A Chinn Chomhairle, nuair a chuir an clog agus rialacha an Tighe stop lem chuid cainte an oíche fé dheireadh bhíos díeach á rá nach chun comhgháirdeachas agus moladh i dtaobh na hoibre atá déanta ag an Roinn a chloisint agus chuige sin amháin atá an tAire ina shuí linn anso, ach chun an taobh eile den cheist do scrúdú chomh maith do réir tuairimí na dTeachtaí Dála, agus chuige sin anois a bheidh mo smaointe dírithe agus san, im' thuairim féin, mar mhaithe le hoideachas na tíre.
Pádraig Pearse contended that what education in Ireland needed was less a reconstruction of its machinery than a regeneration of spirit. He was prepared to leave that particular portion untouched, or practically so. A machine, however, cannot make men, but it can break men, if improperly applied. In the same way, a soulless thing cannot teach, but it can destroy. The educational system in this country was criticised very widely by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Mulcahy, and also by Deputy Dillon. So far as the system is concerned, the principal fault which Deputy Mulcahy found with it was that it was not efficient in its working and that there was not sufficient co-ordination in its methods. There may be a certain amount of truth in the second contention. But this nation, though old, is yet young in the administration of its own affairs and, if there are defects, what Deputies and the country should look for is that, as a result of the discussions here and outside the House in assemblies interested in education, as years pass by efforts will be made to remedy any defects that appear either in the proficiency of standards or the working out of the system.
So far as primary education is concerned, a local administrator will be necessary, and the present system, whilst it may have some defects, at any rate, has worked very effectively and, to my mind, there are thousands of reasons why it should not be changed. As to the machinery of the system, the local management generally by the parish priest has worked out very well, and he generally is aware of the efficiency of the schools under his control. As the Bishop of Galway stated at the last teachers' congress, there are in education three main things to be considered. First, there is the matter taught; secondly, there is the teacher who diligently applies himself to his work; and, thirdly, there is the building. So far as the subjects taught are concerned, these are arranged in the curricula of the Department of Education. A certain latitude, not very wide indeed, is allowed to the teacher to fill in so far as he can some matters which may apply to his particular locality. I have had connection with all types of schools, and I have spoken to people at home and abroad who have an extensive knowledge of education, of the subjects taught, of the standards of efficiency in the various classes, and the general idea is that the standard here and the capacity of the pupils is as high as in any other country. I have discussed that matter in America during a short visit to that country with Christian Brothers who taught here and they agreed that our system here in its main lines, so far as the subjects, the programme and the efficiency of the pupils were concerned, is as good as that in any other country.
Deputy Mulcahy states that the recent Report of the Vocational Commission criticised the defective education of pupils going to the secondary, vocational and agricultural schools from the primary schools. It is here that some of Deputy Mulcahy's criticism may deserve consideration, because we all know that oral Irish is stressed in the primary schools and that Irish as a subject gets a very high place in the course of instruction. But, in the secondary schools, the same value is not placed on oral Irish and I would say that the same applies also to the vocational schools and to the agricultural colleges. It is a question which deserves consideration and, to my mind, as Deputy Dillon, I think, stated, there may be need to harmonise the curricula of the various types of education so that pupils from the national school would naturally fit into their course of studies when they leave that school and continue in other departments. Pádraig Pearse made reference to that and I think the best thing I can do is to quote his actual words. In an article entitled "When We Are Free" Pádraig Pearse stated:
"We can all see that when an Irish Government is constituted there will be an Irish Minister for Education responsible to the Irish Parliament and that under him education will be drawn into a homogeneous whole, an organic unity, directed by a single intelligence under the Minister; there might well be the chiefs of the various subdivisions — elementary, secondary, higher and technical — in the same building and not entrenched in strongholds in different parts of the city. A council of some sort with sub-committees would doubtless be associated with the Minister, but I think its function should be advisory rather than executive, that all acts should be acts of the Minister."
That, then, would be my first recommendation to the Minister, to try to co-ordinate the various systems of education so that pupils coming from the national schools would fit in with the general progressive system.
Deputy Dillon stated that Irish was being made the hall-mark—I think that is what he called it—of mediocrity in this country. He was very far wide of the mark in judging the results of the scheme and the general desire of the country to revive our own language when he stated that he would wish to see the position of Irish in this country analogous to that of French in Russia. That is an extraordinary statement from a Deputy who states that he is in favour of the Irish revival. He stated he wished to see Irish regarded as the hallmark of efficiency and higher education, just as the Oxford accent is so regarded in England. He might be near the mark in that conclusion, though the two statements do not appear to accord with one another.
Mediocrity may be standardised to a certain extent in the system of education. It could be done—and I wish to call the special attention of the Minister and Deputies to this matter—in combined classes and in amalgamated schools. You have classes combined, and this applies to the greater part of our rural population. From the infants up, the first and second class standards are amalgamated in the schools; sometimes you have boys and girls, the girls being away for two hours in the week from the rest of the class, doing needlework. You have the third and fourth standards amalgamated and the fifth and sixth combined with the higher classes. Then the question arises of deciding on readers that are not too difficult for the lower standards of each group and that will still be useful for the upper standards. To my mind, it is so difficult to fit in things in that regard that there is a certain movement, in the natural course of events, to deprive the senior standards of the initiative they would have if they were passing into a new reader and into a new class and were not bound up with the same class they had been in the previous year.
Formerly, under the national system of education, there was an independent reader for each class, and that was worked out by reason of the fact that in those days the teacher could have a monitor or pupil teacher, some person who would be in preparation for the training colleges. The monitor or pupil teacher was very often able to supervise the desk and written work. The teacher has no help of that kind now. Consequently, the classes are combined for many subjects and that is, generally speaking, detrimental to the standard of education in the rural schools. That is my own opinion, and I am speaking from experience.
A difficult problem arises with regard to the staffing of the schools in rural areas. It is hard to have the staffing, in areas where the numbers are small, on a basis which would reach the ideal, and the Department in its wisdom, having examined the question very fully, has come to the conclusion that the existing system is the best system to adopt. I have my doubts in that regard. I think the classes in the cities are in many cases far too large, and in the country districts, even though the numbers are not so large, the teacher has a bigger number of classes to deal with in the space of each half-an-hour. He has to put the pupils to work at various subjects and, at the same time, he has to give adequate instruction to each standard which will suit the inspector when he comes along. The inspector looks for a good average standard in the class, but the teacher, particularly in the senior standards, who is out for the good of those who wish to develop their talents, will move in line with the capacity of the best pupils in the school. The worst pupils, some of them, at any rate, together with the class below, will probably remain in the same combined standard for the subsequent year.
It is not to turn out any class according to pattern that the teacher is giving instructions. The child is more than a unit in the attendance and education means the development of a personality, the full development of mind and body to fit children for their duties in life. The teacher who knows his work and does it conscientiously should not be at the mercy of too stringent regulations or of those who come into a school, perhaps once or twice in the year, and have a very cursory knowledge of the locality or the capacity of the pupils or the work of the teacher during the year.
There was one thing I advocated here last year and I will advocate it once more, and that is that there should be two standard sets of Irish readers available for the various schools, with adequate provision for the dialects of the different provinces. That would get over some of the criticism offered during the debate to the effect that the school books are becoming too costly. I presume the vested interests in printing and other departments would wish to see new books every year. In the old days we recollect that one book passed along from one child in the home to another in due course. At the present time, while that might not be practicable under the system that is working here, if there were two readers, even with the combined classes, the teacher would be able to change during successive years from one book to the alternative one, and in a great measure cut down the cost of school readers.
Formerly parents had to buy an English book only, but now they have to buy Irish and English readers for each member of the family. While I know that provision is made in certain cases for the supply of free books, at the same time, where books have to be bought, the charge is high in the case of a large family. Furthermore, my suggestion would tend more to help the general education in the school, because it is most disconcerting for a pupil who saw a word spelled one way in a reader last year to find in the next year the same word spelled differently in another reader. It would be better to have the books standardised because I know that a few years ago, if children in a national school spelled words in the way they are now spelled in the Official Reports of the Dáil Debates, they would get a very poor mark for their spelling in the Irish language. I know we are in the transition stage and that all due allowance should be made for these things. At the same time, I do not think we ought to keep our views to ourselves in this matter; we ought to make them public and prepare for the day when this development will be made effective to the advantage of our system of education.
I followed Deputy Mulcahy's remarks very keenly, and I came to the conclusion that, apart from co-ordination—with which in the main I agree—between the different systems of education, he was looking for something more modern in education to fit the present scheme of things in the world. Pádraig Pearse made reference to that. He said we might as well look for a lively modern faith or a serviceable modern religion as for a modern education, because modernism is as much a heresy in education as it is in religion. What we want in this country, assuming that the national school is the foundation of all education here—and it is recognised as having played a great part in this country—is to have the fundamentals well taught so as to fit the pupils for both higher education and for their particular sphere in life when they leave school.
The question of the school-leaving age has been mentioned and it has been suggested that it should be raised to 16. Certain schemes are in force in certain cities now, giving opportunity for continued education to those who have left the national schools and even to those who have gone into business. On certain days in the week, they can attend vocational schools and so continue their education. Professor Domhnall Ó Corcora once wrote an article entitled: "Tá na soillse ar lasadh" or "The lights are burning". He made special reference to the fact that, on every night during the winter, in practically every parish, the lights in the school were burning and the national teachers or the múinteoirí taistil Gaedhilge were teaching the people of the parish their language and their native dances. What has taken the place of that now? It is in the commercialised dance hall that the lights are burning now.
The payment the teachers are getting for their service has broken their spirit in that regard. They did far more voluntary work some years ago than they are prepared to do now, as they have not been adequately paid for the work they do. Deputy M. O'Sullivan spoke on that matter. He is a man who speaks very directly and very sincerely in this House, and he made a very strong case for the teachers.
There seems to be a tendency sometimes to ask the question: "Where is the money to come from?" However, adequate pay for service is never a loss to the country. Improving the purchasing power of those who are employed in the State is never a disservice to the national finances. As a matter of fact, the contrary is the case. The first requisite for any success in business, in education, or in any other walk of life, is that the people operating those systems should be contented and satisfied, in a great measure, with their lot. There seems to have been more enthusiasm for the Irish language last year than I have experienced since the old Sinn Féin days. People have gone in for learning the Irish language in a way that has amazed me. Some of the people who are advanced in years are now turning to it. They are satisfied that the revival of our national language is a thing to be done by the citizens of the country. The national teachers were the pivots in many cases around which that movement revolved. However, I have heard them say that from henceforth they will give up the part they have played in the national life of the country, that they will give up the voluntary services they gave to the State, on account of the treatment they are getting from the State, and that they will devote themselves only to the service of the day and the hour in their schools.
The criticism has been made that they have not been treated in the same way as other servants of the State. I do not wish to criticise the way in which other servants of the State have been treated, as whatever emolument they received they worked and gave service for it. I hold that the teachers' salaries should be brought up in the same way. Their salaries have been cut repeatedly from the year 1923, in regard to various special grants they were getting for teaching extra subjects, for certain evening schools, for rural science, for gardening, and things of that sort. All these have been cut down and the teacher now has to agitate publicly all over the country to try to get a measure of justice.
One of the greatest blows the rural teacher got was when the rule was brought in that women teachers should retire on marriage. I am now only giving my own opinion and this does not concern me personally. We know that the child usually is father to the man and when the child in a home is brought up in an environment where both his parents are teachers, the day comes, if heredity counts for anything, when he is anxious to follow the profession of his parents. However, now that their income has been cut to half, they are not able, in many instances, to send a child on for continuous education, so as to fit him for that profession. Neither is there any desire in the case of many parents to do so, seeing the emoluments that now accrue from years of service as national teachers. We know that the best people in various walks of life are those who have followed in the same profession as their parents. We know that the sons and daughters of teachers went into the church and the teaching profession. That was the case when the parents had a sufficient salary between them to look after their children and to provide for their future.
I think that the lot of the teacher should be improved and that the first step in that regard should be the restoration of the 1920 scale of salaries right away. I appeal to the Minister to restore that scale, or a scale on the same lines, without further delay, so as to satisfy the teachers that their appeal, which is backed by the clerical managers and by the Bishops of the country, is being considered. He will then get from them again the cooperation which they have given so far in various walks of national life and in the social activities for the benefit of their respective parishes.
These few years are vital regarding the Irish language. We are told that our Celtic temperament is such that we have great enthusiasm for a time and then we cool off and have not the same energy. I presume it is the same in almost every nation. Yet, if each wave of enthusiasm that comes along pushes the national ideal a bit further ahead, good work has been done. I appeal to the Minister at this juncture, when the movement for the restoration of our language has got such an impetus, to bring the teachers into the forefront of the movement again, by improving their lot financially. As Pádraig Pearse said: In the school there should be freedom for the teacher and he should be free from the influence of parsimonious officials.
I do not think there is much else that I need say. The debate has covered a wide field. Deputy Flanagan came along and spoke in Irish here. That, in itself, is a sign of the times but, of course, you will sometimes find people doing that and then, in the next breath, criticising the language because you have "bean" one minute and "mná" another minute, and saying that the Irish language should be standardised and that these various inflections, cases, and so on, should be removed from the Irish language. Now, the Irish language, in its composition, is far more regular than the English language, and the difficulties that do exist are sometimes exaggerated, and that is one way of exaggerating them. If Deputy Flanagan were to consider the matter for a moment he would see that the same word in English, "woman", is referred to in the first case as "she" and in another case as "her". It is the same in the case of "bean" and "mná" in Irish. Take the various words: "is", "are", "was", "were", "be", "been", "being"—all parts of the verb "to be". Why do not these people come along and say that the English language should be standardised? The English language is far more irregular in its composition than the Irish language. There are only about half a dozen irregular verbs in the whole sphere of the Irish language, and there is nothing wrong with it. In my opinion, however, what should be standardised in connection with the Irish language is the spelling, so that during the whole course of the children's time in the schools, they would come across one system of spelling, and one only.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is the question of the unity of the teachers behind the language movement, because there is no use teaching the language as a subject in the school if its influence is not felt outside the school and if it is not used fairly generally by the children outside the school. I have no doubt that the Irish language is going ahead by leaps and bounds. It is going ahead, and will go ahead, and will get behind it the momentum of the people of this country, conscious that it is the national tradition that they should speak their own language, and if the work of the schools is co-ordinated, then, with the general occupations in life of the pupils, by giving them in their post-primary education such other knowledge as may suit their state in life, our systems of education will be fulfilling what they should fulfil —to improve the knowledge and the culture of our people, to develop the brain, the soul, and the mind of our race so that we would march forward, not only as a brave race, which the world knows we are, but also as a cultured race, a race that will take their place, as they have in the past, as the light of the world again.
The question of school buildings has been dealt with, and I shall only say just a few words in that regard. To my mind, the reason why better progress has not been made is that the schools in a parish—and generally there are two or three of them—are all bad at the same time, and the manager wants to deal with one before he brings further debt on himself by contributing the one-third for the rebuilding of that school. I think the Minister is now going further in that regard, and that where two or three schools are bad he takes into consideration the combined factors in the parish. When things become normal I hope that we shall have better schools for our children, so that not only will they be places of education for the children, but an ornament to the parish and an incentive to the pupils to carry on in their homes what they have been taught in the schools, and that in that regard a general enlightenment will spread for mind, for soul and for body.
