HI Janet All this is outwith my knowledge and experience. Maybe Gavin will be able to find more references for us. Universal education supposedly started in the mid-late Victorian period, I think, but I suspect that teaching to read and basic arithmetic were the first priorities. the bible just happened to be the most likely book for anyone to get hold of. Writing was* a lot more difficult and the 'shaky' crosses were probably a product of nerves and quill nibs. We have one or two statutory certificates with very shaky signatures - a combination of nerves, poor handwriting skills and unfamiliarity with ink. Many would have learnt to write on slates and would have mainly used pencil or charcoal sticks. The grave-diggers records that have survived were seldom written in ink and are more of a challenge to decipher than 17th century script! * Reference 'the difficulty of writing', when I was working very briefly in the Middle East, I got OK at reading numerals in Arabic [never tried letters!]. However my attempts are writing them, simple as they look, were pitiful. This is why many children who may be avid readers, sometimes find difficulty in achieving decent penmanship. It is partly that printed text usually uses a different font but it is also a measure of the number of body functions needed to achieve good letter forms. Ray Hennessy www.whatsinaname.net On 4 September 2013 09:58, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: > Your thoughts are useful Ray. Recalling what Gavin said earlier you have > confirmed my > reason for bringing this to the List that the cross in the box was not > necessarily an > indication of illiteracy. Compulsory registration of births, marriages > and deaths in > Scotland regardless of religion was imposed from 1855 replacing the civil > system of by > Parish of the Established Church. Education became compulsory in 1870 > and the census of > 1871 would have revealed how many children there were. > So, we have a window between 1855 to 1870 when it is possible people could > have been > illiterate unless they were strict church goers? Would a child have been > taught to write > their own name as soon as they could write even if parents were illiterate > at the time > when children had to be educated. > Would there have been a strong statement to make for Gaelic by writing a > cross instead of > a name in English, if the person knew their name as it would be written in > English? I > have seen some quite shaky crosses and others very firm. Is there a > difference between a > cross written by someone who has never hand a writing implement in their > hand, and a firm > hand by protest I wonder. > > Janet > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ray Hennessy" <[email protected]> > > > > Hi Janet and Mary > > > > I don't know the answer to your question about Gaelic speakers, Janet, > but > > I do know that Gavin once pointed out that the inability to write didn't > > necessarily indicate the inability to read. In the period before say > 1900, > > the main reading matter for the lower classes would have been a bible and > > recognising the words handed down from the pulpit would have been easier > > than trying to write without considerable instruction. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On 04/09/2013 23:22, Ray Hennessy wrote: > HI Janet > > All this is outwith my knowledge and experience. Maybe Gavin will be able > to find more references for us. Flattery will get you many places, Ray, but I don't know if I can add a great deal on this one. > Universal education supposedly started in the mid-late Victorian period, I > think, but I suspect that teaching to read and basic arithmetic were the > first priorities. the bible just happened to be the most likely book for > anyone to get hold of. Education was the last of the functions to be transferred from the Kirk to the State (Poor Law 1845, BDM Registration 1855, School Boards 1871) but even before that, it would have been unusual indeed for any child to have escaped education entirely. Each parish had its own "official" school, funded by the Kirk and the Heritors, but often also a number of independent schools or teachers who charged lower fees. But as Ray has just re-emphasised, reading and writing are two entirely separate skills, and were not necessarily taught together. Gavin Bell

All the snippets of information come together to create a bigger picture for better understanding. I found it worth purchasing a Will where one's ancestor might have made their way in life well. Curious, I purchased the Will of a Gt Uncle born 1822 who was a single man throughout his life, until he died in 1887. Spending his life as a printer compositor and living with one or other of the family, I found him leaving money for children of nieces and I wondered why to some and not others of the same parents. It became clearer to realise that they were the illegitimate children who could not have inherited under their parents' estate. Forced to separate for the purpose of finding work one of his niece left home to work in Edinburgh having had 3 or more children illegitimately leaving them behind and it was they who inherited. . She married in 1872 and went on to have more children thereafter. Another child of a niece from her first marriage did rather well from his Gt Uncle's Will for the purposes of his education and in the hands of an Uncle and Aunt, until he reached the age of 21 when he might otherwise have struggled. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gavin Bell" <[email protected]> > Education was the last of the functions to be transferred from the Kirk > to the State (Poor Law 1845, BDM Registration 1855, School Boards 1871) > but even before that, it would have been unusual indeed for any child to > have escaped education entirely. Each parish had its own "official" > school, funded by the Kirk and the Heritors, but often also a number of > independent schools or teachers who charged lower fees. > > But as Ray has just re-emphasised, reading and writing are two entirely > separate skills, and were not necessarily taught together.