1 As the French Republic commemorates the centenary of the laws of Jules Ferry, we in Ireland also commemorate the 150th anniversary of the national school system of 1831. The setting up of a State-controlled, State-supported System of primary education in Ireland as early as 1831 is an interesting study from a comparative point of view, presenting some unusual features in its political, social and cultural context. England did not benefit from its first parliamentary grant for education until 1833 and then the small sum of £ 20,000 was applied to aid voluntary societies in their educational endeavours. Not until the Education Act of 1870 did the State in England cease to rely solely on giving aid to voluntary educational effort and give powers to new school boards to establish and maintain public elementary schools. The Loi Guizot of 1833 in France did not set up a centralised State-controlled system either but obliged every commune to maintain a public school with « moral and religious instruction » at the head of the subjects to be taught. Only where local resources were deemed insufficient did the State accept the need to give aid. Despite Carnot’s efforts in 1848 elementary education in France was not widely provided or controlled by the State in its centralised capacity until the Jules Ferry legislation of 1881 -1882.

2State involvement in elementary education in Ireland was very comprehensive from 1831. It demanded that the schools which benefited from public funds must be operated on a multi-denominational or « mixed basis » in which children would be combined for « moral and literary instruction » and receive separate religious instruction at times set apart. A State inspectorate was set up in 1832 in Ireland. The State established a model school in Dublin in 1832 and a full training college for males under its sole control in 1838, and for females in 1845. These were followed later by provincial model schools funded and controlled by the central authority. These institutions were all run on the mixed denominational principle. The central Board of Control also published its own scheme of textbooks for the use of schools and, while these were not obligatory, they were State subsidised and used by the vast majority of schools. Such forms of activity indicate a much more direct involvement by the State in primary education in Ireland than was to be the case in England or France for decades later. Perhaps a good way to focus on the relevant issues in the Irish context, within the limits of a short paper, is by means of a series of questions. Thus, the paper is structured round the following questions: What was the existing situation? Why set up a State-controlled System? How was it set up? What was its structure? What were the reactions? How did it succeed?

What was the existing schooling situation?

3Ireland in the early nineteenth century inherited various types of school such as parish, diocesan, royal and charter schools which had been designated by State legislation as agencies of colonial conquest to spread the use of the English language and the Protestant faith. But no co-ordinated scheme or sustained campaign took place and the influence of these schools failed to reach the mass of the people. Since the late seventeenth century Catholics had suffered from harsh penal legislation which prohibited them setting up Catholic schools or sending their children abroad for Catholic education. Despite this Catholics had succeeded in setting up numerous unofficial schools which became known as « hedge schools » and these were widespread by the early nineteenth century. The relaxation of penal legislation through the relief acts of 1782, 1792 and 1793 allowed greater official tolérance and religious orders began their educational/pastoral activities by founding schools. The early nineteenth century also saw much evangelising zeal with a proselytising intent by a number of Protestant religious groups1. The fact that some of them benefited from public funds added to the annoyance of Catholics. One particular society, the Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor of Ireland, popularly known as the Kildare Place Society, got particular Government support from 1816. It set out to be religiously neutral, « divested of all sectarian distinctions in Christianity ». At first Catholics accepted the Kildare Place Society but from 1820 they became disillusioned and dissatisfied with it and they pressed the State to provide a System congenial to Catholic requirements.

4Thus, at the outset of the nineteenth century there was much educational activity in Ireland and many and varied schools were provided by individuals and voluntary societies. By the year 1824 an official commission calculated that there were about 11,000 schools in Ireland catering for upwards of half a million children and staffed by about 12,000 teachers2. By far the largest category of schools were the « pay » schools, most of them corresponding to hedge schools, which numbered about 9,000 and catered for almost 400,000 children. The number of pupils enrolled in all schools but whose attendance could often be sporadic and short-lived, has been calculated as amounting to two out of every five children of school-going age at that time3. With this level of voluntary activity, some of it with State support, the question presents itself as to why the State intervened to set up a centrally controlled System?

Why set up a State-controlled system in 1831?

5The great challenge to many European Governments in the early nineteenth century was the provision of mass popular education. At first sight Ireland would not seem to have been a likely place for large-scale direct intervention by the State. Many factors which in other countries acted as a propelling force, such as the Industrial Revolution and moves to urbanisation, were not striking issues in the Irish context. Ireland was also a difficult case in that strong hostilities existed between the denominations. The Established Church (the Protestant Church of Ireland) though the Church of the minority, felt it had a special position and had a right to Government support in promoting Protestantism. The Catholic Church, emerging from a period of suppression, felt that it was being very unfairly treated in not getting financial support for its massive job of educating the Catholic populace. On closer examination, however, there were many reasons which favoured the State action of 1831. There had been a long tradition of British State legislation relating to education in Ireland. The work of various commissions in previous decades as well as spotlighting debate on educational issues, had also indicated a path forward for State action for which, at least at official level, there was general agreement. The gathering official consensus was that a State-supported System of parish schools should be organised under the supervision of a Government Board. The leading principle of the System should be « that no attempt be made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect or description of christians »4.

6There had been a strong and well-recognised tradition of active interest in education evident among the general Irish population. In the context of post Act of Union (1800) politics the Government felt that the schools could serve politicising and socialising goals, cultivating attitudes of political loyalty and cultural assimilation. The danger of separate school Systems operating without official supervision needed to be countered. The fear of political subversion through the hedge schools was very real. Further, theorists in England such as Adam Smith had urged that the State should promote literacy and numeracy at elementary level as an essential factor for industrial progress. Ireland, as a colony, could be used as an experimental milieu for social legislation which might not be tolerated in England where laissez faire politico-economic policies were more rigid and doctrinaire. Thus, education was one of a series of social policies such as an organised police force, improved health services, a Board of Works which were introduced in Ireland in the 1830’s.

7The achievement of Catholic Emancipation in 1829, following the mass movement master-minded by Daniel O’Connell, was a practical demonstration that Catholic demands for fair treatment could not be suppressed and the national school System under State control seemed to the Government the best way of directing educational provision. Further, a number of influential, informed and respected Irish Members of the English Parliament, such as O’Connell, Thomas Spring-Rice, Thomas Wyse, kept up the pressure for action. Members of the new reforming Whig Government of 1830, such as Lord Anglesey, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Lord Stanley, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, judged the time to be ripe for action and so this highly significant Government initiative was undertaken.

8It was the State’s intention to operate a multi-denominational or « mixed » primary System wherein children of all denominations would be educated together in secular subjects while separate arrangements would be made for doctrinal instruction according to different denominational tenets. This effort to draw a distinction between secular and purely religious instruction was to prove a most contentious one. Each of the denominations would dispute this distinction, seeing the whole schooling process as an extension of pastoral care with religion interpenetrating all facets of education. Moreover, in the context of strong denominational animosities and a live tradition of proselytism, the concept of a mixed education System would prove difficult to realise. The Churches were anxious to benefit from State finance in support of schooling but each denomination strove to shape the national school System towards its denominational requirements. This conflict between State and Church on the control of schooling pursued a tortuous and labyrinthine path resulting in the State’s retaining the concept of a de facto mixed System which from mid-century onwards became increasingly denominational at local level in terms of management, pupil clientele and teaching staff.

How was the national school system set up?

9It is significant that when Lord Stanley, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, announced to Parliament in September 1831 that it was intended to change the mode of State support for primary education from voluntary societies to a State-appointed board he did not introduce a bill or plan formal legislation to implement the decision. There would seem to have been two main considerations in his mind. Considerable anti-Catholic feeling had been aroused in Britain during the 1829 Emancipation debate and many saw the changed education policy as a further giving in to Catholic demands. Thus, a debate on a bill would tend to re-awaken and crystallise undesired political responses. Further, as the success of the new policy was highly problematic, the absence of legislative prescription allowed more flexibility to monitor the success or failure of the scheme. In the event the new System did not receive its charter of incorporation until 1845.

10The ideals and structure of the new national System were set out in a letter from Lord Stanley to the Duke of Leinster, a liberal Protestant, inviting him to become chairman of the new Board of Commissioners for National Education5. The following were the chief points in this foundation document of the Irish national school System. Following a historical review of proposals of earlier commissions Stanley rejected the mode of applying State funds for education through voluntary societies such as the Kildare Place Society. Instead he proposed a Government appointed, mixed denominational board comprised of men of high Personal character, including individuals of exalted station in the Churches. This board was to exercise complete control over schools erected under its auspices or placed under its control. « As one of the main objects must be to unite in one System children of different creeds » applications for aid from mixed denominational groups were to be especially favoured. Local funds had to be forthcoming for the aid of teacher salaries, the cost of furniture and maintenance, and the school site. One-third of the building costs should also be provided by local sources. In an early draft of the letter Stanley had sought just a combined literary and separate religious education but he was prevailed on to change to « combined literary and moral » education and to allow approved scripture readings as part of moral education6.

11This reminds one of Ferry’s later positions when he extended his « moral and civic instruction » to include « duties towards God »7. Under Stanley’s plan schools were to be open four or five days each week for moral and literary instruction only while separate religious instruction could take place on the other days. This is also somewhat similar to Ferry’s congé de jeudi, as a separate day for religious instruction, but in his legislation the pupils went to a location other than the school. In later years the Irish System allowed separate religious instruction in ordinary school days but formal advance notice had to be given and a conscience clause operated to exclude children whose parents objected to the instruction. The tradition of excluding religious emblems from schools became more formally specified in a re-issuing of the rules in 1855. As was the case with Ferry’s legislation no religious emblems such as crucifixes, statues, rosaries or holy water could be on display in the classroom during secular instruction and such emblems were also forbidden on the outside structure of the school8. Further, special charts had to be displayed within the school indicating « Secular » or « Religious Instruction » when the appropriate instruction was in progress. Such restrictions were the cause of the Irish Christian Brothers withdrawing the schools from connection with the National Board in 1836, and they did not rejoin until 1925.

12The Stanley letter also stated that the Board was to have complete control over textbooks used and by means of inspection ensure that regulations were enforced. Funds approved by Parliament were to be disbursed by the Board for such things as aid for school building, payment of inspectors, gratuities to teachers, providing a model school for teacher training, publishing textbooks for schools.

13The stratagem of employing an unpaid Board of Commissioners for education had many precedents and continued to be employed in many areas of administration in the nineteenth century. Members of the Board were appointed by the Lord Lieutenant who also had the right (never exercised) of dismissing any member. In 1831 a Board of seven Commissioners of National Education was established with a denominational representational balance of three Established Church, two Catholics and two Presbyterians. The Duke of Leinster was appointed chairman. At an early stage a Resident Commissioner was appointed. This was a full-time paid position, analogous to that of the permanent head of a department. With the aid of sub-committees the Resident Commissioner had responsibility for a great deal of the Board’s work and prepared briefs for the final decision of the Board on important matters.

What was the control structure of the national school system?

14The control structure of the national school System reflected an interesting division of power between central and local bodies. At the top of the pyramid was Parliament which retained final authority and voted annual grants. The Lord Lieutenant, assisted by the Chief Secretary, appointed Commissioners, approved rules and liaised with the Government. The Commissioners of National Education held the important powers of distributing funds and approving schemes, of setting out rules and regulations, of controlling the curriculum, of publishing and sanctioning textbooks, of suspending teachers and removing managers. The Inspector acted as an agent of the Commissioners to ensure that regulations were carried out. The legal title was vested in Trustees and, while originally it was hoped that buildings aided by the Board would be vested in the Board, in reality many of them became vested in local trustees approved by the Board, or they maintained a non-vested status. The Patron was the individual who took the local initiative in having a school established and in practice was usually the bishop or ecclesiastical authority of the area in question. The Patron could act as School Manager or appoint a Manager, who in most cases became the local clergyman. The School Manager had the right to hire and dismiss teachers, to distribute teacher salaries, to arrange the timetable, to oversee the general work of the school and he was responsible for the general maintenance and equipment of the school. From this division of powers it can be seen that the most important remained with the central authority though at local level the Manager had considerable power over the teachers. The power of appointment and dismissal as well as the distribution of salaries provided by the State gave the local clergyman a hold over the teachers. As was the case in France following the Loi Guizot, the teacher was frequently expected to assist in parish clerk duties and act as chantre to retain the favour of the Reverend Manager9. Unlike France, however, most of the teacher’s salary was paid by the State though it was intended to be augmented through the payment of school fees which tended to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

What were the reactions to the State initiative?

15It was a fundamental tenet of the national school scheme that it was to be a multi-denominational, or mixed System. It was clearly intended that children of different religious beliefs should undergo their literary and moral education together and engage in doctrinal religious instruction peculiar to their own denomination on separate occasions. However, in a climate of hostility and suspicion between the Churches and with fears of proselytism rife, Ireland presented a difficult arena for the success of non-denominational schooling and, in fact, the early decades of the System saw much conflict and controversy on the issue of mixed education.

16The Presbyterians were early in the fray and following a decade of negotiation, lobbying and intimidation they succeeded in getting changes in the Board’s regulations which allowed them to accept the much-needed public money for their schools. The Church of Ireland, or Established Church, also opposed the system from the beginning seeing the system as a Whig measure which weakened the Church’s position in Irish society. Having failed to change the Government’s policy with a campaign of intense lobbying it set up its own rival school system – the Church Education Society – in 1838, in opposition to the National Board. By the 1860’s, however, many of these schools had affiliated to the National Board. The Catholic Church representing the majority of the population would have preferred a System whereby State financial support would underpin a school System directly under its control. Realising the political unreality of this in the early 1830’s the Catholic authorities tolerated the national school System seeing it as a considerable advance from the traditional proselytising efforts. However, in the context of the pontificate of Pope Pius IX and the aftermath of 1848 in Europe the Catholic Church in Ireland under the leadership of the ultramontane Reverend Dr. Paul Cullen, took a much stronger attitude against inter-denominational education from 1850. The State continued to maintain throughout that the national school system was an inter-denominational one with combined moral and literary education and separate religious instruction. However, by the mid-nineteenth century it became increasingly obvious that the reality at local level was different. The Board insisted, nevertheless, that its rules and regulations continue to operate.

What was the success of the system?

17With so much debate and controversy concentrated on the issues of control and rules one might wonder if the system itself was making any progress. In fact considerable progress was being recorded and the basis of a wide infrastructure was being laid all the time while more ideological debate was going on at a higher level. The following table gives a general picture of some of the expansion which was experienced during the first thirty years of the system: Thus, by 1860 there were about 800,000 pupils (the great majority of children of school-going age in the population) attending the 5,600 schools associated with the Board at a State financial cost of almost £300,000. Ireland did not get compulsory attendance legislation until 1892, a decade after France, and it was only in 1926 that the legislation became satisfactorily comprehensive. The localities never provided the level of local funding which was envisaged, though small school fees were sporadically paid until their abolition in 1892. The majority of schools were conducted by lay teachers, though the schools of religious communities, particularly nuns, which accepted the regulations of the Board could also qualify for State financial support. The Board had also established both male and female denominationally mixed training colleges in Dublin as well as a scheme of « district model » schools under the direct control of the Board wherein pupil teachers did an apprenticeship. This System of teacher training became anathema particularly to the Catholic Church authorities.

18The National Board began in 1832 to establish an impressive State school inspectorate which acted as a vital link between the Board and the growing network of schools throughout the country. The scheme of textbooks envisaged in the Stanley letter proved a considerable success. The Commissioners published a set of reading books for five different grade levels which quickly established a high reputation for themselves in Ireland, and they even enjoyed a considerable export demand in England and some of its colonies. There was a strong moralistic and socialising aura to the books. The Irish language was not acknowledged as a national school subject, even in areas where the living and sole vernacular of the people was Irish. Indeed, for much of the century the books contained very little material relating to a distinctively Irish environment and were geared towards the British cultural policy of the time.

19Thus, Ireland got its State-supported and State-controlled elementary school System in 1831. An elaborate bureaucratic structure was set up for central administration purposes. Teacher training institutions, an inspectorate and textbook schemes were established by the State. Public accountability was built into the System from the start. At teacher level it was predominantly lay. Pupil fees were formally required up to 1892, the same year which saw legislation for compulsory attendance. One does not know if Jules Ferry took any cognisance of education in nineteenth century Ireland but one suggests that he would have found it of some interest if he had done so.