The essay "Pathway to Playtime: Work, Education, and Family for Nineteenth Century Working-Class Children" by Shannon Rooke presents a picture of what the experience of childhood was for working class Canadian youth. Within this essay Shannon creates a description of what was expected of the Canadian youth and their importance to the workforce. This was explored through the examination of working conditions of children and the limited outside opportunities through education and professional training.
Shannon establishes a very strong argument from the start by creating a strong thesis within the paper which was supported throughout the paper. The paper examines the issues facing urban vs. rural youth, boys vs. girls, issues in education availability and professional training opportunities. In looking at these issues Shannon uses statistical evidence through census data, surveys, and government legislation to backup here arguments. Along with this Shannon includes the voice of children from this era so they are taking part in the story of their story of youth. This builds a stronger connection between the reader and the experiences of these youth.
Throughout my examination of this paper I found myself asking some questions I would have liked. The first of these would be a broader explanation of the unstable economic market within Canada during the 19th century. Further explanation of this would have left me with a better picture of conditions within Canada at this time. Another thought that crossed my mind because of my own background in history being centered in United States history is the exploration of the Canadian childhood of the 19th century in comparison to the same groups (girls, boys, urban, socioeconomic class) to that of 19th century american children. This is just a something I found myself curious about while reading the essay (so not really a flaw but a interest). The last weakness within the paper is the title. The paper does not form a examination of all working class children of the 19th century so this distinction should be made in the title to avoid confusion.
Overall I found Shannon's paper to be very infomative. As all good research should do it has created further questions and interests in the reader. I believe this paper is an A-.
Comments