What evidence do historians of education need to reconstruct the past?

by Heather Ellis and Stephen Parker

The History of Education Society was recently invited to take part in an open consultation process organised by National Archives regarding its operational selection policy (OSP) concerning the records of the Department for Education for the period 1974-1997. What at face value appeared to be a dry exercise, in fact raised some important historical methodological questions, centring upon ‘what should be kept for posterity in order for future historians to engage with and reconstruct the past, in all its multi-faceted complexity?’ The issues we raised in relation to the policy also required us to anticipate how historians of the future may wish to read these papers, predicting questions they might ask and gaps in the archive they would be frustrated by.

Having read the consultation document outlining a number of themes chosen as a basis for selecting particular documents to be preserved from the Department for Education’s (DfE) records, Stephen Parker and I, on behalf of the Society, prepared a detailed response requesting clarification on a number of key points. Amongst the issues were raised were matters around selection, such as who was responsible for selecting the material. Had the DfE itself been directly involved? We also wanted to know what would happen to material which was not selected: would it be digitised or simply destroyed? Likewise, we asked for more information regarding the rationale behind which particular themes and documents would be selected. We asked this, in particular, as we felt there were certain underlying preferences or biases apparent in the topics proposed for selecting material.

We also raised questions about the time span covered by the material, in this case 1974-1997. In particular, there seemed to be a decided emphasis on selecting material post-1979 with the years 1974-1979 receiving only scant attention. We wondered why this might be, given the importance of the shifts occurring in education policy in this period of Labour administration. Similarly, we wondered why there were no important events listed in the ‘timeline’ appendix prior to Thatcher’s Education Act of 1988. In some places, we were also struck by what seemed to be an undertone of criticism of the education policies of the Labour government in the 1970s. Point 5.3.1, for example, referred to school building programmes being ‘particularly badly hit’ by Labour’s ‘cuts in public expenditure’. We noted that there were likewise substantial cuts in education spending under Thatcher but (apart from the reference to the famous limiting of school milk at 5.23.1) these seemed to go largely undocumented. In this the policy interestingly appeared to reflect the politics of the selectors!

We were also concerned, from a methodological and policy perspective, that there was too strong an emphasis placed on the ‘finished products’ of educational reform. We stressed that key documents relating to the creation of particular reports and Acts of Parliament should also be preserved to illuminate process as well as end product. The role of the DfE in driving and promoting visible changes, especially Acts of Parliament, we felt, also received a decided focus, creating a particular impression of the Department as a dynamic and progressive actor in bringing about educational change. We wondered about the need to adequately represent the agency of other actors in educational reform and those policies which did not make it to statute, for example, those desired by lobbyists and opposed by elements inside the DfE. Although there were a few references to initiatives and policy directions which failed or lapsed (e.g. 5.2.1 – proposed organisational changes within LEAs; 5.5.2 – an abandoned voucher system and 5.8.1 – a rejected system of leaving certificates), these did not seem equally represented and were scattered throughout the proposal rather than being treated consistently. 

In the selection of themes such as the development of the National Curriculum, there appeared to be a focus on one narrative development - the increasing involvement of business and the private sector in education (and the attendant reduction in the role and powers of LEAs). There are other narratives of educational development from the years of Thatcher and the Conservative government which could be told, but the OSP appeared to us to be asserting one in particular. There seemed to be an assumption in the proposed selection of documents that the Conservative policy of reducing the powers of the LEAs was universally acknowledged as necessary. Thus, it was claimed in point 5.4.1 (without citing any evidence) that by the early 1980s ‘a need to radically overhaul the governance of both primary and secondary schools was recognised.’

As representatives of the Society (and as historians), we felt that the selection of themes had been driven primarily (if not entirely) by the topics of parliamentary legislation rather than events considered important in a broader historical context. Developments such as the race riots of 1981 were occasionally referred to (5.12.7), but there was no systematic attempt to situate legislative events against a broader historical framework, something we would recommend if a revision of the OSP were to be undertaken. The timeline of key events given in the appendix could have provided a good opportunity to do this but instead it comprised a simple list of Acts of Parliament and policy developments. 

There are also particular curriculum areas which do not seem covered in the detail which their historical and contemporary importance deserves. Although RE, for example, was mentioned briefly (in the context of the 1944 Act – 5.6.12), there was little, if any, consideration given to the significant role of church and faith schools during this period and the complex relationship which these schools enjoyed with LEAs. Likewise, the controversies around the changes occurring in curriculum RE from 1974 onwards were not explicitly mentioned. Other omissions would seem to include international influences, in particular, the substantial impact of EC/EU legislation and policy matters related to teachers’ professional development, especially major changes to teachers’ contracts and the creation of ‘Baker days’. 

Perhaps we’ve missed out other factors and issues you might have mentioned from all this. What was clear to us is archiving history as well as its researching requires methodological astuteness and historical awareness. Likewise, knowing what to keep and what to discard also requires a surprising degree of political sensitivity. 

November is #histedmonth

#histedmonth uses social media to encourage collaboration and networking between individuals and groups interested in the history of education. It seeks to promote the history of education by engaging the wider public. 

The theme of #histedmonth this year is: ‘Personalising the History of Education’

During #histedmonth we’ll be reflecting on questions like: 

• What is my own history of education? 
• What are the histories of the institutions I have attended (and taught at)? 
• Why do I think the history of education is important and exciting? What aspects of the history of education inspire me, and why?

Here are some initial plans for #histedmonth. Please develop #histedmonth by adding your own initiatives and publicising them on social media.

#histedmonth on Twitter:

• Share your favourite quotes from figures in the history of education or from historians of education (if the quote is too long, turn it into a picture using a text box on Microsoft paint – here you could also add a photo of the author too) – These are best posted on Tuesdays through November using both the hashtag #histedmonth and #TuesdayQuote.

• Add posts relating to your own history of education. Share your school photos, toys you played with, educational television programs you enjoyed, events in education you experienced, images and videos from the institutions you attended. These are best posted on Thursdays through November: use both the hashtag #histedmonth and #tbt (‘Throwback Thursday’). Remember to include the twittertags for any institutions in your posts.

• Recommend sources and ideas relating to the history of education to others – e.g. another Tweeter that they should follow, a website to look at, a book to read, a video to watch etc. This is a great way to publicise new books, journals, websites and writers. These posts are best added on Fridays through November: use both #histedmonth and #ff (‘Follow Friday’).

You might also like to include the following hashtags in your posts: #histed #twitterstorians and #edchat to connect with historians of education, historians and those interested in education.

#histedmonth blog posts:

Here at the History of Education Society UK blog we are inviting contributions to their blog in all forms (text, image, video, mixed). Here are some questions to prompt blog post ideas for #histedmonth: 

• How do you define the ‘history of education’; what does it mean to you? 
• How did you become interested in the aspect of the history of education you study? Why do you see it as important?
• Which books or authors inspired you to study the history of education? Why?
• Which figures in history or political developments inspired you to study the history of education Why?
• What do you see as the biggest issues in the history of education today?
• What are the histories of the institutions you attended or taught at (from schools through to higher education)? 
• What was your own experience of education / childhood /adolescence / adult education / teaching. Think about and share aspects of your own experience such as learning resources, pedagogies, popular perceptions of schools and education, political developments in education…

Summer Universities, within the international relationships of the Hungarian Royal Erzsébet University between 1920-1946

by Adrienn Sztana-Kovács                                                   

What kind of foreign educational opportunities did the Hungarian students have at an university, that was founded in Pozsony (Bratislava) in 1914, and quickly changed its seat  twice between 1919 and 1923? In our short writing we try to give an impresson of the summer universities' utilisation as a part of our wider research into the foreign relationships of Hungarian universities.

The birth of the Hungarian Royal Erzsébet University and its seat changes

The foundation of the University of Pozsony (Bratislava) and the University of Debrecen was declared by the Hungarian Parliament in 1912. The University of Pozsony was named Hungarian Royal Erzsébet University, and started the education with only the Faculty of Law opening in 1914. The organisation of the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Medicine had to wait until 1918. At the end of World War I. on the 1st January 1919 Bratislava was annexed by the Czechoslovak Republic. The new Slovakian administration took over the managment of the Hungarian University from the Council of  the University between the 22nd and the 25th of September 1919. At this time the university was cut into two parts. The Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Medicine moved to Budapest, while the Faculty of Law stayed in Pozsony (Bratislava) until the autumn of 1921.

The Hungarian Royal Ferenc József University moved to Budapest from Kolozsvár (Cluj Napoca) because of similar circumstances. The Erzsébet University in cooperation with The Ferenc József University continued their existence in Budapest between 1919 and 1921. The Ferenc József University changed its residence again, and moved to Szeged in 1921, than two years later the Erzsébet University also moved to its final residence to Pécs.

After the Treaty of Trianon was signed on 4th of June 1920, the diplomatic isolation of Hungary slowly started to disolve. The foreign cultural and academic relationships of the Erzsébet University started to develop from 1923.

The main building of The Royal Erzsébet University in Pécs

The major directions of education policy in Hungary between 1922 and 1946

One of the most important makers of Hungarian education-policy was Kuno Klebersberg Minsiter of Religion and Education (1922-1931), who in his cultural-political conception condemned - particularly in the case of small countries - the policy of  cultural isolation. He organized the network of  the Collegium Hungaricum-s [1] (Berlin 1924, Wien 1924, Rome 1927), the foreign scholarship programmes, and supported the creation of new positions of native speaker language teachers at universities, in the spirit of cultural and educational opening, but the great depression broke his initiative.

The other big influence as Minister of Religion and Education was Bálint Hóman (1932-1938, 1939-1942). In the first period of his ministership the budget of his portfolio was 33% less than during the time of his predecessor.[2] Hóman criticized Klebersberg’s exaggerated and expensive scolarship-system. He developed the relationships of higher education institutions through the cultural exchange agreements between Hungary and other countries.[3]

Hungary in the 1930’s built very close diplomatic links with Germany and Italy.[4] World War II. damaged the academic relationships with the Allied Countries in spite of the efforts Ministry of Religion and Education not to create difficulties over these. After the ratification of the Treaty of Paris the inter-state relations were restored. It serves as an example that a new hostel was opened in London for scientists, and that about this fact the Hungarian universities were informed by the Hungarian Ministry of Religion and Education. [5]

The holiday courses

The summer programmes of universities appeared at the Hungarian universities as an another alternative way of access to foreign education. Among the registered files of the Erzsébet University we found numerous application forms and brouchures for summer universities and summer language courses. Most of these arrived from Germany, France, England and Italy.

Pécs University Archives, reference number: VIII.101.b. 17d. 744/1928-29

 

Pécs University Archives, reference number: VIII.101.b. 17d. 744/1928-29

  

We don't have any details on the numbers of applicants from the 1920s. This may be so, because students participating had to pay directly to the foreign institutions themselves. As far as we can see it, this was mainly true in the first half of 1920s. This situation changed, when the summer universities and courses were integrated into the national scholarship programme or when they became a part of the international cultural exchange agreements and they were subsidized by travel-aid. An example for this occuring was the German-Hungarian Cultural Exchange Agreement in 1934. The agreement included  six student-exchanges, German students participation in Hungarian summer universities and two university- or college-lecturer exchanges in each semester.

Pécs University Archives, reference number: VIII. 104.b. 18d. 366/1929-30

Pécs University Archives, reference number: VIII. 104.b. 18d. 366/1929-30

In the 1930s the applicants' number was very low, compared to the number of students at the faculties.  In 1935 two-two law students were supported by the programme to travel to Berlin and Perugia for holiday courses.[6] The travel-aid was 40 Pengő per person in that year.[7] 

Pécs University Archives, reference number:  VIII.101. b. 53. d. 1287/1933-34

Pécs University Archives, reference number: VIII.101. b. 53. d. 1287/1933-34

Pécs University Archives, reference number:  VIII.101. b. 53. d. 1287/1933-34

The number of the successful applications did not rise in the 1936/37 academic year. One law student went to study in Berlin, at the summer course of the Hochschule für Politik, a male arts sudent traveled to Munchen and a female arts student could study in Perugia. [8] In the 1938/39 academic year from the Faculty of Arts three students went to Germany and another one visited Italy. We have only sporadic data about medical students because some the files of the faculty are missing. The sources just mentioned one assistant-lecturer’s name in the summer of 1940, who travelled to the summer course of the Intstitute Forlanini in Rome.

After the end of the World War II., the students of the Erzsébet University got to Munchen and Oxford for the summer holiday courses.

What were the reasons for the students not taking advantage of summer courses? On one hand the cause was the monetarly cirsumstances of the students, on the other hand the lack of foreign-language skills, in spite the fact, that the Erzsébet University stressed the neccessity of the same skills.

Available foreign-language courses at the Royal Erzsébet University between 1918 and 1949
language	Academic year/time period
French	1918/19.; 1923−1949
English	1918−1923; 1925−1948
Italian	1918/19.; 1926−1948
German	1924−1949
Slovak	1923−1949
Finnish	1926/27. II.;1930−1936
Estonian	1926/27. II.
Serbian	1931−1945
Croatian	1931−1945
Swedish	1933−1935; 1942−1948
Russian	1941−1949
Bulgarian	1942−1944
Esperanto	1946−1949

Language learning wasn’t an obligatory part of the university studies, therefore we don't have exact data about how many students learnt languages at the university, but we have some idea from the three notes of National Scholarship Council [9] about the lack of sufficient language skills amongst the applicants to study abroad.

References

[1] Hostels and studies for Hungarian students during their scholarship stay at foreign universities.

[2] Miklós Mann: Oktatáspolitikusok és koncepciók a két világháború között. (Educational Politicians and conceptions between the two World War.) Budapest. 1997. 105.

[3] Agreements: Poland, Italy, Austria (XVII., XVIII. and XIX. Acts of 1935), Germany  (V. Act of 1937 and XXXIV. Act of 1940) Estonia and Finland (XXIII. and XXIX. Acts of 1938), Japan  (I. Act of 1940) and  Bulgaria ( XVI. Act of 1941).

[4] Hungary joined to the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1939 and to the Tripartitive Pact in 1940.

[5] Society for Visiting Scientist, 5. Old Burlington Street, London. Pécs, University Archives VIII. 104. b. 411/1946–47., 27. April. 1947.

[6] The number of law students at the end of the 1934/35 academic year was 892, but only the third of them attended the seminars. The other two-third of them usually held a job and they just took their exams at the university in Pécs.

[7] A normal salary for an official in the private sector  was 200 Pengő. In 1937 1 USD was 5.40 Pengő. 1 GBP was 4.94 USD. 1 GBP was approx. 26.67 Pengő.

[8] Pécs, University Archives reference number: VIII. 101. a. 1936/37. Academic Year. Minutes of the first meeting of the University Council. 30. Szept. 1936. 19. point. The number of arts students was 120 at the end of the 1936/37. academic year.

[9] It was founded in 1927 with the main mission of award scholarships and travel aids. Pécs, University Archives reference number: VIII. 104. b. 294/1929–30., VIII. 107. e. 190/1930–31, VIII. 107. e. 67/1930–31.

'Fors Clavigera', the Young Women of Whitelands College, and the Temptations of Social History

By Christopher Bischof

On the first of May each year from the 1880s onward the young women at Whitelands teacher training college in London celebrated by throwing to the wind the timetable that normally dictated how their every moment would be spent.  Instead, they adorned the college in flowers, donned in white dresses, and spent the day dancing, singing, and reading poetry.  The tradition of May Day helped to poke a hole in the rather dour institutional regimen of Whitelands, which opened the way for many smaller, everyday acts that gradually reworked the ethos of the college.

The women of Whitelands on May Day, c. 1923.  Whitelands Archive: Student Albums and Memorabilia, Box N-P.

Whiteland sanctioned these May Day activities at the suggestion of John Ruskin, the famous author and social thinker, who was a patron of the college.  Ruskin sought to revive May Day as part of his campaign to overcome the effects of industrialization on social relations and culture by returning to the perceived organicism of medieval traditions.

In the afternoon, the young women elected a May Queen, who handed out copies of Ruskin's books to her fellow students.  Ruskin himself donated copies of all his books that he had on hand – all except for Fors Clavigera, his famous book of letters to working men encouraging them to radically reimagine society, which he declared was "not meant for girls."  The women of Whitelands, however, secretly acquired and distributed Fors along with the rest of his works.[1]  This was part of a remarkably widespread and passionate culture of intellectual curiosity at Victorian training colleges.[2]

What is even more remarkable is that the young women of Whitelands not only acquired, read, and probably discussed Fors Clavigera, they actually helped to make its index – unbeknownst to Ruskin himself.  Ruskin had asked John Faunthorpe, the principal of Whitelands and one of his intellectual protégés, for assistance compiling an index for Fors, which was to be published separately.  Faunthorpe shouldered most of the work himself, but at several key points he enlisted the help of his wife and the young women at Whitelands.  At one point he had twenty-six Whitelands women, one for every letter of the alphabet, assembled in a room scanning Fors.  "This took me about two years of leisure time," Faunthorpe recorded later in his never-published autobiography, "and without my wife’s and my college girls’ help it would have taken me much longer."

Though built on the backs of the young women of Whittelands, the index of Fors also cemented the budding friendship and intellectual relationship between Ruskin and Faunthorpe. "I am really aghast to-day at learning the toil that index has cost you," a grateful Ruskin wrote Faunthorpe in February of 1886.  Fors, Ruskin believed, "will be thrice the book" once it had a "well done" index.  In fact, the index inspired him to a new project: "I think with the help of this index of writing a systematic commentary on Fors and you to be partner in profits.”  Faunthorpe counseled Ruskin against this project, arguing that the nature of Fors did not lend itself to a commentary.  Ruskin heeded this counsel, marking a shift in their relationship.  Before Ruskin had been mentor to Faunthorpe.  Now Ruskin took advice as well as gave it.  The work which it appeared Faunthorpe had heroically and single-handedly put into indexing Fors – and the mastery of the text that work implied – helped to bring about this shift.[3]

This is another chapter in the hidden contribution of women to intellectual work, much like the contribution of women to some of the nineteenth century's great works of history as revealed by Bonnie Smith.[4]  What makes this story particularly interesting is that the contribution of women was hidden even from Ruskin himself, who would have been aghast at this violation of the gendered sensibilities which he held so dear.

It also reveals the challenges of doing social history, especially in the context of the history of education.  For historians of education working on the nineteenth century or earlier, recovering the story of teachers, pupils, parents, and other on-the-ground actors is a major struggle.  We still know remarkably little about what actually went on in the Victorian classroom, a lacunae that owes largely to the lack of sources.  To compensate for this gap in our understanding, it is tempting to lean heavily on the histories of ideas or people we do know well – and who are well known to contemporary readers. 

Figures like Ruskin can grab a reader who might otherwise flounder on the unfamiliar terrain of a narrative dominated by unknown teachers and pupils.  They also shaped teachers’ way of seeing the world and, as a narrative device for the historian, they provide an organic link to the larger social, cultural, and political context in which teachers and others operated.  Yet they threaten to steal the show from on-the-ground actors like the teachers-in-training at Whitelands.  Writing a social history of education that connects up to big issues like gender, intellectual work, and ideas about the nature of institutions requires walking a fine line.

References 

[1] Whitelands Archive (WA): The Whitelands Annual, 14 (1895), 31-38.

[2] Christopher Bischof, “‘A Home for Poets’: The Liberal Curriculum in Victorian Britain’s Teachers’ Training Colleges,” History of Education Quarterly 54, 1 (2014), 42–69.

[3] WA: James Faunthorpe, Ilicet. Being [My] Life and Work in Three Training Colleges: Battersea, Chelsea, Whitelands, 1874-1907 (unpub. manuscript, 1908), 57-64.

[4] Bonnie Smith, The Gender of History: Men, Women, and Historical Practice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998).

International Standing Conference on the History of Education 2014

The Past in the Present…Rainy day reflections on the scorching days of summer

By Jonathan Doney ~ @Jonathan_Doney 

As the rain pours down on the ‘summer’ Bank Holiday, the scorching sunny days of early July spent in London attending the ISCHEconference at the Institute of Education, seem so far in the past. But yet, this past is still a present reality…

Like all good conferences, there was a delightful mix of laughter, catching up with old friends and making new ones, food, music, and, of course, the wonderful privilege of listening to others as they presented their work. The insights gained into how other people see the world, how they mold together ideas from different theorists, different perspectives and different periods was both challenging and encouraging in equal measure.

Amidst such a mix of experts, specialists and professionals, the apprehension that goes with presenting your work to others grew day by day and hour by hour. My paper, ‘From Enemy to Ally: Ecumenical reconstruction of the 'religious other' and the adoption of world religions teaching in English Schools during the 1960s and 1970s’ was timetabled for the last day of the conference. Surely, by then, people will have heard enough? Tired, they will be ready for a break, ready for their journeys home…

The questions flooded through my mind. Am I stating the obvious? Have I overlooked something very simple? Is my argument watertight? I was reassured through a conversation with another presenter, someone for whom such presentations were a regular event. They told me that they too get nervous, they too ask these questions. I was comforted.

Then they told me that their main worry was ‘will anyone turn up to listen?’. So concerned had I been with my questions, I had not thought about this!

What if no one comes?

But the people did come. They listened, they engaged, they challenged. True to their word, a handful followed up our discussion with emails, sending papers that they had suggested I read. Nervousness was eased, and encouragement flowed.

So, as I return to work after the summer break, the comments, the encouragement, and the discussion of my presentation, together with the wider experience of the conference, continue to affect my thinking and my work. The past is not separated from the present, but continues to affect it, to shape it, and to help make sense of it.

I am very grateful for the generosity of those who engaged with my work during the conference, for those who shared their work, for the encouragement and the challenge. I am especially grateful to the History of Education Society, who through their Brian Simon Bursary made it possible for me to attend the conference.

Researching Petty Schools of 17th Century England; Surely Somebody Has Been Here Before?

By Ken Clayton

In researching the history of education in 17^th century England, we might expect to find a number of books examining the subject in detail. To a degree this is true, but only to a degree; when it comes to petty schools, there is very little existing material and yet their activities would have affected a greater proportion of the population than any other type of school. This blog post outlines some of the sources and considers their limitations. 

Authors such as John Brinsley (bap.1566 d. in or after 1624) and Charles Hoole (1610-1667), both schoolmasters in the 17th century, wrote about education. In modern times, a remarkable variety of authors ranging from David Cressy to Foster Watson have written extensively about Early Modern education. In addition, many of the grammar schools that were in existence at the time have been the subjects of individual histories based on founding statutes, minute books, records of accounts and any other material the authors could find. So there is no shortage of sources to help the researcher concentrating on 17th century grammar schools.

Sadly, it is a very different story when considering petty schools. Even books such as Helen Jewell’s Education in Early Modern England makes only a few passing references to them.

It is true that some information exists. Charles Hoole, for example, included a treatise on petty schools in his A New Discovery of the old Art of Teaching Schoole (1660) but this deals purely with teaching methods. For example, Chapter II explains ‘How a childe may be taught with delight to know all his letters in a very little time’ (1660, p4). Clearly this would be wonderful information for anybody studying teaching methods of the time but Hoole seems to have provided no information at all for researchers interested in where petty schools were located, who taught in them, who attended them and how they were managed.

The discovery of The Petie Schole by Francis Clement, printed in 1587, offers the hope of a more informative source but, again, this contains only information on techniques for  the teaching of reading and writing.

Occasionally the Victoria County Histories provide a passing reference to petty or dame’s schools and sometimes a document provides a rare insight as in the case of the will of Sir Francis Nethersole who transferred buildings to a group of trustees in 1656 with the intention that a school be provided to teach boys to read and write and girls to read and do needlework. Sadly, the will provides little more information than that and there seem to be no records of the school having been built.

These passing references appear to make up the bulk of available material so it seems that the only way of collecting information on petty schools is to search for brief mentions in sources such as these and biographies. Unfortunately the biographies are often confusing rather than illuminating.

Adam Martindale (1623-1686) is a perfect example. His autobiography, edited by Richard Parkinson and published in 1845, made it clear that he was taught to read by his brothers, sisters  ‘and a young man that came to court my sister’. When he was seven years old he started at a school in St Helens, Lancashire but he did not explain what type of school it was. At that point, he was at the lower end of the age range for grammar school and his text suggests that he was learning Latin which, in turn, suggests that this was, indeed, a grammar school given that my own researches so far have uncovered no evidence of Latin being taught within petty schools.

Yet he wrote that his third teacher ‘was a woman […] that had some smattering of Latine’. In most cases grammar school founding statutes stated that a master had to have a degree which precluded women from holding such posts because they were not allowed into the universities. Yet Martindale wrote ‘She could teach us to construe the Latine examples of the English rules called the Parvular […] and Lillies rules’. It may be that she was able to do this because, according to Martindale, her father was a schoolmaster so he may have taught her some Latin (Parkinson (ed.) 1845, p12). But does this mean that she was teaching in a grammar school or that Martindale attended a petty school in which Latin was taught? Both possibilities run counter to the widely accepted understanding of petty and grammar schools. Hence Martindale confuses rather than illuminates.

So where does this leave the researcher? In general terms, feeling like a prospector in the Australian gold rush: sifting through large quantities of sand in order to find the occasional grain of gold.

On the other hand, the shortage of information suggests that the research is worth doing. If enough grains of gold can be gathered together, at least future researchers should have a useful source from which to work. On the other hand, perhaps there are HES members who know of better sources. If you are aware of any, please leave a comment below.

References:

Brinsley, J. (1612) Ludus Literarius or The Grammar Schoole London, Thomas Man.

Clement, F. (1587) The Petie Schole London, Thomas Vautrollier.

Cressy, D. (1980) Literacy and the Social Order Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Hoole, C. (1660) A New Discovery of the old Art of Teaching Schoole London, Andrew Crook

Jewell, H. (1998) Education in Early Modern England Basingstoke, Macmillan Press

Parkinson, Rev. R. (ed.) (1845) The Life of Adam Martindale written by himself Manchester, The Chetham Society.

Watson, F. (1908) The English Grammar Schools to 1660: their Curriculum and Practice Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Call for Papers: History of Education Society Annual Conference 2014: Transnationalism, gender and teaching

The deadline is fast approaching to submit abstracts to present at the History of Education Society annual conference, at University College Dublin, on the 21st-23rd November 2014. 

We invite papers that examine the conference theme: Transnationalism, gender and teaching: perspectives from the history of education. Papers may also be considered that provide historical perspectives on one of the conference thematic areas: transnationalism and teaching, OR gender and teaching. 

Papers may address the conference theme through consideration of some of the following, though this list is only suggestive, and not definitive:

• International education networks & alliance
• Travel, transnational mobility and global citizenship
• Knowledge formation & travel writing | education and the Grand Tour
• Education and diasporas | missionary education
• Travel scholarships, boarding and finishing schools, school tours
• Education & experiential travel | teachers as ambassadors
• Networks of schools and teachers | voluntarism, voluntary action and education
• Life histories| history in the margins | masculinities and femininities
• Heritage education and global knowledge| cross-cultural studies and the history of education
• Nationality, language and schooling | transnational femininities | space and place
• Academic leadership, public intellectuals and international education
• Gender and university teaching | gender-differentiated curricula and schooling
• Materialities of teaching | visual histories | education archives
• Reading, libraries and transnational culture | books, publishing and the transfer of ideas
• Teacher education and gender | teacher unions and professional societies

Keynote speakers

Professor Joyce Goodman MBE is Pro-Vice Chancellor, University of Winchester. Professor Goodman is a past President of HES, former Secretary of ISCHE and previous editor of History of Education. She was awarded an MBE in 2011 for services to higher education. Professor Goodman has published extensively on the history of women's education, with a particular focus on: Colonialism, national identities, internationalism and transnationalism; Secondary education for girls; Educational policy and administration.

Professor Elizabeth Smyth is Professor and Vice Dean (Programs) at the School of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto. Her research interests include the history of education in Canada , the history of the professions and professional education, the intersection of religion and history, history of teachers and the pedagogy of new technologies. She is co-editor of Historical Studies in Education, the journal of the Canadian History of Education Association.

Professor Dáire Keogh is President, St Patrick’s College, & Cregan Professor of Modern Irish History, Dublin City University. He has published widely on the history of popular politics, religion and education in Ireland. Professor Keogh is a founding member of the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) Committee, the body charged by EU Governments with monitoring quality assurance in higher education across the continent. 

Venue
The conference venue is Bewley’s Hotel / Thomas Prior Hall, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland. The hotel was once a Masonic School. Many of its original features remain. 

Submissions:
Abstracts (500 words max) should be sent to deirdre.raftery@ucd.ie by Friday 12th September 2014.

With many thanks to our conference host:
The School of Education, University College Dublin, Ireland