Constructions-Childhood Ireland T. Walsh

Child Care in Practice
Vol. 11, No. 2, April 2005, pp. 253 /269
Constructions of Childhood in Ireland

in the Twentieth Century: A View from
the Primary School Curriculum 1900 /
1999
Downloaded by [Maynooth University Library] at 09:14 21 October 2014
Thomas Walsh
Our concept of childhood is context-linked and time-specific. This paper traces the
evolution of our conceptualisation of childhood in Ireland, focusing particularly on
children aged four to six years of age, from 1900 to the present day. In the course of the
past century, this perception has altered greatly in light of advancements in society’s
understanding of children. There has been a gradual transformation in the position of
children in society, and the rights and interests of children now receive unprecedented
attention in the public domain.
These changes have been influenced, and indeed catalysed, by dramatic social,
economic, familial, democratic, religious, cultural and political changes throughout the
twentieth century. While there are a number of sources outlining the position of children
in society, this paper focuses on documentation from the education system, particularly
the content of successive primary school curricula in Ireland. Analysis of documentation
provides an insight into society’s view and value of children in Ireland in the twentieth
century. This is traced in three distinct phases; the curriculum in the period pre-
independence (1900 1922); the programme adopted upon independence and imple-
/
mented for close to 50 years (1922 1971); and the revisions that took place and were
/
adopted in the curriculum (1971 1999). /
Introduction
The concept of childhood is context-linked and time-specific (Smyth, 2003, p. 161).
Throughout the twentieth century, this concept has been defined and redefined. This
construction is facilitated by a number of groups and individuals in society including
the State, families, the churches, legal and administrative systems, the media and by
Thomas Walsh is a Development Officer with the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education.
Correspondence to: Thomas Walsh, Development Officer, Centre for Early Childhood Development and
Education, St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra, Dublin 9, Ireland Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1357-5279 print/1476-489X online/05/020253-17 # 2005 The Child Care in Practice Group
DOI: 10.1080/13575270500053183
254 T. Walsh
children themselves (Cleary, Nic Ghiolla Phádraig, & Quin, 2001, p. XV). There is a
paucity of research available in the Irish context regarding the general experiences and
the lives of children in Ireland in the first part of the twentieth century (Hannan &
Katsiaouni, 1977; Fahey & McLaughlin, 1999). However, there are a number of
contexts in which the lives of children in the past century can be analysed. These
include the examination of official policies and reports, anthropological studies and
the memoirs of individual writers.
This paper traces the evolution of our concept of childhood as portrayed through
the curriculum followed in the primary schools in Ireland in the twentieth century,
with a particular focus on the infant classes (ages four to six). Developments are
linked to changes in broader political, economic, social and cultural changes in
Ireland throughout this time period. The paper is divided into three sections:
1. The curriculum from 1900 to 1922 pre-independence.
2. The curriculum in operation from 1922 to 1971 following independence.
3. The implementation of the child-centred curriculum, 1971 1999. /
The Revised Programme 1900 1922 /
Political, Economic, Social and Demographic Context

There have been dramatic and quantum advancements in Irish society in social,
economic, demographic, political and cultural terms over the past century. In
political terms, at the start of the twentieth century, Ireland was governed by England,
with all national affairs decided at Westminster. There had been considerable
agitation in Ireland at the close of the nineteenth century in relation to the agrarian
situation, political independence, educational reform and cultural revival.
The population was in continuous decline since the Great Famine of 1845 1847 /
and subsequent famines in the 1870s and 1880s, while emigration was endemic. The
population had decreased from a peak in excess of eight million people in the 1840s
to a population of 2.97 million by 19261 (Nic Ghiolla Phádraig, 1990, p. 9). The
economy at this time, and indeed throughout much of the twentieth century, was
largely agrarian-based and highly dependent on Britain for its markets.
Early Childhood Education 1900 1922 /
By the end of the nineteenth century, the need for curricular reform within the
education system was evident. At this point, the churches had achieved strong
proprietorial and managerial rights within the education system, while the Commis-
sioners of National Education for Ireland retained control over the curriculum by the
issuing and sanctioning of textbooks. The Commission on Manual and Practical
Instruction, commonly known as the Belmore Commission, was established to
determine the future role of manual and practical instruction in primary education.
Its report in 1898 provided the framework for the 1900 Revised Programme. The
Child Care in Practice 255
Commission was greatly influenced by the New Education Movement (see Selleck,
1968) and representatives travelled to Great Britain, mainland Europe and the US to
gather evidence for the development of the Revised Programme.
The Revised Programme (1900) advocated the abolition of the Payment by Results
system that had been in operation since 1872. In addition, the introduction of a wider
curriculum, a focus on kindergarten education, the inclusion of more practical
content and an emphasis on schools as an interesting and humane place for children
was prioritised. Education was to be enjoyable and discovery-oriented and the
inculcation of a disposition for learning was prioritised over actual content. The
didactic methodology heretofore used was replaced with a heuristic approach, with
an emphasis on practical education (Commission on Manual and Practical
Instruction, 1898).
The Belmore Commission Report emphasised the importance of early childhood
education and advocated a version of Froebelian education, consisting of kindergar-
ten and traditional subjects. At the heart of Froebel’s philosophy was an emphasis on
development from within, rather than moulding from the outside. This involved
simple manual exercises, the introduction of Froebel’s first, second, third and fourth
gifts,2 singing, drawing, school discipline, physical drill, cookery, laundry and
needlework. It is interesting to note the gender segregation in certain subjects,
such as needlework, cookery and laundry for girls and woodwork for boys. An
emphasis was placed on expression in oral and written terms. Another shift in
emphasis was that these subjects were to be taught in an integrated manner when
possible, breaking with the tradition of compartmentalising knowledge, which was
seen as unnatural for the young child. A great prominence was placed on the child’s
environment. The result was a radical shift from the old system, widening out the
curriculum and introducing a child-centred and practical focus on education.
In educational terms, the Revised Programme of 1900 was the first major policy to
affect the quality of early childhood care and education in Ireland. At this point,
although attendance was not compulsory in many parts of the country, especially
rural areas, many three to six year olds attended primary schools. The curriculum up
to 1900, as previously described, was extremely narrow and academic in character,
focusing on examinable subjects. Infants were not a high priority within this system
as the success of the older pupils yielded the most profit for the teacher under the
system of Payment by Results. However, from 1900:
Infant training was placed at the core of the curriculum, and school life promised to
be an enlightening period where children learned largely through play. (O’Connor,
1987a, p. 16)
Implementation of the Revised Programme 1900

This radical change in emphasis in both the content and methods of instruction led
to problems regarding its implementation. This was accentuated by schools that were
poorly equipped and where teachers felt little ownership of the reforms. Moreover,
256 T. Walsh
only 50% of the existing teachers were trained in traditional methods, operating in
unsuitable classrooms and with very low pupil attendance, standing at 63% in 1901
(Commissioners of National Education, 1901, p. 13). The diminution in funding
from the Treasury, owing to the Boer War and other reasons, also impacted negatively
on the highly aspirational Revised Programme. Necessary finances for the equipment,
training and investment needed for its complete implementation were not provided.
The recommendations of the Belmore Commission were never implemented in their
entirety and, while the Dale Report of 1904 (Dale, 1904) observed many important
improvements in infant classes in the first four years of its implementation, it still
cited infant education as one of the weakest elements of the education system. It was
particularly concerned with males being in charge of infant classes, as a male was
considered unsuitable in disposition for infant teaching:
If there is any point of agreement among all interested in education it is that a man
both by temperament and training is unfitted to teach infants, and that the charge
of them should be entrusted to a woman. (Dale, 1904, p. 37)
From 1904, a number of small modifications were made to the Revised Programme,
but the essence of the curriculum introduced in 1900 remained the dominant
curriculum until the advent of the Irish Free State in 1922. The Notes for Teachers
issued in 1904 endorsed the kindergarten approach in all infant classes, proposed
frequent changes in lessons, the allocation of 10 minutes in every hour for rest and
play, and the use of the environment to elicit curiosity. Improvements also occurred
in staffing and schools with an enrolment of in excess of 50 pupils were granted a
Junior Assistant Mistress in 1904, who would concentrate on kindergarten and the
younger classes and provide needlework for the older girls. From 1913, a greater
emphasis was placed on the child’s environment, recommending the recreation of a
home-like environment, while formal teaching for children under five was not to be
conducted (O’Connor, 1987a). These guidelines from the Commissioners of National
Education show an enhanced understanding of the importance of the environment in
learning at this time.
Many subjects were implemented successfully, including drawing, physical
education, music and needlework. In addition, the content of readers was
transformed and they became more interesting, illustrated and child-centred in
focus. Other subjects, including elementary science, cookery and laundry, which
required equipment and resources were taught successfully, but in a small number of
schools. The introduction of kindergarten and many of the other subjects required
the training of teachers in both content and methodology and a number of experts
from England were introduced to Ireland for that task over a five-year period.
Conclusion
There is little evidence of a major change in the concept of childhood in the period
1900 1922 in wider society. However, the period represented somewhat of a
/
revolution in the instruction of infants in the formal education sector. The life of
pupils in schools was certainly enhanced in this period, availing of a wide and varied
curriculum. Additionally, there was a focus on local interests and subjects were taught
in a heuristic and discovery-like method. In addition, there was a focus on the social
health context of children and there were advancements in relation to healthcare and
dental care for pupils. A very different concept of the child as an individual and as a
learner was conceived with the Revised Programme of 1900, placing the focus on the
child’s interests and abilities.
The importance of infant education had been established, the training colleges had
taken steps to train teachers in kindergarten and staffing levels had improved. The
comprehensive work of the Commission on Manual and Practical Instruction in
devising the curriculum is laudable and many of their recommendations would be

considered progressive now, a century later. The radical nature of the proposed
changes was one of the reasons for their failure to be fully implemented, and
O’Connor (1987a, p. 16) notes that this progressive approach to teaching and
learning in the infant classes failed to attain recognition in wider society.
Primary School Programme 1922 1971 /

In the decades following independence, the Irish government adopted an isolationist
policy, and developed an insular attitude regarding international developments
(Titley, 1983). The economy at this time was largely agrarian based, and Kennedy
(1989, p. XIII) reveals that 40% of the population in the 1950s were still employed in
agriculture. The percentage of married women in the workforce remained
consistently low in this time period, reducing from 5.6% cent in 1936 to 5.2% in
1961. All aspects of life, including the family and education, were viewed through a
nationalistic and Catholic lens in the period following independence.
The State and Catholic Church3 collaborated in the provision of education in the
Irish Free State. While the State retained control over the curriculum in operation
and its cultural/national focus, the Church maintained control at local level through
the ownership and management of schools. The Church vehemently opposed any
State interference in family life, and the 1937 Constitution formalised this
arrangement (Government of Ireland, 1937). Thus, Church and State assumed a
symbiotic relationship, neither interfering with the respective territory each had
carved out over the years.
Curriculum was the one area of education for which the State took responsibility.
In this period, education was not only perceived to be an end in itself for economic
reasons, but:
. . . rather, the major function of primary education, and for those who went on to
secondary education, was religious, moral and intellectual instruction. (Tussing,
1978, p. 54)
258 T. Walsh
The type of education provided was greatly influenced by the Church, providing an
education rich in literacy and morality. As education was not perceived as being a
preparation for future employment, there was equal participation of boys and girls.
This was unusual in international terms, and an emphasis was placed on literary
(English, literature, religion, Irish, Latin, etc.) rather than technical skills (Tussing,
1978, p. 11).
While the decades from independence to the 1960s are prominent for the general
lethargy in relation to education and social policy, the economic prosperity of the
1960s facilitated renewed debate and vigour in Irish society (Coolahan, 1981;
O’Buachalla, 1989). This is also true in relation to educational matters and the
position of children in society, with a new focus on equality of educational
opportunity. There was also increased urbanisation, reduced family sizes, a move
towards an industrial as opposed to an agrarian economy and increased female
participation in the labour force. This led to a renewed concept of the role of
education in society.
Curricular Reform 1922 1926

/
The involvement of the Gaelic League in the national struggle meant that most of the
new government had sympathy, if not an inherent loyalty, to the revival of the Irish
language and culture through the education system. This was accentuated by the
death of their strongest educational exponent, Patrick Pearse, who had written
prolifically on his ideals for the education system in a free Ireland. Curricular reform
was perceived as an urgent necessity in an independent Ireland. At the Irish National
Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) Annual Conference 1920, a resolution was passed for
the establishment of the First National Programme Conference. While all relevant
stakeholders were invited to participate in order to restructure the curriculum in
accordance with Irish ideals and conditions, the Conference was not entirely
representative of all interested parties. Revd Timothy Corcoran, a Jesuit Professor
of Education at University College Dublin, was one of the most influential
educationalists of this era and he acted as an outside advisor to the Conference.
He believed a linguistic revival was possible if Irish was introduced in the infant
classes:
The early age is the language age. It is not for nothing that small children have
fluent, perfected, effortless command of the vocal organs and of the sense of
hearing by five years of age. (Corcoran, 1925, p. 380)
He also espoused the doctrine of original sin prevalent in this period, whereby human
nature was weakened and inclined towards evil. He further believed that strict
authoritarian teaching was required to counteract this inherent failing in children.
The existing curriculum was perceived as being overloaded with subjects, neglectful of
Irish and out of harmony with national ideals and requirements. Thus, the First
National Programme Conference recommended that the Irish language be raised to a
pre-eminent position, a pruning of the curriculum to allow increased attention on

Irish and a distinctive Irish flavour be given to certain subjects (National Programme
Conference, 1922).
The curriculum introduced in 1922 was thus tailored to this role, and the breadth
and latitude introduced with the Revised Programme of 1900 was once again reduced
to a narrow and rigid base. A child-centred curriculum was of little importance in
comparison with the restoration of the Irish language, for which the schools were the
prime agent of reform (O’Connor, 1987b, p. 5).
The Irish government, in promoting the Irish language, was endeavouring to
provide the cultural inheritance it perceived had been denied to previous generations.
This was seen as a high priority and duty of the government in the Irish Free State.
This programme took a radically different ideological basis from the 1900 Revised
Programme and was based on the principle of the revival of cultural nationalism
and the Irish language. The Irish language was perceived as the panacea for all
problems and, as it was for the good of the nation, it was necessary for the child. In
this context, schools were perceived as the means to a politico-nationalistic end
(Akenson, 1975, p. 27).
Special emphasis was placed on the infant classes where all instruction was to be in
the medium of Irish to ensure a solid basis in the language for the remainder of
schooling. English, even as a school subject, was not to be taught in the infant classes.
Where the teacher was not competent to instruct through the medium of Irish, there
was to be a minimum of one-hour instruction in Irish per day. This affected 250,000
infant class pupils, 90% of whom spoke English in their homes (O’Cuı́v, 1966).
A Second National Programme Conference was organised in 1925, to temporarily
revise the provisions of the 1922 Conference, taking account of the difficulties in
implementing its requirements. This Conference, which was attended by a wider
representation of stakeholders, largely endorsed the recommendations of the first
Conference. It agreed with instruction of infants through Irish, in so far as was
possible, depending on the competency of the teacher. This was relaxed in so far as
the instruction in Irish was now compulsory from 10.30 a.m. to 2 p.m. every day.
Akenson (1975, p. 47) highlights the success of this programme in the early years; by
1928, 1,240 infant schools were conducted through Irish, 3,570 in both English and
Irish, and 373 solely in English. As O’Connor (1987b, p. 5) asserts, the focus on
infants for the linguistic revival raised their profile within the system:
By the 1920s infant education had acquired a new status. Infants were no longer to
be looked upon as the passive ‘babies’ of the early nineteenth century. They came to
the fore as the leaders of the language revival movement in Ireland. In the New
State the success or the failure of Gaelic language in the schools depended largely
on the work of the infant classes.
Compulsory attendance was introduced for all pupils aged six to 14 in 1926,
promoted on the basis that a child needed to be in school to learn Irish. This met
with little opposition, although it had previously been resisted by the Church as an
infringement on parents’ rights. The 1926 Act was effective in promoting attendance,
260 T. Walsh
which increased from 69.7% in 1920 to 83.4% in 1930 (Commissioners of National
Education, 1921; Department of Education, 1931). Corporal punishment was a
common feature of school life, and this is evidenced in many accounts of school life
in this period (see for example Kavanagh, 1939; Joyce, 1960; Clarke, 1990; Dunne &
Kelly, 2003).
Developments in the 1930s

The relaxation of rules in the 1926 programme, allowing the teaching of and through
English before 10.30 a.m. to facilitate an easier transition for infants, was reversed in
1934. It had become clear that the policy in relation to the Irish language was not
succeeding. At this point, the curriculum was further narrowed to afford even greater
prominence to the linguistic revival. An emphasis on linguistic attainment in the
infant classes remained constant, whereby the teacher was:
. . . to teach the language as a subject and is to use Irish as much as possible as the
medium of instruction and as the school language. (Department of Education,
1934, p. 5)
There were numerous calls for a reform of the primary curriculum, most notably
from the INTO, in the proceeding decades but they fell on deaf ears in government
circles. The government saw the primary purpose of the education system as cultural
nationalism and, despite the fact that this was not being achieved to the desired level,
could conceive of no other means to improve it. As the following quote elucidates,
Eamonn de Valera, the Taoiseach at the time, focused far more on the product of
education than on the process:
I am less interested in the teacher’s method of teaching than I am in the results he

achieves, and the test I would apply would be the test of an examination. (Dáil
Éireann Proceedings, 1943)
While the INTO was committed in ideological terms to the revival, it had serious
concerns about the effects of the Irish language programme on the educational
development of pupils, as well as on the progress of the language in revival terms. In
1941 it issued a Report of Committee of Inquiry into the use of Irish as a Teaching
Medium to Children whose Home Language is English (INTO, 1941). This stated that
the majority of infant teachers believed teaching through Irish inhibited the child
intellectually, repressed his/her natural urge of expression and led to some children
being mentally and physically damaged. However, the Report was not accepted or
acted upon by the Minister or the Department at this time (O’Connell, 1968).
O’Connor (1987b, p. 6) believes that the emphasis on the Irish language in this time
period had a detrimental effect on infant education as a whole:
. . . one tends to incline to the notion, in the light of available evidence, that the
attempt to further the Gaelic ideal militated against enlightened infant pedagogy.
Curricular Reform 1948

In 1948, a revised programme for infants was introduced under the then Minister for
Education, Richard Mulcahy. This allowed for the reintroduction of the half an hour
of English teaching in infant classrooms per day, which had been abolished in 1934.
This was optional, based on the teacher’s discretion. In this Revised Programme for
Infants of 1948, we see a return to the principles and ideology of the 1900
Programme, advocating:
The aim of the Infant School is to provide the atmosphere and background in
which the child’s whole personality may develop naturally and easily. It should
therefore take cognisance of the child’s interests, activities and speech needs, and
utilize them to the full in aiding and directing such developments. (Department of
Education, 1948, p. 5)
The 1948 programme aspired to give children a vernacular command of Irish with
the intention that Irish would become the sole language of the infant school as
early as possible. The infant teachers adopted the new programme with mixed
feelings, focusing on its positive features but also aware that it presupposed an
abundance of resources that simply did not exist. ‘‘Notes for Teachers’’ followed
in 1951 (Department of Education, 1951). These outlined the content and method
for the infant classes and allowed the programme to be adapted for smaller
schools with mixed classes. This encouraged children to play a more active role in
their own education, the recognition and facilitation of individual differences,
individual and group learning, and a heuristic approach to education as advocated in
1900:
The purpose of the infant school is to provide for young children the environment,
opportunities and activities most favourable to their full development. Infant
teaching if it is to be successful, must be based on the young child’s instinctive urge
to play, to talk, to imitate, to manipulate materials, to make and do things.
(Department of Education, 1951, p. 3)
O’Connor (1987b, p. 6) asserts that ‘‘. . . a new era had dawned . . .’’ for infant
education in 1948. The progressive nature of the infant curriculum inspired the use of
such principles and methodologies in senior classes. Despite a lapse of in excess of 20
years, this revision influenced the development of the 1971 Primary School
Curriculum.
In 1960, the Department of Education issued Circular 11/60, giving the infant
teacher the choice between using Irish as a medium of instruction and having Irish as
a subject only (Department of Education, 1960).
Council of Education 1950 1954/
The Council of Education was set up in 1950 to review the primary school
curriculum. It was issued with narrow terms of reference and largely excluded parents
262 T. Walsh
and the wider educational community from the consultative process. The Council of
Education Report in 1954 concluded that there was little need for reform and, despite
some internal debate within the membership, the Report expressed a general
satisfaction with the status quo. Consequently, it did not have a substantial impact on
policy developments in this period.
The Council disagreed with many of the submissions it received calling for a wider
curriculum, preferring a higher standard in core subjects (Department of Education,
1954, p. 118). The Infant curriculum introduced in 1948 was adopted by the Council
and, despite concerns about its nature and content, it made no steps to alter its
structure. There was much criticism regarding the introduction of Irish in the infant
classes but the Council endorsed the prevailing status quo, citing the benefits of
giving children an ability in both English (30 minutes per day) and Irish (remainder
of the day) at this early age.
Developments in the 1960s

Groups in Ireland such as Tuairim, established in 1954 to encourage people to express
their ‘‘opinion’’ on issues they thought neglected in Irish society, expressed concerns
about the education system. In particular, the rigid curriculum, the emphasis on
examinations, the neglect of the slow learner, the lack of research in education and
the Report of the Council of Education were criticised (Tuairim, 1962). From the
mid-1960s onwards, there was little mention of the spiritual or nationalist side of
education, the focus having shifted to the role of the education system as an
investment in economic growth and national prosperity.
The economic upturn of the 1960s also allowed more investment in resources
and facilities for schools. The report Investment in Education (Department of
Education, 1965), the background paper for the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development review team, proved a catalyst in the drive
for reform and was used as leverage to yield increased funding for education. It
exposed many inadequacies within the education system, the final report asserting
that:
. . . Ireland is faced with the necessity to carry out a thorough reform of its
educational system. (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,
1969, p. 47)
A background dossier for a planned White Paper on Education elucidates many of the
problems with the curriculum at this point, in that it:
. . . tends to treat children as if they were identical, environment as if it were

irrelevant, and subject content as if it were easily defined. Its greatest fault, perhaps,
is that it fails to look on education as a trail of discovery, enrichment and
understanding for the growing child, and sees it instead as a logical structure
containing conveniently differentiated parts which may be imposed by adults on

children. (Department of Education, 1967, p. 40)
The primary inspectorate had already begun to draft a new curriculum in line with
modern thinking on the nature of the child and his/her learning needs for the
primary school.
Moreover, Ireland’s Third Programme for Economic Expansion (Government of
Ireland, 1969) announced the widening of the curriculum, reduced pupil teacher /
ratios and the provision of remedial teachers for children with learning difficulties.
Prior to this, whatever additional supports were available were for children with
specific disabilities rather than general learning difficulties. Limited services had
previously been provided largely by the religious orders, and Coolahan (1989, p. 46)
notes the significance of State intervention in this regard, reflecting ‘‘. . . the greater
concern for the welfare of the individual pupil that has become evident in recent
decades.’’
Conclusion
The emphasis in the curriculum in this period was on a linguistic and cultural revival,
and on moralistic and literary content. This led to a narrowing of the wide
curriculum that had been in use from 1900 to 1922. To accommodate this, children in
schools came to the fore in the cultural revival and it can be argued that their
education in this period may have suffered, as it was not premised on the needs of the
child. Infant classes were specially targeted for language transmission and the practice
of instruction through Irish in these classes was introduced. The curriculum became
increasingly narrow when it became apparent that the use of the Irish language was
not becoming as widespread as was hoped. The focus on the Irish language and the
transmission of the cultural heritage remained a feature of the primary curriculum
until the 1960s, thus retaining a narrow and rigid curriculum. Prior to the 1960s, the
purpose of the education system could be summarised as to teach children to save
their souls and ‘‘. . . to love all things Irish’’. (Donagh, 1993, p. 336) There was little
expansion in the system in the period 1920 1960, a clear philosophy of education
/
had not been laid out and the entire system was governed by deep caution on the part
of Church and State.
The concept of childhood in this period, as espoused by the Primary school
programme, is as a vehicle for the promotion of political, cultural and nationalist
objectives. The curriculum gave little regard to the needs, interests or abilities of the
individual child. At the same time, there was a strong emphasis on didactic teaching
and punishment, emanating from the belief in the doctrine of original sin. There is
much evidence from this period that school life was often difficult and joyless for the
child, and did not prepare children adequately for the lives they were to lead
subsequently in Ireland or abroad.
264 T. Walsh
Primary School Curriculum 1971 1999 /

Developments in the 1960s led to the realisation of the need for a radical reform of
the Primary School Curriculum in congruence with the developing understandings of
children and child development. It was also seen as necessary to align the education
system with the needs of an expanding economy. There was a growing public interest
in the education system, and parents saw education as the vehicle for social mobility
for their children. In addition, Ireland’s insularity since Independence was beginning
to abate and increased contacts with international groups such as the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the United Nations catalysed a change in
thinking of education as a social expenditure to one of investment in people, the
economy and society. However, the prosperity and optimism of the 1960s were
followed by economic recession in the 1970s and 1980s, and many of the proposed
schemes and resources for education were affected by budgetary contractions on
social spending.
Emigration remained high until the 1990s, when the embryonic stages of
the ‘‘Tiger Economy’’ began to emerge. The improved economic status of
Ireland facilitated educational expansion and development, and a multiplicity
of initiatives and reforms were introduced. By the end of the 1990s, all aspects and
levels of Irish education had undergone fundamental reform and reappraisal.
Economic expansion necessitated the entry of increased numbers into the workforce,
including many women (and mothers), which in turn led to changes in the way
children are cared for and educated in society. The population continued to increase
throughout the 1990s, owing to reduced emigration and increased immigration to
Ireland.
Early Years Education

The 1971 Curriculum described the preceding curriculum aptly, highlighting the
narrow focus of the curriculum and the focus on knowledge-transfer as opposed to
learning dispositions and discovery learning:
This may have led to a certain uniformity of standards: it certainly resulted in a

general uniformity of practice. Education was ‘curriculum-centred’ rather than
‘child-centred’, and the teacher’s function in many cases, was that of a medium
through whom knowledge was merely transferred to his pupils. (Department of
Education, 1971, p. 15)
Like its predecessors of 1900 and 1922, the 1971 curriculum was a radical shift from
the existing system in operation and returned to the child-centred, heuristic and
discovery-learning ideals of the 1900 Revised Programme. The 1971 curriculum had
two main aims:
1. To enable the child to live a full life as a child and;

2. To equip him to avail himself of further education so that he may go on to live a
full and useful life as an adult in society. (Department of Education, 1971, p. 12)
These aims were based on two implicit factors:

1. All children are complex human beings with physical, emotional, intellectual and
spiritual needs and potentialities and;
2. Because each child is an individual, he [sic] deserves to be valued for himself and
to be provided with the kind and variety of opportunities towards stimulation
and fulfilment that will enable him to develop his natural powers at his own rate
to his fullest capacity. (Department of Education, 1971, p. 12)
Thus, the curriculum was designed to cater for the full and harmonious development
of each individual child, with the inherent flexibility to adapt to the needs of children
of varying abilities, natural endowment and cultural background. Great use
was to be made of the local environment and concrete objects in the child’s
learning environment. An emphasis was also placed on individual and small-group
learning as opposed to whole class teaching. The role of the teacher was also
transformed:
The teacher is no longer regarded as one who merely imparts information but
rather as one who provides suitable learning situations and who guides and
stimulates the child in his pursuit of knowledge. (Department of Education, 1971,
p. 18)
This allowed children to play a more active role in their education, leading to greater
self-reliance, confidence and flexibility. Continuity in content and methodology was
viewed as being of paramount importance. It was recognised that content was of
course important, but so too was the disposition towards learning created through
the manner of teaching, attitudes and enthusiasm of teachers. The child was now
perceived as an active agent in his/her own education, working individually to
promote independence and self-reliance and working in groups to promote
cooperation and social development. Implicit in the 1971 curriculum was the
recognition of childhood as a distinct period of human development. The curriculum
was viewed as an integral whole and all subjects were to be taught in an integrated
way rather than the previous method of compartmentalisation. It was a radical shift
from the practice of the previous half-century, placing the child at the centre of the
learning experience and adopting modern methodologies (Coolahan, 1981, p. 170).
A comprehensive network of supports for teachers was envisaged to assist
principals and teachers to adapt and utilise the New Curriculum. However, the
recession in the 1970s caused major cutbacks in spending on education. Moreover,
many parents were confused by the new principles and ideologies underpinning the
curriculum and there was inadequate communication with post-primary schools to
ensure continuity in education upon transition (Hyland, 1987). While the New
266 T. Walsh
Curriculum was introduced, it did not happen as quickly or as comprehensively as
was hoped:
Problems emerged in the implementation of the New Curriculum (1971) such as

the high pupil /teacher ratios and poorly designed classrooms for the new
methodologies, while the lack of in-service education impacted upon under-
standing, ownership and willingness of the teachers to implement the changes.
(O’Sullivan, 1980, p. 392)
This is evident in the White Paper on Educational Development (Department of

Education, 1980, p. 25) when it expresses certain reservations that the outcomes of
the new curriculum were intangible in comparison with the more rigid earlier
curriculum.
The emphasis placed on the child-centred philosophy raised awareness of
the inappropriateness of corporal punishment, which was used widely in schools
at this time (Coolahan, 1981, p. 180). The abolition of corporal punishment in
1982 by Ministerial directive further reinforced the child-centred nature of the
curriculum.
Developments in the 1980s and 1990s

The publication of government policy in the form of a White Paper on Educational
Development in 1980 (Department of Education, 1980) and a Programme for Action
in Education (Department of Education, 1984) has been followed through and
enhanced in the 1990s, allowing greater transparency in policy development in the
quest to meet goals and objectives. The Primary School Curriculum (1971) was
implemented until 1999. A process of curricular reform was instigated in 1990 with
the publication of the Report of the Primary Education Review Body (Department of
Education, 1990) and, following a lengthy consultation and partnership process, the
Primary School Curriculum (Department of Education and Science, 1999) was
introduced. This builds on the philosophies and principles of the 1971 Curriculum
and endeavours to prepare children for life in the twenty-first century.
Conclusion
Within the education system, this era heralded the introduction of a child-centred
curriculum in 1971, placing a special emphasis on early childhood education.
Methodologies were improved and greater use was made of the environment and
previous experiences of the child. Economic prosperity catalysed many reforms in the
early years of this period, but subsequent recessions marred the implementation of
the aspirational proposals for the education system. The pupil teacher ratio declined
/
quite substantially during this period and spending on education increased.

Advancements include a special focus on children affected by disadvantage and
those with special needs.
Overview and Conclusion

Ireland’s policies in relation to children have been influenced by both national and
international developments throughout the century. The nature of education varied
in this period, as the curriculum was adapted for particular national, cultural and
economic needs, as well as evolving in line with pedagogical and educational
advancements. As Horgan and Douglas (2001, p. 139) state:
In the State sector, in this country, the curricular pendulum since 1831 has
oscillated back and forth from the traditional, didactic approach to child-
centredness.
This paper has traced this oscillation through its various phases, the latter being a
child-centred and heuristic curriculum underpinned by an apposite discovery
learning methodology. This was a welcome and long overdue transition from earlier
curricular focuses and methodologies that did not always place the child at the core.
Even though this was not formally implemented until 1971, there had been a growing
awareness and move towards child-centred education from the late 1950s. The
current Primary School Curriculum (Department of Education and Science, 1999)
reinforces the underlying principles of the 1971 curriculum and provides ongoing
professional development in the implementation of the curriculum. It is hoped that
educational provision will continue along this vein, placing the needs, ability and
interests of the child at the core of the educational process.
Notes
[1] Note that the population in the 1840s relates to the 32 counties of Ireland, while the figure
for 1926 applies to the 26 counties of the Irish Free State.
[2] Gifts in Froebelian philosophy are ‘‘designed apparatus’’ or ‘‘geometric shapes’’ designed to
give the child an insight into the structure and meaning of the world, such as soft balls,
wooden spheres, cubes, oblongs and prisms. Occupations were activities that were developed
to give expression to these ideas.
[3] The Catholic Church was the Church of the majority of citizens throughout the twentieth
century. Reference to the ‘‘Church’’ in this article refers to the Catholic Church, unless
otherwise stated.
References
Akenson, D. (1975). A mirror to Kathleen’s face */Education in independent Ireland 1922 /1960 .
London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Clarke, A. (1990). Twice round the black church */Early memories of Ireland and England . Dublin:
Moytura Press.
Cleary, A., Nic Ghiolla Phádraig, M., & Quin, S. (Eds.). (2001). Understanding children, Volume 2 */
Changing experiences and family forms . Dublin: Oak Tree Press.
Commission on Manual and Practical Instruction. (1898). Final report of the commission on manual
and practical instruction in primary schools under the board of national education in Ireland .
Dublin: Printed for her Majesty’s Stationery Office by Alexander Thom and Co.
268 T. Walsh
Commissioners of National Education. (1901). 68th report of the commissioners of national education
in Ireland for 1901 . Dublin: Alexander Thom and Co.
Commissioners of National Education. (1921). 86th report of the commissioners of national education
in Ireland for 1919 /1920 . Dublin: Alexander Thom and Co.
Coolahan, J. (1981). Irish education */History and structure . Dublin: Institute of Public Admin-
istration.
Coolahan (1989). Educational policy for national schools 1960 /1985. In D. Mulcahy, & D.
O’Sullivan (Eds.), Irish educational policy */Process and substance (pp. 27 /76). Dublin:
Institute of Public Administration.
Corcoran, T. (1925). The Irish language in the schools. Studies , XIV, 337 /388.
Dáil Éireann Proceedings. (1943). Volume 83, Column 1097, 27 May 1941.
Dale, F. (1904). Report of Mr. F.H. Dale, His Majesty’s Inspector of Schools, board of education, on
primary education in Ireland . Dublin: Alexander Thom and Co.
Department of Education. (1931). Report of the Department of Education 1929 /30 . Dublin: The
Stationery Office.
Department of Education. (1934). Revised programme of primary instruction . Dublin: The Wood
Printing Works.
Department of Education. (1948). Revised programme for infants . Dublin: The Stationery Office.
Department of Education. (1951). An Naı´-Scoil . Dublin: The Stationery Office.
Department of Education. (1954). Report of the Council of Education . Dublin: The Stationery Office.
Department of Education. (1960). Circular 11/60 */Múineadh na Gaeilge . Dublin: The Stationery
Office.
Department of Education. (1965). Investment in education . Dublin: The Stationery Office.
Department of Education.. (1967). Background paper of the steering committee on the planned white
paper on education . (Unpublished paper, Department of Education, Dublin).
Department of Education. (1971). Primary school curriculum: Teacher’s handbooks . Dublin: The
Stationery Office.
Department of Education. (1980). White paper on educational development . Dublin: The Stationery
Office.
Department of Education. (1984). Programme for action in education 1984 /1987 . Dublin: The
Stationery Office.
Department of Education. (1990). Report of the primary education review body. Dublin: The
Stationery Office.
Department of Education and Science. (1999). Primary school curriculum . Dublin: The Stationery
Office.
Donagh, M. (1993). The emergence of an economic dimension in Irish education policy and planning
during the 1960s . MEd Thesis, University College Cork.
Dunne, J., & Kelly, J. (2003). Changing perspectives on childhoods. In J. Dunne, & J. Kelly (Eds.),
Childhood and its discontents */The first Seamus Heaney lectures (pp. 1 /30). Dublin: The
Liffey Press.
Fahey, T., & McLaughlin, E. (1999). Family and the state. In A. Heath, R. Breen, & C. Whelan
(Eds.), Ireland north and south */Perspectives from social science (pp. 117 /140). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Government of Ireland. (1937). Bunreacht na hÉireann */Constitution of Ireland . Dublin: The
Stationery Office.
Government of Ireland. (1969). Irelands third programme for economic expansion . Dublin: The
Stationery Office.
Hannan, D., & Katsiaouni, L. (1977). Traditional families? From culturally prescribed to negotiated
roles in farm families . Dublin: The Economic and Social Research Institute.
Horgan, M., & Douglas, F. (2001). Some aspects of quality in early childhood education. In A.
Cleary, M. Nic Ghiolla Phádraig, & S. Quin (Eds.), Understanding children, Volume 1 */State,
education and economy (pp. 119 /144). Dublin: Oak Tree Press.
Hyland, A. (1987). The process of curriculum change in the Irish national school system. Irish
Educational Studies , 6 (2), 17 /38.
Irish National Teachers’ Organisation. (1941). Report of the committee of inquiry into the use of Irish
as a teaching medium of children whose home language is English . Dublin: Irish National
Teachers’ Organisation.
Joyce, J. (1960). A portrait of the artist as a young man . New York: Penguin Books.
Kavanagh, P. (1939). The green fool . New York: Harper and Brothers.
Kennedy, F. (1989). Family, economy and government in Ireland . Dublin: The Economic and Social
Research Institute.
NationalProgramme Conference. (1922). National programme of primary instruction . Dublin: The
Educational Company of Ireland.
Nic Ghiolla Phádraig, M. (1990). Childhood as a social phenomenon */National report Ireland
(Eurosocial Report 36/8). Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.
O’Buachalla, S. (1989). Education policy in twentieth century Ireland . Dublin: Wolfhound Press.
O’Connell, T. (1968). 100 years of progress */The story of the Irish national teachers’ organisation
1868 /1968 . Dublin: Dakota Press.
O’Connor, M. (1987a). The development of infant education in Ireland 1900 /1971. An Múinteoir,
1 (3), 15 /17.
O’Connor, M. (1987b). Infant education in independent Ireland 1922 /1971. An Múinteoir, 2 (1),
5 /7.
.Ó Cuı́v, B. (1966). Education and language. In D. Williams (Ed.), The Irish struggle 1916 /1926 (p.
162). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1969). Reviews of national policies for
education */Ireland . Paris: OECD.
O’Sullivan, D. (1980). Teacher socialisation and teaching style in an Irish cultural context. European
Journal of Education , 15 (4), 387 /397.
Selleck, R. (1968). The new education */The English background 1870 /1914 . Melbourne: Sir Isaac
Pitman and Sons.
Smyth, M. (2003). The concept of childhood and the experience of children in violently divided
societies. In J. Dunne, & J. Kelly (Eds.), Childhood and its discontents */The first Seamus
Heaney lectures (pp. 159 /198). Dublin: The Liffey Press.
Titley, B. (1983). Church, state and the control of schooling in Ireland 1900 /1944 . Dublin: Gill and
Macmillan.
Tuairim (1962). Irish education . London: Tuairim.
Tussing, A. (1978). Irish educational expenditures */Past, present and future . Dublin: The Economic
and Social Research Institute.

Constructions-Childhood Ireland T. Walsh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constructions-Childhood Ireland T. Walsh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constructions-Childhood Ireland T. Walsh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child Care in Practice

Vol. 11, No. 2, April 2005, pp. 253 /269

Constructions of Childhood in Ireland

adopted in the curriculum (1971 1999). /

The Revised Programme 1900 1922 /

Political, Economic, Social and Demographic Context

Early Childhood Education 1900 1922 /

Implementation of the Revised Programme 1900

considered unsuitable in disposition for infant teaching:

devising the curriculum is laudable and many of their recommendations would be

Primary School Programme 1922 1971 /

Political, Economic, Social and Demographic Context

Curricular Reform 1922 1926

pre-eminent position, a pruning of the curriculum to allow increased attention on

Developments in the 1930s

I am less interested in the teacher’s method of teaching than I am in the results he

Curricular Reform 1948

Council of Education 1950 1954/

Developments in the 1960s

. . . tends to treat children as if they were identical, environment as if it were

containing conveniently differentiated parts which may be imposed by adults on

Political, Economic, Social and Demographic Context

Early Years Education

This may have led to a certain uniformity of standards: it certainly resulted in a

1. To enable the child to live a full life as a child and;

These aims were based on two implicit factors:

Problems emerged in the implementation of the New Curriculum (1971) such as

This is evident in the White Paper on Educational Development (Department of

Developments in the 1980s and 1990s

quite substantially during this period and spending on education increased.

Overview and Conclusion

162). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

You might also like