That will give the Minister and the Department an opportunity of examining the views of a large number of people who are interested in this whole question of primary education. Advantage should be taken of the presentation and examination of this report to see whether we should not look into this whole question of the teaching of Irish —because a very large number of people are dissatisfied with the results. It may be that it would be impossible to get the results we require but, in any case, there should be a thorough examination. The basis on which the past method rested was that from about five to eight or nine years roughly, that period was "the language period." In those years, children naturally acquire languages very easily and it is the oral knowledge of a language that they acquire at that time. It is much too early to expect children of that age to have a knowledge of grammar rules. Therefore, it is an oral knowledge that must be given to them at that period. After that period has elapsed and you have taken full advantage of the child's natural facilities for learning languages at that early stage, the question arises of how you can best, with fairness to the child's needs, and the thorough development of its mind, combine these with the national objective of the restoration of the language.
I take it that we are all serious about the restoration of the language and that the only difference between those of us who differ is as to the best method and how we can get the best results. If you go down the country you may meet children of ten years or so who are attending a primary school. You know that the language is taught there. You speak a few words to them in Irish, but they do not seem inclined to use in reply the Irish which they probably know. That is unsatisfactory. There is something wrong about their unwillingness to use as much of the language as they know. Sometimes, after a great deal of trouble, you extract a few simple phrases from them, but you get the impression when you talk to them that they regard it as something artificial. It ought not to be so. I suppose the fact that it is not the speech they hear in an English-speaking area, the speech they hear all round them, that gives them a feeling that there is something queer in being spoken to in Irish.
But have we not gone beyond that stage in which Irish is altogether unknown in an area, even in the English-speaking areas? We ought now to have arrived at a stage in which the children will realise when they are using Irish that they are using the language of the nation, that it is another mode of expression and that it is the mode of expression which would be most characteristic of our nation had it not been for historical accidents which deprived us of having it as the general speech.
In the case of the primary schools the teaching of Irish should be oral, without doubt, up to eight or nine years of age. After that the introduction of reading matter and writing— teaching the children to read and write—and to the extent it can be used as a school medium of instruction all require very careful examination. A good teacher, almost in any circumstances, will get good results. There is hardly a doubt about it. You can put a teacher in an old cowhouse —I do not say it is the proper atmosphere in which to put him—and if he is enthusiastic he will get good results. The hedge schoolmasters were successful.
But we have mass education and mass teachers to-day. We have not the selected teacher, the one who is teaching as a vocation. We have people going into the teaching profession to-day as a career. That is why you have this percentage of those who go to a training college where they get opportunities of getting education which they would not get otherwise. They avail of that. They have no calling to continue as teachers, and if other opportunities are available to them they avail of them, using the education which they have got. As far as the primary schools are concerned, what we want is simplicity and thoroughness, dealing with the broad general things and not the exceptions.
We come next to the secondary schools. They are intended to give a broader education than can possibly be given in the primary schools. It is unfortunate that all our children cannot get that broader education. But for those who have the opportunity it does open up fields of knowledge and of happiness too, a means of using their leisure time and developing their minds. They get these opportunities in the training given. On the one hand, the practical instruction in the science and on the other humanities, if I might use that word in a not very technical sense. You have the subjects which enlarge the scope of a person's thinking and of a person's ability to get information and knowledge elsewhere. That is done in the secondary schools.
Again, the programme there has to be very carefully thought out. There is only a certain number of years in which this work has to be done. If you want to learn modern languages, you will get an introduction to modern languages in those years. It will not be possible to get the large course of modern languages if you want at the same time to do classics, or mathematics or science. So that there must be a certain restriction in the distance you can hope to go. The question is, will you expect everybody to have a certain knowledge of modern languages, a certain knowledge of classis, even though it may be limited, and a certain knowledge of fundamental science, or will you group the subjects as has been done and say: "We will have certain groups and we will regard the aim of our secondary education as being fulfilled if we get a boy or girl who has been introduced through the training given in one of these groups."
Again, in the secondary school the same thing should apply; we should have a definite prescribed course and by examination find out whether the required standard has been reached in that course. If the majority of the pupils in a school do not reach that minimum standard, the pupils should not get the rewards given for having that minimum work done thoroughly. Once you have the minimum, then you can give the greatest freedom for the rest.
My complaint was, from the experience I had of children who had gone to these schools, that looking at the work they were doing, I came to the conclusion that the broad courses that were being followed at that time were unsatisfactory. In Latin, for example, they got a thick book—Les Latins— with selections from many authors. I do not think that gave pupils as thorough a knowledge of Latin as would have been given by the careful study of one or two authors such as, say, Virgil and Caesar, to take these as examples. A thorough doing of one or two books of these would give a better foundation.
Another matter has been referred to this afternoon which I should like to stress in regard to the teaching of Latin. We have a wonderful opportunity in this country to have Latin taught more as a living language than they have in other countries. I found my own knowledge in this respect unsatisfactory. I had been pursuing an honours course for a good number of years both in the intermediate and in the university, and when I got the Latin missal I found, to my horror, that I was stuck very often. It was convenient, of course, to have the English translation very near, but I felt that I certainly had not done very well in the five or six years I had been doing an honours course in Latin. I think we ought to begin at the other end.
I have tried to interest some people in preparing a textbook to see whether that would be popular. I think that in the early teaching of Latin—we can proceed to the higher courses afterwards—we should start with the simple Latin prayers, make them the basis of our grammar and composition—that is, get off by heart, as a beginning, the ordinary prayers that every Catholic will meet in a very short time—get that thoroughly done, and make it the foundation. Those of us who go to Mass hear the priest every Sunday reading certain parts of the Mass aloud. If those prayers are known, we can very easily follow them. There is a constant repetition of them. If we base our teaching on learning such prayers, we can take the hymns afterwards if we want to do something harder. There is very little difference between the Church Latin—there are some rules and some words which are different, but they are not very numerous—and classical Latin, so far as the rules of grammar are concerned. Therefore, if we begin with the Church Latin, the Latin that will come the way of every child, and do it thoroughly, it will be found that the child can very easily get on to the ordinary classical course.
I know that the purists, the classicists, will find fault with me in that line of approach, but I have been trying to induce some people to produce a Latin textbook based upon learning off the prayers by heart and using these prayers which have been learned off and which they will hear constantly repeated as a basis of grammar. To my way of thinking, the old Smith's Principia, if thoroughly done, would give as good results as any modern textbook I have seen. It is oldfashioned, but if I were to devise a textbook with such experience as I have gained, I would go back to a book of that sort, basing the introduction to Latin upon the prayers and upon a textbook similar in character to that old Latin textbook, and going on to the classical Latin, the Golden Age or Augustine Latin, from the Church Latin.
The same is true with regard to Irish —oral, and then later going on to the reading matter. In regard to oral teaching, however, the trouble is to get something which will be complete in itself. Mere phrases higgledy-piggledy would be all right, if you were in an Irish-speaking community in which these in time would amount to a full conversational knowledge, but during school hours, which are very limited, it is not possible, unless one systematises carefully, to have the sort of phrases necessary to give a child the feeling that he is able adequately to deal with whatever things he wants to deal with through Irish.
I have often tried to think how that oral teaching could be systematised, and one way would be to try to follow the child's life and see what are the first words a child would use, in its very early years, get a collection of these and form them into a textbook to help the teacher in his oral teaching. You could probably make a certain amount of progress in that way, but I was in no position in which I could follow that systematically and see where it would lead.
There is a method, however, which one can follow, that is, to have your teaching based on the grammatical rules without any necessary reference in class to them. Take a book like the Ceachta Cainte Gramadaí of Seán Ó Catháin, or a similar book where the broad grammatical rules are covered, you could, on that basis, frame a series of conversational lessons complete in themselves. You could make the children finish that course with all the main rules that a child requires to speak correctly. They will have got examples of these without explicit grammar teaching and examples that can be referred to. They may not know anything whatever about the grammar rules, but they will have got the examples which can be used and will, consequently, be in a position to form short sentences correctly.
If somebody, then, would try to assist those who want to teach orally children from the ages of five to eight or ten by producing a textbook of that kind, it would be a tremendous help—a textbook giving sentences which would be related to actions of the child in the school as far as possible. If we had that, and behind it were the grammatical rules which were being illustrated, it would be helpful, and if I were asked to devise a system at the moment, I know of no better plan than that and it would enable me to feel when I had finished the course that I had done something thoroughly as a foundation to equip the child to give expression to the various thoughts which children would want to give expression to in Irish. It will not be altogether complete, of course.
In the secondary schools, you have to decide carefully what your programme is to be and how far it should go. In these modern times, there are some people who are so practicalminded that they want to have everything related to what they call practical life. I was amused while listening to a discussion on the examination papers, some of the questions on which were published in the papers recently, to hear some of the criticisms of these questions. There were some questions in history and fault was found with a question asking something about Napoleon's attitude towards the Church. Other people criticised some arithmetical questions or some simple algebraic questions on the lines of: six years ago, A was five times as old as B and in another four years he would be two and a half times as old. The problem was to find their present ages. The people I was listening to said that this was a ridiculous question and asked why some more practical questions were not put to them.
The point is that such questions are only examples of processes and what the teacher is teaching is not that particular example, but a process which can be applied generally. It is only an example of the application of a process—a simple equation with one unknown—a process which can be applied to a number of other questions. The wit of the teacher is tested and the textbook also, in providing suitable applications of the process in question and it was no real fault in the examination paper that a question of that sort was set. There could be other types of applications of a similar process and the particular one was of a type probably found in the textbook the children were using. With regard to the question as to Napoleon's attitude to the Church and the criticism or the setting of a question of that sort, the people who criticised forgot that the children who were asked these questions were asked them after they had studied a particular programme and period.
It might be said that a programme of that particular type was too advanced for the children to comprehend it properly. That would be a fault of the programme. But if you set a programme thought suitable for the ages of the children, and there is a textbook covering that programme, which there will be I am sure, and if there is a part of it dealing with the attitude of Napoleon towards the Church, I would not find it wrong to set questions on those lines. Of course, the children who would be asked those questions are no longer babies. They are fairly grown-up boys and girls. I forget whether that question was given for an intermediate examination or for the leaving certificate. It would have been better for the senior class. However, it is very easy to be hypercritical of examinations like that.
Cramming is another matter about which you hear a lot of talk. I heard it to-day in regard to the primary examination. We must all cram a certain amount. For example, when the Minister is preparing for this particular Estimate, he concentrates on it for a certain period. He will be ready to answer detailed questions on it for the moment which he might not be so ready to answer at a later period. We have all to do that in life, and I would not regard as harmful the intensive application and concentration which is necessary in order to prepare for examination in a subject. There is, of course, a type of thing which is harmful. You are supposed to read a textbook and you find that some people are able to short-cut and defeat the purpose of those who set that textbook by preparing replies to certain types of questions which they think are suitable for examination purposes, and the textbook itself is not read.
I admit that competition and cramming are things which can very easily be abused, but they have their purposes. One of the troubles to-day is that everything is too free and easy. You have not got sufficient of the intensive application such as is necessary to succeed in competition. As I have said, I do not regard this intensive application as in general harmful, nor does it take away from the happiness of children or from the pleasure of their life. It is a useful part of the training for life to be able to concentrate and to make up intensively and thoroughly a certain portion of the work.
In the secondary schools there is the problem of the programme and textbooks which exists to a lesser extent in the case of the primary schools. These are matters that require attention to see whether adjustment ought to be made to fit pupils for the life of to-day, which is not the same as the life of 60 or 70 years ago. The question is whether we have considered the new conditions sufficiently to satisfy ourselves that the programme does fit the child for the world in which the child is going to live its life.
The question has been raised as to whether the primary teacher and the secondary teacher should be regarded as in parity and be paid equally. The fact is that they have different functions. I suppose if, say, an Aristotle were teaching a child the elementary subjects of reading, writing and arithmetic in the primary schools he might be a more satisfactory teacher because occasions might arise when a child might have difficulties and asked questions. Asking questions is one of the best ways in which a child can learn and understand. If a teacher is alive to what the child wants to know at a particular time he can do much more for him by his questions than by merely pursuing the general course. The individual needs show themselves up there and a good teacher is the one who takes advantage of any opportunity which presents itself by a child asking questions. It is the teacher's knowledge which enables him to answer properly.
Although it is very hard to dispute that the better prepared a teacher is— the more he knows himself—the better he will be able to deal with the individual problems of the children, I know, however, there are many instances in which that does not follow. There is not one of us here who has not had experience of the master who was regarded as a genius in his own line but who was quite unsatisfactory when he tried to impart his specialised knowledge to others, and it is possible that you could have a genius who would be a most unsatisfactory teacher. Taking all in all, I suppose I could hardly dispute that our primary teachers could not themselves know too much, but I do not know that you can get people whose range of knowledge is very limited and who can do the particular work that is required in the primary schools very efficiently. You often have a mother or father who may not be very well educated themselves or have a wide range of knowledge, but who will in regard to the simple things be able to do them thoroughly and get excellent results. It is true, also, that the teacher with comparatively limited knowledge can carry out his work competently.
Deputy Butler spoke of the monitorial system. I just escaped being a monitor myself. I used in my young days be put to teach some other children in lower classes. It was a small school and I know what this sort of thing is. I realise the enthusiasm that such a young person can have about the particular work, but whether the choice of the manager and the teacher, as suggested by Deputy Butler, can be depended on for the selection from the school of someone who has a natural vocation for teaching or not, I do not know. It might be tried when people are seeking to enter a training college or a preparatory college. The manager might be asked whether a particular young person would make a good teacher, whether he would be devoted to teaching afterwards. There are many people who would be excellent teachers but will not teach. However, the love of teaching is another matter.
I do not know whether I could say that the monitorial system would do a great deal for us. The training colleges fulfil two purposes. They are professional schools and a type of secondary schools. They are intended to be continuation schools, to give to the teachers extra knowledge in connection with the subjects they have to teach afterwards or subjects related to them. They are also used as professional schools to teach them the art or science of their particular profession. I have always felt they failed in the second part of their work. I was absolutely opposed to the so-called practice schools. They were attached to the training colleges to give the teachers in training an opportunity of actually teaching children. I felt it was most unfair to the children, and I was against it on that account.
I have always thought that what should be done in that case is that there should be selected schools under approved principals, who have themselves proved excellent teachers, and the students in training should be sent to those schools for a period of six months or one year, as the case may be, to learn teaching under the supervision of fully-trained, efficient and approved principals. That would mean more expense. It would admittedly be a slower process but, in the long run, it would get better results, if any system would get them, because the professional training would be properly done. I do not think that can be done by this periodic system of giving what used to be called demonstration or practice lessons. I do not think that is sufficient.
Whether or not we should seek to pay equally all members of the teaching profession is a matter which has been raised here. I fear it is one in which my opinions differ from those to which expression has been given. If one requires a longer period of wider training in order to equip oneself to do a certain piece of work it is only natural that one should look for a higher reward for one's labour. I do not think that we can accept otherwise unless one completely eliminates any type of hierarchy. I doubt if we can say that because the work done by the primary teacher is of such tremendous importance, he should be paid equally as well as the secondary teacher. I know the case that can be made on the other side, but on the whole I think the primary teachers will have to make a better case before their view will be generally accepted.
With regard to the special awards for highly efficient teachers, I think that system was a wise one. There may at times have been faults in its administration; but that is a different matter. It is a good thing that those who show they are particularly well fitted for teaching by getting good results should get a special reward for their efforts. That in itself will be an incentive to others. Some, I admit, will give of their best without any outside incentive, but in the ordinary course of human nature the most usual incentive to good work is the fact that it is specially rewarded.
Vocational education is also of tremendous importance. It has been dealt with extensively by Deputy Moylan, who devoted special attention to it. There is no doubt whatever that it is of paramount importance to-day. If the teacher engaged in vocational education is properly equipped he can make that particular type of education a liberal education. There is no reason why a teacher engaged in the teaching of a particular craft cannot make that teaching the medium through which to impart, not alone knowledge, but a general outlook on life and a perspective proper to the circumstances in which his pupils may ultimately find themselves. A teacher engaged in teaching carpentry can give to his pupils an elementary course in geometry, for example. All knowledge is an asset and there is no reason why we should regard vocational education as something completely remote from a liberal education. That, again, depends upon the teaching.
The most important part of the educational scheme is the actual teacher and anything that can be done should be done within the bounds of reason to make the teacher satisfied and contented. It is a fact, unfortunately, that we are never content in life. Indeed, there are people who speak of a "divine discontent", though this discontent is sometimes anything but divine in relation to the particular individual or the community as a whole. There is within us all a natural desire to rid ourselves of things that are irksome. We shall never succeed in doing that completely. If we could find a body of teachers composed of individuals imbued with the ideal: "I am a teacher; I want to remain a teacher: I am fairly well off; I want to give of the best of myself to my pupils and to the community" that body of teachers would be worth any price we could pay for it. Immediately, however, one alleviates or removes one source of discontent another source presents itself and one is, perhaps, discouraged from trying to get contentment because one knows, whatever one may do, there will always be a residue of discontent. It is, of course, both wise and sensible to reduce that residue to the smallest possible proportions, and when demands are reasonable, it is in the interests of the country and in the interests of education that these demands should be reasonably met.
I am one of those who believe that we are not spending a sufficient proportion of State funds on education. The reason we are not doing so is the reason given by Deputy Moylan here this morning, namely, that in education we are dealing in intangibles. Immediately one starts spending money on education qua education people come along and say: “Look at all the money that is being spent,” and the results and their value to the individual and the community are completely forgotten or ignored.
This is a fundamental matter and if the Minister can suggest to the House any practical steps for the improvement of education we will meet him more than half way.
As far as the Irish language is concerned, the Minister knows we share the views expressed on both sides of this House, namely, that we should try to restore the language to the position in which it will be once more the spoken language of the country. What is the best method by which to achieve that? A Ministry for Irish had been suggested. Someone suggested that if we had a Ministry or a board dealing entirely with the Gaeltacht it would be of very great value. I have often pondered on that. I have often wondered if that would achieve our object. The trouble is that whoever is responsible for education and the Gaeltacht and the Irish language has also to deal with Government activities in other directions. One cannot isolate the Gaeltacht and say that the State functions of one Minister or another shall not operate there. They all operate in the Gaeltacht, and the point is to discover whether one can get all the activities of all the Ministers under the aegis of a Minister appointed specially in charge of the Gaeltacht. It is a good thing undoubtedly that there should be one eye watching the interests of the language and the Gaeltacht all the time; it is most desirable that that should be so, but the man charged with that responsibility will not be able to carry out his functions or get real results unless he has the co-operation of every other Minister.
What you want then is the desire, on the part of every single Minister in the Government, to forward the national aim we have in regard to the language, and it is not easy to do that. When a Minister has a practical problem he is inclined to solve it in the way that immediately appears best to him without considering the language. You always have therefore to ask: "How is this going to affect the language; is there a language question involved there, and if the language question comes in, how the proposed solution is going to help us towards the attainment of the national objective as regards the language?" The only thing that a new Minister for the Gaeltacht, in addition to the Minister for Education, can do is to keep a watchful eye in regard to the activities of other Departments to try and see that these activities are helpful and not detrimental to the promotion of the language. It will be found that that is always a job in itself because the other Ministers will be dealing with their immediate problems and so there is always the danger unless each Minister is enthusiastic about the language, that the interests of the language in particular cases will be forgotten.
There is another matter in regard to education. I have often wondered whether it is wise that the Minister for Education should also have to look after the administration of the National Gallery, the National Museum and the National Library. The work of the Minister for Education is a whole-time job, in dealing with primary, secondary and vocational education. I know that he can, by departmentalising or sectionalising, get these various things attended to and can get reports, but the Minister to do good work has to give personal attention to each of these particular branches. I think that if he does he will find that it will be impossible for him to give to the National Library, the National Museum and the National Gallery the detailed attention which must be given to them if they are to be made use of properly to the country's advantage.
Before we left office in 1948 I remember we had come to the point at which a new site for the National Library was going to be got. It is very difficult to get a proper site for an extension of the National Library. I think that the Minister, if he goes into the details, will be convinced that the facilities as regards space and so on that are here at present are not satisfactory for the library. He will find the same with regard to the museum and the picture gallery which have already been referred to by Deputy Moylan. Therefore, to attempt to get these functioning in the national interest will require the detailed attention which no Minister of Education can give to them. There is also the question of the universities which calls for his attention. I do not think it would be possible for the Minister to give the detailed attention that would be required to get an approach to what would be satisfactory with regard to the library and the other institutions I mentioned. It was suggested to me that some of these might very well be allocated to the new Comhairle Ealaion and put under their control. I had not made up my mind on that, but I know the suggestion was made. Ministers want to have more and more under their immediate control, and Departments have similar characteristics. The wider the control they have the more they are pleased. I think the Minister should resist that very carefully, and if he finds that he cannot give detailed attention to these institutions, then he should think of arranging that the care of them would be provided for by some other method.
I am sorry to have spent so much time in dealing with this whole question. I should prefer, by far, if we had a series of separate items where one could deal thoroughly with any one of them, but one cannot do that on an occasion like this. I do hope that, when this Estimate comes on again, we will hear from parents in this House their criticism, from the parents' point of view, of our whole educational system and its administration. I will simply end with this, that none of us is so perfect that we cannot be improved by the feeling that there is some eye watching. I do not think that the teachers ought to have any resistance to inspectors coming along to see the work that is being done. If these inspectors are reasonable people they will be helpful and will not hinder. They will not be people that the teacher who does his work conscientiously ought to have any occasion to fear. The inspectors, however, are of vital importance and their selection should be made with the greatest possible care. I believe they are necessary, as I believe examinations are necessary.
I am afraid I shall have to ask the House to bear with me further while I deal with the question of examinations. I think that, no matter what it costs, we ought to have oral examinations in the secondary schools in regard to Irish and, indeed, in regard to modern languages, so that, in the case of a modern language, one can make use of it—read it and speak it. Now, in the past, modern languages, certainly in my time, were taught as the classics were taught. One was taught enough to be able to read a modern language. In the school that I was in, we got a reasonably good pronunciation of the language because the people teaching it had a considerable opportunity of learning the language orally and of using it orally. We were taught to pronounce it and got some dictation so that our ears were trained to the sound of the words. We were not taught, most of us, to use the language conversationally, and so those who got that training when they went to a country where the language was spoken were not able to converse with the natives in the language. I think, as regards modern languages, that is not right and that we ought to have oral examinations in these languages.
The modern language in which it is essential, in my opinion, to have oral examinations is Irish. I know the difficulties. There is the question of having a common standard in the examining, for example. It has been suggested, too, that oral examining would beget a greater amount of hostility than it is said exists in regard to the language. That is one thing that I do not believe at all. How anyone should be hostile to learning our own language in a secondary school I do not know because, from the point of view of mental training, it can be most valuable, apart altogether from the fact that the language is the national language of our country. As Patrick Pearse once said, it appeals directly to the child. The child can be got to love it for its own sake because it is the language of its country. But, in any case, I cannot understand how, in the secondary schools, there should be any hostility to the national language. I do not believe that there is in fact a fundamental hostility to it. There may be a hostility to methods which may not be approved of, or something of that sort, but I am not going to believe that if you have oral examinations in Irish these will increase the hostility, either of teachers or pupils towards the language. It is much easier to get a love for the language if you are speaking it and feel that you are in a position to express yourself in the language. You get a greater degree of love for it than you do with a language that you feel you can only just read, and cannot, if you meet a person who speaks the language, converse with him in the language. I would ask the Minister to consider anew with an open mind this question of oral examinations in the secondary schools. There will be some expense attached to it and some difficulties with regard to a common standard of examination but these can be solved step by step. As regards having uniformity of standard there may be a question of simply having the oral examination as a qualifying examination to start with. When you come to the prize groups you may have special problems which will require solution, but I would ask the Minister in the interests of the language and would urge him very strongly to keep an open mind and examine anew the whole problem of oral teaching and oral examination of Irish and modern languages—particularly Irish—in our schools. I am sorry to have delayed the House.
