 |
| 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:
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.
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.
