Chapter 9 — Clifden

Neglect

She also alleged that she was taken out of class to take care of young children. The second witness, who was committed to Clifden in the early 1960s and spent just over a year there, described the Sister who taught her as vicious. She had a bamboo cane, which she used with great zeal if the children did not know their lessons. She concentrated on religious studies. She alleged that they spent more time trying to avoid beatings than learning.

The Congregation denied that there was an emphasis on religious studies and that children were taken out of class to engage in domestic chores.

Another former resident in Clifden, who was committed in the late 1950s at the age of 10 and remained there until she was discharged at the age of 16, also alleged that she often worked in the nursery during school hours. She stated that the standard of her education did not improve on what she had been taught prior to being committed. The school records indicate that her reading, writing and calculation were ‘basic’ when she came to the School, but she insisted that her abilities in these areas were very good at this stage. She also asserted that, when she sat the Primary Certificate, all of the children copied from each other with the full knowledge of the supervising Department inspectors. The Congregation submits that this latter allegation is utterly implausible.

A complainant who spent her childhood in Clifden during the 1960s and 1970s gave evidence in relation to the Sister who taught her in 6th class: we were terrified of her because she was very cruel. I used to be dreading going into her class because she used to teach in 6th class and I spend years dreading going into her class because I feared that she would punish me.

When she finally did go into 6th class, she found that she was not afraid of the teacher. In fact, the Sister ignored her completely in class because she gave backchat on one occasion. She does not recall ever being beaten by her, nor witnessing another child being beaten in class. However, the witness does recall Sr Elana ‘lashing’ children for attempting to run away. She stated that this Sister had a reputation of targeting the industrial school children for punishment.

This respondent, Sr Elana, remembered the complainant as a quiet girl. She accepted that she was strict in class but maintained that this was necessary to preserve order. When the two national schools merged in 1969, she felt that some of the industrial school children would have benefited from remedial teaching which was not available at that time. She did not have any time to give special attention to pupils in need.

Another Sister, Sr Carmella, felt that the School was under-staffed. The children did not achieve as well academically as their peers in Scoil Mhuire.

She said that no real efforts were made to deal with the fact that the industrial school children were behind educationally in comparison with the pupils in Scoil Mhuire. She helped them with their study in the afternoons and another Sister, who was partially blind, helped with reading, spelling and tables, but that was the extent of the assistance given. She stated that they did eventually catch up with the other pupils. Ultimately, the amalgamation improved them in every way, ‘Their outlook, their behaviour and everything. They learned from the other children’.

Despite the apparent emphasis on educating the children, most of them were destined for a life in some sort of domestic service. Sr Carmella’s explanation was that such an outcome was never questioned: ‘I think the order of the day was that in the end of it they were going to end up as domestics’. Sr Roberta, who held the position as Resident Manager until 1969, decided who would go on to secondary school. She would have liked to have seen more children go on to further education.

Sr Carmella stated that chores did not interfere with their schooling and were carried out before and after school. Girls between 14 and 16 years of age took part in a domestic economy course. The children were taught music after school and there was an emphasis on musical education in the School. She was not of the view that inordinate pressure was put on the children with regard to their performance for the Christmas concert and thought that they quite enjoyed the preparations.

She denied that there was a marked emphasis on religious education over other subjects, and stated that half an hour every day was given towards religious education. The School followed the national school curriculum and was subject to Department inspections.

On the question why the children did not fare better academically, the Congregation submitted that the following factors should be taken into account: The psychological and emotional state of these vulnerable children, as well as the effects of institutionalisation, which would have had repercussions on their ability to learn. The pre-existing standard of education of children who were older when committed. The absence of remedial facilities. The effects of corporal punishment and such practices as wearing a dunce’s hat. The absence of motivation where there were no post-primary educational opportunities and the emphasis in the industrial training provided focused largely on a future in domestic service. The gap between what the prescribed curriculum offered and the needs of children in institutional care.

The standard of education in Clifden was below that available in local national schools. The failure to amalgamate the children with local children for national schooling caused disadvantage, both socially and educationally. The interests of the local community and the Congregation were placed ahead of those of the children in care. Excessive corporal punishment had a damaging effect on institutionalised children. It would appear that children in Clifden were regarded as suitable for domestic work and trained accordingly. The Congregation was correct to draw attention to the ‘effects of corporal punishment and such practices as wearing a dunce’s hat’. Chores/Industrial training

Sr Casey confirmed that children had to rise early in the morning, on a rota basis, to light the furnaces and fires. This practice stopped when central heating was installed in the School in the early 1950s.

The children did various chores around the School and, when old enough, assisted in the laundry and bakery and on the farm. She did not accept, based on the enquiries she made, that the children engaged in heavy-duty work on the farm. The extent of their involvement would have been limited to collecting eggs, cleaning the hen-house and making butter. She conceded that the work in the laundry was hard until the 1960s, when machinery was introduced. She did not accept that children were taken out of school to assist with domestic chores.