When speaking earlier this evening, I mentioned the importance of career guidance officers. We must examine this matter very carefully. We must ask if there is any record in any rural national school of the progress being made by a boy or girl reaching school leaving age and his or her suitability for a certain type of employment. Try as they may, national teachers are not and cannot be expected to be specialists as regards the suitability of pupils for a particular type of work. Because of that, it would be well if the Minister would bear in mind, when people are being sent abroad on specialised courses, that a number of officers from his Department should receive training for this special work.
Equally important would be the keeping of a special file or record regarding the progress of each boy or girl, and when the boy or girl is leaving school, the record should be available to the guidance officer for examination and for discussions between him and the child's parents. I would not be in favour of a hit or miss affair. I know it would cost money and that we would need many inspectors, and I know that an inspector would probably have to spend many days in each school examining the file of each boy or girl who has reached the school-leaving age, but ultimately all of that would be worthwhile.
At present there is this awful vacuum—parents not knowing the capabilities of their child, and very often believing that the boy or girl is exceptionally clever but blaming the school teacher if the child fails to pass an examination. All this is happening because there is no real co-operation between all the parties concerned regarding the future of boys and girls leaving school. If we could adopt this system, it might mean that ultimately boys and girls would not be put into jobs which are dead-ends. If boys and girls by such advice and guidance can be led along the road to suitable forms of employment, then their future years will be happy and content, and equally important the economy will benefit by it.
Like other Deputies, I am glad to know, from the Minister's answer to-day, where these new technical school buildings are to be erected. It is only natural that we in Cork are happy about the result. Beyond that, I do not intend to discuss vocational education on this Estimate. It is not that I consider it unworthy of discussion—I believe it is vital that we do discuss it—but because I am disappointed with the Minister. I believe there was never a better Minister for Education in this House than the present Minister but I do not believe in expressing praise when we must be critical. Last May, the Minister held a press conference. I am not condemning him, but I think it would have been better if he had come first to the House. I am not saying that the press should be denied any available information but Ministers, probably in all Governments, seem to adopt the line that has been common practice for many years in England and America, that is, to go to the public first and then come back to the elected representatives. Therefore, I consider that only when the Minister's full proposals are known here, can we discuss them in their entirety.
They may be very good—I hope they are. The Minister can be sure of one thing, that is, the 100 per cent co-operation of Labour Deputies. Perhaps we may be critical in so far as we may think his proposals may not go far enough but I suppose it is a healthy sign if we want to go further. Perhaps when the Minister is introducing his Estimate for the coming year in the next month or two, we may hear more about the matter. Then we will be in possession of more detailed information. Because of that, I do not propose to discuss any matter affecting vocational schools tonight.
In regard to secondary schools, I shall just say I am in agreement with the many members who have drawn attention to the inadequacies of the capitation grants. No matter what I might say, I would merely be repeating what other Deputies have already said. In the years during which the Minister has been Minister for Education, he has been tremendously successful, but I should like to see a greater spirit of co-operation between his Department and the various secondary teachers' organisations because co-operation can bring great results. I shall leave it at that.
I wonder if the Minister has had an opportunity of examining the situation which affects boys and girls, but particularly boys, arising from the introduction of a new system by the Minister for Finance. Kerry and Cork, and, I suppose, Clare to some extent, were once able to send their quota of young boys up here to the Civil Service. The tragedy now is that the number of vacancies in the executive officer grade are very limited and the so-called re-organisation of the Service has affected the Department of Education and must affect the Minister when boys are being denied the right to sit for examinations for the clerical officer grade. I should like the Minister to study this matter between now and when he introduces his Estimate, to find out what the position is as against what it was in the secondary schools —in the Christian Brothers' schools and many other schools—which used send their boys for good positions which have now been closed to them. Unfortunately there are very few alternatives available. I know that the alteration was not caused by the Minister for Education but the Minister and his Department must have noticed a falling off in the employment which was available to these boys.
Another minor matter which I should mention is one to which I referred many years ago and it would be well if the Minister could have a word with the people concerned about it. About September every year, every newspaper is cluttered up with advertising material from various secondary schools, convents and so on, relating to the examination results which have just been announced. That in itself is all right but what is unfair is the publication of names with asterisks after them denoting honours. I think it is unfair—and I do not mind what school is involved—to the pupils, some of whom may, by a few marks, just have failed in the examination. It can cause jealousy in parishes between parents. Surely these schools should be satisfied with stating they presented so many pupils for such an examination, so many got honours, so many passed, leaving the names out altogether. If they want to publish the names, then do not segregate and show A as having got honours, B as having just got through and C, the child of a neighbour, as having failed. Advertising is big business with many schools. I should like the Minister to take some steps to prevent this publicity because, to say the least of it, it is causing a great deal of annoyance in rural Ireland.
I come now to the most thorny question of all, the Irish language. In this House, and outside it, people hold different views. Throughout the 26 Counties, people are divided in their approach to the subject of Irish. Since I became a member of this House, I have held to a certain line. I have never offered any apology to anyone for doing so and may God grant that I shall never have to change it. At the moment, however, I find myself at a crossroads. Here, I should like to tell a true story. It may provide an answer to those who are most critical of the Irish language.
Two years ago, I happened to be in the west of Ireland. Moving down towards the Minister's county, I passed through the village of Spiddal. It was a pleasure to hear two men there speaking in Irish. One man was having a few words with a neighbour who was engaged in drawing seaweed. Eventually they parted company and the man drawing the seaweed went down to the strand with his donkey. His wife had filled a bag at low water. What struck me most forcibly was that that man talked to his wife in Irish; he talked to a little boy in Irish. Now the donkey was slow to move and I noticed that he spoke to the donkey in English. It was to the ass he spoke English. Whether or not the donkey came from the Gaeltacht, I just do not know but the episode goes to show that in Spiddal, at any rate, the only one who did not understand Irish was the donkey.
I said I find myself at a crossroads. Looking back now on our school days, there are those of us who realise that what we learned then was what I might describe as Irish Irish. There were no aitches in it. Whether he likes it or not, the Minister for Education has a responsibility. We have had changes over the years. My only ambition now is to try to get to the root of the trouble and see where we are going. Are we divided so much, one against the other, that those who are against Irish can point the finger at us?
Go through the old Irish books. There is no aitch. There was no aitch in an tAthair Peadar, an tAthair Peadar who was such a pleasure to read. Irish then was written in Irish characters. See the difference today. It is a big difference. Take the simple word "", it appears today as "chaith". We are told that the introduction of the aitch is for the purpose of modernising and improving the language. We cannot have it both ways. Take the words " sé" that is now "chuaigh sé". I ask the Minister is that an improvement?
I have in my possession an old Irish-English dictionary of 1822 or 1823, a big volume by O'Reilly. There is no such thing as an aitch in it. Presumably the people were modern then and apparently Irish was all right then. Apparently the Irish we were taught by those excellent teachers who studied Irish and did their best to encourage a love of the language in the boys and girls in their charge was good enough. Remember, they were teaching Irish as it was well and truly known, and without any aitches.
Quite candidly, I worry as to whither we are going. I have in mind a little girl of six. She has been at school for about two years. She is only one of many. This is not a case of just one school because I thought it only right and proper to find out what was happening in different schools in order that I might make a comparison. This small child started off in the ordinary way. Last year there was a change and the children were switched from ordinary spelling to phonetic. I admit that when I heard these little children pronouncing the letter "c" as "k", I was stumped. They do it in Cork, whatever about the other counties. When we were going to school, we were told there was no such thing as the letter "k" but only "c". But little girls between the age of four and five were told that a "c" was a "k" because they were spelling in Irish. They were told to pronounce "e" as "eh", "o" as "ogh" and "u" as "ugh". These children may get over that, but now what do we find? Little children, who were making a hand even of these phonetics, are faced with something that is going beyond the bounds in regard to Irish.
Let us take this example. The teacher is giving an English lesson. He tells the children that "c-a-t" is pronounced "cat", that "a-n" is "an" and that "a-i-r" is "air". The children are doing their best to learn these words as written in English. An hour afterwards, they are doing Irish. The same word is written in English. The Irish letters are forgotten. This time "c-a-t" is down again but now they are told it is "cat" with the Irish pronunciation. The word "a-n" is down and they are told it is "an" and the word "a-i-r" is down and they are told it is "air". Are we to continue in that way? Who is responsible for it?
I know some people are vindictive about the Irish language. Whether through ignorance or something else, we hear them claim, for instance, that Ballyvourney Irish is different from Connemara Irish. But we know that an Englishman from London and one from Yorkshire could hardly understand one another. We do not have to take notice of such carping criticism. But it is a sad thing for Ireland when little children have to write Irish in English letters and put in "h's" all over the place. It is also heartbreaking for genuine enthusiasts of the Irish language.
I know there are extremists on both sides of the fence. There are some who are vicious in their opposition to the language and some vicious in their love of the language, ready to condemn anyone who says a word against it. The saving of the language can only be left to those trying to steer a middle course, those who believe in the language, who want the language, but who must be critical of these impositions on the children by persons behind the scenes. Their Irish is so different from that of the man who wrote:
Bhí fear ann fadó darb ainm dó Séadhna ....
or the man who wrote:
Beir beannacht óm chroí go Tír na hÉireann
Bán cnuic Éireann óig.
What was wrong with the Irish of those days? What was wrong with the mentality of the people who wrote such beautiful Irish? What is wrong with those who slaughter the language and try to make fools of little children year after year in the schools? What is to happen to weekly papers such as Amárach in which the true Irish appears week after week? It is a paper that gives me great pleasure because the Irish there is the Irish we learned with no “h's” in it, so different from the newspapers and periodicals putting in “h's” everywhere and writing everything in English letters.
I am prepared to say the Minister is as anxious to see Irish prosper as anyone, but I say the tampering with Irish as we knew it is ruining the language. Let us come together before it is too late to see to it that the cranks prepared to alter the language to suit ourselves are put in their places and the old traditional ways of writing and talking Irish retained.