10,992 entries for Inspections - State
BackThis hostility to home leave emerged most strongly when, in 1949, the Department of Education proposed to extend the maximum period to six weeks in a calendar year. Just seven schools were in favour of the proposal and 37 were against it, including Glin. The Resident Managers, in a letter dated 7th June 1949, stated their reasons in very clear terms: It was pointed out that when the children return from Home Leave there is always a marked disimprovement in manners and conduct; they are often very discontented, impatient of control, and physically and morally upset. All this is highly detrimental to the general spirit of the School, and it takes children quite a long time to settle down again to the ordinary routine. Numbers of them return ill-fed and sickly, in an unkempt condition, with clothes in a filthy condition. It takes weeks to get rid of the vermin. Sometimes their language is vile, having picked it up in undesirable quarters. And for some such considerations some Managers suggested that instead of extending the Home Leave period, it should be shortened. Industrial School children generally belong to the poorest families and the home conditions are often most unsuitable and undesirable. It was mentioned where a family of eight lived and slept in one room; also where a father, two girls and a boy slept in the one bed, while the mother, dying of T.B. was in a corner in a bed supplied by the Corporation. A high percentage of these children are illegitimate and their mothers are not just what they should be; others have been the victims of circumstances getting into trouble because parents or guardians failed to exercise proper control. And as it was by order of the Court that these children were committed to the Schools, it stands to reason it would not be for their betterment to allow them to return to such undesirable conditions for protracted periods. It was also said that children who could with safety be allowed six weeks’ Home Leave should not be in any Industrial School; they should be discharged to their homes and not be allowed to be parasites living on public moneys.
While many of these points may have been true, the tone of the letter shows very little understanding of the need for family contact. In Submissions, the Christian Brothers commented: The general unsuitability of the children’s homes on account of poverty, overcrowding, and lack of parental control also figured among the reasons for opposing the proposal and some Managers (number not given) even suggested that shortening of home leave would be a better option.
They added there was ‘genuine concern for the children in the opposition to extending home leave’.
boys passed through the School between 1940 and 1966. Forty percent (308) of these boys were discharged to members of their family. According to the Dunleavy Report, the School Register showed that the boys were discharged to the following relatives:<br><table><colgroup><col></col><col></col><col></col><col></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th></th>
 <th><strong>1940–1947</strong></th>
 <th><strong>1947–1966</strong></th>
 <th><strong>Total</strong></th>
 </tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Discharged to father</td>
 <td>50</td>
 <td>79</td>
 <td>129</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Discharged to mother</td>
 <td>35</td>
 <td>60</td>
 <td>95</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Discharged to parents</td>
 <td>20</td>
 <td>7</td>
 <td>27</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Discharged to aunt</td>
 <td>7</td>
 <td>11</td>
 <td>18</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Discharged to grandmother</td>
 <td>5</td>
 <td>5</td>
 <td>10</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Discharged to uncle</td>
 <td>4</td>
 <td>10</td>
 <td>14</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Discharged to sister</td>
 <td>4</td>
 <td></td>
 <td>4</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Discharged to grandfather</td>
 <td>4</td>
 <td></td>
 <td>4</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Discharged to brother</td>
 <td>2</td>
 <td>5</td>
 <td>7</td>
 </tr><tr><td>SUBTOTAL<br></br></td>
 <td>131</td>
 <td>177</td>
 <td>308</td>
 </tr></tbody></table>
As can be seen, 81% of those discharged to a relative went to a parent or parents.
According to the Dunleavy Report, aftercare beyond one year was provided to boys as follows:<br><table><colgroup><col></col><col></col><col></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th><strong>Years</strong></th>
 <th><strong>Boys receiving more than 1 year aftercare</strong></th>
 <th><strong>%</strong></th>
 </tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1940–1947</td>
 <td>68</td>
 <td>18%</td>
 </tr><tr><td>1947–1966<br></br></td>
 <td>61</td>
 <td>15%</td>
 </tr></tbody></table>
It is likely that most of these boys were discharged to places of employment, and had no relatives to look after them. The Brother in charge of aftercare made notes on pay, living conditions and contentedness of the boy.
Records were kept of the kinds of employment found for the boys. The following table taken from the Dunleavy Report covers the period:<br><table><colgroup><col></col><col></col><col></col><col></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th><strong>Employment</strong></th>
 <th><strong>1940–1947</strong></th>
 <th><strong>1947</strong>–<strong>1966</strong></th>
 <th><strong>Total</strong></th>
 </tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Farm boy</td>
 <td>87</td>
 <td>76</td>
 <td>163</td>
 </tr><tr><td>House boy</td>
 <td>21</td>
 <td>43</td>
 <td>64</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Hotel worker</td>
 <td>10</td>
 <td>16</td>
 <td>26</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Boot maker*</td>
 <td>7</td>
 <td>3</td>
 <td>10</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Shop boy</td>
 <td>5</td>
 <td>1</td>
 <td>6</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Tailor*</td>
 <td>4</td>
 <td>1</td>
 <td>5</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Religious order*</td>
 <td></td>
 <td>3</td>
 <td>3</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Cook*</td>
 <td></td>
 <td>2</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Builders labourer</td>
 <td>1</td>
 <td>1</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Blacksmith*</td>
 <td>1</td>
 <td></td>
 <td>1</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Monumental sculptor*</td>
 <td></td>
 <td>1</td>
 <td>1</td>
 </tr><tr><td><strong>Subtotal</strong><br></br></td>
 <td><strong>136</strong></td>
 <td><strong>147</strong></td>
 <td><strong>283</strong></td>
 </tr></tbody></table>
89% of the boys went into unskilled work on farms, or as houseboys or hotel workers. 16 boys between 1947 and 1966 went on to join the Army. A further 14 were charged with criminal offences.
The Congregation in its Submissions made the point that trade unions had made it difficult for boys to enter trades. However, a number of Visitation Reports pointed out that the limited trades taught were effectively useless to the boys upon leaving the Institution, as they were dictated by the requirements of the School rather than the kind of training that would prepare the boys for work.
The Submissions made by the Congregation on issues of neglect of the boys in Glin drew attention first to the General Inspection Reports of the Department of Education, which it stated were generally very favourable. It said that the process of inspection as carried out by Dr Anna McCabe was thorough and had good follow-up. At the end of each inspection, Dr McCabe made recommendations orally to the Manager of the School, which were then followed up by a letter from the Department, formally listing the recommendations. The process came to a close with a letter of confirmation from the Manager that the required alterations and improvements had been made. The Congregation contend that the Resident Manager responded promptly to the Department’s requirements, following both General Inspection Reports and Medical Inspection Reports. The reality, however, is that the Department Inspections were a good deal less effective than the Congregation’s description would suggest.
The Congregation also drew attention to favourable entries in the Visitation Reports. They included the statement in 1946 that the boys were well clothed and fed, and in 1949 and 1950 there were favourable comments about the variety and quantity of food.
The Submissions pointed out that Inspection Reports recorded improvements in recreational and cultural facilities, as well as holiday arrangements, from the end of the 1940s. Visitation Reports and Community annals also reported the provision of a variety of facilities. As against that, the Reports which were quoted at paras 1.147 and 1.149 above drew attention to the lack of recreation for the boys in Glin and that life was tedious for them.
The Brothers cited documentary records, indicating the availability of cultural and sporting activities. These included a choir, dancing classes, an orchestra, drama and boxing.
In respect of education, it was pointed out that, from 1952 onwards, small numbers of boys in each year attended outside secondary school or vocational school.