§ MR. DONAL SULLIVAN (Westmeath, S.)I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland how many of the National teachers of Ireland notified their desire to be admitted to the July Examination of 1889 as candidates for pro- 1625 motion and were not admitted, and what were the grounds on which they were refused admission; have all the teachers, candidates for promotion from class to class, to give nine months' notice of their desire to be admitted to examination, and did the two teachers who passed the July Examination of 1889, and were not promoted, give this nine months' notice; did the Commissioners of the Irish National Education ascertain the efficiency as school-keepers of these two teachers before authorising their admission to examination as candidates for promotion; were the schools of these two teachers in an efficient condition before the holding of the July Examination of 1889; and, if not, what were the reasons for summoning them to that examination as candidates for promotion, in contravention of the rules regulating the promotion of teachers; what were the dates of the unfavourable Reports upon the school of the teacher from whom promotion has been withheld, and what were the dates of the inspections to which these Reports referred; what was the condition of the school of the teacher whose promotion has been deferred at the inspections which took place since July, 1889; and, will he recommend the immediate promotion of the two teachers who, in July 1889, successfully passed the final stage in determining a teacher's fitness for promotion, and were not promoted?
§ MR. MADDENThe National Education Commissioners report that the teachers referred to in the first paragraph numbered 123. The grounds of refusal were various—such as unsatisfactory proficiency of pupils, falsification of school accounts, &c. The general rule is as indicated in the second paragraph. Both the teachers seem to have given due notice. As regards the inquiries in the third and fourth, paragraphs, the cases of both teachers were at the time, in the opinion of the Commissioners, very doubtful, and it was with much hesitation they were admitted to the examinations. In the case of the teacher referred to in the fifth paragraph, his school was examined for results on August 16, 1888. The Inspector's Report showed that the school was not in an efficient condition. This Report caused the Commissioners to hesitate 1626 about admitting the teacher as a candidate for promotion. It was next examined on June 24, 1889, with very unsatisfactory results; but the Report did not reach the Office until it was too late for the Commissioners to countermand the teacher's admission to the examination. A subsequent communication was also received from the Inspector of a highly unfavourable character. The Commissioners, weighing all the circumstances, decided that the teacher, though a good scholar, was an inefficient teacher, and therefore could not be promoted to the first-class. In the case of the teacher referred to in the sixth paragraph, the examinations of his school for results on June 11, 1888, and June 17, 1889, were not satisfactory; and he was admitted to the July examination for promotion on the distinct understanding that if his answering proved satisfactory his promotion would depend upon the results examination of his school in June, 1890. The Government cannot interfere with the discretion of the Commissioners in the matter.