It was arranged and agreed that under Committee Rules the Estimates can be gone through in detail and discussed. The first Estimate arising is, Estimate No. 41, for the office of the Minister for Education.
POLICY OF MINISTER FOR EDUCATION—RESUMED DEBATE.
Question—"That the Dáil approves of the policy of the Minister for Education"—(The President).
There is one point to which I wish to call attention, and which might shorten our work. The first day that this motion was before us the President referred to the fact that it was quite probable that Supplementary Estimates would be introduced before Christmas, I think, dealing with the Minister's Department. If we knew what these Estimates would deal with, and if we had an opportunity when they were before us of dealing with specific points it might save us going over these points now. Perhaps the Minister would be able to tell us what these Estimates are.
The Supplementary Estimates are, first of all, in connection with the Christian Brothers' Schools becoming for the first time associated with the public system of education; secondly, with regard to proposals for a preparatory system of training for teachers, and they will also deal with increments for secondary teachers. Those are the three matters with regard to which it is proposed to bring forward Supplementary Estimates.
The first of these matters is, of course, a totally new service, but with regard to the Estimate in connection with the preparatory training of teachers, if it could be arranged or agreed, or if you, An Ceann Comhairle, could rule, that the whole question of the training of teachers might be discussed under the Supplementary Estimate dealing with this new preparatory scheme I think it would save us the trouble of discussing it under Vote 42, and that it might be made the occasion on which to discuss the whole question of the training of teachers. I think that would be the proper way to discuss it. We could discuss it under A1, Vote 42, but I would suggest that a more appropriate occasion would be when this Supplementary Estimate for the preparatory training of teachers would be before us.
Would the Minister have any objection to that?
I would have no objection to that.
Have we any undertaking that this Supplementary Estimate will be forthcoming? We have had promises in the past from this Department that have not matured, and it is just possible that if this Supplementary Estimate does not mature there will not be an opportunity of considering this matter at all.
That has reference to the part of my statement referring to the training of teachers. That is really part of the policy which I stated was the policy of the Department, and it would be as great a disappointment to me as to anyone in this House if these proposals were not to come before you as early as they can be brought before you.
Since I have not seen the Supplementary Estimate, I could not say what will be strictly in order on it, but if it is desired that on the Supplementary Estimate dealing with the preparatory training college for teachers the whole question of the training of teachers can be gone into, that certainly can be done so far as the Chair is concerned. The Minister is also agreeable.
I am taking it then that we will have that Estimate before us prior to Christmas—at least, that that is the present intention.
That is the intention.
On Vote 41 in connection with the headquarters of the Department I have a few remarks to make. I can find here no provision, and I believe there is no provision, at the headquarters of this Ministry for research work in the science of education, if I may put it that way. Education is a science that, like other sciences, does not stand still. Progress is being made continually; there are interesting developments in many countries, and there is nobody, so far as I know, at the Department to keep in touch with these developments in other countries, to keep the people here who are interested in educational matters in touch with them, to supply information as to what is being done in other countries, and to issue reports occasionally. On more than one occasion I was anxious to find out, when considering a special problem in this country, how that problem had been dealt with in other countries. Naturally one would turn to the Department of Education for information on such a matter, but no such information was available, and we had to try to get it elsewhere as best we could. I think it would be very well if there were at the headquarters of the Ministry one or two officers set aside to do that kind of work. We have problems that are not present in other countries. I believe there are very few countries that attempt to teach two languages in the primary schools. We would be very much interested to know if there are any other countries, as I believe there are, where that problem is present, where it has been tackled, and how it has been dealt with. That would be exceedingly interesting information, and I would be glad if the Department were in a position to supply it, issue occasionally reports as to what is being done, and generally to collect information of that kind.
There is another matter that such body or Department might do: they might work in connection with the preparation of school-readers or schoolbooks generally. There is a very general complaint that the books used in our schools are not always of the kind that we would be anxious to see used. If one examines or thinks over the rather haphazard manner in which they are prepared and published, one could hardly expect them to be otherwise. A programme or syllabus is issued by the Department of Education, and immediately a publishing firm get hold of that and prepare books that they think are suitable to fulfil the conditions laid down in the syllabus. It is true, of course, that they have to submit these books for sanction before use, but that approbation is only of a negative kind; it is hardly sufficient. I think it is very important to the whole scheme the Minister has in view that proper books should be used in the schools. I am afraid the Department has not taken sufficient care to see that books of the right sort are made available.
Stress has been laid in the Minister's statement on the necessity for giving education a local bias, if I might use the word. He suggests that the outlook of the schools should be to improve and uplift the community in which it is situated, and with that object in view, local history and local topography should be cultivated in the schools. I agree thoroughly; but in practice it is found to be no very easy matter. Teachers are recommended, for instance, to procure and use books dealing with local history. When they set out to procure these books it is found either that very few are available or that such as are available are at prohibitive prices. I think, in pursuance of the aim which the Minister has in view, it would be well if his Department took some practical steps to enable those who have connection with the actual work to carry it out. I think some attention should be given to that particular aspect of educational work.
There is just one other matter dealing with this particular section that I would like to mention. It is in connection with the Minister himself. I was the person who first raised in the Dáil an objection to the absence of the Minister from his Department. I want to make it quite clear, in view of what the Minister said on the last evening, that there is no implication whatever that, because of his absence, the work of the Department, or the work of the officials of his Department, was in any way neglected. If he will read the statement I made last July he will find that what I said was quite the contrary. The Minister himself tells us that he inherited a system of education in this country which he thought it his duty completely to reverse. I do not think there is any other Minister in the Government who is in a position to say he had to adopt a policy which was a complete reversal of the one that he found in operation when he came into the Department. If that is so the Minister must surely see the great necessity there was to inform the people of the country, as a whole, of the steps that were taken. No one can do that but the Minister. An official cannot do it. An official is not in a position to do it. What I complained of was that the Department was left without the driving force of the Minister who was the only one who could do this. It was not the Minister I blamed, but the Executive Council. I did not blame the Executive Council for taking Professor Eoin MacNeill and appointing him on the Boundary Commission; but I did and do complain that they took the Minister for Education and appointed him on the Boundary Commission. That was the position I took up. I want to make that clear. The Minister will fully understand that the particular kind of work that I complained of as being neglected was work that none of his officials was in a position to do and only he himself could do it.
Will the Minister deal with the criticisms as we proceed? It would be much more useful if he did. Will he reply to the criticisms now, or will he reserve his defence until other Deputies have spoken?
I take it the procedure will be the same as the procedure on the Estimates. In some cases the Minister intervenes from time to time, but not necessarily after every speech. He would intervene rather after a group of speeches.
I take it the procedure is that you take each section and deal with it. I am, however, dealing at the moment with the headquarters.
The Minister could deal with all of A together. It is a matter for the Minister. The procedure the Minister adopts on Estimates has been fairly well laid down.
I would like to say a word in support of Deputy O'Connell. I made a reference the other evening to this question of the preparation of books in the schools. Although in a sense it may seem a small matter, it plays a very big part in our educational system; I should say that the effect of it on our educational system is serious. There is general agreement that the standard of the text books in the schools is not as high as the teachers or parents of the children would like. There is a feeling that there should be some effort made by the Ministry to standardise the books used in our schools. I do not think that the present method is at all satisfactory. Any publisher may get out a book with a sort of formal sanction, or, if you like, no prohibition to publication on the part of the publishing firm, or purchase on the part of the pupils. When sanctioned, these books are made available in the schools. I think the Minister will have to take some action such as the setting up of an editing department at headquarters, where authors will be invited to send in their works. From the best works the Ministry will select books that are to be used, books that will be of value from the point of view of the pupil, in giving to him, as the Minister says, a bias or bent in the right direction, that will obviate the possibility or likelihood of books being sent down to rural schools that include lessons that have absolutely no bearing on the life of the children and that are of no value.
I want to repeat what I said the other evening on the question of the cost of books in the schools. A system whereby readers have to be changed yearly is prevalent, I think, at the present time. We have heard various complaints about this matter from the point of view of many of the poorer parents. It is a very serious matter indeed. I have had complaints made to myself on this matter. Whether it is possible for the Ministry to have text books in our schools that will be available for two or three standards in succession, is a matter for consideration. The kind of text books that ought to be used, and the cost of the text-books in the schools, are things that are influencing education at the present time and are things that are going to influence it in the future. This matter demands consideration from the Minister. There is a good deal in the plea that Deputy O'Connell put forward and, in my opinion, it is entitled to consideration.
took the Chair.
I take it we are discussing Estimate 41?
In that connection I would like to know if the Minister has any figures to put before us that would enable us to criticise this general increase. I notice that the increase in the amount of the Estimate for the present year over the preceding year, that is for the year 1924-25, amounts to the nett figure of £21,408. In the absence of any statistics showing the attendance at the schools, it is very hard to criticise that increase as a wise or unwise expenditure. If the Minister could give us some information that would justify that figure, it would save time in criticising the amounts in the abstract form in which they appear.
Perhaps, as that deals with the amount of the Vote in general, it would be better for me to touch upon it now at this stage. The increase, I regret, is largely an imaginary one. I wish it were a real one. That is caused mainly by the new classification under which this Vote is presented. One of the largest items in the increase will be found detailed in A1—Office Salaries, Wages and Allowances, 1924-5, £71,477, and 1925-26, £86,057. That shows an increase of £14,580. This increase is mainly due to the inclusion of £11,930 for Secondary Education. Prior to this year, 1925-26, Secondary Education services were met out of the statutory fund administered by the old Intermediate Education Commission. The next large item of increase is under B1, Inspection and Organisation salaries; the amount is £4,856. The explanation is the same as in the case of A1.
What is the actual nett increase?
That is a matter of calculation. I could not tell you that straight off. I could produce the figures before the conclusion of our discussion.
It is approximately £14,000. Do I gather so from the Minister?
In round numbers the actual nett increase comes to £2,000.
On the whole?
Yes. There are smaller items, office incidentals, rents, and travelling of inspectors, etc., which also show increases. In general, the explanation is such as I have given; that is, it is in connection with those things which formerly were paid out of separate pockets, but are now paid out of one pocket.
I take it the Votes over which the Minister has jurisdiction are the following:—28, Universities and Colleges; 41, Office of Minister; 42, Primary Education; 43, Secondary Education; 44, Technical Instruction; 45, Science and Art; 46, Reformatory and Industrial Schools. The nett total of the increase under all these is a sum of £2,000.
The figure of £2,000 which I have given refers to headquarters only.
That covers the administration of Primary and Secondary Education?
Yes, mainly.
Are there any figures by way of statistics dealing with the attendance at the schools? If we had them we would know whether the attendance is up or down. We have information now with regard to the expenditure.
I will undertake to produce whatever figures are available on that point.
Would the Minister go on to the section dealing with Inspection and Organisation? Will he deal with the points raised on the first section before he does so?
I was going to ask whether it would be suitable that I should do so now without cutting short any other Deputy who wishes to deal with the same or similar points.
I take it we can deal with that matter after the Minister has spoken.
It is quite true that the Department has nothing that could be called a sub-department of educational research. I also believe it to be true that the Department is in touch, well in touch, with the principal educational developments in other countries. I may say that Deputy O'Connell's complaint on this point is the first that has reached me, and it would undoubtedly be the desire of the Department to afford Deputies and others interested in educational developments all possible information, even to make inquiry where information is not available, on their behalf into educational development of any kind in other countries. With regard to the official provision of text books, I suppose that Deputy O'Connell remembers the time, as I remember it, when the provision of books was not remarkably successful. Whenever I got hold of a set of such books in official use, when I was a pupil in a primary school, I found them extremely amusing.
They were quite successful from the point of view of the people who prepared them.
They were fairly successful from the point of view of achieving their object. I suppose there is a middle course between allowing outsiders, I might say, and non-official people, to provide books that are intended to meet the requirements of the programme, and providing them altogether departmentally. I may say that we in the Department have that in view and seriously under consideration. Not knowing that this point was likely to arise to-day, I was discussing it only this morning—I mean the question of providing suitable books. From the point of view of the development that I outlined and which, I think, meets with general public approval and of enabling schools to interest themselves in the local community and its developments, I recognise that we are by no means well equipped in the provision of proper books, whether under official supervision or otherwise, and that that is bound to occupy, and will occupy, the serious attention of the Department. There are obvious difficulties connected with it. It was suggested, I think, by Deputy Baxter, that we might get authors to submit books and make a selection. Authors, however, are very particular about authorship, and I do not know how we should stand in regard to the question of authorship if we had to pick a composite reading text book which was the work of several authors. I do not think that any of these difficulties are insuperable. As for supplying books which would cover more than one standard and which would cover several years, I should like to have an opportunity of thinking very carefully over that point as a practical proposal. Evidently a certain amount of economy and cheapness to those who have to buy the books might be secured in that way, but whether that gain might not be counterbalanced by disadvantages I do not know. I should like to have an opportunity of thinking over carefully a proposal of that kind. I may say, in general, that the provision of suitable books from the point of view of the general policy which I have outlined is occupying and will occupy the most serious consideration of the Department.
I wish the Minister would be more definite in this matter. It is of great importance and will be of still greater importance in the forthcoming report of the Programme Conference. So far as the English text books are concerned the want is not so great.
It is great enough.
Mr. O'CONNELL
It is, so far as the right kind of books is concerned, but particularly so far as Irish is concerned, and there is a crying necessity as to the provision of a suitable standard in the books which are to be used in school. The Minister must know better than anybody else that the types of books which are written in Irish are not at all such, in number or standard, as we would wish to see available for the choice of teachers. The Minister has said nothing in regard to books dealing with local history, or with the provision of them, or with the collection of them or, perhaps, with the republishing of, at least, portions of the works available, or with getting out a summarised version suitable for schools. There are several such works available, I understand, but they are in a form not at all suitable for school use or even for the use of teachers generally. They are generally rare copies and in many cases they are dear. I think the Minister's Department might make some effort to have these available for use in schools.
I recognise clearly the necessity of providing better books than we have in Irish, and as regards the point about making provision for books dealing with local history and everything else of local interest, I am sure it will be recognised that, except for the class of books which, as the Deputy has said, are rare and, as a rule, expensive and out of reach of primary schools, teachers and pupils, such material at present does not exist. There are many other things besides books on local history, such as local maps and various things of that kind which, I think, should be in every school. I should also like to find means of interesting the teachers and pupils in the traditions, music, and folk-lore of their locality, and it will be recognised generally that so far as bringing matters of that kind into the system of primary education, we are really making a new beginning, and the provision, for the most part, will have to be anew. What exists in books already written and printed is largely unsuitable as it has been written for a totally different class of readers, and not with the object of interesting the young, especially the young pupils who attend primary schools. I did not intend to pass over that suggestion of Deputy O'Connell. On the contrary, I intended to include it in the general remarks I made to the effect that the question of the provision of books is to receive the most earnest consideration of my Department.
The next Vote I propose to discuss is No. 41, which deals with inspection and organisation. It is one of very great importance. I believe I will be right in saying that it is one of the utmost importance so far as the actual administration of the Department, and the carrying out of the work of the Department, is concerned, and I trust Deputies will bear with me while I deal with it at some length. It may appear to be a technical matter, but I assure the House it is one of the very greatest in interest and importance to the great body of people who are engaged in carrying out the work with which the Department is charged. Inspection of schools is necessary. There is no question about that. It is necessary from the point of view of the State to see that the money which is spent on education is well, economically and properly spent, and that value is got for it. That is a principle which is unquestioningly admitted. I can assure the House and the Minister that at present there is very grave and deep-seated discontent among large bodies of teachers in connection with the present system of inspection. The Minister has inherited this system from the old regime, and he has not thought proper to reverse, or at least to completely reverse it. There were always grievances in connection with the inspection of schools ever since the inception of the system, and the trouble, to my mind, in any case to-day, is largely because of the old tradition that has come down to us from the early years of the national system. It is a bad tradition, and it is very hard to get rid of it. I happen to know that in the other branches of the system, if I might say so, the technical and secondary departments, there has never been that volume of complaint under the heading of inspection that we continually find under the heading of primary education. I am not prepared to say, or to believe, that these complaints are due to a particular and extra dose of original sin either on the part of the primary teachers or the inspectors, and I believe it must be due to the system of inspection.
There is no similar system of inspection in any country I know of—certainly not in Scotland or England. That is not to say that because of that our system is necessarily bad or wrong. It might indeed be quite the opposite. I may say, further, that among the teaching bodies generally of other countries one hears of all kinds of grievances, but never one with regard to inspection. Certainly it is never stressed at their conferences or meetings. One begins to think whether after all other systems are not better than ours, or whether in any case they ought not to get a trial here. I think it was the President who, in his statement in July, said that the question is often asked: "What is wrong with primary education?" I can assure the President if he attended meetings of teachers all through the country, as I have to do, and if he asked that question, he would almost invariably get one answer from the teachers—if they were asked to put their finger on what they thought was the greatest grievance in connection with the administration to-day, they would say the inspection system.
We hear a good deal of complaint about the overloading of programmes, and their unsuitability from the point of view of teachers and of those connected with teaching, but you will find invariably if you probe the matter that what the teacher has in the back of his mind is not so much the unsuitability of the syllabus or programme, or the overloading of it, or anything else, but how that will react on his position from the point of view of the inspector. That is really the trouble, and if that were faced in the way it should be, and if that problem were solved you would hear very little complaint about overloading programmes or of their unsuitability. The Minister will, undoubtedly, produce circulars, rules, laws and regulations, and all that kind of thing governing the inspection system, showing how there are no grounds for these complaints if this, that and the other thing were done. I came across a few days ago a statement that, I think, is exceedingly appropriate to this question. It was written over 150 years ago by, I think, Young in his "Tour in Ireland." He was referring to the position of the peasantry, and he said that the language of written law may be that of liberty, but to discover what the liberty of the people is, we must live among them, and not look for it in the statutes of the Realm.
Now, I think that is peculiarly appropriate to this question. If you examine the circulars that have been issued for the guidance and instruction of inspectors, you will find it hard, and I would find it hard to put my finger on any particular paragraph or sentence in them that ought not to be there. Generally speaking, I can say that the instructions of the Department to their inspectors are such as would fairly meet the situation under the present system as it has been adopted, but in addition to that, there is undoubtedly this discontent with the system as it operates. An attempt has been made more or less to machine the system of inspection. I think it is deplorable and very much to be regretted that anything in connection with the administration of education should partake of the nature of a machine. Some Deputies at least will remember the agitation that arose in 1912 or 1913 out of the dismissal of the then Vice-President of the Teachers' Organisation, Mr. Mansfield, for his public protest made after every other avenue seemed closed to him—his public protest against the action of the then Commissioners of National Education and their inspection system.
At that time a Commission was set up which went at very great length into this whole matter dealing with the inspection of schools. The principal complaint made at the time was that there was a system of labelling schools by various terms, such as "very good,""good,""middling,""very fair,""bad," and so on, and that this system was working out to the detriment of many good teachers. There is no doubt whatever that if the Minister will examine the Report of the Dill Commission that sat in 1913 he will see that the inspection system, as it existed at that time, was tried, found guilty, and condemned, but the execution lay with the Commissioners of National Education, and they did not carry out the sentence. As a matter of fact, there are many in the teaching profession to-day who will say that things are very much worse now than they were then, because nowadays there is not one label for the schools as a whole, but there is a label for every subject that is taught under the programme.
I have in my hand the circular issued to inspectors, and therein is set out the conditions under which certain of these labels are attached. It is detailed, and it partakes, as I have said, of the nature of a machine, and, despite the best intentions of inspectors, I hold the view that it is humanly impossible for an inspector always to do—I do not want or ask meticulous justice—even fair justice, because what he is asked to do is something like this: Take, say, a subject like geography or history. The inspector goes into a school which he visits once or twice in the year. He cannot visit it any oftener owing to the amount of work he has to do and the number of schools he has to visit. He spends a few hours in that school observing the teacher carrying on his work. Then, perhaps, he may put a few questions to the children. They may answer these particular questions correctly or they may not, but on the result of his observations, extending over a few hours, each class is marked or labelled, and each subject is marked or labelled "good,""very good,""middling,""fair," and so on. If the label put down in that way opposite, say, history is "good," then the subject is marked "good." A report then comes from the Education Office, and that is taken to mean that for the previous twelve months the teaching of history by that teacher has been "good,""fair," or "middling," as the label given indicated. Now, I maintain that it is not possible for the inspector to sum up in one word in that way the whole work of a teacher during the previous year in a particular subject. Then we have it that, on that report, on the number of "goods,""very goods""fair," or "middling," or whatever the marking has been, will depend whether the teacher is going to get his increment or his promotion, or be qualified to take up a certain position or not. Therefore, the teacher must of necessity always teach with one eye on the inspector, and I hold that is not good for the teacher. It destroys initiative, without which a teacher cannot hope to be successful. The position is that the teacher must always have regard to the particular view that a particular inspector will have when he goes into a school.
We have heard on many occasions condemnation of what is called the examination system. We have heard described more than once the efforts made by teachers to discover when a new inspector came into a district what his fancies were in any particular direction. Efforts have been made repeatedly to secure uniformity of action and a uniformity of standard on the part of inspectors so that there could be, as it were, a uniform standard and a uniform measure arrived at by which you could measure automatically, and without any possibility of mistake, the work done by a given teacher in a given school during a given period. I say that it is impossible ever to discover any such standard. You might, for instance, find out whether the teacher taught multiplication by ascertaining if the children were able to do it or not, but I think the Minister himself will agree that the chief work which a teacher does is not the imparting of a given amount of knowledge in a given time to a given child. That is not his work. I say that that is not the main function of the teacher, but it is rather the way he does his work; it is above all the building up of the child's character, and the training of his mind, and I suggest that you cannot measure character training by a foot rule or by any standard arrived at in that mechanical way. As a matter of fact, it is quite possible to say that it is not during his school years that the pupil will show the chief value of the teacher's work. It is when he leaves school, and goes into the world, and has to take part in the affairs of the world, that the good or bad training he gets in his early years will show, and for these things the teacher never gets praise or blame. It is not a subject—character-training and character-teaching of boys and girls to be good young men and women —that is not a subject carrying a label which in turn carries an increment.
I have gone to meetings of the teachers throughout the country in connection with the discussion of the new programme since that programme came into operation. I have discussed the points which were troubling them; I put it up to them, especially because I myself had a very great deal to do with the drafting of the programme; I was secretary to the Conference that drafted it, and I felt it my duty to defend certain provisions in which very great freedom was allowed to the teachers; and whenever a teacher objected about this or that, I said: "You are at liberty to do this or that under the programme," but I have been invariably met with the answer: "Oh, but what about the inspector when he comes in?" And it is because of that that we have this demand, from the teachers, for a detailed and definite programme down to the last detail if possible.
Now the teachers' central executive when they submitted their statement to the recent Programme Conference pointed out that it was their belief that it was not good, from the point of view of education, that there should be a detailed programme set out for every school, or that we should adopt the system that was once in operation in France, I believe, where the Minister could sit down and say: "At this hour every child, in every department of France, is doing multiplication." We believe that is bad and wrong, and that the teachers should have a very great measure of freedom. But the teachers who were engaged in the work have insisted in the demand for detail and very much detail in the syllabuses and programmes laid down by the Department, and they give as their reason that they want to know where they are so far as the Inspector is concerned. I hold, as I say, that you are destroying the work of the teacher if you put him in the position that he has continuously to keep his mind fixed upon what the Inspector is going to do.
The Minister himself, I think in 1924, when this question was just briefly touched on, said: "There is no doubt that as to the Inspectorate question it is the desire of the Ministry that they should act not in spirit of censorship, and not as censors of the work done by the teachers of the schools, but, primarily, to encourage, to assist, and develop that work. That is the primary business of the Inspectorate." I thoroughly and sincerely agree with that statement. But let the Minister, if he wishes to show how far that is carried out in practice, get the files of reports submitted by his Inspectorate of any given series of schools. You have this position occurring. The teacher has a good record. He gets the report "very good" for a series of years. I am speaking now of his official record, and we find that a man with twenty years' experience, during which possibly he never got anything but a very favourable report, might find himself reduced as his report is reduced. It will be argued, of course, that that is in accordance with the directions in the Circular but you must remember the effect this has on the man. He feels it is not due, and it is not always alleged that it is due, by any means, to want of effort upon his part or want of diligence upon his part. He might find circumstances such that he has not been able to keep up to the standard and he finds that his profession or reputation is at stake.
I can assure the Minister that there are many very good teachers—and it is for good teachers that I plead rather than for the indifferent ones—who regard their professional reputation, and who put their professional reputation far before any financial increment that may come to them or which they may lose as a result of a bad report. The late Doctor Starkie, in giving evidence before the Dill Commission, admitted that the system was a hardship upon the best teacher and upon the good teachers. I think if statistics are examined the Minister will find that something like 90 or 95 per cent—90 per cent. in any case—of the teachers are doing good average work in the schools. Of these, at least 30 per cent. are doing work of a superior class. They get reports termed "highly efficient," which means that they are doing work very much above the work expected from the average teacher, and a proportion varying from five to six or seven per cent. are doing more or less indifferent work. He will find a further remarkable thing that these figures have not varied in the last ten or fifteen years. Perhaps the period of unrest might be omitted. But for a very great number of years they have not varied. Yet the same system continues, and 90 per cent. of the teachers doing good average work all over the country are put in this position that they do not know to-day or to-morrow or next year what may happen. They do not know where they stand. They may find their whole record cut away. I am not saying that that is a usual thing, but it is sufficiently usual and sufficiently common to create uneasiness in the minds of the teachers.
Then there is a book used in school which used to be called the "Observation Book," and which is now called the "Suggestion Book." The Dill Commission had many complaints with regard to the use or rather the abuse of this book. It is the book in the schools in which the inspector is supposed to make entries—a kind of log book. Many statements were given in evidence to the Dill Commission to show where statements were entered in this particular book derogatory to the teachers, and in some cases was shown to be undesirable, and the Dill Commission recommended that this book should be abolished and done away with. The Commissioners, however, did not agree to acept that view, but they recommended that the book in future should be known as the "Suggestion Book," and that nothing should be written into this book except suggestions—suggestions, I take it, for the improvement of the work of the schools.
Unfortunately the idea in the Commissioners mind at the time is not being carried out, as an examination of these figures will show. Cases have been quoted—I am sorry to say they have been rather numerous—of entries made in these books which are open to examination by any officer of the Department and to the school manager. I think entries are sometimes made thoughtlessly which causes very great pain to the teachers about whom they are made. I have known cases of teachers who, when leaving one school for another, knowing that there were certain entries in that book derogatory to their character as a teacher, violated the Department's rules and destroyed the records rather than let their successor see the notes made about them. I think that it is a matter that ought to be considered. In illustration of that I received a letter a few weeks ago from a teacher. I do not think it is typical but I say it should not occur. The inspector visited the school, where a lesson was being taught. He made an entry to the effect that the teacher had not sufficient preparation made for this lesson. That in itself might be justifiable, but he goes on to write this: "The first assistant has, for a history and geography syllabus, Leinster and the Danes. He has no preparation and his knowledge of the Dano-Irish period is peculiarly meagre. In fact, he is practically illiterate on the important point of the subject. Surely both assistants should know something about Danish place-names and Dano-Irish personal names." The particular teacher referred to there is a man with twenty years' unbroken good service, and I think it is not right that an inspector, in spite of circulars or anything else, should have the right to make an entry of that kind about the teacher in a book which is open to inspection by officers of the Department and school managers.
School managers are not always in close touch with school work. They are sometimes inclined to attach more value to an entry of that kind than it deserves, and cases have not been unknown in which what was really a technical phrase in an inspector's report was used by a manager to show that the particular teacher under his charge was inefficient. The inspector who made this entry was not a youngster in the profession. That, perhaps, adds to the gravity of it. I do not wish to go into any greater detail with regard to this matter. I think I have said sufficient to show that it is a problem that is pressing for a solution of some kind. It is not easy to suggest a solution. It is, perhaps, more pressing now than it has been for some years owing to the introduction into the schools of a new subject of which the teachers are not masters by any means, and regarding which they believe that their failure to go up to a certain standard will mean loss of position, status and increment. That feeling is creating unconsciously a kind of antagonism, as it were, to the subject. It is bound to create it if it goes on and the Minister knows better than anyone else that to make the teaching of Irish successful in the schools it is essential that the enthusiasm must be kept up. The teachers' love for the subject must be fostered, but a man cannot have very much love for a subject which he knows is going to be the means of reducing his status.
I find it difficult to suggest a solution. Still I believe a solution is possible and the best suggestion I can think of at the moment is that the Department should recognise that that difficulty is there. I am afraid they have not sufficiently recognised that. If they recognise that difficulty and that the complaints from time to time are, to some extent, justified I think it would be possible then to have a small committee of inspectors and teachers who have had experience of the actual working of the system and it would be possible for such a committee to arrive at a scheme that would be calculated to bring most satisfaction to those engaged in the work. That would give them a greater sense of freedom and independence. They feel that there is no such thing as freedom, independence and initiative.
I would say, too, that it has been the means of preventing men of recognised ability either from entering the service of primary teaching or it has been the means of driving out some of those who were in it. I have, before my mind, two men of outstanding ability, both of them known, not only in Ireland, but the countries adjoining for their literary work. One at least left the service because of some juggling of those "goods" and "very goods," and so on. He felt he did not get the promotion which he thought should come his way. Possibly the inspector who marked that man "good" when he should have marked him "very good" felt he was doing his duty conscientiously, but one cannot help having the feeling that the children who would sit under that man, even though he did not meet the inspector's view as to what was "good" or "very good," would derive a very great advantage from being in contact with him.
I hope the Minister will recognise that this is one of the biggest problems he is faced with in the administration of education, and that if the teachers felt they were free to take their own line —I do not mean that they could do what they liked—within a given course, and that they had that spirit of independence of being captain on their own quarter-deck, they would be better adjuncts to the community and would do better work for the country as a whole. If it is thought that the present machine-like system should be continued, with temporary improvements here and there, I think the Minister will find that some day there will be an outburst such as there was in 1913 and the whole thing will be bad for education, bad for the system, bad for the teachers themselves and above all, bad for the children under their care.
Not alone have the teachers to be considered; the children, above all, have to be considered. After all Deputy O'Connell has said, we must all recognise there is cause for some complaint. Whether the trouble is as great as he suggests or not depends on the point of view of the individual who looks at it—that is, whether it is the teacher or the Ministry. What strikes me about it is that apparently the effort is to try to pay men for what they do in accordance with the amount of service they give. The Minister will try to judge that by a certain method. The teachers' objection is that the decision of the inspector on the work the teacher has done and on the salary he should be paid sometimes is not a just decision, because the means of arriving at that decision are not the best means.
We must continue a system of inspection, but whether the old method is to be continued depends to a very great extent on the spirit in which the Ministry try to get the teachers to take up the work. My feeling is that, if you cannot get the teachers to engage in their work in the proper spirit, and recognise how great that work is for the nation, by, in a sense, putting them on a plane where they will be above suspicion, and where it will be accepted that they are out to do their best, and to be treated accordingly, it will be difficult to get men to rise to a high level. The teacher will tell you that an inspector will go into a school, and, while he may not be satisfied with the teacher's methods, or the results of his work, he is not prepared to put down on paper suggestions as to how the teacher should raise the standard of teaching in the school. It seems to me that between the inspection staff and the teachers there must, unquestionably, be a spirit of co-operation. I do not say that in the sense that the inspector must always dominate the teacher, but that on every occasion he must help and advise the teacher, whenever teacher or inspector feels there is a necessity for advice. The direction must be given in the right spirit, and the inspector must determine the spirit, so that the teacher can get on with his work.
I do not know if the present system of inspection is such that, where a teacher after a series of reports has been proved inefficient, he is dispensed with. I have some knowledge, in one or two cases at least, of inefficiency on the part of teachers which, although recognised, was passed over for ten years. I feel that, while Deputy O'Connell has put the case very strongly, and while the teacher, no doubt, has cause for complaint, there is a danger that between the spirit the teacher is expected to carry on his work in and that of the inspector the education of the children would suffer. Where there is a suggestion that there is legitimate cause for complaint, I think it is the duty of the Ministry to take up the matter between the inspection staff and the teacher and see if a better and more satisfactory system could be devised so that the education of the pupils will not suffer. The teacher should get a fair chance of giving of his best, without running the risk of suffering in any way because, perhaps, he tries to give a little more of the personal touch, or tries to influence through his personality the character of his work by getting a little off the beaten track which the inspector may take up as the basis of his examination. If between the inspection staff and the teachers a better system of inspection could be devised whereby the children would not suffer. I believe the educational system would benefit considerably and all causes of complaints would be removed.
There is one point, arising out of Deputy Baxter's statement, that I wish to refer to before the Minister replies. I did not plead, and I have never pleaded for the inefficient teacher. I am not speaking on his behalf. I do not want him in the service. I want to stress that in anything I have said I have had before my mind, what everyone engaged in education should have in mind, the interests of education and the interests of the children. My whole criticism is on the line that if the inspector and the teacher work together in a spirit of co-operation, rather than in a spirit of servant and master, there will be better work done in the schools and the children will benefit. I want to make it plain that there are many inspectors in the Department—the best of them—who in all cases endeavour to carry out, in so far as this system will allow them, their work in a spirit of co-operation, of help and advice. There is not sufficient of that kind of work possible under the system as it works.
The inspector, I hold, should feel that he is the adviser, the chief adviser, rather than the critic of the teacher, that he is the chief helper, a man on whom the teacher should feel that he would be anxious to call. A question I have been in the habit of putting at meetings of teachers in discussing this matter is this: "How many of you would be glad to see your inspector coming into your school on Monday morning?" I am sorry to say the number who express a wish to see their inspector coming in is small. If there was that real spirit that I want to see there, the teacher would be glad to see his inspector coming into him quite often, because he would know that it was unnecessary for him to look around when he sees the inspector at the gate to see that the pictures are hanging straight on the wall or that no bits of paper are scattered about the floor, or that the particular subject he has on the time-table for that particular time is being taught. Unfortunately, that is not the feeling at present.
The teacher should feel when he sees the inspector anywhere about that he is going to get advice and help about some of the difficulties of his position, and that now is his chance when the inspector is coming to get this advice. Unfortunately, they do not feel that. Anyone in touch with the schools knows that that is not the feeling. It would be well for the children if that were the case, and the teachers could work much better than they work at present. It is on behalf of the good teachers I make this plea; not on behalf of those who are inefficient and indifferent to their work. I hold no brief whatever for the man who shirks his work. I think it will be found that there is no body of workers in the State to-day who apply themselves with more diligence to their work than the teachers of our national schools.
On the point of the system of inspection, Deputy O'Connell very frankly recognises the difficulties of the case—the difficulty of the human equation. It is always present, and in it the difficulty always lies. A good teacher is always anxious to do his best, but his interpretation of doing his best is subject to the judgment of another person. That is always imperfect, and any system in which it is necessary must always interfere with freedom and initiative.
I cannot forget my own particular debt to a primary school teacher, and I have to say that the best of his work, as I saw it, and the part from which I derived most advantage, was not subject to the test of any inspector. I think I spoke my mind about this matter a couple of years ago, and I do not want to be uttering virtuous platitudes to you on every occasion or any occasion.
Deputy O'Connell recognises that there might be considerable difficulty in arriving at a system which would be free from the disadvantages of the system of inspection actually in operation. I think he ought to be conscious that the Educational Department does recognise and has recognised the existing difficulties and will welcome a better system if a better system can be found.
I may say that the suggestion that has been made by the Deputy of bringing a number of teachers and a number of inspectors together to look into this question is one that appeals to me. I do not like to give assent, on the spur of the moment, to any sort of proposals that are put up to me, but I certainly do look with favour on that particular suggestion and will undertake to see what effect can be given to it. I know that it is possible to express certain things in official circulars and that the things that are stated in circulars do not necessarily rule the spirit of an institution or of a system. Here again, as the Deputy is aware, we have a tradition. There is not merely the tradition of the inspector but the tradition of the teaching body who, many of them, were brought up under, what one might almost call, a police system of inspection and the working out, I should imagine, of any system that can be devised, to test efficiency, will essentially depend on the spirit in which it is worked. Just as circulars of advice that are issued from this Department may not produce the full effect which is aimed at in them, so even if we have a better system set up, something which on the face of it is a better system, it would not work successfully unless it is animated by the right spirit, the spirit that Deputy Baxter mentioned, of co-operation between the whole body of those who are engaged in the work of education. As I have said, I do not want to run into generalities and platitudes about this. To the practical suggestion that has come out of the discussion, that a number of inspectors and teachers might come together and look into this, I promise the most friendly consideration. I say no more at the moment.
There is a proposition that I think is worthy of the Minister's consideration if he wants to develop that spirit of co-operative activity between the Department itself, the inspectorate, and the teachers, that I would speak about publicly, which, I think, has been occasionally adverted to privately. It is that there should be frequently, perhaps one might say periodically, open conferences between teachers in a particular area and the inspectorate, or the heads of the Department, so that there could be that collaboration, and the discussion of educational questions as well as internal problems. I have spoken to many teachers, quite apart from the ordinary routine, and I have come to the conclusion that teachers would welcome the introduction of some plan of that kind where the inspectorate, perhaps the Minister, or the Departmental officials, would meet occasionally in particular districts groups of teachers at conferences to discuss either questions dealing with the administration of the education services or questions dealing with the problems of education. If that idea were put into practice I am sure that there would very soon develop a better understanding of the requirements of the case and a better spirit generally as between teachers and the Department, and that it would have its reflection upon the children and upon the whole school teaching. I know that some such processes in respect of head teachers takes place in other countries, and my information is that it has been extremely successful and valuable in producing good effects.
In connection with what Deputy Johnson has said, I might point out that teachers have repeatedly advocated this system of conferences with inspectors, because we believe that very great good indeed could come from it, especially when it is a question of the introduction of new subjects. A few of such conferences, unfortunately, far too few, have been held. Some of them have been extremely successful and helpful, some not quite so, because the particular inspector concerned felt that he was not quite free to voice his opinions. I had reason to complain on the Estimates of last year, I think, of an inspector who refused to take part in a conference. The instruction with regard to the matter that has been issued to inspectors is as follows:—"Inspectors may, but are not required to organise conferences with groups of teachers to discuss ways and means of improving the work of the schools, or may attend conferences organised by the teachers. These conferences must take place on Saturdays only."
Now, the inspector has a very heavy week's work in connection with this business of school labelling and subject labelling, as I might call it. He has to visit a great number of schools at certain definite times per year and attach, as I say, labels to various subjects according as he finds them. He has very little time on hands for these conferences, and what I would plead for is that he should be set free from a great deal of the unnecessary routine and office work that he has to perform, and that he should be much freer to engage in these conferences than he is at present. Inspectors complain, and I believe rightly complain, that they are expected to do far too much work of a routine nature, sending up reports of all kinds, where they have been at a particular hour on a particular day, and such matters. They say that the local inspector of police has an office and an office staff at his elbow to do such work, while they, equally important to the life of the community, have to do this purely clerical work themselves. An inspector should be regarded as the director of education in his district, and he should be largely trusted with the work of keeping education right in that district. It should be assumed that inspectors are able to do that, and they should be trusted to do it to a very large extent.
With regard to the appointment to the inspectorate, I think it should be recognised as a general principle that the person best qualified to judge of the work that is to be done in a national school is the person who has had experience in such a school. I say that as a general rule. I do not say that it is absolutely necessary to stick to that as an invariable rule. Under the old regime there were regulations whereby a certain definite proportion of those appointed to the inspectorate should be teachers of national schools. That has been departed from, and a complaint is made, whether justly or otherwise, that of late to a very great extent appointments have been made of teachers who certainly have had experience of teaching, but have no experience of teaching in a national school. One of the reasons put forward for that, and I think possibly with some justice, is that the number of national teachers who apply for these posts is less than it used to be, and I wonder whether one of the finance regulations that operate in connection with the appointments has not something to do with that. A man who has ten, fifteen or twenty years' experience in a national school will not apply for an inspectorate when he knows that so far as pension is concerned his years of service will not count to his credit, and that he will have to enter on the inspectorate and begin to reckon his pension as a civil servant just as if he were appointed after one year's experience as a teacher.
I trust that the Minister will take serious note of that hardship. It is a very great hardship, and the principle with regard to it has already been admitted in the case of other Departments. Here you have two people engaged in the same class of work, both under the same Ministry; one is promoted to the inspectorate, to the higher division, as you might say, of the same work, but his years of service in the other division do not count for his pension. Of course, he is not anxious or willing in all cases that that should be so, and many otherwise capable men are lost to the inspectorate by the operation of that rule. I cannot see what great principle or what difficulty is involved. Under the Local Government Act we have an arrangement whereby if a man is removed from a local body to the central body his pension is made continuous, and it was more difficult in that case, because they were two different bodies. The pension of the teacher and the pension of the inspector are both paid by the State, although at the moment from different funds.
So far as the machinery is concerned, there could be no difficulty in it, and I do think that that barrier should be removed, so that there would be encouragement to men of fairly long service to go up for the higher posts of the inspectorate. Their experience in the schools would be of very great value to them as inspectors. I do hope the Minister will keep in mind the suggestion made by Deputy Johnson with regard to conferences. They should be very much more frequent, and the inspectors should be relieved of a good deal of their present routine work, in order that they may be able to engage in this class of work, which would be more advantageous.
Might I suggest that this would be a convenient hour to adjourn?
Sitting suspended at 6.30 p.m., and resumed at 7.15 p.m.,
in the Chair.
I want to support the contention of Deputy O'Connell in respect to the selection of inspectors and the practical effect of the present regulations regarding pensions. As he has pointed out, the effect of the present rules is that the primary school teacher, no matter how long his experience may have been, loses the advantages and loses the pension rights which have accrued by virtue of his service as a national school teacher. That has the effect of limiting the number of applicants for inspectorial posts from the class of national school teachers. It seems to me that the case made by Deputy O'Connell requires to be answered, and it would require an extraordinary amount of explanation to make a satisfactory answer. The assumption that the schoolmaster and the inspector should be in two different categories of the public service is one that I think ought not be maintained. I think it would be good for the service if the assumption were that these various elements were part of a cooperating whole and that their services in one capacity might well be rewarded by at least an opportunity of being placed in the higher capacity of inspector of schools. I cannot see how anyone can argue in favour of the maintenance of a position which would ensure that the services rendered as teacher and master would count for nothing when it came to pension rights.
I am sure the Minister will agree that the present system is limiting the area from which inspectors would be called, and that it militates against the particular element which has had experience of national school teaching being appointed to inspectorial posts. I would like to have from the Minister some explanation, if there is any, why that attitude is maintained. If he is not satisfied with the present position, and if in this case, as in so many others, he would like the change that is advocated to be put into operation, will he tell us why it is not being put into operation? Will he tell us that he is going to make a change which will bring the amended course of action into actual operation?
There are numbers of points that arise all round. I do not know whether Deputy Johnson believes me when I state that I am in favour of every possible inducement, in financial form or otherwise, that would favour the teaching profession. But I am not going to make that change. I have not the power to make it. I have acute experience myself of the same disadvantage. Changing from one branch of the public service to another. I left behind pension rights that had been accumulating for over twenty years. The only thing I can say in general is that I am in favour of everything that would tend to improve the position of the whole teaching profession, including primary teachers, inspectors and the rest. That is again, I suppose, a platitude. I presume the practical reason for it is that certain remuneration is fixed for those who enter the occupation of inspectors, and it is fixed as a sufficient inducement. All who enter into that branch of the teaching profession, as I may call it, enter it on a level. If it were possible to make the conditions better, no person would be more pleased than myself.
While we recognise that the Minister has not the right and the power in his own Department to make the change, he has the power, and I suggest that he should take action, to make strong representations to the Department of Finance, if he believes it is a proposal that is deserving of serious consideration. It has been said that the remuneration which has been fixed is fixed with the view that it is sufficient to induce suitable persons to come forward and that they all enter on a level. I cannot quite follow the Minister in that. I think the facts are—it has been asserted, in any case—that the number of national teachers of fairly long service applying for a post as inspector is much less than it used to be in previous years. The salary has something to do with that, probably.
The matter of the deprivation of the pension is a very serious one for the teachers. I suggest that if the Minister feels as strongly on this matter as the rest of us, he should make representations to the Department of Finance on the point. He should see that the mere passing from one branch of the service to another would not mean for any person the losing of the years already served, when it comes to estimating the pensionable service. If the Minister for Finance finds any great difficulty in dealing with that matter, he can adopt the arrangement already adopted under the Local Government Act. He can arrange that the branch of service from which the teacher comes would be liable to bear its proportionate share of the pension, when the pension comes to be payable. A scheme like that has already been adopted in connection with Local Government, and I do not see why it could not also be adopted in this case. I would recommend that suggestion to the serious consideration of the Minister.
I would like to support the remarks made by Deputy O'Connell with reference to the grievance—I think it is a grievance—under which many of these inspectors suffer. At the moment I am particularly referring to men already in the service. A large number can never expect to receive the full pensions which they should be entitled to in the normal course. Nevertheless, they will have to give their whole life to the work of education. I think a real grievance exists. Take the case of a particular individual who has already served 20 years as a national school teacher. If he serves another 20 years as an inspector he can never hope to have a pension based on more than the service of 20 years as an inspector. I think that is a real grievance, and I hope the Minister will take up that matter seriously and remove what must be a hindrance to many national teachers applying to be appointed as inspectors. Later I will say something in regard to the general question of appointments.
Does that dispose of Vote 41?
If I may, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. Perhaps he would be good enough to tell us on what basis appointments to the inspectorate are made at present. I have heard a great many complaints as to the selections that are made. I do not know what basis is adopted in the matter of the choice of those who are being appointed as national school inspectors. I am informed—I do not know if it is true, and I would like, if it is not, to have it contradicted—that in recent years some 30 persons were appointed as national school inspectors and not a single one of them was a graduate of Trinity College. I would ask the Minister to give us some indication of the basis for choosing inspectors and the qualifications that are looked for. At the moment I am not prepared to advocate, though it may be advisable to do it ultimately, that the old method of examination should be gone back to. I do look forward to the time when all Civil Service appointments will be made as a result of fair competition. Probably the Minister will be able to tell us on what basis the choice is at present made.
The vacancies for inspectors are advertised in the ordinary course, and the selection is made by a board for the purpose. There is no discrimination whatever against any institute.
What qualifications are sought for?
I am afraid I will have to refer to some of the advertisements for that information, and I can only give a rough answer offhand to a question of that kind. Qualifications with regard to the candidate's educational standing and acquirements are gone into, as well as in regard to their experience of teaching, and I think I am correct in saying that a test is imposed on ability to act in the capacity of inspector.
I would suggest that probably one of the explanations why no graduate of Trinity College is appointed to any of these positions is that at present a necessary qualification for an inspector is a competent knowledge of the Irish language. I do not think that any school inspector ought to be appointed who has not that knowledge. Of course, it is probable that the number of Trinity College graduates who have that qualification would be comparatively small, and, being small in number, their chances of appointment at present would not be so great, but we hope that they will be in a year or two.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I think this Vote would be the proper place to raise and get a definite pronouncement upon a question which is of very great interest and with which practically everybody engaged in the work of education, as well as many who are not actually engaged in it are concerned. I refer to the position with regard to the teaching of subjects through the medium of Irish. I think it is largely a matter of administration, and there is no other heading in any Vote to which it would seem more appropriately relative than this.
Before the Deputy takes up a new subject, I desire to reply to the Minister for Finance. I do not think that the Minister's explanation is quite satisfactory. We have many honour students in Irish in Trinity College, and they have a competent knowledge of Irish.
Mr. O'CONNELL
My endeavour is to get clearly and definitely what the attitude of the Ministry is with regard to teaching subjects through the medium of Irish. I shall set out by stating two positions which, I think, are generally accepted. There is, first, the position of Irish as an ordinary subject in the schools and, so far as I am concerned, there is no question about that. There is then the position where a teacher has a fluent knowledge of the language and can use it as freely, or almost as freely, as he can use English and can carry on his work quite freely in it, and where the pupils under his charge, although they may not have that same freedom as he has, have at least this much, that they can easily follow his instructions and benefit by them. With regard to that second position, there is no dispute so far as I am concerned. I am in agreement with the Minister in the aim and purpose outlined in his statement, and I am prepared to accept the position that such a teacher should carry on his work through the medium of Irish. There is, however, an intermediate position, and the majority of schools and teachers are in that position. That is, the position in which the teacher has not that command of the language necessary to make his teaching a live teaching and the pupils have not that understanding of the language, and have not reached that particular stage, whereby they can follow quite easily the instructions of the teacher.
Let us take the teachers first. Teaching, to be effective, must be elastic. To put ideas before children the teacher must take an idea, twist and turn it, and present it in numerous ways if he wants the children to grasp it thoroughly. One presentation of an idea to a child may be useless, but if it is presented in another way the child may grasp the meaning of it at once. While endeavouring to present new ideas to a child, if the teacher has continually to grope for a new word, or a new form of expression, and feel a certain diffidence as to whether he is using the right language at all in giving his lesson, he cannot, undoubtedly, be expected to do successful work. Similarly, on the other hand, if the children have not reached that stage where they can profit by the instruction and follow the teacher completely, they, too, will be at a disadvantage. The Minister, on Friday last I think it was, read out certain paragraphs with regard to this point from the circular issued to inspectors, but there was one which he did not read, and which, I think, has a bearing on the issue. "It has been decided that where the teachers have not, as yet, sufficient facility in the language, and generally in districts other than Irish-speaking districts, in accordance with the new programme, every effort should be made to introduce gradual instruction in various subjects through the medium of Irish." I think the Minister must realise, in view of what I said earlier in this debate that an instruction of that kind will carry very much more weight with teachers and others engaged in the work of education than would appear on the surface. It is known that the declared policy of the Ministry is to encourage Irish in every possible way, but one result of that knowledge, coupled with this instruction, has been that teachers have attempted to do what they are not, in fact, able to do. That may be very creditable enthusiasm, but I think it will be found, and I believe it has been found, that the cause of the Irish language has suffered as a result of that practice. What I have in mind in raising the matter to-night is that some definite guidance, some definite principle, should be laid down whereby teachers would know exactly the conditions under which they are expected to take up the teaching of subjects other than Irish through the medium of Irish.
There is evidence available, and the Minister, I am sure, knows of it, to the effect that in many cases where attempts were made by teachers who were only partially qualified in the language to teach other subjects like history, geography, or mathematics through the medium of Irish, the subject is used not so much to teach history, geography or mathematics, as to teach Irish. That would be quite all right if in the course of the Irish lesson historical dates or geographical facts are used, but if it is desired to teach a certain amount of geography or arithmetic, as such, then I think it will be generally admitted that the medium used in teaching this subject should be such as can be used fluently by the teacher; and, secondly, that the children should have such a knowledge of that medium as to follow quite easily and without conscious effort the lessons and instruction of the teacher. When I spoke on this subject last week I referred to the reports which were made available, and are available, to the Department, and which, I think, are about to be published if they have not been published already. I am very sorry that they are not in the hands of the Deputies at the moment, for they would throw a great deal of light not alone on this but on some of the other matters we have been discussing, and on the whole question of education. Some of these reports of inspectors are extremely valuable. One may not agree with everything they say, but one must recognise that they are of the utmost importance from the point of view of education. They are excellent in many ways. Here is what an inspector who is in a district not entirely Irish speaking says:
"Attempts are made in most schools to teach history and parts of geography through Irish. One result is that much less ground is covered in these subjects than used to be."
Why is that done, if it was not thought, rightly or wrongly, that it was the policy of the Department that such could be done in a hurry? I am making the case that the administration should take up this attitude, that if they feel that it is not of educational advantage to the children then they should not allow the teacher in his over-enthusiasm for Irish to give instruction in this subject through the medium of Irish, if he is not capable of doing so. Here is what another inspector from districts which might be called Breac-Gaeltacht says:—
"To teach subjects successfully through Irish needs a teacher fairly expert in the language. In this respect of using Irish as a medium of teaching inspectors, so far as I know, are not forcing teachers to do what they are incapable of doing. Indeed, in a few cases it has been considered proper to advise teachers who were manifestly unfit to abandon their efforts to teach history or geography through Irish."
I quote that to be quite impartial, and to show that inspectors find it necessary and think it advisable to do that. That is one of the strongest difficulties in the teaching of Irish in the schools and he finds it necessary to say that the inspectors are not forcing teachers to teach through the medium of Irish, and finds it necessary in some cases to discourage the teaching through Irish where the teacher was not properly qualified to do so. An inspector dealing with a largely English-speaking district writes:
"History and geography are fairly frequently, and arithmetic occasionally, taught through the medium of Irish. Hitherto the scholars have been acquiring not so much a knowledge of these subjects as of the language itself."
That is what I have been saying: that if geography, history and arithmetic, as such, are to be taught, and if Irish has to be taught in addition, it should be plainly stated. If we are to have history and geography taught in the schools I hold the aim should be to have that teaching as effective as possible, and through the medium found for the time being to be most effective. Another inspector reports as follows:
"An ill-advised attempt was made by many teachers who possessed only a slight knowledge of Irish, and whose pupils had necessarily less, to teach history and geography through the medium of Irish. The programme was itself to blame, as it laid down that the history and geography of Ireland were to be taught in Irish, without stating that this could only be expected when both teachers and pupils had made considerable headway with Irish, and not in the majority of schools for some years."
It might be thought that I am taking the teachers' part in this matter, but I want to make the case that there is a feeling among the teachers they are expected to do this, and that it is only by doing so they will gain the approbation of the Minister and the Department. Personally I do not think that is so. I think the position, as stated by the Minister last year, and repeated this year, is clear enough, but what I am anxious to do is to have the matter set right, and make it quite clear and definite for the information of all concerned. This consideration was well set out by one of the inspectors in his report with regard to the whole position of Irish, and the teaching of it in the school. He refers to it in this way:—
"In one respect it is work not the best suited to our national temperament. It cannot be done in a rush, or by one big brief effort. It will take more than a generation of steady, unremitting plodding, but that in itself will be a most useful training in other directions."
I think that is an exceedingly sensible view to take of the question—that you cannot revive Irish, and undo the work of 50, 60 or 70 years in a few years, and it would be well if we could feel and say that in 15 or 20 years time this country will be a bi-lingual or an Irish-speaking nation.
The Minister himself, speaking on Friday, quoted one of the regulations, and then said: "Discretion must be allowed to the teacher in the choice of medium. He should not be urged to teach through Irish if he is not confident of his ability to do so effectively." That is a clear and definite instruction, but I am afraid it has not always been fully observed in the spirit it ought to have been. I put the question to the Minister as to who was to be the judge in that case, and he answered that the teacher is made judge because, he says, "he should not be urged to teach through the medium of Irish if he is not confident of his ability to do so effectively." It must be remembered that all this time I have in mind a particular class of teacher and a particular class of school: the teacher who feels that he has an imperfect knowledge of the language and who is in a school in which the children have up to the present only an imperfect understanding of the language.
Speaking for myself, I should say that I would not press this point of view very strongly in the case of the infant standards. In that case the teacher is the main factor, and not so much the pupils. I would not press the second condition in that case— namely, that the children must have an understanding of what is being taught, but I would say that in that case no teacher should attempt to do the whole work in the infant standards in Irish unless he or she has a complete command of the language—a good, free and easy command of the language, such as he or she uses without any conscious effort or groping after words. So far as conversation, training, play, and that kind of work which is generally done in infant schools is concerned, I believe myself that to a child English is always as new, not quite as new perhaps, but almost as new as Irish, and a child at that age is generally found to pick up a language quite unconsciously; but, as I say, I would not press at all, or strongly, in that case that the pupils should be taught through the medium of Irish unless they had such a knowledge of the language as would enable them to follow the teacher easily from the beginning. They will gain that unconsciously, after some time, through practice. This whole question is one of the most important with regard to the teaching of Irish, and the success or failure of the language in the schools depends entirely on the attitude of the Ministry towards that question and on the amount of pressure that is put on. If it is assumed you have not the co-operation of the teachers you will not succeed without very great difficulty in reviving the language. Enthusiasm is necessary on the part of the teachers, and if they feel that there is undue pressure being put upon them, or if they are asked or expected to do something that they are not really capable of doing well, it will be bad for the language, and it certainly will not encourage them to put forth their best and to approach their work in the spirit in which they ought to approach it.
I quite appreciate the point of view that has been put before us by Deputy O'Connell on this matter. I think, however, he has largely provided the answer. He used the phrase. "The amount of pressure put on." If we take what the Deputy has just said in conjunction with what he said at an earlier stage in the discussion to-day about inspectors and the part that they play, and the fact, if there is such a thing as putting on pressure, I think they are practically the only medium through which pressure could be put on. Individual teachers have not got their eye on the Minister! We are told about them teaching with one eye on the inspector, but I have not been told up to the present, though I would be rather flattered to be told, that they carry on their work in the schools with one eye on the Minister.
Deputies cannot do that even.
If the inspectors make reports of the kind that have been read out by the Deputy it is clear that those inspectors are not in favour of forcing the state of things which he deprecates, and I presume that their attitude is the attitude that will tell in the long run with teachers in matters of this kind. I know that among the other delightful contributions mentioned about myself one is that I want to do things in a rush. I have read that in the newspapers.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Who ever thought that?
I think the Minister is not the only Minister who suffers from that sin.
Doctors differ, but apparently Deputy Good is serious about my rushing. I really think that all these circumstances that are so strongly impressed on us here are taken into account. It certainly has been the aim of the whole action of this Department to proceed rationally, to proceed taking full cognisance and making full calculations of all the factors in the case: the ability of the teacher to teach through Irish and the capacity of the pupil to learn through Irish. The object in teaching through Irish is to spread a knowledge of the Irish language, and where it is found that the means that are recommended are not achieving that end those means will not be persisted in. On the other hand we could state a position sometimes that appears reasonable on the face of it, but as a matter of fact does not stand examination. Now, a teacher without being absolutely fluent in Irish, and having Irish at his command, for all purposes, may be an excellent teacher through Irish. I myself am not fluent in any language. I do not say I do excellent teaching. Even when I have to express myself here to my fellow Deputies in the Dáil I find myself constantly not in the happy position of many Deputies to whom words come apparently without effort.
Mr. O'CONNELL
But Deputies are not children and they are able to make allowances.
A certain amount of effort and a certain amount of groping, provided it be not mere helplessness, has itself its value, and a certain amount of variation in the form of expression has itself its value in teaching. I suppose the most difficult subject, of those mentioned by the Deputy, to teach through Irish, would be arithmetic because it is less discursive than subjects like history and geography, and yet I have it that the teaching of arithmetic is being done, and successfully done, through the medium of Irish. I would point out also that this is a stage of transition. The teachers, as a body, have zealously responded, I am not going to say to the demand or the requirements of the Ministry, but to the sense of national duty which they consider as being expressed in these requirements. We have now about 6,000 teachers who hold one or other certified qualification in Irish.
As for the suggestion that the moderating counsels which have been sent out by the Department have not always been observed, I presume that in a matter of this kind it will never be found possible to keep absolutely accurately upon a particular line. In some instances the line will be exceeded, and in other instances there will be a falling short. I do not see how—possibly the Deputy will be able to assist me—a definite principle can be laid down. I think a certain amount of elasticity, of recognition of the variability of circumstances, must be allowed, and if we were to attempt to lay down now a hard and fast line in definite words how far every teacher in every school was to make use, or not to make use, of Irish as a teaching medium, we should be aiming at something that was not practicable at all.
I do not know that I have anything further to add on that point. The fact that inspectors are acting in furtherance of the programme and at the same time freely giving their advice to the Department, with regard to the restriction and with regard to the limitations on furthering the programme in this respect, is sufficiently significant of the spirit in which this particular feature of the programme is being put into practice.
I do not like to make statements without having definite facts to produce, if necessary, and it is very hard to get facts in this matter that one can really base a statement on. I suppose the Minister would admit—I think, perhaps, he has already admitted—with me, that the object of the school is to educate the child. I think he has already admitted what seems to me to be axiomatic, and that is that unless you have got a medium of communication that is familiar to both teachers and child it is impossible for any new ideas to be communicated from one to the other, to any appreciable extent at any rate. Much of what the Minister said was quite unexceptional, but still one cannot help feeling, in view of the many statements made, and the facts one comes across, in many directions, that the sentiments to which he has given expression are not permeating through the Department under his administration. There must be many cases—I cannot, as I said, definitely produce one from all the things that have come under my notice—I am sure there are many cases in which education has really failed because futile attempts have been made to communicate instruction through the medium of a language that was not familiar, in many cases, either to the teacher or to the child. Unless it is familiar to both education fails. I simply rose to bring whatever pressure I could to bear upon the Minister to get him to have such sentiments as he gave expression to made to pass right through the whole administration of his Department. Much of the feeling that has arisen— and I think a feeling of doubt has arisen—much of it has arisen from this attempt to communicate instruction through a medium which was neither familiar to the teacher nor to the child, and very often was only familiar to the one.
I would like to know definitely from the Minister as to whether it is really the intention that the method of instruction in the national schools now—I am speaking of those other than the infants' division—is to be bi-lingual.
I would like to know it definitely from the Minister, because he seems to say at one moment, "We do not desire to press any definite line on the teachers," yet, when we take up the programme put into the hands of the teachers there is practically a very definite instruction in it. I would like to know whether the teachers are supposed to follow this programme, or whether they are supposed to take the line that has been outlined by the Minister this afternoon, that is, that every teacher is left more or less free to take whatever he thinks the most suitable line for those he has to instruct. One would like a definite view from the Minister, because, on taking up this programme of instruction, one is certainly forced to a certain conclusion with regard to it. I will read one or two paragraphs to give Deputies an idea of what impression would be left on the mind of the ordinary teacher.
"Many bi-lingual schools have already been doing more than is demanded in this programme in the matter of teaching subjects through Irish. Such schools are now, as far as possible, making Irish the sole medium of instruction, English being taught as an ordinary subject."
Of course, I take it that that reference applies to the national schools outside the infant standard. That is one of the reasons why I asked the Minister if we are to understand that these schools are to be carried on on a bi-lingual basis. If that be the intention of the Ministry, what is the meaning of the paragraph:
"Such schools are now, as far as possible, making Irish the sole medium of instruction, English being taught as an ordinary subject."
Then, if we proceed further on the same page, we find, under the heading. "Some notes on the subject of instruction": "English should just have the limited place due to English literature amongst all European literatures." If we proceed further in connection with this programme, for a school other than the infant division, we find, with regard to drill and dancing, the following paragraph: "Irish step-dancing and Irish figure-dancing should be introduced and practised where possible." The paragraph concludes with the following instruction: "All instruction and orders are to be given through the medium of the Irish language." On the same page follows the programme for infants, prefaced by this note: "The work of the infant standard is to be entirely in Irish." I have just read these items from the programme to try and get into the minds of Deputies the intention that the programme is intended to convey. To my mind it is quite clear that instruction, apart from the infant division, is, as far as possible, to be through the medium of Irish. I also take it, following on the lines of what Deputy O'Connell stated, that the schoolmaster who can achieve that particular object in accordance with the programme of the Department will be held up amongst his fellow-teachers as an example. That is only human nature. The Minister says that is the intention.
I have not stated that.
Possibly I misunderstood the Minister. I tried to understand him since the discussion of these Estimates commenced, and the impression, certainly, left in my mind is that it is a matter very largely for the teacher to decide whether the instruction given to the pupils in his charge is to be through the medium of Irish or through the medium of English. When we were discussing this matter a couple of nights ago, the Minister told us that his policy with regard to teaching was to be intensely national. I take it, it is to be along the lines laid down in this programme, rather intensified. In other words, it is the intention, as far as this Department is concerned, that every effort should be made so that the product of the national schools should be taught through one language, and one language only.
This afternoon the question was raised with regard to the difficulty of getting suitable books for conveying the instruction to pupils through the medium of Irish. For many years I have been interested in the question of technical education. Our technical schools are dependent entirely on our primary schools. I do not think that will be questioned by anyone. What is going to be the effect on our technical schools of pupils coming along who know Irish, and only know of instruction through the medium of Irish? We talk about the problem of books in connection with national schools. Have you ever conceived the difficulty of giving the manifold and various instructions in technical schools through the medium of Irish? I doubt if there are books in existence through which that instruction can be given. Let us assume, and it is a big assumption, that it will take place. I am satisfied it is not practical politics at present. The effect of this would be that for a considerable time at all events our technical schools will cease to do even the comparatively small amount of useful work done in them at the moment.
Let us take this subject a little further. We find the product of the national school reaching the stage of manhood. The intension of the Minister is, when the pupils reach that stage, that there will be work to absorb their usefulness. There may be a great increase in the demand for labour in the future over what we have in the Saorstát to-day, but no matter what view one takes of the future, from the point of view of increase in the amount of employment, there will still be a number of unemployed. There will still be a number who desire to go to friends in America. There will still be a number in our trades who desire to migrate to Great Britain for more constant employment and for other reasons. There will still be a number of harvestmen who will desire to go to Great Britain to avail of the harvest wages and the employment there. There will still be a considerable number who will desire to follow a seafaring occupation and to obtain employment in the many steamers that go overseas. How is your Irishman, who has been educated on an intensified national basis, and who can speak only through the medium of Irish, to get on?
It might save Deputy Good time to point out a fact which he may have overlooked— namely, that English is an obligatory subject in the programme.
I was trying to follow the programme outlined on the Department's instruction. I was following that on through the different schools, and I tried to picture the product of those schools applying for employment. It was from that point of view I was seeing how far this particular method was going to help the pupil. If trade could absorb the whole product of those different national schools and leave none unemployed, then I could understand the system; but can any of us, even the most optimistic Irishman, conceive such a situation? If that be too optimistic a view to take, what is to become of those highly trained Irishmen in the language if they cannot find employment to absorb their energy in their own country?
We had a case not very long ago where an emigrant was refused admission to the United States because of his deficiency in the knowledge of English. That knowledge, according to this programme, is to be less in the future than it is to-day. Last year 19,000 odd emigrants left the country. Seventy-five per cent. went to the United States. If they had been trained on this intensively national basis, how many of them would have got into the United States? If they had been refused admission, what was the outlook for them? To go back to the old country and there to try and eke out an existence on the dole or in the workhouse.
Since when have people been refused admission to the United States because of their lack of knowledge of English?
The Minister has better access to information of this kind than I have, but I have been told on good authority that people have been refused admission to the States on account of an insufficient knowledge of English. If that knowledge of English is to be less in the future, what is to become of the people? No doubt the Minister looks at this problem from what you might call an educational point of view. He is keenly interested in what he calls the native language of his own country, but there are other aspects of this question one must look at. I look at it naturally from the point of view of the usefulness of those people subsequently.
There is no use telling us what has happened in Denmark and other countries. We are in an extraordinary position in this country. We are within fifty miles of Great Britain. Ninety odd per cent. of our imports come from Great Britain. Ninety odd per cent of our exports go to Great Britain. No one knows that better than Deputy Davin. There is a daily interchange between the two countries. Show me any other country with similar circumstances.
The idea of separate Government is absurd.
No doubt the Minister can put his own point of view. I only want, on the eve of those changes, to look a little bit ahead and to anticipate some of the difficulties they will lead us into. We want to try to bring up our people in a way in which they may become useful citizens and in a way in which they may, from Deputy Johnson's point of view, earn good wages, and, from the general point of view of the community, live happy, useful lives. May I say that I am not satisfied that this particular basis now enunciated by the Minister is going to carry out that idea?
The alternative plan of education that Deputy Good would advocate has actually been at work in this country for how many generations, and what results has it produced? What economic triumphs can he point to anywhere? To what advance of trade, of technical industry, of craftsmanship, and of the supply of skilled labour in this country can he point?
I never said that the system of education that has been in force for the last 20 years in this country was ideal in any sense.
Am I asked to base the plan of education on the margin of unemployment? Am I asked to base it on the requirements of emigration? That does not appeal to me. I base it on the needs of this country, the needs of the people who live in this country, and the people who are going to live in this country. A great many instances have been produced—"What is to become of harvestmen?" Harvestmen went from this country for generations with absolutely no instruction in English, and Irish was their language in going and coming. We have heard them. Any person who has been travelling on the railways and boats when those men are going backwards and forwards know what is their language. As regards seafaring occupations, I think it is a matter of history that the Irish language had to be forbidden in the days when the British Navy was acquiring the mastery of the seas. The Irish language was so prevalent amongst those who were recruited to that navy that its use had actually to be forbidden. Dancing and drilling—I do not know whether it was the compulsory Irish dancing or the accompanying words of direction that the Deputy was complaining of. Really, I am not at all sure that the Deputy in his own mind does not feel sorry that he was not himself compelled to acquire a competent knowledge of the Irish language when he was young.
I would not be here if I were.
I am asked what is my function. My function is properly expressed in the programme as issued, not otherwise, and it would not be right for me to express one intention in the programme and another here. If I did that I would be a proper subject for mockery. The programme expresses the intention. It is the actual official expression of the intention which I have. We have had nothing to show that the programme was placing a bar to the advancement of young people in the acquirement of the knowledge of trades and industries, or whatever else was useful for them to know. The only thing we had was some statement about 75 per cent. of the people, made the other evening, which the Deputy did not repeat this evening— 75 per cent. who were not and could not have been possibly affected by the action of that programme.
What statement of mine did I not repeat?
Something about 75 per cent. of those who were claiming admission to the technical schools being uneducated.
It is common knowledge. It was stated at a conference. It is in print since 1917 that 75 per cent. of the product of national schools offering for entrance to the technical school was unable to pass a simple qualifying examination for entrance.
If it is in print since 1917 it has nothing at all to do with my programme. We are treated to gloomy forebodings about this. It is just as much open to me—and I do it with every confidence—to predict the very contrary, and that is that, as a result of a plan of education that will intensify the interest of young people in their own country, you will have a better output in every respect, a better output from the outlook of industry, trade and commerce than the report of 1917, which preceded my programme for a number of years, has been able to boast. I should mention, with regard to emigration, that it is a well-known historical fact that the majority of Washington's army at Valley Forge spoke the Irish language, and they were thoroughly efficient.
May we take it that that disposes of B1, under Vote 41—that is, inspection?
Before we pass away from that Vote, I would like your guidance. There is a matter of very great interest to the Dáil and the people generally that will require discussion. That is, school buildings and the accommodation, general upkeep, and maintenance of schools. I do not see that the heading, "Primary Education, Vote 42," is an appropriate heading under which to introduce this matter, unless we can bring it in under C9.
C9 deals with the grant towards the cost of heating of schools.
That would not deal with the question of accommodation. It might be dealt with under the heading of "administration" or "organisation." It is difficult to find a place for it.
Does it not really come under the Board of Works Vote?
I understand the situation is that the Office of Public Works makes some grant. Is not that so?
Yes, but the Department of Education is intimately connected with its administration. It is they that have to say where the grant is to be expended and the Board of Works only comes along afterwards.
Under C9 the Deputy can say that there is no use in heating schools that are not good schools. Will that settle it?
I do not mind, so long as we can get it in.
That disposes of Vote 41. With regard to Vote 42, an arrangement was made by which the discussion of training colleges was to be postponed for a Supplementary Estimate which it is understood will deal with preparatory training colleges. The Vote for training colleges will arise on that. That disposes of A1.
I assume that nothing arises on B1 and B2. Under C1 there is one point that I would like to bring before the House. I raised this on one or two occasions before, but little progress has been made in the meantime. I refer to the question of granting diplomas to teachers. It should be known that after a teacher has spent two years in the training college he has to spend a further period of two years on probation, as it is called, and at the end of that time he is awarded a training diploma. There is a regulation whereby this training diploma must be got inside five years, otherwise the teacher has to quit the service, generally speaking. Since the Free State was established I understand no actual parchment diplomas have been issued. So far as those who were actually serving in the Free State all the time are concerned, there is no great grievance on that account inasmuch as a letter from the Department saying that the period of probation was concluded on a certain date is generally accepted as a substitute for the possession of the actual parchment diploma. But many teachers are anxious to get the diplomas themselves, and some managers, in making appointments, are inclined to insist on them. There were, however, on the occasion of the transfer over, a certain number of teachers trained in our colleges who had taken service in Great Britain, and the previous practice was that their diplomas were awarded on the reports of the British inspectors. Now, the British authorities have refused and are refusing to accept this letter which is issued to the Irish teacher as sufficient evidence that the man is a qualified teacher, and are insisting on the production of the actual parchment diploma before they recognise such teachers as being fully qualified.
I think it is only right and fair that those teachers—there are not very many—should not be left in this position that they have to accept a salary very much lower than they would be entitled to if they could produce this document. They were all people who had taken service before this Ministry was set up, because a teacher trained in our colleges will not be recognised in Britain, and vice versa. There is also the question of negotiations with regard to these diplomas as between Northern Ireland and the Saorstát. I know of no reason why there should be a delay or a holding up of the issue of these parchments. We made inquiries on several occasions and were informed that they were in course of being printed. I think it was suggested that a new design, appropriate to the changed conditions, was being thought out. Whatever the reason is, the facts are that it is now practically four years after the change of Government, and my information is that during that time none of these parchment diplomas have been issued. That is the position, and it is unsatisfactory from the point of view of the teacher who likes to get his diploma, put it in a frame, and hang it up in his school. It is a great injustice in the case of teachers trained in Irish colleges who are at present in positions in Britain, who cannot be accepted or recognised as fully qualified and trained teachers and put on the salary scale appropriate to the trained teacher pending the production of this diploma.
There is just one other question in connection with diplomas to which I would like to refer. Complaint has been made that there is a good deal of delay in the issuing of this letter from the Department saying that the period of probation is completed. I thoroughly approve of the principle that there should be at this stage a close examination of the teacher's work while he is on probation, because everybody recognises that scholarship in itself is not sufficient to make a teacher. It is recognised, I think, to a large extent, that the art of teaching is largely a natural talent. But, while I say that, examination and careful watching of the young student teacher is necessary. I believe there is a good deal of delay in the granting of the diploma on the completion of the period of probation. That is serious for the teacher, because his incremental period does not begin until his period of probation is passed. He is put on the minimum salary for the two years' probation period, but there are very few teachers who complete their probation of teaching in two years. I would say that the average is at least three years, and that means that right along the whole scale one year's increment is missed. That is a serious matter from the teachers' point of view, and there is no great reason why this thing should not be speeded up.
The ordinary reports that are made on a teacher who has passed his period of probation are not sufficient in the case of a young teacher on probation. There are special reports made by the inspector who has to visit this teacher's classes more frequently, as to his methods of teaching, his preparation for his work, his diligence, and all that kind of thing, and it is quite right that they should be made. But the teacher on probation does not see these special reports. The ordinary teacher gets the report with regard to his work during the year, and this class of teacher that I am speaking of will get that ordinary report, but he never sees the special report. It may and does happen, especially where there is a large number of teachers in a school, that this teacher's ordinary report will be quite all right but the special report will be rather damaging and it would be well that the teacher should be in a position to see that report, and if he finds, say after one year's work, that his method is criticised and that he is not doing his work as he ought to do it, he ought to know what the opinion of the inspector is so far as his work is concerned. We have urged that it would be better to make these special reports available to these young men and women on probation, but it has not been done, and I think it is only right that it should be done, so that they may know at the earliest moment whether they are travelling along the right lines or not.
I did not like to interrupt or curtail, in any way, the Deputy when he was explaining the case about diplomas, but, as a matter of fact, a great deal of the delay must be due to my well-known tendency to rush things. The delay with regard to those has come to an end. Those diplomas are now being issued. As to the matter of the reports, they are not published reports, and, possibly, I do not appreciate the full circumstance myself.
They are not published reports; they are the reports of the inspectors, furnished to the Department as confidential documents. These we wish to see made known to the teachers who are the subject of the reports.
I am not sufficiently conversant with that particular class of report to give a competent answer to the Deputy's query. It occurs to me that it may be advisable, in the teachers' own interest, to regard these reports at that particular stage as confidential documents.
They are confidential, but they should not be confidential from the teacher affected. There could be no reason why the teacher should not know what the inspector thinks about his work.
took the Chair.
I will take a note of the point.
Before leaving that question of the diploma, I would like to refer to another matter which has been before the Minister more than once. It is rather a technical point, but it is important to the teachers and to the people concerned. There is a class of teacher in our school known as the junior assistant mistress, of whom I will have something to say later on under another heading. Generally speaking, there are untrained teachers. But sometimes teachers who are fully trained take up those positions of junior assistant mistresses. If a teacher leaving the training college takes up this position and serves the full period of probation, she is not awarded the training diploma for no good reason that I could ever discover. This matter was brought to the notice of the old Commissioners and we convinced them from their own regulations and from their own rules that these teachers were bound to get the diploma, having served in the capacity of junior assistant mistress. They accepted that position, and we were informed that it was necessary to get the special sanction of the Treasury at the time. The matter was put up before the Treasury, but it was put up at an unfortunate time when there was a general order that anything that might possibly, under any conceivable circumstances, mean an extra penny should be ruthlessly turned down. It was unfortunate that it was at that particular time that the matter was brought before the Treasury Department. However, it was turned down. We brought the matter before the present Ministry and we have not heard a word as to what happened. I think it was assumed that the case put up was a reasonable one, and one in which there was no justification for continuing the present practice of refusing diplomas to these teachers. I would like to know if the Minister has anything new to add or to tell us about the position this evening.
I do not remember that anything similar to this was brought to my notice before. The only thing I can say on the point is this, that the case, as stated by Deputy O'Connell, seems to me to be a reasonable one and I will undertake to have it looked into.
There is one point which perhaps arises properly under C1. It is the question of physical training. The question was raised on the Estimates last year about physical training. Perhaps the Minister would be able to tell us if anything has been done to secure a system of physical training for the children. I raise it particularly at the moment, because I feel that there is a general tendency on the part of a large body of teachers, as it were, to repudiate any responsibility for the physical training of the pupils attending the national schools. Whether that may be another way of directing attention to the fact that they are dissatisfied with the inspectorial system or not, I do not know. Deputy Johnson outlined to us recently the very elaborate steps that are taken, in a preventative way, to look after the health of the children in the New York schools. I think we cannot shut our eyes to the opportunity that the teachers have of looking after the physical education of their pupils as well as after the mental education. Personally, I feel that it is absolutely necessary that a systematised scheme of physical training should be obligatory throughout our national school course. In view of the tendency we find to repudiate any responsibility for paying attention to these things, on the part of a number of teachers, I raise the question. I would ask the Minister if it is contemplated that suitable training will be given in the training colleges for that purpose, and that in the meantime nothing be left undone in the primary schools to see that physical education is given to pupils.
I want to support Deputy Mulcahy with regard to the physical training of the children. I recognise that physical training, if it is to receive the attention which in my opinion it should receive, must be taken up in the training colleges for the teachers. The teachers must be trained in a system which will allow them adequately to transfer to the children what they have learned in the training colleges. I think the cultivation of the body only takes second place to the cultivation of the mind. Some people think it takes first place. At any rate, physical training takes a very important position in the training of any child. My experience is that in the National Schools of Ireland physical training practically receives no attention whatever. There was a certain amount of prejudice in the past against drill in the national schools. Many people thought that the idea underlying physical training in the national schools under the old system was that it was a system of preparing boys for service in the British Army. For that reason it met with a certain amount of prejudice. I think that any such idea is now cleared away from the minds of the children's parents. In connection with the establishment of a system of physical culture and physical training in the schools, another matter which should be taken into account is the provision of the necessary apparatus. Because, apart from the question of drill, I think it would be possible very often to provide outdoor apparatus of a simple kind which would be suitable for gymnastic exercises and physical training of an elementary kind. I would like to see this matter of physical training made an obligatory subject, if possible, in the schools. I believe there is a conference sitting at the present time dealing with the future programme of the national schools, and I hope that this question will be brought to the front when the conference is considering this programme. I trust that the Minister will use his influence to see that this subject receives the consideration which in my opinion and in the opinion of Deputy Mulcahy it ought to receive.
I think there is hardly anybody in the country who has so persistently and so consistently kept before the people the necessity for physical training for the well-being of the children as the teachers. They have raised this matter on various occasions at their meetings. It has been put forward on their behalf in the Dáil. At their annual conferences, people specially qualified have been invited to speak on the necessity of much greater attention to the physical well-being of the children in the future than in the past. I think Deputy Mulcahy, when he speaks of the tendency on the part of the teachers to repudiate responsibility for physical training, forgets what the position is here in this country with regard to the possibilities of doing anything effective. It is all right, of course, to make arrangements for the physical training of children in large centres and in big schools.
When we are speaking of education in this country it must never be forgotten—I am afraid it is too often forgotten—that practically all our schools are small schools of the type known as the two-teacher school. That applies to a very great proportion of them. I believe that out of 5,338 something like 600 have three or more teachers. They are all small schools. Let us picture a typical small school in the country at which physical training is to be carried out. Where is it to be carried out? In the schoolroom, will Deputy Mulcahy say? I am sure he will say "no." The atmosphere of the school is not suitable for the purpose of carrying out instruction in physical training. Will the Deputy have us go out into the public road? In regard to the majority of those schools there is no other place for the children to go out to. There is no playground attached other than a muddy playground, like a fair-green on a wet winter's afternoon. The Deputy must know what the position is in the vast majority of schools. Apart from those conditions, you cannot have effective training unless you are dealing with a considerable number of children. Take an ordinary average country school of 40 or 50 pupils as an example. You will have pupils there from the ages of 14 and perhaps 16 down to the age of 4 years. It would not be a very inspiring spectacle to see 3 or 4, 9 or 10 or, perhaps, the whole school out and the teacher endeavouring to exercise them. To do so would, in my opinion, be extremely difficult because the exercises might not suit the different conditions and the varying ages of the children.
It must be remembered, too, that it is not everybody who can be in a position, especially after reaching early middle life, to give instructions in physical training. The teachers say the physical training is a matter for which some special provision should be made. That is their position. They are not opposing physical training as such, but they say it is not possible to give effective instruction in physical training in all our national schools because of the conditions that I have touched upon. It must not be taken that they are opposed to the idea; quite the contrary.
As Deputy Heffernan has stated, there is the question of the apparatus for physical training. Who is to provide it? How is it to be provided? There is no machinery at present by which it can be provided. All these things should be taken into account. I agree with Deputy Mulcahy that it is a matter that has been very much neglected. I am afraid, however, the object we have in mind will not be effected simply by saying that you must, in every school, make physical training part of the ordinary instruction of the day.
I must say I thought I could no longer be astonished in the Dáil, but Deputy Heffernan has astonished me. He said that there was a reluctance in this country to drill. I was under the impression that most of the difficulties of the last few years had been caused by an over-exuberant desire to drill, and that the chief trouble arose from the question: Who was to give the words of command for that drill? In spite of my astonishment, I did not intend to intervene in this debate were it not for Deputy O'Connell's speech. I am glad that in principle he agreed with Deputy Mulcahy, as I agree with Deputy Mulcahy. I do not want to go back to a controversy we had a little while ago. I remember Deputy Mulcahy making the speech last year in Irish that he made this year in English—and we had a more informing discussion this year.
Wait until next year.
Deputy O'Connell touched upon two difficulties. One, I think, is illusory. He said there was no place to drill, and that you could not drill in the school. I quite agree that you could not drill in the average country school. He said there was no place outside the school except the public road or some muddy place. It does not rain every day, even in this country, and nearly every school in my part of the world has about half an acre attached to it.
Mr. O'CONNELL
You are lucky.
I am speaking of Sligo. I do not know what Connemara is like. In Sligo every school has a quarter or half an acre around it. That would afford enough space to drill. I do not think the difficulty with regard to apparatus need arise. There is an enormous variety of physical drill which can be done without apparatus of any kind. I agree with Deputy O'Connell when he says there are teachers who may be excellent teachers, admirable teachers, but who are not fit to instruct in physical drill for reasons that one need not go far to seek. They may not be qualified to demonstrate the exercises they desire the pupils to perform. Would it not be possible—I know the Minister would have to consult with another Minister on the subject—to invoke the services of the Gárda Síochána for the limited period on each school-day during which instruction would be necessary? The Gárda are available in those places. They are trained in drill and, if you could get a sergeant or a Gárda to go down for half an hour each day and put the pupils through a course of drill, I believe they would have sufficient instruction. By doing so you would relieve the teachers of a certain amount of their work, and the benefit to the health and physique of the children would be very great. That is not a considered suggestion; it arises from the difficulties that I felt Deputy O'Connell to be under. I do, however, think it would be worth a little consideration on the part of the Ministry. On the one hand you have children needing instruction in physical training, and on the other hand you have in most places men who have had the instruction and are qualified to impart it. I think the problem of bringing the two together would not be insuperable.
In connection with this subject of providing physical drill for children, I would ask the Minister if he would also bear in mind, for the physical well-being of the children, the provision of hot and cold baths. It would be a valuable education to poor children, and to some who are better off, to have them taught to bath themselves. It is, in fact, the only opportunity they could get of becoming acquainted with baths, and I believe that cleanliness would have a very stimulating effect on the ambition of a child. I agree with Deputy O'Connell as to the difficulty there would be in getting teachers to give physical drill. When a man attains my age and my corpulence he is not a very graceful subject to go somersaulting about the school. I think that Deputy Cooper has made a very valuable suggestion when he asks that another Ministry might arrange with the Ministry of Education to supply the Gárda Síochána for the purpose of giving these drills.
I did not understand Deputy Mulcahy, when advocating physical drill, to limit it to any particular kind of drill. There might be a variety of ways of giving physical training. The difficulties in the matter of making anything like general arrangements have been pointed out by Deputy O'Connell, and I need not cover the ground.
Deputy Heffernan has also suggested that if it is going to be a matter of programme it could properly be dealt with by the conference which is dealing with the question of programme and of which Deputy Mulcahy is a member. If any recommendations on the subject come to me from that conference, I will consider them with the greatest possible respect.
I take it that the Minister selects the members of that conference.
They were selected long ago.
I take it that it is the Minister who selects them.
It might be difficult for a Deputy to discharge his duty to the Dáil and to the Conference at the same time.
I would like to ask a question of the Minister as regards C3—that is, in connection with the expenses of teachers attending instructional courses in Irish. I raised this on the general discussion and asked what the policy of the Minister would be in future and whether we are to have the continuation of these courses or not. If the courses are to be continued I would like to suggest to the Minister that the time at which these courses should take place should be a period of the year when the attendance at the schools would not be as seriously affected as is the case at present. As I pointed out the other day, when the teachers' courses start in July it is a period of the year when in rural districts the children can most conveniently attend school with the least possible hardship. While recognising that if Irish has to be taught teachers will have to get an opportunity of learning it, we must also recognise that the teachers are learning Irish to teach it to the pupils. No one will debate the point that children in rural districts can much more conveniently attend school in July than in September, October, November and winter months. If the courses are to be continued I suggest that the Minister would be well advised to consider the question of changing the month in which they are held, as in July the children can attend school most conveniently. They are least wanted at home at that period and that is a time that would be most satisfactory to all concerned.
I will take a note of that suggestion, but the Deputy must bear in mind the force of his last remark as regards the convenience of everybody. I doubt whether, if the convenience of everybody were taken into account, a change from the present date would be found convenient. The staffing of the schools has, for instance, to be considered.
Can the Minister say whether it is the intention of his Department to continue the courses in the manner in which they have hitherto been carried out?
We are not tied to continuing them in the manner in which they have so far been carried out. Any scheme of the kind is subject to considerable modification, if necessary.
Can the Minister give us any hint as to what direction modification would take?
You have taken me out of my depth there, as I have not gone into the matter sufficiently to give an answer.
Take the case of a teacher who is aged 44 when the course starts. He is, I understand, eligible to obtain expenses for attending, but if he passes the age of 45 there is no obligation on him to attend, and I do not think that he would be entitled to expenses if he did attend. Although such a teacher may have attended two courses in succession, he is not able, if he reaches a certain age, to obtain expenses for attending again, and I question whether that is advisable or fair in the case of a teacher desirous of learning the language and capable of assimilating what is taught. In such cases I urge that the regulation be altered. I also wish again to urge on the Minister the point I have already made with regard to the date on which the courses are held. It may be a trifling point, but it is such things which prejudice people in this country, where they are easily influenced.
I do not suggest that the point is a trifling one. I quite admit that it is one of which note must be taken.
Mr. O'CONNELL
With regard to the Vote for elementary evening schools, I would like to know the position. It seems to be a matter to which much attention has not been paid. I was looking over old statistics and reports—I cannot at the moment get the actual figures—and I noticed that in the early years of the century in 1904 or 1905, I think, there were 650, or thereabouts, of these evening schools in operation. Coming down to 1914, I think there were over 300, but, so far as I can gather from the last report, there were less than 50 in operation. To the best of my recollection, these are the facts. Elementary evening schools, or night schools, as we used to call them, served a very useful purpose, in my opinion, especially in a country like this, where, owing to irregular attendance, or failure to obtain proper primary education, many young men were glad to attend these evening schools and endeavour to make up for the years that had been lost. I know that in many of these schools valuable work was done. They were attended by young people of 18 or 19 years, and in some cases, to my own knowledge, by people of 45 and over. The young people benefitted considerably by these schools.
I know of one area where youths came to the school specially to be prepared for entrance to the winter agricultural classes. It seems that of late no attention has been paid to this matter, but now that the two Departments have co-ordinated there may be some arrangement whereby the technical instruction committees could take up this work, which was previously done through the National Board. I do not know whether or not a working arrangement has been come to. I have been told on good authority that the only new regulation the Department made in connection with the night schools was to discontinue the extra expenses allowed to inspectors who inspected these schools. I do not know whether the Ministry of Education was responsible for that or not. At any rate, my information is that there is such a regulation. An inspector should not be expected after his ordinary day's work to drive a long distance to one of these schools without being entitled to extra expense. If he is not entitled to that, it would be only natural he would discourage continuance at the night schools, or at least he could hardly be expected to encourage the opening of night schools all over the area under his charge. I think this matter, in view of the peculiar position in which this country has been placed in the past owing to the want of primary education, should engage the attention of the Minister now that the departments of technical and primary education are under the one Ministry. There ought to be some system whereby these schools would be encouraged throughout the country.
The whole question of part-time continuation education, including this question of the evening schools, has been under investigation, and my Department has been in consultation with other Departments concerned—the Agricultural Department and the Department of Industry and Commerce. The case of the limited number of existing evening schools should be regarded as part of the general plan of part-continuation education.
Mr. O'CONNELL
The President in his statement in July gave what I took to be a promise that a committee would be set up to investigate this whole question of post-primary education. Has the Minister anything to add to the statement of the President on that occasion? I think it was made on the condition that the Dáil expressed the view that such a committee was desired. I think there would be general agreement that post-primary education is a matter which is being sadly neglected. If one of the ways of bringing about an improvement, which everybody agrees is necessary, be the setting up of a committee to investigate what, in the first place, is necessary to recommend to the Minister in connection with this question, then I think everybody would be in agreement that such a committee ought to be set up at the earliest possible opportunity.
The President's statement on that point was made on my behalf.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Is the Minister satisfied, or what would be necessary to satisfy him, that such a committee would be desirable? As I read the President's statement it was a conditional promise, that if the Dáil expressed the desire we should have the committee. What form of expression would meet the case?
Would the Minister say what is the position at the moment? Does he want an expression of opinion from the Dáil that the matter is really very urgent, and that the Minister ought to take steps to set up such a committee?
Mr. O'CONNELL
My difficulty is that the President expressed the view that the Minister for Education regarded this as an urgent matter, and he then went on to say that if there is any large body of opinion in this House that agrees with the Minister as to its urgency, and so on, the Government will welcome this suggestion and consider the question of setting up a commission of inquiry. What I want to know is, is the Minister satisfied, or how could we satisfy him that there is a volume of opinion in the Dáil which feels that such a committee of inquiry is necessary?
As a matter of fact, as I said, the matter has been under investigation by my Department and I have the report of a Departmental Committee which I am submitting to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry and Commerce.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Surely the Minister does not propose to leave it at that. Does he think a Departmental Committee would be sufficient to deal with this question? Would it not be better if a committee is to be set up, that the Dáil should set it up.
There is one point that is, perhaps, worth mentioning. I realise that this question of post-primary education is a very difficult one. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that quite recently, when going through different parts of the country, I came across young men of between 18 and 20 years of age, who have been four or five years left the primary schools, and who, perhaps, to a very large extent, have forgotten how to write or to do much reading, and who feel their position to some extent. Some of them do, at all events. I think it is worth drawing attention to the point that we have children of, say, 12 years of age at the primary schools to-day who will leave the primary schools in two years' time with a quickened interest in their education generally. These are children who will follow the footsteps of the people I have spoken of, but with a quickened interest in education and a grasp of the great facilities that will be before them to follow up their primary education in the country. Then we will come to a situation in six or eight years' time, when those who are 18 or 20 now will be 26 or 28 years of age, and will feel themselves handicapped at the moment with lack of education, and will find themselves very backward at that age as compared with youths of 18 or 19, who at that time will have got the advantages of the great interest in education at the present moment. In considering this matter of post-primary education, it is worth bearing in mind that in many parts of the country there will be a kind of transition period when people of 18 or 19 or 20 years of age, at the present moment, will be requiring facilities of that particular type. It is a matter that is fairly urgent.
It is very urgent.
It is not easy to see how to solve this problem, but it is a problem that is existing, and it will require to be tackled in the next two or three years if we are not going to have in the very near future persons who, at the age of 26 or 28, would be very much at a disadvantage compared with those of 18 or 19 years of age at that particular time.
I hope it is understood that I quite recognise the urgency of this whole problem of post-primary education. I think I may say that when this stage of the inquiry I have mentioned is complete—which I trust will be very soon—it is very likely that such a commission as was mentioned in the President's speech would be one of the best ways of focussing the matter, bringing it to a definite head, dealing with all the aspects and all the difficulties and all the requirements of the problem, not omitting finance.
I should like to touch on the question of the provision of schools, or, if I may say so, the equipment of schools to make them habitable and the restoration of semi-destroyed schools which come under C.9.
Can we take all questions regarding schools on C.9.? I understood that Deputy O'Connell was to raise something under C.8.
Mr. O'CONNELL
The point I have to raise will come under D.
The Minister has already said something in regard to school buildings, and has intimated that he is quite aware of the necessity for attention being paid to fitting many of the buildings throughout the country for the work for which they were intended and are now being used, that is, as habitations for the education of children for several hours per day. It is well enough for the Minister to say he realises the bad condition of so many hundreds of schools, if not thousands. But I think the Dáil should ask the Minister and the Ministry to give us some definite statement of their intention in regard to this matter. I suppose it is hardly necessary to repeat the evidence of the bad condition of the schools. Deputy O'Connell has read one or two extracts from reports made at different times, showing that some of the schools are entirely without windows, having been subject to bombardment, and that they have been in that condition for months, if not for years; that there are no funds available for putting panes of glass in the windows; in other cases that the roofs are bad, that the rooms inside are dirty, that the walls are damp, and, in a general way, that the schools in very many cases are in an insanitary condition. I raised the question a few days ago as to what was the relationship, or was there any relationship between the Ministry of Education and the Health authorities so that there would be some kind of liaison between these bodies in respect of the health of the children.
But one may ask, is there any relationship between the Ministry of Education and the sanitary authorities? Is it known to the Ministry of Education that the sanitary authorities have ever taken effective action to secure that schools shall be put into a sanitary condition, and if such action has been taken, upon whom does the onus lie? Does it mean that if the manager of the school has not funds or cannot get funds to put the school into a sanitary condition the school must be closed as a house would be closed, and that therefore the children have to be deprived of the opportunity for education? I think it would not be unfair to say that if the sanitary authorities were to carry out their work satisfactorily, very many schools would be obliged to close. They would not be allowed to remain open because of their insanitary condition. That is a very terrible state of things. It is a state of things which, I think, the Ministry has the right to pay very serious attention to. Of course we shall be told that the whole problem is one of finance. I have no doubt that is a great portion of the problem, but I have no doubt either that if the Ministry's mind was clear as to the necessities of the case and if other problems associated with the rehabilitation of school—buildings were present in their minds they could find means of raising a fund—of raising moneys by the issue of bonds or something of a special kind—to deal with a very special purpose, namely, to provide accommodation for the education of the children.
I am sure the House as a whole was interested to hear Deputy Dr. Hennessy suggest that there should be hot and cold water baths provided for the children in the schools. There are many idealists of different kinds, many Utopians, but I am prepared to say that I would wait for a little while for the provision of hot and cold water baths in some of the wilder parts of the country if we could be sure that we were going to have the school buildings made sanitary and habitable. In the first instance, let us look after the buildings and the necessary equipment and then perhaps the hot and cold water baths will come in due time, very useful and very good as they would be. I think we had better direct our attention to the making habitable of the many insanitary and decayed school buildings we have at present. The Minister will say that he is in entire agreement. He understands this matter a great deal more closely than we do because of representations that have been made, time and time again, to his Department. He has been inundated with complaints and has taken them very sorely to heart. But can he tell us what is the position of the Ministry of Finance in regard to his demand that this question should be taken in hands seriously and put in the way of solution? I do not know whether there is any problem in connection with the responsibility, but I think the Minister should open his heart in this matter and let the Dáil understand, as far as he is acquainted with it, the whole problem and why it is that for so long so many school buildings have been allowed to remain in an insanitary condition.
Every Deputy has had experience of one school or another which required at least painting and cleaning, of many which would require a great deal more than that, and I think everyone in the country knows that school-buildings in a very large number of cases are not fit for the work they are intended for. I think we ought to recognise that the surroundings of the school play a great part in the mental development of the children. Many of them unfortunately come from homes which are not particularly bright or cheerful: not particularly entertaining, and certainly not calculated to develop any æsthetic sense. These school buildings and their equipment ought, I suggest, to be the means of imparting to the children some better ideas in regard to what is beautiful, clean, sweet and good, but unfortunately the school is the contrary in too many cases. The school, in too many instances, gives the idea to the child that dirt and squalor and all that is unlovely should be the normal condition of the life of the child: that the State and the school authorities and all connected with the training of children are quite satisfied with that state of things and that there is no, or at least very little, care taken in regard to making things brighter and better. As a matter of fact the child really does not think that the school is a place which should be bright and cheerful. I have had the privilege of visiting some schools in the country which were really a delight, and I am sure their attractive surroundings comprise the best part of the unconscious education which the children are receiving because of their brightness and beauty. Many others are quite the contrary and, unfortunately, all the efforts of the teachers are damped because of the surroundings and the physical impossibility of making the schools bright and cheerful. I hope something will be said by the Minister to give us some hope, at any rate, that the Ministry is tackling this problem earnestly and with a sincere desire and will to remedy the existing grievances.
I was rather surprised to hear the unanimous chorus from all sides of the Dáil as to the great unsuitability of the schools throughout the country. I am glad to be able to say that in the part of the country I come from the position is very different, and I attribute a great deal of this to the action of the managers and teachers in that district. I believe myself that it would be almost impossible for the Minister for Education and his Department to look after the upkeep of all the schools in the country. I hold that in those places where the schools are in the dilapidated state described by Deputy O'Connell and other Deputies a great deal of the fault rests with the managers and the teachers. Where you have energetic managers and teachers you have no such thing as the dirt and squalor in the schools that has been complained of by some Deputies. Some of the best buildings in my part of the country are the national schools. Where you have energetic managers and teachers you are certain to find good school buildings, and I am glad to be able to say that the splendid school buildings we have all over South Wexford are a credit to our energetic managers and teachers.
I wish to join with Deputy Johnson in impressing on the Minister the great necessity for having proper sanitary arrangements provided in the schools. Deputy Doyle mentioned that the schools in his district were in good condition, but I know schools that have been built within the last 10 or 12 years, splendid buildings, that lack sanitary arrangements and a water supply. When the children want to quench their thirst in the warm weather they have to go to troughs in the fields and drink the water at which the farmers water their cattle. For a small outlay a proper water supply could be provided in most of the schools, and I want to urge on the Minister the necessity of seeing that such a water supply is provided where it can be obtained without very great cost.
As one of the Deputies who raised a question about school buildings, I do not like to let this occasion pass without joining with other Deputies in asking the Minister to make some definite declaration of policy with regard to the building, maintenance and refitting of schools. In my county there are a great many good schools, but there are also many bad ones. I believe that medical inspection of school children is only tinkering with the problem of improving the physical condition of the children unless we begin in the right way, and, in my opinion, the proper place to begin is with the school building. I cannot see how any real advantage could accrue from medical inspection while the schools are left in the condition that they are now in. I am at present against the medical inspection of school children, as I believe it would be waste of money. On the other hand, I am strongly in favour of improving school buildings. As we spend £3,000,000 yearly on primary education, there should be some means of providing a further sum that would put the schools in a good condition. I would support the issue of National Bonds, repayable over a lengthy period, for the purpose of financing such work. I believe the State and the Government could not do better than to pledge their credit by the issue of a State loan or bonds with which to provide adequate school buildings. In many of the schools the cubic space is insufficient, they are badly lighted, badly ventilated, often damp, and with poor sanitary accommodation. I have it on the authority of a medical specialist on tuberculosis that by far the greatest amount of infection is contracted by children during their youthful years. I believe that many of the schools are breeding grounds for this disease. As a lay man, that is my opinion, and the information was given me by a medical man who is interested in the subject. Perhaps Deputy Hennessy may have something to say on that aspect.
Our schools compare very unfavourably with schools in other countries. I know that in Western Canada, a country with a scattered population, and with comparatively narrow financial resources, the first consideration is to provide a good school in a district. In comparatively small towns there are school buildings of an excellent type. I think this is not a matter of simply giving lip service or of uttering pious platitudes. It is an urgent problem and should be dealt with immediately. The whole future of our educational system depends on the rectification of the present unhappy condition of affairs. I am in full agreement with Deputy Johnson about the effect that must be produced on pupils by sordid and unpleasant surroundings. That has been recognised in large industries where it is a common thing for the employers to provide surroundings that produce happy feelings in the minds of the workers. The effect on children who have to spend day after day in drab and sordid schools must be very serious and must react on their future outlook on life.
The doctrine of self-help has been lost, and the State is to be the happy mother of everybody. If Deputies who talk of the wretched school buildings in their areas spent the eloquence that we have listened to here in pointing out to the people the means already provided by which these buildings could be improved, they would be doing good service. As Deputy Heffernan is aware there is a scheme by which the greater portion of the money necessary for building schools can be obtained through the Department of Public Works, and if the Deputy would go to the particular area where schools are needed and ask the ratepayers to subscribe a small amount which would be supplemented by the State grant, suitable schools could be provided. As Deputy Doyle stated, the manager, the school teacher, and public opinion can get that done. It is a very peculiar thing that these complaints should be made here when they could be easily remedied by acting on the doctrine of self-help.
Deputy Heffernan has asked my opinion on the expert medical evidence he has quoted. I agree with all he has stated except as to the prevention of the spread of tuberculosis in the schools and the spread of other virulent diseases such as scarlet fever and measles. The only way you can prevent the spreading is by medical inspection. A medical inspector will detect them and if detected it is hoped he will have the power of insisting that those children be kept from the schools.
Perhaps if the Deputies were as keen to see that the Minister would make provision to have the children properly fed as well as properly housed, there might not be much necessity for all the medical inspection, and so on. I think if the tendency, as it appears to be, is to make it still more difficult for the average workman to provide for his children, the medical inspectors will be required very urgently.
It might be well to state what the present position is with regard to provision for schools and the upkeep of schools. There is a Vote here under C.9 of £13,800 being granted towards the cost of lighting and heating of schools, etc. A small calculation will show that this is an average of a little over £2 per school. That is the only grant that comes from any source as a matter of course. This State grant is totally inadequate to meet the requirements of the situation. The position is that the local manager of the school is charged with the upkeep of the school, and there is a regulation of the Department itself that it is the duty of the manager to see that every school is adequately heated and cleaned, but nothing happens if the manager fails to do this. So far as I can discover, no power resides in the Department to enforce that regulation, if the manager fails from any reason whatever to make that provision. We must recognise the fact that the voluntary contributions, which the manager can lay his hands on, come very often only from the parents of the children, who are the people among the community least able to provide this money. There is no machinery.
I was glad to hear Deputy Wilson's suggestion that the State should not be asked to carry everything. If Deputy Wilson will read carefully any pronouncements I have made on this matter he will find I have never suggested that it was the duty of the State to maintain the school in proper condition. If Deputy Noonan takes Deputy Wilson's views and preaches them in his locality, what machinery is there if there are one or two amongst the community, and those the largest ratepayers, who do not send their children to the national schools and who refuse to give any assistance to the upkeep of the school? There is no machinery to compel them to contribute. It is purely on a voluntary basis, and it was admitted seven years ago that the voluntary basis has broken down. Managers were finding it, even before that time, increasingly difficult to meet the necessities of the case and to meet the expenses which were necessary even for the ordinary cleaning and heating of the schools, and Deputies must know that it is the usual practice in the national schools for the ordinary cleaning and dusting to be done by the school children after hours. I need not ask Deputy Dr. Hennessy's opinion as to that practice.
The Minister cannot plead that this is a question he must look into or set up a commission about. I am sure the Minister has read the report of the Killanin Committee set up in 1918 composed of the Commissioners of National Education at the time, the teachers and the managers of the national schools. The Most Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, Archbishop of Armagh, the Very Rev. Dean Macken, and other Ministers of religion were members. They came to an unanimous feeling with regard to this matter and recommended the machinery. The machinery as to how this problem can be dealt with is there. I hope the Minister has read the report, and I hope he will read it again after this debate. I hope, above all, that he will take immediate steps to set up the machinery recommended in the report. If he does, he will have gone a long way to meet the difficulties that have arisen in connection with the provision of school buildings, especially the upkeep of the present buildings and the putting of them into a proper sanitary condition.
At this stage
resumed the Chair.
The heating of the schools in the winter amounts to about two tons of coal at a cost of £6. In the neighbourhood I come from a collection is made from those capable of paying, and the parents of those children supply the rest, so that there is a continuous fire all through the winter in those areas. That is again a matter for the people in the area, and while it may be a great thing to have the Minister for Education setting down on these Estimates the provision of two tons of coal for each school in the Saorstát where there is proper public opinion and where the people are directed as to the necessity for those things, this can be easily remedied as it is remedied in every area I know of.
I dealt with this particular matter in my opening remarks on the discussion of the President's motion. I did so because I was anxious that Deputies should give it as much and as close attention as they could. It is some time since I read the report of that Commission, and I cannot charge my memory. I cannot answer offhand, but I think that their recommendation was that local committees should be formed to deal with this question. The actual condition of things is that the person responsible for the upkeep of the school buildings is the manager of the school. As has been said already, here the schools are not State schools; they are State-aided schools. I think it has also been stated that the particular system of management which exists is one that apparently has general public support, and for practical reasons no change in it is proposed or recommended. While that is so, it is evidently not possible, without changing that system, to impose by the authority of the State a system of local committees, whatever might be done to encourage it.
We are not window-dressing with regard to this matter. Months ago the inspectors were required to supply the Department with a return as to the condition of the school buildings in their respective sections. The return will cover cases in which new school buildings are required, owing to the defective conditions of the existing schools, cases in which the existing schools require to be enlarged, to be structurally improved, and cases in which school houses are required where none exist at present. The inspectors have also been asked to report on schools which are at present overcrowded, and schools in which the result of a measure of compulsory attendance is likely to be overcrowding, and various other details, such as the provision of partitions in schools, and other structural work that does not come under the description of the work of maintenance and repairs. That return is in preparation and it will take some time to complete it. Until it is completed I will not be in a position to make to anyone, the Minister for Finance, the Dáil, or anyone else, anything like definite proposals; I will not be in a position to state what the scale of such proposals will be.
Deputy Johnson invites me to say what the position is in this respect with regard to the Minister for Finance. Well, matters discussed between myself and the Minister for Finance are discussed between me and the Minister for Finance. If there are any questions to be put to him they can be put to him. I know from my own knowledge a good deal about the condition of these schools and, as Deputy Johnson said, I could tell you of continual representations made to me with regard to necessitous cases. I also know that a bad standard was fixed in the early period and that the inferior schools are in most cases the older schools, the schools that have been longest built in country districts; poor, sometimes from the point of view of structure; often built, and that, I think, probably because there was no choice, on very undesirable sites, and I do expect, when the question comes to be dealt with, as I think it must be, in a comprehensive way, that it will mean a very considerable expenditure. When Deputy Heffernan said that it was not a case for lip service I thought he was going to take his hand out of his pocket. I was expecting it. However, seriously, I think we can anticipate that putting the primary schools —many of them are good schools, but those which are not—into a proper condition and providing proper school accommodation where it does not exist at present, will be a very costly affair, and as to whether it is to be dealt with by the issuing of bonds, by a special loan, or by anything of that kind, that is a matter which will have to be faced when we are in possession of the full facts of the case.
As I said, I am glad that so much attention has been directed to the matter. It might be the impression of people, and of some who have approached me I should say that it is the impression, that necessitous schools in a bad condition of repair, dilapidated and on bad sites, exist only here and there. I am afraid that when we get a proper return we shall find that they exist in a very large number of cases —and Deputy Doyle's district is indeed very fortunate if it has no such schools —that even districts which could not be described as economically backward, which are not congested districts, districts in which there are very substantial residents, and still in many cases very poor school accommodation.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, November 18th.