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.
This, I presume, is known to the Deputies interested. What we have been promising is that we would introduce legislation, where necessary, in the case of teachers who had been on strike, who died or who got married during the duration of the strike and actually to deal with these cases legislation will be necessary.