In examining whether or not education has degenerated in England since the Victorian and Darwinian era, one cannot escape the simple question of school attendance. A good starting place for our project, therefore, is to compare the attendance rates of primary children in the nineteenth century to those of the twenty-first in order to have some idea of just how many children were and are being exposed to an early education. I have found that children in Victorian England who received a primary education were rare, extremely fortunate, and usually belonged to the upper class, while the majority of lower and middle class children were usually taught how to efficiently clean a chimney rather than how to read or perform basic arithmetic. During the Industrial Revolution the English government actually encouraged child labor and its benefits to the economy, whereas today children who do not attend some form of primary school are few and far between. Today, primary school attendance rates are at an all-time high in England, and this fact is obviously a clue as to the importance and necessity that an education has become, as well as an indication that all children are being given the opportunity to receive an education, whatever their family’s economic status may be.
The majority of children growing up in Victorian England were not fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend school, even in their primary years. Those belonging to the upper class usually either sent their sons to “public” school (a term for what the Americas have now deemed “private” schools) or had them taught under a mentor, usually a retired teacher or a member of the clergy. We see this example in George Eliot’s The Mill on the Floss; Tom is sent away to be taught under a clergyman, Mr. Stelling (despite the obvious fact that Tom has no real interest in learning), while Maggie, an avid reader at a very early age, is left at home. While Tom is away, Maggie begins to read great works of literature in an attempt to “keep up” with Tom, and eventually, she is sent off to school as well. Since the upper class represented less than ten percent of England’s total population (Cody), the actual number of children attending public schools in Victorian England was miniscule. It has been found that only twenty percent of the youth population in 1840 had had any schooling at all (Cody). Although there were a few fortunate families in the lower and middle classes whose children who could be home-schooled (usually in Latin, Writing, Literature and Mathematics) by their educated parents, most children belonging to the lower classes in Victorian England were pushed into the labor force in order to earn extra money for their families.
The most common jobs given to children working in Victorian England included servants to the upper class, factory-workers, miners, or chimney-sweepers, and because they were seen as “energetic” and “nimble-bodied”, many were forced to work eight to ten hour days for very little money (Atlick 167). In Charles Kinsley’s Water-Babies we are given an example of such an existence; after losing his parents at a young age Tom is forced to become a chimney-sweeper in order to survive. His abusive master, Mr. Grimes, has no has no intention of helping Tom amount to anything more than a chimney-sweeper, either; there isn’t one allusion to education in the entire novel. Tom is a classic example of the way that children in the lower classes were looked upon in the Victorian period and through the Industrial Revolution, a time when factory production became the most crucial aspect of England’s economy. The English Parliament itself even stated in 1854 that child labor was essential to the economy, and that a child was “more useful to his family working” (Atlick 249), than getting an education. This is one aspect of education that has most definitely progressed since the Victorian era.
Attendance figures from the last school year in England revealed an overall increase in the number of children attending school on a regular basis. In the autumn school term of 2006, the attendance rate of primary schools in England was over ninety-three percent. This figure translated means that between September 2006 – June 2007, out of all the possible school days attended by every single child registered in elementary schools in England, only 8.79 percent of these days were missed. When considering only the days missed with inexcusable absence, just over one percent of days were missed. This figure is an undeniable fact that children in England are getting a primary education, and that parents and schools are working hard at having them attend and learn. This is most definitely one aspect of education that the English at present day have the Victorians beat; our children are going to school.
The majority of children growing up in Victorian England were not fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend school, even in their primary years. Those belonging to the upper class usually either sent their sons to “public” school (a term for what the Americas have now deemed “private” schools) or had them taught under a mentor, usually a retired teacher or a member of the clergy. We see this example in George Eliot’s The Mill on the Floss; Tom is sent away to be taught under a clergyman, Mr. Stelling (despite the obvious fact that Tom has no real interest in learning), while Maggie, an avid reader at a very early age, is left at home. While Tom is away, Maggie begins to read great works of literature in an attempt to “keep up” with Tom, and eventually, she is sent off to school as well. Since the upper class represented less than ten percent of England’s total population (Cody), the actual number of children attending public schools in Victorian England was miniscule. It has been found that only twenty percent of the youth population in 1840 had had any schooling at all (Cody). Although there were a few fortunate families in the lower and middle classes whose children who could be home-schooled (usually in Latin, Writing, Literature and Mathematics) by their educated parents, most children belonging to the lower classes in Victorian England were pushed into the labor force in order to earn extra money for their families.
The most common jobs given to children working in Victorian England included servants to the upper class, factory-workers, miners, or chimney-sweepers, and because they were seen as “energetic” and “nimble-bodied”, many were forced to work eight to ten hour days for very little money (Atlick 167). In Charles Kinsley’s Water-Babies we are given an example of such an existence; after losing his parents at a young age Tom is forced to become a chimney-sweeper in order to survive. His abusive master, Mr. Grimes, has no has no intention of helping Tom amount to anything more than a chimney-sweeper, either; there isn’t one allusion to education in the entire novel. Tom is a classic example of the way that children in the lower classes were looked upon in the Victorian period and through the Industrial Revolution, a time when factory production became the most crucial aspect of England’s economy. The English Parliament itself even stated in 1854 that child labor was essential to the economy, and that a child was “more useful to his family working” (Atlick 249), than getting an education. This is one aspect of education that has most definitely progressed since the Victorian era.
Attendance figures from the last school year in England revealed an overall increase in the number of children attending school on a regular basis. In the autumn school term of 2006, the attendance rate of primary schools in England was over ninety-three percent. This figure translated means that between September 2006 – June 2007, out of all the possible school days attended by every single child registered in elementary schools in England, only 8.79 percent of these days were missed. When considering only the days missed with inexcusable absence, just over one percent of days were missed. This figure is an undeniable fact that children in England are getting a primary education, and that parents and schools are working hard at having them attend and learn. This is most definitely one aspect of education that the English at present day have the Victorians beat; our children are going to school.
4 comments:
Now playing the devil’s advocate to my own argument, obviously not every child of primary age in England is registered for school, and therefore the attendance figures do not shed light on the total number of English children receiving an education. Poverty can be found within every country in the world, England included, and there are most definitely children whose parents are simply not responsible enough to enroll them in school. Still, the figures I have quoted reflect the attendance records of every elementary school in England: public, private, inner-city, and those situated in the wealthier areas, schools that educate over three million children. It is now illegal for children to be kept away from primary schooling, and since the majority of elementary schools are now tuition-free, they have become the cheapest form of daycare. It is undoubtable that there are some children in England who are not attending school, but I would not put this number at more than one thousand. It can be presumed, therefore, that over ninety percent of the children living in England are being given a primary education. There is no way that the Victorians competed with that.
Works Cited:
Atlick, Richard D. Victorian People and Ideas. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1973.
Cody, David. “Child Labour.” http://landow.stg.brown.edu/victorian/history/hist8.html 1987.
Yes, 21st century children go to school. But are they learning anything? Victorian literacy rates were much higher than those of any previous age, yet they are lower than ours. But, as I pointed out in my article on the decline of the book review, just because we can read, that doesn't mean we are really reading anything of substance. Why is this? I would argue that, as Molly stated, we don't understand the value of our education-- we don't love knowledge. This is where the Victorians have a leg up on us. Those who could read read-- a lot. They believed that morality and education shouldn't be divorced from each other, and while science had begun to take over, many recognized the value of trying to hold on to a liberal arts education. Are we a better society for educating everyone? probably. Does this change the fact that morally and intelectually we have degenerated because of the changes scientism has created in education since the Victorian era? No. In England, fewer children are starving and fewer people live below the poverty line,and yes most receive a crude and basic education, as it is in all 1st world nations, and this may be progress. However, more children/students are cheating (just look at The Times headlines arround A-level exam time) and Universities (SFU) are having to enforce writing skills standards that previous generations all arrived at the door with-- that is educational degeneration .
Kristina
I agree with Kristina, I most definitely agree that the standards for writing have gone down and more and more students are cheating rather than taking the time to do the work. But I think that in making it illegal for children to attend school and for cracking down on those who skip classes in high school, society is doing the best it can to try and convey molly's point: that there is a reason why children need to be in school, and that although children may not understand why they need an education in their early years, perhaps they will understand and respect education as they grow older and question why exactly it is against the law for a child not to be enrolled in school. Forcing children to go to school may not force them to learn anything, but it may help them to understand later on in life the significance of an education.
Post a Comment