Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Oct 1959

Vol. 177 No. 3

National Loan, 1959. - Extension of School Leaving Age—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the period of compulsory education should be extended to the age of 15 years, and that the child, having passed through Standard VI, should be given these three alternatives: (1) to enter a secondary school, (2) to undertake a wholetime course in a vocational school, (3) to remain on in a national school.— (Deputies Browne and McQuillan.)

Mr. Corish

As I said last Wednesday night, as far as the intention of this motion is concerned, we are in favour of it. Tonight, I should like to mention the reservations we have with regard to extending the age for compulsory education from 14 to 15 years. I think it is desirable, and my Party thinks it is desirable, that the school-leaving age should be raised to 15 years, but we do foresee many difficulties, not so much for the students themselves but for the families. Especially do we see these difficulties where there are no further educational facilities after, say, leaving the primary schools. We also see the difficulties that confront poor families and big families where the parents of the children are unfortunately looking forward to the day when the boy or the girl becomes 14 years of age and may leave school to take up some menial job to supplement the family income. That problem is not one for the Department of Education to tackle on its own but one to which the community, the State and the Government must have regard, if and when the decision to raise the school-leaving age from 14 to 15 years is taken.

I mentioned very briefly last week the question of vocational guidance. Without defining it in detail, I think most members know what is meant by vocational guidance. Too often have we young school children of the age we are discussing going into blind alleys in so far as education is concerned: the young boy or girl who is just of average intelligence, or perhaps a little below it, going into the secondary school to discover that after getting a pass or a bad honours in Leaving Certificate, he or she is not much use for jobs like the civil service, the E.S.B., or C.I.E. or any of that type of job for which the Leaving Certificate standard is required. At that age, especially so far as boys are concerned, they discover that they have just gone beyond the age at which they can become apprentices in particular crafts, so they end up at 17 or 17½ years of age fairly useless, having neither a trade nor a profession.

Much of that could be obviated if there were some liaison between the parents and the schools, some effort at vocational guidance. I do not think it is sufficient for the teaching authorities, especially in the secondary schools, to take in the children as into a machine, to treat them for four or five years and then to turn them out with a pass or a bad honours in Leaving Certificate, having missed the apprenticeship years and being practically good for nothing.

I was impressed by some of the things the Minister said with regard to this matter, but if one of the alternatives is to be given to the children, that of undertaking a wholetime course in the vocational school, then the Minister will have to tighten up on vocational education. Like myself, most Deputies would be high in their praise of the development of vocational education. It has gone forward by leaps and bounds, but it has very many defects and they are defects which unfortunately are costing both the taxpayer and the ratepayer money. Whilst the subjects to be taught in vocational schools must be very varied, I believe the Minister for Education with his officials will very soon have to take steps to define what subjects may be taught in the vocational schools.

The reason I say that is that I firmly believe there are far too many fancy classes, too many hobby classes, being carried on under the name of vocational education. Vocational education means a certain thing. It means an education for a vocation and not for a hobby. It does not mean allowing people to do certain things at the expense of the taxpayer or the ratepayer. It does not mean having classes where one is occupied for three, four or five hours a week merely as a hobby or for entertainment. If those classes are to be run in vocational schools, they should be run on 100 per cent. economic lines and this idea of giving these fancy classes for a nominal amount, the rest being given by the taxpayer and the State, is not good enough. If people want to do fancy things, if retired businessmen or people with time on their hands, want to learn foreign languages or do this, that or the other thing, they should be made to pay the full rate, or something near the full rate. By adopting that method, the Minister would find that he would have much more money at his disposal to devote to real vocational education.

I also think that he should exercise a more strict control—I am not saying this as a member of a vocational committee but as an ordinary layman— over the type of classes which should be run. I know that in many places the vocational education committee gets requests from a small group of people—perhaps four or five people— to run a particular type of class and the committee, willy nilly, agrees to do so. The class is carried on for four or five weeks and is then discovered to be a failure and that is that. But money has been spent on salaries and on wages or in some cases on materials, and it is money wasted. I mention these points as broad criticisms, or shall I say, as suggestions, to the Minister in order to give him encouragement to make vocational education the type of education which was intended, to train boys and girls and young men and women in some sort of worthwhile occupation or trade.

I was encouraged by the Minister's very short statement in reference to his idea of the scholarship system. The difficulty which we in our Party find is that whilst the child might get the three alternatives, a big number would not be able to avail of them, firstly, for the reasons I outlined at the beginning of my speech and secondly, because if they were needed to supplement the family income the parents usually are not able to afford secondary education and certainly not the follow up to that university education.

This country is scandalously served so far as scholarships in education are concerned. To say that we have far too few would not be strong enough —we have practically no real scholarship scheme. I have a particular county in mind—it is not my own county—with a population of 90,000 to 100,000, in which there are only three scholarships for the university. Those who can afford it—and nobody begrudges it to them—send their children to the secondary school. He or she gets the Leaving Certificate or the Matriculation and goes to the University. He or she does a normal course and is turned out as a doctor, an engineer or a Master of Commerce and so on, but look at the thousands who have not got that opportunity. It would be undesirable if every boy or girl were to be churned through the University, but there are many in the country with much more ability than those who can afford it but who do not get the opportunity to go to the University.

This county has three scholarships for the University. I suppose 80 per cent. of the ordinary families in any county could not afford to send one or two to the University and the taxpayers, and in particular the ratepayers, of the various counties are reluctant to provide the necessary moneys to increase the three scholarships to four, five or six. The ratepayers in these counties practically unanimously vote to give premiums for bulls, boars and mares and for all sorts of agricultural subsidies, but as soon as anybody mentions an increase in the number of scholarships, or an increase in the amount, it is voted down immediately.

The Minister would certainly be making his mark in education if he could induce the ratepayers, through the public authorities, to increase the number of scholarships. He would be doing a good day's work. I think also there are many other bodies in the community which could assist in the matter of education. It would be desirable if the State could carry the whole burden but I suppose that would be impossible. I often think that the trade union movement could engage in a scheme whereby the children of the members would have scholarships available to them to enter the university. Other bodies like chambers of commerce, the National Farmers' Association and so on, could also establish schemes whereby the children of their members would have the opportunity of going to the University.

As I say, I have nothing against those who can attend Universities and who are qualifying as doctors, scientists and engineers, but I would also like that an opportunity be given to people of modest means to see what they can do. They should also be allowed to engage in the building of this country as engineers, doctors or scientists. That is all I have to say except to express my support of the motion. I trust that though the Minister may officially oppose it, and though Government members may vote against it, the discussion has not been useless. I hope the Minister will bear in mind what has been said by the movers of the motion and the speakers from this side. All of us will agree that if we are to build up the country we must start at the base, with education. If the Minister proceeds to broaden the scope of scholarships he will have the support of the whole House.

The Taoiseach

As this motion relates to a matter which has been under protracted consideration by the Government, I think it desirable that I should intervene in the debate to make a brief policy statement on it. The Government are not in disagreement with what the motion seeks to achieve. We are not, however, in equal agreement with the method proposed. If the motion is put to a vote I would not ask Deputies on this side of the House to vote against it but I think, for the sake of avoiding possible future misunderstanding, I should put on record a brief outline of the Government's view on the issue.

The aim of Government policy is to bring about a situation in which all children will continue their schooling until they are at least 15 years of age. We intend to strive to achieve that situation with the least possible delay. Our view, however—and we have given a great deal of thought to this matter —is that statutory compulsory attendance at schools, up to 15 years, is not in present circumstances the best way to achieve the end we have in view.

I note from the Dáil Debates that the Minister for Education gave to the House last week details of the very considerable achievements in the matter of providing post-primary education, not only for the 14-15 age group but for the 15-16 age group as well. I think that the picture which the Minister was able to present to the Dáil will be accepted as not unsatisfactory, and all the more so because it represents a position which has been reached on a voluntary basis, a fact which certainly redounds to the credit of all concerned with education.

Our immediate policy, therefore, is to increase the facilities for post-primary education. It will be recognised as a very practical consideration that improved facilities must be provided, no matter what method we may adopt to achieve our aim. We believe it will be possible to accelerate the rate of increase of the facilities. We think that by expanding facilities we can reach the goal of having all children continue their schooling until 15 years within a reasonable time, and certainly no later than it could, in fact, be reached by methods of compulsion.

As the Minister for Education announced last week we contemplate a considerable extension of scholarships in secondary schools. We accept the logic of the argument that, if we are to avoid methods of compulsion and concentrate our efforts on improving facilities, a new scholarship scheme must be included. At present the matter is receiving very active consideration and the proposals of the Minister for Education in that regard will shortly be coming before the Government.

Briefly, therefore, our policy is to extend secondary and wholetime technical educational accommodation and also scholarship facilities, and to do so as rapidly as is practicable. We are convinced that it will be time enough to consider suggestions for the extension of the compulsory school attendance age when we have so expanded the facilities available that we shall have reached a stage at which the facilities are not being fully utilised. It is only at that stage that our policy would require to be reassessed.

In the meantime we have been concentrating on the extension of facilities, and of arranging for the extension of scholarship facilities. I am sure that Deputies who are familiar with this matter will appreciate that that is a practical policy and, in the matter under debate, this is the policy the Government have decided upon.

Mr. Lindsay

Any extension of facilities available for post-primary education, and any method directed towards the acceleration of the rate at which those facilities can be developed must be welcomed. I would have liked if the Taoiseach had been a little more specific, both by way of explanation as to how these facilities will be provided and how their provision will be accelerated, and thereby set a time limit on the fulfilment of what he declares to be the Government's intentions.

This is an important motion. Anything associated with education in this or any other country must necessarily be regarded as important. This is a motion the whole import of which, and the various facets of which could not be dealt with in the time allowed for a Private Member's motion in this House, but whatever facilities the Government intend to provide, and at whatever rate they hope to accelerate the provision of those facilities, they must get down to the fundamental, namely, to distinguish between a standard of education and a standard of examination. Either you are going to educate young people in the true sense of the word or you are going to put them through a cramming process over a not very selected or selective programme, the benefit of which will not be lasting, and the memory of which will not provide any great incentive for post-primary or even post-secondary education. Let the distinction, therefore, be carefully made between the standard of education and the standard of examination. The Department of Education, if it has not done so already, is rapidly losing sight of that very vital distinction.

To increase the school leaving age from the present limit of 14 to 15 may have arguments in its favour. It can equally well be argued against. My own personal view—not necessarily the view of my Party—is that the average school-going child at 14 will have received, if regularly attending the national school, from the ordinary competent teacher the requisite sixth standard education and if anything further is necessary for an ambitious, bright child, I know of several areas where the national teachers devote a considerable time to the advancement of such children. It is only fair to say that on behalf of the teachers, whom some people regard as simply 10-4 or 9-3 men. That is not the case. I am happy to say that the vocation of teaching is, I think, winning the battle over professionalism.

Further facilities for scholarship in secondary schools is very desirable, but again it must be directed towards some useful end within the State. On the question of scholarships—apart from the firm of Messrs. Guinness, and there is certainly one other that escapes me at the moment; I think Bord na Móna have made a contribution in that regard—our new industrialists who have made a considerable amount of money have been sadly lacking in initiative. I am glad that Deputy Corish made the point that he thought the trade unions with which his Party is closely associated could, and should have done more.

I would say that while increasing the school-leaving age to 15 from 14 —which I regard as adequate in ordinary existing circumstances—might be desirable in certain cases—and those would be a very small minority of school-going children—making it statutorily compulsory is wrong. I am glad the Taoiseach has at least hinted at his aversion to compulsion in this matter. It would be a further encroachment by the State on the liberty and freedom of choice of the family.

In the city of Dublin there used be —I know this because of my probably not distinguished connection with it at one part of my life—a very useful organisation for those in between the age of leaving the national school and the age of 16. It was for pupils who were not good enough to follow up any particular line in the vocational school and it was known as Comhairle le Leas Oige. It was run by the city of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee and was designed to provide an extension or revision of work in general subjects for pupils who, after reaching 14 would be running wild about the city until they got jobs at about 16. In one way, it was a haven and in another a place of possible education for some. It was a good idea and possibly it has developed on excellent lines—I have been out of touch with it for some time.

There are alternative ways already of entering the secondary school, but unfortunately they are restricted to those whose parents can afford to send their children and those who can benefit by scholarships.

The building of vocational schools while not as rapid as we would like is preceding fairly well and at a rate which shows that the Department have an interest in this form of education.

I think when a child has reached the age of 14 and completed sixth standard and got the primary certificate, unless there is some special object in view, I do not see much point in that boy or girl continuing in the national school, unless the teacher, in consultation with the pupil's parents, known of the objective. In all cases that I know of invaluable assistance has been given to such pupils by the teachers outside school hours.

I look forward with interest and enthusiasm, and I can promise criticism of the most constructive kind, to the implementation of the policy announced by the Taoiseach tonight. It is to be hoped that it will contain as the nucleus of its operation the distinction on which I shall conclude, the distinction between standard of education and standard of examination.

Mr. McQuillan

I shall be very brief. I do not want to prevent any Deputy from giving his views on the opinions or the suggestions contained in this motion in the short time remaining. I want to answer a few points made by the Minister. Like my colleague, Deputy Dr. Browne, I wish the Minister well in his office, but I must confess that I am greatly disappointed by his attitude towards a motion of this nature which was introduced in anything but an acrimonious manner.

Deputy Dr. Browne took the greatest possible care in preparing his data. Yet, when he submitted it to this House, the Minister suggested that in his opinion there were two types of critics and the first, according to the Minister, is the critic who is plainly hostile and the second, while not hostile, was unable to interpret statistics. Whether it was intended to imply that the mover or seconder of the motion came within either category I do not know. I hope whoever is speaking from the Government benches will clarify that position because I have here piles of quotations from the most prominent teachers in the country, lay and clerical, who in the past 12 months have expressed themselves as being disturbed and dissatisfied about the whole question of education. As recently as last Saturday and Sunday, a number of educators took advantage of the week-end to express their views as educators. I think it is a deplorable situation where we can have these very excellent men put in either category I referred to—hostile critics or ignorant ones.

Dr. Hillery

On a point of explanation, I think the Deputy will remember that there were three types of criticism: one which we welcomed and the other two types to which I referred as going into print and having to be answered by my Department in the papers. I did not say it was Deputy Dr. Browne or Deputy McQuillan. I did not say anything about those in a position to criticise but we welcomed it.

Mr. McQuillan

I am glad to accept the Minister's statement but I must point out to him that I am going on what I read in the Dáil Debates. I want, however, to draw his attention to a matter raised over the week-end by the director of a very prominent college in this country when he said that managers and masters of Irish schools had shown some reluctance to come forth with the facts, except in some individual instances and that seemed to him to be an unhealthy sign.

If these people have criticism to offer, I think it should be accepted in the spirit in which it is given. I do not think they should be shot down by the war lords in the Department. I think the criticism to be read in the newspapers—the criticism to which I have listened in this House—should be beneficial to the Department. There is nothing as bad as the feeling of complacency that steals over individuals or a body when they get things easy over a long period. They hate the idea of change; they hate the idea of being brought out of their lethargy. It is a natural feeling, I presume. I want to assure the Minister that he will certainly get every help to ensure that his Department are fully altered to the need for a dynamic approach to the problems of education and particularly that they should be urged to address themselves to the methods by which the terms of this motion can be implemented at the earliest possible date.

The Minister contradicted certain figures given by the mover of this motion. It was suggested by Deputy Dr. Browne, when he quoted from the UNESCO World Survey for Expenditure on Secondary Education, that the amounts were: Russia £7; U.S.A. £5; Six Counties, £2, and the Twenty-Six Counties, 10/-. Now the Minister in his statement suggested that that was incorrect. It was an unfair comparison to make and he deliberately, and with all due consideration, suggested that the comparison was wrong. I want to say, first of all, that the figures given to UNESCO were given by the country, by the Government, and that the comparisons made, in my opinion, as will be shown later, are correct and accurate. The Minister sought to suggest that it was an unfair comparison to utilise the data given in the UNESCO World Survey in order to compare the expenditure here with the expenditure in the Six Counties.

In other words, it was unrealistic to quote what the UNESCO World Survey documents had to say, but five minutes later, the Minister, in the course of his contribution, quoted the UNESCO document himself to refute a suggestion here that compulsory education from 14 years of age was desirable or was in operation in European countries. Having suggested that the UNESCO Report was not the proper one to use in so far as the contribution towards secondary education was concerned, he proceeded to suggest that, as far as the question of compulsory education was concerned, he would quote the UNESCO Report which pointed out that in very few European countries was compulsory education in operation from 14 years of age on.

The Minister again said that two-thirds of the children between 14 and 16 years of age obtain post-primary education. I think an inquiry will have to be instituted in order to find the facts in that regard. I want to make this quite clear. The average rate of emigration from this country for the past ten years has been in the region of 112 persons per day. Of those 112 persons per day, 60 did not go beyond 14 years of age, as far as education was concerned. They received no education beyond the primary stage. The remainder were segregated as between professional people and those who had gone to the vocational and secondary schools, but 60 out of every 112 had not the benefits of a secondary or a vocational education. I think, that so far as those figures are concerned and in regard to the people who leave the country, there is no question of two-thirds of our people being in receipt of post-primary education.

I want to make this point for Deputy Dillon. His constituency and other western constituencies contribute in great measure to that flow of over 100 people per day leaving this country. His constituency and others like it contribute in great measure to the number who have not received vocational or secondary education and his constituency and other constituencies in the West contribute to the large groups of Irishmen to be found in every large centre in London today holding up the walls and appearing in the police courts every Monday morning.

I do not say that the offences they commit are serious. I do not suggest that the offences committed by Irishmen in London are in any way in the same category as those dealt with in the London metropolitan courts day after day and week after week, but the usual two charges are there to be seen by anybody interested who spends a week touring those courts. The two charges are disorderly conduct and drunkenness.

Mr. Lindsay

It is the same at home.

Mr. McQuillan

The majority of the people concerned are men who never received an opportunity of a post-primary education. If at the present moment we are not able to absorb the surplus of our people who emigrate, the least we might do is to ensure that, when they go, they have sufficient knowledge and training to equip them to take positions in Britain better than those which at the moment they are forced to accept.

Let us be quite clear about it that the hewers of wood and drawers of water in Britain today, apart from the coloured people who come from the Colonies, are the Irish emigrants, boys and girls. The stage has been reached at which the Church in Ireland has become uneasy about the moral welfare of the boys and girls who are leaving this country in such numbers, badly educated and, in recent years, has insisted on sending its best missioners to Britain to try to bring the unfortunate youths who are driven out of this country back to the true Faith. It is a shocking tragedy that we cannot give these boys and girls the opportunity to work and to live in this country. In view of the fact that we cannot do so and that no efforts are being made in that regard, every possible measure should be taken to give them the education, understanding, training and discipline that will enable those who have to leave to be a credit to the country. We owe it to them in view of the fact that we make no move to provide work for them.

The Minister told us here last week, and according to today's newspaper, that we had the highest number of trained teachers in proportion to our population of any country in the world. That is a statement that was made at the opening of a school in Kilrush, according to the newspaper.

Dr. Hillery

In proportion to our needs.

Mr. McQuillan

"Our needs"? Very good. I can only quote again what I see in the newspapers. Evidently, newspapers have a terrible habit of misquoting Ministers.

Dr. Hillery

That may be true also in relation to population.

Mr. McQuillan

As far as our needs are concerned, in many schools it is impossible for teachers to carry out their duties efficiently. Apart from the question of the brighter children, there are large numbers of backward children for whom no provision whatever is made. No opportunity is afforded to bring them forward and nurse them along. We know that there is a very large number of such pupils. Trained teachers are not available for that work. In regard to the number of pupils per teacher, the proportion is far too high. The complacency in that regard which seems to exist at the moment must be shattered. If we are to have classes of a proper size, with trained teachers, the output of trained teachers from the training establishments must be doubled.

Reference has been made to scholarships. I am glad the Minister has stated that it is the intention of the Government to broaden the scheme of scholarships. The Taoiseach has referred to that matter. The money provided for secondary school scholarships in the Six Counties is one and-a-half times the amount made available in the 26 Counties, although the population of the Six Counties is only one-third of the population figure in the 26 Counties. Where is the cause for complacency in that regard? What is the use of the Taoiseach going to London and saying that the people of the Six Counties will be all right in the 26 Counties when that difference exists even as regards scholarships?

It may be argued that we are a poor country and that money is very scarce. I make a suggestion to the Minister by which we can get the money. We can strip another Department and cut out unnecessary expenditure and devote the proceeds to the Department of Education. I refer specifically to the money spent on the Department of Defence. The best defence this country can have against any outside influence —and there is no danger of any physical invasion—the best defence we can have for our type of living is education. Therefore, the best way to spend money in this country is to devote it to education as a defensive measure.

Let us reduce the Estimate for the Department of Defence by a minimum of £1,000,000 per annum from now on. I hope that nobody will say that it cannot be done. Within 12 months, there was an expenditure of £650,000 to extend a runway at Baldonnel.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

The Deputy is going very wide now.

Mr. McQuillan

I merely wish to make the point that we expended over £600,000 on the extension of a runway for jet planes at Baldonnel. We expended another £147,000 for three obsolete jet planes to land on this runway. That money was expended by the Department of Defence. Let us put an alert committee to work on that Department and I assure the Minister that at least £1,000,000 can be saved and diverted to the Department of Education. The Minister knows as well as every member of the House that the best possible use that could be made of that money would be to spend it on education.

This House, the Minister and the country should be very grateful to the teaching Orders for the excellent work they have done over the years. I refer specifically to the Orders that conduct secondary day schools. They get no grants whatever for the construction of schools. That should be clearly understood. They have provided education for the poor sections of the community. But for the education provided by the Christian Brothers, Marists and others, the number receiving secondary education would be much smaller. We owe a debt of gratitude to all these Orders.

When the question arises of extending the facilities for higher education, I would suggest to the Minister that, as part of his programme, money be made available for the construction of secondary schools, especially in rural areas, where at the present time some children have to travel ten or 12 miles on bicycles in order to get the benefit of an education. A child who has travelled ten or 12 miles to school is unfitted to absorb instruction and is too tired to do home work or study after the journey home from school. The poorer sections of the community are so eager and anxious to have their children educated that they are prepared to send them long distances to secondary and vocational schools.

As far as I can see, no attempt is being made to hasten the day when vocational and secondary education will be made as easily available to the poorer people as it is to the rich at the present time. The attitude would seem to be, "I am all right, Jack." Fifty per cent. of the people today are in a position to get post-primary education. Even if I accept the Minister's figure of 66 per cent., does it not leave an awful leeway to be made up? Does it give any right to the Minister or his Department to be complacent that almost 50 per cent. of the people of this country are deprived of the appointments for which higher education is a necessary qualification? There is also the consideration that the administration and services are deprived of first class brains that may exist amongst that section of the community who, at the existing rate of expenditure on education, have no hope of achieving their right under the Constitution which provides that there shall be equal facilities for all our children.

Mr. Desmond

We agree with this motion in principle, but there are one or two points to which I should like to draw attention. The motion is a help, but it is only a beginning. I am not clear about the third point which states that the pupil may remain on in the national school. We all must approach this matter from a different angle, depending on whether we represent rural or urban areas. I come from a rural area and I can see one big problem. The ideal we should strive for is that every child passing from sixth standard in the national school should be able to advance to a vocational or secondary school, but there are, unfortunately, difficulties. First of all, many secondary schools are pretty expensive establishments. In cities and towns, parents may be able to meet the expense, but in the rural areas, there is the added expense of travelling to the centre where the secondary school is located. That is detrimental to the attendances in secondary schools.

Vocational schools would undoubtedly be a great advantage in rural areas, but the plain truth is that there are not nearly sufficient vocational schools. So, the Taoiseach's promise this evening does not relieve us of the responsibility of supporting this motion. However, the Government are no more to blame than the Governments who preceded them. Should parents within easy distance of Cork wish to send their children to a technical school, the difficulty is that there are not vacancies for them because of the big demand. In the rural areas we cannot erect schools quickly enough to meet the demand. It is no use complaining about past mistakes, but perhaps schools were erected in Cork in places where the demand did not warrant it. However, we now have areas clamouring for a vocational school but they cannot get one.

I want to be helpful to the Minister by telling him the difficulty. While members of vocational committees are responsible for dealing with the estimates, the local C.E.O. seems to be the dominant factor in deciding whether or not we will get these schools. I do not wish to speak for too long on this very important subject because it is only fair to the proposer that he should have sufficient time to reply. A point I should like clarification on is this. If a child finishes sixth standard in the national school at 12 or even 13 years of age, if no vocational school is available or if the parents find it difficult to send the child to the nearest vocational or secondary school, then I do not see much sense in the child remaining in the national school for the period up to 15 years of age. I am in favour of compulsory training up to 15, but I would not wish that the child, because of financial difficulties, would have to stay in the national school. I know there are always odd cases, such as Deputy Lindsay mentioned, of the teacher giving extra time, but the tragedy is that they are only the odd cases.

While supporting the motion, I would urge the Government and the Department of Education to concentrate on providing financial assistance to local authorities for the provision of vocational schools and to shake up the local C.E.O. to a more determined attempt to provide children in rural areas with what they are entitled to vocational schools in easily accessible centres.

Dr. Browne

Would the Chair tell me how long I have to reply?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cunningham)

Not less than 15 minutes. The Deputy may use the time available up to 10.30 p.m. If he wishes to carry over to the next day on which Private Members' business is taken, he may do so. That means the Deputy will have 25 minutes to conclude on the next day.

Dr. Browne

I should like to express my appreciation to the many Deputies of all Parties who have contributed so helpfully and constructively to the debate on this very important subject. In reply to Deputy Desmond, might I explain one point about which there was a certain amount of confusion? We think that the least desirable thing is that boys should stay on in the national school until they are 15. Deputy Desmond is quite right. I think it would be futile for a child who reached sixth standard at 12 or 13 years of age to stay on in the national school until 15. This is all bound up with the whole question of the curricula of the primary, secondary and vocational schools, a subject which, as far as I am concerned, is much too complex for me to try to deal with it. I only feel from reading various authorities on it that it is one which very seriously needs investigation and complete reorientation in regard to the age at which it is possible to direct the life of a child into the final form its training will take.

The problem arises in Britain in relation to the Eleven Plus examination which is, I understand, likely to be discontinued. We are in the same position here; we have to decide whether the child, at age 14, is suitable for secondary education and on to the University or, through the vocational school, into the University. There seems to be a certain amount of substance in the suggestion that there is no need for the child to stay in the primary school until 15. The figures seem to point to that at any rate.

In 1957, the number of children who took the primary examination was, in round figures, 27,000; 8,000 failed, and there were 23,000 who did not or could not take the primary examination, even though they were between the ages of 13 and 14. The child of 12, therefore, in sixth standard is really the bright child because, on the figures, the preponderating result is against the majority of the children having reached sixth standard by the time they reach 13 or 14 years of age. That may be due to curriculum difficulties. We shall discuss that later, I hope, when we come to debate the motion on the abolition of compulsory Irish. Other factors affecting the situation are the overcrowded classrooms and the size of the classes. However, at the moment it would appear to be a reasonable proposition to allow the child to stay on to 15 years of age inasmuch as it will not have reached the sixth standard, on the figures I have, at age 14.

Mr. Donegan

The figure for the primary certificate examination is 37,000.

Minister for Education (Dr. Hillery)

It is 37,000. Deputy Dr. Browne had that figure the last night. The fact that a great many of these children do the examination now at 10, 11, 12 and 13 years of age would mean postponing it for them to 15 years of age.

Mr. Lindsay

Is it compulsory?

Dr. Browne

The position is that we believe the least desirable remedy is allowing the child to stay on in the primary school until 15. The ideal would be to have the child pass on to the vocational or secondary school, and University after that. Only the comparatively dull child should stay on in the primary school until 15.

The Minister has only very recently taken over this very difficult and complex Department, a Department which, I am sure, requires a tremendous amount of skill to administer because of difficulties with managers of different denominations, and so forth. I beg of him to keep an open mind for a little while longer until he has had a better opportunity of studying the complaints made by a number of people. There have been wild complaints. There has been wild and unfair criticism. I do not think, however, that all the complaints and all the criticism were unfair or inaccurate. I do not think they were all wild. Because of that, I think the Minister should hesitate before he assumes that those who criticise or complain are doing so merely out of spite or because of hostility to the Department, or that they are doing it because of an anxiety to be cantankerous and captious, or merely for the sake of criticism.

When I put forward the figure of 33? who did not get post-primary education, I was going on the 1951 figures. I made that clear at the time. I am glad the Minister has given me the information I sought. I join with Deputy Ryan who said that, even if the figure were as high as 50 per cent., in relation to those who receive further education either in the secondary or the vocational school, the Minister should not be content to rest on that figure. His ambition should be to improve the figure. I am not inclined to accept the so-called secondary tops as a substitute for secondary schools proper. I believe that a considerable number of the children in the so-called secondary tops are not undergoing a secondary school curriculum in its fullest sense but are continuing rather what they learned in the primary schools. Some of them may even be children who are waiting to take their primary certificate examination. However, even if the figure is 65 per cent., as the Minister said, in relation to full-time post-primary education, there are still numbers of children who do not get any post-primary education at all.

The Minister must take into consideration, too, the fact that secondary school education provides a relatively inadequate training, in the modern concept of society, to enable those who avail of it to make their way in the world with any effect. The Minister must envisage a time when the secondary school will automatically lead on to the Agricultural Institute, to the University or to advanced technical training. The Minister is probably aware of the general attitude now towards education along these lines in most European countries. He must be aware of the attitude in Russia and in the United States of America, to a certain extent. I understand that the bias is towards giving the child in the secondary school a technical training to equip him with access to an understanding of the different facets of technical education, in one of which he can subsequently specialise after having passed through the secondary or post-primary phase of his education.

The problem is, of course, bound up in the efficacy of our secondary school curriculum and the radical changes which have been suggested by competent people in that curriculum. While there are some who appear to be unenthusiastic about the proposal to raise the school leaving age to 15, there are many competent people who have supported the suggestion. There are many responsible people who, with the best intentions, have recommended that the school leaving age should be raised to 16. That was the recommendation made by the Youth Unemployment Commission. A similar recommendation was made by the Emigration Commission and by the Council of Education. Indeed, the Council of Education pointed out that in practically all the submissions made to them by responsible bodies— trade unions and other groups—it was recommended that the school leaving age should be raised. They say that there appears to be a very good case for raising it. It is a recommendation we would, I think, all accept with the qualification that only the least intelligent child should stay on the primary school until 15.

I welcome the Minister's statement that he would like to broaden the scope of scholarships. I welcome the Taoiseach's intervention in the debate

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29th October, 1959.