Irish Education: The Ministerial Legacy

For my mother and teacher May Murphy

Le fíor buíochas agus grá

Contents

Title

Dedication

List of Abbreviations

Glossary of Irish Terms

Acknowledgements

Introduction

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1919–20

1. The MacPherson Education Bill, 1919–20:

‘It means Irish education in foreign fetters’

MINISTERIAL LEGACY TO IRISH EDUCATION 1919–99

2. John J. O’Kelly (1921–22):

‘… towards the Irishising of Primary Education’

3. Michael Hayes and Finian Lynch (1922):

‘… to teach the teachers Irish overnight’

4. Eoin MacNeill (1922–25):

‘… wholly detached from practical affairs, living in the air as it were’

5. John Marcus O’Sullivan (1926–32):

‘The policy of raising the standard of education has never been tried’

6. Thomas Derrig (1932–39; 1940–48):

‘Our system of education approaches the ideal’

7. Richard Mulcahy (1948–51):

‘I think the function of the Minister for Education is a very, very narrow one’

8. Seán Moylan (1951–54):

‘I do not agree with this idea of equal opportunities for all’

9. Richard Mulcahy (1954–57):

‘I was in the Department of Education for two periods in office and I ask myself, what did I do there?’

10. Jack Lynch (1957–59):

‘Vocational schools are being turned into educational dustbins’

11. Patrick J. Hillery (1959–65):

‘The Modern Third Estate’

12. George Colley (1965–66):

‘If that is so, why could not His Lordship use the courts to test his point?’

13. Donogh O’Malley (1966–68):

‘This is a dark stain on the national conscience’

14. Brian Lenihan (1968–69):

‘This was more than a strike of the teachers: it was a revolt of the schools’

15. Pádraig Faulkner (1969–73):

‘The grand design of the community schools, the National Blueprint, was as dead as a pork chop’

16. Richard Burke (1973–76):

‘The Minister broke the top rung of the ladder’

17. John P. Wilson (1977–81):

‘A landmark settlement and a significant victory for the teachers’

18. John Boland (1981–82):

‘A majority of the general public agreed with him’

19. Gemma Hussey (1982–86):

‘We asked for bread, the bread of resources for our schools and she offered us a stone, the stone of regionalisation’

20. Mary O’Rourke (1987–91):

‘Curriculum reform was one of my main priorities’

21. Séamus Brennan (1992–93):

‘One can only hope that a recovery of nerve will take place before the Green Paper turns white’

22. Niamh Bhreathnach (1993–97):

‘The most significant piece of university legislation since the State was founded’

23. Micheál Martin (1997–2000):

‘Today’s one right way is tomorrow’s obsolete policy’

Conclusion

Bibliography

Copyright

List of Abbreviations

Glossary of Irish Terms

Acknowledgements

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the staff members of the National Library of Ireland, the National Archives and Trinity College Dublin for their professional assistance and cooperation. I wish to acknowledge the debt I owe to those who have conducted research on various aspects of Irish education spanning many years, particularly Professor John Coolahan, Professor Áine Hyland and Ms. Susan M. Parkes.

I wish to record my gratitude to Ronan Colgan and Beth Amphlett of The History Press Ireland for their great courtesy and professionalism at all times.

I wish to thank my family for their keen interest in this book, and for their love and unstinting support, especially my husband Ken.

I’m dedicating this book to my mother and teacher May Murphy on the 25th anniversary of her death. Le fíor buíochas agus grá.

Introduction

This book studies Irish ministerial careers from 1919 to 1999, and analyses the contributions of the ministers to the advancement of education policy and practice, during their terms of office. It reviews the social and political factors that impinged on their decisions in the formation of those policies, from the impoverished ministry of John J. O’Kelly, who with great fortitude tried to revive the Irish language on a budget of £10,000,¹ to the cash-rich ministry of Micheál Martin, who had access to a £250 million Scientific and Technological Education Investment Fund.

Ireland in 1924 was described in the Irish Catholic as being in a ‘pathological crisis’ as the nation was ‘convalescing from the fever and prostration of two wars’.² As one commentator remarked, ‘There was little use for idealism and less scope for utopianism in the Irish Free State of 1923’.³ But educational developments occurred even during the worst of times, for example the passing of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, which established the Department of Education, the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, the School Attendance Act and the Vocational Education Act.

But all was not well in the field of education. The language revival policy became synonymous with the education policy, and educational standards quickly plummeted, so much so that a writer to The Bell in 1947 commented that ‘The policy of raising the standard of education has never been tried’.⁴ An Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) inquiry into the language policy revealed that it placed an undue mental strain on children, and that it had a deleterious effect on their education. Dr Johanna Pollak’s report ‘On Teaching Irish’ confirmed that ‘the children get an overdose of it’.⁵ Doctoral research conducted in the mid-1960s confirmed the accuracy of the INTO’s report, and served as a damning indictment of Ministers for Education who were prepared to put their nationalist aspirations before the educational welfare of Irish children.

The most striking feature of ministerial careers spanning eight decades was the continuity of educational plans. The language policy survived for 40 years, while plans to replace vocational schools resurfaced periodically over 63 years. The proposal to introduce local education committees (LECs) never failed to ignite controversy, from the time of the MacPherson Education Bill when in 1920 Cardinal Logue called for a national solemn novena in honour of St Patrick ‘to avert from us the threatened calamity’,⁶ to the mid-1970s and mid-1980s when church opposition broadened out to include the Catholic and Protestant churches, and their respective education management bodies. In the 1990s, the churches just bided their time, as different Ministers proposed different options, ranging from county committees of education to LECs or regional educational councils. In 1997 Martin, who defended patrons’ rights while in opposition, as Minister introduced executive agencies, and with that, the ghost of MacPherson was finally laid to rest.

Over the 80 years there were great failures and great successes. The greatest failure of a succession of Ministers for Education was their denial that there was excessive use of corporal punishment in industrial and reformatory schools, even when individual cases were brought to their attention. When the Kennedy Committee received an open admission of the abuse of children in Daingean Reformatory School, the department was forced by District Justice Kennedy to close the school down, but their report made no reference whatsoever to this incident lest it ‘cause a great public scandal’.⁷

Ministers for Education, up to the late 1950s, did not see the need for widespread remedial provision. But Seán Brosnahan, the general secretary of the INTO, did and he denounced what he called ‘one of the greatest crimes of our system … the callous disregard for subnormal and backward children’ many of whom were ‘condemned as fools and dunces’.⁸ Even though the government signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992, the reality was that education provisions in Ireland for profound and severely handicapped children ‘were limited if non-existent’.⁹ It took a High Court judgment in the O’Donoghue case in 1993 to alter the situation, when the onus was placed on the Minister to provide educational opportunities for all students, whatever their disabilities. This ruling was complied with in the Education Act of 1998.

Another great failure of the earlier Ministers for Education was their inability to recognise the value of secondary education, or to take stock of parental demand for it. Free second-level education could have been introduced in 1947, at a time when ‘for nine out of every ten Irish people, the primary school’ was ‘their only centre of learning’.¹⁰ Donogh O’Malley earned iconic status when he did so 20 years later, and this marked one of the greatest successes in Irish education because of its enduring benefits. It is reasonable to attribute our unprecedented economic success of the 1990s, when Ireland was placed ‘top in Europe for its educated workforce and second (after Germany) for the skills of the workers’,¹¹ to O’Malley’s ‘free education’ scheme.

Parents were practically excluded from the education system for over four decades. Éamon de Valera, who drew up Article 42 of the Constitution, played lip-service to the idea of setting up a parents’ committee, because he said parents ‘may not be educational experts, but they know where the toe pinches. Their judgment is often a great deal better and far wiser than a lot of these people who set themselves up as experts’.¹² While parents had representation on boards of management since 1966, they really had very limited powers. Significant change occurred when Gemma Hussey gave parents real power through the National Parents’ Council (NPC). Parents empowered themselves on occasions. It was a mother whose son had special needs who established what was eventually called St Michael’s House. It was parental demand that led to the growth of All-Irish schools, and it was parents who set up the Dalkey School Project (DSP), Ireland’s first multi-denominational school, and they did so despite strong official resistance. Subsequent Ministers were enthusiastic supporters of multi-denominational schools.

The composition of boards of management was one of the most contentious issues from the 1970s to the 1990s, as power-sharing proved to be difficult for those who traditionally enjoyed a monopoly of it. But teaching unions fought their corner, and after 12 years the Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland (ASTI) won a fair representation on boards of management of secondary schools. After 7 years they and the Vocational Teachers’ Association (VTA) got representation on the boards of management of community schools. But a hornet’s nest was opened following the publication of the 1997 Education Bill, which diluted the powers of the owners or patrons of schools. It led to representatives of almost every religious faith in the country coming together on the lawn of the Church of Ireland College of Education (CICE) to protest against the proposals on the management of schools. It was a defining moment and their protest was successful.

The Catholic hierarchy and religious authorities maintained considerable influence in Irish education. On two occasions bishops’ representatives were invited to participate on boards of management. On the first occasion, Faulkner went to great lengths to secure Cardinal Conway’s support for the introduction of community schools. He even gave a greater weighting to representatives of the Catholic Church on boards of management at the expense of the Vocational Education Committees (VECs), and on the second occasion, the VECs invited representatives of the Catholic bishops to participate on the boards of management of their new community colleges. The religious authorities themselves found an ingenious way of ensuring that the religious ethos of their schools would be protected in the future, as they faced the prospect of steadily declining religious vocations. They set up trusteeships in the form of companies, with directors consisting of a number of lay Catholics, to carry out the patron’s functions. It was to these companies that boards of management reported.

The ASTI became a powerful pressure group over the 80 years, while the INTO, under the leadership of its towering general secretary and Labour TD, T.J. O’Connell (who might have been Minister for Education himself except for the vagaries of politics), led the first teachers strike in 26 years with the Dublin teachers’ strike of 1946. It lasted 7½ months, and Thomas Derrig would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. At Archbishop McQuaid’s request, the teachers returned to their classrooms in the knowledge that a special payment had been made to their colleagues who had worked during the strike. The ASTI led three strikes in 1920,¹³ 1964 and 1969, but the two most successful strikes were those where the three unions united, as happened with the landmark pay settlement of 1980, and again in 1986 when the unions exulted in having ‘already secured a moral victory in effectively toppling the former Minister for Education, Mrs. Hussey’.¹⁴

Patrick Hillery transformed Irish education in the 1960s by exposing the system to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) scrutiny and to international influence. The Investment in Education Report which followed ensured that future policy making would be research based. He gained episcopal acceptance of comprehensive education and he provided a blueprint for the status of vocational schools, which had been perceived as ‘just dead-end schools for dead-end kids’.¹⁵ He also provided a signpost for the future Regional Technical College (RTCs). OECD studies of Irish education have continued, and their reports have provided indicators of comparative educational performance across a number of European countries, thereby ensuring that Ministers can never return to the complacency exhibited by a Minister in the past who claimed that ‘our system of education approaches the ideal’.

Ireland’s membership of the EEC in 1973 brought countless benefits to Irish education, particularly through the financial support received from the European Social Fund (ESF) during years of austerity in the 1970s and through the economic recession of the 1980s, and for co-funding of large-scale educational reforms in the 1990s.

Profound changes took place in higher education over 80 years. Participation rates rose spectacularly as Ireland moved quickly from a situation where a relatively small elite went into higher education, to something approaching mass higher education. Expansion was not confined to the university sector as numbers in non-university education soared due to funding from the ESF. Higher education suffered from a number of shocks over 30 years. The first one was O’Malley’s surprise announcement of a merger between Trinity College Dublin (TCD) and University College Dublin (UCD) in April 1967; and the next one occurred in December 1974, when Richard Burke attempted to replace the binary system of higher education with a new comprehensive model; but the abolition of tuition fees for undergraduates in 1995 could not have come at a worse time for universities, struggling to cope with burgeoning numbers and few resources.

The non-university sector was not enamoured of the 1974 proposals either, but it was when Niamh Bhreathnach decided to raise Waterford RTC to Institute of Technology (IT) status, and to call time on the beleaguered National Council for Educational Awards (NCEA), that confusion reigned supreme. Martin provided a more coherent and effective system of certification and accreditation for the sector when he introduced the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act in 1999. But one of the finest achievements over 80 years was Bhreathnach’s Universities Act of 1997, the first of its kind since the Universities Act of 1908 establishing the National University of Ireland.

As the international prestige of universities depended on their research achievements, it was a source of concern to universities to have it confirmed by Circa Group Europe in their comparative assessment of higher education research, that ‘Public funding of higher education research in Ireland’ was ‘among the worst in Europe’.¹⁶ Third-level colleges benefited enormously from a £150 million 3-year investment programme for scientific and other research in the late 1990s and plans were afoot for even bigger investments in research and technological development in the education sector. This had a knock-on effect on the Irish economy as it helped to improve Ireland’s competitive advantage.

Another significant milestone was reached with the passing of the Education Act of 1998, to which five Ministers for Education made a contribution, namely O’Rourke, Brennan, Davern, Bhreathnach and Martin, and which provided the education system with a legislative foundation for the first time. However, many challenges still persisted in the education system, such as early school leaving and youth unemployment, an inadequate educational psychological service, poor participation rates by Traveller children, inadequate provision for part-time students in universities who still had to pay fees, and a lack of diversity in school provision in a country which now boasted a multicultural society.

However, the vast progress made over 80 years should be acknowledged, as an education system which was underfunded, undeveloped and uncoordinated for four decades, was now a vibrant, modern system, the kind of system Pádraig Faulkner willed us to have in 1972, when he said:

We in the business of education have for our raw material the nation’s most precious asset, our children. Let us give them the opportunities they deserve, and a system for which they will thank us.¹⁷

Notes

1 Report of the Ministry of the National Language, August 1921, p.9.

2 Irish Catholic, 23 February 1924.

3 Patrick Lynch, ‘The social revolution that never was’ in Desmond Williams (ed.) The Irish Struggle 1919-1926 (London, 1966), p.53.

4 Patrick O’Callaghan, ‘Irish in schools’ in The Bell, 14:1, 1947, p.63.

5 NAI S7801 Dr Johanna Pollak, ‘On teaching Irish’, 1943.

6 T.J. O’Connell, History of the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation 1868-1968 (Dublin, 1969), pp.318–20.

7 Dáil Debates, vol. 504, cols 1181–2, 13 May 1999.

8 Irish School Weekly, 15 and 22 March 1952, p.127.

9 Áine Hyland, ‘Primary and second-level education in the early twenty-first century’ in Fionán Ó Muircheartaigh (ed.) Ireland in the Coming Times: Essays to Celebrate T.K. Whitaker’s 80 Years (Dublin, 1997), p.174.

10 Dáil Debates, vol. 80, col. 1566, 6 June 1940.

11 Sweeney, The Celtic Tiger, p.117.

12 Dáil Debates, vol. 96, col. 2171, 18 April 1945.

13 £1,000 was placed at the disposal of the ASTI strike committee by the INTO in 1920.

14 The Irish Times, 20 February 1986.

15 Sunday Independent, 22 December 1957.

16 CIRCA Group Europe, A Comparative International Assessment of the Organisation, Management and Funding of University Research in Ireland and Europe (Dublin, 1966), p.iv.

17 Dáil Debates, vol. 259, col. 874, 2 March 1972.

1

The MacPherson Education Bill, 1919–20:

‘It means Irish education in foreign fetters’

On 14 November 1919, against a backdrop of the War of Independence,¹ the British Government’s chief secretary in Ireland, James MacPherson, attempted to introduce the MacPherson Education Bill. It proposed radical administrative and structural reform of the education system for all of Ireland. The Bill provided, inter alia, for the setting up of a central department of education, the establishment of an advisory board, the setting up of LECs and the imposition of a local rate for education.

The proposals sparked off a lively campaign of opposition by the Catholic hierarchy, as the proposed new structures threatened their managerial role. Individual members of the hierarchy attacked the Bill, claiming that it posed a threat to the spiritual welfare of their flock, and that it could undermine their national identity. The most outspoken critic of the Bill was Dr Foley, Bishop of Kildare and Leiglin, who asked the people to resist ‘this latest brazen-faced attempt of a hostile government to impose on the mind and soul of an intensely devoted Catholic people, the deadly grip of the foreign fetters’.² In fact the Bill was simply attempting to substitute one type of British administration system with another.

On 9 December 1919, a Statement of the Standing Committee of the Irish Bishops on the proposed Education Bill contended that ‘The only department which the vast majority of the Irish people will tolerate is one which shall be set up by its own Parliament’.³ The Catholic Clerical School Managers considered that ‘the only satisfactory education system for Catholics’ was one ‘wherein Catholic children are taught in Catholic schools by Catholic teachers, under Catholic control’.⁴

When the Education Bill was re-introduced in 1920, Cardinal Logue of Armagh issued a pastoral letter in which he called for a national solemn novena in honour of St Patrick ‘to avert from us the threatened calamity’, and he suggested that fathers of families should ‘assemble in the parish church … on Passion Sunday … to register their protests’.⁵

The Bishop of Kerry, Dr O’Sullivan displayed his displeasure at the INTO’s decision to support the Bill by forbidding a local school choir from participating in a welcoming reception for INTO delegates to their annual congress. The INTO reacted by transferring the congress from Killarney to Dublin on 6 April 1920.⁶

Dáil Éireann, which had been established on 21 January 1919, with Sinn Féin as the main governing party, refrained from public comment on the MacPherson Education Bill, but a short minute recorded by the Ministry for Irish on 4 March 1920 stated that ‘the Dáil will support the bishops in setting up and maintaining a national system of education’.⁷

The MacPherson Education Bill was withdrawn on 13 December 1920, a week before the Government of Ireland Act, which would partition Ireland, was passed into law, the latter Bill having been given priority.⁸ However, the intense controversy surrounding the MacPherson Education Bill acted as a salutary reminder to future Ministers for Education in Dáil Éireann that a heavy price would be exacted if they ever interfered with the administrative structures of Irish education, and if they posed a threat to the managerial system.

The meeting of the first Dáil of 1919 was a historic event in itself, but it was remarkable for another reason. No Minister for Education was appointed by the president of the Executive Council, Éamon de Valera, when constituting his ministries. According to Cathal Brugha,⁹ ‘President de Valera had some definite reason for not appointing a Minister for Ed’.¹⁰ One could conjecture that he hoped to avoid any involvement by the Dáil in public discussion on the contentious MacPherson Education Bill.

Responding to a resolution of the ard-fheis of the Gaelic League, a decision was taken by the Dáil in November 1919 to appoint a Minister for Irish. The Gaelic League was a powerful nineteenth-century language revival movement which had devised its own educational plans in 1918–19. It counted among its adherents and founding members future presidents, taoisigh and ministers for education. John J. O’Kelly, the president of the Gaelic League, was appointed Minister for Irish and his new role incorporated the duties of a Minister for Education. By August 1921, the threat posed by the MacPherson Education Bill had long vanished when de Valera sanctioned the appointment of O’Kelly (1872–57) as Ireland’s first Minister for Education.

Notes

1 The War of Independence commenced on 21 January 1919, the day Dáil Éireann met for the first time. It lasted until 11 July 1921.

2 T.J. McElligott, Secondary Education in Ireland 1870–1921 (Dublin, 1981), pp.134–5.

3 Statement of the standing committee of the Irish bishops of the proposed education bill for Ireland in Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 14 (1919), pp.505–7.

4 Evening Telegraph, 22 January 1920. The Catholic Clerical School Managers was founded in 1903 as the Clerical Managers of Catholic National Schools.

5 T.J. O’Connell, History of the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation 1868–1968 (Dublin, 1969), pp.318–20.

6 Ibid., pp.327–8.

7 Dáil Éireann Minutes of Aireacht na Gaedhilge 4 March, 1920.

8 Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. 138, col. 213, 13 December 1920.

9 He was Acting President in the First Dáil, and later Minister of Defence.

10 Dáil Éireann Minutes, 10 October 1919, Nollaig Ó Gadhra, An chéad Dáil 1919-1921 agus an Ghaeilge (Coiscéim, 1989), p.162.

2

John J. O’Kelly (1921–22):

‘… towards the Irishising of Primary Education’

John J. O’Kelly¹ became Minister for Irish in very inauspicious circumstances. The War of Independence raged in the background and the Dáil had just been proscribed. His ministerial work had to be conducted mainly from his office in O’Connell Street, where he worked for a publishing firm. Furthermore, he had to substitute for the Speaker of the Dáil, while also fulfilling his duties as president of the Gaelic League. Despite his many commitments, and periods spent ‘on the run’ or in prison,² O’Kelly, who was assisted by Frank Fahy, was a productive Minister. He applied himself to his ministerial roles as Minister for Irish from November 1919, and as Minister for Education from August 1921 until the signing of the peace Treaty in December, following which he withdrew from the Dáil in January 1922, along with the anti-Treaty Sinn Féin members.

As Minister for Irish, O’Kelly produced two important reports, one in June 1920 entitled ‘Report of Aireacht na Gaedhilge’³ and another in August 1921, the ‘Report of Ministry of the National Language’.⁴ It was clear from the 1920 report that O’Kelly used his position in the Gaelic League to channel its Education Programme 1918–19⁵ into the Dáil education programme.

In schools where teachers were unable to teach Irish, travelling teachers were to be provided. A scholarship scheme was to be devised with a view to increasing the number of travelling teachers. The Gaelic League offered eight annual scholarships to the total value of £100 to the Irish College in Dublin for the month of August. The Ministry for Irish recommended that the Dáil should sponsor a similar scheme, and finance a further eight scholarships to the value of £50 each to a preparatory training college for eight Gaeltacht residents, ‘as a practical step towards the Irishising of Primary Education’.⁶ Some of these ideas were to form the basis of an experimental system of preparatory colleges which were set up by the Ministry for Irish in 1920⁷ in order to recruit native Irish speakers to primary teaching. The experiment failed, and a further attempt was made in 1921–22, which suffered a similar fate.

So close was the connection between the Gaelic League and the Ministry for Irish, that O’Kelly considered formally recognising the League as a department of the Dáil. The idea was abandoned due to financial considerations as a substantial sum of money had been provided for the teaching of Irish by the British administration. According to the 1917–18 report, the National Board paid a sum exceeding £14,000, in fees alone, for the teaching of Irish that year.⁸ The annual budget for the Ministry was £10,000.⁹ In the second report of 1921, this practical consideration featured once more, when it commented that ‘The Dáil will be well advised in bearing constantly in mind that the alien Estimate for primary Education in Ireland this year exceeds £5,000,000’.¹⁰

The problem of poor school attendance was identified as the one which posed the most immediate threat to the successful implementation of the language policy. O’Kelly stated with some urgency that ‘The Dáil must find a remedy to it’.¹¹ Another problem which beset the plans of the revivalists was the urgent need for the provision of suitable reading material and textbooks in Irish. The 1920 report rejected the proposal that a generous Dáil subsidy should be given towards the publication of standard works in Irish and of popular reading matter. This decision was ill-judged and proved to be short-sighted.¹² Referring to the shortfall in the supply of suitable textbooks for every grade of education, O’Kelly confirmed that ‘practically every available writer of Irish is now at work to remedy this want’. He added reassuringly that ‘the matter has now assumed a distinctly favourable aspect’.¹³

In both reports he emphasised the great level of public support for the language revival policy, and he was ‘glad to be able to report that the language is advancing everywhere’.¹⁴ Even though he believed ‘the Church alone could restore and perpetuate the national language if only it so willed’, he was happy to confirm that the Dáil department had taken counsel with most of the bishops in the Irish-speaking areas, and that all but two had promised ‘their active co-operation in the revival of Irish’.¹⁵

It was not O’Kelly who took the first ‘practical step towards the Irishising of Primary Education’,¹⁶ but rather an organisation which strongly supported this ideal – the INTO. They did so on foot of a resolution passed at their annual congress in 1920. They held the First National Programme Conference of Primary Instruction on 6 January 1921, in order ‘to frame a programme, or series of programmes, in accordance with Irish ideals and conditions, and due regard being given to local needs and views’.¹⁷

Invitations to participate in the conference were sent to a select group of individuals and organisations but were only accepted by the Ministry for Irish, the General Council of County Councils, the Gaelic League, the National Labour Executive and the ASTI. As such it was an unrepresentative conference, but nonetheless the report of the conference made a special reference to the Professor of Education from UCD, Fr Timothy Corcoran SJ, who ‘placed the benefit of his advice and experience at the disposal of the conference’.

The conference drew up a programme which confined itself to pruning the curriculum. The report recommended that the programme’s obligatory subjects should be reduced to Irish, English, mathematics, history and geography (now one subject), needlework for girls (from third standard upwards), singing and drill. This meant the elimination of drawing, elementary science, cookery and laundry, needlework (in lower standards), hygiene and nature study as formal obligatory subjects, and the modification of the programme in history and geography, singing and drill. The status of Irish, both as a school subject and as a medium of instruction, was to be raised. Giving due regard to political sensitivities, it was stated that ‘in the case of schools where the majority of the parents of the children object to having either Irish or English taught as an obligatory subject, their wishes should be complied with’.¹⁸

The most controversial changes were the proposals that Irish should be used as a medium of instruction, and that ‘the work of the infant school is to be entirely in Irish’, with no teaching of English. In the senior standards, Irish was to be the teaching medium for history, geography, drill and singing, and all songs in the singing class were to be Irish language songs. History was to consist of the study of Irish history only, with one of its chief aims being ‘to develop the best traits of the national character, and to inculcate national pride and self-respect’.¹⁹

The INTO representatives had grave reservations about the policy and about the programme for infants in particular, which they expressed at the time, and which they would repeat again in 1926 and in 1934, when further amendments would be made to the programme. The influential advisor to the conference, Prof.Timothy Corcoran, described posthumously as ‘the master builder in education’,²⁰ was generally held responsible for this policy, although it should be noted that his advice was happily received by members of the Gaelic League especially, and won majority support. Professor Corcoran held the view that the infant stage was the ideal one for the purpose of language acquisition, and that the vital years for vernacular usage were those from the age of 3 years onwards, as the child’s mind was at its most receptive. He believed that complete immersion in the Irish language would result in oral fluency, regardless of the fact that 90 per cent of these children came from English-speaking homes,²¹ and despite the fact that there was no empirical research conducted to support his claim.

An INTO deputation was appointed from the First National Programme Conference to meet with O’Kelly, following the receipt of a resolution passed at a Central Executive Committee (CEC) meeting of the INTO, which stated that teachers who were ‘unable to take up or fit themselves for the teaching of Irish, should not be penalised on that account’.

O’Kelly received the deputation and reassured them that their fears were ungrounded. He was prepared to give a guarantee that no undue hardship would be inflicted on any teacher who owing to his special circumstances was unable to fit himself for the teaching of Irish. This promise would be broken within a decade.²² In April 1922, of the 12,000 lay teachers in national schools, only about 1,100 had bilingual certificates, and a further 2,800 had ‘ordinary certificates’, which were not regarded as satisfactory indicators of proficiency in Irish.²³ O’Kelly added ominously that teachers as a body should ‘realise that they are the servants of the nation, and that the nation who employs and pays them, must have the right to specify the nature of the work they are to do’.²⁴

After the split over the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the pro-Treaty government kept in existence a Dáil cabinet in an effort to keep open ‘the door to rapprochement with the de Valera wing of the anti-treaty movement’.²⁵ There were two Ministers for Education in January 1922. Michael Hayes succeeded O’Kelly as Minister in the Dáil, and he had responsibility for intermediate and higher education. Finian Lynch was Minister in the Provisional Government and he had responsibility for primary education. As soon as the Provisional Government was in place, T.J. O’Connell,²⁶ who had been general secretary of the INTO since 1916, submitted a summary of O’Kelly’s guarantee and presented it to Hayes. Hayes passed on this letter to Lynch, who replied to O’Connell on 18 January 1922. He stated that he had read O’Kelly’s response to the deputation from the INTO, and that he concurred with the guarantee given.

O’Connell knew only too well that inspectors interpreting this guarantee might not be as sympathetically disposed towards these teachers as the foregoing three ministers for education clearly were.²⁷

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION CONFERENCE

In parallel with the developments in the primary sector, O’Kelly summoned a Conference on Intermediate Education on 22 August 1921 under the authority of Dáil Éireann.²⁸ The conference was requested to examine ‘the position of Intermediate education and lay down a suitable programme, to be introduced in the schools in an independent Ireland’.

It recommended that the study of Ireland, the Irish language and Gaelic culture should be at the centre of the secondary-school curriculum. It proposed that all examination papers should be made available bilingually, except for English, mathematics and science, that the history and geography papers should be such as to make it possible for students to obtain full marks on questions relating to Ireland or directly affecting Ireland, and that for history and historical geography, in which the honours paper only was available, the questions should be set so as to enable a candidate to obtain 50 per cent of the marks allotted to the papers, on answers relating to Ireland or directly affecting Ireland. Prizes of books, medals and cups were to be offered to encourage proficiency in Irish, but there was to be no compulsion on pupils to answer papers in Irish.

Lynch accepted these recommendations in February 1922, with one exception and that was ‘that the modern literary group should have Irish a compulsory with English an optional subject’.²⁹ He requested the intermediate board to issue a circular to schools informing them of the new changes. He was anxious that secondary-school students presenting for the June 1922 examination would have the right to answer the intermediate certificate examination questions in Irish if they so wished.³⁰ However, only thirty out of the slightly more than 10,000 candidates who took the examination, answered either wholly or partly in Irish.³¹

Following on from the conference, a more specialised Dáil Commission on Secondary Education was established in September 1921. This was more representative than the First National Programme Conference on primary education. In addition to the organisations represented in the earlier conference, the commission included nominated representatives of the universities, the Church managerial organisations, the Christian Brothers and eighteen persons ‘of wide experience in education, along with 2 students representing the student bodies of the university colleges of the National University of Ireland’.³² The commission sat from 24 September 1921 to 7 December 1922. In the absence of O’Kelly, Hayes chaired the proceedings and Fahy acted as secretary. The terms of reference for the commission were ‘To draft a programme which would meet the national requirements while allotting its due place to the Irish language’.

Fahy, in opening the proceedings, emphasised the importance which the Ministry attached to the terms of reference and to the view that the schools were the prime agents in the revival of the Irish language. He stated that the ultimate object of the commission was the revival of ‘the ancient life of Ireland, as a Gaelic state, Gaelic in language and Gaelic and Christian in its ideals’.³³

The commission appointed six members to deal with the main curricular areas, and gave them a mandate to outline courses and programmes for each subject. Interestingly, the commission consulted headmasters and teachers and sought their suggestions and opinions on the draft courses, which were dispatched to all secondary schools in December 1921. Its interim report of 10 December was favourably received, and in particular its announcement of the introduction of ‘open courses’ as opposed to the traditional set texts. The Irish School Weekly, the teachers’ journal, saw this as a progressive move. It said, ‘The reversal of this cast-iron policy cannot begin a moment too soon. It has worked untold injury to many generations of Irish children’.³⁴

Professor Corcoran, who was a member of the commission, was described by a fellow member as a ‘forceful educationalist’ who ‘dominated the commission’.³⁵ He was requested to produce a report on English studies. He did so and his Memorandum on English Studies was adopted with only slight amendments, as the commission’s report on English studies.³⁶ As one of the leading exponents of the language revival policy, Corcoran attempted yet again to lessen the role of English in school courses. He favoured English being made an optional subject in secondary schools. Consequently, the commission recommended that schools eligible for State grants should offer Irish or English. This recommendation was later adopted as government policy.

It also recommended the introduction of two new examinations, a junior leaving certificate and a senior leaving certificate, which was what the Molony Committee had recommended in 1919.³⁷ For the award of the junior leaving certificate, six subjects were to be required, including Irish or English. In his memorandum, Corcoran put forward a very modest aim for English studies when he claimed that ‘Power to write for practical use, is the aim of English studies in Ireland’.³⁸ His bias against Anglo-Irish literature was reflected in the absence of any Anglo-Irish writer from the list submitted for English studies in the commission’s final report. He made no secret of his aversion to this type of literature.³⁹ He approved of teaching English