tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post7152266120457248275..comments2024-03-20T00:30:11.702-07:00Comments on Home Education Heretic: A little about the acquisition of literacySimon Webbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-58472877003876143442013-12-03T15:12:34.957-08:002013-12-03T15:12:34.957-08:00"the commonest offence dealt with by the cour..."the commonest offence dealt with by the courts, with the exception of drunkenness; was not sending children to school."<br /><br />Oh, 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? <br /><br />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%.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-53447937001320972222013-12-03T11:24:13.230-08:002013-12-03T11:24:13.230-08:00'Simon, do you think it was necessary to make ...'Simon, do you think it was necessary to make education compulsory, given the data from the census and the graph linked to above?'<br /><br />It 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.<br />Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-66935114865836511672013-12-03T11:04:49.280-08:002013-12-03T11:04:49.280-08:00Simon, do you think it was necessary to make educa...Simon, do you think it was necessary to make education compulsory, given the data from the census and the graph linked to above? Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-30310529752139468252013-12-03T11:01:55.712-08:002013-12-03T11:01:55.712-08:00Simon wrote,
"It would then be fair to say th...Simon wrote,<br />"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?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-34373895764500361992013-12-03T08:26:22.640-08:002013-12-03T08:26:22.640-08:00It would then be fair to say that you agree that t...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?Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-65715179717092128632013-12-03T07:47:11.553-08:002013-12-03T07:47:11.553-08:00more rapidly *than* boys more rapidly *than* boys Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-5469068452781283132013-12-03T07:46:12.972-08:002013-12-03T07:46:12.972-08:00Simon wrote,
"One explanation for this is tha...Simon wrote,<br />"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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />"What is the other explanation for this phenomenon, which does not involve schools?"<br /><br />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.Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-50283945429601147532013-12-03T00:07:27.768-08:002013-12-03T00:07:27.768-08:00'so I dispute the importance that Simon seems ...'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. '<br /><br />Here'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 Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-44903033161127048312013-12-02T16:18:05.696-08:002013-12-02T16:18:05.696-08:00'Wouldn't that have had to do with volunta...'Wouldn't that have had to do with voluntary church schools?'<br /><br />Oh 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Take a look at the literacy graph on this page, <a href="http://www.bl.uk/collections/early/victorian/pr_intro.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.bl.uk/collections/early/victorian/pr_intro.html</a>. 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-43484429660509133242013-12-02T00:25:25.457-08:002013-12-02T00:25:25.457-08:00'Interestingly, literacy rates were increasing...'Interestingly, literacy rates were increasing at a steady pace well before education became compulsory.'<br /><br />'Wouldn't that have had to do with voluntary church schools?'<br /><br />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.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-4414765345023507572013-12-02T00:17:38.599-08:002013-12-02T00:17:38.599-08:00Wouldn't that have had to do with voluntary ch...Wouldn't that have had to do with voluntary church schools?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-82892179674240427742013-12-02T00:17:21.631-08:002013-12-02T00:17:21.631-08:00wonder if this M.P is referring to old Webb wife o...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'. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-53233334201350511102013-12-01T16:34:34.479-08:002013-12-01T16:34:34.479-08:00Simon wrote,
"I am not being dogmatic about t...Simon wrote,<br />"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."<br /><br />I hope you don't mind a largely copied reply from a previous blog article since it seems more relevant here. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Literacy rates<br />1841, Male - 67.3%, Female - 51.5%<br />1851, Male - 69.3%, Female - 54.8%<br />1861, Male - 75.4%, Female - 65.3%<br />1871, Male - 80.6%, Female - 73.2%Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-60740043718569482282013-12-01T16:27:25.743-08:002013-12-01T16:27:25.743-08:00Simon wrote,
"Because literacy is taken for g...Simon wrote,<br />"Because literacy is taken for granted today, most of us have never met an illiterate adult."<br /><br />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. Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-12691353922613689702013-12-01T14:33:06.502-08:002013-12-01T14:33:06.502-08:00'In other words, sending nearly every child in...'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?'<br /><br />I'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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />'. . . the results speak for themselves,' Simon wrote. They do, indeed.<br /><br />ElizabethAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-61251877044716292542013-12-01T12:25:46.987-08:002013-12-01T12:25:46.987-08:00Poor little thing had got lost in the spam folder,...Poor little thing had got lost in the spam folder, but I rescued it.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-13659825559393661202013-12-01T12:06:59.129-08:002013-12-01T12:06:59.129-08:00No the comment in asterisks was an amendment. Both...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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-1547012493221036582013-12-01T12:04:53.769-08:002013-12-01T12:04:53.769-08:00'My comment has disappeared. Did you delete it...'My comment has disappeared. Did you delete it for some reason?'<br /><br />I 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.<br />Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-20404143944802664622013-12-01T12:02:15.075-08:002013-12-01T12:02:15.075-08:00My comment has disappeared. Did you delete it for ...My comment has disappeared. Did you delete it for some reason?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-60778212893080485432013-12-01T11:51:57.156-08:002013-12-01T11:51:57.156-08:00I simply regard this as a distraction Simon. If yo...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-38004820048301060542013-12-01T11:24:33.152-08:002013-12-01T11:24:33.152-08:00'You may not interpret this as disagreement ei...'You may not interpret this as disagreement either. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth'<br /><br />Nothing 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.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-50338283282785963782013-12-01T11:20:12.588-08:002013-12-01T11:20:12.588-08:00You may not interpret this as disagreement either....You may not interpret this as disagreement either. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouthAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-28434485526141674692013-12-01T11:18:53.559-08:002013-12-01T11:18:53.559-08:00*absent inappropriate restrictions being placed on...*absent inappropriate restrictions being placed on the process*Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-51067635964111747902013-12-01T11:18:11.686-08:002013-12-01T11:18:11.686-08:00I am not interested in schools. For thousands of y...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-56947013837877073742013-12-01T11:14:54.206-08:002013-12-01T11:14:54.206-08:00'I do not wish to sidetrack the discussion. Yo...'I do not wish to sidetrack the discussion. You may not interpret this as agreement.'<br /><br />Well, 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!Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.com