School House Canadiana: A look at the One Room School House of Ontario

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/118993615128475382/

Introduction
            The one-room schoolhouse is an institution that is linked with Canada’s educational history.  In rural areas they were a site to educate students of various ages in the nineteenth century.  Works of literature, such as Ralph Connor’s Glengarry School Days, provide insight into the life of the one-room school house through the use of fictional, yet realistic scenarios.  According to historian Paul Axelrod:

One-room schoolhouse was “where a single teacher taught students of all ages and various academic levels, characterized rural education throughout Canada well into the twentieth century. Securing teachers, let alone well qualified ones, plagued educational authorities, compounding the problem of irregular attendance. …Even where available, country schools were not always accessible.  Poor weather and ill health, in addition to farm labour, could keep children from trekking up to two miles a day to and from class.[1]

Education in this section of Ontario’s school system had particular methods in ensuring students were taught, which had to be tested through examinations.  To keep students in line, teachers resorted to corporal punishment in order maintain control in the classroom.  In addition to this, teachers had to face the growing changes in teaching during the later part of the nineteenth century.  The goal of this paper will be to study the aspects of the one-room schoolhouse, using the book Glengarry School Days as a way of providing a better understanding each aspect.  In studying the case of the one-room schoolhouse, one can observe the development of education in Ontario.

All in the Method

            First, in looking at the one-room schoolhouse, it is important to examine the teaching methods utilized.  Education in these schoolhouses during the late Victorian era were imbedded with the ideals of “morality, patriotism, and utility.”[2]  Students sat in large classes and were divided into different academic levels, also known as grades or forms, in order to measure their academic levels and to provide them with “mountains of culturally suitable information.”[3]  This was influenced by the theory of mental discipline where:

…[k]nowledge was rigidly compartmentalized in a way that fit scientific notions of how one learned …the brain was divided into discrete sections, facilitating memory, reasoning, imagination, and morality.  To avoid a distorted intellectual and social development, the student must be taught a precise quantity of reading, arithmetic, geography, and science in exactly the right order.[4]

This system of organized and orderly education meant students were to commit to memory facts from different subjects in class and repeating them to the teacher in a “sing-song chant.”[5]

This would have been demonstrated in most schools, though in some cases teachers would resort to more competitive means of education.  In Ralph Connor’s Glengarry School Days, the first teacher introduced, Archibald “Archie” Munro, allows his children to spend the final hour of the day to participate in a spelling match when it is proposed by Hughie Murray, the minister’s son.[6]  Munro’s motivation to allow this game was to relief himself from some leg pain from an old injury.[7]

Like many teachers of this time, Munro had to face the difficulty of not only keeping the students’ attention, but also teaching a mixture of different subjects to students.  During the nineteenth century, the standard for textbooks in Canada West, later Ontario, was the Irish National Readers.  These readers were designed as versatile entries to subjects such as reading and mathematics, with older students being introduced to geography, geometry and agricultural science, and were organized into grades based on age and developing ability.[8]  They found their way to the Ontario elementary school system by Edgerton Ryerson, first Assistant Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada (Ontario) in 1844 and later Chief Superintendent in 1846.[9]  Ryerson traveled across the United States and Europe to understand how other educational systems worked; it was during this study that Ryerson met Lord Stanley, the United Kingdom’s Colonial Secretary and the architect of Ireland’s education system, whose influence led Ryerson to develop Ontario’s education system with similar characteristics of the Irish system.[10]

A common issue one-room schoolhouses faced was student attendance.  Though poor weather conditions and illness prevented students from traveling “up to two miles a day to and from class,”[11] in most cases students missed school due to the demands of farm labour.  This was because the main responsibility of both boy and girls of rural Ontario was to play a part in maintaining the family farm.  Despite the introduction of the public school and centralized inspection, parents still saw that their children put their work on the farm above schooling.[12]  Due to the view of the parents, attendance became based on the season, such as most children being absent during “productive times of the year, when every extra hand was valuable.”[13]

Another occurrence teachers had to get through was the time of examinations.  In Glengarry School Days, the examination day is described as the “great school event of the year” and that it was “the social function of the Section as well.”[14]  The chapter titled “The Examination” provides an example of the seriousness of the examination with the example of the reading lesson:

The reading lesson was Fitz-Greene Halleck’s “Marco Bozzaris,” a selection of considerable dramatic power, and calling for a somewhat spirited rendering.  The master [Archibald Munro] would not have chosen this lesson, but he had laid the rule that there was no special drilling of the pupils for an exhibition, but that the school should be seen doing its every-day work; and in the reading, the lessons for the previous day were to be those of the examination day.  By evil fortune, the reading for the day was the dramatic “Marco Bozzaris.”  The master shivered inwardly as he thought of the possibility of Thomas Finch, with his stolidly monotonous voice, being called upon to read the thrilling lines recording the panic-stricken death-cry of the Turck…  But Thomas, by careful plodding, had climbed to fourth place and the danger lay in the third verse.[15]

In this excerpt, Munro is concerned over a student’s reading ability during the examination.  This would have been because the result of that student’s reading could affect his reputation as a teacher.  During this time, teachers had to establish themselves professionally in the community,[16] if Munro wanted to continue having his image of professionalism established he would have to make sure his students were successful in the examination.

Sparring the Rod

            The most controversial aspect of education in the urban and rural schools of Ontario was the discipline of students.  It is important to first of all note that the not all teachers resorted to corporal punishment.  In some cases, teachers would resort to “positive reinforcement” such as befriending students and their families to establish respect and authority or rewarding students for good behaviour.[17]  At the Twentieth school, Archibald Munro was able to gain the students respect as a teacher.  This was caused when a student named Bob Fraser “answered back.”[18]  Munro was about to use the strap on Fraser when he suddenly said: “No Robert, you are too big to thrash.  You are a man.  No man should strike you – and I apologize.”[19]  Fraser then apologised for his disobedience and at that moment “Archibald Munro’s rule was firmly established.”[20]  Munro had been able to establish himself as a fair teacher by how he handled the situation.  Rather than carrying out striking Fraser with the strap, Munro decides to point out that Fraser is nearly “a man” and should not be hit, which means he should learn to respect those in authority.

            When Munro left the Twentieth, he is replaced as with a teacher only referred to by Connor as the “New Master.”  The New Master’s approach to discipline to students was much different “for the master was quick of temper, and was determined at all costs to exact full and prompt obedience.”[21]  This meant he preferred to use corporal punishment.  In one case he punished a student named Jimmie Cameron for having a nervous giggle.[22]  The master then ordered Jimmie to hold out his hand so it could be hit with the strap and Jimmie refused.[23]  In response:

The master stepped forward, grasping the little boy’s arm, tried to pull his hand to the front; but Jimmie, with a roar like a young bull, threw himself flat on his face on the floor and put his hands under him. […] …[the master] lifted [Jimmie] from the floor and tried to pull out his hand.  But Jimmie kept his arms folded tight across his breast, roaring vigorously the while, and saying over and over, “Go away from me! Go away from me I tell you! I’m not taking anything to do with you.” […] Whack! came the heavy strap over his shoulders.  Jamie set up his refrain. […] Whack! wack! wack! fell the strap with successive blows, each heavier than the last.[24]

Though it was stated earlier that not all teachers would resort to the use of corporal punishment, it was still a common practice among schools in both rural and urban settings.  Teachers had been given the ability to and regularly did use corporal punishment as a means to “establish and sustain order in large and growing classrooms.”[25]  With these point noted, one can see the reasoning behind the new master.  As he considered maintaining order inside his classroom, the master refused to allow the nervous giggle of Jimmie Cameron to go unnoticed.  Preferring to use fear as a way to maintain this order, the master used the strap to punish Jimmie, which led to Jimmie refusing to let out his arm to be stuck.  Desperate to maintain his order, the master chose to continue to strike Jimmie with the strap, believing he would be able to maintain order as teacher.

            Meanwhile, many prominent officials did not see force as the only way of maintaining order.  They argued that using corporal punishment would not create an obedient citizenry but it would be through a “robust, peaceful, and morally grounded community.”[26]  In 1847, Egerton Ryerson argued:

Though punishment is sometimes necessary, where moral influence has done utmost, the conscience is, in all ordinary cases, an infinitely better disciplinarian than the rod.  When you can get children in a School to obey and study, because it is a right, and from a conviction of accountability to God, you have gained a victory, which is worth more than all of the penal statutes in the world.[27]

Despite this call for teachers to resort to peaceful means over force as a way of discipline, it was still not discussed in legislature.  It was not until 1891 that discipline was given any lingual description in the Department of Education Act.[28]  The act gave an “idealized expression” of discipline in the form of “in loco parentis,” meaning that teachers served in substitute of the parent in disciplining students in schools.[29]   Other than the mention of in loco parentis, the Ontario Education Act did not make any direct mention of corporal punishment nor the use of physical punishment for that matter.  However, the Canadian Criminal Code and a number of legal cases had been better able to outline the limits of using reasonable force on students.[30]  This meant teachers could only be found criminally responsible if the force used “resulted in the ‘permanent injury’ of a student, ‘was too sever for the offence or was inflicted with malice thereby rendering such punishment to be not in good faith.’”[31]  With this considered, the master could have been held criminally responsible for his actions, not only for hitting Jimmie the way he did with the leather strap, but for also hitting a defenceless student when the minister arrived at the school.[32]

New Fangled Way of Teaching

            Finally, toward the end of the nineteenth century, teaching underwent several changes.  Glengarry’s Twentieth school was not an exception to these changes, which came in the form of the teacher John Craven.  Craven differed in how he taught his students, mainly by the fact that he did not “take his school-teaching seriously.”[33]  Craven also introduced a different approach to his teaching methods:

[John Craven] knew absolutely nothing of pedagogical method, and consequently he ignored all rules and precedents in the teaching and conduct of the school. … He had a feeling that all lessons were a bore, therefore he would assign the shortest and easiest tasks.  But having assigned the tasks, he expected perfection in recitation, an impressed his pupils with the idea that nothing less would pass. […] …[I]n a reading lesson he would rouse himself at times, and by his utterance of a single line make the whole school sit erect.  Friday afternoon he gave up to what he called “the cultivation of the finer arts.”  On that afternoon he would bring his violin and teach the children singing, hear them read and recite, and read for them himself…[34]

The most unique aspect of Craven’s different way of teaching can be seen in the second part of the excerpt.  Here one can see Craven is introducing the arts to his students through the use of music.  It would not have been uncommon for schools in both the country and cities during the late nineteenth century to be giving way for new practices of teaching.  Though they were leaning music, Craven was still teaching the students of the Twentieth School reading and proper elocution, only he is doing so in an unconventional way.

            As the nineteenth century drew to a close, educators began to be confronted with new intellectual developments, especially in the form of Darwinian science.[35]  Two major innovators were Johann Pestalozzi and Friedrich Frobel.  Being influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pestalozzi believed that a child’s development must be done in “accordance with nature,”[36] meaning that students would excel if they were taught “how to learn” rather than by “accumulating facts” and developing “blind obedience.”[37]  Froebel was believed that the best way for children to learn was in the form of playing and doing, and was showed this in 1841 by creating the world’s first kindergarten.[38]  Though Froebel’s ideas were seen as “too radical” by educators in the early eighteenth century, Ontario James L. Hughes took Froebel’s idea’s for kindergarten and applied it to the world of mass schooling.[39]  Hughes believed that Kindergarten would introduce children to group learning and allow for “self-activity.”[40]

            Though parents and educators supported the introduction of more active learning, there was still a concern for an “appropriate relationship between schooling and work.”[41] This led to the introduction of manual training, domestic sciences and vocational and technical education.  Both traditional educators and Froebelian reformers supported this introduction because it combined the development of hand-eye coordination and the strengthening of certain brain elements that contributed to “orderly, precise, and analytical thinking.”[42]  Manual training classes were, however, directed toward boys as it was expected for them to ultimately “work in industrial occupations.”[43]  This expectation of young men soon caused female educators to argue for the introduction of classes that addressed female students.  The belief was that industrial living had drawn women from the homes and interrupted their domestic education.[44]  The only remedy was for schools to educate women in the ways of “food chemistry, needlework, cooking, and home management,” this would make “mothers and wives more competent” in their role in the household.[45]

            Though the introductions of new subjects into the curriculum proved beneficial for students, it was difficult for the teacher.  Many teachers did not welcome the reforms because they had not been consulted nor forewarned about the changes to the school programs and felt overwhelmed by the suddenly new demands put upon them.[46]  As they were not provided with proper instructions for these new courses, many teachers chose not to cover these new subjects, citing that as long as “the central authorities did not provide proper instruction manuals or opportunities or teacher retraining.”[47]  Meanwhile, the central authorities were anticipating on this reaction, some such as Marta Danylewycz and Alison Prentice believed that those in charge expected the older teachers to leave and be replaced by new teachers fresh out of normal school.[48]

Conclusion
            In conclusion, the one-room school house reveals what education was like in rural Ontario and the changes in the provinces approach to education.  Teachers had to ensure that they taught their students a well-rounded range of subjects, which would have been tested by the trusties of the school.  If the students failed the examinations, the teacher in question’s reputation could be put at risk.  Teachers resorted to numerous approaches in order to keep students in line.  In some ways it could be done positively by simply pointing out to the student that they should not be acting so negatively, such as the case of Archibald Munro, or, more commonly, through the use of corporal punishment, like the new master.  In Glengarry, John Craven was able to introduce new methods to teaching to the Twentieth school and was able a more entertaining way of learning.  Therefore, by examining the teaching methods, types of disciple and changes in education, one can see how the one-room schoolhouse does serve as an example of the development of education in the province of Ontario.

Bibliography

Axelrod, Paul. "No Longer a ‘Last Resort’: The End of Corporal Punishment in the Schools of Toronto." Canadian Historical Review 91, no. 2 (June 2010): 261-285. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 17, 2013).

------. The Promise of Schooling: Education in Canada, 1800-1914. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003.

Connor, Ralph. Glengarry School Days: A Story of early days in Glengarry. Toronto: McCellend and Stewart Ltd., 2009.

Danylewycz, Marta, and Alison Prentice. "Teachers' Work: Changing Patterns and Perceptions in the Emerging School Systems of Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Central Canada." In Labour / Le Travail, 59-80. n.p.: Athabasca University Press, 1986. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 17, 2013).

Gaffield, Chad. "Children, Schooling, and Family Reproduction in Nineteenth-Century Ontario." Canadian Historical Review 72, no. 2 (June 1991): 157-191. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2013).

Walsh, Patrick. "Education and the 'universalist' idiom of empire: Irish National School Books in Ireland and Ontario." History Of Education 37, no. 5 (September 2008): 645-660. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2013).

---

[1] Paul Axelrod, The Promise of Schooling: Education in Canada, 1800-1914, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 53.

[2] Ibid., 57.

[3] Axelrod, The Promise of Schooling, 57.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ralph Connor, Glengarry School Days: A Story of early days in Glengarry, (Toronto: McCellend and Stewart Ltd., 2009), 3.

[7] Ibid., 2.

[8] Patrick Walsh, "Education and the 'universalist' idiom of empire: Irish National School Books in Ireland and Ontario," History Of Education 37, no. 5 (September 2008): 655, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost.

[9] Ibid, 648.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Axelrod, The Promise of Schooling, 53.

[12] Chad Gaffield, "Children, Schooling, and Family Reproduction in Nineteenth-Century Ontario," Canadian Historical Review 72, no. 2 (June 1991): 173, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Connor, 23.

[15] Ibid, 25-26.

[16] Axelrod, The Promise of Schooling, 58.

[17] Ibid., 59.

[18] Connor, 2.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid, 3.

[21] Ibid., 68.

[22] Ibid., 69.

[23] Ibid., 70.

[24] Ibid, 70-71.

[25] Paul Axelrod, "No Longer a ‘Last Resort’: The End of Corporal Punishment in the Schools of Toronto," Canadian Historical Review 91, no. 2 (June 2010): 265, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Axelrod, “No Longer a ‘Last Resort’,” 266.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Connor, 75.

[33] Ibid., 159.

[34] Connor, 160.

[35] Axelrod, The Promise of Schooling, 105.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid, 106.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Marta Danylewycz and Alison Prentice, "Teachers' Work: Changing Patterns and Perceptions in the Emerging School Systems of Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Central Canada," in Labour / Le Travail, 65. n.p.: Athabasca University Press, 1986, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid.