I think the Government should strongly recommend it, for this reason, that the schools can do a lot towards restoring Irish. You cannot restore it without them, and the Church of the majority can do much. If you had co-operation between the two it would be excellent. The language was kept in Wales largely through the religious or Sunday schools there.
Regarding some of the texts used, in one approved text-book is a lesson on "Our Country," and in it are the words "bhuaidhan ceart ar an neart agus tá na hallmhuraigh imthighthe." They said that in the old days might vanquished right, but that the foreigners have left our country now.
I do not want to have party politics introduced into schools, but I certainly advocate truth. There are six counties in which the foreigner still has a garrison. It would be better to adhere to the truth. History should not be distorted.
Irish is not making the progress in the schools that was expected a few years ago. That is admitted both in the Gaeltacht and the Galltacht. The irregular attendance may have accounted in part for it, but it is the aim behind the teaching, the want of enthusiasm, that is largely responsible for it. Another question I want to raise is that of the model schools. Deputy Derrig, I believe, asked the Minister some questions recently regarding the appointment of teachers to these schools.
There are seventeen of these schools. There are many teachers, and we would like to have some definite procedure. It seems to vary according to each appointment. It seems indeed as if the procedure depended on the candidates in some instances. We desire to be informed why there cannot be some definite procedure which could be adhered to in all instances. From the figures given by the Minister regarding the teaching of history and geography through Irish, certainly nobody in this House can say that Irish is being pushed forward too fast as a teaching medium. History, particularly Irish history and local history, and the geography of Ireland, could very easily be taught through the medium of Irish, because the very names themselves have a significance which they have not in English. You have proof of what can be done in that respect in the preparatory colleges.
In the matter of these two primary schools in which subjects are taught through the medium of Irish in Dublin, they seem to be reserved—I do not say, deliberately and purposely—for a select class. I wonder what opportunity, for instance, a dock labourer's son would have of getting into one of these schools? I do not say that that was at all deliberate, but it has so worked out. Use could be made of these schools, I think, for the training of teachers, bringing them to see how subjects are taught through the medium of Irish. The practising schools in connection with training colleges are almost useless in that respect, and I think it is rather hard on the children to have these untrained teachers practising. If you got the teachers down to those two schools to see how the thing is done without asking them to teach at all good work could be accomplished, because giving instruction to a select number of pupils in these schools does not at all exhaust their possibilities or the good work which they might do.
The old model schools, I believe, did such work. They had such functions. For instance, the Central Model School was attached to the training college in Marlborough Street.
Irish might be more used also in the administration of the Education Department, as is properly observed in this report of the Department; teachers can do a good deal if they use Irish as the language of the school, giving orders, and so on, throughout the day. I do not know if I should refer here to the very contentious matter of the Roman type. I saw in to-day's paper even a complaint. I quote from a daily paper to-day: "Roman Letters for Irish Examinations. A Galway Protest." It is said that it is unfair to candidates, that native Irish speakers did not know what language it was, and consequently did not answer the papers because the questions were set in Roman script. I personally do not mind which type is used, but I say that three or four persons who were not primarily educationists were responsible for having this type introduced, and it is becoming more or less compulsory. Regarding An Gúm, for instance, the type should be optional. If some people think they can learn Irish better by having what is called the Roman script —improperly I believe—let them use it, but it certainly should not be made compulsory by the Government. We have been told that these schools are influenced to a certain extent by the Government, but I do not believe it was even the Education Department that was responsible. The teachers did not want it. I believe that the majority of the inspectors did not want it, and most of the writers of Irish certainly are opposed to it.
Coming to the report of the Department of Education itself, I find that in 1926 the percentage of school attendance was 82.6 and in places 88. I was not quite clear as to what the Minister said on that point. I think that we should try to reach the 90 per cent. standard if we want to get the school subjects properly taught. On the matter of schools this Report states that there is no reason why the schoolrooms should not be brighter and more attractive at very little additional cost.
Such expenditure is necessary to give the pupils a proper idea of hygiene and that they may get a better idea of how their own homes should be kept. The need for better schools, sanitation, better heating and ventilation is shown by the reports of the school medical services, not only for the sake of the health of the pupils, but to teach them personal hygiene. According to these figures it is very necessary in certain parts of the country that there be inculcated healthy habits, and they are best inculcated under good school conditions. The percentage of children suffering from defects that might be remedied is extraordinarily high. The three for which the percentage is highest are defective teeth, adenoids and eye trouble. Taking Clonmel, out of 1,483 children inspected, 940 were suffering from dental defects, 185 from adenoids, and 43 from mal-nutrition. It is difficult for the teachers to do proper work with pupils who are so suffering. They cannot carry out the programme properly if pupils have defective eyesight, defective teeth, adenoids and particularly if they are under-fed. Forty-three out of 1,483 is rather high. Taking the figures for county Cork, we get 10,829 examined. 56.6 of the pupils were suffering from some defect, and 659, or 6 per cent. of these children were suffering from mal-nutrition. In Kildare it was even worse. 6,698 children were examined in 79 of the 97 schools. 3,000 of these had defective teeth; 1,212 adenoids or tonsils and 730 or 10 per cent. of them were suffering from malnutrition. Some of these defects are remedied they say by the amalgamation, but it may aggravate the evil of overcrowding.
Amalgamation, of course, is sound as everybody knows because you get the two teacher school instead of one, and it is much easier to carry out the programme. I see by the report that in some schools drinking water and wash basins have been provided. That is an excellent innovation and I hope it will be extended. It is certainly a move in the right direction. Regarding the J.A.M's, I find that there are 1,860 of them. 47 are trained and 1,813 untrained. A good many of them are in convent schools. You have convent schools teachers also suffering from grievances. We find that 24 per cent. of the children going to school attend convent schools. I find that in one inspectorial division that two teacher schools comprise two-thirds of the whole number of schools, and that in the majority of these the staff consists of a principal and a J.A.M. Regarding the methods of teaching the following appears in the Report in relation to Division 1: "It is the experience of the inspectors in this division that the majority of the teachers do not draw up helpful schemes of school work. The necessity for adequate and regular preparation for work is not appreciated."
In that division 21.3 of the teachers were highly efficient, 69.5 efficient, and 9.2 non-efficient. The inspectors say that the word "efficient" got a very liberal interpretation. In Division 2. regarding method, the report states that "there is little attempt to give other than fact knowledge on literature, history, geography and science. There is little or no attempt at analysis of the subject matter. The book work is generally too bookish. The questions for the most part are suggestive of the answers, and there is far too much demand on memory."
The following are further extracts from the Report: "Division 3. In this division the work is usually unsatisfactory in history and geography and the average teacher has not the education which is required for the effective teaching of these subjects. Both subjects call for knowledge and judgment in the choice of matter suitable for children."
"Division 4.—The importance of establishing a relation between the work of the school and the life of the district is not sufficiently realised, particularly in the teaching of languages and mathematics. In an effort to adhere literally to the terms of the programme and to cover the entire course the teaching is often hurried and superficial."
"Division 7.—It may seem strange that the results under ‘efficient' teachers are estimated so low, but the rating ‘efficient' spreads its net very wide, and includes many who are judged by a liberal standard. One point in which the curriculum could be improved would be the settling of a specific programme for the seventh and eighth standards."
If we look into some of the subjects individually we find it stated in the report, regarding arithmetic, "that it continues to be a weak subject in the majority of schools." That was in 1929. We might be informed whether the improvements suggested have been effected. We find it also stated in the report that "one of the shortcomings is the absence of co-relation between the questions given for calculation and the life of the district. The teachers are the slaves of text-books that reflect only the life of the towns. They have sufficient knowledge but defective methods."
The report, dealing with Division 2, states: "The reasoning faculty is not called into play in history, geography, or even mathematics. In the teaching of mathematics the subject is not as closely linked up with the life of the neighbourhood as it might be. The children's interest in arithmetic is not aroused and no connection is established between the work of the school and the life of the district."
Other extracts from the report state: "Division 4. There is still a lack of up-to-date methods in the teaching of mathematics, with the result that this subject is the weakest in the curriculum. Too much time is spent on purely mechanical work and very little attempt is made to select problems which will develop the pupils' reasoning powers. Division 5. In arithmetic, expertness in calculation comes too slowly. Problems might relate more frequently than they do to matters that come within the children's experiences. Division 6. While in the best schools there is much sound teaching of arithmetic both from the point of view of practical application to life and from that of training in reasoning, yet some of the district inspectors find much room for dissatisfaction with the teaching of arithmetic in senior classes. The exercises are often too mechanical, dreary sums with no relation to real life. There is insufficient use of realistic methods. Generally there is too little leading up to general principles along inductive lines and too much didactic instruction. Division 7. Probably three-fourths of the weakness in arithmetic in boys' schools is due not to inability to teach but to the non-adoption of means to compel each child to use his intelligence in finding the answer to a question instead of permitting him to take it from the good boy who happens to be within the range of his vision."
These extracts suffice to show that there is need for improvement in this vital subject of arithmetic. I do not say that the fault is the teachers'. There are, of course, portions of the report which praise the majority of the teachers highly. There is a want of direction and, apparently, something wrong in the training of the teachers. They get out from the training colleges often, I think, with not much of an idea of how to teach. It has been said and perhaps it would be feasible that if they came to Dublin for a year to get higher education, and then were sent, instead of J.A.M.'s to the different schools throughout the country, for a year to teach under the supervision of a good teacher, afterwards coming back for another year to the training colleges when they had got some experience, you would probably get better teachers and also help to solve the problem of the J.A.M.'s. The Minister might consider whether that would be practicable.
Regarding History, Division 1, the Report states: "All the teachers have a knowledge of history but a large number have read only one or two elementary text-books. This is a subject wherein more scholarship is the need of a very large body of the teachers. Knowing as it were only the scare head outlines of history, and these often not the vital ones, they cannot present the subject in an interesting way or show the connection between cause and effect, or introduce life and colour into the story by the use of historical ballads." In Division 2 it states: "In the majority of schools history suffers from the fact that the scope of the course is limited to the contents of meagre text-books." Division 3.—"Teachers are now asked to combine local history with general history, but their knowledge of local history is very slight." It is very hard to blame them for that, and it is very difficult to get material. I notice that in one division it is stated that a teacher, with the aid of the pupils and the priests and people interested in education, was compiling a local history. Regarding local history, it is stated: "Some of the more earnest teachers are compiling histories of their school districts. The matter, including local tradition, place names and customs, is gathered by the pupils, and from this mass the teachers are trying to compile books of local history. That is certainly very good work. In a large number of schools the study of folklore is almost totally neglected. Division 5: "The history of Ireland cannot have its full educational value till more account is taken of contemporary history. Local ruins, raths, are generally utilised with good effect in arousing interest in the past. There is not, however, much evidence of attention to heroic tales or folklore."
As to the teaching of English in Division 1, it states: "All the teachers are competent to teach English. Many of the older teachers, however, have very little appreciation of literature, and consequently would fail to give adolescent pupils a taste for reading or literary beauty and merit. The difference between the higher and lower course in languages does not seem to be clearly understood."
Coming to the higher standards, it was pleasant to hear from the Minister that the attendance had gone up by 12 per cent., but what has been done for them in the matter of programme is not so consoling. The same conditions obtain now as in 1929, according to the report of the Department for the year.
In Division 1, the report states: "To the question whether the work actually done in the highest standards reaches the standard required to give a full education to the pupil between 12 and 14, the broad answer, subject to certain modifications, is in the negative." On page 35 it is stated. "In the normal school up to the Sixth Standard there is good progress in the pupils' advancement, but after the Sixth Standard is passed, except in four-teacher schools, a static or stagnant stage is reached, which continues during the remainder of the pupils' school-days." Only one programme for Seventh and Eighth Standards has been submitted from that division to the Department. I think the Department, since they have not had such a programme submitted, ought draft one for the Seventh and Eighth Standards. We appreciate, of course, the difficulty of the two-teacher school, or the school with a teacher and junior assistant mistress, in giving proper instruction to pupils in the Seventh and Eighth Standards, and there is also the question of finance. In Division 2, the report says: "The teachers, despite the disadvantages enumerated, are in the main doing their utmost in the circumstances to give the higher classes the best education they can impart, but the education of adolescent children is not, as a rule, made sufficiently practicable." Many obstacles were pointed out. Some can be got over, and some cannot. Elderly teachers, of course, might not be as well trained as younger men, though I personally question this. You have crowded class-rooms, understaffing, want of suitable text-books and equipment, and, to my mind, want of proper direction from the Department of Education.
The Report states: "The education given is for the most part too bookish and divorced from the facts and problems of ordinary life." The Inspector in Division 3 says: "The most important fact is that when a child reaches the age of twelve he requires to be directed rather than taught. Henceforth he should learn things for himself under the direction of the teacher." The teacher in the two teacher school gets very little time to direct them. On Division 6 it is stated: "Generally speaking, as a result of all the causes discussed, some remediable and some not, Irish pupils are generally one year and, in some cases, two years behind the standard they should have reached at eleven or twelve." School attendance will probably correct that. The Minister may inform us to what extent he has corrected it during the past year.
In reference to the teaching of Irish, I find that out of 14,326 teachers 38 per cent. had no certificate in Irish and many of these were under 30 years of age; 31 per cent. had an ordinary certificate, 24.6 had a bilingual certificate and 6 per cent. the Ard-Teastas. We are anxious to hear from the Minister how these percentages have altered during the past twelve months. There is certainly not much excuse for 1,183 teachers under 30 years of age having no certificate. It is rather difficult to explain and we should like the Minister to explain it or to endeavour to do so. From 1930 inclusive the preparatory colleges and the pupil teachers supplied the majority of the entrants to the training colleges. We would consequently expect a considerable advance, and some of that advance may be visible next year. The Report says: "In the Gaeltacht Irish is not being made the spoken language there and it is outside the Gaeltacht progress in the use of Irish as a medium of instruction is slow."
The effectiveness of the teaching of Irish in the schools varies more than the teaching of any other subject. The personality, the enthusiasm and the skill of the teacher count more in imbuing the pupils with the love of the language than native fluency of speech.
If more attention were given to Irish history, and to the reasons for learning Irish, we would get better progress. Regarding secondary education, there is an extraordinary disparity shown between the number of passes in history and geography as one subject and as separate subjects. There are from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. more failures when they are combined subjects. It is obvious that the course is too extensive, and that it should be cut down or the subjects divided, in the Intermediate Certificate. Regarding continuation education, the Minister said rightly that we are only getting under weigh and that it will be twelve months before we can assess the work. But this vocational and technical scheme is being continued, and was founded on an old system which catered for the towns. Regarding the subjects of instruction in the course referred to by the Minister, they did not seem to cater for rural districts. There should be a course with reference to agriculture, soils, local history, folklore and such like, and hold the classes, not in towns, but in fair-sized villages, and in that way give the rural community something for the rates they have to contribute to this scheme. Otherwise, it seems to me they will derive little benefit. In addition to that, agriculture is the main industry, and you should give the people an interest in agriculture, in their daily lives and work. You will do that if you get classes under the vocational education scheme bearing on agriculture.
Forty whole-time Irish teachers have been brought up for a course. If the Minister looks at the figures he will find that there are more attending classes in Irish than all the other subjects combined, all through the country, except, possibly, in Dublin. There are something like 300 part-time teachers, part-time because they are only paid part-time, although the majority of them give their whole time to it. More provision should be made than is mentioned in that respect. Regarding what might be called the cultural and artistic sections under the Vote—the National Museum, the National Library, the School of Art and the National Gallery— it is correct to say that an advance has been made regarding donations and even purchases for the Museum. We have not been told much about the National Library. I fail to see how valuable purchases can be got either for the National Museum or the National Gallery out of £1,000 for each. We have not been informed what purchases have been made for the National Gallery, or what purchases are likely to be made with such a small grant. There is need for developing these artistic institutions and bringing them more into relation with education.
In fact some use is being made of the Museum by city schools, but local museums should also be encouraged. I believe there are museums in Limerick and Galway. Their value to the nation is not realised.
One other point regarding this Publication Committee—"An Gúm"— For original works, novels and historical works in Irish, five shillings per page of 420 words is, I believe, the amount given to the authors or 12s. approximately for 1,000 words, whereas for translations £1 is given for 1,000 words. Original works should be more highly paid for than mere translations, and not at the rate of 12s. per 1,000 words, while £1 is given for translations. If the Minister when replying would take up the report and deal with these points regarding the training of teachers and the method I suggested, the teaching of mathematics, bringing education more in line with the life of the district and providing for continuation education that will suit rural areas, it would be valuable, and I think it is due to the House considering that the report of his Department deals with these matters.