Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 4 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 4

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 45—DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

Motion made:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £116,846 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun costaisí na Roinne Oideachais mar gheall ar chostaisí Riaracháin, Cigireachta, etc.

That a sum not exceeding £116,846 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1927, for the Expenses of the Department of Education in respect of costs of Administration, Inspection, etc.

Debate resumed.

MINISTER for EDUCATION (Professor O'Sullivan)

The Dáil is, of course, aware of the various branches of education for which my Department is responsible. We have not merely to deal with primary, secondary, and technical education, but with a number of other educational institutions, such as the Museum, the National Library, the Metropolitan School of Art, the geological survey, endowed schools, reformatories and industrial schools. Most of these, technical instruction, College of Science, the Museum, the geological survey, the Metropolitan School of Art, the endowed schools, the reformatories and the industrial schools have only come within the jurisdiction of the Department quite recently. Before the setting up of this Ministry, what I may call the main branches of education for which we have responsibility, secondary, primary, and technical, were only very loosely, if at all, connected one with the other. They had certain features in common. For example, they were non-State systems. This applies to a less extent in the case of technical instruction than in the case of the other two branches. They were State-aided rather than State systems. Technical education, it is true, relies for practically all its funds and its controlling authorities from public sources, either the State or the local authority. Secondary education is in its character much more of a private institution than even primary education.

One of the problems the Department has studied and that it is endeavouring to solve, perhaps not as quickly as some people would wish, but as quickly as is desirable, is to produce as much co-ordination, as much community of aim as possible, between the different branches; to see at all events that the country is not aiming at one thing in primary education and at something else, perhaps conflicting, say, in secondary education.

Some people may still think that there is a lack of system prevailing in the whole educational curriculum in this country. The concessions given to various institutions and various aspirations might seem to some people to be offensive. There has been a demand for a complete unity of our educational system. I think, on the occasion of the Supplementary Estimates such an opinion was voiced by Deputy Good. I find that in that respect I have not the revolutionary mind of Deputy Good. I think you can, in trying to achieve too much unity, especially in the shape of State control, sacrifice things more vital than the satisfaction of a logical desire for completeness and system. Our educational system may lack that complete finish off but it has grown up—very often perhaps under great difficulties—and I think we must assume in many respects at all events, whatever lack of system there may be, it answers some of the vital needs of the people of this country. Because of this very lack of system in some respects it can, as I say, satisfy fundamental needs that could not be satisfied if you had a completely logical system with the State in full control. It is impossible to have that unity of scheme and control that seemed to be outlined in some of the demands put forward in recent times in this House.

As regards co-ordination, it must be remembered that the time at the disposal of the Department has been limited and that we do not claim to be revolutionary in this respect, that it is healthier to proceed slowly in the direction of unity rather than try to achieve it all at once. In the short time at our disposal a considerable amount of co-ordination and unity has been attained. We have, for instance, co-ordination between the closing years of the primary system and the opening years of the secondary system. Also we have tried to see that there is community of aim by bringing about conferences between our inspectors and by having a general inspecting body at the top of the inspection system. Thus the ultimate aim will be to try to achieve that whatever economic gap there may be, there will be no educational gap from the time a youngster enters the primary school until the time his education is finished, even if that be twenty or twenty-one years of age.

During the past year very important matters have engaged the attention of this Department. There was the Compulsory Attendance Act. That was probably the most important problem we have had to deal with in the last twelve months. Previously we had an Act on the Statute Book, but it was not effective, and was not in operation so far as half the State is concerned, and, even where it was in operation nominally, it was often supremely ineffective.

In comparison with the previous Act, the measure recently passed by the Oireachtas can be described as drastic. It should bring about a considerable improvement, a very marked improvement, in the attendance of children at the various schools. It is bound to have an effect on the general educational position of the country. There have been complaints, but I am not going now to discuss the question as to how far these complaints were justified and what is the evidence that may be brought forward in their justification. Complaints have been made —re-echoed by some, and violently rejected by others—that the education of children leaving the primary schools was not anything like what it ought to be. There was one very obvious explanation—some Deputies may think there are others—and that explanation ought not to be forgotten, namely, that most of the children left the schools long before the age of fourteen, long before those who make complaints about their lack of education had got into contact with them, and not merely that, but there was the further consideration that even those children who did continue in school up to the age of fourteen attended so irregularly, in many cases, as to make it impossible for them to avail of the education given. I think in discussing the question of the character and of the success of the education provided by our schools these two great considerations must, in all fairness, be borne in mind. It is hoped that, so far as that cause was operative in being responsible for a degree of education that was not satisfactory, it will be removed by the recent Act.

The passing of that Act and its enforcement, will, naturally, lead us on, and will compel us, to face certain other problems. It will not create those problems, but it will possibly call on us more clamantly than before to deal with them. That is, the position of the great bulk of the children in this country—their educational and general position—between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. It is, undoubtedly, a serious gap and I do not say that that gap can be filled all at once. I indicated, I think, pretty clearly on the Committee Stage of the School Attendance Bill, that it would only be gradually that the problem of providing post-primary education, if I may call it so, for that type of pupil, could be faced and solved.

There are many reasons, whatever our desires are, to go slow in that matter, and these reasons cannot, unfortunately, in the economic state of the country, be left out of account. There will, for instance, be the question of finance, and there will be the economic needs of certain portions of the country. It may be difficult, it may in some cases be unwise, to insist immediately, at all events, that the children should be kept at school for two years more, or for a certain portion of two years more. I think I pointed out that we shall have difficulty in dealing even with the question of compulsory attendance up to the age of fourteen. That will be felt, unreasonably or not, but it is such a change from what exists that it is bound to be felt, as a hardship, an economic hardship, in many portions of the country. There are portions of the country in which an extension of the age from fourteen to sixteen, if enforced at once and without due consideration of the economic position, may be a still greater hardship. There is, further, the unreadiness of the educational machine to tackle this problem. The question of school accommodation and the question of teachers must also be borne in mind.

But this particular problem is one which the State will have to face, and the quicker it can face it, undoubtedly, the better. There is a gap there. There is no reason, for instance, why technical schools should be compelled to do the work of primary schools. In any re-organisation, which I hope will take place, there should be a re-organisation of the technical system. The technical system ought to be a technical system, but if that be so, I presume that sixteen will be a reasonable age to enter such schools. We are, however, faced with the problem of providing education for children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. I am afraid that the particular statement which I am making will be felt to be mainly a statement of problems which are, in some respects, presented by our recent actions, and, in other respects, by the general education of the country.

Mr. WILSON

I hope the Minister will also have the solution of those problems.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I hope that the solution will come in time. I have already said that I do not possess the revolutionary mind of many people here, and I prefer to solve these problems, as we can solve them, according as various circumstances allow us to do so.

There is another problem—I will not say that it is a problem that has first been presented to us by the recent Act, but it is a problem that has been, or will be, aggravated by that particular Act. That problem is the question of school-buildings. In connection with school-buildings there is what I might call the ordinary wear and tear. Even if we had a normal state of affairs in this country, there would probably be still the necessity from year to year of attending to considerable repairs to schools and occasionally providing new schools.

As we are now we are not quite in a normal position so far as school-buildings are concerned. We have to deal, not merely with the supplanting of what I may term normal wastage, but we shall probably be faced with the necessity of having to provide the additional accommodation that will be necessary for the increased attendance that we hope will follow the enforcement of the School Attendance Act. Further than that we have, I am afraid, to face a problem of arrears. These two things together present a serious problem to the finances of the nation, and also to those interested in the proper housing of our schools, using schools in the sense of the persons attending school.

The problem has been of course, in some respects, further complicated by the rise in prices all round, in building especially—that is the problem we are now dealing with—that has taken place since 1914. As a result of all these things it will be increasingly difficult, perhaps in some cases too difficult, for local contributions to be found in the normal way they have hitherto been found. Deputies, of course, are aware that in the normal procedure in connection with the building of a new school, so far as the financing of it is concerned, one-third of the cost of the new school is found by the manager; he collects it from his parishioners. The other two-thirds are provided by the State. The managers have given a great deal of attention to this in the past, and those who have tried to carry out the by no means pleasant task of collecting money——

Mr. WILSON

Even for political purposes?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

— have come to the conclusion, I have no doubt, that it is not the most popular or agreeable of tasks. During the last 80 or 100 years the managers have done a tremendous amount of what I may call nasty work, in that respect, in their anxiety to preserve their ideals and the ideals of the country so far as education is concerned. I think in recent years they have found it increasingly difficult to make collections, firstly, because the amount is greater, and secondly, because on the part of the people generally there is, I think, less of a tendency voluntarily to part with money, even for the best of purposes. That, therefore, will raise another serious problem.

We have had, as you know—the results are not yet quite complete—a census made of the state of the different schools through the country. That will require to be gone into somewhat more thoroughly. Undoubtedly, we shall probably have to face the likelihood of a large expenditure of money, public or private. It may run to over £1,000,000 if the schools are to be put in a proper condition. How that problem will be faced, or how quickly that can be done, is a matter we will not be in a position to decide until we have more thoroughly examined the census of the schools that is now practically complete, and until we have explored the methods by which the money can be raised.

There are complaints, some of them exaggerated, some of them quite justified, about the condition of schools in the country. There are complaints even about the general type of schools that we are setting up. I do not think, with the economic resources of this country, that we shall ever, at least in our time, be able to provide the type of school that is to be found in many other countries. We shall not be able to provide the large school which might make some pretence at possessing æsthetic qualities. We shall have to concentrate, perhaps more than we should care to do, on seeing that there is proper air, accommodation, and adequate light.

There have been criticisms, I know, of the type of school that was erected recently—the standard type of school. People object to that type. It offends the aesthetic taste of some people; others say that there is not sufficient light. So far as light and school-room area are concerned, our standards are at least equal—taking them all round —to the standards that are in force across the water. The school-room area of our standard schools is 11 square feet per pupil up to 40 pupils; in England the figure is 10 square feet. In regard to most of the essential particulars—the height of the rooms, the cloak-room, the lavatory, the corridor space, the glass and ventilation—our requirements compare favourably with the requirements across the water.

I think Deputy Johnson on one occasion—somewhere about six months ago —when speaking on the question of schools, referred to the magnificent schools that they have in New York, even in the Bowery. He described the schools, and represented them, in comparison to our schools, as palatial. The school revenue from different sources in New York is something like £90,000,000. I am not going to demand £90,000,000.

Mr. WILSON

You mean New York State?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes; with a population of eleven millions, I should be satisfied with £30,000,000. That would represent our equivalent for the same class of expenditure. We cannot hope in this country to emulate anything like that.

Mr. JOHNSON

I hope the Minister has not the impression, when he is quoting that statement, that I put it forward as something to be copied?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

No.

Mr. JOHNSON

I had no notion that that particular class of school was an ideal to be aimed at. I did emphasise it, and I would like to explain that my emphasis was upon the character of the teaching and the care of the children.

Mr. GOOD

And the attention of the children.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Really, my remark was an effort to get the financial comparison in by a side-door; later on I can deal more fully with the subject. New York spends from seven to ten times more in comparison with her population on education than we do.

Mr. WILSON

Hence the murders.

Mr. CORISH

There are no Farmer Deputies there.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I am not going to discuss the uses of education with Deputy Wilson. Like armaments, we cannot drop education unless other countries are prepared to do it also. How are we to solve this particular question of providing adequate school buildings? That is a problem that is engaging the very earnest attention of myself and the Department. I do not like to acknowledge, because I see what is involved in it, and because I see the sacrifices that were made in that connection, that so far as the erection of schools is concerned, the voluntary system has broken down. But I do recognise that, with the best possible intentions on the part of the managers, there is an increasing difficulty in raising the local one-third of the money required.

Another problem that we will probably have to face as the result of the School Attendance Act—and still further when the time comes, as I hope it will come gradually, for extending through the whole country the age from fourteen to sixteen—is the problem of the supply of teachers. Notwithstanding a certain economy campaign, notwithstanding even certain advantages now enjoyed, there is a difficulty in getting teachers. The salaries may seem to many munificent, but there has not been that eagerness to enjoy those salaries that we might have expected.

Mr. WILSON

They are going into the Gárda Síochána.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The suggestion that I should enter into a combat with the Minister for Justice is one that I must again pass.

Other matters that have engaged our attention in the past year are the modification and clarification of the national programme, making clear certain things that the original national programme left somewhat in doubt. For that purpose, as the Deputies know, a conference was called together to discuss and to advise on the whole question of a programme for the primary schools. That was done, and here I should like again publicly to thank the individual members of that Committee for the labour and zeal they gave to their work. They were able, as a result of by no means light work, to produce an unanimous report signed by all the members of the Committee with a reservation in one respect by certain members. That report has been adopted as a programme for our primary schools. Its aim was to clarify the national programme; to make it clear, if I might so put it, that the national programme was an ideal that was to be aimed at. The new programme suggests a way in which we are to advance along the road to the realisation of that particular ideal, taking into account existing circumstances.

Another matter that has got some consideration during the past year from my Department is, the problem of the training of teachers. For that purpose we appointed a Departmental Committee, and the instruction we issued to that Departmental Committee was to consult the different educational interests that might have views on the point or that might be involved. I understand the National Teachers' Organisation will put their views before them probably this month.

About training, it might be well to point this out. It may be true that we have a lower percentage—I am speaking now of the principals and assistants—of trained teachers than they have, for instance, in Scotland or the Scandinavian countries; but we have a higher percentage than in England, France, Belgium, the United States or the various members of the Commonwealth.

The other problem that we have to face, and that we hope we have helped to a large extent to supply a solution of, is the supply of material for training colleges. As I pointed out last February, there is a growing difficulty in finding suitable material, especially among men, for entrance into the training colleges. That problem we hope we have to a large extent solved by the institution of preparatory colleges.

Another matter that is engaging the attention of the Department is the question of inspection. Various views are held about inspection. There are people who would like to see a stricter system of inspection. I think I heard an interruption on one occasion in this House—the interrupter has now entered—calling for a return to the results system. Now that is what I may call one extreme. On the other hand, complaints have been voiced in this House very eloquently by Deputy O'Connell, and the complaint has also been put forward by the Teachers' Organisation in the country, against the type of inspection that we have. They complain that it is almost inhuman in some respects, inhuman, not in the common sense, but in the sense that it is inquisitorial rather than helpful. I understand that I am giving the views of Deputy O'Connell correctly; at the moment I am not giving my own views. They also think that the number of grades that there are for the teachers, and for the number of subjects, are harmful. In order to clarify our minds on that subject it is proposed to set up a Commission to inquire into the matter.

Under the secondary educational system the new scales of salary have been in operation. There are two problems in connection with the secondary teachers that are still outstanding and for which up to the present no satisfactory solution has been found. One of them is known as the question of tenure and the other the question of pensions. I cannot say that a solution for either of these problems has yet been found, though a considerable amount of attention has been given to them.

As there has recently been an outcry in certain quarters about the amount of money spent by different Departments, perhaps it might be well to examine for a moment the sums that are spent on education in other countries, some of which are our rivals. When there is a cry for economy it is well that people should remember that in some respects you may buy economy at too dear a price. It may be that our people, notwithstanding the amount of money spent on education, are not as educated as the people of other countries. That is a difficult problem to settle. As a rule, each country complains very bitterly of its own system of education, and compares it with the systems of neighbouring countries, to the advantage of these countries. In a comparatively recent series of articles in a very well-known paper on the system of education across the water there was one letter from Ireland, which was held up apparently as a model country to the people of England, where with less money spent, there was a more efficient system of education than that under the London County Council. I am not suggesting for a moment that that is true or that it is untrue, but I want to point out that there are such complaints in most countries. Each country is very much alive to the faults of its own system of education and very much sensitive to the bright spots in the educational systems of other countries.

As regards the cost of education here, perhaps it might be well if I gave a comparison with the cost in other countries, many of which are our rivals, and our successful rivals, perhaps because they spend more on this particular matter. Under our primary system the cost to the State of each pupil is £7 8s. 7d., under the secondary system, £13 0s. 9d., and under the technical system, £4 16s. 10d. In Switzerland the cost of the primary pupil is £9, and in Scotland £10. I am taking the fact into consideration which if people merely look at what I might call the national Budgets of the different countries, they might very easily leave out of account, especially in educational matters, namely, that a great deal of the public contributions to education in other countries comes from local contributions. In Denmark at least half comes from local contributions, and in England a considerable amount also. In fact in most countries a large amount comes from that source. That is not so here. Here the cost of education, as of various other services, is borne by the Central Fund, and when people compare the high Budget that this country has to show, they forget that the central authority here has to provide the money for services that elsewhere comes out of local taxation. In Switzerland, in comparison with our £7 8s. 7d., the cost of a pupil is £9, in Scotland £10, Norway £10, Denmark £10 10s. 0d., England £11 5s. 0d., New Zealand £10 6s. 0d., and South Africa £11 2s. 0d.

Mr. WILSON

The Minister has not given the figures for France.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The Deputy may have heard of a thing called the exchange. A word to the wise is sufficient. He will see the difficulty of any comparison, either with France or Belgium, in this matter. You never know where you are as regards a comparison of costs in any matter with these countries. Taking the case of the secondary pupil, the cost here is £13 12s. 0d. In Scotland it is £20, Switzerland £21, Norway £20, Denmark £19. England £27, exactly double ours, America £30, and Holland something like £45.

Mr. GOOD

That would not include universities?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Not that I am aware of. I would be very much surprised if it did.

Mr. GOOD

Of course both are very much interwoven in some of these countries.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

No. These figures are purely for secondary education, and have nothing to do with university education.

Mr. WILSON

I would be glad if the Minister would explain how he got these figures. In most of these places secondary education is largely carried on by private enterprise.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

This is public money.

Mr. WILSON

Is this public money?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes, public money, contributed from taxes or rates.

Major COOPER

Does it include rates?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes, I made it perfectly clear that one of the distinctions between this and other countries is that in services in other countries, such as the police service, certainly old age pensions in some countries, and education particularly, at least half of the cost is very often borne by the rates. That is not so here. Here the tendency—and from the debate of a night or two ago, I think the tendency is increasing—is to put more and more on the Central Fund the services that up to the present have been on the rates. In the case of technical education here the cost per pupil is £4 16s. 10d. That is contributed from State and local funds.

Mr. GOOD

Of course that includes local rates?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Local rates and taxes. There is, of course, that distinction, but even in technical education it is well to bear in mind that the great bulk of the money comes from the central authority. In this one educational service that you have a contribution to from local rates, that contribution is in the proportion of from one to three to one to five, as compared with the expenditure from the Central Fund. Technical education costs £20 per head in Great Britain, £14 3s. 0d. in New Zealand, £18 4s. 7d. in South Africa, £25 in America, and £32 in Holland. When you come to the gross total of expenditure, the cost in other countries is, of course, much greater than in ours, but I have given you the cost per pupil as being the fairest method of comparison. There are countries with a population of the same size as ours that spend on education several millions more per year than we do, countries like Norway and Switzerland.

There has been an attack on the cost of administering the system here, again from the point of view of economy. I am stating facts; I am not boasting of the matter; some people think that these are not figures we ought to boast of. That is a matter I will deal with in a moment. I will give the comparative figures for different countries of the cost of administration.

Mr. GOOD

Before the Minister does so, could he give us any information as to what the different States give to university education, so that we will have the entire cost of the different departments of education?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I am afraid I have not figures for university education. The Deputy will understand that these might be extremely misleading figures. In countries like England and America the amounts contributed out of public funds, whether local or central, for university education would be completely misleading for comparison purposes. A considerable amount of private money has gone into the universities in these countries in different ways. In any case, I have not figures for universities.

Mr. JOHNSON

The public pay their contributions in the form of ground rents.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

We have, comparatively speaking, a small Budget for education, as I pointed out, and in comparison with that Budget, the cost of our administration, that is, the head charges for administering the whole system, is ever so much less here in comparison with other countries. In other countries at least twice or three times as much is spent in the administration of education as is spent here. With us it is about 2.1 per cent. of the total cost. In Great Britain, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries it is between 4½ and 6 per cent. of the total cost, and in America and some other countries it is somewhat more than 6 per cent. These are figures that might be borne in mind when you are asked to concentrate attention on the alleged huge amount that this country is spending on education. There may be people here who will say that the figures I have given are nothing to boast of; that we ought to be ashamed of giving so little. Perhaps they are right; our poverty, not our will, consents. All I can say is that, unfortunately, much as we may desire to spend more money on education, in education as in other matters, it is only after the gravest consideration that we can afford, owing to the economic condition of this country—I certainly am not going to enter into the reasons for that—to consider any increased expenditure of public money on any service, however much that service may deserve it. I realise that unsatisfactory as the figures I have given just now are from the educational point of view, still there is the extreme difficulty that this country has in facing its present economic burden.

Mr. WILSON

What has the Minister to say on "the tyrannical and revolutionary amalgamation of boys' and girls' schools"? I want to know what policy the Minister has put forward that could be described in that way.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

When the particular question of amalgamation comes on for discussion we will be able to deal with that.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is not that a primary school matter?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Then it can be raised on the Vote for primary education and before we enter on the details.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

On that point, A Chinn Comhairle, I think it would be more convenient if matters of general policy were discussed on this Vote. If certain questions are discussed on this Vote, then I think it will not be necessary to deal with them again when they arise under the separate votes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I have no objection to matters of policy being discussed on this Vote, but I have never found that matters of policy were discussed. I should say, perhaps, in order to be fair, that I never found Deputies confining themselves to matters of policy.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

I take it that the matters the Minister touched upon would be regarded as matters of policy?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes, and the question of the amalgamation of primary schools is also a matter of policy.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I do not mind at what particular stage anything is raised. I would point out that the fact that most things can be raised on this Vote is rather an indication that we have achieved a certain amount of unification.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

I think the House will be grateful to the Minister for the clear, illuminating and matter-of-fact statement he has given us regarding the general position of educational administration, and as to his outlook generally on matters of educational policy. In the first part of his remarks he dealt with the chief problems which confront us at the present time, and perhaps it would be well to follow him in the order in which he took them. He spoke first of the general standard of education which children leaving the primary schools have reached. I am one of those who hold the view that the rather popular opinion that that standard is low in comparison to other countries has no justification in fact. Since this matter was last under discussion, I am glad to say that that opinion of mine has been borne out by a man who is well qualified to speak on the subject. The professor of education in Galway University had some considerable experience of schools in other countries as well as in this country. Shortly after he came to Galway and had some experience of cur Irish schools, he gave it as his opinion, and stated he was prepared to prove it if necessary, that the boys turned out from the average national school in the Connemara area had reached a standard of education at least as high as that reached by boys of the same age in England or in the other countries that he had experience of. I think that fact should be noted. It is all too common to say that we are much behind other countries in that regard. It is an opinion that I do not hold.

I am glad the Minister again drew attention to this problem of post-primary education. While I know that there are great difficulties in the way and many problems to be considered in connection with that question, I am inclined to feel that the Minister has not made the progress that I would like to see. On the discussion of the Estimates last year the President, I think, promised that a commission or committee of some kind would look into the question of post-primary education. We have heard nothing since of that, and I do not know whether it is the intention of the Minister to set up any such committee. Of course, the position has been altered to some extent by the powers which the Minister has taken under the Compulsory School Attendance Act. Where the conditions are favourable, etc., he can, under that Act, in certain circumstances, compel the attendance of children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen at suitable courses of instruction. It is a considerable advance, undoubtedly, on the position as we knew it last year. I agree with what the Minister said regarding the proper functions of technical schools. They have to do work that should have been done in the primary schools. They have to make up arrears in the case of children who did not attend primary schools up to the age at which they should attend them. There is an economic wastage, as well as a wastage of effort, on the part of the technical schools.

The second problem that the Minister drew attention to concerned school accommodation. It is a big problem, and one that can brook no delay in its solution. The Minister stressed the difficulty there was of finding the local third of the cost of building. For a number of years it has been the policy of the State to grant two-thirds of the cost of school buildings, and the locality has to find, in whatever way it can, the remaining third. The difficulty of finding the local third of such expenditure, as the Minister rightly said, is proving increasingly great. I put it to the Minister that there is no justification for insisting on a locality providing that one-third. The erection of a public building is capital expenditure. There is no more reason why a locality should provide one-third of the cost of putting up a national school than that it should provide a local third for putting up a Gárda barrack or any other public building. It is capital expenditure, and I think the State should shoulder such expenditure.

The Minister hardly touched upon what is really a more urgent problem. I refer to the ordinary maintenance and upkeep of the schools. As the Minister must know, there is no proper provision for that. It is largely left to chance. There is no method whereby the upkeep of the schools, the carrying out of ordinary repairs, cleaning, heating during the winter, and the renewals required in such buildings are carried out. Any one who goes to the country and visits the schools will admit that they were put up at considerable expense to the State. They are good, substantial buildings, not indeed, as the Minister admitted, beautiful buildings, but on the whole, fairly suitable for their purpose.

Mr. GOREY

At considerable expense to the State?

Mr. O'CONNELL

At considerable expense to the State. It provides two-thirds of the cost.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

In some cases. Deputy O'Connell is right. There are cases where the State pays the whole expense.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Yes. In poor districts where it is held that the people are not able to provide the necessary funds, the school is built at the expense of the State. I do not know if that is news for Deputy Gorey.

Mr. GOREY

Some of it.

Mr. O'CONNELL

That is the position. I know some of these schools that have been built for ten, fifteen and in some cases, even thirty years, and a paint brush has never been laid on the woodwork. I need not tell the result. These schools are allowed to deteriorate because there is not a system under which they would be kept in a fair state of repair.

Mr. HEWAT

Is the Deputy referring to some particular case, or is he making a general statement?

Mr. O'CONNELL

A general statement. Of course there are notable exceptions. What I said undoubtedly applies to the average. If I said that there was no painting done for thirty years that would be an exceptional case. If some repairs were not done I do not think a school would remain standing. I know at least one school, built in 1889—I was in it within the last six months—to which nothing has been done since. The woodwork has never been painted in that time.

Mr. GOOD

It must be wonderful wood.

Mr. O'CONNELL

You can imagine the condition of that school.

Mr. GOOD

I would like to have the name of it, if the Deputy could get it for me.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I will be quite willing to give the name of the school but it would not be worth the Deputy's while to travel to it. It is a considerable distance from Dublin. There is no systematic provision for upkeep and maintenance. A grant is made from the Estimates amounting to about £13,000 which would average about £2 10s. per school. That amount is supposed to provide heating, and do the necessary repairs during the year. Any other repairs required must be provided locally by methods that the Minister has told us are always difficult and necessitate the collection of money. It is obvious that that cannot go on. Appeals cannot be always made for money, as it will not be forthcoming. In one way or another voluntary help will be given. No adequate provision is made for the maintenance of the schools. It is to that aspect of the problem that I would like to see the Minister directing his attention. It is, even, more urgent than the actual provision of school accommodation. Not only are the-buildings going to rack and ruin, but the health of the children, and those engaged in the schools, is at stake. Anyone who knows national school buildings, especially in the rural districts, realises that the sanitary accommodation provided is simply deplorable and indescribable. Again, no provision is made for sweeping and dusting the schools. The practice, one that I have repeatedly condemned, is for young children to be kept in after school hours to sweep the schools. Many parents are objecting to that and in my opinion rightly so. To my mind there is no greater source of infection. It is not that remedies have not been suggested. The problem has been examined more than once. A most representative committee that sat in 1918, examined this amongst other questions affecting education. That committee consisted of representatives of the school managers, of the Commissioners at the time, and of various public representatives.

His Eminence Cardinal O'Donnell was a member of that Committee and so was Dean Macken (Claremorris), now Secretary to the Clerical Managers' Association. Also, Doctor Kennedy represented the Church of Ireland managers, and several others representing managers and Churches generally. They put up a definite recommendation to the Government. They suggested the formation in each county of School Committees that would have power to strike a local rate for this work of the maintenance of school buildings. They said:

"While we hold that the work of teaching in primary schools in Ireland is a national service, and that the assistance heretofore given from State grants towards the original capital expenditure on the erection of schoolhouses should be continued, there are, in our opinion, directions in which localities may well be called upon to evince their interest in the success of the State service by contributing a local rate towards the expense of primary education."

That remedy has been before the Department of Education, and the Minister told us nothing as to his intentions in the matter, or whether he proposes to adopt that remedy to deal with this very urgent problem. Again attention has been called to the matter in the report of the National Programme Conference. I will read an extract in which they point out—

"(1) From the reports of the Inspectors placed before us, the statements of teachers and witnesses, and knowledge possessed by some of our members, it is plain that the material conditions of our schools are often such as gravely to impair the quality of the work done in them. There is an insufficiency of rooms, and the existing rooms are often too small; the structural state of the buildings and the sanitary arrangements are often very faulty; in many schools a better provision for heating and cleaning is desirable; in the case of numerous schools, too, there are no proper playgrounds—not to speak of school gardens or school plots. It is clear that such untoward conditions call for immediate remedy if any educational scheme is to secure the desired results."

That was what the Conference said in their Report, and that, too, was a very representative conference. It consisted of members of the Dáil and Seanad, the Chairman and Secretary of the Catholic Clerical Managers' Association, representatives of the Protestant managers and other public bodies. They say in effect: that it is little use putting up school programmes while the work must be so deleteriously affected by the conditions under which it has to be carried out. I would be glad if the Minister told us what his policy is, not only with regard to the urgent problem of school accommodation, but to the upkeep and maintenance of the school buildings. I think it will be necessary, to put the school buildings into even a fairly decent state of repairs, to spend a good deal of money. There will be heavy initial outlay to bring them up to the position in which they ought to be. The problem will have to be faced in some way. The suggestion has been made of a loan and that money might be borrowed for the purpose, because it would be in the nature of capital expenditure. In any case, I think some such plan as that will be necessary.

Now, with regard to the report of this Conference which the Minister touched upon, I think it would be well to remind the Committee of the statement made by the Minister for Agriculture when introducing his Estimates a few nights ago. It was a very interesting statement, in view of some of the things we hear from time to time. What I want to stress is this: The Minister pointed out, definitely, in that statement, that if the primary school taught a child to write and calculate, it fulfilled the functions which it was called upon to fulfil. I think it is important to bear that in mind, because too often we hear people say that in the primary schools this, that and the other subject should be taught. In fact there are some who think that if the primary school does not turn out children whose education is complete, in the full sense of the word, the primary school is not fulfilling its proper function. All sorts of things are put up from time to time, to be taught in the primary schools. I have not enumerated them; they are, in fact, too numerous. I agree with the Minister for Agriculture when he said that to learn to read, write and calculate—the three R's—should be the fundamental object to be achieved by every primary school, and that whether the child is intended to be a farmer, a doctor, an artizan or a labourer, these things must be common to him during the elementary school years, and it was because those of us, intimately connected with primary school work, hold that view, and hold it strongly, that we thought it necessary to make the reservation to which the Minister referred, briefly, in the Report of the Conference.

I think it is not fully understood that the conditions under which education is carried on in this country are very different from what they are in countries across the water and in practically every other country. It is not fully realised that in 80 per cent. of our schools, at the present time, there are only one or two teachers engaged. I would like Deputies to realise what that means. In these schools teachers are endeavouring to deal with the small number of pupils, varying from the infants up to sixth, seventh and eighth standards, and that presents a problem in organisation which you will find in very few other countries. People accustomed to the larger schools which one sees in the cities and large towns can have no idea whatever of the difficulty of dealing with schools of the nature I have described, where the problem of organisation is so great. It is not always the number of pupils in the class that presents the difficulty, or the greatest difficulty, but rather the variety of ages and standard reached which one will meet amongst thirty or forty pupils in one of those one or two-teacher schools. The ordinary typical school in the country is taught by one, or at most, two teachers. In such a school you will find, say, twenty-five or thirty pupils under one teacher, and that number may be in four different standards or grades. When that is so the case for concentration on essentials is greater than it would be where you would have one teacher dealing with one class, as you have in the big city schools. In the reservation which was made by the teachers' representative to the programme that was stressed. There is a greater reason still in the fact that in this country we are endeavouring to do, and with some success I believe, what is not done in most other countries, and that is teaching the child to read and write in two languages in the primary schools. That imposes a burden on the teacher and the school. While it does that it certainly is an advantage to the child. I have seen within the last six or eight months in a small school I happened to visit in the Midlands children of 13, 14 or 15 years of age writing compositions in the Irish language without any difficulty, or apparent difficulty, and at the same time the same children could write— and their exercises were produced to me—compositions in the English language better, in my opinion, than children of the same age who were taught in the English language only. I give that for what it is worth, and I think it is an experience that can be verified by anyone who wishes to examine the position. While it is of educational advantage to the child that he is learning to express himself in two languages it increases the burden on the teacher, and it is an additional reason why there should be concentration on essentials.

However, the majority of those who composed this conference thought it necessary or desirable to add an additional subject to the school programme and to make that subject a compulsory one. That subject is the teaching of rural science, which is undoubtedly a useful science in view of the fact that agriculture is the main industry of the country. But I have grave doubts if it is wise that children under 14 years of age during the ordinary compulsory years should be asked to take up the study of this subject, and I am extremely doubtful of the wisdom of enforcing it in our schools. It may be said that 95 per cent. of the schools in the rural areas—and these are schools that have only one or two teachers— will be affected by this. I think the teaching of this subject under the circumstances will be found to be impossible, and if it will be found possible to do in the schools what is imposed in this programme, it is only right that I, speaking on behalf of those who have the carrying out of the work, should issue this warning and say that the burden imposed is too great. If, as the Minister says, you concentrate on the essential subjects up to the school-leaving age of 14 years and get the child to read plainly—and reading does not entirely mean a mechanical repetition of words, but the understanding by the child of what he reads, and expressing himself properly—and to do simple calculations you will have done as much as can be hoped for in the primary schools, having regard to the conditions under which the work has to be done.

I had intended to say a good deal on the matter of inspections, but the statement which the Minister has made makes it unnecessary for me to do so. On the occasion of a statement made by the Minister's predecessor on a matter of policy, I dealt at some length with this subject of inspection, and I asked that a committee of this kind should be set up. I believe that any such committee will be able to suggest reforms that are absolutely necessary, and I do not intend to deal with that matter further now, for I take it that the committee will consist mainly of representatives of the teachers, the inspectors, and the managers, and those who are intimately connected with the actual work in the schools.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The terms of reference, more or less, are that the committee is to inquire into the question of inspection and also into the question as to whether anything in the nature of leaving certificates might be possible. The composition of the committee would be made up of representatives of managers, inspectors and teachers. The chairman of the late conference has consented to act as chairman of this committee, and I will communicate with Deputy O'Connell as to the representatives of the teachers in the matter.

Mr. O'CONNELL

So far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that the Minister will set up such a committee.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The composition of the Committee will be mainly such as I have outlined.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I will be satisfied with the setting up of a committee that will be competent to inquire into this rather technical matter. But while that is so it undoubtedly affects the whole teaching work in the schools, and, therefore, indirectly is concerned with the whole system of education. In regard to the training and supply of teachers generally, it is, as the Minister says, quite true that there is at the moment almost a shortage of teachers. There is certainly a shortage of temporary teachers. There are many circumstances to account for this. Perhaps this is not a matter so much of general policy as of detail, to which I can refer again. When a teacher is absent through illness, or any other reason, the onus is on him to find a substitute, and if he does not find a substitute he loses his salary. At present, in many cases, it is impossible to find a substitute of any kind to keep a school open during a teacher's illness, and the consequence is that the teacher loses his salary. I think the Minister will admit that is not a proper thing to happen, but that is what is happening, and I hope the Minister will take steps to deal with it in some way, and that as soon as possible. It is altogether unfair that a teacher who makes every possible effort by advertising and writing to the Education Department—who are supposed to keep a list of unemployed teachers, but who have no such effective list—and who tries by every means, without success, to get a substitute during his illness should have his salary stopped.

That is a matter that should be looked into at once. On this question of the supply of teachers, I believe the Minister will find what I said here before is correct, that it is not so much the salary that affects the supply of teachers as the actual conditions of service. If this committee which is to be set up with regard to inspection makes the conditions of service of the teacher better than at present I believe it will have a marked effect on the supply of teachers that will be forthcoming. The teacher who is fully trained and equipped for his profession does not like to be kept in leading strings all his life as at present. The position is that a man who has twenty, thirty or forty years' service as a teacher finds that all his experience is of little use to him in comparison with the view a junior inspector may take of his work.

With regard to the new preparatory training colleges that the Minister is going to set up—I saw an advertisement in the paper this morning about them—we would like to have a little more information. Some of us hold the view, and expressed it when the matter was under discussion on the occasion of the Supplementary Estimate, that it was doubtful whether it was wise to take these young people who are being prepared for the teaching profession at such an early age as 13, 14, or 15, to segregate them from the rest of the community, and to keep them segregated until they are turned out as fully-fledged teachers at the age of 19 or 20. I doubt the wisdom of that policy. While these young people are in these residential colleges their whole lives will be directed to teaching, and they will hear nothing and know nothing practically during their whole adolescent lives about anything else. I venture to suggest that the money spent on these scholarships would be better expended if it were given in scholarships in existing secondary schools, or even in one or two of these schools, and that these secondary schools would be open to everybody, no matter what profession they were going for. If these scholarships were available, and were only given to secondary schools on certain conditions, they would have the effect of improving the condition of secondary schools anxious to get the scholarships. I think it would be well that the young embryo teacher should mix with people who are going forward for other professions, until his actual technical training period is reached in any case. I do not think they should be segregated at such an early age, and their whole attention directed to teaching. I believe that will tend to narrow the outlook of these people later on, and it is not a good thing that the outlook of teachers should be narrow. If anything their education should be very much broader and wider than it has been up to the present. In this connection I hope that in the new departure in regard to the training of teachers, provision will be made to see that a very considerable proportion of the primary teachers will get the benefit of university training. It is only in that way that the benefits of university training will percolate down to the masses of the people who help to keep up our universities.

On the question of the amalgamation of the schools I would like to say a word or two. This is a country with small schools. As I say 80 per cent. of them have only one or two teachers. We have 5,300 schools altogether and the vast majority of them are small schools. In a very great number of cases we have side by side a boys' school and a girls' school, fully staffed with 30 or 40 boys in one room and 30 or 40 girls in another room. We have at the same time 3,100 schools which are ordinary mixed schools where boys and girls are together. You have schools with say six standards or eight standards in some cases, dealt with by two teachers. There is in some cases only a partition between them. You have another school also with six or eight standards and two teachers dealing with these. There is no reason whatever that I can see why such schools should not be amalgamated. Then you have 80 pupils and six or eight standards with four teachers or three teachers. The whole system is dealt with more effectively I think in that case than where the children are kept in two rooms. In that way the services of one teacher can be saved—I do not say dispensed with because there is a shortage of teachers—but they can be more economically utilised than at present.

In this connection I would like to refer to a circular sent to certain Deputies in this House. Deputy Wilson has got one. It has not been sent to me because the importance or value which I would attach to it was probably known. It is supposed to come from a meeting of teachers in a certain parish in Deputy Wilson's constituency, I think.

Mr. WILSON

In Deputy Gorey's constituency.

Mr. O'CONNELL

It was presided over by a man who is no longer a teacher.

Mr. GOREY

Ex-teachers are not to be sneered at.

Mr. O'CONNELL

They are not to be sneered at so long as they are sensible. A foolish teacher has no greater protection than any other individual who is foolish. This is the resolution which these teachers passed:—

That we indignantly protest against the proposed tyrannical and revolutionary amalgamation of all boys' and girls' schools under 55 average. We consider the proposal to be immoral, uneducational, and anti-national. It will be the means of disemploying nearly 1,000 teachers. Many of these were trained at great expense to the State and had to give a written guarantee that they would adopt the profession with the understanding that the position would be permanent. We call upon our representatives in the Dáil and Seanad to oppose this unjust and inequitable proposal by every means in their power, as we believe it is only meant to pander to a dishonest economy campaign.

I have grave doubts as to whether the people responsible for that resolution really sat down and seriously considered it.

Mr. GOREY

Is this not a question for the teachers?

Mr. O'CONNELL

It is not a question for the teachers because it has been sent to some Deputies, and some Deputies may be foolish enough to attach importance to it. In view of that it is necessary to show that no importance should be attached to it. It is a ridiculous statement on the face of it, as the slightest consideration will show.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

What Deputies got it, may I ask?

Mr. GOOD

Will the Minister say if he got it?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Oh, no.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Nor did I. There is a lot of hot air being talked on this question of amalgamation and that is why I give this example of some of the balderdash, if I may so express it. The idea of 1,000 teachers being disemployed at the present time is ridiculous on the face of it. On the question of amalgamation I return to the report of the Killanin Committee, and so far as this proposal for amalgamation is supposed to be immoral, uneducational and anti-national. On that aspect of the question I am prepared to accept the views of Cardinal O'Donnell and the other representatives who signed this Killanin report rather than the views of the people who are responsible for that resolution. Here is an extract on the question of amalgamation of schools, taken from the Killanin Committee report, that I think it necessary to bring to the notice of the Committee:

We believe that many small schools might, with advantage to educational and communal interests, be amalgamated, and we hope that the Commissioners' policy in that direction will be continued with determination.

Further on they say—

Generally speaking, amalgamation should be carried out whenever possible.

And they go on to give particulars as to how the policy should be carried out by the Commissioners. That was in 1918. The necessity for amalgamation of schools is infinitely greater now than in 1918 owing to the fact that school accommodation has decreased since that time and there is now a shortage of teachers that there was not then.

It is right that public representatives should see that the money spent on education is spent economically. I hold it is not being spent economically at present; at least there is very great room for economy by the amalgamation of our small schools. It is not because of economy I plead for it, but for the greater efficiency that would be brought about by the fact that teachers would have a less number of different standards to deal with if amalgamation were carried out. There are small matters of administration which could be dealt with in this Vote, but I doubt if it is wise to introduce them at this stage. Possibly other Deputies desire to speak on the general question. I will reserve what I have to say on the smaller matters until such time as we come to deal with the sub-heads.

Mr. GOOD

I would like to join with Deputy O'Connell in congratulating the Minister on his excellent statement. I am glad to note that we have in educational matters a Minister who is giving a very large amount of useful attention to current problems and who is constantly in attendance in the Dáil to answer any questions dealing with educational matters. If I am permitted, even at the expense of being revolutionary, to criticise the Minister's statement, it will be from the point of view that he has devoted practically the whole of his attention to the subject of primary education, and he has given us very little information on technical education or university education.

The Minister has criticised the view I expressed, when the Estimates were under consideration on a previous occasion, that there should be co-ordination between the different departments of education. I hold that is an essential and vital principle in education if we are to get the best results from the expenditure involved. The School Attendance Act that we passed recently has shown the connection between primary education and technical education. That is generally recognised. I would like to see in our State a closer connection between the policies governing those two important departments of education. I would also like to see an important development towards making university education more a part of our education system. The difficulty in the Free State, up to a short time ago, was that primary education was run by one department, technical education was run by another, and university education was left very largely to look after itself with State assistance. We have now succeeded in getting all these departments of education within the jurisdiction of one Minister. One would like to see, under that Minister, a really live connection established between these different departments.

I hope the Minister will forgive me if I criticise one aspect of technical education. Technical education at the moment is not, in my opinion, getting the attention or support that is necessary, nor am I satisfied that the channels leading up to university education are getting the attention or support that is eminently desirable and that they get in other countries. The Minister pointed out, very properly, that one of the causes why technical education was not making the progress that was desirable was that a great deal of the time spent in our technical schools was spent on subjects that should be taught in the primary schools. That is a recognised difficulty that has existed in our technical schools for a number of years. There is only one way, to my mind, of removing that difficulty—it is a very real difficulty—and that is by getting a higher standard of education in our primary schools. If we had that higher standard of education in primary schools, the students who would offer themselves to the technical schools would not require education in what are known as primary subjects.

I disagree entirely with Deputy O'Connell when he speaks of the standard of education reached in our primary schools as being highly satisfactory. He has quoted educationalists of admitted experience in support of his statement. These views are the views of those who are engaged in educational work in our own State, and they cannot be looked upon in any sense as impartial. I have been looked upon as revolutionary, I suppose, by the Minister because I have expressed very strong views heretofore on the low standard of education possessed by those pupils leaving our primary schools.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

That was not the reason.

Mr. GOOD

The Minister has many strings to his bow.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

That is not revolutionary.

Mr. GOOD

I am glad we have agreement on that point, and this is a fact that is common to the mind of the Minister and to my mind.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

What is the fact that is common to the mind of the Deputy and mine? I hope there are many facts, but what this particular fact is, I want to know.

Mr. GOOD

That the standard of education leaving our primary schools is not as high as we would like to see it.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I will admit at once that the standard of education leaving any school is not as high as we would like. But that is a very different thing from what Deputy Good said first.

Mr. GOOD

The figures I will give you will show that the standard of education possessed by those leaving our primary schools is a very low one. Within the last few months I have come in contact with applicants for licences for street trading, in connection with our own city. There were eighty-one of these applicants applying for licences. Of these 81 there were six of the age of 16; 19 of the age of 15; 41 of the age of 14; and 15 of the age of 13. These were boys and girls in our city. I give the ages to show they are just pupils who have left our primary schools within a comparatively recent period. The standard of education possessed by those 81 pupils was as follows:—Only four of them had reached the 6th standard. It is known, and I might mention it here, that it is recognised that except a pupil has reached the 5th and 6th standard that pupil cannot read and write properly; and that anything below the 5th standard means that particular individual is deficient in either reading or writing, and possibly will become an illiterate in a very short time. Now, of these 81, four had passed the 6th standard: 14 had only passed the 5th; 29 the 4th; 19 the 3rd; 9 had only reached the 2nd standard; and six had only reached the 1st standard. That means that of these 81 only 18 had got beyond the 4th standard; in other words, that 63 are illiterate. These are figures that came to my knowledge within the last couple of months.

Mr. P.J. EGAN

Might I ask the Deputy if he has any knowledge as to what extent these children attended the primary schools?

Mr. WILSON

There is compulsory attendance in Dublin.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

In a sort of way.

Mr. GOOD

With regard to attendance I cannot give any information. I am only judging by the results. We are told that our standards of education here are producing quite as good results as are to be found anywhere else. We had that from Deputy O'Connell.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

What I said was that the average boy who attends regularly up to the age of 14 in an ordinary average school has reached as high a standard of education as the boy in any other country who has attended up to the same age. I am not speaking of those waifs and strays of whom Deputy Good has spoken, and whose attendance, I am sure, must have been grossly irregular. When he speaks of boys like those he has spoken of, that is not a basis of comparison.

Mr. GOOD

I am only giving the information that came before me. I do not want to exaggerate it, in any way. That information was, to my mind, a fair illustration of the standard of education possessed by boys leaving our primary schools at the moment, and that is in our own city.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

That shows the need for the late Act.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The Deputy is not merely giving information. He is also drawing conclusions from it. I hope the Deputy and the Dáil are quite clear on that.

Mr. GOOD

I hope the Minister will not take any objection to my conclusions. I hope that will not be looked upon as revolutionary.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

No, only that I want to point out that the Deputy was giving more than information.

Mr. GOOD

I was glad to hear the Minister say in connection with secondary education that he hoped to leave no gap in the boy's training between the time that he enters the primary school and when he leaves the secondary school at the age of 20 or 21. It is, I think, most desirable that we should keep in touch with the education of these assets of the State; I refer to the young people as assets of the State. We should keep in touch with them until they are put in the position of gaining a livelihood and becoming useful citizens. Evidently that is what the Minister has in mind in connection with those engaged in secondary education. I would like to have that principle extended, and that we should not limit it to one particular class.

To my mind, the great defect in our educational system up to this has been that we take boys or girls on hands and educate them up to the age of fourteen years. That is our intention, and then we leave them there, and take no further interest in them. After that they must fend for themselves. That is the worst blot on our educational system to-day. What is the result of that? In connection with our own city some 6,000 boys or girls leave our primary schools every year. Of those the greater number register at the juvenile employment labour exchange, in order to obtain employment, but that department is unable to find employment for more than 1,000. Of the 6,000 applicants they can find employment only for something like 1,000. If we assume that another couple of thousand find employment, and I think that would be looked upon as a fairly generous estimate, it means that of the 6,000 boys and girls leaving our schools there is no possibility of securing employment for half the number. They drift on; they get tired going around the city looking for employment, and then, at the moment they reach their sixteenth year, they become claimants for unemployment benefit.

They are practically becoming a charge on the Unemployment Fund. That is one of the blackest blots in our educational system. At the age of 14 those boys and girls are fit for nothing. The lesson I want to urge is that we should not confine our supervision and our attention to the boys and girls in secondary schools. Our responsibilities should be extended to those other boys and girls who have possibly a greater claim, and amongst whom are assets that might be of the greatest importance to the State.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

As the Deputy is tacking his remarks on to the statement I made I do not want him to have the idea that when I said we hoped ultimately there would be no gap between the time a person enters at the age of 14 and leaves at the age of 21 that I was referring, by any means, to secondary education. I was not dealing with the larger problem Deputy Good raised. A certain number of people go to the primary schools. We hope ultimately we may have some kind of compulsion up to the age of 16 throughout most of the country. That problem is engaging our attention. A number of people go on to the secondary schools and a number go to the technical schools. A number also go to the university. I want to make it that no matter where they go there will not be an educational gap. I was dealing only with part of the problem Deputy Good raised, and apparently there has been a misunderstanding of the scope of my statement.

Mr. GOOD

I wanted only to impress on the Minister that, in his desire that certain sections of the population should be looked after up to a certain date, he might also extend to other sections of the population these facilities. I hope this important aspect of the work of his Department will have much more attention in future than it had in the past. It is one of the most serious problems in the life of our city to see these boys and girls, who might have great futures before them, with no opportunity to make use of the talents many of them possess. As the Minister talks of setting up Commissions of Inquiry in connection with this work of education, here is a particular responsibility that, I think, might usefully be inquired into by a commission. I should like to see these boys and girls, if they do not find employment immediately when they leave the primary school at the age of 14, taken into a technical school and occupation given to them until they reach the age of 16. I should also like to see some interest taken in guiding those boys and girls into useful spheres of employment.

While we have on the one side here a large increase year by year in the number of the unemployed, a number of those boys and girls go to swell the numbers of what are called unskilled workers in the Saorstát. That is increasing, as statistics will show. If we do not keep in touch with those boys educationally and advise them in other respects, they are sure to drift, and add to the large numbers of the unemployed. While you have that on the one side, on the other side you have, in connection with out-trades, reductions in the number of skilled workers. Whether that reduction is due to the fault of the employers or those employed in the industry, I am not prepared to say, because I believe there are faults on both sides. I think those boys should be given an opportunity to go into those trades if they have natural aptitudes for them, and we should see that there are no difficulties placed in the way of those boys and girls. It is a paradox that we should have an increase in the number of unemployed on the one hand, and a reduction in the number of skilled trades on the other. That is a problem that ought to engage both the intention of the Minister for Education and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and if, in order to get information as to the importance of that problem, it is necessary to set up a commission, I think the Minister should not hesitate to do so, because, as I said, it is one of the most important problems that confronts not alone education, but the trade and commerce of our city and country.

Mr. GOREY

Very little can be said on this Vote which has not already been said. Very little new matter can be brought forward. The condition of the schools has been referred to, and mention has been made in some cases of the method of building them. The system that obtained, so far as I know, was that when a new school was to be built, the people around the district found the materials and delivered them on the site. Materials that could not be got locally, such as timber, were bought and were drawn by the people. That was their contribution to the school. With regard to the sanitation, ventilation, and looking after the schools, I do not know what is at the back of Deputy O'Connell's mind when he says that some means should be found for looking after the condition of the schools. I am not talking about upkeep, but about cleanliness and that sort of thing. Are we to have a cleansing staff or a caretaker? I understand that America finds other means than employing an outside staff to look after the condition of the schools. In any case, whether it is the teacher, the children, or the caretaker, the question arises, who is too good, and who is not too good to do it? Somebody must do it. Somebody is too good, and somebody else is good enough to do this job.

With regard to ventilation, I think it would be well, when the teacher is being trained, that he should have some instruction in that matter, as there seem to be varying ideas about it. Some people will not sit in a school if there is a semblance of a draught, while others will not remain unless all the windows are open. Some instruction as to what is necessary in summer and what is necessary in winter should be given. In a huge percentage of schools in rural areas little attention was paid, when constructing them, to the needs of sanitation, ventilation, and so forth, and it would be next to impossible to do anything with them in their present condition. More money must be expended in order to put them right. On many occasions it has been mentioned here, by myself as well as others, that the opinion of many parents, in fact of ninety per cent. of them, is that the primary system gave better results when the result system obtained than under the present salary system. I think that most of our educational authorities admit that fact. The teachers themselves admit that there is a considerable shortage of capable young teachers. Something is responsible for that shortage. It did not exist when the result system obtained, and when teaching was not as attractive a profession as it now is, from the point of view of salaries. Is it that the young men, when they left the primary schools, were better equipped to go into secondary schools or training colleges than they are now? I am not competent to give an expert opinion, but even if I were, it would probably not be accepted.

Mr. O'CONNELL

There is the same competition for the Civil Service.

Mr. GOREY

That class of people do not come from the primary schools.

Mr. O'CONNELL

The teachers come from these schools.

Mr. GOREY

A considerable number of them come from the Christian Brothers' schools.

Mr. O'CONNELL

These are primary schools.

Mr. GOREY

They are in one sense, but they are not the schools from which teachers are recruited to a large extent. We do not, of course, expect that a child leaving a primary school will be completely educated in the modern sense, but we expect these children to have a pretty sound knowledge of the general essentials and with a pretty solid foundation laid. I may be particularly unfortunate, but I have young lads coming home from these primary schools and some of them have talent and are well equipped while others have no attention paid to them. When, however, they go to a secondary school they seem to make a vast improvement.

Mr. O'CONNELL

If they had not a well-laid foundation they would not.

Mr. GOREY

The foundation was not well laid. I do not want to talk about this subject as it is a personal matter. I do not want to say anything about the principle of the secondary school down there. It is a question between teachers, a sort of row among members of the same family, and I do not want to interfere. This raises another matter, namely, the suggestion that the inspection department is not as strict as it should be.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

What place is that?

Mr. GOREY

If the suggestion is true that the primary schools are not doing as good work as when the result system obtained, it points to the fact that the inspection department is not insisting on as high a standard as formerly.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Then a hypothetical statement is to condemn the inspection department?

Mr. GOREY

My remarks are simply directed for the purpose of giving a little food for thought. As I said, I am not expert, and if I claimed to give an expert opinion it would not be accepted. I am glad to know that the Dáil is unanimous on that.

It does point to the inspection department requiring to prove that it is as efficient, that it insists on the highest standard, and that it is taking pains to see that the results are as good or better than those we had formerly. I think it is due to us that we should have much better results. How long is it since this result system has been dispensed with?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Since about the beginning of the century. About twenty-six years.

Mr. GOREY

I did not think it was so long ago, and my explanation is that I did not think I was so old. Without having any ulterior object, I want to know what does "amalgamation of schools in the rural districts" mean. Deputy O'Connell spoke of boys' and girls' schools under the one roof and being divided by a partition. Are these what are meant to be amalgamated?

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Yes.

Mr. GOREY

That is clear. I wanted to know, because it occurred to me that it might mean that several male schools in a parish should be amalgamated, and that several female schools should be amalgamated in the same way. There is no doubt now about what the Deputy means. I have no objection at the moment to this course, though I may have considerable objection later on, or I may have approval.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The Deputy should give us his views for and against, and let us see what help he can give.

Mr. GOREY

I have no definite views at the moment. I have not come to a decision. Perhaps I am too slow mentally to arrive at quick decisions. I do not think that the standard on leaving the primary schools thirty years ago was low. I know that inspection day was then a most important day, and there was tremendous excitement. So much depended on it that the teacher was vastly excited, and that excitement was transmitted to many of the scholars. Anyone who did not pass, and whom the teacher thought should have passed, had a rough time when the results came, and I think good results were got. I am not prepared to admit that the standard was low. I think it was high, in view of the fact that the boys left school at an early age, and many of them turned out useful citizens. A considerable number of boys at that time had no trouble in going through secondary schools, and afterwards through the training colleges and becoming teachers.

We will not grumble about the amount of money that is spent, in reason, but I think we must be forgiven for asking for results for the money. We are prepared to spend money if we get value for it. Whether right or wrong, it is my view, and it is the view of most of the parents I come in contact with—in fact it was their experience that gave me a definite opinion on the matter—that we are not getting value for the money spent on primary education. That may be true or it may not, but it is the view generally held.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think that it is well that Deputy Gorey should have expressed what I believe is a fairly common opinion, but on which he ought to be corrected. He has been corrected and has made ample acknowledgment of the fact that he was in error in assuming that this question of amalgamating schools meant closing a detached building and bringing the scholars from that building into another building. But I think it is more important still for Deputies, and such of the public as may be interested, to realise that the majority of the national schools in the country are, in fact, what may be called amalgamated schools. That is to say they are mixed schools.

Out of 5,338 schools 3,105 are mixed schools. So that we may take it that the effect of the proposed amalgamation of the boys' and girls' schools to make one school in one building, instead of two schools in one building, upon the morality and the education of the children cannot be what is suggested, inasmuch as the majority of the schools are already of the nature which is urged should be applied to the rest. I think, too, that it is well to be reminded, just for the sake of proportion, so that we will not be entirely self-deprecatory, that, as the Minister said, the same kind of attack upon the results of the education system that we are hearing here is directed against the education system in other countries.

The Minister quoted a certain statement which appeared in the "Daily Mail." It has been pursuing a campaign, particularly regarding the educational results of the London County Council school system. The London County Council spends an immense amount of money, and I think they have a good system, that the results are probably much better than the results of the earlier system in London. But there are people, very many people no doubt, especially those who have come to the age of Deputy Gorey and myself, who think that things were done infinitely better in their boyhood than they are done now.

Mr. HEWAT

The good old times!

Mr. JOHNSON

The good old times, as Deputy Hewat says. Looking to the educational results of the present system, which is a change from the older system, some people are inclined to think that they are bad. This writer refers to the test examination that was held and states that only fourteen boys out of twenty-six who had been educated for nine years in the county council schools had given satisfactory answers to eighteen questions on general knowledge. The examination was supposed to be one for a junior clerkship in the office of the newspaper. It is said that "only two boys solved seven simple problems in arithmetic, and that only one gave correct answers to seventy-five per cent. of the eighteen questions on general knowledge." The writer says: "I think you are wonderfully fortunate in getting so many boys who could both read and write. I had in my employment two girls who, after nine years' education in an elementary school, were unable to do either." Another writer, an employer of a number of boys, states that "they made him consider for some time that the money spent on their education was absolutely thrown away. I do not think any of them would be able to answer twenty-five per cent. of the questions quoted in your article, but they are splendid workers." That should satisfy Deputy Hewat. "They are excellent time-keepers, and I cannot help thinking that these young men's minds have not been allowed to develop. Whose fault is that—the teachers' or the system? Whichever it is, it is rotten!"

Mr. WILSON

Is the inference to be drawn from that, that if they were educated they would be bad workers?

Mr. JOHNSON

I cannot say what inference the writer intended to draw. I am just confirming the view expressed by the Minister on this, that you will find everywhere a condemnation of the results from an existing system inasmuch as it is a change from an older system, and particularly if it is a system that costs more money. One may as well admit that whether one is speaking of the system in another country or in this, that it would be possible to find many examples of faulty results, but it should be borne in mind that the numbers of boys and girls who are being brought into the system of education is greater than it used to be, and that the object of primary education particularly is to raise the general level and to give them all this foundation of education which will enable them to develop, if they have it in themselves to do so, in after years. The results system, which Deputy Gorey laments, or at least feels that it was thrown away too lightly, had the effect of simply driving on the particularly keen and able, not to raise the general level, to draw out the abnormal and the particularly clever at the expense of the rest of the class and of the teacher's peace of mind.

I think it is pretty well accepted by all educationists that that system is well away with and ought never to be brought back, particularly as it applied to the primary schools. It was admitted, and I think on all hands accepted, that you cannot get results from any system unless you have regular attendance. The purpose of the legislation recently passed is, of course, to ensure regular attendance, but, of course, we cannot tell what the results will be until we have had some years' experience.

My own experience of young men, particularly in the country districts, is that to-day they show a standard of knowledge resulting from education at least as good as it was in my earlier days. It has been my experience that it is a good deal better than that of townsmen in the cities of this and other countries. I believe that the young man of twenty to-day is very much better equipped than the young man of twenty was, say, thirty years ago. Speaking generally, and not picking out an individual here or there, a young man of eighteen or twenty to-day is better equipped than his father was at that age. I think that will continue to be the case if we can rely on regularity of attendance in the schools in the future.

I am in agreement with some of the views expressed by Deputy Good on this question. As to boys and girls who leave school after fourteen, and who cannot obtain employment, I agree with the Deputy that the technical schools should be brought into use for the sake of those boys who are not employed, pending the time when it will be general for them to continue their school career at least up to the age of sixteen. I took a special note of the paradox that Deputy Good spoke of, namely, that while there was an increase in the numbers unemployed, there was a decrease in the number of skilled workers in the trades. Of course the Deputy was speaking of the cities and of the difficulty of getting boys into skilled trades. He suggested the necessity of an examination by a committee or a commission of this problem.

Of course it is a paradox, but one can easily see the cause and effect in the very terms of the Deputy's paradox. The number of skilled workers unemployed is great, and therefore boys are not going into those trades where the prospect of unemployment awaits them. I do not want to enter into a discussion of the economic question involved in this. Still, we cannot but recognise the exercise of the instinct for self-defence amongst men who are bound together in a trade or craft, or of the father who says that he will not encourage his son to go in for that trade while he is out of employment himself. However much one may lament the fact that there is a decline in the number of skilled craftsmen, you cannot blame any body of men for saying that they will not allow or encourage other people to learn these crafts if the number of men who have already learned them are not able to obtain employment at them.

Mr. WILSON

That does not apply to professional men?

Mr. JOHNSON

The time is not far off, I think, when the professions will be overcrowded, too.

Mr. ALTON

Would the Deputy tell us how he would remedy that?

Mr. JOHNSON

The Deputy wants me to go into another department not concerned with the one for education. There is one line of criticism that I would like to follow on the Minister's statement. I think he did not deal sufficiently fully with a problem which he touched upon, that of the secondary schools and the secondary school teacher. He recognised that the tenure, superannuation, or pension of secondary teacher raises a problem— while these questions have had a good deal of consideration—which has not yet been brought to the point of solution, nor is any suggestion of a solution in sight. I think that is disappointing. I was hopeful that the Minister would be able to say that he had at last got on the right lines with respect to a scheme of pensions for secondary teachers. Even if the question of tenure had to be postponed, I think the provision of funds for a scheme of pensions, to enable a body of secondary teachers to provide for their own eventual superannuation and, in the meantime, to allow for those ready for retirement, and perhaps those who have actually retired, is urgently called for. I regret that the Minister has not been able to bring forward proposals for the solution of that problem. The need is obvious.

In the interests of education, I think it is desirable that men who have spent the best part of their lives in this public service should not be encouraged to carry on work which they are not, perhaps, quite mentally and physically fitted for now, but who, because of their economic needs, must carry on. I trust the Minister will be able to give us a more hopeful promise, that the question of the superannuation of secondary teachers is receiving the very closest attention and will be brought to the point of solution. Other matters may arise on the details of the Estimates, but I join now with other Deputies in commending the Minister's general statement, and in agreeing that the education system of the country seems to be under the direction of one who will bring an active and sympathetic mind to bear on the problem. I think we can look forward to a considerable advance in the education of the people.

Mr. ALTON

I am very glad that the Minister is taking up the question of school buildings. That is one of the fundamental necessities of primary education. It is impossible to have a proper system of education in defective buildings and with defective equipment. Whatever the cost, I think the country should be prepared to face it. I agree with the suggestion of Deputy O'Connell that the cost of these buildings should be a capital charge—perhaps a State charge. After all, the buildings will last for generations, and, I think, posterity might pay a little for them. I rise, really, to get a little more light on the question of the amalgamation of primary schools. I believe very strongly in the amalgamation of schools. Speaking generally, a great many will agree that a good big school is better for the pupils than a good little school. It means that you will have a larger staff, a better system, and that the working of the school will be easier. There is also another aspect that must be looked at. The students or pupils learn as much from their companions—from their peers—as from the teachers. There is education in the little world of the play-ground and in the company of fellow-pupils. That will be largely missed in smaller schools. A resolution has been sent to some Deputies—I did not receive it— stating that the policy of amalgamation is anti-national and immoral. That will be resented by anybody who knows anything about Irish schools. As Deputy Johnson and other Deputies have pointed out, the larger proportion of our schools are mixed, so that no new principle is being introduced. I hope the Minister will persevere in the policy of amalgamation.

I would not like to express any opinion as to whether the standard of education is higher or lower to-day than it was when I was young. Like every other person who has reached my age I am firmly convinced that pupils do not do as much work, do not learn as much now, as they did in my school-days; that my school was the best school, and that we worked harder than anyone has worked since. If I was asked to prove that I would find it very difficult.

The modern programmes are too diverse. I think the instruction given now is too scattered and the interval between subjects too long and that, perhaps, in the elementary schools there may be an effort to try and learn too much. I think it is always better to learn a little well than a lot in a superficial and cursory manner. Deputy O'Connell will agree, I think, with that sentiment. He has experience which I have not had in primary education. Deputy Good appealed to the Minister to do something to remove what is a very common defect, especially in city schools. I hope the Minister will consider that appeal seriously. It is a pity, and it seems a waste to carry education to a certain point and then throw it up unfinished, letting the pupils fend for themselves. Education in that way is a kind of torso. I gather the Minister has recognised that co-ordination of our educational system is essential and I think certainly that something can be done to get rid of these difficulties to which Deputy Good alluded if we could raise the age of compulsory attendance. The Minister, I know, is looking forward to that. I shall reserve my remarks as regards the question of established tenure for secondary teachers and, if possible, pensions, to the proper Vote on secondary education.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I desire to raise a few points apart from questions of general policy. I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising them at this stage. My understanding of this Vote is that practically all the discussion will take place upon it.

Mr. JOHNSON

It deals with policy.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Some of the points I want to refer to are not questions of policy. I want to ask the Minister to give me some information with regard to the position of the Teachers' Pension Fund, and as to how teachers who retired before a certain date are being treated. I have received many communications from a gentleman who is secretary to the Pensioned Teachers' Union.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Can the Deputy say whether this matter is on this Vote or on any other Vote that I have to do with?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Perhaps the Minister would let me know on what Vote it arises.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I think the Deputy believes that the Minister for Education should have a paternal interest in the teachers. That is the point he is making.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Certainly, but are the teachers to whom the Deputy is referring existing teachers?

Mr. O'CONNELL

Existing pensioned teachers.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I also want to endorse what was said here with regard to the announcement made by the Minister concerning school-buildings. I was one of the first to advocate the improvement of school-buildings, and I am glad to hear that steps are being taken in that direction. I think it is impossible to teach children adequately in inferior school-buildings, and a great many of the schools, in the country, are inferior. Apart from the question of education there is also to be considered the health of the children, and while I would be slow to advocate a policy of spending money there are certain things where we cannot retrench, and the provision of adequate schools is one of those matters on which we ought not to try to have savings. Many of our schools are insanitary, ill-lighted, ill-ventilated, too small, and have no adequate playgrounds. I believe it is impossible for the teacher to keep children in these schools and allow them to take advantage of his teaching. It is impossible for the teacher himself to keep up a healthy, bright outlook in such surroundings and under such circumstances. Any reasonable steps in that direction must meet with the approval of all Deputies. With regard to the question of the general expenses of the educational policy of the Minister, I have often thought that perhaps we were spending more money upon primary education than we ought to spend. However, I must say my views are getting modified in that direction and particularly after the statements made here frequently that you are finding it difficult to get the right type of young men to come forward for the teaching profession. I cannot understand why a profession that offers very good monetary inducements for the services given does not attract more people to take it up. However, if they are not coming forward, although the road is open, it must mean that there is some objection to taking up the profession of teaching. I trust the Minister is going to strive to make the road open to all suitable young men and that no obstacle is placed in the way of those anxious to take up the profession. I do not know what the avenues are that lead to this profession or if they are freely open. If we are to have proper education the teachers must be the best the country can produce. Although I do not want to deal with the matter from its social aspect, still I am inclined to think that there are many people, accustomed to sending their children to what are known as the higher professions, law, medicine, and so forth, who might reconsider their attitude and come to see that this profession of teaching is one suitable for any man to embrace.

Mr. O'CONNELL

The county councils might also consider giving them scholarships.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Deputy Gorey dealt with the question of the standards now reached in the schools as compared with the standards reached in his time and in my time. I believe he thinks that the results achieved under the old system were more satisfactory than at the present time. My personal experience of the National schools is that so far as intensive teaching in certain subjects in the old days went I think the results were better. A certain number of subjects such as arithmetic and geography, and perhaps handwriting, were brought to a higher state of perfection than now. Some boys that left the National school to which I was going, one in the Fifth and another in the Sixth Standard, went to an Intermediate school and they stated that the mathematical knowledge they acquired at the National school was quite sufficient to take them up to the Middle Grade standard in the secondary school. I think that is hardly the case now. I think the tendency is to be more diverse and to spread over more subjects, and not to concentrate as in the past. Of course in these matters we are all biased. I do not claim to have a great deal of knowledge, but I think I have more knowledge of education now than when I left school.

I am very pleased that the programme, which I believe has been adopted by the Ministry, embraces the subject of rural science. We on these benches have been pressing for the inclusion of this subject in the programme for a long time. We think that emphasis ought to be laid on the importance of teaching subjects which will give the pupils an interest in the country in which they live, and make them regard the occupation of farming as an acceptable and honourable one which should not take second place to any other profession. In fact, it is one of the most important professions. School programmes in the past were inclined to give children the idea that farming was an occupation of the very least importance. I would like also included in the school books lessons dealing more with rural life and farming questions than has been the case in the past. I think the arithmetic taught should be such that a good many of the problems would deal with questions relating to the occupation of farming. Arithmetic and book-keeping in the past dealt with such things as tuns of wine and bales of cloth, which had nothing to do with us, and which some of us have not seen since, instead of dealing with the very intricate arithmetic and book-keeping relating to farming. It would be a very good thing if the weights and measures were simplified. It would be most important for a farmer looking at the market reports in the papers if he had any comparison which would give him information with regard to the following of prices in the different countries. There are other problems which to an extent are grounded on these weights and measures. Book-keeping ought to be taught largely from the farming point of view, so that the children would be able when they go into farming to keep correct accounts, and perhaps go so far as to keep costing accounts if they so desired for information purposes.

Professor THRIFT

I regret very much I had not the advantage of listening to the full statement by the Minister, but I would like to say that so much of it as I did hear made me think that it augured well for the future. The first step towards the solution of any problem must be the recognition of it, and I think the Minister showed that he recognised the many problems with which the future faces us. As regards education in the Free State, I notice that he realises the pressing necessity for dealing with the problems of extending education beyond the age of fourteen years and filling up the gap that exists between that age, at any rate, up to about sixteen, and the continuation school question must be faced very soon. Further, he recognises the urgency for providing proper school accommodation, and inasmuch as he has just dealt with these matters I do not intend to deal further with them. Neither do I think it necessary to say anything at length on the question of the school programme. I agree it is an important thing that the school programme should have been fixed with what is practically a unanimous voice by the conference that dealt with that matter. Having met with that unanimity I think it ought at any rate to get a trial before there is an extensive discussion on it. I would like to say one thing with reference to the unanimity of that report, and that is, as I understand it, that unanimity deals with the programme as at present proposed, and it was clearly understood by those who signed the programme that they were not committing themselves to the preliminary reasons which lead up to the final recommendation of that conference, but that programme is the result of deliberations, and it is the best that could be put forward at present in order to meet the rather varied complex problem as it faces us.

One thing that I want particularly to refer to has, in a sense, I understand, been already referred to, and from my point of view unfavourably. I am aware that the term "amalgamation" could be used in a double sense. It may refer to the amalgamation merely of male and female schools, but I think it is capable of being used in a much wider sense. The root cause of many of our difficulties in this country, as I am sure has been said by somebody, is the sparsely-populated areas which are distributed through the country. I want to urge on the Minister as strongly as I can to take into consideration the problem of amalgamating the schools gradually, but ultimately to a very large extent. I think there are a great many advantages to be gained by such a policy, and only as secondary one would I mention the very great economic gain that there would be from such an amalgamation. I am aware that once this programme is undertaken in a root and branch method that certain religious difficulties will have to be faced. I do not believe at all that those difficulties are incapable of solution, but long before we get to that stage I think a great deal can be done in amalgamating schools in areas where the population is sparsely scattered. It would be a great advantage to the administration and to the children. In passing I would like to refer to the very remarkable way in which the Minister was thinking throughout his statement of the good of the school children. It is a remarkable thing to have it coming from him that that was foremost in his mind.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

In referring to amalgamation the Deputy does not mean it in the sense defined by Deputy O'Connell, but in a wider sense?

Professor THRIFT

Yes.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

In the geographical sense?

Professor THRIFT

Yes. I am referring to the grouping of schools, and getting rid of very small schools in districts where the population is sparse and having one good school replacing a number of small ones. I think the Minister will find, if he investigates the matter, that there is a good deal to be done in that direction. I think he will find that it will be bound to lead to economy and better teaching. In reference to a remark let fall by Deputy Heffernan, I think it is necessary to point out that no matter what good terms you offer to men and women with a view to persuading them to undertake the profession of teaching you will always find that in a limited population the number of good teachers is limited. There are special qualities required in good teaching, qualities which you cannot purchase by money, but which you can find by making a proper selection, and I think you will always find it difficult to get good teachers for the large number of schools that at present have to be supplied with teachers.

I know experiments in this direction are going on in other places and I am pretty well satisfied that the results of these experiments have shown that the modern conveniences of motor transport will enable children to be brought in a satisfactory way from quite a considerable area to a centrally-situated school. I think if it is properly worked out it will enable us to get at one school for these areas, properly built and properly fitted, in place of poor schools inadequately built and inadequately fitted. It will enable us to get rid, to a large extent, of our troubles. It will enable us to have a sufficiently large attendance to justify the employment of two or three teachers and will enable the children to be taught better than it is possible to have them taught by a single teacher in the different grades at present. That is one of the biggest difficulties so far as providing good education is concerned. I think if such an arrangement could be worked out on any considerable scale it will do good in many directions. It will bring children to school more regularly. It will save them from exposure during bad weather, of which we know by experience, and it will save them exposure, which very often produces very bad effects in the child.

As I have said, it will lead to better teaching and lead to a real improvement in many standards. I do not agree at all with Deputy Heffernan in attributing the results which he mentioned to the abolition of the old results system. There were a great many other causes which have to be considered which are more likely to be the real cause rather than the one to which he referred. I do press for various reasons, particularly because it will lead to better education of the child and be for the good of the child, that the Minister should seriously consider the problem of grouping the small schools. I do not think the difficulty referred to will arise in that direction. I think he will find that it can be done with real economy and will ultimately lead to a diminution in the demand which it is difficult to supply at present with properly-trained teachers. There are certain other points to which I wished to refer, but these can be more suitably dealt with when we come to the sub-head, and on the broad question I do not think I will detain the House further.

Professor MAGENNIS

As one who has long held the rare abilities of the Minister in high esteem, I had hoped that he would signalise his first year of office by some notable departure in policy. Under the old régime we had many boards of education and no Minister. Now we have a Minister and no boards, advisory or otherwise. It seems to me that the success of the late Programme Conference ought to stimulate the Department into providing itself with the advantage of some such body more or less permanent, to which it could refer problems as they arise and from which it would always generously receive the contribution of the varied experience of its members. I think that is a reform in Irish education that is a very badly wanted. It was a continual grievance with the secondary school teachers in the early days, that the Board of Intermediate Education went its way, made its own decisions, framed its programmes and carried on its administration without taking account of what the teaching staff of the secondary schools was able to contribute. It became arbitrary and was opened at times to the imputation of being notional and doctrinnaire. There is always that danger with regard to educational administration through one central authority, and the proper corrective to it is, as experience has shown, the provision of an Advisory Council. We have provision made for them in the Article of the Constitution that contemplates the creation of vocational councils, of which the Minister of the Department concerned would be, ex officio, the chairman.

Not only do I regret that he has made no new departure, but I regret that he seems to be fixed more or less in the pursuance of what has hitherto been the policy, that is to say, to exclude universities from their proper place in the educational system. It might seem that inasmuch as we have a Government Department of Education, the intrusion of the universities in the control or management would be something for that Department to resent, but anyone who, like the Minister himself, has studied these matters of educational policy and education co-ordination is aware—Deputy Good has referred incidentally to the matter, I should say in passing—that for a proper organism of education in the country you must not divorce the university from the other elements of the organisation, and the views of the university authorities in regard to programmes and methods of teaching are not to be ignored, even although it might seem that primary education is so far out of the university ambit.

Another item in the organism that receives neglect, or seems at any rate to be somewhat neglected, is the training college. The Minister in sketching incidentally the composition of the Commission he has in view to inquire into complaints made on inspection, mentioned that to give that Commission of Inquiry a personnel adequate to its character he would include in it representatives of head masters and representatives of managers of schools, but he never once referred to representatives of the training colleges. Not for the first time I find it necessary to dwell upon the important place that the training college occupies, or rather should be permitted to occupy in the work of public education. You may make your attendance compulsory, you may devise admirable programmes, but if you have not got a well-trained teacher to work out your scheme of education, as laid out in the programmes, all the well-devised arrangements fall to the ground. The supply of well-trained teachers must come to the Department of Education through the training colleges.

It is admitted, of course, in the setting up of subsidiary training colleges, for so I may describe those preparatory training colleges which Deputy O'Connell spoke earlier about, that the training college is an important item, but I am referring now not to the new preparatory training colleges but to the existing training colleges. The late Minister had promised, years ago, a commission of inquiry into them. No such commission, although it was promised, was ever set up. A Departmental Commission is at present inquiring into them. As one who is a convinced opponent of departmental inquiries, it seems to me that the purpose in view could have been better served by a fuller commission, non-departmental in character, that would have taken evidence and whose report would not be open to any suspicion of being ex-parte. I am not attacking the membership or the work hitherto carried out by this Departmental Commission. I do not know who its members are, as a matter of fact, although I appeared before it. I am therefore not speaking, with regard to its personnel, with prejudice, but on principle objecting to a Departmental Committee where a Commission would have been the proper instrument.

The training colleges suffer at present on the financial side more particularly with regard to the absence of a provision to provide pensions for their whole-time officers. That has long been the grievance and disability with regard to training colleges. It is precisely the same difficulty as concerns the Minister with regard to the pensions for secondary teachers. It so happened that the training colleges are for all denominations, and are private property, more or less, in private hands carrying out this public work with funds voted by this House. We have no provision for pensions, although it has been admitted repeatedly, in the case notably of the inquiry set up into the matter by the late National Education Commission, that the salaries of full-time professors in the training colleges were inadequate, inasmuch as they were offices which although regarded as pensionable, had no pension attached to them. That is one of the unfortunate features of the secondary schools and of the training colleges. Unless something, and that soon, is done by the Minister in conjunction with the Minister for Finance to remedy the difficulty, damage will have been done to education that it will be very hard to retrieve. I have spoken upon this every year, and so I merely mention the matter now without going into it argumentatively. I may be prejudiced, but I take the view that reform in primary education is to be sought through the training colleges. The maintenance of training colleges at a high level of efficiency involves an expenditure of more money than has yet been expended on them.

The training colleges should be absorbed into the university system. Many of us have been labouring to that end. We are as far away, so far as the majority of the existing training colleges are concerned, as we were years and years ago. I had hoped something of a beginning might have been attempted once the control of Irish affairs came into our own hands here. I am still hoping against hope that the training college question will be taken up more seriously. It may be that the Departmental Committee's report will provide that step forward. We live in that hope. Anyone who is familiar with educational problems, more particularly those that affect the primary schools, must be aware that we are merely tinkering with the problem until we put the training colleges on a proper footing. They must be linked up with the university.

As regards the other matters of policy, the amalgamation of schools, to which Deputy Thrift alludes, is a reform which some are afraid to advocate, firstly because it is unpopular, inasmuch as it seems to be a move to reduce the actual number of people employed, and secondly because some of its advocates are suspected of sinister motives in regard to the denominational question. We may leave suspicions to one side as regards the second when Deputy Thrift joins the throng of those who advocate the reduction of these, and the substitution for small and inefficient schools of the larger, more central, better equipped, and better staffed school. In the days of the Provisional Parliament, when I held forth upon this point, I remember Deputy Johnson, in reply, pointed out that a large school need not necessarily be a good school, and that there were drawbacks inherent to the large school.

Mr. JOHNSON

The very large school.

Professor MAGENNIS

I admit that, but when I speak of the large school, what Deputy Johnson now means by a large school, that is larger than the small school, the great difficulty in teaching is the absence of a sufficient number of teachers. The vast majority of the schools are worked according to a sort of compromise. You have two-teacher schools. Even the reading book has to be accommodated to that fact. Children in the same class, in the same schoolroom, have a book which has been adjusted to the purpose of the two-teacher school. Some of the lessons are more difficult and some of them more elementary than really belong to the standard in question. Anyone, and that is everyone, who is interested in the development of the country on educational lines must realise that we have made very considerable headway in our public attitude towards education, when Deputy Gorey and members of the Farmers' Party no longer clamour about undue expenditure in education. Deputy Heffernan has grown in mental as well as in physical stature, when he is able to announce here that, though formerly opposed to it, he does not now oppose. In that connection I think of the lines of Waller:

"The soul's dark body, battered and decayed,

Lets in new light through chinks which time has made."

I do not say that the Deputy has become physically decadent to that extent, but, at any rate, he is growing older and wiser, and I hope that all the farmers will take that wider view and follow his lead.

Mr. WILSON

They always do.

Professor MAGENNIS

If Deputy Wilson is right, I can only conclude that Deputy Gorey is not the representative leader of the Irish farmers. There are other questions, but I will deal with them more appropriately in connection with their sub-heads. I merely add my congratulations to the Minister in having succeeded in getting such a good House. Everyone who has spoken has spoken favourably of his proposals, more particularly of his own attitude towards the problems which he has in hand.

Dr. HENNESSY

I agree with everything that such an authority as Deputy Magennis has said. I believe that the training colleges should be closely associated and, in fact, incorporated with our universities. That will be the only means of bringing to the masses of the Irish people, what may be called, university education. We, in Ireland, are supposed to put a great value on education, and we were, at one time, called the Island of Saints and Scholars, but I do not think that we are giving much encouragement to scholarship in this country. Most men and women in Ireland who go to universities go to acquire a means of livelihood. They await a great disillusionment. As an instance of that disillusionment I may be permitted to mention the fact, showing how great is our appreciation of education, that a bacteriologist, with a Bachelor of Science degree, with first-class honours, with a medical degree and other things, is offered at twenty-five years of age, if he happens to be a bachelor, £100 a year.

Mr. WILSON

Is this in order? It has no reference to the policy of education and I protest.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is what you might call a disorderly illustration.

Dr. HENNESSY

The illustration is worth the disorderliness. There are other things which I would like to see developed in the policy of the Minister, and among them is hygienic education. I spoke, some time ago, about the importance of having baths fitted in schools with hot and cold water. If children are to be fired with ambition they must learn to have respect for cleanliness, and I do not think that money could be better spent than in that direction. I will not make any allusion to the national position in that regard as I have had a rather unfortunate experience concerning this question. In a hygienic education I would include education in oral hygiene, not only for the sake of the teeth, but with a view to having sterilisation of the mouth, in the hope that those who come from rural districts and who become members of the Dáil will thus have a nicer appreciation of language, and will extend a greater degree of courtesy to each other.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

As I cannot conclude this evening, I now move the adjournment of the Dáil until Monday next.