Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 May 1931

Vol. 38 No. 14

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—Office of the Minister for Education.

The President

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná reghaidh thar £113,097 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Costaisí Oifig an Aire Oideachais, maraon le Costas Riaracháin, Cigireachta, etc.

That a sum not exceeding £113,097 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education, including the costs of Administration, Inspection, etc.

Minister for Education (Professor O'Sullivan)

I presume, sir, that we will follow the practice of previous years and discuss all the Estimates for which I am responsible together. The principal matter of importance from the educational point of view in the last twelve months was the coming into operation of the Vocational Education Act. Before I deal with some aspects of that question I should like to refer to some other branches. In the primary system, the year that we are dealing with marked a further increase in the percentage of those attending national schools. It is quite true that there might be some decline since the year 1926 in the absolute number of pupils on the rolls, especially before the age of six and after the age of fourteen. I think when the Compulsory Attendance Bill was passing through the Dáil I pointed out that that might be one of the consequences of a Bill of that kind: that once you fix a compulsory age there is a tendency on the part of some people to regard that as the maximum age, not at which they could attend, but at which they ought to attend school. Everyone will remember that the principal fault that was found in the old system, and the principal fault that was intended to be rectified by the passing of the 1926 Act, was the irregular attendance of children, especially between the years of six and fourteen, which were the years that the Bill dealt with. The percentage on the rolls during the year ending June, 1930, was the largest percentage that has yet been reached. In December, 1924, the average was 73.5. It increased steadily every year until June, 1930, when it was 83.4. In the case of the ages with which the Act deals the numbers were somewhat higher. In the year 1929 the percentage was 83.7, and in the year ending 1930 it was 84.4. In some places, such as Waterford City, Westmeath, Meath, Cork City, Carlow, Dublin City and County, and County Louth, there were even higher percentages, varying from 90.3 in Waterford City to 86 per cent. in County Dublin and County Louth. A somewhat gratifying feature in connection with these numbers, as an examination will show, is that there has been a steady increase.

Reference was made last year to an increased percentage in the higher standards. Deputies will remember that complaints have repeatedly been made here that there is an undue proportion of the total number of pupils on rolls in the lower standards. I have more than once pointed out, and it is still necessary to do this, that the course is an eight year course, and that consequently, the full effects of the Attendance Act cannot be fairly judged until after that period of eight years. Already it is noticeable that there is a steady increase in the proportion of the total number of pupils attending the fifth and sixth and higher standards. For instance, although the total number attending the National Schools has fallen between the years 1926 and 1930, still there has been an increase in the number to be found in the fifth, sixth and seventh standards. In the infant classes the number has fallen from 171,000 in 1926 to 152,000 in 1929, and to 150,800 in 1930. There was a similar fall, but not to the same extent, to be noted in the first and second standards. There was a slight increase in the third standard. There was an increase from 56,100 to 59,800 between 1926 and 1930 in the fourth standard; from 45,500 to 49,300 in the fifth standard; from 24,500 to 29,700 in the sixth standard, and an increase of almost 2,000 in the seventh standard during these four years. The same increase continues when we compare the year 1930 with the year 1929. That is, though there were 3,000 less on the rolls, there was an actual increase of 2,000 in the higher standards, that is, an increase of 12 per cent. of the pupils in these standards. It is quite possible of course, for a variety of reasons that there might be some children still not to be found on the rolls of the primary schools, or indeed, of any schools. It is also probable that a number of children are still not attending regularly, on account of adequate cause. For instance. because there is no suitable school in the immediate neighbourhood, or within a reasonable distance, or because of overcrowding, as sometimes takes place in the larger cities, and especially in the City of Dublin.

We are gradually grappling with that particular problem of overcrowding by the provision of new schools, two of which have been completed in the last twelve months in Dublin, one in upper Drumcondra direction at a total cost of £17,000, making provision for about 660 infants and girls, and another in the south side at Fairbrothers' Fields, at a cost of £12,000 making provision for over 400 boys. Of course it will be recognised that no matter how many new schools we build there will be still a number of families with children who have not a suitable school within a reasonable distance. That still presents a problem, but it is one that is engaging our attention, how education can be provided in suitable schools for various scattered units of that kind. As I say, the matter is important and is engaging our attention at the moment. Since the State took over there have been erected 197 new schools, 184 existing schools have been enlarged, and about 1,379 schools have been improved in various ways.

As regards a certain portion of the country, namely the Fior-Ghaeltacht, as set out in the map of the Gaeltacht Commissioner's Report the position has been as follows since 1922:—There has been spent in the Donegal Gaeltacht in the building and improvement of schools £28,000; in Galway £27,520, in Mayo £22,450; in Kerry £8,080, and in various parts of the Gaeltacht, Cork, Waterford and Clare, £4,500. The census we took showed that the number of new schools required in the Donegal Gaeltacht was eleven. Of these, grants have been sanctioned already for seven. In Galway the number of new schools required was three, for which grants have been sanctioned. In Mayo two were required and the grants have been sanctioned. In Kerry four were required and grants have been sanctioned for two. In the remaining district one school was required and the grant has been sanctioned. I must say that in most of these cases it has not been a question of requiring one-third from the neighbourhood. Very often the full grant has to be given. In practically all cases more than two-thirds has to be given by the State, and generally, of course, considerably more.

One of the questions raised here last year was the charge that we were trying to force unduly teaching through the medium of Irish; that is, that we were trying to use Irish as the sole medium of instruction where the two necessary conditions for the success of that attempt were not present. I think Deputies from different parts of the House took part in that debate. In reply, I made it clear—and I think my predecessor was exactly of the same view—that so far as standards above the infant standards were concerned, two conditions were required for any attempt of that kind: (1) that the children would have a sufficient knowledge of Irish to absorb the instruction given; and (2) that the teacher would be sufficiently competent to give instruction through Irish. I promised to make inquiries into the matter and to see how things stood. I am still in the process of having inquiries made, but the result of such inquiries as I have made has been to convince me that the charges on the whole were not well-founded. I do not say that there are not cases in which individuals, in their zeal, may not have outrun their competence, or in which teachers may have felt that they were under a certain obligation or pressure to do more than they were obliged to do. There may have been isolated cases of that kind. There may certainly have been cases of that kind when the policy was first put before the country and brought into force. On more than one occasion in this House it was stated what the policy was. From inquiries I have made I am convinced that, on the whole, at present at all events, there is no undue pressure being put upon the teachers in the schools to do more than they are capable of in that respect. It was recognised that not merely would there be damage done to the children educationally, but that a great deal of damage might also be done to the language movement itself if an effort was made to carry out a policy of that kind where the conditions were not present that would ensure success. I am speaking now, of course, of using Irish as the teaching medium in the case of standards higher than the infant standards, because so far as the infant standards are concerned the recommendation of the Programme Conference which we are acting upon was that there the attempt should be made where the teacher was competent. As I say, I am convinced that there has been no undue haste in this respect. In fact, I think, though I do not wish to deal with individual cases, that an effort could have been made in many cases to do a little more in the direction of using Irish at least as a school language.

We are still tabulating the figures and it takes quite a long time to tabulate the figures for any given year. I think it takes two people about five months to tabulate the returns from the different schools. But I am using the figures for 1929—30th June. I gather from the reports that have come in that there is really no essential change so far as these are concerned. The percentage of the total number on the rolls in the Saorstát who receive instruction— leaving out, of course, English— through the medium of Irish alone would be, in arithmetic, 5½ per cent.; history, 4½ per cent.; geography, 5¼ per cent.; in all subjects about 2 per cent. If you take from that the Fior-Ghaeltacht and the percentage that the numbers there hold to the number of pupils as a whole in the Saorstát, you will get the following results in the Fior-Ghaeltacht: Arithmetic, 2 per cent. of the total pupils of the Saorstát receiving instruction through the medium of Irish; in history, 1¼ per cent.; in geography 1¼ per cent.; and in all subjects, ¾ per cent. The percentage in the Breac-Ghaeltacht was smaller. It was ¾ per cent. generally, except in geography, in which 1 per cent. received instruction through the medium of Irish. If you subtract the percentages of the Fior-Ghaeltacht where Irish is the native language, the mother language, the language that they have as their first language, and in the Breac-Ghaeltacht, where there is a natural familiarity with the language, from the total percentages I have given, you will see that there is no ground really for the charge that undue pressure is being put, whatever may be said in one or two cases, on the teachers in this respect, or that we are asking them to do what is impossible, or, as was suggested last year, damaging to the cause of the Irish language by a too-forward policy in this way.

We are issuing a new circular letter dealing with this matter. No change of policy is indicated in that circular. All that it does is to make it quite clear what the policy is. It sets out in full the recommendations of the National Programme Conference. It sets out what the aim is, and it explains and elucidates and amplifies the recommendations of the Programme Conference and the steps that are necessary to achieve that particular aim. It shows what the aim should be, and then it shows the way in which that aim can gradually be achieved. It lays down quite clearly that for the attempt to be made certain conditions must be present: that is the two essential conditions—I am speaking always of standards above the infant standards— competence on the part of the teacher, and sufficient knowledge of the language on the part of the pupil. It shows how gradually the language can be extended. Various ways are pointed out in which this can be done, first by making the language what I might call the school language when the teachers have to give orders to the pupils, in maintaining discipline, and in the playground. That would be the first step. When a certain amount of that has been done in the schools for some time, gradually the subjects that require less vocabulary and require more action, so to speak, than talk or speech, such as drawing, needlework, cookery, singing and drill, can be taken up. Then you advance gradually to those subjects which require a more extended vocabulary. There can be a gradual extension of the use, first of both languages as media of instruction, and then a gradual extension through standards as well. I have dealt with that subject because it was one of the principal matters mentioned and because it formed the ground of criticism in the course of last year's debate on the Estimates.

To get suitable teachers for the Gaeltacht school we had first to enter into an examination of what were the actual schools to which the children came with what I might call a natural knowledge of Irish; where the pupils knew Irish alone, for instance; next, where the children knew more Irish than English; and next, where they knew Irish as well as English. We had a census taken of the different schools of the West and South of Ireland where there was any prospect of these conditions being fulfilled. We are now having the results of that examination revised. It was determined, in order to induce the better teachers to stay in the Gaeltacht, that the following inducements would be offered. I am speaking now of selected schools where Irish is really the language of the pupils that supply the schools, and where, consequently, Irish is used as the medium of instruction for subjects with the exception of English.

It was determined to add, in the case of teachers with salaries of over £155 a year, 10 per cent. for highly efficient teachers, with a minimum of £25; 5 per cent. for efficient teachers, with a minimum of £15. In the case of junior assistant mistresses it was determined to add corresponding sums of £15 for highly efficient and £10 for efficient teachers.

The Gaeltacht Housing Department is also engaged in an examination of the problem of the erection of houses for teachers in these districts, houses that would be suitable for teachers and which could be let to them at a reasonable cost.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

Would the Minister say how many schools were affected?

Professor O'Sullivan

I could not tell off-hand. We made an individual examination, and we asked the teachers in the first instance. We may not have told the purpose of our inquiry, but we certainly asked them how many of their pupils knew Irish alone, how many knew Irish better than English, how many knew both languages equally, how many knew English better than Irish, and how many had no Irish. It is, to a large extent, on the returns given by the teachers that we based our plans.

Mr. O'Connell

You did not tell them the object of your inquiry?

Professor O'Sullivan

We did not do that, but I assume that the results would be similar. Deputies will notice that there is an increase in the Vote for Secondary schools this year. The increase is due directly or indirectly to the increase in the number of pupils attending the secondary schools. That means, of course, that a larger Capitation grant has to be paid to the schools, and that is responsible for a large portion of the increase, as Deputies will see, and it is also responsible for the fact that a larger number of teachers can be employed to whom increments can be paid. That is responsible for another increase. I think there are more pupils attending secondary schools now in the Saorstát than in the whole of Ireland when we took over. In the year 1924-25 the numbers attending these schools were 22,900. These numbers have increased steadily until in 1929-30 they have reached 27,650.

I think either on the last occasion or some other occasion I pointed out that the secondary school programme provided an opportunity for giving, not merely what is called classical or cultural education, but a more practical turn can be given to it if such schools so wish it. There is plenty of opportunity in the programme for such schools to gain grants if the schools so desire. There is one school in Donegal which put up a programme of this kind and it has been accepted. I wish, of course, that more use would be made of these provisions and that we would have a little more variety in the type of secondary schools that we have in the country. I should like to call attention to this: that under the name of secondary schools here in this country we group different types of school, or at least schools that would be regarded as different types in other countries. For instance, in Germany they distinguish between a Gymnasium, Realgymnasium, and Realschule, according as Latin and Greek are taken, or Latin alone is taken, or according as you have what is called modern education. If you grouped our secondary schools in the same way you would get something like the following results. I deal with this to show the type of education given in our secondary schools is not the same in all of them. In some you have what I may call a classical tradition, in others it is completely absent. Amongst the boys' schools there are forty in which Latin and Greek are taught; eighty-two in which Latin is taught but no Greek, and thirty-two without Latin or Greek. In girls' schools there are two with Latin and Greek; forty with Latin but without Greek, and 118 without either Latin or Greek.

Complaints were continually coming to us from all the schools, and, in fact, from various Deputies as well, that there was not sufficient freedom allowed in regard to the choice of programme; that certain subjects useful from every point of view, from the educational as well as from the merely material point of view, were being crushed out. In order to meet that situation we gave more liberty to the schools. Up to a year or two ago it was not possible, for instance, for a school to get credit for more than five subjects at the intermediate certificate examination. It was in connection with the first intermediate certificates examination that complaints were rife because a great deal of liberty was allowed in connection with the leaving certificate. After consultation with the schools a modification of that was brought in, and it is now possible for a school either to concentrate on five subjects, or they may take six or seven subjects and get credit in the examination for the seven subjects. The result, on the whole, has been satisfactory. The percentage of boys' schools who took five subjects only was eighteen; and 30 per cent. in the case of girls in 1929. That had fallen in 1930 to eleven per cent in the case of boys and 23½ per cent. in the case of girls. The number that took six subjects increased from 48½ to 52.3 per cent. in the case of boys, and 47.2 per cent. to 50.2 per cent. in the case of girls.

There was a similar increase in the case of those who took seven subjects, and an increase in the case of those who took more than seven. Another matter to which I would call attention is the fact that more schools have been accepted as satisfying the rather rigid standard that is required for an "A" school. There has been a steady increase in that respect for a number of years. It is quite marked in this year. An "A" school is a school in which all the subjects except English are taught through the medium of Irish. The "B" schools are divided into B1 and B2. The former school is one in which more than half the subjects are taught through the medium of Irish, and B2 is a school in which two subjects are taught through that medium. There has been an increase in the number of "A" schools. There is another fact to be noted. Though Irish is not a compulsory subject in the Leaving Certificate Examination 95 per cent. of the boys and 94 per cent. of the girls took Irish in that examination. Inspection shows that, with one or two exceptions, the oral side of the language is not neglected. Another fact in this respect, so far as I am dealing with "A" schools, is that when a school advances to the position of "A" school it does not mean a narrowing of the programme. That means that a school takes as many subjects as it did before it concentrated on advancing to the "A" school, and the percentage of passes and honours is at least as satisfactory as it is in any of the other schools.

I generally find it necessary to remind Deputies of some of the essentials of our system especially so far as control is concerned. These must be taken for granted. Very often in the criticisms that are offered some of the fundamental principles on which our system is based are forgotten. Everywhere the power of a central Government in educational matters is limited, but that is especially so here. As I have on more than one occasion pointed out, we do not control or aspire to control education. We may guide it, we may influence it to a considerable extent, but, as I have had to insist on more than one occasion, the system is essentially not a State system. In essence, most of the schools are private, not merely in essence but in principle. The State enters merely as a helping factor. In return for the help it gives it is enabled to exercise, as I indicated, a considerable amount of control but the basis of the system, especially so far as primary and secondary education are concerned, is laid on the principle that it is essentially a private system.

We can, as I say, impose conditions as the result of the monetary help which we give. We can lay down to a certain extent within certain lines the programme which we should like to see followed. We can lay down certain conditions in regard to the training and efficiency of the teachers that must be fulfilled. There are other conditions of a somewhat similar nature which we can also lay down, but it is only indirectly that we influence the control of education. Primary education, as is well-known, is essentially a private system helped by the Government. The Government is able in the ways I have mentioned—by a system of inspection, by the conditions it imposes on teachers in recognition of their appointments—to exercise a considerable influence. In the secondary system the influence of our control is less than it is in the case of the primary system. All the schools are essentially private institutions. We pay so much per head if they fulfil the conditions recognised by us, and we pay increments to the teachers if certain conditions are fulfilled regarding the staffing of the schools. It is by inspection and programme that we make our influence felt.

The system of inspection in the case of secondary schools is quite as exact, but has a different effect from that in the primary schools. In the case of secondary inspection the teacher's rating does not depend on the report of the inspector. It is only in the case of vocational schools that you have anything in the nature of what I might call public schools. They are essentially again local schools, aided to a certain extent, guided, influenced, and controlled by the central authority. At present, new committees are being set up. I ask Deputies to remember that these committees have just come into existence, and have just taken over control. As regards the universities, I do not answer for them. The House is so jealous of the autonomy of universities, it thinks, apparently, that that autonomy would be unduly interfered with if the Minister for Education had to answer for them. That is one of the reasons why I do not answer for the universities—to make still more clear their autonomy.

For all these essentially non-State institutions we provide funds, but though we provide funds there are limits to the control which we can exercise. As I have indicated already, our influence is largely indirect and largely consists of the conditions which we can impose as regards programme, qualifications, efficiency of teachers, and numbers of staff. It is in that way that we can influence these essentially private institutions. Usually we are met by demands for more freedom, and occasionally we have tried to give more freedom to the schools. Though they really want to be told what to do, they demand more freedom. One of the ways in which we assist in the progress of education is in the effort to provide or rather to help in the provision of more highly-trained teachers. We have done that in the different branches. In the case of the primary system, we have tried to realise the aim that all those who enter the training colleges, properly so-called, shall have at least in the subjects they present the full standard of secondary education.

For instance, in 1921 not one-fourth of the places in the training colleges were filled by those who had a full standard of secondary education. In 1930, however, two-thirds of the places were filled by those who had a full secondary education standard. If you take admittance to the training colleges in 1930 you get the following percentages: 30.3 came from the preparatory colleges; 34.4 from pupil-teacherships (all that class have full secondary education); 14.2 from university graduates or untrained teachers; and 21.1 from the Easter Scholarship Examination. The latter examination is now equivalent to the leaving certificate examination, with the addition that an oral examination is held as well at Easter. In connection with secondary teaching there is, as Deputies know, a Registration Council, to a large extent independent in its administration, and very strict conditions are laid down for admittance to the rank of secondary teachers. Very high qualifications indeed are demanded by that Registration Council.

As regards vocational teachers, in the year 1930 we gave a short summer course in a variety of subjects. These teachers were called up to attend courses in these subjects, the better to fit them afterwards in their profession as technical school teachers. In a course given in the City of Dublin Technical Schools, 23 teachers attended a course in modern house planning, 17 in electricity—the practical application of alternating currents; 29 in housecraft; 17 in metal work practice, and 33 in an advanced composite course in shorthand, typewriting and Irish, and 18 in general art. From many points of view these were an interesting series of courses and gave a new outlook to many of the teachers who took part in them. Apart from that and in order to make a beginning of the preparation for providing teachers for the new system that came into operation as the result of the passing of the Vocational Act, when I was introducing the Supplementary Estimate here I indicated why certain courses, much longer courses than the summer courses to which I have referred, were being undertaken. There was a group of teachers in woodwork, and building construction, for instance. They are being trained in the municipal school at Limerick with the co-operation of the staff of these schools and of the Limerick Vocational Committee. These new aspirants for teacherships were selected on a competitive basis. They were selected from persons of experience and knowledge in woodwork and building trades. A special examination, written, practical and oral, was conducted in order to choose these candidates. For another group of teachers chosen under the same conditions, another course was held in metal work and motor engineering. That course is being held at the Ringsend School through the courtesy of the Dublin Borough Committee and the Principal of the schools there.

I indicated also on one occasion that one of the most important subjects to which vocational committees could devote their attention was domestic economy and the spreading of instruction in that particular subject. We have, as it is known, two schools in this country training domestic economy instructresses, Kilmacud and Black-rock, but we felt they would not be sufficient. The supply coming from these two schools would not be sufficient to cope with the needs that would be imposed on us by the coming into operation of the Vocational Education Act, and consequently an intensive course was established at the school of housewifery in Killarney. This school is no longer used for the training of domestic servants as up to the present. It is now used for the purpose of training a number of domestic instructresses. A certain portion of the costs of these courses was already voted in the Supplementary Estimates a few months ago. The balance of the cost is included in the present estimate.

Two further courses are proposed— one, a supplementary course for forty whole-time teachers of Irish—that is, those already employed under what used to be called the technical instruction scheme, and who are whole-time teachers. Forty of these will be chosen and called up. There is then a special course for from twenty to forty in different subjects—graduates in commerce, arts, and in science. So far as these courses are concerned, it will be more scientific in its character than that of general instruction— physical science, especially biology. We expect it to be availed of by the country districts especially. We hope that a number of scientific biological students may come forward for that purpose. A summary of the special teaching which we are providing under the present Estimates is as follows:— Woodworkers, 20; metal-workers, 16; additional domestic economy instructresses, 20; science, 20; commerce and general, 20. In addition we are calling up 40 whole-time teachers of Irish to give them a supplementary training in some other subjects or subject.

We have held examinations in what used to be called the technical schools, and the numbers that have presented themselves for these examinations have increased from year to year—from 5,700 in 1928 to 6,900 in 1930. In order to emphasise the practical value of the instruction given, a new scheme has been inaugurated of awarding medals for excellence of craftsmanship. That scheme comes into operation this year and the examination is being held at the present moment. There are about 300 students in carpentry and joinery-work, painting and decorating work, plastering work electrical installation work, cabinet-making, wood carving, leatherwork and art metal work competing.

As I indicated in the beginning, the main educational event, so to speak, of the year was the coming into operation of the Act passed last summer. The new committees have been set up and they are functioning. So far as their activities are concerned it is well to bear in mind that they came into office and into existence for all practical purposes only six months ago. The new system of finances came into operation on 1st April and any changes they can make in the actual courses can only have effect from 1st September next. Possibly also it may be borne in mind that they are not starting ab ovo. They have taken over an already existing system and they have to adapt it to new ideals.

That system itself started, as Deputies know, over a quarter of a century ago, by being essentially intended at first principally for the towns. It was only as an accident that it was extended gradually in various ways to the country. It will be the business generally of the vocational committees to pay more attention to the country districts than they have been able to pay in the past. As I say, the Act itself was only passed in July last. The committees came into existence some time after that and they had to submit, owing to the terms of the Act, their schemes to the Department by the 1st December. The change in the system was effected smoothly and effectively, especially when we bear in mind the shortness of time at the disposal of the committees. The proposals that were put forward showed considerable care and, on the whole, they were sound.

In general, as I say, it is only from September next that the actual expansion of the scheme can take place. That is, at the beginning of the new educational year. The teachers whom we are training will be ready by September, or at all events, many of them will be, and they will be required by that time. In addition, we have had to publish a number of sets of regulations as required by the Act. There are five or six sets altogether. Some of them are almost little Acts of Parliament in themselves. Regulations connected with the preparation and submission of annual schemes, and then a much more difficult piece of work, regulations relating to the accounts, the audit and procedure had to be made. In addition, there are some other sets of regulations. They are in draft at the moment and will be issued very shortly.

I think when the Act was going through the Oireachtas I pointed out that one of the defects of the old system was the uncertainty, or at least the difficulty and uncertainty of providing new buildings. There was no adequate provision for new buildings. That condition of things was remedied by the Act. Conferences have been held between my Department, the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Works as to the conditions on which loans will be issued to the committees to provide more adequate buildings than they have at present. Full agreement has been come to by the Departments concerned as regards the conditions on which loans will be issued. At the present moment the actual conditions are being drafted.

The technical school authorities have availed of the provisions of the new Act and many proposals have come forward to us. In the majority of cases it was possible to meet the building requirements proposed out of the revenue of the funds of the committee. That is, that the interest on the loans could be paid out of that fund to which, as I pointed out when the Act was going through both Houses, both the State and the local rating authority contributed. But there was another provision in the Act, namely, that the rating authority could, if it so wished, raise a loan independent of the vocational fund. In that case there was provision made that the Minister for Finance could grant up to 50 per cent. of the cost of the building.

Applications have been made also under that section and some local authorities have come forward with proposals of that kind. We have had a large number of proposals as regards the building of new schools and the enlargement of existing ones. For instance, in Bolton Street, in Dublin, a new wing is nearing completion, at a cost of £25,000. In the Rathmines School of Commerce a new lecture hall has been added at a cost of £2,000. We have not as yet got the plans of the big scheme that is being put forward by the City of Cork. We will be quite ready to consider the details when they are submitted to us. The total cost will be round about £40,000. In Cork, also, two workshops have been added to the Crawford Technical Institute at a cost of £2,000. In Wexford the revised proposal of which we have approved is for an expenditure of £500. In Bray there is a proposal for a technical school, a proposed new building. The scheme itself has our approval. The question of finance has not yet been settled. In Gorey the negotiations as regards finance are not yet complete between the Department, the committee and the County Council. We have approved of additions to the Limerick School to the extent of £5,000. Plans have not yet been submitted in the case of Nenagh, where there is a proposal also. There is a new building in progress in Trim, estimated to cost £3,000. That at Kells has been completed at the same cost. In Newcastle West we have approved of a building costing £3,000, and at Hospital £3,000. In Fermoy we have approved of a new building at the same figure, and it is nearing completion. At Clonakilty a new technical school, estimated to cost £6,000, is in progress. At Portlaoghaise a new technical school building has just been completed at a cost of £3,000. There are various other schemes that committees in various parts of the country are considering, but they are not yet advanced sufficiently to have them put before the Department.

If Deputies will look into this year's Estimates they will find they are set out in somewhat different form from last year in the case of Technical and Vocation Instruction Votes. Instead of various grants, attendance grants, cost of living bonus, annual grants, and so on, that we granted last year and in previous years under the old system, there is now a block grant given to the different committees according as we estimate the needs for the current year.

The only other item to which I would call attention in this preliminary statement is the work of the Publications Committee. That Committee was appointed in 1926 to read and consider manuscripts that were submitted by writers of Irish and to advise the Department as to the acceptance and the publication of these manuscripts whether in the way of original work or translations. Having regard to the conditions that prevailed a few years ago when there was undoubtedly a paucity of Irish books in the market and especially a lack of suitable text-books for teaching purposes, the Committee has made considerable progress. The number of books produced in Irish by Irish publishers has also increased in the past few years.

There are now available text-books in Irish dealing with arithmetic, algebra, science, geometry, geography, Irish history, book-keeping, music, shorthand, cookery, drill, nature study and needlework. Text-books in geometry, arithmetic, geography and needlework have been published under the recommendations of the Committee. Texts of a more advanced nature are at present in course of preparation for publication by the Department.

The position as regards books in Irish, other than text-books, also shows a marked improvement. The Department deal with the publication of two classes of such books, that is, books regarded as suitable for publication as reading books for secondary schools and, secondly, books of general literature in Irish, both original compositions and translations. Thirty-seven books falling under the first of these categories have been published under the Department's scheme up to the present, while forty books of general literature in Irish, and translations, have also been published. Many other books suitable for reading matter in Irish are in course of preparation, and it is expected there will be a considerable increase in the number of published works before the end of 1932. Altogether 25,000 volumes of texts and 13,000 volumes of general literature have been sold. I indicated that one of the difficulties of introducing an estimate was that one is generally accused of not dealing with the subject that the individual speaker wants one to deal with. Therefore, I think it would be better to give individual speakers an opportunity of pointing out what subjects exactly they want me to deal with.

Professor Alton

I would like to ask the Minister to explain the position in regard to the National Museum and the National Library.

Professor O'Sullivan

There has been a considerable addition to the Museum in the last twelve months, more than ever before, especially on the archaeological side. I think we have been more active and successful in that respect during the last twelve months than ever before. As regards staffing, as indicated in the Estimates, a larger staff has been sanctioned by the Department of Finance. I think the Civil Service Commission is already dealing with the matter of appointments. Actual appointments have not yet been made in some cases.

Mr. Fahy

The Minister said that fault might be found with him for not referring to particular aspects of the Education Estimates that different Deputies might desire. At the outset I have that fault to find with the Minister. The difficulty of preparing these tables and lists and issuing the report of the Department has been pointed out by the Minister. Consequently, the report on which we have to base our criticism is a year old. There are many things in that report that I think the Minister should have dealt with. He should have told us whether improvements have been made and whether the recommendations of the inspectors have been given effect to. He might have told us what progress has been made on the lines these inspectors have indicated.

Before analysing this report in certain respects, I shall refer to some matters of general interest. It is difficult to ascertain what the cost of education in this State is in comparison with other countries, owing to the fact, as mentioned by the Minister, that secondary education is largely run by private schools which get much money from other sources and which invest much money in buildings and so on. It is difficult to ascertain, even in other countries, what exactly per head education costs, as the money does not come from a central fund. We are not finding fault with expenditure on education, because money spent on education is well spent, if it is wisely spent. The amount here is, roughly, four and one-third millions, over 20 per cent. of the State expenditure. I am not alone in questioning whether we are getting good value for that money. There is, I think, a certain lack of co-ordination even still in education and it is a pity that the voluntary committee acting in 1922 was not continued or improved upon. Suggestions were made from various sources last year and the year before that an educational council might achieve that purpose. I think it would, and I think such a council should be set up.

Certain subjects require improvement in teaching. Mathematics is one and history and geography are others. There is a general complaint that the education is not brought into relation with the life of the country and the life of the different districts, particularly as regards mathematics. That complaint is emphasised by the inspectors of national schools. Last year I referred to the difference in level between the matriculation examination in the various universities and leaving certificates. As a consequence, a year is lost either in the secondary school or in the university. I maintain it is in the university. If a student gets a leaving certificate and then enters a university, at least a year is lost. I have heard complaints from the parents of university students to that effect. The art students have practically nothing to do in their first year. It is an impressionable year for them and when they have nothing to do they are inclined to get into slack and idle habits. They have not very much to learn in the lectures they attend in that year. As the Minister pointed out, the universities are and should be autonomous.

Perhaps the representatives of the universities here will consider that matter and voluntarily come to some agreement in regard to the standard of entrance to the universities. An educational council might do something in that respect. It is one matter in which very good work could be done. There is a waste of energy and a waste of education, and, indeed, a waste of some years of a young person's life under existing conditions. The universities might, I think, train teachers, secondary teachers particularly, in mathematics and turn out more of them better fitted to teach mathematics in the secondary schools. Of course, it is difficult in these times of economic stress to advocate that education should be purely cultural. It is recognised now that education may be utilitarian and of a high cultural value as well, but I think it should be fitted to the life of the country and the life of the district. We should not forget that life does not merely consist of earning daily bread. One must be fitted for leisure as well and the leisure hours of the people are getting longer; I hope they will get longer still. On the spending of their leisure hours largely depends the future of the State, and it is important that the people should receive an education that will fit them for their leisure.

As regards teachers' pensions, the Minister gave no information. I do not want to press him for information in case there are delicate negotiations in progress. Perhaps he might let us know later on how the Fund stands. We have to reiterate year after year the position of the junior assistant mis tresses and convent school teachers. They have not been mentioned, and it is difficult to understand, if you employ these junior assistant mistresses and they are qualified to teach, why they should not be properly remunerated. If they are not qualified to teach they should not be there. It is a question of finance, of course, still I hope to indicate a method by which they might be gradually replaced instead of appointing any more. Regarding the attendance, the Minister's assurance is satisfactory that it has gone up, because it is impossible, I think, to teach two languages properly and to carry out a programme of ten subjects or so, unless you can get ninety per cent, attendance at least. The Minister rightly questioned the figures given in other countries as 98 per cent., which might not include illness. Ten days' absence for clinical treatment at home or in a hospital during the calendar year are reckoned as attendance in the Free State.

Regarding secondary teachers it is satisfactory that they have now a proper status. I might mention one case in which a teacher—and the Minister knows the case—interpreted a form, which was sent out regarding pensions, wrongly. The wording of that circular was ambiguous, and the teacher in a Protestant school in the city with a very excellent record has been deprived of some of his rights. I think the Minister should consider that case. It was really an ambiguous circular in certain respects and owing to his mistake he has been penalised. Last year the Minister assured us that we would have co-operation between himself and the Department of Local Government regarding the sanitation of schools. It is gratifying to see that co-operation is taking place and that improvement has been made. I notice the figures given on page 71 of the Education Report which prove the absolute necessity for medical inspection. We talk of sweeps here for hospitals, of which I am rather doubtful myself, but there would be much less need for hospital treatment if the inspection of schools was properly carried out through the State and if these diseases were checked in the children.

There is a reference also in this report to playgrounds. There should be playgrounds attached to all the schools. In the division of land that we here so much about, I hope that it will be insisted on that if any land is to be divided near a school a proper playground will be provided. Many schools have been improved, we are told; some new schools have been built and others enlarged; there is still much to be done. The grants for the new schools in 1928-29 were £101,863, and in 1927-28 £142,369. I do not know if there is as much this year. Schools are needed. If you are to inculcate a proper idea of personal cleanliness you cannot do it in a crowded school in a foul atmosphere and bad sanitary conditions. You have some such schools in the city here.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

There are also cases of malnutrition in certain counties. Kildare, I think, was the worst reported on. The provision of school meals would meet that to a certain extent. The Minister for Local Government, I believe, gave figures showing that they cost something like £1 17s. per annum per pupil. That is not a great tax, and that also should be pursued more than it is now. In one district the question was raised as to who owned teachers' residences when the trusteeship lapses. That problem has arisen. The Minister might tell us who does own them, because I heard of rents being charged for teachers' residences for which the Government gave grants. The trusteeship lapsed before rents were charged.

Primary schools, after all, are the main section of this Vote, as a great majority of pupils do not get any further. There is a need for revision and for an overhauling of the programme. It is easy to see that it is overcrowded, but I wonder who will say what subjects shall be discarded. Year after year we get Deputies advocating an addition of further subjects to the programme. Some lament that drawing is not obligatory, and so on. It certainly seems to be a fairly full programme. In the matter of school books we have a certain number turned out by the Gúm, but I think the text-books were rather poor. They are uninspiring nationally, either in Irish or in English. I have seen several of them and there was more about Ireland in the old fifth book of the national school than in many of the texts now used in the schools.

In the Irish texts the range of subjects is very limited, and very often they are a mere collection of grammatical examples. Of course that charge has been made against the book from which many of us started to learn Irish. It was stated that it was the finest collection of grammatical examples in Europe. I advocated last year that the Government should have a standard series of Irish texts. I still hold we should have that series. There are difficulties in schools of inspectors coming along and recommending some books. The inspector is changed and these are not used. If you had a standard series the Government could see that no book which did not conform to that standard was sanctioned. They might allow other books in after a period, but the standard series should be for a period, say, of ten years.

The Maynooth Union last year passed a resolution calling unanimously on the Minister to put the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke in Irish as reading matters for Standards 5 to 7. Surely that that should be done. If sections object to that, there is Beddells' Bible for Protestant schools if so desired.

Professor O'Sullivan

Did they send a resolution to the managers?

Mr. Fahy

They sent it to the Minister.

Professor O'Sullivan

I do not choose the books in the schools.

Mr. Fahy

The Minister could recommend them.

Professor O'Sullivan

The schools are allowed to do it.

Mr. Fahy

I think the Government should strongly recommend it, for this reason, that the schools can do a lot towards restoring Irish. You cannot restore it without them, and the Church of the majority can do much. If you had co-operation between the two it would be excellent. The language was kept in Wales largely through the religious or Sunday schools there.

Regarding some of the texts used, in one approved text-book is a lesson on "Our Country," and in it are the words "bhuaidhan ceart ar an neart agus tá na hallmhuraigh imthighthe." They said that in the old days might vanquished right, but that the foreigners have left our country now.

I do not want to have party politics introduced into schools, but I certainly advocate truth. There are six counties in which the foreigner still has a garrison. It would be better to adhere to the truth. History should not be distorted.

Irish is not making the progress in the schools that was expected a few years ago. That is admitted both in the Gaeltacht and the Galltacht. The irregular attendance may have accounted in part for it, but it is the aim behind the teaching, the want of enthusiasm, that is largely responsible for it. Another question I want to raise is that of the model schools. Deputy Derrig, I believe, asked the Minister some questions recently regarding the appointment of teachers to these schools.

There are seventeen of these schools. There are many teachers, and we would like to have some definite procedure. It seems to vary according to each appointment. It seems indeed as if the procedure depended on the candidates in some instances. We desire to be informed why there cannot be some definite procedure which could be adhered to in all instances. From the figures given by the Minister regarding the teaching of history and geography through Irish, certainly nobody in this House can say that Irish is being pushed forward too fast as a teaching medium. History, particularly Irish history and local history, and the geography of Ireland, could very easily be taught through the medium of Irish, because the very names themselves have a significance which they have not in English. You have proof of what can be done in that respect in the preparatory colleges.

In the matter of these two primary schools in which subjects are taught through the medium of Irish in Dublin, they seem to be reserved—I do not say, deliberately and purposely—for a select class. I wonder what opportunity, for instance, a dock labourer's son would have of getting into one of these schools? I do not say that that was at all deliberate, but it has so worked out. Use could be made of these schools, I think, for the training of teachers, bringing them to see how subjects are taught through the medium of Irish. The practising schools in connection with training colleges are almost useless in that respect, and I think it is rather hard on the children to have these untrained teachers practising. If you got the teachers down to those two schools to see how the thing is done without asking them to teach at all good work could be accomplished, because giving instruction to a select number of pupils in these schools does not at all exhaust their possibilities or the good work which they might do.

The old model schools, I believe, did such work. They had such functions. For instance, the Central Model School was attached to the training college in Marlborough Street.

Irish might be more used also in the administration of the Education Department, as is properly observed in this report of the Department; teachers can do a good deal if they use Irish as the language of the school, giving orders, and so on, throughout the day. I do not know if I should refer here to the very contentious matter of the Roman type. I saw in to-day's paper even a complaint. I quote from a daily paper to-day: "Roman Letters for Irish Examinations. A Galway Protest." It is said that it is unfair to candidates, that native Irish speakers did not know what language it was, and consequently did not answer the papers because the questions were set in Roman script. I personally do not mind which type is used, but I say that three or four persons who were not primarily educationists were responsible for having this type introduced, and it is becoming more or less compulsory. Regarding An Gúm, for instance, the type should be optional. If some people think they can learn Irish better by having what is called the Roman script —improperly I believe—let them use it, but it certainly should not be made compulsory by the Government. We have been told that these schools are influenced to a certain extent by the Government, but I do not believe it was even the Education Department that was responsible. The teachers did not want it. I believe that the majority of the inspectors did not want it, and most of the writers of Irish certainly are opposed to it.

Coming to the report of the Department of Education itself, I find that in 1926 the percentage of school attendance was 82.6 and in places 88. I was not quite clear as to what the Minister said on that point. I think that we should try to reach the 90 per cent. standard if we want to get the school subjects properly taught. On the matter of schools this Report states that there is no reason why the schoolrooms should not be brighter and more attractive at very little additional cost.

Such expenditure is necessary to give the pupils a proper idea of hygiene and that they may get a better idea of how their own homes should be kept. The need for better schools, sanitation, better heating and ventilation is shown by the reports of the school medical services, not only for the sake of the health of the pupils, but to teach them personal hygiene. According to these figures it is very necessary in certain parts of the country that there be inculcated healthy habits, and they are best inculcated under good school conditions. The percentage of children suffering from defects that might be remedied is extraordinarily high. The three for which the percentage is highest are defective teeth, adenoids and eye trouble. Taking Clonmel, out of 1,483 children inspected, 940 were suffering from dental defects, 185 from adenoids, and 43 from mal-nutrition. It is difficult for the teachers to do proper work with pupils who are so suffering. They cannot carry out the programme properly if pupils have defective eyesight, defective teeth, adenoids and particularly if they are under-fed. Forty-three out of 1,483 is rather high. Taking the figures for county Cork, we get 10,829 examined. 56.6 of the pupils were suffering from some defect, and 659, or 6 per cent. of these children were suffering from mal-nutrition. In Kildare it was even worse. 6,698 children were examined in 79 of the 97 schools. 3,000 of these had defective teeth; 1,212 adenoids or tonsils and 730 or 10 per cent. of them were suffering from malnutrition. Some of these defects are remedied they say by the amalgamation, but it may aggravate the evil of overcrowding.

Amalgamation, of course, is sound as everybody knows because you get the two teacher school instead of one, and it is much easier to carry out the programme. I see by the report that in some schools drinking water and wash basins have been provided. That is an excellent innovation and I hope it will be extended. It is certainly a move in the right direction. Regarding the J.A.M's, I find that there are 1,860 of them. 47 are trained and 1,813 untrained. A good many of them are in convent schools. You have convent schools teachers also suffering from grievances. We find that 24 per cent. of the children going to school attend convent schools. I find that in one inspectorial division that two teacher schools comprise two-thirds of the whole number of schools, and that in the majority of these the staff consists of a principal and a J.A.M. Regarding the methods of teaching the following appears in the Report in relation to Division 1: "It is the experience of the inspectors in this division that the majority of the teachers do not draw up helpful schemes of school work. The necessity for adequate and regular preparation for work is not appreciated."

In that division 21.3 of the teachers were highly efficient, 69.5 efficient, and 9.2 non-efficient. The inspectors say that the word "efficient" got a very liberal interpretation. In Division 2. regarding method, the report states that "there is little attempt to give other than fact knowledge on literature, history, geography and science. There is little or no attempt at analysis of the subject matter. The book work is generally too bookish. The questions for the most part are suggestive of the answers, and there is far too much demand on memory."

The following are further extracts from the Report: "Division 3. In this division the work is usually unsatisfactory in history and geography and the average teacher has not the education which is required for the effective teaching of these subjects. Both subjects call for knowledge and judgment in the choice of matter suitable for children."

"Division 4.—The importance of establishing a relation between the work of the school and the life of the district is not sufficiently realised, particularly in the teaching of languages and mathematics. In an effort to adhere literally to the terms of the programme and to cover the entire course the teaching is often hurried and superficial."

"Division 7.—It may seem strange that the results under ‘efficient' teachers are estimated so low, but the rating ‘efficient' spreads its net very wide, and includes many who are judged by a liberal standard. One point in which the curriculum could be improved would be the settling of a specific programme for the seventh and eighth standards."

If we look into some of the subjects individually we find it stated in the report, regarding arithmetic, "that it continues to be a weak subject in the majority of schools." That was in 1929. We might be informed whether the improvements suggested have been effected. We find it also stated in the report that "one of the shortcomings is the absence of co-relation between the questions given for calculation and the life of the district. The teachers are the slaves of text-books that reflect only the life of the towns. They have sufficient knowledge but defective methods."

The report, dealing with Division 2, states: "The reasoning faculty is not called into play in history, geography, or even mathematics. In the teaching of mathematics the subject is not as closely linked up with the life of the neighbourhood as it might be. The children's interest in arithmetic is not aroused and no connection is established between the work of the school and the life of the district."

Other extracts from the report state: "Division 4. There is still a lack of up-to-date methods in the teaching of mathematics, with the result that this subject is the weakest in the curriculum. Too much time is spent on purely mechanical work and very little attempt is made to select problems which will develop the pupils' reasoning powers. Division 5. In arithmetic, expertness in calculation comes too slowly. Problems might relate more frequently than they do to matters that come within the children's experiences. Division 6. While in the best schools there is much sound teaching of arithmetic both from the point of view of practical application to life and from that of training in reasoning, yet some of the district inspectors find much room for dissatisfaction with the teaching of arithmetic in senior classes. The exercises are often too mechanical, dreary sums with no relation to real life. There is insufficient use of realistic methods. Generally there is too little leading up to general principles along inductive lines and too much didactic instruction. Division 7. Probably three-fourths of the weakness in arithmetic in boys' schools is due not to inability to teach but to the non-adoption of means to compel each child to use his intelligence in finding the answer to a question instead of permitting him to take it from the good boy who happens to be within the range of his vision."

These extracts suffice to show that there is need for improvement in this vital subject of arithmetic. I do not say that the fault is the teachers'. There are, of course, portions of the report which praise the majority of the teachers highly. There is a want of direction and, apparently, something wrong in the training of the teachers. They get out from the training colleges often, I think, with not much of an idea of how to teach. It has been said and perhaps it would be feasible that if they came to Dublin for a year to get higher education, and then were sent, instead of J.A.M.'s to the different schools throughout the country, for a year to teach under the supervision of a good teacher, afterwards coming back for another year to the training colleges when they had got some experience, you would probably get better teachers and also help to solve the problem of the J.A.M.'s. The Minister might consider whether that would be practicable.

Regarding History, Division 1, the Report states: "All the teachers have a knowledge of history but a large number have read only one or two elementary text-books. This is a subject wherein more scholarship is the need of a very large body of the teachers. Knowing as it were only the scare head outlines of history, and these often not the vital ones, they cannot present the subject in an interesting way or show the connection between cause and effect, or introduce life and colour into the story by the use of historical ballads." In Division 2 it states: "In the majority of schools history suffers from the fact that the scope of the course is limited to the contents of meagre text-books." Division 3.—"Teachers are now asked to combine local history with general history, but their knowledge of local history is very slight." It is very hard to blame them for that, and it is very difficult to get material. I notice that in one division it is stated that a teacher, with the aid of the pupils and the priests and people interested in education, was compiling a local history. Regarding local history, it is stated: "Some of the more earnest teachers are compiling histories of their school districts. The matter, including local tradition, place names and customs, is gathered by the pupils, and from this mass the teachers are trying to compile books of local history. That is certainly very good work. In a large number of schools the study of folklore is almost totally neglected. Division 5: "The history of Ireland cannot have its full educational value till more account is taken of contemporary history. Local ruins, raths, are generally utilised with good effect in arousing interest in the past. There is not, however, much evidence of attention to heroic tales or folklore."

As to the teaching of English in Division 1, it states: "All the teachers are competent to teach English. Many of the older teachers, however, have very little appreciation of literature, and consequently would fail to give adolescent pupils a taste for reading or literary beauty and merit. The difference between the higher and lower course in languages does not seem to be clearly understood."

Coming to the higher standards, it was pleasant to hear from the Minister that the attendance had gone up by 12 per cent., but what has been done for them in the matter of programme is not so consoling. The same conditions obtain now as in 1929, according to the report of the Department for the year.

In Division 1, the report states: "To the question whether the work actually done in the highest standards reaches the standard required to give a full education to the pupil between 12 and 14, the broad answer, subject to certain modifications, is in the negative." On page 35 it is stated. "In the normal school up to the Sixth Standard there is good progress in the pupils' advancement, but after the Sixth Standard is passed, except in four-teacher schools, a static or stagnant stage is reached, which continues during the remainder of the pupils' school-days." Only one programme for Seventh and Eighth Standards has been submitted from that division to the Department. I think the Department, since they have not had such a programme submitted, ought draft one for the Seventh and Eighth Standards. We appreciate, of course, the difficulty of the two-teacher school, or the school with a teacher and junior assistant mistress, in giving proper instruction to pupils in the Seventh and Eighth Standards, and there is also the question of finance. In Division 2, the report says: "The teachers, despite the disadvantages enumerated, are in the main doing their utmost in the circumstances to give the higher classes the best education they can impart, but the education of adolescent children is not, as a rule, made sufficiently practicable." Many obstacles were pointed out. Some can be got over, and some cannot. Elderly teachers, of course, might not be as well trained as younger men, though I personally question this. You have crowded class-rooms, understaffing, want of suitable text-books and equipment, and, to my mind, want of proper direction from the Department of Education.

The Report states: "The education given is for the most part too bookish and divorced from the facts and problems of ordinary life." The Inspector in Division 3 says: "The most important fact is that when a child reaches the age of twelve he requires to be directed rather than taught. Henceforth he should learn things for himself under the direction of the teacher." The teacher in the two teacher school gets very little time to direct them. On Division 6 it is stated: "Generally speaking, as a result of all the causes discussed, some remediable and some not, Irish pupils are generally one year and, in some cases, two years behind the standard they should have reached at eleven or twelve." School attendance will probably correct that. The Minister may inform us to what extent he has corrected it during the past year.

In reference to the teaching of Irish, I find that out of 14,326 teachers 38 per cent. had no certificate in Irish and many of these were under 30 years of age; 31 per cent. had an ordinary certificate, 24.6 had a bilingual certificate and 6 per cent. the Ard-Teastas. We are anxious to hear from the Minister how these percentages have altered during the past twelve months. There is certainly not much excuse for 1,183 teachers under 30 years of age having no certificate. It is rather difficult to explain and we should like the Minister to explain it or to endeavour to do so. From 1930 inclusive the preparatory colleges and the pupil teachers supplied the majority of the entrants to the training colleges. We would consequently expect a considerable advance, and some of that advance may be visible next year. The Report says: "In the Gaeltacht Irish is not being made the spoken language there and it is outside the Gaeltacht progress in the use of Irish as a medium of instruction is slow."

The effectiveness of the teaching of Irish in the schools varies more than the teaching of any other subject. The personality, the enthusiasm and the skill of the teacher count more in imbuing the pupils with the love of the language than native fluency of speech.

If more attention were given to Irish history, and to the reasons for learning Irish, we would get better progress. Regarding secondary education, there is an extraordinary disparity shown between the number of passes in history and geography as one subject and as separate subjects. There are from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. more failures when they are combined subjects. It is obvious that the course is too extensive, and that it should be cut down or the subjects divided, in the Intermediate Certificate. Regarding continuation education, the Minister said rightly that we are only getting under weigh and that it will be twelve months before we can assess the work. But this vocational and technical scheme is being continued, and was founded on an old system which catered for the towns. Regarding the subjects of instruction in the course referred to by the Minister, they did not seem to cater for rural districts. There should be a course with reference to agriculture, soils, local history, folklore and such like, and hold the classes, not in towns, but in fair-sized villages, and in that way give the rural community something for the rates they have to contribute to this scheme. Otherwise, it seems to me they will derive little benefit. In addition to that, agriculture is the main industry, and you should give the people an interest in agriculture, in their daily lives and work. You will do that if you get classes under the vocational education scheme bearing on agriculture.

Forty whole-time Irish teachers have been brought up for a course. If the Minister looks at the figures he will find that there are more attending classes in Irish than all the other subjects combined, all through the country, except, possibly, in Dublin. There are something like 300 part-time teachers, part-time because they are only paid part-time, although the majority of them give their whole time to it. More provision should be made than is mentioned in that respect. Regarding what might be called the cultural and artistic sections under the Vote—the National Museum, the National Library, the School of Art and the National Gallery— it is correct to say that an advance has been made regarding donations and even purchases for the Museum. We have not been told much about the National Library. I fail to see how valuable purchases can be got either for the National Museum or the National Gallery out of £1,000 for each. We have not been informed what purchases have been made for the National Gallery, or what purchases are likely to be made with such a small grant. There is need for developing these artistic institutions and bringing them more into relation with education.

In fact some use is being made of the Museum by city schools, but local museums should also be encouraged. I believe there are museums in Limerick and Galway. Their value to the nation is not realised.

One other point regarding this Publication Committee—"An Gúm"— For original works, novels and historical works in Irish, five shillings per page of 420 words is, I believe, the amount given to the authors or 12s. approximately for 1,000 words, whereas for translations £1 is given for 1,000 words. Original works should be more highly paid for than mere translations, and not at the rate of 12s. per 1,000 words, while £1 is given for translations. If the Minister when replying would take up the report and deal with these points regarding the training of teachers and the method I suggested, the teaching of mathematics, bringing education more in line with the life of the district and providing for continuation education that will suit rural areas, it would be valuable, and I think it is due to the House considering that the report of his Department deals with these matters.

Mr. Byrne

The importance of the Estimate that the House is now discussing will be realised when it is stated that the sum of money that we are passing in this Estimate exceeds the combined sums of money that we spend upon industry and agriculture. The present Vote involves over £4,000,000. Of that sum £3¾ millions goes practically to primary education. I agree with Deputy Fahy that this money should be spent by the country provided the country receives value for it. I agree with him when he says that it is money well spent. But, if it is money well spent, we must have an educational system fit for the country. The Minister for Education on a former occasion in dealing with this Estimate stated that we in this country had to depend more on the trained ability of our people than perhaps any other European country. In dealing with this Estimate and this large sum of money, it is reasonable to ask two simple questions: (1) Is our primary system of education efficient; does it properly equip our children educationally? (2) Does the State receive value for the money? A lot of time has been spent here in discussing the Compulsory School Attendance Act. The Compulsory School Attendance Act introduced five years ago was looked upon by many connected with educational matters as a means that would cure every defect in our educational system. In my opinion, the Compulsory School Attendance Act will never remedy the defects that at present exist in our educational system.

The acid test of education in any country can only be applied by means of examinations. In speaking of examinations, I do not refer to the old type of examination, nor would I wish to see a reversion by this country to that type of examination. But our educational reformers appear to have gone from one extreme to the other by the total elimination of examinations of every class and kind. I think two harmful results have accrued: (1) The standard of education in our primary schools has, in my opinion, reached as low a level as, if not a lower level than, the standard of primary education in any other country in Europe. (2) It has removed the spur to an honest endeavour on the part of the teaching profession. To my mind, in our present system of education we have what I might term a teacher's paradise. There is no such thing as testing the work of the teacher. There is no means of testing the proficiency of the pupils.

When one examines the report of the Department of Education, and looks at the standard of education at present prevailing in our primary schools, and when one considers the sum of money spent on primary education alone, almost 3¾ million pounds, one can only come to one conclusion, and that is, that the State is not getting value for its money. In the report of the Department of Education it is a most illuminating fact to notice on page 149, table 25, that in June, 1929, only 6 per cent. of the children were in the 6th standard. Six per cent. of the children in the 6th standard! Does not that seem an alarming fact? We had approximately 44 per cent. in the infants' standard, and standard 1; we had 27 per cent. in the 2nd and 3rd standards. That is about 71 per cent. and we had 26 per cent. in the 5th standard and upwards. Six per cent. in the 6th standard of our primary schools, for which we are spending 3¾ million pounds per annum! I want to ask the House a simple question: is that a satisfactory condition of affairs?

In the report of the Department of Education on page 62 it is stated that only 25 per cent. of the children can be regarded when leaving our national schools as doing credit to our school system. That is the Department of Education report: 25 per cent. of the children alone reach a satisfactory standard of education when leaving our schools. What I want to ask the House is this: what becomes of the remaining 75 per cent? What standard of education does that 75 per cent. possess? How many of them reach the 6th standard? How many leave the schools while in the 3rd standard? Is that a condition of affairs in which the House should pass annually an Estimate involving such a large amount of money? Anybody who has read the Report of the Department of Education for 1928-29 can see in that report a scathing indictment of the present system of education in our national schools. On page 62 it states that 25 per cent. of the pupils only do credit to our schools. On page 33 the question is asked: "Does the work in the higher classes of the primary schools meet the standard required to give a full education to the pupils between the ages of 12 and 14?" And the answer given in the report is: "I regret to say that the answer is in the negative." The report also states that a boy in the 6th class writing to a former class-mate says: "The sixth class is becoming degenerate." That is the actual condition of affairs existing at present as far as the primary education of the country is concerned.

Deputy Fahy, in referring to primary education, dealt with the period between 12 and 14 years of age. He pointed out that education had become static, that there was no progress, no advance.

Reading the report of the Department of Education, one can only come to one conclusion, that in the existing condition of affairs in our national schools the two most important years, the two years before the pupil leaves the school, are practically a waste of time, because, according to the words of the report, there is no progress in the education that the pupils receive. I cannot see how the House can lightly pass an Estimate of this kind without endeavouring in some way to improve our existing system of education.

If we have not a good system of primary education the rest of our education cannot be satisfactory. How can we have a satisfactory system of education in the country, in view of the fact that when the children leave the primary schools and present themselves at the City of Dublin Technical Schools 55 per cent. of them are unable to pass the examination that would entitle them to enter the Technical School? Fifty-five per cent. of these children fail to qualify for the benefits of technical education. Does the House mean to take any steps in order to do something for these 55 per cent. of our children? What is to become of them? Are they to earn a living with the pick or the shovel, or are they to be thrown on the scrap-heap of the unemployed, or are they to be reduced to such a condition that they practically become unemployable. I do not see how this system of primary education can be continued unchanged. We have a system at the present time by which a child enters school, say, at five years of age and remains there until he is fourteen. For that whole nine years between five and fourteen there is not a single test of any kind applied as to his educational progress. During the period of nine years there is not one single examination. How can you blame the teachers if they have no spur to urge them on? The pitiful thing is that the unfortunate parents have no redress whatever.

The standard of education in our schools is so low that this House should endeavour to amend it in some way. I do not wish the House to think that I am overstating the case or that I am exaggerating in any way in the criticisms I am making on our system of primary education. Some time ago I asked a question in the House dealing with the results of the primary certificate examination. As the House is aware, it is only an optional examination. No pupil in the national schools need sit for it unless he wishes or unless his parents desire. When this examination was introduced in 1929 the teachers said they would present 15,000 pupils. But unfortunately second thoughts appear to be best, and instead of presenting 15,000 pupils they presented 9,827. I want to impress upon the House that these 9,827 pupils were all picked pupils of the National Schools. There was not a single child out of the 9,000 that presented themselves that came from a sixth class; they all came from the seventh or higher standards. And the result was that in the year 1929, when there were 43,654 pupils qualified to sit out of these, only 9,827 presented themselves for examination, and of these 5,062 passed and 4,262 failed.

In 1930 there was a slight hope that there might be an improvement. Out of 44,726 pupils qualified to sit, only 10,000 presented themselves, and of these 7,427 passed and 2,580 failed. Only approximately 12½ per cent. of those qualified to sit in 1929 passed, and only 17½ per cent. of those qualified to sit passed in 1930. But this most significant fact remains, that in 1929 87½ per cent. of the qualified pupils never sat for this examination, and probably I think it is just inference to draw that if they did sit they would never have qualified, and in 1930 the enormous percentage of 82½ per cent. of the pupils qualified to sit for this simple examination never sat.

In this House last week we were discussing the Apprenticeship Bill, and dealing with fixing the standards of education. The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that the standard of education in this country was so low that it was almost impossible to fix a standard that could be incorporated in the Bill. It is under our present system of primary education we have such a result as occurred in the Dublin City Technical entrance examination in 1929, when for these examinations 882 pupils were examined; 373 passed, and 57½ per cent. of the total failed to qualify. In 1930, 1,087 pupils presented themselves for examination. Of these 485 passed and 55½ per cent. failed. I do not wish to exaggerate in any way the condition of education in this country, but I do say that for the expenditure of three and three-quarter millions of money this is an appalling condition of affairs. And the result of the primary education deficiencies are reflected, and are bound to be reflected, in the result of our secondary education. In 1929, in the Intermediate examinations, 33? per cent. of the pupils failed in mathematics. In the following year, 1930, that 33? was increased to 43 per cent. The 33? in 1929 had increased 10 per cent. in the following year. What hope can there be for the progress of the country if 50 per cent. of its children do not understand the vital subject of mathematics? In English there were 25 per cent. of failures in 1929 and 16 per cent. in 1930. In history and geography 39 per cent. failed in 1929 and 36 per cent. in 1930.

I agree with Deputy Fahy in what he said, that to incorporate two such important subjects as history and geography in a single subject covering such a wide field of knowledge is an impossible educational test.

In the Leaving Certificate we have the same state of affairs. In 1929, 31 per cent. failed in mathematics; in 1930, 39 per cent. failed; in 1929, 15 per cent. failed in English, and 17 per cent. in 1930. In 1929, 20 per cent. failed in history, and 20 per cent. also failed in 1930. In 1929, 28 per cent. failed in geography, and 15 per cent. failed in 1930.

Now I think it is about time that the House faced the fact that under the present system of primary education the children of this country are not receiving a reasonable chance. In the report of the Department of Education dealing with the teaching of mathematics it states: "There is no doubt about the capacity for mathematics of girls who get a chance, but unfortunately in many girls' schools a proper chance is not afforded." How much longer is that system of education of our children, supported by a vote of 3¾ millions, to continue? Instead of progress being marked, according to the results that I have quoted, we are retrograding. In the report of the Department of Education, page 93, dealing with English, it states the Intermediate results of 1929 were very disappointing, and the examiners, who did not mark with undue severity, found a large number of candidates were extremely weak in spelling and grammar, and the average standard was lower than the previous year.

In each of these reports there is no progress. There is in fact a going-back. Reference is also made to the lower standard in the Intermediate in English composition. It states that students when they get to the intermediate standard are almost ignorant of grammar, and that bad spelling is very prevalent in all classes, including the fourth year class. There are representative professors in this House to whom I would put this question. What chance has a boy going to a secondary school of passing an examination if he is unable to spell? When I was going for my university examination the one advice I got was to be sure not to have a single error in spelling in English composition. What chance in that respect have our boys who are going to universities to-day? I notice that my remarks appear to have caused some risibility in certain quarters in the House, but I would ask such Deputies to contradict, if they can, the statements I have made, especially those which I have quoted, because they are the statements of the Department of Education, and not mere statements of mine.

A very learned clergyman, the Rev. Dr. Leen, some time ago criticised our system of primary education. He placed his criticism under two heads —want of uniformity in standard, knowledge of arithmetic inferior to what it used to be, and noticeable ignorance of grammar. The report of the Education Department confirms every word that he spoke. The figures which I quoted are official figures, and they call for examination on the part of the Department of Education. Dealing with school-work it states on page 30 that in the preparation of school-work teachers did not try to be helpful, and many of them plodded through the school year without any proper plan, so that the result was a waste of time and effort and an absolute absence of steady progress. That statement was made in the report of the Department of Education, yet we are now being asked to pass a sum of three and three-quarter millions for the continuation of a system of education of that kind.

In criticising this Estimate, I would like to make it clear that my criticism is not directed at the Department of Education, especially not at the Minister for Education, but it is directed absolutely at the system itself. The Minister, in portion of his opening remarks, said that we do not control education; we may guide it and we may influence it to a considerable degree, but the system is not a State system. It is, he said, a private system. I think that the time has come when the House must consider, in the interests of the people of this country, whether it is advisable that such a system should continue, or whether it is in the interest of the children themselves to have it taken over by the State. The Minister made a passing reference to Germany, but I wonder would such a condition of things be allowed to prevail there? The Minister, I am sure, knows very well that it would not be tolerated for a moment.

Dealing with the position there the eminent Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University said that the power of the German State has been exercised unflinchingly and that national education there has been made an engine of tremendous power. The result is that the German system is ahead of any system in the world. It has also been, stated by a prominent Englishman, Mr. Saunders, "The Times" correspondent in Berlin, a man who should be impartial, that the educational apprehension of the cultured German is ten times greater than that of the cultured Englishman. I would like to pay a well-deserved tribute to the success of the preparatory colleges. That indeed has been the one bright spot in our system. These colleges are a credit to the Department, to the teachers and to the whole system of education. The Minister dealt with the number of pupil teacherships, and I would ask him whether it would be possible to increase the number available this year and next year for the various pupils who desire to enter the teaching profession.

I know from practical experience that many brilliant boys have been debarred from entering the preparatory colleges by the undue preference —I emphasise the word "undue"— given to those who possess a knowledge of Irish. I would ask the Minister, in view of this undue preference, to increase the number of pupil teacherships available. In the pupil teachership system the best men get the places without fear or favour and the poor man's son gets a chance of continuing his education and at the same time of entering the teaching profession. I hope that I will not be misunderstood in any criticism I make in that connection. I fully realise the importance of restoring the Irish language and I subscribe to the dictum that the language of the conqueror in the mouth of the conquered is the language of the slave, but I would remind the House that though the conquest is past the defects of primary education are still with us. If the main plank of our educational system is to be Gaelicisation of our schools it is only fair, in the interest of the people who find the money and in the interest of the children themselves, that if the development of a policy of the spirit of nationalism is to be maintained that nationalism must march side by side with progress and efficiency, and, if it fails to do so, it should take its proper place in the educational scheme of the country.

I would like to make one or two suggestions to the Minister before I conclude. I would ask him to consider the possibility (1) of making the annual primary certificate examination compulsory, because I believe that the appallingly low standard of education in our schools shows the need for that compulsory examination; and (2) of introducing a compulsory examination in fourth standard to test the progress and efficiency of pupils on their way to the final standard. There is one thing that should be done and I do not know what power the Minister has in this regard, but I say that those teachers who are classified as non-efficient should be immediately removed. I would ask the Minister to use every effort, in the limited powers at his disposal, to see that such teachers shall cease to function in the coming year and that the irreparable damage which they are doing to the rising generation shall be brought to an end. I know the difficulties of the Minister and I know that his powers over the appointment of teachers are practically nominal, but, if the results continue as at present in our primary system of education the Minister will, in my opinion, be bound to consider the departmental appointment of teachers and also the question of departmental control.

Professor Thrift

I should like in the first place to congratulate the Minister on his clear statement, a statement that I think in some ways was very satisfactory. It is satisfactory to hear that the School Attendance Act is working well and is leading to an increase in regularity of attendance in the numbers of children attending school, and in the numbers of those who get into the higher standards. It is important, as he says, to note in that connection that the effects of the School Attendance Act will be cumulative, and that it will take a considerable number of years still to get the full effects of that Act. But though I feel that the Minister's statement was in some ways satisfactory, I would like to say at the outset that I cannot help feeling that there is a good case for the views expressed by Deputy Fahy and, to some extent, by Deputy Byrne. I regret that Deputy Byrne did not do more in his remarks about the standard of education that is reached by the children in our primary schools than state, in very strong language, I think unduly strong language perhaps, that it is unsatisfactory. He did not indicate in any really useful or effective way what changes we should bring into operation in order to raise that standard. I feel myself very much with these two Deputies that the standard is capable of a great deal of improvement, and should be improved, but we have not heard from either Deputy any practical suggestions as to what is wrong or what steps should be taken. Neither am I myself at the moment prepared to suggest any steps that we should take at once. Deputy Byrne asked us not to pass this Estimate until we took some steps——

Mr. Byrne

On a point of explanation, I never made any such statement.

Professor Thrift

I apologise to the Deputy if I misinterpreted him, but it seemed to me that he asked the House not to pass the Estimate until we took some steps and until we saw these things remedied. I do not want to attribute that to him if he did not say so. I do not think he can do anything by changing the present system into a State system. We want a great deal more than having a State system which is devoted to secular matters. We all like something in our schools more important than that. That is education in character, education in tone, which ought to come from school life of the best kind. To my mind that kind of education you will not get merely by adopting a State system of education. I do not think that is the kind of alteration that is wanted in our system. I think we are extremely fortunate in our general system compared indeed with many countries which are faced with problems which we have managed very largely to escape. I will confine myself in that connection to suggesting that perhaps the time has come for really some serious inquiry as to whether it is true to say that our standard is much lower than that in other countries and, in the second place, if it is, what are the steps that should be taken to raise it.

At the very outset we are faced with a fundamental difficulty, a difficulty that is almost peculiar to us. It is a difficulty to which the Minister himself referred in his statement, the very scattered nature of our population. In the first place that must mean increased expense, and in the next place, it must lead to a lower quality in standard. I think that you will never get the same standard in a small school that you will get in a large school. In the third place it means that in many districts the families are so scattered that the children practically get no education at all. That is a point to which the Minister referred. At the moment it seems to me that that is really the most urgent matter before us, educationally speaking.

I approach the matter, of course, from the angle of the church of which I am a member. At the same time I recognise that it is not alone a problem that concerns that church, but perhaps even in a greater degree, it concerns other churches too. There are probably 1,500 children belonging to the church of which I am a member who, at the present moment, have either not to go to school at all or to to go to a school which is what the Minister, in very advised language, called, for them, an unsuitable school. I think we all agree that on this I am not saying anything that is controversial. We, the members of our church, take the view which I think is taken by the members of the church to which the majority of Deputies of the House belong. We do not think it is right that the children belonging to their church should have to go to a Protestant school. Neither do we think it is right that children who are Protestants should be compelled, if they are to get any education at all, to go to the school of another faith. I think we are all agreed upon that. It is what the Minister calls unsuitable. It is not consistent with our idea of education.

We look, as I have said, for something more than mere secular knowledge. We look for our children to be trained even in a higher way than secular knowledge connotes. We look to the general atmosphere in which they are being taught. We think that is of great importance. The fact remains that in our church alone there are probably 1,500 children, many of whom at present do not get educated at all, and those who do, have to get it by going to the school of a church to which they do not belong. I do not know the numbers, but I say that it is very likely there are far more children of your church who are in a similar predicament. To my knowledge this problem is becoming even more urgent than it was a few years ago, and I think it is one to which we ought to give our most immediate attention. I know the Minister is giving it immediate attention. He said that in his statement, and I commend him for it. I know he is doing his best to arrive at some way of dealing with that difficulty. All these children, according to our Constitution, have the right to free education. According to our accepted principles we are bound to give them that, in what the Minister called a suitable way. It is quite true that technically our system of education is undenominational, but it is equally true that in practice we know it and work it as a denominational system.

I am very glad that it is so, and it is a very good and a very fortunate thing for us that it is so. It is one of our great advantages over the system of education that is in operation in Great Britain that we are not faced here with the difficulties that they are faced with there.

Mr. Byrne

We have a lower standard of education.

Professor Thrift

We may have a low standard of education, that is quite true, but it may be due to other causes. I do not think it is true to say that our children come out from our schools in one sense worse educated than they come from English schools. They come out trained, at any rate, to be Christians, and that is a much more important thing than to be merely trained in secular knowledge. They do not lose the spiritual advantages which we get from our system, and these advantages are most important. There are other reasons, but before I leave that subject I want to thank the Minister for his references to it. I was pleased to hear him say that he is dealing with it, and I hope that some satisfactory solution all round will very soon be obtained. No doubt much of it can be met by increased transport facilities, and I beg of the Minister not to put aside dealing with that part of it immediately, because it is certainly true to say that while an increase of transport facilities will not solve the whole problem it will do a great deal in that direction. It is equally true to say that it will cost money. Speaking for those I represent, I will say right off that we will do our best to help in that respect, but we cannot do the whole thing. We can do something.

Speaking as a member of the State, I say that the State cannot afford not to spend that money. It has got to educate its people. It cannot afford not to educate them. It is important that they should be educated in the best possible way. As to what Deputy Byrne says, I do not think you are going to get any further by anything that would lead to what is called a State system, but there is some reason why our present system is not working right. I do not profess to know why, but I do agree with Deputy Fahy and Deputy Byrne that in many respects the standard reached by our children, not alone in the primary schools but in the secondary schools—and I refer particularly to mathematics—is extraordinarily low. We experienced exactly the same difficulty, I might say, or perhaps I ought to say I did experience precisely the same difficulty in the case of the students who came to the University. They might be better up in some things, but as a general rule mathematics was the weak point, and arithmetic was the weakest point in mathematics. I do not know the reason. I do know that in primary schools arithmetic is poor. I do not know why, or whether it is that it is badly taught. It is poor in the secondary schools, and I am sure it is poor among university students, as a rule. I think it leads to what I indicated in the commencement of my remarks. Can we not make sure, in the first place, if it is true, and secondly, if it is true can we not find out the cause? I do not know how that is to be done without some most careful and searching inquiry. The Minister has told us also, in his statement, that he is at the present moment engaged in continuing his inquiries as to the effect of the teaching through Irish, and so far he is satisfied that the teaching through Irish is done to a very small extent. I think if he cuts out the Irish-speaking districts his figures came down to 3 per cent.

Professor O'Sullivan

Less.

Professor Thrift

I hope it is true that he will continue those inquiries and make himself quite certain of the truth of that.

Professor O'Sullivan

The figures, teaching through Irish and English, using both languages, are higher. I do not know how far, unless you go to individual schools, the actual figures convey definite information. The extent to which the Irish language is used could not be gathered from the figures. That is the reason I did not give them. The actual amount done through Irish alone, if you subtract the Gaeltacht, is certainly under 2 per cent.

Professor Thrift

I am surprised. I had information that there is pressure being brought in many cases to engage in teaching through Irish where it is obviously not possible for it to be done well, because of the lack of knowledge either on the part of the teacher or student. The Minister has given us the result of his inquiry so far, and I hope he will continue these inquiries. The root cause may be deeper and we can find out. There seems to be a prima facie case for inquiry.

The fact that students coming to technical schools so often lack the necessary elements of primary education, is proof of the truth of what I am saying. There seems to be a prima facie case for saying that our standard of education is lower than it ought to be, even in this sparsely populated country, and even with the difficulties we have been labouring under. We ought to find out what is the cause. I do not pretend to be able to put my finger on it at the moment and say what it is.

In reference to secondary education, there are just two or three things about which I would like to ask the Minister, and to which I would like to call his attention. He referred himself again to a very important matter. The Minister used words which seemed to me to indicate that he had some sympathy with the point of view that I expressed before in this House, and which I am going to take the liberty to give expression to again. That is that the standard required by the registration council for our teachers is too restrictive and requires alteration. I want to get the very best brains in the country for our primary teachers, for our secondary teachers, and for our university teachers. Now, what I find and believe to be the case is this, that those who come to the universities, and who in many cases would wish to take up secondary teaching as a profession in life, find that they cannot do it owing to financial reasons. These financial reasons are as follows: in the first place, they have to take a four years' course, or, at all events, a three years' course, in the university in order to get their degree. When they get their degree they have to pass another year or two years' in order to get the secondary teacher's diploma. That means five years. Then they have to have two years' experience at teaching before they can possibly get registered as teachers.

A doctor, like my friend, Deputy Sir James Craig, had not to wait seven years before he could get his qualifications as a doctor.

I do not know what the period was in his time, but at present five years' training would be sufficient. A secondary teacher has to put in seven years before he is qualified to become a registered teacher and to get the State increment. I think the period is too long, and there should be some improvement. I am sure the effect is that it is turning aside from being secondary teachers many able men who would devote themselves to that profession if they could make it a means of livelihood at an early date. I think the difficulty could be met by some provisional sanction to shorten the period to, say, five years. I think the matter requires attention, and I rather gathered from the Minister's words that he thought so himself.

There are two other matters connected with secondary education to which I would like to refer. It is still, I think, unsatisfactory that we have registered teachers not receiving incremental salary. The Minister will tell us how many there are. I do not know the number, but I know there are some, and I hope the day will soon come when there will not be any. We have registered teachers qualified to get the State increment and yet, because the school is properly staffed and the rest of the school teachers are getting the increment, that particular teacher cannot get the State increment. That is not right. The school is allowed to have so many teachers who are registered and who receive the incremental salary. If they want to staff the school properly they may have to employ another teacher who also is registered. If they do, however, that additional teacher will not get the State increment. That system is bad and it operates in a two-fold way. It means that a teacher who may pass from one school to another never knows when he may have to go to a school where his incremental salary will be barred by the fact that there are already the requisite number of teachers there getting the increment. That difficulty has existed for a good many years. I believe, and I am sure the Minister will satisfy me on the point, that it is true the number of registered teachers is getting less. I hope they are getting very much less and that they will disappear altogether.

The second matter to which I wish to refer is in connection with the rules of the Department connected with the pensions of secondary teachers. We would like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that those rules are completely satisfactory. If not, whether there are many points in which they will require change, and I would like to know what the Minister proposes to do in order to bring the changes into effect. I am satisfied that there are some points which require changes. I think all the difficulties could be largely met by giving the Minister, subject to the approval of the Department of Finance, a certain amount of discretion in the operation of the rules. At present he is tied up very much by our decisions as a House. I will give one instance. A teacher fell ill, and was ill for three months, and was forbidden by the doctor to attend to any business. The teacher got quite well again, but it was necessary for her to apply to the Department for leave to continue for another period after the following twelve months, because her normal time for retirement would come then. She dated her application on the 1st July. It happened that her birthday was on the 31st March. If she had dated her application on the 30th June she would have been all right, but the next day, 1st July, was outside the statutory limit of three months. She was disqualified. That is in essence an actual case. I think it is not quite an actual case, because I think another point arose. It is, at any rate, a case which might happen, and I think, in such a case, there should be some discretionary power with the Minister. I want to know from him whether he has many cases in which these rules are found to need some alteration or another.

Deputy Fahy made some reference to first year students in the university. I believe that he is under a misapprehension. To my own knowledge in very many cases it is not that the first year student is underworked, but that he is overworked. Our experience is that the students coming to us from the schools are very often much below the standard which they ought to have reached by the time they got to the age when they should enter a university. Why it is I do not know. I have been often puzzled about it. I still remember when I was at school and in the class that I was in of university standard I think every one of the boys could easily have passed the university entrance examination, but they did not go to the university. What happened to them I do not know. Those who came to the university found the entrance examination quite difficult enough, and very many of them failed to pass. After they get in often the screw has to be put on them in order to raise their standard of education. In practice, of the students who enter a university there are very few left who are only required to take what we call their Arts course. Most of them go into professional schools. They have to in order to get qualified within a reasonable time. Most of those who do not go to professional schools are not in the category that we are thinking about, because they are honours students. The balance, who are below the standard, form a very small fraction, and they have quite enough, and more than enough very often, to do in order to raise themselves to a standard in ordinary educational matters which is required of students at the end of the first year. My experience is not at all that the boys are underworked in the first year, but that very often they are overworked. They have to do their professional work and their general education work as well.

I have been on my feet a great deal longer than I intended. I do not think I will delay the House any longer. But I want to refer again to the general idea and a general remark which has been made as to the magnitude of this Vote. Far from objecting to the magnitude of the Vote, if it is true that our standard is poor, I say again that we cannot afford not to spend this money on education and it may be even necessary to increase the money. What is essential is that we should spare no effort to give to every child in the country the very best education that we can, mentally and spiritually.

Professor Tierney

I think not only is the Minister to be congratulated upon his report of the work of the Department, but the House is to be congratulated on the direction this debate has taken here this evening. In former years I think there has been too much of a tendency to concentrate attention on what I would call the external machinery of education in this country, on questions like the provision of new school buildings, school meals for children, extra transport to bring the children to school, and a variety of other matters which from a truly educational point of view, when examined whole, are really nothing more than luxuries. Although I think Deputy Byrne was a great deal too alarmist and pessimistic in what he said, his speech and that of Deputy Thrift at least have had the good service that they directed attention to what, after all, is the kernel of our whole-educational problem, and that is the question of our educational standard in this country. It must be recognised on all sides of the House in the years that have elapsed since the State was set up that the Department of Education has done an immense amount of magnificent work, that new foundations have been laid in all directions. A great deal has been done in so far as the Department could do to raise the standard of education as well as to provide the external machinery of, what I am tempted to call, the luxury side of education. It is a good thing and it is really a proof of the success that has attended the Department's efforts that it is now possible for us to concentrate rather on the problem which will always face us, no matter how well we have made financial provision for new and elaborate schools and medical inspection of children and transport, and so on. The one big problem which will face a lot of us in this country will be the question of whether our standards in education are sufficiently high or not. I think it may be said, in spite of what Deputy Byrne has rightly, I think in many ways, pointed out, that on the whole there has been a tendency during the last seven or eight years for the standard both in primary and secondary schools to go up rather than go down.

At any rate, if the type of examination that is set is any test, I think it may certainly be said that the standard of the papers set in the secondary examinations during the last seven or eight years has decidedly gone up, and if my own experience is any guide, examinations such as scholarship examinations, which quite young people from primary schools in the country have to sit for nowadays, are out of all proportion with regard to difficulty to the type of examination they had to sit for 20 years ago. I had, a month or two ago in County Galway, an opportunity of seeing papers set in the local county council examination, as well as the entrance examination for Preparatory Colleges under the Department of Education. I may say that I thought in both of those examinations the standard set was remarkably high. Both examinations were set in the Irish language, and not only was the standard in the language remarkably high, but the standard in the subjects set for the examination was equally high. That may be one reason why the results perhaps do not seem to have been satisfactory. It may be that the standard of the examinations has tended to outrun the capacity of the schools and of the pupils to keep up with them, and that in some ways we are going through an experimental period, that it will take our teachers and our schools quite a long time to acclimatise themselves to a new type of standard and examination which they have only had to face, after all, for the last four or five years.

I think I might say one word in extension of what Deputy Thrift has already said about the question raised by Deputy Fahy. It can hardly be the case on the one hand that our general standard of education is very low, and on the other hand that pupils coming from the leaving certificate class in a secondary school find themselves with nothing to do for the first year in the university. Both these statements cannot be exactly true unless it is implied that the university standard itself is terribly low also. Even then I think it would be hard to square the two statements.

Mr. Fahy

I referred to the standard in primary schools, and I quoted from an inspector's report.

Professor Tierney

I was not making any very harsh accusation of inconsistency against the Deputy. I was only pointing out that you had two general statements made in the course of the debate. One was that the standard in primary and secondary schools for examinations was very low and another statement was that the examination and course for the leaving certificate were now so difficult that pupils entering the university found themselves with a year on their hands in which they had nothing to do. In actual fact while the standard for the leaving and especially for the school certificate is particularly high it is not putting the case too strong to say that there is not any danger that it is outrunning the first year course in the university for the reason Deputy Thrift pointed out: that there is no analogy between the work of the average first year student in the university and the work pupils in the secondary schools do. The majority of first year university pupils go into some professional school where they begin to do all sorts of new subjects that are not done in secondary schools at all. In addition to that you cannot lay down one hard and fast rule for every single subject in every single college. One subject may have a somewhat easier standard than another and a student may have a good deal more to do, say, in first year's physics in the university than he has to do in first year's English or some subject to which he has been accustomed in his intermediate days. As far as my experience is concerned, if any student of my acquaintance is under the impression that he has a year on his hands to idle in University College, Dublin, he is disillusioned by the time his first year is finished and his examination has come on. I think that is a bugbear which need not frighten us very much. The rise in the standard for the leaving certificate is not going to cause any terrible gap between the secondary and the university stage. The universities will be capable for a long time to come to deal with whatever material the secondary schools may send them.

I think that although Deputy Byrne was somewhat of an alarmist in what he said he did do a service in pointing out the fact that on the whole the standard of our education, both primary and secondary, is somewhat on the low side. I do not think it is altogether fair to quote the results of examinations because, as could be seen from the figures which the Deputy gave, these results may vary greatly from one year to another and people accustomed to setting examinations for a long time and examining papers do not usually attach so much importance to the figures of results as people who are not. As a matter of fact, I think that disposes, to some extent, of one remedy which the Deputy suggested. He suggested that the difficulty that does exist is increased by the number of examinations and said that the Minister should be encouraged to make the final examination in primary schools compulsory. I do not know how exactly he could make it compulsory. He could not keep the pupils going to school for ever if they failed the examination.

I do not know what penalty he would suggest. They could not be sent to jail. They would have to be released from the primary school at some stage. Even if that difficulty could be got over, I doubt the wisdom of a reversion to the old type of education based on examination. In my mind, in some respects it is not at all certain that we have not too many examinations. I would like to point out incidentally that when Deputy Byrne says there are no examinations at all during the whole of the primary period that he has exaggerated. There are a number of examinations, but they are conducted in a different way, a very thorough and sound way, as any one acquainted with the primary teacher preparing for his or her annual examination must know. They are by no means a matter of form. They are conducted in a different way. The difference is that the examinations are not now so rigid and uniform all over the country. More freedom is given to teachers, both in primary and secondary schools, in the choice of their methods than used to be given to them long ago. To my mind that change is a change for the better.

It would be no improvement at all, I think, to try to remedy things by a return to the old system of elaborate examinations, or, indeed, to any great extension of a system of State control. I thoroughly agree with Deputy Thrift. I think nearly everyone who gives any attention to the matter in this country will agree that we are very fortunate on the whole in the system of education we possess, and any elaborate extension of State control into the domain of education in all the circumstances of this country —the character of our people and the various other elements which go to make our people altogether different from the Prussian people or the German people—would probably do as much harm as good from the educational point of view by causing a lot of trouble in other respects that would probably make up for any little good it might do.

To my mind, we have defects in our educational system, not, perhaps, so much in our system as in the way it works. We have a rather low standard all along both in primary and secondary, and, indeed, in many respects, in university education. Every country needs to get its standard toned up, to remember the standards of other countries, and that it has a standard to live up to. We need it in view of our history, and in view of the particular way in which education was treated in this country in the past. We need it, perhaps, more than other people. I doubt very much whether there is any general cure which could be suggested, or any very rapidly working cure that could be offered for whatever defects do exist. There are defects in adjustment; there are defects very often in psychology, in minor matters of mentality and the attitude towards work, which can only be cured by the work of the Department of Education over a long period of years. It seems to me, under the present method of the Department of Education and its general way of working, we have the best prospect of curing whatever defects exist.

I would like to point out a few matters that strike me as requiring, perhaps, a little attention. I cannot speak for mathematics, for example, at all. I know next to nothing about mathematics. I am afraid if I were to be set a post-primary school examination in arithmetic I would cause great mourning to Deputy Byrne.

There are a few other subjects about which I can speak with a little more authority. I think we have had a tendency for a long time in this country in teaching languages to neglect grammar too much. Just at the time that I was finishing my primary school education a misguided head of our educational system came to the conclusion that grammar was a bad thing, and should be abolished. There was practically a general abolition of the teaching of grammar in the primary schools for a long time after that. I think the defect has been to some extent remedied, but I would point out that if there is any defect in the teaching of grammar, whether in English or Irish, it is one cause which would very easily lead to a low standard in the writing and speaking of these languages. I am perfectly convinced myself—I think it is a natural thing to have in the present state of affairs—that the standard of grammar in the teaching of Irish is low. There can be no getting away from that. It is almost inevitable in view of the fact, for one thing, that there could hardly be said to be in existence a single grammar of the Irish language that could be put on a level with any of the dozen grammars of other languages than can be bought in a shop. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. It is one to which I have drawn attention before. I could not remedy it myself. I do not know whether something could not be done through the Education Department to see that it is remedied. There are a certain number of grammars in use in the schools, and there is perhaps one recently published grammar which is quite good, but, on the whole, I think it can be said that there hardly exists at all a really good modern Irish grammar which would give the same value to the student that he gets out of any half-dozen Latin, French, German or English grammars, if you like. That is a point where I think improvement could be brought about, if it were attended to.

In general, I believe that one reason why our standards are poor is that the whole question of text-books in use in our schools has not been sufficiently attended to. That is my own personal experience. In my own subject, you will find in our secondary schools all over the country all sorts of obsolete, useless and unsuitable text-books in use long after they have been abandoned in other countries.

I can speak from personal experience as regards one particular subject. I am quite sure that it is true in regard to a great many language subjects. I would also be inclined to say it is true in regard to subjects like history and geography and others of these general education subjects. There is a defect in regard to the whole question of text-books in our schools that I think requires to be in some manner remedied. I suggested once that the Department of Education itself might prepare or cause to be prepared a series of official or semi-official text-books, and I was denounced afterwards, not by name—perhaps Deputy Fahy and I were both denounced anonymously in the Press for having made such a bureaucratic and reactionary suggestion, but in general, our schools use obsolete text-books. You will find in subjects like geography and history that our schools are still constantly using English text-books, devised for a different set of conditions, a different type of examination, a different type of pupil and a different type of teacher altogether. I believe that in that one matter a great deal can be done whether by the Department of Education or by the teachers themselves or by other people concerned, to raise our general standard in both secondary and primary schools, because I think that even yet, in spite of the fact that our publishers here do make a great effort and do produce many excellent text-books for primary schools, there is great room for improvement. It is very marked in the case of Irish and it is marked even in the case of English as well.

Another matter on which I think there could be a great deal of improvement is the use of other educational material, especially in the secondary schools. I think there is a good deal of it done in the primary schools, but the secondary schools do not make half enough use of the lantern or any amount of illustrated material of different kinds that can be used. For instance, use might be made of the gramophone in the teaching of modern languages and of the lantern in the teaching of history and geography and many other scientific subjects in which its use would be of the utmost value. I do not believe that you would find half-a-dozen secondary schools equipped with a lantern. There are a great many ways of that kind in which I think our standards could be toned up. They do not necessarily come under the direct purview of the Minister for Education, but I think it is a good thing that they should be referred to here and discussed in public for once in a way.

I would be inclined to say that, generally speaking, there is not enough professional interest amongst our teachers, not perhaps in the subject of education itself but in the particular subjects they have to teach. In secondary schools, for example, there is not enough organisation of our secondary teachers on the lines of the different subjects they have to teach. Some years ago an attempt was made to form an Irish classical association in Dublin, in order to get secondary teachers engaged in the teaching of Latin and Greek interested in this work. These attempts nearly always failed, and very little impression was made on the general body of teachers. I am not saying that was the fault of the secondary teachers. It may have been the fault of the classical association. I quote it as a type of the organisation and activity in which we are very sadly lacking in this country as compared with most other countries.

Even in England, which is fairly backward when compared with continental countries in that respect, you find a great deal more of that kind of activity there than you do here, and certainly in Germany, as the Minister for Education knows, there is an immense amount of activity in that way. The teachers of a particular subject get together at vacation time and discuss methods of advance in the study of the particular things they are interested in. They discuss text books, the methods of teaching and so on in a way that is entirely foreign to our teachers here, whether primary or secondary. Our teachers have the unfortunate habit, perhaps not altogether unforgivable, that when they come together they discuss pension schemes, the shortcomings of inspectors perhaps or the shortcomings of the Department of Education or some financial matter. It would be a good thing if, now and again, we could get a little more attention directed to the subjects they are engaged in teaching, whether in primary or secondary schools.

I believe that this debate may have some useful purpose if it directs public attention to a number of things in which we are very much behind the times in comparision with other countries. There is one other point I would like to make about our whole educational system, which I think also has a bearing on this question of standards. Deputy Thrift raised the question of the difficulty which faces the prospective secondary teacher in becoming a secondary teacher. I believe myself that one of the troubles in our secondary education system, and to an even greater degree in our primary education system, is the fact that we have too much training of the wrong kind for all our teachers. We have too much training in a kind of barren method unrelated to the subjects which the teachers are supposed to teach, the kind of thing which atrophies the teacher's mind to a considerable degree. I believe it is the experience of nearly everyone that you rarely find a primary or a secondary teacher who, from the intellectual point of view, is really more interested in any one particular subject than any other member of the community around him. That is not as it should be. Our system inclines to make our teachers go through a sort of machine in which they are trained in all kinds of so-called methods of education, in which all their attention is directed and concentrated on how to teach, while very little help is given them to acquire a thorough knowledge of the things which they are expected to teach afterwards.

I believe myself, perhaps it is a personal and erratic opinion, that it is a mistake, for example, that the qualifications of secondary teachers should be mixed up at all with the diploma in education. I think that our whole tendency in regard to the diploma of education, library diplomas and all sorts of mechanical and methodical diplomas, and making them compulsory is doing harm and diverting attention from what is really important. The one thing that is absolutely essential is that the teacher must know the subject he is going to teach. It is no good for him to know how to teach forty things if he does not know how to teach one of them thoroughly. The position in this country is that we have a great many teachers who have been taught all about half a dozen excellent methods, but who have not been taught one particular subject thoroughly and properly. If we could have a somewhat different attitude with regard to these things, and more attention paid to the training of teachers in matters which are really of educational and intellectual value, if we could have a little more done through the teachers themselves in working up an interest and an enthusiasm in the subjects they have to teach, as well as a little more done with regard to the supply of educational matters, text-books and so on in our schools, I think that in a short time we would bring about an improvement in the general standard of our education.

I believe that what is really wrong about our system is not anything very radical. It is just that we have inherited the system. Our Department of Education, I think, has made great improvements in it during the past few years. We will always have to keep moving. Our attitude towards education as a whole is capable of improvement in certain directions. I would like to congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he has presented his Estimate and on the very excellent work which his Department is doing.

Mr. de Valera

I think the course of this debate ought to convince the Minister and the public generally that, while the Dáil may vote this large sum of money for educational purposes, Deputies are doing so with a considerable amount of misgiving. The question has been asked over and over again whether the community is getting value for the money that is spent. The sum asked for, taking all the Estimates for which the Minister for Education is responsible, is, I think, the largest sum voted to any Minister. It is nearly four and a half million pounds. Our misgivings, of course, arise from the fact that the Dáil has not as complete control over the expenditure of this money, from one point of view, as it has over other moneys that are spent. The Minister, at the start, washes his hands and tells us that the system is largely a voluntary one. I want to say at the very start, lest I be misunderstood, that I agree with the Minister. He has expressed that view in the past. I agree with Deputy Thrift and with other Deputies who have spoken, that we are fortunate in having here a system that is not completely a State controlled system. I think there are very few Deputies in the House who will disagree with that. I do not think that Deputy Byrne, when he expressed the opposite point of view, was conscious of all its implications or that he followed certain of its implications to their end. Otherwise he would not have expressed an opinion in favour of a State-controlled system. The very fact that the Minister for Education has not the same complete control over his Department, and the working of the Department of Education through the country that the other Ministers have in relation to their Departments, ought not to justify him in, so to speak, washing his hands. The system imposes on him a far greater responsibility than the responsibility that is placed on other Ministers. He has the responsibility of keeping in the closest possible touch with the primary and the secondary schools and the working of the whole system. I, for one, am not satisfied that he is doing that. I would imagine that if the Minister was endeavouring to keep in close contact with the various educational institutions in the country he would set up some system by which he would keep himself constantly informed of the work that is being done, and of the thoughts of those who are engaged in operating the system throughout the country.

It is for that reason I think that any Minister who is going to do his work as Minister for Education under our system properly, needs to have some form of advisory council with whom he can confer. I think that is absolutely necessary. Such a council does not exist, I think, at the moment. The debate here this evening ought, I think, to convince the Minister of the demand there is for a general stocktaking. It ought to convince him at least that if he is not prepared to take stock in a general way now and satisfy himself and us as to where we are going in our educational system, he ought to provide himself with some permanent help in the form of an advisory council. The need of that is obvious to my mind.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

As regards our standards, I do not know, because I have not been able to set them closely side by side and examine them whether it is true or not to say that our standards are lower than the standards in other countries. I remember some years ago when I was actively engaged in teaching work I heard that statement made, and I happened to have an opportunity of testing young people who came from countries across the water with some of our own who were being educated here. The test at that time satisfied me that our standards were absolutely higher than the standards across the water, as far as I could judge from the samples I had before me. I am not going then to subscribe to the statement that our standards are lower, but I think we can all agree, leaving the comparative question out of it, that the standards are not as high as we think they ought to be.

We can take the branches one by one. In the case of the primary schools there is general complaint as regards arithmetic, that students coming from primary schools now are not as competent in that subject as they used to be. I think there is good reason for that complaint. I happened to be for a number of years in a training college, and I must say that I was dissatisfied from the day I went into that college until I left it with the whole system of training primary teachers. Take the case of mathematics. It is said, and has constantly been a cause of constant complaint by inspectors, that arithmetic is badly taught, and that the reason is that, mathematical processes are not explained. In my opinion the pendulum has swung too far to the other side. During that particular time there was insistence upon explaining to young children the nature of mathematical processes, because this was being neglected by the teachers. Now insistence is necessary on simple drill. There are two things involved. There is, if you like, the higher question of the understanding of the processes of mathematics as a science. I do not say that that should be neglected, but it is one aspect of the subject only, and over and above that there is the question of facility and expertness in carrying out the necessary calculations. This cannot be done without the necessary drill, and I believe that what is wrong in a number of cases in the primary schools at the present time is that the necessary drill, such as in the learning of multiplication tables and so on, is not carried out as it should be. That is my experience at any rate.

I have sometimes tested children who have gone through, and I have satisfied myself that a great deal of the complaints made about the low standard in the case of arithmetic is because the teachers do not insist on giving sufficient time for drill, and insist on the tables being thoroughly learned. There are, as I have said, two things—understanding the processes and then the facility in carrying them out. The extent to which a child is capable of understanding the nature of mathematical processes is not a thing that can be decided in an absolute way. It depends largely on the teacher. A skilful teacher will be able in his or her own way to explain mathematical processes to a child and reach the child's mind, whereas another teacher will completely fail to get in touch with the child's mind.

I agree with Deputy Tierney that this formal teaching of method, and so on, insisted upon so much in the training colleges, has not lead to good results. It put method so much above the subject in the mind of the teacher that it took four or five years of practical work afterwards under a skilful principal to get rid of the wrong notions that had been acquired. It is for that reason that I would like to see the proposal of Deputy Fahy put into effect, that there should be practical apprenticeship for teachers. Practical apprenticeship is far better than the model lessons, and so on, given in training colleges. The suggestion of Deputy Fahy, as I understand it, is that the first year of training, at any rate, ought to be devoted to giving the pupils in training a more thorough knowledge of the subjects that they will be supposed to teach afterwards, with a certain amount of lecturing, perhaps, on the professional aspect of their work. Let them then go back after the apprenticeship to selected schools under teachers who have proved by their work that they are excellent teachers. Let them be subject to examination from time to time, and to reports of inspectors, and afterwards come back to the training colleges for the final year when the professional side of their work would be insisted upon more than it was in the first year. That would be better even than the old monitorial system, and much better than the present system. I think some practical apprenticeship is necessary.

When all is said and done, we may talk in the abstract about the system as long as we like, but our educational results will depend on our teachers. If we select our teachers carefully, and we are in a position to do so now that substantial salaries are being paid, we can insist in getting the best in the country. The salaries now being paid to national teachers are, considering that they are living in the country where the cost of living is lower than in the towns, fair salaries, at any rate. The teachers are not being starved as they used to be. We are in a position, therefore, to insist upon getting really good teachers. If a doctor is not allowed to go out and practise without passing a test, which is some guarantee to the community that he will not do damage, I think we should insist on a standard equally high in the case of teachers. The teachers are just as important, if not more important. The part that they play in the upbuilding of the country is as important as that played by any other class in the community, in fact more. They have the moulding of the character and the outlook of the children under them. They are looked up to, and are, to a large extent, looked upon as being the most important people in the villages and towns. Therefore, we ought to see to it that we have as teachers only those who set the highest example, and we ought to be ruthless—absolutely ruthless—in cases where teachers are not fit for their work for one cause or another. We ought to do it; it is our duty to do it.

The moral side of the training was referred to. I must say, as far as my observation goes, that we want examples of the simple virtues far more than we have at present. They are very simple virtues, but they are very badly needed. They can only be taught in one way, and by example. I do not believe they can be taught in any other way. If the teachers do not set good example then they are a danger to the community, and they ought to be got rid of at all costs. As I have said, the situation is such that we can insist upon the highest possible standard for our teachers. If we wanted, for instance, to put a real Irish-speaking teacher in every school, it is not beyond our power to do it at present. Certain work is being done in that direction in the preparatory schools, and I am glad of it. I hope the Minister will still give the preference that has been given to Gaelic-speaking candidates in the case of entrance to the training colleges—that the percentage will not be diminished, but if possible that it will be increased. We want them right through. If Irish is going to be taught in a real, living and inspiring way, the only way that can be done is by getting people who themselves are competent speakers of Irish to teach it.

Before I leave the question of the primary schools, there are a couple of small matters, but still, in my opinion, rather important matters, to which I would like to refer. First of all, there is the compulsory school attendance age. From my experience, such as it is, I do not believe that it is wise to send children to get ordinary formal teaching before seven years of age. I believe that the compulsory age of six years is too young for the ordinary schools. If you have special kindergarten classes for them well and good. But if they have to go into schools that I know they have to go to, then it is bad for the children. It gets them into a wrong state of mind. Far more progress would be made if children were not sent to school until they were seven years of age than is being made at present. They would catch up, in a very short time, on those sent to school at three or four years of age. There is only one reason why I should like to see children going to school at an earlier age, and that is from the point of view of learning Irish. I admit that from the point of view of getting children to learn Irish, and have the power over it that one has over a vernacular language, and where there are special kindergarden classes where they speak Irish, and Irish is taught in a natural way, it is all right. I like it for that, but I think that the age of six years as a compulsory age is too low. As a parent myself, I would object strongly, and I believe I would be justified, to any one of my children being forced to go to one of the ordinary primary schools under the age of seven years.

Another matter is the need of standard text books. Those of us who went to a national school remember the text books we had. When we re-read them in later years we considered that they contained very fine pieces of literature and so on. But I do not believe that the majority of us understood them at the time we were at school. I think they were beyond us. Now we have gone to the other extreme and there are a number of what I can only call "potboilers" got out by publishers, being passed around and used in the schools, which are certainly not of a standard that ought to be in the schools at all. The purchase of books is a serious item for poor people. I do not say that we should supply them with books free, though there are some people who perhaps would advocate that. But I think we ought to make it possible for parents to diminish their actual expenditure on books and we ought to supply them, if necessary, with standard text books at a much cheaper price than that at which they can be obtained at present. It would require a great deal of care and I know it could be abused. But, knowing the dangers that exist, we ought to be able to avoid these dangers and provide really suitable text-books. Formerly, in a large family the text-books were passed from one child down to the next, and there was a certain added advantage in that, because in the home itself there was a certain amount of teaching by the older children of the younger. The older had gone through the text books themselves and understood and could explain them.

That brings me to the question of home work. I do not know what is happening in the primary schools, but I do know something about what is happening in the secondary schools, and I should like to say a word for the child here. At the present time, it seems to me that the one class in the community that are forced to work for unfairly long hours, forced to work beyond their powers of endurance, are the children. I think it is a shame. It is largely due to the fact that the teachers do not do their own work in class that the children are compelled to spend long hours at at night, when the other members of their family are free, trying to make up the work that should be done in the schools. I think that a child's day ought to be sufficiently long if he does his work in school. If the teacher does his part properly, he will do a great deal of the work which he is putting on the child at present. I thing it is most unfair. I have seen exercises given to children, matters of research, that could not possibly be done except in a home where there was a reference library. I think it is wrong. Again I have seen exercises given which can only be matters of transcription for the child. The child does not learn what he has written. It would be better if there were a certain amount of oral work. Transcription exercises of that kind given to children are to my mind ridiculous. What is it due to? It is due to the fact that young inexperienced teachers are allowed to take charge. There is a very heavy duty resting on the shoulders of the heads of schools who permit young members of their staff to teach without supervision. This question of the liberty of the individual teacher can be carried too far. I believe that the heads of schools ought to go more closely into the matter and co-ordinate the work of the various classes. What very often happens is that one teacher gives an exercise as if he was the only teacher concerned. He does not take into account that there are five or six other teachers who are also giving that child home work to do. The heads of schools do not examine and co-ordinate the work and see that different teachers realise that other teachers also are giving home work.

My own opinion is that it is a shame to overburden children like this. We all talk about an eight-hour day. It is a shame if a child has been working hard for a whole school day to give him more than a couple of hours' work at home at night. I believe it is a very common complaint by parents and I hope that speaking about it here will help to rectify it.

I must say I do not agree with Deputy Fahy about the first year in the university being wasted. I think what he had in mind chiefly was the question of the difference in standard between the leaving certificate and the matriculation examination. It has happened that students with the leaving honour certificate when they come into the university have a certain amount of repetition work to do. It is good for them; it is the very thing they want. The only excuse there can be for introducing certain subjects into this leaving certificate is the fact that they will go over them again, and have them taught properly on a new foundation in their first year at the university. Any overlapping that exists is I think something we should be glad of. The question arises whether the matriculation standard should not be brought up to the standard of the leaving certificate. That is a matter that should be examined into.

I think that I have said that the whole key to the educational system and the question as to whether it will be effective or not depends upon the selection of our teachers. If you get the right teachers you will have a high standard. If you do not, no matter what rules or regulations you may have, you will have the complaints that we have at the present time. As an illustration I can appeal to those who went through the primary schools. A recent illustration occurred to me a short time ago when Deputy Gorey was speaking about agriculture. We had some question before us and in order to meet an objective I looked up an old agricultural book I had when I was at school and I found at the side of a page a marked paragraph and a date. I was supposed to have learned the paragraph on agriculture by heart. There was no reason whatever for learning it by heart. Not a single word of it was explained. We learned it as we would learn a piece of poetry. That was absolutely ridiculous of course. In the same way we learned geography. We had to learn long lists of imports and exports, from countries like Assam, and so on. I could not repeat them now though I had to repeat them long ago. We had to learn these things, absolutely stupid though it was, it had to be done.

As a reaction against that sort of thing we have had the complaints which Deputy Tierney made. We learned grammar in the same way, stupidly. There was a natural reaction against that, and then we ran off to the other extreme, with the result that we learned nothing by heart. This is a case certainly where the mean is the golden rule for us. I repeat we will only get the right standards, and the right appreciation of educational work when we get the right teachers, and the beginning and end of it is for the Minister to make certain, and he can practically make certain, that those entering into the teaching profession will be of the type that will do credit to the country and will give us the proper standards. If he wants to do that, and to keep in touch with the system as a whole, I hold it is necessary for him to get round him a number of people acknowledged as competent to advise him on questions of primary and secondary education. So far as we are concerned, I do not think we can do any more now. None of us would object to this money being spent if we had anything like an assurance that is was being spent in the best way, but as I said, I think most of us, while we will vote for it, have certainly very great misgivings in that respect.

Professor Alton

I shall not weary the House by reviewing all the Departments of Education and every part of the Minister's statement. I congratulate him on the statement he has made, on its clearness and on its frankness. I think it was the best statement we have had on the subject since we came into this Dáil. On the general subject of education I should say very little. I would like to stress, and to reinforce, one point in Deputy de Valera's remarks, and that is where he dealt with the abuse of the schoolboys' time by the system of home work. I have seen a lot of it recently, and I commend it to the Labour Party, who ought to protest against a system that compels a certain number of our weaker fellow-citizens to work ten or twelve hours a day, because it comes to that. I have seen boys of twelve and thirteen years of age working up to ten or half-past ten at night. That is due to the fact, as Deputy de Valera pointed out, that the heads of those schools do not seem to co-ordinate the work of their staffs. They allow each master to plant home tasks upon the boy, and in some cases very serious and complicated tasks, involving research completely outside the range of the average schoolboy. That work should be done at school. It is not done there, and I think if Deputy de Valera has succeeded in bringing that matter home to our schoolmasters he will have done a real service. That is the real abuse.

I will not touch upon the general subject of education, on which a lot of wise things have been said. I subscribe heartily, in the main, to what Deputy Thrift and Deputy Tierney and Deputy de Valera said. I agree with everything these speakers stated. I want to draw the attention of the Minister, and I hope he will forgive me for doing it, to a matter on which I spoke previously in regard to one of his Departments—our real great national school, that is, the National Museum. The National Museum is really one of the most potent instruments of education we have got, if rightly used. It is a school to which people of all ages can go and learn something. It is open to all classes, thinkers and craftsmen, who can equally learn in it. I know no instrument that will inspire them with such a real knowledge of our history and a passionate pride in our country as our National Museum if properly understood. There the books are all open before you; they speak in a real way. I know nothing, except perhaps the sight of our historical monuments in the countryside, that fills one with such real vivid love of country. I do not think I am speaking as an archæologist when I say I do wish that the Department would treat a little more generously our National Museum, but I wish to do justice to the Minister at this stage. He has done something. He has reorganised the Museum, and he has taken steps to see it is properly staffed. I would like to see the staff much larger, and numerous enough to be able to provide lectures and to explain properly the meaning and significance of the different national objects we have, such as silver work and glass and other work there.

I think that that is a subject on which every member of the Dáil thinks as one. I do trust that they will make a more generous contribution to the Museum in future. It fills me with shame to think that objects of great national interest are sold in foreign markets. It is like hearing of one's heirlooms being pawned. I think it is a disgrace to have objects of interest offered in the markets of New York as was recently done there. They should never have been allowed to go out of the country. That, perhaps, is not the fault of the Minister for Education, but I wish that more generous grants were given to the Museum. I trust that the Minister will intervene and bring all the pressure he can to bear on the Government. I do not say that any particular member of the Government is responsible, but perhaps pressure might be brought to bear on the Minister for Finance to be more generous in his grants. All this impresses on us that we have a great past and teaches us the lesson that we have to live up to that past, if I may use the expression, and make our future worthy of it.

Tomás O Deirg

Deirtear gur maith an tiománaí é an tiománaí atá ar an gclaidhe. Támuid uilig mar sin annseo. Tagann an cheist seo—ceist an oideachais náisiúnta—os ár gcomhair uair sa bhliain agus ní mór dúinn machtnamh a dhéanamh air. Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom tagairt do dhéanamh do chó-cheangailt na sgoileanna agus do dhúnadh sgoileanna beaga. Ba mhaith liom fios a fháil ón Aire conus mar atá an obair sin ag dul chun cinn. Do réir mar chím ceist an oideachais, isí an cheist mhór ná cadé an sórt oideachais is fearr a thabhairt do sna sgoláirí sna hárd-ranganna sna bun-sgoileanna— sgoláirí os cionn 12 bliain d'aois—agus cad is fearr a dhéanamh leis na sgoláirí atá ag fágaint na sgoileanna. Níl aon spéis ná suim ag na sgoláirí atá ag fágaint na sgoileanna i dtalmhaíocht. Níl aon dlúth-bhaint ceart idir obair na sgoileanna agus obair na tíre. Deineann na cigirí tagairt don rud sin ina lán de n-a tuarasgabhála. Ba chóir dúinn a bheith i ndáiríribh ar an gceist seo, go háirithe nuair atá gairm oideachais le cur ar bun againn. Ba chóir dúinn fheiceail go mbeadh dlúth-bhaint idir na sgoileanna agus saoghal na ndaoine, agus ba chóir dúinn ár ndícheall a dhéanamh chun go gcuirfeadh na sgoláiri suim san talmhaíocht agus i saoghal na tíre. Tá sin ag teastáil go géar.

Deineann na cigirí clamhsán mar gheall ar na ranganna le haghaidh naoidheanán. Deir siad go bhfuil na naoidheanán ghá gcoinneal siar ionnta. Deineann siad tagairt, fosta, do na sgoileanna nach bhfuil ionnta acht beirt oidí. Is ar an príomh-oide atá obair na sgoile ar fad—ní amháin obair na hárd-ranganna acht obair na mbun-ranganna chomh maith. Tá níos mó ná ¾ de na sgoláirí sna bunranganna agus is amhlaidh atá an scéal aca anois ná go stadann an obair nuair a sroichid 12 bliain d'aois agus ní bhíonn aon chaoi ar dhul ar aghaidh ag na sgoláirí in a lán de na sgoileanna tar éis na haoise sin. I gCondae Chorcaighe, deir an cigire nach bhfuil an Ghaedhilg ag dul ar aghaidh go maith sna sgoileanna, toisc nach bhfuil cuid mhaith de na muinteóirí in án í mhúineadh go maith. Is dóich liom go n-abrann an Cigire O Muirgheasa nach bhfuil sé sásta le múineadh na Gaedhilge lasmuich den Ghaeltacht agust níl sé cinnte faoi'n nGaeltacht fhéin. Is léir ó thuarasgabhála na n-árd-chigirí nach bhfuil siad sásta le múineadh na Gaedhilge in aon áird den tír. Tá siad ag súil go mbeidh gach uile rud i gceart nuair a thiocfas na hoidí óga as na coláistí ullamhúcháin acht níl siad sásta leis na múinteóirí meán-aosta. Mar gheall ar Chondae Bhaile Atha Cliath Theas, Condae Chill Dara, Condae Chill Manntáin, Condae Cheatharlach, Cluain Meala agus Cill Choinnigh, deir an t-árdchigire go bhfuil labhairt na Gaedhilge lag, agus gidh go bhfuil teagasc an Bhéarla go maith tá an léigheamh lag. Deirtear nach léigheann na múinteóirí a lán; ní ceannuíonn siad leabhraí nua. Is dóich liom go mba chóir don Aire scéim do chur ar bun i dtreo go mbeadh gach múinteoir sa tír in án leabhar is fearr d'fháil ar abhar léighinn áirithe a bheadh oiriúnach dó.

Rinne an Teachta de Valera tagairt do mhatamaitice. Deir gach cigire go bhfuil múineadh na matamaitice lag. Maidir le Stáir na hEireann, deir na cigirí nach bhfuil rud ar bith dhá dhéanamh faoi bhéaloideas ins an gcuid is mó den tír, agus nach bhfuil puinn bunúis leis an teagasc. Mar a dubhairt an Teachta O Tighearnaigh, tá an múineadh ró mheiceainiciuil agus ní cuirtear spéis ann. Ní theasbáineann an múinteóir do na páistí go bhfuil sé i ndáiríribh, gur abhar léighinn fé leith an t-abhar léighinn seo, gur abhar léighinn é a bhaineas le hanam na tíre. Ba chóir a chur i gcroidhthibh na bpáistí grádh do bheith aca dá dtír féin agus dá dteangain féin.

Tá tagairt san tuarasgabháil d'obair leighis atá ag dul ar aghaidh faoi'n Roinn Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí. Ní fheicim conus mar is féidir le Comhairle Sláinte i gCondae Ceatharlach an obair seo do dhéanamh. Is féidir le héinne á fheiceáil o sna figiúirí a thug an Teachta O Fathaigh conus mar atá an obair seo ag dul ar aghaidh sna sgoileanna. Más fíor é go bhfuil púnt no deich sgillinge ag dul don dochtúir as ucht gach cáis d'adenoids no tonsilitis, is léir go mbeidh a lán daoine tinn. Is dóich liom go mba chóir an obair seo do chur ar na dochtúirí íclainne.

Maidir le litríocht, tá an Roinn ag iarraidh níos mó leabhraí do chur amach agus deineann na cigirí tagairt don cheist sin fosta. Deir duine aca gur "barbarous translations" atá i gcuid de na leabhraí seo. Is dóich liom go mba cheart na sean-classics den tír seo do chur i bhfuirm in a mbeadh siad oiriúnach do sna sgoileanna agus do mhuinntir na tíre. Níl go leor scríbhneoirí againn sa tír. Ba chóir seans do thabhairt do gach duine atá in án sgríobhadh i nGaedhilg a intinn do nochtadh don domhan ar fad. Siné an rud is mó atá ag teastáil uainn. Ní labhairfear Gaedhilg ar fud na tíre go dtí go scríobhtar an Ghaedhilg. Níl go leor daoine ag sgríobhadh i nGaedhilg fé láthair agus ba chóir seans do thabhairt do gach duine a chuid scríbhneoireachta do chur fé chló.

Dubhairt an Teachta O Fathaigh gur cuma leis an cló-Rómhánach ná an cló Gaedhealach. Déir múinteóirí idirmheánacha nach bhfuil siad sásta a mic-léighinn a chur isteach fá scrúdú ina bhfuil sé riachtanach Gaedhilg a sgríobhadh i litreacha Rómhánach. Isé mo thuairim go mba cheart don Aire leigint do sna sgoláirí na litreacha Gaedhealacha no na litreacha Rómhánacha do sgríobhadh—pe'cu is fearr leo. Tá níos mó áilneachta agus pearsantachta agus stíl sa chló Ghaedhealach agus táim féin i bhfabhar an chló sin. Rud eile, chíonn an sgoláiré ón gcló Gaedhalach go bhfuil deifríocht idir an Ghaedhilg agus an Béarla. Nuair atá an Béarla á scríobhadh i glcó Rómhánach ní fheiceann an páiste mórán deifríocht idir an Béarla agus an Ghaedhilg nuair a scríobhtar i gCló Romhánach é. Tá baoghal ann fosta go dtiocfaidh níos mó Béarlachais agus focla Béarla isteach sa teanga nuair atá si clóbhuailte sa chló Romhánach. Ní ceart don Aire an dlí seo do chur i bhfeidhm agus fóiréigeantacht a dhéanamh gan dul i gcomhairle le Connradh na Gaedhilge no le n-a múinteóirí Gaedhilge no leis na daoine atá ag obair ar son cúis na Gaedhilge ar feadh fiche blian no níos mó. Tá na daoine seo uilig beagnach in aghaidh an chló Romhánaigh.

Táim lán-tsásta le cuid mhaith a dubhairt Teachtaí eile agus aontúim go háirithe le Teachta de Valera. Dubhairt sé nach fiú a bheith ag cur síos ar an gceist seo, nach bhfuil ann acht ceist mhúinteoireachta agus éifeachtachta na múinteoireachta. Tá tuairim 14,000 múinteoirí sa tír agus do réir tuarasgabhála a 1929, tá 5,000 múinteóirí gan teisteas ar bith acu i nGaedhilg. Níl siad ábalta teisteas d'fháil gidh go bhfuil siad ag teagasc ar feadh deich mblian. An ceart é an sgéal a bheith mar seo agus gan seans a bheith ag na páistí agus ag na naoidheanáin an Ghaedhilg d'fhoghluim? Má tá an méid sin de sna múinteóirí gan teisteas, caidé an sórt caoi atá ag na páistí an Ghaedhilg d'fhoghluim? Ba chóir do sna múinteóirí atá go maith agus atá go héifeachtach deagh-shompla do thabhairt do sna múinteoirí eile. Mar adubhairt an Teachta de Valera, ba chóir na sgoileanna seo do dheighilt amach o sna sgoileanna eile agus a theasbáint do na daoine gurab iad seo na sgoileanna maithe, na sgoileanna ina bhfuil an Ghaedhilg agus matamaitice agus gach abhar léighinn eile á múineadh i gceart agus ba chóir do sna múinteoirí eile feabhas a chur ortha féin no eirighe as an obair.

Mr. Goulding

I have not heard anybody so far make any reference to one unfortunate fact and it is this. We are spending a considerable amount of money in the teaching of Irish in the primary schools and I regret to say that the feeling amongst the pupils and amongst a considerable number of teachers is a feeling of resentment. Many of the teachers resent the fact that they are compelled to acquire a second language. That resentment, I am afraid, is passed on to the pupils and the pupils are made to feel that a second language is being forced on them. The result is unfortunate. To a great extent, this is nullifying the work that the Department of Education has been doing for the past few years, the endeavour of the Department to have the Irish language properly taught in the schools. I think there is one reason for this. Speaking last year on this debate I referred to the fact that without a national incentive behind it, the teaching of the language to a great extent is wasted. I am afraid that there is no national incentive behind the teaching of the language in the schools.

If we want to get value for the money we are spending on the teaching of Irish we must endeavour to get a real national incentive as an inspiration for that teaching. What are we doing? I think we might take a lesson from foreign countries, America, Germany and others. In these countries, the pupils are taught to take a pride not alone in the history of their country but in the history of the locality in which they live. The district from which I come is one of the most historic districts in Ireland, but I regret to say that the children in the locality know nothing about the locality or about the men that locality produced, men who made their names famous in the history of Europe. These great men were educated in that district. They were amongst the most famous scholars in Ireland at the time when Ireland was famous throughout the world for learning. I do not mean what I am saying as any reflection on the teachers. Probably, they are following certain stereotyped lines and perhaps this matter has not appealed to them. In that district, I doubt very much if any of the children could give one any sort of an idea as to the history of their own locality and the men it produced. Such knowledge would be a valuable incentive to anyone in the learning of the language and history of their country. In foreign countries—and I saw it myself in the course of a tour—groups of children are taken out under the teachers' supervision and brought to some place in the district where lectures are given by the teachers on the principal objects in the locality and on matters which might be of some historic interest. For instance, local monuments or the field in which some act of national importance had happened would be suitable subjects for a leeture. This brings home the matter to the children in a way that no books could bring it. It may not be possible to do that yet in Ireland. It occurs to me that it would be well to consider its practicability.

Some Deputy made reference to the fact that too much time is spent on teaching the teachers the method of teaching. That is the principal trouble. I have found that when teachers get together and talk amongst themselves or even with outsiders nearly all the talk is devoted to their grievances. These grievances revolve round the question of salary, the teaching of Irish and very little enthusiastic interest is taken in their work. If we want this work well done in Ireland we have to get really enthusiastic teachers, teachers who take a pride in their work and with whom it would be a point of honour to instil into the pupils' minds national ideas. Until we get teachers of that class I am afraid that primary teaching will be very far from perfect.

I do not want to say much about secondary education. I do not know very much about secondary education, and therefore I am not going to make any criticisms upon it. Deputy Alton made some reference to the National Museum. I quite agree that the National Museum is one of the most important educational factors that we have; but of what use is it to us in the country? In Dublin great use could be made of the Museum if the plan that I adverted to on other occasions were put into operation. I suggested that groups of children might be brought there and instruction could be given to them on the various historical objects. If it were possible to do it, it would be very advisable if some of the National Museum exhibits could be sent to larger towns throughout the Free State and deposited temporarily in schools. There groups of children could be assembled, and lectures could be given to them relating to the different Museum exhibits. Classes might even be brought from outside schools to listen to these particular lectures. In that way an important education would be imparted to the children, and the value of a National Museum would be brought home more to us in the country. I think the idea would be well worth carrying out. Last year I mentioned that it might be well if some of the pictures in the National Art Gallery were exhibited at different places throughout the Free State.

To any one who takes an interest in education in Ireland the results are disappointing. In many counties the county library scheme is in operation. I have some experience of the working of the county library scheme, and I must say that if the books taken out from the libraries are any index of the results of our methods of education, then these results are extremely disappointing. The majority of the books taken from the libraries are of the very lightest fiction type. These books are constantly sought, and there is never any effort made to read any really intellectual stuff. The children appear to know nothing about good literature. After they leave school they seem to be left to their own devices. Would it not be possible on the part of teachers to endeavour to instil a taste into the children for good literature? If short lectures were given to them occasionally on really good literature, I believe they would have a very salutary effect.

The pity of it is that education has become a sort of trade. The real meaning of education appears to have been lost. Many of the old people will tell you that in their experience of national schools forty or fifty years ago a much sounder education was given then than is given now. I am inclined to agree with that, because I think we are at the present time overdoing education. Deputy de Valera referred to the fact that we are over-working the children. We are endeavouring to force into their minds in the primary schools a mass of undigested information, and they endeavour to forget that as quickly as possible when they leave the school. It would be better, I think, if we were to go back to the very simplest form of education that could be devised for the primary schools, and then the other work could be done in the secondary schools. It must be remembered that the majority of the pupils who leave school at fourteen years have to take up work on the farm or on the roads. The system of education for such pupils should be the simplest. There is no necessity to force many of the fads or various "ologies" that have been introduced by inspectors, particularly when children have to start manual work when they leave school.

The result of the present system of education is to give the young people a distaste for learning. When they leave school they throw their books away and never wish to see them again. In the Gaeltacht the papers set sometimes for entrance examinations to the preparatory colleges deal with matters altogether strange to the pupils. The result is that very often the examinations are no real indication of the ability of the pupils. Papers set for children in the Gaeltacht should relate to the particular portion of the country which they know. It is absurd, for instance, to set a paper for Gaeltacht children dealing with some aspect of city life. That is a minor complaint, but it is no harm to make reference to it.

I would like to make some reference to the necessity for cleaning and heating country schools. Every year this complaint has been brought forward, but there has been no change in the system. There is a small sum set aside for this purpose, but the results, as far as we are aware in the country, are non-existent. It is unfair to the teachers, because very often, out of their own resources, they are obliged to provide for school heating and cleaning.

Mr. Anthony

I consider this is one of the most important Votes that is presented from year to year, and I think it is to the credit of the House, and it marks some advancement, that this Vote has got such very serious and enlightened consideration this evening. We have had very excellent and thoughtful contributions from Deputies Fahy, Thrift and Tierney, three educationists. To one who takes an ordinary interest in the educational matters of this country it is, indeed, a pleasing thing to know that those authorities on education, whilst agreeing largely that an amount of credit is due to the Minister and his Department in the matter of education, had differences only on matters of detail.

I must take exception to one comment by Deputy Tierney. Whilst the Deputy agreed that the tone of the debate this year had improved, and very materially improved, he gave as his main reason, or at least he suggested, that one of the things which led him to believe there was an improvement was that less attention had been paid in the speeches to what he described as externals, or the external machinery of education. He described it later as the luxury side of education. That was that less attention had been paid in the speeches so far delivered to the very material side of education in this country, namely, the upkeep of the national schools, the provision of meals for school children, and the medical attention given to children of school-going age. I feel that these are the most essential things in the whole scheme of education in this country. I say that, because if any improvement has taken place in the education of the children attending our national schools, that improvement is due in large measure to these things which Deputy Tierney has described as the luxury side of education.

I want to refer to one or two matters which possibly he and other Deputies might consider as the luxury side of education. Before I pass from that I want to say that whilst I do not at all agree with everything that Deputy Byrne and Deputy Hennessy have said, I do feel, as one who had to face a university examination at one time in my own career, that at one period in the history of this country we were remarkable for our proficiency in mathematics.

We have heard Professor Tierney and others bewailing the fact that our students in the national and secondary schools are backward in the very essential subject of mathematics. Grammar and spelling have also been mentioned, and I feel, with Deputy J. J. Byrne, that it was a very fatal error on the part of some educationists in this country who at one period or another had influence enough to decry the teaching of grammar and spelling in our schools. I remember well in my own time when we prided ourselves on our strength in that particular branch of education. It was a feature even in the national schools. For that one reason alone I can hardly join in the great tribute paid to the advance we have made so far as the primary schools are concerned. In the old Civil Service examinations under the British regime we found a very large proportion indeed of young Irishmen, who graduated from the national schools in this country, capturing most of the positions in the British Civil Service open to competitive examination. That, to my mind, is one of the best tributes that can be paid to the old system.

I agree with Deputy Tierney and with Deputy Fahy that there is more in education than the very material matter of mathematics, grammar and geography, that there is something to be said for the cultural and also for the spiritual side. We have heard frequent references this evening to what is known as the "acid test." The acid test, after all, in the absence of other tests, is the examination test. I agree, although I do not subscribe to everything Deputy J.J. Byrne has said, that there is something to be said for the periodical examination in the ordinary primary schools of this country.

I am also interested to know if the Minister has any control whatsoever over the administration of scholarships in this country. I am aware that local authorities, such as county councils and others, provide county council scholarships, corporation scholarships, and so on. If the Minister has not had any direct control I hope he will, one of these days, initiate legislation to control county councils, corporations and others who provide these scholarships, to see to it that the persons for whom these scholarships are intended will get them, because I do know in many of these cases where these are provided the people who are getting them are the sons of fathers and mothers who can well afford to pay for them at the universities.

It is a matter possibly that the Minister may have no control over, but I sincerely hope that at some future date he will seek power, and if he does he will have no stronger advocate, Party or no Party, than Deputy Anthony of Cork City. The Minister must know that in many country districts there are shopkeepers, pretty large farmers, and others, whose sons and daughters are being educated in the universities at the expense of the community. These people could well afford to pay for the education of their sons and daughters. The ordinary working-class people are ruled out, simply because they have not a pull on the county councils or the city councils. That is a state of affairs which I hope one of these days the Minister for Education will be able to obviate. Knowing him as I do, and knowing his sympathies, I feel that he will yield to the request, that if he has not power he will endeavour to get it.

I also want to refer to the position of junior assistant mistresses and convent teachers. I understand that there are about 2,000 of these teachers in the country who are entitled to no pensions. Some of them have had teaching experience for about twenty-five years. They have gone through the same training and have the same qualifications as teachers who are now eligible under the national education scheme for pensions, and it is rather a blot on the whole administration of education in this country that those people, through no fault of their own, are ruled out from the privileges that are now enjoyed by the ordinary national teacher in the country. I am aware that the Minister is endeavouring, as far as possible, to remedy that blot on his Department.

We have in the County of Cork many schools in a dilapidated and insanitary condition. I am aware that the Minister is endeavouring to get rid of that position and to see to it that these teachers and pupils will be properly and hygienically housed. I want to conclude by again impressing upon the Minister the urgency of the matter that I raised this evening, the question of the administration of these county council and corporation scholarships, and to express the hope that he will see to it that the sons and daughters of the small farmers, people with low rating valuations, will be entitled to these scholarships, and that the well-to-do people in the country will not be taking advantage of a system that was initiated with the object of giving the poor man's son in the country and the city the advantages of university education.

Mr. Aiken

I move to report progress.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. Friday, 22nd May.