As I said last Wednesday night, as far as the intention of this motion is concerned, we are in favour of it. Tonight, I should like to mention the reservations we have with regard to extending the age for compulsory education from 14 to 15 years. I think it is desirable, and my Party thinks it is desirable, that the school-leaving age should be raised to 15 years, but we do foresee many difficulties, not so much for the students themselves but for the families. Especially do we see these difficulties where there are no further educational facilities after, say, leaving the primary schools. We also see the difficulties that confront poor families and big families where the parents of the children are unfortunately looking forward to the day when the boy or the girl becomes 14 years of age and may leave school to take up some menial job to supplement the family income. That problem is not one for the Department of Education to tackle on its own but one to which the community, the State and the Government must have regard, if and when the decision to raise the school-leaving age from 14 to 15 years is taken.
I mentioned very briefly last week the question of vocational guidance. Without defining it in detail, I think most members know what is meant by vocational guidance. Too often have we young school children of the age we are discussing going into blind alleys in so far as education is concerned: the young boy or girl who is just of average intelligence, or perhaps a little below it, going into the secondary school to discover that after getting a pass or a bad honours in Leaving Certificate, he or she is not much use for jobs like the civil service, the E.S.B., or C.I.E. or any of that type of job for which the Leaving Certificate standard is required. At that age, especially so far as boys are concerned, they discover that they have just gone beyond the age at which they can become apprentices in particular crafts, so they end up at 17 or 17½ years of age fairly useless, having neither a trade nor a profession.
Much of that could be obviated if there were some liaison between the parents and the schools, some effort at vocational guidance. I do not think it is sufficient for the teaching authorities, especially in the secondary schools, to take in the children as into a machine, to treat them for four or five years and then to turn them out with a pass or a bad honours in Leaving Certificate, having missed the apprenticeship years and being practically good for nothing.
I was impressed by some of the things the Minister said with regard to this matter, but if one of the alternatives is to be given to the children, that of undertaking a wholetime course in the vocational school, then the Minister will have to tighten up on vocational education. Like myself, most Deputies would be high in their praise of the development of vocational education. It has gone forward by leaps and bounds, but it has very many defects and they are defects which unfortunately are costing both the taxpayer and the ratepayer money. Whilst the subjects to be taught in vocational schools must be very varied, I believe the Minister for Education with his officials will very soon have to take steps to define what subjects may be taught in the vocational schools.
The reason I say that is that I firmly believe there are far too many fancy classes, too many hobby classes, being carried on under the name of vocational education. Vocational education means a certain thing. It means an education for a vocation and not for a hobby. It does not mean allowing people to do certain things at the expense of the taxpayer or the ratepayer. It does not mean having classes where one is occupied for three, four or five hours a week merely as a hobby or for entertainment. If those classes are to be run in vocational schools, they should be run on 100 per cent. economic lines and this idea of giving these fancy classes for a nominal amount, the rest being given by the taxpayer and the State, is not good enough. If people want to do fancy things, if retired businessmen or people with time on their hands, want to learn foreign languages or do this, that or the other thing, they should be made to pay the full rate, or something near the full rate. By adopting that method, the Minister would find that he would have much more money at his disposal to devote to real vocational education.
I also think that he should exercise a more strict control—I am not saying this as a member of a vocational committee but as an ordinary layman— over the type of classes which should be run. I know that in many places the vocational education committee gets requests from a small group of people—perhaps four or five people— to run a particular type of class and the committee, willy nilly, agrees to do so. The class is carried on for four or five weeks and is then discovered to be a failure and that is that. But money has been spent on salaries and on wages or in some cases on materials, and it is money wasted. I mention these points as broad criticisms, or shall I say, as suggestions, to the Minister in order to give him encouragement to make vocational education the type of education which was intended, to train boys and girls and young men and women in some sort of worthwhile occupation or trade.
I was encouraged by the Minister's very short statement in reference to his idea of the scholarship system. The difficulty which we in our Party find is that whilst the child might get the three alternatives, a big number would not be able to avail of them, firstly, for the reasons I outlined at the beginning of my speech and secondly, because if they were needed to supplement the family income the parents usually are not able to afford secondary education and certainly not the follow up to that university education.
This country is scandalously served so far as scholarships in education are concerned. To say that we have far too few would not be strong enough —we have practically no real scholarship scheme. I have a particular county in mind—it is not my own county—with a population of 90,000 to 100,000, in which there are only three scholarships for the university. Those who can afford it—and nobody begrudges it to them—send their children to the secondary school. He or she gets the Leaving Certificate or the Matriculation and goes to the University. He or she does a normal course and is turned out as a doctor, an engineer or a Master of Commerce and so on, but look at the thousands who have not got that opportunity. It would be undesirable if every boy or girl were to be churned through the University, but there are many in the country with much more ability than those who can afford it but who do not get the opportunity to go to the University.
This county has three scholarships for the University. I suppose 80 per cent. of the ordinary families in any county could not afford to send one or two to the University and the taxpayers, and in particular the ratepayers, of the various counties are reluctant to provide the necessary moneys to increase the three scholarships to four, five or six. The ratepayers in these counties practically unanimously vote to give premiums for bulls, boars and mares and for all sorts of agricultural subsidies, but as soon as anybody mentions an increase in the number of scholarships, or an increase in the amount, it is voted down immediately.
The Minister would certainly be making his mark in education if he could induce the ratepayers, through the public authorities, to increase the number of scholarships. He would be doing a good day's work. I think also there are many other bodies in the community which could assist in the matter of education. It would be desirable if the State could carry the whole burden but I suppose that would be impossible. I often think that the trade union movement could engage in a scheme whereby the children of the members would have scholarships available to them to enter the university. Other bodies like chambers of commerce, the National Farmers' Association and so on, could also establish schemes whereby the children of their members would have the opportunity of going to the University.
As I say, I have nothing against those who can attend Universities and who are qualifying as doctors, scientists and engineers, but I would also like that an opportunity be given to people of modest means to see what they can do. They should also be allowed to engage in the building of this country as engineers, doctors or scientists. That is all I have to say except to express my support of the motion. I trust that though the Minister may officially oppose it, and though Government members may vote against it, the discussion has not been useless. I hope the Minister will bear in mind what has been said by the movers of the motion and the speakers from this side. All of us will agree that if we are to build up the country we must start at the base, with education. If the Minister proceeds to broaden the scope of scholarships he will have the support of the whole House.