Chapter 10 — Carriglea

Emotional abuse and neglect

Bad management was identified by Visitors throughout the mid-1930s and early 1940s, and in particular the unwillingness of the majority of the Brothers who were living in the School to engage with it. One Superior General suggested that, if these Brothers could be employed in cleaning up the School, ‘The work will do them good as well as the apartments cleaned by their exertions’.

Furthermore, the Superior General, whilst pleased with the physical condition of the boys, felt that more could be done to improve their social skills by introducing them to music, drama, dancing or elocution classes, and suggested that these be introduced into the School.

The depiction of Carriglea in the early 1940s was of a very run-down and dilapidated place. The main issues centred on the deterioration of the l buildings of the Institution itself, the lack of cleanliness and hygiene, both of the School and the boys, and the poor-quality clothing of the children. From the various reports, there was a divergence of views on the issue of clothing. Throughout the 1940s, the Department of Education Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe, commented on the fact that the boys were in patched clothing, whereas the Visitation Reports only referred to this on one occasion. Despite its being wartime, the care of the boys was praised by the Visitors throughout the 1940s, although Dr McCabe only rated the food, clothing and accommodation as ‘fair’ or ‘satisfactory’. The only direct criticism with regard to food was in 1946, when Dr McCabe felt that the children were not receiving adequate supplies of milk and butter.

Another criticism was the inadequate sanitation facilities for the boys. Many of the toilets were not in working condition, and the low water pressure in Carriglea was blamed for the plumbing problems. Deterioration in the outbuildings was evident, particularly around the trade shops, with fences missing and paintwork peeling off in the chapel and sanctuary, and general decay in the farmyard.

When the Visitor called on Carriglea in 1943, he noticed that the wire fences near the trade shops were down and a little boy was sitting at a gap in the fence to keep the cows from trespassing. The Visitor was not impressed with this state of affairs, as he felt that the young boy should have been with his companions in class, at work or at play. He further commented that serious efforts should be made to keep the fences in a state of repair. Using a small boy to keep cows in because of a broken fence was a serious indictment of the way the School was run.

By 1947, the Visitor recorded that the Superior had undertaken a comprehensive scheme of renovation, in particular the painting of the walls and the restoration of the woodwork. The result of this upgrading was exemplified by the following remark that ‘the dining hall would now do credit to any flourishing College’. The dormitories were found to be clean, bright and well ventilated. The main criticism was the inadequacy in the number of baths provided.

In 1948 and 1949, the Visitation Reports considered the School to be generally well cared for, requiring just a few minor repairs. The farm was said to be working well and had enough cows to supply milk. It also had sufficient poultry to supply eggs for the Brothers but there was no mention of supplying eggs to the boys.

In the 1953 Visitation Report, the views of the Brothers were recorded and noted that none of them spoke highly of the boys. The boys were recorded as being ‘tough’ and ‘secretive and to require a firm hand’. However, discipline was generally perceived as good. The Visitor found all departments of the School clean and well maintained.

The final inspection of the School by Dr McCabe took place in January 1954, as the school closed in June of that year. On her last visit to the School, Dr McCabe spoke highly of the new Resident Manager and, in particular, of the improvements he had made. She commented that he had spent £2,000 on these. She noted that additional indoor games had been introduced, electric lights were added to the dormitories, and all mattresses and beds were restored and re-sprung. Food, diet and sanitation were found to be very good. Again, whilst noting that the clothing had improved, Dr McCabe was of the opinion that more needed to be done in that area.

For much of the review period, Carriglea was a dilapidated and run-down institution, with poor sanitary conditions and a lack of hygiene and cleanliness, both of the boys themselves and the premises. The boys were not properly clothed and went barefoot during the summer, despite the availability of adequate funds. The improvements noted by Dr McCabe took place within months of the Institution closing as an industrial school and reopening as a juniorate. The boys in care did not enjoy the benefit of these improvements.

The Christian Brothers in their Submission asserted that the standard of primary education in Carriglea was ‘very good considering the standard of the pupils at intake which was very weak’.

The primary school was located in the grounds of Carriglea. Even after the Cussen Report, the boys did not attend the local national school, as recommended. All boys under 14 years of age attended the internal primary school for five hours each day. There were six classes taught by three Brothers and three lay teachers. The primary classes ranged from infants to 7th class. The classes ranged in size from 38 to 61 pupils, with an average of 52. The school followed the national syllabus and curriculum that pertained nationwide in all primary schools. From the documents furnished, the school was rated very highly in terms of its primary education.

One witness said he had received a good primary education in Carriglea. Another said he could not read when he left but he conceded that he had been academically backward when he went to the School.

Br Rene, who held the positions of Superior and Sub-Superior during the 1930s until the mid-1940s, laid great emphasis on literary education, and this was reflected in the standard of education in Carriglea.

In 1938 the Visitor stated that the boys ‘... give evidence of good teaching and would I believe compare favourably with corresponding classes in our day schools’. However, he pointed out that the training of the boys on the cultural side was weak, particularly as no music was taught, or dancing or drama.