884 entries for Government Department

In the mid-1960s, a report by an Inspector in the Department of Education observed that Br Hamlin8 ‘... besides having very defective speech, was very cross with the boys and was hitting them’. The Visitor the following year noted that Br Hamlin was ‘a bit hasty in his manner of dealing with the boys but with some experience he should be able to control himself’. Br Hamlin remained in the School until the early 1970s, when he was dispensed from his vows on the grounds that he did not like teaching and was not happy at it.

In 1994, the Christian Brothers commissioned a review of the management structures, care practices, care programmes, administrative practices, staff selection, training, deployment, supervision and liaison with teaching staff and parents. An interim report was issued followed this review. One of the issues identified in the report was the lack of reporting and communication structure between teachers in the School and the care staff of the residential units regarding each child. Problems were also noted in communicating information to parents. It was recommended that the Director of Residential Care should be the conduit for liaising and communicating information regarding children. The report said that there was a lack of information about children on admission to the School. It was also recommended that care staff should have professional qualifications, which was something that had previously been recommended in a 1977 report by the Department of Education on the Education of Physically Handicapped Children. The unsuitability of mixing younger children with older children in residences was also raised. Other recommendations included staff training programmes, care programmes geared towards the particular needs of younger children, and staff counselling. The issue of sexual abuse was not addressed in this report.

Firstly, the importance of this career of abuse is that it happened. Secondly, Mr Brander was able to continue teaching despite complaints to school authorities and subsequent investigations. Thirdly, his conduct was also known to other persons and agencies including the parish priest who was the manager of one school, the bishop of the diocese in which that school was located and the Department of Education. Yet another important element is the manner in which reports about the teacher were handled by the Department of Education. The elements of the events discussed here include: the teacher’s career of abuse; how the various school authorities responded to complaints about him; the other agencies that were notified or had knowledge of the abuse; the conduct of the Department of Education and its officials; and the contrast between theory and practice in official handling of complaints.

Mr Brander was appointed to Ballyfermot NS initially as third assistant teacher and, later, as vice-principal. In a letter to the Department of Education, Fr Harry,6 the school manager, sought approval for the recruitment of additional teachers, and advised that Mr Brander had the highest qualifications and would be an excellent vice-principal when the numbers justified such an appointment. Mr Brander left the school in the mid-1960s, having been absent due to illness for two months.

Mr Brander took up the position of principal at this national school in the mid-1960s. A parent complained to the Department of Education about Mr Brander’s excessive corporal punishment of her children: Dear Sir, I received a letter from your office ... accompanied by the regulations concerning corporal punishment in primary schools. I did not at the time send you any more details regarding the infliction of unnecessary punishment on schoolchildren as I really thought that matters would improve after the Manager ... had spoken to the principal concerned. Now I regret to say I have reached the end of my patience [I have five children attending Rath NS] their ages ranging from 13 yrs to 5 yrs. The three oldest aged 13 yrs, 11 yrs & 9 yrs are at present in the classroom attended by Mr [Brander] (Principal) and I do not hesitate in saying that my heart is broken simply trying to get them to go to school at all. This state of nerves on their part has been brought about through fear. Last week my eldest son ... returned to school after being absent 8 days as a result of severe flu when his temperature reached 104 degrees. Against my better judgment and the advice of our family doctor I sent him back to school and on his second day back he was subject to a severe beating on the head, and to day he has come home from school with the top of his small finger on the left hand showing definite bruising after being given 6 slaps with a hazel stick. Last week I made a complaint to the manager and he promised to talk it over with the teacher. All I can think now is that he hasn’t honoured his promise. During the end of last year it would be roughly around early December my little girl received 19 slaps from Thurs to Tues inclusive and also the side of her neck had severe bruising after which I wrote a letter to Mr [Brander] asking him not to have it happen again, however this request also seems to have been ignored and in my opinion it is time something was done to improve conditions for the pupils at Rath NS. It is not one of my principals to make trouble for anyone and I regret very much having to set down those complaints at all, but as I have already said something will have to be done about the aforesaid conditions. To conclude I can safely say that I am not the only mother who is having the same trouble, however it is up to the others to make their own complaints. Thanking you in anticipation and trusting there can be some amiable agreement reached on the subject. Yours ... [P.S. May I add that all this punishment is being given for mere failure at lessons which to me seems most unnecessary as I myself spend almost every evening from tea-time to bed-time helping the children in every way possible and I always make sure that all homework is duly done by them.]

An inspector from the Department of Education visited the school as a result of the complaint. While effectively dismissing the complaint, he noted that the Manager had advised him: that the teacher tended to be somewhat hot-tempered, that he had spoken to him about this and that he had promised not to be impatient in future. He also said that he was very satisfied with the teacher’s work in the school.

The pattern of physical abuse of girls that was described in letter of complaint from the boy’s mother to the Department of Education continued in Walsh Island NS. Eleven women who had been pupils of Mr Brander in this school made statements to the Gardaí. All describe violent daily punishment for failure at lessons and minor transgressions. They describe girls being punched about the head and other parts of the body, in many instances receiving injuries as a result. Many described how their parents felt helpless given Mr Brander’s standing in the community. One girl described how he would open letters of complaint at the front of the class, laugh and put them on a spike. Many recalled him openly fondling boys’ genitals at the front of the class. They described how he would sit on a high stool at the head of the class, a boy would be called to read and he was made stand between Mr Brander’s legs. Mr Brander would then put his hands in the boy’s pocket and fondle him.

Following his departure from Castlecomer, Mr Brander took up a teaching post in the all-girls secondary school in Tullamore. Sr Ines18 was principal at the time. She is now elderly and gave evidence to the Committee of her recollection of Mr Brander. In a letter to the Department of Education in the mid-1970s, she advised of the appointment of Mr Brander as a teacher in the School and stated that he was moving to the School for family reasons.

The Department of Education appointed a Board of Management to run the School from that date onwards.

At this time the thinking within the Department of Education was for drastic change, with the need for such measures an urgent priority. The Minister for Education, Mr Derrig, had paid a visit to Glencree and had ‘formed the opinion that it would be difficult to make the buildings suitable for their purpose’. Moreover, the memorandum added, ‘The management did not impress the Minister as being efficient or satisfactory’.

The Department had gone so far as to consult the Presentation Brothers about the matter, but the urgent need for economy forced the Department to ‘defer consideration of the proposal to change the Reformatory to new accommodation and management, and to try to get the premises at Glencree improved as much as possible’.

With the necessity of finding a replacement for Glencree, various options were investigated and, finally, a meeting was held on 17th November 1939, attended by the Taoiseach, Eamon De Valera (who was also the Minister for Education), the Provincial of the Oblates, the Manager of Glencree and the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education. Fr Giancarlo,2 the Resident Manager of Glencree, put a temporary solution forward that was to become a permanent one, which was that accommodation might be found at Daingean, if other provision could be made for the students there at present. Daingean was held by the Oblates on a 99-year lease from the Government. The surrounding farm was owned outright by the Congregation. Fr Giancarlo explained that the buildings at Daingean had been considerably improved and the former dormitory accommodation remained. Since the premises at present housed about 170 students and staff, he thought that should be sufficient for the Reformatory for a time.

Far from being what the Department of Education wanted, ‘a new institution, properly equipped’, offering ‘... better accommodation and under different management’, the Reformatory moved from one old barracks that was always in need of extensive repairs to another old barracks in need of extensive building and upkeep, and under the same management.

When the terms of this agreement were put to the Department of Finance, strong objections were raised. The letter sent by Mr J. E. Hanna, Assistant Secretary at the Department of Finance, is worth quoting in full: Dear O’Dubhthaigh, I have read your letter of the 25th ultimo regarding the question of new accommodation for the Boys’ Reformatory School. The information contained therein raises a number of points which, I think, it would be well to have clarified before even tentative approval is given to the proposals outlined in your letter. 1.As you are aware, the Daingean premises are State property but the Oblate Order were given a 99-year lease of them, with the option to determine the lease at 7-year intervals. If the Daingean premises are to be used for the purposes of a reformatory, will it be necessary to determine the existing lease? That lease provides that any improvements effected during the term of the lease will enure to the State on the surrender of the lease. In the circumstances, there would seem to be a case for not making any grant to the Order in respect of improvements effected since 1932. Apart from this question, the responsibility of the Order in regard to maintenance, improvement, etc., of the premises in the future would have to be clearly defined. When the Reformatory was situated previously at Daingean the Oblate Order were responsible for repairs, maintenance, etc. I assume that a similar responsibility will devolve upon them in the future, if Daingean is again used as a boys’ reformatory. If not, it may be necessary to consider a reduction of the State grants. 2.I cannot say that I can see any convincing reason for the proposal that the State should purchase the Oblates’ farm. It may be that you contemplate that, in the event of the lease of the buildings being surrendered so as to allow their reversion to the State, the State should assume ownership of the farm as well, the Oblate Order standing in the position of agents of the Minister for Education in regard to the conduct of the Reformatory. If that should be the position and the State should purchase the farm, it would seem reasonable that any profit arising on the farm should accrue to the State. In this connection I note that, in 1927, £567 was realised from the sale of farm produce, after the needs of the Institution had been met. Unless the annual surplus on the farm were to accrue to the State it would seem that the State would be paying twice over for the farm. As the grants should enable the Reformatory to be conducted in a satisfactory manner, the profits on the farm should not be diverted to the Order. 3.As regards the debts on Glencree, it is possibly the case that they have mainly arisen in consequence of the inadequacy of the State and local grants in the past. To the extent, however, that they may be due to improvements at Glencree, the benefit of which will accrue to the Order, I think it only fair that the State should be relieved of that portion of the debt. 4.Have you considered what the position of the State in relation to the Reformatory premises, etc., will be in the event of the Order deciding at any time in the future to discontinue the work? I assume that, if such a contingency should arise, the buildings, with the furniture, equipment, etc., which have been bought from State Funds would revert to the State, free of all claim by the Order. 5.It seems to me that the Oblate Order see considerable advantage to themselves in the transfer of their Novitiate to Kilkenny. I assume that the proposal that Daingean should be used as a reformatory in the future came from the Order. 6.In furnishing these observations, I am at the disadvantage that I do not know what you intend should be the position of the State vis a vis the Order in regard to the Reformatory premises, and the farm. The position does not seem to be quite clear, and my observations are directed mainly with the object of anticipating difficulties in the matter, which may arise at a later stage. I shall be glad to hear further from you at your convenience. Yours sincerely, J.E. Hanna

In July 1945, Mr Ó Síochfhradha,6 the Department of Education Inspector, listed the staff at the School: The school staff consists of the Manager together with the Chaplain, 16 Brothers, 2 lay teachers, 1 tailor, 1 shoemaker, 3 farm workers, 1 teacher of Physical Education (part-time). Each Brother has his own responsibility – one in the kitchen, one in the shoemaker room, one in the woodwork room, two in the bog, one in charge of the cattle, two or three on the farm and so on, each in charge of a group of boys.