I don't know much about this but it was only richer families that could afford to send their children to school. Most people in that era could not read, so shops would have pictures outside instead of words (eg. pic of an anvil for a blacksmith).
Teachers were very harsh and used the cane on a lot of children, they had a 0 tolerance policy, so children could not talk in class, draw on their hands or answer back etc.
The headmaster would usually come into the classes to inspect the children and would ask questions and check their appearance. If a child's appearance was too bad or if they couldn't answer a simple question, they were beaten with the cane.
Their education was a lot slower than ours because older children learnt very simple equations and the alphabet (they would have been about 10+)
Hope this helps.
Also though their was a lot of girls in the 1600's that would go to school until they were ten. Boys were the ones who went on and learned more education! UNFAIR RIGHT? Hope this also helps!!!!!!!@#$%^&*
In the 1600s, education in England was often reserved for the wealthy and elite class. Schools were mainly private and focused on classical studies like Latin and Greek. There were also charity schools for the poor, but education was not compulsory for all children.
gtgggggg
In the 1600s, education in Maryland was primarily provided by private tutors or home schooling for wealthy families. Formal schools were rare, with most only serving the children of the elite. Education was often focused on basic literacy and religious instruction.
Education in Massachusetts in the 1600s was primarily focused on religious instruction, with children learning to read so they could study the Bible. Schools were often run by local ministers or community members, and attendance was compulsory for boys. Girls generally received education at home and were not allowed to attend formal schools.
Both France and England have strong education systems with their own strengths and weaknesses. France places a high emphasis on academic achievement and theoretical learning in its education system, while England focuses on fostering critical thinking and practical skills. The choice of which system is "better" depends on individual preferences and goals.
In the 1700s, education in England was primarily available to wealthy boys. They would attend private schools or receive tutoring from private tutors. Girls and children from poorer families often did not have access to formal education and would instead learn basic skills at home.
Abel Tasman's education included training in navigation and seamanship, which he likely acquired during his early career in the Dutch East India Company. He also demonstrated proficiency in mapmaking and exploration, which helped him lead successful voyages to New Zealand and Tasmania. Overall, his practical experience and skills played a significant role in his achievements as a navigator and explorer.
vvfkfgjigg
England
only rich people got it poor people were even lucky they could count. Also there was a zero tolerance in the school and if you interrupted at any time you would be beaten with a cane.
protestant than catholic then protestant etc it was like this because of the different rulers and their religious beliefs
scotland, england, and france
england
In the 1700s, education was primarily for the wealthier classes and focused on classical languages, literature, and philosophy. Schools were often private or church-run, with limited access for lower-income individuals and girls. Discipline was strict, and teaching methods were rote-based, emphasizing memorization and repetition.
In the 1600s, education in Maryland was primarily provided by private tutors or home schooling for wealthy families. Formal schools were rare, with most only serving the children of the elite. Education was often focused on basic literacy and religious instruction.
pretty good
England
The enlightenment
London