asked the Minister for Education if he will state, in as precise terms as possible, so that there may be an end to uninformed criticism in the matter, what are his Department's regulations and attitude with regard to the teaching and use of the Irish language in primary schools; and if he will indicate the extent to which actual practice is in conformity with departmental views and directives.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Language in Primary Schools.
Mr. de Valera
The Deputy will appreciate that the reply will be a somewhat lengthy one and there are references to certain documents. I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to place in the Library an assembled group of these documents for the purpose of easy reference.
1. The attitude of my Department with regard to the teaching and use of the Irish language in primary schools derives from the national consciousness and is based on—
(a) the recommendations issued in January, 1922, by the National Programme Conference (consisting of representatives of Aireacht an Oideachais of Dáil Éireann, the General Council of County Councils, the Gaelic League, the National Labour Executive, the Association of Secondary Teachers and the Irish National Teachers' Organisation);
(b) Public Notice No. 4 issued by the Minister for Education of the Irish Provisional Government on 1st February, 1922, ordering "that the Irish language shall be taught, or used as a medium of instruction, for not less than one full hour each day in all national schools where there is a teacher competent to teach it".
(c) Article 4 of the Constitution of Saorstát Éireann, 1922, which stated that "the national language of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann) is the Irish language, but the English language shall be equally recognised as an official language".
(d) The "Report and Programme presented by the National Programme Conference to the Minister for Education" in March, 1926 (i.e. the Second National Programme Conference); the conference was under the chairmanship of Reverend Lambert McKenna, S.J., and consisted of representatives of the Catholic and Protestant school managers, the teachers in national schools, the General Council of County Councils, the Gaelic League and 11 persons nominated by the Minister for Education because of their association with other educational and administrative interests including the universities. The recommendations made by the conference were unanimous with the single exception that the representatives of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation noted their disagreement with the proposal that an extra subject, rural science, should be added to the existing programme.
(e) The circular of July, 1926, issued by the Department of Education to the managers and teachers of all national schools notifying that the "programme prepared by the National Programme Conference has, as already announced in the Dáil by the Minister for Education, been adopted as the official programme for use in national schools".
(f) Circular No. 11/31 on "Teaching through the medium of Irish" issued by the Department of Education in July, 1931, to managers, teachers and inspectors of national schools "to define the requirements of the school programme in respect of teaching through Irish and to state at more length what its aims are, and what it expects the schools to do to realise them".
(g) The "Revised Programme of Primary Instruction" which was issued by the Department in September, 1934, and which modified the requirements of the 1926 programme.
(h) Article 8 of the Constitution of Ireland, 1937, which states that "The Irish language as the national language is the first official language" and that "The English language is recognised as a second official language".
(i) The "Revised Programme for Infants" which was issued by the Department in July, 1948, modifying those portions of the 1926 and 1934 programmes relating to infants' classes.
2. The programme of secular instruction in national schools in all subjects is that recommended by the National Programme Conference, 1926, as modified in the revisions in 1934 and 1948.
3. The present position in regard to the teaching and use of the Irish language is as follows:—
(a) Irish, with arithmetic and music, is an obligatory subject in all standards in national schools. English is an optional subject in infant classes and Standard 1, but is obligatory in second and higher standards. There are additional obligatory subjects, for example, history and geography in the more senior standards.
(b) It is stated in the revised programme for infants of 1948, that:—
"The aim of the infant school is to provide the atmosphere and background in which the child's whole personality may develop naturally and easily. It should, therefore, take cognisance of the child's interests, activities and speech needs, and utilise them to the full in aiding and directing such development.
The present programme positively integrates with this a further aim, that of giving to young children, from English-speaking homes, a vernacular power over Irish at an age when they are most adaptable and imitative and when their vocal organs are plastic. Where the teachers are sufficiently qualified the aim should be to reach a stage as early as possible at which Irish can be used as the sole language of the infant school."
English, however, may be taught optionally to infants for half an hour per day.
(c) As regards the use of Irish as a teaching medium in classes above infants, the directive issued in Circular No. 11 of 1931 remains in operation. The circular sets forth that:—
"(i) the aim of the programme is to secure the full use of Irish as the teaching medium in all schools as soon as possible;
(ii) that the use of Irish as the teaching medium is now obligatory when the teacher is competent to give instruction and the pupils are able to assimilate the instructions so given;
(iii) that teaching through Irish is not obligatory unless the two conditions are fufilled, i.e., ability of the teacher to give instructions and ability of pupils to receive it;
(iv) that transitional stages are suggested at which partial use of teaching through Irish should be introduced, according as the teachers become competent to give such instruction and the pupils can understand and assimilate it."
It was emphasised in that circular that Irish should not be used 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.
4. The following extracts from the "Notes for Teachers—Irish" issued by the Department in elaboration of the programme and the official directives are relevant:—
"The teaching of Irish in the schools is a part, a very important part, of the general effort to restore the Irish language to its rightful place as the everyday speech of the nation. Its aim is frankly and unequivocally to make Irish speakers of the children of the Galltacht so that, by the age of 14, they may be able to express themselves freely, fully, and correctly in the new language. In the Gaeltacht its aim is to perfect the vernacular into as adequate an instrument for all forms of selfexpression as the English course aims at doing for English-speaking children. But this effort is itself only a part of a wider aim which is to ensure and to preserve the cultural continuity of the nation by putting its youth into possession of the language, literature, history and tradition of the historic Irish people and thus fixing its outlook in the Gaelic mould...."
By this is not meant necessarily that every subject in every school should be taught through Irish, but that the official language of the school and the incidental language of intercourse should be Irish."
5. Irish itself is, therefore, an obligatory subject in every national school and the use of Irish as a teaching medium in the schools is determined by certain specified conditions according to the particular circumstances of each school. The amount of time devoted each day or each week to the teaching of Irish and the use of Irish as a teaching medium varies according to the size of the school, the number of teachers, and the particular circumstances of the school.
6. With regard to the Deputy's inquiry as to the extent to which actual practice is in conformity with departmental views and directives, I should like to say that in my opinion any lack of conformity that there is arises from a failure, or perhaps, I should say, an inability, to realise the aims and objectives of the policy indicated in the different documents to which I have referred, rather than from an effort to achieve these aims in cases where the circumstances do not warrant their implementation.
The Department's inspectors encourage the extension of the use of Irish as a teaching medium wherever the conditions permitting of its use are fulfilled, but owing to a certain atmosphere of thoughtlessness and apathy outside the school progress in the restoration of Irish as the medium of instruction and intercourse frequently falls short of the stated objective.
If the expressed national policy in relation to the Irish language is to be realised, the work of the schools must receive a due measure of encouragement and support from the general public outside the school.
This is not to say that considerable progress in the revival of the language has not been achieved. For instance, the latest available figures show that of a total of 4,876 national schools, Irish was the sole medium in 490, of which 179 were in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht and 183 (including schools solely for infants) in the English-speaking districts. In another 1,901 schools Irish was the sole medium of instruction in two or more consecutive classes or standards but not throughout the whole school, and in a further 2,459 schools Irish was the medium of instruction in some class or classes and/or in some subject or subjects other than Irish. These three groups together give a total of 4,850 which means that there were only 26 schools in which all subjects were taught through English. But it is necessary to mention that the use of Irish in infants' classes influences these figures to a considerable extent. The picture will be clearly seen from the tables at pages 70-72 (Appendices Nos. 12-15) of the Department's report for 1951-52, which will be published forthwith.
7. The report of the Council of Education presented last year, on the function of the primary school and the curriculum to be pursued therein up to the age of 12 years, includes a survey of the position regarding the language and its use as a teaching medium. The council's views, together with the observations in course of receipt from the important educational interests whose comments have been invited, are being closely studied at present in my Department.
Mr. de Valera
May I ask the Minister whether what he has read does not prove that there is no substantial truth in the statement that Irish is being taught and is used as a medium of instruction by teachers who do not know Irish, to pupils who do not know the language either?
The Deputy ought not to ask me to comment on what is being said. I have given a full statement of the background and what the departmental regulations are and what the practice with regard to the Department is. In the interest of clarity, I would sooner that the Deputy and the House generally would bring their minds to bear on the broad position that I have put there, rather than that we would depart from that at this particular stage for a discussion of any of the misconceptions or misrepresentations there may be about any aspect of policy.
Mr. de Valera
I asked the Minister to state precisely, and, I hoped, in as short a form as possible the attitude and regulations of the Department so that a good deal of uninformed criticism might be brought to an end. That criticism is based, as the Minister and everybody here knows, on statements such as the statement that we have a position in which teachers who do not know Irish are teaching subjects through Irish to pupils who do not know the language and it was to that that I directed the question. I am very grateful to the Minister—I think it is in the national interest that he should do so—for giving us such a long statement, but it does not meet the immediate criticisms.
I ask the Deputy to understand from me that I am giving him here, after as wide a view of the situation as possible and in the intimate detail he asks for, the position from the departmental point of view. I am putting an assembly of ten documents into the Library so that any reference to these documents may be fully understood. I ask the Deputy not to ask me when dealing with the facts of the case to step from the realm of fact into the arena of answering criticism. Whether the criticism is well founded or not, it is an entirely different day's work, and, from the departmental point of view, I would much sooner concentrate on the constructive details of the work that has to be done and the details to be put right than step into an absurd arena of misrepresentation and controversy that may arise from it.
I hope that the Deputy will understand that, in taking up this attitude in reply to his supplementary question, I am not withholding any help, by tongue or in any other way in which I might have to deal with the matter, and even to dispel misrepresentations and to dispel the lack of information the Deputy refers to in his question.
Mr. de Valera
I suppose we had better leave it at that.
I think so.
Could the Minister state, as a result of the information given to him, if there has been any progress whatever towards the restoration of the language in the past 33 years?
I would say most emphatically, yes.