Estimates for Public Services. - Vote 45—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Wednesday, 21 May 1947

Estimates for Public Services. - Vote 45—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed).

Mr. Bartley

When the House adjourned last night I was referring to Scoil Fhursa in Galway. I know that many schools in Galway City are overcrowded but there is this difference in regard to Scoil Fhursa that there is ample accommodation there to relieve the congestion and I would point out to the Minister that the school is grossly understaffed. There is a smaller proportion of teachers to the attendance of pupils in Scoil Fhursa than in any other school in County Galway. I understand that one teacher has no fewer than 80 pupils under her care. That position could be remedied without delay. After considerable agitation, an extra room was made available and an extra teacher was appointed but the conditions have not been improved sufficiently to meet the demand for the instruction available at Scoil Fhursa. The Minister knows that this is a special school set up under the direct auspices of the Department and the Department must shoulder responsibility for whatever deficiencies exist in respect of it.

I wish to make an appeal for an expansion in the scholarship schemes from primary and secondary schools. In making the appeal I hope the Chair will pardon me if I make a passing reference to universities. I calculate that the State pays one-fourth of the all-in cost of university education. The remaining three-fourths is sufficiently high to make university education the preserve of children of well-to-do parents. In order that university education can be in this country what it is in other countries the State should increase its expenditure on scholarships so as to provide university education for the clever children of poorer parents. I took the figure of £2,300 from the Book of Estimates in respect of Gaeltacht scholarships. That is entirely too small a sum. Under the scholarship scheme the community have the advantage of knowing that only the best pupils are sent forward for higher education. As things are, the children of the well-to-do, whether they are equipped to benefit by higher education or not, can spend a number of years at the university at their parents' expense. To balance that, the State should step in and make it possible for poorer children, in progressively larger numbers, to get university education.

Ba mhaith liom dá n-innseodh an tAire dhuinn nuair a bheas sé ag tabhairt freagra ar an díospóireacht seo cén fáth ná fuil cead ag lucht na gColáiste Ullmhúcháin san Iarthar dul isteach i gColáiste Éanna i nGaillimh. Is mór an costas agus an trioblóid é, ar dhaltaí na gColáiste sin agus cuireann sé am amú orthu freisin, dul síos go Baile Mhúirne nuair tá áit mhór ar Bhóthar na Trágha i nGaillimh ag dúl amú cheal daltaí scoile. Feicim ón Leabhar Meastacháin ná raibh i gColáiste Éanna ach caoga is a naoi scoláirí ón gcéad lá d'Aibreán seo caite agus ón gcéad lá de Mheán Fómhair seo chugainn amach beidh sé sin méadaithe go dtí seachtó a naoi. I gColáiste Íosagáin i mBaile Mhúirne tá nocha a cúig agus ina measc sin tá fhios agam-sa buachaillí as Mhuigheó agus Gaillimh atá curtha caite síos ansin gan aon ghá leis. Dá mba rud é go raibh an iomarca i gColáiste Éanna agus na huimhreacha níos lú i gColáiste Íosagáin bheadh rud éicint le rá ar thaobh an tsocruithe atá déanta faoi láthair.

Ba mhaith liom freisin a fháil amach ón Aire faoi scéim deontas na Gaeilge. Níl aon eolas chruinn ag na daoine cén chaoi á bhfuil sé á oibriú. Ba mhaith liom rud amháin a fháil amach go soiléir ón Aire agus sin é, an leor tuismitheoir amháin a bheith ina Gaeilgeoir nó ina Ghaeilgeoir? An ndéanfaidh sé cúis má bhíonn an t-athair ina Ghaeilgeoir agus Gaeilge ag an gclann nó, má tá an Roinn sásta glacadh le haon tuismitheoir amháin, an ndéanfaidh sé cúis nó an bhfuil siad ag déanamh coinníoll riachtanach de, go gcaithfidh an mháthair bheith ina Gaeilgeoir? Sin rud ná fuil soiléir faoi'n tír agus ba mhaith liom dá gcuirfeadh an Roinn na rialacha amach i riocht is go mbeadh a fhios ag gach duine cén chaoi atá an scéim á hoibriú. Molaim an scéim go mór. Tá fhios agam go bhfuil sé ag déanamh an-mhaith do chúis na Gaeilge a choinneail beo ins na háiteanna ina bhfuil sí beo fós agus nílim á iarraidh ar an Aire airgead a thabhairt ró-bhog do dhaoine a bhfuil beagán Gaeilge acu mura bhfuil siad go dílis á labhairt sa mbaile.

Chuir mé scéal faoi bhráid an Aire tamall ó shoin faoi shean-scéalaíocht faoin tír agus, go sonrach, leagadh amach córas oibre i bparóiste amháin i gConamara. Fuair mé admháil ón Aire go bhfuair sé an litir sin ach, thairis sin, ní bhfuair mé aon scéala fós agus ba mhaith liom a fháil amach cad tá faoin Aire agus faoin Roinn a dhéanamh faoin scéim sin.

Is toradh é ar shaothar daoine a bhfuil cáil an-mhór orthu san gcineál sin oibre. Tá eolas na ceirde sin acu agus is dream iad a thuigeas scéalaíocht agus cúiseanna Gaeilge. Is dócha gur féidir a rá go bhfuil na scéalta clóbhuailte agus foillsithe cheana. Tá rud éigin seachas é sin ag teastáil le sean-scéalaíocht a chur í dtuigsint do na daoine óga. Tá an difriocht chéana ann is tá idir bheith ag éisteacht le drama ar an radio agus a bheith ag breathnú ar an drama san amarchlainn. Is dóigh liom gur féidir a rá gur mór ar fad í an difríocht sin.

Ba maith liom dá méadaíodh an tAire an méid airgid atá á fháil ag lucht na ndrámaí Gaeilge. Is gluais— eacht rí-mhaith í sin agus do réir leabhar na Meastachan níl le fáil le haghaidh na hoibre sin ach £75. Tá cáineadh amháin agam maidir le gairm-oideachas in obair mhiotail. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon mhiotalóireacht a múineadh sa nGaeltacht nó san Iarthar ar chuma ar bith. Anois tá tionscal tábhachtach curtha ar bun I gConnamara—bréagáin luaidhe. Ta an tionscal sin an-tábhachtach don Ghaeltacht, agus go gairid, le cúnamh Dé, beidh obair mhór ar siúl ar na portaigh thar timpeall Ath Tiomáin go háirithe le móin a bhaint le meaisíní. Chítear dom go mbeadh muintir na Gaeltachta i ndon postanna maithe a fháil nuair a bheas tionscail na maisín-mhona faoi lántseol sa tír seo. Tá súil agam, agus tá mé á iarraidh ar an Aire, go dtabharfaidh sé áird ar an bpointe sin. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabhail leis as a bheith chomh dílís dúrachtach faoi gach a mbaineann leis an nGaeltacht agus le Gaelachas.

Captain Giles

I wish to raise one matter of importance which concerns a group of ex-teachers, that is, the monthly payment of their pensions. Quite a number of them have brought the matter to my notice—one in particular—and they say that the monthly payment system is not satisfactory and that they desire to have a fortnightly payment of their pensions. A month is too long to have to wait, particularly for those who have only a small pension. I have a letter here from one man in which he states: "I am a retired national school teacher, having retired at 35 years' service instead of the full 45 years to secure the maximum pension. Therefore, I have only a few pounds per month. The pensioned teachers are urging the Minister for Education to have their pensions paid fortnightly instead of monthly and resolutions to that effect have poured in to the Minister from all the pensioned teachers' association meetings in Éire. In fact, I wrote to Mr. Derrig myself last July on this matter of fortnightly payments for pensioned teachers and I herewith enclose his reply." The reply was reasonably satisfactory. It meant that if a volume of teachers is pressing for the concession the Minister thinks something could be done about it. I hope the Minister will consider the position and, if possible, give them a fortnightly payment. It will not mean any extra clerical staff. It is only a matter of putting their names to the cheque and sending it on. It should be done. A month is much too long to have to wait for a pension. I know that on the county council to which I belong the road workers have demanded a weekly payment instead of a fortnightly payment.

I am not at all satisfied with the debate in general. It was a very unsatisfactory debate. We had a great deal of cross-purpose debate which was not very helpful to the House or to the country. The remarks about favouritism for the Irish language were not helpful. To my mind, the principal thing about education is that we should be able to turn out a properly balanced man. We have not turned them out as we should have. There are too many men in this country with a one-track mind. We have too many "sissies" in this country. I want to see a properly balanced man full of commonsense and wisdom turned out from our schools. That can be done by having contented teachers. They have not been contented for a number of years. However, I think a great deal of that discontent has passed and that there is a hope that we shall have happy and contented teachers in the future. When we have that and when we have a proper basis of understanding between the Minister, the teacher and the parents things will be better. We have not turned out the finished product I would like to see. We have not turned out men suitable for a country life. Ninety per cent. of the people should be turned out like that. If there are people who want to go to the city they should have to fend for themselves. The ordinary national school education of our country should cater primarily for rural life. Our teachers require a broad, manly outlook, justice, fair play and commonsense. If that foundation is laid, our children of three, seven, nine, ten, 12 years of age will have a foundation that will last, because when a child reaches the age of 16 without that foundation his mind is formed and nobody can change it. I am satisfied that in my day the teachers to whom I went of the national school type thought far more of their jobs than they did of the few pounds attached to them.

They brought the pupils back after hours and gave them lectures on how to be good and noble and, chiefly, to be natural. There were very few "sissies" turned out then, as was shown by the national struggle from 1916 to 1921 which was carried on by the products of the schools in these days. We should, if we can, get back to that position again. I am satisfied that the present position is not the fault of the teachers. It is due to the home training of our children, which does not rise to a very high standard at present. The parents are leaving to the teachers the work which should be done at home. The children going into the schools at present have very little foundation on which to build. The teachers have a hard job. With all the subjects which have to be crammed into the children, it is very hard to turn out a proper product. As I say, the fault lies more in the homes than in the schools. Taking it all in all, if the home training was better, I think we would be able to turn out a better type of young man or woman.

Then the teachers are tied up with far too many regulations. I know there are some teachers who need to be tied up by regulations because they have bad tempers, but they are a small minority. The majority of the teachers have not bad tempers. They are able to deal properly with the children, if they are allowed, but they are not allowed. There are many children who want a good spanking very often, but they are not getting it. The fact is that a teacher is afraid to slap a child or use a rod in case he will be brought to court. The "dear darling" nearly always gets the better of it. The unfortunate teacher is trying to do the best he can for the child. If a child is slapped, a commonsense parent would say, when the true story is told: "You did not give him half enough." Therefore, I think that tying the teachers up with these nonsensical regulations is bad for the country. If a child needs a slapping, he should get it; his hands will bear a good deal of it. As long as we follow the line of least resistance, we will never turn out proper children.

None of us are satisfied with the position of the Irish language at present. I feel that it is the duty of the nation, by every means in its power, to resurrect the national language, if it can be done. I am satisfied that, if we all made an endeavour, a good deal could be done. In the past we never gave in to being beaten and I do not think we should give in now, so far as the language is concerned. I do not think we are beaten. From the tone of the debate in this House I feel that there will have to be a national revival. There are a good many people here who do not like the Irish language, because they have the slave mind. The slave mind is being resurrected rapidly in this country and will have to be done away with. Great sacrifices were made in the past and they should not have been made in vain. If we had an Irish-speaking nation here we need not give two "hoots" about the cinemas and books that come in from abroad, because we would be able to withstand them. It is because Irish is not the spoken language of the country that these things are liable to do harm. If we had our own language, we would be able to stand up to them. No doubt it is a huge task to revive the language, which was nearly wiped out under the English régime, but I do not think we shall fail. The plain people of the country are our only hope for a revival of the language.

The broadcasts by the Taoiseach about the language are pure bunkum. The people only say: "What is he after now? Let him give up that nonsense." Nearly half the people have that idea about these broadcasts. I am satisfied, however, that, in their hearts, they are in favour of a revival of the language. The revival will have to come from those who do not speak Irish, namely, the plain people of the country. I am satisfied that they are as keen as ever they were about the matter. The people at the top should stop all this cramming and nonsense. In my days, no one had to tell us to learn the language. We went to night classes in order to learn it. I did not succeed myself, but many of my colleagues did. No compulsion was needed then, because we loved to be in a position to do something for our country. Therefore, I would say to the Minister: "Get back to the plain people." It is the plain people who do everything in this country. Deep in their hearts they are really true Irishmen and women. They do not want to see us a cowardly nation. They want to see us getting back to the things which are essential to make this a proper nation and to have the Irish language put on a proper basis. The Minister need not rush the matter. The language will not be brought back in a generation or two, but the revival will come at some period, whether long or short, and the national spirit will also come back. For 25 or 30 years after a big upheaval you always have a black outlook in a country. Still there is always a bright ray which will assert itself in the end.

I am not satisfied with the efforts made for the revival of the language at present. I live in a county where many efforts have been made. Migrants have been brought in from Donegal and Mayo who are fluent Irish speakers. I am satisfied, however, that things are not as the Minister thinks they are in the county. There is too much fake and humbug. I suppose we have 20 or 30 Irish classes in the county. They start off with ten, 15 or 20 pupils, but the attendance soon falls off. The teachers may get two or three for a class and they just fill in the time. The classes are an absolute failure. The teachers are doing their best, but these classes are not a success. We are closing and opening these classes all the year round.

So far as the Irish colonies in the county are concerned, the Irish language is dying out fast there. That may be due to the bad times and the hard living. There is no effort, however, to keep the language as something distinct there. I know that the older people know the language, but I am satisfied that the younger generation will know very little about it; they are just English speakers. Something will have to be done about that. The same thing applies to the Feiseanna held throughout the country. You have five or six so-called enthusiasts running from Billy to Jack, but their enthusiasm is not due to a national outlook, but to the fact that there is a job in the offing. I know several who became enthusiastic about the language and came to Dublin to get a smattering of it. Afterwards they were to be seen at the front of every platform, but, in a few years' time, they were in very good safe jobs with pensionable rights. I found that when Feiseanna were held the year after, these warriors were not to be seen anywhere; they were safe then—their futures were safe. That is the type of thing that is killing our language. I would rather see 50 or 60 lads who do not know Irish but who would say: "It is our duty to learn it and we will do our best in that direction; come and help us". If we had something like that we would get much further than we are getting. We do not seem to be making a real effort.

As regards teaching Irish in the schools, I happen to be one of those who are connected with the teaching profession; there are teachers in my family. They are satisfied that what they are doing for the resurrection of Irish is very good, but when the children leave school, say, at 14 years of age, they forget about Irish. My own children are pretty well on in the Irish language and when their mother asks them anything in Irish they can answer well, but I am satisfied that when they go out to the crossroads or to the football field there is not a word of Irish used. I suggest that we should have an Irish youth movement, bringing in all the children from 12 to 14 years. If we had something along those lines it would do an immense amount of good. The youngsters would muster together, perhaps two or three times a week, start off on short tours and they would speak only Irish. If that suggestion were carried out, I believe we would have tens of thousands of young men and women through the country eager and anxious to do the right thing by the language. You could have 400 or 500 of them travelling together, perhaps to seaside resorts or to different parts of the country inland, speaking nothing but Irish. Something carried out on those lines would be all to the good.

It seems to me that there is some inferiority complex among our children. Sometimes you will find a countryman who does not care tuppence about any language unless he can make something out of it and he feels inclined to scoff at any youngster talking Irish. A young lad might make an observation in Irish and this type of man will say to him: "You bloody clown, what sort of a language is that? We do not want to hear that." Children feel statements of that sort and they will hesitate to use Irish again. My idea is that we should keep the young people together in a youth movement until such time as they reach the stage of manhood or womanhood and they will not be afraid to stand up for themselves. They will not hesitate to use the language no matter what remarks may be made about it.

As regards Irish in the schools, I am satisfied from what I hear teachers saying that the spoken language is quite enough for kids. It is a wrong policy to try to get them to read or write it at the beginning. There the teachers have a problem. Where there is only the spoken language it is all to the good. Give the child plenty of the spoken language until he or she is ten or 12 years old and then it is time enough to ask the pupils to read and write it.

In connection with vocational education, I am not going to blame the Minister and I do not think he will blame me or any Deputies who talk in those debates. I am satisfied that it is the fault of the people if vocational education is not making headway. It may be that when vocational education was started the groundwork was not sufficiently prepared. We did not inculcate a proper spirit into the people in relation to what was necessary for the children. We did not get a proper spirit worked up before we started building the schools. We have three schools in County Meath, one of which should be a definite success, and that is the one in the Gibbstown colony. I am sorry to say that it is a failure. As regards Nobber and Dunshaughlin Vocational Schools, they were more or less failures from the start. They were put in the wrong places. We are asked to keep three or four teachers there during the day when all they have to teach would be three or four pupils and sometimes no pupils at all. We cannot stand over that.

We are satisfied that vocational education should be carried out all over the country. It may be costly, but if worked in the right way it will give good results. I know the Dunshaughlin building is an old one and it did not attract pupils. It is only six miles from Navan and nearly all the Dunshauglin pupils go by bus to Navan and they will not go near their own school at all. They will soon start building a new school in Dunshaughlin and it will cost from £6,000 to £10,000. We shall have to staff it with teachers. I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter. We do not want a new school at Dunshaughlin for one, two or three pupils. The same applies to Nobber. I agree that Nobber showed an improvement within the last few months and there are about six pupils there now, but there should be at least 20 pupils there. I blame the people for all the trouble. They have not made the slightest attempt to send pupils there.

I am satisfied that there will be more children in the Dunshaughlin area attending the school there. It is a ranch country. The ranches are divided and there is a growing population. Before the Minister allows the new school to be built he should get the people together and have a definite understanding that, if a new school is erected at a heavy cost to the taxpayer, there will be a good attendance of pupils. There should be some regulation so that the pupils from that area will go to that school instead of going to Navan. The Trim, Navan and Kells schools are successful because these are big towns and there is a good attendance. I do not see why the country people should not get the same facilities as the townspeople. We do not want to close any schools, and I suppose they will not be closed, but we do not want to carry them on at an unnatural and unnecessary cost. At a recent meeting in my constituency the statement was made that the cost of educating one pupil in Dunshaughlin was equal to the cost of educating eight B.A. students in the university, 15 students in the secondary school in Navan and three boarders in the college in Mullingar. You can see from that what the Meath vocational schools cost the local taxpayers and ratepayers.

If we carry on vocational education we shall have to dovetail it into the national school system. Between the ages of 14 and 16 the young people are not getting the type of training that they should get. You cannot give it to them unless you have a class attached to the national schools whereby the country pupil will learn some type of trade. There is not a farmer who does not want a sound knowledge so as to be a carpenter or a blacksmith. Those men would like to be able to shoe horses or build stables or houses. These trades can be taught in our national schools. It may cost something, but we should consider the idea of establishing an additional class in our national schools to meet the requirements of people anxious to learn some little trade.

It would be possible in such a room to give sound instruction to pupils between the ages of 14 and 16. Their education would have a rural bias. Many farmers of the present day know very little about their job. So far as I can see, they have to employ carpenters to do the smallest job. Many of them cannot even paint their own houses. I am in the happy position that I attended these classes over a long period and I was a first prize winner on many occasions. To-day I could build my own house if necessary, or make my own cart and that saves me a considerable amount of money. What I learned I should like to see others learn. I would, therefore, urge on the Minister to consider the possibility of having an extra school-room attached to every national school where these pupils would receive this necessary training.

In the case of young girls, many of them leave school between the ages of 13 or 14 and they rush off to classes in the nearest town where they acquire a certain knowledge of typewriting and shorthand. The next thing one hears is that they are off to Dublin to take up a job at 10/- or 12/- a week. Perhaps some of them may reach £1 or 30/- a week but the majority of them have to send home to their poor old parents for money to enable them to buy clothes. That system is bad for the country. I am satisfied that most of these girls could get a far better living on their parents' farms and that their parents would be able to provide them with fortunes of £400 or £500 each which they would have earned at home if they had a proper knowledge of knitting, sewing and such crafts. They would have far better prospects by marrying country lads than running after every Tom, Dick and Harry in Dublin and in the end finding that nobody wants them. We all complain of the drift from the land but we are making no effort to arrest it. The lure of the picture houses brings many of our young people to the towns and cities. It is a grand attraction while they are between the ages of 18 and 25 but they soon get sick of it. I would rather see them leading a happy life in the countryside.

It is possible to have perfect peace and happiness on the smallest farm if you are able to balance your way at all. For one thing, you are living with Nature and not under the conditions under which people in the cities have to live. If the people were made to realise the happiness of an existence of that kind, in comparison with the miserable conditions under which many people have to live in Dublin the drift from the land would not be so alarming. Life in Dublin and in other big cities in my opinion is no life at all. One is continually running from Billy to Jack and is scarcely ever able to make ends meet. If you cannot afford to get into big society, you have to remain in small society and that means you are in the slum areas. I say that we should make an effort to get back to the ordinary simple life of the country. If we do not do that, I am satisfied that in the next ten or 15 years there will be nothing left in the country but a few old bachelors, a few old maids and a few old age pensioners. The ordinary farmers' sons will not stay on the land.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that a matter for the Minister for Education?

Captain Giles

It is no harm to get it into his mind because he can see things just as well as I can see them. After all, what is the use of education in this country if its purpose is not to build up a bigger population who will be able to work the land to its full capacity? That is what we want. I am satisfied that the majority of our children are dull. There is no use in saying that we are all scholars. For every one bright pupil, there are ten dull ones. I think we should aim at giving the average pupil a commonsense education and where we find a bright pupil, he should be taken up by the State and sent forward to receive a higher education. There is no use in sending all the Toms, Dicks and Harrys who have no brains off to colleges. There is a considerable number of students going to high-class schools who have not the slightest idea of getting anywhere. The grand idea of sending them to college originates with some parent who likes to send them away simply because Tom So-and-So has been sent away. Parents spend hundreds of pounds on students of that type but these students never get anywhere in the end because they have not the brains. It would be far better if they were given a commonsense education without incurring expense for which there can be no return.

We have a vast number of men who are fairly well educated in this country. Some of them are B.A.'s and B.L.'s but what are they really? They are the unemployed of Dublin. They are going around perhaps getting 5/-a week at odd jobs. I would rather see them earning £2 a week at some fairly decent job down the country, but the whole idea in life amongst some of these people is to get away from the land and into big business where there is no big business. If there was an outlet for all this higher education, I could understand it but with most of the people it is simply highfalutin nonsense. Who are the successes in the country to-day? Many of them, whom I know, were supposed to have no brains when they were going to school. I know they were trounced like hell every day. Most of our progressive, commonsense farmers were amongst the dullest pupils when we were children. It was not from ten years to 12 years or from 12 to 14 years that these people's minds developed. They must have developed since they left school. I know some of them who could hardly write their names but to-day they are the biggest successes in any type of business in which they engage. Their farms are a success and their business is successful. We ought to realise therefore that much of this cramming and higher education is all nonsense. There are too many going on for things they can never hope to reach.

In conclusion, I would urge on the Minister that he should try to establish greater harmony between the Government and the teachers. A discontented teacher is a very awkward factor in the country. The teacher to whom I went in the past was one of the real old timers and he spent most of his time in driving commonsense into his pupils. He gave you a fine thrashing when you wanted it, but it never did any of us a bit of harm. I would ask the Minister not to be quibbling with regulations. Teachers are not such brutes that you require regulations to prevent them from beating children. I would also ask the Minister to consider the question of paying retired teachers fortnightly rather than monthly. Some of these retired teachers have informed me that fortnightly payments would not mean any extra expenditure in administration. The retired teacher just signs the envelope in the ordinary way and it is going to cost the Department no more than the present system does.

Mr. Halliden

I consider the Vote for Education the most important of all the Votes, because it has such a bearing, perhaps a life-long bearing, on the minds, characters and occupations of our young people up and down the country. In discussing this Vote, two questions naturally arise. One is, are we doing all we possibly could do for the youth of the country, and the second is, are the taxpayers getting good value for the fairly colossal sums of money spent each year on both primary and secondary education? As regard the first query, I am afraid that we are not doing all that we could do for the youth of the country. Up to the age of 14 children in the primary schools are expected to learn two languages. That is a very difficult task. When they reach the age of 14 with a fair amount of knowledge of both English and Irish they are straight away let loose upon the world. They are no longer required to attend school of any kind—neither a day school nor a night school. Now, this is just the very time at which their characters are being formed and when they are most impressionable. This is the time at which they are left completely without discipline or control. I think we shall not be doing sufficient for the youth of the country until such time as we bring into operation some system of post-primary education whereby such children will be compelled to attend school for a certain period in each day up to the age of 18.

It is an elementary fact that no two children have quite the same outlook on life when they reach an age of discrimination. At the age of 14 they are just beginning to think of what their futures may be. One child may have a particular bent or a particular vocation or calling. Another child will have a different bent and a different vocation or calling. As the system exists at the moment our education is of a very general character and such an education is not always the best to equip men and women for the strenuous and exacting lives which they shall be called upon to lead in our existing civilisation. I think it is absolutely essential that vocational schools should be established in every parish in the country. Children at the age of 14 should be compelled to attend those schools. In that way we would give them some opportunity of finding out the particular vocation to which they are called and some opportunity of developing their particular bent.

It often happens at the present time that a man fails in some occupation which he has taken up. If there were a system of vocational guidance that man might receive some direction which would ensure that he would take up that occupation for which he is best fitted and in which he would prove a success. If that were done the existing chaotic situation would not arise again in the future. It must be remembered too that at the present time people with specialised knowledge can always command a good position and a congenial position much more readily than the boy or girl with a purely general education. For that reason I believe that we are not doing sufficient for the youth of our country at the present time.

Some of our youth must emigrate. If they do emigrate they should be trained in some particular line so that in other countries they would not find themselves in the positions in which they are to-day—"hewers of wood and drawers of water". Very often too they are faced with serious menaces both to their moral and physical characters. I travelled recently with a clergyman who was on a holiday in this country from England. He was parish priest of a very large parish in London and he spoke very highly of the young girls who have left this country to take up nursing in England. He said they were excellent girls—efficient, competent and full of initiative. But he also said that their knowledge of the English language was exceedingly poor and he stressed the necessity for giving these girls a better education. Again, for that reason, I do not think that we as taxpayers are getting full value for the money that is now spent on education.

Recently I came across the case of a very clever little girl here in Dublin. She is 12 years of age and she is attending an outstanding convent school. She went down to the country on holidays to her cousins and while there she wrote to her mother in Dublin. She had passed the primary certificate. In that letter she told her mother that her aunt had given her a pair of new shoes and she was delighted. She spelled pair "p-a-r-e"; she spelled shoes "s-h-e-w-s" and she spelled delighted "d-e-l-i-t-e-d". I think, therefore, that something needs to be done with the present educational system. I think that little children's minds at the moment are confused between the spelling of Irish and the spelling of English.

I want to make it clear at once that I and my Party are in entire agreement with the desirability of having Irish on the primary schools' programme. Some of us have spent much time since 1900, when the Gaelic League was at its highest point of efficiency and organisation, doing a man's part to propagate the Irish language. We have not abated our efforts since then but we find now—and I would particularly ask the Minister if it is the fact—that very little progress is being made at the present time in the acquisition of a spoken knowledge of the Irish language. Is it a fact that the Gaeltacht is diminishing year by year? Is it a fact that enthusiasm for the Irish language is declining in the Galltacht? I suggest that in the early years in the primary schools the children should be taught oral Irish only and written Irish should not enter into their lives until they reach the fifth standard. At the present time when a little child first presents itself in school it is taught Irish but I maintain that Irish should be taught in the most attractive and spectacular way in which it is possible to teach it. There should be plenty of charts and the modhdíreach—the direct method to which Deputy Kissane referred last night— should be used extensively in order to make the lives of the little children as happy as possible and to remove some of the drudgery at present attaching to the teaching of Irish, especially in the junior classes. A distinguished gentleman in England has produced a very attractive film entitled "Safety First" for presentation in the schools. Cannot we have films in our schools where Irish could be imbibed in that way? There are many ways in which Irish could be made attractive. Unfortunately, at present, when children leave school at the age of 14 they are not inclined to speak the language afterwards. There must be something dreadfully wrong and, unless we apply the remedy, progress in speaking the language will not be what we wish it to be.

Our language is the hall mark of the nation. We do not wish to lose that hall mark. A good deal of effort has been made—some people are afraid that it has been made in vain—to propagate the Irish language. I have said in recent debates, and I repeat it now, that until Irish, with other subjects, is continued after the age of 14, the language will not be spoken as a living language. We find at present that it is not spoken on the Gaelic fields, in the markets, the shows, the sports or even amongst ourselves. The children have not sufficient facility in speaking the language when they leave the primary schools. I remember in the early days of the Gaelic League we spoke more Irish than we do now. In those days also the local national school was packed with boys and girls, three nights in the week, learning Irish, and they did learn it. At present we cannot induce half a dozen of the younger people to come inside the door and learn Irish at night.

I would be very anxious that the Minister should inquire closely into the reasons for all this failure in the teaching of Irish. He should take into his confidence the managers, the parents and the teachers of the national schools and he should find out what is the kernel of the trouble. In the agricultural world there is a consultative council. In that council the Minister for Agriculture periodically meets a body of men drawn from every county in Ireland who are able to put before him the conditions in agriculture and the requirements of the various sections of those engaged in agriculture. Very useful results follow from those discussions. Why cannot the Minister for Education do something on similar lines and have a consultative council of managers, teachers and parents? That is eminently desirable.

I repeat that we are prepared to do everything we possibly can for the spread of the language, but we are perturbed by the fact that, after years of strenuous work by teachers and pupils, the progress is not what we expected and there is very little Irish spoken on the streets, in the towns, the villages or in the Gaelic football and hurling fields. That is a matter requiring close consideration. The Minister should seriously consider my suggestions: first, that written Irish should be deferred until the children have mastered oral Irish; secondly, that the lessons in the schools should be made more attractive; and, thirdly, that the children should not feel, as very often they feel at present, that Irish is being pushed down their throats.

I would like to ask the Minister, through you, Sir, when is he going to make restitution to those lady teachers who were obliged to retire at the age of 60 to make room for younger teachers? In my view, those teachers got a very raw and unjust deal. At worst, they should have been allowed added years of service so as to qualify for full pension. In nearly all cases the teachers were obliged to retire five years before they had anticipated retirement and they were deprived of full pension. Restitution is due by the State to those teachers. As far as I can understand, the amount of money confiscated by the Treasury every year in this way is in the region of £7,000. That sum is taken out of the pockets of a very deserving and very efficient body of public servants. I have in mind one particular teacher. She was very enthusiastic in teaching Irish all through the years and spent many an hour after school hours in bringing her pupils to a high standard. She had to retire at the age of 60 or 61 on a proportionately low pension. The Minister should seriously consider the desirability of making restitution to those teachers who have been so unjustly and so ungratefully treated by the Department of Education.

There is another body also who deserve public sympathy and who have been referred to here by many Deputies, that is, pensioned teachers. These teachers were the pioneers of the language movement. They were first with their services and first to help to finance the spread of the Irish language out of their restricted salaries and to promote branches of the Gaelic League and Feiseanna. They were first to make it easy for the incoming Government, when the British régime moved out, to take up the Irish language. They were the heroes of the conflict. They have also been the victims. The Minister should sympathetically consider the desirability of giving those men and women a decent pension commensurate with their great services to the State.

I am a member of a board of health in North Cork and recently one or two officers of the board retired. One of them had given only 32 years' service to the board but, with the sanction of the Department of Local Government, the board agreed to add a number of years so as to qualify him for a full pension. They added eight years to his service. That is a case analogous to the case of teachers who are compelled to retire at the age of 60. There is the case of another official employed by the Cork County Council. He had given long service but not the full 40 years' service to qualify for pension. While an ordinary teacher in a two-teacher school, after 43 or 44 years' service, had to be contented with about £200 pension, this particular official of the Cork County Council had £340 a year pension after being engaged in a clerical capacity with the council. So that, compared with other public officials, the teachers all the time have been very badly treated. Therefore I appeal very earnestly to the Minister sympathetically to review the invidious position of lady teachers who are compelled to retire at 60 and the position of pensioned teachers. I would also appeal to him on national grounds and as a mark of gratitude and appreciation for the services of the old teachers who are now pensioned to give them an increase in pension commensurate with the valuable services they rendered to the country for the propagation of the Irish language and for the efficient and satisfactory manner in which they brought up the youth of the country under their authority.

Mr. Butler

When I heard the Leader of the Opposition opening this debate I thought we were going to make an advance on the usual standard of debate on education. He was not at all so profuse in his condemnation as he was in previous years and he did not make the same use of scrappy extracts from official reports that he has made in previous years. But when I heard Deputy Dillon, Deputy Coogan and Deputy Hughes I thought to myself: " Now the old campaign of misrepresentation is going to be kept up ". However, it was relieved by some very fine and helpful speeches. I must say I enjoyed the speech of Deputy Giles. It was really very sensible and, on the whole, very good. There is and there has been a campaign against the schools of this country, particularly against the primary schools. The campaign has been carried on not only in this House but steadily in the Press. It is a complete campaign of misrepresentation.

With regard to the letters published in the newspapers, there is a certain similarity of wording, phrasing and of cast of thought which would seem to denote a common origin for very many of the letters. Of course, the great majority of them were anonymous. The impression sought to be given is that a great body of our children leave school at the age of 14 unable to read, write or do the simple arithmetical operations that one would expect from children of that age. The school programme is printed and circulated. It can be studied by anyone interested. It is a reasonable programme. I have seen attempts made here in this House and attempts made in Fianna Fáil clubs and attempts made at Ard Fheiseanna of Fianna Fáil to make it quite an unreasonable programme, but happily the educational authorities have resisted these attempts, and I maintain that, on the whole, the programme is a very reasonable programme.

With regard to the carrying out of that programme, methods of presentation of matter, allocation of time to the various subjects, etc., a very great deal of freedom is given. In fact, with regard to the older and experienced teachers, I think one might say complete freedom is given in these respects. There is more supervision naturally of the young and inexperienced teachers. They are usually helped and guided by the inspectors and by their principals. Surely the logical conclusion is that if these statements which are made about the product of the national schools are true it is nothing short of a wholesale condemnation of the teaching body. The matter cannot be looked upon in any other way. On what is this campaign based? It is based on the fact that children of 14, 15 and 16 years of age go to seek employment and are found to be unable to read or write, or even do the simplest arithmetical operations. That is perfectly true. But these are abnormal or subnormal children or the children of selfish or careless parents who did not send them to school. To some extent it may be true that some of them came under inefficient or very careless teachers because, of course, there are such. However, they are very few because the inefficient teacher does not survive long. We all know that. He has to leave the service if he is found to be inefficient. In the main these children who are found to be unable to read or write and do the ordinary operations that could reasonably be expected from children of that age are abnormal or subnormal children or children of careless parents or children, who, for one reason or another—it might be illness or some other such accidental thing—did not get the full benefit of the ordinary primary course.

I say in all sincerity and give it as my real opinion, that, given equal intelligence and equal age, our children now leave school better equipped for the secondary or vocational course than the children of 30 years ago. Now remember, I laid down two conditions—equal intelligence and equal age. To argue that the general body of children leaving our schools is illiterate just because there are some illiterate children at 13, 14, 15 and 16 years of age is no more sensible than to argue that the people of Dublin City are lunatics because there is a number of lunatics in Grangegorman Asylum. From an official report which I saw recently you will find that something like 3,330 is the average daily number of persons in Grangegorman. It would be equally reasonable to argue that the people of Dublin are lunatics just because you have that number of lunatics in Grangegorman, and it would be equally foolish. But it is good politics, apparently, to stand up again and again to say that the product of our schools is illiterate owing to the faults of the Government. It would, however, be bad policy for Deputy Mulcahy or other Dublin Deputies to get on a Dublin platform and argue that the people of Dublin were lunatics. You could make the same comparison with Wicklow, Cork, Tipperary or Monaghan. But in those counties you will not get Deputy Cogan, Deputy Dillon, or Deputy Morrissey telling the people that they are lunatics, and they have an equally good but equally stupid argument for saying so.

As to these letters to the Press, of course a great number of them are not meant to be taken seriously. I remember a long series of letters in one evening paper on "Kissing in the cinema". Another series was: "Do Dublin men make good husbands?" There was a great number of letters on that. Another series was: "Is the modern girl a gold-digger?" The education series, the gold-digger series and the husband series were all of equal value, which is saying that they were of no value whatever. Unfortunately, I think some parents are misled by them.

Deputy Dillon referred to Irish being made a political ramp. The Leader of the Opposition did not suggest anything of that sort. To give him his due, the Leader of the Opposition has always worked for the language, and I feel certain that he sincerely wishes and strives for a revival of the language. But, last year, the Leader of the Opposition said:

"We cannot allow a position to develop here in which any aspect of our educational work is made a political issue. An attempt has been made to take the Irish language and to seize it for Caesar."

In the same Official Report Deputy Dillon is reported as saying:—

"I reprobate most strongly the tendency to which the Leader of the Opposition has been making reference to-day, that is, the attempt to monopolise the Irish language movement, not for Cæsar, but for de Valera."

If there ever was a case of Satan rebuking sin, I think that is one, because the Opposition Parties, especially the main Opposition Party, have been making a political issue of the whole educational question and of the Irish language in particular. For instance, who is raising the cry that compulsory Irish is ruining education? We all know where that cry comes from. It is nothing more than a political cry, because the plain fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as compulsory Irish, except in the sense that there is compulsory primary education.

When the Fine Gael Party were the Government here they passed the 1926 Act and made primary education compulsory. Surely no Deputy would object to Irish being on the school timetable as a subject? Really, that is all the compulsion there is. It is here as a subject on the timetable. I am not quite sure if I am right in saying "no Deputy," because I was rather doubtful as to Deputy Cogan's attitude. I was really amazed at his attitude with regard to that question. There is only compulsion to the extent that there is compulsion for the teaching of English, the teaching of arithmetic, or the teaching of music. What I mean is compulsion in the sense used by the Opposition Party and in the sense in which they are trying to get it over on the people of the country.

If a teacher is not competent to teach through the medium of Irish, not only is he not compelled to do so, but he is actually discouraged from trying to do so. If he shows himself to be really incompetent, he is forbidden to do so. If the children are not capable of learning through the medium of Irish, not only is teaching through the medium of Irish not compulsory, but it is not even encouraged. There are two conditions before the teacher is even encouraged to teach through the medium of Irish. The teacher must be competent to teach through the medium of Irish, and the children must be capable of learning through the medium of Irish. In that case there is compulsion, and in that case there should be compulsion, and nationalist Ireland has always called for compulsion and, to his credit be it said, nobody more loudly than the Leader of the Opposition.

Very young children will learn two, or even three, languages simultaneously without the least strain, if there is no force or, as it were, compulsion put upon them; in other words, if they get them in a natural manner. When a baby comes into school from an English-speaking home the majority of the words and phrases that he will hear in the school are quite new to him. If it did not know one word of Irish, very probably the Irish words it would hear would not be a bit more strange than the new English words. It is a well-known fact that a child at that age will readily pick up two languages simultaneously without the slightest strain if the proper methods are used and if there is no force. With very little formal teaching, through sounds and nursery rhymes and kindergarten occupations, they pick up the new language quite easily and enjoy the process. That is perfectly true.

Parents would be really wise to send their children to the ordinary national schools at as young an age as possible. They will give their children the chance of acquiring a second language at the really impressionable age and, if there is any little loss in the vernacular, that will be easily pulled up for in after years. I do not think there will be much loss at all in the vernacular, but if there is, it will be more than pulled up for on account of the additional power acquired by the pupil. The late Professor Corcoran, who was Professor of Education in the National University for so many years, held that unless a language is built in by the age of seven or eight years, that language never becomes a real part of the student; in other words, perfect fluency is almost impossible to obtain in a second, third or any additional language if a start is not made early.

Parents would be very wise to send their children where they will get a knowledge of the second language at the right age. I mention that because some foolish parents—I find them in Dublin, but I do not know if that obtains throughout the country—send their children in the first instance to some little private school. Possibly the child might get a prettier English accent and perhaps the foolish parents think that they are putting their child one up on the neighbour's child, but they are doing a very unwise thing. The late Doctor Daly, Principal of the Ballingeary College, who had command of some 17 languages, held that Irish was fully equal to Latin in the matter of the development of the intellect and as a key to the acquirement of additional languages later. Those are two authorities and I think there can be no question as to their competence. I am giving you the opinion of these two authorities and if I could reach all parents in this country I would pass it on to them and try to get them to be wise enough to take advantage of the ordinary national schools and send their children in at as young an age as possible to reap an advantage which will be an asset for life to those children.

If I may give my experience with regard to the language question, it is this. I did not have an opportunity of learning Irish at a young age. I got the opportunity to learn French and also German long before I got the opportunity of a competent teacher of Irish. However, in 1922, I sat for the teachers' certificate. In that year in written Irish—that is, Irish grammar, composition and literature—I scored 90 per cent. That is a very high mark and it seems to indicate, a very good knowledge of the language, but the fact of the matter is that although I could speak Irish and do my work through it, I have not that command of oral Irish that the commonest and most uneducated labourer would have who got it in early childhood. The same applies to French. I can read French as easily as English, just as readily, but I did not get it young enough either to have a real oral command of the language.

I wonder if parents who miss the opportunity given them realise the loss they are inflicting on their children? I wonder if people who are spreading this propaganda about compulsory Irish and the damage it is doing to education realise the harm they are really doing? The ordinary father or mother is not an educationist. He or she is very much inclined to take what is heard or read and many parents, I feel sure, are misled. The real truth of the matter is that the standard of primary education in this country is surprisingly high. I wonder how many members of the Opposition, or even members of the Government Party for that matter, have seen the examination papers of the primary leaving certificate.

That examination is held on the basis of the sixth standard programme. I think a very great number amongst us would not find it so easy to sit down and do that examination. It is of quite a decent standard—a high standard, considering the age of the pupils for which it is set. The fact remains that 70 to 75 per cent. of our children take that examination. That in itself is proof of what is being done in our schools.

Again, we are inclined to compare the ordinary body of children who leave our schools with what you might call the cream of the primary schools 30 or 40 years ago. At that time there were very few secondary schools and few technical schools or none. The national school, particularly in large centres of population such as rural towns, had to supply the place of secondary schools and to some extent of the technical schools. The old commissioners of national education had agriculture as a subject at one time. They also set up agricultural colleges, and the primary schools in those days had to make an attempt to do secondary work. They were also grinding institutions for the lower examinations for the Civil Service. Children stayed on at these schools until they sat for an examination for the lower grades of the Civil Service— I mean those of them who were best gifted mentally—or entered one of the professional schools or went into business. That is a thing that does not happen now. The great mass leave at the age of 14 and it is totally unfair to compare the body of children leaving our schools nowadays with what you might call the cream of those who went to the national schools in the very old days and who left at a very much higher age.

I say our standard is surprisingly high because there are factors in education now that make it very difficult for our schools to do anything like the work they previously did. To say that, in spite of these factors, they are doing it, is a great tribute to the teachers, a great tribute to the schools, a great tribute to the Department. Let me mention some of those factors. The first is the multiplication of secondary schools. In the year 1924, for instance, there were 278 secondary schools and in 1946 the number was 385. Even taking the lower number for 1924, many of them were of quite recent foundation, so that what has happened is that a great body of children who previously went to the primary schools are going to the secondary schools at the present time. That practice has been growing for the last 30 years and, of course, it is increasing all the time. I am giving you those figures so that you can form some judgment. There are also, of course, private schools. I could not get reliable figures for the private schools, because, although there are regulations in regard to the recognition of private schools, I am afraid that these regulations are being evaded in one way or another and people are opening private schools and carrying them on without any reference to the Department. These two rob the ordinary national schools of material which previously availed of these schools.

Then you have the growth of the technical schools. That has been even more rapid. In the year 1924-25 there were 65 permanent technical schools and for the year 1946 there were 186 permanent technical schools—almost three times the number. That means, of course, that children are going into these schools who, in the old times, would have remained in the national schools. Recently the age for admission to the technical schools has been lowered, so that instead of leaving the primary school at 14, many of our children leave it at the age of 13, if they have passed the primary certificate examination. That robs our primary schools again and robs them of the best material. That is the point to remember.

I think the biggest damage, however, from the point of view of robbing our schools of the best material, is done by what is called the primary department attached to secondary schools. Many of our secondary schools carry on what is called a primary department and a great many of the children sent to these primary departments are sent there because their parents want them at a later date to get into the secondary school to which that department is atttached. There are in the City of Dublin very excellent secondary schools for boys where they get a most excellent secondary education, often at very little cost to the child, but it is extremely difficult to get into those schools. If a boy leaves it to the age of 14, which should be the age to start a secondary course, he has a poor chance of getting into these secondary schools. These boys' schools carry, as I have said, a primary department, and parents, in order to assure their children of a secondary education, send them to the primary department attached to these schools at a very young age. Very often they send their children across three or four parishes to get to such a school. They send them at the age when they leave the infant classes, usually about the age of eight or nine.

There, again, you have primary schools robbed of the very best material because the parents will send these children long distances if they mean to put them on for a secondary school education later on. They will send them to a school with a secondary top if they are bright and clever children. If they are stupid they will send them to the ordinary national school in their own area. That is the true position as it exists in Dublin at the present moment. All these factors are operating to make the work of the ordinary primary school very difficult. In spite of that the great bulk of the children leaving school at 14 years of age are taking the primary leaving certificate examination. As a matter of fact they generally take it much earlier at 12 or 13 years of age and 14 is considered late for the primary certificate.

I think it is right to mention another factor. I refer to snobbishness. There is a growing snobbery in this country under which Mrs. O'Brien will not permit her child to go to the same school as that attended by Mrs. Byrne's child and Mrs. O'Brien will try, by hook or by crook, to send her child either to a secondary school or to a private school, irrespective of what the standard of teaching is in such a school so long as it appears to come a little higher in the social scale than the nearest national school. That did not obtain in this country in olden times. Long ago the children of professional men attended the ordinary national schools in much greater numbers than to-day. When I was a young boy I spent two years in a Dublin school and my companion in that school was a boy whose father was President of the Royal College of Surgeons. I do not think that would obtain at the present time. We are becoming much more prone to snobbery in this country and, as a result of that, the primary schools are suffering. There is, of course, a greater prosperity. Money is more plentiful. Previously the children of shopkeepers and traders attended the nearest national school. They seldom do so now, particularly in Dublin.

There you have a number of factors which are stripping our primary schools of the best material. When I hear the criticism that is poured out against our schools, our teachers, and our work I think how unjust it is and how very wrong. The standard of teaching in our schools and the standard of education is not being lowered. The teachers of to-day are as good as ever they were but they have not got the same material on which to work.

I am not complaining of the growth of secondary schools. That is quite a good thing in its way and quite necessary. I am not complaining of the growth of technical schools. That, too, is quite a good thing and quite necessary. But the fact remains that the young children attending these schools would in the old days have gone to the ordinary national schools. Very often there was no alternative.

I want now to offer some constructive criticism. Can we improve things in our schools and can we make that improvement with comparative ease? I think so. First of all, I would like to see the standardisation of Irish spelling. I hope that in the near future something will be done in that direction. In a large city school you may have a Munster man in charge of one class. You may have a Connaught man in charge of the next class and you may have an Ulster man in charge of the next. All have the peculiarities of the dialect in which they were reared. I do not mind differences in accent or differences in speech because those are things that children get over very quickly. The majority will, however, insist on using their own dialectical spelling and I think that is very upsetting to children. Even if they move on with the children it is still upsetting because 10 per cent. at least of the children are left behind each year. They are usually the weakest children in a class and if they are faced with a totally different spelling when they are left behind it only makes them duller than they are by nature. I trust that something will be done to standardise the spelling. I quite realise it will not be a popular step because each dialect will make its own fight and object to the spelling used in any other dialect. I think, however, that here is a case where compulsion would be amply justified. The difficulty could be overcome in a matter of a few years.

I think, too, that the reading matter should be simplified in our schools. A child can be perfectly fluent with 500 or 600 or 700 words. I think a set of text-books should be made containing really useful words in the language and a greater addition of 100 to 150 words should not be made in any year. In the first year you could have a certain number of words. In the second year you should have the same words with the addition of 100 to 150 new words, as the case might be. Your third year reader should contain all these words, with the addition of another 100 to 150 new words, so that by the end of the child's school career he would have done these words over and over and over again. I would not advocate such a system for a vernacular, but where it is a foreign language —as Irish is in the English-speaking districts here—that is absolutely essential if we want to accomplish anything worth while at the end of the primary school programme. I know there are difficulties. I know it would be a big task to make a concentric set of readers of that type. The grouping system in our small schools would add to the difficulty, but I think that at the very outside three sets of readers would solve the whole problem and I think that is something that should be done immediately. I quite agree with those Deputies who said that we should not attempt the written work too soon.

It is a peculiar thing to find in our schools at the present time a slowing up process and a hesitation as it were in the top standards. One does not find it in the lower standards. The reason for this slowing up is that the children are made grammar conscious and they suddenly become nervous and afraid through having another set of rules drilled into them. Therefore, I would say defer the written work, but not too far because here is your difficulty, the oral work will be largely lost when children leave school if they have not the opportunity of speaking Irish. If they have not the opportunity of conversing in the acquired language they will very quickly lose the power to converse in it and if you depended altogether on the oral work, in a very large number of cases your work would go for nothing. On the other hand, a child who has a knowledge of grammar, who has done a good deal of reading and a good amount of composition and that sort of thing, can help himself for all time even if he never heard a word of Irish after he left the primary school. For that reason you must have your written work and I would say not later than fourth standard as a beginning. I think fifth standard would be rather too late. Simple sentence formation could be done from fourth standard. In any case, because of the fact that your effort is lost in the case of children who have not the opportunity of using the language after they leave school, you have not to equip them to help themselves and you can only do that by teaching the formal grammar and giving them a fair amount of written work.

I have never lost an opportunity when speaking on the Education Estimates of mentioning the salaries and pensions of teachers. I do not mean to let this opportunity pass by either. I agree very largely with Deputy Martin O'Sullivan in his remarks in this debate last night so far as salaries are concerned. The salaries are a great advance on those previously paid, no doubt, but even at the time they were laid down, I do not think they were quite good enough. Then, I, like most other people, thought that things were quickly becoming normal and that prices and the cost of living would fall and that the cost of living would have fallen pretty considerably by this time. We have all been disappointed in that hope and expectation and we find that in many directions there is a constant upward trend in the cost of living. I do think that there is need and good grounds for considering the possibility of further increasing the scales of salary. But, whatever about the salary scales, I think the pensions of the old teachers are a scandal. I cannot refrain from saying that and I do hope that something will be done to improve the position of pensioned teachers. Their case has been put up so often here that it is not necessary for me to go into it, but I state it as a fact that the pensions they are drawing are little short of a scandal.

There were some interesting remarks made during the debate. I was very surprised to hear Deputy Hughes saying that children at the primary schools should be taught a philosophy of life. As a matter of fact, it is the thing that is taught best in the primary schools—the philosophy of life. You have it all in the Catechism —the meaning and purpose of life, your duties to God, to yourselves, your neighbours, the duties of employers to their servants and the duties of servants to their employers and, in the higher standards, they are taught the sanctity of the married state and the indissolubility of the marriage tie. You have the whole philosophy of life within that scope, and I do not think that in the primary schools of any other country in the world you have got that philosophy of life taught as it is taught and instilled in the primary schools of this country.

Deputy Mulcahy quoted a Scottish educational report, laying down the three great aims of education as physical education, handwork, speech. These are three very important things, but if he simply said they were three great aims I would agree with him and I would agree with the Scottish authorities, but there is no mention of mental development and there is no mention of moral development, so, when these are laid down as the three great aims, if it stops there, there is something very wrong about it. I am not arguing against the presence of physical education there because mental development and moral development can hardly flower except it has the physical body in which to flower. That is all right but to mention these as the three great aims and to leave it there, I think it is very bad indeed. If I were given these three things as the three great aims of education and were asked to guess who laid them down as the three great aims, I would guess Hitler straight off.

We have little to learn from other countries, in the matter of primary education at any rate, and that is the only branch of education that I claim authority to speak about. But all that I have said now and, as a matter of fact, all I have heard anyone else say in this debate, are mere trivialities. I have not heard a single member of the House mention the biggest problem we are up against or suggesting a solution for that problem through education. I refer to the spirit of the age.

There is one other thing I should like to see, and that is an assembly hall attached to every school. Anyhow, there should be one tip-top assembly hall in every parish, if possible attached to the school and associated with the teachers and with the clergy. That would be a great factor in holding our people safely, keeping alive all that is best in the traditions of the country, and avoiding that terrible danger with which we are all menaced.

Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín

A Chinn Comhairle: Má labhraimse ar an Mheastachán seo ba mhaith liom go dtuigfí go labhraim mar Theachta as an nGaeltacht agus ar son mhuintir na Gaeltachta, go háithrid ar son an ghúinn óg atá ag éirí aníos chugainn anois.

Ní thig liom bheith ar aon inntinn leis na daoine seo nach maith leo an Ghaeilge a bheith in uachtar i scolta na tíre seo. Níl fhios agam an bhfuil aon choinseas náisiúnta acu seo. Má tá, ba chóir dóibh é a chur faoi scrúdú. Agus ná téigheadh siad ar gcúl níos fuide ná Seachtmain na Cásca. Cia hiad na laochraí a sheas i mbearna an bhaoail? Cia hiad na fir d'imir a n-anamna ar son na hÉireann? Nárbh iad na fir a fáisceadh amach ar gluaiseacht na Gaeilge? Thug siad fuil a gcroí ag súil go mbeadh Éire Ghaelach i réim ina ndiaidh. Nar chlaoite dona an mhaise don ghlúin seo mara leanfadh siad lorg na laoch sin?

Mar tá fhios ag an Aire, sí an Ghaeltacht an taca is láidre againn leis an teanga a leathnú amach ar fud iomlán na tíre ó cheann go cheann. Ní hiongnadh go ndeirtear gurbh í an Ghaeltacht an ball is luachmhaire de thalamh na hÉireann. Tá fhios againn gur amuigh ins na ceanntair iargcúlta seo atá an Ghaeilge i mbéal na ndaoine go nádurtha, díreach mar bhí sí ag ríthe agus uaisle Éireann ón allóid anall. Faraor, tá an Béarla ag breith buaidhe uirthi sa chuid eile den tír agus is náireach an scéal é. Níl an teanga beó i gceart ach sa chúmhanglach sin ar imeall na mara thiar ó Tír Chonaill go Port Láirge. Agus má gheibh an teanga bás ins na ceantair seo ná síl a choíche go dtig linn an Ghaeilge a shábháil le hobair na scoltach. Is amaideach an rud a mheas go bhféadfaí foghraíocht agus blas na Gaeilge agus múnla cainte na teangan a shábháil má ligtear 'un báis teanga na Gaeltachta. Ar an abhar sin, tá súil agam go dtabhraidh an tAire cúram speisialta do na ceantair seo. Is maith an rud gur arduigh sé an deontas ó dhá phunt go dtí cúig phunt agus tá súil agam go mbeidh toradh maith dá bharr. Cúis imní dhúinn go léir an imirce as an Ghaeltacht. Níl na lánamhnacha óga ag pósadh. Níl na páisdí againn le dul chun scoile. Tá an tinreamh ag ísliú agus na múinteoirí gan obair. Ins na scolta beaga seo ní féidir comhthram na féinne a thabhairt do na páistí. Caithfidh múinteoir amháin freastal ar na ranganna ón naoidhneán go dtí an rang is airde.

Mhol mé anuraidh anseo gur chóir ard-rang a bheith i scoil amháin i ngach páraiste—áiteacha nach bhfuil scoil gairm-oideachais—go dtabharfaí caoi do bhuachaillí agus cailíní a bhfuil an éirm chinn aca a dhul ar aghaidh i gcúrsaí léinn. Thiocfadh stair, ceol, drámaíocht, cúrsaí i dtalmhaíocht agus abhair eile a bheith i nárd rang den chineal seo. Tá siad aca sa Danmharg agus ghnídhtear obair thairbheach iontu.

Chím sa meastachán go bhfuil deontas beag fánach £75 do dhrámaíocht sa Ghaeltacht. Anois, tá cúig nó sé foirne againn fá láthair i nGaeltacht Thír Chonaill amháin, agus nach bocht ceacharda an deontas £75 le roinnt eatorru? Is maith folláin an caitheamh aimsire an drámaíocht ag muintir na Gaeltachta agus tá na foirne seo ag déanamh obair thairbheach ar son an chultúir Ghaelaí agus ar son na teangan. Ní leor an deontas sin don Ghaeltacht. Tá £1,000 don scéim i mBaile Atha Cliath agus b'fhéidir go bhfuil obair níos éifeachtaí déanta ag foirne na Gaeltachta. Té mé ag dréim go dtabhraidh an tAire deontas níos fiúntaí feasta do chúrsaí drámaíochta sa Ghaeltacht.

Rud eile a chuideochadh le saol aos óig sa Ghaeltacht: páirceanna imeartha, mar ba chóir go mbeadh páire imeartha isteach leis an uile scoil. Agus dá mbeadh caoi agam air bheadh neart hallaí beaga agam sa Ghaeltacht faoi stiúradh Gael, fá choinne drámaíochta, céilithe, léachtaí, cuirmeacha ceoil agus mar sin.

Más mian linn an t-aos óg a choinneáil sa bhaile agus a n-inntinn a choinneáil ón choighchríoch caithfimid feabhas a chur ar shaol mhuintir na Gaeltachta ar an dóigh seo. Béidh siad a dhíth le brat na Gaeilge a choinneáil in áirde. Ní leor biseach eacnamaíochta amháin, caithfidh na daoine siamsa agus subháil agus caitheamh aimsire a bheith aca fosta.

Mr. Heskin

In making my contribution to this debate I should like to refer to the relation between the teacher and the child which, to my mind, is most important in connection with the career that the child may pursue in seeking a living. In the early stages, I believe that the teacher should be more like a mother or a father to the child, as the case may be, and should understand the mentality and the ability of the child. To my mind, that is one of the primary factors in determining what the future of the child may be. Because of the fact that a teacher may be irritable, or for some other reason, very often a teacher may neglect a child and, in that way, the future of a child may be ruined. I think that is a major problem that should be taken into consideration. It is a matter that should be driven into the minds of the young men who are qualifying to be teachers.

I and many others can prove that very often the career of a child has been ruined because of such action as I have referred to. I remember in my early days going to a school where there was a lady teacher. As Deputy Giles said, it is no harm to beat a child, but there is beating and beating. We often got a hiding from the teacher and when we went home were afraid to tell about it. I dodged doing it every time I could. That is one way of encouraging a hatred of school on the part of the child and the teachers are to a great extent to blame. I am not saying all teachers do it, but the teachers who adopt such tactics help to ruin the child.

It was out of the frying pan into the fire when I went to the next school, because I was taught there by what any father of a child would call an animal, and nothing else, even if he was a Christian Brother. The leather he used was tantamount to a piece of harness and he had a piece of iron stitched into the top of it. I hope that before he passes away somebody will give him a hiding such as he gave me. These are the people who ruin the careers of children. The Minister and the officials of the Department should investigate the methods adopted in many schools, even in the Christian Brothers' schools, towards unfortunate children who have not the intelligence, or who have not acquired sufficient use of reason, to be able to defend themselves.

A lot has been said about compulsory Irish. I was very glad to hear Deputy Kissane saying yesterday that there is no such thing as compulsory Irish. Why was it in years past that teachers who were not competent to teach through the medium of Irish were allowed to do so? When I say they were not competent, I mean that only a few years ago teachers had to go through Irish courses themselves. I am not speaking from a non-Irish or non-national point of view. I am as good an Irishman as the rest. I should like to know that Irish is being taught, but I believe there is a time for teaching Irish, a way for teaching it and a type of teacher who can teach it. I fail to see how Irish could be taught by a teacher who does not know it, or is only learning it. I believe that is wrong.

Deputy Butler to-day admitted that he had not command of the language and how could a child have command of the language if he is taught by a teacher who has not command of it? The papers asked to-day how many teachers could deal with the papers set out for children when they sit down for an examination. If you have not teachers capable of dealing with the papers, how can the child be expected to deal with them? That is common sense. If the teacher is not able to deal with the paper set by the Department, how can a child deal with it? That is one of the things I would like to have made clear. When we have teachers competent to teach Irish at a particular age, it is only then we should go all out on an Irish-speaking campaign.

I should like to know have we a standard Irish language. I am sorry to say that I have not a good knowledge of Irish. I did learn it, but I have forgotten it. I come from an area where some of the best Irish is spoken and where some of the best old Irish speakers are to be found. Some men who live there to-day do not know a word of English. I refer to Ring, that is famous the country over. Last Sunday evening I did not anticipate and I did not look for information concerning this debate, but it happened in the course of conversation that the Irish language was mentioned. Reference was made to Ring College and I was told by an Irish student, and some of the older people in the locality admitted it, that there is no standard Irish language and they would not understand the language as spoken in Galway—that was the very place mentioned. If that is true, it is a sorry state of affairs. If we are striving to reach a particular goal, to have a national language, how can we have it if we have not a standard language, the same language spoken from one end of the country to the other?

Mr. Kissane

What dialect would that be?

Mr. Heskin

I am not an authority on dialects and I am merely giving you the opinions of those people as expressed to me. Deputy Butler referred to Leinster, Munster, Connaught and Ulster Irish and he referred to dialects and spelling. Surely, there should be a standard language if we are to achieve our goal? Children are being taught to-day through the medium of Irish. Unfortunately, I am not able to speak it fluently enough. Maybe if I got time I would be able to understand what would be written down for me. The point is that it is not right to teach children through the medium of a language they know nothing about. If they are taken in the fourth standard, when they have the foundation laid in the language they are accustomed to, then they might make a success of Irish.

I remember that when I went to the Christian Brothers we had a good Irish teacher. There were charts on the walls with pictures of everything in the country and the teacher would give exercises about them. The pupils were encouraged in that way and they made a success of the language. Some of the scholars there have turned out to be very able men, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows quite well. I am sure he knows some of the students who were educated in Lismore. They hold very important positions in this country and in England, and they are well up in the Irish language. They can speak it fluently wherever they go. They may attribute that to the good Irish teacher they had and to the manner in which he encouraged them to learn it. Others tried to beat it into the children without success.

It would be no harm to have charts of that type in every national school. The children could converse with the teachers about what is shown on the charts and then when they reach the fourth standard they would be masters of various subjects. That would be a better approach as regards the teaching of Irish than to try to teach it through a teacher who is only learning it.

The question of vocational education has been the subject of much consideration year after year, particularly by Deputies from rural areas. My view formerly was that a class room should be attached to the ordinary national school in which it would be possible to provide technical training for children at a certain age but, reviewing the position, I find that such an arrangement would be too expensive for the State and the people generally because the necessary equipment, the staffing and other requirements would be a very heavy drain financially. I would support the suggestion which has been already made by many other Deputies that there should be a parish school in a particular centre with a piece of land attached on which horticultural and agricultural demonstrations could be carried out. Instruction as to the production of different crops, varieties of seeds, grasslands, the value of manures and such other matters could be given in these schools. Knowledge of that kind would be a very valuable asset to any agriculturist, whether he be a farmer or a labourer. If he is a labourer he will probably have a plot of his own and in cultivating that, he will be producing wealth for the nation. Boys drawn from a radius of about nine miles from that school could also get a mechanical training there. Because of the difficulties of providing labour now and in the future, the young man on the land or the young labourer must be mechanically-minded and it is only by having schools with such accommodation as I suggest that you can really give him an interest in his work.

We must get away from the drudgery of the past and we can only induce these young men to remain on the land by making the work more pleasant. A young man who receives a training of that description will be an asset in many ways, not only to his employer but to his own family. We know what an asset the ordinary technical school can be in imparting a knowledge of carpentry, joinery and work of that kind to the boys who have attended it. I know of instances where young men on getting married were able to make their own furniture. That is something to boast about. The fact that the pupils in these schools were able to do this work is a great credit to the teachers who have trained them to such a pitch that they were able to produce goods equal to, if not better than, furniture made in high-class stores in Dublin. In a way the work which they produced was more solid than that produced in such stores.

Another matter that has to be considered is that we are likely to have an extension of rural electrification in the near future. Very often in towns throughout the country people have to depend on trained technicians to carry out minor repairs to the electrical appliances in their dwellings or to carry out the wiring of these dwellings. If teachers in such subjects were available in the technical schools, boys could be trained to carry out the electrification of their homes and to instal the necessary equipment and machinery at a very small cost. They could carry out that work after their ordinary day's work. It would be a source of profit to them and help them to maintain their families in decent comfort. There is a great scarcity of labour owing to the flight from the land, and if our young men were trained in the manner I have suggested, it would help to make life more pleasant and would have the effect of increasing production throughout the length and breadth of the country.

In conclusion I should like to say that where local authorities are anxious to have vocational schools established, a very large proportion of the cost should be borne out of the national Exchequer. It is very unfair to expect the already over-burdened taxpayer or ratepayer in the rural areas to bear a greater burden than he is bearing to-day. We all in our own way, in the parent Assembly of the country or in the small local authorities, try to improve conditions for our people but the question frequently arises where are we going to get the money? I suppose we should all like to have these facilities in every parish if we could get them for the asking. The point I would urge on the Minister is that even if taxation has to become a greater burden generally, schools of that kind will be a national benefit and will pay in the long run. We have industrialised the country already to a very considerable extent. That is a very welcome development because the more people we have employed in industry the greater will be the pool for agricultural produce. The pupils trained in schools, such as I suggest, will also be a considerable asset in industrial development. I hope the Minister will take a national view of the importance of these schools and that he will contribute at least to an extent that will make the contribution called for from the local authorities one they can bear.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Colley

It has become customary on the part of certain Deputies in this House, whenever the occasion offers, to deplore the low standard of primary education—in fact of all education—in this country and to blame it on compulsory Irish. Apart from the explanation given by Deputy Kissane yesterday from the official circular we know that the teaching of Irish is no more compulsory than any other subject in the school curriculum. I do not agree that the standard of education in the primary school is any lower than it was at any other time. In fact I think it is something better. I think that comparison is now being made between children with a primary school education and children with a secondary school education to arrive at the completely erroneous conclusion that the standard is lower. Even if the standard were lower, to say that that is due to the teaching of Irish is to my mind completely false. From my own experience as a teacher, as a citizen, and as a father I cannot subscribe to that statement at all. I know a number of boys to-day who were taught through the medium of Irish from their infant days. I know that they have gone out into the world where they have met boys from colleges and schools who were taught through English. They have met them in examination tests, through English as well as through Irish, and they have taken all the laurels. They have done the same thing in the universities.

I cannot agree that teaching through Irish has in any way impaired the acquisition of knowledge. In my constituency there are both primary and secondary schools teaching through the medium of Irish. In the primary schools there are classes in which the teaching is done through English, thereby apparently carrying out the conditions of the circular issued by the Department. There is no doubt that the boys who go to the Irish part of the school do better than their colleagues in the English part. I would like to make a reference here to what Deputy Heskin said about starting to teach Irish in the fourth standard. I did not start to learn Irish until I was 12. To that I ascribe my present difficulty in not being able to talk Irish as I would like to. I can read it and I can write it but I cannot talk it.

I know children now who are growing up completely bilingual. Only the other evening I passed a crowd of boys round about 15 or 16 years of age, who were going out to play some games, and they were all talking in Irish. Last Sunday evening I passed some young children at play and they were all talking Irish. Surely, as Irishmen that is what we want, and that is what we should try to achieve. I am speaking now of the City of Dublin. That position has come about through teaching children Irish in the schools. I think the number of children who find it hard to learn through Irish is very limited and the Department certainly makes provision for them in that respect.

It is sometimes alleged that these children will lose all English. From my personal experience I believe that that is not so. I hope, as the teachers become more efficient in the teaching of Irish, more and more children will be taught through Irish. That is the only way in which we shall ever become an Irish-speaking nation. In that connection I would like to pay tribute to this new movement which has been started by the Christian Brothers. Its object is to encourage the boys to use Irish outside of school. They are now starting a further movement whereby they are endeavouring to link up in a nation-wide effort with their past pupils in order to promote the speaking of Irish on every possible occasion. I trust that in some years to come that movement will bridge the gap that now exists when those boys leave school and help to keep them proficient in their native language.

There are a couple of points I wish to put to the Minister and which I hope he will consider. For the last few years the Irish paper for the leaving certificate examination consisted of very intricate questions in grammar of a standard that one would expect for the B.A. I understand that a number of boys work for the examination and pass the examination who can hardly speak a word of Irish. That is not the aim that should be before us, particularly at this stage. The Minister should look into the matter and consider the possibility of having an oral test for the leaving certificate. I realise the difficulties involved but I would like the question to be examined. There is also the question of the universities. Are we dealing with that now, A Chinn Chomhairle?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a separate Vote? It depends on what the Deputy has to say about it.

Mr. Colley

I wish to refer to the difficulties experienced by boys who are trained through Irish on going to the university for courses in engineering, and so on. They have difficulty in regard to the English terms. I want to know if something could be done to meet these boys. Apparently some of the staff of the universities have no knowledge of Irish and these boys have no knowledge of mathematical terms in English.

Mr. O'Rourke

I am glad to be able to compliment the Minister and his Department on the work they have been doing in providing new schools and in renovating old schools in order to make them more habitable. There was a great complaint by Deputy Mulcahy about some school in Donegal. I am sure there are such schools still in existence but, consistent with the possibilities of the present time, the Department and the Minister in charge have done all that they could reasonably be expected to do. That is a step in the right direction and I hope the Minister and his Department will not stop until all the old ramshackle schools have disappeared because teachers or pupils could not work properly under the conditions that prevailed for many years in schools in this country.

In connection with school buildings, I want to tell the Minister that I am far from satisfied with the present condition of things with regard to the heating and cleaning of schools. There is a regulation under which a 50 per cent. grant is provided by the Department on condition that there is a local contribution. There may or there may not be a local contribution. If the manager has funds and provides the local contribution, a grant is given for the heating and cleaning of the school. If the manager has no funds or if he does not provide anything, the Department will not provide anything and the heating and cleaning of the schools goes by default. The children and the teacher may freeze as far as the educational system is concerned. It is time that the Minister looked into that matter and faced it. There are cases where a local contribution is made but there are other cases where there is no local contribution and where nothing is being done. That is not right. The Minister should face that issue immediately so that the heating and cleaning of the schools will not be depending on grants or local allocations.

I do not think that I can compliment the Minister on his recent circular with regard to corporal punishment. I thought the Starkie ghost was laid some time ago, but I find he has been resurrected. I am not and never have been an advocate of brutal corporal punishment in schools, but I do object to the circular and the manner in which it has been issued. First of all, teachers receive the same training and have practically uniform qualification but, under the terms of this circular, it appears there is a distinction made and only with the special permission of the manager may a teacher inflict corporal punishment. It amounts to this, that if a teacher is insulted in his class he must go to his principal and ask the principal to punish or ask permission to punish. I think that is absurd. Either the teachers are men and women of character or they are not. That is a most objectionable thing. That old rule was issued before we got the measure of freedom that we have now. I am not saying that there have not been some cases where there may have been excessive punishment, but I do not think the whole teaching body should be branded because of a few exceptions. In no case must corporal punishment be inflicted for failure in lessons, so that I may set pupils to do a lesson which I know they are capable of and give them a certain time and if at the end of that time they may have nothing done, I cannot attempt to punish them. I can set them a lesson for home and if they deliberately neglect it, I cannot touch them. Failure in lessons must not be a reason for corporal punishment. There is such a thing as sparing the rod and spoiling the child. There are some Deputies, and I know there are some inspectors, who do not believe in it, nor do I believe in it. I do not believe in inflicting brutal punishment, but, at the same time, I think the circular is absurd.

The manager, then, is to be held responsible. He must say which of his teachers will inflict corporal punishment. I cannot understand that. Why should the manager be asked to make such a distinction between his teachers? They are supposed to be all men and women of reason, culture and understanding. I do not see why such distinction should be made.

A great deal has been said about the standard of education in general in the schools. It must be admitted that at the present time especially, owing to the difficulties that have existed during the war, there may have been and there probably is a lowering of the ordinary standards in our schools just as there is, especially in country schools, a lowering of the average attendance, and in both cases the circumstances prevailing must be taken into account. At the same time, I wish to say, in reply to those people who try to pretend that education is at a very low ebb, that the standard is as good as can possibly be expected. I believe that the teachers work as hard and as conscientiously as men and women can be expected to work. Undoubtedly, there are difficulties. Since compulsory —mar dheadh—attendance was introduced children are not bound to come to school until they are six years of age and they may leave on reaching the age of 14. The net result of this is that where pupils used to come to school at about the age of three or four many now wait until they are on the border of six and some of them even later. At the most then there are only eight years in which to do a big programme. I am afraid that we are expecting too much. It might be possible, of course, for the really brilliant pupil, but as somebody remarked here a while ago, one may meet a brilliant pupil to nine or ten dud ones and it is not for the really brilliant pupil the teacher is supposed to cater. Every teacher knows that it is for the mediocre and the backward pupil that he has to cater.

I maintain that from six to 14 years of age is not sufficient time in which to carry out the programme. It is entirely too short. In this connection I have said several times before and I say it again that the school-leaving age in the country districts should be raised. There is no other form of higher education for these pupils. Where can they get it? Assuming that they are willing to go to a vocational school how far are these schools from the homes of the ordinary people? The distances very often are prohibitive and the number of vocational schools in rural areas is not large. Besides that, being voluntary, the pupils will not attend. I see no reason why the school-leaving age should not be raised to 15 or 16 years and thus give the pupils a chance to come to the use of reason because, strictly speaking, they are not capable of reasoning until they come to that age. There is a notable difference between the boy and girl of 16 years nowadays and the boy and girl of 16 years, 25 years ago. Why? Because those boys and girls of 25 years ago stayed at school after the age of 14. I taught them myself and I know that they remained at school up to the age of 17. They began to reason between the years of 14 and 17, when they were able to understand what they had been learning by memory before that. I say it is nationally wrong policy to do away with primary education at the age of 14. It is all right in these cases where the child can go to the vocational school or the secondary school. As has been pointed out a thousand times, however, nine out of ten of the ordinary pupils never see any higher school than the national school. I again advocate that the school-leaving age be raised at least to 15 and preferably to 16.

At the present time we have throughout the whole country this question of lowering averages and of teachers losing their positions. This is one of the greatest grievances teachers ever have had or ever can have—to say that through no fault of their own they lose their positions, or that some of them, on the verge of old age, are changed about, 30, 40 or 50 miles away from their homes or the homes of their families. A lot of this would be obviated if the school-leaving age were raised. It may be an excuse in the city that there would not be room enough for the pupils. There is no such excuse in the country. It should be done to-morrow. Pupils from the age of 14 to 15 should attend school and the sooner that is done the better.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. O'Rourke

The propaganda that is being spread about pupils being illiterate at the age of 14 is absolutely absurd. I say that, as far as it is possible, the ordinary pupil of 14 has a good general education. Some people who remember the olden times talk about the way they were able to read. They used to read the old sixth book and so on. They did, because they had it off by heart. They had the same reading lesson year after year. In that way they appeared to have some education which in reality they had not because in most cases they did not understand. I consider that the present teaching position is better. The course covered is more extensive and the only trouble is that there is not enough time to do all that is required. I am speaking in English at the moment, but generally when I meet anybody who is able to speak Irish, I speak Irish to him. I am deliberately speaking in English now because I think it is time we came down to realities. We at the present moment, as far as the Twenty-Six Counties are concerned, have got a complete measure of freedom. We pretend, all of us—some of us may be sincere, some of us may not—that we are followers of P.H. Pearse—that we want to have Ireland Gaelic as well as free. How are we going to set about doing it? By having Irish as an optional subject? In the name of common-sense, if Irish is to be an optional subject, how are we going to make Irish the spoken language of the country? Are we complete fools to think that we can adopt that Paddy-go-easy method of doing it? Irish is not popular—with whom? It is not popular with a person who does not know it or who does not try to know it. I taught Irish as an extra when it was optional and when our superiors did not even want it and I say that if we want to popularise the language we must keep using it, and where, if not in the national schools?

I agree thoroughly with the Deputy who has said that the acquisition of the language must begin at the age of six or seven until the pupil leaves school. Why do we find a difficulty in later years? If I were to study another language now why would I find it difficult—because the memory is not what it was. It is when the memory is active that we should learn a language, hence, the sooner the child begins to learn Irish and the more constantly he keeps at it the better the child will like it. I know there are difficulties. One of them is that the older teachers—I suppose I might be classed as one of these—have not a fluent knowledge of the language and therefore find it difficult to make their pupils fluent. It is almost an impossibility—in fact, I say it is an impossibility—for a teacher who is not fluent at Irish to make a pupil fluent. If the teacher is backward at any subject it is very hard to make the pupil good at it. I think the Department has taken cognisance of that. They have not forced Irish down the throats of teachers and pupils. If the teachers were a certain age, I think over 40, they were not forced to teach the language at all. They were not forced to have a certificate or anything else like that. I can say from experience it is not being forced down the throats of teachers. But it is just as much forced as the other subjects on the programme are. If there is a programme according to which I have to teach history, I am bound to teach it. That is forced on me, and on the pupils, if you like. Irish is a compulsory subject. I have to teach that. Arithmetic is compulsory. Geography is compulsory. So are other subjects. Well, Irish then is compulsory to the same extent as any other subject, but not more so. Surely we should not put Irish in the second place. Surely at this stage of the existence of the Irish nation we are not going to put Irish in the most backward position possible, that we pay it lip-service, that we say we want the Irish language, but take no steps to have it made the spoken language. I say definitely that the time has come when we have to face the fact that we must either drop the Irish language or be sincere about it. You want to spread the Irish language and you take no steps to do it. That is sheer humbug.

People want to know why the Irish language has not spread more widely. I will tell you; because there is no sincerity. If there were sincerity, the language would have spread far more than it has spread. Then there is the discouragement. We have heard some of it in this House from different Deputies who try to discourage the teaching of it in the schools and try to make out that it is a terrible task. It is not; it is an interesting subject. I would back a good Irish pupil in any branch of the programme against a pupil who does not know Irish. The best pupils I ever taught were the best at Irish. If they are intelligent in Irish, I guarantee they will be intelligent in everything else.

Then there is the discouragement in the home. I am afraid that many parents listen to and read the speeches of Deputies here and other speakers outside. Of course, it is a question of taking the easiest way out. They think it is easier to drop the Irish language. They do not encourage their children and, in some cases, they discourage them. I must say that I have never found any active opposition on the part of parents. If you like, they are indifferent, but there is no active opposition. We should not be content with leaving the question of the Irish language as it is. We have either to be active in regard to it or drop it. I say that there is not half enough compulsion in regard to the use of the Irish language. The more you make it compulsory, the better the pupils will like the language, no matter what anybody may say. You like a subject when you become proficient in it. Take any subject on the programme: if you are good at it you will like it and will practise it. Is it the person who is no good at mathematics who will practise that subject? Not at all. A good singer always wants to sing. The same thing applies to the Irish language. If you want people to like it, make them proficient in it; but you have to take steps to do it.

I am very glad that the Minister is putting a scheme into operation for encouraging the speaking of the language in the schools. I think such a scheme is long overdue. I believe that the pupils should use the Irish language in carrying on the ordinary business of the schools and that they should use it in the playgrounds. Furthermore, I believe that the teachers from the Gaeltacht are not making as much use of the language as they should and that the Department should look into that matter. I know what is being done in the preparatory colleges; I know they speak Irish exclusively there. But what happens after that I do not know. I think that some of the teachers do not come out with that love of spreading the Irish language which you would expect from the people of the Gaeltacht. I am glad that this scheme has been put into operation and that teachers and pupils will be put on their mettle and given prizes for proficiency in the speaking of the language. That is a step in the right direction and I hope it will be extended.

Until a change of Government came about we had a scale of fees for the teaching of Irish as an extra. I do not know the exact amount, but that amount would not be too much to allot in prizes for the best schools in spoken Irish. There is nothing difficult in a pupil asking the teacher in Irish for things he wants to buy. After all, these things require only simple phrases. There is no difficulty in a pupil using the Irish language when playing football. That would have a very great effect in increasing the love of the pupil for the language.

I am not very satisfied, in fact I am very dissatisfied, with the use made of the language in the secondary schools, apart from the lessons. I do not think there is any great love for the spoken language inculcated among pupils in the secondary schools. I would say that the universities are far worse in that respect. Rarely have I found a graduate who wanted to speak Irish or to hold a conversation in it. There is something wrong there, and the sooner it is looked into the better, because you cannot expect the poor labourer's child and the poor farmer's sons or daughters to restore the Irish language while the élite, the people who are highly educated and who can speak Irish, continually speak in English. I do not think that is correct. The sooner we face up to these matters, the better.

I also think that there is not sufficient propaganda in connection with the language. I think there should be far more propaganda. Whether the Minister for Education would be the proper person to undertake that, I do not know. But there certainly should be more propaganda on our duty towards the national language. After all, if we do not restore the national language, where is our nationality? Are we satisfied that this country can be really Irish if the language is not restored? I am quite satisfied of the reverse. If we had a 32-County republic to-morrow and the Irish language was not the spoken language, I would say that that is not the Ireland we have been looking for. I say that there must be more energy put into this movement for the restoration of the Irish language. I have given some reasons why I think progress has been slow; but the main reason, to my mind, is that there is not sincerity enough; that we say one thing and do another; that we do not practise what we preach. I think it is up to us to do that.

There is another matter as to which I wish to make an appeal to the Minister. Although I am told I am practically under a sentence of excommunication from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation at the moment, I should like to make an appeal to the Minister in regard to this matter. Nobody realises more than I do the big part that teachers must play in the education of our youth. There is nobody who knows better than I do what it is to be dissatisfied and discontented. I think that a contented teaching profession is an absolute essential for any successful education, not to speak of Irish education. I notice that the Minister stated that he cannot legally recognise the teachers for pension purposes for the period they were on strike. It may be that I am wrongly informed, but I am told that something similar happened in connection with post office workers in 1923 and that, later on, whatever legal changes were required were made and the period of their absence from work was recognised for pension purposes. If that was done in that case, I appeal to the Minister to do it in the case of the teachers. There have been misunderstandings between the Minister and the teachers. I hope these are only transient and that good fellowship will prevail in future. As a step towards that, I appeal to the Minister to take the earliest opportunity possible to have that position put right. Mistakes may have been made; we all make mistakes, but we all have to work together afterwards.

Mr. Davin

It is an old British law.

Mr. O'Rourke

In any case, I think we should do everything possible to have the wheels of education run smoothly. Above all, it is essential to have teachers contented with their lot. The question of averages, which I mentioned, is a very grave one. A teacher starts with bright prospects and is happy and contented, and then, towards the end of his career, through no fault of his own, the average in his school falls and that teacher loses his position or is forced to go somewhere else. That is a very serious matter. Perhaps it is not easy to find a remedy for that, but some remedy should be found, especially at the present time. I suppose the Minister is looking into this matter, but I think that there never was so much need as there is at present for being lenient with regard to averages and the position of teachers depending on falling averages.

For the past few years—the Minister knows it himself—he allowed extra vacation and for every fortnight allowed you may take it the pupils took another, because they are never content with the couple of weeks you give. They usually take a week before and a week after. This spring additional agricultural leave was given and I can assure the Minister that most of that leave was given during bad weather when nothing could be done and the pupils immediately afterwards took an additional two weeks. The net result is that averages are going down and I think now, above all times in recent history, steps should be taken to see that the teachers are not penalised because of this lowering of averages.

I do not know that there is anything else I am anxious to say. There are many things on which I can compliment the Minister. There were a few things I mentioned about which I was not so complimentary, but the Minister understands that everything I say is intended for his good.

Mr. P. Burke

I would again like to direct the Minister's attention to vocational education as we have it in County Dublin. I am sorry to say that the people are not availing of it as much as Deputies would like them to. I have been wondering if the Minister would introduce an agricultural aspect, something relating to rural science, into some of the vocational schools with the object of getting farmers' sons, labourers and others to take a greater interest in vocational education. I hear from teachers in County Dublin that there is a big problem over the children who leave school at 14. What can be done with them between 14 and 17? There is that gap in the child's life and it is important that the child would be occupied in some way. These children do not all attend vocational schools. I support Deputy O'Rourke because I believe that if the school-leaving age was raised to 15, children would have a chance of getting a better education; they could go to vocational schools and acquire additional knowledge.

As regards the schools in County Dublin, I would like to see them provided with more recreational facilities. Numbers of schools have only small yards. The children go in there and stand around and from the health point of view that is not too good. I would like the Department to take up the matter with local authorities in order to see if decent playgrounds could be provided so that the children would have a reasonable amount of exercise and fresh air.

I should like to see more scholarships given by the county councils and the Department to various schools. Pupils in schools throughout the country whose parents are poor are not in a position to acquire a decent education and it would be a good idea if more scholarships were granted to such children.

We have in County Dublin teachers who get £10 a year as a rent allowance. I agree that prior to the last agreement they had not any rent allowance. Teachers who are living in the suburbs of Dublin have rents as high as those paid by teachers in the city; in some cases the rents are higher. In the city the teachers get an allowance of £40 a year. I am not saying they have enough—I am not dealing with that aspect—but certainly £10 for County Dublin teachers is not quite sufficient and I would like the Minister to remedy that grievance.

There is another point I want to deal with, but I am not in a position to deal with it fully. I refer to the pupils who go in for teaching. I agree that many children who are taught Irish when going to school become very bright pupils and they may express a desire to be trained as teachers. There is some disappointment that there are not more children taken from the Dublin district—both city and county —to be trained as teachers. They and I feel strongly that a child who learns-the Irish language and becomes proficient in it realises the difficulties there are in acquiring that knowledge and very often that child will make an excellent teacher. As a matter of fact, I have attended Irish classes and I always preferred to go to the teacher who had to learn the language, because I felt he always had greater sympathy with the person trying to acquire a knowledge of it.

I wish to thank the Minister for the courtesy I received during the year whenever I made representations to him. I know that as far as possible he will eliminate any grievances that the teachers may have. I look upon the teaching profession as the backbone of our country, and I know a contented teaching profession will always keep our country on the right lines.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

A Chinn Comhairle, tá bron orm na fuil an Teachta Diolun annso mar go bhfuil rudai airithe agam le rádh i dtaobh na cainnte a dhein sé annso indé agus bfhearr liom iad a rádh in-a láthair. Ach biodh sé annso nó ná biodh, caithfear na rudaí sin a rádh leis. Is gnáthach leis an dTeachta san masla agus tarcuisne agus cáineadh a tharrach chuige in a chuid óráid annso go mór-mhór sa díospóireacht ar mheastachán an Oideachais. O tháinig sé annso mar teachta, níl blian dár tháinig nár cháin sé agus nár mhasluigh sé agus nár dhein se a dhicheall ar tharcuisne a chaitheamh ar lucht na Gaedhilge agus ar Aire an Oideachais agus ar Roinn an Oideachais. Chuaidh diomsa a thuiscint cé'n fáth go mbíon sé comh nimhneach searbh, agus é ag cur sios ar chursai na Gaedhilge. Ach sílim go bhfuil an treith sin ann ó dhuchas.

A Chinn Comhairle, léigheas leabhar a scríobh an Craoibhin Aoibhinn cúpla blian ó shoin. Mise agus an Connradh ainm an leabhair sin. Bhí cur síos sa leabhar san ag an gCraoibhín ar an dtroid mhóir a rinne Conradh na Gaedhilge chun na Gaedhilge a chur ar chlár na h-Ollscoile Náisiúnta mar adhbhar riachtanach agus fuaireas amach ón dtuairisc atá sa leabhar san nach é seo an chéad uair go raibh Diolúnach i gcoinnibh gluaiseacht na Gaedhilge. Bhuaidh lucht na Gaedhilge an cath sin, buadhadh ar iarrachtaí an Diolúnaigh úd, agus le congnamh Dé, ní baoghal go n-eireochaidh le Diolúnach eile anois, diobháil ná dochar a dhéanamh do chuis aithbheocainte na Gaedhilge ná don ghleas oibre atá ceapaithe chun na Gaedhilge a cur in uachtar in Eirinn mar gnáththeanga na tíre.

Marach go bhfuil fuath ag an dTeachta Diolún do chuis na Gaedhilge, marac gur thug an fuath san agus an ghrain agus an seirbhtheann mar dhuchas leis, ni bheadh sé ag caint fé mar a labhair se i mbliana agus fé mar a labhair sé gach bliain ón lá a tháinig sé anseo. Compulsory Irish, ar seisean —an Ghaeilge éigeantach—mallacht na Gaeilge eigeantai—ba mhaith leis deireadh a chur leis. Ta cuid eile againn anseo, agus ba mhaith linn deireadh a chur le mallacht an Bhéarla éigeantigh agus dá luaithe a deanfar e is amhlaidh is fearr e don tir seo agus do chursai oideachais agus d'aos og na tire seo.

Ní féidir an Ghaeilge a thabhairt ar ais mar ghnath-theanga gan treaniarracht. Nil einne chomh hamadanta no chomh mi-chiallmhar agus a rá nach bhfuil deacrachtaí móra ar an mbothar romhainn. Ach an plean breagach a mhol an Teachta Dioluin anseo inné, é a chur in áit an ghléasa ata i bhfeidhm ag Roinn an Oideachais faoi láthair, ní thiubhradh sé slat chun cinn ar bhothar na Gaeilge sinn agus níl le déanamh ag Roinn an Oideachais ach leanacht den phlean ata i bhfeidhm acu cheana agus gan a bheith ag athrú i lar na habhann.

Nior mhol einne a labhair anseo ins an diospoireacht aon phlean nios fearr ná an gléas atá i bhfeidhm ag an Roinn faoi láthair chun feidhm a bhaint as na Bun-Scoileanna, as na Mean-Scoileanna agus as na Gairm-Scoileanna chun an Ghaeilge a chur in uachtar san tír seo mar theanga labhartha. Mar ma táimid dáiríribh i dtaobh na Gaeilge a bheith ar ais againn i nEirinn mar theanga labhartha, nil aon tsli eile chun e a dheanamh agus caithfimid bheith sasta bheith nios dicheallai agus nios dutharachtaí ná mar a bhíomar go dtí seo, go mór mór ins na Bun-Scoileanna agus gach sort Scoile eile a bhfuil airgead dhá chur i leataobh dóibh ins an Meastachán seo.

Mar duirt no chara agus mo chomh-Theachta Domhnall Ó Ruairc, táimid dairiribh no nilimid dairiribh. Ma taimid dairiribh, caithfimid a bheith níos misniúla agus gan staonadh roimh an masla agus an tarcuisne a chloisimid anseo gach bliain ó dhaoine a leigeann orthu bheith ar thaobh na Gaeilge a chur in uachtar ach tá fhios agam gur be a mhalairt ar fad a theastaios o na daoine seo agus go dteastaionn uathu an tir seo a bheith in a "Sacsa nua darb ainm Eire".

Mhinigh cainteoiri eile ins an diospóireacht seo conas mar atá an sgéal i dtaobh teagasc tríd an nGaeilge. Má thuigim an sgéal i gceart, as a 5,000 bun-scoil ata sa tir, nil ach 250 sa nGalltacht a bhfuil teagasc tré Ghaeilge ar siul iontu do gach aon abhar ar an gClár. Tá scoileanna sa Ghaeltacht a bhfuil an teagasc sin ar siul iontu, mar is choir, ach cheapas go mbeadh níos mó scoil sa Ghalltacht ná 250 in a raibh an teagasc iomlán ar siul tre Gaeilge. An chuid is mo den chaint sin mar gheall ar theagase tri Ghaeilge a bhionn ar siul ag an Teachta Dioluin agus na comhghuaillithe atá aige ar na binnsí thall, nil ann ach cur i gceill. Nil eolas na tuiscint da laighead acu i dtaobh an sceil sin na i dtaobh cuid mhaith eile de na poinnti a luadar i geoinnibh na Gaeilge ins na Bun-Scoileanna nuair a bhiodar ag labhairt sa diospoireacht seo.

Dúirt an Teachta Diolúin ins an díospóireacht seo nach aon tairbhe an Ghaeilge, nach raibh innte ach oidhreacht naisiunta. Is oidhreacht naisiúnta i, ceart go leor, ach ní fíor a ra nach bhfuil aon tairbhe inte fein mar theanga, mar abhar scoile, fiu amhain. Is cuimhin linn go leir an rud a duirt an tAthair Peadar O Laoghaire i dtaobh an oideachais a fuair sé le linn a oige. Duirt se go raibh an da arm aigne aige—an Ghaeilge agus an teagasc a fuair sé trid an nGhaeilge, agus an teagasc a fuair se ag an scoil chois claidhe tríd an mBéarla. Sin rud amhain ata ag cuid mhaith de na paisti scoile anois nach raibh againne nuair a bhiomar ag dul ar scoil. Bhi orainn a bheith sasta le Béarla amháin agus aon Ghaeilge atá agam, ni bhfuair me focal di ins an mBun-Scoil. Sin athrú mór ar an saol le triochad bliain no le 35 bliain anuas agus einne adeir, mar a duirt an Teachta Ó hEaladáin, nach bhfuil athrú saoil ann maidir le aithbheochaint na Gaeilge Ó thosach na haoise seo go dtí an lá atá inniu ann, níl an ceart aige ná níl fhios aige conas atá an scéal. Tá athrú mór ann—athrú chun feabhais, buíochas mór le Dia, le 20 nó le 25 bliain anuas. Aon bhuachaill scoile nó cailín scoile a casfar ort ar an mbóthar, fé lathair in aon aird den tír seo agus go labharfá Gaeilge leo, gheobhfá freagra i nGaeilge bhlasta uathu, rud nach dutitfeadh amach 25 bliain ó shoin. Ach caithimíd bheith foidhneach agus fad-radharcach go dtí go bhfeicimid toradh na hoibre atá ar siúl ins na Bun-scoileanna.

Mar duart cheana, tá mise ar dhuine de na daoine sa tír seo a chreideann go bhfuil an iomad den Bhéarla éigeantach ann, agus go mba choir bheith sásta le beagán níos lú den Bhéarla éigeantach agus níos mó den Ghaeilge ar Chlár gach aon tsórt scoile agus dá luaithe a chímíd an lá sin, seadh is fearr don tír seo.

Duart go mbeadh deacrachtaí ar an mbóthar rómhainn sar a shroisimid ceann cúrsa. Níl aon áit eile ach amháin na Bun-Scoileanna ar féidir an Ghaeilge a chur dá labhairt agus a thabhairt ar ais—isiad an Bhun-Chloch ar a gcaithfear an náisiún do ath-thógáil mar náisiún Gaelach. Chun an sceal a bheith i gceart agus cursai na Gaeilge a chur ar agaidh i gceart, ní mór dúinn deagh-thoil agus cabhair na muinteoiri go mor mhor duthracht na muinteoiri sin san obair, deagh-thoil na mBainisteoirí, agus tuigsint agus cabhair na dtuistí chun go ndéanfai an obair i gceart. Silim go mba cheart comhar idir na tri dreama sin go speisialta. Deirtear liom—dubhrathas ins an díospóireacht seo go minice—go bhfuil na muinteoiri mishasta agus searbh mar gheall ar rudai a thuit amach anuraidh.

Ta siul agam nach fior e sin. Mhínigh an Teachta Ó Ruairc go bhfuil múinteoirí ann a bhí ag múineadh ar feadh na mblianta sar a thainig an t-athru mor maidir le muine na Gaeilge i, 1922, is nach bhfuil siad san chomh cliste agus chomh líofa ins an Ghaeilge agus ba mhaith linn go mbeidis. Ach, nach bhfuil line nua muinteoiri ag fas, nach bhfuil aos nua bun-mhuinteoiri againn, a hoileadh ins na Coláisti Ullmhucháin agus ins na Colaisti Oiliuna, cuid mhaith a rugadh agus a tógadh le Gaeilge sa nGhaeltacht agus da dtugadh siadsan faoi ghno na Gaeilge a chur chun cinn go deagh-chroiach, agus ma ta meid na muinteoiri sin ag dul i meid i naghaidh na bliana ba chóir go mbeadh na deacrachtai da gcur as an sli againn i ndiaidh a chéile agus ba chóir go mba ghairid go mbeadh an bothar glan chun tiomaint direach ar aghaidh ar bhothar na Gaeilge.

Ni feidir leis na bun-scoileanna amhain an Ghaeilge a chur o bhaol. Silim go gcaithfear an meid sin a adhmhail. Ac nil aon ghleas eile againn ach amhain na scoileanna san mar bhun-chloc ar a dtogfar an foirgneamh Gaelach. Nil againn chun e sin a dheanamh ach na bun-scoileanna, an bhun-chloch a shocrú, agus is féidir an foirgneamh Gaelach a thógaint ar an mbun-chloch sin. Deirtear go minic, le blianta beaga anuas agus is ceart aghaidh a thabhairt air, nach bhfuil an t-aos óg á múineadh ins na bun-scoileanna chomh dícheallach agus chomh dúbhrachtach agus a múintí iad 15 bliain ó shoin, agus deirtear nach bhfuil oiread speise ins an Ghaeilge, ag na muinteoiri oga go speisialta, agus ba chóir. Nil fhios agam an fior breag e sin. Ta siul agam nach fíor é mar go bhfuil fhios agam agus go dtuigim im aigne, agus fos in mo chroi, mar a mbionn line múinteoirí againn atá dúrachtach, dícheallach spiridiúil maidir leis an Ghaeilge, go bhfuil se fuar ag aos og na tire a bheith ag braith orthu eolas ar an nGaeilge agus labhairt na Gaeilge a fhoghlaim uathu. Ta moran ag braith ar na bun-scoileanna agus ma ta aon chuis mhishasamh no ma ta aon chuis mhithuigsiona idir na múinteoirí agus an Roinn nó idir na múinteoirí agus an tAire nó an Rialtas, ba mhaith liom go gcuirfí sin as an tslighe ionas ná beidh aon chúis gearáín acu ag cur isteach ar na múinteoirí agus ná beidh de chúram orthu ach cuspoirí na Roinne agus cuspoirí an naisiúin maidir le h-aithbheochaint na Gaeilge, a chur ar aghaidh go trean agus go cumhachtach.

Rinneadh tagairt do rudaí eile ins an díospóireacht ach ó deineadh oiread san cainnte ar cheist na Gaeilge i cúrsaí oideachais i gcoitinn, nílim chun moill a chur ar an Aire níos fuide ach amháin a mholadh dhó gan aon tsuim a chur i gcaint an Teachta Diolúin ná na gcomh-ghuaillithe eile a bhí ag aontú leis, ach dul ar aghaidh ar an mbóthar atá leagtha amach aige agus má dhéanann sé é sin, go bhfuil sé ar an mbóthar ceart chun Éire agus aos óg na hÉireann a Ghaelú.

Seán Mac Cárthaigh

Is dócha ná gá puinn eile a rá ach dúradh rudaí ón taobh eile den Tí seo agus ba cheart dúinn a thaispeáint dóibh siúd agus don tír go léir go bhfuilimid ag seasamh guala ar ghualainn lena chéile in a gcoinnibh sin. Tháinig an Diolúnach isteach annseo inné mar chuach thar lear ag iompáil agus ag screadaíl agus ní raibh fhios aige cad é an nead in a gcuirfheadh sé an ubh a cheap sé a bhí aige. Chualas a leithéid de chainnt ó Éireannach— bfhéidir nach Éireannach é—ní fheadar sin—ní labhrann sé mar Éireannach, pé ar domhain é. Éinne go bhfuil an tuairim aige nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge ag dul ar aghaidh is amadánta an duine e mar chionn gach einne o la go la go bhfuil an Ghaeilge ag dul ar aghaidh go maith agus go groi.

An la fe dheire bhios ar bothar thiar i gCoreaigh agus bhi paisti oga amuigh ar an sráid agus iad ag scríobh mionfhocla Gaedhilge ar an gcasán ann. Dé Domhnaigh, nuair bhios ag teacht abhaile ón Aifreann, ag an ceann eile den bhóthar céadna, bhí muinntir an Choláiste ag imirt peile ann agus sí an teanga a bhí ar siubhal acu ná an Ghaedhilg fhéin.

Lá eile, i mBaile Búitléir, Butlerstown—agus is maith atá eolas agat, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, ar an áit chéadna—bhíos ag dul treasna na sráide agus an isé an t-amhrán a bhí ar siúbhal ag na cailíní ag béal na sráide sin ná "‘Cad a dhéanfaimíd feasta gan adhmaid?" Ní fheadar an raibh An Diolúnach, nó daoine mar é, ag aon fheiseanna nó an bhfuil aon eolas nó baint in aon chor acu leis an saoghal in a dtuaith féin.

Sa bhaile, tá ochtar sa chlann agus is féidir leo san an Gaodhluinn do láimhseáil chomh maith leis an Béarla —agus níor tháinig ach duine amháin díobh san ón nGaedhealtacht. Ins na scoileanna agus coláistí ar fuid na tíre, tá múinteoirí ag obair go dian ar son na Gaedhilge—nó an furmhór díobh, pé ar domhain é. Chomh fada agus a leanann an sprid i measc na daoine óga ins an saoghal atá rómhainn, ní caillfear teanga na tíre seo.

I think that there is no need to say very much more. However, I want to make it clear that, north, south, east and west, there are and always will be men and women who will stand shoulder to shoulder on behalf of the traditions of this land, of which our language is the greatest and best.

We cannot be so forgetful as to lose all regard for the people who have made portion of this land free, and of the ideas and ideals that they set before the nation. Men of good-will are battling at the present time to try to fill the gap between the ideals and the realities of life. If the realities do not always come up to the ideals, it is not by faintheartedness or by turning aside, but by adhering faithfully to the ideals, that the purpose of making this land Irish will be achieved because there are some few I regret to say— and I regret that Deputy Dillon is one of them—who would have this land an ineffective appendage of Tory England. If Tory England goes, what is going to happen him and men like him whose ideals are merged in what has come to us from across the sea? This land has a rough road before it in its efforts to maintain its traditions, to carry on its education and other schemes that will help to maintain our identity as a nation in the world. It is no comfort to us to find that all other nations in the world are worrying over the problems on their own behalf that confront us here in this island.

As to the reflections that are cast on our system of education, on the results of the efforts of the teachers and all the rest, the people who make these reflections to my mind have not examined in one single instance the basis for their castigations. I have travelled a little and in the course of my travels on one occasion, I visited a teacher near West Point, in America, a Christian Brother, whom I taught in this country. I asked him for his opinion about the standard or system of education here and that which prevails in the progressive land across the ocean, the United States of America. He stated that the children leaving schools here were every bit as well educated and in many cases were more intelligent, but perhaps, through their environment, were shyer and not able to show as clearly or as brilliantly the things they knew.

We are told by some Deputies that the youth of Ireland are being brought up illiterate in both languages. Some people come along, and because the rising generation cannot spell or something of that kind, condemn the whole system. In an American journal lately I saw a letter published from a university student. Over there the complaint has also been made that the three R's are being neglected. The letter was written in order to show that in some measure that was so and the following words in the letter were spelt wrongly: "Coming" with two m's; "since" spelt wrongly; "uncertain" spelt wrongly, "probably" also spelt wrongly, "interesting" spelt wrongly twice. In a high school in America recently amongst the tests to which the students were subjected was the spelling of the word "thermometer". In that high school of 36 pupils, 19 got it right and the 17 who spelled it wrongly misspelt it in 16 different ways, so that it is not here alone that these things are worrying the people.

I suppose most Deputies here got amongst their correspondence a letter from a very famous man, G.B. Shaw, containing a document advocating simplified spelling for the English language. If we spelt English as in the days of Chaucer and Spenser, we might be nearer to the real thing than the spelling of to-day. At any rate, people who are worrying about these things, to my mind, should think of something bigger and greater because as Deputy Ó Briain has pointed out, there are people who have no turn for languages. They find them difficult but the fact that they cannot spell properly does not mean that these people should be thrown aside or that there is no place for them in the general scheme of things. There is a place for them and they do fit in, and instead of discouraging them because of their failures in that regard, they should be encouraged to take up things which suit them. A mother once went to Padraig Pearse and said that the only thing her son was able to do was to play a tin whistle. "Well," said he, "then give him a tin whistle." Education plays an important part in fitting students for a competence in life. There are many self-educated people in this world. It is generally when people grow up and get sense that they are able to see the value of things which they learned at school. There is no doubt that the prospect is not as bright as it should be, perhaps, but it takes years of effort to reach the ideal. In the present-day schools I would advocate—as Deputy Butler and others have advocated— that our first task is to get down to a proper system of standardised textbooks. We all know that when the English came over here they used compulsory English to stamp out our native Irish and the teachers walloped the Irish out of the children and walloped the English into them. With standardised English textbooks, in a couple of generations Irish was lost. We all know the old phrases, such as "Jack has got a cart to draw sand and clay" and "The Eskimo provides for the house by whipping the wife regardless of the period after hunting." They were full of that kind of thing and they were so well known by the children that when the inspector came along he used to ask the pupils to point out the particular word that they were reading. I am a great believer in having less in the books and in having what is in the books learned by heart. I knew a teacher myself who had just finished training and, as Deputy Donnchadh Ó Briain has pointed out, there was less Irish before the trouble than there is now. This teacher spent six years in the hills and elsewhere. He was a qualified teacher but in order to get back to a school he was told that he would have to take out a certificate in Irish. He learned off Séadna, Part I, by heart and he passed his examination with flying colours. I am myself a great believer in that system. I believe, as other Deputies who have spoken here to-day believe, that phrase building and word construction should not begin until the fourth standard and that formal composition in Irish should not begin too early either.

Irish is not the only subject in which the textbooks need revision. I think our arithmetics could be a blend of both Irish and English. The same problems need not be set in both languages, but the rules should be such as could be made applicable in either language. Most of the children are not able to buy books with too great frequency and I think they should be equipped at the beginning of the school year with such readers as would give them a competence in their particular standard.

Another matter to which I would like to refer is the present system of grouping in the higher standards. I say that the present system leads to standardised mediocrity. The reason is that you may have only two teachers teaching all the classes in a school. Previously we had a monitorial system and I think it was an excellent system because the monitor was there to get the desk work going and supervise it while the teacher was looking after work on the floor. The young teachers in the training colleges should be compelled to spend one year as monitors in the schools as part of their training. Very often you have the fifth, sixth and seventh standards amalgamated on the floor and it is impossible for any teacher in half an hour or twenty-five minutes to give those children anything approaching individual attention. What is necessary is some reader which will not be too difficult for the fifth nor too easy for the seventh. If the reader is too easy the seventh standard children will have very little interest in it. That is why I advocate a reorganisation of the top standards. The system works fairly well where you have a teacher for every class but I am chiefly concerned now with the rural schools. The city schools are in a much better position because their children can pass on to a secondary school. Country parents very often cannot afford to send their children further than the national school. For that reason the primary schools in the country should be better staffed and they should receive more attention than the city and urban schools where higher education is near at hand.

We all know that the buildings are in a deplorable condition in the rural areas. The Minister is, of course, doing his best in that respect since the emergency ceased. I have had personal experience of the interest which the Department is taking in that matter. As Deputy Giles said here this evening, a playground should be attached to every school for organised games. If there is no playground big enough for that purpose there should be at least a handball alley covered in so that on wet days the children could go out from the schoolroom and shelter there even if they could not play. Children should not be kept in the one atmosphere all day, particularly in badly ventilated schools. It is neither good for the health of the children nor for their education. Everybody knows we get a fair number of wet days in this country.

Probably I am prolonging this debate unduly. But I have advocated these things over the last two or three years. Deputy Giles and various other members of this House have been equally strong in their advocacy. I think we are all agreed that there should be a special room attached to at least one national school in every parish in which domestic economy classes could be held on certain nights of the week, Irish classes on certain other nights and agricultural science classes. I know a parish at the present moment where there is a farmers' association and a branch of the Irish Countrywomen's Association. They have to hold their meetings in the tap-room of a local publichouse because they will not be allowed to use the new school. Possibly the difficulty is owing to the cleaning of the school. If a special room were available in the national schools it could be used for various purposes and the existing state of affairs should not be permitted to continue.

As everybody knows, the teaching of domestic economy, needle-work and housecraft generally are most important from the point of view of the education of girls. If the facilities are not provided, that education cannot be given. A certain amount is done in the schools at the present time but it is far from sufficient.

Deputy O'Rourke spoke about averages. Averages have gone down. They have gone down because of the new system which has come into operation. It was possible at one time to enroll children at three years of age. Now they cannot be enrolled before four and so a bit is taken off the bottom of the ladder. Attendance is now compulsory until 14 and now when they reach 14 they leave school because attendance is no longer compulsory. In that way a bit is taken off the top of the ladder. Formerly, before the compulsory school-leaving age was made 14 they very often stayed on until 15. I am sure that these are all things that time and a vigorous attention to detail will cure.

Teachers have been spoken about at some length. In the past teachers very often went to these schools at night: as Professor Daniel Corkery said on one occasion: "Tá na soillse ar lasu"—the lamps are lighting. Those men placed education on a higher plane than it has been placed on here in this House on many occasions by speakers on the Opposition Benches who speak of education purely from a utilitarian point of view and nothing else. There could be no higher ideal for education than that. One speaker asked the rather futile question: "What are we educating them for?" The emigrant ship! It is not for those who go but for those who stay that we must plan. But everybody knows that those who have gone abroad have taken their traditions with them and have taken their games and, in many cases, their language. I remember on one occasion in Philadelphia I met four men who had never been in Ireland and who were far more fluent speakers of Irish than I was. The Irish World still carries articles in Irish. We know that Irish is taught in Harvard University. If it were a question of compulsory French or compulsory anything else everybody would be delighted with it. Because it is their own native language they scorn it. That is the sort of thing that tries any man's patience but will never try his courage because this nation will take its stand in the field of education to keep its language alive and to improve its status from day to day in our schools. I am convinced that the day is fast approaching when Irish will be compulsory in the secondary schools just as it is now compulsory in the primary schools.

We know that there are professors in our universities who are capable of teaching through Irish. We have only to get down to it and it will be done. There will be no slackening off. The teachers will be treated sympathetically for the difficult work they have to do. They will be paid according to the high position they hold and to the important work they are doing for the language. No small pinpricks costing small amounts of money will be allowed to interfere with the happy state of affairs which ought to exist between the Department and the teachers. With courage and faith in the future, the Irish language will have to go ahead hand in hand with our freedom. There will always be a young generation coming which will look again on the flashlights of the past that held up this island as the light of the Western World.

Mr. McMenamin

I was somewhat bewildered after listening to the speeches on this Estimate for the last two days. One is driven to wonder whether some of those who spoke had any intention at all of directing the Minister and the country's policy towards an educational scheme. The main theme was a charge and a counter-charge with regard to one subject to which I will come presently. I am not an educationist but, in my opinion, what we should discuss here and what we should put before the Minister is a scheme of education to fit in with the lives of the people who are made up mainly of the children of the poor people who have no opportunity of getting any education when they have passed 14 years. That is the material we have got. What can we do with it? For years I have been contending here that nothing could be more ridiculous, economically and otherwise, than for this country to have the school-leaving age at 14 years—a country where we have surplus people at home for the work, and such a surplus that the question is what opportunity can be provided for them to leave the country and how soon will that opportunity present itself.

In those economic conditions we persist in fixing the school-leaving age at 14 years. I will come to the Minister's reason for that. He has contended, all these years when I raised this matter, the question of costs for schools. If we go a certain part of the road, why not go the whole road? This debate for the past two days dealt mainly with the teaching of Irish. The fact is that the material we have got is the children of poor people—the children of the average people of this country, of the cities and towns, and the children of small farmers. That is the material. The children of shopkeepers, of the professional classes, and of the well-to-do farmers go to secondary schools and to the universities. They have never been mentioned here. Perhaps that is quite appropriate. We are discussing here what we will do for these children coming from poor homes in the cities and towns, from the homes of small farmers and from the cottages in the countryside. We want to do the best we can for them. Assuming that each Deputy here is a person who is an instrument in equipping these young children to face the world, what can we do for them? What is the best we can do for them? What do we want from them? What weapon should we give them educationally? Do not we want them to read, to write, to spell and to be fit to count to a certain extent? Under these conditions, is not that the best we can do for them? Let us put ourselves in the position of the teachers who have to teach them. Most of us are from the country. Most of us are from the homes such as those I have described—from the cottages and the countryside. There is no use in our getting up here with high-falutin' talk as if we had come from mansions and castles and as if we were the sons of lords and peers. Can Deputies throw their minds back to the time when they were 14 years of age? How much did they know when they were 14 years of age? How much could they have known? While much has been said here in the last two days and in past years on this Vote, with regard to the standard of education in this country, I say that, taking age for age, the teacher of to-day is doing a better job —certainly as good a job, in my opinion a better job—than the teacher of 50 years ago, seeing that the children of these days leave at 14 years of age. We are up against two different things.

In those days young boys and girls in the main did not leave school until they were 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 years of age. When I was at school there were boys and girls there who were in reality fully-grown men and women. They had spent four and five years doing high arithmetic, geometry, algebra. There is no comparison between these two groups. We are discussing two different things. It is really a treat to get a letter from someone who was at school with you about 50 years ago—a positive treat—because the writing is copperplate and the grammer is excellent. The whole thing is simply beautiful. These men and women are now fathers and mothers but when they were young they were fully-grown men and women before they left school, whereas to-day we turn out our children from school when they are only infants. It is not fair to the teachers of to-day. I hold no brief at all for the teachers of to-day but I like to be just. When we say that the standard of education of our children to-day is low we are passing a vote of censure on the teachers. But we are not giving the teachers an opportunity to turn out the scholars. They could not do it. It is an impossibility. When the child leaves school to-day, he is only just beginning to reason. I am not sufficiently well-versed in educational psychology to develop the point but I know that much because I applied the test to myself when I was at school. The first thing we want for these children is that they shall be able to read, able to write legibly, able to spell the ordinary, common words properly and do some little sums so that they can go out into the world. In my opinion, they are so young when they leave school and the programme for secondary education and other lines of education is so extensive now that it is next to impossible for these children of our poor people in the country who leave school at 14 years to get anything.

They have not sufficient arithmetic to take a book-keeping position. They could not go behind the counter in a shop and take a day-book entry and transfer it into a ledger. They were never shown how to do that. Are not these the things we should teach our children? Should not a small farmer's son have sufficient education to be a grocer's or a draper's assistant? At present he is not fitted for it. He could not keep the simplest form of account. These are the things to which we should address ourselves.

At present, if you ask some boys who have done the intermediate course to take up a simple set of business books and put in an entry in a day-book, transfer that to a ledger, and then bring it to the profit and loss account, they have not the faintest idea of how to go about it. I should like to see book-keeping added to reading, writing and arithmetic as a subject in the primary schools, so that when the children of poor people get an opportunity of serving their time with some merchant they will have the rudiments of knowledge which will enable them, if they have the ability, to improve their position and get to the top of the business. There is not the faintest hope of boys and girls coming from the national schools at present being fit to fill any of these positions. Therefore, I would add simple elementary book-keeping to the three R's.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Mr. McMenamin

The main tussle here has been about Irish. Some Deputies got so heated about it that they almost burst their arteries. I do not think we will get any further by pursuing that line of country. Such a profound matter as education is not a thing to get heated about. It is a matter for the most profound reflection and consideration. As I say, the battle here raged around the question of Irish. Deputies from the fior-Ghaeltacht or the Breac-Ghaeltacht should consider what is happening there. It is impossible to remedy a disease unless there is a proper diagnosis. Deputy Mulcahy devoted the principal part of his speech yesterday to dealing with the case of one particular school and, linked up with that, were six other schools in Gaeltacht areas.

As a matter of fact, that was a matter that I should have dealt with, but I avoided dealing with it because the school referred to is in my native parish. These people in that area are friends of mine, and I was afraid, having built up the case and gathered the material for the last six or eight months, that I might get too heated about it and thus spoil the case. Therefore, I passed the matter on to Deputy Mulcahy. There were six other schools extending down to Kerry where the same treatment was applied as in that case. I cannot say whether or not the facts in those cases were similar. The facts in this case are these: There are three townlands right up against the bottom of the Blue Stack mountains. The inhabitants spend their lives in the valley there. In the old days the boys and girls who could not find a place on the farms went to America. As emigration to America has now been practically stopped, they go to Scotland or England; but, when they go there, they do not come back. These three townlands form a self-contained unit. There is no language spoken there but Irish. There never has been any language spoken but Irish, and the people there are as Irish to-day as the people there were 100 years ago.

The school there is a small whitewashed building about 40 feet by 20 feet in size. Because of the outstanding ability of the teacher in that school, a number of children from the adjoining district, where the Galltacht begins, came to that school. They also came because the teacher was a specialist in the teaching of Irish. There came to that school from the Galltacht fringe both Catholic and Protestant children. The Protestant children were perhaps boys or girls who intended going to a Protestant training school in order to become teachers. Of course, when these children from other school areas came to this school the result was that the number of children in the school who were Irish-speaking was reduced.

So far as I understand, the Department's regulations refer to the school area, the area for which the school was erected to provide for. This school, which, as I have said, was erected to provide for these three townlands, was knocked off the Fior-Ghaeltacht list by the Department. The local curate was very much perturbed about this when I was on holidays there last year and we took up the matter. We took a census of the people there. We gave the number of houses there, the names of the people in the houses, the names of the people in the houses where the father and mother and all the children spoke Irish. In fact, we gave all kinds of statistics. It was only yesterday that the Minister announced that he was reversing the decision in that case and replacing the school on the Fior-Ghaeltacht list.

I do not know whether this procedure is general or not. If it is, it arises from the fact that an inspector can determine whether a school should be or should not be on that list. If that is the policy, then it is clear that we will push back right up against the hills in one case, and into the sea in another case, the remnants of these people, and there will be nobody left to speak Irish.

Deputy McCarthy made an utterly unjust charge against Deputy Dillon. Of course, Deputy Dillon can look after himself here or anywhere else, but yet it was an utterly unjust charge. Indeed, it was a foul slander to say that Deputy Dillon wanted to make this country the tail-end of the English Tory Party. For years Deputy Dillon, so far as I understood him in this House, has been proposing that we should hold the Gaeltacht as it is and that we should proceed to Gaelicise from that to the Galltacht. Reflecting on what he said, I think it was a tragedy that we did not follow that advice. Looking at it from a military point of view, the Governments that go out for conquests first consolidate their own areas and then push out around it. We had ample experience of that in late years, and even up to the present. I think the sound policy would have been, instead of subsidising the areas where there was nothing but Irish, where they did not speak anything but Irish because they could not, to attend to the other areas.

The position was that we had in the Galltacht the Press and the pictures and the radio, all very powerful weapons, fighting against us. What did we do to counteract all that? We did not do anything. The children in those areas had nothing that would be useful as propaganda. The moment they came out of school they had nothing that would assist them; they got nothing only what was adverse to them. We produced no series of pictorial papers that our children could buy—those papers about which children are so fanatical, comic papers. We should have produced a whole series of them and the money spent doing so would have been well spent, even though in a country like this a project of that type would be costly. As it is, we are already spending a huge sum. But whatever effects it might have had, they are being frustrated because we did not follow up our advantages and we did not do all that was necessary to achieve full results.

Anybody who speaks the truth will admit that year by year the Gaeltacht is contracting. During the past 50 years the contraction in the Gaeltacht was simply amazing. I can remember some 50 or 55 years ago when townlands in the area where I was reared contained people who spoke nothing but Irish. The best scholars, if you can call them scholars in that sense, were men and women who knew not only Irish well but English also. When they went to chapel on Sunday they did not go with an English prayer book but with an Irish prayer book and that indicates the extent of their knowledge. Where will you find that to-day, notwithstanding the hundreds of thousands of pounds that we have spent trying to revive the language? Go to any country chapel, even in the Gaeltacht, and you may see a youngster with a prayer book, but is it an Irish prayer book? My ancestors all had Irish prayer books and they read their prayer books as well as any Deputy here would read an English one. Will you find anything like that to-day? What has caused the present situation? That is what I would like the House to address itself to, and to do so calmly and composedly, and then advise the Minister what course would be best to bring about a remedy.

Deputy Mulcahy dealt with a particular case yesterday, and on behalf of the poor people concerned I wish to thank him and to congratulate him. I wish to thank the Minister also, and I am very glad that that matter has been settled amicably. I think it would be a major disaster if one of the outstanding places in Ireland—in which there was never anything else but Irish—were not given the consideration it so richly deserves. Imagine the influence that could be brought to bear by those people—there is one woman alone who is 100 years of age and she was never out of the area—and imagine the indignation that would be caused if those people were antagonised for the sake of a few pounds. I say again it would be a major disaster. I congratulate Deputy Mulcahy, the Minister and the local curate on the successful conclusion of that matter.

I am perplexed about this thing. Some people blathered a great deal about Irish. A lot of it was mere lip service—simply play-acting in order to catch votes. I would not do anything like that to catch votes even if it was to put me into a £1,000 job to-morrow; I never did it and I never will. Charges were made here, and I do not know if they were not substantially true, that the ordinary people in the Gaeltacht areas have got it into their heads that this thing is all propaganda and is used by a limited number of people for their own material ends. I do not know how far that idea has penetrated. but there are a whole lot of matters in this connection that need to be inquired into by a body of impartial men whose powers of observation would be unquestioned. I refer to all these things that have caused the decline and contraction of the Gaeltacht. Let this House not deceive itself, the contraction is there. Of course, it will be far worse in another 25 years, assuming that the boys and girls, and particularly the girls, will continue to go at the rate at which they are going. If they stay away, eventually we will have no problem to solve, because there will be nobody there unless, as Deputy Giles described them, some old maids and bachelors and the fathers and mothers of those who have gone away.

I think it was nothing but a disaster to this country when the Congested Districts Board was abolished. I realise that at once I am up against the procedure of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Quite.

Mr. McMenamin

It would be a wrong thing to preclude from discussion, on a mere point of procedure, a matter in which the nation is vitally interested. They had the whole thing —fisheries, land, purchase of estates, kelp, boat-building, Gaeltacht industries and all these things.

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter was discussed to a certain extent on Lands, and the next Vote to be considered is Gaeltacht Services.

Mr. McMenamin

I shall pass away from that. I should like to be in a position to put up a concrete proposition to stop the rot in this matter, but I am afraid as I said already that the Anglicising factors have got too far ahead and that it would take a superhuman effort and all the influences we could bring to bear, to stop the rot. The newspapers, daily, weekly and Sunday, are all factors against you. Where is the use of a young child talking Irish all day at school if, when he goes home in the evening and sits round the fire, the wireless is turned on and he hears broadcasts from all over the world in the English language? Everybody knows how, when a child gets a penny, he loves to spend it on buying one of these comic papers. In his eyes it is the most precious thing he can get. What are we doing to provide these children with comic papers in the national language? Nothing. Children see no publication in Irish except their school books of which they very soon become tired. I suggested before that some of our expenditure on restoring the language might be devoted to getting out good comic papers in Irish for these children. Everybody will admit that we are up against a very difficult problem in this matter. Where is the use of Deputy McCarthy or Deputy Ó Briain talking about our poetic language and using all the platitudes we heard from politicians 60 or 70 years ago when the whole ground is being swept from under our feet as far as Gaelicisation is concerned?

When I approach a problem I want to know, first of all, what are the facts governing that problem. Unless you do what I suggest all your work is in vain. The facts are as I have given them. This matter of whether Irish is or is not to be compulsory is begging the question. There is nothing compulsory to a child. In the main, every child likes to go to school, and if he is moderately intelligent and has got some ambitious instincts, when he goes into a school with other children he likes to know as much of what is being taught as they do. The first thing a child likes to do is to exercise his vocal organs. He gabbles and babbles something. It follows from that that the easiest thing possible for any child to acquire is a language. I am not posing as an authority on this subject but I am doubtful whether in poor homes, where the mother is busy all day, the children can get any assistance in their studies. When the mother gets up in the morning she has, first of all, to get the breakfast and turn the children out to school. She has then to milk the cows, prepare food for hens and pigs, and get ready meals for the men who are going out to work. In the evening she has a repetition of all these duties, with the result that there can be no educational assistance in a home of that type for children attending school.

I wonder whether it is prudent to attempt to teach children two languages in a home of that kind. If the father or mother or somebody else could give them a little assistance, say a half-hour or a quarter of an hour at each language, it would be a great benefit; or if they were better at English than at Irish you could leave out the English altogether and devote the whole time to Irish. The parent could take the lesson they had at school and build a story around that. It would, of course, have to be very elementary because they are only infants. They are only children even when they leave school at 14 years of age. As I say, I think it would be impossible to give even a little assistance of that kind in the poorer homes.

The poor mother who has seven or eight children has enough to do to look after the house and has no time to assist the children in their studies. We are not living in the moon and we know that in such homes the mother never gets a moment's peace until the children are in bed. It is ridiculous to expect that she would be able to give any assistance to the children in their studies. Then the father may be working late and when he arrives home the children are in bed. There is a picture of the home as I see it. In these circumstances I am sceptical as to whether two languages can be taught to a child. I think it would be better to take the bold step of concentrating on Irish and nothing but Irish. Then on the other hand if these children have to go away from home later, there is the tragedy that they may not be able to speak English properly and they are desperately handicapped. Children who intend to emigrate when they grow up and who come from the Gaeltacht and Breac-Gaeltacht must of necessity be bilingual, but if they are staying at home their knowledge of Irish for cultural purposes must be much better than their knowledge of any other language.

There are a number of other matters to which I would like to refer. Some Deputies have suggested that certain additions should be made to the curricula, for example, agricultural instruction. I think that that is a fantastic suggestion. I think that the whole efforts of the teachers should be directed on a narrow front having regard to the limited time at their disposal. At 14 years of age, the children must leave school and every effort should be devoted towards giving them the elements of the three R's. If any additions are to be made I should like to see book-keeping taught.

I have been urging the extension of the school-leaving age for years. Statements have been made about the strike that took place. I can understand people getting hot about that. However, that unfortunate phase has passed away and I think we should try to obliterate the memory of it. I am not quite sure about this, but from what Deputy Murphy said last night, I understood that those who were on strike are to lose superannuation rights for that period. I do not know in whose brain that idea originated. When there is a conflict of any kind, the best thing to do when it ends is to forget all about it, and to see that every party is reasonably protected. In that way there will be no hankering of defeat.

My experience of life is that it is bad business to have such a feeling prevailing. I take it that the proposal will apply only to those teachers who were on strike in Dublin. As they are a mere handful of the teachers' body, surely theirs is not a case for vengeance. Is it not clear that there is no use in settling a strike, or even increasing salaries to some extent, if there is to be penalisation of any kind? If the position is as I understand, I think it is highly unfortunate and should be reversed. The amount of money involved is trivial, seeing that it affects only those teachers who were on strike. The rest of the teachers made sacrifices also, by suffering a levy of 10 per cent., in order to provide for those who were on strike. It is a bad practice, particularly when people have the whip-hand, to do anything that will leave a feeling of defeat in the minds of one party to a dispute.

In previous years the Minister gave details regarding the condition of school buildings. There has been a general statement dealing mainly with what building is being done at present. In this House we have been for years dishing up complaints about the condition of school buildings. Nasty things were said but that was done as a spur to put an end to the disgraceful conditions that exist in many buildings. Another complaint was that schools were not erected at a time when building materials were cheaper than they ever will be again. Despite that, we have gone slithering along, the result being that in some places rats came up through the boards and bit the toes of barefooted children.

Some of the inspectors reported on that incident, while some managers described some schools as not being fit to be cowsheds. I suppose they will have to remain in that condition now and continue to be a menace both to teachers and children for some time. Buildings that are eye-sores should, in my view, be swept from the countryside.

Some of these places are not fit for dogs. Anybody with any respect for a good dog would not tie it up for a night in some school houses. The result is that we hear of painful cases of illness every day. There is a waiting list of 311 people for Peamount Sanatorium. That is only a small number of the cases that urgently claim to be removed from homes in which they are coughing out their life-blood as well as being a continuous stream of infection for other inmates of their homes. The condition of many schools could be described as rotten dens which must affect the health of children who have to spend their days in them. I think the Minister might reproach himself for not having tackled school building with greater vigour, especially at a time when Belgian cement could be delivered here cheaply, and before it was manufactured in this country. Very cheap cement from Belgium was in the past delivered here. I am not making these remarks in any revengeful spirit but out of sheer regret that the opportunity of getting cement for building schools when it was cheap was missed. One feels that the Department should have been more vigorous in having old schools demolished.

Every possible means should be taken to provide proper schools, either by getting medical officers to condemn unsuitable buildings or getting closing orders. Many of our schools were built 150 years ago. Perhaps the landlord gave a bit of ground, a few stones were put on the clay, and then a few boards were put on top of that. They have remained in that condition until the whole building is rotten and a disgrace to the country and to the Department. What I regret about the matter is the extent to which the conditions of these buildings has contributed to the prevalence of tuberculosis. I have had painful experience in my public life, from letters that I receive, of the difficulty of getting beds for people who need hospital treatment as a result of living in houses that are in a bad condition.

It appals me in my public life to receive these letters when I can do nothing for these people, and when I know that they are at home in their cottages in the country coughing their lives away and coughing infection into their children. I think the House should make up its mind immediately on this matter as one of grave urgency and there should be no dispute about it. We should all put forward to the Minister a unanimous claim for the raising of the school-leaving age. I hope that we shall take steps to stop the rot of emigration but, if the worst comes to the worst and they have to go, let us at least send them out on the emigrant ship with some chance of getting somewhere rather than remaining for the rest of their lives mere slaves and drudges. In the main our children are keen, intelligent and adaptable. If they get any sort of decent start and if they have any sort of decent foundation they will make full use of every opportunity that presents itself to them when they go abroad. All down through the years we have striking examples of that. Those young people that we sent out in bygone years were the boys and girls who stayed in school until they were 16, 17 or 18 years of age. They had a full knowledge of reading, writing and arithmetic. They could speak English; they could write and they could do arithmetic. In every field of life into which they entered they rose to the top. It must, I think, be generally admitted that no child of 14 years of age is competent to embrace, no matter how intelligent he may be, any and every opportunity that presents itself to him in after life. If you are going to do the job at all you might as well do it well. Whatever money the Minister requires to keep these children at school between 14 and 16 years of age should be made available to him. It would be the best-spent money that this House could vote. As far as I am concerned he can have it now.

In other years I have spoken here about a specific class, and I want to refer to them once more this year. I know some old pensioned teachers. These are the people who spent their lives teaching those children who have been so successful abroad—some of them their own brothers and sisters. Looking back on those old teachers of 30 and 60 years ago, one realises the enthusiasm and the delight they had in teaching and the success they made of it. These old teachers are now living in a state of semi-starvation. There are some 300 of them in receipt of less than £1 per week while the boys and girls that they taught are earning thousands. In my own native parish a man who was taught by one of these teachers has become Chairman of the British Inland Revenue. He got no other education than that which he received in his native national school. What greater tribute could one pay to these men and women who taught us 60 years ago? Are we so wanting that we can now in our own free Ireland and with a Parliament of our own so far forget these teachers as to leave them in a state of semi-starvation while we are, at the same time, throwing out millions of pounds to an Army of young men who could be employed on much more reproductive work? Surely, it is only necessary for me to mention this in order to have provision made for them.

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

A Chinn Comhairle; nílim chun an Teach a mhoilliú maidir leis an díospóireacht seo ach ag éisteacht leis an duine uasal a labhair go deireadh cuirtear in iúl dom nach bhfuil an tuiscint cheart aige ar cheist na teangan. Ní cóir agus ní ceart an milleán a chur ar an Aire, nach bhfuil na seanmóin á ndéanamh i nGaeilge, nach bhfuil na paidreacha tar éis Aifreann na leanbhaí á rá ag an gcainteoir dúchais. Ní féidir aon rud a dhéanamh ach na Teachtaí go léir, an Dáil á iarraidh ar an Eaglais agus ar na hEasboig athrú a dhéanamh.

Deputy McMenamin approached this subject in a manner which calls for congratulation. I could only wish that the approach had been the same from other parts of the House. There is no sincerity in the general approach to the restoration of the language. Those people who talk about compulsory Irish in the school have never wasted five minutes of their lives in doing anything practical for the language. They have never contributed as much as a threepenny bit to the funds for the restoration of the language. It is time they lowered the mask and stated deliberately that they are opposed to Irish and that they want this country to be an English-speaking country and a part of the English-speaking world. It is time that this farce was ended.

Speaking about compulsion, Deputy McMenamin very rightly said that every subject in school is compulsory. All over the world every subject in every school is compulsory.

Mr. McMenamin

Would the Deputy permit me to intervene for a moment? What I said was that in my opinion nothing is compulsory to a child. If a subject is put intelligently the child will learn. I do not quite understand the Deputy's reference.

Mr. Kennedy

I trust I shall not misinterpret the Deputy again. If we are in earnest about the language on every side of the House, then let us show our earnestness by our endeavours in our own parishes, by our work for the language and not continue with the stupid pretence that we are for it while we do nothing to further it.

The Deputy spoke about the necessity of circulating children's papers in the Gaeltacht. In that connection I want to say that the previous Government, as well as this Government, approached the restoration of the language in the proper fashion through the Department of Education. They approached it nationally. If we are to have the help of the radio, the Press and the pulpit, then there must be a national approach to it. As Deputy Bartley said, we must not treat the Gaeltacht as a kind of pagan preservation—a kind of Indian reservation, that it is not part of us and not flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. Therefore, if we are to have an approach to the Press our daily papers must give help.

There must be in every daily paper a children's column. What is the use of writing for me, or people like me, important articles about science, politics and other subjects when you turn to the children's column in the daily Press, the provincial Press and the monthly magazines and find day after day, week after week, that the articles are in English for the children or for the grown-ups who have little or no Irish? Why, therefore, should the Department of Education be asked to spend money on the circulation of a paper for the children? I do not think it is logical, especially when the papers with the greatest circulation do not cater for the children in any sense whatever. If Deputies on every side of the House are to approach this question nationally, then our appeal, as well as being to the Churches, should be to the Press and to the radio. I am glad to see that the radio is at last coming in to help. We should also approach the Press and ask it to help the Minister for Education and the national teachers by seeing that, outside the school hours, the children will know that there is a living language here, and that they should be catered for in pictures, stories and in every other fashion.

I say further that the Deputy, whether he be on that side of the House, in Clann na Talmhan, or in the Labour Party, who gets in earnest about Irish has no easy task before him. His work for the language will not get him a vote. He will have the hardest work in this nation if he devotes his time to the restoration of the language. It is ridiculous for any Deputy to say that people who go out speaking the language are vote-catching. As far as I can see, any Deputy can be elected to this House within the next 20 years if he never had a word of Irish. It will not count in an election, but it is fundamentally national that we should restore the language and should approach its restoration in a national way. That should be done from every side of the House, just as we would approach the task of meeting an invasion or of ending Partition.

If Deputies in all parts of the House do their part, by giving example, the task of the Minister and of the teachers who in the vast majority of cases are doing trojan, lonely work that is unappreciated, will be made much easier, and the day of an Irish-speaking Ireland will be brought much nearer.

Mr. Blowick

Nearly every Deputy who has taken part in the debate has asked where we are getting in the matter of the Irish language. I am afraid the results during the pretty long period that we have had self-government are not very promising. No matter what one undertakes it must be judged by results. I am afraid that the results show that we are not getting anywhere so far as the language is concerned. I think it is safe to say that there is no Deputy who would not like to see the Irish language restored to its rightful position in this State. There may be perhaps a Deputy or two —they are a very small minority and their voices do not count—who might be so unIrish as to wish that this country would remain English-speaking or speaking some language other than the Irish language. I am afraid that a vast number of the children when they leave school, unless perhaps those whose parents can afford to give them a secondary education, do not speak Irish, and that when they leave school they are pretty disgusted with Irish.

I think the only concrete suggestion that was made during this debate with a view to getting down to the task of seeing that Irish is restored to its rightful and proper place was that which was made by Deputy Halliden. He suggested that an advisory council should be set up to see what can be done. I am sure that the Minister, the Taoiseach and every member of the Government as well as members of the House realise that we are not getting anywhere. If we were getting anywhere, the first result would be that Irish would be spoken in homes where it was not spoken heretofore. Such is not the case. There are young parents at the present time who, even in the days of the present Government and of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, were themselves at school. A determined effort was made in their school days to restore the Irish language. Those parents learned Irish. Their children are coming home from school now and they are not speaking Irish to them in the home.

They do not engage in fireside chats with their children in Irish. Deputy McMenamin referred to this. Neither do they give directions to their children in Irish when any little jobs are to be done around the house. Until that is done, I am afraid Irish is not going to come into its own. I think the time has come when the Minister should establish some kind of a council such as that suggested by Deputy Halliden on which you would have inspectors, managers, teachers and parents. It could try to find out exactly why it is that, when children come home from school at 3.30 in the evening, Irish is not spoken in their homes, why it is that they do not address their parents in Irish or why the parents do not speak to them in Irish. Young parents must have some knowledge of Irish, and why is it that they do not address their children in Irish?

Over a big part of the country I am afraid that a good cause of all this trouble is due to the fact that the life-blood of the nation is being drained through emigration. From time to time I receive letters from the heart of Connemara, from people who have gone to England and who know very little English. They cannot write very well in English, but they can speak Irish fluently and write it well. They are native speakers. They lament bitterly the fact that they did not get a better English education now that they are earning their livelihood in England or in America, where English is the spoken language. I am afraid that until we stop emigration there is no use in thinking that we will get anywhere in bringing Irish back into the homes of the people and in making it the spoken tongue. Since 1938 we have sent over 120,000 people to England. Irish is absolutely of no use to them there. It is more of a burden to them than anything else.

In the congested areas, where there is a great deal of migratory labour, where poverty is so rife that the only outlook for the youngsters is that of going to a foreign land to earn a livelihood, you cannot expect the children going to a foreign land to earn a livelihood, you cannot expect the children going to school to be keen on Irish. They feel it in their blood, when they are not more than ten years of age, that there is no living at home for them. They hear it from their parents, and they hear it in ordinary conversation everywhere they go, that Irish is going to be no good to them when they go away. I hold that emigration is one of the principal causes why Irish is not being taken seriously over a very big area along the west coast from Kerry to Donegal. I am sure the Minister knows there is truth in that. Another reason is the fact that, in some cases, there is the idea that Irish is nothing more or less than a racket so that people may get certain positions. A knowledge of Irish has been used in some cases and a lack of Irish in other cases so as to fill certain jobs and to keep certain people out of other jobs. That shows that we are not going the right way about improving things.

Several Deputies have spoken of the condition of the national schools, particularly in the rural areas. Not alone in my own county but in backward areas in many counties over which I have travelled, there are national schools which are a disgrace to the country. The Minister may say that the condition of the schools is not his care but the care of the manager. What I have noticed is that, in the most poverty-stricken areas, the schools are sometimes in a very wretched condition—windows broken, doors hanging off the hinges, old wooden floors with pieces of galvanised iron or scrap boards used to repair them. I think it was Deputy McMenamin who said that such schools contribute to the spread of tuberculosis.

That is perfectly correct. It cannot be good for the health of children to stay in a windswept school from 10 o'clock in the morning until evening during the winter months. Although the question of erection and repair of schools may be the care of the manager —I am not clear on the point—I think that the local inspectors who visit the schools from time to time should make reports to the Department of Education regarding them. In most of the poor areas, the Department of Finance has to find the greater part of the money to provide new schools. Surely, the time has come when we should look after the education of the children and provide them with proper schools in the rural areas. Oftentimes, a demand for one-third of the total cost of a school is made in a mountainous or poor area. It is utterly beyond the capacity of the people to find that amount. The manager is placed in a very awkward position in some places because demands may have been made upon him in the past and his income is not sufficient to allow for a contribution of that amount. In some cases, the Department of Finance comes to his assistance and gives practically all the money. There should be no tardiness in coming to the rescue of schools which are down and out. I am glad to say that, despite the shortage of building materials, many new schools have been built in recent years, but there is an urgent need for many more. Some of the schools are almost as bad as those which have been replaced. That is so all over the West.

To return to the question of Irish, to my knowledge, inspectors of schools furnish reports to the Department of Education from time to time to the effect that everything is well as regards Irish. I have been informed by teachers who have done a great deal in their areas—areas covering three counties—that such reports are not accurate in all cases. The inspectors, for some reason or other, state in their reports that the system of teaching Irish and the general results are all right. Is the Minister satisfied that that is correct and as it should be? Much has been said on the question of compulsory Irish. Some Deputies said that Irish was compulsory and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach said last night that it was not compulsory. I am afraid that it is compulsory in this respect: the children must accept whatever form of teaching the teacher chooses to use. The teachers use Irish, apparently, because they are in danger of losing their position if they do not teach through the medium of Irish. They may be brought down from their "highly efficient" rank to "efficient" or lower still. They are in danger of losing their positions, and yet we are told that Irish is not compulsory.

I strongly recommend the Minister to seek advice on the line suggested by Deputy Halliden to-day. He suggested that a council or committee be formed as in other Departments. The Minister cannot be all over the country at the same time. He cannot be well advised by only one particular section. He should seek information and advice from every section in a position to give them to him. If he does that, we shall get somewhere. We should all like to see Irish established. because we know how we should feel if we met a Swede, a German or a Frenchman speaking only a language other than his own. It would be no defence for him to say that, through conquest or oppression, his people had lost their language except for small areas. We could not respect such a man in those circumstances. I am afraid that people of other nationalities who come here do not regard us in any other light. We should have our own tongue and I hope the day will come when it will be the spoken language of the country, but I am afraid that we are not making any progress towards that goal.

Domhnall Ua Donnchadha

Can the Minister say if, in recent years, the Carlisle and Blake premium has been given to any school in which the subjects are not taught through the medium of Irish?

Mr. Derrig

The Deputy has not given me any notice of that question. I will send him an answer. I am glad that Deputy Blowick has spoken. Like most of those who have intervened in the debate, I think he is anxious to be helpful, and, in particular to advance the revival of the Irish language, but I am afraid he has certain misconceptions as to the position.

Mr. Blowick

Quite possibly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Derrig

If Deputies at any time have any doubt about the position and if they care to write to me, either about individual cases or about the general policy of the Department, I shall be only too happy to answer them and to give them any information possible. I do not think the cause of Irish or the cause of education is likely to suffer by all of us having the fullest and most complete information. What has been doing a certain amount of damage to the language cause and to the work for Irish in the schools is that there has been consistent misrepresentation, such as the famous statement that children were being compelled to learn subjects through the medium of Irish and to be taught by teachers who were not equipped for the purpose.

So far back as 1931, a circular was issued on this matter and if any Deputy wishes to have a copy of it, I will try to get him a copy, in spite of the printing difficulties which exist. I do not intend to read the whole of the circular—I will simply read a few paragraphs. Section 6 of the "general notes" prefatory to the programme, pages 27 and 28, states:

"Where a teacher is competent to teach through Irish and where the children can assimilate the instruction so given, the teacher should endeavour to extend the use of Irish as a medium of instruction as far as possible. When these conditions do not exist, such teaching through Irish is not obligatory."

It is recommended that as far as possible teachers who hold the bilingual or higher certificate should extend the teaching through Irish through the subjects, gradually through the standards, until eventually all the subjects in all standards may be taught through the national tongue. Further down, it says:—

"Teaching through Irish is not obligatory unless the two conditions are fulfilled, that is to say, ability of the teacher to give instruction and ability of pupils to receive it."

On page 2, I find:—

"In making the suggestions in this circular in amplification of those contained in Section 6 of the General Notes to the Programme, the Department desires it to be clearly understood that these suggestions are to be taken subject to the principle that even the partial use of Irish as a medium of instruction is not obligatory unless the two conditions, viz., ability of the teacher to give instruction and ability of the pupils to receive it, are present in sufficient degree to warrant the success of the attempt."

The whole circular deals with the subject. For the past ten years, this campaign has been going on. Apparently no reference to the official regulations is sufficient to kill this misrepresentation. Deputy Ó Briain pointed out that the total number of schools in the country where teaching subjects through Irish is carried out is limited. I have the figures here—174 schools in the Fior-Ghaeltacht; 83 in the Gaeltacht; 106 in the Breac-Ghaeltacht and 248 in the Galltacht—that is, 611 schools do all the work through Irish, the total number of schools being 5,009.

The remainder of the schools, of course, teach subjects or standards through Irish in varying degrees, from schools which do very little through Irish to schools which do a great deal, and that position is changing from year to year. The fact is that all our teachers have not the qualifications laid down 15 years ago in this circular —the bi-lingual certificate at least, and, in certain cases, the inspectors would not consider that sufficient to do the work through Irish. There are 9 per cent. of our teachers who have no recognised qualifications in Irish, 19 per cent. who have obtained the ordinary certificate, 65 per cent. who have the bi-lingual certificate and 7 per cent. who have obtained the Ard Teastas.

It is quite untrue—and when I say that, I am not questioning Deputy Blowick's veracity; I am sure he is going on the information given to him —to say that the inspectors are disregarding the Department's instructions in this matter, and that, through overzeal or for some other unspecified reason, they persuade teachers to undertake teaching through Irish, even when the two essential conditions to which the circular refers are not present. I have no evidence whatever of that, except the usual kind of hearsay and this prejudiced kind of talk about the work of Irish in the schools generally which is going on and which seems to have convinced certain people, even against their own common sense and goodwill, that there must be something seriously wrong. I have discussed this matter myself, not to-day or yesterday, but for years past, with the inspectors, both in conference and as individuals, and they know thoroughly well what the policy is.

I should like to inform the Dáil now, and I hope it will finish the matter that, so far back as 1936, a circular was issued to inspectors containing a specific warning against any departure from settled policy in this matter. This is an excerpt from the circular:—

"In regard to the question of teaching through the medium of Irish, it is considered necessary to draw inspectors' attention to the circular of July 31st (copy herewith) dealing with this question and particularly to the warning it contains against using Irish as a teaching medium in schools or classes where the conditions set out in the circular as necessary for the success of such teaching are not present."

Is Deputy Blowick satisfied?

There is ample evidence that the inspectors have been scrupulous in their attention to that warning. In fact, my opinion is that they have been more than scrupulous, that they have been so conscientious that they have allowed this campaign against the policy, the national policy which was decided upon more than 25 years ago, sometimes to affect their judgment, but I have not interfered in any way with their discretion in the matter. As I have explained, I have made it quite clear to them, where there was any doubt, not to hesitate to stop teachers from doing work they were not able, according to our instructions and our policy, to perform efficiently, but there are enthusiastic teachers who would be quite willing to teach through Irish who have been dissuaded by the inspectors from doing so, owing to that reasonable doubt. In fact, in recent years, there has been a decline rather than an increase in the extent to which teaching through Irish has been undertaken in the schools.

When we consider that we have been getting more Irish-speaking teachers with better educational qualifications into the schools, that there is more experience of Irish both as a medium of instruction and as a subject and that the position must be improving year by year, it is quite clear that, instead of there being a decline, there should be, if the inspectors were pressing the matter in the way suggested, an increase in the number of schools and in the number of teachers trying to do the work through Irish.

This annual revival of the question of setting up a council of education seems to base itself on the premises, firstly, that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the present system of education in this country, and then that the Minister and the Department have complete control of education in their own hands and that the control is exercised dictatorially and autocratically and without any regard for the views or advice of other interested persons and bodies.

If there is widespread dissatisfaction, I should like to see where the evidence of such dissatisfaction is. It is not sufficient to come here and make vague general statements. One would like to know whether there is any extensive or influential body of opinion behind the statements or the opinions that we hear expressed. It is an extraordinary thing that we never hear of these matters except when the annual debate on the Estimates for the Department of Education takes place here. As far as I know, the people of this country, if they are discontented or dissatisfied with the administration of any Department or the work of a very important branch of our national affairs, like education, would surely not be slow to expresss their dissatisfaction. It is extraordinary how people, even those who set out plans for education, do not seem to understand the fundamental position which exists in this country regarding education.

In the portion of this pamphlet which deals with the suggested advisory council for education, we are told that "an advisory council would be a help to the Dáil and not a challenge to it", and that "it would remove the danger of bureaucratic control from a service which, by its very nature, is everybody's business". It goes on further to say:

"It must be said that, in general, bureaucracy has monopolised the control of education."

The allegation that the State has complete control of education is, of course, entirely erroneous. Control of our primary schools is based on the managerial system, of which it has been said that, as an arrangement between Church and State in the matter of control, it approaches as nearly as is humanly possible to the ideal. This "Plan for Education" in its opening statement rather misconstrues the statement I made some time ago regarding this matter. It starts off in the very first line by saying:

"It is necessary to dwell at length on some of these handicaps and defects, in view of the contention of the Minister for Education at the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis (1944), that our system of education approaches the ideal."

According to the newspaper report, what I said was:

"The Government was not contemplating complete reorientation of the school system, such as undertaken in a neighbouring country. He did not think it was necessary. Our system had been praised as specially suitable to our conditions. It has, indeed, been described as almost ideal."

It was not I who said that the system was almost ideal or approaching ideal, but it was a distinguished Prelate of the Irish Church.

In the matter of ownership, although the State contributes substantially to the cost of building, the schools are owned by the managers. In addition, the managers are charged with the direct government of the schools. They have the right, subject to the sanction of the Department, of appointing the teachers and also the right of removing teachers whom they consider unsuitable or unsatisfactory. The Department publishes a list of sanctioned books for each school year and the managers may select the books from these lists to be used in their schools for the purpose of secular instruction. In the matter of courses of instruction, the managers are at liberty, with the approval of the Department, to arrange the programme of their schools, so as to suit the needs of the localities in which the schools are situated, and they are encouraged to submit for approval alternative courses in any subject. In particular, they may submit for approval alternative programmes for seventh and eight standards, based upon the official programmes of instruction for secondary schools. That is a summary of the powers possessed by a manager and when it is remembered that, except in very rare cases the managers are all clergymen, it will be realised how effectively our primary school system is guarded from any attempt on the part of the State to usurp the rights of the parents or of the Church.

The State supplies the necessary finances, inspects the work done and exercises such general supervision as is consistent with the maintenance and continuance of the fundamental position—that effective control remains in the hands of the managers. There is pretty general recognition, of course, of the value of this system in this country. I think there is no desire whatever that the system as such should be interfered with. In fact, while no system is perfect, when we consider what is happening in other countries, the confusion into which the educational machinery and administration has got, I think we have to be thankful that we have such a simple practical system which conforms in its fundamental principles to the religious faith that we hold so dear.

It is fundamentally sound, in my opinion; it has worked very well; and I do not think that anybody who criticises the system with any real knowledge of the position can have any doubt that it would be a terrible mistake to suggest that we should depart from it. I am not saying that that has been suggested in this debate: I simply want to put the educational system of the country in its proper perspective. When there is criticism of the Department and of the Minister and of the Government and when there is a suggestion that it is necessary in some way to put a rein upon the Minister and to exercise some supervision by way of an advisory council, I want to show the part that the Church as well as the State plays in this matter, so that when Deputies address themselves in future to this subject they will take into consideration all the issues and all the implications of the proposals which they are making.

State control over secondary education is slighter than in the case of primary education. All the secondary school buildings are privately owned and the vast majority of them are Church property. The appointment and removal of teachers is in the hands of the school authorities and the staff personnel in any school may be all religious or all lay or a mixture of both. Here again the State finances the system to this extent that there is a grant per pupil, grants for special subjects, and a grant for increments of teachers' salaries, but it does not interfere as between the school and the pupil in the matter of tuition fees or maintenance charges. The State also arranges the curricula, prescribes minimum courses, has the work done inspected, and conducts the examinations. But all that is the normal function of an educational authority and has never been regarded by the school authorities as undue interference with their rights or privileges.

With regard to the vocational education system this is perhaps more directly under Departmental control but as Deputies are aware it is administered through local statutory committees representative of the area of the local authority in question. In that system there is popular democratic control and there is local responsibility for the provision of the schools and local participation in their control and administration. Any attempt by the Department to act dictatorially or autocratically in regard to that system would very soon be made known to the public. Yet the system has worked and is working smoothly and with a minimum of expressed dissatisfaction or discontent.

It is also entirely contrary to fact to give the impression that there is no machinery for conveying the criticisms and the advice of the school authorities and the teaching bodies to the Minister and the Department. I think Deputy Blowick, for example, was under the impression that, if we have not a formal consultative council of the nature that is in question in this pamphlet and that has been referred to from time to time, that is a proof that, in fact, there is no consultation. But of course consultation is going on all the time between the Department, the officials and myself, with the various educational interests. Managers of the various religious denominations and headmasters of the various types of secondary schools have organisations and these organisations may at any time, should they wish to do so, place their views before me either in writing or by personal interview. I think I have met the representatives of practically all these organisations from time to time as occasion demanded and as either they or I requested. For example when any major alteration is contemplated I solicit the views of these bodies and, generally speaking, there is almost constant consultation between the Department and the organisations concerned on issues concerning the schools, the teachers, and the pupils. Apart from the managers and headmasters, the teachers, of course, have their organisations to look after their interests and express their views on educational matters generally and they have precisely the same advantages of approach and consultation as the others. I think I can claim to be in constant touch with the interests that are most intimately concerned with both primary and secondary education. The local bodies administering vocational education have also their organisations and the Irish Technical Education Association, acting through its committee, is very much in the nature of a consultative council for that branch of the system.

It is not at all clear, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, that those most intimately connected with the work of education would prefer the loose organisation which might be set up as a council of education to the direct, free, and untrammelled system of consultation which is available to them under the present arrangement. As things are the school organisations have the advantage of direct and almost immediate contact with either me or the secretary or with any other representative of the Department with whom they wish to consult, while I have the advantage on my side of discussion with persons who have special qualifications, training and experience and who are in direct touch with the problems that may arise. The representatives of some of the most important educational organisations have expressed their satisfaction with the system of consultation which exists and they prefer it. I think the excellent practical results that we have had so far, the fact that we have worked generally in harmonious co-operation with these bodies gives weight to their views. If a large and unwieldy body which purports to represent other educational interests that might claim representation and other interests outside education altogether were established it is difficult to see how, so far as these organisations are concerned, or so far as I am concerned, such a body could give better results than the present system of consultation. I mentioned this before when this matter was under discussion and the Taoiseach and myself spoke upon it. I do not know whether those who have advocated the establishment of this advisory council for education have taken steps to ascertain the views of the bodies concerned upon this proposal. Are they satisfied that all these bodies concerned are desirous that this council should be set up? I doubt very much if those who have written and spoken in favour of the proposal have acquainted themselves with the views of some of the most important interests concerned. Of course it might be urged, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle against the present arrangement that it accords no representation or opportunities for consultation to parents, as such. But even supposing that all the difficulties in connection with the establishment of this proposed body had been surmounted and we actually set about convening it, has anybody in this House addressed himself to the problem as to how parents, as such, are to find representation upon that council?

If anybody here were in my position in what way would he proceed to select representatives for the parents of the country? I think he would find it extremely difficult, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, to make a satisfactory selection. He would have to bear in mind persons who would be representative in general, and at the same time who would come there largely, if not almost entirely, in their capacity as parents, who would not have such affiliations, for example, with politics or with other interests which might seem to suggest that their presence on the council would be as representatives of some other interest. I do not know that we have any body of men or women in the country whom we could describe as being solely parents and who would not be found to have other interests. Even those parents who are closely connected with education very often have other interests, connections and loyalties—to their profession, their trade or calling or to their political opinions. That need not necessarily disqualify them. Many of the persons with whom I consult at present on educational matters are parents, as well as being teachers or headmasters. They are parents also and can look upon educational problems as parents. Even those who are not parents have the interests of the parents very much at heart and I think would be competent to express the parents' point of view. I think I may take it, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, that the members of the Government can claim to represent parents also since the majority of the parents of the country was instrumental in sending them here. The Dáil after all is the Forum of the nation. If there is, as I have said, dissatisfaction in the parents' minds with the system it can be expressed here. If there are criticisms to be made there is an opportunity for making them. We can have discussion freely and fully and that is all to the good. Moreover, if changes are made, or improvements or reforms suggested there is an opportunity for outlining the proposed changes and reforms and making them known through the Dáil.

I think Deputy McMenamin was right when he suggested that things were not entirely so happy in the good old days as some of the Deputies and others outside this House, who have been trying to persuade us from time to time that the standard of education has fallen, would have us believe. Deputy McMenamin pointed out that we must be careful to institute comparisons between comparable things, between pupils of the same age, for example. Deputy Butler made the same point. The world has been changing tremendously in the last half century and I am afraid we are disposed to attribute a great deal of change we see in the younger generation to the influence, or lack of influence, of the education they have received, whereas there must be many other influences. For example, we have the daily newspaper which now permeates into homes where it was unheard of 30 years ago. We have the radio with its tremendous influence, and we have the cinemas. Altogether, peoples are being influenced in a way that even those of us who are closely in touch with the young people can scarcely fully understand or fully appreciate.

We get occasional examples now and again, but they are a matter of generalising from particular cases. We have roughly 450,000 pupils on the rolls of our primary schools. When a Deputy suggests that some employer has found that the applicants for some footling, perhaps some cul-de-sac position, a post for which a really talented youngster might not think it worth his while to apply, have not been up to the standard—and there is no proof that the employer was the best person to test that from a strictly educational point of view—surely we are not entitled to judge from that or from the ten or 20 or 100 cases of that nature. There may be a certain number of pupils in our schools who are ineducable. There may be certain pupils who cannot learn book subjects, and who may be very good with their hands. Deputy Dillon was trying to point out that a great many are weak linguistically.

There are a great many, a comparatively large percentage, who are weak in the fundamentals, in the three R's, but who, nevertheless, grow up to be good citizens and industrious people. If they have left school for two or three years, it is quite likely that, without some previous preparation, they would not stand the same educational test which they would have passed with ease if it were taken immediately after leaving school. It would be just as reasonable, as Deputy Butler suggested, to take some group of persons like the mental patients, for example, and suggest that, because we have a large number of them in a particular place, the whole population is affected. It would, perhaps, be equally consistent to say, because certain gentlemen who had thousands of pounds lavished on their education and who went to some ancient university found themselves in Mountjoy, or Portlaoighise, or Dartmoor, that that is some argument against the efficacy of these ancient institutions as seats of learning.

One gets so weary of hearing the legend about the golden age of the primary schools a generation ago, that the only way to satisfy oneself is to go back on the reports of the inspectors at that time. After all, they ought to afford the most reliable evidence, almost the only evidence we possess, in regard to the work done in the schools. They are men of independent judgment, presumably, in spite of what Deputy Dillon thinks about them. They have no axe to grind one way or the other; they are trained for the assessment of school work, and the pupils recognise their right to question them and their own obligation to answer.

Here are some extracts from the reports of inspectors for the year 1914:

1. "The gravest and most persistent of all the disadvantages, that is, an unsatisfactory condition of school attendance, is to be found wherever one turns, rooted tenaciously in the indifference of parents to the educational interests of their children."

We have, I claim, done quite a lot to eradicate that disadvantage in the interval and I think parents nowadays are not so indifferent as this inspector, at any rate, thought the parents at that time were.

2. "Arithmetic is not a strong subject, especially in the senior classes. I found the answering in arithmetic decidedly weak."

And again.—

"Arithmetic is not sufficiently satisfactory. I do not find a great knowledge of the tables, and the juniors are very often weak at notation, while the seniors are inaccurate workers."

And again:—

"Senior pupils in arithmetic show up badly at an examination, owing to the fact that the fundamental principles are not thoroughly explained, and to the tendency to hurry on to the more difficult rules."

That is a tendency that still lingers with us. Geography was no better:—

1. "Geography is another subject in which one rarely gets really good work done."

2. "Geography is a subject which is frequently not taught in a sufficiently interesting and intelligent manner. There is a tendency to fall back on mere strings of names, without any regard to useful details as to commerce, statistics or climate."

3. "Geography is not as a rule skilfully handled."

4. "I do not find that there is much improvement to report in the rational treatment of geography."

Nor was history any better:—

1. "In history I cannot record much advance."

2. "History is one of the least successfully handled branches of the programme."

3. "History is a subject in which great improvement is still required."

We are always being told that there is a special decline in grammar and spelling. Listen to this:—

1. "Most of the grammar is forgotten as soon as learned."

2. "The proficiency in grammar might be classed as very fair, but in too many instances it falls below that level."

3. "Regarding spelling, one has the conviction that it is not so good as it used to be."

So that in that golden age before compulsory Irish, grammar and spelling could have been and were described as on the downward grade. It has to be remembered that at that time our primary teachers did not undertake and pursue successfully the course of secondary education which is now essential. In the junior classes we are now taking steps to see that in future, where new appointees are being sent into the schools, they will be trained teachers. According to Dr. Starkie, up to 1912, the teaching of infants was in the hands of unpaid monitors which, he said, was "a euphemistic term for little boys and girls in third and fourth classes."

I do not think it is necessary to institute comparisons with the position elsewhere, but I am quite convinced that ample evidence can be adduced, from the experience we have had here of the evacuated children and the actual comparisons that can be made between the standard here and elsewhere, that our standard, as was pointed out during the debate, not alone compares favourably with, but is much higher, than the average elsewhere.

Deputy Martin O'Sullivan suggested that the Department of Education and myself were perhaps lacking with regard to dealing with the teachers after the strike. I should like again to mention, at the risk of repeating myself, the nature of the concessions which have been made to the teachers since the strike terminated. In the first place, as regards the small schools, trained teachers in the 10-19 schools may go to the full maximum for efficient and highly efficient women teachers in large schools; that is to say, to £350 and £386 instead of being restricted to £290 and £310. Trained teachers in under 10 schools may also go to £350 and £386 instead of receiving a fixed salary of only £180 from the Department, and, in certain cases, £30 from local sources. Principals of 10-19 schools will receive principal's allowance of £6 if efficient and £9 if highly efficient. They were not eligible for any allowance under the original scheme of salaries. All untrained principal teachers serving in schools with less than 20 pupils may also go to the appropriate maxima for untrained women teachers in larger schools; in some cases they were restricted to lower maxima because of serving in small schools.

As regards the bonus for special qualifications, men and women will be paid at the same rates. A woman graduate will receive £20 instead of £16; a woman teacher with a higher diploma will receive £30 instead of £24. With regard to the panel, every teacher serving in the strike area, both in ordinary and in capitation schools, is assured of continuance of position up to 31st December, 1947, at the earliest, notwithstanding any reduced average attendance since the 1st January, 1946.

On the subject of amalgamation, no schools in the Dublin area were amalgamated on the 1st January last because of reduced average attendance for 1946. It has now been decided, in addition to the concessions which I have already announced, that amalgamation generally throughout the country will not take place in future until the completion of two years' low average, instead of one year, as was the case formerly.

With reference to new appointments, vacancies in the Dublin area may be filled even where the average attendance conditions are not strictly fulfilled if the circumstances appear to warrant it. As to extension of service for all retiring teachers, all teachers in Dublin and elsewhere due to retire because of age since 31st October, 1946, may be continued up to 31st December, 1947, if efficient, so as to give them the benefit of the improved scales for the longer period and a consequential increase in pension.

As to the effect of harvesting operations on the average attendance, teachers in the country who would otherwise go on the panel may be continued if it is shown that, but for the harvesting operations, the necessary average attendance would have been secured. Similarly, teachers may be appointed in succession to outgoing teachers if the necessary conditions would have been fulfilled but for the effect of harvest work on school attendance.

It cannot be held, therefore, I contend, that any teachers on strike are being penalised because of having gone on strike. The fact that they cannot receive incremental or pensionable credit for the period of their absence from school is merely the normal administration of the rules regarding payment of salary and the terms of the statutory superannuation schemes. These regulations and schemes laid down that teachers must serve to earn the necessary credit and they did not serve for that period. When notification had been received that the strike was about to take place, every teacher in the Dublin area was notified by the Department that, "in the event of his going on strike his salary and all other grants and benefits would thereupon cease, with a consequent break in his pensionable service".

When the teachers went on a one-day strike in 1933 they lost pensionable and incremental credit for that day and the loss has never been made good. Further, as regards the analogy with the Post Office, I should say that no legislation is required to give pensionable credit for actual service up to the date of the strike or for service since the date of resumption after the strike.

The manager has the duty also of making arrangements to ensure that each school of which he has charge is properly maintained and kept in a clean and sanitary condition. Every manager, upon being first recognised, signs an undertaking that the rules and regulations shall be complied with. The relevant rules which have a bearing on the maintenance and cleaning, etc., of national schools are as follows:

"Rule 23(3): In order to warrant the grant of aid, or the continuance of aid to a school, the Minister must be satisfied that the school is suitable, in good repair, adequately furnished and provided with satisfactory out-office accommodation.

Rule 43(6): The trustees of a school vested in trustees are required to keep the premises and furniture in repair, and should the trustees fail to carry out their obligations in this respect the Minister may withdraw recognition from the school.

Rule 49(1): It is the duty of the manager to make arrangements to secure that each school under his charge is properly furnished and kept in suitable repair, that the internal walls are white-washed or distempered as required, that the schoolrooms are swept and dusted every day, that at intervals the rooms are washed out with carbolic soap or other disinfectant, that the school is made comfortable by being adequately heated and properly lighted and ventilated; and that the outoffices are regularly cleansed and generally maintained in a sanitary condition."

All new schools and the majority of existing schools are vested in trustees, and are, therefore, the property of the trustees who represent the local people. Ownership implies responsibility for keeping the premises in proper repair. The average annual cost of maintaining national schools, taking the country as a whole, would probably be about £30 per school. In this connection, I should like to pay tribute to the manner in which many managers carry out their duties as regards the upkeep and renovation of their schools, but for one reason or another, a number of schools, particularly those in rural areas, are not kept in proper order.

Reference has been made to the question of heating and cleaning. I should like to mention to the House that the provision in the Estimates for expenditure on grants towards the cost of heating and cleaning of national schools was increased from £47,500 for the year 1945-46 to £51,000 for the year 1946-47 and again to £65,000 for the year 1947-48. The responsibility devolves on the manager of a national school to make arrangements to ensure that each school under his charge is adequately heated and properly cleaned and that the necessary funds for the purpose, in supplement of the State grant, will be collected locally. The conditions under which the grant is payable are not unreasonable or excessive.

The application must be made on a prescribed form signed by the manager setting out the particulars of the expenditure incurred and the signatures of the persons employed for the cleaning services. The Minister reserves the right to call for vouchers where cash payments for fuel or cleaning materials are claimed to have been made and any estimate of payments in kind which seems unduly high in view of the experience in other cases, may be re-assessed by the Minister. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 21 May 1947

Estimates for Public Services. - Vote 45—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed).

Mr. P. Burke

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 May 1947