Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Jun 1940

Vol. 80 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—Oifig an Aire Oideachais.

Tairgím:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £129,763 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1941, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Oideachais.

That a sum not exceeding £129,763 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education.

Ionnas nach mbeadh orm óráid fhada a dhéanamh, chuireas Meabhrachán thart timpeall. Tá mé buidheach de lucht na Dála as ucht é ghlacadh agus é chur sa Tuairisc Oifigiúil. Is dócha go bhfuil sé léighte ag na Teachtaí agus mar sin fanfa mé go dtí go mbeidh ceisteanna á gcur. Ní dóigh liom gur gá dom-sa cur leis anois, agus fanfa mé go bhfeice mé an mbeidh aon cheist le cur.

Ag seo síos an Meabhrachán atá i gceist:—

Is truagh liom nach éadtrom na Meastacháin atá leagtha amach le haghaidh na Seirbhísí Oideachais atá faoi chúram mo Roinne-se. Rinnemar ár ndícheall chun caitheamh airgid do mhaolú; ach, mar sin féin, tá suim na Meastachán os cionn chúig mhilliún punt. Do thír na h-Eireann is trom an tsuim í sin, óir is mó í ná an seiseadh cuid dár bhfagháltas bliana. I gcomparáid le n-ár dteacht-isteach tá sé chómh hárd de chaitheamh ar oideachas agus atá le fagháil in aon tír eile sa domhan. Níl amhras ar bith ná go bhfuil ár náisiún fial thar barr leis na seirbhísí a mbaineann na deontaisí seo leo; agus tá sé de cheart ag an bpobal bheith ag súil le deagh-thoradh.

An bhfuil an deagh-thoradh san dá fhagháil dá ríre againn? Ní féidir an cheist sin do fhreagairt chomh réidh agus d'fhéadfaí a dhéanamh dá mb'ionann cuspóir do gach ceann de na seirbhísí oideachais sa tír seo. Is fíor gur ullmhú i gcomhair lán-bheatha gach aon chinéal oideachais; ach tá a hobair féin agus a cuspóir féin ag gach ceann de na trí príomh-sheirbhísí—an Bun-Oideachas, an Meán-Oideachas agus an Céard-Oideachais. Mar sin de, is riachtanach scrúdú fá leith do dhéanamh ar gach seirbhís aca, más áil linn cruinn-áireamh do dhéanamh ar an toradh a gheibhtear as an gcaitheamh airgid go léir, tríd is tríd.

Is é an Bun-oideachas an chloch bhuinn do gach taobh den Oideachas go léir. Do naonbhar as gach deichneabhar de mhuinntir na hEireann, is í an Bhun-Scoil a n-aon ionad léighinn. Tá sé iontuigthe ag gach éinne, dar ndóigh, gur ar na gnáth-adhbhair léighinn, no an léigheann saoghalta mar adéarfá, atáim ag trácht annso. Is é gnó na scoileanna san a gcuid daltaí do theagasc sa chaoi nach mbeidh siad i n-easbaidh aon cheann de na cáilidheachta a theastuigheas ón ngnáth-dhuine fá láthair .i. léigheamh, scríobadh, áireamh, cruinneas agus deis réasúnta labhartha, fios a bheith aca cad is ionad dóibh ar an domhan agus cionnas a thárla ár gcineadh san ionad san. Fairis sin, is d'obair na scol so féachaint le snáithí ár seantsaoghail náisiúnta a thabhairt le chéile tré bhuanú na Gaedhilge, chomh fada agus is féidir san a dhéanamh ins na scoileanna.

Má tá ag eirghe le na hoidí scoile na dualgaisí sin do choimhlíonadh go réasúnta, is cóir dúinn a bheith sásta le n-a saothar. An fíor go bhfuilid ag cóimhlíonadh na ndualgaisí sin? Dubhradh annso sa Dáil agus in áiteanna eile nach bhfuil príomh-ghnó na mbun-scol dá dhéanamh go sásamhail—go bhfuil a lán dalta ag fágáil na scoile agus gan ach eolas suarach aca ar léigheamh, ar scríobhadh, agus ar áireamh. Ní hé sin an scéal atá le léigheamh i dTuairiscí na gcigirí. Isé adeirid sin gur lugha ná cúig fén gcéad (5%) den iomlán an méid oidí atá ar an aicme "Gan Eifeacht", agus i dtaobh an chuid eile, a cúig déag is ceithre fichid fén gcéad (95%) go bhfuil breis agus a dtrian san "an-Eifeachtach". Más féidir bheith muinighneach as an bhfiadhnaise sin, ní fuláir admháil go bhfuil dul-chun-cinn sásamhail, tríd is tríd, á dhéanamh ag bunús na ndáltaí atá ag freastal ar na Bun-Scoileanna. Ach an bhféadtar a bheith muinighneach go bhfuil an dul-chun-cinn sin dá dhéanamh ag gach leanbh fá leith? Admhuighim nach bhfuil ar mo chumas, i láthair na huaire, lándeimhin a thabhairt don Dáil ar an gceist sin. Is maith an sás an Chigireacht chun obair scoile i gcoitchinne do mheas; ach, de ghnáth, ní féidir a bheith ina hurmhór ach baramhlacht. Ina theannta san, ní féidir ach eolas an-ghenerálta a bhaint as an marcáil, óir is rí-leathan na téarmaí a úsáidtear. Oide den aicme "éifeachtach", cuir is gcás, d'fhéadfadh sé bheith beagnach "An-Eifeachtach"; d'fhéadfadh sé gan a bheith ach go cuibheasach; nó b'fhéidir nár mó ná gur chóir é d'áireamh ar an aicme "Eifeachtach" ar chor ar bith. Ins an réim leathan sin go léir is fíor go bhféadfadh míchothrom a bheith ann maidir le toradh i gcás daltaí fá leith.

Gheobhadh duine a rádh gur ar thoradh scrúdúcháin agus cigireachta le chéile a bhunóchadh an deagh-Chigire a bhreith ar obair scoile; ach is eagal liom nach mbíonn faill ag na cigirí scrúdú doimhin ar bith a dhéanamh. Níl againn ach cúigear agus trí fichid Cigire; agus, dá mbeadh gan aon obair eile do bheith ortha, ní bheadh aon dul aca ar cheithre chéad míle dalta do chur fá scrúdú aonaránach.

Más áil linn deimhin a bheith againn ar feabhas oideachais gach dalta is baolach nach fuláir feidhm a bhaint as fromhadh éigin níos mine ná cigireacht; agus ní léir dom aon tslighe eile chuige sin ach tré scéim éigin faoi n-a gcaithfeadh gach aon dalta dul faoi dheimhin-scrúdú i ngach adhbhar fá leith—agus sin de dhéanamh tráth amháin éigin ar a laighead roimh dheireadh a ghnáth-chúrsa Bhun-Scoile. Go dtí go gcuirfimíd a leithéid sin de scrúdú ar bun, ní bheidh fíordheimhin ag an bpobal gur fiú a gcostas na Bun-Scoileanna—gur fiú suas le ceithre mhilliún punt sa bhliain do chaitheamh mar mhaithe leis an méid daltaí a bhíos sáthach eolach ar léigheamh, ar scríobhadh agus ar áireamh ag fágáil na scoile dóibh. B'é an réidhteach do b'oireamhnaighe ar an scéal, dar liom-sa, na hoidí le chéie do thoiliú chun an scrúdú so do dhéanamh, le cabhair agus le comhoibriú ó na Bainisteoirí agus ón Roinn; agus bhí súil agam go ndéanfaidís amhlaidh. Ach is oth liom a rádh nár chuibhe leo glacadh leis an dtairigsint a chuir an Roinn fé n-a mbrághaid chuige sin; agus caithfear, ar an adhbhar san, an gnó so do chur chun cinn tré shocrú éigin eile.

Teagasc na Gaedhilge féin an mhórcheist eile a bhaineann leis an mBun-Oideachas. Is féidir linn dhá roinn a dhéanamh den cheist sin, eadhon, (1) teagasc na teangan féin agus (2) múineadh adhbhar eile léighinn tríd an teangain. Maidir le teagasc na Gaedhilge féin, is ar éigin is gádh dhom a rádh go gceapaim gur fíorriachtanach an Ghaedhilg do bheith ina gnáth-theangain ag an bpobal. Uime sin, measaim go mba cheart dar gcóras oideachais go hiomlán bheith ag féachaint go buan don mhór-riachtanas chéadna. Sa chóras oideachais go léin measaim go mba cheart an Ghaedhilg do bheith dhá teagasg agus dá húsáid sa chaoi ar féidir don phobal— taobh istigh de thréimhse réasúnta—í do labhairt chomh réidh nádúrdha agus labhraid an Béarla indiu. Má cirigheann linn an árd-réim sin do shroisint, is é is dóigh liom-sa go mbeidh níos mó déanta againn chun oighreacht ár gcinidh do chaomhnadh ná mar do b'fhéidir linn a dhéanamh ar aon chuma eile. Má theipeann orainn sa nídh sin, creidim go rachaidh ár náisiún in éag, dá mhéad saoirse dá mbeidh ag an Stát, ná dá láidreacht é. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil furmhór mór ár ndaoine ar aon aigne liom sa tuairim seo.

Ach tá an-éagsamhlacht tuairime i dtaobh an chuma is fearr chun an árdréim sin do shroisint. Measaim gur deagh-chomhartha é an pobal do bheith ag cur suime sa cheist seo, agus tugann sin misneach dúinn. Ach ní ceist í gur féidir a réidhteach le dearbhadh tréan ó aon taobh. Is ón taithighe ar an obair agus ón taithighe sin amháin is féidir aon fhiadhnaise mhuinghíneach d'fhagháil; agus is ó na hiarrachtaí sin atáthar a dhéanamh ins na scoileanna is féidir an fíor-eolas agus an fíorthaithighe d'fhagháil chun an scéal do réidhteach. Is é an deacracht atá ag cur orm-sa i láthair na huaire, ná fuil aontacht tuairime le fagháil ó na daoine atá i mbun na hoibre seo. Ní hionann tuairim atá ag na Cigirí féin faoi'n cheist. Tá an scéal mar a gceadna ag na hoidí. Mar sin de an dá dhream is dlúithe a bhfuil baint aca leis an obair agus a bhfuil taithighe in aghaidh an lae aca uirthi ins na scoileanna níl aontacht tuairime le fagháil ó aon taoibh aca faoi'n cheist. Maidir le hadhbhair áirithe—adhbhair gur riachtanach árd-chumas teangan agus téarmaí teicniciúla chun iad do theagase i gceart—is deacair liom féin a chreideamhaint nach measa-de iad an teagase san do thabhairt tré theangain ar bith eile seachas teanga dhúthchais na ndaltaí. Dá mbeinn-se i mbun obair ath-bheóchana na Gaedhilge ins na scoileanna i dtús ama, is dóigh liom go mb'fhearr liom claoidhe leis an nGaedhilg féin do mhúineadh, go mór mhór ins na ranganna ísle ins na Bun-Scoileanna. Is dóigh liom nach mbacfainn le hadhbhair eile do mhúineadh tríd an nGaedhilg go dtí go mbeadh greim mhaith ag na daltaí ar an teangain féin. Ach níl aon deimhin agam go mbeadh an ceart ar fad agam dá ndeanainn amhlaidh. Níl aon amhras ná gur éirigh thar bárr le n-a lán. Bun-Scol i múineadh na n-adhbhar uile tríd an nGaedhilg ón gcéad lá a théigheann an dalta ar scoil. Do chonnaic mé féin an obair i gcuid de na scoileanna san, agus bhí mé an-tsásta léi; ach, gan tuilleadh faisnéise, níl ar mo chumas a rádh an éireochadh leis an ngnáth-oide ar an modh céadna obair éifeachtach a dhéanamh. Ní féidir a dhéanamh i lathair na huaire ach an iarracht d'infhiúchadh go haireach. Má mheasaim, de thoradh tuilleadh faisnéise, gur chóir an modh d'atharú in aon treó, déanfad socrú dá réir. Obair is eadh í gur gádh dul ar aghaidh leí go mall réidh faithchilleach, agus gan ró-dheifir bheith orainn go mbainimíd triail cheart as gach céim agus go bhfeicimíd ár mbealach níos soiléire.

Maidir leis an gcéad seirbhís thábhachtach eile, an Meán-Oideachas, tá áthas orm a rádh gur dóigh liom go bhfuil an scéal sásamhail go leor i gcoitchinne. Ins na Meán-Scoileanna táimíd ag leanacht de chúrsa Oideachais atá bunuighthe le seal fada, cúrsa Oideachais a d'fhás de bharr taithighe na gcianta ar an Meán-Oideachais san Eóraip. Do b'éigean dúinn roint athruighthe a dhéanamh ar an gcúrsa Oideachais sin chun a chur in oireamhaint dár riachtanaisí speisialta féin; ach, tríd is tríd, do leanamar den treoir a bhí leagtha amach de thoradh na taithighe sin ariamh anall. Breis is cheithre fichid duine as an gcéad (80%) dár gcuid Buachaillí, tógann siad an Laidean mar cheann de na príomh-adhbhair ina gcúrsa Meán-Scoile. Sin uimhir fén gcéad chomh hárd agus atá le fagháil in aon tír san Eóraip, agus is aoirde í go mór ná an uimhir fén gcéad a thógann an t-adhbhar san sa Bhreatain Mhóir nó i Meriocá. Tuairim is cúig dhuine fhichead fén gcéad (25%) a thógas an Ghréigís. Tá an uimhir sin íseal i gcomparáid leis an uimhir fén gcéad a thógann an Laidean; ach is aoirde í go mór ná Meán-uimhir na hEorpa sa chás chéadna; agus tá sí breis agus dhá uair chomh mór leis an uimhir fén gcéad a thógann an Ghréigís sa Bhreatain Mhóir nó i Meiriocá. Sa chuid is mó de Mheán-Scoileanna na gCailíní sa tír seo, bíonn beo-theanga Eórpach ar an tríomhadh teanga a thógann siad in ionad na Laidne; agus sa chás san is aoirde ná i gcás na Laidne féin an uimhir fén gcéad, óir tógann breis is cúig dhuine is ceithre fichid fén gcéad (85%) dar gcuid cailíní an Fhrainncis cuir i gcás. Ina theannta san bíonn an Laidean mar adhbhar ag roint mhaith aca.

O thaobh na dteangan den scéal, níl ann ach aon lag-phoinnte amháin, eadhon, a laighead de na buachaillí a thógann beo-theanga Eorpach i dteannta Gaedhilge agus Béarla le linn a gcúrsa Meán-Scoile. Ní thógann ach timcheall cúig is fiche fén gcéad (25%) de na buachaillí an Fhrainncis, cuir i gcás; agus is í sin an bheo-theanga Eorpach is rogha leis an mór-chuid aca. Is mór an truagh cúig déag is trí fichid fén gcéad (75%) aca do bheith gan eolas do chur ar bheo-theangain éigin Eorpaigh; ach is cóir cuimhneamh go mbíonn an Laidean, in éinfheacht le Gaedhilg agus Béarla dá foghluim aca go léir beagnach. Rud eile glacann a lán aca an Ghréigis le cois na dtrí dteangan atá luaidhte agam. Ar an ádhbhar san, ní cóir a rádh go bhfuil aon laige ag baint le cúrsaí teangan i Meán-scoileanna na tíre. Is ar a mhalairt de chaoi ar fad atá an scéal—tá siad go láidir folláin.

Is féidir an rud céadna do rádh i dtaobh na Matamaitice. Bíonn an t-ádhbhar so ag gach aon dalta sóisearach, óir is riachtanach dóibh go léir an Mhatamaitic do bheith ar an gcúrsa léighinn aca. Agus gidh nach bhfuil sé éigeantach ar na daltaí sinnsearacha staidéar do dhéanamh ar an adhbhar so, is beag nach mbíonn sé aca-san go léir, freisin. Breis agus 99% de na buachaillí agus 90% de na cailíní glacann siad an Mhatamaitic le haghaidh Scrúdú na hArd-Teistiméarachta. Tá an scéal beagnach chomh maith céadna i gcás na hEolaidheachta. Bíonn an Eolaidheacht dá foghluim i bhfuirm éigin ag breis agus a deich is trí fichid fén gcéad (70%) de na daltaí.

Ag breathnú ar an scéal ina iomláinte measaim gur cóir dúinn a bheith sásta le cúrsa Oideachais na Meán-Scol. Is é mo thuairim, freisin, go bhféadaimíd a bheith sásta leis an toradh, do réir mar a teasbáintear sin ins na scrúduighthe. Sa chás so déantar scrúdú agus cigireacht le chéile, agus is féidir dul chun cinn na scoile agus dul chun cinn gach dalta ar leith a scrúdú i dtráthanna aithride. Tá againn, freisin, toradh na dtrialach a ghníos dreamanna eile, scrúdú Máithreánach na nOllscol cuir i gcás. Is léir ó na trialacha sin le chéile nach bhfuil an córas gan locht. Tuigtear dom gur b'é an príomh-ughdar atá leis sin, go raibh cláir léighinn na Mean-Scol go nuige seo ró-leathan agus ró-éigcinnte, rud a d'fhág eolas scapach, seachránach agus obair neamh-shlachtmhar ag roint mhór de na daltaí. D'fhonn an scéal san a leigheas, tá socruighthe agam, in ionad cursai a bheadh ró-leathan éigcinnte, go mbeidh cúrsaí gearra ann agus iad bunuighthe den mhór-pháirt ar leabhra a bhéas luaidhte roimh ré.

Is é mo thuairim, freisin, go mbeadh an obair níos cruinne fós agus go ndéanfaí scrúdú níos fearr uirthi, dá mbeadh scrúdú eile, no cúpla scrúdú, b'fhéidir, againn do na daltaí i dteannta scrúduighthe na Meán-Teistiméarachta agus na hArd-Teistiméarachta mar táid anois. Tá an cheist sin dá hiniúchadh agam fá láthair. Tríd is tríd, ámthach, tá mé sásta gur féidir do chóras an Mheán-Oideachais—agus na hathruighthe sin atá luaidhte agam déanta air—a phríomh-chuspóir do chóimhlíonadh, is é sin, cloch bhuinn do chur fá chúrsaí saoidheachta is cultúra i gcoitchinne. Bhí tráth ann agus ba é sin cúram na nOllscol; ach ní féidir leis na hOllscoileanna é sin a dhéanamh i gceart, feasta. Tá a ndóthain mhór d'ualach ortha mar gheall ar an ngádh atá anois ann le doimhin-staidéar i mbrainnsí speisialta eolais.

Is ar na Meán-Scoileanna is mó atá sé de chúram anois an t-aos óg do theagasc i gcaoi go mbeid sáthach oilte chun an náisiún do stiúradh go céillidhe éifeachtach ar an mbóthar atá romhainn amach. Má déantar an obair sin mar is ceart ins na Meán-Scoileanna, is cinnte gur maith is fiú iad an leathmhilliún punt de chuid an phobail atáthar a chaitheamh ortha in aghaidh na bliana. As m'eólas féin ar an obair atáthar a dhéanamh ins na scoileanna so agus an treoir atáthar a thabhairt ionta, tá tréan-dóchas agam go bhfuil an cúram tábhachtach sin dhá chóimhlíonadh aca.

Maidir leis an tríomhadh roinn den oideachas—an méid a thagann fá chúram Bhrainse an Cheárd-Oideachais —ní dóigh liom-sa go bhfuil an scéal chomh soiléir sin. Tá dhá chineál scoile a thagann fá chúram an Bhrainse sin— na Ceárd-Scoileanna agus na Gairm-Scoileanna no Scoileanna Leanamhnacha. Ins na Ceárd-Scoileanna fachtar oileamhaint chinnte theicniceach, ach ní déantar mórán den teagasc sin i gceachtar den dá chineál eile. Is é is cuspóir dhóibh-sean, teagasc úsáideach Iar-Bhunscoile a thabhairt do na daltaí, maraon le cleachtadh ar shiúnéireacht agus ar obair mhiotail, ar ádhbhair leanamhnacha i gcoitchinne, agus ar thuath-eolaidheacht nuair is féidir é. Tá na Ceárd-Scoileanna ag obair o thosach na haoise seo. Tá a gcuspóir deimhin féin aca, agus go dtí poinnte áirithe, ar a laighead, tá sin dá choimhlíonadh aca. Forfhás nua atá ins an dara cineál scoile. D'fhás siadsan as oibriú an Achta Oideachais Ghairme Beatha a ritheadh tá deich mbliana ó shoin; agus, uime sin, tá sé ró-luath go fóill breitheamhnas deimbin a thabhairt ortha. Ach, gan tagairt don taobh san den scéal ar chor ar bith, níl a ngnó ná a gcuspóirí leagtha amach chomh deimhnitheach agus atá i gcás na gCeárd-Scoileanna; agus ní féidir liom a rádh i láthair na huaire ciaca is fiú no nach fiú an costas iad. Fá'n dtuaith go háirithe, is cinnte go bhfuil gádh le cineál éigin d'Iar-Bhunscoileanna chun dhá chuspóir do chóimhlíonadh: (1) Ba riachtanach dóibh tréineáil i Siúinéireacht agus i dTuath-Eolaidheacht do thabhairt do na buachaillí, agus chaithfeadh siad caoi do thabhairt do na cailíní chun bun-eolas maith d'fhagháil ar chúrsaí Tighis. (2) San am chéadna, níor, mhór dóibh gnáth-oideachas leanamhnach, freisin, do thabhairt don dá dhream. Ach nílim cinnte fá láthair gurab iad na Gairm-Scoileanna an gléas is fearr lc haghaidh an dá chuspóir sin atá luaidhte agam. Do moladh go mb'fhéidir teacht ní b'éascaidhe ar réidhteach na ceiste tré sheomra speisialta breise do chur le bun-scoil chomhgarach i ngach paróiste—seomra i gcomhair teagaisc, gach re lá, i Siúinéireacht agus Tuath-Eolaidheacht do bhuachaillí agus i dTigheas agus Dúil-eolas do chailíní.

Is feidir gur tríd an dá mhodh is fearr a gheobhfaí réidhteach an scéil, is é sin le rádh, seomraí mar iad sin do sholáthar ins na háiteanna in ar dheacair cúrsaí sásamhla d'Oideachas leanamhnach do chur ar fágháil faoi na Coistí Gairm-Oidis. Pé cuma ina réidhteóchar an scéal, is é mo thuairim-se gur chóir do na scoileanna claoidhe leis na hádhbhair a bhaineann le saoghal agus le hobair na tuaithe in áit a bheith ag gabháil d'ádhbhair léighinn nach bhfuil mórán bainte aca leis an saol san, ach a iompuigheann intinn agus aigne na ndaltaí ó shaoghal na tuaithe ar fad, b'fhéidir.

Mar dubhras cheana, tá a mhalairt de scéal ar fad le haithris fá na fíor-Cheárd-Scoileanna. Ní fuláir dúinn gléas éigin cinnte a bheith againn chun printísigh do thréineáil le haghaidh na gceárd is na dtionnscal éagsamhail uile. Ní fuláir an tréineáil sin a bheith do réir na modh is fearr agus is nuadha; agus tá na Ceárd-Scoileanna ann chun an gléas sin a chur ar fagháil dúinn. Tá deacrachtaí áirithe sa scéal i gcás tíre mar seo againne ina bhfuil a lán tionnscal beag a caithfear a chur go daingean ar a mbonnaí féin; ach, tá na deachrachtaí sin dá réidhteach do réir a chéile; agus, i gcás tionnscal áirithe, fuarthas an bhuaidh ghlan ar na deachrachtaí sin.

Tá árd-mholadh ag dul do Chomhlucht Siúicre Éireann agus do Bhord Soláthair an Leictreachais, cuir i gcás, de bharr na scéimeanna atá ceaptha acu le n-a gcuid printíseach a oileamhaint. Tá togha scéim oideachais i gcomhair a gcuid printíseach ag Clódóirí Bhaile Atha Cliath freisin; ba chóir go dtiocfadh toradh foghanta as agus obair thairbheach dá bharr. Tá sé antábhachtach ar fad go ndéanfaí scéimeanna cinnte bunúsacha den tsaghas san do bhunú le haghaidh na gceárd agus na dtionnscal eile. Muna mbídh socrú cinnte den chineál sin ann, beidh sé an-deacair printísigh do thréineáil go sásamhail; óir ní féidir dóibh a riachtanas de thréineáil cheárdamhail d'fhagháil ach tré fhreastal a dhéanamh ar Cheárd-Scoil cúpla oidhche sa tseachtain. Sa chás sin, má ghníonn an printíseach freastal ar an scoil ar feadh trí no ceathair de sheisiúin, féin, ní bhíonn, de ghnáth, toradh rathamhail ar a shaothar; agus is iondual go mbuaileann lag-mhisneach an buachaill agus nach bhfanann sé sáthach fada ann leis an toradh sin féin d'fhagháil as.

Tá nídh eile, agus tá baint an-dlúth idir é féin agus an dá dheacracht atá ann maidir le hOideachas Iar-Bhunscoile do lucht talmhaidheachta agus do lucht tionnscal. Is é sin árdú na haoise ar ceadmhach do dhaltaí an scoil d'fhágáil. Ta sé de chumhacht againn sin do dhéanamh faoi'n Acht Freastal Scoile, 1926, agus faoi'n Acht Oideachais Ghairme Beatha, 1930, óir, mar gheall ar cheachtar de na hAchta san, is féidir iallach do chur ar dhaltaí freastal ar scoil nó go mbéidís cúig déag no sé déag de bhlianta d'aois. I láthair na huaire tá freastal éigeantach mar seo faoi thriail 1 gCathair Corcaighe, faoi stiúrú Coiste Oideachais Ghairme Beatha Corcaighe. Ó thárla nach bhfuil an triail dá déanamh ach le bliain, ba ró-luath go fóill breitheamhnas do thabhairt uirthí; ach go dtí seo tá ag éirghe go sásamhail léi. Is mór an chabhair do fuarthas ó na fostuightheóirí, agus is beag bacainn do chuireadar ar na hoibridhthe óga maidir le freastal ar na ranganna páirt-aimsire. Is annamh ghníos na micléighinn iarracht dul ón oibliogáid atá orra na ranganna do fhreastal, agus féadfar a rádh i gcoitchinne go bhfuil suim mhór dá cur ins na cúrsaí.

Tá an Roinn ag scrúdú an scéil, féachaint ar cheart an scéim seo do chur i bhfeidhm in áiteacha eile. Ceist do-réidhtighthe í, ó's nídh go dteastuigheann ó na feirmeóirí a gcuid mac do choinneáil sa bhaile chun cuidiú leo in obair na feirme ó bhíonn siad tuairim's ceithre bliana déag (14 bl.) d'aois. Ar an adhbhar sin, agus ar adhbhair eile, ní mór bheith an-chúramach maidir le hiarracht ar bith chun árdú do dhéanamh ar thréimhse an scoil-fhreastail éigeantaigh. Caithfí bheith an-fhaíthchilleach ionnus go ndéanfaí an cothrom idir riachtanais gach aicme le n-a mbaineann an scéal. Mar sin féin, dá n-éirigheadh linn scéim fheileamhnach oideachais pháirtaimsire do chur ar fagháil a mbéadh iallach ar dhaoine óga leanacht de, níorbh eagal liom narbh' an-tábhachtach an nídh don tir é.

Tá dhá nídh eile ar mhaith liom trácht orra: (1) an easbaidh oibre atá ar mhórán Bun-Oidí, agus (2) soláthar tighthe Bun-Scoile. Táimíd ag cur suim mhaith airgid i leath-taoibh ina gcomhair sin araon, d'aindeoin an chaoi 'na bhfuil cúrsai airgeadais fá láthair.

Mar is eol do na Teachtaí, tá líon na ndaltaí scoile ag dul i laighead le tamall anuas, agus, ar an adhbhar sin, níl an oiread postaí ann i gcomhair oidí agus do bhíodh roimhe seo. Le cuid féin den scéal sin do leigheas, táthar tar éis an líon mac léighinn a glactar isteach ins na Coláistí Oileamhna do laigheadú chomh mór agus b'fhéidir é. Ach bhí dualgais áirithe le coimhlíonadh againn maidir leis na daoine óga a raibh iontráil fachta aca i gcúrsa cheithre mblian ins na Coláistí Ullmhúcháin. Bhí sé de cheart aca-san cead d'fhagháil dul ar aghaidh nó go mbéidís cáilighthe ina múinteoirí. Is leir nach bhféadfaí an scéal do réidhteach láithreach ar an mbealach sin. Mar sin de, rinneadh athrú eile ar na rialacha bhaineas le líon foirne na scol. De bharr an athruighthe sin, cuireadh postaí nuadha ar fagháil do chéad a's fiche fear, agus do chéad a's triocha bean do bheadh gan postaí ach go ndearnadh an t-athrú. Ina theanta san, táthar ag súil gur gearr go mbímíd i ndon céad a's triocha eile fear do chur i bpostaí sealadacha den tsórt chéadna nó go n-athruighidh an scéal sa chaoi ina mbéidh gléas aca postaí buana d'fhagháil. Do réir na bhfigiúirí atá le fagháil i láthair na huaire, meastar gur fíor-bheag an méid oidí a bhéas gan obair ar theacht Mí Meadhon an tSamraidh, 1942.

Maidir leis an méid atáthar ar intinn a chaitheamh ar thighthe scoile, cé gur as Bhóta na nOibreacha Poiblidhe bainfear é, is ar Roinn an Oideachais atá sé de chúram na deontaisí do dháiliú, agus, ar an adhbhar sin, is cóir dom cunntas gairid fá'n scéal do thabhairt do na Teachtaí. Táthar tar éis a dhéanamh amach go bhfuil tuairim's trí chéad (300) scoil ann nach bhfuil i gcaoi fheileamhnach le obair do dhéanamh ionnta; agus tá géar-ghádh le scoileanna do chur ar fagháil ina n-áit. Cosnóchaidh sin seacht gcéad agus caoga de mhílte punt. Rud eile a bhfuil géar-ghádh leis is eadh scoileanna do thógáil i gcomhair na gceanntar so i mBaile Átha Cliath a bhfuil tighthe nuadha dhá dtógáil ionnta. Cosnóchaidh sin dhá chéad agus caoga de mhílte punt. Is léir gur obair mhóir í sin a gcaithfear roint bhlian do chaitheamh léi; ach tá sé ar intinn againn an obair do chur chun cinn chómh tapaidh agus is féidir é.

Maidir leis an gceathrú seirbhís a bhaineas leis na meastacháin seo .i. Seirbhís na Scol Ceartúcháin agus na Scol Saothair, tá sé ar intinn againn Bille nua do thabhairt isteach chun go gcuirfear i bhfeidhm priomh-mholta an Choimisiúin a rinne fiosrúchán ar chóras na scol so roinnt bhlian ó shoin. Is féidir, dar ndóigh, uimhir éigin de mholta an Choimisiúin do chur i ngníomh gan dlithe nua ar bith; táthar ghá dhéanamh sin le cuid aca, agus tá sé déanta cheana leis an gcuid eile. Socruigheadh cheana féin árdú deóntaisí do thabhairt ón Riaghaltas do na Scoileanna Ceartúcháin; cuireadh ar fagháil deontaisí ón Riaghaltas do na Scoileanna Saothair mar gheall ar dhaltaí faoi bhun sé mblian d'aois; ceapadh cigire chun a chur ir áirithe go dtabharfar aire agus freastal mar is cóir do na páistí i gcúrsaí sláinte. Ach tá aon mholadh tábhachtach amháin do rinne an Coimisiún, agus go dtí seo níor éirigh leis an Roinn é do chur i ngníomh. Is é sin go n-íocfaí costas an Oideachais liteardha ins na scoileanna san as na deóntaisí Stáit i gcomhair an Bhun-Oideachais. Bhí gach ullmhú déanta ag an Roinn chun an moladh so do chur i ngníomh i mbliana féin; ach, gidh go mba tábhachtach an feabhsú é, b'éigean dúinn a chur ar gcúl mar gheall ar an gcaoi 'na bhfuil cúrsaí airgeadais fá láthair.

Ba riachtanaighe ná sin féin árus níos feileamhnaighe do chur ar fagháil ná an ceann atá fá láthair i nGleann Crí; agus tá a leithéid d'árus dhá sholáthar anois. Bhí dhá shlighe ós ár gcomhair, tráth bhí an cheist seo faoi mhachtnamh againn: (1) d'fhéadfaimís foirgneamh nua do chur ar fagháil, agus, ina theannta san, feirm a bhéadh sáthach mór chun biadh d'fhás agus chun gléas oibre agus tréineála do thabhairt do na buachaillí; (2) d'fhéadfaimís árus d'fhagháil a mbeadh feirm ag gabháil leis agus a bhí in úsáid cheana mar scoil nó mar choláiste.

Rinneamar rogha den dara slighe, agus bhí dhá adhbhar againn leis: Ba í ba lugha costas, agus ba í ba lugha moill. Sa chaoi ina bhfuil costais foirgnidheachta fá láthair, b'fhéidir go gcosnóchadh sé £60,000, nó £70,000, chun árus nua ar fad do sholáthar, agus é do bheith mór go leór agus gléasta go sásamhail. Rud eile: bhainfeadh sé cupla bliain dínn, ar a laighead, an t-árus do chur ar fagháil, agus níor mhaith linn an oiread sin moille do chur ar an scéal. Gan baint don chostas ar chor ar bith, níor mhaith linn é bheith d'fhiachaibh orainn na buachaillí d'fhágáil i rith geimhridh eile san áit atá aca i nGleann Crí; agus, mar sin de, rinneamar an rogha atá luaidhte agam.

San Daingean, i gCondae Ua bhFáilghe, atá na foirgnimh do thoghamar; agus táid in úsáid fá láthair ag na Sagairt de Chumann Oblátach Muire gan Smál mar árus comhnaidhthe ag a gcuid mac léighinn. Is leis an Riaghaltas (leis an Roinn Dlighidh agus Cirt) na tighthe seo; fuair na Sagairt de Cumann Oblátach Muire gan Smál ar léasa iad chun bheith ina n-árus ag Scoil Ceartúcháin do bhuachaillí; ach measadh narbh oireamhnach don ócáid sin iad, agus stadadh dá n-úsáid i mbliain a 1934. Cuireadh deis ó shoin orra, agus táid i bhfad níos fearr anois ná na foirgnimh atá i nGleann Crí. Táthar ag brath corradh agus £2,000 do chaitheamh i mbliana, ionnus go mbéidh siad in oireamhaint le haghaidh na mbuachaillí i Meadhón Fóghmhair seo chugainn. Ina theannta san ní fuláir suimeanna eile airgid do chaitheamh ar an bhfoirgneamh so ins na blianta atá romhainn chun tuilleadh slighe agus fairsingeachta do chur ar fagháil. Chuige sin tá beartuighthe againn leanamhaint do dheimhin-phlean ghenerálta. Do réir a chéile, agus do réir riachtanaisí an cháis ó am go ham, a déanfar an obair. Ach táthar ar aigne gach cuid di do choinneáil in oireamhaint den deimhin-phlean ghenerálta atá luaidhte cheana agam i dtreo go n-éireóchaidh linn tar éis tréimhse áirighthe árus nua ar fad no bheith againn in ionad na bhfoirgneamh atá ann faoi láthair.

Mar dubhras cheana, tá Bille dá chur os comhair na Dála chun molta eile an Choimisiúin do chur i bhfeidhm, agus b'fhéidir gurbh' fhearr gan mórán ar bith díospóireacht a dhéanamh ina dtaobh sin nó go dtugtar isteach an Bille.

Sula gcríochnuighidh mé an cunntas seo fá staid an Oideachais ba mhaith liom trácht ar cheist a bhaineas go dlúth leis. Is í an cheist í sin—cionnus is féidir a chur in áirithe go mbéidh an Ghaedhilg dá labhairt go laetheamhail ag na daltaí tar éis fhágáil na scoile dhóibh? Dá fheabhas dá ndéanfar an Ghaedhilg do theagasc ins na scoileanna, beidh an teagasc sin gan mórán toraidh muna mbídh an teanga dhá húsáid sa chaoi adubhairt mé. Ag trácht ar an deacracht sin dúinn, táimíd ag trácht ar nídh atá mar ghlas ar obair na haithbheóchana go léir. Cad í an eochair osclóchas an glas sin? Cionnus a deimhneóchar go mbéidh an Ghaedhilg dhá labhairt de ghnáth ag na daltaí tar éis fhágáil na scoile dhóibh? Ceist í sin nach furas a fuascladh. De iomlán obair na haithbheóchana, is í sin, dar liom-sa, an deacracht is mó ar fad.

Ar an droch-uair, ceist í nach furas do Roinn an Oideachais mórán do dhéanamh le n-a réidhteach. Furmhór mór na ndaltaí, ní bhíonn baint ar bith ag an Roinn leó ón am a bhfágann siad an scoil. Níl an deacracht chómh mór sin i gcás na ndaltaí a théigheann chun na Meán-Scol nó chun cineál ar bith de Iar-Bhunscoil. Is mó bhaineas an deacracht leis an gcuid eile de na daltaí—leis an gcuid aca nach mbíonn aon bhaint ag an Roinn leó ó fhágann siad an Bhun-Scoil—agus is iad sin an dream is líonmhaire ar fad.

Is iomdha moladh do rinneadh leis an nGaedhilg do choinneáil dá labhairt ag na daltaí tar éis fhágáil na scoile dhóibh. Moladh go gcuirfí ar bun Cathanna de Ghasóga do bhéadh ina nGaedhilgeóirí, go gcuirfí campaí agus brughanna Gaedhealacha ar fagháil, agus go gcuirfí clubanna Gaedhealacha ar bun i ngach paróiste sa tír. Bhéadh caitheamh aimsire le fagháil ins na clubanna so, tráthnóna, ag buachaillí agus ag cailíní, ar choingheall gurb í an Ghaedhilg do labhróchadh siad le linn bheith annsin dóibh. Tá Roinn an Oideachais toilteannach gach cabhair is féidir do thabhairt do dhaoine a chuirfeas a leithéidí seo de scéimeanna ar bun; ach is éigean a rádh go han-deimhin gurb iad na daoine féin a chaithfeas na scéimeanna a bhunú agus a oibriú. Is riachtanach gach scéim den chinéal so do theacht ó dhaoine atá ina gcomhnaidhe i gceanntar na scéime, agus is iad na daoine sin a chaithfeas an scéim a stiúradh. Caithfidh an pobal a gcion féin a dhéanamh in aitbheóchaint na teangan agus gan a bheith ag brath ar an Riaghaltas chun gach nídh do dhéanamh. Ní féidir le haon Roinn Riaghaltais aisti féin an teanga Ghaelhilge d'aithbheóchaint. Obair í sin atá le déanamh ag an náisiún go hiomlán. Rinne Roinn an Oideachais gach nídh do b'fhéidir ins na scoileanna chun a chur i gcumas an náisiúin a gcion féin do dhéanamh. Ní heagal liom go dteipfid ar mhuintir na hÉireann a ndualgas do choimhlíonadh; ach is mór agus is deacair an obair í seo, agus, chun an bláth ceart do bheith ar an iarracht, caithfidh muinntir gach ceanntair fá leith tosnú lom láithreach ag obair ar a gconnlán féin. Tré n-a saothar agus tré n-a ndúthracht féin, agus go mór mhór tré n-a spiorad féin, caithfidh siad a chur in áirithe nach ina lom-ádhbhar léighinn a bheas an Ghaedhilg atá dhá foghluim sa scoil ag an aos óg. Is riachtanach a chur in áirithe nach bhfágfar feasta í i muinghin a labhartha sa scoil, ach go mbéidh sí dhá labhairt go laetheamhail leathadach ag muinntir na hÉireann i ngnáthbheatha na tíre.

I presume that, as usual, the discussion will range over the whole education group.

There is a tendency in the present emergency to let a kind of emergency feeling distract people's attention from the normal and precise carrying on of other aspects of our national life. Whatever measures have to be taken and whatever steps have to be taken to provide for the defence of the country, I think that there could not be a greater disaster to the country than that there would be anything in connection with either the steps taken or the statements made with regard to the situation that, by dissipating the efficiency of people's minds, would mean that these steps would be taken in an unorderly or undisciplined way or would affect the orderly, disciplined and constructive carrying out of our economic life or any other aspect of our life. I intervene on this Estimate simply for the purpose of making a few remarks, not particularly thought over, because of the fact that we have not had an opportunity of considering the Education Department recently or of studying too carefully the Taoiseach's statement, but we have in the Taoiseach's memorandum a statement to the effect that at the basis of all educational services is primary education and that for nine-tenths of the Irish people the primary school is the sole source of secular education. From time to time there have been various comments and various criticisms of the position of certain classes of instruction in the primary schools, and recently we have had the shutting-down of training colleges and the slowing-down of the preparation of teachers to add to the number of our teaching staff. We had a number of redundant teachers and the Taoiseach speaks of certain ways in which some of these redundant teachers have been absorbed at the present time.

I think that the present time is particularly ripe for looking closely at the results that are being obtained in the primary schools in every single one of the main subjects. The Taoiseach in his statement here confesses that he is not in a position to give the Dáil a guarantee of the general progress of individual pupils in the primary schools. I take it that in making that statement he is not making it as a personal statement, simply for the reason that he has not been able to give personal attention to it because of the short time he is looking after the Department. I take it that it is a departmental expression of opinion.

I understand that it is a fact that there is quite a number of schools in the country which have not had an annual inspection for six, seven, eight, or nine years. We have the reports that have been published in recent years and the comments with regard to particular subjects in the schools are not very reassuring. Take mathematics first. For the year 1935-36 the report, on page 25, says, "Tá go leor de na cigirí ag gearán fá mhúineadh na huimhriochta." A number of inspectors are complaining with regard to the teaching of arithmetic. For 1936-37, the Report says, "Deir na cigirí fré chéile go bhfuil dul ar gcúl le feicsint i múineadh na huimhriochta agus san toradh atá leis, agus gur lag atá an t-ádhbhar i na lán scol." Further on, it says:

"Ach i na lán scol nach féidir aon chuid den mhilleán a chur ar an nGaedhilg, toisc go múintear an uimhrigheacht tre Bhéarla, sé tuairim na gcigirí go bhfuil laghdhú ar éifeacht an teagaisc."

That is, they say that the opinion of the teachers generally is that there is a retrogression in the teaching of arithmetic and in the results of the instruction, that the subject is very weak in many schools and that when you take the position in the schools in which the subject is taught through Irish, the position is bad and that nobody can say that any part of the blame rests on the fact that the instruction is given through Irish.

With regard to history, the 1935-36 Report, at page 24, says:

"Bíonn roinnt mhaith eolais ar chúrsaí móra staire a dtíre agus ar na taoisigh ag na páistí atá i ranga V-VII, ach ní múintear an tádhbhar go healadhanta."

That is, while the children of the Fifth and Seventh standards have a fair knowledge of the history of their own country and its leaders, the subject is not taught very scientifically. The Report, in the following year, says:

"Do réir tuairiscí na gcigirí, cé nach bhfuilid ar aon fhocal faoi, tá feabhas éigin ag teacht ar mhúineadh na staire."

That is, some of the inspectors say, though they are not all in agreement, that there is a certain improvement in the teaching of history. With regard to geography, the 1935-36 Report, at page 25, says:—

"Múintear cúrsa ar Éirinn go maith nó cuibheasach maith de ghnáth; is minic nach dtéightear mórán thairis sin, agus is beag eolas a bhíos ag na páistí ina lán scol ar thíreolas na coigchríche."

The teaching of Irish geography is fairly well done usually, but they very seldom go beyond that and the children in many schools have very little knowledge of any geography outside that of their own country. In the subsequent year, the last year for which the report was issued, the report says, at page 19:—

"Rinneadh trácht anuraidh ar na lochta a bhíos ar mhúineadh an ádhbhair seo agus ní gádh iad a phléidhe arís."

They say that they had referred to the position in a previous report and need not go back on it again. With regard to music, the last report, at page 19, says:—

"Tá scoltacha ann nach múintear aon cheol ionnta toisc gan na hoidí bheith oilte ar an ádhbhar; agus tá scoltacha eile ann nach bhfuil féith an cheoil go láidir ins na hoidí, agus ní fhoghluimeann na páistí ach roinnt bheag amhrán uatha."

There you have mathematics, history, geography and music, and the summing-up of the criticism of the inspectors is that nobody could really be satisfied that these subjects in the primary schools which, for nine-tenths of our people, represent the basis of our educational services and which are the fundamental things, outside religion, are satisfactorily taught.

It seems to me that, when we see how important it is that our people should have a sound educational foundation, nothing should be left undone to bring under the closest possible review the work being done in the primary schools and I suggest, as I suggested before, that, particularly in present circumstances, when you have a surplus number of teachers, the present inspectorate should be strengthened for special purposes by groups of the most experienced primary teachers we have and that one group be set to take, if you like, samples of the country and to go thoroughly into the position with regard to mathematics, another group into the position with regard to history and a third group into the position with regard to geography, music and other subjects. I suggest that, in fact, you set up not a commission to inquire generally, but a commission of first-class people, who are available, of technical experts in transmitting information to primary students, people who had shown by their work that they were the foremost men or women in this important work, and concentrate them in groups on particular subjects and so get a complete view of the position of each of these subjects in sample areas covering a fairly large number of schools. I do not know how in any other way the Department or any Minister can tell the House that they are in a position to give a guarantee that, to the best of our ability and teaching power, these various subjects are brought to the highest standard to which we are able to bring them.

The events of the last 20 years must in some way have a disturbing influence on our educational life and a returning to a systematic, trained, disciplined outlook, concentrated on certain subjects so that there would be no trying to put one subject in a particular perspective with regard to others, but that there would be a critical and scientific examination of each particular subject by people concentrating on it, would, I think, do a tremendous lot to refocus both the minds of our students, and particularly those in the higher classes in the primary schools, and our teachers on the importance of these subjects, and on the best and most systematic way of dealing with them and so give us some picture of what exactly we should expect the teaching of these subjects to bring to our primary schools.

The Taoiseach says that, outside the big issue of primary education, there is the question of Irish and that here there are two questions, first, the teaching of Irish and, second, the teaching of other subjects through Irish. I suggest there is a third, that is, the big issue of primary education as such in those districts which are purely Irish-speaking. We have got into the habit in the last couple of education reports of having a report on the Irish-speaking districts, but purely in relation to the effect on the spoken language in the homes of the £2 grant. If there is any class of people in the country whose only inheritance to enable them to make a success in life is primary education, they are the children of the Irish-speaking districts.

I have referred before to the concentrated work or the results of primary education in Irish-speaking districts, on the one hand, and the conserving of the vigour of the Irish language as an educational medium, on the other, and I have suggested that the Irish-speaking districts should form an inspectorate of themselves. I feel it is essentially a weakness for the teaching staff of the Irish-speaking districts that they have to deal with inspectors who have one leg in the English speaking districts and another in the Irish-speaking districts. I feel not only that that weakness exists, but that if you had the Irish speaking districts as a separate inspectorate, the group of inspectors dealing with these districts would have the very important task of making the best out of the Irish language in those districts as a medium of education and even a wider task, being a commission gathering information, of looking with precise minds on the general tendency with regard to the increasing or decreasing use of the language in the Irish-speaking districts. They might have to be added. But I think that no personnel that could be added to the group of primary school inspectors in the Irish-speaking districts could be as effective as they themselves in estimating the strength and vigour of the language in the social or home life of the district, not to mention the position in the schools. Whatever loss or whatever wastage there is, either in the amount of Irish spoken in these districts or the vigour of the language in these districts, will not be truly assessed or observed until something like that is done.

On the secondary education side, the Taoiseach speaks of the importance of the secondary schools now in regard to their task of providing a body of enlightened public opinion. I feel that not only have they to provide a body of enlightened public opinion but that they have to form the character of our people in addressing themselves to clear lines of thought, whether social, scientific or economic. The Taoiseach says, with regard to mathematics, that they form an essential part of the course of every recognised junior pupil. I feel that that is an over-statement. The Taoiseach goes on to say that although mathematics is not essential for senior pupils, over 90 per cent. of the boys and over 90 per cent. of the girls take the subject in the leaving certificate examination. If that is correct—it conflicts with the experience of some of us—I should like to reopen the question as to why the extraordinary change, made last year in the secondary school programme, was made. Is it not a fact that a girl can go to a secondary school and pass through the whole period of her secondary school life without sitting down in class for arithmetic or mathematics? It appears to me that, in the case of a girl, mathematics is not a compulsory subject for either the intermediate certificate or the leaving certificate. Even during her intermediate certificate period of study, she need not attend a class in mathematics. Boys need not go in for an examination in mathematics in their leaving certificate year. They need not go in for an examination in mathematics in their junior year but, in their junior certificate course, they will have to attend mathematical classes. I understand that that is the position. It was definitely the position when we argued the matter here last year. Except a change has been made in the programme for this year, I suggest that the position is as I have stated. I have already drawn attention to the fact that the Professor of Education in the National University attached considerable importance, in his evidence before the Primary Programme Conference, to this question of mathematics and to the relationship in the past between the knowledge of mathematics spread throughout the country and the thorough character, politically and socially, of our people. He pointed to the relationship between the study and knowledge of mathematics in other countries which are technically successful and the technical success which they had achieved.

The Taoiseach also deals in his statement with the question of Irish becoming more and more a spoken language amongst our people. Again, I want to point out—I am not able to develop the matter beyond the extent I did before because there has not been sufficient time for consideration of these matters within the last few days—that a large number of secondary schools are giving instruction through the medium of Irish. An enormous amount of valuable work has been done, and heroically done, by secondary teachers in the country, lay and religious, in teaching through the medium of Irish and preparing a lot of matter for their classes that would be found without difficulty in text books if they were not teaching through the medium of Irish. You have a transfer of those pupils to the university. I am aware that those into whose hands in the university that class of student is committed, though conscious of the excellence with which the work is done in some directions, have ideas and reflections to make on the result of that work. I am quite sure that nobody would have more experienced opinions or more experienced criticism of the weakness, as well as the strength of that work, than the people who are themselves handling the secondary school pupils. I have asked that there be some kind of consultation, however informal, between those teaching Irish in the universities and the Department and those teaching in the "A" secondary schools or their representatives. I think that a conference of that description could review with advantage that very important focal point in the whole development of Irish as a language that our people will speak easily around us.

To my knowledge, there is a very great wasting of developed power at that stage. When children reach the secondary school age, their mind enlarges. With the difficulties there are about books and the phraseology to meet the requirements of modern thought, it is very easy to deter pupils from using Irish as naturally or as normally as they had been using it. When they embark on university studies, that difficulty is, unfortunately, increased. There is, at that point, a serious tendency on the part of young people who have used the language fairly naturally amongst their friends in the City of Dublin to slip from the use of Irish into the use of English. That tendency is noticeable when their minds come to be enlarged and when the scope of their studies is also enlarged by the type of work carried on in the university. I suggest that a conference for an exchange of opinion amongst the types of people I have mentioned might help to show ways in which the programme might be strengthened in the secondary schools and might help to find out ways in which some of the wastage which occurs naturally and inevitably when that class of student reaches the university might be avoided.

As there is a certain number of teachers available at the present time, I should like to ask whether it would be possible to take some of our national school teachers, or some of those who are free, and give them a systematic course in physical training, so that some beginning would be made in a systematic way to extend physical training in the schools generally. We have a wide scheme whereby adenoids and tonsils are taken out, but there is very little thought given to the building up of the physical condition of the children. In primary schools where there has been systematic physical instruction given to the children, it is at once obvious. You can readily detect the schools where physical training is given, and that applies particularly to primary schools. It would be most desirable, now that we have the opportunity of doing it, to extend that system.

You are shutting down the production of teachers, and I suggest that if you do that you may be doing very serious damage to the Irish language; but where you are shutting down on the production of teachers, and you have some idle teachers, then I think something should be done to fill up the gaps that we have in our primary programme. The Taoiseach points out that nine tenths of our people are dependent on the primary schools. That being so, I feel that until we round off the scheme with some system of physical training and do more for singing—getting into better perspective what singing and what songs may mean in primary education—then primary education will not have the particular type of complete scheme that it ought to have.

There are very interesting statements contained in the document circulated by the Taoiseach, and those who have any experience of teaching will be prepared to agree with some of them. There is an indication that a certain amount has been achieved in the past year in the way of trying to remedy the grievances that existed in the teaching service. I have in mind the numbers of teachers, made and female, that were unemployed for numbers of years and now, I think, that problem is nearly solved. That is something that we can congratulate the Minister upon.

The Minister has made some very interesting statements with regard to teaching through the medium of Irish. This is a subject which has created a good deal of controversy for some years in the teaching world. Many hold the view that the Minister expressed here when he said:

"Personally, I find it hard to believe that the teaching of certain subjects which require a wide range of language and technical expression is not seriously affected by being given through a language which is not the native speech of the pupils. If I had been the initiator of the scheme for the revival of Irish in the schools, I think that I would have preferred to concentrate on the teaching of Irish itself, especially in the lower classes of the National Schools, and to leave the teaching of other subjects through Irish for a later stage when the pupils would have got a good grip of the language."

I think that the majority of teachers will agree with the Minister in that statement, especially the majority of infant teachers.

Deputy Mulcahy was a member of the Programme Conference in 1926, when there was a re-drafting of the primary school programme. There was put into that a note saying that in the infant classes all the work should be done through the medium of Irish. The representatives of the teachers' organisation were not in entire agreement with that, and it was somewhat modified, because the teachers knew very well what the position would be, and they could foresee what has really taken place in the schools since.

There are various factors which come into play in the work of education, factors that the ordinary man in the street does not take into account at all. There are, for instance, the factors of environment, of physical health and of books. There are various other factors, but these, I think, are the factors which have a very big impact on the teaching in the schools. Let us take the case of the children who come from the poorest homes in the city, from the slum areas. Surely, those children are very much handicapped by the fact that their environment, and very often their physical well-being, are so sadly neglected? They are undoubtedly very much handicapped by those factors. Those children come from homes where English is the home language, and they are thrown into an environment where nothing but Irish is spoken, a language which to them is a foreign language. The position there is that their speech instincts for indicating their ideas to others are repressed. They are bound to be repressed, because the children naturally feel out of the thing when they cannot take part in the play or conversation around them, as it is conducted in a foreign language.

Instead of concentrating on the teaching of the infants through Irish, I think the Taoiseach's idea should be carried out, and that the home language should be the principal language for teaching subjects in the infant classes. The Irish language can be taught in the ordinary way, but the teaching of other subjects through Irish is definitely bound to have a detrimental effect on the education of the child. That was very forcibly brought home to the Second Programme Conference in 1926. The Irish National Teachers' Organisation gave evidence before that conference to the effect that it was a mistake to have the work in the infant standards entirely in Irish, except where Irish was the home language.

That opinion was backed up by the late Right Reverend Dean Macken, Secretary of the Catholic Clerical Managers' Association. He said that representations had been made to him that younger children ought not to be taught through Irish. The Ursuline Nuns, Blackrock, County Cork, state that the infant programme should not require subjects to be taught in Irish. The Brigidine Nuns state that in an English-speaking district it is not possible to teach infants through the medium of Irish. The Mercy Nuns, in Waterford, state that where infants come from English-speaking homes, teaching through the medium of Irish was a hardship both on the teachers and the children. They added: "The Irish language taught to such infants should be of the nature of mere rote work, such as recitation, singing, etc. Subjects involving any degree of thinking, such as kindergarten, story-telling, picture and nature lessons should not be taught to these infants through the medium of Irish." The Most Rev. Dr. Keane, Bishop of Limerick, said: "Infant programme should include home language", and Cabra Convent: "The ideal conditions do not yet exist under which the infants' school would be the place where the pupils learn their Irish".

The programme conference itself dealt with the point when it said: "One of the leading characteristics of the 1922 programme is its insistence on the principle of teaching the infant classes through the medium of Irish. The members of our conference agreed on the supreme importance of giving effect, as far as possible, to this principle; and in confirmation of their belief they received authoritative evidence... The members of the conference were, therefore, at one in holding that the true and only method of establishing Irish as a vernacular is the effective teaching of it to the infants.... Yet in this matter of teaching Irish to very young children, it was felt by us that the principle of the motto festina lente is especially applicable. We have therefore changed its wording. By that change, English could be used before 10.30 a.m. and after 2 p.m.”

As I have said, the physical condition and well-being of a child is a very big factor in the education of that child. Of the 23,671 school children medically examined in the year 1936 in the City of Dublin, 13,501 were found to be suffering from dental caries; 6,018 from defective visions; 5,716 from diseases of the nose and throat; 2,455 from diseases of the heart and circulation, and 737 from malnutrition. Of those examined in County Cavan during the same period, 46.68 per cent. were found to be suffering from defective teeth; 14.61 per cent. from defective eyes; 7.33 per cent. from malnutrition; while 3.15 per cent. had defective clothing and footgear. In the year 1937, of the 3,220 children examined in County Kildare, 1,708 suffered from nose and throat defects, 1,257 from defective teeth, 567 from disease of the glands and 316 from eye defects. The report of the medical officer of health for Sligo, for the same year, states:—

"About 6 per cent. of the children were definitely below the standard of normal nutrition, exhibiting signs of anæmia, loss of muscle tone, lack of vitality and mental abilities. Scarcity of food or lack of means had little or no bearing on the cause. All too frequently it was found that the child took practically no breakfast; late hours, and ill-ventilated sleeping accommodation, preventing him from having any desire for the morning meal. The breakfast of the ill-nourished, and many other children was generally tea, bread and butter."

Those children, surely, are not in a position to receive full benefit from the instruction given them. As I have said already, this question of teaching through Irish, especially in the infant classes, is one that will have to receive attention, and, I think, judging by the statement the Minister has circulated, it will receive attention, because he evidently is thinking along the lines that the majority of the infant teachers are thinking on. Last year, when in Geneva, I availed of the opportunity to visit some of the schools there to see how they were tackling this question of bi-lingualism. I was of the opinion that the Swiss had bi-lingual schools, but, as a result of my visit to the schools in Geneva, where French is the home language, I found that French is the language used for all subjects in the primary schools there. It is only when the child leaves the primary school and goes to a secondary or a higher school that a second language, usually German there, is taken. All the work in the primary schools is done through the home language. I think that we in this country have been rather too enthusiastic in trying to get Irish taught—going faster than it is possible to go. The fact is that the home surroundings, and the physical well-being of the children, are very big factors here. Unfortunately, we know that we have thousands of children in the cities of Dublin and Cork who are not getting proper care and treatment because of the unemployment and poverty of their parents. Closely linked up with the teaching of the Irish language is this question of inspection. The Minister, dealing with that in his statement, said:—

"It may be argued that the good inspector bases his judgment of a school on examination as well as on inspection, but I fear that such examination of pupils as an inspector can manage must be very limited."

It is my contention, and that of the Teachers' Organisation, that the system of inspection in operation, in the primary department especially, does not make for the best results. There is too much, as a rule—I do not say that all inspectors have this failing—of fault-finding, and too little attention paid to explaining, especially to the younger teachers, the methods that would lead to better results. The aim and object of many inspectors seem to be to find fault, and to be able to record those faults. To my mind that is not the purpose, or work, of an inspector. I think that the work of an inspector should be this: that he should use his expert knowledge and experience to demonstrate in the schools the best methods to teachers who needed such instruction. In the case of the older teachers, it surely is not necessary to have an annual inquisition year after year, because in many cases the inspector's visit is an inquisition. I want to say very definitely that the inspection system in the primary department requires reform. It is the fear of an adverse report from an inspector, or the notice that may come as a result of his visit, that causes all this worry and heartburning to teachers. It explains why you have so many objections and protests about the curtailment of the programme and of other things. All that, as I have said, is due to a fault in the inspection system. Again, there are many inspectors who have to do a good deal of this work, purely routine work that could be carried out by a typist or clerk rather than by an inspector. There, again, the inspector's time is wasted, and the work that I hold he should do —the visiting of schools in his area so as to have closer contact with the teachers and to meet them in a more helpful way on his visits—is wasted by having to perform this very simple routine work. I wish to bring that point to the notice of the Minister. I know that having the inspectors doing routine work of this kind is taking them away from the work for which they are appointed.

In the inspection system we have too much of this grading and very often there is a good deal of trouble with regard to the exact point which the teachers reach. The question is always being examined as to whether they are efficient or highly efficient or some point in between. I think that is rather an incalculable method of classifying the teachers. The teacher is doing good work, or he is not doing good work. If the teacher is doing good work that ought to suffice. If he is not doing good work there is a way of getting rid of him. The Taoiseach tells us that the number of non-efficient teachers, that is, those not up to the standard required, is not five per cent. Therefore the big majority of the teachers are doing good work and that ought to be quite sufficient without all this grading to find out what particular point in the grade the teacher should occupy. When the present Minister took up office he got in touch with the Teachers' Organisation. He was very glad to get the help of the organisation. He had some conferences with them and at one of these conferences he suggested that the members of the organisation should have from time to time conferences with the heads of the inspection section. That was reciprocated by the teachers and it was decided that there should be a conference of teachers with the local inspectors down the country. The teachers organisation has offered to put the machinery of their organisation into operation in order to bring about that conference with the local inspectors. I am sure such conferences would do a great deal of good. I remember we had them in the old days between the members of the teachers' organisation and the inspectors and they were carried out in a heart-to-heart manner. They were helpful. Suggestions were made at these conferences that were useful. Unfortunately with regard to the suggested conferences the teachers' organisation has not yet got any intimation as to when the conferences are to be held and when their machinery is required to be put into operation and at the disposal of the Ministry. These conferences can be very helpful and it now only awaits the Minister's request to get them going. As far as I understand the teachers' organisation is quite willing to have them going immediately, when I hope they will do a certain amount of good.

There was one matter in which the Minister made a mistake, and that was in regard to the compiling of those proposed readers. The Department or somebody else sent out invitations to teachers here and there all over the country asking them to send on suggestions and so on. I suggest that that work could have been very well done through the organisation itself. As the Minister recognises, the organisation has spread through the whole country, and the members will be only too pleased to help in that direction. But they were not asked. I do not know what would be the result of the efforts of the Department to get suggestions and ideas from the various teachers throughout the country. I suggest that the organisation would be only too pleased to put its machinery at the disposal of the Department in getting work like that done.

The Minister in his statement referred to the voluntary continuation course which has been in operation for the last year or two in Cork City. That has met with a certain amount of success, but I am afraid that its success can hardly be as great as it would be if the course had been more extended. What I mean is, that the course is 180 hours for the whole year —it is five hours a week. In order to facilitate employers who have some of those children between 14 and 16 years of age, the course for a particular group of children is confined to one day in the week. That means that the group of children who go into a continuation school on a Monday do not return again to school until the following Monday. Anybody who has any experience of teaching knows that the maintenance of discipline is the essence of good work, but it is very hard to keep discipline on people that you will have with you only one day in the week. I do not know whether it is possible to extend the course. In trying to do so, you are up against certain obstacles. Very often the little boys and girls are the only breadwinners in the home, and it is very difficult to insist that a particular child should remain at school instead of bringing in a few shillings in the week that he would earn at his work. I am afraid that that is a defect that will militate against the real success of that scheme. However, it is probably too early to give a definite decision one way or the other, but I want to give the Taoiseach the benefit of my opinion as far as that is concerned.

I was hopeful that the Taoiseach would have in his statement the news that those industrial school teachers who have been clamouring for admission on the Department's roll would be included in his statement. But, unfortunately, from the reply he made to me last week it does not seem that they are to be brought in. There are not very many of those teachers, but those who are there are very badly paid, and they have no security of tenure in their jobs. I have a letter here from one of those teachers and I think it speaks for itself. The letter in part reads: "We ask you now to raise the matter once more, and to press on the Minister the injustice meted out to us as regards salary. As you are aware, we are paid by the Superiors of these schools a miserable weekly wage—a couple of pounds a week—with no security of any kind though doing the very same programme as national schools, and examined by the inspectors as well. In fact, the work is far harder, and it is done under far more difficult conditions."

It is rather hard to understand why these teachers have not been brought into the Department Vote. After all, they are performing a work of national importance in these schools. As this man suggests, they have to work harder, and more strenuously, and under worse conditions than do the ordinary teachers. They are engaged in the same kind of work. The only difference—and the only reason why they are not brought in, as the Minister suggests—is the financial consideration. I ask the Minister again to review that matter. The number is not very large—only about 60.

It would amount to £29,000 a year.

Reference was also made in the Minister's statement to the necessity for carrying on, if not increasing, the rate at which defective school buildings are being got rid of. He gave a figure, I think, of 300 schools. Of that number, I suppose, 200 would be schools which were really insanitary. I made the suggestion on the Estimate for the Office of Public Works that some kind of machinery should be set up to get over the roundabout and cumbersome way in which these school buildings are being dealt with. The Department of Education, the Office of Public Works and the Finance Department all come into it.

Which would you eliminate—the Department of Finance?

I am suggesting that there should be some kind of central body to deal with school buildings. I do not care whether it is in the Department of Finance or not. I suppose we can hardly eliminate the Department of Finance, because it is the keystone of the whole thing. My suggestion is that there should be some kind of central machinery, some section—in the Department of Education if you like— to deal altogether with school buildings. My experience is that you have to go through a whole lot of tracing and probing to find out what the position is in regard to a particular building. You have to go to the Department of Education to find out what they have done, then to the Office of Public Works, and then to the Department of Finance. While the matter is going from one department to another the work is being held up. I cannot see any great difficulty in setting up some kind of machinery whereby the whole job would be done in one particular section, or one particular section of a department, let it be the Department of Education, if you like.

In connection with the school buildings, it is necessary also, especially in the new schools, that there should be an ample supply of water laid on. The provision of a playing field for each school is also absolutely necessary. Deputy Mulcahy referred to physical training. I do not know if Deputy Mulcahy has very much connection with the primary schools in Dublin, but if he had he would know that to-day is a sports day for all the schools in Dublin. All the schools are closed down and these sports are taking place at Croke Park. In connection with these sports they also have hurling and football matches. The same thing happens in Cork, and I am sure in the other cities, so that the physical training side is well looked after. I suppose there would be a few thousand children taking part in the sports in Croke Park to-day. Surely, that is physical training in its highest form. To carry out that idea successfully, however, it is necessary to have playing fields attached to each school. These are two very important points which I wish to put to the Minister. As to the provision of an ample supply of water, what happens is that when the children in the school go out to play, either on the road, or in a neighbouring field, their hands, and, probably, their faces get dirty, and in the ordinary country school, and probably in many schools in towns as well, they have no opportunity of cleaning themselves. The fact of having a water supply, and being trained in clean habits is bound to have a very big effect on character formation.

I now come to a matter that is probably very controversial, but is one about which I must say something, and that is, I will not say the demand, but the request that the teachers made for an increase in their salaries to meet the increased cost of living. Everybody expresses publicly great sympathy for the teachers and appreciation for their work; but when it was a question of treating them with consideration in connection with their request for an increase of salary to meet the increased cost of living, the Minister was rather abrupt with them. I am not going to enter into the merits or demerits of the case for a bonus to meet the increased cost of living, but I think that the Minister should have received the deputation to discuss the matter when asked by the Teachers' Organisation. There is great indignation, naturally, at the refusal to concede anything in the way of a cost of living bonus, but there is greater indignation still at the way they were turned down. To say the least of it, it would have been more diplomatic if the representatives of the Teachers' Organisation, which is a very influential and powerful body in the country, were received and allowed to put their point of view before the Minister. Even if he had to say no, I am sure he would say it in such a way that the thing would not have been so bad. Certainly there is great indignation felt at the way they were turned down.

That seems to be characteristic of Governments, because, in 1923, when the previous Government were in office, without any warning or consideration whatever, the teachers' salaries were reduced by 10 per cent. The history of this matter all along the line is that there has been some lopping off here and some lopping off there. The only little consolation the teachers got was that in 1938 there was an increase given of 5 per cent. to meet, as was said, the increased cost of living. Since 1938 the cost of living has gone up by leaps and bounds, and the only reply is that the Minister for Finance has set his face against any increase whatever.

In common with some other public servants, teachers came under the operation of the Economies Act in 1933. In April, 1934, at a time when others affected by the Economies Act were having their pre-1933 salaries restored, a new and permanent cut, varying from 5 per cent. to 9 per cent., was made in the salaries of national teachers. Their pensions were likewise permanently reduced by the latter. After four years' persistent agitation the Government, in April, 1938, were pleased to make a small restoration, equivalent to 5 per cent. of the 1934 salaries. The terms in which this increase was announced by the Minister are of special significance and will bear repetition here:

"The Government has reviewed the question of the rates of pay of national teachers in the light of changed conditions since 1934, when the existing scales were fixed, and they have decided that an increase of 5 per cent. be granted as from April 1st, 1938. The adjustment now made in the salary rates is to be regarded as appropriate to existing conditions, and the Government holds itself free to re-examine the position should any substantial alteration take place in the general economic and financial position of the country."

I do not know how that will be answered. My reasoning is that existing conditions have changed so much that the claim of the teachers is worth reviewing. That has not been done. One of the greatest grievances the teachers have is that they were not treated with courtesy by the Minister, who recently closed and barred the door, as far as any discussion of their claim is concerned. I do not know how the employees of any outside firm would take such treatment. Many classes of workers have got increased remuneration owing to the increased cost of living. There has been no case where an employer said he would not give an increase or would not hear what was to be said in its favour, except that of the Minister for Education. That is not treating the organisation and a body of teachers as they ought to be treated.

In Killarney the Taoiseach went out of his way to throw bouquets at the teachers; they were such a fine body, and were doing such great work for the nation. Later on when very humbly and very timidly they asked for a little more money, they were told that the matter could not be discussed. I am afraid that kind of treatment is not going to make for the good relations that should exist between the Taoiseach, who is a practical educationist, and the teaching body. The statement that the Taoiseach has given us has been very detailed, and he seems to realise the position. As to the important question of teaching through the medium of Irish, I hope he will have time to develop his idea, and that it will be evidenced by a change in the new programme, if possible, for the coming school year.

I was appalled to hear Deputy Hurley say that he considered one day's sport at Croke Park was sufficient physical training for the rising generation. The point I want to raise on this Vote concerns the National Museum. I understand that Dr. Mahr has been absent for the past nine months. The full salary appears on the Estimate and presumably he is being paid. I should like to know from the Minister why he continues to be paid, or if that is the fact. I understand that the work Dr. Mahr was responsible for is very much in arrears, and I should like to know if it is proposed to take any steps to put the matter right.

Every Deputy will agree with the Minister for Education that the amount of money in this Estimate is very large and constitutes a big proportion of our national income. We were all pleased to hear the Minister for Education asking this question: "Are we getting real value for such colossal expenditure?" Anybody who has any experience of national schools, to which nine-tenths of the people go, must admit that the standard of education amongst the pupils is very low. Examinations are held from time to time for positions in the public service, confined to pupils with a national school education, and it has been found that the standard of education has been appallingly low. People are asking what exactly is being taught in these schools at the present time. I have had brought to my notice examination papers in which boys and girls from 15 to 16 years of age, or older, who had left national schools, were unable to name the six counties comprising Northern Ireland or the chief rivers of Ireland. These were simple questions, yet it is an extraordinary fact that these pupils were unable to answer them.

We have to ask ourselves then are we getting real value for the enormous amount of money that is being spent on primary education? I believe we are not. There is a real case for a more exacting examination of pupils attending national schools. There should be a yearly examination of all pupils to discover what progress has been made. That would require additional inspectors but, having regard to the fact that there is a surplus of national teachers, it would not cost very much to promote some of the more efficient teachers to be inspectors, so that they would be able to conduct more intensive examination in these schools, and discover exactly where the shortcomings life.

It is appalling that we have so much sham and make-believe in regard to education in our national schools. It is appalling that when boys and girls leave the national schools, the idea is conveyed to the public that they have been educated in a number of subjects, yet they are unable to answer ordinary questions in practically any of the subjects in which they are supposed to have been educated. In building up the character of our youth, the first requirement is to inspire them with self-confidence, with a belief that they are in a position to understand thoroughly and meet any examination in the subjects which they have studied. On the other hand, if those pupils who have left the national schools and are going to engage in ordinary work or follow on to secondary schools, realise that they have not got the education they are supposed to have, they will have no confidence whatever in themselves in stepping out on life, they will be absolutely irresolute in mind and possess very feeble characters. That is the first thing we have got to avoid. The education in the national schools must be intensified. If it is found that the number of subjects supposed to be taught is too great, that number must be cut down and the education must be reduced to fundamentals. The subjects which are taught must be taught with the highest degree of efficiency. Then the young boys and girls of the coming generation will step out into life with confidence in themselves and in their future.

I am not satisfied that the teaching of subjects in infant schools through the medium of Irish is wise or prudent. There may be national teachers so well qualified in the Irish language as to be able to teach other subjects efficiently through Irish, but so far as the overwhelming majority of the teachers is concerned, they have not got a sufficient knowledge of the Irish language for that purpose. It is, therefore, a great injustice and hardship on children who have been brought up in homes where nothing but English has been spoken, to introduce them to an entirely new language in such a way that they find themselves in a position of complete bewilderment and confusion. Such a system of education can only result in stunting the mental growth of those children, and I have it on good authority that such hardship is also physically harmful and has ill-effects on their nervous system. There is absolutely no justification for the introduction of such a system.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the need in the national schools for at least an elementary knowledge of agriculture. I realise that it is rather difficult to teach agriculture in national schools to any great extent. So far as the higher standards in the primary schools are concerned, however, definite manual instruction should be given in this subject. During the period of the last European war, a system of school gardening was introduced in practically all the primary schools in rural Ireland. It imparted to boys a zeal for horticulture and gardening of all kinds and gave them a certain fundamental knowledge of agriculture which was particularly desirable.

As I say, it is difficult to teach agriculture to any great extent in the national schools, but an introduction to the subject can be given through the medium of a well-conducted school garden. Such an innovation would be far more important and far more beneficial than physical training. After all, manual work is physical training in the best possible sense. In addition, it should be compulsory in all primary schools to make adequate provision for playing fields, so that no boy or girl would come through the primary schools without at least having learned to play some of our national games, such as football or hurling. Games of this kind are not only beneficial physically, but are also in the interest of the nation generally. No obstacle should be allowed to stand in the way of providing playing fields in all our primary schools, and it should be insisted on that national games be played in those schools.

The Minister referred in his speech to technical and vocational education. I have not very much knowledge of the working of the technical schools, but I have some knowledge of the working of vocational schools in rural areas, and I am not satisfied that we are getting very much benefit from the expenditure in that direction. In those vocational schools a very extensive number of subjects are being taught. In the first place, it seems to me that it is not possible for a young teacher—and most of our vocational teachers are young and inexperienced —to teach all these subjects thoroughly. In addition, I am not satisfied that mixed vocational schools are desirable from the point of view of discipline and the formation of character generally. I do not believe that it is possible for a vocational teacher in these schools to maintain proper discipline in a small rural school in which there are boys and girls from 14 years of age upwards being educated. To my mind, the whole idea of vocational education will have to be investigated thoroughly, and changes will have to be made. For girls, whether in rural or in urban areas, the best type of vocational education will be obtained in a residential domestic economy school. We know that the chief work for the majority of our girls in future will lie in the home, and therefore domestic economy is the most important subject they can be taught. I believe that for the proper teaching of domestic economy the residential school is the most desirable.

With regard to boys, the majority of our boys have no future outside the agricultural industry. For that reason something more extensive than the vocational school of the present time will be required. I believe that it would be far better if, in addition to the vocational schools in various areas, we had a farm provided—it might not require to be very large—upon which an agricultural education in the widest and best sense could be provided. There is no use in anybody saying that you can teach agriculture inside a school. There is no use in imagining that you can learn all that requires to be known about stock, the growing of crops and the management of agricultural implements sitting at a desk. There is only one way to learn agriculture, and that is on the land. If a serious attempt is to be made to teach agriculture, it may be necessary to provide, in addition to vocational schools for the purpose, a sufficient amount of land to enable boys to engage in the actual work of farming under suitable instructors.

The most important fact which I want the Minister to realise in regard to education is that the first essential is to educate our young people to work. At the present time I believe there is a great tendency to slide over work by any and every conceivable means. I think that that applies to all walks of life, but it begins in our schools and colleges. For that reason there should be an individual examination of every pupil attending primary schools in the first place, to find out how much progress he makes in each year. If additional inspectors are required for that purpose. I think the Minister would be justified in providing them.

Mr. Byrne

I shall not detain the House very long. There are just one or two points which I jotted down, and which I hope to put in the form of questions to An Taoiseach. I should like to know if he has any definite views on the growing demand for a break in school hours in order to permit the children to partake of a mid-day meal. Quite recently, I attended a meeting at which a number of ladies interested in educational matters raised this point, and indicated how desirable it would be for the children's health, and how much it would enable them to acquire the education that is being imparted to them. I should also like to ask the Minister if his Department could anticipate the need for building schools in areas to which portions of the population are being transferred, so as not to leave the inhabitants of a newly-built area without a school for a period of two or three years. Very grave hardships are inflicted on the parents of children who have to travel long distances from these newly-built areas into schools in the city, as frequently they find it difficult to pay bus fares. Pending the erection of schools in these areas, might I suggest that, as he and his Department have already admitted the desirability of cheap fares for school children, they would endeavour to have the system extended to areas that are at present deprived of these facilities. I have in mind particularly areas such as Upper Drumcondra, Ellenfield, and Larkhill, where there is no school, and the children have to travel as far as three miles to attend school. They have to leave their homes in some cases as early as half-past eight in the morning, and do not get back until about half-past four in the afternoon.

I would ask the Minister to consider whether the time has not arrived for a review of the Acts recently passed in which the principle of free education was admitted. I have seen one of the forms which a parent has to sign before his or her children are given free school books. The form is full of difficult questions, and contains one very objectionable word which a number of parents would like to see removed. I refer to the word "necessitous." The form states that only necessitous children will be provided with such books. The word "necessitous" is sometimes very difficult to explain. For instance, a child of a family in which there are only three or four might not be necessitous, whereas a family in which there were six, eight, or ten children, although the parents were in receipt of the same wages, might find it very hard to purchase books at the prices which are charged to-day. The same word applies, I believe, in the case of children who receive the benefit of the School Meals Act. An extension of that Act is most desirable. Under the Act, the manager of a school can apply for a certain quantity of milk, and, sometimes, cake or buns. I believe in one or two places a hot meal is provided. I would suggest to the Minister that a review of these two Acts is a reform that would be received gladly, and applauded by the people who are most deserving.

There are a few matters to which I wish to direct the attention of the Minister. I think the time is opportune now to carry out some examination to see how far the vocational schools that have been established in the last few years have catered for the rural population. My opinion is that those schools are doing very good work for the urban populations, but I am afraid they are never going to perform the functions it was hoped they would perform for the rural population. Rural children who live within a radius of from five to ten miles of a school may get some benefit from these schools, but outside that radius they get no benefit whatever. You have vocational schools, I think, in nearly all the medium-sized towns, but there are very few of them through the country, and I cannot see how you can hope to provide vocational education through the medium of these isolated schools in purely rural areas. I am convinced that some other system is needed in order to provide the children in rural areas with vocational training, and I suggest that the Taoiseach should have examined the question of—I think his predecessor was examining it—how far the existing national schools might be used to provide vocational training for boys and girls in the matter of rural science and domestic economy.

I can see no real objection to these schools being used in the evenings, for a number of hours a week, by itinerant teachers. There is no possibility whatever—and I am convinced of it—of providing vocational training and vocational education for the children living in the rural areas, unless by some such system as I have suggested. It must be remembered that the big proportion of the funds for these vocational schools comes from the pockets of the rural community, and I suggest that there should be some examination of that question and that a decision should be come to in regard to it in the very near future.

I would favour—and I believe it would be favoured generally—the increasing of the school-leaving age, say, up to 16; that is, from 14 to 16, if you had those itinerant teachers attending the national schools, each boy and girl could attend for so many hours a week and get training in domestic economy and rural science. Many of these vocational schools in rural areas have no rural science teacher at the present time, and I think that they are certainly not performing the function that was originally meant for them. With regard to the question of domestic economy in female schools, I understand that it is an optional subject and that, in a big number of schools, both domestic economy and needle work are optional subjects, and it is said that there are so many compulsory subjects the teacher would not have the time to teach them. Well, if the children are not taught needle work and some domestic economy, I do not know what is going to happen in the future. Our mothers and our grandmothers were taught these subjects but many of the children to-day have no means of learning them except what they are taught by their mothers. That is what I understand, at any rate, and I wonder is it true. I heard it said recently and I was very much surprised.

Another suggestion I should like to make is this. In these days when there is a demand that so many things should be given an agricultural outlook and bias, so to speak, I wonder would it be possible to have an agricultural subject for matriculation in the University, and that every boy should matriculate in some agricultural subject. This is a rural community to a great extent and I think it would give the whole population a more rural outlook, and a better understanding of some of the problems that the people living in rural areas have to contend with, if there were some such provision as that. These are the only remarks that I have to make, and I hope that they will be given consideration.

Ní aontuighim le n-a ndubhairt an Teachta O Cúgáin. Níor dhein sé tada ach cáineadh agus casaoid a dhéanamh fé obair na mbunscol. Ós rud é ná faigheann ach timpeall le 5% de mhuinntir na tíre seo oideachas ar bith eile ach oideachas bun-scoile dá mbeadh an scéal mar a deir an Teachta bheadh scéal dona againn. Ach fé mar atá ráidhte agam ní aontuighim le pioc dá ndubhairt sé. Fuair an Teachta Ó hAlmhain locht ar ghairm-scoileanna áirithe toisc nach bhfuil fuagháil, cniotáil agus mar sin de dá múineadh ionta. Más fíor a ndeir sé is ar na Coistí atá i mbun na scol so atá an locht mar tá cead agus comhacht aca san a gclár féin a cheapadh agus é chur fé bhrághaid na Roinne.

Maidir leis an scéal achrannach so .i. múineadh adhbhar léighinn tré Ghaedhilg, is baoghal liom ná fuil duine ar bith is cionntaighe fén achrann san ná mé féin de bhrigh gur mise a tharraing rún ag Comhdháil na Múinteoirí Náisiúnta sa mbliain 1920 á mholadh go dtionólfaí coiste náisiúnta chun clár Gaedhealach a leagadh amach i gcóir na scol. Glacadh leis an rún san agus sin mar a cuireadh ar bun an Coiste a mhol an chéad chlár Gaedhealach. Admhuighim gur aontuigheas go fonnmhar leis an moladh a bhí ar an gelár fé Ghaedhilg amháin a bheith in úsáid scoil na naoidhneán—ach gan amhras an múinteóir a bheith acfuinneach teagasc a thabhairt sa teangain sin.

Is ar an gcuma san dar ndóigh a dhein an Bord Náisiúnta Béarla do leathadh ar fuaid na tíre seo. Ba chuma cad í an teanga a bhí ag an leanbh ag teacht ar scoil do, sa Ghaeltacht nó sa Ghalltacht, ní raibh ach Béarla le clos aige ó cheann ceann an lae scoile. Bhí sompla eile agam. Tá, mar is eol do dhaoine annso, scoileanna in America, i Nua-Eabhrac agus i Chicago agus áiteanna eile mar sin, scoileanna do dhaoine thar lear, cuir i gcás, Gearmánaigh, Rúiseánaigh agus mar sin. Pé'rb as iad, tá scoileanna fá leith dóibh agus caitheann leanbhaí na ndaoine sin dul isteach i scoileanna amháin agus caitheann na múinteoirí a bhíonn ag múineadh lucht na scoile sin gan aon fhocal a labhairt ach Béarla amháin. 'Sé sin, bíonn Rúiseánaigh óga, Gearmánaigh óga agus mar sin de ag foghluim Béarla agus tá sé de chosc ar an múinteoir gan aon fhocal do labhairt ins na scoileanna acht amháin Béarla agus fá cheann tréimhse ghairid bíonn Béarla ag na daoine óga sin.

Bhí sé sin os mo chomhair leis nuair a mholas an rún san. Ach tá deifríocht sa scéal. Níl amhras ar bith ann go bhfuil tuismightheoirí na leanbh san in America fonnmhar go mbeadh Béarla ag na leanbhaí mar is eol dóibh nach mbeadh aon dul chun cinn i ndán dóibh gan Béarla do bheith aca. Bhí an scéal ceanann céadna sa tír seo céad bliadhain ó shoin. Bhí ó na tuismightheoiri go mbéadh Béarla ag na leanbhaí agus gach uair ar bhfheidir leo do chabhruigh siad leo. Dubhairt Domhnall O Conaill tráth: dá mbeadh an Ghaedhilg curtha as an tír ar fad ná bainfeadh é codladh na hoidhche dhe.

Do chabhruigh na tuismightheoiri go láidir le scaipeadh an Bhéarla sa tír seo céad bliadhain ó shoin. Níl amhras ar bith fá sin. Is cuimhim liom fhéin —b'fhéidir nach bhfuil an rud so le rádh ag aoinne eile sa Dáil ach tá sé le rádh agamsa—is cuimhim liomsa athair agus mac ag comhrádh le chéile, an t-athair ag labhairt Gaedhilge agus an mac ag labhairt Béarla. Thuig an t-athair Béarla ach do labhair sé Gaedhilg agus thuig an mac Gaedhilg ach do labhair sé Béarla. Sin mar a tháinig an Béarla isteach, agus na tuismightheoirí, gan amhras, an-chionntach sa scéal sin.

Rud eile dhe, mar gheall ar mhúineadh tré Ghaedhilg. Múinteoir 'seadh mise. Sin í mo cheárd. Tá 50 scoláirí ós mo chomhair agus is féidir liom cuid den 50 seo a mhúineadh ar fad tré Ghaedhilg ach ní féidir liom an rang ar fad a mhúineadh. Bhaineas triail as dosaen uair. Níor eirigh liom. Bhí roinnt den rang a bhí acfuinneach go leor chun gach ní a thógaint isteach tré Ghaedhilg acht ní bhéadh an rang ar fad amhlaidh—na h-árd Ranganna atá i gceist agam. Cad a thárla? Chaitheas casadh ar an mBéarla go mion minic. Cuid de na cainnteoirí Gaedhilge agus na scoláirí Gaedhilge a bhí ann le n-ár linn—cuir i gcás An tAthair Peadair, Conán Maol agus scoláirí mora atá beó fos—daoine iad nar fhoghluim "a dó is a dó, sin a ceathair" a rádh as Gaedhilg ar scoil. Ach bhí Gaedhilg aca gan amhras ón gcliabháin agus ní bhfuaradar aon teagasc tré Ghaedhilg ar scoil.

Seo rud atá ag cur beagáinín mearthaill orm le tamall i dtaobh na gColáistí Ullmhúcháin. Téigheann buachaill go dtí an Coláiste Ullmhúcháin agus caitheann sé cheithre bliadhna sa Choláiste sin fé theagasc agus annsan de ghnáth gheibheann an mac léighinn sin onóracha agus téigheann sé go dtí Coláiste Tréineála agus caitheann sé dhá bhliadhain annsin agus i ndeire na sé bliadhna teipeann ar an mac léighinn sin an Teastas Dhá-Theangach fhagháil. Bhfuil aon mhíniú ar a leithéid sin? Ní thuigim-se é ar aon chuma. Is dóigh go bhfuil beagán feabhais ar an scéal le déidheannaí, sé sin go bhfuil leabhra áirithe le haghaidh scrúduchán áirithe. Go dtí sin, ní raibh. Ní raibh aon ghaol no ceangailt idir an lucht múinte agus an lucht scrúduithe. Sin é, is dóigh liom, locht ar an scéal. Tá 'fhios agam féin buachaill amháin ón nGaeltacht a chaith na sé bliadhain seo, ceithre bliadhna ins an gColáiste Ullmhúcháin agus dhá bhliadhain sa Choláiste Múinteoireachta agus theip air an Teastas Dhá-Theangach d'fhagháil gidh go bhfuair sé onóracha i nGaedhilg ag fágáil an Choláiste Ullmhúcháin. Cad é an míniú atá air sin?

Tá cuid mhór cainnte dá dhéanamh annso indiu ar cheist atá seana-phléidhte, sé sin, múineadh tríd an nGaedhilg. Nil blian ó tháinig mise go dtí an Dáil ná raibh an cheist sin dá chioradh, thráth bhí meastachán Roinn an Oideachais os cóir na Dála. Thuigeas ón méid a dubhairt an Taoiseach agus é ag cur an Mheastacháin seo ós ár gcóir indiu ná fuil se ar aon aigne ar fad leis an ngléas a bhí ar siúl ag an Roinn ó 1922 anuas maidir le múineadh tré Gaedhilg. Tá an cheist seo ag déanamh imnidhe do Gaedhilgeoirí na tíre agus tá an mhór-chuid acu go láidir ar aon aigne go mba cheart claoidhe leis an ngléas a bhí i bhfeidhm ag an Roinn go dtí so, sé sin, go mbainfeadh aon mhuinteóir atá oilte ar an nGaedhilg feim aiste chun a chuid oibre a dhéanamh ins na ranganna ísle—ní h-amhain chun na Gaedhilge féin do mhúineadh ach chun adhbhair eile do mhúineadh chó maith.

Ní múinteóir scoile mise ach bhí dlú-bhaint agam leis na bun-scoileanna le blianta anuas agus ó'n eolas atá agam féadaim a rá go bhfuil ag eirighe go h-an-mhaith le teagasc tré Ghaedhilg in-aon scoil go bhfuil sé ar siúl fé mar a shocraigh an Roinn go ndéanfaí é. Is soiléir é sin ar fheabhas na scoláirí i gcuid mhaith den tír agus is dóigh liom—agus táim ag labhairt ar son dream mór Gaedhilgeóirí—gur fearr dul ar aghaidh leis gan aon athrú do dhéanamh air. Má deintear aon athrú, beidh an Béarla mar ghléas múinte ina lán de sna scoileanna agus sé mo thuairim gurabé an chuspóir is ceart don Roinn a choimead os a gcóir ná an Béarla do chur amach os na scoileanna ar fad í ndiaidh a chéile.

Ní féidir leis an dá theangain dul le chéile. Gheobhadh ceann aca an lámh uachtair ar an gceann eile agus sé atá ós na Gaedhilgeoirí go bhfuigheadh an Ghaedhilg an lámh uachtair. Níl aon ghléas eile ach na bun-scoileanna chun an lámh uachtair sin d'fháil agus dá bhrí sin, agus mar gheall ar an imnidhe atá ar chuid mhaith Gaedhilgeóirí i dtaobh na ceiste seo, iarraim ar an Taoiseach an cheist do scrúdú go hana-chúramach sara ndéanfa sé aon athrú ar an ngléas atá ann fé láthair. Tá fhios agam go maith agus tá fhios ag Gaedhilgeoirí na tíre, go bhfuil an Taoiseach chó-imnidheach mar gheall ar an nGaedhilg agus atá aon Ghaedhilgeóir agus nach ndéanfadh sé aon díobháil do chúis na teangan ná do chúis aithbheochana na teangan.

Rinne sé tagairt do phoinnte eile atá ag déanamh buartha dhúinn: Cad tá le déanamh maidir le ceist na Gaedhilge do na scoláirí atá tar éis an scoil d'fhágáil? Tá an méid sin gléasanna curtha os cóir an Taoisigh agus os cóir na Roinne le blianta anuas ar an gceist sin gur deachair a rá cioca is fearr, agus is fíor i slí nach bhfuil an smacht céana, nó an ceangailt céana, nó an bhaint céana, ag Roinn an Oideachais leis na scoláirí atá tar éis scoil d'fhágáil, ach tá eagla orm muna ndeineann an Roinn rud éigin mar gheall ar an gceist sin, ná fuil aon dream eile sa tír ag a mbeidh an comhacht nó an t-airgead chun é do dhéanamh.

Is dóigh liom féin go bhfuil gléas ag an Roinn cheana chun dul ar aghaidh foghanta do dhéanamh maidir le labhairt na Gaedhilge do chur chun cinn i measc an aosa óig atá tar éis scoil d'fhágáil, sé sin, gléas an gairmoideachais. An sean-ghléas a bhí ann sarar tháinig an gairm-oideachas isteach, bhí ag eirighe leis go maith. Nuair bhí na múinteoirí Gaedhilge ag obair fé sna Coistí Ceard-oideachais ins gach conndae bhí an teanga ag dul ar aghaidh agus obair mhaith á dhéanamh; ach thárla rudaí a chuir isteach ar an obair go mór, agus a chuir isteach ar na múinteoirí. Dar liom-sa, ba cheart dul siar chun an ghléas sin ins gach conndae, agus bhí dlúth-bhaint agam leis le blianta agus chonnaic mé an mhaitheas a dhein sé.

Tá an gléas ann chun rud foghanta do dhéanamh chun an Ghaedhilg do chur á labhairt i measc na mbuachaillí agus na gcailíní atá tar éis scoil d'fhágáil agus go bhfuil cuid mhaith Gaedhilge aca. Ba cheart don Roinn féin úsáid do bhaint as an ngléas sin ar fud na tíre. Do chuireadh an tairisgint sin os cóir an Aire roimhe agus bfhéidir go bhfuil sé ag scrúdú na ceiste fé láthair san Roinn ach sílim gurabé sin an gléas is fearr. Is furus é do chur ag obair agus iarraim ar an Aire féachaint isteach ann.

I have not got much to say on this Estimate, but I feel it my duty to call the attention of the Taoiseach to what I would describe as the dissatisfaction in the country with the system of primary education. I do not know what the Taoiseach may think about it, but the general opinion is that the system is very unsatisfactory. Children are working much harder than ever they worked, and I believe that the teachers are also working harder, and yet the results are very unsatisfactory. I do not think it would be any exaggeration to say that pupils leaving primary schools to-day are three years behind pupils of the same age leaving the schools 40 years ago. I have not got the slighest doubt about that. We have proof of it every day, and if the Taoiseach looks up the reports of speeches by members of the teaching profession and the managers of schools, he will find that that is the general opinion, and those people are qualified to give an opinion.

There seems to be something wrong with the system of teaching, because in a number of very essential subjects, pupils leaving school to-day are very backward. As I have said, they work at home lessons for hour after hour at all seasons of the year. That was not the practice in past years, and yet the pupils then were fairly efficient when they reached the age of 14 years or so. They did not even attend for the same number of school days, because there was no compulsory education system. Yet they were far ahead. The tree is known by its fruit, and this system is not bearing fruit. I ask the Minister to give the matter a little attention. I know that he is very busy and that he cannot give the attention to this matter that it deserves, but he has available people who are qualified to go into the question closely and to consider whether some changes should not be introduced. There seems to be something wrong with the system of teaching Irish, because it is not a success. I believe that tuition in Irish is responsible for half the time spent at school. Life is very short, and when children spend nine or ten years at school—half that time being devoted to learning a language that they never speak afterwards—it is clear that the right system of teaching is not in operation. Otherwise, they are trying to teach a form of the language that is out of date. There are a number of dialects, and we should aim at their simplification and standardisation. These are merely suggestions. I do not pretend to be qualified to advise what should be done, but something should be done. Everybody knows that there is something wrong.

Consideration should be given to the question of simplifying the spelling. In the United States, a progressive country, they aim at simplifying the spelling of the language which they use. The same thing is occurring in Great Britain. They are getting away from the old-fashioned, roundabout methods. If Irish were standardised, and if the spelling were simplified, it could be much more easily acquired by the ordinary pupil. The system of weights and measures is out of date, too. Most countries in Europe, with the exception of Great Britain, have adopted the decimal system. That might be a little bit strange for a while, but in a very short time, especially for the young people going to school who have not got into the habit of the old system, it would come very easy. That is a matter that is worth consideration. Matters like these should be given attention by the Taoiseach, or, if he cannot personally attend to them, he should get others who are competent to deal with them to bring them under review. We should try to get some change in the system of teaching. The present conditions are not the fault of the teachers or the children. They never worked so hard as they are doing. There must be something wrong with the system when they are three years behind.

I should like to refer to the payment of part-time Irish teachers. Can nothing be done to relieve them in the shocking position in which they find themselves? I have before me a document from the secretary of their organisation setting out the remuneration on which they have to carry on. In effect, the maximum they are able to earn is £70 a year. They have given of their best for the promotion of the language, and surely the acid test of our sincerity regarding the promotion of the language should be our treatment of those who have devoted their lives to it. These teachers seems to be in a singularly unfortunate position. The circumstances are known to the Minister, and, without making any rhetorical appeal, I ask him to look into the circumstances under which these men are condemned to carry on. The circumstances are beyond their control, and they are not able to earn more than £70 a year. They write very plaintively of their position in the area of which we have control, and I am sure that their complaint will receive sympathetic consideration from the Minister. We should show that there is some appreciation of the services they are giving in the revival of the language. They were the pioneers, and they are the people who mainly bore the brunt of the language-revival work. If the language movement is to be a success, it must percolate to the working-class population. When the pupils leave school, they should have an opportunity of continuing the practice of the language at the continuation classes conducted by these part-time teachers. I hope the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to what I have said on behalf of these teachers.

I was glad to hear Deputy Allen as the Taoiseach on this Estimate what his view was with regard to technical vocational organisation in the rural districts, and also whether there was a sufficiently rural bias in the education available in the rural districts. Developing his theme to a greater degree, I would suggest that, during the past ten years, the minimum number of facts which should be possessed by people entering rural life in this country far exceeds those available after the people have left whatever schools are open to them in the rural districts. We are facing in the world to-day fiercer and fiercer competition in agricultural production. We are finding it more and more difficult to maintain our place in the export market. Whereas, 20 years ago, farming was a matter of tradition, with a little specialised knowledge added, to-day farming is becoming a matter of expert technique and science is blasting away a great deal of tradition and replacing it by methods which were utterly unknown 20 years ago. When Deputy Allen suggested a rural bias in education, I am quite sure he was speaking as one of the agricultural community. I cannot help regarding education in this country as, of necessity, including agriculture in its programme. We have agricultural instructors and, so far as I can make out, they only reach from 5 per cent. to 15 per cent. of the population engaged in agriculture. They are fine men who do a good job, men who work about 14 hours a day, but, without exaggeration 80 per cent. of the persons engaged in agriculture never receive the full training which should be available to them at their hands. I cannot help feeling that that is a very serious fact, and it gives me to think that the Department of Education should begin to consider how far it should include in its programme agricultural education in general.

Obviously, as Deputy Allen said, one cannot teach agricultural science in the primary schools. One can only hope to teach simple rural science there. But agricultural science should form part of the secondary school programme. Everybody who enters into the vocation of agriculture should have available to him exactly the same knowledge of how to produce goods for export as those who are his rivals abroad have. There is absolutely no question or doubt that our farmers lack, at least, 50 per cent. of the knowledge made available almost universally to those who are their economic rivals. Take one small subject—grass cultivation. I regarded it as my duty during the past few months to read everything I could about modern methods of grass cultivation. I found that, even with my broad general knowledge, I was unable to understand the more scientific end of it, because it was a matter of botany—and very advanced botany. The manager of a creamery in the south of Ireland reported that only 2 per cent. of all the farmers bringing milk to the creamery had any knowledge of botony in the modern sense, or of the manurial treatment of grass land.

I know that the average New Zealand farmer, or the average Danish farmer, because of the type of education imparted in those countries, inevitably must outclass the Irish farmer as far as his knowledge of grass cultivation is concerned. I mention grass because we were at one time accustomed in this country to divide ourselves between those who believe in grass and those who believe in tillage. In actual fact, grass has now become as important a crop as any other agricultural commodity. One requires more knowledge, more education and more instruction in relation to it, and perhaps in some ways it is more difficult to learn, than almost any other branch of agricultural economy.

I suggest that in future our citizens should have available to them the same knowledge in regard to agricultural matters as the citizens of other countries. If we regard writing, reading and arithmetic as compulsory subjects, and if we are able to send the Civic Guards to prosecute people who are not sending their children to school, I cannot see why, particularly in the face of the agricultural crisis which will come to this country when the war is over and when whatever temporary advantage occurs in agriculture ends, before long it should not be compulsory, in the interests of the State, for every citizen to learn the elements of agriculture of a modern kind.

The Agricultural Commission of 1924 recommended agricultural continuation schools for boys from 14 to 17 years; night schools for boys in the winter and classes for the girls in the summer. That same commission made a number of other valuable suggestions, clearly linking up the Department of Agriculture with the Department of Education. The fact remains that no Deputy can deny that, as a result of unfortunate political conflicts among us and as a result of the close association of the Great War with the beginning of our independence and the economic changes resulting from the Great War, there is a great cleavage between the young and the old generations. The departure from the land here is a matter that is not altogether connected with the escape from the land that has occurred in other countries. The explanation is largely because we have definitely lacked the rural bias in our education which will at least encourage people to enjoy rural life, to be proud of rural life and to make the maximum effort to appreciate rural life.

When I see that our compulsory subjects are confined to reading, writing and arithmetic, I cannot help thinking of the enormous difference in the way in which farmers of the smaller class, with the same size of farm, make use of whatever facilities they have been given. One farmer will have a comparatively comfortable farm and house and will be able to make a magnificent effort, which we in the towns would be incapable of making, to live for himself, while all around other people, perhaps because of unfortunate circumstances, are obliged to live a life which is far from pleasant. One cannot blame them for leaving that type of life.

I am merely expanding what Deputy Allen said. I am quite sure the Taoiseach has considered this matter during his short term in the Department of Education. I want the farmers in this country to be taught as much about a blade of grass as the farmers in other countries. If we are to survive what will inevitably be a grim, machine-minded existence after this war, in a period in which countries will be struggling to maintain economic existence, we must devote ourselves to encouraging self-sufficiency and developing our exports in a highly-competitive market. This is the time in which we should thoroughly study this subject.

The speech just delivered by Deputy Childers tempts me to make a few remarks. I wonder does it occur to Deputy Childers that the Party to which he belongs should go away somewhere and do penance for their sins in the political sphere. The Deputy spoke about grass. Does he know that the first Minister for Agriculture in this State was practically driven out of public life mainly because he believed that grass was an essential part of the agriculture of this country? Curious complaints have been made here from time to time with regard to education. The entire thing is wrong. What is wrong with regard to education in this country? When I was a child, in the national school totally different condition prevailed. To me it appears ridiculous that, in a country where there is little employment for young people and where there are few industries, youngsters can walk out of school the day they have reached 14 years of age.

Deputy McGovern has complained about the standard of education. He says that the children of to-day are three years behind in the matter of education as compared with the children years ago. I do not agree with that. I think the child of 14 to-day is as well, and perhaps better, educated than a child of the same age 30 years ago. Deputy McGovern and those with whom he consulted are forgetting that years ago the boys stayed at school until they were 17 or 19 years, and one can visualise the knowledge they gained in that time of mathematics and English and history and geography. They had a complete knowledge of these subjects and they were fit to go anywhere.

The few years from 14 to 17 in a country like this, where in the main there is nothing to do for these young people, could be usefully spent in the school. They cannot get away now, and what are we going to do with them? Would it not be a great thing to equip them for the purpose Deputy Childers talked about? Those living in towns, and anxious to follow an industrial life, would get expert knowledge and a good technical training. The children in the country would spend two or three additional years at school, doing subjects with a strong agricultural bias.

The last time I spoke on this matter I was told there was not school-room for those people. The only way to meet that statement is to put up a concrete case. The school I attended when I was a boy had an attendance of 100 to 120 pupils. I admit it was a pretty crammed place. There is an average of only 25 in that school to-day. Perhaps the average is not as high as that. Is there not plenty of room in that school to maintain all these children for an additional two or three years?

I wonder is the Taoiseach anxious to have a survey made of the condition of school buildings in this country? There are schools here that are a positive disgrace. When I see some of them I think it is a sin to compel parents to send their children there. I would refuse to send my child into some of those buildings at the risk of being prosecuted. I would refuse to ask any mother to spend her time bringing up children, strong and healthy, to send them to those buildings. I do not know whether the Taoiseach has paid a visit to those schools in the country. If and when he goes round, he should look at some of them and judge for himself. If he did, I think he would take very active and drastic steps to put and end to it.

There are different reasons for all that. First of all, the whole machinery with regard to the erection of schools is cumbersome. A site has to be got; there is usually a hold-up about that. I have often wondered why it was that the Department of Education did not take compulsory powers long ago to acquire sites for schools. In addition, there is all the humbug about a local contribution to the cost of the erection of a school. In view of the fact that the cost of education is a State charge, I do not see why a local contribution should be insisted on for this purpose. Has not all the money required to finance education to come off the taxpayers, and are not the local people taxpayers? If the cost of all this was spread over the entire State you would seem to be striking a balance, because you must have school buildings everywhere. The building of new schools has in some places been held up for years, due to a lot of squabbling about the payment of the local contribution. Ultimately the Department gives way, and there is no contribution at all except perhaps a very nominal sum. In face of the new conditions, I suggest to the Taoiseach that he should consider taking steps to apply a measure of compulsory attendance at school up to 16 or 17 years of age.

In the statement circulated by the Taoiseach he lays emphasis on the teaching of Irish. He is not dogmatic about it. That, I think, is the best way by which success can be attained. Really, this is a very difficult problem. I come from a semi-Gaeltacht area, and I cannot say, from what I have seen, that progress is being made in the teaching of Irish, despite all the money that is being spent on it. As a matter of fact, the contrary is my opinion. I have always given as a typical example the townland in which I was born. When I was a child, Irish was spoken in every house there, except one, which was the house of a non-Catholic. As a matter of fact, there is still living in that townland a woman who has never spoken a word of English. Almost all the people in that townland to-day, and especially the younger generation, speak nothing but English. I think that is pretty generally felt.

There is another point I would like to deal with, and may I preface it by saying that I do not want it to be thought that I am complaining about those people getting the money, quite the contrary; but I have always looked upon it as ridiculous to give a grant of £2 to children in the fior-Ghaeltacht simply because Irish is the language of the home. As a practical proposition I would like to hear how the expenditure of that money can be justified— I mean paying it for the purpose of getting Irish spoken when Irish is the language of the home. I think it would be better if that money were given to homes in the breac-Ghaeltacht so as to encourage the people there to speak Irish, and thereby make their area a portion of the fior-Ghaeltacht. It seems to me ridiculous to give £2 to a child for speaking the only language it can speak. The child could not do anything else but speak Irish, because it is the language of its father and mother, of everyone that it meets on the road and in the townland in which it lives, and in the school it attends. I would prefer to see that money given for some other purpose. I would make the speaking of Irish in the fior-Gaeltacht a national thing: that it was in the interests of the country to do so and was a patriotic thing to do.

Deputy Mulcahy laid emphasis on the question of physical training in the primary schools. I do not know whether he was speaking in general terms or not, but he referred particularly to the primary schools. In my opinion, physical training should be compulsory in the primary and secondary schools. The time devoted to it would be well spent, and would be supplementary to the large sums of money that are being spent under the heading of public health. I should like to see physical training introduced into the schools at the earliest date possible. Deputy Mulcahy also spoke at some length on the teaching of mathematics to the boys and girls in the primary and secondary schools. The new procedure dealing with this was introduced before the Taoiseach became Minister for Education. In my opinion, it should be put an end to as soon as possible. I think that mathematics should be a compulsory subject for boys and girls sitting for any examination under our secondary system. Goodness knows, the standard of mathematics, and of education generally, is low enough. A Bill is at present before the Oireachtas for the setting up of an educational establishment for advanced studies. Mathematics is one of the subjects to be taught there, yet we are leaving it optional with boys and girls in the secondary schools as to whether they will take mathematics at their examinations. I think the sooner that system is ended the better it will be for this country.

The Minister for Finance has asked me if I propose speaking on all the matters I took a note of. I am afraid if I were to do that we would have to spend a very long time here discussing this Estimate. The whole question of education is one that, under different circumstances, would merit consideration not for a day but for a whole week at least. In the statement which I circulated I tried to give some of my own ideas with regard to these educational problems after I had checked them with the heads of the several Departments and with some of the inspectors. Now, there is not the slightest doubt about it that a good deal of complaint is being made—it is very widespread anyhow in this country—against the results we are getting under our educational system, particularly in the primary schools. One hears it everywhere. The question is: is it justified or is it not? I have tried to find out whether there are any standards of comparison by which we can judge: whether here in this country the standard reached by children leaving the primary schools at, say, the ordinary age is as high as the standard reached by children of the same age in other countries? I have not been able to satisfy myself, I must admit, that there is any standard by which we can go, or that there is any judgment on which we can satisfactorily rely. If I ask the experts in the Department they will tell me that, so far as they have been able to judge from visits paid to schools on the Continent and in England, Scotland and Wales, as well as from other sources, such as reports which they have at their disposal, they are satisfied that our children leaving school at the age of 14 have as good a general, and as sound a basis of, education as children of the same age in any other country. They tell me that visitors to this country—educationists who are interested in this subject, and who come to them after seeing and visiting a number of our schools, and are in a position to give judgement upon them —are also of opinion that our standards here are at least as high as theirs: that we have reached as high a standard here as they have in the countries of which they have knowledge.

Now, it might be said that the experts to whom I refer are naturally anxious to make it appear that the work with which they are charged is well done. That may be. I myself have not had any opportunity—and it is very difficult for anybody to give a judgment on it—of personally judging these standards. But this seems true: that in every other country they make the very same complaint about their own primary systems and the results of their own efforts at education as we make here. So that these complaints are universal, they are found in every country. Probably the basis of these complaints is that we expect too much, that we all forget that we are grown up, and in judging what we were able to do at 14 years of age we carry back ideas of what we were able to do at a very much later date. If we were able to see ourselves and what we were able to do at 14 years of age we probably would not have as high an ideal as we profess. I do not know whether the children to-day who are passed through the primary schools are better fitted for life and to make a living than we were at the same age. The question of boys and girls staying on until 18 or 19 years of age was raised by the last speaker. There is nothing to prevent children being sent to school at 16 or 17 years now, any more than formerly.

With this difference: that assuming that one, two or three go to a school now, the class is too small. In the years that have gone it was practically the whole school staying on and you had a class to which the teacher could apply his time. There is that difference.

That is possibly the difference but, at the present time, in fact, they could do it. I myself remember the older boys at the back desks sitting down and working out exercises in algebra and so on with the teacher coming round, giving them an occasional helping hand and looking at what they were doing. But that could be done to-day. We are paying for the children up to the age of 18 years, and we have compulsion up to the age of 14 years.

When talking here of those criticisms about the standards we have reached, I often ask myself this: whether we are not comparing two different things. To-day we are comparing those who have been compelled to go to school but who, in the old days, would probably have dropped out much earlier or not have gone to school at all, we are comparing the lowest standard of those compelled to go to school to-day with those in the highest standard at the time to which Deputies refer. At any rate, I find no standard which would enable me to form a sound judgment upon it, and when I hear these complaints I say: "I do not know; I am not sure." It is for that reason that I urge that we should have, at least, one examination, to begin with, some test at a leaving age by which we would be able to see, on a reasonable standard, how many of those who had passed the full primary course had reached that standard. Before my predecessor left we had been urging very strongly for this one examination at least. We had been trying to get that accepted by the teachers. We wanted the teachers to co-operate but the teachers are not ready to co-operate. I think in the public interest we are entitled to have some standard because we are entitled to know whether the fruit which we expected from the work has come along or not. I think we will have to take the bull by the horns and, even though the teachers do not like it, we will have to insist on such an examination at the end of the primary school course. I think it is due to the people that there should be some standard by which they would know whether the work is well done or not.

Another matter of a general character to which I would like to refer is the question of the subjects taught at school. We are all, in our way, faddists. Each one of us has a particular liking for one particular thing: one person wants music, another person wants drawing, another person wants rural science, and another person wants some other particular subject taught; and if those particular subjects are not taught they each imagine that the whole system is wrong and unsound. Now the number of years available, and the conditions are such, that we must make up our minds that we cannot, in a primary course, or indeed in any course, teach everything. We have to make a selection of the things that are most generally useful. It is for that reason that people who have been thinking about these subjects come back again to what is called the "Three Rs" as the foundation, and I think everybody will admit, whatever else we may have, that we must have these and a certain standard ought to be reached in these. We ought, as a result of the years in the primary schools, get boys or girls to the stage at which they can read, write and express themselves with reasonable fluency in the vernacular, whatever it is. In our case, we want them to be able to do that in Irish. That is what we are aiming at. We have not succeeded because we have not, so far, been able to bring the Irish into the position of the full vernacular.

We are trying then to get our children to have two languages in which they can read, write and express themselves with reasonable fluency. That is a fairly big task in itself. To do it in one language is a big task, but to do it in two is a very much greater task, particularly when you have to do it as in the case of the Irish language—which we want to make ultimately the universal language here—in face of the fact that we have not the conditions and surroundings which would enable the children to get the help which they can only get from these surroundings. So that on the language side alone, we have a very much heavier course now than had the children of our time who had only to learn to read, write and express themselves with reasonable fluency in one language—namely, English—the language that was spoken for the most part all round. I am, of course, speaking of the country outside the Gaeltacht. Mind you, that language training which they will obtain is going to be of the greatest possible value to the children. There is no doubt whatever about that. And the second language is of additional value, because, quite instinctively by using a second language, the use of the other language becomes more accurate. They begin to appreciate the value of words, and to appreciate shades of meaning and the nature of things that they would not at all appreciate if they had only one language. Therefore, we should appreciate the fact that the teaching of a second language in our schools must of necessity be of great educational value to the children.

Leaving the languages aside, what else have we to do? I do not think that any person can regard himself as fitted for the life that we have to lead in modern conditions unless that person is able to write, and by writing I mean not merely the mechanical process of writing, but also the process of written expression, which goes side by side with oral expression with the different characteristics of both. With these, I do not think there is anybody who will deny that we must have a certain facility in computation, and that means a minimum knowledge of arithmetic. Then you have the question of how far you can go, and what are the essentials. There, again, I think that the essentials are sufficiently numerous, and the course is sufficiently wide to require practically the whole time available in a primary course without adding to it other mathematical subjects, such as algebra, geometry, or sometimes a slight introduction to trigonometry, with mensuration and so on.

If I were to settle that course of my own will, and had nobody else to consider, I would make arithmetic the basis of the mathematical teaching in the primary schools, and I would not bother to get on to formal algebra. I would naturally use generalisation. I might use arithmetic in the proper place to give an introduction to a formal algebra course. Afterwards I might occasionally make use of the arithmetical basis to get on to some of the properties of figures, in other words, to give an elementary idea of geometry, so that the science would not be a completely foreign matter to children when they leave school. But I would not set out formally to teach either algebra or geometry in a primary school course if I had completely the setting of the course. I would do that because I would rather spend the time that I had in improving the knowledge of arithmetic than I would in starting on a new subject, a subject in which I could only give the barest outline in the time at my disposal.

If we take the languages with the question of mechanical writing and writing from the point of view of composition and of expressing oneself in writing, and if we take arithmetic, I think we have got the real essentials, the foundations which are absolutely necessary if pupils leaving school are to be able to enter into life and understand it. Of course there are a number of other things that one would like to add on. But I call these the foundations, the essentials, and I would rather have these done well, because they are the key to other things, than go on to other subjects, if those were to be neglected by doing so.

Then to come to history. A certain knowledge of or acquaintance with history is undoubtedly useful. But, if the children have been taught to read the language in which the text books of history are written, then they have the key to reading for themselves. If you get them interested in reading for themselves, then you can leave them to do history and even geography. But in our schools we do require a certain amount of history to be done and a certain amount of geography. I would be satisfied if we got an outline of the history of our own people in the primary schools and a knowledge of geography which would give a general idea of the countries of the world, with a more particular knowledge of our own country. I do not think it is at all necessary to have a very detailed knowledge on these subjects at all. I am talking of the primary schools now.

Many of us remember that when we were in the 4th or 5th standard we had to do a great deal of geography. Most of us knew then the position of places on the globe which we do not know to-day, even with our experience. I remember that we used to sit in front of a map of the world and try to puzzle each other by asking: "Where is Christmas Island" and all sorts of extraordinary places like that. We had at that time an unnecessarily detailed knowledge, it seems to me, of countries, both the political and economic geography of them, with long lists of commodities exported from various countries. It seemed to me that that was a good deal of useless lumber that we did not want. I suppose you can always say that knowledge is no load, that if you acquire it it is no harm. That may be quite true, provided the time spent in acquiring it could not have been more usefully spent in learning something else.

These are the things we require in a primary school, and if we can get our work done so that a reasonable standard in the languages is arrived at, and a reasonable standard of arithmetic, which is practically all the arithmetic anybody ever learns, the fundamental rules of numbers, fractions, and so on, which you hardly add to in after life, we can be satisfied that our primary course is fulfilling its function. All I want is to see a test that that has been done by having some examinations at the end which will satisfy us that a reasonable standard in reading and writing and expressing oneself in the languages has been arrived at and a reasonable standard in arithmetic, and, if you wish to add to that, a reasonable standard as regards a knowledge of geography and of Irish history.

I believe that we can get that standard if we have good work, and good work means consistent work, and consistent work means a good deal of mechanical routine. What I am afraid of is—and I did fear it would happen when I was a professor in the training colleges—that teachers are thinking all the time of making subjects interesting and attractive, and that if they spend all their time at that sort of thing the mechanical routine which is necessary to go through a subject as a whole cannot be carried out. It is useless for anybody to think that good work can be done in a national school, or in any school without a good deal of hard mechanical routine work.

What you have got to do is to get people not to dislike that sort of work. They will not dislike it. The curious thing is that you will get children who will be quite happy doing mechanical work, for which they have great facility at that age, who will be disappointed, and very weary, if the mistake is made of trying to reason with them, or asking them to use their reasoning powers before they are sufficiently developed, or before their knowledge of a subject is sufficient to enable them to use it. I think a great mistake was made there. From what I saw in my time I always thought it would have a bad influence on the country as a whole, this attempting to appeal to the reasoning powers of a child, before the child had developed the power to reason properly. At the time other things that the children were by nature fitted for were neglected, when it was easy for their memories to have stores upon which they could ruminate as they grew older, and as their reasoning powers permitted.

With regard to criticisms of primary results, I do not know whether the criticisms are justified or not. The chances are that they are not justified. We have such a habit of grumbling and growling about everything that we start by thinking we are not facing life properly and we try to find fault. If we encouraged, rather than tried to find fault, we would get much better results. As long as I am in the Department I will try to urge—and I said this several times since I took charge of the Office —a little well done and thoroughly done. It is not easy at the beginning to get to like work, but after a time people get more interested and, in fact, time hangs most heavily when they are not working. We can get good work done, but work which is of interest must often have in addition work of a mechanical or routine and of a drilled character, both for the pupil and the teacher.

Now we come to the question of the teaching of the language. I do not think Deputy O Briain has quite got what I expressed in the statement, or perhaps it did not show my mind clearly on the question. There has been a good deal of complaint about the policy of the Department by people who did not go to the trouble of finding out exactly what the policy of the Department is.

Even teachers have been criticising, but if they had looked at the circular that was sent out, and also at the note, they would realise that the policy of the Department was that when there was a teacher who knew the language, and who was, therefore, able to use it properly, and when there were children in a position, on account of their knowledge of it, to assimilate the knowledge being given them, under these conditions the Irish language was to be used in the schools. I am speaking of teaching through Irish. If people approached it from that common sense point of view, they would not be making the complaints that have been made. Nobody wants a teacher who does not know Irish to teach other subjects through Irish. That would be ridiculous. He could not do it. Nobody expects if a child does not know a language that it could be taught another subject through that language. The Department was not making that foolish assumption, or asking impossible things to be done. What the Department wanted was that where a teacher did know the language, and where children had such knowledge of it that they were able to assimilate the instruction given them under these conditions, that Irish would be used as the medium.

With regard to infants' classes, that is a peculiar type of problem. In infants' classes it is only language that is taught, and the child is put doing little things. Irish words are used, usually in connection with such phrases as "Close the door,""Sit down," or "Stand up." Children are being taught the language by what we might regard as the direct method of teaching. There is no formal teaching in the case of infants, and it is not right to say that we are trying to teach infants through a language they do not understand. What is being taught in the infant classes is really the language itself, and the children are being taught to use the language at a time when their power to learn a language is very great. They are being taught the language by the direct method. We have often met people who, when asked where they learned German, will say that they had a governess who spoke German well, or if they knew French, they will tell you that they had a French governess. If it is possible for a child in isolation like that to learn in a home where another language is spoken generally, it ought to be possible for our children, when they go to primary schools, to learn the language. If there is a good teacher, there is no reason why that teacher could not give them the language in the same way as a governess gives another language to others.

Talking about progress, or want of progress, in the language, most of us learned languages in the secondary schools. For a number of years I was learning French, and I know other people who under similar conditions studied under reasonably good conditions, but could not speak French. That may have been our own fault, but the fact was we could not speak French. We could read it, and perhaps write it with some effort. We did not know that language after five or six years in secondary schools and did not have any such knowledge as children leaving primary schools have of Irish. There is not the slightest doubt about that.

Coming back to the position of infants, I think there can be no objection whatever if there is a sympathetic teacher. You want a special type of person, a sympathetic teacher of the right type to take charge of infants. The best teachers ought to be those who are most gifted and put in charge of young children. That does not often happen, but it ought to be the case. Given a sympathetic teacher, who gets hold of children at that stage in the infant classes, that teacher can manage. It is extraordinary how much of the language the children will learn in a year or two in such classes. I do not see what harm of any kind could be done to children in that way. I do not believe people who say that the children's minds are stunted when this thing or that thing is done. I do not believe a word of that. I believe if the teacher is sympathetic, and takes children at that stage, and teaches by the direct method, no harm whatever is done. It is said that the children are brought into an Irish atmosphere from the home atmosphere of the English language and that the school appears artificial to them. That may be true. Every one of us, when we went to school—whether it was English or Irish—found the school atmosphere very artificial indeed: we were very glad, when we knew how to read the clock, to look at it to see if the hour had come to get away. I do not think that there is much in the argument regarding infant classes. Fundamentally, it is necessary to have a sympathetic teacher of the right type, who knows the language; for, if the teachers do not know it they cannot teach it by any method. The whole purpose of the Department has been to provide just such teachers as rapidly as possible and I think that wonderful progress has been made in that respect.

We come on now to the higher classes where subjects other than the language are being taught. At that particular point, I would probably differ from some other people interested in the revival of the language. We ought to approach this subject with our minds open—ready to agree and decide on whatever gives the best results. We should not have ideas in our minds in advance, that this or that method must necessarily be used and that it would be wrong to change to another method, even if it were clearly shown to be better. In regard to the spacing of time, if I were choosing, I should rather give more time to developing the knowledge of the language itself than to the use of the language in learning another subject. For example, two years after the infant classes, if I had to teach arithmetic through Irish I should rather give three-quarters of the time to the language itself, so that the mental instrument or instrument of expression they were going to use would be better, even if I had to cut down the time used for the subject concerned. We all know that if we want to perform calculations, we have to know tables and to know certain results by heart. If you learn these at the start in one language, that is the language you are likely to think in. You do not learn two sets of tables— though I am told that it is astonishing how quickly this can be done and that there is a process which is midway between translation and direct memorising. These tables are only learned in one language and if we are going to use Irish for arithmetic the tables will have to be learned through Irish. Having begun in that way, there will be the simple application of those tables in what we call long multiplication, long division, and so on.

While the mechanical processes are taking place, that can be continued; it is only when you begin to give problems in arithmetic apart from the mechanical processes, that you have to explain the why and the wherefore. That may bring difficulties with the use of any language that is not thoroughly understood by the children, or of which the children have not a complete mastery. Good teachers, anxious to promote the use of Irish, will use it; and if, occasionally, they have any doubt whatever of the ability of the pupils to understand them, they will not hesitate to use English if the child knows English better. No inspector that I know of would object to that. He would object if it were abused in the way that Deputy Donnchadh O Briain thought it might be abused, in that Irish might be cut out of the school altogether, so that teachers would get out of the difficulty. But if they are doing their work properly, the inspector can have no objection. When talking to a child it is easy to see whether the child understands or not, to see whether the child's mind has made contact with the teacher's or not. If it had not made contact through Irish, you will have to use the language through which contact can be made. If the bias, the desire to use Irish as much as possible, is there, the use of English for explanatory purposes is quite permissible, and, as far as I know from the Department, no inspector would find fault with that. As far as arithmetic is concerned, tables and other mechanical processes can be learned through the medium of Irish. When you come to problems, however, you can use English where an English explanation is necessary in order to make contact with the child's mind. In teaching arithmetic, three-fourths of the time could be spent with Irish.

Turning to the question of history teaching, people are inclined to think sometimes that history is only a story, and that it lends itself to a language very easily. After all, it is only a story—and the simplest and most elementary use of a language is in telling a story. An exceptionally good teacher could give a good history course to the children trained by himself or herself for four or five years. Of course, teachers have succeeded in doing that, and there can be no patience with people who say that it cannot be done. There is an old saying: "Good teachers are born rather than made." When teaching was a pure vocation things were on a different level from what they are when it is a general profession to which people can come in to follow as a career. That is a problem in various professions to-day, where you have to deal with people who come in to follow a career without having any special vocation for that particular profession.

To those teachers who have special abilities or qualifications for teaching I would say that they must not imagine that, because they themselves are satisfied of their success, their brothers or sisters in the profession can be equally successful. A certain amount of latitude must, therefore, be given to the use of the English language, in teaching subjects in schools, to teachers who have not got exceptional abilities or an exceptional knowledge of Irish.

However, all we can say is that an exceptionally good teacher can give a history course in the Irish language, again assuming that the children have had a fair introductory training, whereas the teacher who is not a really good teacher will have great difficulty in doing so. Such teachers will have difficulty in getting over these general ideas which are in history. We, who are grown up, think of history as a relatively simple subject, but it is not simple to those who are looking out on the world for the first time and who have no ideas of politics or matters of that sort. In the case of the geography of this country, there are instances where the good teacher can teach geography without any great difficulty through the medium of Irish. The less able teacher will have difficulty in doing that. Going through the various subjects taught in the schools, I ask is it unreasonable to expect that the majority of our schools should be able to carry on the teaching of other subjects through Irish? I do not think it is unreasonable, but I do not think we should be rigid in regard to the matter. If, on occasion, there is clearly a desire on the part of the teacher to do as much as possible, I do not think that anybody would be so rigid or so unreasonable as to say that the use of the other language to make the instruction plain should not be allowed.

I do not think, as far as the primary course is concerned, there is anything further I can say about it. Some people would like to bring in agriculture, some music, and some drawing. With regard to these subjects, I say that there is only a certain number of hours available in the day and only a certain number of years available up to the age of 14, that we cannot have everything, and that it is very much better to concentrate on the fundamental things. It would not be fair to call other subjects—rural science, algebra and things of that sort—trimmings, but I would so regard them as compared with the other things of fundamental value. Vocal music is exceptional. I am afraid to say much about music because I know nothing about it myself, and what I do say may be only a peculiar personal view. I suppose it is one of the cultural things in life, and that apart from the power to read, which is given through the work in primary schools, that if you can get people to enjoy that particular cultural side upon which music touches, you will be doing good work. If I were going to add to these fundamental subjects, the one I should like to add would be vocal music. I think it is a good thing to get people these days to sing rather than growl. If we became a nation of singers rather than a nation of fault-finders, we would be much better off. It would enable us to look at the bright side of things at a time when there are so many dark sides to the picture.

The question of school buildings was also referred to. When I went to the Department I think there were about 600 schools that were regarded as requiring attention and, of these, 300 were in a bad way. Although the Minister for Finance had a very tight pull on the purse-strings, we got him to release them with regard to school buildings. We are going ahead as quickly as we can at the present time and there is no let-up in regard to that matter. The suggestion was made that we might short-cut some of the present Departmental routine, but I do not think that would help matters very much. The Department of Education has to come into it and you would have to have architects if you tried to deal with the matter apart from the Board of Works. I do not think, in the long run, it would help very much. We could not side-track the Minister for Finance because, naturally, if the money is to be allocated at all, there must be somebody in charge. You could not allow the several Departments to go off on their own and just spend whatever they required. The Department of Finance would have to be consulted with regard to the provision made. I do think the Department of Finance has not been at all ungenerous in regard to educational services. Compared with other countries, we are spending more than most. I do not know if there is any country where a larger proportion of the revenues is being spent on education than in this country. I do not think, therefore, that there can be any complaint in regard to the attitude of the Department of Finance or that the Minister for Finance has been ungenerous in regard to education.

There was one particular matter in regard to which I tried to soften his hard heart, namely, the teaching of literary subjects in industrial schools. He said to me: "You have got a lot of demands in other directions; this is something new. We want to cut down these new demands as much as possible." The sum in question is about £29,000 per annum. All I can say is that the Minister for Finance has promised that, as soon as he is able to deal with the matter, he will do so, but at the present time he cannot meet all the demands made upon him. Regretfully we have to leave that matter over. I personally regret it, because my predecessor had indicated that it was our intention to make money available for that purpose. It would have been made available were it not for the present financial difficulty.

With regard to school buildings, we are not held up on the money side. As for the matter of local contributions. again, we cannot have it every way. We must remember that our system is a denominational system and that the local managers have a considerable and an important part to play in our whole system. My hope would be that the managers of our schools would carry out that function to the full. I have not been long enough in the Department to know to what extent that is being done, but when I was young— and I suppose things have not changed very much for the better since— although we had very careful priests, going back and looking at the situation as I see it now, recollecting what happened in my own area which, I think, was fairly representative, my view is that a good deal of the inspection and the work carried out by the central Department could have been very much more easily done and more profitably done by the managers.

We are anxious that the managers would take a full share in looking after the educational work carried on in the schools. They are very much better than any inspector. An inspector comes in on a particular day for a few hours. The manager can walk in at any time. He can have a weekly visit if he wants to have regular visits. or he can make irregular visits. He will know whether a reasonable standard has been reached or whether the work is being done properly, in a way that no inspector can know. The managers, then, are a very important part of our whole system, and in giving them the rights which they have, we cannot at the same time abrogate the demand that some local contribution will be made. It is true that in some cases—and I doubt whether we were wise in doing it—the conditions were such that it was thought that no contribution, or a very little contribution, should be made. And because these exceptions were made, everybody now wants to be an exception. They all want to be treated as the exceptional cases were treated, with the result that it is becoming more and more difficult to get a reasonable local contribution. I think that the local community, who are served by the school in a particular way, ought to be asked to pay their particular share, which is not a big one—it is only one-third of the cost. It does mean delay, because they all think that, since some school in some very poor area was let off and did not have to pay more than one-sixth, or even a smaller fraction, other places that could well afford to tax the community to that extent should be let off also.

I do not know if there is anything else with regard to the primary system which it should be necessary for me to reply to except, perhaps, this matter of physical drill. As far as I remember, there used to be a sort of thing that was called physical drill. I remember that I had some sort of physical drill in the primary school— some kind of marching, and so on—and I think I remember having something in the nature of a physical drill in the secondary schools. However, from my memory of any physical drill that I saw in these schools, it did not appear to me that it was very much worth while bothering about. Now, games are on a different footing, and I certainly think that, in so far as it is possible within our means, to provide playing grounds, playing fields, and so on, we ought to attempt to do so; but it is no small thing to face, and the cost would be considerable. The cost of providing the necessary playing fields would be very great and there is also the difficulty of getting the right place. The provision of playing fields in connection with the schools, however, would be very helpful, in my opinion, because there they would get physical exercises in the best possible surroundings. I am not going to say that you could not superimpose on that, or have with it—but, again, it would be very expensive—a system of regular exercises which we generally refer to as physical drill. I am sure that you could have that. I would not like to make any promise in regard to that matter, or in regard to playing fields, but I shall look into it.

Another thing that was asked about in connection with the primary schools was the provision of an extra room or two in the schools where, say, rural carpentry or work that would be suitable for young farmers and young farm labourers in a rural community could be taught, and where the girls would have an opportunity of being taught something with regard to cooking and domestic economy. I am informed, however, that it would be a very expensive business, and that the provision of an extra room or two to the present schools would require a very large capital sum. Then there is also the question as to whether it would be really effective for the purpose, or whether it would be the best way to achieve the purpose. I just touch on that point, and am merely pointing out that it would be very expensive, but I do not want to prejudice any further inquiries that may be made into that matter.

Now, whilst I would not have agriculture or these things taught in the primary schools proper, because I think the other things are more necessary and of more general value at that particular time, still I do think that if you had continuation courses it would be a great help to the rural community if they could get some instruction in agriculture. There is this to be remembered about agriculture, it seems to me—that there you have an opportunity of learning the subject at home. As somebody suggested, you will not learn agriculture out of a text-book in a school; very largely, you will learn it by practice and by seeing with your own eyes the things that are being done. That is the best way to learn it. Very well, then. If we could get the presentday farmers—the fathers and the young people on the farms who are actually doing the work—instructed in the proper methods of agriculture, the children would naturally see the right processes as they were being employed, and unless you had continuation classes in the schools—taking the students out and giving them practical demonstrations afterwards, which would be fairly expensive—I think the best way would be to improve the work that is being done by the Department of Agriculture in teaching the actual farmers as to what they should do with their farms, and how to apply the best methods in the best way to get the full economic value, and then the children on these farms would learn their agriculture in the best possible school. If you had that supplemented by some kind of continuation work then I think the results that are desired here would be obtained.

Passing from the primary schools to the secondary schools, one of the questions that was raised in connection with this matter of the secondary schools was that of compulsory mathematics. I think that Deputy Mulcahy, in particular, is under a misapprehension as to what the regulations are, what the syllabus is, and what are the prescribed courses and conditions. It has been suggested to me that, probably, the mistake arose from the fact that certain proposals were issued at one time, but that they were departed from and are not the proposals which were actually put into the programme.

In the programme the position is that all the boys who are pursuing an approved course—the course must be approved before the grants are paid— must study mathematics and take mathematics in the intermediate course and in the preparatory course for the intermediate course. They must do mathematics; it is compulsory, and if they wish to get the Intermediate Certificate they also have to pass an examination in mathematics. So that mathematics, in so far as we could make it compulsory, is compulsory for the boys in the intermediate course and up for the intermediate examination. Now, as regards girls, mathematics is also obligatory on the girls as part of an approved course. If we are to recognise them as pupils following an approved course, they must attend mathematical classes; they must do mathematics, but they are not required, as a condition of passing the intermediate examination, to pass in mathematics. You may ask, why? Why not make it a compulsory subject in that examination for the girls as well as for the boys? Well, it was put up to us in this way. Sometimes there are exceptional people who find mathematics extremely difficult and it was suggested that these exceptions are to be found more frequently amongst girls than amongst boys. Accordingly, we said: "All right; if the girls follow the approved course and pass in their full number of subjects, leaving out mathematics and passing in an alternative subject, then we will not regard them as having failed in their examination. We will allow them to pass without mathematics but they have to spend the full number of hours in studying mathematics as an approved course." That was to meet the case of exceptional people, but the proof that mathematics is not neglected is that over 99 per cent. of the boys and over 80 per cent. of the girls take mathematics in the Leaving Certificate Examination in which it is compulsory for either boys or girls. So that even though the exception is made, 80 per cent. of the girls take mathematics through their whole course. We are not preventing them, remember; we are only not insisting that they must pass in mathematics. For those who feel that they have not any particular ability in regard to mathematics, we are not insisting that they must do mathematics in order that they may pass the intermediate examination. I think that Deputy Mulcahy was not aware of the fact that we are compelling them to go through the approved course and, as a matter of fact, this very high percentage of girls take mathematics even in the final examination in which nobody need take it.

I have to confess that since I came into the Department I have not had the same opportunity of dealing with technical education. I have given a good deal of attention to the secondary and primary branches. I propose now to try to give the same attention to the technical and vocational sides. So far I have not had an opportunity of doing that so I cannot speak from direct personal knowledge. I would like to say that I did go into about half a dozen primary schools. I intend visiting a number of others. I went into half a dozen schools to see what was the result as far as Irish was concerned. I was told that I was being taken to what would be regarded as particularly good, medium and not so good schools. I must say that from what I could observe in the short time I was there, I was more than pleased with regard to the progress that seemed to have been made in regard to Irish. I must say that.

Having heard complaints by the score, I went rather expecting to find things of a certain kind. I was agreeably surprised. I am taking the word of the people who took me to these schools that they were of the classes indicated. I intend visiting other schools. These were schools not very far from Dublin—country schools just outside Dublin, but I hope to go into other schools. I can only say that if all the schools in the country are anything like the six schools that I saw, then let nobody say that we are not succeeding in our effort to get the language known amongst the young people. I think we have succeeded far beyond anything I would have believed if I had not gone into those schools. Where we are failing in this matter is that when they leave the schools they have no immediate reason for speaking Irish; they have no immediate inducement to speak Irish. If we can take up the work that has been done in the schools in teaching the language and if we can try to take that up at that stage and give them a reason for using it one with another, in their ordinary daily lives afterwards, we shall have succeeded. I would like to assure members of the House who may not themselves have gone into the schools, that they make a mistake if they believe the stories that we have completely failed in the work we have been trying to do in the schools. I think there has been wonderful progress made and I believe that if we keep on with confidence and try to help by doing something for them in the years after they have just left school, either by some of these suggestions that have been made or otherwise, then the money which has been spent will be justified from the national point of view because we will have succeeded.

I have nothing further to say with regard to secondary schools except that last year, in consultation with the inspectors and in consultation with different groups of headmasters, we introduced prescribed text books and tried to get the courses there more definite than they have been before. My view anyhow is that that is a step in the right direction. The schools are examining the programme this year and we expect to be in consultation with them. We expect that the schools will be able to give us their views as to any further slight changes or modifications that may be necessary. In the case of the Irish and English languages we have not prescribed texts in the same way as we have in regard to, say, Latin and Greek and modern languages, but we hope to develop in that direction. After this year's examination, and, perhaps, another year's examination, then I think we will develop in the direction of having a certain number of prescribed texts also, both in regard to Irish and English, again going on the motto that it is better to do a little well than to go over a wide course, doing it in a superficial, inaccurate and rather indefinite manner.

In regard to free school books, I have to confess that if I were the person to decide in that matter I would give no free books. I would try to provide cheap books, and I would provide few of them. Few books and cheap books, so that the cost would not be great, is what I would aim at. I would try to have them cheap by having them made more or less standard books. I know that there are people who would not agree with that view. My own view is that they would not appreciate the books if they were given free. They would be thrown aside, and they would not have the same care for them. If they had only to pay a small amount they would be kept and treasured, and would be, perhaps, more useful.

With regard to school meals, that is a matter which does not come under my particular Ministry at the moment so I shall not deal with it.

I was asked about part-time Irish teachers and the poor remuneration that they get. I think the idea has been to try to eliminate these as far as possible. I think we have only a few of them left now. I will look into the position. I think the aim of the Department is to have as few part-time teachers as possible.

It was suggested that there might be a break in the day. I think it was Deputy Byrne who asked that question. That is a matter for the managers. The managers can, if they wish, arrange the school time to suit it. There are many difficulties. It would be quite impossible for the Department to make a rule on that matter, because conditions are so different in different places. Anybody who thinks of it for a moment will see all the difficulties. If children, for instance, have to go a long distance, they would have to pay the double fare, and so on. A lot of factors would come in if we were to break the time in that way. However, again it is a matter that the managers can handle if they wish. If there are any particular local circumstances which make it possible to do it, they can do it. I agree with the general principle that it would be a very good thing for the children to get a meal and to get a break, but, unfortunately, we have to balance that with other things, and conditions are against it. If I were a manager I might, even with the best will in the world, find the difficulties too great for me to overcome.

I was also asked, when there are big housing schemes being carried out, why we should not anticipate our requirements. I think that is a very proper suggestion. It may be very difficult to anticipate. I do not know to what extent we might be able to anticipate the requirements as to the number of children who would have to be accommodated. I think it is looking ahead, and that is always wise in planning. I think that it is a suggestion that might be considered. The Deputy was particularly talking about 'bus fares, and so on. The new schools are going to be built in the area to which the Deputy referred.

With regard to the salaries question, Deputy Hurley said that I was very abrupt in the reply which was sent. I looked at it in this way: I knew that the financial conditions were such that we could not dream of doing it under present circumstances, and what was the use of wasting my time and the time of the teachers' representatives in talking about something to which the answer was determined in advance? I saw not long ago a letter from some people—I think in Donegal—who came up here to see some Department in regard to a particular matter. They wrote to me complaining that at the interview it transpired that a decision had been taken which made it quite impossible for them to get what they wanted, and they said that they should not have been brought that distance just to be told that a decision had been taken, but that they should have been told before they came. That was a case in which evidently the person concerned took the view that Deputy Hurley suggests I should have taken, that it was a matter of courtesy to let them come along, to listen to them, and then to tell them in the course of the conversation that a decision had been reached which would make it impossible to give them what they wanted, unless something extraordinary transpired at the interview. I did not want to do that. I knew that under the circumstances and in view of the general policy decided on by the Government, I could not ask the Minister for Finance to consider the question of an increase of salaries. I do not think I was discourteous, but I was quite straight with them in stating that no purpose would be served, as no purpose would have been served, in seeing them on that matter.

A question was also raised about teachers' conferences, and I was asked why we did not avail of the invitation issued by teachers to have these conferences with inspectors. That matter has been brought to my notice once or twice recently, but there is a genuine difficulty in regard to it, that is, that the teachers will not invite to these conferences those who do not belong to their organisation. After all, that is a matter outside the Department, and if the inspectors are to have local conferences with teachers, it is only right that all the teachers should have an opportunity of profiting by anything the inspector may say. Were it not for that difficulty, the matter would have been fixed long ago, because we would certainly have agreed.

I have a note about smaller matters, such as the using of schools for pamphlets about education, upon which I do not think it is necessary for me to comment. With regard to the readers which we propose to bring out, it has been suggested that, following the general principle, there is a great deal in having one book which would be known to parents. For instance, in regard to Irish, nothing would help the teaching of Irish in the schools more than to have the same books for the younger children as were used previously by the elder children.

In that case, they would have home help, and I should like to see for a number of years some readers, particularly in Irish, standardised so that one book would be used by the children in a family. I would hope that the time might come when even the parents themselves might be able to teach the language and to say: "I know that by heart. I learned it when I was at school." I think that would be particularly valuable.

It was suggested that I did not take the teachers' organisation, as such, into consultation in the matter. I intended doing so at a later stage. What we did was to write to a number of people who had been teachers, and who were likely to have a right appreciation of the pieces of literature suitable for children, and ask them to suggest some pieces which they considered suitable. We wrote to individual teachers. Deputy Hurley's point, I think, was that we should have asked the teachers' organisation to communicate with their own members. We communicated directly with those we knew were particularly fitted to help, and we got suggestions from them, but before the book is finally decided on, I will have an opportunity of discussing it and its contents with the organisation.

I was asked about the director of the museum, and the present position in his regard. The position was that at the beginning of the war he was absent on museum business. He has had some difficulty in getting back, and provision is being made for the appointment of an acting director to carry on in his absence. The salary was paid up to the beginning of December, but is not being paid at the moment. It was also suggested that we were shutting down the training colleges. That is not the right way of looking at it. The position was that there was no use in training teachers for whom there was no room. We have, in fact, a fairly difficult problem to handle at present in regard to teachers trained in excess of our requirements. There was no use continuing on that line, so that the shutting down was not a sort of deliberate act of policy on our part. We closed them simply because we did not need so many to meet requirements.

As to inspection, as I pointed out in the statement I circulated, it would be quite impossible for the number of inspectors we have—there are only 65 of them, I think—to examine directly and immediately 400,000 pupils. What I have suggested is that we should have one primary leaving certificate examination by which we could test what standard had been reached. We would have to increase our inspectorial staff very substantially indeed if we were to attempt to do what has been suggested by some Deputies. Deputy Mulcahy had some idea—I am not quite clear as to what he had in mind, or how he would operate it—of putting a number of groups to examining certain subjects, and ascertaining what proficiency had been reached. It is the main function of the inspectorial staff to help the teachers in so far as they can see how the work is being carried on in the school, but I am afraid I do not see exactly what Deputy Mulcahy had in mind with regard to these groups.

Under the present system, you will not be able to give us the assurance I spoke of.

Nor would I under the other system, so far as I can see. If you send a number of teachers around the various schools, I do not think you would be able to get any definite assurance from them either.

If you take a half-dozen first class teachers, whom you can now replace in your schools temporarily, and give them the work of investigating a certain number of schools in certain areas, if you like, of considering simply the question of what is the position of geography in the schools, taken as a sample group, what is wrong with the methods, what is wrong with the results and what is wrong with the objective, you will get a concentrated report from experienced teachers on a particular subject. You will not get it from the inspectors under the present system, but you could get it on each of the subjects by having a small group and giving that group three or four months of the working year in which to do it.

I do not see that that would be so, because we have a number of inspectors who will see more in their time and be more continuous on the job than any group you could send out. If you want a check on the inspectors, that is another matter, but if you simply want information, I do not think a group like that could get it for you, because at present you have a large number of inspectors who, in various ways, are in touch with these different subjects and have a full knowledge of what is being done. If there is a question of what is wrong, you can get the necessary knowledge from them. By getting a group of inspectors together, you can get results from their knowledge but if you wish as a check to go outside——

Some machinery is wanted to get what you are not able to get at the moment.

I am afraid you would not get it in that way. If any question regarding Irish, for example, crops up I can get the views of the inspectors. They can tell me what can be done and that would be as good an expression of opinion as any we would get in the other way. But it would not be a thing by which the average man in the street would be able to judge. If we have a Leaving Certificate examination, and 50,000 or 100,000 pupils go in for this examination, and if you show the percentage of passes, which means that the pupils concerned must have done a certain number of questions on the papers, the average person can satisfy himself as to the standard reached in the examination. I am assuming, of course, that he is a person capable of forming a definite opinion, that he has some idea of what a reasonable standard is. He can see by the results the standard reached. I do not think he could do that by means of an expression of opinion in the way indicated. If that is wanted, you can get it by grouping the inspectors.

Group the inspectors.

I am not saying that the course suggested would be completely useless. An outside check with regard to a debatable question is sometimes useful. I have, I think, dealt with most of the questions raised and, as a number of other Estimates have to be dealt with, I ask to be excused if I have overlooked any point.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share