I have been reading the Newcastle Report, a Royal Commission set up in 1858 in order to examine and report on the state of education in Britain. Some of its findings and recommendations are surprising, particularly when you bear in mind that only ten years later compulsory education was introduced in this country. The Newcastle Report had this to say on the subject;
"Any universal compulsory system appears to us neither attainable nor desirable. An attempt to replace an independent system of education with a compulsory system, managed by the Government, would be met by objections, both religious and political."
Today most people view school as such a natural and integral part of modern life that it seems incredible that a Royal Commission could have come down so firmly against the idea of compulsory education. Interestingly, the words that they used to dismiss the idea could be used to today by the opponents of the regulations about home education contained in the Children, Schools and Families Bill. What would be the practical results if the element of compulsion were to be wholly removed from education? I suppose that we and our children are in general so used to the concept of kids having to go to school or at the very least be educated, that it would throw everyone into confusion at first!
Would parents continue to send their children to school if compulsory education were abolished? Probably they would. An awful lot of the parents to whom one talks look forward to the day that their children will be going to school. many of them dislike the school holidays, especially the long Summer holiday. There is also the popular belief that children have to go to school to learn. Most parents would be frightened of the consequences of a child not being taught at school. Indeed, we know this to be true, because of course parents do not have to send their children to school as things currently stand. A very tiny minority fail to do so. School is popular with parents.
School is also, by and large, popular with the children themselves. They like the opportunity to get away from their parents, to meet their friends and so on. I believe that some of them even learn there!
In other words, despite the fact that school is not compulsory and never has been, the overwhelming majority of parents and children seem to like it just fine. At a guess, the situation would not change at all if a new law was passed which abolished the compulsory element from education altogether. Things would carry on just as they do now.
But was it necessary to make education compulsory? The number of children in education climbed from 524,241 in 1803 to 2,535,462 in 1858, a higher proportion of children than in Prussia where education *was* compulsory. Less than 5% of children were not receiving some education in school by this point (and some of these may have had tutors at home). Can we really believe that they made education compulsory because that was the only way to get children into school?
ReplyDeleteSorry, correction:
ReplyDelete"a higher proportion of children than in Prussia where education *was* compulsory"
should read,
"only 1.4% less than in Prussia where education was compulsory"
"But was it necessary to make education compulsory?"
ReplyDeleteGiven the time frame I'll bet my computer that you wouldn't see the proportion of female with basic skills like literacy let alone degress had it not come into play.
The benefits in terms of female emancipation may have been a symptom on compulsory ed rather than the point, but it is something for which I am truly grateful.
So I vote "hell yes"
Misogynists can take an awfully long time to catch up when it comes to giving their female children equal access to an education if left to do it in their own sweet time and you don't twist their arm behind their back.
Even today if you took compulsory ed off the table, in the UK, you'd find a proportion that wouldn't apply the same need for an education to their female children as they would their male children.
Buggered if I am going to support going back in time to that.
Quite right too, Sarah.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am evidently not the poster child for female literacy, having read my post again.
ReplyDeleteNote to self. When knickers are well and truly twisted, edit more, rather than less.
Even if the 'less than 5%' who did not attend school before education was compulsory (some of whom will have been tutored at home) were all girls, which seems unlikely, the vast majority of girls must have attended school before education was compulsory.
ReplyDeletePeople constantly go on about a child's right to an education, but how can something that's compulsory be called a right? Their claim is that 'it's for the children [wringing their hands]', but really it's for the GDP. At best you could call education a duty of a child towards their country, but that doesn't have quite the same appeal, does it? If it were a right, it would just be against the law to stop a child taking advantage of an education.
ReplyDeleteIt is important not to muddle up rights and duties. If one person has a right, then others have a duty to respect this right or at the very least not to frustrate it. So if I have a right to life, others must have a corresponding duty not to deprive me of my life. Without these duties which are always attached to rights, the very meaning of somebody having a right would be a nonsense.
ReplyDeleteTurning now to the case of a child's rights, let us assume for a moment that children have a right to live safely. This would mean that others had a duty to protect the child from harm. In practice, this might mean that if I saw a toddler wandering about on the edge of a cliff, I might rush up and grab her, carrying her to safety. I have thus exercised my duty in protecting her right to live safely.
But hang on a minute, I hear you saying, the child's right to a safe life has now become compulsory; you gave her no choice in the matter! This is quite true. That is because the case is altered where children are concerned. If I saw an adult wandering about on the top of a cliff, I would leave him alone. Even if he decided to hurl himself off, I would not interfere. The reason is that children and adults have different levels of understanding as to what they need and what is good for them. That is why those exercising their duty to ensure that a child's right to an education is respected, may on occasion act without reference to the child herself. (We could of course go on to discuss Gillick Competence, but I think that's enough for now!)
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteEven if the 'less than 5%' who did not attend school before education was compulsory (some of whom will have been tutored at home) were all girls, which seems unlikely, the vast majority of girls must have attended school before education was compulsory."
OK, you think that because 95% had access to "some" education that there was no gender divide in terms of parental commitment to financing/permitting access to an education for as long as possible based on aptitude/preference (rather than gender of the child). That the education of a female child was not seen as more optional, less necessary or less desirable that that of a male child. That the introduction of compulsory education and the subsequent raising of the school leaving age played no role in molding society's attitudes towards the education of girls which in turn played a major role in changing female educational and professional aspirations.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
I've witnessed too many girls whose parents willingly sent them to school when they were young enough to be underfoot and creating work, who later had to have the rules waggled at them to stop them constantly taking them out of school to undertake childcare and domestic duties by the time they got useful, at some point from about 10-11 onwards.
If compulsory education were sacrificed, in order to alleviate the stresses and strains placed upon me by the authorities as a HEing parent, those girls would be the first hurled under a metaphorical bus.
I'd no more support that than I would the outlawing of HE, aimed at reducing workload strain/job stress for workers in the LAs, cos "just a few" kids that belong to "other people/not me" would suffer badly, so they don't really matter.
"I've witnessed too many girls whose parents willingly sent them to school when they were young enough to be underfoot and creating work, who later had to have the rules waggled at them to stop them constantly taking them out of school to undertake childcare and domestic duties by the time they got useful, at some point from about 10-11 onwards."
ReplyDeleteSo you disagree with Simon's assessment that parent's would probably still send their children to school if education were no longer compulsory?
"Even if the 'less than 5%' who did not attend school before education was compulsory (some of whom will have been tutored at home) were all girls, which seems unlikely, the vast majority of girls must have attended school before education was compulsory."
ReplyDeleteGood grief. Are you really so lacking in your understanding of social history? Girls were sent out to work, just as young boys were. For many, 'schooling' wasn't viewed as necessary, whilst earning a living *was*. Schooling and education were rarely wasted on girls. Families considered that a waste of resources, given that girls were supposed to marry and produce children.
You are absolutely right, Mam'Goudig. As one of the commissions examining education in the mid 19th Century observed, "Boys are educated for the world, girls are educated for the drawing room." It is true that 95 % of girls received some schooling at that time, but this was usually limited to a few years at a "Dame School". It was seldom thought necessary to waste money on secondary education for a girl. Either they would marry and be provided for in that way or they were expected to help their mothers round the home. Even when compulsory education began in 1870, it was far more difficult to ensure the attendance of girls; they were simnply to useful around the house to allow them to waste their time sitting at a desk. In this sense, compulsory education was a liberating force for girls in the late 19th Century.
ReplyDelete"Good grief. Are you really so lacking in your understanding of social history?"
ReplyDeleteWell I did go to state school and am not particularly interested in history, so yes, probably, LOL.
"Girls were sent out to work, just as young boys were. For many, 'schooling' wasn't viewed as necessary, whilst earning a living *was*.Schooling and education were rarely wasted on girls. Families considered that a waste of resources, given that girls were supposed to marry and produce children."
So you don't believe that 95% of children attended at least some school before education was compulsory?
BTW, I didn't suggest that it was perfect in those days, just that it was moving quite fast in the right direction and making education compulsory didn't seem to affect the rate of change that much.
"So you disagree with Simon's assessment that parent's would probably still send their children to school if education were no longer compulsory?"
ReplyDelete______________
There would be an immediate withdrawal of some children and over time the cyclically acquired benefits of comp.ed. would probably erode through a reversed version the same cycle through which they were established. What the timescale would be I just don't know, I think it would depend on the factors that underpinned the withdrawal.
So no, I don't agree that all parents would necessarily continue to send their kids to school, particularly once they were past the "hard work having them at home" stage, not in the longer term.
_________________
"Well I did go to state school and am not particularly interested in history, so yes, probably, LOL".
______________
I went to state schools too in the main, left education at 16 with 4 "O" levels, (and two of those were in RE and DS), studied the industrial revolution till I had Spinning Jennies coming out of my ears but almost nothing on the social implications and sure as hell don't read history books for pleasure either.
But to be honest I am at a loss as to why either your or my educational history/personal interests are in any way relevant.
"There would be an immediate withdrawal of some children and over time the cyclically acquired benefits of comp.ed. would probably erode through a reversed version the same cycle through which they were established. What the timescale would be I just don't know, I think it would depend on the factors that underpinned the withdrawal."
ReplyDeleteThis is based on the assumption that making education compulsory was the main impetus for increased rates of education, but the rapid increase in schooling for around 50 years before it became compulsory, up to similar levels to countries in which it was already compulsory (like Prussia), suggest that this may not be the case.
"But to be honest I am at a loss as to why either your or my educational history/personal interests are in any way relevant."
That was in response the Mam'Goudig's comment, "Good grief. Are you really so lacking in your understanding of social history?"
I went to state school, and History became one of my favourite subjects. Possibly because our history teacher was excellent, but also because history is interesting. Perhaps it's just that I'm one of those people who believes in education for life, and enjoys learning. Those who apparently subscribe to the notion of packing away those particular tools after the age of 16 are, I believe, missing out hugely (or being cheated, since in many cases, it's those delivering the education who help the child to come to this decision).
ReplyDeleteI find myself bemused at the ignorance of some of those who claim to be fighting for the rights of home educators (or, at least, one hopes, home educated children), when many of those same people seem to know or understand little about how life generally was before education became compulsory for children.
"Perhaps it's just that I'm one of those people who believes in education for life, and enjoys learning."
ReplyDeleteMe too, but I've probably just been interested in other areas than you. Certainly I've been more interested in ancient history than modern, and much more interested in science, maths, nature, geography, different cultures, travel, etc, than the social history of the UK for the last 100-150 years. There is only so much time in the day.
"I find myself bemused at the ignorance of some of those who claim to be fighting for the rights of home educators (or, at least, one hopes, home educated children), when many of those same people seem to know or understand little about how life generally was before education became compulsory for children."
But I was wondering what the situation would have been today if education had not been made compulsory then, not quite the same. Unless you are suggesting that society would frozen at that point if education had not been made compulsory? No social evolution or advance would have been possible without that one action? Schools and education had been growing rapidly until that point and continued to grow afterwards. Who's to say that it wouldn't have continued to grow at a similar rate without making it compulsory. Other approaches (ensuring that school places were available to all) may even have worked better. Maybe education would be more valued by children today if it were genuinely a right rather than a requirement or duty? Certainly my autonomously educated children view education very differently to their school educated peers.
"Me too, but I've probably just been interested in other areas than you. Certainly I've been more interested in ancient history than modern, and much more interested in science, maths, nature, geography, different cultures, travel, etc, than the social history of the UK for the last 100-150 years. There is only so much time in the day."
ReplyDeleteYou seem to assume that it's impossible to be interested in and have a good grounding and understanding a wide range of subjects. Most odd.
The whole point is that education *is* a right, and one which many people are profoundly grateful for. It doesn't surprise me that an autonomous educator wouldn't see the point in compulsory education. You are, no doubt, highly motivated to ensure that your children learn and enjoy their learning. Many, many parents either didn't care whether their children were educated, couldn't afford to spare them for the 'luxury' of education (when those children could be useful elsewhere), or perhaps a combination of those factors. There are still many families today where children would not be sent to school if it were not compulsory for the child to be educated.
I suspect that one of the reasons why children don't always view education as a right, and something to be valued, is because of their upbringing. If parents don't value education, but view it in a negative way, their children are highly likely to follow their parent's views, at least until it's too late to benefit from the education they might receive as children. Parents have an awful lot of influence over their childrens' views, and it's often not until the children are in their teens that such views begin to be challenged by the children themselves.
"You seem to assume that it's impossible to be interested in and have a good grounding and understanding a wide range of subjects. Most odd."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think I think that? I listed a few of the subjects I'm interested in and they are quite wide ranging which seems to suggest I believe the opposite. I was just making the point that there will be some subjects that individuals are not interested in or do not have the time left to take an interest in because they are learning other subjects. Or do you believe it's possible to have a good grounding and understanding of *all* subjects?
"Many, many parents either didn't care whether their children were educated, couldn't afford to spare them for the 'luxury' of education (when those children could be useful elsewhere), or perhaps a combination of those factors."
Yet despite this at least 95% of children did receive some education at school and the numbers and amount of education had grown significantly during the 50 years before they made education compulsory. Why do you assume that this trend would not have continued? Do you have evidence that the growth rate had stalled or reduced? Or are you just making assumptions based on your ideas of human nature?
BTW, do you believe that 'those in authority' are primarily interested in the good of the individual child, or are they more interested in the GDP and the amount of benefits they fear the child will drain from the system in future? I ask because I think they would approach education in schools very differently if it were the first option and I doubt truancy would be nearly so much of an issue.
ReplyDelete