Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jun 1947

Vol. 33 No. 21

Plan for Education—Motion.

Micheál Ó hAodha

Tairgim:—

That the Seanad would welcome a statement from the Minister for Education on a Plan for Education recently published by the Irish National Teachers' Organisation.

Is é cúis gur chuireas síos an tairiscint seo ná chun go bhféad aimis caint shocair mhacánta réidh a dhéanamh i dtaobh oideachais anseo agus chun to bhfaghaimis tuairim cheart ar na pointí sa phlean atá foilsithe ag na múinteóirí náisiúnta le déanaí i dtaobh oideachais. Ní chun éinne do cháineadh nó éinne do mholadh a chuireas síos an tairiscint.

I should like to explain at the begining that the form in which the motion appears is one agreed upon unanimously by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It seemed to us that there were many subjects upon which the Seanad might desire to have a debate which we hoped would be calm, fruitful and enlightening and at which we would like to have a Minister present but a debate which would not necessarily be in the nature of a vote of censure, and would not end in a division. The motion is not put down for the purpose of finding any fault with the Minister or for the purpose either of praising or agreeing with everything in this particular plan for education.

The national teachers deserve credit for having published this pamphlet but when I say that I do not commit myself to an agreement with it all—far from it. The subject of education is a very important one. It is constantly referred to by speakers as a vital subject but it is one in which, in fact, very little interest is taken and one in which the public themselves show very little interest. This pamphlet of the National Teachers' Organisation is their second effort. They published before, in 1941, an inquiry into teaching through the medium of Irish in our schools and it is a clear, a reasonable and an excellent contribution to the subject. The points in it are well worked out and well summarised. It is not exhaustive; it is not abusive; and it is in no way either rhetorical or exaggerated. It is therefore a good basis for discussion.

So far as I am concerned I do not intend to endeavour to cover the whole ground. I should like to say at the outset that the teachers like a great many other people seem to me to over-estimate the importance of schools. We had no control of education and we had no Parliament during the 19th century and until 1922. A great many people in the 19th century over-estimated the value of Parliament and I think we still over-estimate the value of Parliament and we over-estimate at present what schools can do. At one time the main influences upon young people were their schools, their homes and their immediate environment which was not very different from their home environment. Now young people are influenced not only by schools but by the radio, the cinema, newspapers, magazines—by a great many contacts from which neither their parents nor their schoolmasters can protect them.

I have no sympathy with the people of whom one reads frequently in the newspapers who complain of our defects of character, of culture, and of taste and who lay all these defects solemnly at the door of the Minister for Education and say that if our schools were different or if our schools were better these defects of character or taste would be non-existent. I doubt that that is so, and I doubt that the school is as important now as it used to be, but at the same time that is not to take from its very great importance.

One might consider at the outset what the objects of education are and what a school is. There is a certain tendency to think that a school consists of beautiful buildings or modern equipment. The main thing in a school is the teacher and the pupils, and the most important thing in the school is the teacher. Of that there can be no doubt whatever, and the most important thing which can be arranged, I think, is that the class should not be too big for the teacher to know so that not only will he instruct them in certain subjects but his personality will be in contact with theirs and will make an impression upon them. Just as the class should not be too big, I should like also to say to the Minister that the school should not be too big. I have grave doubts as to the desirability of building enormous schools which are so big that the headmaster very often cannot be in any real contact with his class.

With regard to the influences bearing upon young people at present there is this to be said: we have a form of censorship of literature; we have censorship of films—and about these topics and particularly censorship of literature we have had a great deal of discussion—but whatever one may think about it—and some such things exist everywhere—there is a truth with which everybody will agree, that is, that the best antidote for bad books is good books, and that the best thing we could possibly do for our young people is to give them definite interests, some interests of their own which will enable them to resist the evil influences around about them. It is popularly supposed—and a great many parents going in to see teachers are firm in the belief—that the object of the school is to fit young people for jobs. That is rather the object in a slave State.

The object so far as we are concerned is surely to produce good men and women who will be good citizens, who would have principles to guide their conduct, who would be efficient at their work and who also would have interests which would enable them to use their leisure properly. If we could give to our young people in the schools sufficient positive interests we would be so to speak inoculating them, to use one metaphor, or putting armour upon them against the evil influences which come upon them from outside.

If we are to make our young people strong and preserve what was referred to in the days of our bondage as the historic Irish nation, it must be remembered that education, as this pamphlet says, is a whole. The primary schools cater for 90 per cent. of our population, that is to say, 90 per cent. of our school-going population get no further than the primary school, but primary schools, secondary schools, vocational schools and universities are one. At the same time, the primary school could not exist—it would have had no staffs —but for the secondary schools and universities. That brings us to the point that it is not in modern times possible, when children leave school at the age of 14, to give them training for future life sufficient to meet either the needs of work or the needs of leisure with which I associate character and there is an absolutely sound case for raising the school-leaving age. There are in fact several cases. There is the fact that letting them out at the age of 14 leaves them unprotected to meet the world they have to meet and which we cannot prevent them meeting. A beginning has been made in certain directions and I think the Minister has announced already that as buildings become available the intention is to keep the children at school beyond the age of 14 years. That is one reform which should certainly take place.

The other as I have said relates to the all-important person in the school, namely, the teacher. At present primary teachers are trained entirely to themselves. In fact the system which is founded upon the preparatory colleges is an extraordinary system of segregation. Young people from the Gaeltacht are selected at the age of 14. They are put in a special preparatory school for themselves and they go from that to a training college from which they come out as equipped teachers, that is to say from the age of 14 until the age of 21 they are entirely to themselves. That seems to me to be a very doubtful thing. I know its origins. I had some doubts about it at the beginning—I had no responsibility for it as it happened—but I think the worst thing we could possibly do is to segregate teachers in training, because every teacher—the primary teacher more than the secondary teacher and the secondary teacher more than the university teacher, and even the university teacher—is faced with certain dangers from the fact that he is constantly dealing with people, so to speak, of a rather lower level than himself, and to keep teachers in training entirely to themselves is a very bad thing.

The first essential for a teacher would appear to me to be that he should be a full man, using the word man to embrace women, and that he should get a normal education and should be as near as possible to the normal person in the country. I have grave doubts whether taking people at the age of 14 and paying all their expenses for six or seven years is a good thing, whether they are from the Gaeltacht or elsewhere. What the teachers demand, and quite rightly demand, and what I always believed myself to be right ever since I first came up against the problem is that teachers should do the ordinary secondary school course first and not be put together into a preparatory college. I have had experience myself of one of those preparatory colleges, at Bally-vourney, and while it is a magnificent building, well run by a keen and zealous staff, I think that the ordinary secondary school course would be a much better beginning for teachers, and let them have a university course afterwards.

There is some difficulty in this because university accommodation is very cramped but it is an idea that could be investigated and the Minister could well enter into it and a plan, looking ahead, could be made for it. Teachers would be all the better for getting a university course, not only from the point of view of the knowledge they would obtain there but from the contacts they would make with other people going on for the professions. The teachers would not consider themselves as "birds alone". They would also get that degree of responsibility in regard to their own behaviour which they do not get in a training college where they are subject to rather strict rules. I do not want to elaborate on this, but I think it would be a far better beginning in the training of a teacher. There could be a year's special training at the end. The whole question of training teachers is a problem. What is a good method for "teacher A" might not be a good method for "teacher B". There are people who can walk into a university class of 250 students and nobody says a word when they walk in. If there is a man who cannot do this, nobody can tell him how to do it. It is one of the things that cannot be imparted and one cannot make rules about it. It seems to me that teachers' training might be restricted to one year after he has obtained a university degree because when a person has actually taught for a number of years I think he is much more receptive of information about how to teach. There is another point about teachers and the school-leaving age which strikes me. There was a plan one time which was carried out by the national teachers, a scheme under which certain people could remain on at school and get secondary instruction from the teacher, who was paid for it, until the age of 16. This had the advantage of giving education without the pupil having to go into the nearest town. There is a great talk about rural bias in education and a great misunderstanding about it. Every child over the age of 14 who wants to get education has to go into the nearest town. All the vocational schools are in the towns. If it could be arranged that the national teacher was well-trained and if he was a person able to impart secondary education up to a certain point a great improvement would be effected.

One of the things of which there has been complaint is the grading system of national teachers. The teachers themselves contend that the grading of "Efficient" and "Highly Efficient" should be abolished. Senators will remember that this was a great bone of contention all during the strike but, as during all strikes, it did not get the amount of consideration to which it was entitled. I suggest to the Minister now, when the strike is over, that the grading is one of the things ripe for consideration, either by the Department and the teachers themselves or by the Department and the teachers, presided over by some outside person, and what casually strikes me at the moment is that a Maynooth professor might be a suitable person for that work. The teachers maintain, and as far as I know they are right, that the system is not in operation anywhere else. It has been abolished in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and it is difficult to see why it is operated here. The pamphlet professes grave dissatisfaction with the spirit and the practice of inspection in national schools. It is said to be a cause of great mental strain on certain types of teachers. The secondary inspection system started in 1900 and was based upon advice, assistance and observation rather than upon the grading of teachers or the giving of grants. The type of inspector appointed was the scholarly type, the person who was polite and who treated the people he met as if they were his equals, as indeed they were. This has continued during the 25 years of Irish government, and as far as I know, and I think the Minister will agree with me, there has been practically no friction. In the case of national schools, the inspectors were a different type. It was the gentleman inspecting the native, so to speak. It had certain asperities about it, not always, of course. In the book, An tOileánach, Tómas Ó Criomhtháin describes how an inspector came along one day and talked in English to the teacher in the Blasket school with the result that she fainted. There have been cases where students talked in Irish to the teacher and she fainted. We have the same old system progressing in a different direction. I have had examples given to me by teachers of wholly foolish things said by inspectors, though I doubt that inspectors are usually objectionable in primary schools. That the teachers themselves are not satisfied is beyond doubt and the position is worth investigating. Again, inspectors themselves have great difficulties. They have an enormous number of forms to fill in. They are not coming into the schools at present to assist and advise as the secondary inspectors have always done.

This whole grading system should be investigated and changed in outlook. It would be welcomed, not only by the teachers but by the inspectors. It will be great satisfaction to Cork people, if there are any of them listening to me, to know that if the inspectors applied the same standard in Dublin as they do in Cork few would be rated "efficient" because the Cork standard is much higher than the Dublin standard. There are different standards for different places. Classes change, too, from year to year. Anyone who has any experience of teaching can walk into a class and feel if there is a change. University lecturers can sense that a class is not as good as it was the previous year or that it is better than the previous year although there is no immediate means of testing it.

Another recommendation made here is for a council of education. I would like to support that but without making use of the language which this plan for education uses. There is a good deal of talk about bureaucrats. I do not like the word "bureaucrats". If the word "bureaucrat" means that there are officials in the Department of Education who are ambitious to control the people and to direct their lives and who will not take advice from anybody, I think that is not so. As a matter of fact it may not be a popular thing to say, but it has always struck me that in some Departments, and more particularly in the Department of Education, there is need for more highly-paid officials with very little day to day work to do. I would like to see officials with some leisure to think about education and to read about education, officials who would not be buried in files or burdened with correspondence or befogged with constant interviewing, which is what the higher officials in the Department of Education are, to a very large extent, doing at the present time. I reject the notion and the idea of the bureaucrat, but it is true that while the Minister and the Minister's officials see various interests separately, they never see them together. It escapes me why the Minister objects to seeing them together since he does, in fact, see them separately.

I feel that a body of persons to advise the Minister and with no power to put their views into operation—leaving the Minister responsible to the House but having their report embodied in a report made by him—would be a very good thing. Such a plan has been adopted in Scotland, and I do not see why it would not be adopted here. The Minister has, I know, very cordial relations with various bodies interested in education. I do not see any reason why these bodies could not be brought together in council to discuss matters. I happened to be interested in a committee at University College, Dublin, a couple of years ago which was set up, in the first instance, to prepare and present a case to the Minister for Finance and to the Government in regard to certain needs of the college. We were all members of the same staff, all colleagues and rather intimate friends, but at the same time when we sat down to consider our problems we found that we made very considerable progress. The document that we produced, although it was begun for a certain purpose, developed into a plan for the development of the college and was praised even by the officials of the Department of Finance who are not what one would call extremely sympathetic to demands for money. That most recent experience of mine would show me that a committee of this kind would help the Minister and help his officials rather than hamper them. It would also do something to spread the interest, the lack of which I deplored when I was opening. Such a council could contain, I am sure, people who are not making their living out of education. I am particularly anxious myself that, if there was to be a council of education, it should contain such people. I would let the Minister handpick them, because I am inclined to regard the Minister for Education as a person who does not act upon political principles but who is interested in something which everybody should be interested in, and in which everybody desires to be helpful. I would give him permission, so far as I am concerned, to do that. I would certainly allow the Minister himself to nominate people on such a council who were not making a living out of education.

There is another matter which is only very slightly referred to that I would like to deal with before I come to the question of Irish. That is the question of the educational ladder about which there used to be so much talk. There never was a point in this country, certainly not within the last 100 years, when the educational ladder was more difficult to climb than at the present moment. It was never more difficult for the son of a real working man to get the best education that the country can afford than it is now. The scholarships are entirely inadequate, and it would be a very useful thing if an inquiry could be set on foot about that. There are some negotiations going on between the university colleges and the county councils at the moment to see how we can best utilise the talent there is in the country. I disagree entirely with the idea that a democratic education means that every body wants to go into a given school. That is, of course, absurd, but certainly a part of our wealth is represented by the intelligent young people that we have, the people who are worth educating. They should certainly be educated, and no matter how small the means of their parents may be, they should get the facilities which will bring them through the best courses.

Now this plan for education by the national teachers concludes with some discussion of the Irish language question. It is impossible to revise education in this country—to make a new plan for education—unless one were first to discuss the place of Irish in the schools. As I said in the beginning, I do not think the schools or the Minister are to be blamed for our defects of character, of culture or of taste in so far as these exist. Therefore, it does seem to me that the schools are being asked to do too much, when they are asked to give us a new mental outlook. They are being asked to do too much also when they are asked to make an immense linguistic change. I do not think that the schools can do that.

I think that we base ourselves upon a considerable amount of badly understood history. It is not true to say that the teachers killed the Irish language. I do not think it is even true to say that the British Government killed the Irish language, but whether they did or not this much is absolutely plain, that the measures taken by a foreign Government in this country to achieve a particular object cannot be adopted by a native Government to reverse the process. The things which a Chief Secretary could do in pursuance of a certain object a Minister for Education—I do not mean the present Minister but any Minister for Education responsible to an Irish Parliament—probably would find himself unable to do. I think that we have placed—I did it myself and I freely confess it—altogether too much reliance upon what the schools can do about the Irish language. The Irish language is a difficult language. It is easy to get up to a certain point in it, but there are immense difficulties to be overcome in regard to, dialects, spelling, and the fact that it is more than 300 years behind modern times—that is to say, more than 300 years behind the development of the modern town and of all the things that go with modern town life. Irish has two things behind it, and looking at the people who have studied it and the people who have certificates in it one finds them very defective in their understanding of either or both of these two things. It has an aristocratic literature, part of which our colleague, Senator the Earl of Longford, has done something to put into English, and he has done that very adequately indeed. It has as well a folk literature, and both of these, peculiarly enough, have a rural bias. Now when you teach Irish phrases, Irish verbs, grammar, or even Irish proverbs you do not do anything to get people to understand the life behind them, to understand the rural life that is behind them. I find that myself in the case of people who have done the secondary school course in Irish.

I am not criticising the teachers. No one realises more than I do the immense work that is being done by the teachers in the primary and secondary schools, their intense enthusiasm and the positively miraculous results which have been achieved in certain places by certain people. But you have to judge by what the average result is. If you ask for an explanation of cleanhnas—matchmaking—the average student who has read an Irish text thinks that matchmaking is something which is done in the dead hours of the night by a fellow with a bottle of poteen in his pocket in very comical surroundings and to a comical end. He has no idea at all that matchmaking was the dowry system which is a fundamental part of the life of the farming community not only here but elsewhere.

Ask him about comhar and you will find that he is doubtful, although anybody who lives in the country knows what interchange of labour without any money passing means. We used to abuse the British long ago for giving us the stage Irishman. One of the effects of teaching Irish in the schools is that we have now a stage Irishman, the man from the Gaeltacht, who is very poor, very pious, very inquisitive, fond of back-biting, fond of matchmaking and very often fond of poteen. He is completely divorced from the ordinary countryman that we know, the person we want to draw people's attention to above all, because he is queer. The impression made on city students, and even on country students after reading a great many Irish texts is that the Gaeltacht is full of the queerest people imaginable.

We certainly need an inquiry to know to what point we have got, where we want to go, and what steps we should take to get there. I do not know why the Minister was so complacent or so persistent in defending a system of which he is not the inventor. I am most emphatically dissatisfied with the results. I do not want to blame anyone. I am not dissatisfied with those who have worked, because they worked in a most astounding manner. Even before the Irish Legislature was established in 1922 wonderful things were done in the schools of Dublin. In one school which I knew at Blackpitts a teacher named Hehir, a Clareman, did extraordinary things under the National Board. We have not succeeded in inspiring our students or our people generally with any idea of what the Irish language stands for as distinct from verbs, nouns and idioms. A great many people get no idea in the schools of what the Gaeltacht is like, or what life in the Gaeltacht is like. I should like to see the whole question inquired into.

Undoubtedly people who are really interested are dissatisfied. Of that there can be no doubt. While I should like to see an inquiry, I do not want one by people who are cold or dry-as-dust on the subject. I want an inquiry by people who know Irish, who sympathise with the aims of the Minister as much as we all do, who are prepared to avail of the goodwill that is there in abundance for the revival of Irish, but are prepared to recognise, after 25 years, that the results are very far from what we expected to achieve.

I read recently a memorandum that was issued by the Commissioner of the Garda in 1928, in which it was contemplated that in ten years' time Irish would be essential for Guards, not from the point of view of rule-making but from the practical point of view. Twenty years have passed since 1928 and, alas, that is not the position at all. The guards generally do not need to know Irish for the doing of their work. For that reason, there is dissatisfaction with the progress that has been made and it ought to be inquired into. What we need is to take the language out of the realm of political acrimony and to see what we can do. We may be going too slow in some directions, or too fast in other directions, but we will have to abandon the attitude that everything that is being done is right and that a change of any kind would be for the worse.

As far as the Irish language is concerned there are two legs upon which it must stand. One is the survival of the language in the Gaeltacht where it is not surviving, and the other is to get people to take an interest in the Irish language for its own sake, as distinct from any other reason. At one time the study of Irish served as a joy for certain people. It gave students who loved it a living, abiding interest outside their ordinary work. It did the very thing that a good education ought to do. It gave a person, who was interested outside his work, inspiration and help and was not a mere collection of verbs and nouns. It was something live, something cherished for its own sake. There are very few people about now, about whom it could be said that they have that feeling about Irish.

I was at a summer college a few years ago, and I went to the trouble of finding out what class of people were attending, with a view to discovering if there was anybody there who had no pecuniary interest in Irish, no examination interest. I found only one person to whom Irish was, so to speak, of no use, a son of my own, who went there of his own free will. All the others were teachers or civil servants, preparing to pass the dreadful oral test and having done so it was "to hell with it". There were teachers, civil servants, solicitors' apprentices and others for the Bar examination in Irish. There were also domestic economy instructresses breaking their hearts and wondering what were the Irish words for many things. I spent one morning, before an inspector arrived, discovering words that I did not know previously about sewing and knitting. All these people worked for some particular job. I remember a time when that place was full of students whose business had nothing to do with Irish. My business was French. That is all changed now, and you meet hardly anyone who goes to such places simply for love of the language. That is not saying that I am against compulsory Irish. Certainly, the results of economic compulsion, the reaction on the school and the attitude of the adult population, are quite different from what I thought they would be 25 years after 1922. As the teachers suggest here, and they are quite right, the remedy is certainly not more compulsion or more economic preferences. Nothing is more clear than that economic preferences for Irish have not improved the position of the Irish language. Mind you, I was a firm believer in it but it has not worked.

There are two things about the schools and Irish. One is the use of Irish as a teaching medium and the other is the teaching of Irish itself. With the use of Irish as a teaching medium, in certain conditions, I am in complete agreement, but the results are sometimes very unexpected. I have met people who did an honours leaving certificate through the medium of Irish, who learned history, Greek, geography through the medium of Irish and who had no desire to talk Irish, people who knew Irish grammar extremely well but who just had not got the Irish language as something they would talk in the ordinary way and who, when they did talk it, could not have been farther from the flow and the spirit of the Irish language in the Gaeltacht. What we really have to consider is whether our scheme is the correct one or not. The Minister's scheme—it was my own scheme—I am not accusing the Minister of it—the general scheme of the State—was to spread as much Irish as possible over as many people as possible. The result has been very disappointing. I have here a letter sent to me as long ago as 1929, when the last Government was in office, by a man who was then a great supporter of Fianna Fáil and who had learned Irish extremely well—Seán Ó Cuiv. He was very disappointed in 1929 but everything he said in 1929 could be said in 1947. He said:

"Since 1922 Irish has been a compulsory subject taught within school hours, for at least one hour each day, in the national schools of the Saorstát. In addition, Irish was supposed to be used in the infants' classes in all schools where the teachers had sufficient command of the language to be able to conduct the classes without using English. Unless the teaching of the past seven years has been misdirected or misapplied, all pupils who have gone through this class should be able to speak Irish well and read with good accent and expression any piece of ordinary Irish prose or verse."

Of course, they are not. It is a fact that they are not and to say that they are is to humbug yourself. That is the thing that really is wrong with the whole business, to say that they are.

"If they cannot do both, and the general experience is that they can do neither,"

—this was Seán Ó Cuiv in 1929—

"an immediate investigation into the causes of failure is called for."

I knew Seán Ó Cuiv to the day of his death. He lived to see another Government coming into office but he never changed his mind on the subject of Irish. He was a man of extreme interest in this particular matter, a good teacher himself, and he was not then satisfied; he wanted an investigation. We never got the investigation. I think you will have to have it. You must have it because it cuts across the whole education programme and unless we can get it we are not going to make any progress.

In the secondary schools there is no oral work necessary at all. You can get the leaving certificate, answer all the extraordinary questions in grammar, without being able to speak Irish at all, without being able to understand ordinary native speakers. There are all kinds of things that could be done that are not done. The whole scheme seems to be that the more activity there is the more you are getting done. That, of course, is not so.

I do not understand why it is that we cannot sit down with teachers, with people of experience, with people of knowledge, with people of goodwill towards the Irish language and discuss all this. I have had plenty of experience of the whole business and, as I say, it is very disappointing. Take my own name "Micheál Ó hAodha". Put it in front of anybody, put it in front of a messenger boy or a caddie on a golf course. Ninety-nine per cent of them would not know what it was.

Sir John Keane

I would not, certainly.

Mr. M. Hayes

Senator Sir John Keane is an exception. He was not at the right school. He was not in the right school for knowing this. You must judge the thing by ordinary people. Take an ordinary fellow delivering a parcel. Write "Micheál Ó hAodha" on his receipt. Write it as carefully as you can. He says: "Is that Irish, sir?" He knows it is Irish. If you wrote it in Roman script he would not know what it was at all. But, to the ordinary person, as we know, little has got across. Let me say this as well: sometimes one marvels at the progress made in particular cases but very often you find that the progress made is based upon some special circumstance of the individuals concerned.

You want to do two things. You want to enable people to speak Irish and you want to give them a desire to speak it. They are two completely separate things and neither in Galway nor Cork, nor Dublin, in the colleges, nor anywhere, as far as I can make out, has that been a success.

There have been most interesting reports upon education published recently in Scotland, one on primary and one on secondary. There are a whole lot of small matters with which I would like to deal but I have not time. I notice in the Scotch report, for example, they advocate no home work. I taught for a number of years in a secondary school with the Christian Brothers who were the great exponents of home work and punishment when it was not done, and I am always proud of this, that I was a heretic about home work. I never got anyone to do it and I always resisted anyone who wanted me to get anyone to do it. I got excellent results and the highest pay that was coming to anyone for it. There are a number of details we might discuss. There have been these Scotch reports. Here we have nothing except what these national teachers are doing and it is a very praiseworthy effort. You need not agree with all they say but at any rate they do sit down and in moderate language set their thoughts on paper for other people to discuss.

There is a great case for educational research. There is a great case particularly here. It is difficult to find any analogous cases to ours with regard to Irish and English. They gave the example of Alsace Lorraine when the French after getting it back were not able to beat German. Although they brought to bear upon Alsace the resources of a language like French, spoken by millions and millions of people, with a magnificent up-to-date literature, with every possible influence that could be brought, they did not beat German in Alsace. There are all kinds of false analogies that children can be taught certain things in Belgium. Of course they can. If you go to France to learn French, when the boat approaches France you notice the very windows are different from the windows you left behind. The hot and cold water taps are on different sides of the basin in the hotel. The newspaper is not only printed differently, it is a different kind of paper. Everything is different and if you stay there for a bit you are bound to learn something. The situation is quite different here when you go to the Gaeltacht to learn Irish. If you want to know what the Minister for Education or the Taoiseach or the Leader of the Opposition is saying you have to buy a newspaper and read it in English.

The situation is one which calls for drastic remedy, I think, and certainly it is not improved merely by persisting in saying that everything is for the best in the best possible world. I would like to appeal to the Minister to abandon the attitude that everything is right and to look into a number of these matters. There is this to be said in favour of our position in this country: we have plenty of goodwill towards education and, above all, we have no religious problem in education to divert our attention and to prevent us from friendly discussion of our problems. That problem exists in England not very acutely perhaps, but it does exist in England. It exists very acutely in France and rends the French Constitution right down to the bottom and rends France right down to the bottom. Here we have inherited from the British a system which, on paper, like many other British systems, looks completely cracked but which works. We have undenominational schools which are really denominational and we have the question of religion and of religious teaching in the schools settled to the satisfaction of the Churches. We have no difficulty about it and we have nobody arguing that it ought to be changed. That is completely out of the picture. We need to do some research as this plan suggests and to abandon the idea that everything being done is right and that every change means going back.

I do not think anyone is in opposition to the notion that, the Irish language being there, it should be cultivated and fostered. The difference is with regard to the expedients, the methods and means. The Minister should take counsel on this question and on the general education question, lest a new generation come along who may have very different ideals from those of the Minister and myself. It is not in any sense offensive to the Minister personally or any criticism of his Department to say that things are not for the best. We all know they are not for the best and everybody should do his level best to put this matter on a proper footing. The matters mentioned are a council of education, the revision of the rating system in primary schools, and the revision of the inspectoral system in primary schools. A general inquiry should also be held as to what is being done in Irish and whether the proper methods are being employed. If we did that, we would be laying the foundations for very substantial progress in the country.

Our education needs to be directed towards the solving of the difficult problems which are going to face us. As I said a moment ago, we are very lucky that we do not need to discuss fundamentals such as religion and that we are not rent by differences which in other countries have bedevilled the whole field of education. Our opportunities are very great and we should seize them. I merely use this whole "Plan for Education" for the purpose of putting these views and asking the Minister to take steps in a certain particular direction.

Mr. Ruane

As my name is subscribed to this motion with that of Senator Hayes, I would like to say at the outset that in supporting it I wholeheartedly approve and endorse in the main the arguments he has advanced in its favour. The Senator's interest in education is a deep-rooted one and it was natural that he should avail of the opportunity afforded by this "Plan for Education" to invite from the Minister for Education his views on the particular issue involved. I agree with Senator Hayes that this motion was not tabled for the purpose of directing destructive or carping criticism on the Department of Education. It was tabled because it was considered that the publication of this particular document provided an opportune time for a discussion on the question of education in general. I do not know if many members of this House read the publication in question, but I trust that some at least have. Those who have read it could not but be favourably impressed with the thorough manner in which the subject has been investigated, treated and presented. We may or may not agree with the suggestions made or the decisions reached, but I think we will be unanimous that the case made is entitled to an answer.

As the foreword definitely sets out, the publication has not been put forward as a blueprint for acceptance. It is merely tendered as a draft for discussion. I am convinced that that discussion could not be initiated under more favourable circumstances or in an atmosphere more favourable for criticism than in this House. As a teacher, I welcome this publication, if for no other reason than that it is an answer to insinuations spread from time to time that the Irish National Teachers' Organisation busies itself only with the interests of teachers and the securing of better conditions of employment for them. This plan for education is a complete refutation of any such suggestion. Teachers at all times have been amongst the pioneers for educational reform and the time and energy they devoted to putting together this particular document will be regarded by them as very profitable and well spent if the matter gets the attention we expect it deserves.

This is a very comprehensive document, and while I do not intend to occupy the time of the House by even a passing commentary on the various headings, I would like to refer in a particular way to the case that the "plan" makes for the formation of a council of education. We all saw during the past few weeks that the Minister for Health has agreed to set up a consultative council to assist him in the administration of his very important Department. We have also seen that the Minister for Agriculture has followed suit in agreeing to set up a committee of people directly interested in agriculture, to co-operate with him in the very onerous work of his Department.

The council of education envisaged by the Irish National Teachers' Organisation is not one confined exclusively to the teachers. It provides for a body made up of representatives of the Government, school managers, representatives of the parents whose children in the majority of cases are taught in the national schools, and representatives of the teachers' organisations.

Many arguments have been advanced since this idea was first mooted, and while I have no intention to refer to many of them or to reiterate them here. I cannot resist a reference to a personal experience that I feel is a very strong argument for the formation of such a council. Shortly after the election of new councils in Ireland, in 1918 or 1919, when a majority of the members, in my own county among others, were elected on the Sinn Féin ticket, the national teachers' executive in County Mayo appointed a delegation to wait on the newly-formed council, and put forward their views as to the desirability of evolving some scheme to provide for scholarships from primary to secondary schools. Much had been heard previously about providing a bridge for the poor man's child from the primary to the secondary schools, but this was the first occasion so far as I am aware on which something practical was about to be done to give effect to the idea. The delegation was received by the county council and the result was a very favourable reception. A committee was set up of four members of the county council, four or five school managers from different parts of the county, north, south, east and west, and four teachers. The terms of reference of that committee were the drafting of a scheme of scholarships from primary to secondary schools. They set about their work and any members of the committee who still survive will not feel that I am in any way blowing the horn of the profession to which I have the honour to belong when I say that the greater part of the drafting of that scheme fell to the teacher members, and the fact that the scheme drafted by them was accepted by the other members, by the county council, and, subsequently, by our Government was evidence of its soundness. In the early stages that scheme was administered by the committee in County Mayo. They appointed their own examiner to carry out the oral and written examination of candidates presenting themselves for scholarships, and the papers were set by it. For obvious reasons it was found necessary to appoint an examiner from some place other than Mayo, and that was done, but afterwards as a result of further trial the Department of Education was asked to take over the whole question of examinations, and it did so.

From time to time the committee had to recommend certain changes in the scheme because it was found that as the character of it became known a class or section other than the scheme was originally intended for was availing of it and that as a matter of fact pupils from the large schools in the county were securing most of the scholarships. After some time and following an exchange of views with the Department the scheme was so altered that six of the ten scholarships were given to the smaller schools, the schools which the majority of the children in the county attend. That was a pretty long time ago but a committee on these lines still operates in Mayo and the Mayo scheme, if I may so refer to it, was subsequently adopted by the Ministry and applied to the other 25 counties. If a local body could achieve such a measure of success in a small way by having such a committee working, a committee which functioned in conformity with the the Department of Education all along the line—there never were any serious differences or differences which were not solved by the exchange of a few letters—we can visualise what a greater measure of success could be achieved by having a council on the lines recommended in this plan for education. If this country is to keep in step with other European countries in educational matters something must be done to co-ordinate the different systems of education which at present obtain in it—primary, secondary, vocational and university. The teachers' organisation in putting forward this plan has done at least something to initiate a discussion on the matter and I am quite satisfied that the Minister and all concerned with this very important service will give very sympathetic consideration to the plan as published.

An tAire Oideachais (Tomás O Deirg)

Bhí an ceart ag an Seanadóir O hAodha, is dócha, nuair chuir sé ar leath-taobh chuid mhaith dena pointí ins an bplean seo, agus nuair chuaidh sé ar aghaidh leis fhéin faoi na smaointí agus na tuairimí a bhí aige féin, agus chualamar cuid mhaith dena tuairimí seo cheana. Ar ndóigh, chun dul isteach sa scéal mar gheall ar na ceisteanna atá sa phlean thógfadh sé tamall maith. Sílim go mbeadh leabhrán den tsórt seo ag teastáil chun cuid dena rudaí— clár na scoile nó múineadh na Gaeilge agus ceisteanna eile mar seo—a thaighdeadh i gceart, agus cé go bhfuil a lán rudaí ráite ins an bplean, dféadfa a rá nach féidir, agus b'fheidir nach raibh sé i gceist ag na daoine a chuir an plean le céile, na pointí a scrúdú níos iomláine agus na hairgóintí ar son agus i gcoinne na dtairiscintí atá acu a luadh.

I have just said that Senator Hayes, in proposing this motion asking that I should make a statement with reference to this plan for education, has not dealt to any great extent with some of the points and has dealt with others pretty extensively on lines which we are accustomed to hear from him and from other speakers and writers here and elsewhere, particularly in regard to the question of the Irish language in the schools. I should like to say, in the first place, that, as happened after the last war, we have a great deal of discussion about educational plans and reorganisation. Changes and reforms are spoken of and are being introduced. We are not exactly in the same position in this country as our neighbours in that respect.

As I explained recently when speaking in An Dáil on the Estimates for the Department of Education, there is not the same urgency with regard to educational rehabilitation or reconstruction here. There is not the same imperative urgency about reconstructing our educational fabric generally, because it has not been interfered with to the same extent—or, in fact, at all— as it has been in countries affected by the war. We have not had wholesale evacuations of large numbers of children from their homes, the break-up of family life, the depletion of teaching strength in the schools and all the other disturbances which have gone to affect the normal educational work in these countries.

Our position is, thank God, that we have been able to carry on our educational activities without a break, so that I suggest to those who are in a hurry with plans for education that there is not really the same urgency in our case as there may be in the case of our neighbours, who not only have to consider reforms but the rebuilding of the structure in certain particulars and trying to make up the very considerable arrears which have accrued. I am not suggesting, either, that everything is perfect in our educational system, nor would I maintain for a moment that there are not ways in which the schemes I administer might be improved or reforms adopted.

I think Senator Hayes does me less than justice when he positively asserts here—and not for the first time—that my attitude is that everything is right. I should think that on an occasion of this kind it would be necessary for those who want to prove otherwise to adduce some evidence in support of their view, evidence as to what difficulties there are, if there are any difficulties, and to let us know what difficulties there are and also to outline the remedy they have in mind. Listening to Senator Hayes we heard criticism of complacency on the Minister's part and on the part of the Department in regard to certain matters, coupled on this occasion I am glad to say, with the assertion that you cannot blame either Minister or Department nor the educational system generally, as some would have us believe, for some of our other ills. At the same time he tries to persuade the Seanad and through the Seanad the country that there is obstinacy on our part in not wanting to listen to advice given to us in a spirit of goodwill. Of course, that is not the position. I have frequently stated in connection with this proposed council of education that the policy of the Department has been to consult and confer with the other educational interests. I have dealt with the matter quite recently and I am not going to go into it again now. If the educational interests wish to see me or my officers we are at their disposal. Whenever they have a case they wish to present for our consideration we are there to listen to them, within certain limits. I think the representatives of these interests will not deny that we were always prepared to listen to them and that is still the position.

In what way will this suggested council serve the ideas we all have in mind for improving our educational standards and of getting better results from the work in our schools? In what way will we get better results from this proposed council than from the system of consultation that is in operation? The system of education here is based on a certain collaboration, a certain partnership, in so far as the primary branch is concerned, called the managerial system whereby the Church and State work together. So far as I know we have worked harmoniously and the arrangement has been described as ideal. Now, some of the most important interests and organisations are quite satisfied with the system of direct consultation. They prefer it that way and my reply to those who will advocate setting up such a body as this is that it is surely necessary to consult the wishes of those whom it is claimed should be represented on this body. I think I pointed out before that an attempt was made to set up such a body and it was not successful. Moreover there is the question of the powers of such a body and how all the different interests are to be represented on it. Are you going to have a council for all branches of education which would be unwieldy or are you going to have separate councils? In what way will the parents be represented? At the present time they are represented in Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann to the extent at any rate, that we can have discussions of this nature. The interests that I meet from time to time represent parents because headmasters and teachers are often parents themselves, and even if they are not they can be said to be persons of very great experience and knowledge so far as education is concerned and people who take the parents' attitude into account. I am quite prepared at any time, as I have said before, if there are matters which can profitably be discussed and which affect the teachers and about which there is a sense of grievance, to discuss them with the teachers. For example, there is the question of the rating system. I have consented to discuss this matter and as a discussion of it will probably take place in the near future between the different interests concerned in conference, it seems scarcely necessary to pursue it further.

No doubt, if the rating system is under consideration, matters of inspection will arise. I do not intend to go into this question but Senator Hayes has referred to it and I do not think there is really the foundation which he thinks there is for the statements made here regarding the system of inspection. As far as my knowledge goes inspectors are practically all teachers themselves and the majority of them have been primary teachers. It would be an extraordinary thing if they were unsympathetic to those whose ranks they have left.

Mr. Hayes

Is not experience rather to the contrary?

Mr. Derrig

It cannot be that there is some particular psychological weakness about national teachers that when those of them who would be expected to be the most talented men in the profession become inspectors they are afflicted with a lack of sympathy towards the teachers. It has been stated here that we are suffering from bad traditions. I should think our traditions started about 1922, at any rate it does not go back much further than that.

Mr. Hayes

Oh, it does.

Mr. Derrig

To suggest that inspectors who have been appointed in recent years are afflicted in this way, does not make sense. I do not understand it. It is stated in "A Plan for Education" that

"there is a traditional lack of sympathy on the part of the inspectors".

It then goes on to say:—

"Under the present system, we regret to say, the inspector gives practically no help to the teacher, and the majority of the teachers have never got as much as one really helpful suggestion from any inspector. The formal reports are vague, stereotyped and unreal, and though the need for improvement is often alleged the diagnosis is rarely accompanied by a prescription. The diagnosis, too, is as often wrong as right, and many a teacher has had the humiliating experience of reading a terse, critical verdict on some subject which he knows he has taught thoroughly well."

That is a very extraordinary statement when, as Senators will recall, there is in every national school in the country an observation book for the special purpose of recording the observations of the inspector and his suggestions in regard to the teacher's work. I am quite sure that inspectors write something in these books.

I cannot believe that, out of all these observations, there could possibly be foundation for the statement that practically no help is given to the teachers, and that the majority of them have never got a helpful suggestion. Then it is suggested that the inspector, in determining the rating of the teacher, goes entirely upon the answers given by the pupils to his questions and the standard that he reaches in that way upon the work. The inspectors tell me that that is not so: that they assess the rating of the teacher upon the work generally in the school. It is their duty, surely, to ask questions, to try to ascertain what standard the pupils have reached. But that does not mean that the work of the teacher taken as a whole and having regard to the work of the teachers in the neighbourhood, is not the basis of the rating and, furthermore, that the obstacles militating against the teacher, if there are obstacles or difficulties, are not taken into consideration. However, as I have said, these are matters which will no doubt be gone into more fully when the question of the rating system is under discussion.

The authors of this booklet wish that the teachers would be consulted with regard to textbooks. This is a matter that was discussed more than once between the officers of the Department of Education and the representatives of the teachers, but it was not found possible to devise machinery—to enable the teachers to give their opinions— which would not involve considerable delay and trouble. However, if the teachers consider that this is a matter of importance and wish to consult with the officers concerned, I see no objection to it. I would like to say with regard to the textbooks for arithmetic which are referred to here that as far as I know the three sets of textbooks which are at present in use in primary schools were written by teachers. The name of one of them is mentioned in the foreword to this publication. I cannot understand, therefore, why the teachers are dissatisfied with the textbooks. Perhaps it is that the booklet having been begun some years ago, is somewhat out of date in regard to certain matters.

There is the question of refresher courses for teachers and the methods of dealing with different subjects in the curriculum. These are matters which might, perhaps, if the teachers so wished, be the subject of consultation and conference with the inspectors.

They refer also to the question of the use of films and of the radio in the schools. I am not sure that these aids are of such value as some people who have conducted research into the matter would have us believe. I believe that the work will have to be done, as Senator Hayes rightly said in the beginning of his remarks, in this way, that the child will have to learn and the teacher will have to teach, and that there will be no way of getting away from that position. It is quite possible that in the teaching of geography and other subjects film strips and short films may be of advantage, but at the present moment we have, of course, more serious problems with regard to school buildings generally for which I would like to secure priority.

We have the National Film Institute, and if teachers throughout the country wish to co-operate with the institute I will see if I can do anything to enable them to obtain these illustrative aids which they require. Reference is also made to the difficulty of dealing with dialects of Irish in the schools and to the matter of spelling. We have really dealt with that. It is proposed to issue in the very near future to teachers in the various types of schools a booklet detailing a standardised spelling and showing the changes made and the application of those changes throughout the inflectional system of the language.

This plan for education devotes a certain amount of space to the question of health and hygiene which do not properly fall to my Department, but I regard the matter as being of the very greatest importance, perhaps of more importance than anything else really in connection with the schools at the present time. The Department recognises that, and has always done its best to establish a proper code of personal cleanliness amongst the children in the schools. The following rule is included among the practical rules for teachers in primary schools:—

"Teachers are to promote both by precept and example, cleanliness, neatness and decency. To effect this, the teachers must set an example of cleanliness and neatness in their own persons, and in the state and general appearance of their schools. They must also satisfy themselves by personal inspection every morning, that the children have had their hands and faces washed, their hair combed, and clothes cleaned, and, when necessary, mended."

A syllabus of health talks has been prepared by the Irish Junior Red Cross for the use of teachers in national schools. This syllabus will be issued by my Department to the schools with a covering circular authorising teachers to devote time to weekly talks on health and hygiene, based on the matter included in the syllabus.

I have always deplored the attitude of the teachers towards the primary certificate examination, and I am sorry to find that the plan which we are discussing gives no hope of a change or modification in that attitude. The primary certificate is more than mere evidence that the pupil has been successful in a written test. It is surely evidence of the fact that the pupil has completed a definite course of instruction over a period of seven or eight years, and that he or she has had the benefit not merely of instruction appropriate to that course but of the training and education which must result from attendance over a very long period at a well conducted school where religion is taught and discipline and good conduct inculcated by precept and example. We hear a great deal nowadays about the rights of parents in these matters, but I should think that it is not too much to expect that parents would have the right to have some evidence, such as the primary certificate, to show that their children had reached a certain standard of education. It is an undeniable fact that parents are anxious to have this evidence, and that the establishment of the primary certificate examination some years ago has sharpened their interest in the children's progress at school. Moreover, there is a growing practice amongst employers to seek some such evidence from prospective employees, and in general I think it may be said that this primary certificate examination has come to stay.

It is undoubtedly an incentive to the pupils and also to the teachers, and I believe that, from the educational point of view, it is entirely wrong to suggest that there is something bad in having a test of a pupil's attainments at that particular stage in his school career. All indications point to the fact that, as I have said, we are going to have this examination in the future. I regret very much indeed that the teachers are persisting in their non-possumus attitude towards it. I advised them in the beginning to take over the examination altogether, subject to the safeguard that it would be conducted properly and I regret very much that they have not taken that course.

With regard to the question of Irish, I think I am able to say—and I am glad to do so—that in the matter of its revival there is not really any material difference between the policy which I have been trying to implement and the ideas of the teachers. Whatever differences there may be between us are differences of method rather than of aim. I repeatedly stressed the importance of work for Irish in the schools, particularly in the primary schools. It is true also, and I acknowledged it frequently, that we cannot expect the schools of themselves to revive the language and make it again the spoken language of the country. The schools cannot do that unaided by the people and in particular by the parents. It is equally true to say that without the work of the schools over a long period of years to come, there would be no hope whatever of success. We shall be dependent upon their efforts to a very large degree during that time. If that be admitted, then it follows that the revival of Irish depends to a very real extent upon the attitude and the work of the teachers.

I have done my utmost to ensure that a supply of teachers would be available who would be competent to give instruction in Irish, and qualified to bring the language back by greatly extending its use throughout the schools. That has been the policy for the past 25 years. In this matter of the teaching of Irish if we are going to get anywhere, in spite of the somewhat pessimistic views of Senator Hayes, I think we do not give sufficient credence to, nor do we put in its proper perspective, as we should, the results that have been achieved. It is true that there may have been disappointments, and that everything may not have worked out as the Senator expected in his more optimistic youth, when life was rosier perhaps, but surely the fact that for a generation most young people are going out from our schools with a greater or less knowledge of Irish—and a greater number of them I should say with a pretty good spoken knowledge—must be an advantage. It is not fair to blame the programme nor, as has been stated, the schools if there has not been more progress.

As the Senator reminded the House on a previous occasion we have to create opportunities. We have to provide places and occasions where young people can speak the language. If they are not in a position to practise the language fairly continuously after they leave school it is, of course, pretty certain that they are going to lose it, just as it is pretty certain that the German children whom I saw yesterday in an Irish-speaking area are going to grow up very good Irish speakers. I have also heard Jewish children speaking Irish. I have heard evacuees from Great Britain speaking Irish frequently because they were in an atmosphere in which it was used continuously.

If we are blamed sometimes for lack of progress in Irish, it is because we have not created the opportunities for young people to practise their Irish after leaving school. That is the most serious difficulty we are up against. As the question has been dealt with extensively by Senator Hayes I should like to record my view, that the teaching of Irish must be regarded in quite a different light from the teaching of any other secular subject. It must surely not be treated as an ordinary school subject, but as something which has a special national appeal behind it. There must be feelings of patriotism and national sentiment behind its inculcation in our youth if we are to be successful.

In this respect I think it would be easy to discourage the teachers. We must realise that the task is one which requires patience. It requires, above all, faith on the part of the teachers themselves, and there is the necessity to give them every sympathy and encouragement. In the same way we expect them to give every sympathy and encouragement possible to the children to get them to use the language constantly. From the criticism we hear there must be a considerable number of teachers of whom it would not be an exaggeration to say that they regard it as a rather difficult and a disagreeable task, one which, apparently, they did not think likely to be successful. If we are going to make progress, and if we are going to be successful, then we have to get rid of that spirit, and to try to get teachers to regard the work for Irish that they are doing as a labour of love which should call forth their best and most unselfish endeavours. If we have not the patriotism and the devotion of the teachers manifested in a very special way in regard to work for Irish in the schools, and if Irish is to be treated merely as an ordinary subject then, of course, the great work that Senator Hayes and others looked forward to, the possibility of completing that work in our time will be postponed.

I believe that if the position is explained to the teachers—and I try to explain it whenever I speak—it will be found that individually whatever difficulties may crop up between their organisation and the Department, there is a splendid body of Irishmen amongst them who will be prepared by example as well as by precept—and even by self-sacrifice if the position is properly represented to them—that it is in the national interest and a great national task—to do everything possible to help.

I am quite prepared to discuss these matters with teachers as I think we would have a very fruitful discussion, one which would be likely to secure better results if we could proceed by way of consultation rather than by statements and speeches. When we make statements or speeches we have to set out our own position, and I suppose it is legitimate and necessary for us to justify our attitude and policy or whatever case we are making to the public. As far as I am concerned I am always prepared, and I think Senators will appreciate the fact, to meet the teachers. I have given them proof of that in the past.

Mr. Hayes

The Minister will allow me to say that I never suggested that Irish should be regarded as an ordinary school subject.

Mr. Derrig

Senator Hayes says that the results are not what he expected. He seems to throw cold water on the idea that because there is a pecuniary interest associated with Irish it naturally follows from making it compulsory for appointments in State services and in local authorities. The Senator thinks that if people learn Irish for the purpose of advancing themselves there is something wrong. I know that the Senator does not intend to blame me or the Department in that respect. Where is the blame to be put? It must be put on the people themselves.

When the Senator referred to the question of the spreading of the English language in this country he might have gone further. I agree with what he said, but he might have added that if the Irish people did not want the English language then it would not have secured a foothold and driven Irish out. If the Irish people did not want Irish, no plans of the Government or of the Ministry could make the work successful. Unfortunately, a great many of our people think that it is entirely a matter for Government, for teachers, and for schools.

What is happening in Wales at the present time? A Welsh-speaking child who goes up for a scholarship examination or who tries to proceed for higher education, has to leave Welsh completely behind him. It is not a subject of importance for scholarship and if his parents are poor and want to get higher education for the child they simply have to concentrate on education through English and on the English language. The Welsh people who are really interested in the revival of Welsh believe that we are going on better lines than they are.

If we are going to do away with preference and compulsion, where will we be? If we are going to leave the question a voluntary one, does that mean that those who have always stood for Irish will have to carry the whole burden in future and that the whole community will not do its share? My inspectors when they were in Wales recently were greatly impressed with the fact that the prestige of the Welsh language, its influence and the prospects of its preservation generally had been greatly affected by the fact that it is not getting anything like the status in the schools and in the administration that our language is getting here. We cannot have everything but, at any rate, let us not consider going back without knowing what the results will be.

In conclusion, all I need say is that we have seen plans being made elsewhere but the conditions elsewhere are not the same as ours. That does not mean that we should not have our own plans and review our own position. We have been reviewing it. As the House knows, there has been a commission sitting on the question of youth unemployment. That commission is expected to bring in recommendations dealing with matters such as the raising of the school-leaving age. I appointed a committee of my own officers, inspectors and others, to go into this matter of post-primary education and to submit a report to me. They have been working on it for some time and have now completed their work but I have not yet received their report. I believe their report will throw a good deal of light on the problem with which we are confronted and will help me in putting before the Government proposals involving a definite decision in this matter.

As the Senator pointed out in the beginning, what we are really up against, particularly in the City of Dublin, is the question of providing additional accommodation for the time when the school-leaving age will be raised. The Dublin Vocational Education Committee have plans in hands for the building of seven new schools but it would require, I should say, at least another 15 or perhaps 20 similar schools to provide accommodation for the whole of the Dublin population between the ages of 14 and 16 if the policy ultimately is to raise the school-leaving age to 16. That matter is being very closely and carefully examined at the present time and I can assure the House that every aspect of it will be very carefully considered. But we are not in the same position as people elsewhere who have great arrears to make up, who are faced with the position that as far as their juvenile population is concerned there has been a terrible lowering of standards, and a serious depression in educational standards in particular. In the endeavour to correct these deficiencies and to remedy them by elaborate plans and machinery, the fundamentals are often forgotten. Unless we have the fundamentals, such as the preservation of healthy family life, I doubt if any educational plans or programmes will get us anywhere.

There are various reasons for these plans but I would like to emphasise in particular that it is not quantity and it is not external things that matter so much in the long run as the personality and influence of the teacher. If the teachers have grievances, if they feel that they are not being listened to and that there are matters deeply affecting their work which prevent them from getting the best results, I am there and my advisers with me to listen to them and we will be only too happy to do it whenever the teachers approach us.

The point was raised about the integration of the four branches, primary, secondary, vocational and university education, into one system. I do not know that I need go into that matter very fully. Primary education is in a very special position. The control and direction of it rests very largely in the hands of the managers who are, generally, the parish priests. Secondary education also is controlled to a great extent by the Church. We supply the finances and we inspect the schools but the management and control rests with the Church. In 1930 we revised the system of technical education under the Vocational Education Act. I think it has worked fairly satisfactorily. Our universities are in a special position. It seems to me that each of these branches of education has a different set of functions. As this pamphlet says, they each have different aims and, perhaps, different outlooks. Merely, for the sake of uniformity, it would seem to me that integration in this sense, if you look at it purely as a matter of machinery, is simply concentrating further power in a centralised administrative system, and to a greater extent than before, that there is not a great deal to it besides. The promoters of the plan have not explained where exactly integration of these four branches of education into one will bring about greater efficiency.

One of the things we have to bear in mind, I suggest, is that whatever changes we make we are certainly not going to lower our standards. Our object must surely be, if we are trying to eliminate defects, to improve our educational standards generally. If we get remedies that do not accomplish that, then they are not very good remedies. I do not think that teachers in looking for equality in these four branches of education and their integration into one system with, presumably, the same standards for the teachers, and so on, the same remuneration and the same conditions, generally, have made the case for it. I do not think the case has been made for that and, when it is made, I am sure there will be a great many people who will disagree with the idea.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Molaim go gcuirfi an tSeanad ar athlo.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Ar nós na ndaoine a labhair go dtí seo, ba dheacair do dhuine a rá ceárd air ba cheart dó cur síos maidir leis an tuarascáil atá ós ár gcomhair. Is é an teideal atá ar an leabhrán seo ná "A Plan for Education", agus nuair a fuair me fhéin an leabhrán bhí mé thar a bheith sásta, mar cheap mé ar deireadh thiar go raibh rud éigin againn a fhéadfaimís, mar adeirtear go minic, na fiacla a chur ann, go raibh rud éigin againn le scrúdú, go raibh rud éigin againn a thabharfadh cúnamh dúinn leis na deacrachtaí a meastar a bheith ann a réiteach. Ní raibh mé i bhfad ag léamh an leabhráin nuair a thug mé faoí deara nach plean é beag nó mór. Ní hé go bhfuil mise ag rá nach plean é, ach níl a fhios agam ce mhéid uair atá sé ráite ag lucht a scríofa nach plean atá acu.

Tabharfaimid faoi deara ar leathanach 21 go n-abraíonn siad ná fuil plean acu. Ar leathanach 23, tá an méid seo:

"The Recruitment and Training of Teachers: ...We wish to make it clear, however, that what we have to offer is, not a fully-detailed plan...."

Mar sin, ar leathanach 28, deir siad:

"It is difficult to lay down any detailed plan for the division of the teacher's training between the training college and the university."

Ar leathanach 29, deir siad:

"It will not be an easy matter to draw up a curriculum which will cater adequately for all these needs and still leave time for the science of education and the art of teaching."

Ar leathanach 37, feicim an rud céanna maidir le toghadh daoine le haghaidh na múinteoireachta, le haghaidh na cigireachta agus iad a thréineáil:

"Any detailed plan for the selection and training of inspectors would be outside the scope of this report."

Ar leathanach 39:

"On this question of curriculum reform, we are neither dogmatic nor apologetic. We know that the final blue prints for our new educational system will not be drawn up without much thought and discussion."

Do thabharfainn léim tríd go dtí leathanach 73, agus tá an rud céanna le rá acu:

"A full criticism of the existing systems of secondary and vocational education, together with detailed plans for their improvement, would double the length of this report and might cloud its main purpose."

Ní thógfaidh lucht ceaptha an leabhráin seo orm é má abraim nach plean atá ann ach sórt léirmheasa ar roinnt ceisteanna achrannacha a bhfuil spéis againn ar fad iontu agus ar mhaith linn iad a réiteach. Níl aon chabhair le fáil anseo chuige sin, dar liomsa.

Is maith liom gur ceapadh an leabhrán seo. Caithfear tosnú in áit éigin agus gan an cleachtadh ní thiocfaidh an stuaim. B'fhéidir, má leanann na múinteoirí dá láimh, ag cur spéise i gcúrsaí oideachais ó thaobh an oideachais fhéin, go gcuirfidh siad ar fáil againn ar ball rud éigin a bheidh úsáideach, rud éigin a bheidh fóntach. B'fhéidir go bhfuil mé beagáinín cruaidh orthu. B'fhearr liom ná beadh sé sin le rá agam ina dtaobh—agus ní abróinn é, ach go dtugtar isteach ós ár gcomhair é mar phlean le deacrachtaí agus cruaidh-cheisteanna eile a réiteach. Ó thaobh na tuarascála seo, níltear ach ag cur ár gcuid ama amú orainn.

Tá sé ceart go leor tairiscint a chur síos. Bheireann sé deis dúinn roinnt smaointe a cheapadh ar cheisteanna éagsúla ar mhaith linn iad a phlé anseo. Rinne an Seanadóir Ó hAodha an rud ciallmhar nuair dfhág sé an tuarascáil in a dhiaidh agus nuair chuaigh sé ag plé roint pointe a bhí ina aigne aige—agus bhféidir nár mhisde iad a phlé san ath-uair agus tuairim ná baineann leis an scéim atá í gceist anseo do nochtadh dúinn. Níl mise ag dul chun am a chaitheamh ag scrúdú na tuarascála seo go mion. Mar dúirt mé, níl mé sásta leis. Tá an iomarca áiféise ar siúl go ró-mhinic ann. Cuid de na rudaí go bhféadfá moltaí a thabhairt orthu leis an scéal a leigheas, tá siad curtha le chéile chomh mí-chúramach sin go mba deacair do dhuine fhios a bheith aige cad tá á iarraidh.

Mar shampla, ar leathanach 28, an áit ina gcuirtear síos ar na múinteoirí ag dul isteach san Ollscoil agus cúrsaí a dhéanamh ansan, duine ar bith a léas é sin, déarfaidh sé go bhfuil an oiread tuisceana ar an scéal aige agus an chuid sin léite aige agus a bhi aige agus é ag tosnú air. Deir lucht ceaptha na tuarascála seo, i gcás na ndaoine atá ag freastal ar na coláistí tréineála, gur ceann de na buntáisí iad a bheith ina gcónaí le na chéile. Is é atá sé ag iarraidh go ndéanfar "hostels" de na coláistí tréineála in áit iad a bheith ina n-áiteanna i gcóir staidéir a dhéanamh agus céimeanna a bhaint amach. D'fhéadfaidís a rá ná fuil ar intinn acu ach status na gcoláistí tréineála d'ardú, ach más fíor mar a léim é—b'fhéidir ná fuil sé léite agam go sár-chúramach —ní dhéanfaidís ach áras cónaithe de na coláistí tréineála. Ní abraim é sin ach chun a thaispeáint nach flú mórán ama a chaitheamh ar scrúdú an scéil seo le súil go bhfaighimis cabhair as leis na deacrachtaí a réiteach. Ní fhaighimid.

Tá spéis agam, mar tá spéis ag go leor daoine, in obair na scoltacha náisiúnta. B'fhéidir go mbeadh sé chomh maith dom a rá cén fáth. Tá mé le fada an lá anois agus baint agam le gairm-oideachas mar mhúinteoir agus mar bhall dé choiste ghairm-oideachais agus mar dhuine atá páirteach i gcomdháil na gcoistí gairmoideachais a bhíonns ann gach bliain. Tá spéis faoi leith agam sna scoileanna náisiúnta dá réir sin, mar is astú sin a théann na scoláirí don chóras gairmoideachais. Is é an fáth a scrúdaím ceisteanna an oideachais náisiúnta an oiread agus a scrúdaím, ag féachaint an bhfuil córas na mbunscoil ag teacht le córas an ghairm-oideachais, ag féachaint an bhféadfaí aon rud eile a dhéanamh sna scoileanna náisiúnta a chuirfeadh ar chumas na ndaoine óga feidhm níos mó a bhaint as an oideachas atá le fáil sna scoileanna gairm-oideachais.

Tá clár na meáan-scol léite go mion agus go minic agam agus dá gcuirtí ar m'fhocal anseo anois mé, ní fhéadfainn aon athrú a moladh beag nó mór cé is moite go n-aontaím leis an moladh atá le léamh sa phaimfléid seo, go mba chóir níos mó aire a thabhairt do labhairt na Gaeilge sna scoileanna náisiúnta.

Deir lucht scríofa na tuarascála seo nach eol dóibh aon rud a bheith ar bun sa tír maidir le fiosrú agus maidir le dul-chun-cinn i gcúrsaí oideachais. Taispeánann sé sin a laghad machtnaimh agus a rinne na daoine sin agus taispeánann sé chomh mí-oiriúnach agus a bhí na daoine sin a chuir rómpu an tuairise sin a scríobhadh. Na tagairtí atá déanta don ghairmoideachas ansin—an chuid sin de chóras oideachais na tíre atá ag freagairt go díreach do na bun scoileanna —níl sé fiosruithe, ar a laghad ar an mbealach inar cheart é bheith. Sén rud a bfearr, agus an rud a mholfainn do na daoine a bhí i bhfeighil an phamphléid seo a chur amach, ná an Meamram seo a chuir an Roinn Oideachais amach i 1943—timpeall an ama, is dóigh liom, ar tugadh faoin tuarascáil seo a scríobhadh—a scrúdú agus féachaint an bhfuil aon locht acu ar an gcóras oideachais seo agus, má tá, cá bhfuil an locht. Má tá siad sásta ná fuil aon locht air seo, ba cheart dóibh ansin an córas féin a scrúdú, féachaint cén chaoi ná fuil sé ag freagairt don chóras seo, más amhlaidh ná fuil sé ag freagairt dó.

Caithfidh méiarraidh ar an Seanad bheith foighdeach go léifidh mé beagáinín sliochtaíil as an tuarascáil seo, go háirithe ós rud é go bhfuil a laghad sin ráite i dtaobh córais an ghairm-oideachais agus go háirithe ós rud é go bhfreagrann an córas seo chomh maith sin don bhun-scolaíocht. Maidir le cuspóir, té sé luaite anseo sa réamhrá:

"Continuation education must be in keeping with Irish tradition and should reflect in the schools the loyalty to our Divine Lord which is expressed in the Prologue and Articles of the Constitution. In all schools it is essential that religious instruction should be continued and interest in the Irish language and other distinctive features of the national life be carefully fostered. The integration of these elements with one another and with the body of the curriculum is a task calling for the co-operative efforts of all teachers. In the good home—the model for ordered social life—tradition, faith, work and creation blend naturally and easily with one another and it should be the object of those in control of continuation education to secure similar unity within the school, so that pupils may go out well prepared to play their parts as members of society and guardians of the national inheritance."

Scríobhadh é sin dhá bhliain déag tar éis don Acht Ghairm-Oideachais do theacht i bhfeidhm agus scríobhadh é sin tar éis mórán taighde agus mórán fiosrúcháin a dhéanamh ar dhul-araghaidh an oideachais, agus ar riachtanaisí na tíre i gcúrsaí oideachais. Deireann na daoine seo nach ndearnadh tada. An méid atá deánta, deir siad ná fuil ann ach ag piocadh rudaí suas ó thíortha coigríche—rud nach fíor. Chomh fada agus is eol dom, ní fhéadfaí aon locht d'fháil air sin, agus chomh fada agus is eol dom, tá sé ar chumas múinteóra ar bith in aon scoil sa tír, ón rang is ísle go dti an rang is aoirde, faoin chóras oideachais atá ann, a chuid scoláirí d'ullmhú leis an aidhm sin, an chuspóir sin, a bhaint amach. Tá an córas oideachais sa tír damnaithe, dar leis na daoine seo.

Maidir le hoideachas ginearálta, do bhfiú dhóibh é a scrúdú féachaint an bhfuil aon locht air agus má tá locht air cé chuirfidh leigheas air. Má tá sé gan locht, ba cheart dóibh a thaispeáint cén chaoi nach féidir do lucht na mbun-scoileanna a gcuid scoláirí d'ullmhú le go bhféadfaidís teacht isteach gan aon stró agus feabhas a chur orthu féin ar an mbealach ba mhaith leo agus ba mhaith linn ar fad.

Ar leathanach 3, tá an méid seo— cuimhnigh anois gur scríobhadh an meamram seo le haghaidh na gcoistí gairm-oideachais, le haghaidh múinteóirí gairm-oideachais agus le haghaidh gach saghas duine sa tír—tuismitheoirí agus daoine eile—a bhfuil spéis acu i gcúrsaí oideachais——

Micheál Ó hAodha

Cad is teideal dó?

Liam Ó Buachalla

Meamram V. 40. Scaipeadh é go fial agus go fairsing arfud na tíre. Tá an méid seo ar leathanach 3:

For the preparation of these young people for practical life the vocational education committee must organise a considerable variety of different types of continuation education. It is, however, neither possible nor desirable to try to fit every young person for some specific occupation. The child's inclinations and hopes are far from fixed when he leaves the elementary school. Neither he nor his parents are certain of what he will want to do when he reaches 16 years of age. Further, his opportunities for finding the work he wants are no more certain; the average period of the continuation course is two years and it is impossible to tell what positions will be open in this or that occupation two years in advance."

Tá a lán cainte anseo ar na daoine oga —cad ba cheart a dhéanamh dóibh agus eile, ach gan aon tagairt d'aon scrúdú a dhéanamh, mar ba chóir, ar an méid atá á dhéanamh faoi láthair, ná aon scrúdú ar cén fáth ná fuil feidhm i bhfad níos leithne á bhaint as an seirbhís ghairm-oideachais. In a áit sin, caitear timpeall 90 leathanach den phaimfléad ag cur síos ar rudaí atá san aer ar fad, ag déanamh áiféise go minic, ag cur lochta ar rudaí ná fuil do réir na fírinne, agus ná fuil do réir na praiticiúlachta.

Deintear tagairt sa tuarascáil seo ar chomh mór agus tá cliste teipithe orainn na daoine óga d'oiliúnt agus d'ullmhú le haghaidh na talmhaíochta. Innsítear dúinn gur mar gheall ar chomh mór agus tá faillí déanta againn go bhfuil tionscal na talmhaíochta an oiread ar gcúl agus atá. Cuireann sé ionadh mór orm gur féidir le beirt istigh i seomra staidéir suí síos ag fiosrú an scéil seo agus go ndéanfaidís tagairt don mhéid atá á dhéanamh chun deis a chur ar fáil do na daoine óga d'fhonn iad a chur in oiriúnt do phríomh-thionscail na tíre ar an mbealach atá déanta acu.

Ar leathanach 11 den Mheamram, léimid:

"Provision for rural needs is best made by including a rural science teacher on the staff and by laying out a suitable garden either in the school grounds or in the immediate neighbourhood. In the larger schools a rural science section should be included in the junior technical course for boys and subjects such as mathematics, geography, business methods should be taught with a rural bias. This bias is just as important for the town pupil entering a shop as for the country pupil going back to the land; the former will find that many of his best customers are farmers, and that knowledge of country conditions is essential to his success as a shopkeeper. In smaller schools the junior technical course for boys should have rural science as a main subject. In all schools a junior technical course for girls should be organised on the lines suggested for the borough areas."

Níl aon tagairt déanta, beag nó mór, sa tuarascáil sin, don méid múinteoirí tuaith-eolaíochta atá tagaithe isteach sna gairm-scoileanna ar fud na tíre. Níl sé ráite acu gurb é an trioblóid is mó atá ar choistí gairm-oideachais faoi láthair a ndóthain múinteoirí tuaith-eolaíochta a fháil. Mura bhfuil athrú déanta ar an scéal le fíor-gairid, gach múinteoir náisiúnta, sar a bhfagha sé an teastas múinteoireachta, ní foláir dó cúrsa a dhéanamh ar thuaitheolaíocht dó féin agus scrúdú do sheasamh air. Ar an gcaoi cheanna, na múinteoirí mná, ní foláir dóibh cúrsaí a dhéanamh ar thíos agus scrúdú a sheasamh air agus teastas a fháil ann. Ní insítear dúinn cén bac atá orthu an t-eolas sin a thabhairt do na daoine óga faoina gcúram, chomh fada agus a mheasas siad gur ceart é a dhéanamh.

Bhí mé féin go láidir ar an tuairim, uair amháin, go mba cheart go múinfí talmhaíocht sna scoileanna náisiunta. B'fhéidir nár mhiste má abraim é ach ba iar-uachtarán de na Múinteoirí Náisiúnta a chuir in a luí orm go raibh dul amú agam ann. Ba fear é nach féidir a rá nar dhuine cleachtaithe tuisgineach é. Mhínigh sé dhom gurbh fhearr dúinn na rudaí sin a fhagáil faoi na coláistí talmhaíochta agus tuaith-eolaíochta. B'éigean dom teacht ar an tuairm nach féidir na rudaí sin a mhúineadh sna scoileanna náisiúnta. Cinnte, is féidir an "bias" a thabhairt dóibh.

Tá tagairt déanta nach bhfuil na téacsleabhra féiliúnach. Tá beart agam de théacsleabhair—timcheall 20 leabhar —le haghaidh scoileanna náisiúnta, a cheapadh d'aonturas claonadh le tionscail na tuaithe a thabhairt do na daoine óga a léifeadh iad. Níl mé chun a rá cén locht atá orthu—b'fhéidir go bhfuil na daoine tuirseach dá léamh. Ba cheart do dhaoine a insint dúinn cén locht atá orthu agus cinn níos feiliúnaí a scríobhadh. Tá siad ann— foilsithe ag Muintir Ghuill, Muintir Fhallamhain, agus sílim ag Muintir Bhrún agus Uí Nualláin freisin. Is cosúil nach raibh ag na daoine a rinne an fiosrúchán seo eolas cruinn ar na scoileanna gairm-oideachas; is cosúil nach raibh siad ag na taispeántais bliantúila a bhíos iontu; is cosúil nach bhfaca siad na garrantaí atá le hais na scoileanna, ina gcleachtann na scoláirí, ná na scoláirí ag siúl amach go dtí na feirmeacha ag breathnú ar stoc agus ar na barraí, agus na cailíní ag dul go dtí na húlloirt ag féachaint ar na cearca agus ar na héanlaithe clóis agus mar sin. Deir siad go bhfuilimid in ár stad. Feicthear domsa gur stop intinn cuid de na múinteoirí lá éigin 15 bliana ó shoin agus nár thosaigh a n-intinn ag obair ó shoin.

Ag taispeáint go bhfuil fiosrúchán dhá dhéanamh—nílim ag rá go bhfuil an oiread dhá dhéanamh agus ba cheart, an oiread agus ba mhaith liom —agus go raibh sé ar bun, agus gur cuireadh deireadh an taighde ar fáil léighfidh mé sliocht eile, ó leathnach 15:

"The continuation course in the rural school has a more difficult purpose to fulfil than the continuation course in the city. It must not only offer the boys and girls who attend it a practical preparation for country life but also help to mould them to suit that life. It must not only give them instruction which will make them more useful to their parents at home but also develop in them a genuine regard for manual work and a real appreciation of country life. To achieve these ends the work of the school should be in keeping with the work of the home, and the spirit of the school should be formed on a high level of rural life. The curriculum should in the first place be practical."

Cuimhnigh go ndéantar tagairt go speisialta don ghá atá le praiticiúlacht igcuid mhaith den oideachas.

"All pupils should learn to work with their hands. The boys should learn to use tools and produce tangible results in the workshop. The girls should learn to use domestic equipment and acquire a reasonable skill in the practical processes of cookery, laundry and needlework. Both boys and girls should become familiar in a practical way with the school garden. The instruction throughout all courses should be based on real things and aim at the development of manual skill."

Nach íontach an rud é go bhféadfaí an tuarascáil sin a scríobhadh agus an méid sin a rá mar gheall ar an ngá atá le praicticúlacht gan tagairt dó sin. B'fhéidir gurb é an chaoi go gceapann na daoine a cheap an tuarascáil seo go mba cheart na páistí sna meán-scolta a chur isteach i siopaí oibreachais, i siopaí innealtóireachta agus iad a chur ag obair le uirlisí contúirtheacha. Is ar éigin a cheapann siad mar sin.

Micheál Ó hAodha

Is ar éigin.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Cinnte. Cathfidh gur thuig údair an phlean seo go bhfuil deis ann ina lán áiteanna sa tír, do na páistí óga nuair a fhágas siad an bhunscoil, dul isteach ann agus oideachas a fháil den chineál ba mhaith linn a bheith acu.

Ní léifidh mé mórán eile, ach ní féidir liom gan tagairt a dhéanamh do roinnt eile de na pointí. Dúirt mé anois beag gurb é an chaoi, dar liom, maidir leis an gcóras oideachais, nach bhfuilimid ag baint an oiread feidhme as na deiseanna atá ar fáil againn. Tá scoileanna gairm-oideachais i gCo. na Gaillimhe agus tá an oiread sin daoine ag iarraidh dul isteach iontu go bhfuil liostaí feithimh ann. Mar shampla, an ghairmscoil i dTuaim, tá liosta feithimh ann mar níl slí ann do na hiarrthóirí uilig.

I nGort Inse Guaire, tá an scéal céanna—tá liosta feithimh sa scoil sin, mar is ceart a bheith. Tamall ó shoin ní raibh sé lán, ach anois tá liosta feithimh acu. Ach tá a fhios agam go bhfuil a lán áiteanna sa tír agus níl an scéal chomh sásúil agus ba mhaith linn é bheith. Beidh an "ideal" ann—an uair a bheas gach gairmscoil sa tír ar an dóigh a bhfuil Gort Inse Guaire agus Tuaim anois. I dTuaim, tá dhá mheánscoil do chailíní, tá meánscoil do bhuachaillí agus tá coláiste díoghóiste ann. Níl na scoileanna sin ag cur isteach ar a chéile, beag ná mór. Aithníonn a lán de na tuismitheoirí go bhfuil slí ann dá a lán de na daoine óga as na bun-scoileanna nach bhfeileann dóibh dul isteach sna meánscoileanna— agus gurb é an slí nó an deis sin an gairmscoil.

Ag caint ar fhreastal ar na gairm-scoileanna, sin rud ba chóir don tuarascáil seo aghaidh a thabhairt air. Ba cheart dóibh é fhiosrú agus moltaí do dhéanamh faoí cén chaoi a b'fhearr an tinnreamh a chur chun cinn ann. Fágtar an scéal san aer. Deir an Meamram V. 40:

"To secure attendance at rural continuation courses is not an easy matter."

Tá a fhios againn agus tá a lán daoine sa tír ag iarraidh a fháil amach cén fáth agus cén léigheas is ceart dó. Níl sé fíor nach bhfuil fiosrú agus taighde dá dhéanamh i gcúrsaí oideachais sa tír. Leanann an Meamram V. 40:

"Experience has taught country folk to regard school as a place where young people are prepared for professional positions and for urban life. They have a strong conviction that for children who are to remain on the land, schooling after 14 years of age is a waste of time. Those in charge of rural continuation courses have an uphill task, but the better they understand the nature of the obstacles the less likely they are to be discouraged. The aim of the rural school is not likely to be understood at first; there is a strong prejudice to be overcome and a new type of institution to be founded. These things cannot be done in a few months. Ultimate success can only be achieved by hard work and practical demonstration year after year of the value of the courses which the new type of school provides. Difficulties have been found in every area but so also has the experience that goodwill towards a rural school steadily grows as the aims of the courses are realised by the people of the locality.

The process of recognition is slow and it is useless to try to hasten it by ordinary advertisement methods. The methods adopted to secure recognition of the rural continuation school as a normal part of the life of the countryside must be based, like the programme, on a real understanding of that life. The importance of considering the pupil as part of the family has already been stressed. It is equally important for the school staff to understand the family as part of the parish. The deeper the understanding and the fuller the recognition of the relations existing between these two social units, the sooner will the school become part of the life of the district in which it is situated.

Nach aisteach an rud é ná fuil sé ach timpeall dhá bhliain ó shoin nuair a d'éirigh duine a toghadh mar uachtarán ar Chumann na Múinteoirí Náisiúnta, agus do chaith an duine sin cuid mhaith dá chuid ama ag ionsaí agus ag maslú na ngairm-scoileanna. Níl sé inchreidte, go h-áirithe ó dhaoine a éilionn gur údaráis iad ar chúrsaí oideachais, daoine atá cáilithe ar fhiosrú a dhéanamh ní ar chóras na meánscol ach ar chóras gairm-oideachais trí chéile agus a thagann amach le paimfléad den tsórt seo agus an t-ainm air "A Plan for Education".

Cén locht atá acu ar an gcóras oideachais sna gairmscoileanna, an córas atá ceaptha le freastal ar an iarchuid is mó de mhuintir na hÉireann, an Ollscoil go fíreannach don duine bocht? Dá n-abraídis é seo, do thuigfinn é. Ach scríobhann siad tuarascáil den tsórt seo agus cuirtear in ár leith ná fuil aon mhachtnamh ná taighde á dhéanamh againn, ná fuil a fhios againn cad é an plean ceart dár dtír. Níl sé fairálta d'aon duine a rá ná fuil aon tuiscint ag lucht ceannais na tíre ar chúrsaí oideachais.

Seo an sliocht deiridh a léifidh mé, agus is as leathanach 22 é:

"For this development it is essential that all pupils with due regard to the rights of parents should receive instruction in the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. Vocational education committees should, therefore, provide facilities for religious instruction and incorporate it in the general class timetable of all continuation courses. The local ecclesiastical authorities should be approached with regard to the provision of the actual teaching. The teachers appointed should be accorded the same privileges as the other members of the staff and every effort should be made to collaborate with them in their work. This collaboration is essential to the production of really fruitful results from vocational education. It is necessary not only that religious instruction be given at certain times but also that the teaching of every other subject be permeated with Christian charity and that the whole organisation of the school, whether in work or recreation be regulated by the same spirit. In the nature of the case all teachers have opportunities each day of showing the practical applications of religious doctrine and can do much to form the characters of their pupils by inspiring them to acts of supernatural virtue and self-sacrifice."

Deineann siad tagairt sa tuarascáil d'oideachas sóisealta. Cheapfá gurb iad fhéin a chuimhnigh air don chéad uair. Seo mar deirtear:

"Social education is closely associated with religious instruction and the right formation of citizens is a task which calls for very special attention at the present time. In a normal civilisation and under settled conditions the social education of the young is carried on largely by the environment into which they are born. When a community or a nation has maintained itself with reasonable stability for many generations its children grow up in an atmosphere of security, unconsciously acquiring the habits and manners which are useful for the maintenance of the established order. Innumerable influences combine to mould the conduct of young people into conformity with the traditional pattern and, so far as social education is concerned, the task of both parents and teachers is light.

These conditions do not obtain here to-day. The people, newly freed, have given themselves a Constitution with which many of the influences of their environment are at odds. For this reason a very determined effort is demanded of all those responsible for the training of the young, if a right social order is to be established. They have not only to fight against influences which are at variance with the correct social order, but also to direct their pupils' thoughts into appropriate channels and train them in new habits. Instead of young people being moulded and fitted for the future by the very nature of the life about them they must themselves form the pattern which is to be worked out by future generations.

The pattern is not, however, altogether new. It is a revival of something old or rather a return to something which has never really aged. For the fundamental Christian truths to which the nation has attached itself are not bound to time; they are the basis of a tradition which is still alive—a tradition which has made itself felt in the spiritual stability of the people and which manifests itself openly in the native language.

The language has, therefore, preeminent value as an instrument of social education. It stands alone as a natural link with the national civilisation of the past and is unique as an influence which may be used ‘to mould the conduct of young people into conformity with the traditional pattern'. For these reasons Irish should not only have a special place as a subject on the programme of every school, but the language should also play a prominent part in the general civic training which the school provides.

The main part of this training should be given in the course of the ordinary teaching and is, indeed, inseparable from it. There should, however, be additional activities of a more recreative type organised outside class hours to promote the social education of the pupils. These activities should be planned to suit local conditions and teachers should take part in them in accordance with their abilities. The plans for each school and for the vocational area as a whole should be well balanced and should be sufficiently explicit to be included in the annual educational scheme."

Níl aon mhachnamh déanta ar chúrsaí oideachais sa tír seo; tá gach rud in a stad; agus murach gur éirigh na daoine seo chun a insint duinn céard is oideachas ann agus céard iad na haidhmeanna, caillfí sinn. Nach plean é sin?

Micheál Ó hAodha

An ea?

Liam Ó Buachalla

Sea.

Micheál Ó hAodha

Ní headh; ní dóigh liom gurb ea. Níl ann ach tuairim.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Tá na scoileanna ann. Tréineáltar na múinteoirí go speisialta le haghaidh na hoibre. Tugtar iad aníos go Baile Átha Cliath agus go dtí an Gaeltacht uaireannta eile. Bíonn cúrsaí speisialta tréineála acu le go mbeidh siad ábalta a gcuid oibre a dhéanamh. Tá gach feisteas sa scoil, uirnisí de gach sórt, na gléasanna a bhfuil riachtanas leo agus na deiseanna uilig, ní amháin istigh sa scoil ach taobh amuigh, agus múinteoirí speisialta ann freisin.

Féachaim ar leathanach 11 den phaimphléid tagairt don mheanoideachas. Níl mé ag brath é seo a scrúdú. Tá abairt ansin:

"A statement of His Grace Most Rev. Dr. McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin, in an address to the boy scouts some years ago, is worth noting. ‘I could wish that our secondary schools were more zealous in supplying youths who were fitted to be leaders and instructors.' Such a wish will find an echo in the hearts of all who have the welfare of the country at heart, but it is hard to see how such an aim can be achieved while the curriculum remains so bookish, and while the shadow of the written examination lies across the whole course."

Cé tá i mbun an mheánoideachais sa tír? Ní dóigh liom gur ceart do dhaoine a leigeas le n-ais gur údair iad ar an gceist seo agus go bhfuil siad cáilithe le fiosrúchán den tsórt seo a dhéanamh, abairt mar sin a chur síos agus a rá go n-aontaíonn siad léi, gan iarracht a dhéanamh ar a insint dúinn céard é máthair an oilc. Má tá locht ann, cé tá freagarthach as? Níl aon mhaith bheith a rá liom go bhfuil an Roinn Oideachais ag brú scrúduithe ar dhaoine—téidís isteach orthu nó ná téadh. Ag caint ar scéal na scrúduithe, ba cheart iad a chíoradh níos fearr ná sin. Tá an Roinn Oideachais tar éis scrúdú nua a chur i bhfeidhm le haghaidh na meán scoileanna. An creideann éinne gur iarr an Roinn Oideachais ar na scoileanna glacadh leis an scrúdúchán le haghaidh an teastais sin, nó gur chuir an Roinn iallach ar aoinne géilleadh don chóras? Throid an Roinn ina gcoinnibh. Cé d'iarr é? Cé throid ar son an scrúduithe? Na múinteoirí iad fhéin, ar son an lucht fhoghlama, ar son na dtuismitheoirí,—idir ghnáthmhúinteoirí agus príomhoifigigh, mar gheall ar gur theastaigh a leithéid de theistiméireacht, a leithéid de scrúdú le haghaidh a gcuid oibre. Níl aon duine ag dul amú nuair deir sé gur theastaigh ó na tuismitheoirí scrúdú a chur ar bun do na meánscoileanna ar an mbealach atá molta. Mura bhfuil na daoine sin ábalta rud éigin a mholadh dúinn in a áit sin, is damanta an rud é bheith ag milleadh cúrsaí oideachais na tíre agus bheith ag fágáil an scéil mar sin.

Is iontach an chaint atá anseo i dtaobh na gcigirí. Is maith liom gur léigh an tAire amach an píosa sin i dtaobh na gcigirí. Is maith liom go bhfuil sé i dTuarascáil Oifigiúil an Tí seo—go bhféadfadh aon dhream éirí suas agus a rá gur údair iad ar an scéal, agus go n-abróidís an méid atá ráite ansin i dtaobh na gcigirí. Bíonn caora dubha ins gach tréad. Tá aithne agam ar go leor. Bhíos ar coláiste leo, chonaic mé ag obair iad sna scoileanna agus lasmuigh díobh. Castar múinteoirí orm agus bíonn cigirí istigh in a scoileanna, agus ní réitíonn an chainnt atá ansin le mo chuid eolais féin ar na cigirí, ná leis an méid a chluinim. B'fhéidir go bhfuil cigire uaireannta nach dtaitníonn le múinteoir áirithe, ach mar phictiúr ginearálta ar chigiri agus ar chigireacht agus ar lucht ceannais an oideachais, is náireach an pictiúr é. Níl sé fíor.

Má tá locht ag aon duine ar chóras na cigireachta, ba cheart go luaifidís an rud go cruinn agus gan teacht amach le rud neamh-chruinn agus an córas ginearálta a dhamnú ar an mbealach atá déanta acu. Ba cheart níos mó tuisceana agus oiliúna a bheith ag na daoine sin ná obair den tsórt seo a ionsaí.

Tá ionsaí anseo ar na scoileanna ullmhúchain. Cónaímse in aice le ceann acu. Bhí sé d'onóir agam níos mó ná uair amháin bheith ar cuairt ann, ar shiamsaí agus ag tabhairt léachtaí, mar aon le daoine eile. Téann siad thar mo theach go rí-mhinic. Castar orm iad agus ní fheicim locht orthu—daoine deasa, múinte iad—agus níor chuala mé riamh focal Béarla as béal duine acu agus sílim go bhfuil mé i mo chónaí in aice leo ó bunaíodh an Coláiste. Deirtear gur thréig cuid acu an Ghaeilge. Is dócha gur fíor é sin, ach bíonn caora dubha ins gach tréad. Go dtí go bhfaighe mé fianaise níos fearr ná abairt ghinearálta mar atá anseo, go bhfuil an córas mícheart, beidh mé ar an intinn céanna.

Ní heol dom na hargóintí, a cuirtear os ár gcóir anseo, go dtugtar isteach iad ag ceithre bliana déag d'aois, agus go gcoinnítear ansin iad agus nach gcasann siad ar éinne an fhaid tá seisiún na scoile ar siúl. Ní dóigh liom gur fíor sin. Feicim iad ag dul ag imirt cluichí le buachaillí eile, ag dul go dtí na pictiúrí, feicim iad páirteach sna comórtais drámaíochta agus ag dul go dtí na feiseanna. Feicim iad—ní hé gur chuala mé é. Ceart go leor má abraionn tú nach ceart iad a thabhairt isteach mar chónaitheoirí. Tá an rud céanna fíor ins gach coláiste. Is é an "ideal" go mbeadh na gasúir—idir buachaillí agus cailiní—sa mbaile i gcónaí. Sin é an rud ceart, dá mb'fhéidir é, ach tá deacrachtaí ann. Tá gá le scoileanna cónaithe agus ní fheicim aon tslí as. Go ginearálta, ní fheicim aon locht ar na scoileanna ullmhúchain, má tá siad ar an mbealach atá ráite anseo. Níl mé ag rá nach bhfuil lochta ortha. Má tá, ní hinsítear dúinn anseo iad, agus ní pléitear ná ní scrúdaítear na lochta sin.

Tá an locht seo agam ar chóras na meánscol ina lán áit, go bhfuil na ranganna ró-mhór. Cén chaoi is féidir múinteoireacht cheart a dhéanamh agus trí scór páiste in aon rang amháin? Caithfidh an múinteoir freastal ar an meán, nó ar an "average". Má dhéanann sé freastal ar an meán, beidh sé deacair do chuid de na páistí agus ní bhfaighidh siad an seans ba mhaith linn a thabhairt dóibh. Bíonn cuid acu an-lag agus tá a lán á dhéanamh ar a shon, agus cén chaoi is féidir é sin a sharú? Is soiléir gur féidir é a dhéanamh trína thuilleadh scoileanna a thógáil agus a thuilleadh múinteoirí a bheith ann. Sin réiteach amháin agus b'fhéidir go bhfuil réiteach eile ann freisin.

Ní hionann dul go dtí an baile mór agus teacht as. Bhí a lán rudaí le déanamh againn agus tá a lán aca déanta. Tá a lán le déanamh fós agus caithimid gach ceann a dhéanamh do réir mar is géire a theastuíonn é dhéanamh. Ní deire thiar don tsaoal é. Is dóigh liom nuair fheicimid fheabas cho mór ann ar chúrsaí saidhbhris na tíre go mbeimíd ábalta an rangannú sin a dhéanamh ar na scoláirí agus breis múinteoirí a chur ar fáil agus breis scoltacha a chur ar fáil nach mbeidh aon locht ar an gcóras oideachais. Locht é sin ach ní fheicim aon bhealach as go dtí go gcaithimíd níos mó airgid air.

An focal deireannach. Is maith liom, gur thagair an Seanadóir Uí Choncheanainn, tráthnóna, nuair a bhí an tairiscint faoi phinsin an Airm ar bun ag an Aire Cosanta, don riachtanas atá le oideachas céardúil teichniciuil a thabhairt do na saighdiúirí óga. Is mithid é sin a rá. Is ceart é. Dúairt mé anseo cheana—ní miste é rá aríst— a lán den trioblóid atá againn faoi na daoine óga a bheith ag imeacht fiadháin agus ag éirighe suas do-smachtaithe, sé an t-údar atá leis nach bhfuil cead ag na daoine óga sin dul isteach agus ceirdeanna a fhoghluim agus iad a chleachtadh. Dá bhfeictí imeasc ceard-chumann na tíre an dúil a bheith acu deis a thabhairt do na daoine óga ceirdeanna a fhoghluim go mbeadh cuspoir éigin acu, go mbeidís cinnte go mbeadh ceard ar a lámha agus seans obair fháíl, mara bhfuighidís annseo é go bhfuighidís i n-áit eile é, gan bheith 'na sclábhaithe, d'fheictheá atharú mór ar scéal sin na n-ógánach. Ach, go dtí go ndéanfar an t-atharú sin is fánach againn bheith ag súil go réiteochaimid an scéal go h-iomlán. Níl aon tagairt déanta ins an tuarascáil sin ar an taobh sin de'n scéal.

B'fhéidir, ar deire thiar, go bhfuil mé ró-dhian orthu. Deirtear gur n-abraítear an oiread a b'fhéidir leo a rá taobh istigh den chéad leathanach sin agus go dteastaíonn níos mó spáis leis an scéal a phlé go hiomlán. Sé an freagra atá agam: Nuair chuireann daoine údarásacha fútha cur síos go h-údarásach ar cheist achrannach mar an gceist seo níor ceart go gcuirfeadh ceisteanna beaga mar spás páipéir nó spás cló isteach nó amach orthu. Mar píosa léitheoireachta, táim anbhuieach de Chumann na Múinteoirí Náisiúnta as ucht an tuarascáil a chur chugam. Níor mhiste liom a rá aríst nach bhfuilim sásta gur "Plan for Education" é, beag ná mór. Níor mhiste liom a rá aríst gur truaigh liom nar thóg siad "basis" éigin mar é sin —tuarascáil a scríobhadh do réir a bhfuil luaite annsin ag innsint dúinn cad iad na lochta atá ann, cén chaoi nach bhfeileann sé don tír, cad iad na h-athruighthe a ndéanfaidís le go bhfeilfeadh sé níos fearr do na Meanscoileanna; cé'n chaoi a bhféadfaí córas na mBunscoileanna d'atharú le go bhfeilfeadh sé níos fearr dó seo.

Sir John Keane

The House welcomes the statement of the Minister on this pamphlet issued by the national teachers. I am unable to say whether the House also welcomes the long statement that we have just heard from the last speaker. I, unfortunately, was unable to benefit by it, but I did draw upon my dramatic interests and passed the time listening to very melodious language, while a study of the Senator's gestures afforded me considerable interest in an artistic way. I hesitate to intervene in this debate because I do not claim to be an expert in education. I have always held the view that the representatives in this House should preferably not be experts in their own subjects but rather men of the world able to speak from their general experience of life, and with intelligent reactions to public affairs. I can claim to have a long and lasting interest in this question of education, and even in the declining years of my life it is one of the few remaining and lasting interests—interests that are growing as the desire for knowledge increases. It is a strange thing that people should have that, but it is a great solace in one's declining years. I wonder whether my experience in that respect is unique, since so many seem to have little or no interest in learning, in knowledge or in the general activities of the world around them. It is because I very much doubt that those interests are widely or adequately held that I intervene in this debate.

I fear there is something wrong with our system of education: that once school is over and, possibly, the job that education seems to aim at has been secured, all interest in learning and in life seems to cease. I am afraid that the evidence around us shows that to be so to a very large degree. We see the crowds that flock to machine-made amusements like the cinema and to watching games.

Mr. Madden

On a point of order, is there a quorum present in the House?

An Cathaoirleach

There is.

Sir John Keane

There, again, that, of course, rather reinforces the point that I was trying to make as to the lack of interest in this all-absorbing subject. I listened first to Senator Hayes. I should like to congratulate him on the very able, balanced, moderate and masterly statement that he made. I was disappointed in the tenor of the Minister's reply, which was courteous and moderate, but I felt all the time that he was on the defensive and that he was inclined to say: "It is all right; there is no need for a new outlook; there is no occasion for my Department to try to take stock, to stand back, as it were, from the picture and see where we are going and whether now is not the right time, possibly, to get the whole thing examined in the light of the great changes that are taking place in the new world around us, changes which, whether we like it or not, we will undoubtedly have to face". I was hoping that we would get something in the nature of a general survey, what I would call a White Paper, from the Minister, setting out the picture of long-term educational reforms. The Minister may say that these are not necessary. Will the Minister not admit that the time has come for a wide and a new approach to this enormously important subject which affects the lives, happiness and interest of our fellowmen? I think an attempt should have been made to give us a picture of education in the new world, and that then it should be the subject of debate and discussion in the Press, and that following on that there should be legislation. There need be no undue hurry about it.

I was hoping that was the attitude the Minister would take. Instead, he dealt rather with the technique of administration—with minor matters such as grading and inspection. I agree they are important in their own way, but I was hoping that we might get from the Minister a speech with a somewhat wider outlook. I was disappointed to find that he was rather inclined to treat primary, secondary and university education in watertight compartments, that they all stood rather apart and necessitated a different treatment and approach. It appears to me that that is a wrong and unimaginative attitude. Education should be viewed as a whole, with the purpose of giving the rising generation an appreciation of the part that it should play in the formation of their lives. Education should not be put before the rising generation as a sectional operation. It should represent steady progress limited, of course, by individual economic conditions but, as far as possible, a steady progress in life and of interest and activity in the world around us for adult and middle age. Any education that does not impart to a citizen a desire for knowledge and learning, which brings contentment, fails.

Coming back to the point as to whether education does that even in a rather mechanical sense, I have personal doubts and doubts have also been expressed by others. I happen to know a certain person who comes to this country periodically to examine on behalf of a certain institution in respect of dramatic art, elocution, and English literature. He is what is known as an extern examiner. I need not mention names. He examines on behalf of an institute in England which grants diplomas in these subjects. I asked him this question: "Can you in any way generalise on the outlook, the intelligence, the responsibility and mental alertness of those you examine here and students across the water?" His answer was: "Yes, I find there is a distinct lack of imagination and of intelligent response here as compared with others that I examine elsewhere." That person is exceedingly fond of this country and enjoys his visits immensely. That was certainly an honest opinion from a person qualified to speak on the subject.

I am not concerned whether the language is making the progress it should make, but I am concerned about the real damage, amounting almost to physical damage, to the brain structure by a process which takes children from homes in which they hear nothing but one language, and forces them to study in another language. I am not able to express more than my own opinion on the distinct violence that might be done to the mental development of the brain structure of a person by that process. That is a matter I should like to have examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist. It is deserving of examination. I should be very sorry if, perhaps, a nervous person was taken out of a home in which only one language was heard and put into strange surroundings where he or she would have to study through the medium of a language that had never been heard before. The person might find a difficulty and might then be cross-examined, naturally, by the teacher, and being human his patience might be tried.

I feel that the whole question of our approach to the teaching of Irish by compulsion should be examined. Of course, it will be said that I am not sympathetic towards the language. That is not the point. Personally I do not see much practical advantage in studying the language, but I think historically, nationally and artistically there might be great advantage in studying it or any other language as a language. But I do not feel that it is necessary for our national greatness that we should be Irish speakers. If it is going to come spontaneously and if people want it, let it come. Nobody in his senses would object to that. But if it means doing violence to the rising generation it is a very serious matter. On the balance I am satisfied that that is being done, even with the best intentions. That is why I ask the Minister to have an inquiry.

Mr. Madden

What about French?

Sir John Keane

People are not learning the language compulsorily. I have no objection to Irish but I think that possibly French or commercial Spanish would be more useful to people in after life. It is what is being done compulsorily by what I might call coercion, that I consider is doing the real harm.

I should like to have the matter examined by people who are qualified authorities on education, including a psychiatrist, and for that reason I hope the Minister will agree to an examination of the effect of compulsory teaching through the medium of Irish. Some years ago the Taoiseach expressed himself as being willing to have an examination into the whole question of compulsory Irish. I have not got the reference here but I can find it. I was hoping that that would have been done long ago, but I am afraid that the Government feared an adverse report and possibly the political consequences that might follow. I do not think that is the right attitude. If it is, I believe that the interests of the community should come first, and if any harm has been done it is only right that steps should be taken to redress it and have matters adjusted.

All I ask is for an examination of that aspect and, if possible, on the whole question of education and its bearing on the art of living, on the development of character, on citizenship, and on the community. I do not mean that an inquiry could do everything, but it could do a lot. We should examine and see whether we are doing all we can to impart to the rising generation a proper sense of values towards life, a proper attitude towards learning, as well as interest in those things that really matter. I feel that the time has come when the question should be examined; that we should not be satisfied merely with the status quo or with willingness to have consultation merely on what exists at the present time.

Mrs. Concannon

When I saw this motion on the Order Paper I was very glad because, in the first place, it sent me to the pamphlet issued by the Irish National Teachers' Organisation and made me read it with special care. I must say I derived a great deal of pleasure and stimulation from it. Like Senator Sir John Keane, I am not an expert in education. I have had, except for a fleeting time, no connection with the technical side of it. I have never educated anybody except to try to educate myself and in my more realistic moments I agree with some people who think that I did not make a very good job of it. I just speak from the point of view that Senator Sir John Keane has so well expressed, the point of view of the ordinary person interested in education, recognising in education a fundamental part of a nation's life. It is because it is of such enormous importance that we should welcome any effort to get us to think about education. Therefore, we ought to thank Senator Hayes and Senator Ruane for initiating this discussion in the Seanad and the national teachers who have given us something to discuss.

It is called "A Plan for Education" but I think they themselves would agree, with a little thought, that it was not a very good title. They might have called it "Planning for Education". There is just a little difference. In the foreword they say: "This plan for education is put forward, not as a blueprint for acceptance, but as a draft for discussion". That is how we should have accepted it —as a draft for discussion. I am quite sorry that the discussion took the trend it did, that it centred around the points at issue between the national teachers and the Minister and his Department. That is only a part of what is discussed in this pamphlet and it could have been left for discussion at some other time. Though the motion asked for a statement by the Minister I would have been glad if the Minister had not made a statement. That does not mean any reflection on the Minister or that would not have implied any discourtesy on his part to the House or to the proposers of the motion.

My idea of this pamphlet is that it should be widely discussed, that, perhaps, we should get the professors of education in the various colleges to give wireless talks based on it or based on education in general, that we should stir up great interest in education. It affects everybody's lives. We would like this discussed by the four interests that the teachers would like to see gathered into the Council of Education —the Churches, the teachers, the parents and the State, but the State should come in last because litera scripta manent but still more the litera scripta of a Minister for Education, speaking in the Seanad or the Dáil, remains. It is a pity that the Minister should speak too soon.

I think there should be wide discussion of all the questions that are raised in this pamphlet and that we ought to remember that it does not profess to be a finished plan. They say in the front pages that it is a basis for discussion and, as that, it should have been accepted. We must recognise that we have to face up to the fact that we are living in a new world, a very unpleasant world for some of us and it promises to be still more so, a scientific world. The ordinary person must be prepared for that and must have some knowledge of science amongst other things to be able to face up to what may await us.

I have seen discussed in another circle the need for a fresher approach to science in secondary schools, but even in the primary schools with which on the whole this pamphlet deals there should be elementary notions of science. That is one of the things we would have to discuss. We must recognise this changed world and we must recognise that a commission on education sat about 25 years ago and it was largely experimental. I am not making any criticism of the plan but we must have learned a great deal in 25 years. We must have a great deal of experience gained in that 25 years. If we could improve education and recognise that that is the best thing we can do for our people and recognise that no matter what our aims may be, whatever desires we may have, for the most of our people the primary school is the foundation and a great many of them cannot ever get beyond it, and so we must aim at making our primary schools as good as we can make them.

I was very glad to hear Senator Ó Buachalla telling what has been done in the vocational schools and the plans they have but why would not the vocational teachers have given us something like this so that we would know and talk about that too? As I said before, I am not an expert, I do not pretend to be an expert but, like every sensible person, I have a vital interest in education. I am most grateful to the teachers for setting us thinking about these things and I think we ought to recognise that we have to listen to them with respect. Most of them have spent their lives at the work, and therefore they are in immediate contact with the matter and, though sometimes people in immediate contact cannot see the wood for the trees, still they have made in this an attempt to see through the trees and that must be recognised. I think this pamphlet should get wide diffusion and stimulate discussion, and if it could be arranged that the professors of education in the colleges would give wireless talks about education it would do a great deal. I would like to hear Senator Sir John Keane talking on education on the wireless. He made a splendid speech, most stimulating. I did not agree with all of it of course, but it was splendid and he kept before him the real aim of education. We are inclined to forget that and to aim at particular things. That is not what education means.

The Earl of Longford

I welcome this opportunity of adding my voice to the tribute of praise to the Irish National Teachers' Organisation for bringing out this pamphlet. I am not saying that I agree with everything in the pamphlet. I am not really saying that I agree with anything in it but if they have stimulated discussion on the subject and have published this pamphlet and have really tried to interest people in education, I think it is a very good thing. I was very interested to hear the extremely interesting speeches. Unfortunately, I was not able to be here all the time but I did hear Senator Hayes who seemed to say so much that, though I would not agree with every point, he did not leave much to be said. I have heard the Minister replying and the Minister seemed to me to put forward clearly and reasonably what the Government is doing and intends to do.

There are three things we need for better education in this country. I am not saying that education is not good but I think everyone would like it to be better. The first is bigger and better schools. The Minister is providing them as fast as possible. The second is good teachers. We probably need more teachers and we probably need better-paid teachers. Perhaps we might even say we need better teachers. I do not know. But this I do say, the third thing—perhaps the most important—is, we need to spend a great deal more money on education. It is all very well to say that. It is really a pious aspiration. But what is at the bottom of the trouble in education as well as in a lot of other things is that anything which we expect to be done will cost money. There are a lot of things that need to have money spent on them in the country at present. Education is one of them. Possibly, everything we want will not come yet. Money will be spent on other things before it is spent on education but I think there is no doubt that, if money is going to be spent, there is nothing better to spend it on than education and I think it will bring more permanent and more satisfactory results than any other expenditure.

There is some expenditure which can be deferred and has to be deferred, but I think that expenditure on education is going to bring back such dividends in the future that it should not be deferred if this nation is going to amount to anything in the future. We should give the best education we can to our people. In addition to the schools, the children and money we spend, we want something else, and that is a public interest in education. The little children are called the victims of education. They are not very much interested in it. I am sure no child ever wanted to be educated. I often wonder do parents want their children to be educated, and are they prepared to see that their children get the best possible education. If they are, then perhaps we shall have better education in the future. There will be a demand for it. Judging by one's experience, there does not seem to be much evidence of that in this country. I may say that that is not peculiar to this country.

I am strongly in favour of the teaching of Irish. Why not have compulsory Irish if you have compulsory mathematics? I myself had no particular love for mathematics when I was at school, and I am afraid that much of the time I spent studying that subject was wasted. I was not taught Irish when I was young. When I reached adult age I had to try to teach myself, and get others to teach me Irish. I cannot see, as I say, why there should be any more objection to compulsory Irish than there is to compulsory mathematics. I am not a great believer in mathematical education. I think that education in history and in languages could be far more useful to people. Perhaps that is because I am personally interested in history and in languages and not in mathematics. I am afraid that a great deal of the trouble with regard to Irish is due to this, that most of the enthusiasts for the Irish language are people with a natural gift as linguists. It is true, of course, that sometimes you will find a person keen on Irish who has no gift for the study of languages. It is also true that there are a great many people who cannot learn any language except perhaps their natural language. They certainly could not learn a foreign language. I think it is true to say that quite a large number of people never reach any great proficiency in the study of languages. I am not, however, entirely convinced as to the advantages of teaching Irish through the medium. At the same time, I am decidedly of the opinion that everyone should be made learn the language. Children should also be taught history and languages so as to give them an interest and a love for their own country. I was never taught those things in my youth. I had to discover them for myself but I do not think you can rely on everybody doing that. I am not at all sure about the efficiency of the methods employed for the teaching of Irish, and especially, as I say, teaching through the medium, because, as I have said, you will meet many children who are not natural born linguists. I would not believe anybody who would tell me that it was easy to learn mathematics. I do say that when money is going to be spent that it could be spent on nothing better than education.

I think that the raising of the school age would have an enormous effect in improving the standard of education amongst our people. What a child learns up to the age of 14 is not of much use to it. The school age should be raised, and there should be many more teachers so as to ensure that children would get more individual attention. In that way a better education will be made available for the children. I believe that examinations are absolutely necessary, and that a good deal of formal learning is also necessary. Means should be taken to arouse the interest of children in learning. They should be encouraged to pursue the study of subjects in which they are interested. We know, of course, that a good many things have to be forced into a child's head. We owe a debt of gratitude to the teachers for bringing out this pamphlet. I would not say that I agree with every word of it, but it is a step in the right direction. I think we should urge the Government and all these concerned to do everything possible to bring about the greatest possible improvement in education. Of course, there are various kinds of education. I do not want to force everybody to go into an office. We must have hewers of wood and drawers of water—wood to be hewed and water to be drawn. I think it is very important that the opportunity should be there for every child who has the talent to get a good education so as to be able to reach the top of the educational ladder. Some young people are given a very expensive education but they do not seem to derive much benefit from it. My last word is that anyone capable of benefiting by a good education should have it.

Mr. Baxter

Apparently this debate is, towards the end, arousing very considerable interest. Some of the speeches were particularly interesting. I should like, especially, to commend the speech of Senator Mrs. Concannon. She did not make any claim to be an educationist, but her speech was the speech of a truly educated person. It represented the correct approach to this whole subject. I am not sure whether the Minister liked to see this motion on the Order Paper or not. I believe that Senator Hayes, by putting it down, has done a very great service to education. I agree with Senator the Earl of Longford and other speakers that we possibly cannot have half enough discussion on this vital question. The great tragedy is that much more interest is not taken in it generally. Even educationists themselves are particularly silent on the matter. Why that is so, I do not know. It is only on rare occasions that parents will make themselves vocal on the subject. The vast majority of them are astonishingly silent on it. In my opinion the way in which this vast subject is handled will determine the potentialities of this nation in the future. Senator the Earl of Longford said that we want more and more schools. I doubt that, but what I would say is that we want the schools we have in different places. Over vast areas of the country we shall soon not want the schools we have. We shall have to take them lock, stock and barrel and plant them down in other places. That is the situation which is developing at an alarming rate throughout the country. It is said that a lack of proper education is responsible for that. It is the real problem that is before us.

It is quite impossible in a debate like this to cover the whole field. To-day one hears criticisms from a great many people in the country that our universities are mere technological colleges and not real educational institutions. That aspect of our educational work I believe requires examination, because it is quite possible to turn out people with university qualifications who could scarcely lay claim to being educated in the real sense.

There are just two other points I want to make. I fail completely to understand the attitude of the Minister with regard to a council of education. If there is one aspect of Government policy which ought to be above Party, and above sects and sections, it is the policy on education. Whatever we decide about education ought to be decided on the basis of the wisest judgment which can be arrived at, in the interests of the children who will make the nation. I have not heard anything from the Minister as to how he arrives at what is the wisest policy educationally to pursue, and I cannot understand his refusal to take into counsel the kind of people whose services would be available to him on a council of education. Perhaps this sort of comparison is odious, but we hear criticism of Russia to-day—of her behaviour, her attitude of aloofness and the way she closes herself away from the rest of the world. Some people say that there is one reason for that —that she is preparing for another war —while others say, and perhaps with a good deal of truth, that she is so weak at home that she has to build her defences far beyond her own frontiers so that outsiders will not see the weakness of the position at home. I wonder if the Minister himself is so unhappy about his educational plan and with the results flowing from it that he is half afraid of a close-up examination.

I should like him to tell me, because it is something I do not understand, why when we now have a position in which the Minister for Health has set up a council to advise him and in which the Minister for Agriculture is about to set up a council to advise him with regard to the live stock we are to keep —the Minister wants advice on the type of bull to be licensed and to get a premium in the country and he is to have the advice of the best agriculturists in that matter—education, which is the basis and root of our whole life, spiritual, social and economic, must be carried on remote from the real educationists and the parents. That is something which is quite impossible to understand or explain.

Mr. Derrig

I do not know whether Senator Baxter was here when I spoke, but I explained that I was accessible to the various educational interests and organisations, and that my policy was consultation with them. I explained also that some of the most important educational interests and organisations prefer the policy of free and direct access to the Minister and consultation with him. Senator Baxter has asked me a question. I do not know whether I would be in order in asking him whether he has consulted all the people interested in this matter as to their attitude.

Mr. Baxter

I have not, but we know the views of many who are interested. Parents have rights and responsibilities in this matter.

Mr. Derrig

They have, but others have, too.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister speaks of "certain interests". I do not know what he means by "certain interests". There are a great many interests who believe that a council of education is essential, that we would have a better educational scheme and that people would be better educated, if the Minister took advantage of the advice which is available to him.

Mr. Derrig

It is available to me any time I want it.

Mr. Baxter

There are people in this country who do not want to go hat in hand to the Minister——

Mr. Derrig

They do not have to come hat in hand. That is ridiculous.

Mr. Baxter

——asking may they give advice. Going back to the other councils which are to be set up, you cannot take education in a piece— it has to be part of the whole plan, and it ought to fit in closely. If you have one group interested in one aspect and another group in another, with other people in the country not consulted or called up, or, rather, not prepared to come, we get what we are getting as a result. There is dissatisfaction and there is reason for dissatisfaction.

There is one other point with regard to what the teachers have to say on this matter of the teaching of Irish. I agree with the point of view expressed by Senator Hayes, by inference, and by Senator the Earl of Longford. I do not think there is any question of going back on compulsory Irish, but surely the Minister ought to realise that the soldiers in this attack are the primary teachers. The primary teachers in this document have expressed their views on this matter. The Minister's attitude is to appeal to our patriotism and to appeal to these people to carry on the fight. They have been carrying it on for 25 years, and they give the results of their experience in this pamphlet which they have circulated to all of us. They are gravely dissatisfied with the fruits of their labours. This is a situation in which any of us who want to acquaint ourselves with their attitude have no difficulty in understanding how they feel about it.

The Minister says to them: "Carry on, boys," believing that that is the only line of action. That is all right from the Ministerial point of view, but it is a very difficult position for teachers to find themselves in—of being commanded by the general behind to go on the attack and to persist in the attack, when they see the results of this attack for 25 years. They are not satisfied. I know many teachers and I have discussed this matter for hours with teachers—some of them the most enthusiastic teachers in Ireland— and I know that to-day these people are really depressed by the results of their labours. When such a situation exists, there is no point whatever in the Minister telling the teachers to be more patriotic and to battle on. It would be almost like someone commanding the Germans, when they were tired by defeat and disaster overwhelming them, shouting to them to fight on. The Minister should be prepared to reexamine this question and see how far we have gone and then make a fresh approach. The attitude of a great many people with regard to the furthering of Irish is such that the restoration of the language is going to be very considerably damaged, not by the defeatist attitude of the teachers or the dissatisfaction of the parents, but by the refusal of the Minister to face up to the situation.

The Minister might think that his doing anything like that would be regarded as a reversal of policy or a declaration of defeat. I do not accept that at all. When the teachers have spoken as they have, the Minister would be very wise to listen to what they have said. They are not alone in this and, if this Minister will not listen to me, some successor of his will have to listen, but the situation will be much less favourable then for a new approach than it is to-day.

Mr. Hawkins

A discussion and debate on education must be of interest to all and we should express our gratitude to the teachers for having made an attempt to give us, if not a plan, at least something to discuss. The greater part of the debate centred around the proposal for a council of education, which it seems is to consist of various teaching professions, representatives of those interested in education and, in particular, the parents. It is here that I think the proposal becomes unworkable. A rough estimate of the number of school children is 400,000. Allowing an average of four to each family, which may be on the high side, you have 200,000 parents. If each and every parent is to have representation on this council—since the parent in the remotest part of Connemara would have as good a claim to representation and a hearing as a parent in Grafton Street, or O'Connell Street, Dublin— the proposal would become unworkable. If you draft it on a vocational basis, you will have to compile a register to do it properly, and those parents will have to come together and have a voice in the selection of their representatives on this council. Examining it in that light, we see immediately that the suggestion could not work.

The examination of our methods of education hinges round the question of the progress of the Irish language. While I hear people say that we are not making the progress we should make in this direction, I do not agree with that view. If we take into consideration the difficulties that have to be overcome, the number of young children going to school whose parents cannot help them in the language, and the influence such parents have on the children, one has to admit that we are making progress. If Irish is not more freely spoken in the sports field and on the streets, we have at least ensured that the next generation will have it. These young people who are going to school will leave school with a good working knowledge of Irish and when they become the fathers and mothers of the coming generation, they will be able to help their children and encourage them. We must admit that that is a great advance and will be of great assistance in reviving the language in the future.

Senator Lord Longford made a very wise remark when he referred to the will of the parents to have their children educated. We all agree that most parents wish to give their children the best they can in the way of education. However, it is not always a question of "where there is a will there is a way", and I wish to say a few words about that. If we are to get the best out of our young people, we must remove some of the financial difficulties in the way of the ordinary young boy or girl throughout the country, the child of the small farmer, the labourer or the artisan. While we have raised the standards as high as they should be raised, I suggest that we should consider giving some financial assistance to those boys and girls who prove their worth, so that they may have an opportunity which they are denied at present, on account of their parents' circumstances, to obtain that higher education which will make them be very good citizens of the future.

We are all agreed that the tendency of education at the moment is towards the university and that the tendency of the youth is towards the professions rather than to technical education and trades. Senator Baxter remarked that universities were not really universities in the sense of imparting education, but were technical schools. I would like to see a technical school of a university type established in Dublin and would like to see more attention given to technical education. There should be more encouragement to our young people to enter into trades and professions and the financial difficulties should be removed. I hope that our trade unions also will remove the restrictions there are which prevent young people from entering into a trade towards which they may be strongly inclined.

We have too many people entering into the various professions. Senator Hayes, when replying, may say to me that there are opportunities for the young people, that in every county there are scholarships available either to universities or to agricultural colleges; but that is not a solution. These scholarships are available only to the very brilliant pupils of the class. Sometimes they are gained by those whose parents were in a position, through their circumstances, to provide extra education in order to prepare their children for those scholarships. If we are going to give equal opportunities to our people we must be prepared, as Senator Lord Longford stated, to spend more money. I think the spending of money in the building of schools is all right, but to make it available to parents of boys or girls who are not in a position to afford them the education that their talent deserves, would be money well spent, and I recommend the Minister to give that aspect further consideration.

Mr. Duffy

The best tribute that could be offered to the teachers for the preparation of the report that has been discussed, is the amount of time which has been devoted to it in this House, and the number of people anxious to participate in the discussion who invariably paid a tribute to the teachers for their work. In my opinion the document is a very stimulating one. There may be differences of opinion as to how far it is practicable at this time to give effect to the proposals, but there can be no difference on the need for a re-examination of the whole question of education. There will, probably, be differences of opinion as to what we mean by education. Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Lord Longford had a different approach to it than that of Senator Hawkins, who seems to be concerned, not with education, as we understand that word, but with a totally different matter. We all know that a man might be very highly educated and yet be a very poor craftsman, while a man who might be illiterate might be an excellent craftsman. We have all had experience in that respect.

I wish to draw attention at the outset to one phrase in the preface to the teachers' "Plan for Education" which seems to me to be of fundamental importance. The compilers of the report wrote:

"We should like to make it clear that many of our suggestions for a curriculum more suited to the child we teach and to the times we live in are based on the conviction that the present statutory school-leaving age must be raised, and that in recommending new subjects, or new treatments of existing subjects, we are thinking in terms of a longer period of compulsory schooling."

I think if we understand the recommendation contained in the report we must constantly keep this in mind, that the teachers believe that the plan which they have outlined cannot be achieved unless we raise the school-leaving age. What is the quarrel about compulsory school attendance? It is largely a problem of poverty.

Mr. Hayes

Is compulsory attendance unconstitutional?

Mr. Duffy

I am not a constitutional lawyer. The Minister should deal with that aspect of the question. I wish to point out that we have compulsory school attendance and that under it children are taken to the police courts in this city by school attendance officers and compelled to go to school. Parents are also fined if they fail to send children to school and, where they persist in evading the law, or in refusing to comply with it, the children are taken from them and sent to homes. That question does not concern us now. I am drawing attention to the fact that I know of no case of a wealthy parent being prosecuted for failing to send children to school. Therefore, I repeat that the question of compulsory school attendance is one of poverty. I was on a school attendance committee. I had experience of parents and children being brought before it. I think it is absolutely essential in the public interest that a parent who neglected to send children to school should be prosecuted. I also agree that it is essential in the interests of the children that they should be obliged to go to school when they are young.

The only point I am in doubt about is, that it is not sufficient to compel children to attend school up to 14, when probably they begin to derive any advantage from attendance there. Some years ago an experiment was made in Cork by which the school leaving age was raised to 15 years. I am not aware that there has been any official report on the results of the experiment, or whether they were such as would justify the Government in extending the practice by making school attendance compulsory up to 15 throughout the country. That is a matter on which the Minister might take an early opportunity to tell the country what has been the effect of the experiment, whether it has been worth while, and whether it is contemplated extending the scheme generally. As the experiment has been in existence for a number of years we might have a detailed report of the manner in which it has developed, as well as the Minister's views regarding its future extension.

More than one speaker mentioned the regrettable fact that there seems to be a desire to develop education in water-tight compartments. That fact has been commented upon, not merely here, but by outside bodies. I have in mind one body in particular which carried out some investigation of our educational system. I refer to the Commission on Vocational Organisation which in their report drew attention to the fact that the different sections of our Education Department did not know what each other were doing and that in fact the Department of Industry and Commerce had complained that they were unable to obtain in this country the kind of trained technicians which our secondary, primary and vocational schools and universities should be producing in the interest of industrial development. I think one of the things that ought to be attended to, particularly as we have one Department and one Minister responsible for education, from the primary school to the university, is that the whole system should be operated as one, not in a sectionalised manner, each section having its own vested interests to protect.

I agree with what has been said by other speakers, that more money is required. A considerably increased sum will be required to do what is necessary in the interest of education. I have been looking through some reports of the county medical officers of health in regard to the schools and I believe that any member of the House who has given attention to the matter will agree that these reports reveal a deplorable state of affairs in relation to the health of the children. Dr. Harbison, for instance, writing in 1944, said:—

"Deportment is very bad. Children make little effort to stand, walk or even breathe correctly. With so few organised games and inadequate play-ground space, many children fail to develop physically and show little resistance to infectious disease and tuberculosis."

In County Galway the county medical officer of health in his report for 1945 says:—

"An improvement in the lay-out and sanitation of the elementary schools is an essential requisite if the parents of the future are not to be handicapped by neglected defects as their parents were."

He concludes by saying:

"Many of these buildings are so constructed as to afford no contribution or protection to the average child's health."

I would like to call attention to one or two extracts from other reports. I will be very brief. In regard to a school of 120 pupils which I will call school No. 2, in the 1942 report for South Tipperary the comment is:

"Unsuitable damp schools; no adequate sanitary accommodation; school adjoins a cemetery."

School No. 8 has 30 pupils and the report is:

"A wretched school."

Here is a most revealing report from County Leitrim—it is an extract from the 1942 report of the county medical officer of health where, referring to one particular school, he says:

"This school is vested in the Board of Works. Adverse comments have been made by inspectors regarding the school regularly since 1905.... The heating, lighting and cloakroom accommodation are all inadequate. There are 100 children on the roll and it is impossible to expect the teachers to do their best work in such cramped space. There is gross overcrowding."

In County Kerry, the report of the county medical officer of health for 1943 says:

"Forty-eight schools were examined during the year. Six found unfit for use; six reported to be in bad general repair; 25 have inadequate or unsuitable playgrounds; 20 have insufficient cloakroom space; 50 have inadequate installation of heating and lighting; 16 have inadequate sanitary accommodation. Three were overcrowded."

I shall not go through the list further but I want to draw attention to these reports because they are in line with the general trend of the reports of county medical officers of health regarding schools and regarding the health of children.

With regard to the curriculum and examinations, these subjects have engaged a good deal of attention but I am wondering whether we have the right approach to the matter. It seems to me that the whole idea behind our educational system is the preparation of young people for examinations. I suggest that is a wrong approach. I suggest that education must be developed for its own purpose. That brings me to one other point with which I would like to deal briefly, that is, the council of education. I have listened to Senator Hawkins on this subject and I want to refer him to the report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation—a body presided over by the Bishop of Galway and a body that was likely to have given considerable attention to the points to which the Senator adverted. I quote from paragraph 539 of the report:

"There is, however, a danger that the State may be urged to go beyond its legitimate sphere and to usurp the sacred rights of parents. The extent of that danger and the grave evils that result from such usurpation can be seen in recent and contemporary history. No one to-day can deny that State control of education has proved to be the most effective means of introducing totalitarian regimentation."

The purpose of that comment is to prepare the way for the recommendation made by the commission that there should be set up a council of education. At paragraph 540, the commission concludes:

"We recommend, therefore, the establishment of a council of education as a permanent institution to act as the accredited advisory body to the Minister for Education."

Mr. Hawkins

On a point of explanation, I would like to ask the Senator a question. If my memory serves me aright, Senator Duffy was a member of the particular commission to which he refers.

Mr. Duffy

It will save time if I say I was a member and that I did not sign the report.

Mr. Hawkins

That is just it.

Mr. Duffy

I make no apology for that. I wrote a document giving the reasons why I would not sign the report. It was not connected with this recommendation. The National Teachers' Organisation representing people engaged in the conduct of education in the primary schools, a great number of them parents, at their last annual congress in Cork adopted a resolution demanding the establishment of a council of education on the lines recommended in the Report of the Vocational Commission. My last reference will be one that, I am sure, will make an appeal to Senator Hawkins. It is from a book entitled What Sinn Féin Stands For, written by a gentleman who is now, I think, the literary editor of the Irish Press. This was the promise which the Sinn Féin people made to the people of Ireland in relation to education:—

"When the control of Irish schools is seized, the future control will probably be vested in an educational guild with county or provincial committees. Then we shall see not one but a thousand Saint Enda's rise in Ireland. We shall go back to the old Gaelic educational spirit. An education as devoutly Catholic as it is nobly heroic will be achieved. The modern educational guild will recall the antique Gaelic system under which education was the affair of educationists. It will be composed of clergy, teachers, scientists——"

I would draw Senator Hawkins's special attention to this:

"and parents' representatives. We who know the Irish people know that such a group will be unyieldingly resolute in giving religion its fundamental place in the schools."

Now that was the promise that was made by the organisation that represented the vast majority of the Irish people over 30 years ago. I have no time to say more if the mover of the motion is to conclude to-night.

Mr. Hayes

Though my time is limited it would be better all things considered to conclude this debate to-night. The object which I set out to achieve has to a great extent been achieved except that I am disappointed at the reply of the Minister and at the debating points that Senator Ua Buachalla spent one hour and ten minutes in making. The Minister says there is no urgency for a now plan and that our position is not the same as that of other countries that have been rent by the war. We too have difficult problems of our own and the Minister persistently refuses to consider these problems although he resents my saying that he considers everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. That is really his position, he considers everything is splendid and that we are making progress. That is quite foolish. We are prepared to consult all the interests but he is only prepared to consult them separately. He will not bring them together. He alleges, probably with some authority, that there are certain people that do not want a council of education. As a Senator has pointed out it is remarkable that a bishop presiding over the Vocational Organisation Commission should have set out over his name and over the names of other people of great repute that he was in favour of a council of education. Therefore, the insinuation that in some way or other a council of education is not desirable in the opinion of certain people would seem to be at any rate inconclusive. The net effect of the Minister's statement is that he is going to discuss with the teachers the rating system. It seems to me that the non-departmental discussion of it under the chairmanship of some outside person of repute and experience would be very desirable.

With regard to the inspectors the Minister thinks the report exaggerates. He is probably right in that. It is probably impossible for the national teachers to write a calm, reasoned, and impartial report about inspectors just as it would be very difficult for Senator Duffy to be calm, reasonable and impartial about employers generally, and just as the bank clerks cannot be accepted as absolute authority on the virtues and the defects of bank directors.

Mr. Hearne

After last night.

Mr. Hayes

Yes. Some directors go up in their estimation from time to time. The Minister talked about the tradition established in 1922. One of the most obvious things that the Minister must know as well as many of us is that we were not able to make a psychological break in 1922. There are things that you cannot do. Certain traditions persist, no matter what you do or say. The tradition of inspection in the primary schools is absolutely different from the tradition in the secondary schools. Everybody knows that. The tradition in the primary schools was the tradition of people examining the natives and adopting a certain kind of attitude. That is being inverted now, and there are undoubtedly defects. I could quote plenty of instances myself. There is certainly a need for establishing a new outlook for inspectors. The inspectors themselves would welcome it. I think they are more than anything else the victims of a system, which is a bad system. But that was the Minister's approach. Senator Ua Buachalla's approach was the approach of a student in a debating society who takes up a document, goes through it to find flaws and says it does not mean so and so. He was not very enlightening about this document. Senator Mrs. Concannon, in an admirable speech, said that it did not profess to be a plan. Even though they call it a plan I would not bind them to it. Senator Ua Buachalla stated that there was no lack of space and paper to prevent the members of the organisation from putting all their stuff in this document, but anybody interested in the subject could produce a report almost as big as the Report of the Vocational Organisation Commission. To expect the teachers to do that is, I think, expecting a good deal too much.

The Minister takes up the peculiar attitude that anybody who does not agree with what he is doing about Irish has not got the right spirit. My idea of the Minister is that he is the greatest defeatist in the country on the question of Irish, because he closes his eyes and refuses to look at the facts which everybody knows. The most experienced teachers, the most enthusiastic teachers, people who have slaved at Irish and produced very remarkable results are disappointed, but the Minister refuses to look at the facts. I did not state for a moment that I regarded the Irish language as an ordinary school subject like Latin or French. I think that even Senator Sir John Keane got a bit confused when talking about being against compulsory Irish. I think that what he meant was that he was against the teaching through Irish which is quite a different thing.

Sir John Keane

That is so.

Mr. Hayes

So that even in English we cannot get ourselves clear. A great many people quite foolishly say that they are against compulsory Irish. What they are against is the teaching through the medium of Irish. I think that Senator the Earl of Longford was quite correct in saying that there is no reason why there should not be compulsory Irish any more than there is compulsory mathematics. We must take some account of what we expected to achieve and actually have achieved. The Minister is not justified in saying that all you need is to encourage the teachers by constantly telling them that everything is all right because the teachers themselves know from their experience that everything is not all right.

Senator Hawkins, quite sincerely I am sure, simplifies the matter too much by saying that those who leave school now with a knowledge of Irish will be able to help their own children later on. But anyone who does not talk any Irish loses all contact with Irish in a very short time. The Minister talks about the position in Wales. We know why the Welsh language is stronger in Wales than the Irish language is in Ireland. One of the reasons is that it is the language of certain towns and the religious language of many of the people there. If they had a Government as enthusiastic about the Welsh language as our Governments have been about the Irish language the position with regard to the Welsh language would be quite safe. But our position is much more perilous than theirs, and, in spite of the fact that Welsh children have to learn English to get certain scholarships, there is in Wales at the Welsh University a great body of Welsh-speaking students who receive lectures through English but talk Welsh outside the classroom. Our position is quite the reverse—they receive lectures through Irish and talk English outside. I should prefer the Welsh position, if I could achieve it. I do not suggest for a moment, and I should like to make it quite clear, that we should go back to the voluntary basis, but I do suggest that we must get back to something like the earlier ideals.

Perhaps Senator Sir John Keane would be interested to know what a man like Sir Horace Plunkett said in 1904—that is a long time ago—about the Irish language movement. He talked about the Gaelic League in his book Ireland in the New Century, and, on page 151, says:

"In 1900 the number of schools in which Irish was taught was only about 140. The statement that our people do not read books is generally accepted as true, yet the sale of the League publications during one year reached nearly 250,000 copies."

You would not sell 250,000 copies of anything in Irish now, unless it was put on a school programme. He continues:

"These results cannot be left unconsidered by anybody who wishes to understand the psychology of the Irish mind."

Then, there is this all-important sentence:

"The movement can truly claim to have effected the conversion of a large amount of intellectual apathy into genuine intellectual activity."

He goes on in that way, praising the Irish-Ireland movement. That spirit has gone out of it and it has gone out of it because it is Governmentalised and Departmentalised and because it is left to the teachers and the schools. This thing of the vocational schools sending out teachers to try to revive the spirit of the old múinteóir taistil is not a sign of progress but a measure of our failure. The múinteóirí taistil were maintained—miserably maintained, if you like—by subscriptions from the people, they were not State agents.

The Minister refused to look at any of the practical problems. He did not say a single word about the training of teachers. Senator Ó Buachalla said that the pupils in preparatory colleges mix with other pupils outside. I know they do, and I did not for a moment say that work was not well done in the preparatory colleges. I said that teachers in training should get the normal education and the maximum contact with other people. I think Senator Hawkins was right in agreeing with me with regard to the educational ladder. It was never more difficult for the working-man's child to climb it than at present.

I have read what Sir Horace Plunkett said in 1904 about the Irish language. I have here a copy which I got this morning by post of a journal in Irish published by the students of University College, Cork, called An Síol. Here is what a contributor says:—

"Tar éis na mblianta fada de feiseanna, céilithe, agus tuarasannaí, ní féidir a rá go bhfuil an tír pioc níos Gaelaí inniú ná mar a bhí sí fiche bliain ó shoin."

He says that you cannot say that the country is a bit more Irish to-day than 20 years ago. He is not quite right. You can talk Irish now and be understood in a great many places, but the actual spread of the Irish language and the extending of what is behind the Irish language has certainly not made any prograss. He goes on:

"Ní h-amháin sin, ach níor tugadh céim ar aghaidh, ar bith, a thabharfadh dóchás dúinn go n-éireochadh leis an ngluaiseacht a choíche dá mbeadh gach uile bhall de chun a shíorraíochta a chaitheamh ar an saol so."

He says that if everyone worked forever on the present plan, they would not come to a sound conclusion.

There is a good deal of talk about a rural bias in education and there is a kind of idea that the teaching of rural science gives you a rural bias in education. That is just foolish. The great way to give a rural bias to education— if by "rural bias" you mean an understanding of rural life—is to teach Irish right and to show what is behind Irish. Nothing could be more effective in the country than that, if that were done, but it takes a good deal of doing, a good deal of understanding and a good deal more appreciation of the difficulties than the Minister apparently has.

I think the national teachers are entitled to be proud of what they have done in this document. It may be criticised—I could criticise it myself— but they should certainly be congratulated for having brought it out and for courageously setting down their views on certain matters, and they are to be congratulated on having brought out a similar document previously in regard to teaching through the medium of Irish. Senator Ó Buachalla quoted a memordandum of the Department, a great deal of which was not research in any sense and a great deal of which was not practical. A great deal of it was only what we call seanmointeacht. It was just preaching, vague sermonising about what people ought to do, but when you come, as a teacher, to translate syllabuses and programmes into practical effect in the classroom—the secondary teacher, the primary teacher or the university professor— you have to solve quite a different problem. One of the things wrong with us is that we are inclined to put up wonderful plans.

When one reads the syllabus which pupils have to do for leaving certificate honours you begin to feel that, when you meet them, they would know so much Irish that nobody could teach them any more. But that is not so and we all know it. Nothing can be more detrimental to our educational progress than that we should sit down in a kind of smug complacency and say: "We have done splendidly and those who criticise have not the right national spirit." That is, in effect, what the Minister says.

Mr. Derrig

No.

Mr. Hayes

The Minister was not as bad to-night as he usually is but, roughly speaking, that it what he says. "If Senator Hayes has lost the enthusiasm he had in his youth, I have not," but, like the Minister, I have got older and, unlike the Minister, I have got wiser. I happen to have intimate and everyday contact with every side of this business. You can put up a facade of humbug; you can devise a magnificent syllabus and say what people ought to do. You can talk about family and rural life and about this, that and the other, but there are very real difficulties which are not being faced and which the Minister persistently refuses to face.

I do not regard this council of education as a remedy for all our ills—far from it. It is simply debating to say that there are 400,000 pupils, all of whom have parents, and that you must consult all the parents before you set up a council. That is nonsense; I am a firm believer in what was said a great many years ago, that, if this country is to remain as an entity with something to contribute to the world, it must link up with its own past. People who break with their own past have no future and our future is bound up with a proper linking up with our past and the Irish language is one of these links. We have to consider whether what we are doing is giving us any link with our past. This plan for education mentions the teaching of history. The teaching of a kind of hectic nationalism in place of history is not doing us any good. Teaching history on the basis of "on our side was virtue and Erin; on theirs the Saxon and guilt", is not doing us any good. We must cling to the Irish language and what it represents, but we must learn it, we must know it and must know what it represents.

In 1922, I took the Treaty and I think I had more intelligence than the people who opposed it. One of the main grounds I had for doing so was that it enabled us to get hold of the educational machinery in this country. It did, and I accepted that before the Minister did, but neither the Minister nor myself could possibly be satisfied with the results of what has been done. It does not matter what goodwill has been established or what efforts have been made—the results have certainly been disappointing. To refuse to acknowledge that they have been disappointing is simply to hide one's head in the sand and to adopt a most defeatist attitude. I regret the Minister has adopted that attitude. He ought to avail of the immense amount of goodwill which is there, but that goodwill is the goodwill of people who, very often, say: "Let the teachers revive the Irish language; let the Civil Service revive the Irish language; let the Government revive the Irish language; let anyone revive the Irish language but me" is the attitude of the average individual. We are certainly standing in our own light, preventing ourselves making real progress and bedevilling a problem which is essentially a psychological and linguistic one, by introducing into it political considerations and debating points.

Senator Lord Longford made a point which also struck me as admirable— that we are not all linguists. A.B. comes in and passes his oral tests flying, but C.D. sweats blood and fails. Everyone knows that is so, yet we impose the same test on everybody in an endeavour to revive the language. We act in the same way in regard to the children in a back street in Dublin, poorly fed and badly housed and taught by a Dublin girl, as we act in regard to the children living in far different conditions in the country. These things should get consideration and we should make a united effort— it is one of the few things about which we can be united—to see that the cause we all believe in, that we all believed in, namely, the cause of Irish, should not go down in futility and be subjected simply to a cold departmental speech, such as the Minister made here this evening. He made a departmental speech, the kind of answer you give to a deputation that has bored you. That is an attitude he should not adopt. Eventually the Minister will be forced to make an inquiry into all this—not only the question of Irish and the question of education generally, but the whole question of the economic measures being taken for Irish. I doubt the value of these economic advantages, but I am not adopting the Minister's own version that I want to abolish that idea completely. I want to make it real and progressive and see that people who believe in the same thing can make it succeed and take it entirely out of the realms of acrimonious political debate.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 1st July, 1947.