I move:
That the Seanad would welcome a reconsideration by the Minister for Education of recent changes made by him in the Rules for National Schools.
I should like to say at the outset, that, as the House will remember, I tried to raise this matter on the Adjournment and it was suggested that it would be better to take it in the form of a motion. My only fear was that this would not be discussed within a reasonable time. I should just like to start, therefore, by expressing my gratitude to the Chair and to the Leader of the House for allowing this motion to come forward within reasonable time.
To me, a motion is better than raising matters on the Adjournment, not only because it enables a wider debate to be held on a topic, but also, I must confess, because it enables me to say a little bit more than I could say if I were confined to 20 minutes, which I am afraid I shall exceed today. I hear a groan in front of me but I think it is due to the cold weather rather than to the impact of my words. The Senator has followed our brave example by putting on his overcoat. I recommend the bravery to others, too, particularly if the Whip is put on in this crucial debate, because it hurts a lot more if you have not your overcoat on.
I should like to mention also that the form of the motion, which, of course, I accept, is not quite the form in which I had put it. I had said "the recent changes made by the Department of Education." My reason for doing this was that I did not want to name the present Minister and I did not want to name his predecessor as being fully responsible. Although I fully realise that the changes in the Rules were not, in fact, made by him, of course he is nominally responsible for them, and he has, since then, underwritten them completely in the Dáil. Therefore, no injustice is done by saying he made the change though, in fact, the new Rules were signed by his predecessor in office, Deputy Dr. Hillery, on 22nd January, 1965. They were printed, as the Seanad will remember, early in July of this year when there was not a newspaper to be had in Dublin and consequently there was not very much knowledge of the changes, really, until about a month ago.
I think the Seanad will agree that the terms of my motion are moderate. I am not demanding that the Minister change everything or that all the Rules be altered.
I notice, too, that although my motion refers to a reconsideration of "the recent changes", it has been assumed by everybody that the only Rules that have been changed or that interest me are the Rules on corporal punishment. These are the ones that interest me primarily, but there have been a number of other changes in the Rules, and I propose to mention one or two of them before coming to the question of corporal punishment for which the changes are, I think, particularly regrettable. I find first of all, then, for instance, in Chapter 2 of the new Rules, page 11, that the 10th rule reads, and this is the form in which it was previously also:
No child may be refused admission to a national school on account of the social position of its parents nor may any pupil be kept apart from other pupils on the grounds of social distinction.
The original reading, from which this is an excerpt as it were, contained the words:
... shall not be kept apart from ordinary pupils on the ground of the payment of school fees where chargeable——
——and so on. Now this part is omitted in the new Rule, and it is rather a pity. I regard the Rule, as it stands, as a good one, but the reference to fees here is omitted. Does it mean that no primary school takes any fees or what exactly is the meaning of this particular change?
I feel also that this is a Rule, a good rule, which is not always applied. I have a strong suspicion that some of our national schools do, in fact, apply a test of wealth or poverty or social position before admitting children. I see schools which are nearer to the homes of poor children being passed by those poor children on the way to a more distant school, for reasons that are not apparent unless they be grounds of poverty or social class distinction.
I pass on then to page 12. I notice the 15th Rule deals with the manager. The new Rule says:
Every person or body of persons on first recognition as manager must give an undertaking in writing that the rules for national schools shall be complied with.
I notice that this is a change from the previous Rule about the manager, clause 3 of Rule 14, which reads as follows:
Before finally sanctioning the appointment of a manager who has not been previously recognised as such, an undertaking in writing is required that the rules and regulations for national schools shall be complied with.
You might say that, essentially, this is the same, but there is this difference. A manager can not be "sanctioned" at all unless he gives an undertaking in writing that the Rules for national schools shall be complied with. This phrase "before finally sanctioning his appointment" is omitted from the new Rule. I do not think that is an improvement. I think the old Rule read better.
On page 14 of the new Rules, I notice Rule 20—I want to make just an incidental point about this one— which reads:
The Minister desires to urge upon the managers the desirability of——
—and then follow several good things —providing a small liabrary; stimulating the school children to greater industry by a system of prizes and so on. I should like to ask the question why there was not included in this, since the Rule was being slightly modified, the desirability of urging managers to form parent-teacher groups or for parent-teacher meetings in the schools. The Minister who actually signed these, and who came into the House when we had a motion here about the desirability of fostering the formation of parent-teacher groups in the national schools, Deputy Dr. Hillery, said then that he was in favour of doing this but that he did not think it was the function of the Minister to do anything about it. I made the specific point that he should not order or command or demand but that he should take "fostering action". I suggested that he might issue in his Rules or circulars something which would urge the desirability of it, and I now regret that the opportunity has not been taken to change the Rule in this respect also.
I feel convinced that the present Minister agrees with me on this because he himself, on several occasions, has made it clear that he feels that parent-teacher groups are a good thing, and that parents should be consulted. In support of this view of my own, I quote from an interview, details of which were published in the Irish Press in early May, 1964, which Miss Miriam Hederman had with the present Minister before he became Minister for Education, and entitled “Ideals of the Young Politicians”— George Colley, T.D. The question she asked was: “Are you happy about the attitude to parents in educational circles in this country?” The present Minister's answer was: “I certainly am not.” He went on: “Would you mind if I quoted from my own speech in the Dáil here,” and then he said— and this is a quotation within a quotation—“In my opinion, a lot of lip service is paid to the primary rights and duties in regard to education. I do not think it unfair to say that interest by parents in education is actively discouraged by the teachers, the churches and the Department. I feel the Minister should take active steps to encourage the foundation of parents' committees.” That was the view of the Minister before he became a Minister, the Minister for Education.
I feel justified in quoting from that, and in presuming that, now that he is Minister, he would still be in favour of taking active steps to encourage the foundation of parents' committees. This is one reason why I should like the Minister to reconsider these rules and regulations and to add, perhaps, at this juncture the desirability of certain things being laid before the managers, certainly the desirability of founding parent-teacher committees in accordance with the Minister's views, as stated before he became Minister. It was not his fault that they are not included in these old Rules but it will be his fault if he does not take action and not be content, as he accused others of being, with lip service.
On page 18 of the new Rules I should like to mention what seems to me to be a marked improvement that might go even further. It is in Rule 31 which says:
Fifteen square feet of floor space should be provided for each pupil...
This used to be 11 square feet and, as I have mentioned, the change is a distinct improvement. It is, of course, linked up with what we found on page 23 at subparagraph (3) of Rule 44 which says:
A floor area of approximately 600 square feet is normally allowed for each classroom. In special cases the floor area may be varied with the Minister's approval.
Six hundred square feet, if you take 15 square feet per pupil, means that anything more than 40 pupils in a classroom are too many in the view of the framers of these Rules. I should like to feel that this will be implemented, and that the Minister will no longer tolerate more than 40 in such a classroom, or in any one class. I mention these points to indicate that some of the changes in these Rules are good and would, perhaps, merit further consideration from the point of view of wondering how best they can be implemented.
I turn then to page 39 where I find a Rule which I do not think has been noticed by those who have looked at the new Rules. It is Rule 71, subparagraph (3), which deals with the instruction to infants' classes and gives some indication as to the way in which Irish and the speaking of Irish should be encouraged in these classes. I might say, as a linguist, it seems to me essential and admirable if you are going to encourage children to learn by ear properly that this should be done in the infant classes. I do not necessarily mean by teaching other subjects through Irish. I mean by encouraging children to hear and speak Irish early on. Subparagraph (3) of Rule 71, however, says:
English may be taught as an optional subject for one half-hour a day.
It is rather absurd, in view of the linguistic situation in this country, to have official Rules which say, in a largely English-speaking country, that English may be taught as an optional subject for one half-hour a day, or may not. I feel that this, too, is a Rule which would merit reconsideration or, perhaps, reframing.
Another subparagraph on page 71 of the new Rules refers to a number of things which shall be made available. It refers back, in a sense, to a Rule which has been changed in the old Rules. I refer to Chapter XIV, Rule 121, of the new Rules. What used to be said in the old Rule—and for the purposes of reference the old Rule was 95, section (5)—was that it was necessary:
To keep the following tablets and pamphlets suspended conspicuously in their schoolrooms, and to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with their contents.
This remains unchanged in the new Rules, except that one thing is left out. In the new Rules it is no longer necessary to have the rules and regulations of the Department conspicuously suspended in each classroom. Would it not be a good thing if the Departmental Rules were hung in every classroom as used to be required? The intention of the old Rule was that they should be hung up, though it was often in another sense that the Rules were "conspicuously suspended". The wording of the new Rule at subparagraph (7) of Rule 121 is:
A copy of the Rules for National Schools should be retained in the schools and teachers should make themselves thoroughly acquainted with these Rules.
The change here is that instead of having it so that children themselves would know under what Rules they are being guided, or the teachers in the classroom, a copy of the Rules is merely "retained" somewhere in the school.
Having made these preliminary remarks about certain changes, I should like now to turn to the point which interests me primarily and, I think, public opinion primarily, and that is in relation to the changes in Rules on the question of school discipline or punishment. I find here things which are very disconcerting. This is Rule 130 on page 74 of the new Rules and, if I remember correctly, it was Rule 96 in the old Rules. In the old Rules the first subparagraph of Rule 96 said:
Corporal punishment should be administered only for grave transgression. In no circumstances should corporal punishment be administered for mere failure at lessons.
The words "grave transgression" are changed in the new Rules to "serious misbehaviour". I can only conclude that this is a widening of the scope to beat children, because quite clearly "grave transgression" is a far stronger misdemeanour than "serious misbehaviour". I notice that in a recent court case a witness for the defendant used the words "serious misbehaviour". It is quite clear that if a child can be beaten for "serious misbehaviour" and there is no longer a need for its being for a "grave transgression", then the Rule dealing with corporal punishment is weakened. "Grave transgression" in the old Rule becomes "serious misbehaviour" in the new Rules. The old Rule said:
In no circumstances should corporal punishment be administered for mere failure at lessons.
The second paragraph of the new Rule says:
Corporal punishment should be administered only in cases of serious misbehaviour and should not be administered for mere failure at lessons.
Deputy Tully rightly asked in the Dáil: why do you not say "must not" be administered? Even "must not be administered" is not quite so strong in emphasis as the old phrase, now gone, "in no circumstances". I ask the Minister whether he is wise to allow this to be thus weakened? The second part of the old Rule remains intact.
Only the principal teacher or such other member of the staff as may be duly authorised by the manager for the purpose, should inflict corporal punishment.
Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the old Rule have disappeared. Paragraph 3 was:
Only a light cane or rod may be used for the purpose of corporal punishment which should be inflicted only on the open hand.
Here you have a Rule, a law or a regulation in operation which gives a specific instruction. Now there is a fresh amendment to remove that instruction and there is no question but that you are, in certain circumstances at least, permitting a thing previously prohibited. In the Dáil the Minister was challenged on the point. He was asked whether boxing a boy's ears constituted, under the new Rules, a breach of the regulations. The Minister was forced to say that in some circumstances it would not. He admitted teachers sometimes might be allowed to box a child's ears, which previously they would not have been allowed to do.
The light rod or cane which used to be specified can now be replaced by any implement, though I recognise that the Minister has a safeguard because he talks later in the new Rule about punishment not being "excessive," but prima facie this is a change for the worse in relation to the beating of children in school. It is no longer necessary to confine beating to the open hand. A child may be beaten on the body, the head or the ears and a ruler, a pointer or a strap can be used, all of which were specifically excluded before. The other portion of paragraph 3 of the old Rule has also disappeared. It says:
The boxing of children's ears, the pulling of their hair or similar ill-treatment is absolutely forbidden and will be visited with severe penalties.
The Minister makes this disappear in the new Rule. The prohibiting of the pulling of hair or boxing of ears is not in the new Rule and the Minister was forced to admit in the Dáil that there are occasions on which he would actually allow this kind of thing. This is a very serious weakening of the Rule. This is running away from the duty of the Minister in relation to the protection of children. Furthermore, paragraph 4 has disappeared. It said:
No teacher should carry about a cane or other instrument of punishment.
Now a teacher can do that. That was a good Rule. Surely no good teacher— and the majority of them are—will object to being prohibited from carrying about a cane, a strap or an instrument of punishment? What good teacher wants that? That was passed over. It is no longer there. This would apply in practice only to a small minority but that minority can now parade before a school with an instrument of punishment. That Rule has gone completely. Paragraph 5 of Rule 96 has also gone. It said:
Frequent recourse to corporal punishment will be considered by the Minister as indicating bad tone and ineffective discipline.
That, too, has disappeared. One wonders what the pressure or representation was that made the Minister feel it necessary to do this. The Minister suggests that what he is doing in the new Rule, or what his predecessor was doing, is adopting a "more positive approach". He says that the opening paragraph of new Rule 130 makes this clear:
Teachers should have a lively regard for the improvement and general welfare of their pupils, treat them with kindness combined with firmness and should aim at governing them through their affections and reason and not by harshness and severity.
All of that was already in the regulations. It is not new. It was not in the old regulation 96, but it was in regulation 95, Para. 3. It is all there word for word. There is nothing new in it. The Minister boasts that he is adopting a positive approach. Yet this was already there. There is one thing however added to the Rule, and I welcome it:
Ridicule, sarcasm or remarks likely to undermine a pupil's self-confidence should be avoided.
That is the only new element in the Rules on corporal punishment. I have already mentioned the fact that the punishment can only be given by the principal teacher or other appointed teacher. The fourth part says:
Any teacher who inflicts improper or excessive punishment will be regarded as guilty of conduct unbefitting a teacher and will be subject to severe disciplinary action.
That is the only remaining safeguard. The child, to be protected under those Rules, must be in a position to demonstrate that the punishment was improper or excessive. There is no definition or no guiding lines. There is no guiding principle to indicate how the parents, the child, the teacher or even a court of law would decide what is improper or excessive in this kind of punishment.
I should like at this juncture to give my own view on corporal punishment in respect of children, the beating of children. One of my fellow-Senators, Senator Brosnahan, will remember— I think it was in 1955 or in 1956, before I raised this matter at all in the Seanad—that we engaged in a friendly radio debate on corporal punishment. There were two others with us, Dr. Reynolds, the Headmaster of High School Dublin, and Dr. Bob Collis. Dr. Collis made a case against corporal punishment which seemed to me compelling, and I do not think I could put it better than the way he put it. Those who may not remember Dr. Bob Collis might like to be reminded that he was an international rugger forward. He was not a softy in any sense. He was not a man who shrank from physical pain. He could in no sense be said to be a sentimental fuddy-duddy, but here is his case. This is what he said. I cannot guarantee to quote his exact words but this is the gist of his case.
He said "Girls should not be beaten at all. It always has a coarsening effect on them". I interject at this point that it will be remembered that I put a motion before the Seanad in 1956 for the modification of the rules on corporal punishment so as to prohibit altogether the administration of corporal punishment to girls in our national schools, and by eight votes to three the Seanad decided that the beating of girls should still continue to be legitimate. The view of Dr. Collis was: "Girls should not be beaten at all. It always has a coarsening effect on them." As to boys, he said: "While I think it very often does them no harm, I think it never does them any good. My brother Maurice and I went from Ireland to Rugby School. There we were beaten by the prefects, we were beaten by the form master, we were beaten by the housemaster, we were beaten by the headmaster, and he had an impressive tower at the corner of the rugby pitch where he did his beating. I do not think all this did us a bit of harm, though it did not do us a scrap of good, and this would be true of 75 per cent of boys. The other 25 per cent, however, may well be damaged by it, and some of them scarred for life, and I do not mean physically scarred, I mean mentally scarred. Furthermore, it is not always the toughest sort of boy who will suffer least. Of all the boys he may be the most vulnerable."
And he went on: "I defy any teacher or any doctor, or any psychiatrist for that matter, to pick out from 100 boys the 25 per cent who may be permanently harmed by the infliction of corporal punishment. Therefore, do not beat children."
This is my view: I am not one who believes that every child who gets a smack or is hit is permanently damaged, but I am of the opinion that the beating of schoolchildren does no good and is a confession of weakness on the part of teachers. I shall give in a moment or two some idea as to why this occurs, but in my opinion it does not do good and may do harm, sometimes of a permanent nature. In relation to this my opinion is that the basic causes for the quantity of corporal punishment that is administered in our primary schools are two—over-crowded schools, and the presence in ordinary classes of a proportion of slightly backward children who cannot keep up, and the teacher is judged on his or her capacity to control and teach all those children in what are often utterly impossible conditions. It is small wonder that many of them find themselves resorting to the disciplinary short-cut of corporal punishment, and I agree that most of us would do the same without necessarily feeling particularly proud of ourselves as we hit the children.
I would contend—and I have said this before—that if we value justice and if physical violence is really thought to offer a safe solution to such problems it should be applied not to the helpless victims of these conditions of overcrowding and wide disparity of ability in the classes, but to those responsible for the existence of such conditions and for their continuance. I feel that primarily we as a Parliament are responsible, the Government are responsible, the Minister is responsible. I do not believe that violence is the right method, but if you want it, it should not be directed against the quite innocent victims of a system which all too long has been tolerated in this country.
Dr. Collis makes the point well that a lot of boys do not get hurt by corporal punishment. It is sometimes said, and it was suggested in a letter to the Irish Times by my old friend Mr. Bithrie, for whom I have a great affection and regard, the other day, that boys sometimes enjoy the punishment and would rather have the punishment than do their lessons. I am reminded of the occasion when George Bernard Shaw was lecturing to some group in London on flogging as a punishment, when somebody got up at the back and said that he knew of soldiers in the army who preferred to be flogged, and asked what the lecturer had to say to that. Shaw replied: “The title of my lecture was `Flogging as a punishment, not flogging as a luxury'.” If you enjoy being flogged, all right. There may be children who enjoy it, but I cannot feel that it is a wholly healthy recreation.
I can claim to know a little bit about physical violence having boxed at welterweight for my university in the junior university championships many years ago, and I know that in boxing, where the object is, in fact, the use of physical violence, there is a very strict rule that you box somebody in your own weight—and he can hit you back. If there is a disparity of as much as 10 lbs. between two boxers they are put in different categories, and nobody would think of putting a bantamweight against a cruiserweight, or a heavyweight. When I see a 12 stone teacher not merely hitting a five or six year old pupil, but having to use an implement to do it, my stomach turns. If any of us was to see a big man in the street hitting a small boy on the head we would intervene, but our educational system permits a man of 12 stone to hit a little kid of six stone with an implement in front of other children.
This leads me to a point I want to make, too—that very often damage is done, particularly to young children of five or six, by their having to witness other children being beaten by an adult. It may well be something that they have never seen before, the use of an instrument by an adult to beat a child. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it is a good thing for a class of 50 or 60 children to be allowed to witness the beating of a child by an adult. I would hold that such a spectacle is a degrading one. I would say that many children in our primary schools who may never have been beaten themselves have been emotionally stirred and, perhaps, scarred by witnessing big teachers hitting their comrades with sticks or straps or pointers or rulers.
I should like to quote something on this which seems to put the case against corporal punishment in schools extremely well. I do not want to quote it at length, because some of it I quoted before, but it is taken from an article appearing in the February 17th 1956Church of Ireland Gazette by a primary school teacher, Miss Kathleen Heard. She said this: “The teacher must respect her pupils and show them that she does respect them. She must not first demand respect from them at the point of the bayonet, or with that attitude. When pupils see that she is worthy of-respect they will give it. Obedience and good discipline achieved by many rules and punishments will not, generally, last when schooldays are over, and I firmly believe that any corporal punishment, however mildly or reluctantly administered, is an evil thing. It is degrading to pupil and teacher. The weaker child will obey through fear and the `diehard' will always give trouble if forced to outward submission. He will take it out of those weaker than himself and is all set to be a `juvenile delinquent' when he leaves. The `bend over' type of discipline, canes, leather strap, rulers and the human fist, are all weapons of war. The race conquered by such means is naturally resentful. It is not a fair fight. The children are not armed.”
She goes on: "Children must, of course, be trained in self-control, not temporary control from fear of the teacher. Temporary submission is not self-control."
The final quotation I would quote from her is this: "Children always describe their teachers as being either quiet or cross as if they were bulls."
I contend that there is something wrong in an educational system where you find the children describing their teachers in such terms, and they do. I feel that Miss Heard is right in her contention here.
I should now like to recall an incident which took place when I had this motion down about the modification of the rules so as to prohibit the beating of girls. This motion of mine remained on the Order Paper, if I remember correctly, for six months, or very nearly so. One evening I came into this House at 7 o'clock, a few minutes before the House reassembled. There was one Senator here and it was Senator Miss Margaret Pearse. She called me over. She asked: "Is your motion about corporal punishment for girls coming up this evening?" I said I really did not know, but that my hope was that it would. I then pointed out that Senator Hayes was just coming into the House—he was the Leader of the House at that time—and that he could tell her the position better than I could. She called him over and she asked him. He said he was not quite sure, and she said: "It is because of it that I have come back here tonight. I do not usually like to come to the late sessions. I am not as well as I used to be, but I have stayed in late two or three times now in order to support this motion. I am not going to make a long speech," said Senator Miss Margaret Pearse. "I am just going to tell what I know." By the time, nearly four months after that, the motion finally did come up, Senator Miss Pearse was not well and was not in the House. However, it is significant that a Senator with her knowledge and experience and standing and sensitivity felt in this way about the beating of small girls in our schools. I much regret that it did not prove possible for her to come and as she said, simply "tell what she knew."
By these Rules and by these new changes, the Department of Education are, in my opinion, moving backwards. I remember that, in 1956, the then Minister for Education, General Mulcahy, decided to make a very minor alteration in the Rules. He decided to alter the Rule which said that corporal punishment shall be administered only with a light cane or rod by adding "or a strap". That is all. That is the only change he made. The Irish Independent of 1st October, 1956, reported it thus:
The use of a leather strap for the administration of corporal punishment in national schools has been authorised by the Minister for Education.
The rule on this matter, according to a circular sent to managers and teachers of national schools, has been amended so as to allow the use of the strap in addition to a light cane or rod.
The Sunday Press gave the same piece of news with a good deal more noise. The Minister, of course, was not a Fianna Fáil Minister at the time. The Minister was General Mulcahy. So you find big headlines in the Sunday Press“Leather strap may be used by teachers” and then, in leaded type, with an exclamation mark after it “Schoolchildren! In future, teacher may use a leather strap to slap you. And he is quite entitled to do so. In fact, the Minister for Education, General Richard Mulcahy, has given his permission.” A little bit later on, the Sunday Press—I am quoting now from the Sunday Press of the same day —states:
A primary school teacher said yesterday that it is well known that the strap has been used in schools freely for years. `The inclusion of the strap, as well as the light cane or rod, in the regulations, now brings the "outlaws" within the law,' he added.
And this, of course, is what struck many people—that the change in the Rules then was for the purpose of bringing the "outlaws" within the law. It seems to me that some of the present changes are due to the same reason.
There is a failure, or a fear, on the part of the Minister and the Department to see to it that their Rules are applied and to see to it that the written undertaking of every school manager that he will comply with the Rules and regulations is fulfilled and it would seem, since his Rules and regulations are being flouted so widely and since this has been known to so many people, that he has decided that the best action he can take is to change the Rules. If the Minister for Justice adopted the same method, what would be the position? If it is difficult to deal with people making poteen, you might decide to change the law and to make it legitimate. Then you could say that the number of cases of criminal activity in this field has diminished to nothing—because there is no longer any law against it. Or take the breaking of the speed limit, for instance. If you decide that there are far too many cases of breaking the speed limit then, according to the same reasoning, the way to deal with that is to double the speed limit and instead of 30 mph make it 60 mph in a builtup area and then you will be happy that the law is not being broken so often. The suggestion of the person quoted in the Sunday Press is that the change was made to bring the “outlaws” Within the law. I would ask the Minister to examine his conscience in this connection, and to change the Rules more realistically.
At that time, something happened in Ireland. There was a big outcry about the introduction of the strap. Many papers took up the matter— the Irish Times, the Evening Mail, the Irish Press, the Evening Press, the Sunday Press and, in a milder way, the Irish Independent. The Schoolchildren Protection Association protested with facts and figures. I should like to say here that I regard them as an admirable and dedicated body of people who are prepared to allow themselves to be subjected to all kinds of abuse in the service of Irish children. Although I do not fully agree with them on their attitude to corporal punishment, it is essentially respectworthy. They have claimed all along that what they wanted was that the Minister's Rules should be really applied. Personally, I should have liked to see the Minister's Rule improved, to stop the beating of children altogether, or, at any rate, as a first step, to stop the beating of small girls. They have always held that the application of the Rules would be such a big improvement that this would satisfy them. The kind of abuse they get for advocating this is such that I think it is time somebody in this House should protest against it. The result, as I was saying, of all these protests was that the Minister changed his mind. It was said at the time that he was a big enough man to admit he had made a big mistake.
I feel it is easier, if you like, for the present Minister not exactly to say so in so many words, but to take steps to make it evident that he does not altogether agree with the changes which have been made and over which he has to stand if he is not to reconsider them. In the Irish Press of 11th October, 1956, there are banner headlines “Strap may”—and, although it is in full headline type, they underline the word—“Not be used by teachers”. Then there is a subheading “Gen. Mulcahy Changes His Mind.” The first paragraph begins:
SCHOOLTEACHERS may NOT chastise children with a leather strap. Only a month after including the strap among the instruments of corporal punishment permitted, the Minister for Education, General Mulcahy, has changed his mind and revoked the Order. He is to tell the managers and teachers that he is doing this because of "misinterpretation and misrepresentation".
This was upheld by an editorial headed "The Strap", in the Evening Mail of 11th October, 1956, which stated:
The introduction of the strap has evoked strong opposition, and energetic — and well-founded — protests have flowed from many quarters. The latest official announcement, however, contains no indication that the Minister recognises the justice of such feelings; instead, it meanly apologies for his action by ascribing it to the "misinterpretation and misrepresentation" allegedly arising from his previous decision. This sort of thing comes strangely from an authority which for years has tolerated a widespread "misinterpretation"—and misapplication—of its own regulations.
It goes on to say further:
Why the Minister saw fit, in the first place, to give the strap his blessing is still unexplained. Everybody in this country, including the Minister himself, must know perfectly well that the strap is no innovation. It has been used—in defiance of the department's regulations—by generations of teachers in many Irish schools.
The Irish Times spoke in similar terms in its news columns on 11th October, 1956, under a heading “Minister now forbids use of strap in schools”. It quotes Mr. David Kelliher, Secretary of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation:
...said last night that at no time were the teachers concerned with whether or not the use of the strap was allowed. They were aware that the use of the strap was a method of corporal punishment traditionally employed in many schools.
Mr. Kelliher continued:
Through our organisation we asked the Minister for a clarification of the position as regards the use of the strap. Now that the amendment has been withdrawn, I take it that its use is now definitely precluded.
He was right, in theory. Now, of course, in 1965 the strap is back again and, with it, the ruler, the pointer and, perhaps, the leg of the chair also. I suggest that, in the light of these things, and harking back to this small backward step in 1956, which was corrected by the Minister under pressure from public opinion, and also under pressure from his own Party, as I happen to know, we are now asked to accept a far more backward step, as I have shown. Why this backward step? Is it because the Minister feels he cannot apply the Rules? Is it because the Rules were being flouted? I should like to quote a letter I received the other day from a woman in Galway. This arises because of the fact that she saw I intended to raise this matter. She says:
Dear Sir,
May I thank you for your efforts to have a discussion on school punishment. A recent newspaper report on a discussion with the Minister made me sick. A few halfhearted queries by Deputies concerning some change he had made in the Rules. What Rules, may I ask? When did some of our teachers observe any Rules? He may as well put his Rules in the fire for all the heed the teachers pay to them. It is such hypocrisy to waste time talking about Rules when we know that our children are brutally beaten day after day for failure at lessons ... and so on.
I do not have to go further into that but the impression many parents have is that Rules are frequently being flouted. I ask the Minister again whether it is because he feels the Rules are being flouted that he is changing them, making them weaker and watering them down?
I shall mention another case which was brought to my notice just the other day, actually, on the 22nd November. It concerns a little boy in St. Patrick's Training Primary School —Vincent Perry, a boy of 10 years— whose head teacher named McAleer found him fooling around with other boys in the school yard with a broken desk. The head teacher brought him into a junior class and made him stand there. The boy protested, said he was not responsible and said there were others involved, too, whereupon the teacher clouted him on the ear. The boy had another brother in the class named Brian who is aged 8. This little boy, who was for nearly a year in Blanchardstown with primary tuberculosis, had recently come back to the school. He stood up for his elder brother, protested, and he got substantial clouting on the ear as well. The parent in question is Mr. Patrick Perry, of 39 Russell Avenue, Drumcondra. He went to see the manager, quite rightly, and the manager said he believed the teacher and that there was no truth in this at all. Both of the boys came home trembling with indignation and fear and there was no doubt in the father's mind as to what had happened. The father, quite rightly, has written to the Minister. I await with interest news as to what kind of action the Minister will take, or does he consider this type of boxing of the ears of children is what he calls "adequate" and not excessive punishment?
When the Minister, any Minister, does actually inquire into a case, he holds the inquiry in private. You will remember I raised on the Adjournment the Raharoon case in which a girl was beaten severely for being left-handed and persisting in using her left hand. Nothing could shake either the manager or the teacher, and finally the father having kept his children from school was brought to court and told that if his children did not keep up school attendance they would be committed to an industrial school. What did he do? He sold his 150 acre farm in Raharoon, West Cork, took his ten children with him, went to London and is now living there. Only after the family had left was the teacher removed from the school What happened the teacher? He was sent to the island of Inisheer in the Gaeltacht. What is the implication there? Is it that the Gaeltacht is regarded as a Devil's Island to which to send the more brutal teachers?
In more recent times—starting last Thursday, in fact—there was an inquiry into allegations of brutal treatment extending over several years at a school in Brittas, County Dublin. I wrote to the Minister and I quote my letter dated 14th November, 1965:
Dear Minister,
I understand that you are having an injuiry held on Thursday next at the National School of Brittas, County Dublin, arising out of allegations of ill-treatment of children in this school. I am extremely interested to know just how such inquiries are conducted, and I wish, consequently, to request you to give me permission to be present as an observer at the proceedings. I hope I am right in thinking that you will see no objection to a Member of the Oireachtas being present at an inquiry into a matter in which he is deeply interested, and one which is of great public importance. You will agree, I trust, that in such matters, as in others, it is of importance that justice shall not only be done but shall be seen to be done.
I received a reply from the Minister dated 16th November, 1965 which reads:
A Sheanadóir, a chara,
With reference to your letter of the 14th inst., and your request to be allowed to be present at the inquiry to be held on Thursday next at Brittas National School, County Dublin, I wish to inform you that the practice has been in the conduct of inquiries such as this that they are conducted in private. The only persons permitted to be present are the inspectors conducting the inquiry, the school manager, the teacher or teachers concerned, a representative of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, the parents and children concerned, the legal representatives of the parents and teachers and such other persons as are being called as witnesses. I can see no good reason for altering this practice.
I am satisfied that the procedure outlined above will ensure that not only will justice be done but also that it will be seen to be done by the parties concerned.
Your request to be allowed to be present at the inquiry must, therefore, be refused.
I should like to make two comments on this. Firstly, I am not satisfied that it is sufficient that justice be seen to be done merely by the parties concerned. I think it should be seen to be done by the public at large. I think all parents should know that if there is abuse of regulations it is in fact put right. I am not satisfied to be told that "suitable investigation" is made and "appropriate action" taken, unless I am told the findings of such an inquiry or how it has been conducted and what action was taken. Secondly, the Minister says that justice will be seen to be done by the parties concerned, but this can only be so if the findings are made known by the parties involved. Does he intend to have the findings made known, or will he keep them private, as his predecessors have always done? If he does intend to keep them private, how can be stand over his contention that justice will be seen to be done by the parties concerned?
I should like to hope in this inquiry that it would not happen as happened at Raharoon in some cases that the children actually in the school would not be heard. It is said you cannot take the evidence of a child, and the evidence of children who had recently left the school could not be taken because offences alleged by them were too long past. The evidence of the child was not heard at all in the Raharoon case, and it appears to be similarly private and behind doors in the Brittas National School, County Dublin.
In 1946 one of the Minister's predecessors, the late Tomás Ó Deirg, introduced modifications in the Rules for corporal punishment and laid down provisions which had not been there before about such things as boxing children's ears, pulling their hair and so on. He introduced admirable modifications to the Rules. I think it is a great pity that his successor should introduce such retrograde amendments to the same rules and regulations. He is taking what the Irish Times, in an excellent editorial, called “a backward step”. The editorial of the Irish Times of November 7th, 1965, says, among other things:
Those who campaign against school punishment are frequently labelled cranks. Indeed they are; so was Dickens when he exposed the iniquities of child labour; so is any honest and courageous reformer. They are too easily labelled enemies of religion because so many schools in Ireland are clerically controlled. Between the two camps there is little tolerance. Our opinion is that violence against the young cannot be justified at all; modern psychology warns us that it is often a brutish manifestation of the sexual urge, a perversion. We would prefer to see corporal punishment banished entirely from schools. The Minister is an honest and honourable man; if he feels that this cannot be done; one would at least expect that he would be moving forward rather than backward. As education improves we should surely expect that the tendency would be to limit punishment rather than extend its scope; that the cane might be held as the ultimate deterrent in difficult cases, the last resort.
I should like to refer to a further article in another paper. I shall quote from the Evening Herald of October 29th, 1965. This article was from the pen of the columnist known as The Inquiring Mind. The heading is “When will we end this rule of fear in our schools?” I shall quote one paragraph:
We have stepped back a century into the pages of Dickens with this change in the regulations. With the removal of the restraints imposed by the old rules there is nothing to stop the wrong kind of teacher from imposing a rule of terror on a class —and without breaking a rule of the Department.
It goes on to say:
Parents' committees are the way to do this in co-operation with experienced managers.
It also says:
Too many of us have taken the school system for granted, failing to inquire into our rights as parents.
The Minister himself in the Dáil emphasised this question of the rights of parents. He quoted from his predecessor. I now quote from vol. 218, No. 4, column 761, of the Official Report. The Minister, in quoting the statement of his predecessor of the 4th May, 1961, said—and this carries the approval of the present Minister since he requoted it—
The teacher holds for the time being the place of the parent and so for the time being carries in this matter the right of the parent. In these circumstances it would be unreasonable for me to forbid the teacher to adopt any deterrent that might be adopted by a just and wise parent.
In that connection I should like to refer to one more change in the Rules, to which I have not yet referred. The new Rules quote the Constitution for the first time. Right at the start, we get quotations from the Constitution and that is another of the changes in the Rules. It is quite a good thing, of course, in itself. Article 42 of the Constitution is quoted. It says:
The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
I draw the Minister's attention to the word "inalienable" and I ask him how he interprets it? I interpret it to mean that which "cannot be transferred" and I suggest to the Minister that he is wrong in thinking that the parents' rights in this matter are automatically transferred to the teacher or manager by reason of the compulsory School Attendance Act. I would contend, furthermore, that under this Article of the Constitution any parent has a right to say he does not want his child to be hit and he can invoke Article 42, subsection (1) of the Constitution in which the State guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to protect their children, physically as well as mentally. I suggest that any parent in any primary school who cares to invoke the Constitution, which is rightly quoted by the Minister in the new Rule, would have a finding in any court in his favour if he wanted to say he did not want his right to have a child beaten, or not to have him beaten, transferred to anybody, because it is his inalienable right according to the Constitution.
I quoted from The Herald. The Minister may feel The Herald is not exactly a paper that is strongly in favour of the Government. I shall quote, very briefly, two paragraphs from letters that appeared in yesterday's Irish Times. Both letters are signed. One is signed by Mr. Martin Reynolds. This is what he says at the end of his letter:
To say that punishment is seldom or ever given in bad temper is indeed to be out of touch with reality. From my own memory I can say it is more likely to be the converse and anyone who is prepared to discuss their experiences frankly will agree that temper, severity and complete lack of justice are frequent companions to punishment in Irish schools.
He gives his full address in Dublin. The other letter is from John C. Cole, not our fellow Senator, although the name is the same. He is from County Sligo and in the last paragraph of his letter he says:
I would agree that punishment is seldom done viciously, but bad temper is not the rare quality Mr. Bithrey thinks it is. True, our teachers have much to contend with. They are certainly not overpaid, and some of them have to contend with overcrowded classes of fifty and upwards. When the national programme for education moves forward these faults should be remedied. Meanwhile, let us not make the pupil a whipping-boy for the present defects of our educational system.
I quote those two but one could give a dozen more in support of my contention that there is strong public opinion against the changes and in favour of the regulations.
