Colonial Education

During the heyday of the British Empire it was common practice for Colonial offcials, Military Officers, missionaries and bussiness men to send their children back to the UK for their education. Asside from the benefits of not seperating children from their parents for years at a time what would have been the effect if once the health issues were delt with off educating these children in the colonies? Assuming given the advances in medical science that this trend began arround 1900 in all but the most disease ridden colonial possesions the generations of upper middle class children would have been born raised and educated in the colonies by the time decolonisation began.
 
Depends. Chances are that they would just set up schools similar to the public (private) ones in the UK, so you would still have a mostly white western school population that learns the same things and little if any local stuff. Also if in certain colonies there isn't a large enough British population to provide a high enough population density of children then you could end up with boarding schools located in the local capital anyway, and at that point aside from travel time there's not much advantage over the UK ones and you don't get the home culture bit either.
 
During the heyday of the British Empire it was common practice for Colonial offcials, Military Officers, missionaries and bussiness men to send their children back to the UK for their education. Asside from the benefits of not seperating children from their parents for years at a time what would have been the effect if once the health issues were delt with off educating these children in the colonies? Assuming given the advances in medical science that this trend began arround 1900 in all but the most disease ridden colonial possesions the generations of upper middle class children would have been born raised and educated in the colonies by the time decolonisation began.

Theres a LOT of disease problems in the tropics, and while quinine can work for malaria, and yellow fever could get a vaccine by 1900, all the other diseases are still there. Besides, England wasHOME, the colonial postings were just jobs.

Sure, you might get elementary schools or even high schools, but remember that even in england, the upper crust sent their kids off to eton, harrow and rugby. No indian, say, school will have that prestige. Could the local schools become good enough for the lower ranks of civil servants? Sure. But the upper ranks will continue to send their kids back to blighty.
 
I don't think you're appreciating quite how long these families were seperated. Yes families from this social class sent their children off to bording school at rediculussly young ages, and emploed nannies to look after preschool children. There is however a big difference between sending your children of to school for a term at a time, and leaving them in the UK when you take up a post in the colonies knowing that you are unlikely to see them again for some years.

My main reason for asking the original question though was to look at the effect on the colonies of having the sort of English Public (private for non brits) School opperating in them. By the time decolonisation starts these schools could have been open for up to 50 years and during that time its likely that at least a few of the natives will have passed through them. The colonial authorities will have wanted at least some of the more important local dignataries sons educated in these schools in order to instil pro British attitudes in the next generations leaders. Also I they have locals educated to British standards they can employ them for some posts, probably at a lower salary than puckha Britains.
 
When you say colonies, are you talking about say the African Colonies, or are you including the Dominions/Commonwealths such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand?
 
I was thinking of those colonies that are part of the third world rather than the old settler colonies. So East Africa (the west's too unhealthy), the Carribean and Americas, Burma, Malaisia, Hong Kong and he less deadly of the Pacific islands. India already had schools based on the British public schools that could have catered to the families of the Raj had they wanted to keep their children relatively nearby. Obviously the smallest colonies could would not have had the population to support such schools, if close enough would have had to have operated joint schools at central location.
 
Hmm, I suspect before long that they'd cease to be exclusively white establishments, which would affect the decolonisation process.
 
Options in the Asia/Pacific areas could include the older Public Schools in NSW and Victoria.

IE.
The Kings School, Sydney Grammar, Scots College, TAS, Scotch Colleg, Geelong Grammar etc.

For example, Geelong Grammar had the Prince of Wales as a student for a period of time in the 1950's.

African Colonies could possibly send students to South Africa, but England and Scotland are probably just as close in some cases.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I was thinking of those colonies that are part of the third world rather than the old settler colonies. So East Africa (the west's too unhealthy), the Carribean and Americas, Burma, Malaisia, Hong Kong and he less deadly of the Pacific islands. India already had schools based on the British public schools that could have catered to the families of the Raj had they wanted to keep their children relatively nearby. Obviously the smallest colonies could would not have had the population to support such schools, if close enough would have had to have operated joint schools at central location.

The west is actually doable. To get away from the tropical illnesses you head up in elevation and/or towards the desert. So for example, in Nigeria, you could set up the college in the NE portion of the country. In the other West African Colonies, mountains rise fairly near the coast, so you could setup the boarding school up a few thousand feet above sea level and a few 10's of miles from the coast. It would still be a multi-day trip to see the kids.

A lot of the reason for the high disease rates among British officials were they were station near economically valuable locations, generally in ports near swamps or in river deltas. The kids would not need to be in these poor locations.
 
Very unlikely for three simple reasons.

1.) The lower ranks of the Civil Service/Military generally didn't have kids. While women married earlier than they do today men mostly waited until they were in there 30's to get hitched and start having children.

2.) By the time you were old enough to have school age children you had either gone back to Britain or were senior enough that shipping them off to Boarding school in England was an affordable proposition.

3.) The idea that a child is exclusively raised by it's parents was far from universal. For example my father, born in 1952, was raised by his grandmother for 3 years, as his father was a military attaché in the 1950's Eastern Bloc (Romania and then Yugoslavia) and they were both wives only postings.The idea that if you couldn't look after your children you'd send them off to their grandparents or a relative was regarded as standard.
 
Still, here in Johannesburg we have:
1) King Edwards
2) St Stithian
3) St. Johns
4) ... and many more

3 fine schools killing each other (literally) on and outside the rugby field (!)

Winter is rugby, summer is cricket (white trousers, jerseys, the works).

Maybe SA is different in that respect. I am not sure there even is a tradition of sending the kids to the UK for schooling.

Ivan



Ivan
 
Still, here in Johannesburg we have:
1) King Edwards
2) St Stithian
3) St. Johns
4) ... and many more

3 fine schools killing each other (literally) on and outside the rugby field (!)

Winter is rugby, summer is cricket (white trousers, jerseys, the works).

Maybe SA is different in that respect. I am not sure there even is a tradition of sending the kids to the UK for schooling.

The settler colonies are a completely different kettle of fish, there it was British settlers bringing the British system of education with them and setting up a copy, complete with Public Schools. I assume the OP is about colonies which are never going to be settler colonies in that sense like Nigeria or Fiji.
 
Another key difference is that in the colonial areas of the Empire, as opposed to the settler (my terms) areas, the Imperial civil servants & military usually intended to return to Britain and as such, based their family lives and education around that goal. The settler areas intended to become permanently British and as such replicated or improved the civil and educational institutions they had back Home.

In my part of NZ anyway, within a decade of the first substantial British settlements (i.e more than just whalers or traders), a good basic system of government and private primary and secondary schools had been set up, along with universities in the four main cities. By the 1870s that system was pretty comprehensive.
 
The thing is sending the kids back to Britain for education gave them a much better education. Schools in Britain were amongst the best in the world whilst the best a poorly developed colony would be able to manage...not really worth thinking about.
I suppose it could make them into more worldly people and better future rulers of said colony due to having more local knowledge but in terms of overall education and opportunities in the world as a whole...much worse.
Just as today the rich and powerful are always going to want to send their kids to the best schools in the world.
 
Top