In our readings this week, we explored how childhood was reconstructed throughout the second half of the twentieth century and how the education system reverted back to the basics of learning through educational reforms. As students and educators in present-day British Columbia, we are currently experiencing similar reconfiguring of the provincial curriculum in an effort to teach children in a more effective manner. As demonstrated in the class readings, it is next to impossible to find a standardized curriculum that appeases all students and their families. It is evident that demographics play into curriculum development, and that there is not a “one-size-fits-all” method of teaching children.

One example of curriculum that was specific to the location in which is was taught is presented in Nancy Janovicek’s article, “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.” In this article, Janovicek explores the “back-to-land movement,” which was “fundamentally an attempt to create alternatives to destructive economic and political developments that they associated with overcrowded, pol- luted, and increasingly violent cities.” [1] As a result, “self-education, self-reliance and local control over governance and resources were central tenets of the counterculture.” [2] According to Janovicek, the small and isolated community of Argenta began their own schools where “Quaker observation was the core value of the [Argenta Friends] school. In adherence to the Quaker consensus model, students had equal voice in administration and curriculum development.” [3] By encouraging children of the Argenta community to attend the Argenta Friends school, parents hoped it would encourage their children to have the same beliefs as them as they sheltered from the outside culture. Janovicek continues, “Practical skills that were essential to a self-sufficient rural lifestyle were an essential component of an education that sought to develop the whole person. The parents and teachers believed that teaching young people to become independent and self- reliant was best achieved in a less structured setting than the public school system.” [4]

In contrast to this approach of education is provincial curriculum that “emphasizes learning outcome.” [5] According to Carol Anne Wien and Curt Dudley-Marling, authors of “Limited Vision: The Ontario Curriculum and Outcomes-Based Learning,” “It is logical to evaluate what is learned by students as opposed to what is taught by teachers, but implicit in approaches to education that rely on standardized, measurable outcomes is rarely made explicit by educational policy makers.” [6] Instead of focussing on the unique needs of the individual students in the classroom and the unique resources of each community, the standardized curriculum, such as The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8, results in “the vision of the learning [shifting] from active participant to passive recipient, the assumption being that the learner is a receptacle for storing what has been learned.” [7] Wien and Dudley-Marling continue, “The vision of the learner that ultimately emerges from the Ontario curriculum, because of the force of ‘students will,’ is a vision of a machine. Dehumanizing and demoralizing for everyone, it is also ultimately immoral, because a machine has no responsibility.” [8]

As demonstrated in these articles, which only touch on two different approaches to educating children, there has long been disagreements on what is the most effective way of teaching children. Through the evidence demonstrated in these articles, along with the rest that we read in our readings this week, there is not a “one-size-fits-all” approach to education, and it takes collaboration and open-mindedness to effectively reach children of all demographics. These issues continue in the present-day education system as educators and curriculum developers across the country attempt to design and redesign curriculum in order to accommodate diversity.

[1] Nancy 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,” Historical Studies in Education, 24, 1 (Spring 2012): 152.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 159.

[4] Ibid., 160.

[5] Carol Anne Wien 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: 401.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 403.

[8] Ibid., 404.

This week, our weekly readings covered the topic of progressive education in Canada, focusing primarily on the first half of the 20th century. In the assigned readings, we are introduced to the experiences of students in both British Columbia and Ontario public schools, offering a more thorough representation of the education system nationwide. Although curriculum is managed on a provincial level, the experiences of the students bear striking resemblance. In addition to similarities between provinces during the same era, we also notice similarities between the past and the present education system, indicating that our current system is deeply rooted in both traditionalism and progressivism.

As Robert M. Stamp cites in his article as he refers to the progressive changes made to the Ontario curriculum in 1937, “Growing Up Progressive? Part I: Going to Elementary School in 1940s Ontario, “According to a senior departmental spokesperson, the “‘focus of attention is shifted from content to child, and from the child in general to the individual child… The factory system of mass production is replaced by something approaching the care and study of the craftsman and artist.’” [1] As a result of these developments, “educators saw visions of classrooms ‘that were bright and cheerful, where children could work together around a table, with maybe a rocking chair here and there.’ The classroom would be “a place where children could live socially, where it was a joy to go, and where their interests and activities could be fully developed.” [2] However, Stamp repeatedly questions the progressiveness of the education system of the time in the article, making reference to experiences such as, “In addition to reading, Miss Jackson teaches us how to print our names and do our sums, work quietly at tables, sit in a large circle on the carpeted floor, put up our hands when we need to go to the bathroom,” [3] experiences which prepared the then Kindergarten students for the standardized classroom setting as they “marched from a progressive, activity-oriented playground into a traditional desks-in-straight-rows, sit-down-and-be-quiet 1940s Ontario elementary school.” [4]

Similar to the experiences of children in Ontario, students in British Columbia experienced an education system that was geared towards teaching “groups of children rather than individual youngsters.” [5] According to Neil Sutherland, author of “The Triumph of ‘Formalism’: Elementary Schooling in Vancouver from the 1920s to the 1960s,” “Although the tone varied a great deal from room to room, the methods of teaching the whole class were remarkably consistent from teacher to teacher and subject to subject.” [6] As we see in Sutherland’s descriptions of the the education experience, there was a heavy stress on formalism in the classroom. Routines were implemented and courses were mandated according to the students grade level, which is a practice that continues today. These practices extended to the high school environment, where “the provincial curriculum includes English, social studies, health, mathematics, science or agriculture, French, home economics or general shop, music or art, and business practice.” [7] This structure continues in many educational settings today, where students continue to learn according to curriculum similar to that which dates back to the mid-1900s. Although changes are currently being made, specifically in British Columbia, to bring the focus onto the individual learning experience rather than the masses, much of the practices of modern day education are rooted in the progressivism and traditionalism implemented over 50 years ago.

[1] Robert M. Stamp, “Growing Up Progressive? Part I: Going to Elementary School in 1940s Ontario.” Historical Studies in Education vol. 17, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 188.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 189.

[4] Ibid., 198.

[5] Neil Sutherland, “The Triumph of ‘Formalism’: Elementary Schooling in Vancouver from the 1920s to the 1960s,” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 380.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Robert M. Stamp, “Growing Up Progressive? Part II : Going to High School in 1950s Ontario.” Historical Studies in Education vol. 17, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 321.

In our readings this week, we explored the idea of what it means to grow up as a Canadian and how these lessons were brought into the classroom setting. As a result of events such as urbanization, industrialization, as well as the war, the experiences of children underwent significant changes. As urbanization and industrialization took place, many families were forced to restructure their home-life in order to accommodate the need for both parents to work outside of the home. As Tamara Myers and Mary Anne Poutanen write in their article, “Cadets, Curfews, and Compulsory Schooling: Mobilizing Anglophone Children in WWII Montreal,” “Familial difficulties were believed exacerbated by the expansive opportunities for employment in the city… Observers pointed to the overcrowded and deteriorating living conditions that fuelled familial problems. Thus neglectful parents and a deleterious housing situation meant a lack of social control on the city’s children, which could only lead to a future generation of criminal adults.” [1] A heavy amount of blame was placed on working class parents, especially mothers, [2] as it had been common practice for mothers to remain at home with their children prior to this era. In addition to an increase in the number of working mothers, “the dramatically increasing number of jobs available” [3] also contributed to “youth enthusiastically [leaving] school and [entering] the labour force.” [4] Compulsory education was viewed as a critical means of controlling adolescents and preventing the rise of delinquency.

In addition to the prevention of juvenile delinquency, the classroom was a place where patriotism was able to flourish during wartime. As Myers and Poutanen add in their aritcle, “Principals, teachers, parents, relatives, community leaders, and government officials all reiterated the importance of war work.” [5] They add, “At Protestant schools, principals and teachers promoted the war effort, encouraged classroom discussions about its importance, and acted as role models. Moreover, their daily contact with children had shown them how to engage pupils in war work.” [6] However, not all children we subjected to positive educational experiences during wartime, as demonstrated in Patricia E. Roy’s article, “The Education of Japanese Children in the British Columbia Interior Housing Settlements during World War Two.” Roy writes, “Before the war, Japanese children had… well-deserved reputations as intelligent and hard-working students in British Columbia’s public schools;” [7] however, as war efforts took place through the early 1940s, many Japanese-Canadian citizens were evacuated to the central parts of British Columbia, thereby impacting their educational experience. According to Daniel Lachapelle Lemire, author of “Bittersweet Memories: Narratives of Japanese Canadian Children’s Experiences before the Second World War and the Politics of Redress,” “In British Columbia, the Japanese language schools played an important role in the development of Japanese Canadian communities prior to the Second World War;” [8] however, as the war efforts took place, Japanese families were evacuated, which resulted in children being removed from their Japanese language schools and culture.

As demonstrated in these articles, factors such as industrialization, urbanization, and war impacted the experiences of children both inside and outside of the classroom. Wartime had a significant and varying impact on students throughout Canada, depending on their cultural background; however, the majority of Canadians were impacted in some way by these changes, thereby determine the individual experience of growing up as a Canadian during this era.

[1] Tamara Myers and Mary Anne Poutanen. “Cadets, Curfews, and Compulsory Schooling: Mobilizing Anglophone Children in WWII Montreal.” Histoire Sociale 38, no.76 (2005): 374.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 376.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 390.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Patricia E. Roy, “The Education of Japanese Children in the British Columbia Interior Housing Settlements during World War Two,” Historical Studies in Education, 4, 2 (1992): 231.

[8] Daniel Lachapelle Lemire, ““Bittersweet Memories: Narratives of Japanese Canadian Children’s Experiences before the Second World War and the Politics of Redress,” BC Studies, 192 (Winter 2016/2017): 80.

In our readings this week, we explored the concepts of “healthy” children and “healthy” schools in the early 20th century, and how the concepts differed between race, class, and cognitive ability. As students and educators in modern-day Canada, it is easy to take the systems that have been developed in order to maintain hygiene in schools for granted. Today, hygiene is maintained in schools through the enforcement of immunization for diseases such as “polio, measles, mumps, and rubella,” [1] which, as of 2011, was mandatory for children enrolling in school in Ontario and New Brunswick. [2] Furthermore, schools today are, generally, equipped with appropriate toilet facilities, and provide education for children regarding proper hygiene, such as hand-washing.

However, the concepts we have of “healthy” children and “healthy” schools in the 21st century, differ greatly from the same concepts of the early 20th century, when eugenics and segregation as a means for assimilation were prevalent. According to Mona Gleason, in her article, “Race, Class, and Health: School Medical Inspection and “Healthy” Children in British Columbia, 1890 to 1930,” “Protecting the ‘public’ health revolved around a paradox: it meant excluding and demonizing a particular portion of that public,” [3] specifically “Natives and Asians.” [4] Out of fear for the white population of Canada, these minority groups were segregated and expected to adopt standards of hygiene determined by “laws of European science.” [5]

Segregation as a means to create “healthy” schools was also demonstrated with regards to students who were labelled as “feeble-minded.” As Gerald Thomson documents in his article, “‘Through no fault of their own’: Josephine Dauphinee and the “Subnormal” Pupils of the Vancouver School System, 1911-1941,” “Children with mental disabilities were seen as a social threat that had to be isolated like a contagious disease.” [6] Although separate educational pathways continue to be offered to students who are mentally disabled, especially at the intermediate and secondary levels when students are no longer able to track with their peers who are not mentally handicapped, the separate schooling offered to the “feeble-minded” “did not educate for personal independence or social integration but trained their pupils in order to exert social control.” [7]

As demonstrated in these articles, the emphasis on protecting the white, middle-class, and able-minded students took precedence over providing an inclusive educational environment for students of all races, classes, and cognitive ability. In an attempt to create “healthy” communities, the rise of eugenics, including drastic measures such as sterilization, dramatically altered the lives of individuals that did not fall within the standard of “normal.” In addition, the rise of the residential school system also acted as a means to enforce European ideas of health and hygiene on First Nations people.

[1] “Mandatory Vaccinations: The Canadian Picture,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 183, no. 16 (2011): E1165, accessed October 28, 2017, DOI:10.1503/cmaj.109-3992.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Mona Gleason, “Race, Class, and Health: School Medical Inspection and “Healthy” Children in British Columbia, 1890 to 1930,” Canadian Bulletin of Medical History 19, no. 1 (2002): 97.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 98.

[6] Gerald Thomson, “’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 (2006): 52.

[7] Ibid., 64.

In our readings this week, we focused on the experiences of Aboriginal children, specifically with regards to their experiences in underfunded and poorly-structured residential schools, which separated them from children of European descent and resulted in devastating inequalities. As Jean Barman discusses in her article, “Schooled for Inequality: The Education of British Columbia Aboriginal Children,” while British Columbia entered into Confederation in 1871 and Aboriginal children were generally well-received by many public schools throughout the 1970s and 1980s [1], the reception of these children and, consequently, their attendance began to deteriorate at the start of the 1890s. Barman recounts the experiences of Aboriginal children in 1891, writing, “Responses from individual teachers and boards of trustees almost all supported Aboriginal children’s continued presence [in public schools].” [2] However, she continues, “Two years later, in the fall of 1893, the Superintendent ruled that, ‘if a single parent objects to the attendance of Indian pupils, they cannot be permitted to attend,’” [3] and as the European population increased, “Aboriginal pupils were no longer essential to most schools’ survival.” [4] As a result, the residential school system came to be, isolating thousands of Aboriginal children from their families and their communities. In addition to being removed from their families, Aboriginal children were forced to abandon their native tongue and to learn English in order to be properly assimilated into the colonized nation. [5] The significance of this rule is further documented in Marie Battiste’s article, “Enabling the Autumn Seed: Toward a Decolonized Approach to Aboriginal Knowledge, Language, and Education,” where she writes, “[Aboriginal langues] provide the deep and lasting cognitive bonds that affect all aspects of Aboriginal life;” [6] however, as demonstrated in Barman’s article, these bonds were severed upon entrance in the residential schools. Although the residential school system inexcusably robbed thousands of Aboriginal children from the experiences of an appropriate childhood and educational experience, which continued to be granted to their former peers of European descent, steps were taken by some individuals in the industry to ensure that the students were given somewhat of a chance to have a positive educational experience. An example of this is demonstrated in Paige Raibmon’s article, “A New Understanding of Things Indian: George Raley’s Negotiation of the Residential School Experience,” where George Raley served as “principal of Coqualeetza Residential School at Sardis in the Fraser Valley,” [7] but instead of removing the children from “their family, community, and culture,” [8] he stressed “policies of Christianization and civilization.” As demonstrated in these articles, residential schools separated many Aboriginal children from their families and their culture, in an attempt to assimilate them to Euro-Canadian culture. As a result of the Eurocentric ideologies of the individuals who ran the residential schools, the children and their families suffered immensely.

[1] Jean Barman, “Schooled for Inequality: The Education of British Columbia Aboriginal Children,” in Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, ed. Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 258.

[2] Ibid., 259.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 260.

[6] Marie Battiste, “Enabling the Autumn Seed: Toward a Decolonized Approach to Aboriginal Knowledge, Language, and Education,” in Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, ed. Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 278.

[7] Paige Raibmon, “‘A New Understanding of Things Indian’: George Raley’s Negotiation of the Residential School Experience,” BC Studies 110 (1996): 71.

[8] Ibid.

The topic for our fourth week of class readings explored the gendered expectations of youth and the feminization of teaching. As the feminization of teaching is what I have chosen to explore for my research project, I was excited to delve into the readings for this week and learn not only how and why the feminization of teaching took place, but also about the experiences of different women throughout the country. As Eric W. Sager writes in his article, “Women Teachers in Canada, 1881-1901: Revisiting the ‘Feminization’ of an Occupation,” “[The feminization of teaching] was marked by extreme regional variations: in Lower Canada a majority of teachers were female at mid-century; at the same time almost 78 per cent of common or public school teachers in Upper Canada were male.” [1] This information tells us that the experience of female teachers, as well as male and female students, would have varied greatly depending on their geographical location. While some believed that the rise in female educators could simply be explained as an affordable “supply of labour” [2] hired by “penny-pinching school trustees,” [3] scholars such as Alison Prentice, whom Sager refers to in his article, suggest that the topic is much more complicated. [4] Although it is likely that because women were more willing to accept lower wages than men, reasons such as the idea that “women had a natural aptitude for working with young children” [5] and that the classroom was viewed as “an extension of the private sphere” [6] were also driving forces in the increase in employment of female teachers. The rate at which the industry became composed of a large number of female teachers is astonishing and can also be attributed to women seeking higher education at the turn of the 20th century. However, as indicated in the article, “‘I Am Here to Help If You Need Me’: British Columbia’s Rural Teachers’ Welfare Officer, 1928-1934” by J. Donaldson Wilson, the feminization of teaching was not glamorous nor without challenges, for both teachers, families, and students. Just as there was a need for educators in urban centres, there was a need for educators to teach children in rural areas — communities that all desired “to have their own schools,” [7] regardless of their population. Wilson shares how the “‘rural school problem’ created by small, ill-equipped, one-room schools with inefficient teachers and lack of financial resources” [8] was a growing concern for the Department of Education in British Columbia. In order to be effective, there needed to be a partnership between teachers and parents, which continues to be the case in present-day society. Although it is challenging to compare the experience of female teachers in urban communities with those in rural communities, it is evident though the readings that the feminization of teaching impacted Canadian women across the country in both urban and rural settings, presenting challenges such as gender stereotypes and limitations as well as lack of support from the government when dealing with challenging condition, as seen in the article regarding rural schools.

[1] Eric W. Sager, “Women Teachers in Canada, 1881-1901: Revisiting the ‘Feminization’ of an Occupation,” in Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, ed. Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 143.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Janet Guildford, “‘Separate Spheres’: The Feminization of Public School Teaching in Nova Scotia, 1838-1880,” Acadiensis 22, no. 1 (1992): 45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30302883.

[6] Ibid., 47.

[7] J. Donald Wilson, “I Am Here to Help If You Need Me’: British Columbia’s Rural Teachers’ Welfare Officer, 1928-1934,” in Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, ed. Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 205.

[8] Ibid.

In our readings this week, we focused on children, work, and compulsory schooling, and how the family life, specifically with regards to economics, was impacted as provinces began to mandate school attendance for young people. As Christopher Clubine documents in his article, “Motherhood and Public Schooling in Victorian Toronto,” the public school system in Ontario began to expand during the mid- to late-nineteenth century, an era when families often relied on their children to contribute to the family economy. Clubine writes, “From the mother’s perception, the irregular work and poor wages of the bread-winner necessitated various survival strategies, which would combine the paid and unpaid work of family members, [including children.]” [1] As public education became enforced, the structure of the family tasks evolved in order to accommodate the “rigid time-keeping of the public school,” [2] placing a greater load on the “mother’s ability to budget her time and other scarce resources.” [3] Although the implementation of compulsory schooling reduced the income of many working-class families, mandatory school attendance removed children from working conditions that were oftentimes hazardous. As Robert McIntosh writes in his article, “The Boys in the Nova Scotian Coal Mines: 1873-1923,” “By the mid-[19th] century the task of hauling coal generally fell to 14 to 17 year old boys… and their horses.” [4] McIntosh continues, “Where seams were too narrow to permit the passage of horses (or adults), coal continued to be moved manually by boys on all fours dragging sledges.” [5] Although childhood in the 19th century did not hold the connotation it does presently in the 21st century, that of play and imaginative exploration, and families relied on income from children for survival, it is likely that the tragic accidents that took place in the mines, resulting “in death or disability” [6] of the young workers were alarming. In addition to the loss of the daily contributions of the school-aged child, “the deeply rooted fear of direct taxation” [7] necessary to fund the newly-forming public schools “contributed to the reluctance of much of the rural population to accept schooling as desirable and necessary,” [8] as Robert Lanning discusses in his article, “Awakening a Demand for Schooling: Educational Inspection’s Impact on Rural Nova Scotia, 1855-74.” As demonstrated in these articles, compulsory school provided many children with the opportunity to further their education while evading sometimes harsh working conditions, parents were required to make economic sacrifices in order to accommodate the new legislation, which did not come without opposition.

[1] Christopher Clubine, “Motherhood and Public Schooling in Victorian Toronto,” in Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, ed. Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 118.

[2] Ibid., 123.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Robert McIntosh, “The Boys in the Nova Scotian Coal Mines: 1873-1923,” in Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, ed. Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 128.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 129.

[7] Robert Lanning, “Awakening a Demand for Schooling: Educational Inspection’s Impact on Rural Nova Scotia, 1855-74,”Historical Studies in Education 12, nos. 1-2 (Spring-Fall 2000): 133.

[8] Ibid.

In class this week, we were introduced to the history of childhood and education and began the task of understanding childhood in 19th century Canada and the rise of public eduction. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of how the concepts of childhood and education have developed over the last century, we must ask the question: Where do our ideas about childhood and education come from? In our weekly readings, we began to delve into to the idea that the earliest models of public education for children served purposes that, although specific to the era and geographic locations, continue to influence our present-day ideas about this subject. As Neil McDonald acknowledges in his article, “Egerton Ryerson and the School as an Agent of Political Socialization,” schools are assigned high priority as secondary socializing agents [1], and are “more attractive [than primary agents] to individuals or groups seeking to control or manipulate political loyalties and values” [2]. During the 19th century, as Egerton Ryerson served as a public education advocate and later as the Chief Superintendent of Education in Upper Canada, the public school was seen “as an effective instrument to help abolish the differences and jealousies among the peoples of the new united province… [through] writing, speaking, and strictly controlling books and literature made available to the public at large, but particularly to youth” [3]. In addition to being an agent of political socialization, the public eduction system was developed to meet the unique needs of individuals in specific regions of Canada. As Ian Ross Robertson addresses in his article, “Reform, Literacy, and the Lease: The Prince Edward Island Free Education Act of 1852,” “Prince Edward Island Reformers [took] a remarkably progressive step in educational policy in 1852, demonstrating convincingly that they placed exceptional value on access to primary education” [4]. As this article suggests, one of the driving forces of the establishment of free education in Prince Edward Island was the province’s “unique system of leasehold land tenure” [5], as “popular access to basic, primary-level education was a means to redress in part the imbalance in power between the landowners who controlled most of the Island, and the working settlers” [6]. Finally, for some, childhood is an essential time to introduce children to religion, which can be achieved through educational institutions. According to John L. Hiemstra and Robert A. Brink’s article, “” “…the British North American colonies, and later the Canadian provinces and territories, experienced intense struggles over the place of faith, church, and state in schooling” [7]. However, as discussed in the previously mentioned articles, “The Constitution Act 1867 gave the provinces jurisdiction over education, enabling them to develop their school systems in response to local conditions and in accordance with their own public philosophies [including religion]” [8]. These examples indicate that although the outward purpose of the public school was to provide children a general education, influencing their political and religious beliefs, as well as the values of their communities, was also a purpose of the education system.

[1] Neil McDonald, “Egerton Ryerson and the School as an Agent of Political Socialization,” in Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, ed. Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 39.

[2] Ibid., 40.

[3] Ibid., 41.

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

[5] Ibid., 58.

[6] Ibid., 59.

[7] John L. Hiemstra & Robert A. Brink, “The Advent of a Public Pluriformity Model: Faith‐Based School Choice in Alberta,” Canadian Journal of Education 29, no. 4 (2006): 1159.

[8] Ibid.