Abstract
The Dill Committee was established to examine the administration of Irish education. Starkie’s position on the National Board, his style of management, and his personal contribution to the situation that gave rise to the Commission’s establishment were all to come under scrutiny. Thus, scheduled to give evidence on 11 February he, perhaps not surprisingly, became ill and was absent from the National Board from 4 February to 15 April. His was a precarious position since regardless of what might be said at the Inquiry or recommended subsequently, he could not afford to resign from his civil service post because his personal finances were in a poor state due to his extravagant lifestyle. This chapter opens by detailing the disaffection of the national school teachers. It then goes on to consider the establishment of the Dill committee, the evidence provided to it by Starkie, and the recommendations made. Overall, what was revealed was the militancy of teachers and an acknowledgement that inspection procedures in national schools were in crisis.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
W. J. M. Starkie, Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 347.
- 2.
MCNEI, 1913. Starkie was a regular attender at the Board throughout his career. Samuel Dill wrote on 5 February 1913: “Would you kindly let me know whether your health will allow you to appear on the 11th….I can imagine the strain of appearing if you feel ill, and I will do my best to appoint a day for your evidence, which of course is the most important of all.” SP 9209, no. 133.
- 3.
Freeman’s Journal, 29 May 1907. Starkie was quoted as saying that national school teachers were living in an El Dorado [the land of gold]. Their salaries were paid by the state and they were paid at least as much as the carpenter, the tailor, or the bootmaker. Starkie later disowned the language and opinions ascribed to him in the papers.
- 4.
Irish Schools Weekly, 15 July 1911.
- 5.
In 1877, the average incomes of principals were—men £52, women £43. In 1903, the corresponding figures were—men £100, women £85. Teachers’ salaries had almost doubled in a 30 year period. Seventieth Report of the CNEI for the year 1903, p. 10. On the other hand the Resident Commissioner’s salary had been set in 1874 and had not been revised in the interim.
- 6.
Report of F. H. Dale, pp. 23–25.
- 7.
On the island of Lewis, where the school had an average of less than twenty, the teacher's salary was £45 per annum. In Ireland a male teacher in an equally small school received on average £59 14s a year while a female teacher earned £48 7s. Schools with an average attendance of between 30 and 50: On Lewis the average salary was £65 a year: In Ireland the equivalent male teacher’s salary was £92 17s while the female teacher’s salary was £80 4s.
- 8.
Letter from the Treasury, T.14 88 10 January 1908, cited by Á. Hyland, ‘An Analysis of the Financing and Administration of Education’, p. 286.
- 9.
Appendix to Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 370.
- 10.
T. J. O’Connell, op. cit., p. 160.
- 11.
Á. Hyland, op. cit., p. 285.
- 12.
T. J. O’Connell, op. cit., p. 161.
- 13.
Á. Hyland, op. cit., p. 288.
- 14.
Appendix to Second Report of the Dill Commission, p. 370.
- 15.
Seventy-Fifth Report of the CNEI for the Year 1908–09, p. 7. Starkie informed the Dill Committee that he personally drafted this section. Appendix to Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 370.
- 16.
Appendix to Second Report of the Dill Commission, p. 371.
- 17.
SP 9211, 28 and 29 March 1918.
- 18.
Catherine Mahon, Appendix to Third Report of the Dill Committee, p. 304.
- 19.
The penalties were as follows: For falsification—a minimum fine of £3 for the first offence, depression for the second and dismissal for the third offence. For inefficiency—Year 1: the teacher to be reprimanded and warned; Year 2: if no improvement, temporary depression in class for one or more quarters; Year 3: permanent depression in class; Year 4: dismissal. Appendix to Second Report of the Dill Committee.
- 20.
The Treasury stipulated that teachers be classed: First grade, of which there were two sections, second grade and third grade. Admittance to the first grade, even when the teacher had satisfied all the prescribed conditions, depended on a vacancy in that grade occurring. Vacancies arose as teachers retired or died in service. Seventy-Fourth Report of the CNEI for the Year 1907–08, pp. 10, 11. The maximum numbers in each grade in 1907 were as follows:
Grade II
2500 men;
2000 women
[Actual 1899 figures]
Grade II
2743 men;
2758 women
Grade I.ii
500 men;
400 women
Grade I.ii
926 men;
692 women
Grade I.i
340 men;
270 women
Grade I.i
656 men;
529 women
The actual numbers in corresponding grades in 1899 were much higher than those permitted by the Treasury [on the left above]; thus teachers’ promotional prospects were materially reduced under the Revised Programme.
Final Report of the Dill Committee, p. 17.
- 21.
SP 9202 no. 88, 19 December 1904.
- 22.
Ibid., no. 84, 28 November 1903.
- 23.
Seventy-Second Report of the CNEI for the Year 1905, p. 5.
- 24.
W. J. M. Starkie, Recent Reforms in Irish Education, p. 15.
- 25.
Seventy-Second Report of the CNEI for the Year 1905, p. 4.
- 26.
SP 9202 no. 101, 23 May 1906. Letter from Davies to Starkie.
- 27.
Appendix to Second Report of the Dill Committee.
- 28.
P. O’Donovan, op. cit., p. 260.
- 29.
Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 319.
- 30.
P. O’Donovan, op. cit., p. 260.
- 31.
W. J. M. Starkie, Confidential Statement to the Dill Committee.
- 32.
Teachers subsequently obtained through unofficial channels copies of the inspectors’ report on their complaints, showing that somebody in Tyrone House gave a sympathetic ear to the teachers. Final Report of the Dill Committee.
- 33.
Ibid., p. 46.
- 34.
Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 306. Dr. Starkie described the inspectors’ report as “breathing a narrow, bitter, partisan spirit in every line.”
- 35.
Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 307.
- 36.
Ibid., pp. 305–306.
- 37.
Ibid., p. 307.
- 38.
Ibid.
- 39.
The Irish Times, 6 June 1912. The issue of higher-grade schools or continuation schools had been pursued vigorously by Starkie since 1902 and annually when submitting its estimates to the Treasury the Commissioners sought sanction for the establishment of such institutions.
- 40.
Irish Schools Weekly, 15 June 1912.
- 41.
Birrell’s dissatisfaction with the Board's attitude and particularly with the approach of the Resident Commissioner is revealed in the suppression of the Commissioners’ annual report for the year 1912 and the refusal to permit Starkie to circulate his Cork lecture, of which he had 8000 copies printed, to schools. Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 369.
- 42.
Third Report of the Dill Committee, p. 405.
- 43.
Ibid., p. 285, and MCNEI, 3 September 1912.
- 44.
Ibid., p. 283, letter written by Mansfield 19 August 1912. Starkie was the “someone” who observed, in his address at Cork in June, that success in education had been hampered by the policy of setting Irish men against one another, stating: “You cannot catch eels without stirring up mud.” Mansfield acknowledged at the Dill Committee that the letter was written under pressure, but he refused to admit that he should not have written it.
- 45.
Ibid., p. 283.
- 46.
Ibid.
- 47.
Third Report of the Dill Committee, p. 286.
- 48.
Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 390.
- 49.
SP 9209 no. 118, 18 March 1912. Gerald Dease to Starkie.
- 50.
Irish Schools Weekly, 2 November 1912.
- 51.
Third Report of the Dill Committee, p. 406. Letter written by Alfred Purser, chief of inspection, 23 October 1912.
- 52.
Catherine Mahon, Third Report of the Dill Committee, p. 307.
- 53.
Appendix to Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 382.
- 54.
Irish Sschools Weekly, 29 March 1913. Catherine Mahon’s presidential address to the annual INTO congress.
- 55.
SP 9209 no. 37, 3 November 1912.
- 56.
Ibid., no. 38, 8 November 1912.
- 57.
Ibid., no. 131, 23 November 1912.
- 58.
SP 9209 no. 38, 8 November 1912.
- 59.
Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 291.
- 60.
Á. Hyland, ‘The Financing and Administration of Irish Education’.
- 61.
SP 9209 no. 131, 23 November 1912.
- 62.
Ibid.
- 63.
Ibid., no. 42, 21 December 1912. Letter from Augustine Birrell to Starkie.
- 64.
Ibid., no. 46, 1 January 1913.
- 65.
Ibid.
- 66.
Jeremiah Henly was a founder-member of the INTO and of the Teachers’ Journal (renamed the Irish School Weekly in 1904). In acknowledgement of his distinguished teaching service he received the Carlisle and Blake premium in 1883. He retired from teaching in 1901, aged 57, to take up the position as professor of method in the Church of Ireland Training College in Kildare Place, where he remained on the staff until 1922. An influential figure in the INTO, he was a regular contributor to the Journal. Writing under the pen-name ‘Beta’, his articles were particularly critical of the Revised Programme and the administration of Dr. Starkie.
- 67.
SP 9209 no. 43, 20 December 1912.
- 68.
Ibid., no. 46, 1 January 1913.
- 69.
MCNEI The Commissioners’ objections to Henly were stated repeatedly on 31 December 1912 and 7 January 1913.
- 70.
SP 9209 no. 47, 3 January 1913.
- 71.
Ibid., no. 169, 20 December 1912, Under-Secretary, Sir James Dougherty to Starkie.
- 72.
Starkie gave evidence to the committee on the following dates: 29 and 30 May, 17, 18, 19 and 20 June, 1913.
- 73.
SP 9209 no. 160, draft of a letter to Arthur J. Donnelly, Secretary of the Committee, 28 August 1913.
- 74.
Ibid., p. 390.
- 75.
Ibid., p. 313.
- 76.
Ibid., p. 291.
- 77.
SP 9210 d., 28 March 1918.
- 78.
SP 9209 no. 227, 23 November 1913.
- 79.
Ibid.
- 80.
Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 344.
- 81.
Ibid., p. 412. Emphasis as in the original.
- 82.
SP 9210 d., 22 December 1917. Kettle was renowned for his indulgence in alcohol, as was Coffey.
- 83.
Ibid., p. 384.
- 84.
SP 9209 no. 135, 16 June 1913. Evidence was given in private and subsequently published.
- 85.
Second Report of the Dill Committee pp. 324–325.
- 86.
SP 9209 no. 531, letter from George A. Stevenson of the Board of Works, 9 July 1913.
- 87.
Second Report of the Dill Committee, p. 426.
- 88.
Final Report of the Dill Committee, p. 1.
- 89.
ISW, 7 February 1914.
- 90.
Final Report of the Dill Committee, p. 6.
- 91.
Ibid., p. 11.
- 92.
Ibid.
- 93.
Ibid., p. 43.
- 94.
Final Report of the Dill Committee, p. 7.
- 95.
Ibid., p. 11.
- 96.
Ibid., p. 51.
- 97.
Ibid., pp. 41–42.
- 98.
ISW, 7 February 1914.
- 99.
MCNEI, 13 October 1914.
- 100.
Ibid.
- 101.
Eighty-First Report of the CNEI for the Year 1914–15, p. 6.
- 102.
Ibid., p. 7.
- 103.
MCNEI, 15 September 1913.
- 104.
Ibid., 29 September 1913.
- 105.
Irish Schools Weekly, 3 April 1915.
- 106.
“While submitting that I was, at the time of making the speech complained of, and subsequently during my correspondence with the Board, labouring under a sense of injustice, in which I believed, and still believe, myself to be justified, I admit that the tone of my observations should have been different, and I hereby express regret for it.” MCNEI, 8 December 1914.
- 107.
N. Daglish, Education Policy Making in England and Wales, p. 405.
- 108.
Ibid.
- 109.
Ibid.
- 110.
A. FitzRoy Memoirs (1927) cited by Daglish, op. cit., p. 419. The person who made this observation was Professor Sir Samuel Dill.
- 111.
Ibid., p. 422.
- 112.
Ibid., p. 424.
- 113.
Ibid., p. 427.
- 114.
Ibid., p. 432.
- 115.
Irish Schools Weekly, 27 April 1912.
- 116.
Appendix to Third Report to the Dill Committee, p. 256.
Bibliography
Daglish, N. Education Policy-Making in England and Wales: The Crucible Years, 1895-1911 (London: Woburn Press, 1996).
Hyland, Á. ‘Analysis of the Administration and Financing of National and Secondary Education in Ireland, 1850–1922’ (Trinity College Dublin. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, 1982).
O’Connell, T. J. One Hundred Years of Progress: The Story of the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation 1868–1968 (Dublin: INTO, 1968).
O’Donovan, P. F. ‘The National School Inspectorate and Its Administrative Context in Ireland, 1870–1962’ (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University College Dublin).
Starkie, W. J. M. Recent Reforms in Irish Education Primary and Secondary with a View to Their Co-Ordinatio (Dublin: Blackie, 1902).
Vice-regal Committee on Primary Education in Ireland (Dill). Second Report and Appendix [Cd. 7228–9].
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 Disaffection of National School Teachers and the Establishment of the Dill Committee. In: Radical Reform in Irish Schools, 1900-1922. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74282-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74282-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-74281-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-74282-9
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)