The direct influence of the father is felt in the family occasionally, that of the mother, constantly. Because fathers rely on mothers to appropriately instruct children, he is encouraged to aid her in the discipline and instruction of the children, when he is at home, and in this way, find himself richly repaid in the over-flowings of filial affections. (Mothers’ Magazine, 1857, p. 42)

In this way, mothers’ influences upon her children’s literacy derived not from her experiences and intelligence (nor her ability to read) but her “sensible” maternal instincts. It was the sensible mother who naturally cultivated her children’s learning in the home on a daily basis, rather than the father, as “special guest” to family reading and learning, who was most often singled out for advice on stimulating children’s intellectual “faculties.” The sensible mother appeared in the Mothers’ Magazine in an article by an unknown author who described the ideal domestic literacy work of “Mrs. S” who “lived in the authors’ village many years ago.” Mrs. S. puts to practice with her own seven children the educational values she learned from her years as a nurse to an upstanding family of the bourgeoisie. The author went on, “She could neither read or write herself and so often had she reason to regret this that she was doubly anxious to have her children well taught” (p. 139). Mrs. S was a “poor, industrious woman” who sent her boys to school beyond the primary years, monitored their school homework, sent her daughters to school long enough to learn to read and write, and then took over their teaching at home. She ensured that her children attended school regularly and promptly, and even when it involved sacrificing her need for their labour, promoted her boys’ need for higher learning (Mothers’ Magazine, 1858, p. 138–139).

In the 1850s and 1860s, Mothers’ Magazine increasingly featured stories that described ideal domestic literacy practices. They also began to offer “hints to parents” and “hints to mothers” who could not teach their children at home themselves. Such texts recognized the increasing number of women who worked outside the home, and the growing number of children who attended formal schooling on a regular basis (Flint, 1993; Green, 2001; Vincent, 2000). This advice emphasized the importance of punctual and regular attendance at infant and normal school,⁶ the mothers’ role in monitoring of homework and inquiring of children what they learned at school, as well as the importance of reinforcing at home the lessons learned in school (Mothers’ Magazine, 1862, p. 215). In this way, the gendered ideals of literacy and pedagogic roles in the home were predicated on a long standing belief that performing such practices could further social equality: “The children of rich and poor have, or may have, about equal advantages under the care of sensible parents” (Martineau, 1848, p. 189).

⁶ As early as 1848, Martineau (p. 216–218), strongly advised mothers not to send their children to infant school unless absolutely necessary, suggesting a thread of advice that stigmatized women who worked outside the home, at the same time as providing them with advice with how best to support schooling