4,228 entries for Historical Context

Complaints involving lay staff were also recalled. A number of complainants stated that they had been sexually abused by night-watchmen. A number of complaints also talked about peer abuse in this context. They described such abuse as being rampant, with the older boys often sexually abusing the younger ones.

The biggest complaint with regard to the deaf and special schools was the poor level of education received. That said, opinions differed and some individuals felt institutions offered them great educational opportunities they would otherwise have been denied.

The overriding feeling from the interviews, however, was that these institutions had let them down in terms of their education and many felt lasting effects on their adult lives.

There were a number of issues unique to the deaf schools. A lot of these complainants took issue with the prevalence of ‘oralism’ as the method of teaching. Most of the children were taught in this way but a large number of the complainants described how they struggled to get to grips with this method of teaching and fell behind in their education as a result. ‘Signing’ was forbidden and children could be physically punished if they were caught ‘signing’. The strapping of hands was another method used to prevent children from ‘signing’.

The deaf and dumb children were allowed to use ‘signing’. However, as they were in the minority they felt stigmatised by this. Further to this, the partially deaf students were segregated from the profoundly deaf students and a number of these complainants described being looked upon as stupid and felt that the other children were favoured.

Some of the children in the special schools felt that they had been misdiagnosed and sent to the wrong type of institution. As a consequence they complained that they struggled to fulfil their potential while in these schools.

In general, the majority of interviewees were very unhappy with the standard of education. Many complainants recalled being called stupid and being terrified of making a mistake in school for fear of punishment. The environment of fear and punishment in these schools stifled their ability to learn. As a result, many stated that they struggled finding employment and had difficulty with some of basic tasks in their every day lives such as reading and writing.

Physical and emotional abuse and neglect were features of the institutions. Sexual abuse occurred in many of them, particularly boys’ institutions. Schools were run in a severe, regimented manner that imposed unreasonable and oppressive discipline on children and even on staff.

The system of large-scale institutionalisation was a response to a nineteenth century social problem, which was outdated and incapable of meeting the needs of individual children. The defects of the system were exacerbated by the way it was operated by the Congregations that owned and managed the schools. This failure led to the institutional abuse of children where their developmental, emotional and educational needs were not met.

The deferential and submissive attitude of the Department of Education towards the Congregations compromised its ability to carry out its statutory duty of inspection and monitoring of the schools. The Reformatory and Industrial Schools Section of the Department was accorded a low status within the Department and generally saw itself as facilitating the Congregations and the Resident Managers.

The capital and financial commitment made by the religious Congregations was a major factor in prolonging the system of institutional care of children in the State. From the mid 1920s in England, smaller more family-like settings were established and they were seen as providing a better standard of care for children in need. In Ireland, however, the Industrial School system thrived.

The system of funding through capitation grants led to demands by Managers for children to be committed to Industrial Schools for reasons of economic viability of the institutions.

The system of inspection by the Department of Education was fundamentally flawed and incapable of being effective. The Inspector was not supported by a regulatory authority with the power to insist on changes being made. There were no uniform, objective standards of care applicable to all institutions on which the inspections could be based. The Inspector’s position was compromised by lack of independence from the Department. Inspections were limited to the standard of physical care of the children and did not extend to their emotional needs. The type of inspection carried out made it difficult to ascertain the emotional state of the children. The statutory obligation to inspect more than 50 residential schools was too much for one person. Inspections were not random or unannounced: School Managers were alerted in advance that an inspection was due. As a result, the Inspector did not get an accurate picture of conditions in the schools. The Inspector did not ensure that punishment books were kept and made available for inspection even though they were required by the regulations. The Inspector rarely spoke to the children in the institutions.

Many witnesses who complained of abuse nevertheless expressed some positive memories: small gestures of kindness were vividly recalled. A word of consideration or encouragement, or an act of sympathy or understanding had a profound effect. Adults in their sixties and seventies recalled seemingly insignificant events that had remained with them all their lives. Often the act of kindness recalled in such a positive light arose from the simple fact that the staff member had not given a beating when one was expected.

More kindness and humanity would have gone far to make up for poor standards of care.