Author: ksinclair1 (page 2 of 6)

The articles by Nancy Janovicek,[1] Carol Anne Wien, and Curt Dudley-Marling[2] spoke to the negatives of Canadian education curriculums in the later eighteenth century. The problem with the articles is their arguments are naïve and neglect the absurdity of the historical complaints and the problems that have subsequently emerged. The common neglect for the Chant Report[3] and Common Curriculum[4] have influenced the creation of an education system that is built upon pleasing all and pertaining to a multicultural identity.

Janovicek’s recognition of the Chant Report and mention of specific groups and cultures which prioritized non-conformity in order to carry out traditional and preferred ways of living is a problem which is recognized today and has created issues in education development. The fact that “parents refused to send [children] to school… [because] the public school system would assimilate their children into mainstream society”[5] questions where the line must be drawn in order to sustain nationalism in Canada. When do we exceed the limits of multiculturalism and diversity by pertaining to the needs and beliefs of other cultures? If we haven’t already seen it in the lower mainland of British Columbia, when do people and cultures just become independent subunits of a multi-cultural land rather than interactive and appreciative of all cultures? If we continue to teach children to be completely independent and create schools that separate children based on beliefs and culture Canada will become a separatist region. If we continue to prioritize the independence and freedom to childhood education how will we ever maintain, or create, a country that is unified.

The Ontario Curriculum is not as terrible as Wien and Morning make it out to be. The implementation of learning based outcomes is far from a crime, but is presented as such. This article is very opinionated, it ripped apart a system that could be argued was intended to prevent issues we face in the educational system today. The highly appreciated movement at the time to “student ownership of learning”[6] neglected any form of teacher authority and by taking this away a valuable lesson of respect was disregarded and subsequently the creation of “the me, me, me generation”[7] has been implemented­– “many regard today’s youths as narcissistic, self- centered, confident and individualistic. It’s clear that an increased focus on yourself leads to a devaluation of other people.”[8]

Prescribed learning outcomes are not seen as a guideline but rather a narrow and controlling vision of teaching, learning, and both diversity and ecology.[9] Parents complain teachers must be more free in their teaching and claim education is “always uncertain, ambiguous, contested, and conflicted”[10] but this is unrealistic. If children are to move on in education there has to be set “will do’s”[11] to ensure their success. Sadly, the real world is not rainbows and butterflies, it is a place where people fight daily to gain and maintain their identify and if we allow children who lack fully developed cognitive functions to choose what and how they want to learn then are they learning, or are we failing in producing well-rounded learners? There is a lesson to be learned in trying things that do not come easily, but we disregard this concept and society acts as if a child struggling is the end of the world when really “letting your child struggle and even fail sometimes can be highly beneficial to his or her development.”[12] If we completely eliminate structure and prescribed learning outcomes we are setting up children for either a rude awakening or failure when they emerge into adulthood. We are tainting early childhood education with a false reality. If elementary education takes away the authority of teacher’s children will value their perspectives over others and live for what works best according to them. By giving children the ability to determine their learning we are teaching them they need only experience what they please, thus inhibiting their potential to be diverse.

Both articles are very strongly written and take their allegations too far. Canada is known for our freedom but Sven Mørch states “the rebellion from the 68ers led to great freedom, but it also left people with the task of having to cope with all this freedom.”[13] We now must maintain a society that provokes this identity and stays true to the roots we have planted, but the task is harder than it may seem. In terms of education we are at a loss as discipline and authority are not tolerated, but realistically teach valuable lessons, “today’s youths are out of touch with some of the fundamental principles of life because teachers, parents and social workers are worried about infringing the child’s autonomy and integrity.”[14] The strive for independence in learning and freedom of the child to learn in ways best for them also inhibits the learning of other valuable lessons not pertaining to algebra and writing. These articles make valid allegations but lack important recognition of how these issues have lived on and impacted education today.

[1] Janovicek, Nancy. “‘The community school literally takes place in the community’: Alternative Education in the Back-to-the-land-Movement in the West Kootenays, 1959 to 1980.” Historical Studies in Education, 24, 1(Springer 2012): 150-169

[2] Wien, Carol Anne and Curt Dudley-Marling. “Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 400-412.

[3] Janovicek. “’The community school literally takes place in the community’: Alternative Education in the Back-to-the-land-Movement in the West Kootenays, 1959 to 1980.”

[4] Wien and Dudley-Marling. “Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.”

[5] Ibid. 156.

[6] Wien and Dudley-Marling. ““Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.” 401.

[7] Karkov, R. “Understanding Today’s rude teens.” (2012). Retrieved from http://sciencenordic.com/understanding-today’s-rude-teens

[8] Ibid.

[9] Wien and Dudley-Marling. ““Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.” 402.

[10] Wien and Dudley-Marling. ““Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning.” 409.

[11] Ibid. 401.

[12] Brunson, D. “Benefits of Struggling: Are You Helping Your Child Too Much?” Connections Academy. (2014). Retrieved from http://blog.connectionsacademy.com/benefits-of-struggling-are-you-helping-your-child-too-much/

[13] Karkov, R. “Understanding Today’s rude teens.”

[14] Ibid.

Below is the first analysis of my education story, as well as my later interpretation.

September 19, 2017.

My Elementary Education: Worst & Best Years

Miss Bell was strict for a grade 2 teacher. There was a lot of silence and not a lot of room for fun. She was a woman from PEI who ended up teaching in Prince George, BC. It was an odd experience being in her classroom, there were no posters on the wall, only 2 chalkboards at the front. I remember feeling trapped and intimidated in this room, I felt very small and insignificant. Mrs. Bell made the rules, recited the lessons, made the questions and chose who could speak; school seemed to be all about the teacher. Everything was right or wrong, and the lessons were simply questions and answers; English was knowing grammar and verbs, math was simply addition and subtraction. That year I became very shy inside and outside the classroom. The intimidation and strict atmosphere compelled my fear for teachers as well as school. Though now when I look back, I respect the lessons I learned in that class because it taught me to respect the people in charge and push through situations that might feel uncomfortable. My knowledge also sky-rocketed this year because there was limited free time, we were constantly learning.

Grade 5 was when I learned the Arts is my forté. This is when I broke out my shell,but only because the opportunity was given to me. My traumatic experience in grade 2 was faded away when Mr. Pepin focused is teaching on drama, art, and poetry. We did many projects, such as poetry books, clay pottery using a kiln and even created out own play. We performed this play for our parents after we served them a steak dinner… and it was all organized by the students in his class. We wrote the play, did the choreography, rehersed the songs… it was my dream come true! He had faith in our abilities and challenged us to find what we were good at, whether it be singing, dancing, cooking or making the brochures, everyone had a job. My perspective of schooling changed this year because school was fun and I was learning out of the ordinary things. I was exposed to subjects I did not even know existed, I was forced to be interactive and think for myself rather than be told what and how to do it. I learned the beauty of the Arts, and after this year I began dancing full time and participating in local musicals. We may not have spent as much time on science or math, but being a little behind in those subjects the following year was completely worth every other lesson I learned that year. I also built a strong relationship with this teacher; to this day, when I visit Prince George we go and play pickle ball.

November 15, 2017

My childhood education is not something I often think back on, therefore trying to remember experiences which illustrate my learning has been a difficult task to accomplish. When I look back at my experiences I recognize two learning environments: confined and open, and it is evident each environment influenced not only my learning but also my personality. In my grade 2 classroom intimidation forced me to conform because I feared consequence. Although I became very shy, my knowledge and learning abilities peaked. I was at the top of my class and was very driven. In grade 5 I was immersed in a completely open and safe environment. My teacher disliked math and had an incredible appreciation for the arts, so we spent an abundance of time writing poetry, acting, drawing, and sculpting. This new form of learning made me uncomfortable at first, but forced me to change and find comfort in it. My grade 5 year lacked algebra and history lessons, but in the scheme of things the alternate lessons I learned were much more valuable to me.

My two elementary experiences prove that learning is an ambiguous term and come in a multitude of forms. In grade 2 I learned discipline and facts; whereas in grade 5 I learned to value freedom and independence. I do not believe any educational experience can necessarily be “bad” because you learn something from every experience. I believe you take something away from every situation and these build the foundation for your identity and future. I don’t see either as being better than the other.

At the end of writing in September it was a no-brainer that my grade 5 year was better than my grade 2 year, but when I look back I realize grade 2 taught me respect, discipline, and failure. Although the year was not particularly fun, it was an experience that I am thankful I went through.

Mona Gleason’s article “Disciplining Children, Disciplining Parents”[1] and Tamara Myers and Mary Ann Poutanen’s “Cadets, Curfews, and Compulsory Schooling”[2] both speak of Canadian families after WWII and examine the affluent treatment and increased freedom given to youth by parents.[3] In postwar Canada “between 1946 and 1963, teenagers enjoyed their family’s prosperity and security, and developed their own unique subculture with music and movies as their voice,” they were becoming powerful and the government had to implement mandatory measures to ensure harmony. Both articles acknowledge this post war change of society, and how this enforced parental involvement to raise responsible children.

Myers and Poutanen’s article is thorough and understandable, but lacks references. They make arguments such as “…In their role in supervising and disciplining students, schools… created programs to identify and address pre-delinquency. As part of the campaign to prevent delinquency, schools mobilized children and youth. We argue that this in turn fostered an exaggerated effort to create good children and patriotic citizens,”[4] but lack references which makes their evidence unreliable. The motives of compulsory education and curfew are unclear as they state they are implemented to “prevent children from growing up to quick”[5] and “protect childhood and reinforce the family,”[6] but later propose they are instilled to “control young people”[7] and submit youth to values that favoured patriotism and loyalty which would regulate, guide and socialize children. [8] Having an education system that would guide children to conform is not a new concept, but the governments ulterior motive to their advertisement of the newly implemented practises shows the desperation for control as “teenagers formed their own identity and became an influential subculture.”[9]

In Gleason’s article it is clear the introduction of psychology and psychiatry after WWII

progressed the notion of a ‘healthy’ child and in turn put more pressure on parents to raise a ‘healthy’ minded and behaved child. Societies quick grasp on new psychological ideas gave no time for parents to adhere to the new norms and their dependence on medical expertise shows the emergence of a gullible society, “after the war the power of the perception of social disruption, regardless of proof to the contrary… [influenced] and [shaped] public opinion.”[10]

There is a shift from the mother being all-knowing to her being the problem parent, and father emerging as the correcting influence.[11] This recognition of gender roles showed the progression of the father to be the “new man”[12]  rather than the bread winner, and presents a “virulent attack on [the] parenting skills of mothers.”[13] Gleason displays the overwhelming amount of change parents were expected to adopt in a simple to understand format. Her focus on parent’s hardships allow the reader to gain a perspective not often given and understand the development of our modern parenting regimen, as we typically give our children more freedom that restrictions, this was influenced by the youth rebellion.

Progression did not always mean for the better of all society. In the case of youth rebellion, the importance of child well-being is identified as more important than the parental well-being because youth were the the hope for the future. Therefore, when they began to rebel measures were taken to try and ensure they conform. Parents took the blame for much of their rebellion, when realistically they were doing it on their own because of the economic boom after WWII.[14] Parents were responsible for what their children became in life and it was believed this was fully reliant on their upbringing. This notion is similar to society today, we are quick to judge parenting regimens and often forget the complex minds of children and their stubbornness. Parents can only serve as a guide for their children towards their full potential and this concept is not quite recognized by either authors, which makes it believable that this concept was not yet established following WWII.

[1] Gleason, Mona. “Disciplining Children, Disciplining Parents: The Nature and Meaning of Advice to Canadian Parents, 1945-1955,” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 357-375.

[2] Myers, Tamara and Mary Anne Poutanen. “Cadets, Curfews, and Compulsory Schooling: Mobilizing Anglophone Children in WWII Montreal.” Histoire Sociale 38, no.76 (2005): 367-398.

[3] “The Canadian Teenager.” https://canadianprosperityandsecurity1.wordpress.com/the-canadian-family/the-canadian-teenager/

[4] Ibid. 369.

[5] Ibid. 378.

[6] Ibid. 379.

[7] Myers, Tamara and Mary Anne Poutanen. “Cadets, Curfews, and Compulsory Schooling: Mobilizing Anglophone Children in WWII Montreal.” (2005): 369.

[8] Ibid. 383,386,387.

[9] “The Canadian Teenager.” https://canadianprosperityandsecurity1.wordpress.com/the-canadian-family/the-canadian-teenager/

[10] Gleason, “Disciplining Children, Disciplining Parents: The Nature and Meaning of Advice to Canadian Parents, 1945-1955,” 360.

[11] Ibid. 365.

[12] Ibid. 365.

[13] Ibid. 364.

[14] “The Canadian Teenager.” https://canadianprosperityandsecurity1.wordpress.com/the-canadian-family/the-canadian-teenager/

The three articles this week demonstrated medicines progressive involvement in education and how it impacted the value of teachers, the power of education, and parental involvement in order to determine a child’s health. Education became more than letters and numbers; it evolved into an institution that taught the desired behaviours which would conform to relevant fears and issues within society.

Thomas Gerald focuses on the importance of uniformity in 20^th century education and the control doctors began to have over this concept. The articles tone is degrading by use of adjectives such as “subnormal, intellectually inferior, feeble-minded,”[1] and referencing the subjected children as a “disease to the normal children around them.”[2] This article was difficult to read because today’s society no longer holds the belief that children’s with learning disabilities are inferior, but eye opening to see how the advisories of medical practitioners, which endorse normality, have not changed over time. The repetitive usage of the word “control”[3] make it seem as though Dauphinee’s intentions behind her movement are not to benefit education, but rather gain uniformity.[4] Despite differing descriptions of these children, today’s doctors still persuade parents to medicalize disabled persons because mental mediocrity is a goal for the not ‘right minded.’

Cynthia Comacchio’s article introduces the important role teachers had in the education of children on topics that were socially controversial: such as sex and good morals. She recognizes the “power of education”[5] and the important role teachers played in creating the foundation of a child’s learning and how parents relied on them to stabilize youth. This article was intriguing because it showed the progression of medical intelligence from Gerald’s article and how after the 1920’s medical experts recognized that “environmental reform would be crucial to overall improvement of Canadian health, not eugenics.”[6] Although the article was long and covered an ambiguous amount of time, it relayed important information that thoroughly described the change of education from an institution to conform to a source of pragmatic information which would prepare pupils for the natural world: “[foster] the adolescent’s capacity to take responsibility for himself or herself.” This shows a movement from authoritative control to personal control, as well as the need for teachers because parents lacked confidence over evolving rebellion and issues.

Mona Gleason’s article ties the three article together by presenting how medical experts and teachers had authority within the education system, but presented how parents held ultimate control because they decide whether they adhere to advice. Her thesis statement is broad: “School medical inspection and construction of “healthy” children in B.C over the turn of the 20^th Century;”[7] and didn’t seem to follow it by focusing mostly on white-middle class fear of immigrating diseases. The length of her article and broad focus made the article difficult to follow, but did include some eye opening information, such as the history of vaccinations.[8]

The relationship between doctor and parent does not seem to have changed because parents must comply with the diagnosis and treatment of their children, and often times “parent apathy and ignorance… [result in] students receiving insufficient attention,”[9] which is still seen in the 21^st century. When ranked by importance in society teachers and doctors hold a well respected position, but their power is not worth anything to a child if the parent does not comply; therefore showing that parents do not always oblige to societal norms, but depend on them to keep order.

This weeks articles were very interesting and open the reader’s eyes to important figures not always recognized in the progression of education. They showed the use of power in the creation of education and how authority did not always fulfill stability. The articles formed a story which taught the reader the convoluted history of today’s public education system.

[1] Thomson, Gerald. “‘Through no fault of their own’: Josephine Dauphinee and the ‘Subnormal’ Pupils of the Vancouver School System, 1911-1941.” Historical Studies in Education 18, no.1 (Spring 2006): 51-73.

[2] Gerald, “‘Through no fault of their own’: Josephine Dauphinee and the ‘Subnormal’ Pupils of the Vancouver School System, 1911-1941,” P. 64.

[3] Gerald. “‘Through no fault of their own’: Josephine Dauphinee and the ‘Subnormal’ Pupils of the Vancouver School System, 1911-1941:” 69.

[4] Dauphinee describers her work as “a vocation for which [feeble-minded children’s] mental equipment shows the greatest chance of [their] success,” but contradicts this claim by mentioning her intentions to “control” and “change” them.

Gerald, “‘Through no fault of their own’: Josephine Dauphinee and the ‘Subnormal’ Pupils of the Vancouver School System, 1911-1941,” P.66.

[5] Comacchio, Cynthia. “‘The Rising Generation’: Laying Claims to the Health of Adolescents in English Canada, 1920-70.” Canadian Bulletin of Medical History 19, no.1 (2002): 144.

[6] Comacchio, “‘The Rising Generation’: Laying Claims to the Health of Adolescents in English Canada, 1920-70,” 141.

[7] Gleason, Mona, “Race, Class, Health: School Medical Inspection and ‘Healthy’ Children in British Columbia, 1890-1930,” Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, 19, 1 (2002): 96.

[8] Ibid. 106.

[9] Ibid. 105.

The three articles this week look at residential schooling from differing perspectives. The most common recognition of Indian residential schooling (IRS) is its inequality; therefore reading alternate perspectives was very intriguing. Barman[1] looks at it from the most commonly known context of its inequality, Raibmon[2] gives an example of a residential school that wanted the best for its pupils, and Raptis[3] focuses on its approach to integrate Aboriginals. The articles contradict one another because their arguments are to opposite extremes, but none state that residential schooling was correct or justifiable. Residential schools are not comparable in terms of abuse and mistreatment to Chinese and Black children’s educational experiences in Canada, but segregation and the notion of “white man schooling”[4] are very similar attributes. The difference between other migrating cultures and Aboriginals in Canada was Aboriginal willingness to adhere to segregation and mistreatment throughout children’s education in order to give them a better future.

The federal Department of Indian Affairs and Superintendent of Education were essential to Residential schooling because they held power over the education system. The distribution of power to the Board of Trustees[5] and subsequently “leaving schools’ ongoing operation to missionary groups”[6] created the fundamentally flawed system which Barman argues influenced the “consequences for Aboriginal education.”[7] Although dispersed power over educational institutions led to inconsistencies and a maltreatment of Aboriginals, parental acceptance of education also inflicted the detrimental consequences. Aboriginal parents were “encouraged from an early date by government legislators and enforced by representatives of churches and by federal government Indian agents to put young children in residential schools;”[8] rather than protesting the skewed form of assimilation they sent their kids to school believing it was a “genuine opportunity for their children.”[9]

Raibmon’s article provides the results to defying the conventional. Coqualeetza was recognized as a finer IRS and its principal George Henry Raley ran his school in a way that contrasted the Department of Indian Affairs policies[10]. His rejection of common IRS curriculum allowed him to “conceptualize a new understanding of things Indian,”[11] and create a school that followed a “modified version of the status quo… [one that] could rally to defeat the radicals and at the same time support change;”[12] he was fearless and this allowed him to give Aboriginal children the opportunities they deserved. He fought for their equality, unlike the parents.

Raptis’ article focused on governmental influence over the integration of Aboriginal students after 1950 and the strains of power distribution. It is not until her article that there is any evidence of Aboriginals speaking up for integration, and this was likely influenced by the equality revolution as Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals “voiced strong criticisms of the inadequacies of… Indian education systems.”[13] Her article shows how speaking up about the issues of IRS allowed Aboriginal children to be integrated fairly, and influenced other people to create programs and laws which abide with the federal goal of integration.

The progression of Aboriginal children’s integration was an extraordinarily slow process of change, which was initiated by many others before their own people. This leaves us to wonder whether things would have played out differently if Aboriginal communities enforced change and equality like the Chinese and Black immigrants of Canada at this time.

[1] Barman, Jean. “Schooled for Inequality: The Education of British Columbia Aboriginal Children.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 255-276.

[2] Raibmon, Paige. “‘A New Understanding of Things Indian’: George Raley’s Negotiation of the Residential School Experience.” BC Studies 110, 1996: 69-96.

[3] Raptis, Helen. “Implementing Integrated Education Policy for On-Reserve Aboriginal Children in British Columbia, 1951-1981.” Historical Studies in Education 20, no.1, 2008: 118-146.

[4] Barman. “Schooled for Inequality: The Education of British Columbia Aboriginal Children.” 2012: 268.

[5] Barman. “Schooled for Inequality: The Education of British Columbia Aboriginal Children.” 2012: 259.

[6] Ibid. 262.

[7] Ibid. 256.

[8] Lafrance, Jean & Collins, Don. “Residential Schools and Aboriginal Parenting: Voices of Parents.” Native Social Work Journal. Vol 4(1). P 105. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/OSUL/TC-OSUL-435.pdf

[9] Ibid. 266.

[10] Raibmon. “‘A New Understanding of Things Indian’: George Raley’s Negotiation of the Residential School Experience.” 1996: 83.

[11]Ibid: 69.

[12] Ibid. 76.

[13] Raptis. “Implementing Integrated Education Policy for On-Reserve Aboriginal Children in British Columbia, 1951-1981.” 2008: 121.

The three readings this week focus on the issue of white supremacy in the Canadian education system from 1850-1950. Ranging from the east coast in Nova Scotia to the West Coast in British Columbia, each province refused to pursue their promise that coloured immigrants would “have the right to a meaningful education equal to whites”[1]. Each province experienced an influx of immigrants because it was thought that in Canada “there was not a man to be known by his colour under the British flag”[2] and they would have access to free public education. Each province had jurisdiction over their own educational system; “education laws were changed to accommodate racism, while guardians of the education system tolerated illegal discriminatory practices.”[3] The power of school officials caused inconsistency in the education system, and showed how Caucasians took advantage of their education by secluding others ability to utilize their free education, thus tainting children’s minds.

When the Chinese and African Americans began to enrol their in school “specific methods [were] used by those in authority to discourage [coloured immigrants] from attaining the education they wanted.”[4] The absurd thing is the authority was not the Superintenant, but rather the school officials and parents who were forcing the segregation. I found these articles to be very focused on power, but they did not mention how this power eventually effected the kids. The parents were exemplifying racism and their children were influenced by these actions; being taught they should alienate people who are not white. Although parents thought “segregation… was essential for the protection of white children”[5] they were tainting their minds with their own beliefs and not giving them a choice to interact with non-white Canadians. This generation of children would have had the chance to take the first step against discrimination, but this was imposed by forced segregation.

The non-white communities persistence to gain the rights to partake in a mixed education system shows how much they value education. They are deemed inferior but their determination and perseverance in my opinion make them superior. White children learned a more valuable lesson from non-whites than they did from their parents and authority figures because the coloured people showed the importance of egalitarianism and “they fought for their rights to equal participation in British-Canadian institutions. The Committee for the Colored People of Windsor asserted in 1859 that, ‘…we desire to share the common blessings of a Free Government in the education of our rising generation … according to the established Laws of the country of our adoption and choice.’”[6] White children were taught to hide whereas non-whites in each province did not back down to their seclusion which “strengthened [their] sense of self and solidarity”[7] and taught their kids– exemplified by the Chinese children involvement in the strike.

White supremacy secluded colored people as well as white children of that generation. The power of parents and officials tainted the children’s minds to accept the environment they lived in and believe that other cultures should be alienated rather than accepted. The fact none of the articles focused on this issue was surprising because authority was taking opportunities away from their own people while segregating others.

[1] Moreau, Bernice. “Black Nova Scotian Women’s Experience of Educational Violence in the Early 1900s: A Case of Colour Contusion.” Dalhousie Review 77, no.2 (1997): 184.

[2] Knight, Claudette. “Black Parents Speak: Education in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Canada West.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 225-237.

[3] McLaren, Kristen. “’We had no desire to be set apart’: Forced Segregation of Black Students in Canada West Public School and Nyths of British Egalitarianism.” York University, 2004. P. 27. http://hssh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/hssh/article/viewFile/4373/3571

[4] Moreau. “Black Nova Scotian Women’s Experience of Educational Violence in the Early 1900s: A Case of Colour Contusion.” P. 192.

[5] Stanley, Timothy J. “White Supremacy, Chinese Schooling, and School Segregation in Victoria: The Case of the Chinese Students’ Strike, 1922-1923.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 239.

[6] McLaren. “’We had no desire to be set apart’: Forced Segregation of Black Students in Canada West Public School and Nyths of British Egalitarianism.” P. 32.

[7] Moreau. “Black Nova Scotian Women’s Experience of Educational Violence in the Early 1900s: A Case of Colour Contusion.” P. 182.

Eric Sager’s “Women Teachers in Canada, 1881-1901”[1]  and David Wilson’s “I Am Here to Help If You Need Me,”[2] both speak of women in early education, but portray it in very different contexts. Sager has a research driven conquest to explore feminization; whereas Wilson relays the struggles of female teachers in rural communities by individual experience.

Eric Sager explores many angles to explain “feminization and the status of an occupation.”[3] This article was challenging to follow because he continued to question his conclusions, making it difficult to follow his argument. He stated that “the relationship between feminization and the size of the system, as measured by teacher–child ratio, is confirmed;”[4] yet continued questioning “what characteristics are associated with system size?”[5] This article brings truth to the notion that“ history and its research is… [a] never-ending process.”[6] Another aspect of his analysis was the use of qualitative and quantitative data which approached a method not often used: the egological method.[7] This form of analysis led him to multiple conclusions which are not ordinary such as “relatively large numbers of pupils did not lead directly or uniformly to more women teachers;”[8] but rather “where the labour force participation of adult men was high, the proportion of teachers who were women was also high.”[9] This is an interesting statement because at the end of the nineteenth century women were limited to work and often women did not work if they were married.[10] It also contradicts the notion that an influx of students created more working opportunities; therefore bringing women into the work force. Sager doesn’t just use primary sources that are purely individualistic information, he digs past the concept and explores the reasons behind it’s coming. His approach, although at times confusing, is very reliable because he uses governmental data.

Donald Wilson’s story like approach makes for an easy, engaging read. The focus seemed to be on genderization and focused on female support and protection. The recognition of power indifferences added intriguing contradictions. The power struggle between teacher and parents as well as child and authority were noted and seemed to have similar outcomes as they both stressed safety for the inferior group (teachers and children). Female children were separated from males in order to stay safe and rural areas were marked in a “best served by male teachers… [or] not for inexperienced women teachers”[11] context. It’s shown that protection does not seize with age. When children are young regulation are implemented as a “response to the wishes of anxious parents and friends,”[12] and continuing to teen years with the “fraternization of the sexes even though the students were at least in their late teens,”[13] and finally the Welfare Officer declaring areas unsafe for women when they are in adulthood. The title of the article seems to have two purposes– to emphasize the Welfare Officer’s usefulness as being a protector of women, but also represents the teacher’s role in rural community schools. The role of the Welfare Office and women teachers exemplify the struggle to hold power in the workforce, as presented in the article, both occupancies run into troubles and indifferences which degrade their role to having little purpose.

[1] Sager, Eric W. “Women Teachers in Canada, 1881-1901 in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 140- 165.

[2] Wilson, J. Donald. “‘I Am Here to Help If You Need Me’: British Columbia’s Rural Teachers’ Welfare Officer, 1928-1934,” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 201-222.

[3] Sager. “Women Teachers in Canada, 1881-1901.”143.

[4] Ibid. 151.

[5] Ibid.

[6] “What Is History and Historical Research?” Retrieved from http://www.bcps.org/offices/lis/researchcourse/history_research.html

[7] Sager. “Women Teachers in Canada, 1881-1901.” 149.

[8] Ibid. 148.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Connelly, M.P. “Women in the Labour Force.” Historica Canada. 2006. Retrieved from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/women-in-the-labour-force/

[11] Wilson. “‘I Am Here to Help If You Need Me.” 208.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

The articles “Motherhood and Public Schooling in Victorian Toronto”[1] and “The boys in Nova Scotian Coal Mines: 1873-1923”[2] elucidate two corresponding aspects of Victorian education and changing society: control and rebellion of the youth.

In Clubine’s article he stresses the problems that arose with the “Compulsory Schooling Act” due to changing Victorian society and the “new culture that public schools … propagated.”[3] Changing motherhood roles and strict discipline by the truant officer are explained in depth, as well as the dependence on child labour within the home, but the biggest change is children’s rebellion to new educational norms. It is noted that the mother held power over decision on a child’s behalf [4], but the diaries of W.C Wilkinson present how “children [decide] for themselves whether or not to attend school][5] and contradicts the argument Clubine makes that the mother’s were to blame for a child’s absence or disobedience. The standard view is that “children are internally capable of developing autonomy, but not yet internally capable of exercising autonomous choice”[6] but within Clubine’s article there is increased school absence with the progression of mandatory schooling, which shows how they  are capable of making their own choices. This could be a result of schools change from being an occasional practice to a component of childhood, and it’s implementation of control: “to prevent any child ‘from being unjustly’… the parent or guardian was required to inform the teacher.”[7] Kids were being introduced to discipline and organization, something they had not previously known and this new phenomena in Toronto was not progressively introduced, but rather quickly and rigorously implemented.

McIntosh’s article was slow to provide his argument, but in the end provided one quite similar to Clubine– the struggles of changing society. His article explains how social attitudes emerging with the Victorian era took precedence over a boy’s desire to mine and “dwindled boys’ place in colliery workforce.” [8] McIntosh’s article is less about education and more about the advancement of the mining industry’s acceptance to social expectations and educations importance. The mining industry in 1890 was 21.5% boys, and by 1914, after being criticized by F.H Sexton for their ill-educated mining towns, depleted to a mere 6.1%. [9] There’s evident maturation in mine boys as they show independence by striking,[10] and this also presents their ability to have autonomy rather than be succeptible to what an institution deems right for them. McIntosh’s article agrees with the notion that children are capable of exercising an autonomous choice.

I disagree with McIntosh’s argument that the “Victorian age… idealized childhood and the family.” [11] I believe the Victorian era idealized childhood over the family. In both articles the issue of children being taken from work to gain an education is presented, and this often meant the family was losing an income; therefore strengthening the idea that collectively the child and family were not idealized, but rather the child taking precedent over the family.

The deviation from an economy driven society to an education based society drives the argument to both articles. The effects of societies new attitudes are exemplified within the household as well as large corporations (mining), and both present cases of conflict and rebellion from children. The Victorian era brought order to lives that were independently sustained; therefore people were often doing things they did not want to be– and children were most evident to rebel against this.

[1] Clubine, Christopher, “Motherhood and Public Schooling in Victorian Toronto,” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 115-126.

[2] McIntosh, Robert. “The Boys in the Nova Scotian Coal Mines: 1873-1923,” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 126-139.

[3] Clubine. “Motherhood and Public Schooling in Victorian Toronto.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.): 123.

[4] Clubine. “Motherhood and Public Schooling in Victorian Toronto.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.): 120

[5] Clubine. “Motherhood and Public Schooling in Victorian Toronto.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.): 122.

[6] Frierson, Patrick R, “Making Room for Children’s Autonomy: Maria Montessori’s Case for Seeing Children’s Incapacity for Autonomy as an External Failing.” Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 50, No. 3, 2016: PDF- ebook: 336.

[7] Clubine. “Motherhood and Public Schooling in Victorian Toronto.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.): 117.

[8] McIntosh. “The Boys in the Nova Scotian Coal Mines: 1873-1923,” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.): 130.

[9] Ibid. 127, 134.

[10] Ibid. 131.

[11] Ibid. 130.

19th Century Rise of Education

The two articles by Ian Ross[1] and John Bullen[2] focus on the importance of education and work for children, but more so emphasize how the progressing world in nineteenth century Canada impacted their meanings within a new culture. Education is much more than an establishment where you sheepishly follow what the teacher says and does; it is the concept of learning. Ross and Bullen state the importance of education and how the benefits of education are not confined to an institution. Their articles show cultural growth and how this growth leads to progression and realization.

Ross’ article exemplifies the expansion of land ownership in PEI and how this growth meant the people had to be literate to avoid conflict. He explains the problems that arose in an attempt to keep old ways while progressing a population[3]. PEI’s struggle to own and lease land without proper contracts gave rise to the problems of ‘he said she said;’ thus proving that contracts and formal deals were necessary. This proves more than the importance of contracts, but also presents progression. These formal deals show that in the early nineteenth century there was a need for order within Canadian society. As a country who was trying to sway Europeans to migrate west and assimilate them once they arrived, they learned that the diversity between the many cultures was a problem; therefore making the people realize the necessity of civil law. In Ross’ article it is clear PEI recognized the importance of education, but not for education simply as a learning experience, but as a way to attain social order and be capable of following the rules they were in need of implying.

Bullen’s article on child labour and sweat shops focuses on the notion of desperation and how it impacts actions. People do not desire to live on the streets; therefore they will do anything to keep a roof over their heads. Sweat shops from a business perspective “are overwhelmingly lucrative since they capitalize on low-wage labor in developing countries and significantly reduce production costs.”[4] The fact that “human nature is fundamentally selfish and each man exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose”[5] is not a new phenomenon, but rather an explanation the evolution of humanity. Szalavitz’s statement is intriguing and from a perspective not many have pondered:

Did selfishness — or sharing — drive human evolution? Evolutionary theorists have traditionally focused on competition and the ruthlessness of natural selection, but often they have failed to consider a critical fact: that humans could not have survived in nature without the charity and social reciprocity of a group.[6]

Ross and Bullen’s articles prove the truths in this statement by the progress throughout the nineteenth century.

Conflict is a main issue represented in each article and explains the changing attitudes of citizens towards people in power. In both articles people struggle to survive and were doing anything to keep a roof over their heads; therefore reformists in order to achieve success came to realize they could not simply say no, but rather had to try to find a way to say yes because the people were going to find away to bend the rules and make it work anyways. This is proven when Ottawa attempted to implement the license for vendors[7] as well as when PEI first attempted land lease and ownership[8]. Rather than worrying about the needs of adults, in each article we find reformists learning through trial and error that the focus when altering a law should accommodate the quickly changing society­, but mainly children. Children at this time had the potential to catch up with the changes taking place; therefore it was learned the laws should benefit them.

The main factors underlying progress was education and the changing attitudes of citizens. Solutions were found by educating people, “it took the establishment of free, compulsory public education at the end of the 19th century and the changed attitudes that followed to reduce, if not fully eliminate child labour in Britain, Canada, the U.S.A., and other industrialized countries.”[9] Progress came from education, and education opened citizens eyes to things the world could not teach them.

[1] Robertson, Ian Ross. “Reform, Literacy, and the Lease: The Prince Edward Island Free Education Act of 1852.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 56-71.

[2] Bullen, John, “Hidden Workers: Child Labour and the Family Economy in Late Nineteenth-Century Urban Ontario.” Labour/Le Travail 18 (Fall 1986): 163-87.

[3] Ross. “Reform, Literacy, and the Lease: The Prince Edward Island Free Education Act of 1852.” 159-160.

[4] Annabelle Wong, “Two Faces of Economic Development: The Ethical Controversy Surrounding U.S. Related Sweatshops in Developing Asian Countries. May 1, 2013. http://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/m/blogpost?id=6428686%3ABlogPost%3A22778

[5] Szalavitz, Maia. Is Human Nature Fundamentally Selfish or Altruistic?” Time. October 8, 2012. http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/08/is-human-nature-fundamentally-selfish-or-altruistic/

[6] Ibid.

[7] Bullen. “Hidden Workers: Child Labour and the Family Economy in Late Nineteenth-Century Urban Ontario.”178.

[8] Ross. “Reform, Literacy, and the Lease: The Prince Edward Island Free Education Act of 1852.” 159-160.

[9] “Child Labour- Then and Now.” BC Teachers Federation. 83. https://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/public/TeachingResources/YouthUnionsYou/SS9_L4.pdf