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.