“Authoritative Evidence” or Personal Ideology? Rev. Professor Timothy Corcoran and the Primary School Curriculum in Ireland in the 1920s

ABSTRACT

By the time political independence was achieved in the 1920s in Ireland, its national education system over the previous century had been underpinned by imperial ideology and values. In the early 1920s, curriculum planning was influenced by the post-revolutionary and post-war context and, unsurprisingly, placed an emphasis on building nationhood and a distinct Irish identity for the Irish Free State. Central to this curriculum planning was Rev. Professor Timothy Corcoran who acted as an external advisor to the 1922 and 1926 conferences that developed primary curriculum policy. This article explores and assesses the influence, impact and legacy of Corcoran through an analysis of his prolific writings as they related to the primary school curriculum. The analysis reveals that Corcoran’s thinking, more than that of any other stakeholder in the era, was uniquely influential in determining the philosophy, content and pedagogies prevalent in primary schools in Ireland until the 1970s.

KEYWORDS:

• Rev. Professor Timothy Corcoran
• curriculum
• Irish Free State
• national identity
• Irish language

Introduction

The 1920s in Ireland was a seminal decade in terms of establishing and embedding new educational structures and ideals following the advent of political independence. One aftermath of a lengthy and bloody War of Independence and Civil War was the partitioning of the island of Ireland, creating a 26-county Irish Free State and the six-county jurisdiction of Northern Ireland.¹ On both sides of the border, the new political entities began to assert, or indeed create, distinct national identities that articulated and reified their linguistic, cultural and religious distinctiveness. The Irish Free State was characterised by socially conservative governments in the 1920s, with leaders in the fledgling new political entity deferent to the authority of the Catholic Church.² This symbiotic Church–State relationship endured for decades: the State benefited from Catholic Church resources and legitimacy, while the Catholic Church gained power and control through its management of a wide range of social services, particularly education.³ O’Donoghue and Harford argue that the deep allegiance of the vast majority of the population to the Catholic Church in the early decades of independence emboldened the hierarchy to seek greater powers in the realm of education in Ireland than in other countries where it compromised to a greater extent on its ambitions and ideology.⁴

Central to the mechanisms to inculcate and establish this distinct Irish identity in the Irish Free State was the primary school curriculum, a curriculum that had been used for similar purposes but in the opposite direction prior to independence (i.e. to deny or underplay any distinct Irish identity and to instil imperial values and norms). The purpose of this article is to explore and assess Rev. Professor Timothy Corcoran’s influence, impact and legacy in framing curriculum provisions in the Irish Free State through an analysis of his prolific writings as they related to the primary school curriculum.

This article builds on previous scholarship in the field in terms of both the primary school curriculum and the study of Corcoran as an educationalist. In terms of the curriculum, much scholarship has been focused on delineating primary school curriculum provisions in the 1920s.⁵ Corcoran has been the subject of some academic discourse,⁶ but, considering Titley’s view that he was “to dominate the Irish educational scene in the two decades following independence,”⁷ there is relatively little published scholarship considering his prolific writings and influential roles in Irish education.⁸ Unlike many other curriculum policymakers, Corcoran provides extensive insights into his educational philosophy and thinking through his published writings, making an analysis of his influence and impact feasible and worthwhile. Moreover, there has been no distinct focus on Corcoran’s role in directing and influencing primary school curriculum provisions in the 1920s. Beyond the Irish context, the article also contributes to a wider scholarship on understanding the restructuring of education and the building of national identities in postcolonial contexts.⁹ Specifically, it adds to a corpus of literature that explores how schools and the curriculum are used for nation-building in postcolonial contexts.¹⁰

In terms of structure, this article begins with a review of education policy in the Irish Free State prior to the 1920s, with a particular emphasis on primary school curriculum policy. It then proceeds to delineate the core emphases within curriculum provisions that were introduced in the newly established Free State in the 1920s. In light of these provisions, the substantive part of the article is an analysis and critique of the prolific writings of Rev. Professor Timothy Corcoran as they related to the primary school curriculum, presented across four themes. The article concludes with a discussion on the influence, impact and legacy of Corcoran on the primary school education experienced by generations of primary school children in Ireland between the 1920s and the 1970s.

Context and Background

The curriculum followed in primary schools across the island of Ireland from the 1830s was determined by Westminster, following the Acts of Union of 1800,¹¹ and evolved in line with political, social and economic developments. Beginning with a focus on literary, mathematical and moral education through the readers of the primary schools,¹² a system of payment by results was introduced from 1872. This placed a strong focus on the memorisation of material for individual pupil annual examinations conducted by inspectors which largely informed the salaries to be paid to teachers.¹³ This was followed in 1900 by the introduction of a Revised Programme of Instruction which was in place until independence in the early 1920s.¹⁴ Informed and influenced by the transnational circulation of educational ideas,¹⁵ this was a progressive and child-centred curriculum which placed an emphasis on the holistic education of children using heuristic methods across a broad range of both cognitive and practical subjects.¹⁶

Throughout this period, the curriculum was underpinned by imperial ideology and there was little accommodation for the Irish language, culture, history or traditions within the day-to-day life of schools.¹⁷ As part of the cultural nationalist movement towards independence, planning began for a context in which educational decisions would be made by a native government. In 1918, the Education Committee of the Gaelic League¹⁸ developed a programme for schools with varying provisions depending on whether the area was largely Irish-speaking, partially Irish-speaking or predominantly English-speaking.¹⁹ Subsequent efforts were guided by the articulated aims of both the State and the Catholic Church in relation to their vision for the education system in an independent Ireland. For the State, the building of national identity and nationhood through primary schools became a core priority in the postcolonial context. As was stated,

it is the intention of the new government to work with all its might for the strengthening of the national fibre by giving the language, history, music and tradition of Ireland their natural place in the life of Irish schools.²⁰

The Catholic Church, with the allegiance of 93% of the population of the Free State, saw an opportunity to concretise its control of the education system in the fledgling new state and asserted that

in view of pending changes in Irish education, we wish to assert that the only satisfactory system of education for Catholics is one wherein Catholic children are taught in Catholic schools by Catholic teachers under Catholic control.²¹

These twin pillars of nationalism and Catholicism were to become convenient bedfellows in the curriculum of primary schools in the Free State.

Primary School Curricula in the 1920s

In a climate of war and revolution, the primary teachers’ union, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation, established the first National Programme Conference in January 1921. Its aim was “to frame a programme, or series of programmes, in accordance with Irish ideals and conditions – due regard being given to local needs and views.”²² It comprised 11 members (six of whom were primary or secondary school teachers) as well as Rev. Professor Corcoran as an external advisor who placed “the benefit of his advice and experience at the disposal of the Conference.”²³

The report of the first National Programme Conference, published in January 1922, differed greatly in philosophy, tone and content from its predecessor in 1900. It was underpinned by a traditional and conservative philosophy of education and conceptualisation of the role of the child and teacher.²⁴ In terms of subjects, many of the manual, practical and inquiry-based subjects of the previous curriculum were removed to provide for a concentrated focus on a small number of obligatory subjects. These core subjects were Irish, mathematics, English, history and geography, singing, needlework and drill. The previous inquiry- and discovery-oriented approach was largely replaced by an emphasis on the direct method of instruction, placing an emphasis across subjects on “memorisation,” “transcription” and “writing from memory.”

One of the most fundamental changes was the “raising of the status of the Irish language both as a school subject and as an instrument of instruction.”²⁵ This involved using Irish as a medium of instruction in all schools for the first two years of schooling (the infant classes), although 90% of the 250,000 children in the infant classes spoke English in their homes.²⁶ All other classes would receive instruction in Irish for one hour daily, while Irish was also to permeate teaching and learning in all other subjects (particularly singing, history and geography) and be the official school language. Moreover, the promotion of Irish was accompanied by a concomitant diminution of the status of the English language as a subject. The programme advocated study of European texts translated into English rather than the work of English authors, stating that “English authors, as such, should have just the limited place due to English literature among all the European literatures.”²⁷ The overall approach deviated from the previous Gaelic League policy of bilingualism, which was differentiated for the linguistic context of various regions, and championed the revival of the Irish language as a vernacular through uniform provisions in all schools.²⁸

A Second National Programme Conference was convened by the Minister for Education in 1925 in light of the challenges inherent in enacting the provisions of the 1922 programme, again assisted by Corcoran as external advisor. Its report, published in March 1926, endorsed and approved the aims and “high purpose”²⁹ of the 1922 programme, in particular the ultimate aim to enable children “to understand Irish and to speak it distinctly and correctly as their natural language.”³⁰ Despite contradictory evidence, much highlighting the challenges and undesirability of using Irish as a medium of instruction in the infant classes,³¹ the conference received “authoritative evidence” that by teaching Irish using the direct method for a number of years between the ages of four and eight, it “would be quite sufficient – given trained and fluent teachers – to impart to children a vernacular power over the language.”³² Ultimately, some minor modifications were introduced in the subjects to be studied alongside transitional steps towards its realisation. Specifically, this involved Higher and Lower courses in Irish and English that were to be used depending on the linguistic context of the school and competence of the teacher.³³ It also introduced a concession regarding the use of English in the infant classes, allowing it to be taught before 10.30 am and after 2 pm. It also recommended that the Department of Education place restrictions on publishers or even veto textbooks “with a view to ensuring that the books produced by them may promote the educational aim of the country.”³⁴

The 1926 programme was also instrumental in framing a broader view of the purpose of education through a statement on the role of religion in education, a topic which had not been broached in 1922. This is significant, as the Stanley Letter which had underpinned the national system of education since 1831 had positioned the separation of religious and secular education as a core principle of provision.³⁵ In absolute contradiction of this principle, the 1926 programme articulated that “Of all parts of a school curriculum Religious instruction is by far the most important.”³⁶ It went on to state that not only should religion be a school subject, but that “a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school” while the role of the teacher was to “inculcate” moral virtues and to ensure “the moulding to perfect form of his pupils’ character.”³⁷ The articulation of this philosophy of education, in line with papal encyclicals³⁸ and Catholic doctrine of the era, was instrumental in shifting the conceptualisation of both the teacher and the pupil in the national system, and in integrating religious education alongside building national identity as the core purposes of primary education in the Irish Free State. It also marked a further point of departure from the preceding curriculum: a change from nurturing and bringing out the uniqueness and individuality of each child to imposing a prescribed identity and character in line with God’s laws.

The next section proceeds to explore and evaluate how the educational ideas and philosophy of Rev. Professor Timothy Corcoran, as determined through his published writings, informed and underpinned curricular provisions of the Irish Free State as published in 1922 and 1926.

Rev. Professor Timothy J. Corcoran, SJ (1872–1943)

Timothy Corcoran was born in Dunkerrin, Tipperary, into a middle-class Catholic family. Following entry to the Jesuit novitiate in 1890, he taught history and classics at Clongowes College from 1894 until 1901. He was appointed professor of the theory and practice of education at University College Dublin in 1908, a post he held until shortly before his death. In this role, he was aptly positioned to shape the emerging landscape of university education following the introduction of the Irish Universities Act, 1908.³⁹ Given his religious credentials, his professorship in education and his strong connections with the language revival movement, he became a highly influential advisor within the Irish Free State following political independence in 1921, and his public and private “comments became the principal indicator of ecclesiastical approval or disapproval” for education policy.⁴⁰ His impact was particularly influential in the aforementioned 1922 and 1926 conference reports when he acted as an external advisor rather than a conference member, arguably occupying a more elevated and influential position than other members.

During his academic career, he published prolifically on education, in areas in which he had academic expertise (history and classics) as well as on issues such as linguistics and psychology which were outside his area of expertise. His writings, as will be seen below, were characterised by great confidence and authority in which he repeated arguments and drew on examples from ancient or medieval Christian Ireland or international jurisdictions, often inappropriately, to substantiate his points. These writings are explored below across four direct lines of influence on the curricula introduced in the Irish Free State in the 1920s: namely, Irish language curriculum policy; knowledge in the curriculum; pedagogy in the curriculum; and conceptualisation of the teacher and child in the curriculum.

Irish Language Curriculum Policy

While not a native or indeed competent speaker of the Irish language, Corcoran asserted that the Irish language was core to Irish identity and its revival should be a core function of the education system. This was related to his belief that the policy largely to exclude the Irish language from primary schools prior to independence was “fatal to the national use of vernacular Irish.”⁴¹ Going beyond the aforementioned Gaelic League policy of 1918, Corcoran sought a revival of “Irish as the main vernacular language” rather than a policy of bilingualism.⁴² He firmly believed that, through schooling, a “reversal of process is equally feasible,”⁴³ drawing linkage to the replacement of Irish by English from the 1830s, and the traditional learning of Latin, as well as other international examples.⁴⁴ In his evidence to the Second National Programme Conference, Corcoran asserted that it would “take a generation to alter the actual speech of a district” but that Irish could be restored in that time frame through the school system, with English becoming a “subordinate” second language.⁴⁵ Indeed, he asked the rhetorical question in a 1925 article, “Can the Language Be Given in and through the School as a Real Vernacular?” answering that “there is an abundance of evidence for an affirmative answer.”⁴⁶

To achieve this end, Corcoran argued that Irish should not be taught as merely another subject but should be used as a medium of instruction and infuse all elements of teaching and learning. This was particularly important in the infant classes as, according to Corcoran, “the early age is the language age.”⁴⁷ This was central to Corcoran’s evidence to the Second National Programme Conference when he stated:

The dominant subject in Infant standards, and up to 8 years of age, should be the oral use of Irish. Every part of the curriculum, under 8 years of age, should be annexed to Irish and subserve oral command of it.⁴⁸

Corcoran recognised that the restoration of a “vernacular command” was a much more complex task than the learning of a second language, and could never be achieved through the “direct method.”⁴⁹ He advocated informal teaching approaches for language acquisition up to the age of 10, with a special emphasis on national music, verse and poetry,⁵⁰ as well as indoor and outdoor “play occupations,” leading “to spontaneous and effortless self-expression.”⁵¹ Corcoran had also advocated, unsuccessfully, the establishment of a system of Irish-medium pre-primary schools for three- to seven-year-olds staffed by native speakers and using informal play-based methods, in which

[t]he language should be the sole aim of that school: if it is, the habit of using the language can be given by one teacher to a hundred children in one year, and it can become a permanent possession, a second nature, within the three years.⁵²

For Corcoran, the Irish and English languages were in opposition and competition with one another, arguing that the English language was “utterly Protestant in core, in tradition, in expression.”⁵³ Although he acknowledged a necessity for command of the English language, he argued that “the need of it should not be a ground for tolerating either English thought, or the expression of Irish thought in English, in any enduring way or secured position intimately affecting our ideals and lives.”⁵⁴ Anglo-Irish literature was seen as equally pernicious, “for all its pretentious poverty of thought and inadequacy of development.”⁵⁵ The solution was translations of great European and extra-European works that were “entirely un-English in thought and doctrine and out-look”⁵⁶ and “evacuated of all English thought, immensely wider than English writing in its outlook and range of interests, immensely superior, in all moral qualities, to the infected areas of English.”⁵⁷

Corcoran’s beliefs relating to the Irish language were also to have a profound effect on teacher education policy within the Free State, advocating the prioritisation of candidates from Irish-speaking regions with a native competence in the language for teacher selection and training. For Corcoran, “Vernacular languages simply cannot be restored save by the agency of native speakers”⁵⁸ as “no one gives what one has not: and only the vernacular speaker can give to scholars that fluency and effortless spontaneity of utterance which is the vital and essential element in vernacular command of a language.”⁵⁹ Such speakers, drawn from Irish-speaking and culturally rich Gaelic regions of Ireland, were for Corcoran “the pearl of great price for Ireland and the cause of the Irish language as a vernacular.”⁶⁰ Specifically he advocated that

[o]ur national well-being would benefit greatly were one-half, and more than one-half, of the annual vacancies in our training colleges strictly reserved for native speakers; and were the rest of the vacancies specially made open to them by the assignment of high marks to real spoken Irish.⁶¹

A Preparatory College system followed by selection to teacher training programmes, along the lines advocated by Corcoran, were introduced from the mid-1920s.⁶²

His boundless confidence in the potential success of his Irish language policy proposals is evident from his writings, articulating a “call to arms” to forge onwards with the revival policy:

There are too many who are inclined to temporise, to go slow, to make apologies for the right policy. Such an attitude makes for defeat on the language front, though the path to victory is not so very difficult.⁶³

Corcoran’s thinking found its way into all elements of Irish language curriculum policy for schools through his advice and “authoritative evidence” to the programme conferences and in wider educational spheres. This included the predominant focus on schools for the revival effort, the use of Irish as a medium of instruction in infant classes, the infusion of Irish across all dimensions and subjects of the curriculum, the subservience of English and other subjects to the revival process, and the selection and training of teachers for the revival effort. Critically, his views set education policy on a path of revival rather than bilingualism, reverting to his imaginary of the pre-colonial status quo of a pure Irish-speaking nation.⁶⁴ However, his assertions were often lacking in evidence or reality, especially in relation to the role of schools being the primary cause of the demise of the Irish language in the 1800s⁶⁵ or the capacity of schools (staffed mostly by teachers without competence in the language) to revive a minority language. In Titley’s estimation, Corcoran’s beliefs in relation to revival strategy were “both misguided and futile. But in the halcyon atmosphere of the new Irish state enthusiasm prevailed over reason.”⁶⁶

Knowledge in the Curriculum

Corcoran expressed deeply conservative and traditional convictions in relation to the position of knowledge in the primary school curriculum. He believed that there was a core and undisputed corpus of knowledge, rooted in the traditions and philosophy of Catholic education, that should be transmitted by schools and internalised by pupils. Inherent within the tradition of Christian education, Corcoran asserted that the “Church requires Christian knowledge to be thoroughly acquired. Large masses of facts must be known, for the positive side of Christian knowledge is very considerable.”⁶⁷ He was very critical of the progressive educational ideals and practical focus underpinning the 1900 curriculum in Ireland, which, he argued, resulted in “diverting the teachers’ attention from what is vital and substantial at the primary period, to what is accidental and subordinate.”⁶⁸ As he stated:

It is not too much to say that all systematic training into thorough accuracy in spelling, in writing, in calculation, even in grammatical expression of thought, was actively discouraged. The real function of the primary school, which is to secure an enduring and expedite possession of these essential instruments of the acquisition of knowledge, was consigned to a position of subordination and often of neglect.⁶⁹

For Corcoran, “mental action” and intellectual development should be the core focus of education over any sensory or manual training, whereby it was

essential that the mental aim and process should always be the principal element in education. Fact knowledge, and plenty of it, is indispensable even in early stages of training in schools. Both the facts must be selected, organised, and directed to an intellectual end.⁷⁰

In relation to reading, Corcoran advised against reading for leisure and pleasure, instead advocating a deeper engagement with a limited number of texts. He proposed “the thorough use of a few books, and the banishment of casual reading to make ample room for the nobler and constructive elements of national civilisation and progress.”⁷¹ He urged that education should

restore the thoroughness of use of a very few valuable books, such as prevailed over a hundred years ago; to prevent school organisation from developing a taste for profuse and miscellaneous reading of a trivial character, which is as worthless in the intellectual order as tippling is in the physical and moral life; to divert leisure hours less into pastime reading than into music and the other finer arts of expression.⁷²

Corcoran’s conceptualisation of knowledge became firmly embedded within the primary school curricula of the Irish Free State in the 1920s. It resulted in the removal of many subjects of a manual and practical character introduced in 1900 as compulsory subjects (such as drawing, physical training, object lessons, cookery and laundry, elementary science and manual instruction) and an in-depth engagement with a core corpus of knowledge in the remaining subjects. The curriculum was written in terms of the core knowledge the teacher should transmit to children on a class-by-class basis, accentuating the supremacy of cognitive learning.

Pedagogy in the Curriculum

Corcoran had particular views on how knowledge should be transmitted and tested in the primary school classroom. Pedagogically, he argued for the use of direct and repeated teaching of content using traditional methods that had deep roots in Christian Europe and in the Jesuit Order. Central to this were class teaching, rigorous methods and a focus on examinations to ensure mastery of subject knowledge. In this regard, he argued, the “older processes of education [which] relied much on organic and mnemonic habituation … were unquestionably on the right track.”⁷³

For Corcoran, class teaching was characterised by “the co-operative class, with all its accessories of direct teaching, mutual stimulus by competition in the open, and rigorous examinations.”⁷⁴ Consequently, he criticised the progressive educationalists who advocated individual instruction. He castigated the “miserable system of individual instruction in elementary schools, the special weakness of Protestant Germany, England, Holland, and New England” in comparison to the tradition of the “historic Class System of our Christian Schools in all ages.”⁷⁵ For Corcoran,

[i]ndividual instruction was, of course, the sign of the incompetent or diffident teacher, lacking the training and leadership required for social co-operative effort extending to a good-sized class.⁷⁶

Corcoran was particularly critical of the emphasis on sensory training and learning among the progressive educationalists, which he perceived to be a denigration of “bookish methods” and “a radical departure from the common traditions of Christian Europe.”⁷⁷ In this regard, Montessori, Pestalozzi and Rousseau received particular scorn. Montessori’s emphasis on sensorial learning based on her experience with “deficient” and “idiot” children was critiqued across a range of Corcoran’s articles in the mid-1920s. He argued that the education of “normal children” should not follow or be constrained by the same principles and methods as these children were “in full possession of the three great educative senses [touch, sight, hearing].”⁷⁸ Placing emphasis on intricate hand and eye work and other sensory exercises was perceived by Corcoran to place a great strain on the “nervous power” of young children, “imposing an extravagant and continuous strain on the sight, on the organs of speech, on the motor centres, and on the sense of touch in very small children.”⁷⁹ As he asserted:

It is also well known that exacting precision must not be aimed at, in school tasks affecting eyesight, at an early age. Any competent school authority will banish at once all forms of delicate eyework and handwork before nine years of age, and be sparing in allowing them before the age of twelve.⁸⁰

He vehemently stated that handwork in the form of hand or eye training had no place in early schooling, believing instead that the emphasis should be on developing the senses of hearing, sight and movement:

These are the true educative senses of the earlier years: there is no more justification for a premature and limited demand on the undeveloped power of the hand or of the eye, than there is for the production of the child acrobat.⁸¹

Corcoran decried the philosophical basis of Pestalozzi’s progressive educational ideals regarding manual instruction, describing his writings and practices in elementary education as “almost inconceivably absurd”⁸² with their “absurd programme and more absurd methods.”⁸³ He asserted that Pestalozzi’s real motivation was the exploitation of young children for their manual labour, likening it to the abuses previously evident in the Charter Schools of Ireland and the coalmines of England where child labour enrichened the masters running them. Manual instruction or even hand and eye training had no place in primary schools for Corcoran, who asserted that the Pestalozzi system “is the very antithesis of all true education.”⁸⁴

Rousseau, whose educational writings were characterised by Corcoran as “vague,” “nebulous” and “unconvincing,”⁸⁵ was accused of endeavouring “to banish all reading, writing, intellectual action itself, from the educative process”⁸⁶ and replacing them with an exclusive focus on the sense of touch. For Corcoran, “language is the medium of school-work: language first, last, and all the time.”⁸⁷ Allied to this, Corcoran advocated debate and discussion among older students in particular as a pedagogical tool, complementing the knowledge in textbooks by teaching children to discuss, critique, note omission and analyse.⁸⁸

Corcoran was particularly critical of the emphasis on particular didactic materials to be used in classrooms for various activities and purposes, asserting that the material “replaces the long-established teaching processes in all civilised countries.”⁸⁹ The focus on materials also reduced the emphasis on oral work and on class teaching which for Corcoran were central to the Irish language revival, asserting that materials interrupted the focus on the spoken and written word.⁹⁰ As he stated:

“Didactic material” from 3 to 7 years and from 7 to 11 years, ousts the oral teaching, the collective class work on oral lines, the training in sounds and in ordered speech which can be given only by the teacher handling a class as a co-operative unit. The “didactic material” is for individual and silent work, which is imposed, through that material, as the standard and substantive process of education.⁹¹

Corcoran accused the proponents of these prescribed and costly resources of being motivated by profit, whereby the “didactic materials” are “patented and sold at highly profitable prices” by the “Educational Supply Agencies.”⁹² In this way, the processes and ends of education are determined by the one designer of the material and this, for Corcoran, was “a denial of all liberty, and indeed of all teaching power, to the teacher.”⁹³ Instead, Corcoran promoted the free and unlimited use of all materials available in varied and unrestricted ways, in “ever-new combinations, devised and improvised by teachers and pupils conjointly.”⁹⁴

Corcoran advocated the use of examinations and testing, both oral and written, as an integral part of schooling, commencing from age nine or ten.⁹⁵ He understood examinations to be an “intrinsically educative process” and “a powerful method of intellectual and moral training in themselves.”⁹⁶ As he stated, “all true education must progressively combine effort with mere interest: it is the effort that ennobles and makes worthily human.”⁹⁷ He criticised the “soft pedagogies” of reformers who viewed examinations as “an evil,” asserting that the “merely general descriptions and impressions that are too often the only tangible result of years spent in schools devoted to novelty of methods and to vagueness of aims, are badly in need of the compressing of experience into definite expression of thoughts and facts.”⁹⁸ In his view:

Interesting teaching is very liable to minimise the essential methods of thorough repetition. Work done from day to day, from week to week, without the hardening influence of revision and of definite testing, is liable to become vague, blurred and unreliable … Thought applied to knowledge, without the external guarantees of objective testing and verification, may prove to be of very indifferent quality.⁹⁹

Corcoran’s pedagogical thinking was highly impactful in framing provisions within the primary school curricula of the Irish Free State. A strong emphasis was placed in the 1922 and 1926 curricula on memorisation and regurgitation of book knowledge, with little emphasis placed on wider sensorial or experiential learning, even in the infant classes. Little provision was evident for tailoring content to the individual needs of children, with content delineated class-by-class without consideration for individual abilities or interests. The teacher and books were advocated as the main teaching resources, with considerable emphasis placed on oral language interactions. Assessment and testing were central to curricular provisions and this was enhanced from 1929 by the introduction of the Primary Certificate Examination, a development Corcoran no doubt supported.¹⁰⁰ While this examination was initially optional and broad-based, it became compulsory and focused on core subjects from 1943. Ultimately, it became a rite of passage and marked the end of formal education for most children in Ireland until its abolition in 1967.¹⁰¹

Conceptualisation of the Teacher and Child in the Curriculum

For Corcoran, the teacher was the supreme authority in the classroom, transmitting defined knowledge to a classroom of pupils through direct instruction, ensuring it was committed to memory through repetition and examination, while maintaining strict discipline. The approaches advocated by many of the progressive educationalists¹⁰² and imbued within the earlier 1900 programme challenged this conceptualisation of the teacher, placing an emphasis on the facilitation and observation roles, as well as the individual instruction of pupils based on their choices and interests. Corcoran understood this to be an attack on the essence of what it was to be a teacher – to teach, to discipline, to direct learning, to correct errors in thinking and for “accurate teaching of Christian doctrine and on moral training.”¹⁰³

This conceptualisation of the teacher was particularly evident in his criticisms of Montessori, whose philosophy he claimed had led to “the elimination of the essential functions of the teacher. The teacher is to be reduced to the role of an observer of children’s behaviour, and the Montessori ‘didactic material’ is put in the teacher’s place.”¹⁰⁴ As Corcoran saw it, this process of “auto-education” devalued the role of the teacher and led to a “total perversion of language, the word teacher is still retained, though emptied of its meaning.”¹⁰⁵ He mocked the miraculous learning Montessori asserted would happen when the teacher acted in the role of facilitator and observer:

Ability to read and write, secured in darkness and silence, is no doubt very fortunate as a result, when they cannot be taught: they cannot be taught since “there remains for the teacher nothing but to observe.”¹⁰⁶

Corcoran reserved similar taunts for Rousseau, based on the latter’s belief that social contact would harm the “all-perfect” child, and that through a “system of elaborate trickery,” “without giving any real teaching” which would infringe on the “pupil’s divine right to absolute liberty,” the child would “secure results.”¹⁰⁷ Corcoran believed class teaching, led by an authoritative teacher, to be the ideal:

It need hardly be said that the Christian schools of European tradition have always used the services of true teachers only, and have not resorted to the Protestant device of keeping terms which they empty of their content and significance. This particular perversion of the noble word “teacher,” a term to which the idea of authority and directive power is essential, is of quite recent growth. It is due to Rousseau.¹⁰⁸

Alongside the criticality of an authoritative teacher for religious and moral purposes, Corcoran asserted the centrality of the teacher for language revival purposes. In this role, the modelling of oral language and the fostering of language competence in pupils were pivotal, and Corcoran concluded that the Montessori method was incompatible with the language revival role of schools:

Oral expression is exclusively characteristic of man, of a spiritual power: it is eminently a subject for collective teaching in the class, under effective leadership of a real teacher, under organised cooperative conditions, to which all pupils in a class should conform. It is a training process which calls for real teaching by a real teacher.¹⁰⁹

Given the centrality of the teacher to education, Corcoran advocated a thorough training of Catholic teachers for Catholic schools. Corcoran summarised the 1929 Papal Encyclical Letter, Divini Illius Magistri, as “the good school is the result of good teachers,”¹¹⁰ and lauded the fact that many countries were becoming “fully alert to the vital significance of the Catholic training and education of the Catholic teacher, who alone is fitted to teach Catholic pupils.”¹¹¹

Central to the conceptualisation of the teacher for Corcoran was his conceptualisation of the child. For Corcoran, the doctrine of original sin was highly influential in his thinking, and a central role of the teacher and of schooling was to counter the child’s potential predisposition to evil. Addressing original sin through education became more pronounced in his later writings:

Every method of education founded, wholly or in part, on the denial or forgetfulness of original sin and of grace, and relying on the sole powers of nature, is unsound. Such, generally speaking, are those modern systems bearing various names, which appeal to a pre-tended self-government and unrestrained freedom on part of the child, and which diminish, or even suppress the teacher’s authority and action, attributing to the child an exclusive primacy of initiative and an activity independent of any higher law, natural or divine, in the work of his education.¹¹²

To address original sin successfully through education, Corcoran advocated that religion should permeate all aspects of education rather than stand alone as a school subject.¹¹³ Quoting from the 1929 Papal Encyclical Letter, Divini Illius Magistri, Corcoran rejected modern philosophies of education based on naturalistic principles and asserted that

[i]nstruction is full of danger when the religious element is nullified or even weakened. Let no one think that piety can be with impunity severed from teaching and instruction … It is essential not merely that youth be taught Religion at fixed hours, but that all the other subjects of their educational course should breathe in fullest measure the spirit of Christian piety.¹¹⁴

These views were at variance with that of Montessori’s reliance on the naturalistic concept of man, “doctrines avowedly derived from poisoned sources” according to Corcoran.¹¹⁵

Corcoran’s conceptualisation of the teacher and of the child evidently underpinned curriculum policy in the 1920s. At a national level, the teacher was the agent of the State and tasked with language revival and nation-building. At a classroom level, the teacher was ascribed a strong and authoritative role within the curriculum, transmitting large quantities of undisputed knowledge to the child, and testing learning through examinations. Moreover, as noted earlier, the role of religion within the curriculum was given particular prominence in the 1926 curriculum, both as a separate subject and by the assertion that “a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school.”¹¹⁶ The conceptualisation of the child, by contrast, was as passive and receptive, in need of strict socialisation to combat original sin and human frailty. Moreover, the child had a duty to adults and to the State in terms of instigating and facilitating the language revival – a duty that trumped any other instincts or interests the child might harbour.

Discussion and Conclusion

Corcoran’s religious and academic credentials, allied to his confidence and assertiveness, ensured that his “authoritative evidence” was heard and listened to in his role as curriculum external advisor. He encompassed, symbolised and articulated the synthesis of nationalist, revivalist and Catholic ideology that was buoyant in the postcolonial independence context. In the climate of deference of the 1920s, there was little public or sustained challenge or critique of Corcoran’s assertions which reified the dominant ideologies of the day.¹¹⁷ Commensurate with other postcolonial contexts,¹¹⁸ Corcoran was instrumental in evoking both reconstructed and (re-)created subjective, symbolic and sociocultural imaginaries of a glorious and pure past, central to which were the Irish language and Catholic religion. In terms of the Irish language, this was symbolically significant yet increasingly practically peripheral by the 1920s, an ancestral tongue rather than a mother tongue for the vast majority of the Free State population.¹¹⁹

Corcoran’s writings, in summary, were a plea for the reversal of history, to return to “an island of authenticity” that may never have existed.¹²⁰ Although, as O’Leary argues, the Catholic Church was “one of the first successful trans-national, international and indeed global institutions,” there was little accommodation of these transnational influences in the Irish Free State in the 1920s.¹²¹ Certainly, Corcoran was conversant with and strongly aligned to the ideals of Ratio Studiorum, which encapsulated the traditional educational philosophy and beliefs of the Jesuits.¹²² He also drew on the principles of Catholic educators such as John Bosco, John Baptiste de la Salle, Pierre Fournier and Abbe Charles Demia, yet he chose to neglect some of the wider educational positions on schooling held by Catholic orders such as the Franciscans and Ursulines.¹²³ As evidenced earlier, he openly and vociferously challenged and criticised the thinking of more progressive educationalists to bolster his own arguments in relation to curriculum developments. Overall, progressive ideas circulating internationally were represented selectively, reinterpreted or resisted in the Irish context, resulting in a traditional, teacher-centred and state exam-focused system of education for primary school pupils in Ireland.

Corcoran’s power and position as “an organiser and propagandist of reckless confidence”¹²⁴ resulted in a primary school curriculum that became a pedagogical manifestation of this aspired new national identity in which schools were not preparing children for the society in which they actually lived, but rather the function of schooling became to “create the environment for the child to live in.”¹²⁵ This new environment was built on a policy of difference and distinctiveness: the “Ireland was whatever England was not policy.”¹²⁶ As Walsh states:

Schools were appropriated as symbols and statements of national identity and the national character of the curriculum was asserted as a representation of a total break from the colonial past. Education as a process, and by virtue of this, children as educational objects, were conceptualised as entities that could be moulded as required to symbolise the new national identity.¹²⁷

In 1943, J. J. O’Neill, first Secretary at the Department of Education, asserted in a eulogy to Corcoran that

[i]n the reconstruction of the Irish State he [Corcoran] was from the beginning the master-builder in Education. The Commissions on Education, set up in 1921, were guided so largely by him that it may be said that the curricula, aims and methods in Primary and Secondary Education which emerged from them were, in the main, the work of his hands.¹²⁸

The analysis of Corcoran’s writings in this article evidence that O’Neill was accurate in his estimation of the influence and impact of Corcoran’s thinking in the primary school curriculum. The philosophy, outlook, conceptualisations and content of the primary school curricula in the 1920s were substantially aligned with his writings in terms of the revival of the Irish language, understandings of knowledge and pedagogy, and the conceptualisation of the teacher and child. This is made more manifestly evident given the complete contrast with the preceding curriculum, which was informed by the progressive educationalists and characterised by its emphasis on child-centredness, individualised instruction, learning through the senses and inquiry-based learning. This article argues that Corcoran’s writings, more ideologically than evidence informed, were singularly impactful in informing and influencing primary curriculum philosophy, content and pedagogies in the 1920s. What resulted was a stalemate over the next half-century, characterised by a lack of willingness to adapt curriculum policy in light of the obvious evidence that the vision, philosophy and conceptualisations of the 1920s were based on “a series of erroneous beliefs held in good faith by honourable men.”¹²⁹ The legacy was an increasingly unsuitable curriculum philosophy, content and pedagogies that impacted generations of children in Ireland until the next substantive curriculum change in 1971.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the wonderful library space and excellent facilities extended to him as a researcher in residence at the Centre Culturel Irlandais (CCI) in Paris in October 2023, while this article was being researched and written.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Thomas Walsh

Thomas Walsh is associate professor in the Department of Education, Maynooth University, Ireland. He joined the department in 2014 having previously worked as a primary school teacher, an education researcher, and a primary school inspector at the Department of Education. His teaching and research interests focus on history of education, teacher education, education policy and legislation, and curriculum studies. As part of his sabbatical in 2023–24, he spent time as a researcher-in-residence at the Centre Cultural Irlandais, Paris, and as a Fulbright Scholar at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Notes

1. Lynch, Partition of Ireland.

2. Coquelin, “Class Struggle”; Dolan, “Politics, Economy and Society.”

3. Inglis, Moral Monopoly; Whyte, Church and State in Modern Ireland.

4. O’Donoghue and Harford, “Comparative History.”

5. Walsh, Primary Education in Ireland, 85–204; Coolahan, Towards the Era, 31–41.

6. Titley, “Rejecting the Modern World”; O’Connor, “Theories on Infant Pedagogy.”

7. Titley, Church, State, 94.

8. Corcoran produced a number of academic texts on topics such as Irish history of education and published hundreds of articles in national and international journals, including 37 articles in Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review (which he founded) and 111 articles in the Irish Monthly (published by the Irish Jesuit Province).

9. Grosvenor, “There’s No Place Like Home”; Anderson, Imagined Communities; Sherman, “Education in Early Postcolonial India.”

10. Meşeci Giorgetti, “Nation-Building in Turkey”; Giudici and Grizelj, “National Unity”; Huang, “Rethinking Taiwanese Nationality”; Yazıcı and Yıldırım, “History Teaching”; Vamos, “Hungarian–Russian Bilingual Schools.”

11. The Acts of Union of 1800 were parallel acts of the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of Ireland which abolished the Irish Parliament and created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

12. Lyons and Moloney, Educational Resources.

13. Coolahan, Towards the Era.

14. Commissioners of National Education, 67th Report.

15. Walsh and O’Donoghue, “Transnational Knowledge Circulation.”

16. Walsh, “Revised Programme.”

17. Ó Buachalla, “Educational Policy.”

18. The Gaelic League was a social and cultural organisation established in 1893 to preserve and extend the use of Irish as a spoken language.

19. Gaelic League, Education Programme of the Gaelic League, 189–91.

20. Department of Education, Statistics, 6.

21. Irish Catholic Directory, Record, 577–8.

22. National Programme Conference, National Programme, 3.

23. Ibid.

24. Walsh, “Concepts of Children.”

25. National Programme Conference, National Programme, 4.

26. Ó Cuív, “Education and Language,” 162.

27. National Programme Conference, National Programme, 5.

28. Walsh, “Revival or Bilingualism?”

29. National Programme Conference, Report and Programme, 9.

30. Ibid., 22.

31. Walsh, Primary Education, 143–50.

32. National Programme Conference, Report and Programme, 10.

33. Ibid., 12.

34. Ibid., 16.

35. O’Donovan, Stanley’s Letter.

36. National Programme Conference, Report and Programme, 21.

37. Ibid.

38. See, for example: Pius XI: Divini Illius Magistri – On the Christian Education of Youth (1929); Casti Connubii – On Christian Marriage (1930); Quadragesimo Anno (1931) – which was an update of Rerum Novarum (1891).

39. Harford, “Words Importing the Masculine.”

40. Titley, “Rejecting the Modern World,” 137.

41. Corcoran, “Irish Language,” 379.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid., 386.

44. Corcoran, “Language Campaigns.”

45. Corcoran, Evidence of Rev. Corcoran.

46. Corcoran, “Irish Language,” 376.

47. Ibid., 380.

48. Corcoran, Evidence of Rev. Corcoran.

49. Corcoran, “Irish Language,” 379.

50. Corcoran, “Music and Language,” 339.

51. Corcoran, “Irish Language,” 385.

52. Corcoran, “How the Irish Language Can Be Revived,” 27.

53. Corcoran, “How English May Be Taught,” 269.

54. Ibid., 270.

55. Ibid., 269.

56. Ibid., 270.

57. Ibid., 271.

58. Corcoran, “Quality of Popular Education,” 407.

59. Corcoran, “Irish Language,” 382.

60. Corcoran, “Native Speaker as Teacher,” 188–9.

61. Corcoran, “Irish Language,” 383.

62. O’Donoghue et al., Teacher Preparation in Ireland.

63. Corcoran, “Native Speaker as Teacher,” 190.

64. de Brún, Revivalism.

65. Doyle, History; Kelly, Compulsory Irish.

66. Titley, “Rejecting the Modern World,” 141.

67. Corcoran, “Class Examinations,” 287.

68. Corcoran, “Education for the Land,” 356.

69. Ibid.

70. Corcoran, “Early Training,” 344.

71. Corcoran, “Books and National Education,” 568.

72. Ibid.

73. Corcoran, “Education for the Land,” 356.

74. Corcoran, “Origins of Individual Instruction,” 286.

75. Corcoran, “Individualism in Modern Education,” 342.

76. Corcoran, “Origins of Individual Instruction,” 287.

77. Corcoran, “Early Training,” 343.

78. Corcoran, “Is the Montessori Method? III,” 238.

79. Corcoran, “Montessori System,” 519.

80. Corcoran, “Irish Language,” 380.

81. Corcoran, “How the Irish Language Can Be Revived,” 30.

82. Corcoran, “Some Lessons,” 173.

83. Ibid., 175.

84. Corcoran, “Centenary of Pestalozzi,” 142.

85. Corcoran, “True Children’s Garden,” 230.

86. Corcoran, “Early Training,” 344.

87. Corcoran, “How the Irish Language Can Be Revived,” 30.

88. Corcoran, “Discussion as an Educative Process.”

89. Corcoran, “Is the Montessori Method? IV,” 290.

90. Corcoran, “True Use,” 232–3.

91. Corcoran, “Is the Montessori Method? IV,” 295–6.

92. Corcoran, “True Use,” 231.

93. Corcoran, “Dangers of Modern Teaching Materials,” 184.

94. Corcoran, “True Use,” 232–3.

95. Corcoran, “Class Examinations.”

96. Corcoran, “Examinations and Education,” 232.

97. Corcoran, “Irish Language,” 385.

98. Corcoran, “Class Examinations,” 288.

99. Ibid., 286.

100. Corcoran, “School Examination System.”

101. Walsh, Primary Education in Ireland, 101–3.

102. Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Montessori are regularly criticised in his writings, but Kant, Fichte, Herbart, Comte, Spencer, James, Natorp, Dewey and Durkheim are also singled out for criticism.

103. Corcoran, “Montessori System,” 517.

104. Corcoran, “Is the Montessori Method? II,” 179.

105. Corcoran, “True Use,” 232.

106. Corcoran, “Is the Montessori Method? III,” 240–1.

107. Corcoran, “Origins of Individual Instruction,” 288.

108. Corcoran, “True Children’s Garden,” 232.

109. Corcoran, “Irish Language,” 380–1.

110. Corcoran, “Catholic Philosophy,” 199.

111. Ibid., 201.

112. Ibid., 205 (emphasis in original).

113. Corcoran, “Chapel and the Classroom.”

114. Corcoran, “Catholic Philosophy,” 207.

115. Corcoran, “Montessori System,” 522.

116. National Programme Conference, Report and Programme, 21.

117. O’Donoghue and Harford, Piety and Privilege.

118. Smith, Nationalism.

119. O’Doherty, “Bilingual School Policy.”

120. White, “Impact of British Colonialism,” 7.

121. O’Leary, “Foreword.”

122. Fuerst, “Few Principles and Characteristics.”

123. Ferzoco and Muessig, Medieval Monastic Education; Waters, “Origins, Development and Influence.”

124. O’Meara, “Remembering Archbishop McQuaid, UCD,” 341.

125. O’Doherty, “Bilingual School Policy,” 266.

126. Kennedy, “Failure of the Cultural Republic,” 15.

127. Walsh, “Revival or Bilingualism?” 261.

128. Gleeson et al., “Father T. Corcoran, S.J.,” 158.

129. O’Doherty, “Bilingual School Policy,” 266.