Public Business. - Rules for National Schools: Motion (Resumed). – Seanad Éireann (11th Seanad) – Wednesday, 2 Mar 1966

Public Business. - Rules for National Schools: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Seanad would welcome a reconsideration by the Minister for Education of recent changes made by him in the Rules for National Schools.

—(Senator Sheehy Skeffington.)

Mr. Yeats

It is such a considerable time since we last discussed this motion that we would want to read it again. The motion states:

That the Seanad would welcome a reconsideration by the Minister for Education of recent changes made by him in the Rules for National Schools.

That motion is, of course, wide in scope but, in fact, most of the speeches so far, particularly the contribution by Senator Sheehy Skeffington, related to one subject only. I was unable to be present when the Senator made his speech but I read it with care. Anyone reading the speech would certainly get the impression, wittingly or un-wittingly—I do not know whether he meant it—that there were relatively few changes made in the Rules and that, in fact, the most important change— the only change—was that in relation to corporal punishment. One would also get the impression that the opportunity of issuing a new set of Rules had been used by the Minister for the purpose of making a retrograde change in relation to corporal punishment.

In fact, the situation is entirely different. There are 135 Rules in the new Rule book and there were 126 in the old one. There is a great number of paragraphs and there are about 1,000 new Rules. In fact, so many have been changed that we have an almost complete new book of Rules. Many of these paragraphs have been changed very considerably. There are completely new paragraphs and there are others which have been very considerably changed. On the other hand, in some cases, the changes are very small, a matter of a word here and there, although the paragraph may mean exactly what it meant before. There are cases when it would appear to anyone that the change of one word for another in a particular paragraph is due to no reason at all except that whoever drafted the new Rules happened to prefer one word to another. This is a complete bringing up to date of these old Rules. It is quite a different position from that which existed in 1946. The 1946 Rules were essentially the same as those in 1934, I think. There were a few changes here and there but, basically, they were the same Rules. But that is not the case here. It seems to me that the new Rules are, in every respect, a considerable advance on the old ones, not merely in the changes which they make but also in their general atmosphere—the style of writing is better and a great deal of the Victorian undergrowth dating from the earlier years of the 19th century seems to have disappeared.

These new Rules are technically not so satisfactory for one reason: there is no index. There is an index to both previous sets of Rules but no index to this set. It may be a small point but it does make it a great deal more difficult to find one's way around them. I hope the Minister—if he should be re-issuing these Rules at any time, even though he may not be changing them—would consider having an index inserted in this volume.

Before I get on to the question of corporal punishment which has been mainly under discussion in this debate, I should like to say a little about a series of Rules—there are about five or six of them, all of which have been changed in relatively minor respects— relating to the question of the closing and amalgamation of small schools. I think this is a suitable occasion to congratulate the Minister on the policy he has been carrying out with regard to these small schools.

Mr. O'Quigley

What Rules refer to this?

Mr. Yeats

Rules 80, 98, 101, 39 and 40 deal, in one way or another, with the question of these schools. In fact, this is a far more vital and important question than that which a number of speakers have been discussing. I shall be getting on to it myself in due course but I cannot feel that the rather sentimental speeches we have heard with regard to corporal punishment in schools relate to a matter anything like as important as the question of the type of education which a great many of our national school children get in rural Ireland.

To my mind, this problem of the smaller schools—the one- and two-teacher schools particularly—should have been tackled years ago. It has been obvious for years that these small schools are very unsatisfactory. Now that we have the great Investment in Education report, it has become obvious not merely that they are unsatisfactory educationally but are extremely expensive both to build and maintain. The pupil-teacher ratio, for example, ranges from fewer than 18 pupils to one teacher in the one-teacher schools to somewhere round 45 pupils in the schools with seven or more teachers. The report has shown that if it were possible to close all those one-and two-teacher schools and redistribute teachers, all classes could be reduced to 40 and there would still be another 1,200 teachers left to reduce them further.

Professor Quinlan

The Senator does not believe that calculation, does he?

Mr. Yeats

I do, of course.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Would Senator Quinlan try to restrain himself, please?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is a little concerned that the debate is developing into a discussion on the report Investment in Education. The Senator is widening the scope well beyond that of the debate to date. I do not wish to restrict him unduly——

Mr. Yeats

I appreciate that point. However, I did not draft this motion but, as drafted, it covers the entire set of Rules.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

No; it covers the changes made.

Mr. Yeats

There are at least five Rules relating to the circumstances——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

——which are different from the previous edition?

Mr. Yeats

In every case.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair cannot regard that as other than unfortunate, in that while the Chair does not wish to restrict the Senator, it thinks it would be out of harmony with the debate to date to raise now the question of one- and two-teacher schools.

Mr. O'Quigley

Is the Senator suggesting that these be revised because that is what this motion is concerned with?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Senator is speaking in favour of the motion.

Mr. Yeats

I appreciate your point, a Leas-Chathaoirleach. I certainly do not propose to discuss Investment in Education, except in passing, and I shall endeavour to get to what I have said is the least important topic discussed, as soon as possible. I should like, in passing, to mention that this report points out that the heating and cleaning of these small schools is three times as expensive as the average for all schools. It costs twice as much per pupil to build a one-teacher school as it does to build a three-teacher school. The reasons why, educationally, these small schools are unsatisfactory are quite obvious to anyone. It is obvious that one teacher cannot possibly be expected to teach seven or eight classes satisfactorily or in the case of the two-teacher school where there are perhaps more, it is almost as unsatisfactory. I am going through these as quickly as possible——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes—if the Senator could pass by as quickly as possible, when he is passing by.

Mr. Yeats

There is one point which definitely arises out of the Departmental Rules rather than anything said in Investment in Education. It has been obvious for at least 30 years that the Department recognises that education in these small schools is unsatisfactory. At least as far back as 1934 the Department made geometry and algebra optional, rather than compulsory, subjects in these small schools.

Mr. O'Quigley

Because they wanted more Irish. That is the reason.

Mr. Yeats

For boys. I shall not get on to this anti-Irish ramp which some people constantly wish to indulge in. In the three-teacher and larger schools, geometry and algebra are compulsory. In one- or two-teacher schools there is an option. They are not normally taught. It has nothing to do with Irish or English or any other school. It is a matter of the size of the school. I do not know why Senators want to drag in——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I must ask the Senator what Rule he is referring to now which the Minister has changed.

Mr. Yeats

I may have misled the Chair unintentionally. It is not the Rules but the syllabus I am referring to. The point I am getting at is that the Department recognised the difficulty of teaching in these small schools.

Mr. McQuillan

How many times has the Senator's Party been in Government since 1933?

(Interruptions).

Mr. Yeats

The attitude of some of the members of the Parties opposite shows the great difficulties that have to be faced when anyone tries to tackle a subject of this kind. I know the Minister will stand up to it and do what is right and not take the easy line.

Mr. O'Quigley

He is taking some of the advice I gave him on this motion. He is establishing a panel of psychologists.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Yeats on the changes in the Rules.

Mr. Yeats

There is nothing so extraordinary as the changes which every month show in the policy of the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. Rooney

We are progressive.

Mr. Yeats

One minute they claim that we are closing the small schools because they said they would do it in their famous policy issued before the election, and now they say it is the most disgraceful thing that was ever done.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Senator should look at the Taoiseach's speech in Mullingar on a wages and incomes policy if he wants to see huge changes.

Mr. Yeats

I suppose that before discussing the question of corporal punishment one should state one's own views on the subject. My view is that, on the whole, discipline is better without corporal punishment if it can be dispensed with. I read Senator Sheehy Skeffington's speech very carefully— all 35 columns of it — and I have listened to a number of speeches on this topic and I am not yet convinced that it is possible to dispense with corporal punishment in our schools. If I were convinced I would certainly support the motion, but I am not convinced.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Does the Senator favour it for girls as well as boys?

Mr. Yeats

Neither the Senator nor anyone else raised that question. If it were being discussed I would be inclined to put it the other way round and say that I am not at this moment convinced that it is necessary for girls, but I am open to be convinced to the contrary. I am not convinced in regard to boys at the moment that it is necessary, but I am willing to be convinced to the contrary. I have not yet been convinced and to tell the truth I am not likely to be by anything Senator Sheehy Skeffington says, because in discussing this topic he gets too worked up about it, and so sentimental about it that when it comes to hard facts and principles one does not get many. I think he labours under two illusions.

Mr. Murphy

Is that all?

Mr. Yeats

On this topic. The first is that children can be taught by Rule, in other words, that you can lay down Rules which will decree how the teacher is to run the class. In my opinion a good teacher does not need any Rules, and a bad teacher, or the type of sadistic teacher that Senator Sheehy Skeffington brandishes before us, will not obey the Rules. That is the fallacy, that is the first illusion under which Senator Sheehy Skeffington suffers.

The second is more fundamental. The second illusion is that schoolchildren in Irish national schools need to be protected against excesses by the teachers, that the Rules are the pupils' defence against sadistic teachers. He mentioned five or six incidents that happened over the past ten years. I have no intention of going through them in detail, and there are one or two cases in which I am by no means convinced by his explanation. Everyone knows there are some bad teachers. Teachers are human beings. Out of 15,000 teachers there might be some sadistic teachers, but you cannot deal with people like that by Rules. One has to use the influence of the manager, the parents, the Minister and his officials. Certainly laying down Rules will not deal with those cases. Dragging cases of that kind through the Seanad in order—I can think of no other reason —to pour scorn on the national teachers does not do any good.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington's attitude is reflected in his remarks at column 525 of the Official Report where he complained that the Minister, for some sinister reason apparently, had done away with the rule that these Rules should be hung in the classrooms. I do not know whether these Rules ever hung in every classroom in the country. I never saw them. It seems to me that the teachers always had the good sense to see that that was an idiotic rule which should not be obeyed. The notion of having such Rules hung on the walls of every classroom for the children to peruse when they were annoyed with the teachers was fantastic, and an example of the sort of Victorian Dotheboys Hall atmosphere which hung around the Rules before they were brought up to date. I cannot conceive any advantage in having these Rules hanging on the walls, and it seems to me that the Senator in wishing to retain that Rule is showing a particularly unrealistic attitude with regard to how the teachers should behave in school, and how the Department should supervise the education system.

As regards Rule No. 130 on school discipline, I am in no doubt that it is a great improvement on the previous Rules. Right from the start one sees a change. In the 1946 Rules there was a horrendous heading: "Instructions in regard to the Infliction of Corporal Punishment in National Schools"— and then a string of Rules about how children should be beaten. The new Rule is under the heading of "School Discipline" which seems to show a different attitude straight away, and the Rule is written in a more modern, up-to-date and intelligent way.

Certainly, I think it is a complete illusion to assume, as Senator Sheehy Skeffington and indeed one or two other speakers have assumed, that these changes are retrograde, that, in some way, they are an attempt by the Minister to widen and increase the amount of beating in national schools. I do not think that is so at all. The really important point, I think, is subparagraph (iv) which reads:

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.

In the Rule which Senator Sheehy Skeffington seeks to retain, that was not there at all. So long as you did not box the child on its ears or, I think, pull its hair, you could do anything at all. You could beat a child on the hand as long as you liked. Of course, I know it is ridiculous. Quite obviously, no inspector or manager or Minister would stand for it. But, as far as the bare Rule goes, it is the only thing that interests Senator Sheehy Skeffington. As far as the bare rule goes, there was no barrier at all to excessive punishment so long as it was done in a certain way. It does not seem to me to make sense.

If Senator Sheehy Skeffington would only try to look at this in a sensible, practical way, instead of in the way he has, the sort of extravagant emotional way in which he tends to look into these things—indeed, the prejudicial way—I think he would see that the Rule he wishes to see restored was extraordinarily unsatisfactory. A Rule dealing with corporal punishment which had no safeguard at all against excessive beating does not seem to me to be a protection to anyone.

An example, of course, of the way in which Senator Sheehy Skeffington makes his case is his misquotation of the Minister. He claims that the Minister admitted that, under the new Rules, it would be quite in order to box a child's ears. The Minister said nothing of the kind. At column 527 of the Official Report of Seanad Éireann, volume 60, No. 6, Senator Sheehy Skeffington said that, in the Dáil, the Minister was asked whether boxing a boy's ears constituted, under the new Rules, a breach of the regulations and that the Minister was forced to say that in some circumstances it would not. He said, further, that the Minister admitted that teachers sometimes might be allowed to box a child's ears. When I read that, I thought that this was a very odd thing for a Minister to say and I looked up what he had said. I found that he had said nothing of the kind. He did not say anything that, I think, could really genuinely have led Senator Sheehy Skeffington to assume he did say it. I just cannot understand that statement by Senator Sheehy Skeffington.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Would the Senator quote the question the Minister was asked in the Dáil and the answer he gave to it?

Mr. Yeats

The Minister said quite clearly that boxing a child's ears was in breach of the regulations. He went on to say what I think is the only thing a sensible and humane Minister could say, namely, that, of course, before taking disciplinary action he would have to hear what the teacher had to say. It is quite clearly——

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

On 28th October, 1965, as reported at column 764 of volume 218, No. 4, of the Official Report of Dáil Éireann, Deputy Cluskey asked whether, if a case came to the Minister's attention where it had been proved that a teacher had struck a child, boxed him on the ears or on the head, the Minister would be prepared to take disciplinary action. The Minister's reply was that he could not give a blanket answer to that.

Mr. Yeats

That is what I said. It is a breach of the regulations. Deputy Cluskey asked him if he would take disciplinary action. It is perfectly obvious that, before taking disciplinary action, one must hear what has to be said.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Would the Senator——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Sheehy Skeffington will, at some time in the future, have an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Yeats

At some length.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Senator Yeats should quote the Minister's reply, not paraphrase it.

Mr. Yeats

Senator Sheehy Skeffington confuses a breach of the regulations with disciplinary action. If a breach of the regulations is involved, does the Senator seriously think that boxing a child on the ears would not come under subparagraph (iv) of Rule 130? It reads:

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.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

That is what the Minister was asked.

Mr. Yeats

No. He said he would hear what the teacher had to say. Earlier on, in the same discussion, the Minister made this comment, as reported at Column 763 of the Official Report of the same date:

I want to stress that there has been no question of giving licence to teachers to assault and batter children. They are expected to act in a way a just parent would act and if they fail to do so, they are subject to severe disciplinary action.

Would a just parent box a child's ears? I do not think so.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I hope not.

Mr. Yeats

Further down, in the same column, the Minister was asked by Deputy Corish:

Is it now permissible to administer punishment on other parts of the body than the hands?

and he replied:

...in certain circumstances it could be. It would be a very unusual case in which this would be permissible but I can visualise circumstances in which it would happen and they would be circumstances in which a just and wise parent would deal with his own child by administering corporal punishment other than on his hands. However, it would not be a normal case.

There is no question of anybody boxing anybody on the ears. You have, on the one hand, a question whether a just parent—the Minister's quite legitimate comparison—will box on the ears and we have the answer "No" and we have the protection of the Rule regarding improper and excessive punishment. Senator Sheehy Skeffington is obsessed with boxing on the ears. Is that his whole attitude? The Rule which used to exist and which forbade the pulling of hair and boxing on the ears had nothing in it about kicking the child. I suppose Senator Sheehy Skeffington could have said, when these Rules came into force, that they allowed a teacher to kick a child.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Rule is quite specific. It says only on the open hand with a light rod or cane.

Mr. Yeats

Why this business of boxing ears? You cannot have it both ways. If it is only the hands, why on earth talk of boxing the ears? The thing becomes meaningless. I think, too, on the strength of this particular discussion in the Dáil, that to accuse the Minister of saying that he would allow teachers to box children's ears is simply carrying emotion to extremes. The best way to conclude is to quote what the Minister said in this House on the subject of corporal punishment. I think what he has to say here is a more important safeguard than any number of Rules will be. As reported at column 595 of the Official Report of Seanad Éireann, volume 60, No. 6, he said:

.... I want to make it as clear as I possibly can, that while I believe that the number of teachers who indulge in excessive punishment is very small, nevertheless, if cases of this kind of conduct come to light I am determined as Minister for Education to ensure that full disciplinary action will be taken against those teachers whether they are lay or clerical, that vicious or excessive punishment by teachers will not be tolerated as far as I am concerned.

That, to my mind, is the real safeguard that we have with regard to the few cases there may be of excessive punishment in schools. Rules arguing about technicalities, the commas and dotting the i's in Rules will not deal with these few cases. It is a matter of firm action by the Minister, firm supervision by the inspectors, supervision by the managers, and complaints by the parents—and heaven knows parents whose children they feel are beaten unfairly are the first to complain. These things are far more important than any particular rule.

I have no brief to defend national teachers at all. There are good and bad teachers. I have no particular interest in national teachers or any other teachers but I think it right to ask Senator Sheehy Skeffington to understand that the vast majority of national school teachers are trying to do a decent job. There may be a few hotheads among them but they are very few, and to suggest, as he has suggested here, that because a Rule says that you cannot box children or does not mention boxing their ears, the teachers are going to go around boxing ears is just fantastic. It seems to me that he has a completely erroneous view as to how things work in Irish national schools. I say that as far as a Rule can do anything in a matter of this kind, the new Rule is a great deal better than the previous Rule, and the Rules as a whole are very much more satisfactory. I congratulate the Minister on bringing them in.

Professor Jessop

During the earlier stages of this rather lengthy debate, Senator Stanford said that he thought that my opinion would be some help in the matter of the likelihood of punishment with a light cane on the open hand being possibly followed by injury to the hand or the cause of injury to the hand. I think that this is rather unlikely, provided the punishment is light. It is not impossible, I suppose, but it is certainly unlikely that any gross damage will be done to bones, blood vessels, nerves or anything like that. But it is interesting that a short time before this question arose we were discussing this subject in a medical context and the suggestion was made—in fact, it was more than a suggestion—that repeated punishment, even though light and on the open hand, might cause in sensitive children a certain kind of reaction which causes in later life the hand to become contracted. We call it Dupuytren's contracture. It is a very difficult condition to deal with. I am not saying that this is an established fact, but it has been said that this rather rare condition is due sometimes in sensitive people to their having been punished in this way repeatedly on the open hand while children. I am not making this an argument for one side or the other. I am merely answering the question which was raised by Senator Stanford.

Senator Alton said that he had consulted doctors interested in child care on the question of corporal punishment. I had an opportunity a while ago of making a study of this among a group of the people who are the usual recipients of this corporal punishment, namely, children aged about 8 to 12 years. I asked them to discuss their reactions to the whole question of corporal punishment. It was, in fact, long before this debate was thought of and the motion on it came up, but these questions are always cropping up in various contexts. I asked them— and they had a lively discussion on the question—and they agreed by a considerable majority that it was only fair that if they were bold at school or did not do their lessons, they should be punished. They did add the proviso that this punishment should be inflicted at once without any talk or palaver on the day and then should be forgotten about and not discussed afterwards. This again supports Senator Alton's view about the psychological trauma inflicted on a child's mind being probably more important than the actual physical injury that any reasonable punishment inflicts on his body.

On the more general question, I agree with the majority of Senators who expressed the view that some corporal punishment is probably necessary and may even be beneficial very frequently in the maintenance of discipline and the training of children, but that, of course, excessive amounts of corporal punishment, or corporal punishment wrongly given in wrong circumstances, is bad. Education is not really a matter of hammering as much information as possible into an unwilling child. It is a partnership—or should be—between the teacher, the parent and the child. If there is an aspect of this question of corporal punishment that is open to criticism, this comes up quite fairly for discussion. I feel a little disturbed, as I think Senator Alton was, at the emphasis that this subject seems to be getting from time to time. I wonder whether it has not been over-emphasised and if there is not some fundamental way of avoiding this kind of circumstance. I am sometimes afraid of being asked when I go elsewhere: "Have you left off beating your children?" because we always seem to be discussing questions of corporal punishment in this country.

Finally, I should like to say in this regard, could we not refer more directly to the function of the school managers? Senator McQuillan said that he thought that if we are to deal with this question at all, we should have specific kinds of punishment for specific offences, that definite punishments that could be applied to a child should be laid down. I am not so certain that I agree with him, because there is an enormous range of sensitivity on the part of children, and the punishment that will be remembered by one child to his horror for many months will be forgotten by another before its infliction is really over Therefore, I think that you must grade the punishment to the child, and there are only a few types of persons in the environment of the child who know the child's capacity for taking punishment. There is the parent, the teacher, if he remembers to advert to it in the heat of the moment, and the school manager. If the parent, having heard and seen the condition of the child, complains to the manager, I think that that should be adequate, and I am rather disturbed to find that we have to spend such a lot of Parliamentary time in discussing a question which I believe should be settled at that level.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

This has been a long debate and I have listened to all the speakers and everything they said. I feel that some of the speakers did not quite gather the gist of what I said, for instance. Senator Yeats who referred to the word "sadistic." Senator Ó Maoláin also mentioned it. I never used the word "sadistic" and I did not accuse any teacher of being a sadist. In fact, the word was first used in the debate, as I remember, by Senator Ó Maoláin.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Might I interrupt to ask whether it would be agreed that we sit until 11 o'clock or so to give the Senator time to complete his reply to the debate?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I think it probably would suffice if the Seanad is prepared to bear with me.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Probably before that, if we could do it.

Mr. Rooney

Is it really necessary?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am prepared to move the adjournment now, if the Senator wishes.

Mr. Rooney

I would suggest he move the adjournment and he could continue his reply when we next meet.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

This is an excellent opportunity of finishing the motion now.

Mr. Rooney

It does not depend on anything.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It will depend on the time available next week. That is the trouble.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

There is a suggestion that it might be postponed until Wednesday next.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It was not thought that there would be more speakers.

Mr. Rooney

Shall we allow the Senator to finish?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I think I should like to move the adjournment in the hope that next Wednesday I shall get an opportunity of finishing. Senators have had a long session now and it would be more satisfactory, possibly, if I were given an opportunity next Wednesday. There are quite a few Senators interested. Senator FitzGerald went away thinking it would be postponed, as did Senator McQuillan, and Senator Quinlan, I know, wanted to speak on it.