In 1878 the Education Department called the attention of the School

Board to the ‘inadequate attendance of the children’ and impressed upon

them the necessity of ‘securing better results than have hitherto been obtained’.

When the School Officer did go to see parents he did not have much

success. The reasons for non-attendance were many and varied, with some

more plausible than others. ‘The shoemaker did not make the shoes in time’,

said one parent, and the parents of one boy, eleven years old, took him from

school as he was not well, saying that he was ‘far enough advanced in

education’. A widow ‘says she cannot afford clothing so her son must stay

home to look after the children so she can go to work’. The Inspector of the

Poor was asked to look into this case. One child was said to be at the Fishers

School in St. Andrews when he was actually working on the farm. Another,

aged twelve, supposedly off ill was also working, herding cows. In 1881 Mr.

Thom wrote to the School Board, ‘I mentioned in my last report the case of

Mrs. Barclay who had left the Parish. I am sorry to say that she is back again

and living at Claremont, and still keeping her boy from school’.

It is no wonder that Mr. Thom wrote, ‘I am at a loss to know what to do

with them’. Mr. Findlay, Mr. Walker and Mr. Thom all felt that the School

Board did not give them enough support in trying to curb absenteeism. Mr.

Findlay wrote, ‘Habitual absentees are allowed and others follow their example’

and also, ‘Pupils hearing that the School Board did not intend to do anything

stayed away’. When the Board did take action attendance improved. Mr.

Findlay reported on 20 March 1893: ‘Attendance for the week very good

consequent upon the action taken by the School Board’. But the Board did

not continue to keep a check on the absentees and the attendance soon fell

again. At times parents accused of persistent offences were summoned to

appear before the Board. If the father appeared he almost invariably blamed

his wife. A typical response to the charge of not sending his children to

school was ‘his wife had concealed from him... [the] irregularity of his

children’s attendance’. A promise to send his children in future and an

admonishment would cause the order to be withdrawn. Rarely did attendance

improve for more than a short time, and the old pattern would be repeated.

The School Board was not anxious to prosecute and Mr. Findlay wrote in his

log book, “Apparently the compulsory clause is to be allowed to remain in

abeyance.”

Attendance continued to be a problem for a long time. Mr. Findlay tried

to diminish it by punishment, and in later years he tried exhortation. In

September, 1895, he wrote in his log book: ‘When a few truants turned up

took the occasion to warn the school of the evils sure to result to character

from truant playing’. He did not succeed with either method. Apart from

67