Chapter 6 — Sisters of Mercy

The number of Sisters available for work in an industrial school depended on the size of the Community. During the Emergence hearings, Sr Breege O’Neill discussed staffing levels: I think that remained constant in the years between 1935 and 1965. In each of our industrial schools there would have been between 100 and 150 children in the schools. There would have been two or three Sisters, one of whom would have been the resident manager, and maybe another one who would have been working full-time in the school or in some other area. They may have had one or two lay staff ... The people with responsibility for the care of the children would have been four or five people. They would have been on duty seven days a week, 24 hours a day. I know of Sisters who told me of having six little cots around her bed at night of children who needed feeding during the night. That would have been a practice. So they were caring for the children over the whole course of the day.

She was asked how the staffing level of four staff to about 120 residents evolved. She replied, ‘My understanding was that that was probably informed by the understanding of the time’.

Her comments were borne out by the evidence. In Goldenbridge, there were usually only two Sisters involved in the Industrial School: the Sister in Charge and the Assistant Sister. The other nuns from the convent would assist in particular activities, but did not play a large role in the day-to-day operation of the School. In Cappoquin, up to four Sisters worked full-time in the Industrial School and, in Newtownforbes, only two Sisters worked full-time in the School from the mid-1940s to the 1960s. In Dundalk, two Sisters worked full-time in the School and were assisted by a third Sister when numbers were high.

Industrial schools run by the Sisters of Mercy were heavily reliant on assistance from senior girls and lay staff. Former pupils of the Industrial School were retained after their periods of detention, and they carried out various supervisory duties, either in a paid or unpaid capacity. In Goldenbridge, some of these girls were offered employment in the School only because they were unable to work outside the convent.

The lack of formal training for Sisters working in industrial schools was a significant feature of the evidence of Sisters and former Sisters. In Goldenbridge, when asked whether she had received any training in childcare, Sr Alida4 said ‘None whatsoever. I think you had to use your own head’. She added: Well I suppose doing my teacher training I did my share of child psychology. I wouldn’t say that would have qualified me for the work I undertook in Goldenbridge. I had no idea that such a place as Goldenbridge existed when I was training up or when I was coming out to it either.

Other Sisters who worked in the School expressed similar sentiments. Sr Gianna5 said that she had received no training whatsoever, although she thought that her previous work with children in the Girl Guides might have been a factor in her being sent to Goldenbridge. In her evidence at the Phase I hearing in the Newtownforbes investigation, Sr Margaret Casey stated: The Sisters themselves would not, as I said earlier, have had any kind of formal training in childcare, actually such training didn’t exist until the 70s. So most of the Sisters there would have had a background in secondary education before they entered. Subsequently they would have received some training, some of them, obviously the primary school teachers would have qualified as primary school teachers. Some of the Sisters working in the Industrial School did diplomas and certificates to Ceidi and Lough Gill and home economics and housewifery, that area. I know that one of the Sisters in 1953 attended an institutional management course that was run in Carysfort. She subsequently was full-time working in the Industrial School. One Sister also trained as a children’s nurse.

In the Clifden hearings, Sr Olivia6 told the Committee that the only training that she ever received was ‘in 1974, 1975. We did an in service course in Dublin and we would go up every Friday evening and come down Saturday evening’.

The Congregation identified lack of training as one of the features of the industrial school system which contributed to the suffering of children in their care, but attempted to mitigate this by pointing out that there was no course in childcare training in Ireland until the 1970s. They also noted that most of the individual Sisters of Mercy who worked in the industrial schools run by the Congregation had a secondary school education, and others went on to train as nurses, primary school teachers or secondary school teachers.

In the Phase I hearing into Goldenbridge, Sr Helena O’Donoghue, Provincial Leader of the South Central Province, said: Each of the five Sisters who acted as Sisters in charge and involved in the Industrial School were professionally trained teachers at Carysfort Training College, which was a significant feature in the Dublin Mercy Community. Sr Bianca also had qualifications and certifications in domestic economy, cookery, needlework and household management. These Sisters also were supported by other Sisters as I have said, but who might not necessarily have any had particular training. Those who worked in the kitchen were qualified cooks and others would have taken short courses in household management.

In her 1953 lecture on childcare management mentioned above, the Resident Manager of Goldenbridge, Sr Bianca, made important points about the needs of children in care. She said that children coming from underprivileged backgrounds should be met with sympathy and gentleness. ‘Drastic remedies’ for head lice, such as cutting off hair, should not be necessary, particularly when there were remedies on the market at a very reasonable price. Children should be divided into small groups, including at meal times, to promote an intimate family atmosphere. She added that ‘formal marshalling and regimentation must be avoided’. Whilst there should be an emphasis on domestic training, there was no reason why girls should not follow a commercial or other career path if they had the necessary talent.

She proposed that every child should help with small jobs and chores about the home. They should be encouraged to be creative, and arts and crafts teachers deployed. Dressing the children uniformly should be discouraged. There was no reason why they could not be sensibly and attractively dressed.

She advised that children should be allowed a considerable amount of supervised freedom. They should be allowed to go to the local shop, and older girls permitted to go into town on the bus to run errands.

In addition, she considered that a large playground and hall were a necessity. A field for sports should be made available. Senior girls should have their own sitting room. She felt that music should be encouraged, both playing instruments and singing as well as listening to music on the radio. Dancing should be also encouraged. Caring for pets was another useful occupation for children.

Sr Bianca also felt that the Manager should possess skill and judgement, ‘have a strong personality, without being overbearing or dictatorial ... and above all, she must be strictly impartial’. Furthermore, those charged with the care of such children should have a keen interest in their work and possess the requisite experience and knowledge of psychology.

The fact that Sr Bianca was asked to deliver the lecture is evidence that she was highly regarded as a childcare expert, and the lecture expressed an enlightened and progressive view of childcare in the 1950s. Sr Bianca knew how a good institution should be run, and her lecture provides a standard against which Goldenbridge and other Sisters of Mercy industrial schools may be judged. Moreover, these progressive views demonstrated the principles that could have been inculcated in generations of carers, if training had been provided, with potentially dramatic consequences for children in care.