Vol. 188 No. 12
asked the Minister for Education what disciplinary action he has taken in the case of Mr. Nolan, the teacher who assaulted a little girl at school in July and October last, in order to ensure that his Department's regulations regarding the punishment of children receiving compulsory education will be adhered to in future by Mr. Nolan.
18.
asked the Minister for Education what action he has taken in the case of Mr. O'Sullivan, the teacher who knocked an epileptic child unconscious in school last May, in order to ensure that his Department's regulations regarding the punishment of children receiving compulsory education will be adhered to in future by Mr. O'Sullivan.
19.
asked the Minister for Education what action he has taken in the case of Miss Mullen, the teacher who assaulted a small boy at school and spancelled another boy by tying his legs together with rope last November, in order to ensure that his Department's regulations regarding the treatment and punishment of children receiving compulsory education will be adhered to in future by Miss Mullen.
20.
asked the Minister for Education if Miss Mullen, Mr. Nolan, Mr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Lynch, the teachers who were all found guilty recently in the courts of assaulting pupils in national schools, are (a) fully qualified teachers and (b) still teaching in the same national schools.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 together.
I have already on a number of occasions made clear that I am not prepared to disclose what action I have taken in individual cases of the kind concerned. The reasons for that I shall give in a moment, but I should like first to explain my general attitude on the question of excessive punishment.
My responsibility in the matter is twofold. On the one hand it is for me to see to it that the children are not ill-treated and on the other that they receive efficient instruction.
The teacher holds for the time being the place of the parent and so for the time being carries in this matter the rights of the parent. In these circumstances it would be unreasonable for me to forbid the teacher to adopt any deterrent that might be adopted by a just and wise parent, and a just and wise parent might on occasion deem it necessary to inflict an adequate amount of corporal punishment in order to control the child and bring him up in the way he should go.
Even a parent, however, has no right to inflict excessive punishment and is liable to court penalties if he causes injury to the child. In that regard, I wish to say that I personally abhor excessive punishment of any kind, either physical or mental. I will go further and say that I will not countenance any punishment in the schools that goes beyond the limits of adequacy.
My powers to impose penalties for excessive punishment comprise with-holding of salary in part or entirely; withdrawal of recognition of status where the teacher holds a senior post; withdrawal of recognition of a teacher in a particular school or area; and, finally, withdrawal of recognition as a teacher, temporarily or permanently.
Since I took up office I have used most of these powers, and used them severly. I intend to continue so doing.
At the same time, I cannot act irresponsibly. It is for me, with all the available evidence before me, to be judge of the conduct that is befitting a teacher. There are various types of cases which require deep consideration in this regard. For example, there is the teacher who in a single instance loses his temper under provocation. He is to be distinguished from the teacher who has offended more than once. Again, where the parent has had recourse to the courts and where there is an appeal pending, I must obviously await the result of the appeal before my function comes into operation. That function, as I have said, is to impose a suitable penalty, where such is merited, on the teacher for being guilty of conduct unbefitting a teacher, and, if he persists in such conduct, it it in my power, as I have said, to withdraw recognition from him as a teacher.
Finally, my reasons for not considering it proper or desirable to disclose the action taken by me in any individual case are, first, that I could not, in fairness to all concerned, disclose publicly my findings in any individual case without making public also all the information, some of which may be confidential, which enabled me to come to a decision. Secondly, such public disclosure of information and decision could in itself constitute in particular cases a punishment in excess of that which I had concluded to be adequate. It will, I think, be appreciated in that regard that I could not make public use of findings in one case and not in another. I should have to disclose the action taken in all cases or in none.
I am sorry the Minister does not go as far as I should like him to go in forbidding corporal punishment but I welcome the improvement on previous statements by the Minister. Would he not agree that, in so far as any punishment he does decide on is intended to be a deterrent both to the teacher concerned and to other teachers, the particular punishment which he imposes must lose a lot of its power as a deterrent if people are not aware of the punishment which he is prepared to impose on a teacher in given circumstances?
There are channels other than Dáil Éireann for informing teachers about what occurs. I think they are all aware of what happens.
Would the Minister not agree that in cases such as this, as far as aggrieved parents, the children and the general public are concerned, the principle that justice should not only be done but should appear to be done has not been observed over the years by the Department of Education in this matter of corporal punishment?
I hope that from what I have said the public will accept that I am dealing with the matter, but I think I should continue with the practice of not giving information about individual cases.
