Just to remind readers, I am at the moment trying to see why local authorities are so keen on children attending school and why they are made uneasy when they hear of children who are not at school. This is of obvious interest to home educators. I think that we have so far established that it is better to be literate and well-educated than not and that schools are very effective at getting across at least the rudiments of things like literacy and numeracy to practically every pupil by the age of eleven. What would happen, all else being equal, to children who were not being taught at school?
So used are we to universal literacy, that it sometimes seems that acquiring the ability to read and write must be a natural process; a little like walking and talking. In other words, you don’t really need any formal instruction, because children are likely to pick it up more or less by themselves. This is certainly the view of many important ideologues in the world of American home education. As long ago as 1962, Paul Goodman, author of Compulsory Miseducation, said:
the puzzle is not how to teach reading, but why some children fail to learn to read. Given the amount of exposure that any urban child gets, any normal animal should spontaneously catch on to the code. What prevents? It is almost demonstrable that, for many children, it is precisely going to school that prevents - because of the school's alien style, banning of spontaneous interest, extrinsic rewards and punishments
So in this version of reality, literacy is not caused by schools at all, but they actually hinder its acquisition. Could this be true? Could universal literacy really be attained without schools? Fortunately, we have a fairly simply way of checking on claims of this sort.
Because literacy is taken for granted today, most of us have never met an illiterate adult. By this, I mean a man or woman who cannot read or write at all. My Uncle Eddie was one of these people. He was a Gypsy who had never attended school and he could not even write his own name. He used to sign for his wages by making a cross. This was rare in the 1960s, but quite common in nineteenth century England.
Here is the sort of urban environment which people like Paul Goodman think can allow a child to catch on spontaneously to reading:
This is London in the 1830s and there is plenty of print on display. You would think that children who didn’t go to school would see all this and learn to read by themselves. Looking now at marriage registers for 1840, we find that a third of men and half of all women, were signing the marriage register with a scrawled mark, such as a cross. In other words, they were unable even to write their own names. By 1900, 97% of both men and women were able to sign their names on the marriage register. I am not being dogmatic about this, but it seems to me likely that the introduction of compulsory education, which in effect meant almost universal schooling, was responsible for this eradication of illiteracy. Had those couples signing the register not attended school; they would have remained illiterate. I am of course open to another explanation for this, if readers wish to offer one.
In other words, sending nearly every child in the country to school, from 1870 onwards, had the effect of giving them the ability to read and write. This was a good thing. Today, the universal literacy which we see in this country is maintained by that same, almost universal custom of sending children to school. We know it works; the results speak for themselves; when did readers last meet somebody who could not sign his or her name?
This then is a problem facing local authorities. Like every other sensible person in the kingdom, they think it good that everybody can read, write and carry out basic arithmetical operations. They know that this happy situation has been brought about by compulsory education and almost universal schooling. They do not know whether the tens of thousands of children who are not at school are also being taught to read, write, perform arithmetic and so on. It is an unknown. Some of them are; others are not. I think that this is as much as we have time for today and in the next few days, we will see what, if anything, local authorities should do about this state of affairs.
There's no mystery about this, it's very simple. Human children, provided their natural instincts are not curtailed by schooling or being locked in a cupboard, are driven to and will acquire the skills they need in order to function in the society into which they are born. What percentage of labourers or peasants in the 1830s needed literacy in order to live compared to the percentage of manual workers now that require literacy in order to live? The answer is almost none in the 1830's compared to almost all now. Literay and numeracy were not essential skills then. They are now. It is arguable whether schools were "required" for the ascendancy of the written word but regardless of that, we now live in a society where these skills are virtually essential. That was not the case in the 1830's. I did not set forth to teach either of my children literacy or numeracy. Yet my experience and the experience of countless other home educators is that children see literacy and numeracy in use everywhere they turn from their infancy onwards and are driven to master these skills. A reasonably engaged and supportive parent willing to answer the child's questions and respond to requests for explanation is absolutely all that is required for the acquisition of these skills. One of my children was motivated to read by her desire to take part in an online game. I did nothing to teach literacy except answer her questions. She studied English Lit and Lang at home and achieved A's in both GCSEs. My other child taught himself maths, went to college without GCSEs and achieved 100% in over half of his pure and further maths AS papers, scoring less than 90% in none of them and coming to the attention of Oxford University who invited him to sit their entrance exam. Local authorities should read the buried research of Desforges which shows that the single most important factor affecting children's achievement is parental engagement and the single most important factor mitigating against parental engagement is lack of parental confidence. Intervention between parents and children by "authorities" is one of the factors adversely affecting parental confidence. So it would seem that parents who do not damage their children's natural instinct to acquire skills by schooling them, who are engaged and interested and who are also confident enough to rebuff the intervention of authorities into the education of their children are providing the most important factors in successful educational outcomes as indicated in by Desforge's research which the DfES commissioned but then was embarrassed enough to bury!
ReplyDeleteI have an idea that there were plenty of labourers and manual workers in the late 1890s who did not really need to be able to read and write. You seem to be saying that the plummetting rates of illiteracy from 1840 to the end of the nineteenth century had nothing to do with the introduction of universal schooling, is that right?
Delete'coming to the attention of Oxford University who invited him to sit their entrance exam.'
I am intrigued by this. When you say that he came to the attention of Oxford University, do you mean that he applied to them? Or that that approached him first? if so, how did they know what course he wished to do?
'and achieved 100% in over half of his pure and further maths AS papers, scoring less than 90% in none of them and coming to the attention of Oxford University who invited him to sit their entrance exam'
DeleteI am now thoroughly confused! The AS levels were first sat in 2001 and so your son could not have applied to Oxford University before that year. However, the entrance examinations were abolished in 1996. I have never heard of Oxford ever approaching a student and inviting him to apply to the university. Why should they; they are inundated with applications each year. Since you are using these as examples of academic success achieved without systematic instruction in literacy, I think it reasonable to ask for a few further details.
They approached him first and invited him to sit the exam and submit an application. Both of which he has done..this totally autonomously educated boy who did not take GCSEs. The choice of course was up to him but I rather suspect they guessed his intended direction from his A level subject choices!
DeleteIf Oxford abolished their entrance exam in 1996, I'd really like to know how my son sat said exam just a few weeks ago!!
Delete'If Oxford abolished their entrance exam in 1996, I'd really like to know how my son sat said exam just a few weeks ago!!'
DeleteWe're talking at cross purposes. When you talked of the entrance examination, I naturally assumed that you meant the entrance examination! This was abolished in 1996. You probably mean one of the aptitude tests that are sat at schools and colleges; things like the TSA and HAT. I see now what you meant.
http://www.furthermaths.org.uk/?section=universities&page=maths_entry
DeleteAll candidates must also take the Mathematics Admissions Test as part of their application.
"You probably mean one of the aptitude tests that are sat at schools and colleges; things like the TSA and HAT. I see now what you meant. "
DeleteNo. I mean the mathematics entrance examination Simon. Not a college aptitude test.
'All candidates must also take the Mathematics Admissions Test as part of their application.'
DeleteIndeed, yes. I simply assumed that when you said entrance examination, it was to that which you were referring. Presumably, your son will hear shortly if he is to be invited to an interview.
Indeed.
DeletePerhaps you would like to account for the obvious acquisition of literacy and numeracy by my children absent any formal instruction whatsoever?
DeleteJust to explain where the misunderstanding arose here. Until 1996, over half of undergraduates at Oxford were recruited without reference to their A level results. They sat the Oxford Entrance examination instead of fussing about getting three A levels or similar. About 40% got in with their A levels, without taking the entrance examination.
DeleteThe situation now is that applicants take A levels and ten apply on the strength of their AS levels. To decide who will be invited to interview, a lot are required to sit tests such as the History Aptitude TES or HAT, TSA, MEI and so on. These are not entrance examinations, in the sense that if you do well, you get into Oxford. Rather, they are to decide who is invited to interview. When anonymous referred to the Oxford entrance exam, I not unnaturally supposed this to be a reference to the Oxford entrance examination; a different thing entirely.
'Perhaps you would like to account for the obvious acquisition of literacy and numeracy by my children absent any formal instruction whatsoever?'
DeleteIt is always hazardous and never wise to argue from the particular to the universal. The question to be addressed here is not can this or that child acquire literacy without formal instruction. I don't doubt for a moment that this is possible. The real question is; what percentage of children would acquire literacy, if they did not attend school. For this, we can look at past experience in this country and present experience in other countries. There is a strong and direct correlation between school attendance and literacy rates. In countries like the Untied Kingdom, where nearly all children attend school, the literacy rate is very high. For countries where school attendance is very low, literacy also tends to be low.
"For this, we can look at past experience in this country and present experience in other countries. "
DeleteI disagree. As I said in my first post you are attempting to predict outcomes in a fully literate society by looking at outcomes in almost completely non literate societies. Since the argument is that children will naturally acquire whatever skills they *require* in order to function in the society in which they are born, this is not an appropriate way to predict outcomes at all.
In order to answer your question "what percentage of children would acquire literacy, (in a western literate society) if they did not attend school" one can easily refer to the numerous studies into the outcome of children in western literate societies who do not attend school. There have been so many of these now that I regard it as a settled issue that the outcomes are entirely satisfactory.
"You seem to be saying that the plummetting rates of illiteracy from 1840 to the end of the nineteenth century had nothing to do with the introduction of universal schooling, is that right?"
DeleteI have made no comment on this question
"You seem to be saying that the plummetting rates of illiteracy from 1840 to the end of the nineteenth century had nothing to do with the introduction of universal schooling, is that right?"
DeleteI have made no comment on this question'
Why not make a start now? It's an important point.
I have not investigated the matter so have no comment to make.
Delete'I have not investigated the matter so have no comment to make.'
DeleteI find this astonishing. You are clearly interested in education or you would not be coming on here. Are you really saying that you have given no thought at all to the state of affairs whereby at one time, nobody in this country could read and write, and now practically everybody can do so? You have never considered the question of schooling? The role that this might play in literacy?
I am not interested in schools. For thousands of years humans have acquired the skills needed for survival in their societies. There is no logical to reason to believe they will not continue to do so absent . Our society has become literate . Literacy and numeracy are now skills humans in our society must acquire to be functional. Therefore they will acquire them. Schools did not invent literacy and people do not require schools to become literate and numerate. I am, as you say, interested in education, not schools.
Delete*absent inappropriate restrictions being placed on the process*
DeleteMy comment has disappeared. Did you delete it for some reason?
Delete'My comment has disappeared. Did you delete it for some reason?'
DeleteI saw a longer comment and then a little later it had gone. I assumed that you deleted it and then replaced it with the above comment.
No the comment in asterisks was an amendment. Both comments were visible for a while and then one disappeared. Perhaps you could reinstate it from the dashboard?
DeletePoor little thing had got lost in the spam folder, but I rescued it.
DeleteOr maybe address this point about what local authorities should do about their concerns re literacy and numeracy..
ReplyDelete"Local authorities should read the buried research of Desforges which shows that the single most important factor affecting children's achievement is parental engagement and the single most important factor mitigating against parental engagement is lack of parental confidence. Intervention between parents and children by "authorities" is one of the factors adversely affecting parental confidence. So it would seem that parents who do not damage their children's natural instinct to acquire skills by schooling them, who are engaged and interested and who are also confident enough to rebuff the intervention of authorities into the education of their children are providing the most important factors in successful educational outcomes - as indicated in by Desforge's research which the DfES commissioned but then was embarrassed enough to bury!"
'Or maybe address this point about what local authorities should do about their concerns re literacy and numeracy..'
DeleteI shall be reaching this point, but I wish to proceed a step at a time, reaching agreement at every stage. We are doing well so far.
" I wish to proceed a step at a time, reaching agreement at every stage. We are doing well so far."
DeleteI am not aware that we have agreed about anything so far.
'" I wish to proceed a step at a time, reaching agreement at every stage. We are doing well so far."
DeleteI am not aware that we have agreed about anything so far.'
On the contrary, we have agreed about many points lately! We all agree, I think, that to be literate and well-educated is better for both the individual and society as a whole than the opposite case. We have agreed that local authorities seem to want all children to attend school. We have also agreed that the custom of universal schooling has resulted in exceedingly high rates of literacy in this country.
I think you are confusing me with other anon posters!! I have not discussed any of those points with you.
Delete'I think you are confusing me with other anon posters!!'
DeleteNo, that's why it would be helpful if people gave their names. By agreement, I meant in any case that I have put forward these ideas, discussed them with those commenting and reached what seemed like a consensus. If you disagree with any of the above points, feel free to comment.
I do not wish to sidetrack the discussion. You may not interpret this as agreement.
Delete'I do not wish to sidetrack the discussion. You may not interpret this as agreement.'
DeleteWell, I suppose that not everybody can be expected to agree that it is better to be literate than not, nor that local authorities seem to want all children to attend school!
You may not interpret this as disagreement either. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth
Delete'You may not interpret this as disagreement either. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth'
DeleteNothing could have been further from my thoughts! It was no more than a general observation, that not everybody could be expected to agree with the ideas which I was putting forward. I dare say that you have your own reasons for not wishing to express a view on the question of whether or not local authorities would prefer all children to attend school. I have never encountered anybody, either a parent or local authority officer who would disagree with this statement. I simply thought that because you were reluctant to commit yourself, you might be one of those to whom this was a controversial view.
I simply regard this as a distraction Simon. If you have no further comment on the points I've made then our discussion seems to be at an end.
Delete'In other words, sending nearly every child in the country to school, from 1870 onwards, had the effect of giving them the ability to read and write. This was a good thing. Today, the universal literacy which we see in this country is maintained by that same, almost universal custom of sending children to school. We know it works; the results speak for themselves; when did readers last meet somebody who could not sign his or her name?'
ReplyDeleteI've got another take on this. Were we to compare the literacy of a schoolchild of the 1800s with their counterpart schoolchild of the 21st century, I wonder what we would find? When I look at the type of reading material that was standard for schoolchildren in the past, it makes me think that their literacy was of a far higher standard than what most schools currently turn out.
Compulsory universal schooling may have made it possible for everyone to do the most rudimentary functions. But along with compulsory universal schooling has come a clear deterioration of the quality of literacy. I believe the common phrase used is "dumbing down". It may be that this is partly due to a change in society as a whole, but I can't help but speculate about what role compulsory schooling, with its captive audience of children, has played.
If nothing else, it's meant that children have been at the mercy of social engineers and other ideologues and theorists who have tinkered with the content and quality of their education.
'. . . the results speak for themselves,' Simon wrote. They do, indeed.
Elizabeth
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Because literacy is taken for granted today, most of us have never met an illiterate adult."
How would we know, they don't have it written on their foreheads, after all? I've met two adult men who are illiterate in the last few years. We had to write a cheque (to us!) for one, and write out a passport application for another. But before they asked for our help we had no idea despite spending time with one on a daily basis for several months.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I am not being dogmatic about this, but it seems to me likely that the introduction of compulsory education, which in effect meant almost universal schooling, was responsible for this eradication of illiteracy."
I hope you don't mind a largely copied reply from a previous blog article since it seems more relevant here.
Interestingly, literacy rates were increasing at a steady pace well before education became compulsory. One wonders if the legal compulsion was absolutely necessary since so many were freely choosing to educate their children. The figures suggest that similar literacy rates may well have been reached without compulsion and who knows, maybe education would be valued by those who most need it today if compulsion had not become an issue. It seems that many rebel against compulsion for rebellings sake. The figures below were taken from the census.
Literacy rates
1841, Male - 67.3%, Female - 51.5%
1851, Male - 69.3%, Female - 54.8%
1861, Male - 75.4%, Female - 65.3%
1871, Male - 80.6%, Female - 73.2%
Wouldn't that have had to do with voluntary church schools?
Delete'Interestingly, literacy rates were increasing at a steady pace well before education became compulsory.'
Delete'Wouldn't that have had to do with voluntary church schools?'
Yes, this all confirms what I said yesterday; that there is a strong and direct link between school attendance and literacy. As school attendance rose during the nineteenth century, so to did literacy rates. By the end of the century, when almost every child was going to school, almost every child could read and write.
wonder if this M.P is referring to old Webb wife one MP describing social workers as 'dictators who are unaccountable and out of control'.
ReplyDelete'Wouldn't that have had to do with voluntary church schools?'
ReplyDeleteOh definitely - there were also private sector schools (small dame and common day schools) that were used by working class parents. It has been suggested that at least a quarter of working class children were educated in this way, i.e. their parents voluntarily paid for their education.
Parents were voluntarily sending their children to school in growing numbers and literacy rates were increasing rapidly well before education became compulsory, so I dispute the importance that Simon seems to place on compulsory education. Mass literacy was virtually achieved by 1900, exactly when it looks as though it would have been achieved if the pre-1870 rates of change had continued.
Take a look at the literacy graph on this page, http://www.bl.uk/collections/early/victorian/pr_intro.html. The rate of increase in literacy is steady – there is no sudden rise after education becomes compulsory, it just continues upwards on the same trajectory as pre-1870.
I don't think it's fair to compare how children might learn to read without schools today, in a society in which the vast majority of parents are literate and literacy is expected and recognised as essential by society, to how children might learn to read without schools, with illiterate parents in a society where literacy was less important (though obviously the need for literacy was growing and families were responding by making use of schools even when they had to pay for them). It’s like comparing apples to oranges.
'so I dispute the importance that Simon seems to place on compulsory education. Mass literacy was virtually achieved by 1900, exactly when it looks as though it would have been achieved if the pre-1870 rates of change had continued. '
DeleteHere's a clue. Look at the literacy rates before the 1870 Forster Act and you will see that females are always lagging behind males. Then look at 1900 and you will see that the rates are equal. One explanation for this is that there was a greater tendency to send boys to school than there was girls. After 1870, the proportions of boys and girls at school were equal and the literacy rate was also equal. What is the other explanation for this phenomenon, which does not involve schools?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"One explanation for this is that there was a greater tendency to send boys to school than there was girls. After 1870, the proportions of boys and girls at school were equal and the literacy rate was also equal."
Your reasoning, that this was brought about by compulsory education and the 1870 Act, does not explain why literacy in girls grew far more rapidly boys *before* 1870. If you look at the census data and the graph linked above you can easily see this.
"What is the other explanation for this phenomenon, which does not involve schools?"
I do not dispute that schools made the difference. The number of children enrolled in schools grew rapidly during the 1800s. My point was that making education compulsory seemed to have no impact on literacy rates. Look at the graph I gave the link to. The rate of increase in literacy rates did not change for boys or girls in 1870 when compulsory education was introduced. They both continued on their pre-existing upwards trends.
more rapidly *than* boys
DeleteIt would then be fair to say that you agree that there is a strong and direct correlation between the proportion of children being educated at school and the literacy rate?
DeleteSimon wrote,
Delete"It would then be fair to say that you agree that there is a strong and direct correlation between the proportion of children being educated at school and the literacy rate?"
Historically, yes. But as I said earlier, I don't think it's acceptable to compare the probable causes of increased literacy in the past, when many parents were illiterate, combined with a severe lack of educational resources in working class homes (did the poor even have access to libraries then?), very little travel, lack of the internet, etc., with possible effects on literacy levels today in a society in which the vast majority of parents are literate and literacy is expected and recognised as essential by society. It’s like comparing apples to oranges.
Historically the working classes were increasingly choosing to pay for an education for their children. They valued and wanted an education for their children despite being poorer than todays poorest. Your descriptions of the school you spent time in recently makes me wonder what has changed. One thing for certain, education went from something that was aspired to by working class parents (school enrolment and literacy rates were growing rapidly pre-1870) to something that was imposed from the top down. Could this have affected attitudes to education?
Simon, do you think it was necessary to make education compulsory, given the data from the census and the graph linked to above?
Delete'Simon, do you think it was necessary to make education compulsory, given the data from the census and the graph linked to above?'
DeleteIt is worth bearing in mind that in the decade after 1880, when education became compulsory, the commonest offence dealt with by the courts, with the exception of drunkenness; was not sending children to school. Convictions were running at the rate of 100,000 a year. These were not very often home educators, but rather parents who resented who resented the loss of their children's wages and, in the case of girls, their help on wash-day and so on. I have not the least doubt that many of the pupils with whom I work would not be at school if it were not for the fact that their parents believe that it would be against the law not to send them. As for whether these children would learn to read and write at home; in many cases, they would not. Some of them live in homes lacking any sort of printed material and when they begin school, do not even know how to hold a book.
"the commonest offence dealt with by the courts, with the exception of drunkenness; was not sending children to school."
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm sure many didn't want to send their children to school, especially once it became compulsory. But I still wonder what would have happened with literacy rates if education had not been made compulsory. Can you think of any reason why the rate of increase would not have continued at the same rate as before compulsory education?
Taking a closer look at the graph mentioned earlier (and taking into account that education became compulsory in 1880 and not 1870 as I thought, thanks for the correction). The graph shows literacy in brides and bridegrooms, so I would not expect to see any improvement as a result of compulsory education until around 1890 at the earliest, yet literacy had already reached about 97% by then. Since uk literacy today is judged to be 99% (according to the CIA fact book), the act of making education compulsory can only claim to have improved literacy by 2%.
"I have not the least doubt that many of the pupils with whom I work would not be at school if it were not for the fact that their parents believe that it would be against the law not to send them."
But this is after over a century of compulsory education. Education to these families, including the children, is a duty or requirement that is forced on them by the state. Something that is not valued for it's own sake or for the benefits it can give. The equivalent families in the 1800s were voluntarily choosing to pay to send their children to school in greater and greater numbers. So great, that literacy reached 97% without compulsion.