By: Chris Bowles
Here is one of many research projects I will be posting on this blog. This is a reworking of a project I completed in late 2007.
Please note: I apologize for any typos in advance, this is still a work in progress.
Egerton Ryerson was perhaps the most important figure in the early development of education, not only in Ontario but in Canada as a whole. In three decades he would manage to create a system of education that would be the envy of the world. Ryerson himself was a complex individual and it is his thought that is under investigation here, or more specifically how he reconciled his religious beliefs with his modernist actions. Despite the fact that he was deeply religious he managed a revolutionary transformation of education. What is most notable about these reforms is the methods he utilized to balance his religious beliefs with the needs of a rapidly modernizing society. This is an attempt at understanding Ryerson’s thinking and how his ideas were implemented in society and how, by doing this, he managed to maintain an acceptable correlation between these two alternate philosophical beliefs. It could be argued that there was a duality to Ryerson’s thought, at least when it came to education. Much has been written concerning higher criticism in religious circles in the nineteenth century, this essay is, in essence, focused on higher criticism of education.
This article will examine Ryerson’s thought with regard to the most prominent acts during his time as Superintendent of Education. The first area of attention will be Ryerson’s religious principles. Focus will then shift to Ryerson’s first major initiatives, his 1846 report on education and the Common School Act of 1846. Significant attention will be given to identifying how his ideas were manifested in his acts as Superintendent and to what degree the balance between religion and modernism was dealt. The focus will then shift to Ryerson’s later acts including taxation and the problematic issues of separate and Grammar Schools. Finally, Ryerson’s last major initiative, the introduction of mandatory schooling in 1871 will demonstrate how his approach to a modern education was achieved. This article will demonstrate that Egerton Ryerson was able to balance his religious beliefs with the need to develop an educational system that recognized the changing needs of a modern society while, at the same time, adhering to the fundamental principles of his religious beliefs.
If there is one aspect which is most prominent in most works on Ryerson it is a central focus on his religious beliefs. Also evident is the lack of research since the 1970s which had not allowed for a more contemporary historical perspective. There are, however, a handful of exceptions. The subject of Ryerson’s political beliefs was the subject of an article by Colin D. Pearce in an article entitled “Egerton Ryerson’s Canadian Liberalism” published in the Canadian Journal of Political Science in 1988. While this article is not recent in historiographical terms, nor is it really a work of history, it is recent within the scope of research on Ryerson. Pearce states “the problem with previous scholarship has been its emphasis on Ryerson’s Christianity.” The view of Ryerson appears to have been influenced by a propensity in modern scholarship to characterize any individual who demonstrates “frequent references to God and expressions of submission to his will” is “promptly taken as symptomatic of a deeply religious, theologically traditional attitude.” Pearse believes that this principle has been taken to Ryerson.[1] While this has been a factor in historiography on Ryerson, it has not necessarily dominated the field. Few efforts have been made to investigate how Ryerson managed to balance his Christian beliefs and his Liberalism.
As a starting point to understand Ryerson’s thinking it is necessary to briefly examine how religious beliefs played a role in his life. His religious conviction has been one of his defining characteristics and dominated his life in the years before his advancement to the position of Superintendent of Education. Ryerson’s stance on the importance of religious instruction and adherence to religious principles is, in general, well documented. He was first attracted to Methodism at an early age, largely due to the influence of his three older brothers whom Ryerson would follow into the ministry. When he turned 22 Ryerson began his training. His approach to his studies has been characterized as obsessive. He subscribed to the Wesleyan legacy and wholeheartedly followed its four fundamental principles, described by Neil McDonald and Alf Chaiton in Egerton Ryerson: His Life and Times as “the primacy of scripture over reason, a belief in a dynamic and uninhibited providence, the Christian life as a form of secular monasticism and a curious synthesis of conservative and critical attitudes towards the political and social order.”[2]
Ryerson’s actions in the years before becoming Superintendent demonstrate the depth of his religious activities. One of the most studied aspects of his religious deeds has been his involvement with the Christian Guardian which could be described as a moral compass for Christians in the nineteenth century. During this period he was also a missionary to First Nations and was principal of Victoria College. He believed that Methodism was “the first and most effective promoter of civil and religious liberty for the entire country.” Ryerson was fervent in his belief that all should be treated equally, another philosophy based upon the Wesleyan tradition. He has been quoted as saying “”The doctrine of universal equality before the law was the natural result of the doctrine of universal equality before God in both creation and redemption.” His involvement in politics is also worth noting. Politics had never been as important to him as religion; however, when he did become involved in political matters, usually involving religious issues, he was more adept than most career politicians. Almost everything he was involved with directly correlated to his religious beliefs. This, however, would change, at least to a certain extent, when he assumed his post as Superintendent.[3]
Ryerson’s impact on education not only in Ontario but also in Canada as a whole was profound. An understanding of his impact is essential to understanding how engrained his ideals were on the system. 1844 was a significant year in educational development. It was during that year that Ryerson would become Superintendant of Education for Ontario, partly was a result of defending Sir Charles Metcalf, the Governor-General. Immediately upon assuming his new post Ryerson began what would become a transformation of Canada’s system of education which would transpire over a period of three decades. Wishing to avoid the problems of his predecessor John Strachan, of whom Ryerson had been an outspoken opponent, he conducted thorough research before implementing any significant alterations. The best way to accomplish this, according to Ryerson, was to investigate the functioning of education in other countries. He found the systems in France, Prussia and Ireland in particular appealed to him. This findings of the fact finding mission were released in a report entitled “A Report on a System of Public Elementary Instruction for Upper Canada.”[4]
Many of the tenets of Ryerson’s thought are prominent in the 1846 report and this is significant as this report was the catalyst for the revolution he would spend the following three decades bringing about. In many instances, he was willing to set aside his religious convictions for the betterment of education, but only when absolutely necessary. It is here where the balance between religion and liberalism begins to take shape. Upon returning to Canada Ryerson reported on what he had discovered during his information gathering mission. The majority of his recommendations would be implemented in the Common Schools Act of 1846, of which he was the principle architect. This was a significant departure from Strachan and the Common School Act 1841.
From the outset there was a degree of caution in terms of how Christianity would be implemented within the new system. Ryerson was keen to avoid possible turmoil in regards to religious education in his 1846 report, especially when it came to the issue of religious extremism. Above all he wanted to avoid the problems that might arise from sectarianism. He stated that sectarianism was not morality; in fact it was the opposite. It was his fundamental belief that “to teach a child the dogmas and spirit of a sect, before he is taught the essential principles of religion and morality, is to invert the pyramid, - to reverse the order of nature – to feed with the bones of controversy instead of with the nourishing milk and truth of charity.” He had also found that sectarianism had resulted in problems in other countries where religion has been put aside in elementary education as a result of extreme forms of sectarian education. The most notable example of this was France where religious instruction had been removed from elementary education for a number of years, something that Ryerson was desperate to avoid. He was fervent that without Christianity as an essential element of education “there will not long be a Christian country.”[5]
He therefore proposed to maintain the Christianity inherent in education with the implementation of a strict Protestant approach. Although there were multiple denominations of Protestants, Ryerson believed that the similarities underlying the basic ideology of these denominations were common enough that it could be accomplished without any significant problems.[6] His 1846 report could easily be identified as one that was proposing system that was predominantly secular in nature while adhering to fundamental beliefs of Christianity although that was not necessarily how Ryerson saw it. Christianity itself was something that would repeatedly be identified as the foundation upon which this system would be based. This was equally to appease the general public as well as his own religious convictions. If there is one aspect of both his report and the law that would rise from it that allowed Ryerson to avoid criticism that his system was godless it was the notion, which is repeated time and time again in essay, that the system was to be based upon Christianity.[7]
While there was a great deal of religious focus in Ryerson’s 1846 report on the state of education, the primary goal was transforming a system that was fundamentally flawed and dysfunctional. While the basis for several of his ideas where obtained from abroad Ryerson clearly states that he had no intentions of replicating the school system of any other county. He was merely interested in what had been successful and what had been deemed a failure. He was fully aware that Upper Canada was unique and was intent on creating a school system that would be unique to the area. There were specific tasks that needed to be completed and these were dealt with on an issue by issue basis. Some of his primary concerns were the implementation of school inspector, indentifying proper school books, and to “establish the most efficient system of instruction; to elevate the character of both teachers and schools; and to encourage every plan and effort to educate and improve the youthful mind of the country.” Personal gain did not appear to be of great importance to Ryerson, at least in regards to his fact finding mission. This is evidenced by the fact that he did this without pay.[8]
Gathering information from other countries was not an aspect that was in itself a new occurrence. Ryerson’s report notes that a re-examination of systems of education was occurring in most European countries and he believed the British Empire was far ahead in this endeavour. Ryerson, however, believed that in many cases the changes implemented in the majority of European countries were not entirely sufficient and did not completely address the issues that they were created to resolve in the first place. Ryerson was clear in stating that the educational system he was proposing was “required by the circumstance of the country.” Once again Ryerson would strike a balance between religion and secularism. He stated “[b]y education I mean not the mere acquisition of certain arts, or of certain branches of knowledge, but that instruction and discipline which qualify and dispose the subjects of it for the appropriate duties and employments of life, as Christians, as persons of business, and also as members of the civil community in which they live.” The statement that this new system would be “based upon the principles of Christianity” was, as previously mentioned, repeated throughout the 1846 report and the Common Schools Act of 1846. This further emphasizes Ryerson’s inclusion of religious terminology whenever the opportunity arose.[9]
Utilizing education to improve society was also something that was innovative, although not completely unexpected in the nineteenth century. Ryerson was planning on creating as diverse a system as was possible for Upper Canada that would address many of the social problems that were plaguing society. He was fully cognisant of the fact that beliefs and ideologies where not constant throughout Canadian society. This is emphasized in the statement that the educational structure “should be as broad as the population of this country.” The system would be intended to recognize all levels of professions and was to adapt itself to all classes. At the core of this plan was that “[t]he branches of knowledge which it is essential that all should understand, should be provided for all, and taught to all; should be brought within the reach of the most needy, and forced upon the attention of the most careless.” It was the state of education for the poor of society that was especially troubling for Ryerson. There was, of course, another reason for his desire for proper education of paupers. He also believed that education was a basic requirement that would work to the prevention of poverty and “its natural companions, misery and crime.” It was believed that the root cause of many poverty and crime related issues in European countries were “idleness,” an issue that a proper all-inclusive educational system could remedy; at least this is how Ryerson saw it. His conclusion was that education would be best method a national improvement.[10] This manifested itself in the 1846 with inclusion of the new law that education would be freely available to all. This was something that was completely unheard of at the time and caused some trepidation and anger, especially in Toronto.[11]
If there was one aspect to the Common School Act of 1846 that encapsulated Ryerson’s unwillingness to sacrifice moral conviction it was those who were responsible for delivering education, the teachers. One of his primary concerns was the qualification of teachers and moral character was central to this. His belief was the “[t]he profession of school-teaching can only be efficient, and influential, as the qualifications and character of its members are respectable and elevated.” While the qualifications were an important aspect, Ryerson was certain that it was written into law that “no certificate of qualification shall be given to any person as Teacher, who shall not furnish satisfactory proof of good moral character.”[12] Faith was deemed so important for teachers that it was on the first line of the Certificates of Qualification immediately after the individual’s name.[13] The very means in which these certificates were attained says a lot about that Ryerson considered important for a properly qualified teachers and not surprisingly there was a great deal of importance placed on religion.
Ryerson addressed his concerns in regards to teachers with one of the most prominent aspects of the 1846 act which entailed a proper method of training teachers. This would become one of Ryerson’s primary contributions to education with the establishment of the Toronto Normal School in 1847. His report for the measures required for the establishment of the school, published after the 1846 act, includes a number of recommendations that reinforce his own beliefs. Prominent in the report, among other important matters such as the importance of a “beautiful” location for the school was his concern about religion. This is reflected in Ryerson’s preferred standards for admittance of perspective teachers. Among these was a minimum age requirement of 16 and the requirement required a guarantee of moral character. The candidate was required to produce a certificate guaranteeing their good moral standing. The certificate had to be signed by the “clergyman or minister of the religious denomination of which he is a member.” Other qualifications included basic literacy and the requirement of the perspective teacher to devote themselves completely to the teaching profession; however, the main requirement still appears to be moral character.[14]
While it has been established that morality was a virtue Ryerson wanted for all his teachers, his description of their responsibilities demonstrates that religion was not the only aspect that concerned him, he was also concerned about professionalism in the classroom. This is an aspect that would be continually modified. In 1853 Ryerson sent out a circular that defined the primary responsibilities of teachers in his schools. The primary focus was the maintenance of a professional classroom environment. There were five major regulations that teachers were acquired to abide by. The first provision was simply to teach “diligently and faithfully” everything that was “to be taught in the school according to the terms of the engagement with the trustees to the provision of the act.” The second involved maintaining registers for the school, the maintenance of “proper order and discipline.” The third involved a “public examination” of the school each quarter where members of the public could examine the state of the school for themselves. The fourth involved keeping the local superintendant informed on all matters relating to the operation of the teachers’ specific school. The final regulation was to keep a register detailing anyone who visited the school.[15]
In addition to the new requirements for teachers Ryerson also allocated a great deal of importance on the materials that were to be utilized in the classroom. One of the best examples of Ryerson’s attempt to transform education that had very little to do with religion was his selection of textbooks. One of his concerns was the limited number of school books that were actually being published in Upper Canada. He was adamant about preserving the small number of Canadian volumes. These recommendations were also included as part of Ryerson’s plan for setting up a Normal School. Ryerson’s recommendation for these small numbers of books indicates that religion was not a consideration when he decided to include every school book which had been published in Canada. His recommendation was to preprint all that was available. What is important and relevant here is that there is no mention of the religious content of these books. This demonstrates that religion was not Ryerson’s primary concern in regard to the texts. Rather, the importance appears to be maintaining the minute Canadian content in the schools under his control.[16]
Ryerson’s recommendation as to what should be used to make up for the lack of Canadian textbooks further reinforces the negation of religious influence in his ideas. While he was on his fact finding mission, one of the many cities he visited was Dublin and met with several school commissioners. He found that Irish textbooks were far superior to any that he had examined in other European countries. In fact, even though he wanted to preserve Canadian textbooks, he preferred they be reprinted in a style that emulated Irish books. He also proved that he could be an excellent businessman when it when the need arose. This is demonstrated by the fact that he managed to convince Board to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to sell the Canadian editions of the school books at cost.[17]
Proving that he was also an adept politician Ryerson was keen to emphasize the practical benefits of his new and improved system of delivering education and would even downplay religious aspects while further emphasizing his talent in business related affairs. Even while introducing the new act to religious organizations, the focus was not on the religious and moral attributes, but rather on how the system would be enhanced. An excellent representation of this is an article Ryerson published in The Toronto Baptist in July 1846. His focus, with the exception of stating that the new act would still include the “objects and principles of the old school act,” was not on the religion but rather on the subject of repairing the system. Emphasized throughout the article are the problems with the school system as it had existed, although this may not really be a stretch as this was an issue that he constantly stressed. One aspect he emphasized, and was in fact central to the article, was how much money the new system would save townships, which was, on average 3000 pounds.[18]
There was another prominent example during his term as Superintendent that further demonstrates his adeptness at handling any financial issues that would arise within the school system. This time, however, the focus was not on pleasing the general public. Perhaps Ryerson’s least popular move was the implementation of taxation for schooling which demonstrates that a functional school system was more important than his own public appeal. The Common School Act of 1850 was primarily aimed at adding to the 1846 act; however, the biggest change was taxes something which proved decidedly unpopular. Much of the anger to this was directed at the fact that many people did not wanted to pay for the education of children that were not their own. The responsibility for taxing fell on individual districts.[19]
There was also one inclusion in the 1850 act that dealt directly with the issue of religion in Common Schools that reinforces that Ryerson did not want to force religious belief on students. He was willing to offer a compromise. The section in question stated that “no child shall be required to read or study in or from any religious book, or to join in any exercise of devotion to religion, which shall be objected to by his parents or guardians.” In such cases the student would be permitted to study in the religion that his or her parents wished. In order to do this, however, sufficient arrangement would have be made with the teacher. Ryerson supported this idea becuase Common Schools were day schools and not boarding schools. He believed the beliefs of specific families should be respected. This also pertained to the Lord’s Prayer which was to be done at the beginning of every day. The regulations included a clause that stated “no pupil shall be compelled to be present at these exercises against the wish of his parent or guardian, expressed in writing to the Head Master of the school.”[20]
Ryerson was also adeptness at dealing with other religions was also demonstrated in the way he dealt with the delicate issue of separate schools. In 1851 Ryerson instituted the Separate School Act. Essentially, this act permitted the existence of separate schools provided that “each and such school in its establishment and operations shall be subject to all the conditions and obligations, and entitled to all the advantages imposed and conferred upon separate schools.”[21]
Ryerson’s focus in dealing with Catholic schools had a lot more to do with politics than it did religion. Like the issue of taxation this would prove to be one of the most contentious issues during his time as Superintendent. Ryerson understood that it did not matter in which direction he went with this issue there would be problems. If he were to abolish Catholic Schools he would have drawn the ire of French Catholics who would have felt discriminated against. Reversely, supporting Catholic education would have caused significant problems in Canada West. George Brown, editor of the Toronto Globe, was a particular problem for Ryerson in this. Not only was he outspoken about his vehement opposition to separate schools he had the Orange Order behind him.[22] He would be forced to find some way of appeasing both sides.
Ultimately Ryerson realized that he had to come to some sort of arrangement to avoid a political disaster. The solution arrived at further demonstrates that he was willing to incorporate other religions into his school system, another example of liberalism. Also important was the fact that he was able to include all religions in his legislation which provided that appearance that he was not bending to the pressure from Catholics. He was, however, still able to distance himself somewhat from the controversy. Utilizing the same method implemented for the contentious issue of taxation, the responsibility for implementing the solution would be placed on local municipalities and their board of school trustees. A minimum of twelve families would be required to “authorize the establishment on one of more separate schools for Protestants, Roman Catholics, or coloured people.” The election of school trustees for these schools was also only to be done by those who were of the same race or religion as the school in question. Funding for these schools was also to be based on the proportion of students attending the specific school proportional to the total number of students in the town or city. Religion was included in this section; however, it was primarily to maintain a balance. The conditions were that “no protestant separate school shall be allowed in any school division except when the teacher of the common school is a Roman Catholic, nor shall any Roman Catholic separate school be allowed except when the teacher of the common school is a Protestant.” In terms of numbers, it was also required that common schools were not to include the numbers of students in separate schools in their returns.[23]
Shortly after dealing with separate schools Ryerson was able to alleviate another issue plaguing education when he enacted significant changes to the problematic Grammar Schools which further reinforces his desire for modern education. The situation in Grammar School was dire by the time Ryerson had risen to the post of Superintendant. Grammar Schools had been brought into existence in 1807 and were initially intended to provide classical education emphasizing a focus on Latin. By the time they became Ryerson’s responsibility the schools could easily be deemed a complete failure. They had actually degenerated to the point that, in reality, they were offering education with any degree of success. This position is supported by the fact that more than half of the students attending these schools could not even write and almost nobody was studying Latin. Ryerson believed, and justifiably so, that the cause of many of the problems was a result of the fact that Grammar Schools operated independent of government regulation. Despite this the schools were still eligible for government grants meaning, essentially, they could do whatever they wanted with the money. These problems would soon be resolved with the passing of the Grammar School Act in 1853.[24]
It would take more than a decade for Ryerson to complete his revision to the state of Grammar Schools; however, in the end would introduce revolutionary curriculum changes while maintaining many of the aspects which made Grammar School different from free schools. With this, he also maintained his balance of modern education and religious belief although in this instance religion was not the primary concern. Most importantly, all policy implemented within Grammar Schools were now to be approved by the Council of Public Instruction for Upper Canada pending approval from the Governor General. The Act of 1853 was really a first step. In 1866 a policy manual was released for Grammar Schools with specific regulations pertaining to every aspect of their operation. Included was a revised program of studies which were included as part of the Grammar School Improvement Act of 1865. This program of studies indicates how far he had taken the schools since 1853 and, in many respects, they were barely recognizable from the state they had been. Much of the curriculum for Grammar Schools now bore a striking resemblance to the curriculum introduced for common schools. In top of his usual statements concerning the moral capability of educators, students were to be trained in “all the higher branches of a practical English and commercial education, including the elements of Natural Philosophy and Mechanics.” He also included the traditional subjects of Greek and Latin, of which the Grammar schools had previously failed miserably under their own administration. Also included was an emphasis on Mathematics so as to prepare students for post-secondary studies in which he specifically mentions University College “or any other college affiliated with the University of Toronto.” This inclusion of preparation for universities was also something that was unique to the Grammar Schools; however, it was a necessity as these schools where intended for societies elites. The only real difference was they now focused on useful education rather than simply classical studies which were of little use in the real world.[25]
Ryerson also increased standards for students entering these schools. Simply being a member of an elite family was also no longer enough to guarantee acceptance into the newly reformed Grammar Schools. Ryerson introduced a series of minimum requirements for acceptance. There were five points included in the new requirements which first had to be met which included the requirement “1.To read intelligently any passage from any common reading book. 2. To spell correctly the words of on ordinary sentence. 3. To write a fair hand. 4. To work questions in the two simple rules of arithmetic. 5. Must know the rudiments of English Grammar, as to be able to parse any easy sentence.” Examinations were to be taken and any pupil eligible for admittance which then had to be approved by the school inspector.[26]
Also included within the Grammar School Act is a section which details how students were to conduct themselves which is further evidence of the importance that Ryerson placed on the effectiveness and professionalism of the classroom environment. The first measure entailed the general cleanliness of the student. Tardiness was not to be accepted and no student was permitted to leave before the end of the school day with the exception of “sickness or some pressing emergency.” Students who did not abide by this would not be permitted to return to school for the remainder of the term. Students were also required to have to required books and materials. Finally, Ryerson focused the final section on student responsibility in regard to fees, the only time Ryerson would write such a thing into law. Despite the fact that he fervently believed that education should be free he was forced to make an exception with Grammar Schools. One can only imagine that Ryerson cringed when he was forced to included the section that stated “[t]he tuition fees, as fixed by the Board of Trustees, whether monthly or quarterly, shall be payable in advance and no pupil shall have the right to enter or continue in the school or class until he shall have paid the appropriate fee.”[27]
Ryerson’s final act of great significant was the introduction on mandatory schooling in 1871 which is the last example of his modernist approach to education. This was, in essence, the culmination of everything he had been working towards since he presented his report in 1846. The system had been completely overhauled, the problematic issues of separate and Grammar Schools had been resolved and education was now freely available. Freely available, however, meant nothing if there were still significant numbers of students that were not attending school on a regular basis despite the fact that there were a large percentage of families who were in fact sending their children to schools. This is evident when looking at enrolment figures for Ontario for the two decades before the introduction of mandatory schooling. In 1851 there were 158,159 children attending Common Schools in Ontario, representing 61.2% of children 5 to 16. By 1861 this had grown to 309,895 representing 80.5%. By 1870 the total was 420,488, representing 86.9%. These positive figures were still not enough for Ryerson.[28] The new law declared that children from seven to twelve would be required to attend school for a minimum of four out of twelve months. Ontario would be the first province to implement mandatory schooling; however, it speaks to Ryerson’s influence and prominence that by 1816 eight provinces would replicate Ontario’s law.[29]
Ryerson would retire as Superintendent in 1876 after 32 years although it this was not really his decision. It should be noted that despite his total reconstruction of Ontario’s education system his final years in the office were unpleasant. The primary cause of these problems was an ongoing battle between Ryerson an Ontario Premier Edward Blake.[30] This final issue, however, is little more than a footnote in Ryerson’s history and is not a central focus of this essay. Ultimately, Ryerson is remembered more for the areas in which he achieves success rather than where he failed. Determining the balance between Ryerson religion and his revolutionary ideas is a complicated task as, in many ways, they become intertwined. Ryerson himself may have had some difficulty separating the two in his own thinking. Whenever he would bring up changes to the school system he would continually emphasize the Christian basis for education which allowed him a safety net, especially when dealing with reforms that had very little to do with religion. It should also be noted that, because of the space allotted, this essay is not intended to include everything he did. The focus has been on those initiatives for which Ryerson is best known and determining to what extent they were or were not influenced by religion. In the final analysis it is evident that Ryerson was one of the most intriguing individuals in nineteenth century Canada. Historical coverage concerning Ryerson goes far beyond his involvement in education. Whenever there was an important issue affecting Canadian society, Ryerson was not shy about expressing his own opinion. What is important here is that liberalism was just as important as religion in Ryerson’s educational reforms, in fact, in some cases it may have been more important.
[1] Colin D. Pearce, “Egerton Ryerson and his Canadian Liberalism,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 21:4 (December 1988): 771-772.
[2] Neil McDonald and Alf Chaiton, Egerton Ryerson and His Times, (Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada Limited, 1978) 46-47.
[3] Ibid, 52-54.
[4] E. Brian Titley and Peter J. Miller, Education in Canada: An Interpretation (Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Limited, 1982) 64-65.
[5] Egerton Ryerson, Report on a System of Public Elementary Instruction for Upper Canada, 1847, 22-25.
[6] Howard Adams, The Education of Canadians: The Roots of Separatism (Montreal: Harvest House, 1968) 55.
[7] Ibid,22-32.
[8] Egerton Ryerson, Report on a System of Public Elementary Instruction for Upper Canada, 1847, 5-6.
[9] Ibid, 6-9.
[10] Ibid, 9-11.
[11] Paul Axelrod, The Promise of Schooling: Education in Canada, 1800-1914, (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1999), 36-38.
[12] Circular from the Chief Superintendent of Schools to Each of the County Boards of Public Instruction in Upper Canada, 8 October 1850, 97-100.
[13] General Form of Certificates of Qualification for Common School Teachers in Upper Canada, 103.
[14] Egerton Ryerson, Special Report of the Measures which have been adopted for the Establishment of a Nortmal School, 1847, 5.
[15] Egerton Ryerson, The Common School Acts of Upper Canada and the Forms, Instructions and Regulations for Executing their Provisions, 17-18.
[16] Egerton Ryerson, Special Report of the Measures which have been adopted for the Establishment of a Nortmal School, 1847, 7-8.
[17] Ibid, 7-8.
[18] Egerton Ryerson, “New Common School Act,” The Toronto Baptist Colonist, 30 July 1846.
[19] F. Henry Johnson, A Brief History of Canadian Education, (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Company of Canada Limited, 1968), 39.
[20] Department of Public Instruction of Upper Canada, The Laws Relating to common schools in Upper Canada, 1855, 98-101.
[21] Egerton Ryerson, Copies of Correspondance Between the Chief Superintendant of Schools and Other Persons on the Subject of Seperate Schools, (Toronto: Lovell and Gibson, 1855) 18.
[22] F. Henry Johnson, A Brief History of Canadian Education, (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Company of Canada, 1968), 40-41.
[23] Provisions of the Law relating to Separate Schools in Upper Canada, Copies of the Correspondence between the Chief Superintendant of Schools for Upper Canada and Other Persons on the Subject of Separate Schools, 1855, 17-18.
[24] J. Donald Wilson, Robert M. Stamp and Louis-Philippe Audet, Canadian Education: A History, (Scarborough: Prentice Hall of Canada, 1970) 225.
[25] Grammar School Manual, The Consolidated Acts Relating to Grammar Schools in Upper Canada; Together with the Revised Program of Studies and the General Regulations and Instructions for Grammar Schools 1866, 32-34.
[26] Ibid, 33.
[27] Grammar School Manual, The Consolidated Acts Relating to Grammar Schools in Upper Canada; Together with the Revised Program of Studies and the General Regulations and Instructions for Grammar Schools 1866, 38.
[28] Neil McDonald and Alf Chaiton, Egerton Ryerson and His Times, (Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada Limited, 1978) 222.
[29] Paul Axelrod, The Promise of Schooling: Education in Canada, 1800-1914, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999) 35-36.
[30] Egerton Ryerson, Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, Retrieved on the World Wide Web 2 December 2007, [http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=39939&query=egerton%20AND%20ryerson]
No comments:
Post a Comment