I welcome this Bill inasmuch as it improves certain facets of the 1926 School Attendance Act. Senator Murphy has a point when he states that this type of legislation can in effect seem negative but there are other approaches to this problem of a more positive nature and I hope to make a number of references to them later on.
Legislation of this kind is important because we have to tackle the question of absenteeism from school. Those who have made surveys of this problem indicate that in 10 per cent of the cases we find absenteeism a main factor where children, in the process of learning any subject, tend to fall behind. The cumulative effect following repeated absences is that the child tends to lose faith and becomes backward. This is disastrous for the child. He loses confidence and it is tantamount to throwing in the towel, to give up. This leads to defeat and disappointment for the child. There are many reasons for absenteeism other than illness—for example, parental indifference. Many parents are quite indifferent as to the welfare of their children. This parental indifference adversely affects a child's motivation. If the parent is not interested, it is only a matter of time for the child to become disinterested as well. Parental encouragement is a powerful stimulus to a child's scholastic attainment.
Another cause of absence from school is parental hostility to the teacher in the school. This can have disastrous results altogether, because the immature child cannot understand two symbols of authority, the parent and teacher, in conflict. It sets up confusion and fear in his own mind. He does not understand the situation. He is inclined to lean on the sympathetic side, on the side of the parent. He develops a hostility towards school and the teacher.
Another cause of absenteeism is, of course, the non-enforcement in a consistent and genuine way of the existing School Attendance Act. People lose respect for law if it is not consistently and genuinely enforced. After a while, with certain parents, the School Attendance Act becomes a bit of a joke, becomes a farce. Fines have been too small; the delay in bringing the child before the court has been too great. Many children leave school before the case even comes before the court. Children beginning to leave at 13 years and 3 months often leave on reaching 14 without having been brought before the court.
Another cause of absenteeism is, of course, economic necessity, to which Senator Murphy has referred. Many parents keep their children at home, or withdraw them from school at an early age for the purpose of sending them out to satisfy their own economic needs. This is, of course, a very shortsighted policy and damages a child's capacity to cope in a society which is becoming more complex and competitive. However, it is encouraging to see that the problem of absenteeism is a diminishing one. Senator Murphy did ask if there was any evidence to indicate how effective school attendance legislation for the benefit of the public outside has been in the past to meet the problem of absenteeism. Yesterday I went over some reports of the Department of Education, going back to the time when the School Attendance Act of 1926 was not in force. It is of interest to note that the first School Attendance Act was passed in 1892 but it was optional for local authorities to set up school attendance committees. In many areas they did not set them up at all, and in certain areas where they were set up, they ceased to operate after a short time. This made the introduction of the 1926 Act necessary.
Taking the period 1905 to 1965, at quinquennial intervals, the attendances, expressed as a percentage of enrolments, work out as follows: 1905, 67.4 per cent; 1910, 70.8 per cent; 1915, 71.5 per cent; 1920, 69.6 per cent; 1925, 73.5 per cent. Then the School Attendance Act was passed in 1926 and the figure for that year was 77 per cent. Then there was a very significant jump, following the introduction of the legislation. In 1930 it became 84.4 per cent; in other words, between the years 1925, prior to the introduction of the Act, and 1930, there was a jump from 73.5 per cent to 84.4 per cent. In 1940 it was 85 per cent; 1945, 83.7 per cent; 1950, 85.5 per cent; 1955, 85.6 per cent; 1960, 88.1 per cent and for 1965 the latest published figure is 91.7 per cent. Therefore, from the year of the introduction of the School Attendance Act of 1926 there was a jump of more than 14 per cent in the attendance expressed as percentages of enrolments from year to year. This is very significant indeed. Of course, there are reasons for this. One would be the development of better transport facilities. Another would be better socioeconomic standards to a certain extent and also the introduction of the school attendance legislation.
Therefore, it is of importance that the Seanad should, when considering this piece of legislation, realise that legislation of this kind can have a very positive effect. There is, of course, the socio-economic aspect of it, to which Senator Murphy referred. In order to bring certain aspects of the socioeconomic situation before the House we should consider how we can improve the lot of people who are not in a position to clothe their children properly and send them out to school with a certain amount of self-respect. We should consider generally the level of income for the various groups in society, with particular reference to the level of income of a widow who is inclined to keep her children at home so that they can go out to earn a few extra shillings to improve her lot. Various aspects of the problem might be considered positive aspects. It would be advisable to develop better parent-teacher contacts, so that there would be a mutual appreciation of the difficulties which often exist in the training and education of children. Also, the majority of parents do seek help and co-operation from schools in the orderly upbringing of their children, but there is a minority who frustrate and hinder the work of the schools.
Parent enlightenment can be beneficial, and such enlightenment could be achieved by the advice of social workers to parents on the long-term value of education for their children and on the expansion of pre-marriage counselling courses, or marriage preparation courses. These are in existence in many areas throughout the country at present, but they could be of great value in bringing home to the parents the necessity for keeping their children at school regularly and also for long periods so that they would be in a position to face the competitive society into which they will have to be meshed at a later stage.
Life is becoming more and more competitive. There is no walk of life at present of any value which is open to a person without some form of competition. There are academic hurdles over which a child must go. Take apprenticeship, which was taken for granted some years ago. Now there are certain educational requirements, the group certificate or intermediate certificate. Parents often fail to realise these things. Therefore, advice to them could be a very important matter for the future.
Parent-teacher meetings could also be improved so that advisers, teachers and others could advise parents as to the long-term value of education. Also teacher-trainees, in my opinion, could be trained in methods of dealing with problem children. Many of these children who do not attend school are problem children; they are maladjusted; they need special treatment. Teachers should be trained in methods of dealing with these children. Techniques of teaching are important, of course, in the imparting of knowledge, but so also are attitudes towards children, particularly towards the problem child, where this is very important. Teachers should also be trained on how to deal with the really maladjusted child and to reduce his difficulties to a minimum in such a manner as he might feel more at home at school. These are important positive aspects of the problem and I think that the Minister would be advised to set up a working party to examine the positive approach to supplement what he has introduced here today which is an advance on existing school attendance legislation. We hope it will meet with as much success as previous legislation.