Maidir leis na múinteoirí Gaedhilge gur dhein an Teachta O Briain tagairt dóibh, níl an scéim seo i bhfeidhm sáthach fada chun go bhféadfainn a rádh conus tá ag éirghe léi. Níl muid chun a thuilleadh des na múinteoirí seo a oileamhaint go fóill go dtí go bhfeicfimíd cén toradh a bheidh ar an obair go dtí so.
As regards Deputy Brennan's point, we have frequently heard it said that we are not giving a sufficient bias to agriculture in our schools. As I have often said, there is nothing to stop teachers in the primary schools from using examples and illustrations from the life about them. They are strongly recommended, in the Notes to Teachers and in the programme, to utilise as far as possible examples and illustrations from local life, work and needs and, therefore, I see no reason why, if the suggestions are carried out, there should not be a definite agricultural bias in the instruction, even in primary schools.
Of course, we have to have regard to the fact that we are trying to give the pupils the fundamentals of the three R's, and also a knowledge of the Irish language, great or small. Irish is an additional burden on the teachers, if you will, and, from our discussion in the House to-day, we know what a serious matter it is. Therefore, I do not think that Deputy Brennan, on reconsideration, will consider that even if there were a strong case educationally for putting agricultural instruction on the programme, it could be done in existing circumstances in the primary schools.
We are encouraging vocational schools in rural areas to give instruction in rural science. A fairly large number of young agricultural graduates are teaching in the rural vocational schools. The tendency undoubtedly is to follow courses leading to commercial work. There is a reason for that. A good many of these people find openings in commercial and distributive work. A great number of people are employed in these callings and it is almost impossible, under a non-compulsory scheme, to compel students to follow the type of courses that we would like them to follow. Their idea is to look for something that has a job at the end of it, a job in the Civil Service, if possible; if not, some commercial employment. We have that difficulty and allowance must be made for it.
In addition, as the Deputy knows, only one son can be kept at home on the farm. The others have to find employment elsewhere. I think there are too many preparing for commercial life, but if there are openings, it is very difficult to stop them following the course they like without a system of compulsory education and enforcement of compulsory courses upon them.
I would not be in a position to say what the general results of vocational education are just now. According to the reports I receive, the schools are progressing satisfactorily. The day courses are doing well, and the numbers attending them are increasing. The evening classes for adults or persons already in employment seem to be doing well, but I think there is a certain impatience with the work of vocational schools, because, as I have mentioned, people are too apt to look for a job at the end. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that there will be a job at the end, no matter what course is followed. I would suggest that members of committees—I presume the Deputy is one—should emphasise to parents on every possible occasion that the object of the vocational schools is to give a vocational training for the ordinary avocation of the district. If there is an industry in the district, then special regard should be had to it. If not, the bias should be towards agriculture and domestic science. Parents should be made to realise that there is no guarantee of employment, commercial or otherwise, at the end of the course; that, in fact, vocational education courses ought to be looked upon as training ground for home work afterwards in the case of girls, and for farm work or other local employment in the case of boys. There is no guarantee, unfortunately, that they will get that employment.
