What kind of History for Education? … and finding new friends in the Archive

By Peter Cunningham

I visited our Faculty archive for a conference we’re holding next year to mark the centenary of Democracy and Education. I wanted to explore when and how Dewey entered the syllabus, but it turned out his entrance was painfully slow. What caught my attention was a tortuous trajectory of course content, as generations over the first half-century of university-based ITET were introduced to ‘history and theory’.  Engaged for years in teacher education and CPD, over the last four years in Kazakhstan, I have a particular interest in the uses of history for critical thinking about pedagogy. Syllabuses found in the archive stirred my passion for good history with professional relevance, challenging historical imagination to understand why they were delivered and how they were received.  J.H.Higginson, J.B.Thomas and Wendy Robinson have been here before, but the territory’s ripe for re-visiting.

 

What paradigm shifts, what contingencies, negotiations and compromises, move from this in 1892 … 

 
 … to this in 1919 …   

… and to this in 1948?

To these trains of thought was added the surprise and pleasure of meeting unexpected friends. Unsurprising was the pre-eminent J.W. Adamson, communiting from King's College London to teach history and advise on education courses generally. But in the archive I met names unknown to me, names not normally linked with the history of education.

Albert Cock, philosopher and writer on Christian thought, was Professor of Education and Philosophy in the University College of Southampton 1916–39, and Principal, St John’s Diocesan Training College York, 1939–45.  He published widely on education, literature and the history of Christian thought.

Henrietta Dent, Principal of Cambridge Training College for Women 1933-45 was a first class History graduate from Girton who gained Distinction in her London University Diploma in Education. An accomplished linguist with a powerful and lively mind, and an exceptionally good lecturer, she impressed on her students a sympathetic and imaginative approach in the classroom. She advocated dynamic pedagogy, seminars, tutorial groups and individual work, as better suited than routine lectures to the needs of trainees.

Albert Victor Murray was Professor of Education at Hull 1933-45, President of the Training Colleges Association 1940–42, and President of Cheshunt Coll., Cambridge, 1945–59. He travelled and taught in Africa, wrote on religious education in schools, on natural religion, Christian theology and church history. 

The Cambridge Teachers’ Certificate was widely offered throughout Great Britain and Ireland. Between 1887 and 1935, 41 Training Colleges from Aberystwyth and Bangor to Waterford and Wantage were recognized by the Cambridge Syndicate, including  8 in London, 2 in Edinburgh and 3 in Dublin, though meantime some such as Bristol and Reading gaining independent university status. 

Through the interwar years however, periodic rumblings from the colleges led to debate and modification of the syllabus.  In 1922 the historical period was updated from 1400-1660 to the 19^th century, and the following year was confined English education. In 1928 complaints about the lack of options and calls to reduce the period still further to 1860-1902 were made.

Four years later, on 6 January 1934, Harriet Dent, called a meeting in London at which 10 colleges were represented. Her objections were that History loomed too large, occupying a fourth of the whole education exam, and that shortening the period had necessitated much greater attention to detail, making it more difficult for students to appreciate the general historical background. She proposed that the ‘Principles of Education’ Paper could include historical reference, that alternatives to the History paper should be permitted, and that independent historical work could be considered for assessment.

Albert Cock from Southampton, and J.W.Adamson, were asked to observe and report to the Cambridge Syndicate on the 1934 meeting. Cock recorded general agreement that the period should be extended back to 1800, and especially that more modern reference beyond 1902 should be allowed. The heavy burden of detailed knowledge demanded was also criticised. One concrete suggestion was for an optional section entitled ‘Rousseau to Dewey’, the greater classics of education in the last 150 years.  There was no suggestion that history of education was not important and one or two spoke with great emphasis on its necessity and value. Cock reports approvingly on Miss Dent’s proactive and reflective representation of the discontents widely felt by history teachers in training colleges.  (We should note that the Cambridge Teachers’ Certificate was a prestige qualification acquired at considerable expense to the colleges and their students, a source of income that kept the Cambridge UDE afloat!) 

I’ll leave the last word to Victor Murray. On the outbreak of war, Hull University College’s education department was evacuated to Cambridge, so he was close at hand. On retiring as examiner in 1941 repeated his conviction that the History of Education should be studied as part of social history. He was convinced that many lecturers in the colleges failed to observe ‘this very salutary rule’ and dealt with education in far too great isolation. 

There is no value, educational or practical, in candidates knowing, as many often do know, the precise amounts of attendance under the Revised Code or the recommendations of some dead and gone Commission, and insistence on such matters has gone far to bring this subject into disrepute among the Training Colleges and Departments.

References

J.W.Adamson (1920) A guide to the history of education. (Helps for students of history) London

J.W.Adamson (1930) English Education, 1789–1902  (Cambridge, CUP)

J.B.Thomas (1979) ‘The Curriculum of a Day Training College: The logbooks of J.W.Adamson’, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 18, 2, 24-33

J.H.Higginson (1980) ‘Establishing a history of education course: the work of Professor Michael Sadler 1903-1911’, History of Education, 9, 3, 245-255

Wendy Robinson (2003) Pupil Teachers and their Professional Training (Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen)

 

Who were the schoolmasters in seventeenth century England?

By Ken Clayton

Thomas Beard, Oliver Cromwell's schoolmaster at Huntingdon Grammar School

To be a master at a Grammar school in seventeenth century England might look like an enviable career. In fact, it seems that a high proportion of them were, in effect, clergymen in waiting. Helen Jewell maintained that, in many cases, taking a job as a schoolmaster represented little more than finding a way to earn an income between graduating as a BA and being able to gain an MA and a church living (1998, p64). Apart from that, the universities were producing more graduates than the Church needed. 
 

Francis Lenton was one who suggested that graduates would have to become schoolmasters because they could not find positions as Rectors (Lenton 1631). In other cases, such as that of William Lilly, becoming a schoolmaster provided an escape from poverty (Ashmole, 1822, p21) although the term ‘escape’ seems to have been relative: Robert Burton claimed that schoolmasters were paid no more than a falconer (1621, p173).

Although these authors painted a grim picture of the prospects of schoolmasters, others laid the blame on the schools themselves. In 1673 Christopher Wase set out to make a study of grammar schools in England and the Rector of Foots Cray in Kent wrote saying 'Free schools generally are a prey for greedy Feoffees, a Pretence for unthankful Parents, a Provision for the Rich [...] Were it not for so many free schools a Scholar might live plentifully with honour allmost every where but now they can scarce live any where but with very small means and less credit' (CC Library, Vol IV MSS CCC.C391 150).

While it is clear that a career as schoolmaster may not have been appealing, it had the advantage of being available to graduates because the founding statutes of free grammar schools usually stated that the master must have a degree. Clearly this rule excluded women since they were not allowed into the universities in the seventeenth century. In reality, however, such rules were not always applied: Beaumaris grammar school founding statutes demanded that the Master should have an MA from Oxford and the Usher (deputy master) a BA. The correspondent who provided this information added, however, that ‘these rules have been seldome observed, […] Bachelours of Arts have been placed Schoolemasters without regard to any Universitie & Undergraduates have been placed Ushers’ (Wase papers, Vol III MSS CCC.C390/3, 4, 5, 6 & 7).

One consequence of the requirement for a degree, however, was that Masters were often 23 or 24 years old when first appointed. On the other hand, teaching was by no means, the preserve of young men: records show that some at least were teaching into their sixties. Wase recorded a master at Mottram Grammar School in Cheshire working until he was 88 while another was 80 (Wase, Vol III MSS CCC.C390/57) and several masters were 60 when Wase was gathering his data in 1673.

In the main, however, the masters were young men and yet it was not unusual for the founding statutes to insist that the Master was not allowed to marry without the permission of the school governors, local JP or other specified individuals (Vincent, 1969, p113).

There was then the question of whether the master was to also have a role in the church. In some cases the master was definitely not to hold religious office but in others the statutes dictated that the master must be a practising clergyman. This overlap between clergymen and schoolmasters seems to have been very common: many of the letters sent to Wase included examples of masters who went on to positions in the church.

Masters and Ushers were sometimes appointed by the governors of each school although there were frequent variations on this procedure. According to one of Wase’s correspondents, the process for selecting a new master for Shrewsbury school was tightly drawn and involved the master and fellows of St John’s College, Cambridge finding a man born ‘in the town of Salop’, who had studied at the school and was the son of a Burgess and had a degree. If they could not find a suitably qualified individual, they could widen the search by steps but even when they had chosen a candidate the bailiffs of the town had the freedom to reject their choice and the whole process would start again (Wase papers Vol III MSS CCC.C390/156-7). Other schools were less demanding but most specified that the master must be a university man.

Apart from the educational standards expected of a master, some schools made additional demands: the statutes at Ashby-de-la-Zouch school were quite specific in the personal qualities expected of a master. He should not be 'a Papist Nor Heretick […] Adulterer, ffornicator, Drunkard, neither Game player, Noe swearer, or Blasphemer' and he must be able and apt to teach the Latin tongue' (Fox, 1967, p128).

Once appointed, masters were subject to discipline. At Tadcaster Grammar School a master who was absent for more than ten days at a time, or more than 30 days in a year without permission ‘should be warned by the guardians’. If the master received three warnings he could be removed from his post (Curtis, 1948, pps5-6). At Aldenham school, neither the master nor the usher were to 'give themselves to games not the hauntinge of Alehowses and Tavernes'. Minor misdemeanours would attract a warning for the first offence but a second could lead to dismissal. If, on the other hand, they were found guilty of fornication, adultery, blasphemy or were judged to be a 'common swearer, ryoter or com'on drunckarde' they were to be 'forthwith removed with as much speed as convenientlye may be' (Edwards and Wood, 1997, p3-4).

Overall, then, grammar school masters seem, in the main, to have been graduates who fell into the job for want of any other employment opportunity. Given the long hours, rates of pay that were, at best, average and the the fact that each could be teaching up to 140 boys with just one assistant, it does not seem surprising that so many of them preferred the Church.

References 

Ashmole, Elias (ed.) (1822) William Lilly's History of his Life and Times from the Year 1602 to 1681 London, Charles Baldwin.

Burton, Robert, (1621) The Anatomy of Melancholy, What it is. Oxford, Henry Cripps.

Edwards, J and Wood, R. (1997) The History and Register of Aldenham School Old Aldenhamian Society.

Fox, L. (1967) A country Grammar School - a History of Ashby-de-la-Zouch Grammar School through four centuries 1567-1967 Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Jewell, Helen M. (1998) Education in Early Modern England, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.