Before the discussion is resumed, might I express the hope that, while not wishing to restrict the debate, Senators will aim at trying to finish these motions tonight, as it may not be feasible in the near future to continue the debate?
Private Business. - Post-Primary Education: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann would welcome a statement from the Minister for Education on post-primary education.
When last this motion was before the House, I had indicated that I had almost finished. I have noted what the Leader of the House has said and I shall keep it in mind. That does not mean that Senators who have not yet spoken should not express their views. I shall be very brief. On the last occasion the motion got a reasonable amount of discussion and attention. We know the problem that exists. The motion is pretty clear even if it does not go into the problem to the extent to which we are now discussing it but it has drawn a good deal of attention to the problem and I suppose that is as much as one can expect a motion to do. I am glad that Senator Quinlan introduced it and whether it can be concluded tonight or not is not a matter for me.
This is a national problem not only here but in other countries. Everybody who desires a better standard of education should have facilities available to him but there is no denying that such facilities are very limited. Many boys and girls find themselves handicapped at the beginning on acount of finance. The number of scholarships is limited and so are other facilities, with the result that youth have not the opportunity in all cases of making the grade and achieving all that their brains are capable of achieving. It is a question of money at all time.
The Minister is naturally very interested in trying to provide all possible facilities. Vocational education appears to be making immense headway but there, also, there are limitations and obstacles in the way of boys and girls with ambition because the major problem is really financial.
The Labour Party set out their policy almost two years ago and we are glad to find that since then it appears portions of that very extensive policy have been implemented and are being noted. It could be said that that would happen in any case and it is only a small portion of our policy. One important thing we stood for is the desirability of students capable of benefiting from university or higher technological education having an opportunity of entering such a course even when they are not able to go through the normal channels of entry. It is difficult for a worker who has entered employment at an early age to assess his capacity to undertake a course of higher education and particularly difficult if the course in which he is interested is only remotely related to his actual occupation. We therefore suggested that for persons in employment, introductory evening courses should be provided at universities and colleges of Technology which would qualify such students for entry to the higher educational course. In addition, the possibility of making available State guaranteed loans to enable such people to undertake higher studies should be given favourable consideration.
The Minister, from his experience throughout the country, knows the progress vocational education is making and he knows the huge numbers that are anxious to avail of it. We learned something of that last week when the Minister was down in Cork and could see the huge numbers taking the courses there and making immense headway. That is only one example of the anxiety that there is on the part of the youth of the country to pursue that facet of education. There are other facets also which are very important.
Those, briefly, are my comments on the motions before the House. I realise that there are other Senators who are anxious to contribute to the debate.
I happen to know people who are vocational teachers and they tell me that quite a number of children who come to them are practically illiterate. The reason that they give for that state of affairs is that the classes in the primary schools are so overcrowded that it is as much as the teachers can do to keep the children in order. The solution seems to be to have more teachers and, I suppose, that means having more schools also. I am speaking of Dublin city. I happen to have first-hand knowledge of the position there. Many of the children who attend school up to 14 years of age are practically illiterate. I wondered how that could be and the information that I have got is that it is due to overcrowded classes.
We are discussing together two motions, one of which calls for greater financial assistance for secondary education and the other of which asks for a statement from the Minister for Education on post-primary education. The second motion is framed in such a way as not to be a motion of censure and I think we may take it that neither of the motions we are discussing this evening is to be taken as a motion of censure.
With regard to the first, the request for more money for secondary education, I think we would be all in agreement. The different kinds of education we have here—primary, secondary and vocational, together with the new comprehensive schools which the Minister has told us a little—very little—about on the last occasion, have all different origins in history and all work in a different way and all work from the point of view of the Government with different types of grants, different types of teachers, different training and different remuneration. The secondary schools are all privately-owned, either by religious orders or by lay people, both Catholic and Protestant. In the present circumstances, with an immense increase for several years past in the number of pupils going to secondary schools, both boys and girls, the question of building has become acute; the question of accommodation to which Senator Boland has just alluded in the primary schools is also becoming acute in the secondary schools, and it is fair to say that it is not possible for the present owners of secondary schools to put up suitable buildings in modern conditions and for modern purposes, particularly for scientific purposes.
I know that the Minister has brought out a scheme to give grants for buildings. These grants are confined to schools of over 150 pupils and I am not sure that the Minister is absolutely right in that. It has been put here by Senator Ross that that is unfair to certain types of Protestant schools because there are a great many of them which have less than 150 pupils. I think there is a substantial number of Catholic schools too which have less than 150 pupils.
The Minister in his speech on the last occasion when we discussed this matter, 16th December, stated that if you had small schools you would not be giving justice to all our children. I wonder whether the Minister might not think that question out again, whether the small school is by definition not a good school and the big school is by definition the school we want. I do not think that that is so. The Minister looks a bit puzzled so perhaps I can tell him exactly what he said. He said:
This suggestion made here of maintaining the small school and at the same time cherishing all our children equally is a contradiction. A small school with a small number of pupils can only have a limited staff and perhaps five or six subjects.
That is in the Official Report of 16th December, column 167.
I think a small school can have a great many merits and I am not sure but that a very big school can have substantial demerits. The Head of a very big school, for example, has a very big staff of teachers. It takes him all his time to know the teachers and he gets to know very little at all about the pupils, whereas in the case of the small school the Head of the school knows both the pupils and the teachers. I know, of course, that if you want to make provision for science in a girls' school or in a school of 150 pupils you may have difficulties in hiring a teacher but, again, new situations can be met by new methods. I am not so sure that you have to stick entirely to the notion that one teacher should teach in one school. You might have a town in which you would have a science teacher teaching in two or three schools. I just want to enter the denial that the big school is the better type of school in all circumstances and gives better education to the children. I do not think it does.
However, one of the features of the secondary schools is that the Act of 1878, the British Act, has been used by clerics and lay people in Ireland for a purpose which I think its authors, the British Parliament, never intended it. I think great credit is due to the people who worked it and did such good work for religion and Ireland in those schools and they should be rescued now from the impossible situation in which they find themselves with regard to school buildings.
With reference to the other motion asking for a statement on post-primary education, the Minister made a speech on the last occasion here in which he stated a number of principles with which we would be all in agreement, but he gave us very little information as to what precisely he intends to do about these comprehensive schools. I know they cannot leap fully equipped from the Minister's head, that the principles have to be agreed on. There was an announcement about 18 months ago and while the theory may be sound, the way the schools are going to work is all-important. I have a number of questions to put to the Minister.
In the first instance, I should like to agree with some of what Senator Boland said. It is an exaggeration to say that a substantial number of children leave the primary schools at 14 years illiterate. "Illiterate" is a word that comes trippingly from the tongue of a great many critics of Ministers for Education and of primary schools.
I said "practically illiterate". I qualified it to that extent.
Some are not as good as one would expect them to be but, as the Senator says, the work being done in the primary schools is wonderful. Whatever is to be done about secondary education, whatever grants are given for building, whatever provision is made for post-primary education, for secondary or comprehensive schools, if it is not based on a sound primary education it will all be a waste of money. To that extent Senator Boland made an excellent point.
In the city of Dublin, as I am aware, having grandchildren, the classes are enormous. It is a mystery to me how any primary teacher succeeds in getting anything at all into the heads of 50 children, and sometimes 60 or 70, in the one class. Steps are being taken to remedy that, taken rather slowly, and until we can remedy that situation and provide a better basis for post-primary education by giving the primary teachers a chance to do their work efficiently, in proper surroundings and with smaller numbers in the classes, we can have no hope for our post-primary education.
I am not certain that I know what the Minister intends by a comprehensive school. Presumably he intends that it will be a school that will combine two types of education and one type would be, for want of a better word, academic such as is thought to be at present pursued in the ordinary secondary school; the other would be technical, practical, scientific—I am not sure what the correct word is. The Minister himself talked about training of hand and eye. I am not so sure that that is entirely a matter for post-primary education. These two types of education, academic and technical, overlap to some extent and they are not necessarily opposed. It is not proposed to avail of the present secondary schools and to give them money and buildings to pursue another type of education besides the one they are at present engaged in. It is intended in certain places to set up completely new schools, but what kind will they be? They will presumably be built at the expense of the Government. Will they be controlled by the Department of Education, for example? If they are controlled by the Department of Education they will be a genuine innovation because there is no such thing now as a school entirely controlled or managed by the Department of Education.
Who will appoint the staff for these schools? What qualifications will the staff have? Who will set out the programmes? What consultations will there be with anybody or with whom will there be consultations? Will the schools be, as the vocational schools are, co-educational? Will they cater for boys and girls together or will these girls be educated separately as in nearly all Catholic secondary schools?
I do not know the answer to all these things but it seems to me we may be falling into one error which it is easy to fall into when we begin to talk, as so many people are talking now, about equipping ourselves and equipping our youth for the atomic age. It is said we must adapt ourselves to this new age of scientific discovery. However, in this atomic age, as we call it, we must not turn our backs on things for which we have always had regard, the things of the spirit, for religion—I do not suggest anybody is going to do that—for literature, philosophy and history, for example. Whatever kind of an age we live in and however important science may have become, we still need men and women who will have the power to think, to compare things and to judge, and above all to be able to make enjoyment for themselves, to use their leisure without being bored with themselves and with one another.
There is more than merely the problem of production, the problem of work or automation; there is also the problem of leisure, we must have a system of education, particularly post-primary education, which will equip people, insofar as education can equip them, for the use of leisure. If one is confined to a scientific education, it is a very incomplete preparation for life. It is an incomplete preparation for modern life and an incomplete preparation for the kind of life that is being predicted for us, no matter how scientific that life becomes. As we advance into this age of scientific discovery, education for leisure is becoming more important than ever. For that reason, in the development of educational plans there should be no such thing as turning our backs upon the kind of school disciplines that we have heretofore found so important.
It is said for example, that children will be divided into two streams. I am not quite clear as to what that means precisely. Who will divide them? What process will be used? Presumably there will be teachers to divide them. Will those teachers get any particular training or particular equipment to enable them to make that distinction? Will it be done by examination and what kind will the examination be, because examinations can be deceptive at particular ages for showing one where children ought to go? Our neighbours in Britain, for example, believed that the 11-plus examination was a wonderful thing, that it would enable them to divert people into proper streams of education. I think they are recovering from that view and they do not take it at all now. If there is to be division, one would hope it will not be of a social type and that those who make that division will be competent to do it and will get some kind of special training to enable them to do it.
That brings me to this point which I think the Minister must consider in the circumstances of making better provision for post-primary education. He will have to consider not only comprehensive schools but a comprehensive teaching profession. I know what the Minister is thinking, that that is a hard one I am putting to him. I know it is hard but it will have to be faced. Although we agree this motion does not refer to universities at all, let me point out that the teaching profession is now in three water-tight compartments, with three sets of teachers, three different types of training, three different types of qualifications, three different masters and three different sets of salaries, therefore, three different sets of arbitration, and three different kinds of deputations going to see the Minister for Education, with three separate and distinct problems for the Minister involving status and goodness knows what else.
I know there are historical reasons for all that, but it seems to me that once you enter upon spending a great deal of money on post-primary education and the evolving of a new type of school, you ought to go into the question of a comprehensive teaching body. Some of the primary teachers, for example, upon whose work, as I said, all progress will depend in the end, are trained in special colleges under what some of them and some other people consider are out-of-date conditions, under restraints, for example, university students do not suffer at the same age. The secondary teachers have to do a university course and a Higher Diploma in Education. The vocational teachers mostly do a university course, but some have special equipment with a diploma. It seems to me that these teachers should be interchangeable or, at any rate, interchange should be facilitated. A great many primary teachers avail themselves of university courses in the evening and get degrees, quite a number of them good degrees, higher degrees and doctorates.
No MAs?
Oh, they do, yes. Is the Senator in doubt about that?
I am.
It is true they do get MAs. I have myself examined a number of them. There is provision by which a person doing a pass course may in certain circumstances sit for an honours BA examination in one subject and proceed to an MA in that if he has reached a particular standard.
Is there no snag? Are there facilities available for evening students to do an MA?
There are. They are not all to be found in the book——
That is the point.
——but by the goodwill of the professors they are available. I think they should be more available, if that is what the Senator wants me to say. Actually some primary teachers, after doing evening courses and getting MAs have become professors in the university itself. Academically, I suppose that is as much as one could expect. The primary teachers at present do a two-year course in a training college. There is talk of their having to do a three-year course in future. If they have to do a three-year course, it should surely be a university course. I think that is where the Minister will get the teachers he wants for these new schools.
There should perhaps be liaison established between training colleges and universities.
There is no use in planning new schools without taking thought of how you will staff them. I am not sure that you can get staffs for the new comprehensive schools because, and this is particularly true in the case of men graduates, it is very difficult to get them to take up teaching, naturally enough in the light of the salaries, and even in the light of the improved salaries. If the comprehensive schools are designed to make special provision for the modern world—that is, mathematics and science—mathematics and science teachers in secondary schools are fairly scarce as it is. I think, on one occasion, the Department took five years to get an inspector of mathematics; when they did get him, he considered the post and, in the end, he refused it. I lost touch with the matter after that. I do not know what happened. It is very difficult to get these teachers and I do not know where the Minister proposes to get them.
There is then the question as to where these schools will be sited and whether they will have any influence on the secondary and vocational schools in their own areas. There may be special areas and that may involve transport. So far as my recollection goes only one has been mentioned, Cootehill in Cavan. I am not sure why it has been selected, if it has been selected. There is no pressure of population. There is already a lay secondary school and a vocational school, controlled as usual by the local body. There are other districts in Cavan, such as Arva, Ballyconnell, Killeshandra, and other places, where there is no secondary school and no vocational school, and there is no proposal for a comprehensive school.
There is a vocational school in Carrigallen.
They are building a new technical school in Arva.
I wonder what effect these new schools will have on existing post-primary facilities. Another thing that strikes me from my own experience, going back a long time to when the British were here, is that if these schools are going to be controlled by the Department they will be favoured. Every civil servant and every Department that put up anything favour their own creation. The vocational schools, for example, are better buildings than the primary schools.
Not the new schools.
I know, but the vocational schools at the time the Act was passed in 1930 were better. Even now they are better in many cases than the nearby primary schools. I know the new primary schools are good schools.
The new primary schools are better than the old vocational schools.
My thesis remains unchallenged. If the Department controls they will build better schools than anybody else has. The British Department of Agriculture, for example, built the College of Science which is now occupied by University College. They built that for training vocational teachers and they gave a niggardly grant for a university college. However, I hope that I am right about the future. The Minister has also decided to give grants in secondary schools for visual methods and for new methods of teaching both science and modern languages. I understand that the course in physics and a certain course in mathematics have been very successful on television. The course in physics has been particularly successful. It is proposed—I suppose it is—that these new comprehensive schools will have these advantages as well?
I should like to conclude by hoping that, when the Minister speaks tonight, he will be able to give us more precise information than he gave us on the last occasion. We are all agreed with certain principles which the Minister has laid down. No one wants to stand in the way of educational development. But the path should be clear, the obstacles should be seen and should be capable of being surmounted. We should like information not so that we can be more critical but in order that we can be more helpful, because education concerns us all and it is something about which we should all be helpful. I think the notion of a comprehensive school, properly understood and properly run, is something which could do great good but, so far, we have been left very much in the dark as to where these schools will be sited, as to how they will be manned and as to how they will be managed. I hope the Minister will give us more information on that this evening.
I also hope that, when he is considering this question of comprehensive schools, he will take a good hard look at the whole teaching profession, at the curious way in which it is simultaneously mixed and separated—that is something of a contradiction, but it is nevertheless true that it is mixed to some extent—at the way in which they are kept in watertight compartments and do not go in, one type with the other. The advent of these comprehensive schools will mean, that you will have to have an inquiry into the question of teachers and you will have to ensure that the primary teachers and their functions are not injured by the advent of new schools. I hope the primary teachers will get what I think they ought to get, a university education and an opportunity of mixing with other young people going for other professions, because teaching is surely a profession. I would not think primary teaching any less a profession than any other part of teaching.
That is all I have to say. I hope, when the Minister speaks tonight, he will give us some clear information on the whole matter.
In view of the very serious allegation made by the other side we must, I think, intervene in the national interest. A statement was made here generalising on a particular situation and I do not think that statement should be allowed to pass without contradiction.
The Senator may not make a second speech.
Bear with me. I shall be only one minute. This is in the national interest. Any statement of the kind that has been made should be met.
If the Senator wishes to offer an explanation, that is all right, but he may not engage in a discussion of anything that has been said.
It is a point of explanation. It is in the national interest, I think, that such a statement should not go unchallenged from either this House or the other House.
That is all right.
Bear with me one moment.
The Chair cannot bear any longer.
Tá an oiread sin ráite cheana nach bhfuil mórán fágtha agamsa le rá. Is trua liom nach bhfuil réim na díospóireachta seo ar chúrsaí oideachais níos leithne. D'fhéadfaimis tagairt a dhéanamh dona bun-scoileanna agus don dul chun cinn atá déanta iontu.
Beidh caoi againn tagairt a dhéanamh dona h-ollscoileanna nuair a bheidh an tuarascáil dhá plé againn.
Níl sin in ordú.
Is dóigh liom go bhfuil maitheas éigin déanta ag na daoine a chuir an dá thairiscint seo síos. Tá tairbhe le baint as an díospóireacht a bhí againn. I dtosach báire. ní go ró-mhaith a thuigeas cad a bhí taobh thiar di. Tuigtear dom anois go bhfuil na daoine a mhol an tairiscint sásta go leor leis an gcóras oideachais ach amháin go dteastaíonn uatha an córas a leathnú agus oideachas a chur ar fáil do gach uile pháiste sa tír seo. Ní féidir é sin a dhéanamh gan airgead a chaitheamh. Sin í an trioblóid i gcónáí. Dá mbeadh an t-airgead againn bheimís go léir taobh thiar de thairiscint ar bith a mholfaí chun cúrsaí oideachais a leathnú agus chun iar-oideachas do chur ar fáil do gach páiste dá bhfuil sa tír.
Tá ceist na meán-scaileanna ann. Tá líon na scoláirí atá ag freastal orthu anois i bhfad níos mó ná mar a bhí roinnt bhliain ó shoin. Tá na gairm-scoileanna ann leis agus tá siad sin ag dul ar aghaidh go maith. Tá níos mó scoláirí ag freastal orthu sin leis. Is maith an rud é sin.
Maidir leis na ranganna ba cheart á bhéith ann, tá daoine ann a deir go bhfuil ranganna ró-mhór agus nach bhfuil ranganna móra oiriúnach. Ach tá daoine eile fós ann a deir go bhfuil ranganna ró-bheag. Is dócha gur idir eatorra atá an réiteach. Sin mar a thuigim an scéal, Is cuma cén saghas ranga a bheidh ann, mór nó beag, braitheann a lán ar na múinteoirí agus an méid dúthrachta a chuireann siad san obair a bhíonn ar siúl acu.
I have said so much in Irish that there is not much left for me to say in English. We are all behind the idea that post-primary education should be made available to the young people of this country to the extent that our resources can afford. But, as other speakers have said, the question of increased expenditure arises, and we cannot afford to go too fast. Over the years we have made great strides in post-primary education, especially for the past ten years. The amount being spent on post-primary education—if that is to be taken as a criterion of our advancement—is almost twice as much now as was spent ten years ago. I have not the figures at present—I daresay the Minister has them—but I think I would not be far wrong in saying we are providing almost twice as much now for post-primary education as we did ten years ago.
I remember, when we used to discuss the question of secondary education 20 or 30 years ago and the number of pupils who used to go from the primary school to the secondary school, we used to say that the ratio was one in ten—that one in ten went from the primary school to the secondary school. Now the ratio is much greater. I suppose the Minister could supply figures to prove that more and more young people in the country are availing themselves of secondary educational facilities. There is no doubt but that the young people at present are more aware of the benefits to be derived from secondary education than the young people who went before them.
I listened to the very valuable contribution the Minister made to this debate. I fully subscribe to the principle he enunciated on that occasion that it should be our duty as far as possible to make post-primary education available for all the young people of this country who require it. That is a principle we all stand behind and a principle to which we all subscribe. As I said, we have to take into account the question of having to provide the wherewithal for that purpose. I must say that, like Senator Hayes, I should like to hear more about these comprehensive schools. Some of the other speakers have referred to them but the idea behind these schools requires some more clarification. I take it that they will be mostly in rural Ireland, especially where there is a sparse population and where there will be a school to cater for secondary education and for vocational education at the same time.
These schools to some extent will break down the barriers that existed between rich children and poor children. As a result of the establishment of these schools, it will be possible to enable vocational pupils to rise to higher levels of education analagous to, say, what is available for secondary pupils who have an opportunity of going to the university. Through these comprehensive schools, the poorer children who cannot avail themselves of a secondary education can now go on to higher levels of education. They can go to these regional technological schools which are to be set up and in some cases to the university.
More and more of our young people can now avail themselves of secondary education and to a certain extent that is due to the policy of the Minister because it was he who brought in the Scholarships (Amendment) Act of 1961 as a result of which more and more people who could not do so before can now go to secondary schools. If there is any recommendation that I would make it is that that scholarship scheme should be extended still further, and again, that is a matter of finance more than anything else. We are all behind the idea that as many of our young people as possible should get a secondary education. We subscribe to the Minister's policy which is to make post-primary education available to every young person, irrespective of means, class, or creed. The day may come when we may achieve that.
Ní mian liom mórán eile a rá ar an dá thairiscint seo. Táim sásta go bhfuilimid ag dul ar aghaidh go maith le h-iar-oideachas le roinnt blianta anuas. Tá a lán maitheasa déanta ag an Aire Oideachais seo. Is mór an chabhair atá tugtha aige maidir le scoileanna nua, foirgnimh nua, do chur ar bun ar fud na tíre agus má leanann sé den dea obair sin ins na blianta atá romhain beimid go léir buíoch de.
Tuigim go bhfuil Seanadóirí eile ar inntin labhairt anocht agus fágaim fúthu anois é.
I should like to say how glad I am that these motions have given us an opportunity to debate the question of post-primary education. I should like also to say how grateful I am to the Minister for the statement he made before Christmas on this matter. I have been concerned with the management of secondary schools for about 30 years and I can remember the very depressing situation, when, I suppose, the Minister was a schoolboy. At the time we had deputations of governors to various Ministers for Education and even to the Taoiseach, always being received very courteously and listened to with great sympathy but in the end with nothing being done. I am sure there were very strong reasons preventing steps being taken at the time but it makes me all the more pleased and hopeful that in recent years the position seems to have changed. In particular we have the present Minister encouraging an active and dynamic outlook on the whole question of education, particularly post-primary education. I am quite sure that every governor, teacher and parent is grateful to him for this. This question has been discussed very widely by all the Senators who have spoken both on the previous day and this evening and I agree with the Minister that if we were to debate the question of post-primary education fully we would be here for a very long time indeed.
I should like to refer only to a few of the points that have been made, perhaps, with somewhat different emphasis. First of all, from the point of view of the children, who are the objects of all this, the Minister stated a principle to which none of us can take exception that all children should have the opportunity of post-primary education consistent with their ability. That is a very excellent principle and I would not dilute it with the further qualification which Senator Ó Ciosáin suggested—"consistent with the resources of the country." We all know we cannot spend more than we have but when we are considering whether we can afford a better standard of post-primary education or not, we have to consider can we afford not to have it. There are certain circumstances in which an apparent extravagence is wiser than an apparent economy. It must be, of course, in relation to the ability of the pupil to take advantage of the education. The question at once arises, how are we going to decide which pupils are in this position? There has been a great increase in the number of pupils in various kinds of post-primary schools. Senator Ó Ciosáin raised this point and said that the ratio had improved from a figure of one child in secondary schools per ten in the primary schools. The figure, according to the information in Facts about Ireland for the number of children in primary schools is about 428,000 for the year 1960-61; In secondary schools, 76,843 and if you add in them the vocational schools there were 37,228 attending day courses and 54,849 in evening courses. That means that of the round figure of half a million in the primary schools 170,000 had some form of post-primary education.
This is a figure of one in three of primary school children which, I think, is extremely creditable and most encouraging. Obviously, of course, it is ever so much better than the figure of one in ten mentioned by Senator Ó Ciosáin. This posses the question of how we are to select, from the half million pupils attending primary schools, even one in three who can go on and take advantage of further education. I submit that this is a question which should not be decided at this stage by an examination. As Senator Hayes has said, the eleven plus experience in England has shown that an examination is a very poor guide about the further activities of a child at this point. I think the best guidance is obtained from the teachers. It is here that we must remember that the whole result of our effort in education at any level—we are talking about post-primary education and, therefore, we must talk about that level in particular—depends on the quality and enthusiasm of the teacher. I have to serve on an admissions board in the university for students coming on from secondary schools.
We always look at the examinations they have passed, but we pay a great deal of attention to the reports from their teachers. We know that there are some teachers who are more reliable than others but, by and large, their report is the factor that very often decides whether or not a student will be admitted. When you are relying on men and women to such an extent as that, these people must be adequately rewarded so that we can get the kind of person in whose reports we will have confidence, who has taken a sufficient interest in the children to make sure that he is able to give a report in the first instance and then has the courage to do it and to say that a child is not adequately equipped to come to a university when, in fact, it may be the dearest wish of that child's parents that he should go. That kind of character is required in the teachers and we cannot get it unless we pay them properly and give them proper conditions.
That brings me to the teachers. I must say I was very encouraged, indeed, to read the improvement which had occurred recently in the teachers salaries and I congratulate the Minister on the decision in this regard. I do not think that, even with that, they are being overpaid. I think that, particularly in the case of the secondary schools, you expect a standard of service from the teachers which is very often equivalent to that which university teachers are expected to provide. I think that if I were given the choice between running a department in a university and a fair sized secondary school and were asked which I would think took the greater amount of responsibility, I would consider that the headmaster of a secondary school is probably equivalent to a Chair in the university and should not be paid on a very different basis.
We know that the secondary teaching profession and the students owe a lot to the celebate Orders that have given such excellent teaching service here. I know that in many day schools there are teachers who are bachelors not for any religious reason but because they do not really feel they can afford to establish a household. I feel quite strongly that the question of payment to teachers, even though it has been looked at very favourably recently, should not be allowed to remain there. It is not only a question of payment: there are the whole conditions of service. It is too often the case that a secondary teacher, who has got his Higher Diploma in Education teaching, say, a language or a subject like geography in a secondary school to the Intermediate or Leaving Certificate levels, is allowed to continue to cover the same course mechanically year after year and with minor changes in the books that may be set, until it becomes an entirely mechanical matter. Everyone who has taught knows that when it gets to that stage the inspiration has gone and it cannot be passed on to the student because it is not there any longer in the mind of the teacher.
Recently, we have seen the Minister's encouragement to teachers in mathematics to have another look at the way in which mathematics could be taught. One of these teachers said to me at the beginning of such a course: "I am attending a course to make teachers of mathematics out of teachers of mathematics." At the end of that course, I think he had a very different view of the purpose of that course and he was very anxious to attend further sessions of the same course. Why should that be limited to mathematics? I think we should envisage such courses all the time particularly in science and encourage science teachers to bring the newer developments to the attention of their students, and, if necessary, provide them with what might appear to be very expensive items of equipment for this purpose. Such items, although they might appear very unusual to-day, are routine tomorrow. If the Minister were to provide even a selected number of such pieces of equipment which could be demonstrated to the students —electronic counting apparatus, and so on—it would help to enliven the rather dreary routine which secondary teaching, as I know from experience, can be.
Language teachers should be encouraged to take journeys abroad. I do not think this is done nearly enough and I would say the same for almost every other kind of teacher. We should, in fact, make sure that they become educated rather than just grinders.
The next question is the method by which secondary schools discharge their functions. This has been criticised in the debate before. Senator Stanford mentioned an instance where they had been able to correct the not very sound method that was being used. Senator Ross has referred to the learning of things by heart. The method by which a student or a pupil is educated is as important, perhaps more important, as the amount of knowledge that he acquires. I heard a definition of an educated man when I was a student which I have never forgotten. The educated man, it was said, is a man who knows when a thing is proved. In other words, he can put together a certain amount of information and make up his own mind on when a decision can be reached. This is not a question of the store of knowledge that he has acquired and which he has always in his mind. It goes much deeper than that. It does not mean that he must be scientifically educated because almost any branch of learning can, if properly used, be made to turn out a person of that calibre. I agree with Senator Hayes when he said that scientific education is not the only thing needed to equip one for life. Maybe it is not. I do not think any one kind of education is the only kind needed to equip one for life. I do not think education in a language with no attention to science in this day and age equips one adequately for life.
I did not say it did, of course.
What he said was that scientific education was not the best equipment for life. I say that no special education in itself could be made out to be the best equipment. I suggest, however, that if a scientific education is properly presented, with a historical background to the various questions like chemistry, biology and so forth, one can be brought right back through the classics to the customs of ancient China and one can get a very sound humanistic background for scientific teaching. The Minister said in the opening sentence of section 9 of the White Paper on the Irish language:
Independence of mind and strength of character depend basically on moral training and on education in the widest sense.
That is something that should be written in large letters, preferably gold, and put in a frame on the wall of every school. It is a challenge to the teacher that that is the kind of pupil he is supposed to turn out. Of course, he must be the kind of teacher who can take up that challenge.
We know that the curriculum is prescribed very largely by the Department and I know that in some cases it has remained unchanged over quite a long time. I am pleading for a more liberal outlook in the design of the curriculum in the various subjects, with particular reference to the sentence I have quoted from the White Paper on the Irish language.
May I refer to our experience in medical education? It is not strictly on the post-primary level but as an extension of post-primary education it might be regarded as relevant. I shall give an illustration to indicate to the Minister, what he knows very well because he has submitted to the same curriculum, how much can be done by liberalising the curriculum. In 1858, the General Medical Council was instituted in Great Britain—it had jurisdiction here at that time—and a series of regulations—they called them recommendations — were drawn up giving the opinion of the council as to how the medical student should be educated. It set out everything from A to Z, the number of hours, and the stages of the course at which the several subjects should be taught. This put the teaching of medicine into a straitjacket for a hundred years.
Medical education became a dreary thing. Nobody was interested in it from the educational viewpoint. Teachers merely vied with each other about the number of facts they could get into the students' mind. But in 1957 the same council, now in conjunction with the Irish Medical Registration Council, decided to liberalise the curriculum, not defining the number of hours for the different subjects, but indicating just what subjects should be taught and giving some guidance as to the relative importance of these subjects but leaving it to the individual schools to carry out the programme. The result was an immediate increase in interest in the business of medical education. An association for the study of medical education was established in Great Britain, another in America. Journals devoted to the medical curriculum and to medical education came into being and there is now a very lively interest in it and competition between the schools as to which can have the most up to date curriculum. I mention this to indicate what can be done to stimulate enthusiasm by giving a bit more freedom to the schools in the choice of the way they will teach a subject.
Perhaps, it is not possible to go as far in secondary education as in the university but we could go a lot further than we are going at present, in particular in the way in which the sciences are taught. Senator Ross referred to the teaching of biology. He said it was being taught now up to intermediate level. This is almost a disgrace. This basic science which is as much a humanity as a science should be taught up to the leaving certificate level and if it were it would add very much to the value of the secondary school curriculum.
On the question of the facilities available for post-primary education, I must agree with those who said the school buildings and other general facilities are in great need of improvement. A comparison has been drawn between vocational schools and Senator Hayes and the Minister had an argument about that. I sometimes look at the facilities in the vocational schools and compare them with the university facilities and I am very envious indeed. I do not grudge the vocational school a single building, a single item of equipment, but I hope they may set a headline in this not only for the secondary schools but also for the universities.
In relation to the facilities in the science sections in particular, I should like a clear statement, certainly a clearer statement, from the Minister about the application of the new awards for capital expenditure. I am still quite hazy about the conditions in which a school may qualify for these awards. A minimum of 150 pupils has been mentioned and I know that in the other House an assurance was given that this minimum was not to be taken as bearing unjustly on the smaller schools.
But among the smaller schools there is still a great deal of uneasiness about how this grant is to be used—if it will go to their larger competitors or whether they, too, are to qualify for it. Of course some smaller schools would necessarily have to suffer. I realise we cannot expect the Government to make money available for very small schools which are clearly uneconomic because of their smallness. Our answer to that is amalgamation. I am one of the few here who has succeeded in bringing about the amalgamation of two schools. I shall remember it for as long as I live. I shall remember the sweat and blood it cost me. It is an extremely difficult thing to get two schools to come together, to persuade one of them to sink its identity. Questions of prestige have to be resolved.
One thing that cropped up in that case—I suspect it will crop up very frequently in such cases in the future —was the question of cost. If you bring the pupils of two schools and put them into one, the building must be larger. It cost £15,000 to re-equip the building I was concerned with so that it would be capable of taking the pupils from the other school. It would also solve the prestige question for the schools that were being dissolved, if they were able to say that there were so much better facilities in the new school than they could provide. This is really a face-saving matter but it might be very effective. I put that suggestion to the Minister.
I am in agreement with Senator Hayes about the comprehensive schools. I have read the statement about the establishment of these schools and I felt this was a really good forward step. I have read everything I can find about the intentions regarding them since, including the Minister's statement, and I still have not got a clear impression about what they are going to be. The Minister mentioned, for instance — a very worthy point I think—that there would be a certain freedom of interchange between these comprehensive schools and other schools. If a pupil were to find himself in a secondary school and did not want to go on to university level, he could then transfer to the comprehensive school, and it would even be a bridge to the vocational school. This would be excellent. I cannot see how this ties up with the age structure in the school. I have been trying to work it out and if the Minister could tell me, I would be grateful.
These are the points I want to make in the debate on this motion. I am glad we had this opportunity and we are indebted to the Senators who put these two motions down. I should like to support Senator Ross's plea that more money be made available than has recently been made available and I would appeal to the Minister to continue encouraging the dynamic approach which he has shown us during the last few years. I feel confident he will so continue and I am certain if he does he will have the support of everyone.
I regret that I have to make reference to a statement here, by an ex-Minister, Senator Boland, in connection with children who leave national schools. He said he was told by the vocational teachers that all the children leaving national schools were illiterate. Subsequently, when challenged by Senator Hayes, he said he would qualify it by saying that practically all the children leaving national schools were illiterate. I am in agreement with Senator Brosnahan that that statement cannot go unchallenged both in the national interest and in the interest of education.
This is really a condemnation of the whole system of primary education because, if the Minister is spending on primary education and the children are leaving schools illiterate, then I say it is a condemnation of the Department and a slander. It was a slander on the national teachers and of the inspectors of the country. I should like to know from the Minister tonight whether he ever saw a report from inspectors stating that the children of the national schools were illiterate. I think when a person like Senator Boland comes in here and makes such a sweeping statement, he should first get his facts right and, secondly, he should not involve any group of teachers. He said the statements were made by the vocational teachers. That was trying to create disharmony between the vocational teachers and the national teachers.
I am glad the Minister has decided to speak twice on this motion. I have read his first statement and, as far as the comprehensive schools are concerned, he has in no way enlightened me except to say they should lead to some faculties in the universities and in technological colleges. He said that "comprehensive" means a wide range of subjects to meet the aptitude of different children and that the schools would be available to all children. He said the comprehensive schools would cater for a wide range of talent and would have a wide range of subjects which means a wide range of teachers.
I hope, when the Minister gets his comprehensive schools going, we will not have the same problem today as we have in regard to teachers. I, as Chairman of the Vocational Education Committee in Westmeath, have a problem in regard to teachers. Many of our teachers are not fully qualified. We require many more teachers and it is not possible to get them. If many more teachers will be required, the Minister will have to try a system whereby teachers will be trained and ready to take up the new positions that will be offered to them.
When the Minister first spoke of the comprehensive school, he led us to believe that they would cater for some backward places which have neither vocational nor secondary schools. In his statement in the Dáil, he said that the comprehensive school would have a relatively large number of pupils— probably 225 or upwards. If he thinks he will get 225 children and upwards in a backward area which has no vocational or secondary schools, I am afraid he will have to keep them as boarders and bring them from much wider distances than he has in mind.
I see also that in Cootehill there has been a lot of talk and fears expressed about the secondary and vocational schools there. In view of what the Minister said in the Dáil, that the comprehensive school would absorb the national school, I think there are good reasons for these fears. It is a pity that everyone is so doubtful about the future plans of the Department of Education. In my opinion, a national planning branch should be set up with experts to advise the Minister on what is really necessary and what is best for the country.
We heard it stated on the previous occasion that the Minister seemed to be in difficulty as regards the managerial control of comprehensive schools. That is another aspect of the case which has given rise to a great deal of thought and consideration about these comprehensive schools.
As regards scholarships, I should like to know if the Minister is satisfied that he was justified in reducing the age. There are so many rural schools in this country to which children have to travel a long distance that I think it was unfair to reduce the age. He said himself it was an attempt to eliminate cramming which, he described as educationally unsound. My experience of what has happened since the age was reduced is that cramming has become a fine art. It is now quite common to see children going home from school at 6 or 7 o'clock in the evening.
The Department also gives travelling scholarships to children attending vocational schools. I suggest they should do likewise for children travelling long distances to secondary schools. No such provision is made for these children. They are not subsidised in any way by the Department. I would also like the Minister to clarify the position as regards technological colleges. I notice Cork Vocational Committee purchased a site for £17,000 and it was stated in the public press that the school would probably cost £1,500,000. We have also purchased a site in Athlone. Athlone has been named as one of the areas in which there will be a technological college. We would like to know where we go from there. We should like to know if the Department will provide the funds to build, equip and staff these schools. It is most important we should know that. We should also get some indication as to when we will get the green light to go ahead with the technological colleges.
One would imagine, from listening to previous speakers, that every child in the country was anxious to get a post-primary and higher education. It is an extraordinary thing that this year in Westmeath, we gave two scholarships, valued at £185 each to Rings-end. There were 70 pupils who were qualified. Number one and two did not turn up, numbers three and four were offered the scholarship and did not take it and it was not until we reached the seventh person that one of the scholarships was taken. That was a most extraordinary situation. We were giving scholarships to people at the top and they refused to take them. The best of them refused to take the scholarships. There is one scholarship going abegging at the moment: there is nobody to take it.
Generally speaking, the Minister has done a very good job since he came to the Department. He certainly has improved school buildings. He has made funds available for scholarships and he has made increased capitation grants available. He has not made the position clear as regards comprehensive schools and the technological colleges. I have not yet met one person who could give me a clear idea of what the Minister has in mind as regards comprehensive schools. We got a slight shock in Westmeath a few evenings ago, when the question of scheduled accommodation for boys and girls at technological colleges in Athlone was discussed at the committee meeting. As a result of what was said there, it was decided to defer consideration of the matter to give the Minister an opportunity of making a comprehensive statement and letting us know what he proposes to do for post-primary education, particularly as regards the change in age at which children will be allowed to enter these colleges. The CEO informed us his schedule was based on a plus-12.
Last year, when I met the Minister, with the General Council of County Councils, on a deputation, someone discussed the 11-plus with him. I have no doubt in my mind that the Minister would not have anything at all to do with the 11-plus. I wonder how did the plus-12 schedule come to be considered at all? There were people on the committee who were really worried about it, who were worried about the future of the national schools. They were worried, too, about the future of people in the national schools in relation to scholarships. My idea is that the vocational schools are not catered for in the matter of scholarships.
With regard to scholarships to technological schools from the primary schools, I am sorry to say I have not known a single one person in my county who has been accepted for a vocational school. Every one went to the secondary school; not one scholarship holder went to the vocational school. The fact that the plus-12 was mentioned in the schedule of accommodation has certainly given us an amount to worry about and I would like to hear the Minister making some reference to this.
I welcome this opportunity for an open discussion on post-primary education in the presence of the Minister for Education. It is an opportunity which comes all too seldom to this House. It is a pity that when it does come, we are so restricted in time. The Leader of the House thought fit to appeal to Senators to be brief, but I consider this House is capable of providing a very valuable cross-section of opinion on the problems that have to be faced in the matter of post-primary education.
I had hoped to speak on this debate when it arose in December last. I am glad, in a way, I was not in on it at that stage because there have been certain events since which probably have nullified my attitude towards the Department. There has been an easing of tension on two fronts since that time. It has been just an easing. One is on the issue of salaries to secondary teachers. There is a sort of uneasy peace there.
I should thank the Minister, in this connection, for the part he has played in bringing about this peace, such as it is. At the same time, I should say that it is unfortunate it was not as readily acceptable as it might have been. The secondary teachers and those associated with them, with some reluctance, decided in the interests of education and on other considerations, to accept the offer, although with grave reservations, because, unfortunately an important section of the teachers have been left out of consideration in the awards which have been given. One is prompted to ask why this settlement was not arrived at last year when all the illwill which was engendered in the dispute of last year, and all the friction which was then involved could have been avoided. Perhaps the Minister has an answer to this and perhaps those teachers who are now feeling very aggrieved will be encouraged by the statement made yesterday by the Minister in the Dáil that the present award was just a step in a further general policy of upgrading teachers and raising their status in the community.
The other front on which there has been an easing of tension is that of the oral Irish test. I am very glad the Minister has seen reason in this matter. That is an aspect of administration upon which I had intended to be voluble, had this settlement not been arrived at. I think that only when the Minister discovered that no section of those interested in secondary education was willing to accept the plans he had proposed for the Irish examination did he agree to concede that the examination could not be adequately conducted without them?
I feel I should not let this opportunity pass without paying tribute to the services rendered to the State by the voluntary schools, especially now that their status—if not their very existence—is being threatened by the new ministerial approach to post-primary education in general. It is fitting that we should recall with gratitude the part they played in keeping the torch of learning aflame by providing educational facilities for every stratum of society down through the years. As we know, they did this in a spirit of charity and self-sacrifice, and without concern for material reward, back in the days of foreign rule. Even in our own time, and under our own State, they continued in the same spirit of dedication to place both their property and their services at the disposal of the State.
Governments down through the years have gladly accepted the millions of pounds of capital investment represented in secondary school buildings all over the country as the basis on which to build a scheme of secondary education suited to the new conditions of the time. In those circumstances, one might reasonably expect that a certain measure of generosity would be accorded to them in the subventions of the State, but, in fact, over the past 40 years or more, the State has been extremely niggardly in its treatment of those schools. That is a fact which no one can gainsay, and it is widely recognised that it is solely through a lack of adequate subventions that secondary schools have been prevented from liberalising their courses and providing a wider range of subjects for their pupils. Irrespective of the standards achieved—whether they have been satisfactory or otherwise—we should be guilty of the basest ingratitude if we were not to appreciate and recognise the contributions those schools have made to the maintenance of a high standard of education, a standard probably comparable with that in any country in the world. I feel it is important to stress this point, now that a new scheme for the provision of post-primary education is being planned.
The comprehensive school about which we heard so much in this debate is, indeed, casting its long shadow over the scene, and threatening to distort the image of the conventional secondary school. The original concept of the comprehensive school, as promulgated by the Minister, was an exercise in social justice and made an immediate appeal. Senators may recall that all the newspapers and other media of communication were vying with one another in applauding this new scheme, and applauding the young, energetic, forward-looking, up-and-coming Minister who would not be deterred by considerations of cost from making higher education available to all members of the community even in the most backward areas.
The Minister laid down very detailed specifications. No comprehensive school would be within ten miles of an existing post-primary school, secondary or vocational. The curriculum would extend to 25 subjects, only three of which would be obligatory. Transport would be provided and it was hoped the question of management could be arranged. Then came a long silence, and questions on the matter only elicited the reply that the survey was not yet completed. Finally, it transpired that the whole idea of social justice, which was the raison d'etre of the whole scheme, had been thrown overboard. Comprehensive schools were to be established in areas already adequately provided with post-primary educational facilities, and at least three of the four selected were to be sited in areas where existing schools were to be displaced.
Obviously, what happened was that the Minister's alleged enthusiasm for social justice outran his knowledge of the conditions. In other words, he announced his plan without having made a sufficient preliminary research, even though in his statement to us here in December, he said that in most of the changes he had made, no research was necessary. It seems to me this was one instance in which preliminary research was essential, and that preliminary research was not done. When the Minister found the specifications originally laid down could not be met, when he found that no sites could be arranged which would fit in with the specifications he had laid down, he did not come forward and admit he had made a miscalculation. To my mind, he should have said that in spite of that miscalculation he was prepared to go on and establish comprehensive schools wherever there was a demand. This, I think, would have been the honest thing to do. It would have been the statesmanlike thing to do.
What did he do? Nobody knows. For all we know, for all the public knows, he just threw sticking pins at a map of the Twenty-six counties and one landed on Cootehill, another on Glenties and so on. He has given no reason that I know of for the selection of these sites for comprehensive schools but what is most amazing about it all is that he can so blandly shift his ground without any explanation to any responsible body as to why he has done so. It is in this aspect of his administration that I see some danger because the next pin may land anywhere. Every secondary school is now in danger of becoming redundant and, of course, in the long run, no voluntary school can live in competition with a comprehensive school because the Minister is in a position so to endow the comprehensive school and equip it with all modern aids and at the same time keep the voluntary school in comparative penury that competition is out of the question. The introduction of a comprehensive scheme could be the beginning of a creeping and progressive socialisation of education. It could even be the beginning of a trend to divert education from its proper ends and orientate it mainly towards subserving the economic programme of the State. And there could be a tendency in it to subordinate the person to the citizen.
How real are those dangers? Personally, I am not very apprehensive. I believe that we all still cherish the same fundamental values and that our concern for the material welfare of the people is still subordinate to the higher purposes of life. But the Minister has done nothing to reassure us on this point. Rather has he sown the seed of doubt among us. He defends himself by saying that the problem is there and that it is up to someone to take the initiative and that someone must be the Minister for Education for the time being. I agree that the someone should be the Minister for Education but that does not entitle him to present himself as one endowed with the charisma of rectitude and infallibility and to parade himself as Sir Oracle who alone can judge what is educationally best in any given circumstances.
This involves the whole question of consultation and I propose to come back to that later, but before leaving the question of the comprehensive schools, I should like to ask the Minister whether he has at any time considered the feasibility of comprehensifying existing secondary or vocational schools. This, of course, would involve the giving of such grants and the waiving of such restrictions as would enable an existing school to provide the full range of subjects as envisaged in the comprehensive school. It might even involve the amalgamation of two or more schools in a particular area but I think the idea has a lot to recommend it. It would eliminate all the wastage due to the overlapping we have in various towns and hamlets throughout the country and it would be a question of building on a foundation already laid and availing of facilities already to hand.
The only difficulty would be the question of management, and on this matter I should like a direct answer from the Minister. Does the Minister regard it as of the essence of the comprehensive school that it be under public or semi-public management and control? If the Minister is not agreeable to some adjustment in the terms of management to cover the possibility I have mentioned, then I shall have to ask myself whether he is not more concerned with ensuring that school management shall pass out of private hands than with the educational welfare of the children about whom he professes to be concerned in the neglected and remote areas. I shall look forward with keen interest to the Minister's reply to that question. If it is intended that comprehensive schools should proliferate all over the country, it is important that we know the Minister's mind on that point.
One wonders if, having regard to all the circumstances of post-primary education in this country, it was necessary at any time to introduce a scheme of comprehensive education. He did propagate the idea that the big school is so much better than the small school. Senator Hayes has dealt with that problem and has raised doubts, I think, in the minds of most people as to whether the Minister is right or not. The idea of having larger schools depends on the distribution of population and personally I do not see, unless the Minister can inform us of some way of redistributing the population, how we can cater for post-primary education in rural areas other than through small schools. At present, as we know, there are many people in secondary schools who should really be in technical or vocational schools. We have the position in which secondary schools are bursting at the seams and vocational schools still have capacity for many more pupils.
The problem, I think, is to find a method of diverting some of the people who go to the secondary schools into vocational schools and, perhaps, extending both systems in such a way that provision will be made for all. There are two ways of approaching that. One is the examination at a certain level to divide off the two streams. I am glad to say that that method has been discarded as it does not work well anywhere and I would not like to see anything like it introduced here. The other way is to make one set of schools as attractive as the other. Obviously, up to now it is the secondary school that has provided all the attraction and the attraction, if we examine the case, is based on three factors. One is that up to now the secondary school has been leading somewhere; the vocational school has not. A remedy has been proposed for this, that is, the introduction of the Intermediate examination common to both types of schools and the proposal to establish technological colleges leading to higher education. That is a remedy in theory, but in practice I doubt if that will in itself withdraw many pupils from secondary schools to vocational schools because there are other factors.
There is, secondly, the tradition of humanism that we have in our education in this country more than there has been elsewhere, due, I suppose, in a large measure to the lack of opportunity for technicians and technologists here and I wonder if in the present state of our economy we are even yet in a position to initiate any sort of major change in that direction. If we go all out now to provide technicians, I am afraid it will be, for many years to come, for export. Personally, I cannot see that there is room for a great increase in the number of technicians and the Minister, of course, has said in the OECD report that it does not worry him if a number of the technicians who are trained here are for export, that he is not going to distinguish between those who are trained for home use and for use abroad. I think that is a very important factor to consider.
The third attraction the secondary school has is the confidence that has grown up down the years in the clerical and religious management of the schools. This is one aspect of the schools that it will be very difficult to overcome if the vocational school is to be made at all as attractive as the secondary school. We have seen that the provision of attractive buildings has failed to do anything like that. Certainly, in most cases the vocational schools provided have many more educational facilities of a physical kind. So that the Minister, I am afraid, will have to think up some way of creating these two streams on a voluntary basis by, as I say, making the vocational side as attractive and providing outlets for the products of the vocational schools such as are provided for the products of the secondary schools.
I have referred already to the question of the lack of consultation that has been a feature of the present Minister's administration. There is really a litany of instances in which this lack of consultation has been evident down through the years. Recently, one body concerned with secondary education has gone to the Press on the matter of establishing a permanent advisory council to which the Minister would submit any changes that he proposed to make before publicising them. It has been the Minister's custom to publicise what he proposes to do, in the way of schemes, and then to come along and say that he has consulted when, in fact, the consultation has been done at the demand of the people concerned. I need only mention one instance—they all follow the same pattern—the question of the introduction of the new mathematics course. The Minister could say that he did consult but what happened was that the bodies concerned with the introduction, I mean the teachers and the managers, all joined together and sought a deputation to the Minister. In other words, they had to take the initiative in having this consultation. Otherwise, there would have been no consultation.
The same thing occurred in the case of the new oral Irish examination scheme which has now been abandoned but, had there been any body of people willing to row along with the Minister in that, I dare say it would not have been abandoned and, again, the Minister in that instance claimed that he had consultations. As a matter of fact, in the White Paper on the revival of Irish that we had recently, it was stated that he was in consultation with all the interests concerned. I think one of the interests concerned, and primarily concerned, in all these matters is the teaching body, the men in the field, and I can state unequivocally that in certain of these matters and particularly in the case of the introduction of an oral Irish examination the teachers were not at any time consulted.
I mention this because I hope that in future this policy of introducing changes of one sort or another without prior consultation will be abandoned and I mention it because I hope the Minister will look favourably on the suggestion that has been made for the establishment of a permanent advisory council of all the bodies concerned with secondary education, the teaching and managerial bodies.
Some headway has been made in that by the bodies concerned but it would be much better if something was done at the instance and on the initiative of the Minister rather than that these bodies should establish a council of their own and invite the Minister or his representatives on it. So, I hope he will give some consideration to that matter.
I do not want to take up much more of the time of the Seanad but there is one matter to which I must refer and it is the matter of the qualifications of teachers for teaching certain subjects. I think that we are more or less a laughing stock in other countries when we have to admit that a teacher who has a degree in any set of subjects and a Higher Diploma in Education is thereby qualified to teach any subject under the sun. I think it is a system that is unknown anywhere else and it is one of the things against which my Association has been crying out for a number of years and they have proposed a very reasonable basis on which this might be adjusted. It is the basis that no teacher would be allowed to teach a subject to leaving certificate standard that he has not studied at degree level in the university and to no class up to intermediate standard that he has not studied at some stage in the university, say, First Arts or Second year. In no other country that I know of is the situation tolerated that is tolerated here with regard to the teaching of subjects without any adequate academic preparation on the part of the teacher and I can assure the Minister that my Association, the Association of Secondary Teachers, would welcome a move in that direction at the earliest possible moment.
I am more concerned with it now than ever because, in some of the statements made on the educational side in the White Paper on the revival of Irish, it was admitted that some teachers are teaching Irish who are not qualified to do so. The Minister's reply was that he was satisfied that the great majority of the teachers were qualified to teach Irish in secondary schools. The great majority of teachers still leaves a minority and as long as there is even one teacher attempting to teach Irish without knowing the special problems or without being properly qualified, the Minister should be concerned about it. It is very important for the whole work of the revival of Irish, insofar as secondary schools are accountable, that every teacher who is committed to teach Irish should be qualified to do so.
There is little in the Minister's statement to which anyone could take exception, apart from the things I have mentioned, namely, his claim that no change has been made without consultation, which I for one cannot accept, and his claim that the larger school is of necessity better than the smaller school. In deference to the plea made by Senator Ó Maoláin for brevity and knowing that the Minister has yet to speak and that Senator Quinlan has yet to reply, I shall forgo referring to a number of points I intended to raise, but I look forward to the Minister's reply to all the points raised.
Like other speakers, I agree that this debate provides a useful opportunity for the House to discuss certain matters on which many Members are competent to speak. However, I think that in some way the time of the debate has been slightly out of joint or, perhaps, more correctly, slightly out of phase. In one sense the debate has come too late and in another sense it has come too soon.
The motion was put on the order paper of the Seanad following the press conference held by the Minister in May, 1963. The proposals outlined by the Minister then would be expected by now to have been worked out in some detail and, accordingly, though the Minister has not made a further comprehensive statement, in this sense the debate has come too late to influence events; it would have been of more value coming rather quickly after the Minister's press conference.
On the other hand, this debate comes a little too soon. We are, I understand, on the eve of the publication of the report of the Investment in Education Project. In that sense it is a little premature for us here to discuss this question of post-primary education, when we hope in a matter of a month or so to have the results of two years' work of fact-finding which would be largely devoted to this subject. Nevertheless, it is well for us during this debate, begun in last December, now continued in March and whenever, despite the promptings of the Leader of the House to finish to-night it may be resumed, to discuss this matter. In May, 1963, the Minister enunciated his basic approach to post-primary education. On that occasion he said, and I quote:
As I see it, the equality of educational opportunity towards which it is the duty of the State to strive must nowadays entail the opportunity of some post-primary education for all.
There can be no doubt that we are at one with the Minister in regard to this basic principle and that the discussion which arises in a debate of this sort is on the manner of the implementation of this basic principle accepted by all. In his statement of May, 1963, the Minister proposed three directions in which he sought to implement this basic principle. First, he spoke of the proposal for comprehensive schools; secondly, he spoke of the proposal for regional technical colleges; and, thirdly, he spoke of the revision of the certificate examinations. These are the three things which the Minister has put before himself, before the country and before us as the best means of achieving this objective. In a debate like this, it is well for us to look into these three prongs of advance which the Minister seeks to implement.
The motion before the Seanad asks for a statement from the Minister, and this is a suitable way in which the motion should be phrased. It is now almost two years since the Minister made that statement. Since then, there have been references to education in the White Paper on the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, in both Parts 1 and 2. These statements on education were largely summaries of what the Minister had to say in 1963 and it can fairly be said that the speeches by the Minister in the Dáil, when moving the Estimate for his Department, have added little but minor footnotes to what he had to say on that original occasion. Furthermore, the Minister's intervention in the present debate has been somewhat disappointing to Members of the House in that a more comprehensive statement was not made and I think I speak for many Members when I say that we would hope before this debate is ended the Minister would be able to bring his thoughts and those of his advisers to such a stage that he could give to the House and to the country a more comprehensive statement on these ideas which he has put before us.
I have said that it is rather difficult to speak on this matter now, being as we are on the eve of the publication of an important report on this whole problem of investment in education. Nevertheless, I think it is worthwhile. There are some matters of general principle which can be ventilated and which might be lost in the factual debate which I hope will follow the publication of that report. Therefore, I should like in this debate to bring forward some considerations of general principle.
Before I mention the things I think the Minister specifically should include in a comprehensive statement to the House and to the country, I should like to mention some of these basic principles and basic ideas. I should also like to make some comments on a matter which has been a concern of mine and of my profession during the past few years and which is bound up with this question of post-primary education, namely, the position we face in regard to the training of technicians.
If we are to have a policy in education that is really worthwhile, if we are to have a policy that will stand the test of time, then we must be clear on what our objectives are. Before we go into details of policy or planning, we must be quite clear in regard to our educational principles. Now the aims, the objectives and the principles of education have been a matter of some debate throughout the world since the close of the Second World War. In the course of that debate there has been quite a change in regard to the approach to education. The various aims and objectives of education can, I think, be summed up under three headings. Education seeks, on the one hand, the development of the individual. In another way, education is concerned with the handing on of a particular culture. In recent years we have come to realise, too, that education is also vitally concerned with the training of the future work force.
In any liberal democracy, in any country such as ours, with an approach to political and educational problems such as we have, there must be a tremendous emphasis on the first of these objectives. There can be no retreat from the position that education is concerned with the drawing out of the individual child, with helping each individual in the community to reach his or her potentiality. But the debates that have occurred in recent years, particularly the debates that have occurred in the past five years, have shown us that this prime objective is not irreconcilable with the other two types of objectives I have mentioned. The debate which is taking place now throughout the world has demonstrated clearly, I think, that rather than being destructive of one another these objectives—the training of the individual, the handing on of culture and the training of the work force—not only do not destroy one another, or cancel one another out, but, if we can only discover the secret of it, can coerce or entice these separate objectives to reinforce one another; the aim of any educational policy and of any educational planning must be so to order our educational policy and the whole educational system that these three objectives will all be present and will all reinforce one another.
That is, I think, all too obvious today. We have come to realise the truth of the linkage between the problems of economic growth and the problems of universal education. In the past two years we have come to see that economic growth, the rise in the national income, the amount which is available to be spent on education, means that universal education is possible once economic growth has occurred. At the same time, we have also come to realise that universal education is very often a prerequisite for economic growth, that economic growth, which will make universal education and education for all our citizens available, is itself only possible if our education is as universal and as well planned as possible. This is something which appears, as I say, quite evident to us now, but this is something which was not dreamt of before the War.
Anyone who has any doubts on this score will not, I think, remain unconvinced if they read the reports which have been issued on this subject, particularly by OECD. I might mention in this connection the report of the 1961 Conference in Washington, which was most aptly named the "Conference on Investment in Education". Besides these very valuable reports there are also the reports of the OECD Mediterranean Regional Project on Education for Economic and Social Development. That is the project which was the forerunner, in a sense, of our own investment in education project and was based on the realisation that we can combine this education of the individual, this handing on of cultural values of all types and the development of a trained work force in the future. I may say it was somewhat of a surprise to educators to find they were economically respectable. It was somewhat of a surprise to find that, having for years been charged, as it were, as a debit in the national economy, as a cost to be borne, almost as a luxury, one now comes under the respectable heading of "Productive Investment".
If we look at it closely we will, I think, realise that there is no real contradiction between education for culture and education for work. Indeed, if we think of this and look at it fundamentally, we will see that in the large sense there is no real distinction between the two because the full culture of any community, such as ours, includes its habits of work. Culture in the correct sense, culture in the proper sense, culture in the sense of sociology, is not merely something concerned only with arts and crafts, something of leisure; it is something which involves not only leisure but also the working day and the working habits of the whole community. The position in very primitive societies was that only very primitive technological work was possible and culture only emerged when technology reached the stage at which culture could be supported as well as pure subsistence.
Today we find ourselves at an advanced technological stage. This technology makes it possible for us in this generation and future generations, as a result of having a very productive technology, to fuse together the ideas of culture and leisure and work. We can, under the technology which is to come, ensure that culture will not be the preserve of the few.
That is the first development which is possible. It is by no means inevitable. Nevertheless, it is something which can be done. If we can tackle this problem, we in this country, from the point of view of Christian humanism, will, I think, do something which, perhaps, we are particularly fitted to do. We must remember that, in the eyes of Christian humanism, we must no longer think of an artist as being a particular type of man; we must, in the eyes of Christian humanism, look at every man as being a particular type of artist.
I think, therefore, that if we set out to find an educational system which will allow for the personal rights of each individual to be educated to his full potentiality, on the one hand, and at the same time, the right of the State, which pays the cost of this operation, to have individuals trained in order to be an effective work force, we can combine all these things. We can produce an educational policy which will be an all round policy and, if we work hard enough at it and think fundamentally enough on this particular problem, we can, without sacrificing any of the objectives of education, go forward with an educational policy and an educational plan which will do all of these necessary things.
This task will not be an easy one. It will not be something which can be done merely by taking a snap decision on this or a snap decision on that.
It is something which will have to be worked out gradually and slowly, not merely by the Minister in his Department but by the Minister in consultation with all those in this country who are interested in this particular problem. The measure of those who should be interested is the measure of the whole community.
Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 10th March, 1965.