Guest Post by Wendy Corsi Staub
It’s the last day of school for the spring session, and Laura is taking a long last look around the schoolroom. She knows this is goodbye forever. She won’t be coming back on Monday morning with the others, because she’s leaving to teach another term of school.
Mr. Owen, her teacher, has no idea she isn’t planning on returning. When she tells him, he’s upset and apologetic that he didn’t graduate her—he was waiting until the whole class was ready to graduate together. He apologizes, and Laura assures him that it doesn’t matter. She’s glad just to know she could have.
With characteristic stoicism, Laura gets past her melancholy by reminding herself that endings are really just beginnings. As if to drive that point home, we see her on a twilight buggy ride with Almanzo, singing a song about metaphorically moving on and looking ahead to their future as man and wife.
It’s fitting that the chapter “School Days End” pops up this week, the next to last of my own sons’ school year. (I know many of you have been out for awhile, but here in suburban NYC, we’re in session till late June.)
In the midst of overseeing my boys packing up their school supplies and books, studying for finals, saying goodbye to teachers, and getting ready for my younger son’s middle school graduation, I reread these pages that feature the same theme, only as it unfolded a hundred and thirty years ago.
I am struck, as always, by the universal themes in Laura’s books—how the events she lived are so similar, in so many ways, to the events we live now, and how similar they promise to be a hundred years, two hundred, in the future.
There’s a note of quiet wistfulness in this brief chapter, and we sense that for all Laura’s excitement to marry Almanzo and begin a new life, she’s not quite ready to let go of the old one. I liked hearing her say aloud that she was going to be married, though—suddenly, she seemed like a new, grown-up Laura.
There were some things about this chapter that gave me pause the first time I read it, and they continue to do so.
For one thing, I was always surprised that Mr. Owen didn’t know yet that she’d never be coming back to school. Unless this scene unfolds on the day after she told Florence she’d take the job at her father’s school? But even then, wouldn’t she have told him before the day was over that this was the end for her? That always bothered me. It seemed as though there was an odd absence of communication—particularly when something as significant as graduation was hanging in the balance.
That’s the other thing that still bothers me: Laura saying it doesn’t matter that she wouldn’t be graduating. She seems to take this news in stride. After all it took her to overcome her shyness to go to school in town (in past books) and to keep up her own studies while teaching throughout this one, it seems kind of anticlimactic that she wouldn’t really seem to bat an eye when she found out she wasn’t going to graduate. Sign of the times or not, I felt kind of let down that our Laura would let it go so easily, and that the subject was more or less dropped after this chapter. Not that she’s one to brood or fret over something that can’t be changed—but I felt disappointed for her, and perhaps a bit in her.
Maybe it especially bothers me given the difficult “First Four Years” we know are in store for Laura and Almanzo. The first time I read this chapter, it was with dreamy optimism that their “for better, for worse” wouldn’t contain any “worse.” But thereafter, having completed the final book and knowing about the illnesses, the lost child, the fire, and the poverty, I have always felt as though Laura was robbed of the last remaining shred of childhood and school days and the opportunity to call herself a high school graduate.
I wonder if she ever looked back with regret? Not over marrying Almanzo, because theirs was ultimately a long, happy, successful marriage. But did it ever bother her that she hadn’t graduated from school? Was that part of the reason Rose went to such great lengths to get an education and become self-sufficient?
Whatever the case, it’s gratifying that although this chapter might open with Laura looking back, when it closes, she’s definitely looking ahead to the next adventure.
Comments22
I think that it did bother her that she didn’t graduate and perhaps that’s why she added the scene with Mr. Owen saying that she could have graduated. I think that is probably why she allowed Rose to go stay with Eliza Jane for a year to finish high school even though she didn’t particularly like her sister-in-law. She wanted her daughter to be able to say that she graduated from a good school. Although, knowing Rose, she probably would have run away anyway if she hadn’t been allowed to go! Laura was certainly very literate, probably more so than many high school graduates today. She emphasizes the importance of acquiring an education to her students at the Bouchie school, even if you have to be self-taught like Lincoln. The school system was certainly strange back then that you were allowed to teach before you had even finished school yourself. They must have been desperate for teachers!
I’ve always wondered why Mr. Owen didn’t realize she was getting married. I’m sure gossip traveled quickly in DeSmet! Couldn’t he arrange for a certificate for Laura? Did she need to take a test? Couldn’t she take that on some Saturday? But then to be a wife and mother on the frontier, would it matter to have a certificate? It’s not like if she needed to have a job the teaching certificate would be needed rather than a diploma.
I think this would have been the equivalent of an 8th grade education rather than high school. I realized not to long ago that Mary had a Bachelor’s degree, Grace went to the state teacher’s college, and Carrie had additional education as well. Laura accomplished more than her sisters with less (formal) education!
it is true that it was an 8th grade education, but a 1880’s 8th grade education. Their 8th grade education is equivalent to our 12th grade educations or even some college classes. I read a graduation exam from the 1890’s in a magazine. I could not answer one question on that exam. It was very difficult.
Hi I’m new to the website, and I have been reading some of the read-along with some amusement and insights. Concerning this chapter, one has to realize that Laura was writing about a time when not graduating from high school was common and not at all shameful. She may have regrets not finishing up since she was very close to graduation.
I find it odd that Mr. Owen seemed to know Laura’s academic life and where she would be teaching, but never her personal life. Surely her and Almanzo were part of the couples-to-watch-for in DeSmet. I always wondered if he had a crush on Laura and felt that Almanzo was just another admiror. Of course it was unethical for a teacher to court a student so I always wondered if Mr. Owen was waiting for Laura to graduate so he could court her himself. It never says he was married.
Wow, Katie M–that goes along the lines of my thinking the same thoughts about a budding forbidden romance between Laura and Clarence at the Brewster School! I never considered that. But it certainly is possible.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought the scene was oddly written.
LaurieOH, I wanted Mr. Owen to say he’d help her officially graduate, since she’d done the work. And I don’t think that in real life, he didn’t realize she wasn’t coming back until the moment she left.
My take on it is that Laura/Rose took dramatic license with the real events in order to “show” this conversation between her and Mr. Owen, and to have it happen on the last day of school, but that the way it really happened might have been very different, much earlier, and more logical. As a writer, I suspect that while the events in this chapter are necessary to drive the plot forward, but there wasn’t enough action to fill an entire chapter–it’s so short as it is. What happened on that last day might have been made more compelling or complex than in reality, just so we can see her finding out she wouldn’t graduate, and saying goodbye to childhood and hello to her future as a wife.
And Sonya, the adult Rose/Laura/Eliza Jane connection has always fascinated me. I was never satisfied that after EJ having been made the villainess of LTOTP, with her strong dislike of Laura, the whole thing was kind of dropped when Laura and Almanzo became an item–I wanted to know how they felt about the prospect of becoming sisters-in-law, etc., and wish she had gone there in THGY. I always wondered, too, how Laura really felt about sending her only child, years later, to live with her, and whether they ever became friendly or laughed about the good (bad) old days of rocking the desk! (Somehow, I doubt it)
I agree that the scene was probably invented by Laura or Rose to show that Laura was capable enough to have graduated. It might not have bothered Laura to not have graduated when she was a farmer, but I think that it did once she started writing.
I have also wondered what EJ said when she found out that Almanzo was dating her nemesis! Did she try to talk him out of it? I suspect the fact that Laura stood up to her and was able to get under his strong-willed older sister’s skin was probably a plus to him. She is depicted in Farmer Boy as being very bossy, although she does come to his rescue when he ruins the wallpaper!
I read recently that EJ spoiled her only son and that Rose was fascinated and amazed by her cousin’s unruly behavior when they came for a visit to Rocky Ridge Farm.
The teacer/student romance. I don’t think I ever considered it with Mr. Owens. I want to google him now – how old was he? family? But I totally did with Clarence. They were the same age. He was a boy acting out to get her attention. And if the older guy driving her home wasn’t her beau, well would it cause him to stop if Clarence teased him? And I think the tv show gives us that impression as well. After I found out he spent time in jail shortly afterwards, I started leaning towards him being a difficult person rather than an attempted flirt.
As for EJ, I assumed if they later laughed over some of the scenes in LTOTP then the scenes would have portrayed her in a different light. As Sandra posted about at one time, aside from the wallpaper incident nothing mitigates EJ as being bossy and annoying.
There are many things that I too found odd about this scenario. Many have already been noted by others. (How could Mr. Owens have not heard about the engagement? Not know that she is leaving? She is, after all, 18.
Beyond that … there’s the idea that he wanted to ‘graduate the whole class together.’ What ‘class’ was that? Surely many students (not only Laura’s close circle of friends) have come and gone through the years. The older boys, she mentioned, no longer attended school at all. So WHEN was going to graduate this mysterious ‘class?’ What was necessary for them to be ready?
And graduating or not … how did it matter? What difference would it make if she had a diploma? She is already entirely capable of doing any sort of work open to 99.9% of women at that time… should it be necessary. She can teach school. She’s a competent seamstress. She can raise livestock.
Even WITH a diploma, she’s obviously not going to college. College admission standards at the time were FAR above what she had recieved at her little country school. (Smith College, for example, in 1885 required several years of Greek and Latin for the “Classical Course” or several years of French and German for the “Scientific” or “Literary” course, as well as algebra and geometry, ancient history, etc.
http://clio.fivecolleges.edu/smith/catalogs/
She might have gone to a Normal (teachers college) School, but for that, no diploma seemed to be necessary’ if anything, just an entrance exam of the “branches taught in the common schools.”
http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogueofstate1886indi#page/n3/mode/2up
As for the 8th grade in 1885 = 12th grade today … really, the two are simply not comparable. Education was drastically different then, in what was expected of the students. Think about it .. at 15 Laura could rattle of the spelling of dozens of multi-syllable words, (not that she would have known what any of them meant), recite the history of the U.S. from memory, diagram complex and compound sentences … but she had never written an essay. School at that time was focused mostly on rote memorization of facts and dates, with little or not attention given to creativity or learning to think or reason. THere is no suggestion in the books that she ever studied European history, science (except possibly some physiology, required in many states and territories by the 1880’s as part of the temperance movements), or any foreign languages.
Finally, I don’t think Mary got what we would consider today to be a ‘bachelors degree.’ Despite their constant references to it as a ‘college’, it was more of an academy, offering (for the older students) high school level work, together with practical skills (both braille and the beadwork and net-making stuff to give the graduates the skills they needed to make a living. )
There are kids graduating today that can barely read. They can’t make change without the cash register telling them what the cash back is. There are many more examples but what’s the point:-/ Many classes today are just memorizing dates & places & people, just like it was in the “good old days”.
Without getting into a lengthy debate about socio-economic issues, I would have to disagree, Tracy. Yes, there are some students who leave school unable to read or do basic math. (Though they don’t actually ‘graduate.’ I’m quite sure that most states, like my own state of Indiana have standardized tests over the course of the school career. In Indiana. if a student hasn’t passed the ISTEP by the end of 12th grade, he gets a ‘school completion certificate’ (or something like that) but not a diploma.
But if a student DOES make it that far without having mastered basic skills, (or without gaining any of the ‘creativity, thinking and reasoning skills’), it’s almost certainly not because of the failure of the school curriculum, but due to those underlying SE factors. (A family/community that doesn’t value education, parents who are too busy/too illiterate themselves to take and interest or help, poverty, etc.)
My daughter attended an elementary school in our town which was, by standard measures (test scores, free lunch recipients, etc.) one of the ‘poorer’ schools. But the curriculum was WONDERFUL, the staff was great, and Daughter did very well because she has parents who were involved and engaged, and she lives in a home where you can’t see the walls for the books. She is now in college.
Looking at the websites for some of the schools in the large eastern city where I grew up, the inner city schools (poor, mostly minority) all offer tons of activities, AP classes, “academies” within the school to engage students in particular subject areas, etc. Yet, test scores suck. Performance is poor. Whose fault is it? I will always remember a comment made by one of my teachers, who had recently transferred from a poor inner city school to our ‘good’ school. “Was I a worse teacher when I taught at PoorSchool than I am now that I’m teaching AP classes at GoodSchool?” (This teacher eventually became superintendent.)
But … getting back to the main point of my comment, Laura ‘stared at the wall and thought abut the War of 1812.” (Or whatever the line was.) Probably meaning she memorized the dates of battles and the names of generals. 125 years later, students discuss the causes of the War of 1812 and how it affected the growth of the country. Laura recited an excerpt from “Julius Caesar” that happened to be reprinted in her reader. 125 years later, students read the whole play, maybe view parts of it on video, and write essays about character relationships and themes and the time in which Shakespeare lived.
While it was rather before Laura’s time, as far back as the (IIRC) 1820’s, there was already some debate about the rationale of having students memorizing long lists of spelling words that they could not define or ever have need to use. Noah Webster (of spelling book fame) wrote an essay defending the practice. The primary purpose of school, he said, was to discipline the mind … not provide children with useful information. And what better way to discpline the mind (and body) than to sit on a hard bench for 6 hours a day memorizing spelling words (or the imports and exports of Brazil)?
Back in the 1800s, books were a luxury item so they really couldn’t do massive amounts of reading on a topic. It sounds like they had one multi-level primer on each topic which wasn’t provided by the school system and often parents could only afford one and all their children had to share. Laura was fortunate that her parents valued education and they did have other books and journals at home to help expand her ability to learn. I’m sure other students weren’t as well off and only learned enough to do basic math and reading. I thought that I read somewhere that in spelling bees back then, the participants had to define the word as well as spell it so I don’t know that they wouldn’t have known what the word meant. It sounds like by Mr. Owens’ time at least, the classroom had a dictionary so they could have looked the words up if they weren’t defined in their primer.
I remember when Laura read the Tennyson book of poems and didn’t like “The Lotus-Eaters” because the sailors didn’t want to work. I wondered if she was unfamiliar with Greek mythology and incapable of looking at the deeper aspects of the poem other than that they were simply lazy or was she just too grumpy at the time?
Tracy has a point, though, that a lot of children today are too dependent on computers for doing math and spelling. Spell check is great for typos and minor spelling errors, but you do have to at least use the correct word. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen young people type “defiantly” on the Net when they mean “definitely.” I imagine them emphatically shaking their fist at the screen! In fact, if you type “defiantly” into Google, it asks if you mean “definitely!” LOL! Of course, a lot of times they just abbreviate it to “def” to avoid confusion! I remember my mind boggled when Laura said they were multiplying and dividing large numbers in their heads at one of the student demonstrations! I need a pencil and paper for that or I lose my place!
Educational history is actually one of my main areas of interest. I collect 19th century schoolbooks, and have quite a collection.
The books existed. By Laura’s time a typical school book publisher would have published a 6-7 volume series of readers (a primer and levels 1-6), a spelling book, (which took the student from a basic syllabery [ab, eb, ib, ob, ub…] through complex polysyllables), a 3-4 book series of arithmetics (primary, mental, written/general, and higher), a 2-4 book series of geographies, and grammar and U.S. history books at various levels. There would also be some books aimed at academies and high schools — algebras, rhetorics, European and Ancient histories, and some science books.
Certain titles and publishers (McGuffy Readers, Webster’s Blue-Back Speller) were the best known and widely used, but they were far from the only ones available. There were dozens. Each school district selected the books that were to be used in the local schools, and those books would be available for purchase at the stores in town.
Now … parents didnt’ HAVE TO buy the books. They WERE expensive (especially at the upper levels, when they were commonly leather-bound — primers and spellers were bound in cardboard covers and were relatively cheap), and depending on the family budget and beliefs about the importance of education, some parents wouldn’t, or couldn’t, buy them.
Teachers would have been accustomed to, and managed to deal with students showing up with all sorts of books, including (as Laura and Mary did back on Plum Creek and some of the students did at Brewster school) books used by their own parents 20-30 years before. By the time of THGY, Ma and Pa would have been able to buy the specific books Laura needed, though she would probably have then passed them down to Carrie, and to Grace.
Spelling bees — no doubt there were some spelling bees where they had to define as well as spell, but this wasn’t the usual practice. (By Laura’s time there were even books available called things like “The Defining Speller” — from authors who DID believe that students should understand the words they spelled.) But I’m sure that neither Laura nor Pa knew what xanthophyll was. It was a memory game, nothing more.
Mental arithmetic — the sort of thing done at the exhibition was not really what mental arithmetic was about. The concept began in the 1820’s, as a reaction to earlier arithmetic texts which focused, as did most subjects, on the memorization and spouting back of rules and formulas, not practical figuring. The first mental arithmetic book (and every other one in my collection) began with “How many thumbs have you on your right hand? How many on your left hand? How many do you have together?” And then took the student gradually through the practical application of figuring and ciphering … without any need for memorizing the Rule of 3 or Tare and Tret. I’d have to double check my copies, but I don’t think any of them involved dividing large numbers in their heads .. because there was no practical need for such a skill. Like the poetry recitations and American history speeches, the stuff at the exhibition was just that … showing off.
Finally — school attendence was not compulsary. So yes, you had students who attended just long enough to get some basic literacy and enough arithmetic to sell their produce for a fair price. Some districts had all year schools; some could only afford 2-3 months. Curricula varied enormously as well. So you had students like the 17 year olds at the Brewster school who were still in the 4th reader, and you had students elsewhere who had finished the 6th reader by the time they were 10. It all depended. And is why I was so puzzled by the idea of Mr. Owens wanting to ‘graduate the whole class together.’ Concepts like “10th grade” just didn’t exist.
And I don’t disagree that there are some students today who don’t take education as seriously as they might. Educational practices change, but human beings really don’t. There always have, and always will be kids who are less interested in school. Remember Almanzo in “Farmer Boy” hoping to skip out on school and help on the farm? (And yes, technology changes too. I use a calculator to balance my check-book, NOT because I can’t add and subtract, but because I want to avoid possible errors that can lead to some nasty overdraft fees ….)
I guess I was grumpy when I left my messages, but what great discussions have come of it. Thanks, Sonya, for understanding the point I was trying to make. Texting is a great example of buthering the English language. Although, I love to text. My texts tend to be long because I tend to use correct grammar & rarely use abbreviations. Reading a text from me is like reading a book! Thanks for all the input. Very interesting:-)
Whoops! That would be “butchering”. LOL!
Sorry for getting loquacious. I tend to ramble on about topics that interest me…
I can’t determine if you are saying that education is superior now to the 1800s. Access to it certainly has improved, but I don’t know that I’d agree that curriculum is vastly better today. I had to do a lot of memorization in school and independent thinking wasn’t particularly encouraged. Granted, that was a few decades ago, but I doubt it has improved greatly.
While I wasn’t around in 1885, from my reading and research, and the books I have perused, I would say that *overall* the content and presentation of education is better now than it was at that time. Some of it was just ‘different’, but overall, I’d have to say that it’s better now.
I graduated high school in 1979, in a large eastern city. My daughter graduated in 2010 from a small urban high school in the midwest. So our experiences span quite a range of time and space.
There is, today, (both 1979 and 2010) *in general* more attention paid to learning skills (both academic and otherwise) that will be useful in life.
Students are expected to understand what they read and hear, not just absorb and regurgitate. (Of course there is memorization invoved … some things DO have to be memorized, but there is more than that involved.) Both daughter and I were encouraged to think and assess and work things out. We wrote research papers and did science labs and wrote lab reports. In history classes we talked about *why* things happened; in English we dealt with the themes of literature … we didnt’ just have to read/recite the stuff.
Teachers are better educated and their education includes teaching theory and they get practical experience in the classroom before they begin to teach.
Attendance laws mean that everyone has to have access to an education, and curricula and expectations are similar across district and state boundaries. (As I said, Laura couldnt’ have gone to college even if she had wanted to, because the DeSmet schools didn’t provide the education necessary for university admission. Today, while colleges no longer require Greek and Latin, any student in any high school in the country can get the classes and credits necessary to go to college if she wants to.)
Of course, today, as then, some schools, and some teachers are better than others. I had some lousy teachers; daughter had some lousy teachers. Laura had some lousy teachers. Some students have more opportunities due to OTHER factors, as mentioned in a post earlier.
But I think there are a lot of ‘rose colored glasses/good old days’ assumptions about how things ‘used to be.’ (One common belief, for example, is that the grading of readers in the 19th century matches up to modern grade levels; that a student using the McGuffey 6th Reader would be a 6th grader. (i.e. 11-12 years old.) And they’ll point to this as proof that students at that time were so much more advanced/ the curriculum so much more rigerous. Which was NOT the case. Few students ever got to the 6th Reader, and if they did, it was probably during their mid-late-teens. (And if they got to it earlier, it was because there was little else in the curriculum BUT reading and spelling, so they had lots of time to work through the readers.) Remember that the older students in the Brewster school were halfway through the 4th reader, and had never studied any history or grammar yet, and VERY little geography. (The New England States take up about 3-4 pages in a typical School Geography of the period.)
And .. one practical issue .. the school books used at the time were mostly tiny, with miniscule print and, except for some primers and geography texts, usually no illustrations. Most textbooks were the size of, or slightly smaller than, a modern mass-market paperback. Only geography books were big, due to the need for maps. (Laura talks about holding her ‘large, flat geography book’) But even there, some series published a separate atlas, and the geography book itself was small.
Imagine sitting in a schoolroom, with small windows and no artificial lighting … or worse, at home in the evening, in front of a candle or kerosene lamp, trying to study from such a book. It cannot have made education any more appealing for most children. And that, along with the lack of compulsary education laws and the simple fact that most people didnt’ NEED much education, meant that most people didn’t get much education.
I’ve never sent a text in my life. Don’t own a cell phone.
Very interesting discussion! I was always absolutely horrified by the mental math Laura had to do at the Exhibition. Even as a kid I remember thinking I would never survive in school back then, if that was what they were required to do. My brain just doesn’t work that way. Interesting to know it was mostly memorization tricks, not something everyone had to do well.
Laura was bothered and greatly disappointed by not being able to graduate. When she wrote PG she went into more detail and it might answer some of the questions.
She approached her teacher to inquire about graduating and he said he was only going to have one graduation and some of the students were not ready and couldn’t pass the exam so she would have to wait. She accepted this without fuss but with great disappointment.
When she went to say goodbye to him, he was shocked and quite upset that she would not be returning. He apologized for not graduating and even offered to graduate her as a class of one if she would remain in school and give up her new teaching assignment. She couldn’t but her choice of words seems to point to the fact that her reason wasn’t economic but a sense of duty and obligation after signing the contract. The school didn’t have enough time to find a new teacher before the term began.
It’s clear, however, based on the amount she wrote in PG that all those years later it still bothered her.
As to school books and curriculum:
To me, the curriculum sounded rather simple in most of the LH-books.
Then I googled a little and found this site with links to original school books:
http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/t/text/text-idx?;c=nietz;tpl=browse.tpl
Leafing through them did seem “7 pages more to learn until tomorrow” rather a hard exercise after 9 hours of school and the way home, dinner etc.
I was also surprised to find questions requiring thinking and the student’s own opinion among teacher’s and 8th grade examinations.
Linguistics is mostly taught at university as far as I know and here it was basic school knowledge (sounds of English etc.).
I got the impression that exercises and exams required rather a lot from students, more than was necessary to just survive as a farmer or farmhand etc.
Also I was wondering about the method: Students were just told to memorize “7 pages until tomorrow” or would have been whipped etc. (punished otherwise) but not helped in learning (i.e. taught how to learn, how to organize their material, how best to memorize and recall the content etc.).
No wonder Ruby dreaded the grammar lessons – the ruler (or cane?) was always threatening her.
PS
To read the link I posted you have to copy the whole link. I don’t know why it is not shown entirely.
I’ll try it again here:
http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/t/text/text-idx?;c=nietz;tpl=browse.tpl
Comments are closed.