47 entries for School Manager

The writer commended him on the improvements he had made to the School, in particular to the kitchen and classrooms. He recommended the following innovations, which the Manager had no objection to, provided that they were funded by the Department: 1.Introduction of a small community of nuns to provide much-needed female influence on various aspects of industrial school life. 2.Creation of two separate schools for junior and senior boys. 3.Establishment of a hostel for boys leaving Artane who had been abandoned or orphaned.

Although boys might not always be formally assembled, the public nature of beatings administered where all the boys were assembled had a similar effect. This was particularly true at night time, when boys were punished in the washroom adjacent to the dormitories. One witness described a severe beating he received for absconding. The Manager turned off the radio that was playing in the dormitory and invited the rest of the boys who were in their beds to ‘now listen to some music’ as he brought the boy out to be beaten. His screams were heard throughout the dormitory.

The Superior did not reveal to the other Brothers the reason for Br Jean’s sudden departure. Br Sorel who served in Letterfrack at the time was angry: At the end of the year we were told that he was fired home, we were only told then by the Manager that he had been abusing two boys ... who used to go to the sacristy every night to prepare for the Mass for the next day for the Priest. I didn’t know at the time, none of us knew at the time what had been going on between himself and the two boys, ... the then Manager had said it was his duty to keep it secret and confidential. I was surprised last week when I heard somebody saying that everybody knew it, they didn’t. The boys didn’t know it because I would have found out easily from a number of the lads if that had happened.

From 1943 until 1947, the clothing of the boys was described as fairly good but very patched and torn. She was told that boots were difficult to obtain and the boys wore wooden clogs attached to leather uppers. In 1948 the Inspector noted that the quality of the clothing was ‘fairly good’ but that it required a lot of improvement and that the Manager had promised to provide new coats. She did not inspect the School again until 1951. Any improvement in the clothing was not evident, as she again commented ‘a lot of the clothing is patched – I asked the Manager to provide new material for clothes’. Later that year, she found the ‘clothing had improved on the whole’. Clothing was described by the Inspector as ‘fairly good’ in the early 1950s, with no other comments.

Br Sorel said that, when he told the Manager about the difficulty he was having, the Manager said: ‘we can’t do anything about it, do the best you can. That’s what I was told, “just do the best you can.” That was as much sympathy as I got’.

In 1954, the Inspector reported that the food was fairly good but was to be improved. She noted that the boys only received bread and tea at lunch. She reported that she had told that Manager to rectify this and to get some modern equipment.

In 1959, the Provincial wrote to the acting Manager and told him that he had visited the Resident Manager who was convalescing, and complained to him about the small quantities of porridge which the boys were provided with, and the fact that the boys had three meatless days in a week. Br Ruffe told the Provincial that he believed it to be only two days a week without meat. The Provincial asked Br Malleville, who was Disciplinarian in Letterfrack, to inquire into this discreetly and discover whether the boys had been having three dinners of bread and tea over a long period. He also said that the issue of the meat was one that required an immediate remedy. This internal inquiry found that the boys received meat every day, and the only days they would not have meat was during Easter and fasting days.

Significantly, the Inspector noted that the Manager had reported to the Interdepartmental Committee that ‘only 2 out of 114 boys (were) below average intelligence’ and he agreed with this assessment. The problem, therefore, was not the intelligence of the boys but their lack of educational opportunity before being sent to Letterfrack.

The parents of a boy detained in Letterfrack from 1970 to 1974 approached a number of public representatives one month after his detention to request their son be transferred to a school nearer his home. The School was not in favour and stated he had settled down and it would disrupt his education to transfer him. The Manager offered to facilitate a visit by the parents by bringing the boy to Galway.

One year later, the parents made further representations and the School was contacted to assess whether there was a change in circumstances. The Manager stated that he had no objection to a transfer to Ferryhouse if there was a vacancy there. The authorities in Ferryhouse were approached by the Department and they refused to take the transfer.

When that Resident Manager was replaced, Br Lisle reported the matter to his successor, Br Millard, who was only Resident Manager for a matter of weeks. He cannot remember what that Resident Manager said to him, but he accepted that he must not have been happy with his predecessor’s response. Br Lisle also told the Committee that he was with Br Millard on one occasion when a boy came up and said that Br Garon wanted him for a shower. He turned to Br Millard and told him that he thought there was more than just showering going on. It was crystal clear what was being alleged, but, according to Br Lisle, the boy probably still went for the shower. He said that his understanding was that the boys did not ‘like it and that they were trying to have it stopped, they didn’t want to be interfered with, as they said’. He thought Br Garon took these showers with the boys when they were taken from the yard, as opposed to during the normal Saturday night showers.

The annals go on to report that: In November 1950, about half of the livestock, valued at about £1,000, housed on the farm, belonged to [a local business man and a workman], from whom only £566 was received for them. ‘When a beast was killed neither the cutlets nor the offals was cooked for the boys. These portions appear to have been taken by the butcher and the plates (of beef) or the boney inferior parts of another beast (presumably the butcher’s) substituted. Even the first fruits of the vegetable garden were sold or rather given free at the butchers (greengrocers) shop while the boys could not be supplied’. The income on the vegetables for the six months ending 31st December 1949 was almost £53. The income for the six months ending 31st December 1950 was £200, which was spent on potatoes, which should have been retained, making the real income ‘nil’. The income for the six months to 31st December 1951, immediately after the Superior Resident Manager took control, was over £700. Monies were recovered, following the threat of legal proceedings. About one-third of the money taken in the sale of vegetables went to the boys. The farmyard was a ‘semi-hucksters shop’ and the boys were unable to weigh the potatoes and ‘gave bargains for a “tip”’. This state of affairs was being continued under two farm Brothers, until the Superior was compelled to intervene and have the second Brother removed, the first having already sought a change ‘before the improper transactions were known’. The Superior felt that it was an understatement to say that hundreds of pounds were lost over a period of three to four years, and wondered whether it could be counted in thousands. He noted that the boys were under-fed and denied vegetables whilst, at the same time, vegetables were on sale in the market and shops. The medical officer had noted that the vegetables were obtainable in town, but the boys could not get any.

Another internal Departmental memorandum noted that the Manager put great confidence in the boys under his care, and the Inspector said that it would be worthwhile recognising the course. A decision was made that the Inspector’s recommendation be accepted.

Tralee did not present a particularly edifying picture, but even with all of these shortcomings, it could still have offered a measure of comfort and security to the children, as was shown when one Resident Manager took an interest in the needs and welfare of the boys. When the atmosphere was right, the Brothers and boys could interact in a positive and supportive way.

The Resident Manager was central to the efficient running of the School. A poor manager affected every aspect of life for the boys: the quality of food, clothing, and care deteriorated rapidly if the Manager was inadequate.