Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 Oct 1928

Vol. 26 No. 7

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 45—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION. (RESUMED).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £58,012 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Costaisí Oifig an Aire Oideachais, maraon le costas Riaracháin, Cigireachta, etc.
That a sum not exceeding £58,012 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education, including the cost of Administration, Inspection, etc. —[The President.]

It falls to my lot to resume my speech, which was interrupted so long ago as the 6th June, and it is not easy at this time to pick up the threads of the debate which had then been in progress for some days. Before dealing with the particular point at which I was interrupted, I would like to refer briefly to a speech which was made on the last day this question was under discussion by Deputy J.J. Byrne. I am sorry the Deputy is not in the House, as I would prefer he was here to listen to my comments on his speech. As far as one could see, it was a general attack on the standard of education reached in our primary schools. I was rather surprised that the Deputy, who is punctilious in demanding proof of statements made by other Deputies, should have made the statements he did in that speech without advancing even a scintilla of proof for them. I will quote one statement from his speech, which is typical of most of what he said:—

"If children go regularly to school for a number of years, and if, when they reach the age of fourteen, they are only in the third standard, what possible hope can there be either for them or for their parents?"

His whole speech, as far as I could gather, was intended to give the impression that was the standard of education which was reached not by one or two pupils, but by the general body of pupils. As I say, he advanced no proof whatever in support of that argument. If he had taken the trouble to look up the statistics and reports of the Department of Education he would find that for the year ended June, 1926, the latest date for which these statistics are available, there were almost one-third of the pupils attending national schools enrolled in standards higher than the third. There were 140,000 pupils enrolled in standards higher than the third, and there were 40,000 enrolled in the sixth and higher standards. That was for the year ending June, 1926, before the School Attendance Act came into operation. We know that the attendance at schools before that Act came into operation was in a deplorable state, and that the average school-leaving age of children in the Free State was between eleven and twelve years. Yet, we had that comparatively large number of pupils enrolled in standards higher than the third. Deputy Byrne's speech would give the impression to the casual reader that the average child left school when in the third standard. Again, he made one of those wild statements sometimes made by people in matters of this kind who give very little thought to what they say. He said:—

"Anybody with experience of education on the Continent or across-Channel is aware that the system of education in this country is fifty years behind as compared with that of Great Britain, and a hundred years behind in comparision with that of the Continent."

He does not tell us what experience he had across-Channel or on the Continent, and he does not give us proofs of statements of that kind. We have heard these statements in other quarters. Not so very long ago a reverend gentleman, discussing the education question at a meeting in Dublin, made a somewhat similar statement. He said that education in Ireland was fifty years behind what it was in England. When asked for his proof he referred to a statement made by the late Minister for Education. The Minister promptly contradicted that statement, and we have heard nothing since from the reverend gentleman on that matter. Deputy Good also made statements without advancing proof.

Deputy Good spoke of technical education.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Perhaps Deputy Good is more competent to speak on technical education, especially in the City of Dublin, than I happen to be, but we often hear general statements of that kind without any proof being brought forward to substantiate them. I have no hesitation in saying that the standard of education reached in the primary schools, even without taking into account the unfavourable conditions very often under which that education has to be carried out, compares very favourably with that reached in many other countries where the conditions are more favourable. I say that as a result of some experience.

I happen to have been engaged actively in the work of education for fourteen or fifteen years, and for the past twelve years I have been in close touch with the administration and working of education in this country. I know something about the actual work in other countries. When outside this country I have always taken occasion to go into schools to find out the standard of education reached and compare it with our own. I have said more than once, and I say it again, that if I take an average boy or girl who attends regularly at an average school in Ireland, that boy or girl at the age of thirteen or fourteen would compare favourably, and more than favourably, with the standard of education reached by the boy or girl of the same age in any other country. I give my own experience for what it is worth, but it was borne out very recently by a very distinguished scholar and educationist, Father Lambert McKenna, who was chairman of two very important education conferences appointed by the Minister for Education. One of these was an inspection conference held in 1926.

Father McKenna was deputed by his colleagues on the Commission to visit various countries on the Continent, to inquire into the systems of education there and to observe the working of the systems. He made a tour of Scotland, England, Belgium, Holland, Germany and France and visited schools in those countries. On the occasion of the closing of this Commission in reply to a vote of thanks, Father McKenna made the statement that nowhere in any of these countries had he met teachers who were more anxious to do their duty, or who were more capable of doing the duty for which they were appointed, or who were doing it more energetically and enthusiastically than the Irish teachers. I give that to Deputy J. J. Byrne for what it is worth. I believe that the ordinary man in the street if he had to choose between the opinions of Deputy Byrne and Father Lambert McKenna would have no difficulty in choosing the evidence he would accept. I refer to this at some length because such statements with regard to the standard of education in this country are not confined to one particular quarter. I do not know why it is we are so fond of running down education and other things in our own country because they happen to be Irish. It seems to be a failing of our people. Some people think that because our education is Irish, and tending more and more to be so, that it cannot be any good compared with education in other countries. I have a certain amount of suspicion regarding the quarters from which this criticism comes that there is more behind it than appears on the surface, and that it is an attempt to decry our present system of education because we are giving so much attention to our national language.

I have heard it said by some people as a criticism of our system of education that we are spoiling Irish education by introducing or making compulsory the Irish language. I believe that the criticisms of the kind I have mentioned, intentionally or otherwise, are made because there is that opinion in the minds of the people who make them. There is no proof, none whatever, rather is the contrary the case, that the standard of education in the other subjects than Irish has suffered or has fallen in any way by the introduction of compulsory Irish in the schools.

Having dealt with that matter, I go on to speak of what is undoubtedly the one black spot in our system of education at the present time. That is the condition of the buildings in which education has to be carried on. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into this matter at any great length or to show Deputies here or to prove to the House that school buildings in this country are in a disgraceful and deplorable condition. We have good buildings. We have good schools, no doubt, but their number, comparatively speaking, is very few. Let us take the statistics given by the Minister in support of his speech. He tells us that a year or two ago a census was taken by the officials of his Department as to the necessity for schools. There were required 350 new schools, absolutely new schools. In other words, the old buildings had been condemned or it was a case in which new schools had to be built to meet the needs of the population. There were 550 schools required to be enlarged, and 900 schools required minor alterations. In other words, over one-third of the schools of the country required to be replaced, enlarged or altered in some way in order to provide suitable school accommodation. Remember this, that these figures have been arrived at by a census taken by the officials of his own Department, the inspectors, and anyone who has any experience of the inspectors knows that their estimate is a most conservative estimate of what is needed. Then one looked anxiously or listened anxiously—I certainly did—to hear what plan the Minister had to deal with the biggest problem and the most pressing and immediate problem in connection with Irish education. I was most anxious to hear what his plans were and what were his proposals, what scheme he had in view or what plans he had in view to deal with this pressing and urgent problem which affected not only the education of the children, but the actual physical health of so many children throughout the State. Here is what he says—he sums it up in two or three lines: "The Board of Works is trying as fast as it can go to remedy that situation and to provide adequate school accommodation."

The Board of Works, as fast as it can go! We all know how fast it can go, and no one knows that better than the Minister himself, who spent such a long time in charge of the Board. That is the only information the Minister has to give us with regard to this great and most pressing problem. The Board of Works, as fast as it can go, is dealing with the problem. Let us see how fast it has been going. I find from the Estimates for the years 1924-25, 1925-26, 1926-27, taking these three years together, that the amount actually voted by this House for building purposes was £175,000, and the amount actually expended was only £128,000. In other words, there was more than a fourth of the money voted by this House unexpended, because the Board of Works could not, I suppose, go fast enough with the spending of the money. Here we have this year £100,000 on the Estimates, and I wonder how much of that will be unexpended at the end of the year? Will there be a quarter of it? And suppose that all the money voted will be expended, how long does the Minister calculate it will take before he would even catch up with the arrears in the building programme? And by that time, ten or twelve years at the present rate, how many more buildings will be unfit for habitation? I suggest that the Minister is not tackling the problem in the serious way in which this problem has to be tackled and ought to be tackled. If we go into any village in the country in the rural districts we see very fine buildings there put up within the last two or three years for the accommodation of the Gárda Siochána. All over the country you see these. In many cases these very fine buildings are erected for the accommodation of four or five healthy specimens of manhood, but around the corner you will see the miserable and unsanitary hovels very often where fifty, sixty, seventy or a hundred children are huddled together. Surely this is sufficiently serious to be tackled in a more serious manner than that in which the Minister has tackled it. I will take the liberty, instead of quoting from reports of Commissions and Inspections, and the reports of the Department to show the state of the school buildings in Ireland at the present time, to read a letter which I regard as a very human document. It reached me two days ago from a teacher in one of the counties of Leinster. It describes a state of affairs which is not at all an uncommon one in some of our rural districts.

The writer says:—"I beg to bring the following facts under your notice, and ask you for the sake of the teachers, the children and the parents to give us your assistance. This school is built to accommodate thirty-five pupils." I should say that the regulations provide that there are ten square feet of floor space for each pupil. And those who are acquainted with such matters will agree that that is very limited accommodation. The letter goes on: "It has been overcrowded for years. At various times during the past fifteen or sixteen years the question of providing further accommodation has been talked of, but it has got no further than talking of it so far. From the list of averages which I enclose you will see that the number is still increasing, and under the existing conditions I cannot see how we can either teach or live in an overcrowded poisonous atmosphere. We found it very difficult to do so in the summer months, but now with the winter at hand it will be an impossible task. Imagine two teachers and over seventy pupils working in a small room built to accommodate thirty-five pupils. The air is that thick and heavy that it is nothing unusual to have children fainting at their work. I have had to remove children from class to the yard in my arms several times during the past twelve months, and on previous occassions also... I am not exaggerating in the least; any school child or J.A.M. will tell you the same. This school is situated in a very bleak spot on a hill-top, where the children are very often badly clad and badly fed. They are practically all belonging to the working-class and to the small farmer, who is even worse off. It will give you some idea of the poverty of the district when I mention that no matter how willing, they cannot buy any of their books, and I have to supply them with books or leave them sit idle in the school. There is another matter which, to my mind, is a serious one. We have families of children whose parents, God rest them, died in consumption. This is well-known to everyone in the district. Surely it is not a proper place for such children— an overcrowded room from 9.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on five days each week. I could write pages on this matter, but anything I could write would give you no idea of the real state of affairs or of the bleakness and poverty of the district."

That is a letter which describes the conditions which are not uncommon in many of our rural areas to-day. What is the solution? I do not know whether Deputies are acquainted with the system under which grants are made for school buildings. The normal practice has been that when application is made to the Department of Education for the building of a new school, and when the Department is satisfied that a new school is necessary, it recommends that a building grant be allowed equal to two-thirds of the estimated cost of the building. The locality has to find the remaining third and also has to provide a site for the school. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred the locality means the local school manager, and he has no machinery at his disposal to enable him to raise the remaining third. He may be in a position to provide the site, but he has no machinery at his disposal to raise the proportion of the grant that is required by the departmental regulations. He must go to the people of the parish and get this money by voluntary subscription.

Imagine what happens in a rural parish. The school is necessary, and it may be estimated to cost anything from £1,800 to £2,000. This is not an exorbitant figure. The Education Department, having decided after much delay on the part of the Board of Works, with whom they act in this matter, that a school is necessary, and having made the necessary estimate informs the manager they are prepared to give a grant equal to two-thirds. The manager is asked to raise the remaining £600 or £700. How can a manager in a rural area in Ireland be expected to raise, without any machinery save the voluntary support of his congregation, the £600 or £700 necessary? Naturally he will say he cannot afford to do it, and then begins a long, weary and tedious correspondence with bargaining and haggling between the Department and the manager. Then they say: "We will give you three-fourths if you will provide the remainder." The manager explains that he cannot provide the other fourth, and investigations and correspondence continue. They drag on month after month, and finally the Department agree to give five-sixths. The correspondence begins again, and I have known cases where it has gone for four or five years and nothing has been done in the way of building a school. There are cases in which the Department, after much investigation and many reports from their officials that the locality is so poor that it cannot afford to find the remainder of the money, give a full grant from Government sources.

My suggestion towards a solution of this problem of building schools and for getting rid of the interminable delays that take place in the case of many schools—delays which are entirely due to the question of the provision of a local proportion—is that the whole capital cost of building the new school should be advanced from Government sources. There is no objection that I can see that can be urged against that proposal. I hold that it is not fair to expect the manager to provide, without any machinery for borrowing the money or spreading the loan over a number of years, the capital sum necessary to represent the share of the locality in the cost of the building. If he is able to raise the money in the parish for the building of the school, it is not fair to the present generation of parents who contribute. The building is expected to last 40 or 50 years and successive generations will not be asked to contribute anything. This suggestion has been made on many occassions. I say that is the solution of the problem of the delay in providing new schools and the enlargement of existing schools.

When this question was raised on another occasion I think some point was mentioned that a difficulty would arise from the point of view of the managers —that it would have some effect on what is known as the managerial question. I suggest it will not in any way affect the rights of managers in connection with schools. There are many schools actually vested in the Department, but managers and especially Catholic managers, do not like the idea of vesting schools in that fashion; they prefer to vest them in parochial trustees. The argument is sometimes put up that if the whole of the money for the building of the school was found by the State then of necessity the school must be vested in the State. There is no such necessity and it does not follow that the school must be vested in the State. As a matter of fact there are many schools at the present time built in necessitous areas in which the whole of the money required was found by the State and yet these schools are vested in local trustees. There is no danger so far as the State is concerned in following out that practice in all the schools because in the vesting deed given in such cases there is always provision made that the building must be used as a school for primary education under or in connection with the Department of Education.

In other words, the State gets all the protection that it is necessary for it to get. If that is not done the trustees bind themselves to repay to the State all the money granted by the State for building schools. The State, as I say, has all the protection it needs, and no principle for which anybody or people stand is violated in any way. To prove that there is no such principle violated I need only quote a resolution which was actually passed by a special meeting of the Central Council of Catholic Managers in February, 1927. An extract from this resolution is as follows: "That we are of opinion that the whole of the funds necessary for the building and enlarging of schools should be supplied from Government sources, but on condition that the schools should be vested in trustees as heretofore, and that no change is made in the managerial control." There is no reason why the conditions specified in that resolution should not be granted, even though the whole of the grant is made available from the State. The State is in the best position, better than any other authority, to find the money necessary to erect schools. We know on the Minister's own admission that the building of new schools is a pressing problem.

We know the rate at which that problem is being dealt with, and I suggest to the Minister that this is the most practical method of dealing with it. I trust that he will take steps as soon as he possibly can so to alter the regulations, which have nothing to recommend them, as far as I can see, but antiquity. These regulations were made when conditions were altogether different from what they are now, when the whole idea behind our education system was that it was really a local charge and, in fact, a local matter, when the greater part of the teachers' salaries were found locally, when, in fact, anything that came from the State was only a grant-in-aid to a local body carrying on a school. We have gone a great distance from that in everything except in this one particular. I suggest to the Minister that there is no reason why we should hang on any longer to that archaic regulation which is impracticable for dealing with present-day conditions, and which has completely broken down, for providing new buildings which are absolutely necessary.

I have said much in connection with the provision of actual buildings, but there is another question in connection with it which is of no less importance, namely, the question of upkeep, maintenance, heating and cleaning school buildings—their sanitation generally. On the question of sanitation I cannot really find words strong enough to describe the condition of some of our schools. Many of them have no out-offices of any kind, and I am almost inclined to think that schools that have no out-offices are even in a better position than those that have them. In how many of our rural schools is there anything in the way of effective sanitary accommodation? There is no member of this House who does not know the condition of many of our schools, especially those in rural districts. Schools that ought to be the centres of enlightenment in matters relating not only to spiritual but physical education are often the centres of disease and, even, death. They are indescribably filthy in the matter of sanitary arrangements. We have got so used to these things that they are passed over without much consideration or condemnation, and sanitary officers, school inspectors, teachers, managers and others take all these things for granted and do not seem to realise that they are, as I say, sources of disease and, in many cases, death.

The Minister in his opening remarks did not tell us what he was prepared to do, what he was doing, or intended to do. He did not tell us whether the old system of heating schools, by which boys brought sods of turf under their arm, was to continue. That system continues. In some cases it has been superseded by getting a donkey-load of turf thrown outside the school. That custom prevails in many districts. The children go to school with wet feet and their clothes are wet, but there is no system whereby their clothes and boots can be dried and they have often to sit shivering in school in their wet clothes. In the evening when the classes break up the children are often called on to sweep and dust the school. No one will defend that state of affairs and say that it is satisfactory. What we want to know is, what is the Minister, who is charged with the administration of education in this country, going to do about it? What does he propose to do about it? On whom is responsibility to be placed for this state of affairs?

Surely the physical health of the children in this country is a matter that deserves consideration at the hands of the Minister and of this Dáil. The physical education of the children is the one thing which we seem to neglect very seriously. I have gone into schools in America and it seemed to me that they pay much more attention to the physical side of the children's education than even to the literary side. If they want to show you over their schools they take you first to what they call the Engineering Department where arrangements are made for ventilating and heating the schools. Even on the prairies in Canada you find good, clean, sanitary school buildings. Whatever else you find, you always find the conditions and surroundings of the schools clean and sanitary. That seems to be the primary consideration, and nowhere will you find conditions approaching those which are to be found in many places in this country in regard to the sanitation of school buildings.

I want to impress on the Dáil and on the Minister that this is not the first time that this question has been raised here. Condemnation of our present school buildings and the system of the upkeep of schools has been brought to his notice by members of every Party in the House, because every Deputy knows the conditions that exist. I say that the matter is not being seriously tackled in the way it should be. It is a big problem, but bigger ones have been solved. If we had a Council of Education, as I have often urged, surely this is the kind of matter that would come up for discussion time after time until it was settled. When we urged the establishment of a Council of Education more than once, the Minister said that he did not want it, and whenever a problem came up which required solution he appointed an ad hoc committee which was a Council of Education as regards that particular matter. I suggest that this is one of the subjects that ought to be tackled in that or some other way, and tackled without further delay, because things are getting very serious and they are getting more serious as time goes on. I hope that at the end of this discussion the Minister will have somethings more to say than that the Board of Works are going as fast as they can in their attempts to deal with this matter.

I was dealing in June last with some questions of administration in connection with the Office of National Education and I complained at that time that we had up to that date no issue of the code of rules and regulations with which all teachers and managers were supposed to be acquainted. We had no issue for something like five years, since the Free State Department of Education came into operation, and I said that teachers and managers, and inspectors also, were often at their wits' end to know what in fact the regulations of the Department were on any given matter. Well, four or five months have gone by and no rules have been yet issued. I wonder what has become of them, or are we going to have any more rules and regulations, or is the Minister going to adopt a system wherein every teacher and every manager will be free to act just as he wishes? Of course, if a teacher or a manager does so, he will very soon find out he is going on wrong lines. I do suggest seriously to the Minister that the delay in issuing these rules is altogether inexcusable. He has given no reason for the delay. He does not tell us what is the special difficulty about the matter. The only answer that we can get, when we do raise a question of this kind, is that they hope to issue them very soon, but still the delay goes on. It is a source of very great inconvenience to those engaged in the work of education not to have a codified volume of the rules and regulations under which they are supposed to carry out their work.

Various recommendations were made by the Conference which met two years ago. It was a very representative Conference, comprising managers, teachers, members of the Gaelic League, members of the General Council of County Councils, and many prominent members of the Dáil, including the present Minister for Local Government. Several recommendations were made by that Conference, but as far as I can see scarcely any one of them has yet been put into operation. A recommendation was made in regard to school buildings. I have already referred to that. I would like to say, however, that that representative Conference were of opinion that the untold conditions to which they drew attention called for an immediate remedy if any educational scheme is to secure the desired result. They pointed out that the educational programmes which they were recommending could not effectively be put into operation unless these recommendations were put into operation at the same time. Up to the present, we have had none of these recommendations put into operation. In my previous statement, I have already dealt with the question of books. It was recommended that a new edition of "Notes for Teachers" should be issued, and very great importance was laid on that by the Conference at the time. We have not yet seen these "Notes for Teachers," and we do not know how soon they will be issued.

I should like to say a word or two on the question of school attendance. I might say, A Chinn Comhairle, that I will ask the House to allow me to deal with these matters at some length, because I propose to deal with all matters connected with the Vote at this juncture and not to speak when the various sub-heads come up. I desire to speak on the question of the administration of the School Attendance Act. The School Attendance Act came into operation on the 1st January of last year, and, for the first six months especially, there was a great spurt. The attendance improved very rapidly and the Act was working very well indeed in all parts of the country. However, from reports I have been receiving, during the last six months especially, it would appear that there is a very marked falling off in the attendance again in many districts.

I do not know exactly to what I should attribute that. It may be that the fear of the possible consequences of non-compliance with the Act had a very big effect on negligent parents during the first six or seven months of the working of the Act, but gradually these parents have begun to find out that it did not very much matter, after all, whether the Act was put into operation or not. Consequently, they began to fall into the evil habit again of keeping children at home from school. The standard of attendance that has been reached, even under the working of the Act last year, is comparatively very low. It has increased somewhat on that of previous years, but it is still as low as 77 per cent. An attendance of 77 out of 100 pupils cannot be regarded as being particularly satisfactory.

I have reason to believe from many figures, facts, and statements brought to my notice that it is very doubtful even if it reaches 77 per cent. for the current year. I do not know exactly what is the reason for the falling off in the attendance, but I do think that in many cases the courts have given the impression that cases of this kind are really such as should not be brought before them at all, and that the offence of keeping children at home from school is not nearly so grave as to be found without a light on a bicycle. I believe that an examination of the actual fines in school attendance cases will show that they are very much less than in the ordinary police court cases of lights on bicycles, the absence of names on carts, and things of that kind. It is rather significant, especially in view of the fact that under the provisions of the Act no prosecution is ordinarily brought unless, and until, not only the Guard who has charge of the attendance in that area, but also the superintendant, is perfectly satisfied that it is a case in which a prosecution should be brought—in other words, that it is a case where there is deliberate neglect on the part of the parents to send the child to school. Yet we have courts in many cases giving the impression in the locality, because all these cases and the observations of the Justices are reported in the local Press, that in fact these are cases which should never have been brought. I have numerous instances of that. One cannot, I suppose, take up here specific cases of misstatements by District Justices with regard to the operation of the Act. There have been cases where Justices have said that the Act is a tyranny. Naturally, Guards who have charge of the carrying out of the Act will not be particularly anxious to bring prosecutions before Justices who express their views in that way. The result is that in many districts things are particularly lax in the matter of school attendance and, in some districts, are drifting into the old condition of affairs which existed before the Act was put into operation. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to take counsel with the Minister for Justice in this matter, because although the enforcing of the Act happens to be in the hands of the Minister for Justice, through the Gárda Síochána, still it is of intimate concern to the Minister for Education. I suggest that he should take counsel with the Department of Justice, and see if something cannot be done to tighten up the administration of the Act in those districts in which it is undoubtedly lax.

Does the Deputy suggest that I should get the Minister to approach the District Justices on the matter, because I gather that is the real weakness according to him, of the administration?

Mr. O'CONNELL

It is one of the weaknesses.

The principal weakness and the cause of weakness elsewhere.

Mr. O'CONNELL

It is the principal weakness, but I suggest, where these cases are turned down, for instance, by District Justices in the spirit which I have mentioned, that a case might be taken to a higher court. That has not been done up to the present. Naturally, I can conceive that there is a reluctance on the part of, say, the local superintendent of the Gárda to take a case to a higher court, even where he is distinctly of opinion that the law has been repeatedly broken. It ought to be made clear, as it does not appear to be clear even to those to whom it should be, that teachers in this matter of school attendance have no function except to fill in the reports which they are bound by the Act to fill in week by week. They are bound to fill in these in the prescribed forms; they have no option but to do it, and their functions end there. It is quite a common thing when parents are summoned before the courts to make all sorts of charges against the teachers. Numerous cases of that have been reported in the local papers. These charges are often listened to in the courts; so much so that teachers in some districts have combined and employed a solicitor and counsel to watch their interests. Parents would naturally be anxious to make any excuse they can for the non-attendance of their children and the most common excuse is that their children could not go to school because the teacher was no good, or because the teacher punished them, or, as in one case, because the teacher was never at the school. These things have been accepted in many cases by the District Justices without question of any kind. I do not know what the remedy is for that. I can only mention it in the hope that it will come to the notice of people who have done this. I have numerous quotations here, with which I shall not trouble the House, to show that ex-parte statements of this kind without any foundation have been accepted in the courts very often by the District Justices as good and adequate reasons why the children should remain at home. I want to make it clear that the teacher has no function in regard to this Act further than to fill up the forms prescribed. One District Justice has stated publicly that the Act was passed by teachers; that it was a tyrannical Act, and that the teachers were responsible for bringing this tyranny on the local inhabitants. I want to say that the teachers have no function except to do their duty as required by the Act.

One matter I am anxious to get information about is the proposals of the Minister with regard to the training of teachers in future. Everybody should be anxious that the teachers who are responsible for the education of the children, should be as highly qualified as it is possible to have them. To that end, we have always advocated that the teachers should get the benefit of university training. It is not open to every child to go to a university—that is not a practical proposition. But it should be the case that every child will have, at least indirectly, the benefits which a university confers, and he can get that if the teachers in the ordinary schools have had the benefit of a university training. We know that a Departmental Committee have been considering the question of the training of teachers for something like two years. It is a year or eighteen months, in any case, since the national teachers through their organisation, gave evidence before the Committee. It is almost a year since we were assured that the Committee was about to finish its work; but the Minister and his Department have been particularly silent in the matter since. It is important that the public should know what his proposals are in regard to the future provision for the training of teachers. I believe that the country will demand very strongly, in the interests of the children attending primary schools, that the teachers should have the highest possible qualifications and that they should have the benefit of university training.

In that connection, I think it was Deputy Mullins, raised a very important point. He pointed out that young men and women going to the training college have to incur a very big expenditure, and suggested that there ought to be some way whereby scholarships for the children of labouring men and small farmers, who are anxious to enter the profession, should be provided. I think the Minister interrupted by asking: Why did not the county councils give scholarships? I raised this point before—I do not know whether it was in the time of the present Minister or not—and I was informed, and I believe such is the case, that county councils have no authority to give scholarships in such a case. If they have, then I should like the Minister to make it quite clear that they have such authority. I know of more than one case of a boy who got a county council scholarship, and at the same time was called to the training college. In one case the boy asked his county council to transfer his scholarship to the training college, and the county council informed him that they had no power to do that under the University Acts.

Under the other Act—the Local Government Act?

Mr. O'CONNELL

Under the Local Government Act I understand scholarships can only be given from the primary to the secondary school.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I am glad to hear that and I hope the Minister will make it clear. It is undoubtedly a hardship on parents, when they have a child educated up to the standard that he is able to gain by competition entrance to the training college, to find they cannot afford to send him, because they are not in a position to pay the £60 or £50 necessary the first year for education and equipment, and the £20 or £30 necessary the second year in order to complete his training.

I should also like if the Minister would tell us what his policy is in the matter of private schools. What constitutes a private school? Can anybody who puts up a sign marked "private school" take in pupils between the ages of 6 and 14 and educate them? There have been many instances in which doubt has been expressed as to the qualifications of the people who engage in this work, and I think the Minister should tell us what steps his Department takes in connection with them, what conditions are required to be fulfilled before they will give the necessary certificate under the School Attendance Act; whether, not only the qualifications of the teacher, but the actual accommodation provided in the so-called school, is taken into account and reported upon.

We would be anxious to know, too, what steps have been, or are being taken in the matter of post-primary education or continuation schools. I have already stated that in regard to the general standard of education we can compare very favourably with other countries. I can say now that in the matter of continued education we are very far behind other countries —in the matter of the education of children from fourteen upwards. First of all, the number for whom any education is at present available is very limited indeed. There is no such thing as general education as one finds it in many other countries—free education in fact for all children up to the ages of sixteen, and very often up to eighteen. That is one of the most important questions in connection with education, this gap, especially between the ages of fourteen and sixteen.

We have had very valuable recommendations with regard to that from the Technical Commission and we have had statements from the Minister himself. There is general agreement that this gap ought to be bridged, and that it is something for which provision should be made. But we heard nothing further. We know of no practical steps that have been taken. The Minister has power under the School Attendance Act to compel the attendance of children at school up to the age of sixteen under certain conditions during certain days and for certain hours. It has been suggested more than once that a beginning could be made especially in the cities with children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen who are not in employment of any kind. There is no reason why that beginning should not be made immediately. There is accommodation and it would not be difficult to find teachers and to put that into operation, say, in Dublin, for a given number of hours per week. That, I suggest, to the Minister is a very important phase. Perhaps the greatest injury is done to our education by neglecting children during those very important years.

I only want to refer further very briefly to two or three other matters. I apologise for having taken up the time of the Dáil to the extent I have done. But the question is a very wide one and the Vote is a very large one. I want to refer now to the question of pensions. That perhaps is not entirely in the Minister's Department, but surely it should be a very great concern of his that a question of this kind should be dealt with satisfactorily. There are two classes of teachers to whom pensions have been more or less definitely promised for the past two or three years. The Minister dissents from the suggestion that the promise has been made, but I think if he reads up the statements made by the Minister for Finance, and some of his own statements, too, he will find that these teachers are not astray in holding that in fact, pensions have been promised to them. It was promised that a scheme of pensions would be inaugurated for them. In June, 1926, the Minister said, when this question was raised—nothing would be done until investigations took place into the Teachers' Pension Fund. Questions have been repeatedly put down since that date asking what had been done. No later than July we were told that the investigation was practically finished. We have heard nothing about it since. Personally, I see no reason why a settlement as to the pensions that this particular class of teachers should receive should be made to depend upon that investigation into the Teachers' Pension Fund. Is the Minister prepared to say that if the fund is found to be in an unsatisfactory condition then these teachers would get no pensions? I think he is not prepared to take up that attitude. I need not say again what has been said repeatedly in this House that there is no justification for singling out one particular class of teachers without any other reason than that the principals of the schools happen to be members of religious communities. That is the reason they are singled out and are differentiated from teachers in ordinary schools. They give the same service, they are paid the same salaries and have the same conditions of service, but because they happen to be teaching in schools conducted by nuns or brothers they are not pensionable. It is a remarkable comment upon the educational administration of this Free State that that was one of the first things dealt with in Northern Ireland.

In the Northern Parliament the anomaly was recognised, and teachers in convent schools and the Brothers' schools were given pensions just as ordinary teachers, to date from the first day that the Belfast Education Authority came into office. Here we are, five or six years after the Free State Education Department was established, still demanding a pension scheme for this same class of teachers. I hope the Minister will be in a position to say how soon he will be in a position to put this into operation.

I need not say that I am in thorough sympathy with, and echo in every way, the demand which has been put up here on behalf of the old pensioned teachers. The statistics are available for the Minister. I think he will find that there are something like 200 teachers who have less than £1 a week pension, and who have had an average of 30 years' service. That is not a creditable state of affairs. These old teachers have been making this demand for several years. I think there is no quarter in the House in which their demand has not full sympathy. I urge again that the amount of money which will be necessary to satisfy their demand is small. Again, this is a matter with which our Northern friends have dealt very much more generously than we have done. I suggest, as the sum is small, that the Minister should use his influence with the Minister for Finance to set aside the sum that would be necessary, and it would be a very small sum in a vote of four and a half millions, to satisfy the demands of these old people who gave the best part of their lives to the education of the youth, and who were unfortunate to have lived in times when the teaching profession was not recognised to the extent that it is recognised to-day.

There is one other class of teacher about which there has been a good deal of correspondence and a good deal of representation to the Minister and various members of this House. I refer to the men who are known as the old first-of-first teachers. They are very few in number now. They were virtually promised in 1920 that a certain bonus would be given to them, if certain conditions were fulfilled. The conditions were fulfilled, but they have never got the bonus that they believed they were entitled to receive. Again, these people are a very small body. They had all their qualifications twenty-eight years ago. None entered that class since that time, and there are very few left who would be entitled to the bonus under the severe and strict conditions laid down for its receipt. I believe it would be only carrying out the bargain which was at the time definitely understood to be a virtual promise if they got that bonus which they believed they were entitled to get, and which I think the Minister will see, if he studies the correspondence and the arrangements in connection with it, they were entitled to receive. Their demand has pretty widespread support, and I would suggest to the Minister the advisability of recommending to the Minister for Finance that this be paid.

There are many other matters in the Estimate that one would like to refer to if time were available, but on an occasion of this kind only the larger outstanding matters can be touched on. I would again specially ask the Minister to deal at some length with what I have pointed out to be the most pressing of all educational problems that we are up against, that is, the school building and school equipment and the provision for the maintenance and upkeep of schools after they are built.

Bhí cheithre cinn d'fhógraí rún ar an gclár agam ag cur i gcoinne na bhótanna so. Dheineas iad a tharraingt siar acht ba mhian liom tagairt gheairid a dhéanamh do rudaí áirithe a bhaineas leis na bhótanna so. Is fíor ná fuil ach uimhir a 45 ós ár gcomhair i láthair na huaire, acht le cead uaitse, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, labharfaidh mé fá sé cinn de bhótanna anois—uimhir a 45 go dtí uimhir a 50. Ar an gceud dul síos, ba mhaith liom roinnt cheisteanna a chur ar Aire an Oideachais:—

(1) An mian leis an Aire aoisliúntas do thabhairt do na múinteoirí scoile— na múinteoirí tuatha atá ag obair sna conbhéntí agus i scoileanna na mBráthar gCríostúil.

(2) Cathaoin a deunfar tuarastal ceart agus aoisliúntas do thabhairt do na múinteoirí tuatha atá ag obair sna scoileanna ceartúcháin agus saothair.

(3) Cad is fáth leis an moill ar thuarasgabháil na n-inniúcthóirí fá stáid Ciste an Aoisliúntais d'oidibh scoile. Do gealladh go mbeadh an tuarasgabháil sin ar fagháil sa Bhealtaine seo caithte. Cionnus mar tá an scéal agus cathaoin a foillseofar í?

Aontuighim le Tomás O Conaill, Teachta, sa mhéid adubhairt sé fán ghéar-ghá atá le scoileanna nua a thógáil agus cuid eile acu a mhéadú. Cá bhfaghfar an t-airgead? D'réir fhreagra a fuaireas ón Aire le déanaighe, tá £200,000, ar a laighead, de chostas gach bliain ag baint le hoideachas na leanbhaí fá bhun 6 bhliain d'aois atá ar rollaí na mbunscol. Tá fhios agam go bhfuil obair mhaith dá dhéanamh sa Ghaedhilg agus i n-abhair eile i scoileanna áirithe naoidheanán acht, im thuairim-se, b'fhéarr go mór don scoil, agus do na leanbhaí féin, furmhór na naoidheanán atá i gceist d'fhágaint sa mbaile go ceann bliana eile. Cuirtear mór-chuid acu go dtí an scoil i dtreo is ná beidís sa tslí ar na máithreacha.

D'fheudfai £100,000 sa bhliain a shábháilt ar an gcuma san chun tighe scoile do chur ar bun, do mhéadú agus do ghlana. Maidir leis na meadhonscoileanna, ba mhaith liom fios a bheith agam a bhfuil sé d'fhiachaibh ar gach meadhon-scoil san Saorstát an Ghaedhilg a bheith mar abhar léighinn ag méid áirithe fá'n gceud de na scoláirí i gcóir teistiméireachta agus an bhfuil aon riail ann an Ghaedhilg a chur ar an gclár ama ar uair thráthúil.

I dtaobh an cheárd - oideachais, b'fhéidir go neosadh an t-Aire dhúinn cad tá deunta le moltaí an Choimisiúin um Cheárd-Oideachas do chur in éifeacht. Tá fhios agam nách féidir na moltaí do chur i bhfeidhm taobh istigh de mhí no, b'fhéidir, taobh istigh de bhliain, ach ba mhaith liom a chloisint ón Aire cad tá déanta aige go dtí aonis.

Táim go láidir ar aon intinn leis an Teachta Tomás O Conaill in a dubhairt sé i dtaobh na múinteóirí a chuaidh amach ar phinsiún faoi'n sean-réim. Ní shaoilim go bhfuil 200 acu ann anois. Do réir mar chluinim níl fágtha ach 150 acu. Tá siad ag fáil bháis go líonmhar—cuid acu le hocras.

Rinne mé tagairt cheana do scoileanna atá salach agus atá go dona ar dhoigh eile. Bhíos i gCondae na Gaillimhe cúpla seachtain ó shoin agus chuaidh mé isteach sa scoil chun a fheiceáil caidé an seort teach scoile a bhí ann. Tógadh an scoil le haghaidh 60 páiste ach bhí 100 paiste i láthair. Lá fuair báistighe a bhí ann ach bhí na fuinneóga briste agus dubhradh liom go raibh siad mar san le breis agus trí seachtaine agus ní raibh fhios ag aoinne cathaoin a cuirfaoi deis orra.

Dubhairt mé go raibh scoileanna i n-aiteacha gan aon chlóistín. Tá cóip de thuarasgabháil agam annso atá in oifig Roinn an Rialtais Aitiúla in a bhfuil cur síos ar scoileanna i gCondae an Chláir agus áiteacha eile. Bheadh naire orm cuid de do léigheamh amach annso. Ní féidir oideachas ceart do thabhairt do pháistí, ná sláinte a bheith acu, gan trácht ar oideachas, agus iad a bheith cruinnithe le chéile i scoileanna mar so. In Kanturk agus áit eile do réir an chúntais seo, "the schools have no closets or even shelters of any kind." Ins an Chondae céanna tá cuid de na scoileanna maith go leór agus tá clóistíní agus eile ag gabháil leo. In Inse Geimhleach "national schools most primitive; there are no closets in existence and the children resort to the fields. This atrocious state of affairs has been in existence for 50 years." Ins an chondae san is dócha go bhfuil leath-chuid de na scoileanna go dona agus an chuid eile go maith.

Dá luaithe a cuirtear deis ar na scoileanna so is amhlaidh is fearr é— d'oideachas agus do na páistí féin.

I presume it is in order to speak on these votes collectively. I want to refer to Vote 50 in connection with reformatory and industrial schools. I would like to ask the Minister without giving any promise or answer now to make a note for some future date of the slight inconvenience that exists in particular in the reformatory school at Philipstown. The boys there to some extent are sleeping in hammocks. I understand that inspectors of the Department agree that if cots could be provided for all the boys it would be far better for their health as it is agreed that sleeping in hammocks for growing boys does not conduce to their growing in a proper manner. I understand that the allowances made to reformatories are based on the number of inmates. In this particular case, that school run by the fathers in charge is making great efforts to give the boys every help in shaping their lives for the future. I understand the school is heavily involved in debt due to many alterations and improvements. If the Minister could see his way to inquire into it and to help them by giving them a loan say in order to finish the equipping of the school with proper cots I believe it would be doing a good day's work for those inmates.

It is rather difficult to know precisely how to deal with this debate. I admit I am, to a large extent, responsible for it myself. I suggested that the whole of the votes might be debated on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Education. I had hoped in that particular case that the discussion would have limited itself to general principles and that the details could be discussed on separate estimates. However, as things have turned out, possibly a full debate is only natural. In fact, there is a good deal to be said for the abolition of the distinction between the different votes.

I must say when sitting on this bench, listening to the various appeals made to me, and the different criticisms, I was often wondering whether I was Minister for Local Government, Minister for Finance or Minister for Education, and sometimes whether I was supposed to look after rather the games of country. There were a good many questions raised which might have possibly more reasonably been put to other Ministers. However, there were a good many problems I was asked to deal with that I think on the whole might be dealt with more satisfactorily by voluntary organisations than by any State Department. A tribute was paid at an early stage of this debate to the debate itself by Professor Tierney, namely, that on the whole this debate contrasted favourably with the previous debates owing to the fact that it dealt mainly with the essentials of education, with things that were really educational matters, rather than with the externals; that previous debates had very often spread over that field, interesting enough in some respects, but that were rather side issues of education rather than issues dealing with essential matters. Possibly, taking the debate as a whole as it was evolved up to the present, something may be said for that point of view in comparison with previous debates, but I think the Deputy will admit that, so far as definite detailed questions are concerned a fair number have been put to me. There was a great deal of detail in some cases, even the cases of individual schools were brought up before me, and certain general questions were raised. It might be well if I dealt first with these general questions. For instance, a question was raised by Deputy J.J. Byrne, and I refer to it because I am quite well aware that this is not the first time that it has been raised, either here or elsewhere, here by other Deputies, and constantly elsewhere. I disagree with what he said, though there did seem to be confusion between the different types of education and different schools—secondary schools and primary schools. However I think that he did put a certain problem which is a problem to which, I think, the House might very easily be asked to face up. We are spending four and a half millions on education. Are we getting value for that four and a half millions? You may disagree or you may agree with Deputy Byrne, but at all events it is a question that is fundamental.

The other questions on general points that were raised were all very elaborate and extensive demands for increased expenditure. I think the other big question that was touched on more than once, and that was specially referred to by Deputy O'Connell, was the breakdown of the voluntary system; I think that is practically what it is come to. I will deal with these three questions in that order. I will try, as far as I can, to give answers to the various questions of detail that were raised in the course of the debate, but whether the answers will be satisfactory or not to Deputies, is another matter.

I refer to the question put by Deputy Byrne, because it is a question that has often been put, and the accusations he made were often made, or often hinted at, namely: For that sum of four and a half million pounds do we get the best possible return? Again, the question that I want to ask the House is this: Is the system of primary education so flawless, are its results so satisfactory, that no criticism was directed by any Deputy to the system itself? Is it perfectly efficient? Then the Deputy went on to modify that question—because I do not think anybody could contend that any system is perfectly efficient— by asking: Is it as efficient as it should be? Then he said: "I can even go further and say that I have known children to go to school regularly, except in the case of sickness, from five to sixteen and seventeen years of age, and when they presented themselves for the elementary leaving certificate they hopelessly failed in the examination," not calling any attention to the fact that there is an apparent mix-up there of different systems. But the charge is perfectly clear, namely, that after a number of years at school the children who leave school are practically no more educated than when they entered. As I say, that is a question that has been put again and again. Deputy Byrne said that anyone who has had experience of education on the Continent or across the Channel is aware that the system of education in this country is fifty years behind as compared with that of Great Britain, and a hundred years behind as compared with that of the Continent. If there is truth in that statement, it would be very hard to justify a vote for four and a half millions.

I suggest at the start that so far as many of these criticisms are concerned, we gain nothing in the cause of education, even as a kind of sermon to stimulate teachers, by exaggeration, an exaggeration that is by no means confined to Deputy Byrne. It is very hard—almost impossible—to compare the values of systems of education in different countries.

It is extremely difficult even to compare what seems most easy to compare —for instance, the number of hours at school that are attended by children in the year. That might seem a simple thing, and yet there are all sorts of traps when comparisons are instituted in that direction. Much more difficult is it to deal with such intangible values as those of educational results as a whole. The only thing people can do is to speak of their experience, or if they have not any experience, to indicate what their knowledge is from conversations with people who have had experience of education in different countries. People who have experience of the educational systems in this country, in Great Britain and even in Scotland, where things are supposed to be much better, are by no means convinced that we are fifty years behind, or twenty-five years behind, and, so far as results are concerned, that we are anything at all behind the times when compared with those two countries. Again, remember that different people will give you different views, according to their outlook, according to their luck in meeting good or bad schools. But I have heard precisely the same story. Again and again we hear the same complaint made by people in England as to the unsatisfactory position of education there. In fact, I did hear in Scotland that Scotland would be an excellent country were it not for the weather and the teachers. I think we have rather similar complaints in this country. Thirty years ago in Scotland, we are told, the people turned out of the elementary schools were well taught. Now they are nothing of the kind— everything is slipshod. Exactly the same comparisons are made. These comparisons are and will be made to the end of time.

I move to report progress.

Progress ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Barr
Roinn