Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 38 - 21 May, 1931

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—Office of the Minister for Education.

The President: I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná reghaidh thar £113,097 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Costaisí Oifig an Aire Oideachais, maraon le Costas Riaracháin, Cigireachta, etc.

That a sum not exceeding £113,097 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, 1932, for the Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education, including the costs of Administration, Inspection, etc.

Minister for Education (Professor O'Sullivan): I presume, sir, that we will follow the practice of previous years and discuss all the Estimates for which I am responsible together. The principal matter of importance from the educational point of view in the last twelve months was the coming into operation of the Vocational Education Act. Before I deal with some aspects of that question I should like to refer to some other branches. In the primary system, the year that we are dealing with marked a further increase in the percentage of those attending national schools. It is quite true that there might be some decline since the year 1926 in the absolute number of pupils on the rolls, especially before the age of six and after the age of fourteen. I think when the Compulsory Attendance Bill was passing through the Dáil I pointed out that that might be one of the consequences of a Bill of that kind: that once you fix a compulsory age there is a tendency on the part of some people to regard that as the maximum age, not at which they could attend, but at which they ought to attend school. Everyone will remember that the principal fault that was found in the old system, and the principal fault that was intended to be rectified by the passing of the 1926 Act, was the irregular attendance of children, especially between the years of six and fourteen, which were the years that the Bill dealt with. The percentage on the rolls during the year ending June, 1930, was the largest percentage that has yet been reached. In December, 1924, the average was 73.5. It increased steadily every year until June, 1930, when it was 83.4. In the case of the ages with which the Act deals the numbers were somewhat higher. In the year 1929 the percentage was 83.7, and in the year ending 1930 it was 84.4. In some places, such as Waterford City, Westmeath, Meath, Cork City, Carlow, Dublin City and County, and County Louth, there were even higher percentages, varying from 90.3 in Waterford City to 86 per cent. in County Dublin and County Louth. A somewhat gratifying feature in connection with these numbers, as an examination will show, is that there has been a steady increase.

Reference was made last year to an increased percentage in the higher standards. Deputies will remember that complaints have repeatedly been made here that there is an undue proportion of the total number of pupils [1683] on rolls in the lower standards. I have more than once pointed out, and it is still necessary to do this, that the course is an eight year course, and that consequently, the full effects of the Attendance Act cannot be fairly judged until after that period of eight years. Already it is noticeable that there is a steady increase in the proportion of the total number of pupils attending the fifth and sixth and higher standards. For instance, although the total number attending the National Schools has fallen between the years 1926 and 1930, still there has been an increase in the number to be found in the fifth, sixth and seventh standards. In the infant classes the number has fallen from 171,000 in 1926 to 152,000 in 1929, and to 150,800 in 1930. There was a similar fall, but not to the same extent, to be noted in the first and second standards. There was a slight increase in the third standard. There was an increase from 56,100 to 59,800 between 1926 and 1930 in the fourth standard; from 45,500 to 49,300 in the fifth standard; from 24,500 to 29,700 in the sixth standard, and an increase of almost 2,000 in the seventh standard during these four years. The same increase continues when we compare the year 1930 with the year 1929. That is, though there were 3,000 less on the rolls, there was an actual increase of 2,000 in the higher standards, that is, an increase of 12 per cent. of the pupils in these standards. It is quite possible of course, for a variety of reasons that there might be some children still not to be found on the rolls of the primary schools, or indeed, of any schools. It is also probable that a number of children are still not attending regularly, on account of adequate cause. For instance. because there is no suitable school in the immediate neighbourhood, or within a reasonable distance, or because of overcrowding, as sometimes takes place in the larger cities, and especially in the City of Dublin.

We are gradually grappling with that particular problem of overcrowding by the provision of new schools, two of which have been completed in [1684] the last twelve months in Dublin, one in upper Drumcondra direction at a total cost of £17,000, making provision for about 660 infants and girls, and another in the south side at Fairbrothers' Fields, at a cost of £12,000 making provision for over 400 boys. Of course it will be recognised that no matter how many new schools we build there will be still a number of families with children who have not a suitable school within a reasonable distance. That still presents a problem, but it is one that is engaging our attention, how education can be provided in suitable schools for various scattered units of that kind. As I say, the matter is important and is engaging our attention at the moment. Since the State took over there have been erected 197 new schools, 184 existing schools have been enlarged, and about 1,379 schools have been improved in various ways.

As regards a certain portion of the country, namely the Fior-Ghaeltacht, as set out in the map of the Gaeltacht Commissioner's Report the position has been as follows since 1922:—There has been spent in the Donegal Gaeltacht in the building and improvement of schools £28,000; in Galway £27,520, in Mayo £22,450; in Kerry £8,080, and in various parts of the Gaeltacht, Cork, Waterford and Clare, £4,500. The census we took showed that the number of new schools required in the Donegal Gaeltacht was eleven. Of these, grants have been sanctioned already for seven. In Galway the number of new schools required was three, for which grants have been sanctioned. In Mayo two were required and the grants have been sanctioned. In Kerry four were required and grants have been sanctioned for two. In the remaining district one school was required and the grant has been sanctioned. I must say that in most of these cases it has not been a question of requiring one-third from the neighbourhood. Very often the full grant has to be given. In practically all cases more than two-thirds has to be given by the State, and generally, of course, considerably more.

One of the questions raised here last [1685] year was the charge that we were trying to force unduly teaching through the medium of Irish; that is, that we were trying to use Irish as the sole medium of instruction where the two necessary conditions for the success of that attempt were not present. I think Deputies from different parts of the House took part in that debate. In reply, I made it clear—and I think my predecessor was exactly of the same view—that so far as standards above the infant standards were concerned, two conditions were required for any attempt of that kind: (1) that the children would have a sufficient knowledge of Irish to absorb the instruction given; and (2) that the teacher would be sufficiently competent to give instruction through Irish. I promised to make inquiries into the matter and to see how things stood. I am still in the process of having inquiries made, but the result of such inquiries as I have made has been to convince me that the charges on the whole were not well-founded. I do not say that there are not cases in which individuals, in their zeal, may not have outrun their competence, or in which teachers may have felt that they were under a certain obligation or pressure to do more than they were obliged to do. There may have been isolated cases of that kind. There may certainly have been cases of that kind when the policy was first put before the country and brought into force. On more than one occasion in this House it was stated what the policy was. From inquiries I have made I am convinced that, on the whole, at present at all events, there is no undue pressure being put upon the teachers in the schools to do more than they are capable of in that respect. It was recognised that not merely would there be damage done to the children educationally, but that a great deal of damage might also be done to the language movement itself if an effort was made to carry out a policy of that kind where the conditions were not present that would ensure success. I am speaking now, of course, of using Irish as the teaching medium in the case of standards [1686] higher than the infant standards, because so far as the infant standards are concerned the recommendation of the Programme Conference which we are acting upon was that there the attempt should be made where the teacher was competent. As I say, I am convinced that there has been no undue haste in this respect. In fact, I think, though I do not wish to deal with individual cases, that an effort could have been made in many cases to do a little more in the direction of using Irish at least as a school language.

We are still tabulating the figures and it takes quite a long time to tabulate the figures for any given year. I think it takes two people about five months to tabulate the returns from the different schools. But I am using the figures for 1929—30th June. I gather from the reports that have come in that there is really no essential change so far as these are concerned. The percentage of the total number on the rolls in the Saorstát who receive instruction— leaving out, of course, English— through the medium of Irish alone would be, in arithmetic, 5½ per cent.; history, 4½ per cent.; geography, 5¼ per cent.; in all subjects about 2 per cent. If you take from that the Fior-Ghaeltacht and the percentage that the numbers there hold to the number of pupils as a whole in the Saorstát, you will get the following results in the Fior-Ghaeltacht: Arithmetic, 2 per cent. of the total pupils of the Saorstát receiving instruction through the medium of Irish; in history, 1¼ per cent.; in geography 1¼ per cent.; and in all subjects, ¾ per cent. The percentage in the Breac-Ghaeltacht was smaller. It was ¾ per cent. generally, except in geography, in which 1 per cent. received instruction through the medium of Irish. If you subtract the percentages of the Fior-Ghaeltacht where Irish is the native language, the mother language, the language that they have as their first language, and in the Breac-Ghaeltacht, where there is a natural familiarity with the language, from the total percentages I have given, you [1687] will see that there is no ground really for the charge that undue pressure is being put, whatever may be said in one or two cases, on the teachers in this respect, or that we are asking them to do what is impossible, or, as was suggested last year, damaging to the cause of the Irish language by a too-forward policy in this way.

We are issuing a new circular letter dealing with this matter. No change of policy is indicated in that circular. All that it does is to make it quite clear what the policy is. It sets out in full the recommendations of the National Programme Conference. It sets out what the aim is, and it explains and elucidates and amplifies the recommendations of the Programme Conference and the steps that are necessary to achieve that particular aim. It shows what the aim should be, and then it shows the way in which that aim can gradually be achieved. It lays down quite clearly that for the attempt to be made certain conditions must be present: that is the two essential conditions—I am speaking always of standards above the infant standards— competence on the part of the teacher, and sufficient knowledge of the language on the part of the pupil. It shows how gradually the language can be extended. Various ways are pointed out in which this can be done, first by making the language what I might call the school language when the teachers have to give orders to the pupils, in maintaining discipline, and in the playground. That would be the first step. When a certain amount of that has been done in the schools for some time, gradually the subjects that require less vocabulary and require more action, so to speak, than talk or speech, such as drawing, needlework, cookery, singing and drill, can be taken up. Then you advance gradually to those subjects which require a more extended vocabulary. There can be a gradual extension of the use, first of both languages as media of instruction, and then a gradual extension through standards as well. I have dealt with that subject because it was one of the principal matters mentioned and because it [1688] formed the ground of criticism in the course of last year's debate on the Estimates.

To get suitable teachers for the Gaeltacht school we had first to enter into an examination of what were the actual schools to which the children came with what I might call a natural knowledge of Irish; where the pupils knew Irish alone, for instance; next, where the children knew more Irish than English; and next, where they knew Irish as well as English. We had a census taken of the different schools of the West and South of Ireland where there was any prospect of these conditions being fulfilled. We are now having the results of that examination revised. It was determined, in order to induce the better teachers to stay in the Gaeltacht, that the following inducements would be offered. I am speaking now of selected schools where Irish is really the language of the pupils that supply the schools, and where, consequently, Irish is used as the medium of instruction for subjects with the exception of English.

It was determined to add, in the case of teachers with salaries of over £155 a year, 10 per cent. for highly efficient teachers, with a minimum of £25; 5 per cent. for efficient teachers, with a minimum of £15. In the case of junior assistant mistresses it was determined to add corresponding sums of £15 for highly efficient and £10 for efficient teachers.

The Gaeltacht Housing Department is also engaged in an examination of the problem of the erection of houses for teachers in these districts, houses that would be suitable for teachers and which could be let to them at a reasonable cost.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: Would the Minister say how many schools were affected?

Professor O'Sullivan: I could not tell off-hand. We made an individual examination, and we asked the teachers in the first instance. We may not have told the purpose of our inquiry, but we certainly asked them how many of their pupils knew Irish alone, how many knew Irish better than English, how [1689] many knew both languages equally, how many knew English better than Irish, and how many had no Irish. It is, to a large extent, on the returns given by the teachers that we based our plans.

Mr. O'Connell: You did not tell them the object of your inquiry?

Professor O'Sullivan: We did not do that, but I assume that the results would be similar. Deputies will notice that there is an increase in the Vote for Secondary schools this year. The increase is due directly or indirectly to the increase in the number of pupils attending the secondary schools. That means, of course, that a larger Capitation grant has to be paid to the schools, and that is responsible for a large portion of the increase, as Deputies will see, and it is also responsible for the fact that a larger number of teachers can be employed to whom increments can be paid. That is responsible for another increase. I think there are more pupils attending secondary schools now in the Saorstát than in the whole of Ireland when we took over. In the year 1924-25 the numbers attending these schools were 22,900. These numbers have increased steadily until in 1929-30 they have reached 27,650.

I think either on the last occasion or some other occasion I pointed out that the secondary school programme provided an opportunity for giving, not merely what is called classical or cultural education, but a more practical turn can be given to it if such schools so wish it. There is plenty of opportunity in the programme for such schools to gain grants if the schools so desire. There is one school in Donegal which put up a programme of this kind and it has been accepted. I wish, of course, that more use would be made of these provisions and that we would have a little more variety in the type of secondary schools that we have in the country. I should like to call attention to this: that under the name of secondary schools here in this country we group different types of school, or at least schools that would be regarded as different types in other countries. For instance, in Germany [1690] they distinguish between a Gymnasium, Realgymnasium, and Realschule, according as Latin and Greek are taken, or Latin alone is taken, or according as you have what is called modern education. If you grouped our secondary schools in the same way you would get something like the following results. I deal with this to show the type of education given in our secondary schools is not the same in all of them. In some you have what I may call a classical tradition, in others it is completely absent. Amongst the boys' schools there are forty in which Latin and Greek are taught; eighty-two in which Latin is taught but no Greek, and thirty-two without Latin or Greek. In girls' schools there are two with Latin and Greek; forty with Latin but without Greek, and 118 without either Latin or Greek.

Complaints were continually coming to us from all the schools, and, in fact, from various Deputies as well, that there was not sufficient freedom allowed in regard to the choice of programme; that certain subjects useful from every point of view, from the educational as well as from the merely material point of view, were being crushed out. In order to meet that situation we gave more liberty to the schools. Up to a year or two ago it was not possible, for instance, for a school to get credit for more than five subjects at the intermediate certificate examination. It was in connection with the first intermediate certificates examination that complaints were rife because a great deal of liberty was allowed in connection with the leaving certificate. After consultation with the schools a modification of that was brought in, and it is now possible for a school either to concentrate on five subjects, or they may take six or seven subjects and get credit in the examination for the seven subjects. The result, on the whole, has been satisfactory. The percentage of boys' schools who took five subjects only was eighteen; and 30 per cent. in the case of girls in 1929. That had fallen in 1930 to eleven per cent in the case of boys and 23½ per cent. in the case of girls. The number that took [1691] six subjects increased from 48½ to 52.3 per cent. in the case of boys, and 47.2 per cent. to 50.2 per cent. in the case of girls.

There was a similar increase in the case of those who took seven subjects, and an increase in the case of those who took more than seven. Another matter to which I would call attention is the fact that more schools have been accepted as satisfying the rather rigid standard that is required for an “A” school. There has been a steady increase in that respect for a number of years. It is quite marked in this year. An “A” school is a school in which all the subjects except English are taught through the medium of Irish. The “B” schools are divided into B1 and B2. The former school is one in which more than half the subjects are taught through the medium of Irish, and B2 is a school in which two subjects are taught through that medium. There has been an increase in the number of “A” schools. There is another fact to be noted. Though Irish is not a compulsory subject in the Leaving Certificate Examination 95 per cent. of the boys and 94 per cent. of the girls took Irish in that examination. Inspection shows that, with one or two exceptions, the oral side of the language is not neglected. Another fact in this respect, so far as I am dealing with “A” schools, is that when a school advances to the position of “A” school it does not mean a narrowing of the programme. That means that a school takes as many subjects as it did before it concentrated on advancing to the “A” school, and the percentage of passes and honours is at least as satisfactory as it is in any of the other schools.

I generally find it necessary to remind Deputies of some of the essentials of our system especially so far as control is concerned. These must be taken for granted. Very often in the criticisms that are offered some of the fundamental principles on which our system is based are forgotten. Everywhere the power of a central Government in educational matters is limited, but that is especially so here. As I have on more than one occasion [1692] pointed out, we do not control or aspire to control education. We may guide it, we may influence it to a considerable extent, but, as I have had to insist on more than one occasion, the system is essentially not a State system. In essence, most of the schools are private, not merely in essence but in principle. The State enters merely as a helping factor. In return for the help it gives it is enabled to exercise, as I indicated, a considerable amount of control but the basis of the system, especially so far as primary and secondary education are concerned, is laid on the principle that it is essentially a private system.

We can, as I say, impose conditions as the result of the monetary help which we give. We can lay down to a certain extent within certain lines the programme which we should like to see followed. We can lay down certain conditions in regard to the training and efficiency of the teachers that must be fulfilled. There are other conditions of a somewhat similar nature which we can also lay down, but it is only indirectly that we influence the control of education. Primary education, as is well-known, is essentially a private system helped by the Government. The Government is able in the ways I have mentioned—by a system of inspection, by the conditions it imposes on teachers in recognition of their appointments—to exercise a considerable influence. In the secondary system the influence of our control is less than it is in the case of the primary system. All the schools are essentially private institutions. We pay so much per head if they fulfil the conditions recognised by us, and we pay increments to the teachers if certain conditions are fulfilled regarding the staffing of the schools. It is by inspection and programme that we make our influence felt.

The system of inspection in the case of secondary schools is quite as exact, but has a different effect from that in the primary schools. In the case of secondary inspection the teacher's rating does not depend on the report of the inspector. It is only in the case of vocational schools that you [1693] have anything in the nature of what I might call public schools. They are essentially again local schools, aided to a certain extent, guided, influenced, and controlled by the central authority. At present, new committees are being set up. I ask Deputies to remember that these committees have just come into existence, and have just taken over control. As regards the universities, I do not answer for them. The House is so jealous of the autonomy of universities, it thinks, apparently, that that autonomy would be unduly interfered with if the Minister for Education had to answer for them. That is one of the reasons why I do not answer for the universities—to make still more clear their autonomy.

For all these essentially non-State institutions we provide funds, but though we provide funds there are limits to the control which we can exercise. As I have indicated already, our influence is largely indirect and largely consists of the conditions which we can impose as regards programme, qualifications, efficiency of teachers, and numbers of staff. It is in that way that we can influence these essentially private institutions. Usually we are met by demands for more freedom, and occasionally we have tried to give more freedom to the schools. Though they really want to be told what to do, they demand more freedom. One of the ways in which we assist in the progress of education is in the effort to provide or rather to help in the provision of more highly-trained teachers. We have done that in the different branches. In the case of the primary system, we have tried to realise the aim that all those who enter the training colleges, properly so-called, shall have at least in the subjects they present the full standard of secondary education.

For instance, in 1921 not one-fourth of the places in the training colleges were filled by those who had a full standard of secondary education. In 1930, however, two-thirds of the places were filled by those who had a full secondary education standard. If you take admittance to the training colleges in 1930 you get the following [1694] percentages: 30.3 came from the preparatory colleges; 34.4 from pupil-teacherships (all that class have full secondary education); 14.2 from university graduates or untrained teachers; and 21.1 from the Easter Scholarship Examination. The latter examination is now equivalent to the leaving certificate examination, with the addition that an oral examination is held as well at Easter. In connection with secondary teaching there is, as Deputies know, a Registration Council, to a large extent independent in its administration, and very strict conditions are laid down for admittance to the rank of secondary teachers. Very high qualifications indeed are demanded by that Registration Council.

As regards vocational teachers, in the year 1930 we gave a short summer course in a variety of subjects. These teachers were called up to attend courses in these subjects, the better to fit them afterwards in their profession as technical school teachers. In a course given in the City of Dublin Technical Schools, 23 teachers attended a course in modern house planning, 17 in electricity—the practical application of alternating currents; 29 in housecraft; 17 in metal work practice, and 33 in an advanced composite course in shorthand, typewriting and Irish, and 18 in general art. From many points of view these were an interesting series of courses and gave a new outlook to many of the teachers who took part in them. Apart from that and in order to make a beginning of the preparation for providing teachers for the new system that came into operation as the result of the passing of the Vocational Act, when I was introducing the Supplementary Estimate here I indicated why certain courses, much longer courses than the summer courses to which I have referred, were being undertaken. There was a group of teachers in woodwork, and building construction, for instance. They are being trained in the municipal school at Limerick with the co-operation of the staff of these schools and of the Limerick Vocational Committee. These new aspirants for teacherships were [1695] selected on a competitive basis. They were selected from persons of experience and knowledge in woodwork and building trades. A special examination, written, practical and oral, was conducted in order to choose these candidates. For another group of teachers chosen under the same conditions, another course was held in metal work and motor engineering. That course is being held at the Ringsend School through the courtesy of the Dublin Borough Committee and the Principal of the schools there.

I indicated also on one occasion that one of the most important subjects to which vocational committees could devote their attention was domestic economy and the spreading of instruction in that particular subject. We have, as it is known, two schools in this country training domestic economy instructresses, Kilmacud and Black-rock, but we felt they would not be sufficient. The supply coming from these two schools would not be sufficient to cope with the needs that would be imposed on us by the coming into operation of the Vocational Education Act, and consequently an intensive course was established at the school of housewifery in Killarney. This school is no longer used for the training of domestic servants as up to the present. It is now used for the purpose of training a number of domestic instructresses. A certain portion of the costs of these courses was already voted in the Supplementary Estimates a few months ago. The balance of the cost is included in the present estimate.

Two further courses are proposed— one, a supplementary course for forty whole-time teachers of Irish—that is, those already employed under what used to be called the technical instruction scheme, and who are whole-time teachers. Forty of these will be chosen and called up. There is then a special course for from twenty to forty in different subjects—graduates in commerce, arts, and in science. So far as these courses are concerned, it will be more scientific in its character than that of general instruction— physical science, especially biology. [1696] We expect it to be availed of by the country districts especially. We hope that a number of scientific biological students may come forward for that purpose. A summary of the special teaching which we are providing under the present Estimates is as follows:— Woodworkers, 20; metal-workers, 16; additional domestic economy instructresses, 20; science, 20; commerce and general, 20. In addition we are calling up 40 whole-time teachers of Irish to give them a supplementary training in some other subjects or subject.

We have held examinations in what used to be called the technical schools, and the numbers that have presented themselves for these examinations have increased from year to year—from 5,700 in 1928 to 6,900 in 1930. In order to emphasise the practical value of the instruction given, a new scheme has been inaugurated of awarding medals for excellence of craftsmanship. That scheme comes into operation this year and the examination is being held at the present moment. There are about 300 students in carpentry and joinery-work, painting and decorating work, plastering work electrical installation work, cabinet-making, wood carving, leatherwork and art metal work competing.

As I indicated in the beginning, the main educational event, so to speak, of the year was the coming into operation of the Act passed last summer. The new committees have been set up and they are functioning. So far as their activities are concerned it is well to bear in mind that they came into office and into existence for all practical purposes only six months ago. The new system of finances came into operation on 1st April and any changes they can make in the actual courses can only have effect from 1st September next. Possibly also it may be borne in mind that they are not starting ab ovo. They have taken over an already existing system and they have to adapt it to new ideals.

That system itself started, as Deputies know, over a quarter of a century ago, by being essentially intended at first principally for the towns. It was only as an accident that it was extended gradually in various ways to [1697] the country. It will be the business generally of the vocational committees to pay more attention to the country districts than they have been able to pay in the past. As I say, the Act itself was only passed in July last. The committees came into existence some time after that and they had to submit, owing to the terms of the Act, their schemes to the Department by the 1st December. The change in the system was effected smoothly and effectively, especially when we bear in mind the shortness of time at the disposal of the committees. The proposals that were put forward showed considerable care and, on the whole, they were sound.

In general, as I say, it is only from September next that the actual expansion of the scheme can take place. That is, at the beginning of the new educational year. The teachers whom we are training will be ready by September, or at all events, many of them will be, and they will be required by that time. In addition, we have had to publish a number of sets of regulations as required by the Act. There are five or six sets altogether. Some of them are almost little Acts of Parliament in themselves. Regulations connected with the preparation and submission of annual schemes, and then a much more difficult piece of work, regulations relating to the accounts, the audit and procedure had to be made. In addition, there are some other sets of regulations. They are in draft at the moment and will be issued very shortly.

I think when the Act was going through the Oireachtas I pointed out that one of the defects of the old system was the uncertainty, or at least the difficulty and uncertainty of providing new buildings. There was no adequate provision for new buildings. That condition of things was remedied by the Act. Conferences have been held between my Department, the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Works as to the conditions on which loans will be issued to the committees to provide more adequate buildings than they have at present. Full agreement has been come to by [1698] the Departments concerned as regards the conditions on which loans will be issued. At the present moment the actual conditions are being drafted.

The technical school authorities have availed of the provisions of the new Act and many proposals have come forward to us. In the majority of cases it was possible to meet the building requirements proposed out of the revenue of the funds of the committee. That is, that the interest on the loans could be paid out of that fund to which, as I pointed out when the Act was going through both Houses, both the State and the local rating authority contributed. But there was another provision in the Act, namely, that the rating authority could, if it so wished, raise a loan independent of the vocational fund. In that case there was provision made that the Minister for Finance could grant up to 50 per cent. of the cost of the building.

Applications have been made also under that section and some local authorities have come forward with proposals of that kind. We have had a large number of proposals as regards the building of new schools and the enlargement of existing ones. For instance, in Bolton Street, in Dublin, a new wing is nearing completion, at a cost of £25,000. In the Rathmines School of Commerce a new lecture hall has been added at a cost of £2,000. We have not as yet got the plans of the big scheme that is being put forward by the City of Cork. We will be quite ready to consider the details when they are submitted to us. The total cost will be round about £40,000. In Cork, also, two workshops have been added to the Crawford Technical Institute at a cost of £2,000. In Wexford the revised proposal of which we have approved is for an expenditure of £500. In Bray there is a proposal for a technical school, a proposed new building. The scheme itself has our approval. The question of finance has not yet been settled. In Gorey the negotiations as regards finance are not yet complete between the Department, the committee and the County Council. We have approved of additions to the Limerick School [1699] to the extent of £5,000. Plans have not yet been submitted in the case of Nenagh, where there is a proposal also. There is a new building in progress in Trim, estimated to cost £3,000. That at Kells has been completed at the same cost. In Newcastle West we have approved of a building costing £3,000, and at Hospital £3,000. In Fermoy we have approved of a new building at the same figure, and it is nearing completion. At Clonakilty a new technical school, estimated to cost £6,000, is in progress. At Portlaoghaise a new technical school building has just been completed at a cost of £3,000. There are various other schemes that committees in various parts of the country are considering, but they are not yet advanced sufficiently to have them put before the Department.

If Deputies will look into this year's Estimates they will find they are set out in somewhat different form from last year in the case of Technical and Vocation Instruction Votes. Instead of various grants, attendance grants, cost of living bonus, annual grants, and so on, that we granted last year and in previous years under the old system, there is now a block grant given to the different committees according as we estimate the needs for the current year.

The only other item to which I would call attention in this preliminary statement is the work of the Publications Committee. That Committee was appointed in 1926 to read and consider manuscripts that were submitted by writers of Irish and to advise the Department as to the acceptance and the publication of these manuscripts whether in the way of original work or translations. Having regard to the conditions that prevailed a few years ago when there was undoubtedly a paucity of Irish books in the market and especially a lack of suitable text-books for teaching purposes, the Committee has made considerable progress. The number of books produced in Irish by Irish publishers has also increased in the past few years.

There are now available text-books in Irish dealing with arithmetic, algebra, [1700] science, geometry, geography, Irish history, book-keeping, music, shorthand, cookery, drill, nature study and needlework. Text-books in geometry, arithmetic, geography and needlework have been published under the recommendations of the Committee. Texts of a more advanced nature are at present in course of preparation for publication by the Department.

The position as regards books in Irish, other than text-books, also shows a marked improvement. The Department deal with the publication of two classes of such books, that is, books regarded as suitable for publication as reading books for secondary schools and, secondly, books of general literature in Irish, both original compositions and translations. Thirty-seven books falling under the first of these categories have been published under the Department's scheme up to the present, while forty books of general literature in Irish, and translations, have also been published. Many other books suitable for reading matter in Irish are in course of preparation, and it is expected there will be a considerable increase in the number of published works before the end of 1932. Altogether 25,000 volumes of texts and 13,000 volumes of general literature have been sold. I indicated that one of the difficulties of introducing an estimate was that one is generally accused of not dealing with the subject that the individual speaker wants one to deal with. Therefore, I think it would be better to give individual speakers an opportunity of pointing out what subjects exactly they want me to deal with.

Professor Alton: I would like to ask the Minister to explain the position in regard to the National Museum and the National Library.

Professor O'Sullivan: There has been a considerable addition to the Museum in the last twelve months, more than ever before, especially on the archaeological side. I think we have been more active and successful in that respect during the last twelve months than ever before. As regards staffing, as indicated in the Estimates, [1701] a larger staff has been sanctioned by the Department of Finance. I think the Civil Service Commission is already dealing with the matter of appointments. Actual appointments have not yet been made in some cases.

Mr. Fahy: The Minister said that fault might be found with him for not referring to particular aspects of the Education Estimates that different Deputies might desire. At the outset I have that fault to find with the Minister. The difficulty of preparing these tables and lists and issuing the report of the Department has been pointed out by the Minister. Consequently, the report on which we have to base our criticism is a year old. There are many things in that report that I think the Minister should have dealt with. He should have told us whether improvements have been made and whether the recommendations of the inspectors have been given effect to. He might have told us what progress has been made on the lines these inspectors have indicated.

Before analysing this report in certain respects, I shall refer to some matters of general interest. It is difficult to ascertain what the cost of education in this State is in comparison with other countries, owing to the fact, as mentioned by the Minister, that secondary education is largely run by private schools which get much money from other sources and which invest much money in buildings and so on. It is difficult to ascertain, even in other countries, what exactly per head education costs, as the money does not come from a central fund. We are not finding fault with expenditure on education, because money spent on education is well spent, if it is wisely spent. The amount here is, roughly, four and one-third millions, over 20 per cent. of the State expenditure. I am not alone in questioning whether we are getting good value for that money. There is, I think, a certain lack of co-ordination even still in education and it is a pity that the voluntary committee acting in 1922 was not continued or improved upon. Suggestions were made from various sources last year and the year before that an educational council might [1702] achieve that purpose. I think it would, and I think such a council should be set up.

Certain subjects require improvement in teaching. Mathematics is one and history and geography are others. There is a general complaint that the education is not brought into relation with the life of the country and the life of the different districts, particularly as regards mathematics. That complaint is emphasised by the inspectors of national schools. Last year I referred to the difference in level between the matriculation examination in the various universities and leaving certificates. As a consequence, a year is lost either in the secondary school or in the university. I maintain it is in the university. If a student gets a leaving certificate and then enters a university, at least a year is lost. I have heard complaints from the parents of university students to that effect. The art students have practically nothing to do in their first year. It is an impressionable year for them and when they have nothing to do they are inclined to get into slack and idle habits. They have not very much to learn in the lectures they attend in that year. As the Minister pointed out, the universities are and should be autonomous.

Perhaps the representatives of the universities here will consider that matter and voluntarily come to some agreement in regard to the standard of entrance to the universities. An educational council might do something in that respect. It is one matter in which very good work could be done. There is a waste of energy and a waste of education, and, indeed, a waste of some years of a young person's life under existing conditions. The universities might, I think, train teachers, secondary teachers particularly, in mathematics and turn out more of them better fitted to teach mathematics in the secondary schools. Of course, it is difficult in these times of economic stress to advocate that education should be purely cultural. It is recognised now that education may be utilitarian and of a high cultural value as well, but I think it should be fitted to the life of the [1703] country and the life of the district. We should not forget that life does not merely consist of earning daily bread. One must be fitted for leisure as well and the leisure hours of the people are getting longer; I hope they will get longer still. On the spending of their leisure hours largely depends the future of the State, and it is important that the people should receive an education that will fit them for their leisure.

As regards teachers' pensions, the Minister gave no information. I do not want to press him for information in case there are delicate negotiations in progress. Perhaps he might let us know later on how the Fund stands. We have to reiterate year after year the position of the junior assistant mis tresses and convent school teachers. They have not been mentioned, and it is difficult to understand, if you employ these junior assistant mistresses and they are qualified to teach, why they should not be properly remunerated. If they are not qualified to teach they should not be there. It is a question of finance, of course, still I hope to indicate a method by which they might be gradually replaced instead of appointing any more. Regarding the attendance, the Minister's assurance is satisfactory that it has gone up, because it is impossible, I think, to teach two languages properly and to carry out a programme of ten subjects or so, unless you can get ninety per cent, attendance at least. The Minister rightly questioned the figures given in other countries as 98 per cent., which might not include illness. Ten days' absence for clinical treatment at home or in a hospital during the calendar year are reckoned as attendance in the Free State.

Regarding secondary teachers it is satisfactory that they have now a proper status. I might mention one case in which a teacher—and the Minister knows the case—interpreted a form, which was sent out regarding pensions, wrongly. The wording of that circular was ambiguous, and the teacher in a Protestant school in the city with a very excellent record has been deprived of some of his rights. I think the Minister should consider that case. [1704] It was really an ambiguous circular in certain respects and owing to his mistake he has been penalised. Last year the Minister assured us that we would have co-operation between himself and the Department of Local Government regarding the sanitation of schools. It is gratifying to see that co-operation is taking place and that improvement has been made. I notice the figures given on page 71 of the Education Report which prove the absolute necessity for medical inspection. We talk of sweeps here for hospitals, of which I am rather doubtful myself, but there would be much less need for hospital treatment if the inspection of schools was properly carried out through the State and if these diseases were checked in the children.

There is a reference also in this report to playgrounds. There should be playgrounds attached to all the schools. In the division of land that we here so much about, I hope that it will be insisted on that if any land is to be divided near a school a proper playground will be provided. Many schools have been improved, we are told; some new schools have been built and others enlarged; there is still much to be done. The grants for the new schools in 1928-29 were £101,863, and in 1927-28 £142,369. I do not know if there is as much this year. Schools are needed. If you are to inculcate a proper idea of personal cleanliness you cannot do it in a crowded school in a foul atmosphere and bad sanitary conditions. You have some such schools in the city here.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

There are also cases of malnutrition in certain counties. Kildare, I think, was the worst reported on. The provision of school meals would meet that to a certain extent. The Minister for Local Government, I believe, gave figures showing that they cost something like £1 17s. per annum per pupil. That is not a great tax, and that also should be pursued more than it is now. In one district the question was raised as to who owned teachers' residences when the trusteeship lapses. That problem has arisen. The Minister might tell us who does own them, because [1705] I heard of rents being charged for teachers' residences for which the Government gave grants. The trusteeship lapsed before rents were charged.

Primary schools, after all, are the main section of this Vote, as a great majority of pupils do not get any further. There is a need for revision and for an overhauling of the programme. It is easy to see that it is overcrowded, but I wonder who will say what subjects shall be discarded. Year after year we get Deputies advocating an addition of further subjects to the programme. Some lament that drawing is not obligatory, and so on. It certainly seems to be a fairly full programme. In the matter of school books we have a certain number turned out by the Gúm, but I think the text-books were rather poor. They are uninspiring nationally, either in Irish or in English. I have seen several of them and there was more about Ireland in the old fifth book of the national school than in many of the texts now used in the schools.

In the Irish texts the range of subjects is very limited, and very often they are a mere collection of grammatical examples. Of course that charge has been made against the book from which many of us started to learn Irish. It was stated that it was the finest collection of grammatical examples in Europe. I advocated last year that the Government should have a standard series of Irish texts. I still hold we should have that series. There are difficulties in schools of inspectors coming along and recommending some books. The inspector is changed and these are not used. If you had a standard series the Government could see that no book which did not conform to that standard was sanctioned. They might allow other books in after a period, but the standard series should be for a period, say, of ten years.

The Maynooth Union last year passed a resolution calling unanimously on the Minister to put the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke in Irish as reading matters for Standards 5 to 7. Surely that that should be done. If sections object to that, there is Beddells' Bible for Protestant schools if so desired.

[1706] Professor O'Sullivan: Did they send a resolution to the managers?

Mr. Fahy: They sent it to the Minister.

Professor O'Sullivan: I do not choose the books in the schools.

Mr. Fahy: The Minister could recommend them.

Professor O'Sullivan: The schools are allowed to do it.

Mr. Fahy: 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 [1707] 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, [1708] 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. [1709] 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 [1710] 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 [1711] 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 [1712] 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 [1713] 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 [1714] 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 [1715] 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 [1716] 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 [1717] 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.

Mr. Byrne: The importance of the Estimate that the House is now discussing will be realised when it is stated that the sum of money that we are passing in this Estimate exceeds the combined sums of money that we spend upon industry and agriculture. The present Vote involves over £4,000,000. Of that sum £3¾ millions goes practically to primary education. I agree with Deputy Fahy that this money should be spent by the country provided the country receives value for it. I agree with him when he says that it is money well spent. But, if it is money well spent, we must have an educational system fit for the country. The Minister for Education on a former occasion in dealing with this Estimate stated that we in this country had to depend more on the trained ability of our people than perhaps any other European country. In dealing with this Estimate and this large sum of money, it is reasonable to ask two simple questions: (1) Is our primary system of education efficient; does it properly equip our children educationally? (2) Does the State receive value for the money? A lot of time has been spent here in discussing the Compulsory School Attendance Act. The Compulsory School Attendance [1718] Act introduced five years ago was looked upon by many connected with educational matters as a means that would cure every defect in our educational system. In my opinion, the Compulsory School Attendance Act will never remedy the defects that at present exist in our educational system.

The acid test of education in any country can only be applied by means of examinations. In speaking of examinations, I do not refer to the old type of examination, nor would I wish to see a reversion by this country to that type of examination. But our educational reformers appear to have gone from one extreme to the other by the total elimination of examinations of every class and kind. I think two harmful results have accrued: (1) The standard of education in our primary schools has, in my opinion, reached as low a level as, if not a lower level than, the standard of primary education in any other country in Europe. (2) It has removed the spur to an honest endeavour on the part of the teaching profession. To my mind, in our present system of education we have what I might term a teacher's paradise. There is no such thing as testing the work of the teacher. There is no means of testing the proficiency of the pupils.

When one examines the report of the Department of Education, and looks at the standard of education at present prevailing in our primary schools, and when one considers the sum of money spent on primary education alone, almost 3¾ million pounds, one can only come to one conclusion, and that is, that the State is not getting value for its money. In the report of the Department of Education it is a most illuminating fact to notice on page 149, table 25, that in June, 1929, only 6 per cent. of the children were in the 6th standard. Six per cent. of the children in the 6th standard! Does not that seem an alarming fact? We had approximately 44 per cent. in the infants' standard, and standard 1; we had 27 per cent. in the 2nd and 3rd standards. That is about 71 per cent. and we had 26 per cent. in the 5th standard and upwards. Six per cent. [1719] in the 6th standard of our primary schools, for which we are spending 3¾ million pounds per annum! I want to ask the House a simple question: is that a satisfactory condition of affairs?

In the report of the Department of Education on page 62 it is stated that only 25 per cent. of the children can be regarded when leaving our national schools as doing credit to our school system. That is the Department of Education report: 25 per cent. of the children alone reach a satisfactory standard of education when leaving our schools. What I want to ask the House is this: what becomes of the remaining 75 per cent? What standard of education does that 75 per cent. possess? How many of them reach the 6th standard? How many leave the schools while in the 3rd standard? Is that a condition of affairs in which the House should pass annually an Estimate involving such a large amount of money? Anybody who has read the Report of the Department of Education for 1928-29 can see in that report a scathing indictment of the present system of education in our national schools. On page 62 it states that 25 per cent. of the pupils only do credit to our schools. On page 33 the question is asked: “Does the work in the higher classes of the primary schools meet the standard required to give a full education to the pupils between the ages of 12 and 14?” And the answer given in the report is: “I regret to say that the answer is in the negative.” The report also states that a boy in the 6th class writing to a former class-mate says: “The sixth class is becoming degenerate.” That is the actual condition of affairs existing at present as far as the primary education of the country is concerned.

Deputy Fahy, in referring to primary education, dealt with the period between 12 and 14 years of age. He pointed out that education had become static, that there was no progress, no advance.

Reading the report of the Department of Education, one can only come to one conclusion, that in the existing [1720] condition of affairs in our national schools the two most important years, the two years before the pupil leaves the school, are practically a waste of time, because, according to the words of the report, there is no progress in the education that the pupils receive. I cannot see how the House can lightly pass an Estimate of this kind without endeavouring in some way to improve our existing system of education.

If we have not a good system of primary education the rest of our education cannot be satisfactory. How can we have a satisfactory system of education in the country, in view of the fact that when the children leave the primary schools and present themselves at the City of Dublin Technical Schools 55 per cent. of them are unable to pass the examination that would entitle them to enter the Technical School? Fifty-five per cent. of these children fail to qualify for the benefits of technical education. Does the House mean to take any steps in order to do something for these 55 per cent. of our children? What is to become of them? Are they to earn a living with the pick or the shovel, or are they to be thrown on the scrap-heap of the unemployed, or are they to be reduced to such a condition that they practically become unemployable. I do not see how this system of primary education can be continued unchanged. We have a system at the present time by which a child enters school, say, at five years of age and remains there until he is fourteen. For that whole nine years between five and fourteen there is not a single test of any kind applied as to his educational progress. During the period of nine years there is not one single examination. How can you blame the teachers if they have no spur to urge them on? The pitiful thing is that the unfortunate parents have no redress whatever.

The standard of education in our schools is so low that this House should endeavour to amend it in some way. I do not wish the House to think that I am overstating the case or that I am exaggerating in any way in the criticisms I am making on our system of primary education. Some time ago I asked a [1721] question in the House dealing with the results of the primary certificate examination. As the House is aware, it is only an optional examination. No pupil in the national schools need sit for it unless he wishes or unless his parents desire. When this examination was introduced in 1929 the teachers said they would present 15,000 pupils. But unfortunately second thoughts appear to be best, and instead of presenting 15,000 pupils they presented 9,827. I want to impress upon the House that these 9,827 pupils were all picked pupils of the National Schools. There was not a single child out of the 9,000 that presented themselves that came from a sixth class; they all came from the seventh or higher standards. And the result was that in the year 1929, when there were 43,654 pupils qualified to sit out of these, only 9,827 presented themselves for examination, and of these 5,062 passed and 4,262 failed.

In 1930 there was a slight hope that there might be an improvement. Out of 44,726 pupils qualified to sit, only 10,000 presented themselves, and of these 7,427 passed and 2,580 failed. Only approximately 12½ per cent. of those qualified to sit in 1929 passed, and only 17½ per cent. of those qualified to sit passed in 1930. But this most significant fact remains, that in 1929 87½ per cent. of the qualified pupils never sat for this examination, and probably I think it is just inference to draw that if they did sit they would never have qualified, and in 1930 the enormous percentage of 82½ per cent. of the pupils qualified to sit for this simple examination never sat.

In this House last week we were discussing the Apprenticeship Bill, and dealing with fixing the standards of education. The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that the standard of education in this country was so low that it was almost impossible to fix a standard that could be incorporated in the Bill. It is under our present system of primary education we have such a result as occurred in the Dublin City Technical entrance examination in 1929, when for these examinations 882 pupils were [1722] examined; 373 passed, and 57½ per cent. of the total failed to qualify. In 1930, 1,087 pupils presented themselves for examination. Of these 485 passed and 55½ per cent. failed. I do not wish to exaggerate in any way the condition of education in this country, but I do say that for the expenditure of three and three-quarter millions of money this is an appalling condition of affairs. And the result of the primary education deficiencies are reflected, and are bound to be reflected, in the result of our secondary education. In 1929, in the Intermediate examinations, 33⅓ per cent. of the pupils failed in mathematics. In the following year, 1930, that 33⅓ was increased to 43 per cent. The 33⅓ in 1929 had increased 10 per cent. in the following year. What hope can there be for the progress of the country if 50 per cent. of its children do not understand the vital subject of mathematics? In English there were 25 per cent. of failures in 1929 and 16 per cent. in 1930. In history and geography 39 per cent. failed in 1929 and 36 per cent. in 1930.

I agree with Deputy Fahy in what he said, that to incorporate two such important subjects as history and geography in a single subject covering such a wide field of knowledge is an impossible educational test.

In the Leaving Certificate we have the same state of affairs. In 1929, 31 per cent. failed in mathematics; in 1930, 39 per cent. failed; in 1929, 15 per cent. failed in English, and 17 per cent. in 1930. In 1929, 20 per cent. failed in history, and 20 per cent. also failed in 1930. In 1929, 28 per cent. failed in geography, and 15 per cent. failed in 1930.

Now I think it is about time that the House faced the fact that under the present system of primary education the children of this country are not receiving a reasonable chance. In the report of the Department of Education dealing with the teaching of mathematics it states: “There is no doubt about the capacity for mathematics of girls who get a chance, but unfortunately in many girls' schools a proper chance is not afforded.” How much longer is that system of education of our children, [1723] supported by a vote of 3¾ millions, to continue? Instead of progress being marked, according to the results that I have quoted, we are retrograding. In the report of the Department of Education, page 93, dealing with English, it states the Intermediate results of 1929 were very disappointing, and the examiners, who did not mark with undue severity, found a large number of candidates were extremely weak in spelling and grammar, and the average standard was lower than the previous year.

In each of these reports there is no progress. There is in fact a going-back. Reference is also made to the lower standard in the Intermediate in English composition. It states that students when they get to the intermediate standard are almost ignorant of grammar, and that bad spelling is very prevalent in all classes, including the fourth year class. There are representative professors in this House to whom I would put this question. What chance has a boy going to a secondary school of passing an examination if he is unable to spell? When I was going for my university examination the one advice I got was to be sure not to have a single error in spelling in English composition. What chance in that respect have our boys who are going to universities to-day? I notice that my remarks appear to have caused some risibility in certain quarters in the House, but I would ask such Deputies to contradict, if they can, the statements I have made, especially those which I have quoted, because they are the statements of the Department of Education, and not mere statements of mine.

A very learned clergyman, the Rev. Dr. Leen, some time ago criticised our system of primary education. He placed his criticism under two heads —want of uniformity in standard, knowledge of arithmetic inferior to what it used to be, and noticeable ignorance of grammar. The report of the Education Department confirms every word that he spoke. The figures which I quoted are official [1724] figures, and they call for examination on the part of the Department of Education. Dealing with school-work it states on page 30 that in the preparation of school-work teachers did not try to be helpful, and many of them plodded through the school year without any proper plan, so that the result was a waste of time and effort and an absolute absence of steady progress. That statement was made in the report of the Department of Education, yet we are now being asked to pass a sum of three and three-quarter millions for the continuation of a system of education of that kind.

In criticising this Estimate, I would like to make it clear that my criticism is not directed at the Department of Education, especially not at the Minister for Education, but it is directed absolutely at the system itself. The Minister, in portion of his opening remarks, said that we do not control education; we may guide it and we may influence it to a considerable degree, but the system is not a State system. It is, he said, a private system. I think that the time has come when the House must consider, in the interests of the people of this country, whether it is advisable that such a system should continue, or whether it is in the interest of the children themselves to have it taken over by the State. The Minister made a passing reference to Germany, but I wonder would such a condition of things be allowed to prevail there? The Minister, I am sure, knows very well that it would not be tolerated for a moment.

Dealing with the position there the eminent Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University said that the power of the German State has been exercised unflinchingly and that national education there has been made an engine of tremendous power. The result is that the German system is ahead of any system in the world. It has also been, stated by a prominent Englishman, Mr. Saunders, “The Times” correspondent in Berlin, a man who should be impartial, that the educational apprehension of the cultured German is ten times greater than that of the [1725] cultured Englishman. I would like to pay a well-deserved tribute to the success of the preparatory colleges. That indeed has been the one bright spot in our system. These colleges are a credit to the Department, to the teachers and to the whole system of education. The Minister dealt with the number of pupil teacherships, and I would ask him whether it would be possible to increase the number available this year and next year for the various pupils who desire to enter the teaching profession.

I know from practical experience that many brilliant boys have been debarred from entering the preparatory colleges by the undue preference —I emphasise the word “undue”— given to those who possess a knowledge of Irish. I would ask the Minister, in view of this undue preference, to increase the number of pupil teacherships available. In the pupil teachership system the best men get the places without fear or favour and the poor man's son gets a chance of continuing his education and at the same time of entering the teaching profession. I hope that I will not be misunderstood in any criticism I make in that connection. I fully realise the importance of restoring the Irish language and I subscribe to the dictum that the language of the conqueror in the mouth of the conquered is the language of the slave, but I would remind the House that though the conquest is past the defects of primary education are still with us. If the main plank of our educational system is to be Gaelicisation of our schools it is only fair, in the interest of the people who find the money and in the interest of the children themselves, that if the development of a policy of the spirit of nationalism is to be maintained that nationalism must march side by side with progress and efficiency, and, if it fails to do so, it should take its proper place in the educational scheme of the country.

I would like to make one or two suggestions to the Minister before I conclude. I would ask him to consider the possibility (1) of making the annual primary certificate examination [1726] compulsory, because I believe that the appallingly low standard of education in our schools shows the need for that compulsory examination; and (2) of introducing a compulsory examination in fourth standard to test the progress and efficiency of pupils on their way to the final standard. There is one thing that should be done and I do not know what power the Minister has in this regard, but I say that those teachers who are classified as non-efficient should be immediately removed. I would ask the Minister to use every effort, in the limited powers at his disposal, to see that such teachers shall cease to function in the coming year and that the irreparable damage which they are doing to the rising generation shall be brought to an end. I know the difficulties of the Minister and I know that his powers over the appointment of teachers are practically nominal, but, if the results continue as at present in our primary system of education the Minister will, in my opinion, be bound to consider the departmental appointment of teachers and also the question of departmental control.

Professor Thrift: I should like in the first place to congratulate the Minister on his clear statement, a statement that I think in some ways was very satisfactory. It is satisfactory to hear that the School Attendance Act is working well and is leading to an increase in regularity of attendance in the numbers of children attending school, and in the numbers of those who get into the higher standards. It is important, as he says, to note in that connection that the effects of the School Attendance Act will be cumulative, and that it will take a considerable number of years still to get the full effects of that Act. But though I feel that the Minister's statement was in some ways satisfactory, I would like to say at the outset that I cannot help feeling that there is a good case for the views expressed by Deputy Fahy and, to some extent, by Deputy Byrne. I regret that Deputy Byrne did not do more in his remarks about the standard of education that is reached by the children in our primary [1727] schools than state, in very strong language, I think unduly strong language perhaps, that it is unsatisfactory. He did not indicate in any really useful or effective way what changes we should bring into operation in order to raise that standard. I feel myself very much with these two Deputies that the standard is capable of a great deal of improvement, and should be improved, but we have not heard from either Deputy any practical suggestions as to what is wrong or what steps should be taken. Neither am I myself at the moment prepared to suggest any steps that we should take at once. Deputy Byrne asked us not to pass this Estimate until we took some steps——

Mr. Byrne: On a point of explanation, I never made any such statement.

Professor Thrift: I apologise to the Deputy if I misinterpreted him, but it seemed to me that he asked the House not to pass the Estimate until we took some steps and until we saw these things remedied. I do not want to attribute that to him if he did not say so. I do not think he can do anything by changing the present system into a State system. We want a great deal more than having a State system which is devoted to secular matters. We all like something in our schools more important than that. That is education in character, education in tone, which ought to come from school life of the best kind. To my mind that kind of education you will not get merely by adopting a State system of education. I do not think that is the kind of alteration that is wanted in our system. I think we are extremely fortunate in our general system compared indeed with many countries which are faced with problems which we have managed very largely to escape. I will confine myself in that connection to suggesting that perhaps the time has come for really some serious inquiry as to whether it is true to say that our standard is much lower than that in other countries and, in the second place, if it is, what are the steps that should be taken to raise it.

[1728] At the very outset we are faced with a fundamental difficulty, a difficulty that is almost peculiar to us. It is a difficulty to which the Minister himself referred in his statement, the very scattered nature of our population. In the first place that must mean increased expense, and in the next place, it must lead to a lower quality in standard. I think that you will never get the same standard in a small school that you will get in a large school. In the third place it means that in many districts the families are so scattered that the children practically get no education at all. That is a point to which the Minister referred. At the moment it seems to me that that is really the most urgent matter before us, educationally speaking.

I approach the matter, of course, from the angle of the church of which I am a member. At the same time I recognise that it is not alone a problem that concerns that church, but perhaps even in a greater degree, it concerns other churches too. There are probably 1,500 children belonging to the church of which I am a member who, at the present moment, have either not to go to school at all or to to go to a school which is what the Minister, in very advised language, called, for them, an unsuitable school. I think we all agree that on this I am not saying anything that is controversial. We, the members of our church, take the view which I think is taken by the members of the church to which the majority of Deputies of the House belong. We do not think it is right that the children belonging to their church should have to go to a Protestant school. Neither do we think it is right that children who are Protestants should be compelled, if they are to get any education at all, to go to the school of another faith. I think we are all agreed upon that. It is what the Minister calls unsuitable. It is not consistent with our idea of education.

We look, as I have said, for something more than mere secular knowledge. We look for our children to be trained even in a higher way than secular knowledge connotes. We look [1729] to the general atmosphere in which they are being taught. We think that is of great importance. The fact remains that in our church alone there are probably 1,500 children, many of whom at present do not get educated at all, and those who do, have to get it by going to the school of a church to which they do not belong. I do not know the numbers, but I say that it is very likely there are far more children of your church who are in a similar predicament. To my knowledge this problem is becoming even more urgent than it was a few years ago, and I think it is one to which we ought to give our most immediate attention. I know the Minister is giving it immediate attention. He said that in his statement, and I commend him for it. I know he is doing his best to arrive at some way of dealing with that difficulty. All these children, according to our Constitution, have the right to free education. According to our accepted principles we are bound to give them that, in what the Minister called a suitable way. It is quite true that technically our system of education is undenominational, but it is equally true that in practice we know it and work it as a denominational system.

I am very glad that it is so, and it is a very good and a very fortunate thing for us that it is so. It is one of our great advantages over the system of education that is in operation in Great Britain that we are not faced here with the difficulties that they are faced with there.

Mr. Byrne: We have a lower standard of education.

Professor Thrift: We may have a low standard of education, that is quite true, but it may be due to other causes. I do not think it is true to say that our children come out from our schools in one sense worse educated than they come from English schools. They come out trained, at any rate, to be Christians, and that is a much more important thing than to be merely trained in secular knowledge. They do not lose the spiritual advantages which we get from our system, and these advantages are most important. There are [1730] other reasons, but before I leave that subject I want to thank the Minister for his references to it. I was pleased to hear him say that he is dealing with it, and I hope that some satisfactory solution all round will very soon be obtained. No doubt much of it can be met by increased transport facilities, and I beg of the Minister not to put aside dealing with that part of it immediately, because it is certainly true to say that while an increase of transport facilities will not solve the whole problem it will do a great deal in that direction. It is equally true to say that it will cost money. Speaking for those I represent, I will say right off that we will do our best to help in that respect, but we cannot do the whole thing. We can do something.

Speaking as a member of the State, I say that the State cannot afford not to spend that money. It has got to educate its people. It cannot afford not to educate them. It is important that they should be educated in the best possible way. As to what Deputy Byrne says, I do not think you are going to get any further by anything that would lead to what is called a State system, but there is some reason why our present system is not working right. I do not profess to know why, but I do agree with Deputy Fahy and Deputy Byrne that in many respects the standard reached by our children, not alone in the primary schools but in the secondary schools—and I refer particularly to mathematics—is extraordinarily low. We experienced exactly the same difficulty, I might say, or perhaps I ought to say I did experience precisely the same difficulty in the case of the students who came to the University. They might be better up in some things, but as a general rule mathematics was the weak point, and arithmetic was the weakest point in mathematics. I do not know the reason. I do know that in primary schools arithmetic is poor. I do not know why, or whether it is that it is badly taught. It is poor in the secondary schools, and I am sure it is poor among university students, as a rule. I think it leads to what I indicated in the commencement of my remarks. Can we not make sure, in the [1731] first place, if it is true, and secondly, if it is true can we not find out the cause? I do not know how that is to be done without some most careful and searching inquiry. The Minister has told us also, in his statement, that he is at the present moment engaged in continuing his inquiries as to the effect of the teaching through Irish, and so far he is satisfied that the teaching through Irish is done to a very small extent. I think if he cuts out the Irish-speaking districts his figures came down to 3 per cent.

Professor O'Sullivan: Less.

Professor Thrift: I hope it is true that he will continue those inquiries and make himself quite certain of the truth of that.

Professor O'Sullivan: The figures, teaching through Irish and English, using both languages, are higher. I do not know how far, unless you go to individual schools, the actual figures convey definite information. The extent to which the Irish language is used could not be gathered from the figures. That is the reason I did not give them. The actual amount done through Irish alone, if you subtract the Gaeltacht, is certainly under 2 per cent.

Professor Thrift: I am surprised. I had information that there is pressure being brought in many cases to engage in teaching through Irish where it is obviously not possible for it to be done well, because of the lack of knowledge either on the part of the teacher or student. The Minister has given us the result of his inquiry so far, and I hope he will continue these inquiries. The root cause may be deeper and we can find out. There seems to be a prima facie case for inquiry.

The fact that students coming to technical schools so often lack the necessary elements of primary education, is proof of the truth of what I am saying. There seems to be a prima facie case for saying that our standard of education is lower than it ought to be, even in this sparsely populated country, and even with the [1732] difficulties we have been labouring under. We ought to find out what is the cause. I do not pretend to be able to put my finger on it at the moment and say what it is.

In reference to secondary education, there are just two or three things about which I would like to ask the Minister, and to which I would like to call his attention. He referred himself again to a very important matter. The Minister used words which seemed to me to indicate that he had some sympathy with the point of view that I expressed before in this House, and which I am going to take the liberty to give expression to again. That is that the standard required by the registration council for our teachers is too restrictive and requires alteration. I want to get the very best brains in the country for our primary teachers, for our secondary teachers, and for our university teachers. Now, what I find and believe to be the case is this, that those who come to the universities, and who in many cases would wish to take up secondary teaching as a profession in life, find that they cannot do it owing to financial reasons. These financial reasons are as follows: in the first place, they have to take a four years' course, or, at all events, a three years' course, in the university in order to get their degree. When they get their degree they have to pass another year or two years' in order to get the secondary teacher's diploma. That means five years. Then they have to have two years' experience at teaching before they can possibly get registered as teachers.

A doctor, like my friend, Deputy Sir James Craig, had not to wait seven years before he could get his qualifications as a doctor.

I do not know what the period was in his time, but at present five years' training would be sufficient. A secondary teacher has to put in seven years before he is qualified to become a registered teacher and to get the State increment. I think the period is too long, and there should be some improvement. I am sure the effect is that it is turning aside from being secondary teachers many able men who would devote themselves to that profession [1733] if they could make it a means of livelihood at an early date. I think the difficulty could be met by some provisional sanction to shorten the period to, say, five years. I think the matter requires attention, and I rather gathered from the Minister's words that he thought so himself.

There are two other matters connected with secondary education to which I would like to refer. It is still, I think, unsatisfactory that we have registered teachers not receiving incremental salary. The Minister will tell us how many there are. I do not know the number, but I know there are some, and I hope the day will soon come when there will not be any. We have registered teachers qualified to get the State increment and yet, because the school is properly staffed and the rest of the school teachers are getting the increment, that particular teacher cannot get the State increment. That is not right. The school is allowed to have so many teachers who are registered and who receive the incremental salary. If they want to staff the school properly they may have to employ another teacher who also is registered. If they do, however, that additional teacher will not get the State increment. That system is bad and it operates in a two-fold way. It means that a teacher who may pass from one school to another never knows when he may have to go to a school where his incremental salary will be barred by the fact that there are already the requisite number of teachers there getting the increment. That difficulty has existed for a good many years. I believe, and I am sure the Minister will satisfy me on the point, that it is true the number of registered teachers is getting less. I hope they are getting very much less and that they will disappear altogether.

The second matter to which I wish to refer is in connection with the rules of the Department connected with the pensions of secondary teachers. We would like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that those rules are completely satisfactory. If not, whether there are many points in which they will require change, and I would [1734] like to know what the Minister proposes to do in order to bring the changes into effect. I am satisfied that there are some points which require changes. I think all the difficulties could be largely met by giving the Minister, subject to the approval of the Department of Finance, a certain amount of discretion in the operation of the rules. At present he is tied up very much by our decisions as a House. I will give one instance. A teacher fell ill, and was ill for three months, and was forbidden by the doctor to attend to any business. The teacher got quite well again, but it was necessary for her to apply to the Department for leave to continue for another period after the following twelve months, because her normal time for retirement would come then. She dated her application on the 1st July. It happened that her birthday was on the 31st March. If she had dated her application on the 30th June she would have been all right, but the next day, 1st July, was outside the statutory limit of three months. She was disqualified. That is in essence an actual case. I think it is not quite an actual case, be