The inspectors, in spite of the encouragement they received from the Minister, could not see their way to recommend that rural science should be dropped in the elementary schools. The encouragement they got from me was to do whatever they thought best, having regard to all the circumstances, and to the conditions under which the teachers were working. There is then the question of mathematics. Arithmetic, of course, is an exceedingly important subject in the primary schools, and there is always the question whether the teaching of arithmetic is as satisfactory as we should like. I think, however, that competent critics and those who know intimately the position in our schools are satisfied that, on the whole, definite progress has been made in regard to the teaching of arithmetic.
When the present primary programme was being prepared, authoritative evidence was submitted regarding the question of mathematical teaching in this country and its importance was stressed. It was felt that some groundwork should be laid in the primary schools in algebra and geometry, so that, apart from other benefits which such teaching would bring to the children, the path might be made easier for study later on. I have always had in mind the fact that the effort to revive Irish as a spoken language undoubtedly rests very largely with our schools. The responsibility rests upon the schools to do that work. It is through their instrumentality that we hope to achieve success. If I am satisfied that by lightening the school programme we can achieve more success in the way of advancing the use of the Irish language and improving the efficiency of the teaching in Irish. I can assure the House that I certainly shall endeavour to lighten the programme. The point is that at the moment there are two different schools of thought. We feel that as regards the teaching of mathematics it would be a definite step backwards if we were to depart from the idea that the Education Department had, when they instituted this new programme, of doing some ground—work, some preliminary study no matter how bare or how elementary—some elementary principles—in geometry and algebra. We feel it would be a definite step backwards if we were to eliminate these subjects from the primary school programme. This is a question that is constantly under examination and we are always anxious to get evidence bearing on it.
With regard to inspection, I think the figures I have given showing the rating of the teachers throughout the country indicate that the inspectorial system is not too rigid and is not unfair. It was stated that a young unattached inspector recently gave six months' notice of a general inspection to a teacher who had been for a considerable time rated as highly efficient. It has been the custom for such inspectors to give notice to the district inspector, and I think such action should have been taken in this case. No complaint was made to me personally with regard to this inspector or any other inspector, although there has been a mass of vague charges. But even if there is a single instance of that kind it must be remembered that inspectors are human and, as well as everybody else, they possibly have failings. Just like some teachers, for example, it is possible that inspectors make mistakes from time to time. But why should we attempt to indict the whole inspectorial staff because of an incident relating to a young unattached inspector? It seems to me there must not have been any real gravamen in the charge if we have to depend on an isolated instance of that kind. Here again the Education Office carried into effect certain recommendations as far as they understood them. I have yet to see in what particular we have departed from them. The Education Office definitely carried into effect recommendations of a committee on inspection in the primary schools where the teachers were represented and where they had a very large say in the making of the recommendations. The recommendations of the teachers now seem to be that general inspections as such should be dispensed with for a five years' period, except for the awarding of diplomas or where a teacher or manager applies for an examination.
Such a suggestion is at variance with the recommendations of the Committee on the Inspection of Primary Schools which sat in 1927. I do not take responsibility for that particular committee; I disagree with some of its recommendations, but as far as I have been able to ascertain, the recommendations of that committee have been carried into effect. The change might briefly be described as being the institution of a special inspection of the individual teacher rather than a general inspection of the school as a whole, which had been the practice up to then. Sufficient time has not elapsed, I think, to say definitely that this new system of inspection of the individual teacher has been a failure. It has been in operation only since 1928 or 1929. It took some time to get under way. Even at the present time the inspectorial staff are not satisfied that the new scheme has got a fair chance or that we have yet sufficient opportunity, sufficient experience of its work, to enable us to make a definite judgment upon it. The recommendations made at that time were that where teachers were men or women of well defined service and efficiency there was no need to have general inspections in their cases every year, or even perhaps over a number of years. But in the case of other teachers it was recommended by this committee that there should be general inspections from time to time. If I mention the classes of teacher in respect of whom the committee thought inspections should be made, I think every reasonable man will agree that there is a very good case for continuing general inspections. Where a teacher is on probation, where a teacher's rating is definitely not "efficient," where a teacher is young and has not got the five years recognised experience which enables him to be placed in charge of a school, or where a teacher's work appears to the inspector to have deteriorated—in these cases the committee recognised there was a strong need for an inspection.
I would like to know now we are to justify departure from these recommendations at this stage. There seems to have been an idea that the general spirit of inspection which the teachers may have thought would have been changed has remained and that there is still rather more of what they described as a defect in the system of inspection. We have it stated that the committee were of opinion that
"the defect in the then existing system of inspection appeared to be that too little importance was attached to the special aspect of inspection in comparsion with its aspect as a controlling agent."
The question is, where are we to draw the line in regard to this matter? How is the Education Office to make up its mind as to whether good work is being done and whether the necessary standard is being maintained and whether we are getting value for the huge expenditure we are making on education unless we have some such machinery as the inspectorate gives us which enables us to be in constant touch with the work in the schools? I wonder how long will the standard which we have at the present moment, whether we may be fully satisfied with it or not, continue if the inspectors were to be withdrawn for perhaps a five years' period? Rightly or wrongly, educational administrators in this country in the past believed that inspection had a definite function in the system and that the value of accidental and unanticipated visits largely added to the value of the work of inspection.
But even if we were to ask the inspectors to devote their whole attention to advising the teachers and helping them in their work, if we should ask them to give up their normal duties and to concentrate on this, I doubt if there would be any great improvement in the situation so far as the teachers are concerned. Because, although we have 13,500 teachers we have only 60 inspectors, so that even at the present time each inspector has to look after 220 teachers and perhaps 120 schools. If the inspectors were to devote half his energy or even his main energy to the work, shall I say, of organisation, of modelling lessons and giving illustrations of what should be done, how many of those 120 schools would he succeed in covering during the year and to what extent?
The inspectors, I think, realise that in this matter of Irish in particular it is their duty, and it is the policy of the Department through them, to give every possible assistance and to co-operate in every possible way with the teachers in overcoming the difficulties that the new programme brought with it, in regard to Irish. I think, however, if the teachers will examine the question they will see that it would be utterly impossible to do away with the inspector as a director, to some extent as an instrument through which we know what is going on in the schools, and as an instrument through which we modify policy from time to time—make suggestions to the teachers and amend where we see fit or where we see necessary. There is a certain amount of work other than school work thrown upon the inspector. There is examination work, the setting of papers and so on. During the past few years since this committee of inspection reported there has been a gradual development in the Department towards reducing the amount of that work upon the inspectors and increasing to some extent the inspectorial staff. That is still going on.
But I think it is not fair or just to have general charges levelled against the inspectors particularly by a body representing the vast majority of the teachers. I think it is most unfair and unjust that general charges without substantiation should be brought against inspectors. The inspectors are not in a position to defend themselves. They cannot write letters to the Press. They cannot pass resolutions. They cannot hold mass meetings to say what they think about the national teachers. Perhaps that is just as well! I would remind the teachers that the main body, perhaps the vast majority of the inspectors, have been recruited and at present are drawn from the teaching body. If the teachers have reason to complain of their inspectors then I do not really know what answer can be made to them. As far as I am concerned I am satisfied that we are getting the very best men and women available to us into the inspection service. I quite realise that these men and women have difficult work to carry out and I would only ask that they should get the same consideration from the teachers as the teachers demand for themselves.
There is also the question of the advisory committee to which I referred briefly last year. I do not know whether Deputy Breathnach referred to it, but I wish to state again that in spite of the fact that the matter has been further canvassed, and indeed a certain effort has been made to set up such a council, altogether apart from the Government apparently, I do not yet find myself able to agree that such a council is necessary, or that it is going to do useful work. I am still at a loss to know what the functions of this advisory council are to be, how it is to be composed, and what are to be the relations of the Minister with this advisory council. We hear a great deal about the desirability of taking the parents into conference and into council on matters affecting the welfare of their children. That, no doubt, is a very desirable development, but I would like to know how we are to select those particular parents—those who are to be represented on the advisory council? How are those representatives to be selected; what qualifications are they to possess?
As I stated last year, I think, to some extent, we have a very good substitute for the advisory council in this House, in men who are representative of the people and of the parents in particular. When discussing in Committee on Finance the educational expenditure for the year the Deputies here have an opportunity of discussing matters that they consider of importance to the parents or to the children. I fail to see how the parents can be more adequately or better represented on such a council than they are in this House at the present time. As far as I can judge, the main bulk of the members of the suggested council come from the teachers, both primary and secondary. There may be some managers or certain other educationists represented, but generally speaking, I think it is the representatives of the teachers who are mainly concerned.
If such a council were to have representatives of different educational interests in addition to the primary and secondary teachers, such as the universities, religious orders of men and women, the management of primary and secondary schools, training colleges, preparatory colleges, and so forth, is there not every likelihood that it would tend to become a mere debating society? How long would it remain in session and on what particular matters would it come to an agreement, or on what matters would it make any worthy recommendations to the Minister or the Department? I should also say here again that the Minister and the officials of the Department are at all times ready to meet representatives either of the teaching bodies or the other interests concerned. We do meet them and have met them. It has been our general practice to consult them on questions where we consider it was only right and fair that they should be consulted, for example, when we propose to make any changes in the regulations.
I think that such a council if it be set up eventually would concern itself very largely with recommendations regarding expenditure. I can assure the House, as I have already done, that there is no lack whatever of avenues upon which we can fruitfully progress if we can only secure the necessary finances and the necessary resources. There is the whole question of the maintenance and the cleaning of the schools, their upkeep, as well as the building of new schools and the replacement of unsuitable ones. There is the question of sanitary accommodation in our schools. There is the question of the raising of the school leaving age, the question of setting up higher primary schools and increasing the provision of scholarships for brilliant children from the primary schools to the secondary schools. There is the question of the better provision of scholarships for the university, of up-to-date modern equipment in our schools; arrangements for playing fields, swimming baths, gymnasia, and so on. All these suggestions would provide great improvements in our educational system, if they could be carried out, but they will all require money, and if the function of this advisory council were to be to pass resolutions and send them up to me asking that I should take steps to get ahead with this development or the other development, to spend money on this matter or the other matter, and if I were to be in the position, as I probably would be in a large number of cases and as any other Minister would, to see that the project, while very desirable, could not be undertaken in present circumstances since the necessary finances could not be provided, what was to happen then? Were the advisory council to say "We are not satisfied with this Minister and we would like to take over the control of the administration ourselves"? I should like to remind the House that we have had boards in the past. We had the National Board, responsible for primary schools, and we had the Intermediate Board, responsible for secondary education. These Boards were responsible definitely for the administration of these two branches of education in this country, and neither of them had been found to be satisfactory. Fault was found with both. In the future things may be different, no doubt. We have very greatly changed conditions at present, but so far we have not been given any clear idea as to what sort of advisory council is in mind or what would be its functions.
Deputy Dillon referred to the question of Gaeltacht students in the training colleges. I assure him that it is very far from my mind to apologise for any increase that may have been made in the number of these students under the regulations; but on account of the very misleading statements that have been made from time to time, particularly by teachers, who should know better and who must be acquainted with the regulations, I should like to advise the public that, in fact, as Deputy Breathnach himself has just stated, the number of candidates in the training colleges from the Gaeltacht is only a very small percentage. The position at present is that almost two-thirds of the candidates who are admitted to the training colleges come through open pupil-teacher system or through open competitive examination, and in these two classes the candidates from English-speaking districts particularly secure most of the places. They have to pass the Leaving Certificate examination and, in the case of pupil teachers, the Intermediate examination. In the case of the other third of the candidates in the training colleges who come from the preparatory colleges, only 40 per cent. of the places are being reserved for the Fíor-Ghaeltacht —only 40 per cent. of one-third. Really, the percentage, as I have stated elsewhere, is not at all out of keeping with the standard of merit which has surprised those who have intimate knowledge of the examination results— the standard of merit of these Gaeltacht students. When one realises that in counties like Donegal there are no great post-primary facilities for the boys and girls in the Gaeltacht—in fact, I think that in no part of the Fíor-Ghaeltacht itself have they opportunities for continuing in intermediate schools—nevertheless, even in the case of the 40 per cent. of one—third of the places in the training colleges which are being reserved to the Fíor-Ghaeltacht students, these students have to pass the Leaving Certificate examination. Accordingly, their parents have to go to a considerable amount of expense—I think, probably, out of all proportion to their means—to endeavour to get for their children the intermediate education which is necessary if, even under this system of preference, they are to find their way into preparatory colleges. I should like very much if we were able to go further and to say definitely that a larger proportion of these places would be awarded to students from the Fíor-Ghaeltacht, but there are very large numbers of parents in other parts of the country also who are endeavouring to get a secondary education for their children, who have had them prepared and who have had the teaching profession in view for them, and who have spared no energy and trouble in endeavouring to give them the best knowledge possible of the Irish language. In deciding what percentage of places we are going to give to the Fíor-Ghaeltacht students, we must have regard to the likelihood of suitable candidates coming from the Fíor-the educational standard we are likely to get. We cannot afford to depress that standard unduly and we must have regard to the claims of parents elsewhere, for example, the parents Deputy Dillon referred to, who, while not classed as residing in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht, nevertheless, may consider themselves as native Irish speakers. The question in regard to that particular matter of residence in the Gaeltacht that presented itself to me was: was I going to loosen regulations and allow people to come into the Gaeltacht, to have their children classed as residing in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht, when the school they were attending had not even a handful of native Irish speakers? Now, we have to go by schools in this matter. We class a school either as a Fíor-Ghaeltacht school or not, and if there is any nucleus at all of native Irish speakers in that school, so long as the inspector is satisfied that they come from Irish- speaking homes, I think that the smallness of the number has not militated against the school being considered a Fíor-Ghaeltacht school; but when the inspectors find that there is only a solitary individual or only two or three individuals in a school and that there is a doubt whether they come from really native Irish-speaking homes, I think it would be stretching the regulations unduly and would, in fact, be doing harm elsewhere if we were to allow these isolated cases to be classed as residing in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht. When we are definitely satisfied, under the bonus scheme or some such other scheme, irrespective of the school they attend so long as they are in the Gaeltacht area, that children come from native Irish-speaking homes and are native speakers themselves, I daresay it may be possible to treat them all on the same basis and give them all the same facilities in regard to these scholarships. At the moment, however, since the method of procedure is by prescribing schools as Fíor-Ghaeltacht or otherwise, the inspectors have no option, where there is not this nucleus of native Irish-speaking children, but to rule such schools out.
Deputy Mulcahy referred to the language flowing out from the Gaeltacht. As I pointed out last year, Sir, I cannot accept the position which Deputy Mulcahy has carved out for me —that I should be Minister for the development of the Irish language. Other Ministers and other Departments have their responsibilities also. Other Parties have their responsibilities and Deputies and the general public have their responsibilities in this matter if we are to make progress with the revival of the Irish language. So far as my personal opinion is concerned, however, I consider that while maintaining an active and progressive policy in the Gaeltacht and encouraging the people there to maintain the Irish language as the sole medium of intercourse as far as possible between themselves and the world outside, we should also go ahead in the Gaeltacht; we should intensify, as far as we can, the policy of Irish in the schools and endeavour to extend the use of Irish through the Government Departments and through the Administration as well as through the country generally.
Deputy Mulcahy referred to a number of minor matters, including an "A" school, where he said that English was being spoken at play. There is a difficulty in certain large schools, where a portion of the school has been set aside as "all-Irish" though the rest of the school, while not all Irish, is progressing— some subjects or some classes may be taken in Irish. We can take it, I think, in regard to all these schools that a definite effort is being made to have all instruction through Irish at the earliest possible date. But, in regard to those very large schools which have only succeeded in completely Gaelicising a portion of the school up to the present, there is the difficulty of maintaining a complete barrier between the children in that portion of the school and the children in the remainder of the school. Except for the fact that the children in the all-Irish school meet the children in the remainder of the school from time to time, I do not think that there is any serious ground for criticism. I think that all these "A" schools endeavour to carry out the policy with the right Gaelic spirit and with the right determination.
Deputy Mulcahy asked for details of the bonus system. We have not yet any details. We have not yet appointed the additional inspectors who will be required in view of the increased administrative work which will be necessary to carry this bonus scheme into operation. But I think the House can rest assured that the bonus will not be given easily. The inspectors will have to be definitely satisfied that the children are definitely native Irish-speaking and that Irish is spoken as the language of the home.
Deputy Mulcahy is still interested in the question of the inspectorate in the Gaeltacht and seems to have the idea that more work could be done by the inspectors in advancing the language. We have seen, as I have explained to the House, the nature of the complaints made against the inspectors. The inspectors' instructions are to co-operate with the teachers as far as possible. The House will remember that a definite age limit was fixed in regard to Irish when the new policy was brought in in 1922. Teachers who are approaching middle age are not expected to make the same effort as the younger teachers, but in regard to those younger teachers, who are either native Irish speakers, or who have gone to colleges where the work was done practically completely through Irish for a period of years, there seems to be no excuse for not expecting that Irish will begin gradually to take its place as a medium of instruction. That was the intention, and without inflicting unnecessary hardship on the teachers I think that with co-operation between both teachers and inspectors that purpose can be achieved.
Deputy Dillon would like us to have an inquiry with regard to this question of teaching children through Irish. I have visited a good many schools myself and it is really surprising what can be done when the teacher is either a native Irish speaker who is a good teacher, or even by a very skilful teacher with a fairly moderate knowledge of Irish. The progress which can be made in the infants' departments is extraordinary. I am not of course satisfied that we have always approached this question of bringing a new language into the schools, as a new language it undoubtedly was, from as purely a scientific standpoint as we should have done. I would be very glad indeed if from time to time our inspectors and teachers could come together, or our teachers themselves could come together, apart from the inspectors, if they so wished, to discuss these problems; to see whether, for example, the question of having only Irish in the infants' school from the first day that the child comes to the school is the most successful method, or whether a little English should be allowed for a while until the child becomes accustomed to the new atmosphere.