Chapter 8 — Letterfrack

Neglect

The Congregation was cognisant of the difficulties faced in teaching children in the school, and the documentary material was replete with examples of this. However, this is not to totally exculpate the Congregation. The Congregation did not send its best teachers to the school. Many of the teachers came straight from teacher training college with little experience of teaching in a normal school, not to mention a school like that in Letterfrack. It is interesting to compare two documents from the discovered material, one from the start of the period of investigation and one from near the end.

In 1938, the Congregation Visitor noted that the: poor children of our institutions have first claim on our really good teachers, as their school time is short indeed, and we are founded mainly to look after the education of poor boys.

The Congregational response to this plea was poor. The 1963 Report on education noted that: The Brothers had not made the best possible staff available in Letterfrack. They lacked experience. There was a very high turnover of teaching staff. Many Brothers seemed not to care to work in Letterfrack.

The submission by the Congregation, that it was not to be faulted for any shortcoming in respect of educating the boys in its care, was not supported by the evidence. Smaller class sizes and grading according to ability should have formed the basis for real educational opportunity for boys who had missed out on schooling in their early years. However, the poor quality of the staff sent to Letterfrack, particularly in the later years, made progress in this area virtually impossible. The reports from the 1960s and 1970s, indicate how far thinking had developed in the care of these children, but similar advances were not made in the training or guidance offered to young Christian Brothers. Children who are badly fed, badly clothed, cold and lonely cannot thrive in any school environment. The ‘overcompensation’ mentioned in the 1970 Department of Education report was never applied in Letterfrack. The assertion by some ex-Brothers, that most of the residents in Letterfrack were of impaired mental capacity, was not borne out by the complainants who attended the Investigation Committee. They were capable men for the most part who could have progressed in the right environment. The resentment and regret felt by many of them at the loss of opportunity were palpable even 50 years later. Teachers tended to confuse poor education with mental incapacity and that had a negative impact on the education provided in Letterfrack.

The Congregation accepted that the level of industrial training provided was not sufficient: It would be fair to say that the training in the various trades was not really satisfactory for a number of reasons. Because of the remoteness of the institution, it was almost impossible to attract trade teachers to work there ... Then many of the trades were not accessible to boys who had not come through the normal apprenticeship. In addition, vacancies for the various trades were not readily available in the local area, and Dublin probably had its own supply of tradesmen. Moreover many of the techniques for the trades were outdated and consequently did not prepare the young people adequately to enter into a trade ... and finally, in response to the criticism that the workshops and the farm did not give adequate instruction in the trade as well as giving practical experience, it should be stated that the normal practice in the training of any trade was to have the young people do the most simple of tasks initially and then to learn by “doing the job”.

It continued: By far the largest percentage of the boys who over 14 years of age, worked on the farm, seasonally augmented after school hours by a large number of senior school boys ... The reason given for this labour intensiveness was the nature of the land (mostly mountain), which is poor and can be tilled only with the spade ... in a report on the occupational training provided ... it was pointed out that farming was “the most natural and suitable employment for the boys”... The Report expressed disappointment with most of the residential school farms because they generally failed to teach farm management to the boys. They did not train the boys in farming but simply considered them as “juvenile labourers”. It would seem that the reason for this was the lack of people knowledgeable in the theory of farm management.

Trades were determined by the needs of the Institution and, for a small minority of boys who were lucky enough to be employed in an area of the School that offered future job prospects, this was an undoubted benefit. For example, one ex-resident who was in Letterfrack in the late 1950s spoke of the valuable experience he got working in the gardens and looking after the glasshouse. He said it opened up a ‘terrific kind of a job for me’. He had great freedom and he loved the work. Later on, he was put on the poultry farm with Br Dax. He said he learned everything to do with poultry farming, he liked it and he was good at it because he was interested in it.

Gardening could have provided a reasonable prospect of work for trained boys but, because the Institution only needed one or two gardeners, that is all that were trained. only that number received training.

Another complainant, who was resident from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s, said he worked in the bakery for a year or so and, following his discharge, he finished up working in a bakery in a neighbouring county. He said he got a basic grounding in the bakery and that jobs were arranged for him by the Brothers.

There were no more than three or four boys working in the bakery and this number was even further reduced in the 1960s. The bakery was run by an ex-pupil who would not have been in a position to offer any real training to the boys outside of the basic bread-making. Here again was a missed opportunity. Baking was a skill that could have ensured employment, but only those boys needed to serve the needs of the Institution worked in this area, and even they did not receive proper training.

The tailors did little more than make and repair the boys’ clothing. One ex-pupil from the early 1960s said he was in the tailor shop and learned how to use a needle and thread, but he did not feel he learned tailoring to the extent that he could consider it as a career option. He said he was removed from tailoring as he was not considered good enough.

Visitation Reports from the 1940s and 1950s made it clear that trades were expected to pay their way or to make a profit for the School. In 1947, the Visitor was critical of the fact that the tailor and shoemaker did little else than meet the necessities of the School. He noted that there was very good work being done in the various departments. He noted that the bread that was produced by the baker was very good, and there was a steady trade carried on with surrounding districts by the smiths and cartwrights.

Other potentially valuable trades were carpentry and painting but, again, the needs of the institution determined the way in which trades were taught and the number of boys engaged in them.

Although Visitors commented positively about trades between 1960 and 1964, it was noted that, by the end of 1964, trades had all but ceased in the School, with the exception of tailoring.

As mentioned above, In 1962, the Interdepartmental Committee on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders visited the School. The Working Group noted that the boys received some instruction in carpentry and tailoring from the tradesmen. However, it was noted that there were no qualified instructors in the School, nor was there any course to prepare the boys to sit for the Group Certificate of the Vocational Schools. It was highlighted that the main occupational work carried on by the boys was farming.