Chapter 12 — Salthill

Neglect and emotional abuse

In March 1959, the Visitor noted that the teacher mentioned in the 1958 Report was still in the School: ‘The poor man is physically unfit to take charge and teach boys’. As he was a registered teacher, the Brothers had difficulty removing him. The Visitor believed that the boys’ schooling got off to a bad start under this man’s tutelage.

During the Visitation of March 1961, the Principal pointed out that on average, one-third of boys in each class were below the normal standard and said that the majority of boys who fell into this category came from County Homes. The Visitor noted that the Brothers had still not succeeded in getting rid of the teacher in charge of the younger boys..

In 1973, due to dwindling numbers, the boys were transferred to the local primary school.

It is difficult to see how a teacher with the disabilities as outlined above could have given the boys in Salthill any kind of basic education. He was listed as a teacher in the School for 25 years.

In their 1972 report to the Department of Education, the Irish Countrywomen’s Association were critical of the education offered in Salthill: 2.6 We recognise that education is one of the most important formative influences on the children with whome we are concerned, whether they are deprived or delinquent. All children in Residential Care or otherwise in care, should be educated to the ultimate of their capacities ... In the past five years no boy in St Joseph’s, Salthill ... has got either Intermediate or Leaving Certificate. As far as we know, no child ever got this far ...

Although contact with families was recognised as essential as far back as 1936 when the Cussen Report was published, Salthill, like many other industrial schools, was reluctant to allow children home for the full period recommended by the Department, which had been extended to 31 days in 1943.

In 1944, the Resident Manager was asked to explain why 126 children out of the School population of 207 had not been allowed home during the Summer. The Resident Manager expressed his view that: I believe the homes were unsuitable but one does not like saying so to a boy. Even though parental unsuitability is cited in only 17% of committals, in my opinion a much higher percentage could be got under this heading but guards33 and NSPCC inspectors often, or sometimes, when they are sure of a committal, take proceedings under a less obnoxious heading such as School attendance.

There was no evidence that the Resident Manager made any enquiries about the home situation of the boys, but the letter quoted above indicated a reluctance to encourage parental contact.

It was not until 1959 that efforts were made to ensure that all boys spent time in an ordinary home environment. An appeal for holiday homes was made in the local Catholic newspapers, and families came forward and took the boys for five weeks during the summer. From then onwards, all of the boys were sent on holidays either to their own family or to a host family.

The Brothers relied on Dr McCabe’s reports in defending the School from criticism. While they acknowledged her adverse comments on such matters as clothing and dental care, they contended that the ‘individual reports from Dr McCabe are uniformly good stating that the school is well managed, that the Resident Manager is kind and has the interests of the boys at heart’. They concluded that the ’standard of care provided in St Joseph’s Salthill from the documentations furnished shows that it was continually high. Faults and deficiencies were pointed out where they arose and were quickly rectified’.

The Submissions did not comment on the very different assessments in their own Visitation Reports. It is to the credit of the Congregation that their inspection system gave rise to such candid appraisals. These reports by senior members of the Congregation, which were compiled for internal use, cannot be ignored. Where they conflict with more neutral Department observations, they are to be preferred in point of accuracy and specificity.

When the Visitation Reports are compared with the Department of Education Inspection Reports, it is clear that the Visitors’ criticisms were much more severe than any corresponding comments by Dr McCabe.

The 1943 Visitation Report was scathing. The Visitor criticised most aspects of the Institution and, in particular, the filth of the School. He concluded that, should a Department Inspector conduct an unannounced visit to the School, their report would surely be damning. Dr McCabe did inspect the School three months later but the Brothers had little to fear. Her report was not in any way as critical as the Visitation Report for the same year.

Dr McCabe made repeated criticisms of the boys’ clothing, particularly during the 1940s, to no avail. She had no suggestions or recommendations to make when the Superior explained that he had difficulty in obtaining supplies.

In 1967, a thorough and critical Report was written following the Visitation. The Visitor stated that he did not agree with the writer of the previous year’s Report that the Brothers were doing a good job in Salthill. In short, he believed that Salthill was unsuitable, particularly for the older boys. He felt that a more personalised and childcare-focused approach should be adopted and was critical of the fact that little was known by the staff of the individual backgrounds of the boys. He remarked that, should an outside authority inspect the School, the Brothers might not be happy with the contents of any consequential report. However, less than a year previously, Dr Lysaght had conducted an in-depth inspection of the School on behalf of the Department, which was complimentary of all aspects of the School. This demonstrates a different focus by the Department in their reporting procedure.