be the Department of Local Government, to see that that Act is put into operation. The children of the country are committed to the care of the Minister for Education, and it should be his charge more than any other member of the community to see that they are adequately and properly cared for, physically and mentally.

In a little booklet to which the Minister referred, there is a statement with regard to the health of school children in other countries that is worth quoting. Reference is made to the necessity for medical inspection and treatment of school children and the steps to be taken generally in connection with the prevention of disease, and then it states:—

"Sir George Newman, in the report of the Chief Medical Officer for the British Board of Education for 1921, tells us that of the children who entered school at five years of age, 35 per cent. bring with them physical defects and the seeds of disease which gives them a very bad start in their school life. The following report as to the condition of children attending English schools is interesting:—Two per cent. have a serious visual defect; 12 per cent. suffer from diseases of the nose and throat; dental decay is present in 60 to 70 per cent.; 2 per cent. suffer from deafness; 2 per cent. from heart disease; 3 per cent. from anaemia; 5 per cent. from glandular enlargement; 2 per cent. from mal-nutrition. It would be interesting to know what are the comparative figures for Irish children."

Of course, the Minister knows that we have no such figures, and that no attempt has been made to get them. Anyone who is in touch with the schools in cities especially, and even in the country, must know, from even casual observation, that our schools are not very greatly different from the state of affairs mentioned in the report. It has been pointed out more than once that money spent in preventing disease in the early life of the child will mean, perhaps, the saving of millions of money at a later stage, and also many thousands of lives.

The Minister spoke of the necessity for post-primary education, and I think in the statement made by the President last July a kind of tentative offer was made to set up a Commission to go into the whole question of post-primary education. I did not gather from the Minister for Education—I do not know whether he referred to it to-day or not—if that offer stood. It was contingent on an expression of opinion from the Dáil saying that it would be advisable or desirable that such a Commission should be set up. I do not know whether to commend or disapprove of that suggestion. If the Minister thinks it is a very desirable thing to introduce a system of post-primary education he can do so. He has introduced other things and made very important administrative changes without taking the step of setting up a Commission, and he has defended that by saying: "We do not want any Commissions; we know what the country and the people want, and we will just go ahead and do it." On the other hand it might be, perhaps, evidence that he is willing to get advice from those whom he thinks are in a position to give it. In so far as that is an indication that he intends in future to consult the people as to his proposed measures, I think it is to be commended.

There is no doubt whatsoever that there is very great necessity for doing something in this matter of post-primary education. I have made a pretty careful calculation with regard to the position of school-going children. I am sorry the Minister did not give it, as it would be more authoritative, and he would have recourse to many sources and statistics not open to the ordinary Deputy. The calculation I have made goes to show that 90 per cent. of school-going children never go to any school beyond the national school. There are at least from 10 to 15 per cent. of the children of school-going age between 5 and 15 who never go to any school or get on the rolls of any school. Approximately only from 52 to 60 per cent. of the children of school-going age attend school with any measure of regularity, and only 9 per cent. of them get any education beyond the national school. They get no post-primary education. I am sure the Minister for Education will be the first to say that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs, if these figures are correct and, as far as my calculation and my information go, they are approximately correct in any case.

The aggregate sum of money in the Estimates for Education is considerable. Some people possibly would go so far as to say that it is too much. There is one thing that has to be remembered in considering the amount of money voted here for education and it is that, quite differently from any other country that I know of, practically all the expense of education here is borne on the National Vote. In England, the Vote from Parliament for Education represents only about 50 per cent. of the actual amount spent on education there. In the case of the Scottish Education Department—I am speaking now for the year 1923—anyone who looks up the statistics will find that, whereas the amount voted from the State was something like £5,000,000, the total expenditure on education under that Department was over £10,000,000, the balance being made up from the local rates and by means of local contributions. It should, therefore, always be borne in mind by people who criticise the amount spent on our education services here that at the present time these services are, with the exception of a ½d. or a 1d. rate for technical education and a small rate for scholarships, borne entirely out of the moneys voted by Parliament. It has been stated, too, and this with more justice, that the amount of money voted is not always economically spent.

I have said more than once in this House that I am not one of those who believe that economy always means saving expenditure. I do, however, believe that there is great room for economy in one particular direction in the Department of the Ministry of Education. This is a country with a very scattered population, and hence very many more schools are necessary to provide for the education of our children than if the people were concentrated in large industrial centres. While that must be so long as our country is as it is, I hold that there are far too many separate schools in the country. Apart from schools conducted by religious communities, the number of ordinary national schools in the country at present is 5,388. Of that number 4,679 are schools with an attendance of under 80—I will say schools with an average of around 50. They are what are called one or two teacher schools. Now, quite a large number of these could be amalgamated. Such amalgamation would make, not only for economy, but for efficiency, which is the important thing. We have been preaching this doctrine for many years. Those engaged in the practical work of education know that it is as easy to deal with a class of nine or ten as it is with a class of four or five. We have, side by side all over the country, little schools with thirty boys in one room and 30 girls in the next room —that is to say, separate schools with separate staffs under separate roll numbers and entirely independent of each other. I hold that there is no justification whatever for that state of affairs. One of the senior officers of the Department of Education, writing on this subject, says:—

The amalgamation of adjoining boys' and girls' schools affords a better prospect of reducing the number of schools, and such amalgamation would be a distinct gain, economically and educationally. The continuance of small schools side by side is sheer educational waste.

Now, the Department is not taking any steps to amalgamate these schools and thus make for economy and efficiency. It is efficiency above all that I am stressing now especially since the question of the teaching of Irish arose. While it is not always possible to get all the members of a staff fully qualified to teach Irish, if you had an amalgamation of staffs one or two teachers could always be found who would be able to teach it. But not only is the Department not taking any steps to bring about a policy of amalgamation of schools, but it has retrograded from the position taken up by the old Commissioners of National Education. There is a regulation of their own made by the Commissioners of National Education, carried over by the present Department and put into operation sometimes. I say sometimes advisedly, because numerous instances can be quoted in which, when somebody locally offered objection, the rule was not carried out of the two separate schools. I commend this especially to the Minister for Finance, that the two separate schools were continued because of some local objection and some local resistance to the action which was proposed to be taken. There are in the country 3,104 mixed schools, boys and girls, and yet the argument is sometimes put up when a case of amalgamation arises that these schools should not be amalgamated. If it is wrong to amalgamate primary schools for boys and girls, then it is wrong to have 3,104 mixed schools, boys and girls, in the country. I commend that especially to the Minister for Education as one direction in which he could secure economy and efficiency at the same time; that is, by carrying out a thorough and drastic policy, I might say, of amalgamation in the case of adjoining boys' and girls' schools. He will find, too, on examination that in many districts there are schools within half a mile of each other—someone called them miserable little atoms of schools—which could very well be amalgamated with advantage.

This question of education is such an extensive one that it is almost impossible to deal with its various phases in a general way. We shall have an opportunity, later on, of going into the various aspects of the question, but there is one point which I would like to touch upon before I conclude, and that is the question of the teaching of Irish in the schools. It is a subject which, as I said some time ago, is agitating the minds of a great many people in this country at the present time. I say, what I think the Minister might have said or adverted to, that the wholesale condemnation of the standard reached by the national schools is not justified, and is not borne out on examination. I am satisfied myself that a boy or girl who attends school regularly up to the age of 15 or 16— the ordinary average boy or girl—has got as good an education now as was given at any time in the past, or that a similar boy or girl would have got, and can compare favourably with a similar boy or girl leaving school in any other country in the same conditions.

Now when we talk of the poor standard of education reached by the majority of our children, we must remember this: that the majority of our children leave school at the age of 11 and 12 years, which is the average school-leaving age of children. The children that present themselves at the technical schools, generally, are the type of children who have been three or four years absent from school, who never got beyond perhaps the third or fourth standard before they left school, as they are entitled to do under the law in many cases. Then at the age of 15 or 16, when their parents begin to have some idea that they will grow up illiterate, they apply for admission to the technical school, and the general report of the technical school authorities is that such children are hopelessly backward. What else can be expected? What else is there to be expected? But there is on record the statement of the heads of secondary schools, who get what I may call the best of the children, especially those who have won local scholarships, to the effect that the children sent up to them from the primary schools are as far advanced, generally speaking, as children of the same standard and the same age have been at any other time.

With regard to the teaching of Irish, I would like to make this quite plain, speaking now as representative, and on behalf of, the people on whom has fallen the heaviest burden consequent upon the introduction of the teaching of Irish, the teachers all over the country are not opposed to the introduction of Irish as an ordinary subject in the National Schools. There is no such opposition to the general introduction of Irish. The Minister can bear out the statement that where friction has occurred, where criticism has occurred, and it has occurred, where there has been criticism with regard to this question from the teachers, it has always centred round the methods employed by the Ministry, and not on the general principle or general question of the introduction of Irish as an ordinary subject of the school programme, and that criticism will continue, so long as the state of affairs that leads to that criticism continues. But let me say that such criticism on the part of the teachers is not confined to the teaching of Irish. There will be always, I am afraid, cause for friction. It is only natural to expect when any new subject is introduced into the schools that there will be more reason for such friction than at other times, but I would like it to be made quite clear, that such criticism, as has emanated from the general body of teachers, has entirely to do with the methods employed rather than the policy adopted. That is the position officially declared, and officially stated by the representatives of the teaching bodies. I would like to say that so far as the methods are concerned, I shall have something further to say when that particular subhead comes up for discussion. I should like to say this, that the Minister has not yet made it quite clear, and I asked him to do so on more than one occasion, what his ultimate aim is in the matter of Irish. It is all very well to say that his object is to conserve and build up our nationality. That is not sufficiently definite. Is the aim of his Department to make this country an Irish-speaking country, or is the aim to make it a bi-lingual country? We want to know that definitely. That has not been made sufficiently clear.

I want to say, further, that while there is any possible chance of reviving the Irish language, the schools, and the schools alone, will not revive the Irish language. Everyone connected with education can see what is going on at the present time. Children are learning Irish in the schools, some of them learning it very well. Some of them leaving the higher standards are well versed in it, and carry through their ordinary business in it, but they go out into the country, and do not go to any other school, and their Irish is forgotten because of disuse. There is nobody in this country taking any steps whatsoever to take the child, when he leaves school, and encourage him to continue his study of Irish and his practice of Irish speaking. He speaks Irish in the school, but not outside the school, and there is no organisation which takes charge of the child at that age and does the work that everybody must know is necessary if the object which seems to be aimed at by the Minister is ever to be accomplished. Surely if it is the aim of the Minister for Education to make this nation either an Irish-speaking or a bi-lingual nation he should see that the main link in the chain is fixed at that stage. The child leaves the school and forgets his Irish, just as he forgets his rules of algebra, geometry, or anything else. We all do.

There is one other aspect to which I would like to refer, and I shall then have finished with the general question. It is too often forgotten that a primary school is not a technical school or a university, though some people seem to think that it should fulfil the duties of both these institutions and that the boy leaving the National School should be a specialist in a great many things. Everybody who has some particular subject in his mind that he thinks it would be advisable to have generally known says that that is the subject that should be taught in National Schools. You cannot teach a subject like agriculture in the National Schools. An attempt, which was not successful, was made to teach cookery. You cannot teach trades in the National Schools. The National School, the primary stage of education, must, after all, in the last resort, concern itself with purely elementary matters, and it is not so much the actual subject that is used, it is not so much the amount of knowledge that is got, as the methods employed; we must remember that at that stage all that can be done is to train the mind of the child, not to fill his mind with knowledge.

If the child leaving the National School has acquired the power to seek knowledge, a very important work indeed has been done. That is, or should be, the main work of the National School, to train the child to use the faculties he has been given to acquire knowledge himself afterwards. But, as I say, the people who call out for this, that and the other subjects to be taught in the National School too often forget that, and on the other hand, people who sometimes say, quite without any regard for the real facts of the case, that nothing is being taught nowadays in the schools but Irish, are just as far away from the truth. I know that that is the general impression in some quarters, and letters have appeared in the Press to that effect. Those who are in touch with the schools know that is very far from being the case, and that, apart from any question of nationality or desire to have a national language, Irish as a subject can be made just as useful for accomplishing the object which I have put forward as being the real object of education, as any other subject, and it is strange that those who object to the teaching of Irish in the schools never think of objecting if, for instance, a teacher takes it into his head to teach French or Latin. These, of course, are not vulgar subjects like Irish.

I regret very much that the Minister did not dwell more on what he should know, if he were in close touch with the realities. He told us, I think, on one occasion that he was a bit of a realist; I am wondering how far that is really true. The Irish language is the main question connected with education that is agitating the mind of the public. I feel that no Deputy could support this Motion on the case that has been made for it by the Minister for Education up to the present. I do hope that if the Motion is to be seriously put to the House, somebody on the Government Benches will make a better case for its adoption than has been made by the Minister.

Would one be in order in moving the adjournment of the debate at this stage so that we may have an opportunity of studying the statement that has been made by the Minister for Education?

If that meets with the wishes of the House, I will agree to it. I move the adjournment until 3 o'clock to-morrow. I take it that this Education discussion will continue from day to day until disposed of, allowing any other business that might intervene to be taken, but that the general business, as far as to-morrow and the following day are concerned, will be the Education discussion.

The Dáil adjourned at 7.55 p.m., until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 12th November, 1925.

Top
Share