Chapter 1 — Department of Education

Part 4 The Cussen Commission

In earlier decades, some individual trade unions seem to have had a policy of preventing employers from recognising such training, or counting it as part of apprenticeship, and giving jobs on the basis of it, thus in large measure rendering it pointless (Cussen Report, para 123). The trade unions were presumably protecting their members by upholding the traditional means of entry. However in 1968 the Department of Education was advised by the Department of Labour that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was concerned that career guidance and apprenticeship training did not appear to be receiving sufficient attention in the schools judging by the attainments of the ex-pupils of Industrial Schools in later life. They recommended the establishment of fully trained career guidance officers and the re-assessment of apprenticeship training.

• Cussen had stated that the whole system of training had needed revision. What followed, however, in terms of Departmental policy was a piecemeal set of circulars, and advisory actions which resulted in little change. In a statement to the Commission in 2006 the Department acknowledges that it did not give this matter ‘sufficient attention’.

The Cussen Commission were deeply unhappy with the schools’ provision of aftercare, which was intended to support the placing of children in trades and occupations for which they have received training in the schools. The Christian Brothers were cited as particularly negligent in their duties: We are not satisfied as to the adequacy of the methods of supervision and aftercare of children discharged from these schools, particularly in the case of boys leaving the Industrial Schools which are under the management of the Christian Brothers.

Figures taken from the Cussen Report for the years 1932-33 illustrate what happened to both boys and girls who left Reformatories and Industrial Schools after their periods of detention:

Occurrence after discharge	Industrial Schools	Reformatories
Returned home	148	14
Sent to employment	552	5
Retained awaiting employment	30	0
Recalled by Manager	26	0
Returned of own accord	39	4
Could not be traced	2	4
Total	730	19

Both of these tables show that a quarter of boys and a quarter of girls did not move from the schools into employment, with a large proportion returning home at the end of their detention. Aftercare was deemed especially important by the Cussen Commission as it was seen as a way of assisting the boys and girls who received poor occupational training.

The Report acknowledged the difficulties in securing employment in the skilled trades even for children who did not attend Industrial Schools and commented on the large numbers of Industrial Schools boys who gained work as agricultural or farm labourers regardless of their trade. Consequently Cussen advocated the payment of a capitation grant by the State towards the cost of apprenticeship. Several reasons were put forward as to why this system was so disorganised, including the idea that Managers did not fully appreciate their responsibilities in this area. Cussen suggested that school Managers take a more proactive role in securing employment for their students. This included establishing communication with the local labour exchange to determine what types of trade were in demand. In addition it was suggested that the Manager should explain to the children that if they faced any difficulties during the statutory period of aftercare they were entitled to return to the school in seek of help or advice

In 1952 at a meeting with representatives of the Department of Education and Justice McCarthy of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, Fr Reidy, Resident Manager of Daingean, stated the there was ‘Not much done in aftercare’ and expressed his views as to why the boys had difficulty securing employment: Lads now are much lasier [sic] and more apathetic to work than 20 years ago. This problem is partly a result of social welfare schemes. (It is) important therefore to get them to work at anything at all.

In response Justice McCarthy suggested that it was this thinking, i.e. that ‘getting them work at ‘anything’ was perhaps to some extent the cause of the trouble’. Justice McCarthy also suggested the establishment of a hostel for the boys to enable them to adjust to life after the institution. However Fr Reidy disagreed, saying that it was a better option to break up the association amongst the boys after they left Daingean.

In August, 1966, a letter to the Minister for Education from Minister for Justice, stated ...I am suggesting that you, coming to the problems with a fresh mind, might have a look at the industrial schools system. I have no doubt that the lack of proper after-care is a grievous fault in the system and that there are ample resources of voluntary assistance only waiting to be harnessed and guided. I think that a vigorous approach to the managers of the industrial schools – individually or collectively would make it extremely difficult for them to maintain a negative attitude.

The file shows a reply from the Minister for Education stating that he would have a good look at the Industrial School system and would be in touch. A few months later, the Kennedy Committee was set up, by the Minister for Education.

Thirty years after the publication of the Cussen Report, a Department of Education memo to the Minister of Finance highlighted the lack of progress in the area of aftercare stated, ‘In general, with the exception of Artane, they (the schools) lack any kind of aftercare or organisation’.

Part 5 The inspection system

From the late 1920s until the mid 1960s there were three types of inspection. Firstly, there was the educational inspection, which was concerned with education in the National School. Secondly, there was a medical inspection performed by the Medical Inspector. Thirdly, there were general inspections to ascertain the quality of residential care provided for the children, which were sometimes carried out by the official in charge of the Reformatory and Industrial School Branch, but were generally done by the Medical Inspector at the same times as the medical inspection. While there were occasions, particularly in the early 1940s, where general and medical inspections were held separately, a trend developed over time where both would be carried out simultaneously in the one visit by the same Department inspector. The Department’s archive of medical and general inspections shows that, from 1939 to 1965, Dr McCabe carried out the medical inspections and the majority of the general inspections of the Industrial and Reformatory Schools.

Following Dr McCabe’s retirement in 1965 the Department of Education left the post of Medical Inspector unfilled until the appointment of Mr Graham Granville in 1976. In the intervening decade a number of changes took place. In the absence of a dedicated Medical Inspector, inspections were initially augmented by, and then replaced with, medical reports by medical officers retained by each individual school. From 1961 to 1963, these medical reports were submitted to the Department on a quarterly basis. From 1963 to 1978, the medical reports were submitted on a twice-yearly basis.

The benchmarks for standards of residential care were set out in the Rules and Regulations that were issued to school Managers by the Department on certification. Department circulars were issued from time to time to supplement them.

The general inspection covered premises including playground, dormitory, kitchen; living conditions generally such as clothing or diet; as well as staff and accounts. The report was based in part on a printed checklist with entries for accommodation, equipment, sanitation, health, food and diet, clothing, recreation facilities and precautions against fire. The reports were impressionistic in character – they were structured so as to give a general account of conditions within a school, dealing generally with the quality of residential care provided and the condition of the children. They left out everyday treatment, including corporal punishment. They did not give detailed information and did not deal with policy matters.