Abstract
This chapter is concerned with the role of William J. Starkie, the Resident Commissioner of National Education, who brought a spirit, energy, vitality, and dogged tenacity to bear in his embracement of the findings of the Belmore Commission. A novice in education administration, his outlook was not affected by preconceived ideas. He valued the opinions and judgements of those already heavily committed to education reform. He did not accept blindly, however, the biased judgements of others. Rather, he found through his own experience that the concerns publicly declared regarding the Education Office were well-founded. He approached the challenge of his position with enthusiasm, verve, and a clear mind. That is considered, first in relation to his organizing to give effect to the recommendations of the Belmore Commission, secondly, in relation to his public pronouncements on the benefits of his plans, and finally on how he dealt with objections to his style of administration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
W. J. M. Starkie, Recent Reforms in Irish Education Primary and Secondary with a View to Their Co-ordination (Dublin: Blackie, 1902), p. 13.
- 2.
P. E. Lemass, Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 451.
- 3.
E. Starkie, A Lady’s Child.
- 4.
Second Report of the Dill Committee.
- 5.
Ibid.
- 6.
Ibid.
- 7.
Ibid., p. 451.
- 8.
Ibid.
- 9.
Ibid., p. 421.
- 10.
Ibid., p. 385. Judge Shaw, a member of the National Board, was not among those closely involved in the construction of the memorandum but was consulted by Starkie, to whom he wrote: “Only have read through memorandum - not studied it carefully yet. I approve of it in its broad outlines, but its details require much discussion and explanation”. SP 9209 no. 506, 13 November 1899.
- 11.
Second Report to the Dill Committee, p. 284. This meeting was held on 26 July 1899.
- 12.
Appendix XXX, Second Report of the Dill Committee.
- 13.
P. F. O’Donovan, ‘The National School Inspectorate and Its Administrative Context in Ireland, 1870–1962’, p. 248. Starkie asserted that prior to his appointment the Board was determined to sever the connection between the office and the inspection staff. Confidential Statement of Evidence submitted to the Dill Committee, p. 2.
- 14.
Under the system before 1899 the chiefs of inspection received a salary of £650 rising to a maximum of £750 per annum, while the secretaries received £1000 and £800 per annum. Under the reorganised system of 1900, the chief inspectors received £750 rising to a maximum of £800 per annum, while the secretaries’ salaries were reduced to £750. Consequently the chief inspectors were the most highly paid officials of the Board, and the appointment to secretaryship would not remain a financially rewarding position.
- 15.
P. F. O’Donovan, op. cit.
- 16.
Ibid. The reform of the inspectorate reduced the number of inspectors from 86 to 68.
- 17.
The Stanley letter of 1831 had conferred absolute control over expenditure on the Board of Commissioners. However, this had been effectively nullified under the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866, which transferred much of the decision-making powers to the Treasury. See A. Hyland, ‘An Analysis of the Administration and Financing of National and Secondary Education in Ireland, 1850 to 1922’.
- 18.
S. Ó Buachalla, op. cit.
- 19.
D. H. Akenson, op. cit., pp. 324–329.
- 20.
S. Ó Buachalla, op. cit., p. 27.
- 21.
A. Hyland, ‘The Treasury and Irish Education: 1850–1922: The Myth and the Reality’, Irish Educational Studies 3 (1983): 57.
- 22.
P. H. Gosden, The Development of Educational Administration in England and Wales (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978).
- 23.
S. Ó Buachalla, op. cit.
- 24.
The Boer War cost £270,000,000.
- 25.
R. Barry O’Brien, Dublin Castle and the Irish People (Dublin: M. H. Gill, 1909), p. 157.
- 26.
Sir Henry Robinson, Memories: Wise and Otherwise (London: Cassell, 1923), pp. 94–95.
- 27.
SP 9209 no. 283, Headlam to Starkie, 2 April 1919.
- 28.
Dictionary of National Biography, 1931–1940.
- 29.
L. Ó Broin, The Chief Secretary Augustine Birrell in Ireland (London: Chatto and Windus, 1969).
- 30.
SP 9209 no. 290, 27 April 1903.
- 31.
Ibid., no. 292, 16 June 1903.
- 32.
Ibid., no. 293.
- 33.
Ibid., no. 303, 7 June 1904.
- 34.
Ibid., no. 310, 10 April 1905.
- 35.
Ibid., no. 311, 4 May 1905.
- 36.
Ibid., no. 304, 10 February 1905.
- 37.
Ibid., no. 305, 11 February 1905.
- 38.
Ibid., no. 306, 1 March 1905.
- 39.
Ibid., no. 308, 14 March 1905.
- 40.
Ibid., no. 291, 12 June 1903.
- 41.
W. J. M. Starkie, Confidential Statement of Evidence to the Dill Committee 1913, TCD, p. 9.
- 42.
P. E. Lemass, Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 271.
- 43.
Letter written by an eminent unnamed member of the Board of National Education, 30 November 1899, and cited by Starkie, Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 290.
- 44.
Ibid.
- 45.
Ibid., p. 370.
- 46.
SP 9209 no. 340, Killanin to Starkie, 18 September 1919.
- 47.
W. J. M. Starkie, Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 420.
- 48.
‘Report of the Board of National Education Made for the Information of His Excellency, the Lord Lieutenant, in Reference to the Recommendations of the Commission on Manual and Practical Instruction, July 1899’, Appendix XXVIII, Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 493.
- 49.
Á. Hyland, ‘Administration and Financing of National and Secondary Education’, p. 213.
- 50.
Ibid., p. 217. By 1905, Starkie had reduced the number of clerical staff in the Office from 83 to 78. The costs involved in administering the education vote fell from £26,220 in 1900/1 to £25,045 in 1904–1905.
- 51.
W. J. M. Starkie, The History of Irish Primary and Secondary Education During the Last Decade, p. 4.
- 52.
Exchequer grants to national education had fallen from £1,286,734 in 1898/99 to £1,281,117 in 1899/1900. In 1900/01, they further fell to £1,274,069. A. Hyland, op. cit., p. 207.
- 53.
Ibid.
- 54.
W. J. M. Starkie, Confidential Evidence to the Dill Committee.
- 55.
Second Report of the Dill Committee.
- 56.
Ibid.
- 57.
Ibid.
- 58.
The Irish Times, 22 July 1920.
- 59.
E. Starkie, op. cit.
- 60.
From 1 April 1900, the Albert Institution would come under the auspices of the DATI. The Lord Lieutenant in a visit to the College prior to Christmas 1899 had stated that “this was the last occasion on which the Commissioners of National Education should occupy an official position on this platform”. SP 9210 a./5 A pamphlet containing the various speeches delivered by Starkie. Address by W. J. M. Starkie, Esq. MA., Litt.D., Resident Commissioner of National Education, Delivered on the Occasion of the Distribution of Prizes at the Albert Model Farm, Glasnevin on 19th February 1900, p. 1.
- 61.
Ibid., p. 2.
- 62.
Ibid.
- 63.
Ibid.
- 64.
Ibid.
- 65.
Ibid., p. 4.
- 66.
Ibid.
- 67.
Ibid., p. 4. The Recess Committee, assembled in 1895 by Horace Plunkett during the parliamentary recess, argued for the establishment of a department of agriculture and technical education.
- 68.
W. J. M. Starkie, Second Report to the Dill Commission, p. 341.
- 69.
Freeman’s Journal, 20 February 1900.
- 70.
Ibid.
- 71.
F J, 1 March 1900.
- 72.
Ibid.
- 73.
Ibid.
- 74.
Ibid.
- 75.
Ibid.
- 76.
Ibid.
- 77.
F J, 5 March 1900.
- 78.
F J, 18 April 1900.
- 79.
F J, 21 March 1900.
- 80.
Rumours spread among teachers that the new system of salaries and promotion would be more unacceptable to teachers than the one it replaced. Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 288. Starkie refused to meet a deputation of teachers to discuss the proposed scheme and the INTO sent a deputation to chief secretary Balfour instead. The new rules for teachers’ remuneration was not given to teachers directly, but published as a parliamentary paper on 13 July and appeared in the press the following day.
- 81.
The Revised Programme introduced in 1900 included proposals for the reorganisation of the inspectorate. When the memorandum, agreed by the Commissioners, was submitted to the chiefs of inspection asking their opinions on the proposals, Downing wrote complaining to the Board, 24 March 1900: “The memorandum refers to certain details of inspection and of school organisation that the chiefs of inspection should have been consulted, particularly as the anonymous author of that document has displayed such extraordinary ignorance of the circumstances and requirements of primary education….If the new scheme is to be made a success, some more intelligent advisors must be taken into counsel, and I hope the Commissioners will recognise the wisdom and necessity of again availing of the services of their senior officers”. On the foot of this communication, which the Resident Commissioner considered “insubordinate and subversive of official discipline”, Downing was suspended on 29 March. Downing replied by questioning the Resident Commissioner’s authority to intercept his letter to the Board and his right to suspend an inspector. He claimed: “The Resident Commissioner has far exceeded his rightful authority in putting such a high-handed affront on an officer of my standing and length of service. I request of the Board to give a ruling to that effect, and to direct the official withdrawal of the letter of suspension, coupled with an apology for that wanton insult offered to me”. Downing continued in his correspondence to explicitly question the Resident Commissioner’s authority. The Board of National Education fully supported Starkie in his censure of the inspector and Downing wrote a letter of apology to the Resident Commissioner in order to retain his position. Evidence of P. E. Lemass, Second Report of the Dill Committee.
- 82.
Ibid.
- 83.
Ibid., p. 285.
- 84.
SP 9209 no. 526, 16 June 1900.
- 85.
Ibid.
- 86.
W. J. M. Starkie, Confidential Statement of Evidence to the Dill Committee 1913, TCD. Patrick Pearse wrote to Edward Martyn on 24 September 1900: “The true state of affairs on the Board is this. The Archbishop sent in his resignation but the Lord Lieutenant did not accept it. The Archbishop then consented to re-consider his resignation until November when, if the bilingual reforms are not granted, he will resign and publish his reasons for doing so”. Source: S. Ó Buachalla, The Letters of P. H. Pearse, p. 21.
- 87.
SP 9209 no. 563, n.d. However, the date, August 1900, can be verified by reference to Starkie’s Confidential Statement of Evidence to the Dill Committee.
- 88.
9210 a./5, An Address to the Students of Mr. Bevis’ Class on the New System of National Education. By W. J. M. Starkie, Esq., MA., Litt.D., Resident Commissioner of National Education, 5 October 1900.
- 89.
Ibid.
- 90.
Ibid.
- 91.
Newspaper headlines cited by Starkie in his August address, 1900: “With gaunt and horrid appearance it has stalked forth from Tyrone House to discourage, if not terrorise, those with whom it may come into contact”; “Nothing has hitherto emanated from the Education Office so grossly stupid and at the same time so manifestly unfair”; “An attempt has been made to drag Irish education into a position of degradation and uselessness”; “The results’ system was bad; what is about to be substituted for it is worse”; “An impossible school programme is being placed before the teacher”; “The more we examine the latest fad of the Education Office the more we dislike it”; “This aristocratic body would not stoop to accept the advice of either managers or teachers, and the result is the production of an education scheme some of whose provisions are most absurdly nonsensical, whilst others are directed towards the degradation and humiliation of the teachers”.
- 92.
W. J. M. Starkie, Address to the Students of Mr. Bevis’s Class, p. 6.
- 93.
Ibid., p. 7.
- 94.
Ibid., p. 8.
- 95.
Ibid.
- 96.
Ibid., p. 10.
- 97.
Ibid., p. 11.
- 98.
Freeman’s Journal, 1 September 1900.
- 99.
F J, 16 April 1900.
- 100.
Ibid.
- 101.
SP 9209 no. 21, 29 March 1900.
- 102.
Starkie asserted that the organisers of Elementary Science and Manual Instruction, Messrs Heller and Bevis, had been selected in November 1898, prior to Starkie’s appointment. This is perhaps an illustration of how out of touch certain members were with developments at the Board. Second Report to the Dill Committee, p. 384.
- 103.
Ibid., no. 116, 26 July 1911, Gerald Dease to Starkie.
- 104.
Ibid., no. 22, n.d., but refers to 28 August 1900 as the “last meeting of the Board”.
- 105.
Second Report of the Dill Committee.
- 106.
W. J. M. Starkie, Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 314.
- 107.
Ibid., p. 359.
- 108.
Ibid., p. 388.
- 109.
Ibid., p. 401.
- 110.
Ibid., p. 343.
- 111.
Ibid., p. 352.
- 112.
Ibid., p. 359.
- 113.
SP 9209 no. 227, 23 November 1913, Bishop Foley to Starkie.
- 114.
Ibid., no. 234, 23 November 1917, Bishop Foley to Starkie.
- 115.
Ibid., no. 558, 15 December 1911, Anthony Traill to Starkie.
- 116.
Letter to Archbishop Walsh, 13 May 1901, cited in Appendix to the Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 286.
- 117.
SP 9210 a., 17 May 1901.
- 118.
When The Revised Programme was introduced in 1900, teachers’ salaries were to be computed on the average income received by teachers from all sources, for example fees, good service increment and classification entitlements, for the previous three years. Teachers had an opportunity, if they felt this method was objectionable, to submit their personal details to the Commissioners for special consideration by the Board; 2753 teachers elected to follow this procedure, and by June 1901, 40,000 letters had been received by the office on the subject. Although instructed by Starkie to hold over all correspondence for consideration by the Board, early in 1901 the financial secretary, Young, undertook to answer letters in 188 cases where, in his opinion, the teacher had no real grievance. On receipt of these replies managers contacted Archbishop Walsh and he in turn wrote to the papers publicly censuring the official. This was the issue at the centre of the controversy.
- 119.
D. W. Miller, op. cit., p. 81.
- 120.
W. J. M. Starkie, Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 290.
- 121.
Ibid.
- 122.
It was ironic that Starkie now proceeded decisively to remove Young from his position when some eight months earlier he had vacillated over whether or not to support a Board vote in favour of his censure. The diary is devoid of any reference to the Walsh episode, and it does not allude to the hurt and bitterness that Starkie must have felt, at retiring a man for whom he had sacrificed the comradeship and counsel of a good friend. Starkie’s uncertainty in the summer of 1901 had significant implications for the National Board. He did not appear to hesitate or waver on this occasion.
- 123.
SP 9210 b., 19 February 1902. Young wrote to Starkie: “I have just read your kindly expressed note….I shall of course obey your wish in the matter; but before formally resigning office I trust you will do me the justice of holding a full enquiry into recent occurrences in connexion with the Treasury and the supplemental Estimates regarding which I have given Mr. Holmes, Treasury Remembrancer, verbal explanation”. SP 9209 no. 581, 18 February 1902. A further letter from Young stated: “I intended speaking to you today about my approaching resignation in compliance with the desire expressed in your letter to me last month. If you are not obliged to require me to resign just now or if you do not object to my retaining office some time longer, I should be glad to continue serving as Financial Assistant secretary until such period as you may determine or decide”. SP 9209 no. 526, 26 March 1902.
- 124.
Young was still in the employ of the Commissioners in May the following year when Starkie recorded the death of his wife. SP 9210 c., 9 May 1903. In written evidence to the Dill Committee in 1913 Starkie recalled: “In February, 1902, the Treasury demanded the resignation of one of the chief finance officers: he sent in his resignation, but subsequently I persuaded the Treasury to allow me to cancel it”.
- 125.
Second Report of the Dill Committee.
- 126.
SP 9210 c., 28 April 1903.
- 127.
Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 286. Starkie felt that the tone of Purser’s report for 1901 “displayed a desire to criticise the deliberate policy of the Commissioners….This report is most objectionable in tone, indeed so much so that, were it not late in the year, I should ask you to re-write it”. Because of the insubordinate nature of the chief inspectors’ reports in 1903, the Board decided that Purser’s and Downing’s reports should not be printed and that a loyal senior inspector should be placed in the office to aid the Resident Commissioner until the chief inspectors retired.
- 128.
Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 287. Starkie stated: “After Mr. Downing’s retirement, in his official conduct for some years, though perfectly useless, he was not openly insubordinate. But so far as I can learn, he never carried out his duties as chief inspector in the spirit of the regulations. He exercised little supervision over the marking of subordinates….His visits to schools, including even inspections ordered by the Board, were confined to about 30 days in the year. Some important circuits he hardly visited for 6 or 8 years”.
- 129.
Starkie suggested that Purser be appointed secretary in place of Hamilton in 1903, Second Report to the Dill Committee, p. 379. Purser wrote to Starkie stating: “I cannot consent to take a position subordinate to any other officer of the Board. I shall be glad to accept the Senior Secretaryship should the Board adopt the suggestion of the Irish Government”. SP 9209 no. 493, 30 January 1903. It would appear that when not appointed to this position Purser in effect refused to carry out his duties as chief inspector as identified by the Board.
- 130.
Ibid., p. 342.
- 131.
Ibid., p. 286.
- 132.
Ibid., p. 344.
- 133.
Ibid., p. 342.
- 134.
SP 9209 no. 490, 7 March 1902.
Bibliography
Akenson, D. H. The Irish Education Experiment: The National System of Education in the Nineteenth Century (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970).
Gosden, P. H. The Development of Educational Administration in England and Wales (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978).
Hyland, A. ‘An Analysis of the Administration and Financing of National and Secondary Education in Ireland, 1850 to 1922’ (Trinity College Dublin, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, 1982).
Hyland, A. ‘The Treasury and Irish Education: 1850–1922: The Myth and the Reality’. Irish Educational Studies 3, (1983): 57.
Miller, D. W. Church State and Nation, 1898–1921 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973).
O’Brien, R. Barry. Dublin Castle and the Irish People (Dublin: M. H. Gill, 1909).
Ó Broin, L. The Chief Secretary Augustine Birrell in Ireland (London: Chatto and Windus, 1969).
Ó Búachalla, S. (1988). Education Policy in Twentieth Century Ireland (Dublin: Wolfhound Press).
O’Donovan, P. F. Stanley’s Letter: The National School System and Inspectors in Ireland 1831–1922 (Galway: Galway Teachers’ Centre, 2017).
Robinson, Sir Henry. Memories: Wise and Otherwise (London: Cassell, 1923).
Starkie, E. A Lady’s Child (London: Faher and Faber, 1941).
Starkie, W. J. M. Recent Reforms in Irish Education Primary and Secondary with a View to Their Co-ordination (Dublin: Blackie, 1902).
Starkie, W. J. M. The History of Irish Primary and Secondary Education During the Last Decade (Belfast: Queen’s University, 1911).
Vice-regal Committee on Primary Education in Ireland (Dill). Second Report and Appendix [Cd. 7228-9]; Third Report and Appendix [Cd. 7480] H.C. 1914, xxviii; Final Report [Cd.3572] 1907.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
O’Doherty, T., O’Donoghue, T. (2021). The Revised Programme of Primary Instruction. In: Radical Reform in Irish Schools, 1900-1922. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74282-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74282-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-74281-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-74282-9
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)