When speaking upon this Estimate last week I referred to the criticisms made by the members of the Dáil—the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and the supporters of the Government on the Independent Benches—and I pointed out how those criticisms were like a sandwich. Each speaker began with a compliment to the Minister for Education, who, I observe, is not present, and he ended with a note of congratulation to the Minister. The middle part of this sandwich reminded me somewhat of a popular American sandwich called "hot dog." It was very "hot dog" for the Government, because if those criticisms had been arranged in another order, and were couched in somewhat stronger language, they might have influenced the public opinion of a healthy Dáil to such an extent as to throw out such a Government. The Government seems to have the unhealthy tradition of regarding its position as permanent. The members of the Government have acted like clams, sticking to the rocks. Though they are and have been, since they came to the House, a minority Government, intriguing purely——
In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 45—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed).
What about getting on to education now?
I will come to education. I am now talking about what would be the effect in a healthy Dáil of the criticisms made upon the Education Vote of the Dáil and its Ministers regarded their duties from the public point of view. In the course of the debate it was stated that over four millions are being spent annually on education. According to Deputy Good the schools are still overcrowded. According to the education report the children are suffering from bad teeth and malnutrition. The schools, we are told, are defectively built, and the children have to be educated in the bulk, while there is a kind of bedlam going on owing to the fact that children of different ages are being taught different things at different times. In a great many cases it must be impossible for children to learn very much. According to Deputy Byrne, the results of the examinations are so bad that the whole situation is deplorable. According to other critics there are playgrounds lacking, and schools are turned into a sort of kindergarten, where children who should be at home are brought so as to relieve their parents. The result is that proper education is being made impossible.
I know that complaints have been made in Waterford that, owing to the low condition of the health of the children, the attempt to teach them is affecting the health of the teachers. People seem to have forgotten that a hungry person must be fed, not instructed; that is a very wise saying and it comes from a very wise man. If children are to be taught properly, attention should be given to their health. It should be seen that they are in a proper condition of health and are properly fed. The case has been put up that there are only two teachers for very large schools. At the same time we know that primary teachers are paid extremely well. It would appear to be an obvious kind of solution to pay somewhat less to the teachers. It is not that I think the teachers should not be well paid. The fact of the matter is that I think they should be well paid. At the same time we might give somewhat less to the teachers and increase their numbers.
To some extent the teaching of Gaelic has been a failure, because a wrong policy has been adopted. Compulsion is necessary, and it is necessary also to give some real inspiration to the students. That cannot be given unless the teachers have an enthusiasm for their subject and are able to make it attractive to the children. They should endeavour to bring themselves into close touch with their own traditions and with the lives of famous Irish people. According to the debate, teachers are apathetic and discontented concerning their salaries and pensions. Instead of being able to devote their time to interesting themselves in the progress of education, we are told that under present circumstances they are obliged to try to get their pensions scheme settled. This points to stupidity on the part of the Government. They are spending too much and too little; in other words, they are spending money in the wrong direction.
The danger from these benches is that we might offer remedies. If we offer any solution it will probably be adopted. A good many of our suggestions have already been adopted. I am greatly afraid in this case that in the adoption of our remedy our ideas would be destroyed. I implore the Minister not to adopt the idea of an advisory council, such as was suggested by Deputy de Valera and others of our Party.
Request granted.
If that suggestion were adopted I think the Minister would be following the advice given by Pádraic Pearse in his essay on education. I wonder did the Minister ever read it? Pearse was the first person to suggest an advisory education council. I implore the Minister not to adopt that idea, because he would clutter it up with people of the same mentality as the people who produced the de-rating report. Secondary teachers are underpaid, and they are cheated most meanly by being kept as junior assistants for a considerable number of years. Unregistered teachers are encouraged and are scabbing on the honourable people in the profession. They are exploited; daily we see advertisements in the newspapers for unregistered teachers. Secondary teachers are kept without increments or pension rights. Perhaps the Minister will mention what is the percentage of secondary teachers who have the higher diploma and who are under the superannuation scheme and getting increments? I do not know if there is any insurance scheme against sickness and accidents in the case of teachers. I hope that the Minister will look into that matter.
I will not say it would be a complete solution, but it might improve the situation if inspectors were empowered in going round to the schools to inquire how many secondary teachers were on the basis of getting increment and pension rights. Secondary teachers after ten years get £180 a year, while primary teachers start at £150 and get £180 a year after three years. These persons coming from the Gaeltacht who might become teachers are really penalised because they have not got the early opportunities of getting a proper education so as to fit them for the high standard in the training colleges. One does not wish to lower the standard in the training colleges, but fuller opportunities should be given to children from the Gaeltacht so that they would be able to qualify properly in the training colleges. I would like to know how many teachers come from the Gaeltacht. I know one teacher has come out of Ballingowan, Ring, in the Co. Waterford. I would like to know how many others. My information is that all the young people of that neighbourhood except one have gone to America.
The posts in model schools are filled by whim and not by any rule or by any regular method. When students come up from the secondary schools to the university and go in for an Arts course they are disgusted and disappointed with the Gaelic teaching in the university. There is at least a year's time lost there. That may not be so in the case of students going in for other subjects, but it is so for the Arts course. I have heard of a couple of people who have been so disgusted with the waste of time in the first year in the Arts course after they had gone up to the university that they have thrown up their university career and gone in for some other line.
I would like to ask the Minister whether, in the case of industrial schools, after the children leave the schools, there is any arrangement made for the after care and supervision of the children.
The general policy of education is not satisfactory, because very often it leaves the children dissatisfied. It leaves them discontented with their surroundings, and they are not satisfied to live at home. I know of a case where the father of four or five children has made up his mind not to send one of his children to school, for he believes if he does so the child will become unfitted for farm work in his own place, and will become as dissatisfied as the other children.
What is really lacking is inspiration from the head, inspiration which will attach the people to Ireland and to their local conditions. Irish history is so defectively taught that the children know little or no history. I know one case where a child in Dublin was asked if he knew who Pearse was, and he did not know. He had no idea who Pearse was. Imagine that state of things after a period of history of the last fifteen years, a period about which there could be no dispute from the year 1916 onwards, a period, perhaps, of as great interest as any period in Irish history. And just think that there is nothing taught in the schools about that period now! It is considered of no use for the inspiration of the child of the present day, in order, as Pearse said, that the child may live up to his best, and not be satisfied with the second best.
Last week I quoted several passages from the Education Report showing the lack of proper teaching of Irish history and local history. These quotations were couched in very moderate terms, but even as they stand they constitute a damning indictment of the Government policy. I do not blame the individual teachers, but I do blame the Government for not inspiring these teachers, indicating to them what they want in education, and giving them the proper kinds of text-books as the groundwork. There are excellent historians in Ireland with a right and sane point of view. What use has the Government made of them? You have in this House Sean-Ghall and men like Daniel Corkery and others, who could easily be used for the purpose at least of advising the Government in reference to text-books to be written about Irish history, both local history and general. The education at present is lacking in the national spirit, and that is the worst of all. One generation of apathetic teachers could ruin a people. Some one said that education without religion was a sort of sword in the hands of a madman or criminal. It can also be said that education without nationality is a sword in the hands of the enemy. While the debate was in progress I thought I remembered that Pearse had written upon education, and I went out to the library to find the works of Pearse, and to my amazement I found there was no copy of his work in the library. Such is the inspiration in this institution——
Why is the Deputy criticising this institution now?
I am criticising that as the inspiration behind the Government.
The inspiration behind the library of this House has nothing to do with the inspiration behind the Government. The library is a thing apart from the Government, and cannot properly be discussed on this Vote for education. If the Deputy wishes to obtain any particular book there he ought not to draw conclusions with regard to the inspiration behind the institution. The Joint Library Committee generally succeed in having books purchased which they consider are required in the library. I suggest to the Deputy that, for example, Pádraic Pearse on education may not be a book for a parliamentary library. If the Deputy puts down any suggestion about having any particular book in the library, that suggestion can be considered. In the meantime, he should not jump to conclusions about the spirit behind this institution.
I hope to be excused for expressing my amazement on the matter. My own feeling about parliamentary books is that they are all about England and in the English language, and that the stronger we make the library from the point of view of our education and nationality in national books the better.
The Minister for Education has no more responsibility than the Deputy for the library.
Perhaps if the Minister had read Pearse on education he would have seen that the book was in the library. I propose to refer now to a German educationist who inspired a generation in Germany and built up Germany from the national point of view. While quoting him I do not want to leave myself open to re-quotation from the Minister of passages in his work that I disagree with thoroughly, because I think he allowed the swing of the pendulum to go too far in certain directions. I do suggest that the kind of policy he enunciated should have some influence in this country. This is what Fichte says:—
Education makes perfect whole peoples as well as individuals. It can even repair the merited disaster of Germany. An absolutely new system of German education will preserve our German nation and mould it into one corporate body.
Further on he says:
The surest way to power and wealth in a nation is to have the best educated subjects.
It is the lack of that particular, big idea in the Government policy of education that I would criticise most severely. The awakened interest that has been shown in this debate in all parts of the House, and the criticisms that have been made will, I hope, have some effect in stirring up the Department of Education and in producing a stronger and more national policy.
Deputy O'Connell has said most of the things that I intended to say on this Vote. There has been a good deal of criticism of our system of education and of the primary teachers. I expect that is only natural when there is such a large sum of money under discussion. By all means criticise the primary teachers, but at least let the criticism be fair. The adverse criticism made was based chiefly on extracts taken from the report issued by the Department of Education for the year 1928-29. I noticed that Deputies, in making their criticisms, selected little bits from that report without reference to the text. They based their adverse criticism on those little extracts without having read the general report.
As regards the teaching of English in the senior classes, I notice the following on page 58 of the Report: "It is of interest to note that in schools where Irish is well taught English is also well taught. A school where Irish is skilfully taught, and English but poorly taught, is something of a phenomenon, and the opinion of the inspectors generally is that English in the best schools has been improved as a result of the introduction of Irish." That shows that English is well taught in a great many schools and that Irish is also well taught. What Deputy O'Connell mentioned is also a fact, that the inspectors in their reports have awarded the mark "highly efficient" to 30 per cent. of the teachers, and the mark "efficient" to 61 per cent. of the teachers. These reports from the inspectors, dealing with the efficiency of the teachers, speak for themselves as to the state of education in the country and the work that the primary teachers are doing. The position, therefore, is that we have 91 per cent. of the teachers classed as "highly efficient" or "efficient." I can assure Deputies that under the present curriculum it is no joke to secure the mark "efficient." Things have changed since I was a teacher, but a principal teacher who does not get the mark "good" or perhaps "very good" in Irish, English and mathematics will not be ranked as efficient.
It was stated in the course of the debate that when teachers get together they talk about nothing but their grievances, about salaries, pension schemes, and so on. Will not other bodies in the community do the same? What about the dispensary doctors? If they get together will they not talk about their salaries? If Deputy Little and some of the members of the legal profession get together will they not talk about their affairs? I am not admitting for a moment that when teachers get together they talk about nothing but their salaries and their grievances. I can say that when they get together they discuss educational matters, and how best they can fulfil the duties of their station in life, and the methods by which they are likely to produce the best results. I admit, of course, that the position is different to-day to what it was twenty or twenty-five years ago when a teacher started on a salary of £40 a year. The teachers in their own interest have to work very hard. The initial salary is less than £3 a week, perhaps about £2 10s. a week in the case of a female teacher. There is no possibility of teachers getting their increments unless they get at least the "efficient" mark, and unless they get the "highly efficient" mark they will never get to the super-normal grade and enjoy those bloated salaries that some Deputies seem to think they do not deserve.
There is another matter in this report to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister. It is referred to on page 54, and deals with infant schools. It states: "One of the causes of low classification in our schools is that frequently children are kept too long in infant classes. When a pupil comes to school at five years, if he makes a reasonably good attendance, he should reach first standard at seven years, and will advance automatically from that. He will be in the second standard at eight, in the third standard at nine, in the fourth standard at ten, fifth standard at eleven, and the sixth at twelve. Some of our teachers may be so anxious to keep up their "highly efficient" mark —it is very easy to lose it—that perhaps all the promotions that might be made are not made in the classes. For the information of Deputy J.J. Byrne I may say that examinations are held in the schools annually at the end of the school year in June when promotions are made. These examinations are conducted by the staff, and I may tell Deputies they are no joke. The majority of our schools are, as has already been pointed out, two teacher schools, and the examinations are conducted by the principal and the assistant. At the examination the principal takes the assistant's classes and vice versa. The principal very often, perhaps, may be unduly strict in the examination of the infants and of the children in the first, second, and third standards, and in the same way the assistant may set a very high standard when examining the principal's classes. I can assure Deputies that very difficult questions are set at these examinations. Sometimes, perhaps through over zeal, children who are really fit for pormotion may be kept back for a year. We all know how nervous children get at examinations. I have had experience of them myself. You may find a dull child answering correctly the six questions in arithmetic, while a brilliant child may not answer two. In that way it may happen that a child really fit for promotion will be kept back for a year.
I do not think that the House need worry about the state of education in the country. Things are getting on very well indeed. I think that, since the Saorstát took over control of this Department, the standard set has gone too high. I really think that is the cause of the trouble, that instead of having too low a standard the one we have is too high. I propose to quote for the House some of the questions set at the examinations for the preparatory training colleges. I will read a few extracts from these questions so that Deputies will have an idea of what they are like.
And let the Deputies answer them.
No. If I were to expect Deputies to do that I am afraid I would get back a good many blank papers.
I hope the Deputy does not mean to suggest that I should be held responsible for the answers.
The Minister is responsible for the questions. I may tell the Deputies that these papers were set for children in primary schools, aged from 13½ to 15 years. Twelve years is the minimum age for entry into the secondary schools. This is an example of an English paper for a child of 13½ years old, the time allowed being one and a half hours, and 100 marks being awarded:
No. 1. Select one only of the following subjects for composition.
(a) A description of a river in flood.
If they came to this House sometimes and heard a debate on the Land Commission and Board of Works Estimates it would be enlightening perhaps.
(b) The life of a greyhound as told by himself.
Deputy Gorey's views would be interesting on this subject.
(c) The starry sky.
Deputy Little could give us "inspiration" on that subject.
(d) Your earliest recollections of school.
I think every Deputy would be able to write on that subject. 50 marks are allowed for this paper. The second item in this examination is on letter-writing, and the pupils are directed to select one only of the following subjects:—
(a) You have accepted an invitation to a party given by your aunt, but are prevented at the last moment by some untoward circumstances from going. Write a letter explaining your absence.
(b) Write a letter to an advertiser stating that you have a dog for sale, and giving all necessary particulars.
I think after these questions, the Minister for Education cannot be accused of not encouraging rural science. The next question is:
Write a letter to a friend, asking him to join a sports club, and giving particulars as to its activities, the advantages offered, etc.
20 marks are allowed for this question. The third question reads:
Analyse the following into main and dependent clauses, pointing out the word with which each dependent clause is related and the nature of the relationship—noun, adjective or adverb: "When I reached the harbour, I learned that the splendid ship, the `Empress of China,' in which I came home from India in the Spring, had run on a sunken reef at the harbour's mouth.”
They are to analyse that sentence and to parse fully the italicised words. Twenty marks are allowed. One of the things they are expected to do is to analyse the "Empress of China," and to parse "how she got on the rocks."
The fourth question reads:—
Correct the following sentences, giving reasons for your corrections:
(a) He is one of them lucky people who is always in good spirits.
Reasons have to be given. It is not enough to say: "He is one of "those" lucky people.
(b) The lion shook him like a cat shake a mouse.
(c) Nothing has or could be more unfortunate.
10 marks are allowed. The pupils have to do (a), (b) and (c) and to give reasons. This is the first competitive examination open to children of primary schools for entrance to the preparatory training colleges. I will read one of the questions in Irish:—
1. Scríobh aiste ar cheann amháin de na hádhbhair seo:—
(a) Saoghal na n-éan sa nGeimhreadh.
(b) Scata ban ag ól taé tráthnóna.
(c) Ag baint an Fhoghmhair.
(d) Fuinneóga na siopaí aimsear Nodlag.
(60 marc.)
2. Ainmnigh aon dréacht filíochta amháin a bhfuil mar ádhbhar ann:—
(a) greann; nó (b) moladh duine; nó (c) éan nó ainmhidhe; nó (d) an Ghaedhilg.
Agus scríobh síos sé líne dhéag ar a laigheadh de'n dréacht sin.
(40 marc.)
How many Deputies in the House could score 100 marks on this paper?
For Deputy Anthony's benefit I may say that one of the subjects they have to write on deals with gathering in the harvest. Sixty marks are allowed. They have to change from the direct to the indirect method. I would point out that the standard set for children of 13½ years of age is about equal to what senior grade Intermediate was before the Saorstát took over control of the Department of Education. The standard has gone up by leaps and bounds and the question is: is it going to stop? I really pity poor unfortunate children of the present day, especially in secondary schools, who have to work up to the standard required. I think the teachers who have to get them to this standard are marvels. I am not surprised that there are so many failures in the Intermediate Certificate and the Leaving Certificate examinations. The wonder to me is that there are any passes at all. All I can say is that perhaps those who examine the papers have some humanity and may not be very strict. Only for that no one would get through.
This brings me back to the subject of home lessons, which was referred to in the debate last week. Under the present standard required from children in secondary schools, in my opinion, if they have any prospect of getting through their examinations successfully they must have home lessons. A teacher can only direct them on the lines on which they are to work, and can only explain problems orally or on the blackboard. If children are to reach the standard required for the Intermediate and the Leaving Certificates they will have to do two or three hours' home work in the evening. As far as my experience goes, it does not do them a bit of harm. They get into the habit of studying regularly and they become useful members of society. They acquire steady habits, so that I do not think we need worry about the children being made slaves of. We do not want to lower the standard. The home work must be done, because it cannot be crammed into the necessarily short school day. Deputy Little was speaking about the books in the library. I am not going to discuss the library now, but I say that if any Deputy went down and set himself to answer the questions that were set for the Intermediate Certificate and for the Leaving Certificate last year they would be in a position to say whether or not the standard of education has been lowered.
I would like to ask the Minister about a matter that I referred to last year but that I think was not dealt with then. I will be supported by other Deputies who referred to the matter during the debate, and that is concerning the school-books used in the primary schools. When I was going to school the books were handed down from the elder members of the family to the younger ones. One book, which was a really good work, Sullivan's "Geography Generalised," only cost a shilling. That work did the whole family. If that book were written up to date I think it would be as good as any text-book on the market at the present time.
Recently I was talking to a man who was fortunate enough to get one of the Corporation houses in one of the outlying districts in Dublin. He said that he had heavy expense in moving and also in furnishing his new home. He went from a tenement house in the city to one of the new houses in Cabra. He told me that he had to get a complete set of new readers for every member of his family, although he had only moved from Marlborough Street to Cabra. That is not right, and something should be done in that respect. There should be some uniformity as regards text-books, so that if an agricultural labourer migrates from one parish to another, or even from one school district to another, he would not have to get a different set of text-books for his children. Then again these books are very dear. We are told that many things are at pre-war level in regard to cost, but I fail to see it. Certainly the cost of books is not at pre-war level. Some arrangement should be made between the Department of Education and the publishing firms to publish a large number of books, as I imagine that in that event the books would be sold much cheaper. If the Minister gives consideration to that matter I am sure it could be easily arranged. Some Deputies apparently have the idea that teachers literally can both bend the twig and bend the tree—I am not talking of corporal punishment. The teachers can no more give children a taste for good reading or make them literary than they can prevent them from getting old. They can only do the best they can. The teacher should inspire the pupils, according to Deputy Little, and the Government should inspire the teachers. Before making a general statement of that kind the Deputy should tell us how that can be done.
Mr. O'Connell
You inspire the Government.
I am sorry that with the one exception of Deputy O'Connell no Deputy who has spoken in this debate so far has paid to the primary teachers that tribute which they so well deserve. They had to teach a new language. Many of them did not know one word of it in 1922, but they spent their nights and also their holidays in acquiring a knowledge of the language. Every year, instead of going to the seaside and enjoying themselves in other ways, they have taken themselves and their families to the Gaeltacht and have gone to infinite trouble and expense in making themselves proficient in Irish. The Minister himself can tell you that most of these teachers did not know a word of the language in 1922, but they have now got the téastas or the bi-lingual certificate and are teaching the language with great success, while other subjects are being taught equally well. Those who have got no certificate are actually teaching the language. I say this as a tribute to the teachers, that I do not think anybody of persons in the world except teachers could have taken up a new language, learned it themselves, and taught it as successfully as they are doing. There is no royal road to learning either for pupils or for teachers, and it was only by hard work, by doing their best, and by devoting the best years of their lives to the language, that they have acquired that proficiency. I will wind up what I have to say by paying a compliment to the Minister and his Department. It is not the conventional kind of compliment with which Deputy Little said Deputies on this side open and close their speeches. I desire to pay a real genuine tribute both to the Minister and his Department. I think that education is getting on splendidly in this country, and I cannot compliment the Minister and his Department too highly for the work they have done.
Mr. Hogan (Clare):
If I intervene in this debate it is with much hesitation and reluctance, and it is because some of the intellectual giants who took part in the earlier portion of it have not shown us laymen the road on which we would like to set the feet of our children in the matter of education. They have not made it clear what path we should travel in our endeavour to put them on the proper road. I think we should expect from them some sign-post that would indicate that. We are all more or less pipers in the valley straining for the hilltops. I expected that they would have shown us that road more clearly than they did. After all the statements of those who are qualified to speak on the subject I feel rather in the state of mind of the verger who, when congratulated by the bishop on being fifty years a verger in a particular church, said he had much to be thankful for because he had heard every sermon preached there for fifty years but was still, thank God, a Christian.
Notwithstanding all that has been said in this debate, I thank God that I am still in favour of education. I think that we could get rid of most of our difficulties if we could invent a sound, scientific test by which to judge our different educational systems. So far, I do not think we have got that sound scientific test, nor do I think that we are within measurable distance of it. If we were to secure such a test it would be interesting to speculate as to what would be the effects of its application upon the three and a half million of people in this State, from the agricultural worker, up or down, to members of the Oireachtas. It would require the imagination of Deputy Byrne and the eloquence of Deputy Flinn possibly to do justice to that contingency, so I pass it over. Deputy Byrne regards examinations as providing that sound scientific test, and regrets that that test is not more extensively applied in our elementary schools at least one or twice a year.
Mr. Byrne
No.
Mr. Hogan
It is doubtful, however, if such examination would have the result which the Deputy desires. Examination, after all, is a very poor ideal in education. So far as most of us remember examinations, they were in the main a kind of intellectual test between the examiner and the teacher played over the prostrate body of the pupil. The teacher, on the one hand, tried to anticipate intelligently what the examiner was going to ask and the examiner tried to discover some new or hidden aspect of the subject to bewilder or outmanoeuvre the teacher. He asked boys and girls to give the names of things and of subjects of which they had no experience, statements of fact which they must take for granted, the names of places of which they probably had never heard or never saw and which must remain for them merely a list of words. That system, in my opinion, is on a par with feeding their physical stomachs with steel rivets. Examinations in the main are made for this stuffing. They force teachers to pour down the throats of their pupils accumulations of all kinds with the sole object of being able afterwards, so to speak, to impress the examiners, to make a good show at the examination, and to swell the list of successes. A boy or girl should study a subject not so much to answer the questions of others as to answer their own questions on that subject. That is not the end which examinations should endeavour to achieve.
It seems, however, that many do not take into consideration the position of affairs and the difficulties that devolved upon all interested in education in this country in 1921. There is an inclination to expect too much all round, especially from the teacher and the pupil. It is expected that our schools should keep in line with other schools upon all subjects while at the same time working against the handicap of endeavouring to restore a language which, to 75 per cent. of the people engaged in education, both pupil and teacher, was a foreign language. That we have advanced so much in the restoration of the Irish language, that we have achieved such results is certainly due to the sincerity of purpose of the teacher and the intelligence of the pupil, as is also the fact that they acquired that knowledge of Irish to such an extent that we can have people to-day complimenting boys and girls in non-Irish-speaking districts upon their ability to converse in Irish. Only this morning I read in the Press the remarks of an adjudicator at Feis Atha Cliath. He was adjudicating in singing, I think, and he said that the intonation and the language were so good that they could understand the words of the song even though they did not know the song themselves. I think that is something upon which both teacher and pupil are to be congratulated, in non-Irish-speaking districts such as Dublin. If teachers were not active and zealous this result could not be achieved. I think it is due to say that the Department has encouraged that activity and zeal on the part of our pupils and teachers.
In the matter of home work, much has been said and much might safely be said. When one states that too much home work is given one should also extend the investigation and endeavour to discover why so much home work is necessary. If you have programmes overloaded and if you expect the teacher to do equivalent work in class to that done by home work, you are not allowing the teacher to do the same direct work in class between teacher and pupil as it is necessary to do. I do not think anybody who examines the position and who is acquainted with it will say that it is due to anxiety to avoid responsibility that teachers give home work.
Much use has been made of the Report, which has more or less become a kind of gospel, in this debate. I think it would be no harm if I were to quote a few passages here and there from the Report which have been either accidentally or intentionally missed by some of the Deputies who spoke. I find on page 17, with reference to the Irish qualifications of the existing teaching staff, the statement:
While the various training institutions are in this way making preparations to ensure that the future staff in the national schools will be able to use Irish easily and naturally as a medium of instruction, the great majority of the existing teachers who were under 30 years of age in 1922 have made excellent progress in acquiring a good command of oral Irish.
That is a tit-bit that might naturally be quoted but it was not quoted in this debate in reference to primary schools. I find that on another subject about which Deputy Tierney confessed he knew little or nothing, arithmetic, certain remarks are made in page 30:
A good deal of the public criticism of the primary teaching of this subject is not justified. Forty years ago senior national school pupils, even in remote places, were doing "sums" in progression, alligation, cube root, scales of notation, logarithms. These things are unheard of in our present-day national schools. But forty years ago there was practically no teaching of the science of arithmetic such as is done to-day. The pupil worked his sums by "rule" and if he got the correct answer that was all that was required. Nowadays reasons for the processes are taught from the beginning; the subject is taught not entirely for its utilitarian value, as was done three or four decades ago, but as the chief agent or mental exercise in a primary school for developing the reasoning power. This latter subject is so important that, no matter what the public criticism may be, no educationist would agree to revert to the old discarded system. Under the modern system, however, the pupil's progress is much slower as he is challenged at every step for reasons for his work.
That would probably explain to some extent what has been said of the bad knowledge and the bad standard which children exhibit in the matter of arithmetic. I find again on page 31 the following:
That the relative decline in arithmetical knowledge in the primary schools is due to less active work on the part of the teachers is simply a fallacy. It is the opinion of the inspectors of this division that the vast majority of the teachers of to-day work with a regularity and steadiness never perhaps exceeded by any of their predecessors.
That is a very important statement, only as important, of course, as other statements that have been read out, but when we put one against the other we find possibly that the weight of evidence is in favour of the work done in the primary schools by the primary teachers.
Deputy O'Connell referred to the matter of how schools are organised and to the fact that teachers have not what one might call one big class to teach. They have to organise their schools in such a way that you have one teacher having first, second and third standards and another having the standards senior to that. The teacher has to so organise his school that education has to be given to all these standards. That makes it much more difficult for the teacher to turn out children of the same standard in the subjects which are being taught. It is interesting to note in this matter that out of 756 schools, the total number having one or two teachers is 628. Further on in the Report we find on page 49 the statement that "the report of the inspectors in this division indicates that the teachers are earnest and willing workers, anxious to carry out the terms of the programme." That is in the matter of primary education. When we criticise the work of the teachers in the primary schools and criticise the results of their teaching, we are forgetting that in the main, these teachers have had to bear the burden of endeavouring to restore a vernacular language, that to 75 per cent. of the pupils and to more than 75 per cent. of the teachers possibly, was a foreign language.
Further, regarding home work in secondary schools, there is no doubt that there is too much home work, but we also have got to ask ourselves what is the reason for it. Is it a too extensive course? Is it too long a course in the subjects that are given? We know that teachers in history go back to the earliest times, and up to the present day, a period of something like 2,000 years. The students have four years to do that. They can possibly divide that time into four periods of 500 years each for the intermediate certificate. We are told that they will only be examined in general history. That is rather important, because if the teacher is not to give home work, he will have to do the equivalent to home work in the class. He will not be able to carry out the course of study outlined in the programme he is endeavouring to teach. If a boy learns history, say, in 1929 in which he is likely to be examined in 1932, he would be a very foolish teacher who would expect him to answer some of the questions on that period of 500 years. Unless the teacher bears the burden of the whole course in the last year for the Intermediate Certificate he will probably find that his pupil will not come up to the requirements in general history. Let me read one or two of the questions.
Give a full account of the conversion of Ireland to Christianity. Are there any evidences of the existence of Christianity in Ireland before the coming of St. Patrick? Why was Armagh so important in the early political and religious history of Ireland?
There are seven questions in all to be attempted in 2½ hours in outlines of history, and the pupil is asked to give a full account of the conversion of Ireland to Christianity. Here are other questions:—
Describe the chief stages in the evangelisation of Central and Western Europe, showing the part played by (a) the Papacy, (b) the Celtic missionaries.
Give reasons why the Norman Conquest of England was a permanent success, while that of Ireland was not. Whom do you consider the greatest of the original Norman invaders of Ireland, and why?
Explain the rapid spread of Mohammedanism. How and when was the progress of Mohammedan arms arrested in the West?
Describe the chief phases of the Reformation in Europe up to 1555. How did the Reformers come to be styled Protestants, and in what countries was Protestantism predominant at the close of the 16th century?
Trace and account for the rise of France to supremacy in the seventeenth century. What were the main causes of the War of the Spanish Succession and what were its chief phases?
If a teacher is to teach history so that a pupil would be able to answer these questions, is he going to risk the examination by not carrying practically the whole programme on his shoulders the year before the boy goes up for the Intermediate Certificate?
In English literature we find several subjects given for an essay and what probably an irreverent boy would call a junk of Shakespeare. Then we find a piece of poetry which is to be paraphrased. I am not saying that Shakespeare's works are not poetry, but this is put down as poetry and printed as poetry:
To make this condiment your poet begs,
The pounded yellow of two hardboil'd eggs;
Two boil'd potatoes, pass'd through kitchen sieve.
Smoothness and softness to the salad give;
Let onions atoms lurk within the bowl,
And half-suspected animate the whole.
Of mordant mustard add a single spoon,
Distrust the condiment that bites so soon;
But deem it not, thou man of herbs, a fault,
To add a double quantity of salt; Four times the spoon with oil from Lucca drown,
And twice with vinegar procured from town;
And lastly o'er the flavoured compound toss
A magic soupcon of anchovy sauce. Oh green and glorious! Oh herbaceous treat!
'Twould tempt the dying anchorite to eat:
Back to the world he'd turn his fleeting soul,
And plunge his fingers in the salad-bowl!
Serenely full, the epicure would say, Fate cannot harm me, I have dined to-day.
I should like to see the paraphrase of that. The pupil is also asked how he would describe such verses as these and to name the metre; also, can he point to any figures of speech in this passage, and can he refer to any other verses about food. That is one question. He is expected to do an English composition, and I do not know whether it is five or seven questions within the time; and the teacher has got to carry on his back all that for the last year, in order to make certain that the pupil will succeed. We are told that the teachers are over-loading the pupils with home-lessons. They are over-loading them at present because they cannot help it. You have either to shorten the course or overload the pupils with home work. I do not suppose that anybody wanted to misrepresent the position with regard to primary and secondary schools. I think that the work that both the primary and secondary teachers did for the last 8 or 9 years, was in itself something of a marvel when we consider the burden they had to carry on their backs.
I learned a few interesting things from Deputy Tierney. He said:
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.
I do not know what the learned Deputy considers luxuries—whether he wants us to revert back to the old hedge school, to teach behind hedges and in every available shelter. If he thinks the teachers and pupils should be asked to teach and learn under some of the conditions that teachers and students are asked to teach and learn to-day, he has a very poor conception of the conditions that exist in some parts of the country—conditions that are not at all desirable. To suggest that it is a luxury that children should be asked to travel long distances over bleak, mountainy roads without any method of transport being provided for them, to suggest that schools with dilapidated roofs and windows were suitable places in which children should congregate, and in which teachers should endeavour to educate them; to suggest that these things should not be remedied, and to consider them as luxuries shows a very strange mentality for a professor who is engaged in education. If he suggested that there ought possibly to be more open-air lessons, that there ought to be more incursions into the country for the study of plants, trees, shrubs and flowers, that there ought to be more attention given to a study of these things, possibly I would agree with him.
It is amazing the number of people who have at their doors sources of knowledge that would be of advantage in the names of shrubs and trees and flowers, and yet who know little or nothing about them while possibly they could tell you the height of the mountains of Asia and the length of the rivers of America, which are matters of very little importance. I do not suppose that much more can be said on this matter except to suggest to the Minister that in the matter of school buildings, and in the matter of the transport of children to the schools, and in the matter of school meals, and all these things which are very necessary for the pupil who is endeavouring to learn and should not be regarded as luxuries, as suggested by Deputy Professor Tierney, but as real essentials in the matter of education, they will make just as much possibly for the raising of the standard as the methods which Deputy J.J. Byrne would employ.
Mr. T. Sheehy (Cork):
After listening attentively since the start of this debate to the learned professors and other important authorities in the Dáil who spoke on the subject of education I feel rather diffident in approaching the subject myself. However, as an old boy who left school and college fifty-eight years ago I should like to say a little on the matter. In these far-off days it was a crime in the schools for the teacher to mention the name of Irish. The boys were liable to be flogged if they attempted to speak it. There was a National Board ruling education in this country for nearly eighty or ninety years after the time the brave hedge schoolmasters had risked their lives and taught the faith and the Catechism and the Irish language to the youth of the country. I say the old teachers that followed in the old hedge schoolmasters' footsteps that educated the generation that I belong to deserve the greatest credit from us here to-day. As was said by Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll, these men worked for a miserable wage, but they were filled with honest patriotism. They were the fathers of families themselves, and they put all their might into their work, and they were able to send forward from their schools boys and girls who acquired important lucrative positions.
The teacher whom I had when a boy in Skibbereen, the late Mr. Michael Harrington, sent me on to Castleknock College, and it is not in any boastful way I say it, but in the mathematical class, in an examination in the six first books of Euclid and mensuration I took the second prize, which I received from the hands of the late Cardinal Cullen in 1873. Therefore I say that we ought to be thankful for the present position of education and that we are not under a national board but under the present Minister for Education. With regard to the late National Board, I do not like to say hard things, but they were against any national sentiment and they crushed the Irish language. Thank God we have to-day the Minister for Education administering an Irish system of education in their place. I have heard it stated here that we should have an advisory council with regard to further promoting education. I say that that would be a fatal step. It would be a step backward and not a step forward. It was suggested by Deputy de Valera and Deputy Lemass, but we should by no means accept it.
I saw very few bouquets thrown at the Minister for Education from the opposite side of the House for bringing forward and passing into law what I might call the missing link in our education system, that is, the Vocational Education Act, the object and aim of which is to link up the primary schools with the technical schools. The object and aim of that Act is to go, so to speak, to the doors of the national schools and to meet the girls and the boys of Erin there and to take them by the hand and lead them into the technical schools and there to provide them with that further education that will fit them to go and make their own living in their own land. Never in the history of our land was it more important than now that such a gesture should be made by the Minister for Education. We are all aware from reading the history of to-day of the condition which the world is in at the present moment. There is no hope or prospect of anybody earning their living outside their own land.
The Minister for Education has started nobly by going to the root-matter by providing education here at home that will help the Irish youth to make good mechanics and good husbandmen and to live happily in their native land. We cannot all be doctors or professors. We must have a system of education on technical lines as provided by the Minister for Education which will enable the young men of the country to earn their living in their own land. We have plenty of skilled men in this country. Look at the splendid invention of the Drumm battery. There are plenty of men of brains in the country, and they will be found in the cabins of the poor. I am proud to say that. Soon after the passing of the Vocational Act the county committees enthusiastically took up the work. Down in my own constituency in the town of Clonakilty, under the leadership of Monsignor Hill, P.P., who has been identified with technical instruction for many years, they have been on the move in connection with this matter. The present technical committee have a magnificent building in course of erection. There is a gesture for you for the rest of the country. In the town of Skibbereen we have the Bishop Kelly memorial institute, built a couple of years ago, got up as a memorial to the late Bishop. All these things are being accomplished with the object of educating the people. If anyone would come to that district they would be delighted to see the boys and girls coming in from the country districts to attend the classes in the towns, and they would be able to appreciate the work the Government is doing remarkably well in the interests of education. I congratulate the Minister for Education. I am glad to note that Deputies from all sides of the House appear to be actuated with the interests of education, though viewing the question from different angles. If we are to have education we must provide the sinews of war. So let us pass the Vote with enthusiasm.
Deirtear nach bhfuil aon toradh as an meid airgid a caitheadh ar an nGaedhilg. Má tá an tairgead sin caillte agus muna bhfuil an Ghaedhilg chó maith indiu agus ba cheart dí bheith, 'sé mo bharúil nach ar na múinteóirí atá an milleán. Níl an Ghaedhilg chó coitcheannta sa tír indiu agus do bhí sí ocht mbliana o shoin. Níl sé chó láidir sa Ghaeltacht, go háithride, agus in a lán áiteacha eile agus do bhí sí; tá sí níos laige. Ocht mbliana o shoin, do bhí úsáid á dhéanamh den Ghaedhilg ag na Comhairlí Contae agus ag Coistí Contae agus ag a lán oifigeacha puiblí. I gCoimisiún na Talmhan, bhí níos mó Gaedhilge in úsáid ocht mbliana o shoin na mar atá indiu. Níl an Ghaedhilge ag dul 'un cinn in aon aird den tír imeasc na ndaoine mar ba chóir. Níl sí ag dul ar aghaidh acht amhain sna sgoileanna. Toisc nach bhfuil mórán a dhéanamh lasmuigh des na sgoileanna tá lúighrai ar an obair atá á dhéanamh sna sgoileanna. Níl focal le rá agam i gcoinnibh an obair atá á dhéanamh sna sgoileanna ar son na Gaedhilge. Níl aon obair á dhéanamh ar son na Gaedhilge ach amháin sna sgoileanna. Sin é an fáth go bhfuil an obair mhaith atá á dhéanamh sna sgoileanna a chur ar neamhnidh. Taobh amuigh de sna sgoileanna, nil an Rialtas ag déanamh tada ar son na teangan. Is mór an cailleadh sin don tir agus is mór an náire go bhfuil Teachtaí Dála agus daoine in údarás san tir ag iarraidh an méid airgid atá a chaitheamh ar an nGaedhilg a chur ar neamhnidh. Ba cheart an pobul do mhúineadh, má is féidir é; an bóthar geal do theasbáint dóibh agus deagh-shompla do thabhairt do na páisaí sgoile. Cé bith obair atá déanta sa sgoil, nuair a fhágas na páistí an sgoil is beag Gaedhilge a bhíos in úsáid acu. Is mór an chomacht atá ag an Eaglais san tír seo ach níl sompla maith tughtha acu do sna múinteoirí ná do sna páistí Gaedhilg do chur 'un cinn. Dá ndéunfadh an Rialtas agus na Ranna atá faoi'n Rialtas a ndícheall ar son na Gaedhilge agus dá niarrfadh siad ar na sagairt laistigh den Ghaeltacht agus lasmuigh dí deagh-shompla do thabhairt do sna páistí agus do sna daoine óga, dhéanfadh sé a lán maitheasa agus bheadh toradh maith as an airgead atá a chaitheamh ar an nGaedhilg. Dá mbeadh an méid oibre déanta ag dreamanna eile ar son na Gaedhilge agus atá déanta ag na múinteóirí, ní bheadh an Ghaedhilg leath-mharbh, mar tá sí faoi láthair. Tá an Roinn Oideachais ag obair gan aimhreas agus tá an tAire Airgid ag tabhairt deagh-shompla maith go leór, ar an gceist seo, ach ar fud na tíre ní doich liom go bhfuil an meas atá ar an nGaedhilg chó hárd agus ba chóir é a bheith. Níl an sprid ceart taobh thiar den obair agus chó fáda agus a bhéas an sgéal mar sin beimid ag caitheamh airgid agus gan mórán tortha ag teacht as. Deir Teachtaí áithride nach bhfuil aon mhaith san nGaedhilg agus nach ceart dúinn dul as ar mbealach le h-í do shábhaíl. Dá mba rud é nach mbeadh againn ach Gaedhilg, isé mo thuairim go mbeadh muid, níos fearr maidir le náisiúntacht agus oideachas ná mar tá muid. Bheadh an t-oideachas náisiúntach trid agus trid agus ní bheadh misneach ag na Teachtaí seo eirghe agus cur in agaidh na Gaedhilge.
Tá ceist eile ag déanamh trioblóide do sna múinteóirí—sí ceist an chló Romhánaigh sna leabhair sgoile é. Tá sé mar dhli, no beidh gan mhoill, gach leabhar a cuirfear amach ag an Rialtas a bheith san chló Romhánach. Dá mbeadh muid réidh faoi sin bheadh sé ceart go leór ach ní bheidh muid réidh go ceann blianta. In áiteacha san Iarthar d'fhoghluim na múinteóirí agus na páistí a gcuid Gaedhilge as an seanchló agus ní bheidh na múinteóirí—gan tracht ar na páistí—in ánn an cló nua do léigheamh go ro-mhaith. Ní cóir sin do na múinteóirí; tá go leór le déanamh acu; agus ní cóir é do sna páistí ach oiread.
Rud cile is san gcló Romhánach a cló bhuailtear na páipéirí sgrúduithe le haghaidh na gColaistí Ullmhúcháin. Tá a fhios agam nár thuig cuid de sna macaibh léighinn na ceisteanna ro-mhaith mar gheall ar seo. Is mór an dearmad é seo a dhéanamh agus ní cóir é. Tá sé ag cur as do sna macaibh léighinn ón Iarthar. Níl an seans acu ba cheart a bheith. Ní doich liom gur ceart é dream áithride do mholadh don Rialtas, no don Aire, úsáid do bhaint as an gcló Rómhánach. Ba cheart a rogha a bheith ag gach sgríbhneóir—a leabhar a fhoillsiú i gcló Rómhánach no i gcló Gaodhalach. Sgríobhadh cúpla leabhar le deireannai ach nuair a chuala na hughdair go raibh faoi'n Roinn iad do chlóbhualadh sa chló Rómhánach ní thabharfadh síad cead dóbhtha a leithéide do dhéanamh. Bhí an ceart acu. Ní bheadh aon díol ar na leabhair dá gcuirfí i gcló Rómhánach iad. Ní hé go bhfuil na Gaedhil in aghaidh an chló Rómhánaigh ach níl siad cleachtuithe leis agus ní bheidh go ceann i bhfad.
Maidir le páipéirí sgrúduithe, thug mé faoi deara go raibh cúpla ceist ar na páipéirí le haghaidh na gcoláistí ullmhúcháin agus ní raibh siad féaráilte do sna páistí as an nGaeltacht. Ceist amhain—"Ceapadóireacht do sgríobhadh ar "Going to a Party," agus ceist eile: Ceapadóireacht do sgriobhadh ar "Joining a Sports Club." Ní raibh a fhios ag páistí Chonnamara nó ag páisti Mhuigheo go raibh "Sports Club" no a leitheide ann. Agus maidir le "Going to a Party," is annamh a gheobhas na páistí seo cuireadh do phárti. Ba chóir do na daoine a leagann amach na páipéirí seo smaoineadh ar an áit in a mbeidh an sgrúdú. Bheadh sé maith go leor ceist a bhaineas leis an bhfairrge do chur i gConnamara ach na ceisteanna do cuireadh ní raibh siad féaráilte do pháistí na Gaeltachta. Tá a fhios agam nach raibh sa rud seo ach dearmad.
Deir cuid de sna Teachtaí nach bhfuil carghdeán oideachais árd go leor sa Stát seo. Ní thuigim mórán faoi áiteacha eile ach deir a lán daoine ag a bhfuil taithighe ar thiortha eile go bhfuil an carghdeán annseo chó hárd agus atá i dtir ar bith eile agus níos áirde ná i gcuid acu. Creidim sin. Tá dul ar aghaidh san oideachas le deireannai agus ba chóir duinn a bheith sásta leis. Ach tá locht mór ar an oideachas ar fud na tíre—nach bhfuil suim no meas ag na páistí sna céirdí coithchiannta. Má chuireann tú ceist ar pháiste sgoile céard ba mhaith leis a dhéanamh nuair a bhéas sé fásta, dearfaidh sé go mba mhaith leis a bheith in a dhochtúir no in a shagairt no, b'feidir, in a Theachta Dála, no go mba mhaith leis dul go Americeá. Ach ní abrann sé go mba mhaith leis a bheith in a thailliúir ná in a shiuinéar ná in a fheilméara. Níl mórán measa acu ar na céirdí coitchiannta. Ba mhaith an rud don tír dá dtiocfadh linn 'theasbaint do na páistí go bhfuil uaisleacht ag baint leis na céirdí seo, i dtreo nach mbeadh siad ag súil le dul go Americeá muna mbeadh siad ag dul go dti an Ollscoil.
Tá súil agam go gcuirfidh an Roinn Oideachais sreath leabhar seasmach amach i dtreo go mbeidh siad níos saoire do sna páistí agus níos feileamhaighe do sna múinteóiri.
Táim sásta leis an dul ar aghaidh atá déanta sna sgoileanna. Tá sárobair deanta ag na muinteóirí; agus na dochtúirí agus na dligheadóirí atá ag fagháil lochta ar na múinnteóirí dá ndéanfadh siad rud eicint le hobair na sgoileanna do chur 'un cinn bheadh toradh maith againn as an iarracht atá á dhéanamh 'un na teangan do shábháil.
I will crave the indulgence of the House for one moment. I would like to say that my criticism in connection with this Estimate was based on the examination papers in two city and four rural schools. During the week-end I was furnished by two Dublin publishers with several series in both languages. I must say in justice to their enterprise that, as far as a cursory perusal would enable one to judge, several of these text books were decidedly good, but despite this, there is still need for systematising and standardising the books, so as to prevent too great a variety, inequality and consequent cost on the parents.
If I thought the Minister for Education, or any other Minister deserved censure, although I am sitting behind the Minister at the moment, I would have great pleasure in throwing a brick at him—a verbal one, I mean. I am quite sure that if the front benchers of the Opposition perceived the slightest chink in the armour of efficiency of the Minister for Education they would not hesitate to bend their bows or cast their javelins at him. Unlike the mythical hero, Achilles, they have not found exposed on the Minister even the small mark to fire at, that we are told ultimately led to the death of Achilles. So far from being small minded on this question of education, I think the members of the Dáil, with few exceptions, have appreciated to the full the great things achieved by the Minister for Education, and the heads of his Department.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
Instead of bricks being thrown at the Minister, I think he deserves a laurel wreath. On the subject of the Irish language I think that my views are well known. In 1928 we had a long discussion on what was called compulsory Irish. I can only say Amen to all that was said by Deputies from all parts of the House who approved of what is called compulsory Irish. I am at one with them. I think the more schools we have teaching Irish, the greater number of children and the more subjects there are taught through the medium of Irish, the better for the nation as a whole.
There is only one thing that I am anxious about as far as the language of this nation is concerned. On our Order Papers we have the Irish language printed in type other than Gaelic. I know that a great many things can be said against printing the language in Gaelic type, and a great many things can be said for it. When you find changes made even in the lettering I think it will be agreed that some people might go a step further. I saw recently in the "Irish Independent" that some people wanted to do away with the irregular verbs in the Irish language. In France, I understand, the Academie francaise takes charge of the French language and everything pertaining to it. If such a committee does not already exist here I would like to see one composed of men like Dr. MacNeill, Dr. Douglas Hyde and Dr. Dinneen. They should be placed on the same footing as the members of the Academie francaise. They could take absolute control of the Irish language, and if any changes were required in the spelling or the grammar they could deal with them.
As regards the education of the child, speaking from a medical point of view, I am inclined to think that more attention should be paid to physical welfare. What is the good of rearing delicate children? Afterwards they will become a charge on the State. You will find them in our county hospitals and, unhappily, in our county sanatoria.
I am very anxious that more attention should be paid to the physical welfare of the children of the country. Children attending country schools have to travel distances of from one to three miles. Sometimes they get very bad wettings on their way to school. When they arrive their garments are wet through. The parents of these children cannot afford to come to Dublin and buy suitable outfits for them in Elvery's or Crotty's. How the problem of getting children to school in wet weather without their clothes being soaked is going to be solved I do not know. I suppose it is a problem that is common to all countries. I have taken a rather extreme case, but I suggest that the problem is worthy of consideration.
Going through the country one cannot help being struck by the frightful ugliness of many of the old national school buildings. I know perfectly well that the Department of Education, as well as every other Department of the Government, have a hundred and one problems to solve, but I think it would be desirable if something could be done to make the schools on the outside brighter than they are by having, for instance, glass porches built. Perhaps, too, something might be done in the way of providing a room, even if it had only a corrugated iron roof, in which the children's garments on wet days could be dried. That, in my opinion, is important for the children and the nation. Perhaps the Shannon scheme might be utilised in helping in that direction. I know one national school in the City of Waterford in which the ceilings are very low. It would be desirable, I think, if it were knocked down and a new one built. In the case of schools that have playgrounds, particularly in the cities, I think these playgrounds should be allowed to remain open so that the children could play in them. After school hours many of them have no place to play except on the roads and public streets. In view of the danger the children run from playing on the public streets, I think they might be allowed to avail of the playgrounds after school hours.
I know that all the schools in the country cannot be renovated, but something could be done to make them more attractive than they are. If glass porches were erected at the entrance, flowers and plants could be provided in them, and lessons given to the children on the cultivation of flowers and shrubs. I am afraid that I have rather costly ideas about schools so far as the State is concerned, but I think that if gardens were attached to each school they could be made a great source of education for the children. A number of handsome school buildings have been erected by the present Government, but in the case of some of the old ones I do not know what was wrong with the geniuses who planned and built them. I do not think the people responsible for their erection should be admitted to heaven. They are so ugly that they would deter any child from going to school. Many of them are badly planned and are very draughty. At the present time I happen to be attending a school teacher who is ill. I will not say that she contracted pneumonia on account of the draughts in the school, but I think they were not conducive to her good health. On account of my skill, or lack of it, the lady, I am glad to say, did not depart to a better land.
Last year I think I asked the Minister to have a leaflet prepared and distributed amongst the teachers requesting them to bring to the notice of children the dangers they run from motors on the highways. I do not know if any steps have been taken in that direction. I am a motorist myself. I drive up here every week, and I have experience of the dangers due to the carelessness of the children. I would be glad to hear from the Minister what is being done in that connection. I do not flatter or praise any Minister unless he deserves it. I am not going to make any comparison between the Department of Education and any other Department, but I think that the sincerest praise is due to the Minister for Education.
This debate, I am glad to say, has ended on a pleasing note. I will deal first with the point just referred to by Deputy White. Instructions were issued to the teachers to call the attention of the children to the dangers that, in the present day especially, they are liable to from motor traffic on the roads. The course of this debate, as many Deputies have remarked, has certainly kept on the level of dealing with the general problem of education rather than with any of the details, and I think with most of those who have spoken the House is to be congratulated on that. Possibly some of us may have felt that a certain portion of the debate on Friday, as well as a certain portion of it to-day, was a bit one-sided. But after the two excellent speeches from Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll I feel that, to a certain extent, the balance has been redressed. Deputy Hogan and Deputy Clery backed them up also in the defence they made. With a great deal of what has been said in the course of the debate I am in general agreement. With many of the general principles that are enunciated I am also in general agreement. There are very few in this country, outside this House and those formally connected with it, and whose business in life it is to have something to do with it, who are interested in education, but I think that so far as the public outside are concerned the impression that this debate has made will have a good effect.
I doubt if the principal topics raised on these Estimates for which I am responsible, though they are very important from the point of view of the public, were strictly relevant. Not that I object to them on that ground. I did get the impression during the course of the debate that there were a number of people who, in so far as the implications of the debate were concerned, and in so far as what was said could be looked upon as criticism of the management of my Department and the work of the Department, expected too much superhuman power from the Department and from the Minister in charge of it. I doubt if many of the faults that were brought before the House in a very striking fashion are susceptible to treatment by any machinery that I have in my hands, or, indeed, by any human machinery at all.
I am glad, though I have often heard it, that I was spared at least the suggestion that great teachers are born, not made. Still that was to some extent underlying some of the speeches that were made, and that is the reason I refer to it. That very valuable proverb, which is perfectly true, was not quoted in this debate. I have often heard it, and in case there is any respect for that particular proverb may I ask this question: Granted that that is so, how am I to get in touch with those mute, inglorious Socrates that bloom unseen in different places? I have to provide a certain number of teachers. I get a certain amount of material from which I have to choose. We have to take—not the average man, we are not doing that—we have to take not born teachers but those who offer themselves, and we test them for their ability. We certainly cannot endow them with the native genius for teaching that some Deputies seem to require from teachers. They forget that we are dealing with the average, intelligent man, and they seemed to me occasionally to make the demand that we should have the perfect teacher, the teacher that is born, not made. Many of the criticisms of the teachers seemed to me to proceed from the adoption of that particular standard. With the exception of Deputy O'Connell and, to some extent, Deputy Tierney in the earlier part of the debate, and the speeches made to-day, to which I have already referred, so far as attacks on the teachers are concerned, and on the system as carried out by the teaching body, there was not very much difference between the attacks made from the different parts of the House. Practically the same points were made, sometimes in more dogmatic, and possibly more sweeping, fashion by Deputy Byrne, as those already made by Deputy Fahy in his opening speech. Some of the criticism offered, on the other hand, e.g., by Deputy Thrift, was quite moderate. But I suggest that in the opening stages of the debate the criticism was not quite moderate, or, at least, the implications of it.
The impression left upon anyone hearing the speeches, either taking the individual statements made, and examining them, or taking the general impression left, was definite. There was, reflection will admit, an exaggerated attack on the teachers. Attack is good, and criticism is good, but I often wonder whether criticism that goes beyond reasonable bounds does any good. A criticism that is felt by those against whom it is directed —whether so meant or not leaves me untouched—the purpose behind the criticism does not matter—a criticism that goes beyond what the people against whom it is directed regard as fair, is calculated not to reform, but to irritate. Remember all these various passages about the shortcomings of the teachers, that were quoted from the report were all relevant, and were made relevant to a debate, the general purpose of which was: Are we getting value for the money? I am speaking therefore not so much on the individual points made, but of the general impression that would have been left on any person listening to the debate. I believe that notwithstanding that, the debate was on a high level. There was nothing in it —except for an occasional reference —in the nature of Party politics. But, am I wrong in summing up the result of the first day's debate in the following words: That though the teachers are very good trade unionists they are rather poor as teachers? On the whole I think that is not an unfair summary of the general effect produced on me, and without possibly any clear intention on the part of the speakers, produced on the general public.
I am very glad that on Friday Deputy O'Connell took over portion of what I might call my reply as Minister, and to some extent, answered for this Estimate in one of the most eloquent addresses I ever heard from him, in which he put forward a very strong defence of the teachers' position. I have been met with statements about individual subjects, and about our curricula as a whole— primary and secondary—that the standard here is very low. Some Deputies were wise enough not to say that it was lower than elsewhere because they knew the trap that lay for any person making such a statement. It is an extremely difficult thing to say what the standard here is, not to mention elsewhere.
We discussed for several days the standard in a country in which we have lived all our lives. I do not think there is any agreement as to what the standard is, and yet in face of that, without the slightest hesitation, Deputies get up year after year and state that the standard of education in this country is lower than in other countries. I have tried year after year to find what is the standard of education in other countries, and I find it extremely difficult. I heard exactly the same complaints about the standard of education in other countries from the inhabitants of these countries, and by men in other countries interested in education. It may not be without a certain amount of interest to mention a fact I heard before coming to the Dáil, that during the debate here last week a person was listening, an official from a foreign country whose business is concerned with education. I shall not mention the country, but it is a country that is looked up to in educational matters throughout Europe. His remark on the debate was: "A very interesting debate. I hear exactly the same at home." I have met educationists from other countries. I have consulted them and have heard precisely the same thing. I think every teacher will agree with me that we are putting forward a very obvious and fair defence of them and of ourselves. That does not mean that we are to spare our efforts to improve the standard. We have to do so for a variety of reasons. Every effort must be made on the part of every one interested in education, on the part of the Department, on the part of the managers, on the part of the teachers and on the part of the heads of schools, because if they were not kept at high tension, so to speak, there is a danger of falling back. Undoubtedly we have to advance in order to improve, and we have to strive to advance in order to prevent any falling back.
I think I mentioned here before—I do not read my speeches, so that I cannot be sure—that we heard a lot about educational systems in other countries —in America, for instance—and about the money that is put into the schools there. I began to get a little suspicious. In the last couple of years I had opportunities of meeting people who in one way or another were connected with carrying on the system of education there. One man whom I met had been engaged for twenty or thirty years in administering the education system of one of the largest cities in America. I asked him what he thought about their system, and he said: "There is plenty of money, but in only one respect, namely, the readiness and eagerness of children to answer out, are they getting as good education as we got here thirty years ago." That is not an isolated experience so far as I was concerned. As usual, we have been told in this debate that the standard of education is not as high as it was thirty years ago. As I remarked in public once before, we have, at least, the consolation of knowing that it never was. I heard that statement thirty years ago from an uncle of mine in reference to the standard of education thirty years previous to that.
The extraordinary thing is that in education, as in other matters, there is a constant deterioration going on, generation after generation. It is almost incredible, when you think it out. We are satisfied that we to-day are not getting the educational standard which we reached thirty years ago, but the people of thirty years ago were satisfied that the young fellows coming out of school in their day had not the control of mathematics which they themselves had in their generation. Every Deputy has, I am sure, heard that. Is it not a fact that in every case, wherever we touch life, we are told that things are deteriorating? Is it not a case of laudator temporis acti? That seems to be the tendency everywhere. There is, however, another explanation. When we look back over the past in education, as in other things, we only see the bright spots. When we speak of thirty years ago we think of exceptional pupils and exceptional teachers. Do we think of the average pupil or the average teacher of thirty years ago? Who ever thought of the average pupil thirty years ago? The average pupil to-day interests us a great deal more than he did thirty years ago. We continually come across him in every sphere of life to-day. Who cared thirty years ago what his educational standard was? Very few, I feel sure. That is another explanation.
Another, and third, explanation—it is an explanation that an impartial reading of the report would have brought to the minds of Deputies— is that our standards are altering. Finding fault is, of course, a time-honoured way of getting things corrected and making progress. I find no fault with the inspectors so far as that is concerned, but if fault has been found with our teachers, what was the reason put forward for this? Is it not that they are not accommodating themselves quickly enough to new standards and to new demands which we are continually making on them? We are making those demands not for the sake of novelty but because we think that the aims and ideals which we are now putting before them are higher and better than those of thirty years ago. Deputy Hogan unfortunately filched one of the important passages from the report to which I wished to draw attention. He pointed out the real difficulty. He took up the subject which has mainly been discussed here, namely, arithmetic. There you have from one of our divisional inspectors a very sane and sensible analysis of the situation. It is quite true that pupils to-day do not do anything like the amount of sums which they used to do years ago, but, as he says, who with any experience in education would think of going back to the methods of thirty years ago?
May I take a passage from a report which I have here? I did not pick it out specially for the occasion. It is from an inspector who was well known a quarter of a century ago, in which he deals with arithmetic about the time that the new programme, as it then was, was introduced. He said:—
The one subject over which the evil trail of the old programme lingers most tenaciously is arithmetic. Everyone knows that formerly all that was required was mere mechanical accuracy, without any intelligence, and that, with a misdirected energy worthy of a better cause, is what is still aimed at by the majority of teachers. Also, in this more than in any other subject, the teachers stand in their own light by electing to substitute individual for class teaching. I am driven to the conclusion that such teachers, notwithstanding the "Notes to the Programme," and notwithstanding repeated suggestions, have not yet grasped what is required, and the explanation of this fact lies solely in the lack of study and preparation to which I have adverted above. Were I to record the numberless defects in the teaching of this subject I should have to write a treatise on arithmetic.... To this day I could almost guarantee to take anyone into any two he might select out of three given schools, and set second or third standards this problem: "A man has 46 cows, he buys 35 more, and then sells 34. How many has he then?" with the almost absolute certainty that it would be worked:—
|
46 |
||
|
35 |
||
|
34 |
||
|
115 |
||
the answer being obtained by addition.
Perhaps that does not go sufficiently far back for Deputy Byrne. That was in 1904. I will not mention the date of the report which I am now going to read. It was meant to get closer to the time when Deputy Byrne was struggling with arithmetic. This report was written in the good old days before intelligence was introduced in the teaching of arithmetic. It says:—
"No subject in the school programme receives more attention than Arithmetic. So far as working `straightforward' questions, the success is fairly satisfactory, but there is often a want of neatness and of expertness in the work, and the slightest deviation from the form of questions to which the pupils have been accustomed is likely to put them out. The reason of the processes is seldom taught; mental arithmetic is generally badly taught, so that grown boys and girls who work correctly long sums in proportion or practice often fail absurdly to find mentally the price of 11 yards of calico at 5½d. a yard, or of 13 stone of potatoes at 4½d. a stone. Failures in spelling are numerous. Geography should be one of the most interesting school subjects, but it seldom is so."
Another inspector says: "Grammar is perhaps the worst taught subject in the school curriculum. This is scarcely a matter for surprise considering the very objectionable way in which the study of simple parsing is usually approached in the third class."
Always the same.
Not always quite the same. I do not want to exaggerate on one side or the other. I am giving this as a help to appreciate this Report, which I am glad has been studied with such great care by everybody who has taken part in this debate. Reading through it, I think you will find that one of the difficulties, and one of the causes of the criticisms, is the fact to which I have already referred, namely, that we have made new demands. We have set newer and better standards, as we believe, for the teachers. That must be borne in mind. For one moment I do not think that you can get this out of the Report, that judging by the standards of to-day, the teaching of thirty years ago was better. Judged by the standards of thirty years ago, the teaching of thirty years ago was open to the same criticism as the teaching of to-day. Judged by the standards of to-day, I should like to know how the teaching of thirty years ago would stand? Then ask yourselves who among the teachers will find the most difficulty. Remember we have in the service teachers ranging from the age of twenty-one to, say, sixty-five. Naturally, you will not get the same readiness from all of these. You will not get the same knowledge of modern methods from all of these, from the training college, nor can you expect the same readiness to adapt themselves to modern methods.
The same holds true of another matter that was strongly stressed in this debate, namely, the failure on the part of the teachers to relate the instruction they are giving to the life round about them, to the local life. That was a fault that was illustrated in various ways. That is to a large extent again the modern demand we are putting before the teachers, to be more concrete and less bookish in their outlook. To be fair to them, I must say that, notwithstanding the failure of some teachers, very often a considerable number do accommodate themselves to these ideas. I should like to know how many people here are ready to accommodate themselves to new ideas when they meet them; how far, everything being taken into account, they have made a genuine effort to accommodate themselves to these ideas?
Another matter upon which the teachers have been criticised is the alleged lack of enthusiasm in the teaching of Irish. The rate of change in the personnel of our teaching staff is very slow. We cannot adopt, for a variety of reasons—mere justice, apart altogether from the enormous expense which would be involved to the nation —the heroic maxim of sacking the lot, or most of the lot anyhow, whenever we bring forward new ideas and new demands. Any suggestion of that kind is also completely impracticable. A ruthlessness of that kind, such as was to some extent advocated here, would be not only unjust, not only uneconomic, but it would be extremely unwise. What is meant precisely by this demand? There were faults found. I take it for granted that the faults that were mentioned here were not mentioned as those of an individual instance. There was no point in mentioning them if they were only found in a mere individual instance. I take it that they were mentioned as typical of our educational system as a whole. What is meant, then, by the advice to be ruthless? With what? Was it the non-efficient or the inefficient? Did they know the distinction that must in justice be drawn between the man that had just failed to reach a certain standard, which we call efficient, and the inefficient teacher? It does not follow that the former is a bad teacher. There was no distinction drawn between that man and the man who is a really bad teacher.
If you confine yourself to these classes and sack the lot of them you will find that you are not making a very great change in the personnel of our teaching body. It may be very strong; it may show no hesitation, no standing of any nonsense, but I suggest it will make no great change in the proficiency of the teaching body as a whole. Every demand for ruthlessness of the kind I have suggested is either a pretence or it must be thorough. I should like to know again if we are asked to empty out the whole bath in that way at any time we determine to make a certain advance, or whenever we change our methods? I am in full agreement with the demands that are being made that we must try to get the very best possible material for our teachers. Is not that what we are doing? Was that not one of the principal things I indicated in my opening remarks, that one of the ways in which we could help education was in providing or helping to provide an efficient and a well-taught body of teachers? Is that not one of the things on which the Department can pride itself, on the care we have taken in the preliminary stage of education to get more fully-equipped classes to enter our training colleges? Is not that exactly one of the big reforms, if I might so call it, not that we have spoken of, but that we have actually carried through in the last five or six years?
Deputy Aiken stated on Friday: "As Deputy de Valera said yesterday, we are paying the teachers really better than we can afford." That may or may not be true, but the Deputy should not get away with the idea that we can pick and choose from the whole community or that, owing to the salary we are paying, we can pick and choose from the best brains in Ireland. Good as the salaries may be, there is not the keen competition for them, especially amongst boys, that we would like to see. Things are not quite as bad as they were four or five years ago, when there was an actual shortage of candidates for the training colleges, but what I do insist on now is that within the limits of the possibilities that are open to us, we are doing our utmost in seeing that we get fully-equipped teachers by the time they are turned out of the training colleges.
I spoke of grammar. Personally, I like grammar. It is very much like some human beings—thoroughly consistent even where absolutely unreasonable. As to mathematics, Providence was good enough to entrust me to people who were not experts in mathematical teaching. Therefore I am glad to say I escaped being a mathematical expert. I might have developed in that way had I had better or worse luck, as the case may be. So far everybody has been giving personal reminiscences of childhood. The present régime cannot by any means bear the responsibility for the alleged decline in mathematical teaching. How far the decline is there is one matter. There may be a decline there. If there is, may I point out that the most we might be fairly criticised for is this: whether the teachers who have been appointed in the last five or six years are fit for their jobs or not? I believe that a great many of the older teachers are fit for their positions the bulk of them—and are efficient and give good instruction. But I suggest that so far as a debate of this kind— and as a general debate on education it is excellent—is relevant to these Estimates, the only thing we can claim responsibility for is what can be supposed to have happened during our régime, or what we could have remedied during that time.
I have heard a number of charges made here against the introduction of Gaelic. I want to make it quite clear that I accept no responsibility for the driving out of Latin by Gaelic in 600 B.C. Unfortunate results may have followed on our intensive Gaelicising policy, but that sort of thing goes too far. And I cannot accept responsibility for what I have been, by implication, asked to accept responsibility for— the weakness in teaching which took place in the childhood of many Deputies who spoke. Deputy George Wolfe made it quite clear that he did not think much of the teaching he got when he was young. I am not saying whether it is correct or not, but may I point out that we are not responsible for that? Nor are we responsible for anything that we could not have remedied with the material at our disposal during the time we have had control. I ask Deputies to think over the debate and to ask themselves whether the demand was not really that we should, by a sort of retrospective reform, reform what was done between 1900 and 1922. A great deal of the demand really could be summed up in that particular way.
I was very glad to hear Deputy de Valera, for once in his life, advocate the golden mean in the teaching of mathematics. I wish he could extend that excellent philosophy to other things besides mathematical teaching. It is an excellent principle in life. The old philosophy decided that it is the essence of virtue in all things, not merely in mathematical teaching. However, what I want to point out is this: it is quite possible, and I fully appreciate it, that in the effort to get away from that particular style of teaching mathematics, and grammar, too, there was a swing too much in the opposite direction. That is the way human life works, not merely in education, but in other things as well. There was perhaps too much of a swing. There ought to be a certain amount of drill. There must be a certain amount of grinding, if you like, so long as it is not overdone. I agree that the mean is the proper thing to strike. May I congratulate him and some other Deputies on the way in which they managed to anticipate some recommendations made to us by the inspectors in the next year's report, so far as mathematical drill is concerned. But there was a great deal that was too mechanical, too unreasonable, in the teaching of a science that is especially an appeal to reason—in fact, in the two of them, grammar as well as mathematics. Grammar is, for a large number of young people, the only substitute they have for Logic. We have tried to remedy that, as Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll pointed out, by introducing analysis, so that they will understand the structure of a sentence. We do try to have a certain amount of grammar in the schools.
Deputy Thrift dealt with this subject with his usual insight and moderation, but even he has no remedy to suggest. He demanded an inquiry. I am quite willing that we should ask the inspectors definitely to devote their attention to this question of mathematical teaching within the limit of the hours that the teachers have at their disposal—arithmetic in particular; that they should indicate to us on what lines reforms might be possible, and what they have done to give advice to the teachers, because, as I shall point out in a moment, one of the duties of our inspectors is not merely to criticise the teachers, but also to help them in various ways. I can understand an inquiry of that kind being of some use, and I will consider very favourably the idea of putting that before the inspectors and asking them to devote special attention to it. Whether that will carry us quite as far as we want to go I am not sure. It may be necessary to get the advice of some experts, but I confess I am rather nervous about that. Mathematical experts remind me of musical experts, art critics and Gaelic scholars in the extreme difficulty of getting them to work together and getting any common view from them. I think Deputy Thrift will not altogether dispute that. However, to some extent I think some inquiries can be made.
There is one impression that I should like to correct. I should have been stronger upon this were it not for the speeches we have heard to-day, leaving out the defence Deputy O'Connell made for the teachers on Friday. But I should not like the impression to go abroad from this debate that whatever the cause was, their fault or our fault, we are not getting a decent return from the teachers; that the teachers are not doing their work, and that there is no advance. I think that that charge made against the teachers is an unfair charge.
May I interject a word of personal explanation? I entirely join myself with the Minister in that respect. I hope it will not be thought from what was said that I wished to make either an open or covert attack on the teachers. I have a very great respect for the work they are doing. I think they are doing their best in difficult circumstances.
I said there were some criticisms that were moderate and some that were not, and I think I referred to the Deputy's criticism as being moderate as usual. I might not agree with it, but I respect his moderation. There is no use saying that occasionally the report says some good things about good teachers, and that it does not say they are bad. That is not good enough. It conveys a wrong impression of this report if only certain passages are read out. Of all the passages read here you could read the correcting passage, and in a way I think it a pity that that was not done. Some of these are deliberate, and are meant to point out faults that ought to be corrected. One of the inspectors heads his paragraph "Defects"; he is cataloguing defects that actually exist. I find no fault with that so far as that particular report is concerned. But I agree with Deputy Tierney, so far as I can make out, that under the secondary system there is a decided advance in the standard. There has been a change of method, and I think there has been an advance on the whole. Now, as I said, I did intend, with regard to some of the speeches made, to quote from the counteracting passages in this report. But I think I can leave it there now. I shall return again to the question of teachers when I am dealing with their work for the Irish language. When I am asked can I tell whether the faults found here have been remedied, I ask is that a serious question? I am asked with regard to the faults found with 13,000 teachers, some of them 60, some of them 50, some of them 40 years of age. If we can effect a gradual improvement, and it will be a slow matter, that is the thing we ought to aim at. We ought to keep continually putting pressure upon ourselves and others, to work for that gradual improvement.
The National teachers ought not to forget, and I do not think they do forget, that they are the holders of a great trust for the parents, for the Churches and for the nation. I do not think on the whole they are false to that particular trust. There may be occasional exceptions but it would not be just, having listened to the debate, if in my capacity as Minister I did not say that is my conviction. I am not suggesting that we should be all satisfied. We must make that continual effort and seek gradual improvement.
On the question of examination it has been said that the examination is the acid test. That was the phrase used by Deputy Byrne as the great laudator of the German system. Would the Deputy tell us what examinations they have in the German primary school besides those referred to by Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll, namely, the examinations conducted by the schools themselves? I am speaking, as possibly the Deputy was speaking, of a system with which we are both more familiar than we are with the present system in Germany. I would like to know if there is anyone here in Ireland who can tell me what precisely is happening to education in Germany at the present time. Most interesting, and if I may say so, most hair-raising experiments in education are taking place and I wonder whether some of the Deputies who have spoken upon the subject would advocate that we should follow or even read about these particular attempts. Taking the old system to which Deputy Byrne referred, can anybody tell what is that system of examination? I lived in the country as a student for two and a half years. I went there afterwards to make enquiries about the educational system. I do not think they understood our system of examination here at all. They had no idea of the system of inspection that we have here. I do not think that you will find in any country in the world schools tested to the extent our schools are—certainly not more severely—tested by the State examinations, than you have in our Intermediate system. Can you parallel that in the secondary system in England? In how many countries can you parallel it? It is the sine qua non of the educational system here. I have spoken for many years with educationists engaged in education in different countries and a Professor in one of the English Universities was shocked and told me that our system of giving scholarships and money by this test of examination was most immoral.
Mr. Byrne
Did he tell you the alternative?
He had plenty of alternatives. He was a man with some of the most brilliant students in England in his particular subject. I want to point out that examinations have their uses. I shall not deny that. First of all, in a country which distributes money, and is distributing money, and in a country where there is a great deal of suspicion as to the way the money is distributed, it is certainly the fairest way, shall I put it, without being misunderstood; it is the fairest way to distribute the money. It is of use to get candidates, say, for your Civil Service. For all these things it has its uses, but you can carry the idea too far if you regard it as a test either of the individual or the school. So far as that is concerned it may help, but I doubt it. It was not the general trend in most other countries at any time, and is not in modern times, especially, that the examination system is an educational test of the educational value of the school. But let us ask ourselves if it is good for the pupil even if we used examinations to satisfy us as to whether we are getting value for four and three-quarter millions. If we were to impose the old results system we might be doing a great deal of damage to the persons for whom education is primarily intended, namely, the children. It may be possible that the results system was abolished too quickly. I am not in a position to pass judgment on that, but it would be running against the trend of modern thought to return to it. I cannot regard the abolition of the results system as some people are inclined to, merely as a triumph for trade union principles and the solidarity of the teaching body. It is not true to say we do not test our schools. We have here a system of inspection that I do not think is overstepped by any system of inspection anywhere I know. It is much more severe than in most countries. It is much more severe than the State system in England, though the local authorities system may equal it.
What I want to get rid of is the idea that we have no system of testing. I want to correct one or two statements that were made on the general question. It is really a choice of quoting Deputy Byrne or Deputy Fahy in connection with this matter. In the course of the debate I will sometimes quote one and sometimes the other. Deputy Byrne made a statement that there were only 6 per cent. in the sixth standard. He did not give us any indication of what percentage he expected in the sixth standard. Perhaps he would do it now. That is where the difficulty is. Six per cent. is low, I admit. Taking into account backward pupils and irregularity of attendance I think you will find six per cent. in the sixth standard——
Mr. O'Connell
The sixth and higher standards, the Deputy said.
I am speaking now of a particular year. One of the Deputies, dealing with that, said only six per cent. reached the sixth standard. I want to make that perfectly clear. There is a distinction between the two. It is an eight years' course, and therefore six per cent. in the standard does not mean that only six per cent. reached that standard. That was one of the slips that one of the Deputies fell into. I quite admit that six per cent. is low.
There is a certain slowness in the promotion, as Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll pointed out. The teacher is sometimes not too anxious to promote the brilliant boy as quickly as he ought. That is a human weakness, and we are trying to correct it. But there are other causes as well beyond the control of the teacher. There are such causes as the dullness of the boy and defectives. There are students much below the average and much beyond and below dullness, and there is irregularity of attendance. That is still affecting the standard which is reached, but it is being gradually improved. There will always be a certain amount of irregularity of attendance. I would ask Deputies first to consider and bear in mind what they consider a reasonable number to reach the sixth standard? Six per cent. is undoubtedly too low, and we are trying to improve on that. May I quote again from this already much-quoted volume? Turning to page 36, we find he is dealing in this paragraph with irregularity of attendance, and the Report reads:
Despite these deplorable figures there has been a steady rise in the early advancement of the pupils through the standards during the past six years.
I indicated that that is being continued this year—at least it was continued for the year I spoke of.
A rough test is the percentage of all the pupils that are in the higher standards.
Then he compares these with the percentage in 1924 and he says later on:
It is sufficiently clear to indicate that a considerable advancement in the right direction is taking place.
That is what we are aiming at. And I do hope with the good-will of all interested in education—teachers, managers and everything else—that that advancement will continue.
Talking of inspection brings me to Deputy de Valera's remark. I find it necessary in all these debates to remind Deputies of the fundamentals of this system. Deputy de Valera accused me of washing my hands of the matter. I have done nothing of the kind. First of all, what are the main contributions that the Deputy makes to this debate? Get better teachers. Precisely. That is the very thing we are bending our efforts to. The other contribution made by the Deputy was a complaint of too much home work. Do Deputies suggest, knowing how secondary schools are controlled, that that is to any large extent in my control? I think Deputies who know something about secondary schools and how they are controlled will realise the position, and yet on this matter a Deputy accuses me of washing my hands of the whole thing. "Precisely because it is to such a large extent a private system the Minister ought to keep in close touch." I thoroughly agree. "But he has not done so," the Deputy says. I fully disagree there. My Department and I keep in closer touch with the schools than any other Department of Education that I know of. We keep in much closer touch personally and otherwise. The Department, through its various officials and I myself, come into direct contact with the teachers and with the heads of the schools, and I have indirect contact constantly maintained through the various heads of the Department. I do not think there is any other system in which there is such direct contact with the schools as there is under the system that is being worked here. I think anybody acquainted with primary education in this country, and the teachers certainly are under no delusion in that respect.
Mr. O'Connell
I should think they are not.
There are various channels through which I keep in touch. I have myself on more than one occasion given voice to the platitude that when we come to rock bottom the teacher is the thing. You may talk as much as you like, but the result depends on the teacher. I have given expression to that in the House here on more than one occasion, and I am glad to know that that view is universally accepted.
As I have already said, one of the main efforts is our effort to get good teachers. Deputy Byrne congratulated us. On what? The shining jewel in our diadem was the preparatory colleges. I refer to the preparatory colleges not for any boastful purpose, but just to point out this, that the preparatory colleges were instituted for one thing and are being maintained for one thing—to get into the training colleges, from the purely educational point of view, the better equipped class of trainees. We have to see that everybody now entering the training colleges, except those who are already teachers and whom it may be desirable to train because they are continuing teachers, are either university graduates or the very best people who in the subjects dealt with have got a full secondary course, and certainly so far as examination is concerned they can compare with any secondary pupils in Ireland. What holds true of the preparatory colleges holds true of the pupil-teaching system. We have devoted some of our main efforts precisely to the problem of getting a better equipped class of teachers. At the same time I wish to dissociate myself from the remarks on training and the uselessness of training that were passed by Deputies de Valera and Tierney. What did people feel for a long time was wrong with the training colleges? I have heard this expressed again and again before ever I became Minister for Education—that the training college was to a large extent only a secondary school and that in the training college you had done only what should have been done in the secondary school, and that it was only a kind of glorified secondary school; that time was spent there in teaching trainees their subjects and not enough time spent teaching them how to teach those subjects.
We have heard the opposite view expressed here, that training is at best no good, even positively harmful. That is a point of view I cannot accept, and it is not borne out in this report. It was not the lack of knowledge on the part of the teachers of their subjects that was emphasised in the report; it was the lack of proper methods. In fact I would prefer that there would be closer attention given to the teaching methods. I think it is now possible under the training methods to train in each individual subject. There is more time for it now in the training colleges. Similarly when the teachers go out into the schools nothing is more fantastic than to say that we lose touch with them. Deputies spoke of probation. Teachers have to go through a probationary period.
[An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.]
A man may pass through the training college course with flying colours, go out and go to a school, and never get his diploma, and after four or five years he has to leave the service. We test them in some ways in the training college examinations. After the college they have to do the actual work of teaching. We never lose touch with the teachers or the training of the teachers. One of the primary aims of our inspection system, one of the justifications of our elaborate inspection system, is that it enables us to keep up the training of the teachers after they have left the training colleges. It is the business of the inspectors to call attention to the defects of the teachers, and it is their business to show how these failings can be corrected. Very often they give the best help by illustrating how a class ought to be taught. That positive work is one of the prime duties that the inspectorate have to fulfil. They inform us as to whether the teachers are efficient or inefficient, whether they should be kept on or not, and whether we are getting value for our money. That is only one part of the work. The other part of the work is that of keeping continually before the teachers how they can improve.
We are told to get better-equipped teachers. We are doing that, and one of our main claims, and what I think we have to a large extent accomplished in our system of pupil teacherships and in the preparatory colleges, is that we have, in a comparatively short time, really taken steps to see that we have better-equipped material so far as it can be got. I am not saying that the teachers are born teachers. We have to take the average teacher. I remember in Germany a short time ago discussing educational systems with one of the educational officials there. He told me what their new system was. Under that system the pupils conduct a school and the teacher looks after them. I said that it would be very hard to get teachers to carry on a system of that kind—to get them sufficiently good. I said that one would require tip-top men, and he agreed. But how are you going to get them? It might be an excellent system with the very best type of teacher, but it might be a complete failure if you have a man who might teach very well in the recognised methods, but not under this new system. We cannot ensure that our teachers are born teachers, but we get the very best material and we try to make the best out of it. That is all that can be reasonably asked from the Minister or the Department.
On the whole, it is well that attention has been directed to these matters. I should just like to put a question to Deputies here. Outside the churches, the managers, heads of schools, the teachers, and what I might roughly describe as one or two others—let nobody say there are more than two; I will admit there are— how many people in this country take the slightest interest in education? I hear a great deal about parents and the rights of parents. How many of them are interested in what is happening their children at school? What interest do they take, unless there is a burning topic that possibly arouses a little interest amongst the parents as a whole? If the heads of secondary schools go to parents and want to know what the children are to be taught, what is the answer they generally get? "Well, you are a better judge of that than we are." That undoubtedly is the position. I hope that one of the results of this debate may be that more people will take a greater interest in education.
One result of getting what I might call a higher standard of education amongst those who enter the training colleges is that it will, undoubtedly, raise the question of the curricula of the training colleges. I am holding an inquiry into that, but it must be with the help and co-operation of the training colleges. They are private institutions. It may be put up to me here that I can do that. I may be told that if this particular reform is not carried through, I have the power of the purse, and I can use the money to do it. I can, but if I do that on several subjects there is no use in pretending that I am not going in for a State system of control. If I am going to interfere in each individual case to achieve an object that I think is good I may so interfere as to do away with private control or management of the schools. That is sometimes forgotten, and I believe so firmly in the harmfulness of a State controlled system of education in this country, that I am very chary to interfere with any remaining rights that the heads of the schools possess. Being in control, and with the power of the purse, I would feel very chary about indirectly, unconsciously and gradually bringing about an approach to a State system of control. It may be necessary to have an enquiry into the training colleges, and their curricula, but that must be with the help and co-operation of the training colleges, and it will not be along the lines suggested to me in the course of the debate.
A suggestion was put forward in that respect by Deputy Fahy, and it was expanded somewhat by Deputy de Valera. I think it amounted to this, that the trainees should attend the training college for one year, then go down the country, and be put into apprenticeship with an excellent teacher for a number of years not mentioned.
One year.
I think Deputy de Valera implied a period longer than that. The trainees would then come back to the training college. I wonder how many of the teachers that we have would qualify for the post of giving a good example, judged by this debate? I presume, from a remark made by Deputy Fahy, that he intends the young teacher to take the place of the existing J.A.M.; he was not to act as an extra hand in the school, he was not to be a supernumerary. You would have in the school a highly-efficient teacher, an excellent teacher. The suggestion is that you would get a person just out of the training college and place him in that teacher's school and he would occupy that place for a year. At the end of that year another young man, fresh from the training college, would take his place, and so on. One part of the young teacher's training is the instruction he gets through the teacher in a school. You will be utilising a highly-efficient teacher in a highly-efficient school in order to train the young teacher. How long will that teacher and school remain highly efficient? Do you think the managers would tolerate a system of that kind? I cannot put a teacher into any school as a supernumerary, or in any other capacity.
Has that been considered —sending a supernumerary?
That would not save the expense that the Deputy has referred to; it will add very considerably to it. Again, we would have to get the consent of the managers.
The proposal is made, hastily, I feel sure, that we should have a State system. I thoroughly agree with everything that Deputy Thrift and other Deputies said on that. I spoke of Germany. When I was in Germany in 1928 there was a general election going on there on precisely this question of school control. It was one of the questions that split the big block at that time ruling Germany. Anyone who has ever lived outside this country knows the extraordinary amount of damage that is done not merely to religion but to education by the extraordinarily sterile debates, the bitter warfare I may almost call it, that is caused by the school question in other countries. I am convinced that anything in the nature of establishing a State system here, apart altogether from the higher point of view of religion and morality, and even from the purely secular point of view, would mean that we would lose a great deal. I must confess that even though I am said to be in the habit of washing my hands I am not sure that if we had a State system of education there would be much change in the personnel of the teachers. Exactly the same teachers would be trained and the same number would be employed possibly in the different schools. It is probable that most of the individuals that are employed at the present time would be in the same employment.
We are lucky in this country that we have a system that satisfies the legitimate demands of the Church and the State in this matter, an exceedingly difficult thing to do. We have a sys-as the teachers are concerned." We must have overseeing and appointments in matters where character is more important than anything else." On the other hand, the State ought to be able to say: "We will see that certain conditions are fulfilled so far as the teachers are concerned. We get all we want out of it. We get precisely the body of teachers we want. We can prescribe the qualifications, and we do. More than that we cannot reasonably do. Anything that would tend even to shake a system of that kind I should consider disastrous in the extreme. It would not help us even in some of the matters that are referred to here.
So far as character is concerned, Deputy O'Connell pointed out that an examination as the acid test would not do there. I may be asked: What other test is there to be? I do not know any test of character except life and possibly the same applies to education. There may be other tests, but, luckily, so far as character and matters of that kind are concerned, they are beyond my purview. I stress the importance of character. What I gathered from Deputy de Valera's speech was that unless teachers showed the noblest example of virtue, then the thing to do was to get rid of them. I, also, like high morality—in others. But I suggest it is not primarily my business to look after the moral character of teachers. If the managerial system is there, it is there precisely to look after the moral character. Occasionally, I am sorry to say, I have to interfere and say: "Well, I will withdraw the salary from that man. I do not think that with his moral character he should be in that school." Generally, so far as moral character is concerned, it is primarily the duty of the manager to look after that. It is one of the justifications for the managerial system. The Department is, I think, unfairly called upon to do things in that respect which it ought not to be asked to do. I have had occasionally, owing to a variety of reasons that we need not go into, in which the manager was slow to act, to say that in my capacity as Minister I was not going to pay any more salary to a particular teacher, and that he would have to go.
As we are on the question of qualifications of teachers, Deputy Thrift raised a point that I am sorry I cannot agree with, about the qualifications of secondary teachers. I said that we demanded very high qualifications. Deputy Thrift, with great subtlety—I hope I am not misquoting him—referred to the "strict" qualifications that we demanded. Is it altogether unreasonable what we do demand from the secondary teachers? A great deal of play was made of the necessity for teaching people their subjects. It was said that they must be familiar with them. Deputy Tierney was pretty strong on that. I suggest that is what the universities do, or claim to do. We demand that secondary teachers must have a degree—not an unreasonable demand—and that they must have a certificate in teaching. That does not look an unreasonable demand. That is a matter that is in the hands of a statutory body, and I do not see how we can very well interfere with their discretion in that particular matter. It is very hard to find out what changes are taking place in other countries. Speaking of Germany, I did get the impression that they were changing over, in some cases at all events, to the training college system. Though their primary teachers go to the university at present and are in it, they are not of it. Even at the present moment they are in very little contact with the university.
That brings me to another subject, the teaching of Irish. Deputy Byrne put forward the demand that I should do away with what he considers the bar of 85 per cent. in oral Irish that, owing to the necessities of the situation and the programme, is required from 50 per cent. of the candidates. I must confess that I am not altogether satisfied with that 85 per cent. What I am going to say will not, I am afraid, satisfy Deputy Byrne. That 85 per cent. was put on in order to ensure that, by competitive examination, we could get people who are practically native speakers. To a certain extent we achieve that, but only to a certain extent. I am not satisfied that from many points of view, economic as well as linguistic, we are getting nearly enough teachers from the Gaeltacht. It may be necessary, though I dislike it very much, to say that a certain number of places will be reserved for certain schools where Irish is the home language. I see grave objections to that, and it may not be possible to carry it out. My difficulty is not along the line that Deputy Byrne suggested but rather in the opposite direction.
About the teaching of Irish I was asked the present position as regards qualification. The position on 30th September, 1930, was as follows: without certificates, 4,600; with the ordinary certificate, 4,700, roughly; with the bi-lingual certificate, 4,000; with the Ard-Teisteas, 840, including 750 supernumeraries. As a result of the recent examinations I should say that the number without certificates will be reduced by about 700. I think it was Deputy Derrig who said that one half had qualifications. That of course is an exaggeration.
I do not think I said that.
Possibly the Deputy did not, then I withdraw. The fact is that I think I did say that in 1929 there were 1,180 teachers who were under thirty years who had not a certificate. I want to be clear on that. I did not mean that they were under thirty years of age in 1929; they were under thirty years of age in 1922. The statement is likely to mislead, and I want to be clear about it. Generally, my statement about what the teachers ought and ought not do depends very much on the year 1922. I am quite convinced that a certain number of teachers in 1922—though we appreciate very much the efforts that many of them made—could not be reasonably asked to make the same efforts as other teachers. Disappointment has been expressed at the progress made in the teaching of Irish, and I think I said that naturally our hopes in that respect were not altogether fulfilled.
Let me give one explanation that I would like to lay a little stress upon. When you consider what a school can do in the direction of promoting the teaching of Irish you have got to consider not whether there is an Irish teacher in the school, but whether the staff of the school is Irish speaking. Take the normal two-teacher school in the country. Very often you have the situation there where one of the teachers has the bilingual qualification, the other may have no qualification in Irish. Either the person with no qualification takes the junior classes, or on the other hand the higher classes. You will see that advance must be slow, not merely on account of the shortage of the man-power we have, but on account of the distribution of the man-power. That has to be taken into account when people say that they are not satisfied with the actual progress made in the schools. Remember also, as I said already, there are a number of teachers who were of a certain age in 1922, from whom it would be unfair to expect the demands that were made on the other teachers. I do not say that all the young men in the past eight years did all they might do. Some of them did not utilise their opportunities, and some were not quite alive to their responsibilities. I am quite willing to admit that, but I say that the vast majority of the teachers answered to the call, and answered to the call as no other class in the community did. The call was by no means a light one. It was truly described by Deputy O'Connell, and by Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll, and I should like to know what other class in the community would have responded in the same way as the people who are now being criticised for their lack of enthusiasm. I have heard a great deal about lack of enthusiasm, and a number of people see in that the cause of the slowness of the advance of Irish. Let us be quite clear about that.
If there has been lack of enthusiasm, where has it been, and what are the people who are criticising the teachers —I am not referring to any Deputy, but I heard it through the country, where it is quite a common complaint —doing to help the teachers? What are the enthusiasts doing to create enthusiasm on the part of the public and the parents for the work being done by the teachers? I suggest that they would do a great deal more useful work in that respect if they appreciated what has been done by the teachers, if they did their own bit for the language they profess to be attached to, and if they indulge a little less in linguistic politics and more in creating an atmosphere in favour of the language, I think a great deal might be accomplished, and the work of the teachers might be made a great deal more easy.
As to lack of enthusiasm, I know that there are a number of people disappointed at the present time, who are inclined to throw up their hands and say: "We cannot do it." A number of people were under the belief that Irish can be restored without hard work. They were enthusiastic about it, but when they found it required hard work and continual application their enthusiasm waned, and now they say: "Oh, well, we are doubtful." Nothing can be done without hard work, and this I will say as far as the teachers are concerned, that if the Irish language policy is a success, the success is due to the policy being put into force and to the hard work the teachers put into it when the call was made upon them. I am glad Deputy Good has been weaned away from one of the proposals that was made, though I regret the cause he adduces. Into the merits of that particular cause I cannot go. That is, the question of the Advisory Council. Deputy Little asked me not to adopt it. I would not put the right people on. Does anyone who listened to the Deputy's speech think he would put the right people on? I have heard this described as the recreation of the National Board. There is no good in being unfair to the National Board. It is nothing of the kind. It has been urged on me more than once from other quarters as well. What is this Council? One National Council? For co-ordination between the different systems that prevail at present? The Ministry is apparently not able to do that. The National Council will. Is that the proposal, or is it suggested that we are to have one National Council for primary, another for secondary, another for vocational, and another for the artistic branches of education? What is Deputy Fahy's suggestion?
One.
That is what I thought. When it was put forward on one occasion it was supposed to come under an Article of the Constitution which refers to vocational councils and the suggestion was made— and it was much more sensible than an advisory body—that it would have something to do and would have some administrative work. But I understand the suggestion now is that it is only to advise. I may say that I have very great distrust for boards that have as their duty only to give advice and no responsibility whatever about the advice they give. I think boards of that kind can be of very little help but could be a great deal of hindrance to progress or to any real conception of the work. Have Deputies considered if it was to be representative and of whom? If it is not to be representative I should like to know what use it would be. One of the advantages is that it is to help me to keep in touch with education. I will refer to that in a moment. I could name off-hand certain classes of people that should be represented on that board—representatives of the Churches, the managers of different denominations, the heads of secondary schools, the committees of vocational schools, local bodies, teachers, primary teachers of different kinds having different interests and different outlooks on education, lay national teachers, men, women, convent schools, Brothers' schools, universities, training colleges, farmers, business men. I wonder how would you get representatives of all these bodies? Still no one suggests that these most important factors in the life of the community should be neglected. Does anybody seriously suggest for a moment that they could all be included? I forgot to mention Labour representatives and, to satisfy Deputy Little, cultured bodies interested in education. They also would have their representation. Does anybody suggest that a body of that kind would be of any assistance? You could not, of course, confine these representatives to Dublin, because that would be an insult to the rest of the country and it would simply be boosting Dublin which, we are told, is being boosted too much. Does anyone suggest that such a body, meeting casually, could give real, helpful advice? You would get much more solid advice from the component parts of such a body, from the managers and teachers. The teachers are not slow in giving advice and, let it be quite clear, their advice is not confined to questions of salaries and pensions. I meet them often. On the last occasion when the Dáil adjourned I spent six hours with the teachers without a break on the following day, though the newspapers said we were on vacation.
My main objection to such a body as that suggested is that it would pass resolutions which nobody would consider. That is the way generally with such bodies. If a resolution is put down it is seen for the first time when the meeting is held. Such a body would only be called together casually and periodically, and could not be of assistance to the Minister. I could imagine another plan being of some use. Get together a dozen men and say to them: "Here is a sum of four and a quarter millions. It is the most we can afford. Some people suggest that it is more than we can afford. Distribute it as you like. Take some of it from the primary teachers and give it to the secondary teachers if you like, but until you have made an absolutely unanswerable case for more money do not come to us again, because neither we, nor the Minister, can give you more." The proposal is sometimes put forward in the name of democracy—a body responsible to no one, replacing a Minister who is responsible to the Dáil! Then we are told that parents have to be represented. They are represented here, and they have contributed to this debate as parents. How can I get a representative parent? Remember that certain questions were raised here in a parental capacity, but I doubt if they represented the points of view of parents in the country.
The question of home work was also raised, as well as that of a break in the middle of the day. We find it extremely difficult to know what the parents' views are on these matters. My main objection to that body is that it is a body whose official business is to do nothing. By all means pass resolutions. I know certain bodies of that kind. I know a body that meets periodically whose main business is to discuss things and pass resolutions. It is an amusing body. I cannot mention it, of course, as I am rather intimately concerned with the institution to which it is an ornament. Our advisory council would be pretty much the same as that. A number of other questions was raised. I am answering for the Estimates here, but some of the points raised were, I may suggest straight away, matters for question and answer but not for an Estimate debate. Deputy Little fired off quite a number of questions which I could not possibly answer without notice. He asked one question about which, accidentally, I know something, namely, whether any care is taken of those who leave industrial schools. There is. It is the duty of managers to see after them. No evidence has been presented to me in which it was shown that that duty has not, on the whole, been fulfilled. There may have been one or two such cases. I would like to have a definite case. There is, however, no use in interfering in one or two individual cases, but if there is abuse, and if it is shown that managers of industrial schools do not, on the whole, carry out their duties in that respect the matter can be inquired into. That, however, is no reason for suggesting a change, and for putting more power into the hands of the State and the Minister.
Deputy Good asked a question about the number of students in various subjects in technical schools. I will give them in round numbers for each of the years 1924-5, 1928-9, and 1929-30. They are as follow: Technological, 4,700, 7,900, 9,000; Commerce and Languages, 8,800, 11,000, 11,900; Domestic Science, 5,350, 8,050, 8,450; Art, 900, 1,150, 1,219; Other Courses, 1,961, 2,650, 2,200. I am speaking merely of schools, not of courses throughout the country. The following is the percentage increase from 1924-5 to 1929-30: Technological, 91 per cent.; Commerce and Languages, 25 per cent.; Domestic Science, 58 per cent.; Art, 33 per cent.; Other Subjects, 12 per cent. Deputy Thrift raised the question of increments. I think that on the whole we are making fairly generous provision. There are grave difficulties in wiping away the lines we fixed, but there has been a continued improvement in the way that the Deputy wants. Although I cannot give him what he wants, I can, at least, give him some less unsatisfactory information about the present situation. From the years 1924 to 1930 the numbers who did not get an increment were as follow: 120, 105, 99, 96, 69, 65 and 42. I am afraid that anything in the nature of doing what the Deputy suggested might prevent a further fall. Sometimes it happens that there are vacancies where people could get teaching positions, but they do not take them because they do not like going to the country.
Deputy Good raised a very big question, one that has occupied a certain amount of attention. That is the question not so much of overcrowding as of big classes. The two things are distinct. The big classes are due, not to overcrowding, but to the big schools. Where you have big schools, with the present system of staffing you will get big classes. It has nothing to do with overcrowding, but the problem is there namely, that of the big classes. They are, the Deputy has said, too big to be dealt with effectively by a normal teacher. An excellent teacher might be able to do it, but we are dealing with the normal teacher.
I am not saying that there is not something in the Deputy's complaint. I think there is, but let us see what some of the difficulties are from a financial point of view. At present the following is our method of staffing, taking the average attendance: up to 35, one teacher; between 35 and 54, a principal and a junior assistant mistress; between 55 and 94, a principal and an assistant; from 95 to 139, a principal and two assistants, and then, I think, for every 45, of an average, an additional teacher. A certain amount of the difficulty referred to by Deputy Good is due to the fact that the principal, owing to the fact that he is principal—and the same refers to the vice-principal in some cases—cannot undertake much of the teaching work, sometimes very little. Supposing that we change that system and say that under thirty-five there should be one teacher; from 35 to 54 a principal and junior assistant mistress; from 55 to 84 a principal and one assistant; from 85 to 120, a principal and two assistants, and then an additional teacher for every 35 pupils, that would mean that we should have to increase our teaching staffs, so far as classification schools, where personal salaries are paid, are concerned, by over 300, and the staffs of other schools by 565, a total of over 870, at a cost of about £200,000.
The problem will not stop there. I do not see how you can very well do that with a big city school and not deal with the problem dealt with by Deputy Thrift of the small two-teacher school in the country. I do not know which is the more difficult class. Deputies might say which is the harder—having a large class of that kind, having only one class to be responsible for, or to do what is done in the present two-teacher schools in the country. There you have an infant standard and several other standards in charge of two teachers. Then the standards have to be grouped, as everybody knows, but only a certain amount of grouping is possible. Very often not only has the teacher to take charge of several standards at the same time, but he has to take charge of several groups at the same time. Which is the more difficult task I do not know. I do feel, if you are to deal with the city problem you will have to consider the problem of an additional teacher for practically all the schools I have mentioned, an addition of 2,500 to the staffs.
This is a desirable reform. If the money were there it would be well spent, I am not denying it, but do Deputies think I would get the money from the country? When the business men are prepared to increase the income tax sufficiently—it would only mean another shilling in the pound— when the other elements in the country are prepared to pay an additional tax on sugar, tea and tobacco and to make the money available for this particular purpose, then it might be possible to deal with these difficulties. I am not suggesting that the problem is not a serious one or that Deputy Good had not good grounds for raising it. It is a serious one, one that must have attention, but there is another aspect of the question. All countries are in this position. Certain things may be desirable, but economically at the moment they may not be possible.
Deputy Good also mentioned the question of school hours. I do not think he quite joined in the general chorus, and I would be very much surprised if he did—though for a moment it looked as if he must have fallen from grace—in saying that the school hours are too long, but rather that so far as the primary schools are concerned he would advocate a break. Deputy Law spoke on the same lines to some extent. I do not think the school hours are unduly long in the primary schools. It may be very hard on the children, I admit, but a break in the day is out of the question as far as the great bulk of the children is concerned. It is difficult enough to get them to go to school once in the day. I think it was in the city districts that Deputy Good advocated the break. How far that is desired by the parents of the children I am not quite sure. I know it was tried in certain cities for a while, but it fell through because the children, instead of going home, brought their lunch with them in the morning and wandered round the streets when the break came. It is not easy to get children to go to school twice in the same day. May I make this suggestion: I have no objection to its being tried if those responsible for the schools are willing to try it. If there is a real, popular demand behind it I have no objection to its being tried. I know certain people might like to try it, but I am very doubtful as to whether you would say they were representative of the ordinary workingman in the town. If there is such a feeling I think they should go and put their case before the managers and the teachers, the managers especially. Let them put it by all means. There is nothing in our regulations against it. I suggest, however, instead of Deputies approaching the Government they approach those directly concerned.
I suggest the same thing as far as home work is concerned. Home work is a subject that was mentioned in debates before. It was mentioned by Deputy de Valera, Deputy Alton and various other Deputies. I think it is well to remember that a couple of years ago we had these suggestions, too. I looked into the matter, and the inspectors unanimously agreed that there was not too much home work. I am not asking Deputies to agree with that, but that was the report I got after investigation. They investigated cases in which excessive home work was alleged, and they found that these cases were not well-founded. I quite agree that excessive home work may be a sign of bad teaching, but I think, on the other hand, there is no good in going to the extent of the statement made by one Deputy, I think it was Deputy de Valera, that what the child had done at school should be enough labour for him in the day. I am not going to accept that theory, because one of the things that should be done ——
I do not think Deputy de Valera stated that.
I am quite prepared to quote what he said.
I think his statement was that what was really happening was that work that should have been done in the school was being done at home.
Deputy de Valera said two or three different things. I do not want to misrepresent him, and if the Deputy wishes I shall quote from the report of his speech. It is not a matter of the slightest importance whether it was said or not, because I agree that the whole tone of the speech was what the Deputy said. What I want to guard against is exaggeration. In the midst of a lot of what is quite sound there is exaggeration. That is what I want to guard against. I want to guard against the idea that I know is prevalent in some places, namely, that there should be no home work. I think home work ought to be less in the lower grades and greater in the higher. I think that is natural. A certain amount of home work is absolutely necessary. Whether there is an excess of it or not I have found it difficult to find out. I have tried to investigate it. I know that heads of schools have come to me and said: "If the parents only expressed the wish we would lighten the home work, but we find the opposite demand made; we find parents objecting that their children have nothing to do nowadays at school." I know perfectly well that they have definitely stated: "If you think the home work of this particular pupil is too much, tell us." They say they are not told that. I know they did make inquiries. I have now found the exact quotation from Deputy de Valera's speech. It is: "I think that the child's day ought to be sufficiently long if he does his work in school."
You have not quoted the whole of it.
I made it quite clear that Deputy de Valera said the things which the Deputy alleges. What I object to is putting in a statement of that kind into what is quite sensible otherwise.
I object to the Minister quoting portion of what Deputy de Valera said without quoting the whole lot.
Did I not admit that he said the other things? Is not that enough?
Why repeat it?
Because the Deputy challenged it.
I challenge it still.
You said he did not say it.
Deputy de Valera is reported in the Parliamentary Debates, at the bottom of column 1753, as saying: "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 quite agree. I suggest that they should approach heads of schools in this matter. I certainly cannot interfere so far as that is concerned. I think the whole tone of the debate has been that Deputies hoped the debate would have that effect. A certain amount of interference is possible, but if it is difficult to interfere with managers in the case of the primary schools, I can assure Deputies that the sensitiveness of heads of secondary schools to any interference with their co-ordination of their staff is extremely great indeed. As to Model schools and the method of appointment, Model schools are like other schools in some respects. If there is a vacancy the appointment rests with the Department. In every case I take what I consider to be the best advice as to the best man to appoint and I appoint him. I can take one kind of advice on one occasion and another kind on another, but it will satisfy Deputies to learn that I hope to get rid of that particular patronage as quickly as possible, and I shall certainly equate them as quickly as I can to appointments in other schools, and have that particular amount of unity so far as they are concerned. It may be necessary to have a certain system of joint management at the beginning, but the real appointment will be largely in the hands of the manager, like any other school. Deputy Derrig wanted to know what progress had been made with amalgamation since the last report. During the year 1929-30, 93 schools were amalgamated and 47 schools were thus eliminated. That is not half, because in one case one school took the place of three.
May I ask if all the schools below 35 are now closed?
Off-hand I can answer that, and say they are not. As to pensions to secondary teachers, and the cases mentioned by Deputies Fahy and Thrift, the actual cases mentioned by them are not the cases of hardship that they might appear at first sight. They were not cases of persons being deprived of pensions. They were cases in which, owing to lack of foresight on their part, lack of knowledge on their part, of the actual rules, they lost the right of staying on beyond 65 and were put on pension. That is not such a hardship as might appear by the bald statement of the cases. I doubt if I could ask the Dáil to relax that rule. I want to make it clear as far as these cases are concerned, that I have really no power whatever. I am bound, hand and foot, by the regulations passed by the Dáil. The Deputy quite appreciates that. When the enabling Bill was passed we drew up regulations, and considered any number of cases that were likely to occur, and we took them in. We thought we had met them all. Then the regulations were enacted, and became rigid as Acts of Parliament, and we found a certain number of cases that we should have liked to have brought in and that we did not bring in. We may be able to amend the regulations to deal with a certain number of cases which have come under our notice, on the merits, not on account of the individual cases.
Deputy Aiken referred to the question of rural science and nature study, in which he and other Deputies are interested. The position at present is that during the school year 1929-30 the rural science course was taught in approximately 430 schools; nature study under a master in about 600; nature study in girls' schools and mixed schools under a mistress in about 1,240. With a view to assisting the teachers a booklet was issued by the Department in 1927, entitled "Regulations and Explanatory Notes for the Teaching of Rural Science and Nature Study in Primary Schools." We found that that apparently was not quite satisfactory, or at least did not quite fulfil all the expectations we had, and in order to give further advice and help to the teachers we prepared during the school year a further book entitled, "Rural Science and Nature Study. Suggested Demonstrations for the Illustration of Lessons." That has been supplied to every school in the country, and describes 200 simple demonstrations which can be utilised in the teaching of the prescribed courses.
Deputy Alton raised the question of the Museum, in which he has a great interest. The particular matter he raised was that of purchasing power. It is regrettable that a number of old Irish objects of interest should go out of the country, but I do not think that a little extra money in the Vote, or indeed a great deal of extra money, would meet the situation. It is really a question as to whether this or any other Dáil would be prepared to find the necessary taxes so that any object of sufficient historical interest that it was thought desirable should be kept here, and supply sufficient money to enable us to compete against, say, American millionaires. I do not think it would be possible to do that as a policy. If that is so, regrettable as it is, I feel we must reconcile ourselves to it, unless we can get some form of effective legislation with severer penalties to prevent the export of these things.
Hear, hear.
The Dáil and Seanad had a chance and did not do it.
I had hoped that the Minister's Bill would do it.
So had I, but the Deputy will remember the fate of some of the things in that Bill. Unfortunately, not merely can we not propose legislation in these Estimates, but the Minister can hardly be responsible for some of the things passed against his will in some of the amendments. They made the Bill a little looser than I should have cared to have it. I do not see how we can help to save a situation like that.
Does anybody think that the country would look on with complacency if I came down to the Dáil with a Supplementary Estimate for £6,000 for the purchase of the Galway Mace last November? That is only one of the objects we would have to deal with. There would be innumerable other objects once you entered upon that task. The Deputy knows that a number of other objects would turn up for which the same demand would be made. Deputy O'Connell raised the question of building. I do not want the House to go away with the idea, which they might have gathered from Deputy O'Connell's speech, that we had not done anything. We should avoid exaggeration.
I would like the Minister to realise that I paid a tribute. If it was not generous enough it was because I did not wish to speak at too great length.
I know the Deputy is extraordinarily interested in the Museums and I thank him very much for his tribute so far as its organisation is concerned. I am merely pointing out the difficulty I am under in asking for increased sums.
In regard to buildings, we have done a lot; we have not merely sanctioned, but since this State came into existence we spent over £600,000 on buildings. That does not mean that we have done everything. But let us not accept the suggestion that because we have not done everything we have not done anything in the way of building. As far as last year is concerned, the sum of £130,000 has been actually paid out. I do not think it is necessary at this stage for me to discuss the voluntary system. Deputy Wolfe referred to the part played by teachers in the Archaeological Society of Kildare. I am very glad to hear of it. Sometimes the teachers are criticised because they are not interested in intellectual matters. I wonder what educated class of people can claim they are interested in intellectual matters? While saying that I would, of course, wish to see teachers taking up questions of archaeology. There is a great deal of archaeological work which they could do in their leisure, that they could take up as a measure of recreation. There is photographing of old raths that might be done. Superstition has kept these in existence, but with the decay of superstition a large number of these might disappear. It might be possible very often for the local teacher to photograph these objects in their leisure moments.
Deputy Anthony raised the question of scholarships and the poor man's son. I do not know how far there is any abuse in this particular matter, but in any event my powers are limited. So far as these scholarships are concerned the assessing of the actual income of the person is largely a matter for the local people, who are in a better position to judge than I am. I think that is the situation. If he thinks the local people fail in their duty in that respect and give the scholarships to people who, owing to their means, should not get them, then I suggest criticism ought to be brought to bear on the local bodies. How far that is done it is impossible for me to say at the present moment. I should have to have a great deal more evidence than I have before I could ask for legislation suggested by the Deputy. But I suggest that the thing is to tackle the problem at the source and where the abuse is said to exist.
With regard to text-books, I want to make it clear it is quite true that some of the books sanctioned were unsatisfactory and are no longer on our lists. I promised on a previous occasion to have inquiry made. Inquiry has taken place, and the recommendations have been rather drastic so far as some of the text-books are concerned. Giving a reasonable amount of time to the publishers to get rid of the stocks they were induced so to store up, I think we shall be able to do away with or exclude the lot of the existing text-books, but we must give a certain amount of time before that can be carried through. I come to the questions raised by Deputy Law. Strictly speaking, they are outside my province and belong more to the Department of Local Government. One was the question of medical school service. Medical school service, besides inspecting the individual child, promotes propaganda on the care of the teeth, on digestion and on personal hygiene. It is gradually extending to different parts of the country. Systematic school medical inspection was commenced in the County Borough of Limerick in February, 1930, and during the year 1,093 children were inspected by routine examination, and some children by special examination. The total number of children examined under the scheme in Clonmel in 1930 was 15,554, and then, in order to inspire and impress upon the children the importance of the care of their teeth, tooth-brushes were supplied at 4d. per head per child, and children in very poor circumstances were given those brushes free. The report deals with other steps taken in connection with the health of the children. A scheme was launched from Donegal in November, 1930, and from that date until the end of February, 1931, 117 schools were inspected and 3,616 children were examined. Of these more than half were found to have defects calling for medical attention.
My purpose was not to ask for details or statistics. What I rather wanted was information from the point of view of the Minister for Education as to what the effect generally has been found to be of the measures taken to improve the general condition of these children and their capacity for receiving instruction in the various measures which the Dáil has sanctioned already in relation to health and feeding.
I am afraid it is rather early to make any statement on that. In regard to the details, I can give the Deputy information privately about the extension of the school meals provision. I think I have dealt with most of the questions raised under the different heads which I found myself in a position to answer in the course of the general debate.
There is the question of Roman type in Gaelic. Perhaps the Minister would tell us something about it.