On rural teaching in the districts of Strandasýsla and Húnavatnssýsla 1887– 1905

Abstract

From shortly before the middle of the 18th century, Icelandic homes were obliged to provide children with instruction in religion and reading. This obligation was extended in 1880, when writing and arithmetic were added. The homes were supposed to provide the instruction, monitored by parish priests. By the middle of the 19th century, the need for schools for children and teenagers was generally recognized and they were founded one by one, primarily in urban areas. In the countryside, teaching mainly took place in homes and clergymen were supposed to monitor the children’s progress.

Many were concerned about the lack of schools but proponents of improved education often had to tackle obstacles deeply rooted in Icelandic history and culture, as well as in the firm belief that home schooling was a cornerstone of society. There were also economic hindrances due to the high level of poverty amongst the general population and an ingrained reluctance to use public funds to cover communal expenses.

This article is based on data regarding rural teaching in two districts in the Húnaflói Bay area; that is, Strandasýsla and Húnavatnssýsla, prior to the formal introduction of compulsory education in 1907. The National Archives of Iceland hold reports from 1887 and onwards that deal with grant applications from rural teachers. The aim is to shed some light on the students who received this teaching and their circumstances.

The main conclusions are the following:

• The age distribution of children and teenagers in the Húnaflói Bay area around the turn of the 20th century was more or less the same as elsewhere in the country. The proportion of children who were taught by rural teachers gradually grew; nevertheless the two districts were well below the national average as regards the proportional school attendance of Icelandic youth.
• There was a clear difference between the municipalities in Strandasýsla as regards the level of children’s formal education. It was lowest north of Steingrímsfjörður but increased in the southern parts. In Húnavatnssýsla, very little formal education was available in Hrútafjörður and the northern part of the Vindhælishreppur municipality, while much more was on offer elsewhere.
• An analysis of pupils’ social standing reveals that, in the winters examined, the majority (85–89%) of the group of pupils was made up of children of farm owners, foster children and adopted children. The number of paupers decreased sharply over the period and the proportion of pupils who had no direct connection to farm owners went from 15% to 10%. The distribution between boys and girls was relatively even, even though the boys were slightly more numerous, or 52%.
• Home schooling was the main form of education throughout the period and relatively few children received their teaching away from their home farm. All in all, there were 70 places of teaching in the winter of 1894–1895 and 78 a decade later. It has sometimes been assumed that teaching mainly took place in the homes of well-off farmers, but this was by no means always the case. Sources contain a few examples of how children of poor parents were attended to.
• There was no designated school building in the Húnaflói Bay area until the boarding school at Heydalsá started its operations in 1897, and no other building of that kind was built in the next decade. As a result, home schooling was the dominant form of education and the pupil groups were small. Consequently it was relatively easy for the teacher to attend to each and every student and the age range was often quite broad.
• Little is known about teaching methods and it can be assumed that most rural teachers based these on their own experience, gained either from school or their self-education. Some of them describe rote learning and questioning but there are other examples of students being trained in dictation.
• In general, fewer subjects were taught where home schooling was predominant than in set schools. Here, the Húnaflói Bay area was no exception. The main reason for this was the short period of study available to each student, and probably also the limited preparation of many teachers and lack of teaching materials.
• When the conditions of pupils and teachers in Strandasýsla and Húnavatnssýsla are summed up and compared to those in other parts of the country it seems safe to say that the Húnaflói Bay area was in many ways disadvantaged with regard to the development of education and schools. This can probably mainly be traced to a sparse population and absence of urban areas, although economic reasons and conservative views on education are also likely to have played their part.