Literacy Sponsorship in the Women

of Colonial New England

by Lindsay Glenn
Introduction
In this paper I will discuss the state of womens literacy in Colonial New
England and how literacy sponsorship impacted and increased the rate
of literacy over the Colonial era. I will also discuss how previous studies
may have overestimated the illiteracy rates among Colonial New
Englanders, because clearly the standard by which they judged literacy
was far too rigid.

Before we begin, let us have a discussion about how we define literacy. Is
literacy reading? Writing? What does it mean for one to be illiterate?
Illiteracy is commonly known as the inability to read and write. What if we
had a population of individuals who were capable of reading and
comprehending but not capable of writing? How would we define those
individuals? The state of womens literacy in Colonial New England was
just so, women reading but not capable of writing.

Womens Literacy in Colonial New England
Literacy rates were lower for females than for males throughout the
Colonial era, and the timing of the rise of female literacy, particularly
toward universal literacy, was different, than those of the males in the
society (Perlmann et. al, 50-1). In fact, while illiteracy was nearly wiped
out among men dying around the time of the Revolution, half the women
were still illiterate (Perlmann et. al, 51). It seems that there was no more
than a very slow rise in womens literacy after it reached the 40% level
around the turn of the eighteenth century, (Lockridge, 38-9). The literacy
rates for women during this time were definitely dismal at best.

According to my research, the reason behind the poor literacy rates for
the women of this time was because the idea of educating women was
not one that was favored. Traditional female roles did not require such
skills, and powerful prejudices worked to inhibit the public exercise of
trained intelligence by women (Main, 579). Another of the many reasons
for womens illiteracy is because women of the time had no necessity to
write. Writing was a job-related skill (Monaghan, 28). Because women
at the time were not trained to work outside of the home, but instead
were trained to be successful homemakers, penmanship was an
acquisition irrelevant to women (Monaghan, 28). Instead of training
women with the quill or pen, they were trained with the needle.

Over time literacy improved as a matter of law, when Massachusetts
passed legislation demanding literacy instruction for all youth,
Connecticut, New Haven (then a separate colony), New York and
Plymouth quickly followed suit (Monaghan, 27). Although a new
precedence was set by enforcing legal provisions, the emphasis on
literacy seemed to be only for reading. The greater importance was
placed by Colonial Americans on the ability to read rather than to write is
well exemplified by the legislation passed, (Monaghan, 26). Later
amendments were made to the literacy provisions concerning being
learned to write a ledgible hand, but the provisions only applied to sons
and not daughters (Monaghan, 27). The lack of inclusion of women was
due, again to the lack of necessity for women to write.

Thankfully, the idea of educating women began to gain strength. Once
male literacy was universal in the late eighteenth century a new concern
for the mothers role stimulated education for women (Perlmann et. al,
53). The evolving view of the proper mother was one who was able to
better prepare the next generation by possessing the refinements
afforded by literacy (Perlmann et. all, 53).

As society grew and changed, the need of women to write in order to
establish a line of credit with businesses, keep accounts with storekeepers
and purchase such luxury items as tea, sugar and pottery helped
motivate the evolution of womens literacy (Main, 583-4). Women also
sought out opportunities for additional services such as nursing, laundering
and sewing, which required the ability to both read and write (Main, 584).

What is literacy sponsorship?
Now we will turn our discussion towards the idea of literacy sponsorship.
Brandt defines literacy sponsorship, a term she coined, as any agents,
local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach or
model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy and
gain advantage by it in some way (Brandt, 2). She explains that interests
between the sponsor and the sponsored do not need to converge, they
may even conflict, in order for the sponsorship to be successful (Brandt, 2).
She defines sponsors as a delivery system for the economies of literacy,
explaining that they are the means through which literacy is presented
(Brandt, 3). According to Brandt, a sponsor can be relatives, teachers,
priests, supervisors, military officers, editors, or even influential authors,
stating they are generally powerful people making the way smoother for
literacy to take place (Brandt, 3).

Brandt explains that literacy sponsors affect literacy learning in two
powerful ways. First, they help to organize and administer stratified
systems of opportunity and access, (Brandt, 16). Second, they raise the
literacy stakes in struggles for competitive advantage, (Brandt, 16).
Sponsors have the ability to enable and even hinder literacy activity, and
are capable of forcing the formation of new literacy and disabling
previous ones (Brandt, 16). She explains in her theory that sponsors are
underwriters of the acts of reading and writing that work to enable or
induce literacy (Brandt and Clinton, 1332). She also states that the
concept of the literacy sponsor recognizes the historical fact that access
to literacy has always required assistance, (Brandt and Clinton, 1332).

In our time, as long as a person has access to a local library, or even a
McDonalds

as long as you have a mobile device, they have access to

the web, and a virtual window to limitless information. In days past,
especially in Colonial times, books such as the hornbook, primers and
even bibles were hard to come by. Because of the limited access to
schools and books, sponsors were necessary for literacy to proliferate.

Literacy sponsorship in Colonial New England
So who were the literacy sponsors of Colonial New England? Throughout
my research, each path toward literacy seemed to be paved by the
same people, women. Whether they be mothers or women running
dame schools (private schools run for small children by a woman in her
home), women seemed to be the biggest sponsors of literacy during the
Colonial period. The irony here is that women were notoriously invisible in
Colonial records, even though they, themselves, were a huge sponsor of
literacy during the period. One can only guess how many women must
have earned a few pennies a week as private teachers of reading,
throughout the eighteenth century (Monaghan, 24).

Mothers were particularly interested in their childrens literacy because
literacy was not only an indicator of education but also of social standing
(Monaghan, 18). Literacy was also a major indicator in ones faith.
Children were taught to read using a hornbook, then a primer, then a
psalter and finally a bible, concluding their education by being able to
read both the old and new testaments (Monaghan, 20). Hence, a pious
mother was particularly motivated to teacher her child to read,
(Monaghan, 20). I consider mothers to be the underwriters of their
childrens literacy because they had a vested interest in their childrens
future, and literacy was the key.

Im sure there were many cases of other literacy sponsors throughout the
Colonial era. I can imagine priests, neighbors, siblings and nannies all
enabling literacy in someone in which they have a vested interest. The
only recorded evidence I have uncovered of literacy sponsorship during
this period was that of mothers and women teaching reading at dame
schools.

Conclusion
Throughout all the research on the topic of womens literacy in Colonial
New England, I kept being drawn back to Lockridges study. In his book,
Lockridge reports an improvement in the mass illiteracy of women but
points out that female illiteracy remained quite common and women
were always at a distinct disadvantage in obtaining basic education
(Lockridge, 4). It is true that women were at a disadvantage when it
came to obtaining an education but I would hardly classify the women of
this period as being under a cloud of mass illiteracy. After all, Lockridges
study is solely based on whether or not individuals signed or marked their
wills over a period of time.

As many of the authors weve discussed here have pointed out,
Lockridges data may not be as accurate as it seems. First, he assumes
that non-signers or markers are illiterate (Lockridge, 7). He even develops
an argument on how signatures or a lack thereof determine literacy. In
my opinion, this is a huge assumption to make and one that can shift data
from one extreme to the other. With the information we have found since,
that women taught reading and men taught writing, I think it is safe to
assume that the women of Colonial New England cannot be defined as
illiterate (Monaghan, 24). I think the women of Colonial New England
were perfectly capable of reading but lacked the ability to sign their
names because writing, at the time, was a luxury that women were not
afforded.

I see an incredible amount of irony in the idea that the same people that
Lockridge claims are illiterate based on their lack of ability to sign their
name, are the people who were sponsors literacy in a whole new
generation of readers and writers. I was very intrigued by Lockridges
work but once I researched deeper I realized his definition of literacy was
so rigid that it was difficult for me to take any of his outcomes for truth.
Should we develop another term to define those who are capable of
reading but not writing? I dont know that it is necessary but I do know
that it is not accurate to define those who are unable to sign their names
as completely illiterate.

There is so much information on the topic of womens literacy in Colonial
New England and I definitely feel as if I have only scratched the surface of
the topic and how sponsorship affected that literacy. Ive been speaking
passionately about the topic to anyone who would listen about ever since
I began my research (Lord, help them). The concept of literacy
sponsorship is one that is so simple, yet such an important part of the
fabric of our literacy, past, present and future. Applying the concept to
one of my favorite time periods and my favorite place was truly a
pleasure. Since this is the end of my college career, I will have the luxury
of further investigating the topic at my leisure, that is, unless someone
wants to sponsor me for doctoral work.
Bibliography

Brandt, Deborah. The Sponsor of Literacy. Rep. Albany: National Research
Center on English Learning & Achievement, U at Albany, State U of New
York, 1997. Print. Ser. 7.12.

Brandt, Deborah and Clinton, Katie. Limits of the Local: Expanding
Perspectives on Literacy as a Social Practice Journal of Literacy
Research. 34.3 (2002). Rpt in The Norton Book of Composition Studies. Ed.
Susan Miller. NY: Norton, 2009. 1321-1338. Print.

Lockridge, Kenneth A. Literacy in Colonial New England: An Enquiry into
the Social Context of Literacy in the Early Modern West. New York: Norton,
1974. Print.

Main, G. L. "An Inquiry Into When and Why Women Learned to Write in
Colonial New England." Journal of Social History 24.3 (1991): 579-89. Print.

Monaghan, E. Jennifer. "Literacy Instruction and Gender in Colonial New
England." American Quarterly 40.1, Special Issue: Reading America (1988):
18-41. JSTOR. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

Perlmann, Joel, and Dennis Shirley. "When Did New England Women
Acquire Literacy?" The William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser. 48.1 (1991): 50-
67. JSTOR. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.