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.