You will remember that there was an understanding that the whole question of the training of teachers might be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate, and it is with regard to the general question of the training of teachers, of which this scheme is a part, that I propose to say a few words. I want first to draw the attention of the Dáil to the statement contained in this White Paper to the effect that there is, and has been for some time past, considerable difficulty in maintaining the supply of teachers. I do that because I think there is a feeling to the contrary, in some quarters in any case. An article appeared in a Dublin weekly paper a few weeks ago which dealt with the question of married women who were teaching, and gave the impression to readers who did not know the facts, that quite a considerable number of fully qualified and trained young women were out of employment because the married women continued to occupy these posts. Nothing could be further from the facts, as no doubt the Minister will tell us. There are no qualified women teachers, or men teachers for that matter, out of employment, and there is indeed at the moment a shortage, so much so that many teachers, who are compelled, according to the regulations, to secure and appoint substitutes in the case of illness—not like other public servants, who get their substitutes appointed for them—have very great difficulty in procuring qualified substitutes. At the moment one might expect conditions to be otherwise, in view of the fact that generally there are not vacant positions available elsewhere.
In spite of the fact that the Minister for Finance thought some years ago that teachers were overpaid, there has not been that rush to enter the profession that one might have expected. There has not been any great rush to join the new aristocracy, as Deputy Gorey thinks them, or to go along the road towards the possession of a motor car. I would point out to the Minister that there must be something that is accountable for this, outside the facts that have yet been considered.
I have recently been looking over the Report of a Special Committee in England dealing with the training of teachers. They have drawn attention to a somewhat similar shortage, and I think that we should give some consideration to one of their recommendations. They say: "In considering the question of the supply of teachers regard should be had not only to the adequacy and stability of salaries, proper conditions of tenure, and satisfactory pension arrangements, but also to the actual conditions of school life and work, and to the teacher's freedom from undue administrative control." I have been giving a good deal of thought this problem. I have asked myself how it was that there have not been more candidates for positions as teachers, and I do not think that it can altogether be ascribed to questions of salary or pensions or the conditions of tenure, but rather to the conditions of service, and especially to that want of freedom to the teacher in his profession, the cramping of initiative, a matter to which I referred at some length on the discussion of the Estimates and on which I do not want to enter now. But I do want to say this, that the conditions under which a teacher has to work, his feeling that he is always working, as it were, under the eye of an inspector and that he has not that control which a man in his position and with his qualifications and training ought to have is, I believe, more responsible than anything else for the difficulty of procuring a suitable type of candidate for the teaching profession. I think the Minister would be well advised if he would look into that and see if it would not be possible, with great advantage to education, to adopt a system whereby the teacher, after it is seen that he is fully qualified and fully competent to perform his duties, would be trusted more to use his own initiative in performing these duties, without feeling that the hand of the administration is always stretched out over him to chide or to lead, which seems to be the impression at present.
With regard to this new scheme of preparatory colleges which it is proposed to substitute for the present arrangements I would like to say a few words. It is proposed to take boys and girls of approximately fourteen or fifteen and put them into institutions or preparatory colleges with a view to training them to be teachers. Such a scheme has its advantages, of course, but I am not clear that there is not a disadvantage in segregating boys and girls at that age and having them specialise, giving them the impression that from that age onwards they are to be teachers. I do not know whether that is good or wise. I have my doubts as to its wisdom. I think that if they were left freer up to the age of seventeen or eighteen to decide whether or not they would go in for the profession of teaching it would be better, and I think it would be better also if they carried on the secondary education with other boys and girls who were going for different professions. I think that there would be an advantage in it. I know, of course, that under the present circumstances that is not easy. We may not have the right type of secondary schools to which these boys and girls could be sent. I do see that that is a practical difficulty, but I am not satisfied that the best thing to do is to segregate these boys and girls at such an age as is proposed.
It is complained at present that members of the teaching profession are inclined, from their very training, and especially from the nature of their occupation, to get into a groove and have matters. If there is any substance in that complaint I do not think that this scheme will improve matters. I almost feel that if there were some system of bursaries and maintenance allowances given for intermediate schools, where children intended for other professions, for business, or for agriculture were being educated it would be advantageous. I think that the lessons and lectures that these boys and girls will get right from the age of thirteen or fourteen will all be in one particular groove, and I do not think that that will tend to the broadening of their views on other matters. However, while saying that, I do recognise that there are certain practical difficulties in the way of what I suggest, and that it is perhaps an advantage to get boys and girls at a certain age and, as it were, give them the type of education that it is thought a person who will afterwards engage in the teaching profession should get.
It is not made clear in this document, although I think it is the intention from the wording, that children other than those in the Gaeltacht will be eligible for entrance, although the colleges will be situated mainly in the Gaeltacht. I gather in a general way that that is the intention of the Minister, but a superficial reading of this would rather give the impression that entrance to the colleges in the Gaeltacht will be confined to children in the Gaeltacht. I hope that the Minister will make it plain that it is the intention that they will be open to children from all parts of Ireland, provided, of course, that they are able to pass the examinations.
With reference to the further training of the student teachers after they leave these training colleges, I am not satisfied that the present system is giving us the right type, and I would like the Minister to tell us what, if anything, his Department proposes to do in the way of linking up the present training colleges with the university, or using the university for the training of teachers. We pay a considerable sum of money one way or another for the upkeep of our universities, and of course only a very small percentage of the people can ever hope actually to attend a university. But in my opinion the next best thing would be that those who are engaged in teaching in all classes of schools should have the advantage of university education and thus be in a position to impart it, indirectly, to those who are under their care, so that the advantages—if there are advantages, and there ought to be—of a university education should percolate in that way to the whole people. I often think that it is rather a strange thing that we use the universities to train our doctors, our engineers, and others, and that we do not use them to any extent to train our teachers. One would think that that would be the first duty of a university.
This question of the connection of the training colleges with the university is a matter the Ministry ought to look into. It has been raised more than once in this House. On one occasion the late Minister for Education took the view that it was a matter between the teaching bodies and the universities to arrange a scheme. That hint was taken, and so far back as 1923 the teaching bodies and the universities came to an agreement about a scheme. The matter was brought before the Minister for Education, and in view of the hint that had been given, these bodies thought that there would be no trouble in getting him to put their scheme into operation. They found, however, that was not quite so easy, and, as a matter of fact, nothing has been done in this connection since 1923. There is some temporary arrangement, I understand, whereby a student who has left the training college and passed a certain examination acquires a certain status as a university student. This does not appear to be very well known, and I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on it. Some people seem to think that a student who passes his final examination is to be taken as having passed, as a matter of course, his first examination in the university, but it appears that is not the case. I think some statement ought to be made on this matter so that students would know exactly what position they occupy.
It was intended, and at one time argued, that the best thing to do would be to keep the students in a training college for two years to do their ordinary professional course, and then let them go to the university afterwards. I think, in practice, that is what is being done in a great many cases: that the teachers leave the training college at the end of two years, and then teach in their schools for two, three or four years. After they have passed their period of probation and got their full training diplomas they go to the university and do their course there. That, I think, is the best course to adopt: that the young student who proves himself a good teacher should get the preference in being called up to the university. I think it is only when he has given two, three or four years in actual teaching that he will benefit to the full from a course such as the university can give.
I hope that the facilities for taking advantage of these University courses will be extended. It will be to the benefit of education as a whole if that is done. The more highly qualified and the more skilled your teacher is, the wider the course he has read, the better will he be as a teacher. You may take it as a general rule—there will be exceptions, of course—that teaching is an art which is not easily acquired. On the whole it can be said that the man who is well qualified and who has read a wide course will be all the better teacher for it. It is in the interests of the State that everything possible should be done to encourage teachers to get a University training. It is sometimes thought that anybody can teach the simpler things that are taught in the National Schools. That is quite a common belief, but it is well-known that the simpler the things to be taught are, and the younger the people that have to be dealt with are, the harder and the more difficult it is to teach, and therefore, the more skill is required to teach. It seems to me that the universities in this country will not be fulfilling their duty to the State until they make more provision for the training of teachers—teachers for every class of school. It is only by the making of such provision that the people can hope to reap the advantages of University education which costs them so much.
