POWER TO TEACH

Learning through Practice

ii

The Woburn Education Series

General Series Editor: Professor Peter Gordon
ISSN 1462–2076
For over thirty years this series on the history, development and
policy of education, under the distinguished editorship of Peter
Gordon, has been evolving into a comprehensive and balanced
survey of important trends in teaching and educational policy. The
series is intended to reflect the changing nature of education in
present-day society. The books are divided into four sections—
educational policy studies, educational practice, the history of
education and social history—and reflect the continuing interest in
this area.
For a full series listing, please visit our website:www.woburnpress.com

Educational Practice
Slow Learners. A Break in the Circle: The Private Schooling of Girls: Past
A Practical Guide for Teachers and Present
Diane Griffin edited by Geoffrey Walford

Games and Simulations in Action International Yearbook of History

Alec Davison and Peter Gordon Education, Volume 1
edited by Alaric Dickinson, Peter Gordon,
Music in Education: A Guide for Peter Lee and John Slater
Parents and Teachers
Malcolm Carlton A Guide to Educational Research
edited by Peter Gordon
The Education of Gifted Children
David Hopkinson The English Higher Grade Schools
Meriel Vlaeminke
Teaching and Learning Mathematics
Peter G.Dean Geography in British Schools
Comprehending Comprehensives Rex Walford
Edward S.Conway Dictionary of British Education
Teaching the Humanities Peter Gordon and Denis Lawton
edited by Peter Gordon A History of Western Educational Ideas
Teaching Science Denis Lawton and Peter Gordon
edited by Jenny Frost
POWER TO TEACH
Learning through Practice

WENDY ROBINSON
University of Warwick

The Woburn Education Series

LONDON AND NEW YORK

 First published in 2004 in Great Britain by
RoutledgeFalmer
11 New Fetter Lane, London, EC4P 4EE
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by
RoutledgeFalmer
29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.

“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of
thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

RoutledgeFalmer is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

Copyright © 2004 Wendy Robinson

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Robinson, Wendy
Power to teach: learning through practice.—(Woburn
education series)
1. Teachers—Training of—Great Britain 2. Teachers—
Rating of 3. Teachers—Training of—Great Britain—
History
I. Title
370.7′1141

ISBN 0-203-50728-2 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-58104-0 (Adobe eReader Format)

ISBN 0-7130-0227-1 (hbk)
ISBN 0-7130-4047-5 (pbk)
ISSN 1462-2076

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Robinson, Wendy, 1968–
Power to teach: learning through practice/Wendy Robinson.
p. cm.—(Woburn education series, ISSN 1462-2076)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7130-0227-1 (hbk)—ISBN 0-7130-4047-5 (pbk.)
1. Students teaching–Great Britain–History–19th century.
2. Student teaching–Great Britain–History–20th century.
3. Student teachers–Training of–Great Britain–19th century.
4. Student teachers–Training of–Great Britain–20th century.
1. Title. II. Series.
LB2157.G7R62 2004
370′.71′5–dc22 2003049500
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced
into a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission
of the publisher of this book.
For Stephen Oliver
‘The duty of each generation is to gather up its inheritance from the past, and
thus to serve the present, and prepare better things for the future.’
Friedrich Froebel quoted in R.H.Quick,
Essays on Educational Reformers
(London: Longmans, 1895, p. 547)
 CONTENTS

Tables ix
Acknowledgements x
Abbreviations xi

1 Introduction 1
Historical Context 2
Methodology and Sources 6
Organizational Structure of Book 9
2 Teaching: Art, Craft or Science? 12
Teaching as Art 13
Teaching as Craft 15
Teaching as Science 18
‘Power to Teach’: The Interface of Art, Craft and Science 25
3 The Teacher as Trainer 33
The Teacher as Trainer: Historical Legacy 34
Towards a Partnership Model of Training: 1880–1910 37
The Declining Influence of the Teacher as Trainer: 1920–90 43
Reinventing the Teacher as Trainer through School-Based Initial 46
Teacher Training
4 Learning Through Practice I Bridging the Theoretical Divide: 54
Masters and Mistresses of Method
Personal and Professional Profiles of Masters and Mistresses of 55
Method
Role and Function of Masters and Mistresses of Method 61
viii

Personal Influence of Masters and Mistresses of Method 65

Modern Advanced Skills Teaching: Mastery and Expertise 67
5 Learning Through Practice II Model and Demonstration 75
Schools
Normal, Model and Practice Schools: Historical Legacy 76
The Demonstration School Experiment 81
The Failure of the Demonstration School Experiment 87
The Demonstration School Ideal Revisited: Twenty-First Century 90
Training Schools
6 Learning Through Practice III Evaluating Student Teachers’ 94
‘Power to Teach’
Practical Teaching Arrangements 95
Assessing Student Teachers Through Lesson Observations 99
Grading Student Teachers’ Performance 102
Assessing Student Teachers Today: Historical Continuities in 109
Current Practice?
7 Towards a Theory of Teaching 120
Why a History of Pedagogy? 120
Early Twentieth Century Pedagogical Debate 123
In Search of General Principles 125
Historical and Current Resonance 134

Bibliography 139
Index 151
 TABLES

Table 1: ‘Power to teach’ 27

Table 2: Example of completed teaching observation proforma, 114
Southampton Day Training College
Table 3: Example of categories in blank teaching observation proforma, 114
St John’s College, York, 1904
Table 4: Darlington Training College, suggestions for supervisors when 115
observing lessons
Table 5: Example of categories used in teaching observation, Cambridge 116
Day Training College, 1901–08
Table 6: Example of categories used in teaching observation, Leeds Day 116
Training College, 1909–10
Table 7: Guidance for assessing students in teaching, Chester Training 116
College, 1913
Table 8: Correlation of categories for assessment across the sample 116
Table 9: Examples of positive and negative comments against the seven 117
professional categories for assessment
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks are due to the archivists and librarians who assisted my access to the
various archives and collections in their care. I am grateful to the University of
Warwick, Research and Teaching Innovations Fund, for funding the research
project ‘The teacher as trainer: pedagogy, practice and professionalism’ which
kick-started the research for this book. The loyal support and encouragement of
colleagues, friends and loved ones has, as ever, been much valued and
appreciated.
 ABBREVIATIONS

AST Advanced Skills Teacher

AUT Association of University Teachers
CATE Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education
CPTC Council of Principals of Training Colleges
DES Department of Education and Skills
DfEE Department for Education and Employment
HEI Higher Education Institution
HMI Her/His Majesty’s Inspectorate
ITT Initial Teacher Training
LEA Local Educational Authority
NUT National Union of Teachers
OFSTED Office for Standards in Education
SCITT School Centred Initial Teacher Training
TCA Training College Association
TTA Teacher Training Agency
 1
INTRODUCTION

The nature of initial teacher education is currently contested and has been for
many years. This is not the first and probably will not be the last book to begin with
such a judgement. Questions as to the form and nature of a professional training,
the essential skills, knowledge and attitudes desired of an effective teacher, the
most suitable locus of expertise, the relative roles of participants and the balance
between theory and practice are certainly not new or recent, but have long been
rehearsed by educationists, policy makers, teachers and trainers alike. In the
context of teacher training, past and present, any sense of a coherent, consistent
or united system of training, in which the various academic, practical and
theoretical strands have been successfully reconciled has proved an elusive goal.
Arguably the current juncture of teacher education is fraught with fundamental
tensions. Increasing government control of teacher education, shifts towards
school-based initial training, the threatened position of higher education
institutions, the introduction of a technicist and skills-based training, a
mandatory national curriculum for trainee teachers and assessment against
prescriptive standards and, recently, a set of expected outcomes, have all
contributed to a climate of uncertainty, anxiety, hostility and ideological
polarization, particularly in relation to higher education institutions, which have
long had the responsibility for training teachers.
A distinctive feature of this book is that it moves beyond current tensions over
what constitutes a sound and proper start to a career in teaching and seeks instead
to locate these within a historical perspective. By exploring the potential merging
of principle and practice across key moments in time, this book illustrates
hitherto unexamined connections between the present state of teacher education
in the United Kingdom and past models of practice. In particular, the book will
focus on elements of professional preparation that actively sought to promote a
viable working balance between the potentially oppositional strands of theory
and practice, art, science or craft.
In his work on the history of English pedagogy and educational theory, Simon
identified five key periods, of which the period 1870–1920 stands out for its
particular optimism, experimentation and growth.1 Influenced by Simon’s
2 POWER TO TEACH

model, it is from this period that much of the original primary source data that
forms the heart of the book has been collected. Arguably, this was a time when
the world of teacher education enjoyed a lively period of relative freedom in
which to test creatively its practice and understanding of teaching and the
difficult relationship between theoretical and practical concerns. Drawing upon
some of the critical developments that characterized the training of teachers
during this time, the book will review apprenticeship and teacher-exemplar
models of training, expert-novice relationships, model and demonstration
teaching, school-based practice and the refinement of pedagogy, and core
principles of practice in educational debate and research.
Central to this book, as reflected in its title, is the concept of power to teach. A
historical construct, derived directly from a range of unpublished primary source
documents relating to student teacher assessment in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries that have remained obscure for over a hundred years, the
notion of ‘power to teach’ provides a unique entrance into the substantive issues
raised in the book. The notion of ‘power to teach’ developed throughout the book
captures the essence of what constituted effective teaching practice and what
shaped the ultimate goals and drive of professional training in the past.
Furthermore, it is argued that the concept of ‘power to teach’ has the potential to
add a new and previously missing element from current debates on effective
teaching practice.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
It is not the aim of this book to present a complete, chronological history of the
subject of initial teacher training (ITT). This has effectively been done elsewhere
in the works of Jones, Rich, Tropp, Dent and Gosden.2 Rather, through a closer
historical investigation of those hitherto unexplored moments when advances
were briefly made towards a more harmonious and integrated pattern of teacher
training, the book hopes to provide a critical perspective on current
developments. To locate and contextualize the book, however, a brief historical
overview of the main trends in the history of teacher training over the past two
hundred years is outlined.
Two important themes emerge from the history of teacher training in the past
two hundred years. The first, frequently described in the literature with the
‘swinging pendulum’ metaphor, refers to the dominance at different times of a
school-based/apprenticeship or a college- or university-based model of training.
The movement between these approaches, largely chronological, with school-
based/apprenticeship models dominating in the nineteenth century and college-
and university-based models dominating for much of the twentieth century, has
witnessed a clear return to a more school-based approach in the past 15 years,
 INTRODUCTION 3

with some transitional overlapping in between. This oscillation raises important

questions about the balance between educational theory and practice and shifting
priorities in teacher training policy and practice over time.3 The second concerns
the complex relationship of teacher training to much broader educational and
social developments and priorities. The history of teacher training is inextricably
linked with the history of state education, particularly in relation to the expansion
of secondary education for all in the early to mid twentieth century and later to
the broadening of access to further and higher education in the post-1960s period.
Entwined with these main themes are a range of other complex issues such as the
nature, status and control of the teaching profession by the government and other
agencies, entry and exit requirements, supply and demand, funding and
remuneration and differential expectations for teachers in the range of sectors
catered for, such as nursery, primary, secondary and further.
The concept of a formal system of teacher training was a novel one at the
beginning of the nineteenth century. Prior to this time, teachers serving the upper
and middle classes usually boasted Oxbridge degrees and clerical status, whilst
those serving the lower classes merely had to be literate and numerate. From
1805 onwards, the advent of mass organized elementary schooling for children
of the working classes, led by the principal religious societies, created an urgent
demand for new teachers. This demand provided an impetus for the introduction
of a brief and basic form of school-based training in which existing and aspiring
teachers alike were able to learn the practical mechanics of the monitorial system
—a system which enabled vast numbers of pupils to be instructed by very few
adult staff. Throughout the 1820s, 1830s and 1840s a formalized network of
denominational residential teacher training colleges emerged to meet the growing
demand for qualified teachers. Training was, however, brief with minimal
emphasis upon academic and intellectual stimulation.
By 1840, concern had mounted over the ability of the emerging training-
college system both to cope with the heavy demand for new teachers and to
produce teachers of a sufficiently high standard of academic and professional
quality to serve the expanding elementary sector. A major difficulty concerned
the relative lack of education of candidates for the new training colleges. A
solution to the problem was found in the creation of the pupil-teacher system,
formally instituted by the government in 1846. It was designed both to raise
overall standards of instruction provided in elementary schools and to boost the
recruitment of able candidates for the training colleges. Pupil teachers were
usually apprenticed for five years, commencing at the age of thirteen. In effect,
the pupil-teacher system operated a closed system of schooling and professional
training from within the elementary, and predominantly working-class,
world within which it existed. A fundamentally school-based apprenticeship
model of initial teacher training, it bridged the age gap between leaving
4 POWER TO TEACH

elementary school and entering training college. Bright, aspiring elementary

pupils could learn on the job, through classroom observation and practical
experience of supervised teaching, whilst at the same time receiving a certain
amount of further personal instruction from the head teacher of their school.
Pupil teachers were examined annually by Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) and
their progress, both academic and professional, was regularly monitored. At the
close of the apprenticeship, trainees were expected to compete for Queen’s
Scholarships which subsidized the best students to attend residential training
college and acquire full certificated status. Not all pupil teachers were formally
trained and certificated and many teachers in elementary schools worked as
uncertificated assistants, their pupil-teacher apprenticeship having been their sole
form of professional training. With the expansion of educational provision in the
1870s and 1880s, under the newly constituted school boards, the original pupil-
teacher system was criticized for its narrowness, quality and standards of
recruitment, levels of professional and academic instruction and vision and there
was a movement either to reform or replace it with a better alternative.
By the late 1880s, motivated by a desire to remedy the weakness of the
original pupil-teacher system, small-scale, collective, central classes for pupil
teachers had evolved nationwide into fully-fledged pupil-teacher centres. Pupil
teachers, under the new centre model would experience up to half of their
training in school-based practice and half in specially designated centres, staffed
by the cream of the elementary teaching profession, where they would receive an
academic and professional training. The development of these centres led to a
new and more sophisticated model of professional training under the
apprenticeship model, with a much more rigorous commitment to the raising of
professional and academic standards and aspirations within the emerging
profession. Centres were not, however, a standardized national phenomenon. By
the end of the nineteenth century, although just over half of the pupil-teacher
population was attached to a centre, many pupil teachers, particularly those in
rural areas and those attached to less wealthy denominational schools, still served
under the old model.
At the same time as the pupil-teacher system was being modernized with the
introduction of the centres, another important initiative was being put into place.
In 1888, a government inquiry into state education, the Cross Commission,
advocated the training of teachers in universities and the setting up of
educational faculties to foster the academic study of education and research. The
rationale behind this initiative was to drive up academic standards within the
teaching profession. In 1890 the government drew up regulations for the
administration of grant aid to day-training colleges in connection with the
universities and university colleges. These were specifically concerned with
initial teacher training but students had access to other university lectures and were
 INTRODUCTION 5

able to take degrees in conjunction with their professional work. A number of

training routes subsequently developed, including one-year courses for graduates
as well as two- and three-year courses—subsequently extended to four years for
those who wanted both graduate status and a teaching qualification. At the same
time the old teacher training colleges, separate from university departments,
continued to train teachers. Consequently, a dual system of professional training
in training colleges and university departments emerged.
The 1902 Education Act, which made newly constituted Local Education
Authorities (LEAs) responsible for providing training and instruction for
teachers, paved the way for reform in teacher training and sealed the movement
towards a more college- or university-based approach to initial training. The
pupil-teacher system was abolished in the early years of the twentieth century in
favour of an extended secondary education for prospective teachers. Replacement
bursar and student-teacher schemes, introduced in the first decade of the
twentieth century, retained residual elements of the apprenticeship model of
training embodied in the original pupil-teacher system, but the main priorities
had shifted towards a college-based hegemony which continued until the late
1980s.
During the inter-war period, there was considerable professional debate about
the appropriate balance of theory and practice in teacher training courses, with
fears being expressed that the pendulum had potentially swung too far away from
the practical requirements of teachers’ work. The Board of Education gradually
relinquished its control of the examination of student teachers to the universities,
signalling a much closer involvement of the universities in the examination and
recognition of qualified teachers. Educational reorganization after 1944 marked
the abolition of an uncertificated route into the teaching profession, the ultimate
vision being for an all-graduate profession.
The post-war period witnessed the expansion of education as a field of study
both within the universities and training colleges to embrace broader
philosophical, historical, sociological and comparative approaches. Throughout
this period the universities tended to be associated with post-graduate, secondary
training courses and the training colleges with non-graduate primary training
courses. Following the Robbins Report on Higher Education in 1963, attempts
were made to bring teacher training into a much closer and coherent relationship
with the universities, both administratively and academically. The four-year
B.Ed. degree was introduced for selected students in the training colleges. In
1972, recommendations from the James Report meant that teaching was to
become an all-graduate profession.
The period from the late 1980s to the present has been characterized by a
move towards greater government control of teacher training with the traditional
hegemony of college- and university-based provision eroded in favour of a
6 POWER TO TEACH

renewed interest in school-based/centred apprenticeship models of initial

professional preparation in partnership with existing and new providers.
Reformed models of training include an increasingly prescriptive approach, with
the introduction of a mandatory national curriculum for trainees and a standards-
driven model of assessment for the final award of qualified teacher status,
monitored and reviewed by various new government agencies including the
Teacher Training Agency (TTA) and the Office for Standards in Education
(OFSTED). What was perceived by the government as overly theoretical
approaches to teacher training, which once dominated under the university- and
college-based hegemony, have now been replaced with greater emphasis on
relevant practical classroom skills and techniques.
This book draws much of its material from that period of transition in the
history of teacher training, which cut across the late nineteenth/early twentieth-
century period, when existing forms of school-based training were still in place,
albeit in a modified form, but were being added to and superseded by a more
dominant college- or university-based approach.

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES

Methodologically, research for this book was shaped by traditional historical
investigation and is based on substantive archive and documentary analysis. The
approach taken was to begin with a loose set of original research questions,
which had been generated from earlier work on the nineteenth-century pupil-
teacher system and other work on the professional training of teachers, and to
develop and extend these alongside a detailed and rigorous engagement with a
range of relevant primary and secondary sources. These questions were
concerned with definitions of good teaching, the constituents of a professional
training, the essential skills, knowledge and attitudes desired of an effective
teacher, the most suitable locus of expertise, the relative roles of participants in
the training process, and the balance between theory and practice in the training
process. The range of sources consulted in the research included official
publications, Royal Commissions and annual reports of the Committee of
Council and the Board of Education relating to teacher training in the period
under review, the teachers’ press, educational writings, unpublished local archive
material and unpublished life history.
The book has evolved from two key research influences. The first of these was
developed for a short research project undertaken by myself, entitled ‘The teacher
as trainer: pedagogy, practice and professionalism’, funded by the University of
Warwick, 1998–2001. Data from this project is used extensively in the book. In
this project I examined the role, function and influence of the teacher exemplar
model of professional transmission through masters and mistresses of method
 INTRODUCTION 7

across a sample of ten different types of teacher training institution. I accessed

relevant archival information and gathered a range of evidence from a broad
section of institutions, including: Cambridge Day Training College; London Day
Training College; Leeds Day Training College; Manchester Day Training College;
Southampton Day Training College; Chester Diocesan Training College;
Salisbury Training College; Darlington Training College; Ripon Training
College; St John’s Training College, York. It is the nature of historical research
to find that the survival of data can be inconsistent and this can affect the quality
and breadth of evidence gleaned to address initial research questions. Whilst I
was able to gather much useful data on specific individuals and method courses,
I found a frustrating lack of biographical information in places. This was
compensated for by the availability of other sources of evidence on the
assessment and monitoring of students on school placements. Documentary data
on individual training institutions comprised a range of different sources
including: staff records; log books of practising schools; examination papers and
correspondence; lists of students; school-practice files; student records;
testimonials; suggestions for supervisors; diploma reports; student observations;
criticism lesson proformas; outlines of method courses; syllabuses; memoirs;
magazines; and lesson notebooks. This documentary analysis prompted the
refinement of my initial research focus, which was the masters and mistresses of
method, and extended it to a broader analysis of the nature of practical training in
the training institutions and, more specifically, the particular role of model,
practising and demonstration schools. Hitherto unexamined teaching-practice
proformas and school-practice reports on individual students from six training
providers offered revealing insights into the assessment of students’ practical
performance and the criteria against which they were appraised. These in turn
helped me form a much stronger sense of the values, ideals and expectations
around the constituents of the effective teacher held by teacher trainers in the past.
To supplement individual archive data, relevant government files on individual
institutions and related matters were consulted at the Public Record Office, Kew.
One strand of the project was to identify and collate a biographical database of
key individuals and their institutional affiliations. In this study the educational
backgrounds and career development of 73 individuals were examined. This
included 29 masters of method and 44 mistresses of method, 15 men and 10
women in the university sector and 14 men and 34 women in the training
colleges. A major source of information for this database was the official staff
register available for most training institutions, which provided details relating to
educational background, previous employment, current responsibilities, salary
and future positions of members of staff. Other less direct sources such as
applications and documentation for specific posts, minute books, memoirs and
registers were also useful. The Journal of Experimental Pedagogy and Training
8 POWER TO TEACH

College Record and minutes of meetings and conferences of the Training

College Association (TCA), accessed at the Warwick Modern Records Centre,
provided useful data on key individuals as well as information on the
professional networks in operation at the time.
Another strand of the research was the analysis of manuals of method and
school management books written for student teachers by masters and mistresses
of method and other educationists and to assess these in relation to existing
debates on pedagogy and effective teaching. A range of these works was located
and accessed and is listed in full in the bibliography.
A final strand of the project was to negotiate access to former student teachers
and to undertake oral history interviews to find out about the role of masters and
mistresses of method in the training process. Using alumni records of
institutional archives I was able to make contact with a number of former student
teachers who trained during the 1920s and 1930s. Significantly, it was during
this period of time that the particular emphasis on method instruction was
waning and because of the time span under review I could not access any
surviving students from the turn of the twentieth century, though I was able to
access useful student memoirs from Lincoln and Ripon Training Colleges. Whilst
six interviews with former teachers who trained at Ripon and Lincoln Colleges
between 1928–35 were undertaken, this aspect of data collection was less fruitful
in terms of the richness of data generated in relation to the particular focus of the
project. The level of detail in terms of recall about actual method courses, school
method and practical teaching was less transparent in the interviews than more
general information on individual teachers’ careers, general experience of
training and professional identity.
The second influence on the research undertaken for the book was more
nebulous and reflects my wider research interest in developing a sharper
historical focus on the vexed relationship between theory, practice and pedagogy
over time. The following generic questions lie at the heart of the book and together
shape and inform its content and structure:

• How has the wisdom of best teaching practice been defined and
conceptualized over time and how has this contributed to expectations for pre-
service training and education?
• How were teachers formed, prepared and initiated into the theory and practice
of their profession?
• What role did expert practitioners play in the initial training process and how
did this promote a growing sense of professional autonomy and identity?
• What models of professional transmission operated to promote best practice?
• What core principles of pedagogy underpinned professional preparation?
 INTRODUCTION 9

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF BOOK

There are seven chapters in the book, each of which addresses some aspect of the
history of teacher training in the period 1880–1920 which sought an integration
of the theoretical and practical dimension of training. Distinctively, Chapters 3 to
7, demonstrate important links between historical and current policy and practice
and raise questions about the relationship between the past, present and future.
Chapter 2 investigates the nature and locus of professional difficulties which
have informed developments in teacher training. Arguably the root of much of this
anxiety lies in late nineteenth-century debates over the status and definition of
teaching as an art, craft or science which resonated with notions of
professionalism, identity and autonomy. These debates in turn shaped attitudes
about professional preparation and best practice. Such ideas however, could not
then and indeed cannot now be separated from the broader social, economic,
political and ideological context of education and schooling and thus invoke
further dilemmas around ideals and lived reality. In seeking to penetrate the
complexities of this subject the chapter examines definitions, conceptualizations,
meaning and metaphors of the good or ideal teacher to which the profession
aspired and which in turn influenced the nature of training. The concept of power
to teach, which reflected an important set of understandings about the essence of
teaching and cut across the art, craft and science dimensions is explored,
providing a foundation for the rest of the book.
Chapter 3, building upon my earlier research on the nineteenth-century pupil-
teacher system, focuses on the role played by serving teachers in initial teacher
education. For most of the nineteenth century, professional training had an
overriding school-based theme. It is argued that the pupil-teacher apprenticeship
scheme, for all of its numerous weaknesses, did, by the end of its life, have
something important to offer an emergent teaching profession in search of
autonomy, self-regulation and control. New departures in apprenticeship through
the pupil-teacher centres promoted an embryonic form of partnership between
teachers and trainers and celebrated the expert-novice relationship. From the
early years of the twentieth century, the increasing alienation of the teaching
profession from the training of future teachers can be identified as a contributing
factor to the damaging polarization between professional sites of expertise—
between those who teach in school and those who train teachers. Links are made
with current models of partnership and mentoring which, whilst seeking to
redress some of this professional alienation, continue to struggle with deep-
seated cultural and attitudinal barriers.
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 have as a central theme the idea of student teachers
learning through practice. Chapter 4 examines in detail the role and function of
masters and mistresses of method in training institutions as teacher exemplars
10 POWER TO TEACH

who bridged the theoretical and practical divide. Links are made between the
role of these historical personnel and current policy regarding specially
designated ‘super’ or advanced skills teachers (ASTs) in schools. This analysis
of masters and mistresses of method challenges traditional historical stereotyping
of the narrowness and pedantry, often associated with the role, drawing upon a
range of hitherto unpublished sources.
Chapter 5 analyses the place of practising, model and demonstration schools in
the training process with particular reference to innovative practice in the
Manchester Fielden Demonstration Schools. The history of schools attached to
training institutions which served to provide a readymade teaching environment
in which to train novice teachers, through the modelling of good practice, is
limited and largely negative. This analysis offers a more detailed account of the
work undertaken in these schools than earlier historical studies. Current policy
developments in relation to the possible contribution of training schools to initial
teacher training are examined against this historical phenomenon.
Chapter 6 evaluates models of school practice, the relationship between
schools and training institutions and the nature of student teacher assessment. A
particular focus for this chapter is a consideration of the way in which
judgements about a student’s teaching competence were formed and formalized
in a final teaching grade. Comparisons between excellent, middling and failing
students is examined in an attempt to understand what standards were expected
and tolerated of student teachers and the key professional factors which were
valued in this monitoring process. This analysis also illustrates further the
concept of ‘power to teach’, as it related to the potential of novice teachers.
Current assessment of student teachers’ performance against government
standards is considered against the historical model outlined.
Chapter 7 traces the theoretical articulation of teaching method, pedagogy and
educational principles which developed alongside professional training. Moving
away from a conception of teaching as a mere commonsensical art and critical of
over-complicated and inaccessible theories of education which were too removed
from actual experience, method books emerging out of the new university day
training colleges and some of the older training colleges after 1900 were seeking
common pedagogical principles which could underpin good teaching practice
and which addressed some of the tensions of the theoretical and practical divide.
Such sentiments were also extended to the professional debates between key
members of the teacher-training world in the first two decades of the twentieth
century. The relationship between the historical quest for core principles in
practice and the current preoccupation with pedagogy and effective teaching is
tested.
This final analysis will bring the book full circle. It begins with an
examination of debates around the nature of teaching and the purpose of training
 INTRODUCTION 11

and ends with a critique of the current search for a consensus on core principles
for effective teaching. It would seem that each successive generation of teachers,
teacher trainers and policy makers has found it necessary to disregard their
professional past as they seek to further and better their own practice in an ever-
changing world. Whilst this book neither envisages nor advocates, as a neat
solution to current issues, an uncritical re-adoption of old historical models, it
does suggest that much might be gained from revisiting a professional legacy in
which the wisdom of best practice was as much of a preoccupation then as it is
now.

NOTES

1. B.Simon, ‘Some problems of pedagogy revisited’, in The State and Education

Change: Essays in the History of Education and Pedagogy (London: Lawrence and
Wishart, 1994).
2. L.Jones, The Training of Teachers in England and Wales (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1924), R.Rich, The Training of Teachers in England and Wales
During the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933),
A.Tropp, The School Teachers (London: Heinemann, 1957), P.Gosden, The
Evolution of a Profession (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972), H.Dent, The Training of
Teachers in England and Wales 1800–1975 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1977).
3. See P.Gardner, ‘The early history of school-based teacher training’, in D.McIntyre,
H.Haggar, M.Wilkin (eds), Mentoring: Perspectives on School-Based Teacher
Education (London: Kogan Page, 1993), pp. 21–36.
 2
TEACHING: ART, CRAFT OR SCIENCE?

This chapter will investigate the nature and locus of professional difficulties
which have informed developments in teacher training. These have often focused
upon the tensions between the theory and practice of teaching. The root of much
of this anxiety lies in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century debates over
the status and definition of teaching as an art, craft or science, which resonated with
notions of professionalism, identity and autonomy. These debates in turn
informed attitudes about professional preparation and best practice. Such ideas,
however, could not then and indeed cannot now be separated from the broader
intellectual, cultural, social and ideological context of education and schooling.
Just because conceptual frameworks which described the essence of teaching
were constructed did not necessarily mean that all teachers aspired to or reached
these ideals.
In seeking to penetrate the complexities of this subject the chapter will
examine definitions, conceptualizations, meanings and metaphors of the good or
ideal teacher constructed through art, craft or science designations. It will be
suggested that these ways of thinking about teaching were interrelated, and whilst
emphases on the art, craft and science constructions changed over time, the flow
of ideas between them reflected an important set of understandings about the
essence of teaching—‘power to teach’. The chapter is in four parts. First, the
description of teaching as art will be examined. Secondly, the construction of
teaching as craft will be analysed and it will be suggested that art and craft
designations were difficult to distinguish. Thirdly, the influence of the
movement to elevate the study of education onto the level of a rational, scientific
basis will be traced. How this movement, which in itself was highly complex and
contradictory, shaped a science of teaching based upon rational principles, will
then be considered. Finally, the concept of ‘power to teach’ as representing the
interface of art, craft and science designations will be introduced.
 TEACHING: ART, CRAFT OR SCIENCE? 13

TEACHING AS ART
When exploring historically the popular construction and description of teaching
as ‘art’, it is not always easy to elucidate exactly what was meant by this idea.
Indeed, as is reflected in the structure of this chapter, the art, or the practice of
teaching can often only be comprehended when it is set against that which it is
not—the science or theory of teaching. To look at this conceptual construct in
isolation runs the risk of further dichotomizing an educational debate with a long
and tortuous historical legacy. From the nineteenth century until the 1920s,
school method books, various articles on education as well as the teachers’ press
and government reports variously coined the term ‘the art of teaching’ when
describing the focus and spirit of school teaching. In teacher training, the art of
teaching was often discussed in relation to a student’s practical experience of
teaching, particularly when there were concerns that too little training in this art
was available.1 Examples of this construction are numerous and those cited
below serve only to illustrate the prevalence and use of the idea.
Joshua Fitch’s well-known lectures on teaching taught that teaching was a
‘practical art’.2

The master in an elementary school may sometimes be too mechanical…

but in regard to the right ways of teaching, and the principles on which
those methods rest, he is a disciplined expert, often imbued, too, with a
genuine enthusiasm for the art which he has laboriously acquired.3
The art of teaching seems to me so much a matter of personal power and
experience, and various social and moral gifts.4
Education is an art not a science—it is about practice and the
schoolroom.5
Our associations have been in consultation about the means whereby the
practical training of students in the art of teaching may be improved, with
special reference to the provision of adequate demonstration schools
associated with the various recognized training colleges.6
Teaching is an art that requires long practice for its perfection.7
As to the training of pupil-teachers in the art of teaching, for which we
ought to rely on the teachers under whom they serve in school, greater care
will have to be exercised by inspectors and by managers to secure that this
important part of their education is not neglected.’8
As in the case of other professions the art of teaching must be based on
skilled investigation and the interchange of daily experience, from which
general principles are to be established. Such principles the teacher
must interpret and apply to the peculiar conditions of his own unique task,
which is defined for him by the age, sex, number, environment and future
14 POWER TO TEACH

vocation of his pupils, by the type and situation of his schools, and by
other variable factors.9

The art of teaching was clearly something practical and dynamic which was
enacted within a real ‘live’ context—that of the daily toil of the classroom and
the school. In 1905, Dexter and Garlick’s work on school method, argued that
the art of teaching was the medium of the ‘what’ (curriculum) and the ‘how’
(method) of teaching.10 Somehow it represented the repertoire of strategies,
devices, methods, aids and techniques employed by skilled and experienced
teachers as they worked to bring about learning on the part of their pupils. The
idea of the art of teaching captures something of the creativity and individuality
of teaching and the ability of teachers to adapt their methods and approaches to
the particular and ever-shifting context of the learning situation. Excellence or
mastery in this art was not about perfecting the ‘routine’ and everyday business
of class teaching, neither was it just about acquiring skill in technique. It concerned
an individual teacher’s application of their own knowledge, skills, experience
and creativity to any teaching situation. Valentine Davis, Lecturer in Education at
Cheshire County Training College, Crewe, in his book, The Science and Art of
Teaching, published in 1930, urged teachers to, ‘…establish your own technique
in the art of teaching, basing your practice on those general principles which you
know to be sound’.11 E.T.Campagnac, Professor of Education at Liverpool
University, offered a detailed critique of the relationship between teaching and
art in 1934. He tried to compare the teacher with the painter and argued that, ‘the
teacher and painter have the common duty of thinking, of striving to discover
relationships, of adjusting things separately seen so that they take on a pattern’.12
For Campagnac, however, the teacher had the more difficult task. The painter
thinks in solitude but the teacher has to think with his pupils, working for and
with them: ‘But the work of the teacher, we often feel, is never done. Each lesson
takes up the thread of the last and leads on to the next. And it is very hard to give
to any one lesson an artistic unity, to begin, to continue it, and also to end it.’13
One of the distinctive qualities in the construction of teaching as art was that,
as with all other arts, skill and expertise could only be developed and honed
through painstaking practice and with experience. In the 1890s, the words of
Fitch reinforced this belief in practice and experience, ‘…as is the case with
every art, proficiency can only be attained by working at it’. Some forty years
later, the words of Nancy Catty, a lecturer in pedagogy at the University of
London, echoed exactly the same sentiments: ‘Teaching to a very great extent is
like any other art, learnt by practice, and, as in all cases of learning, some people
need far more practice than others.’14 Only when mastery of the art of teaching
had been learned could the teacher really experience joy and personal satisfaction
with the teaching process.15 When discussing the relationship between the art and
 TEACHING: ART, CRAFT OR SCIENCE? 15

science of teaching in his work on experimental pedagogy, Edouard Claparede, a

well-known Swiss psychologist who wrote on pedagogy, also pursued the notion
of skill in teaching being developed through practice and experience: ‘Certainly
the value of practice is of the highest importance in the making of a specialist in
any given art.’16 In 1928, Valentine Davis suggested that method in teaching was
the teacher’s art and craft and that the process of practising the art of teaching
could be improved by the constructive evaluation of individual lessons—with
teachers developing themselves as reflective practitioners.17

TEACHING AS CRAFT
The language of the art of teaching was often used synonymously with that of the
craft of teaching. This is reflected in The Concise Oxford Dictionary definitions
of art and craft which both allude to inherent qualities of skill. For example, in their
examination of student teachers, Training College Inspectors were looking for
the progress of student teachers in the art and craft of their practical teaching,
with first-class students being recognized for their mastery of the craft.18
A.G.Hughes, in an article on play and teaching written in 1923, used the two
ideas interchangeably: ‘Joy in teaching will come as a result of mastery in the art
of teaching. Just as joy and beauty appear when any craftsman obtains mastery
over his material.’19 In 1907, John Adams identified strongly with the
construction of teaching as craft when, in the preface to his book The Practice of
Instruction, he declared that ‘the work was designed to be a tool for the
craftsman, for the teacher’.20 He later argued that, ‘Our craft is no longer to be
entered lightly or criticized with flippancy.’21 Clearly, both the construction of
the teacher as artist and the teacher as craftsman highlighted the essentially
practical, skilled and imaginative nature of their work and it is difficult to
distinguish different meanings between the two ideas. Possibly, the craft of
teaching referred more to teaching as instruction and art to teaching for education
in a more holistic sense, the craft emphasizing the materials and tools used in the
business of teaching, and the art a more general refinement of teaching practice
in an individual, imaginative fashion. Valentine Davis, in his book The Matter
and Method of Modern Teaching, published in 1928, referred to the teacher’s art
and craft.

Therefore, to be masters of our craft, we must know the child, and know
our subject, and, in the refinement of our art, we see that we must adapt
our methods to the age and capacity of the learner and the nature of the
subject. All good teaching is fundamentally the same in nature, yet every
act of good teaching is different from every other.22
16 POWER TO TEACH

An examination of the descriptions of teaching as a craft assist a deeper

understanding of the art/craft designation.
According to Ward and Roscoe, whose book The Approach to Teaching,
written for beginner teachers and published in 1928, craftsmanship in teaching
consisted of three closely interwoven essentials: subject knowledge; method; and
discipline. Technical efficiency in these three elements could only be learned
through training and experience and technique was identified as the means by
which a young teacher could become a good craftsman. Teaching as craft
suggests expertise and skill in the use and manipulation of materials. These
would consist of the subject matter to be taught and the pupils for which the
teacher was responsible. The tools used to mould and shape this material could
be found in teaching method and discipline. Mastery in the craft of teaching
would then involve not only a thorough knowledge of the subject matter but also
an insight into the working of the minds of the pupils dealing with it.

A true craftsman knows his material and has the ‘feel’ of it, a sense of
what can be made of it. He knows his tools and handles them with skill and
with economy of effort. Moreover, he has before his eyes the result he is
aiming at, the completed artistic product, and in essence this means the
possession of an ideal.23

As with the case of ‘art’, skill or technique in itself, however, was inadequate and
had the potential to reduce the act of teaching to a set of purely mechanistic,
soulless procedures: ‘A teacher with good technique and nothing beyond may be
little more than an instruction-monger.’24 Whilst craftsmanship in teaching
certainly related to skill and technique, it also implied something more complex:
‘Craftsmanship implies a great deal more than technique, though technique is
naturally an important element in it.’25 Whilst there was nothing mystical about
the acquisition of mere technique in teaching, the true craft of teaching extended
beyond technique into the much more abstract realm of personal style,
flexibility, consistency, right perception and intuition. Associated with the idea
of the craft of teaching was a language which evoked a peculiar and intangible
sense of the mystery, magic and wisdom which should inform the ideal teaching
process. Novice or trainee teachers had to be initiated into the ‘art and mystery’
of the craft of teaching and somehow learn the necessary craft knowledge, craft
power, craft skills and craft consciousness associated with it.26 Interesting
references to the classroom as the ‘workshop’ in which teachers should be
striving to attain mastery of their craft, further underpin the strength of the craft
connection with teaching and its essentially practical nature.27
 TEACHING: ART, CRAFT OR SCIENCE? 17

The teacher is a craftsman, and the true craftsman must be free to express
himself within the principles which govern his work. The teacher is
governed by the nature of the human material with which he works, by the
nature of the material he teaches, the activities he promotes and by the
ultimate aim which he accepts as the goal of his efforts. Yet within these
limits he must be free to vary his procedure, to adapt his methods to
circumstances and to experiment, or he will be in danger of sinking into a
routine which will destroy the sprit of craftsmanship, and depress the
spontaneity of pupils.28

Embodied within the construction of teaching as a craft was a further association

which began to locate the individual teacher within a broader collective identity
—the membership of a group of others who had developed the same craft skills
and powers, akin to the ancient tradition of medieval craft guilds. Membership of
this craft group would therefore carry with it some responsibility for initiating
apprentice and beginner teachers into the collective craft conscience. Both
constructions of teaching as art and craft suggested that mastery could be learned,
through careful training, induction and experience. In the real world not all
teachers would be master craftsmen or artists—many would be journeymen,
qualified in the basic skills but not yet having true teaching mastery.29 Others
would function like skilled artisans—useful and efficient, but lacking in personal
style, insight and expertise—the mechanics and technicists so abhorred by those
seeking true craftsmanship or artistry.
Taken even further, the analogy of craftsmanship with teaching also tapped in
to debates about teaching as a profession. Some educationists were unhappy with
the overuse of the idea of craftsmanship in teaching because of its association
with the idea of trade, as opposed to professional status. In 1913, J.A.Green,
editor of the Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, suggested that in the past too
much attention had been paid to the mere craft of teaching, and ‘…too little to
other qualities which would tend to lift the teacher from the position of craftsman
to that of the professional man.’30 He compared the status and position of the
teacher with the expertise and status of the medical practitioner (a common
comparison in debates about professional identity) and argued that:

Of course there is and always must be such a thing as craftsmanship in

teaching, as there is a craft in the handling of patients by a medical man. It
is probably also true that a teacher’s craftsmanship will very largely
determine his professional success, just as it does in the case of the Doctor.
But Doctors at any rate have managed to persuade us that the mysteries of
their profession rest upon special knowledge relevant to our condition.31
18 POWER TO TEACH

This recognition that the art or craft of teaching was conceptually incomplete
coincided with a much more pressing call for the art and craft of teaching to be
underpinned and supported with special scientific knowledge and principles.
Green went on to suggest that unlike doctors, teachers had not yet persuaded the
public that there is any specific scientific knowledge associated with teaching
and that it was essential for the profession to take hold of this deficiency: ‘…a
sound knowledge of principles would carry the practitioner much further,
particularly in dealing with individuals in his class’. For John Adams, the
‘quickening of the craft conscience’ towards embracing and developing a science
of teaching and education was critical for the growth of the profession.

TEACHING AS SCIENCE
The movement towards constructing a scientific basis for education in the United
Kingdom can be traced back to the latter quarter of the nineteenth century and
the history of this phenomenon has been variously considered by writers such as
Aldrich, Depaepe, Selleck, Simon, Sutherland and Wooldridge.32 In particular, it
has been noted that the increased emphasis on the study of education as a science
was strongly linked with the movement to elevate both the professional status
and identity of teaching per se and the location of education as a serious
academic subject within the universities. In examining this development and the
way in which it went on to influence ideas about teaching in the early years of
the twentieth century, however, it is important to distinguish between general
ideas about a science of education and more specific ideas about the science of
teaching. Clearly the two ideas are closely related, but existing literature on the
subject does not always make this distinction. Selleck, for example writes:
‘Clearly educational theories may refer to many issues. They may have
something to say, for example on the construction of the curriculum, on the
methods of teaching, on the organisation and administration of a school system,
and on the manner in which teachers should be trained.’33 His work focused on
the influence of theory on curriculum development and not on methods of
teaching. If the art of teaching broadly refers to its practice, then the science of
teaching broadly refers to its theory. The art or craft of teaching implies an ad
hoc approach whilst the science of teaching implies something very different—
an a priori approach with a clearly articulated set of methodical rules and
principles underpinning the practice. In June 1914 an article on educational
research in the Journal of Experimental Pedagogy asked whether the science of
education really existed and whether the art of education should be based on it?34
The construction of teaching as science suggests an attempt to lift the practice or
the art of teaching onto a different level. The question as to whether this different
 TEACHING: ART, CRAFT OR SCIENCE? 19

level was higher than, equal to, or complementary to the art or craft construction
of teaching has remained a source of professional tension ever since.
The relationship between art and science, or between practice and theory, and
how this was translated and understood by teacher practitioners and educational
theorists was subjected to some serious scrutiny in the period 1870–1920. In
1875 a society for the development of a knowledge of the science of education was
formed which provided a base for educationists and psychologists, such as
Joseph Payne, R.H.Quick, Alexander Bain, Charles Lake and James Ward,
interested in the cause. In 1879 Alexander Bain, Professor of Logic at the
University of Aberdeen from 1861–80, published his book Education as Science.
By 1883 C.H.Lake wrote to the Journal of Education and argued that:

If the art of education is to advance, and the practice of education to

improve, it is desirable that the present generation, educated as it has been
by experiment, should be familiarized with the notion that education is a
science founded upon intelligible and certain principles, which may
through ignorance be violated, but cannot be violated.35

In the late 1890s, Joseph Cowham in a new book on school method wrote: ‘The
advance in educational science and the expansion of the school curriculum have
created a demand for corresponding expansion and advance in school
methods.’36 R.H.Quick, in his essays on educational reformers, written in 1895,
viewed science as the hope for the future of education and teaching and urged
teachers to ‘…endeavour to obtain more and more knowledge of the laws to
which their art has to conform itself’.37 Fitch, though famous for describing
teaching as an art, also identified the double nature of teaching as both an art and
a science. ‘It aims at the accomplishment of a piece of work, and is therefore an
art. It seeks to find out a natural basis for such rules as it employs, and is
therefore a science.’38 Similarly, Garlick and Dexter’s 1905 primer on school
method was not just concerned with elucidating the art of teaching. It also
highlighted the ‘double-nature’ of education with its art and science dimensions
and suggested that the science of education should examine the laws of the mind
and its development, lay down rules and methods in accordance with those laws
and provide a rational basis for teaching. By 1901 education was admitted as a
branch of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and existed
side-by-side with other well-established sciences.
One of the chief obstacles to the development of a theory of teaching fully
integrated with its practice, however, lay in the difficulty in finding an
appropriate branch of established applied science with which to identify. Should
the science of teaching be located in physiology, psychology, logic, ethics,
philosophy, child study or some other branch of scientific inquiry? The
20 POWER TO TEACH

chequered history of the scientificization of education from the 1870s illustrates

this problem. Educational theorists had the unfortunate tendency to attach
themselves, often in a piecemeal fashion, to outdated, defunct or contested
scientific models, usually in the various branches of psychology, in an attempt to
find a scientific ‘home’. Wooldridge’s substantive and wide-ranging study of the
history of educational psychology points to the intellectual and cultural scientific
‘minefield’ with which the educational theorist was faced, particularly when
psychology itself was an emerging branch of science and had to cope with the
snobbery and scepticism of more established scientific traditions. Aldrich has
argued that the origins of the movement for a science of education have received
scant attention from historians, though most attention has been paid to Alexander
Bain.39 It was Bain who popularized the later discredited faculty psychology for
teachers, based upon an eighteenth-century theory of learning known as
associationism. This theory emphasized the physiological basis of mental
functions and suggested that all educational practice should be about the training
of the various senses or faculties of memory, imagination, perception, judgement
and reason. It offered a scientific approach to curriculum and pedagogy which
dominated late nineteenth-century educational theory and practice and sought to
develop the intellect and character through a careful system of teaching.
According to Simon, Bain’s book was reprinted six times in the 1880s and a
further ten times before 1900 and his ideas were commonly applied to student
teacher manuals of the period. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the
dominance of faculty psychology was its divorce from experience and the way in
which it was often misapplied to the mass system of elementary schooling, thus
shaping a dreary curriculum and an artificial pedagogy designed to train up the
faculties. The empirical writers, the handicraftsmen of the time…were doing the
work of the schools, apart from men like Bain, who were trying to write the
theory of the same business, apart from school life.’40
Aldrich has uncovered an alternative influence on the movement towards a
science of education through the pioneering work of Joseph Payne in promoting
an interest in education as both a science and an art, through his lectures,
writings and professional activities during the 1860s and 1870s. Unlike Bain,
Payne was seeking a much broader understanding of the science of education,
drawing from a range of other fields of human knowledge such as physiology,
psychology, philosophy, history, ethics and logic in an attempt to work out an
educational theory to under-pin educational practice. The influence, in the 1890s,
of Herbartianism replaced the earlier emphasis on Bain and modified faculty
psychology. Herbart, a Prussian philosopher interested in psychology and
education, had published his work on the science of education in the early years
of the nineteenth century but his ideas did not become fashionable until they
were later taken up and modified for practical use by followers at the University
 TEACHING: ART, CRAFT OR SCIENCE? 21

of Jena, such as Karl Stoy, Tuiskon Ziller and Wilhelm Rein. Herbart drew his
own ideas from associationism and tried to explain the process of human
development through a different model of a staged, systematic and sequenced
approach to teaching. Herbart constructed a method derived from psychological
analysis, the starting point for teaching to be found in the pupil’s own experience
and knowledge. Herbart showed the different contributions to be made to the
learning process by the teacher and pupil and he emphasized the fact that the aim
must be related to the pupil’s purpose and guide the activity to its end.
Significantly, Herbartian theory placed considerable emphasis on the role and
importance of the teacher in the process of education. His ideas were taken up
enthusiastically by the new University Departments of Education and teacher
trainers in the first decade of the twentieth century, particularly J.J.Findlay,
Catherine Dodd, John Adams and J.W.Adamson, and were held up as the
potential solution to advancing a science of education which united both theory
and practice—a practical pedagogy. At the same time that it took hold of ideas
about pedagogy in the United Kingdom, Herbartianism was also highly
influential in America and Europe.41 Subsequent criticism of Herbartian
psychology found his analysis over-intellectual, assuming learners who are eager
for knowledge.
Both Selleck and Depaepe have traced multiple scientific trends which shaped
educational theory in the period 1890–1914, drawing upon the child-study
movement, paidology, the naturalist movement, the child-health movement,
experimental pedagogy and experimental psychology and then the all-pervasive
role of intelligence testing. By the early years of the twentieth century, the
scientific pull on educational theory moved towards a much stronger
experimental/scientific model, reflecting changes within the intellectual culture of
science itself. Depaepe’s account of the conceptual confusion and incoherence of
this development, both in the United Kingdom and across Europe and America
offers fascinating insights into this period and helps to explain the ongoing
tension between the scientific and practical dimensions of education and conflict
between teachers on the one hand, and pure scientists on the other hand.42
Charles Spearman, influential child psychologist in the early years of the
twentieth century was certainly not so keen for teachers to engage in the
scientific study of education and worried about the dangers of letting teachers
loose, untrained on pedagogy.43 For Thomas Raymont, however, it was his firm
conviction that the dependence of education upon psychology was vastly
overrated and there had been too much of a tendency to regard educational
theory and applied psychology as synonymous.

Educational theory must indeed seek the assistance of psychology, as well

as that of some half dozen other sciences: but if it is to be brought into
22 POWER TO TEACH

vital and helpful relation to the problems of the school room, and therefore
worthy of the respect and attention of teachers, it must no longer be
content to trot at the heels of psychology, but must vindicate its claim to an
independent position.44

Furthermore, for Raymont, the forced and premature applications of psychology

to education were reflected in a general failure to establish any vital connection
between the so-called theory on the one hand, and the practical problems of the
school room on the other hand. This failure generated a culture of mistrust
towards theory amongst serving teachers, resulting in a theory of education
which lagged behind practice.
If the combination of scientific method and practical experience was lacking in
the earlier attempts to set education on a scientific footing, by the early years of
the twentieth century teacher educators were calling for a science of teaching
which was rooted in, not separate from, the art or craft of teaching. Previously,
the gulf between teachers who practised the art or craft of their business, and
theorists who developed erudite but inaccessible and remote theories was
seemingly intractable and formed the heart of a professional tension between
theory and practice in teaching. According to J.J.Findlay, the combination of
scientific method and practical experience had historically been lacking.

The sharp separation between theory and practice in the examination

papers merely emphasizes the wide gulf which has severed ‘the theory’ of
the lecture-room from ‘the practice’ of the daily toil in the classroom. This
gulf somehow must be bridged; so long as it exists it remains as a standing
reproach both the those who practice and to those who theorize.45

For Findlay, any science of teaching had to be drawn from its practice,

we are seeking all the time for links by which we may bind together the
Theory of Education with the Practice of it. We see that in our science, as
in every other principle, abstract principles can only be attained by the slow
process of experience; books on Education, lectures on Education and
Psychology have their value, but only so far as they touch the practical
experience and observation of the student. Hence then the importance of
assigning a due place to that portion of the student’s work which is called
Practical Training; for Practical Training is essentially Laboratory Training,
the lecture room and the text book can do nothing apart from this constant
experience in the schoolroom.46
 TEACHING: ART, CRAFT OR SCIENCE? 23

For those educationists seeking, amidst the flurry of scientific interest and
activity in the various paradigms of child study, applied psychology and
intelligence testing, a stronger connection between the science and practice of
education, experimental pedagogy offered some sort of solution. In 1907 Adams
urged the profession to seek to answer pedagogical questions by engaging in
systematic observation and experiment conducted upon scientific principles.47
Experimental pedagogy was just one branch of the movement to place
educational theory on a more secure scientific basis.48 A committee under the
presidency of Findlay and Green reported to the 1910 meeting of the British
Association for the Advancement of Science in an attempt to promote the cause
of experimental pedagogy. Experimental pedagogy was different from child
study or observation because it specifically sought answers to questions of
educational method and was concerned with processes of teaching. Wooldridge
has argued that the experimental pedagogy movement, which spread rapidly
through Europe and America, anticipated the most important features of
educational psychology. He is critical of its amateurish nature—drawing as it did
on a mixture of applied psychology and amateurish pedagogic teaching. For
Findlay however, teachers had to develop the ‘scientific habit’ in their work, and
engage critically with investigation, observation and experimentation in teaching
practice. Whilst the atmosphere of the schoolroom did not readily lend itself to
the habit of patient observation, this was necessary for pedagogy to be
advanced.49 In 1914 the TCA debated the place and value of experimental
psychology on teacher training courses and concluded that, ‘Educational
problems, therefore, cannot be solved by applying to them the generalisations of
experimental psychology. We need a new science which we may christen,
according to our predilections “educational psychology”, “experimental
education” or “experimental pedagogy”’.50 The critical issue was that the
problems of teachers would be worked out in the schoolroom under regular
school conditions and not in the remove of the scientific laboratory.
For C.W.Valentine, who succeeded Green as editor of the JEP in 1922, under
its new title Forum, if the study of education was to be lifted above the level of a
mere interchange of opinions and if it was to become a science, then it must be
based on a rational, evidence-based model. The onus was on teachers and
scientists working together to devise and revise methods of investigation and
experimentation. It was important for the status and development of the
profession that teachers, and not just psychologists, should help to contribute to
educational theory and guide its growth. Teachers, with their practical experience
and art and craft knowledge would temper the pure theorist. Teachers could not,
however, build up educational science alone. They required the expertise of
educational scientists who could collect facts and experimental data, and also
educational philosophers who could set forth broader aims and purposes. In
24 POWER TO TEACH

reality, however, the relationship between educators and scientists, usually

educational psychologists, was fraught, mirroring, in fact, the tense relationship
between the general construction of the art, craft and science of education. Simon
has argued that the inter-war period 1920–40, represented a very different
climate in relation to pedagogy or the science of education, when it became
heavily dominated by a new branch of psychology entirely preoccupied with the
measurement of intelligence—psychometrics.
Any consideration of the movement to locate teaching within a scientific
framework has to take account of the parallel movement to raise the professional
status and academic reputation of both teaching per se and education as a
respected field of study. This is clearly reflected in studies of the subject and has
been discussed extensively in literature on the professional status of elementary
teachers, their mobilization through union activity and attempts to bring the
profession in line with other self-regulated professions such as law and medicine
through raising social, cultural and professional aspirations.51 The main difficulty
for the elementary teaching profession with regard to its professional status lay in
the fact that it was controlled by the government and not the profession itself.
Linked to the thorny question of status was social class. The elementary school
world, as described by Tropp, operated a closed system where teachers of the
masses were drawn from the respectable ranks of the working classes themselves.
Many of their peers would have been skilled artisans or craftsmen—this in itself
raising interesting connections with the struggle over the art/craft or science
construction of teaching. A profession which could lay claim to a proper and
distinctive scientific knowledge base was more likely to be respected and given
greater powers of control and self-regulation than if it remained associated with
mere art or craft conceptions. For Wooldridge, ‘above all, science endeared itself
to teachers largely because it appealed to their perennial anxieties about status.’52
According to Selleck, ‘To prove their study’s respectability, some educationists
could think of no better way than to marry into the scientific family.’53 The
marriage was clearly a difficult one, but the high prestige and ‘certainty’
commonly associated with scientific laws might better enable teachers to
establish more control over the education process. As Green pointed out in 1913,
‘…every member of an educational committee, every man in the street, knows, or
thinks he knows, what is good for the children’ and the key to professional
autonomy and greater respect from other more established professions was
through a clear sense of scientific principles for teaching—‘…a more systematic
study of pedagogics’.54 For Adams, who wanted teachers to embrace the
principles of their work, ‘The professional spirit urges him on to acquire such a
mastery of his realm that his authority will be recognized by sheer force of
conquest.’55
 TEACHING: ART, CRAFT OR SCIENCE? 25

This brief overview of attempts to construct a science of teaching in the period

under review, whilst reflecting the often muddled and incoherent nature of this
enterprise, also demonstrates an emerging construction of teaching which was
something more than art and craft but at the same time embedded in the art and
craft identity. There was a definite mood of optimism amongst teacher trainers
and educationists in the early years of the twentieth century that the potentially
polarized dimensions of art, craft and science could be united to form a coherent
whole based on sound principles. According to Selleck, ‘…perhaps the scientific
educationist’s most valuable assets in these early days were his enthusiasm, his
confidence, and his conviction that he held the key to the future’.56 Findlay
was aware of the embryonic nature of the identification of this coherence in
teaching when he wrote:

Let it be borne in mind that the Science of Education is still in its infancy,
and it will take shape with us far more slowly than has been the case in
other departments of knowledge because we are exposed far more than
they to outside influences, and we depend, far more than other professional
men, on the joint corporate action of many co-workers. All minds are not
moulded alike, and the same goal of truth, the same happy product of
intelligence in thought, combined with skill in execution, may be achieved
in many ways. Some can best attack Education from the point of view of
history or social science; others find a more congenial approach through
observation and experiment in Psychology; others, again, gain more by
spending the bulk of their time in the school with scholars.57

‘POWER TO TEACH’: THE INTERFACE OF ART, CRAFT

AND SCIENCE
In seeking to understand what the essence of teaching was as it was represented
by art, craft and science, it is possible to identify a fourth, and even more
conceptually slippery dimension—‘power to teach’. This was the nub of what all
the other three designations were trying to describe. It was a term frequently used
by teacher trainers, inspectors and teachers when judging a teacher’s person,
capacity and effectiveness. The notion of ‘power to teach’ somehow welded
together art, craft and science elements and embraced the personal, professional,
practical and theoretical components which together formed the ideal of the good
teacher. It also touched upon the contentious idea that some teaching qualities
are innate and natural, not learned or acquired through training. The language of
‘power to teach’ is prevalent in government reports, books on teaching method
and in individual reports on a student teacher’s performance during the period
under review. Sometimes it was explicitly articulated, but more often was used
26 POWER TO TEACH

inadvertently as a common epithet to describe students’ command of different

aspects of teaching.
As with art, craft and science designations it is quite difficult to locate an
exact definition of the term ‘power to teach’. According to Dexter and Garlick,
The power to teach implies adequate knowledge on the part of the teacher, a
sympathetic nature and good methods of teaching.’58 For teaching to be most
effective, those teachers who were able to exhibit ‘intellectual power with
teaching power’ were likely to obtain the best results. This definition cuts across
the art, craft and science definitions considered above. Whilst there was some
acknowledgement that certain individuals had natural powers of teaching, the
belief in the role of training to assist in the appropriate harnessing of such power
to teach was strong.

There are, no doubt, very many ‘born’ teachers, with a natural knack of
managing children, and with natural powers of teaching. But the greater
number of those who actually teach in schools have to acquire the art,
sometimes easily, sometimes with labour…Even the ‘born’ teacher
requires training and experience before he can employ his native powers
with effect.59

Unfortunately, as with the art or craft analogy of teaching, not all teachers could
be master teachers and some would be deemed inadequate or lacking in power to
teach. Often the language of ‘power to teach’ was expressed in the negative form.
If the ‘power to teach’ was represented across a spectrum of the profession it
would have to incorporate the master teacher at one extreme, whose ‘power to
teach’ was impressive, the useful or serviceable teacher in the middle, whose
‘power to teach’ was adequate, and the downright useless teacher at the far
extreme, whose powers were extremely limited—with various degrees of
‘power’ in between. An analysis of the language of teaching power, whether
expressed as positive or negative attributes, offers some useful insights into the
kind of qualities and skills which were being sought of teachers. My research has
identified four broad categories of ‘teaching power’. These, represented with
examples of their use in Table 1, are: power in key teaching skills; power in
disciplining, managing or influencing children; intellectual and academic power;
and personal power.
Power in key teaching skills refers to the art/craft and science of teaching and
was concerned with the repertoire of strategies, devices and methods used by a
teacher in the formulation of pedagogy. These included the delivery of lessons
through the different tools of exposition, narration, questioning and blackboard
demonstration. Narration had the potential to be dull and lifeless, to go on for too
long and to be pointless. Questioning could fail if it was unnatural and
 TEACHING: ART, CRAFT OR SCIENCE? 27

Table 1: ‘Power to teach’

unchallenging for children. The use of teaching aids, particularly blackboard

illustrations, could lack emphasis, clarity or be contrived. True teaching power
would avoid these pitfalls. Central to power to teach was the ability of the
teacher to adapt material to the age, experience and needs of different children.
This suggests a flexible and imaginative approach to teaching which was
something more than an unthinking, mechanical or stereotyped act which
enabled the teacher to direct the teaching situation as it developed in line with the
children’s responses.
Power in disciplining or influencing children referred to a teacher’s ability to
capture and maintain the respect, attention and imagination of children, through
effective classroom and behaviour management strategies as well as their own
personal charisma. This kind of power was not just about the ability to
discipline children through authoritarian or routinized forms of management, but
was concerned with the creation of an appropriate environment and set of
relationships which were conducive to the genuine stimulation of children’s
thought, interest and inclination for learning.
28 POWER TO TEACH

Intellectual or academic power concerned the teacher’s own approach to

learning and mastery of the subject matter to be taught. It referred to a teacher’s
academic ability and interest in subject matter and required an engaged, critical
and inquiring approach. Powerful teachers were those with a continued interest
in their own learning. Only when a teacher was mentally stimulated by the
material to be taught could pupils be stimulated. Personal power is perhaps the
most difficult aspect of teaching power to characterize. It is implicit in the other
more technical, managerial or intellectual powers, none of which could properly
function without some individual personal flair, instinct or intuition. It is perhaps
in the quality of personal power that the intangible mystery and magic of
teaching, alluded to in art or craft designations can be found. Clearly, personal
power embodied much of the personality, character and individual style of the
teacher. As Smith and Harrison remarked in their work on teaching in 1939.

The most important factor, yet the one least open to change, is best
expressed by the term personality, which itself includes a perplexing
number of attributes. Personality evades all generalized description, for it
is individual and unique, and the qualities which attract us in one person
make little appeal to us when shown by another. Yet the teacher’s
personality should include certain necessary gifts for his work. His speech
and manners should be commendable, for they will be imitated by his
pupils. He needs a strong sense of sympathy towards children, an insight into
their modes of response, for without it he will labour in vain. He should
have a sense of humour which will enable him to laugh at his own
mistakes and help to protect him from the absurdities of the pedant. Above
all, he should have a physical and mental vitality which companionship
with the young demands.60

In personal power can be found something of the natural, born or innate qualities
of teaching—those qualities often referred to as gifts. Personal power in teaching
might be understood as the mysterious ‘x factor’ without which the other
essential skills and qualities were incomplete. In one very important respect it
was very different from the other three teaching powers identified in that it
would be much more difficult to train or influence. Significantly, current policy
on the necessary skills and competences required of trained teachers has recently
re-emphasized the importance of personal qualities, previously neglected in the
National Curriculum for Initial Teacher Training (ITT) and one of the challenges
in incorporating this dimension of teaching into a training scheme is measuring
its presence or impact.61
This chapter has examined the conceptual constructions of teaching as art,
craft and science in an attempt to probe deeper professional meanings and
 TEACHING: ART, CRAFT OR SCIENCE? 29

understandings about the essence and nature of teaching. The concept of ‘power
to teach’ has been introduced as a fourth element in what has traditionally
formed a three-way or even two-way model, often dichotomized into discussions
about the divorce of theory and practice in teaching. Unfortunately the very act
of categorizing and analysing the various strands inherent in the ‘power to teach’
risks greater dichotomization. Smith and Harrison’s attempt to bring together in
writing the complex and varied elements of teaching in 1939 demonstrates the
importance of synthesis.

In concluding this survey of the teacher’s task the warning should be

repeated that the experience of the classroom is more complex than the
separate aspects which a general analysis must offer to the reader. To know,
to feel and to do are the ultimate of living, and they are indissolubly bound
together. Any analysis of method is so far formal and artificial, and the
teacher together with his pupils must achieve the synthesis which reunites
the component in experience. The teacher is greater than the method
he uses, and the child is greater than the teacher, for the teacher is to serve
the child and to help him to achieve his freedom. No formal steps of
teaching and no particular label of method will suffice for all the situations
that emerge in the school, since life will not conform to the limitations they
would impose. The teacher may learn from them, and develop his own
power of self-criticism with their aid, but he, too is both artist and
craftsman, claiming the freedom of the expert to fashion the material in
ways that he discovers best suited to the nature and to the development of
his pupils.62

In 1904 Thomas Raymont argued that ‘…good teaching, like the efficient
practice of any other art, is a function of many variables, of which the study of
the principles and methods is only one’.63 Somewhere at the heart of the tangled
web of these many variables, variously located in art, craft and science
designations and shaped by chronological developments and the wider influences
of scientific advance, professionalization, degrees of experience and expertise,
lay a set of fundamental understandings and assumptions about the essence of
teaching—or ‘power to teach’. Furthermore there was a firm belief that novice
teachers could be trained in the art, craft and science of their work. Just how
professional training was developed to promote a viable working balance
between the potentially oppositional strands of art, craft or science or theory and
practice and initiate novice teachers into the knowledge and understanding of
this ‘power to teach’ is the main question which provides the focus for the rest of
this book.
30 POWER TO TEACH

NOTES

1. M.Depaepe, ‘Social and personal factors in the inception of experimental research

in education (1890–1914): an exploratory study’, History of Education, 16, 4,
(1987), pp. 275–98.
2. J.Fitch, quoted in T.Cox and R.MacDonald, The Suggestive Handbook of Practical
School Method (London: Blackie and Son, 1896), p. 1.
3. Report of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education (Bryce), (1895), p. 70.
4. Bryce, vol. 3 of evidence, p. 397.
5. T.Raymont, The Principles of Education (London: Longmans, 1904), p. 17.
6. Warwick Modern Records Centre, MSS 176/CD, Memorandum to the Board of
Education by the Tripartite Committee on Demonstration Schools, 1930.
7. F.Smith and A.Harrison, Principles of Class Teaching (London: Macmillan and Co.,
1939), p. 251.
8. Final Report of the Commissioners appointed to Inquire into the Working of the
Elementary Education Acts in England and Wales (Cross Commission), 1888, p.
276.
9. Smith and Harrison, Principles of Class Teaching, p. 279.
10. T.Dexter and A.Garlick, A Primer of School Method (London: Longmans, 1905),
p. 23.
11. V.Davis, The Science and Art of Teaching (London: Cartwright and Rattray Ltd,
1930), preface.
12. E.T.Campagnac, Notes on Education with a Preface on the Art of Teaching
(London: Evans Brothers Ltd, 1934), p. 10.
13. Campagnac, Notes on Education with a Preface on the Art of Teaching, p. 9.
14. N.Catty, A First Book on Teaching (London: Methuen, 1929), p. 25.
15. A.G.Hughes, ‘The play-attitude in the work of teaching’, Forum of Education, 1,1,
1923, pp. 63–7.
16. E.Claparede, Experimental Pedagogy (translated by M.Louch and H.Holman, from
the fourth edition of Psychologie de l’enfant et pedagogie experimentale),
(London: Edward Arnold, 1911), p. 3.
17. V.Davis, The Matter and Method of Modern Teaching (London: Cartwright and
Rattray Ltd, 1928), p. 253.
18. Public Record Office, Kew, (PRO), Ed 22/158, Memorandum on Final
Examination Marks for Practical Teaching, 1922.
19. Hughes, The play-attitude in the work of teaching’, p. 64.
20. J.Adams, The Practice of Instruction (London: National Society, 1907), preface.
21. J.Adams, Educational Movements and Methods (Boston: D.C. Heath and Co.,
1924), p. 23.
22. Davis, The Matter and Method of Modern Teaching, p. 252.
 TEACHING: ART, CRAFT OR SCIENCE? 31

23. H.Ward and F.Roscoe, The Approach to Teaching (London: G.Bell and Sons Ltd,
1928), p. 2.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. For a fuller discussion of this issue see W.Robinson, Pupil Teachers and their
Professional Training in Pupil-Teacher Centres in England and Wales, 1870–1914
(New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003), Cross Commission, Final Report, p. 279.
27. J.Findlay, Principles of School Practice (London: Macmillan, 1902), preface. See
also Hughes, ‘The play-attitude in the work of teaching’.
28. Smith and Harrison, Principles of Class Teaching, p. 279.
29. PRO, Ed 22/158.
30. J.A.Green, ‘Teachers, doctors and Madame Montessori’, Journal of Experimental
Pedagogy, 2, 1, (1913), pp. 43–53.
31. Ibid., p. 45.
32. R.Aldrich, School and Society in Victorian Britain (London: The College of
Preceptors, 1995); M.Depaepe, ‘Social and personal factors in the inception of
experimental research in education (1890–1914): an exploratory study’, History of
Education, 16, 4 (1987); R.Selleck, The New Education 1870–1914 (London: Sir
Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd, 1968), R.Selleck, The Scientific Educationist 1870–
1914’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 15 (1967), p. 149, B.Simon, ‘Why
no pedagogy in England?’, in B.Simon and W.Taylor (eds), Education in the
Eighties (London: Batsford, 1981); G.Sutherland, Ability, Merit and Measurement:
Mental Testing and English Education 1880–1940 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1984); A. Wooldridge, Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England
c. 1860–1990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
33. Selleck, The New Education 1870–1914, p. viii.
34. M.Reaney, ‘Education research: who is to undertake it?’, Journal of Experimental
Pedagogy, 2, 5 (1914), p. 382.
35. Quoted in Selleck, The Scientific Educationist 1870–1914’, p. 149.
36. J.Cowham, A New School Method (London: Westminster School Book Depot,
1894), preface.
37. R.H.Quick, Essays on Educational Reformers (London: Longmans, 1895), p. 505.
38. Dr Fitch quoted in T.Cox and R.MacDonald, The Suggestive Handbook of Practical
School Method (London: Blackie & Son, 1896), p. 1.
39. For a more detailed discussion of Bain’s theories see B.Simon, ‘Education in
theory, schooling in practice: the experience of the last hundred years’, in B.Simon,
Does Education Matter? (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1985).
40. Findlay, Principles of School Practice, p. xiii.
41. For a contemporary discussion of the work of Herbart see H. and E.Felkin, An
Introduction to Herbart’s Science and Practice of Education (London: Swan
Sonnenschein and Co., 1906). For more recent historical analysis see, D.Hamilton,
32 POWER TO TEACH

‘The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in England?)’, Pedagogy, Culture

and Society, 7, 1 (1999), pp. 135–52, and, D.Leinster-Mackay, ‘Frank Hayward,
British neo-Herbartian extraordinaire: an examination of his educational writings’,
History of Education Society Bulletin, 69 (May 2002), pp. 26–48.
42. Depaepe, ‘Social and personal factors in the inception of experimental research in
education’.
43. C.Spearman, The way to develop experimental pedagogy’, Journal of
Experimental Pedagogy, 1, 1 (1911), pp. 1–3.
44. Raymont, The Principles of Education, p. v.
45. J.J.Findlay, ‘The training of teachers’, an inaugural lecture delivered at the opening
of the Department of Education in the Victoria University Manchester, October
1903 (Manchester: Sherratt and Hughes, 1903), p. 18.
46. Ibid., p. 24.
47. Adams, The Practice of Instruction, preface.
48. Depaepe, ‘Social and personal factors in the inception of experimental research in
education’, p. 279.
49. Findlay, inaugural lecture, p. 28.
50. Training College Association debate, reported in, Journal of Experimental
Pedagogy, 2, 1 (1914), p. 376.
51. M.Barber, Education and the Teacher Unions (London: Cassell, 1992), B.Bergen,
‘Only a schoolmaster: gender, class and the effort to professionalize elementary
teaching in England 1870–1910’, History of Education Quarterly, 22, 1 (1982), pp.
1–21, P.Gosden, The Evolution of a Profession (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972); J.Ozga
and M. Lawn, Teachers, Professionalism and Class: A Study of Organised
Teachers (Lewes: Falmer Press, 1981); A.Tropp, The School Teachers (London:
Heinemann, 1957).
52. Wooldridge, Measuring the Mind, p. 56.
53. Selleck, The New Education, p. 273.
54. Green, ‘Teachers, doctors and Madame Montessori’, p. 46.
55. Adams, Educational Movements and Methods, p. 22.
56. Selleck, The Scientific Educationist’, p. 165.
57. Findlay, inaugural lecture, p. 26.
58. Dexter and Garlick, A Primer of School Method, p. 23.
59. Ward and Roscoe, The Approach to Teaching, p. 9.
60. Smith and Harrison, Principles of Class Teaching, p. 277.
61. TTA, Qualifying to Teach: Professional Standards for Qualified Teacher Status
and Requirements for Initial Teacher Training (London: Teacher Training Agency,
2002).
62. Smith and Harrison, Principles of Class Teaching, p. 377.
63. Raymont, The Principles of Education, p. 23.
 3
THE TEACHER AS TRAINER

This chapter will focus on the role played by serving teachers in initial teacher
education. Historians have tended to give serving teachers little credit for their
direct contribution to initial teacher training. For example, Dobson has suggested
that, ‘…teacher education has indeed seemed narrow and conservative in the
past, rarely finding its own initiative’.1 For most of the nineteenth century
professional training had an overriding school-based theme and was firmly
rooted in an apprenticeship model of initial preparation. It will be argued that the
pupil-teacher apprenticeship scheme, for all of its numerous weaknesses, did, by
the end of its life, have something important to offer an emergent teaching
profession in search of autonomy, self-regulation and control. New departures in
apprenticeship through the pupil-teacher centres promoted an embryonic form of
partnership between teachers and trainers and celebrated the expert-novice
relationship. From the early years of the twentieth century, the increasing
alienation of the teaching profession from the training of future teachers can be
identified as a contributing factor to the damaging polarization between
professional sites of expertise—between those who teach in schools and those
who train teachers. Links will be made with current models of partnership and
mentoring which, whilst seeking to redress some of this professional alienation,
continue to struggle with deep-seated cultural and attitudinal barriers.
There are four parts to the chapter. First, the long historical tradition of the
teacher as trainer through the apprentice pupil-teacher system of the nineteenth
century will be outlined. Secondly, the refinement of this model through
partnership between schools and pupil-teacher centres in the reformed pupil-
teacher system of the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries will be
discussed. Thirdly, residual notions of the teacher as trainer throughout the
remainder of the twentieth century will be examined. Finally, these historical
developments will be set against the recent revival of school-based mentoring
and partnership schemes which have shaped initial teacher training since the
1990s.
34 POWER TO TEACH

THE TEACHER AS TRAINER: HISTORICAL LEGACY

The concept of learning on the job at the feet of an experienced, practising
mentor, had its roots in the original pupil-teacher system, established in 1846 by
James Kay Shuttleworth.2 This system was designed very much as a temporary
expedient to meet an urgent need for trained teachers in a rapidly expanding
elementary education system. A predominantly school-based apprenticeship
model of initial teacher training, it bridged the age gap between leaving
elementary school and entering training college. Bright, aspiring elementary
pupils could learn on the job, through classroom observation and practical
experience of supervised teaching, whilst at the same time receiving a certain
amount of further personal instruction from the head teacher of the school. Pupil
teachers were examined annually by Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) and their
progress monitored. Under this model of initial preparation, pupil teachers were
entirely reliant on the interest, patronage and skill of their head teachers both for
their initiation into the practice of school teaching and for development of their
own personal education. Head teachers were expected to nurture and supervise
their pupil teachers as they learned, through practical experience, the business of
school teaching. They were also expected to provide pupil teachers with at least
one and a half hours daily personal tuition to prepare them for annual
examinations and the final Queen’s Scholarships examination. Success in the
competitive Queen’s Scholarships examination at the end of apprenticeship
enabled the best of the pupil teachers to enter residential training colleges and
earn full certificated status after a two-year course of further training. Since former
pupil teachers had so much practical experience, the main focus of their college
training was designed to improve their own academic standing. Many former
pupil teachers, however, continued to teach in an uncertificated capacity, their only
formal training having been completed under their apprenticeship. Right from its
inception, the role of the head teacher as professional mentor, to instruct, advise
and supervise the novice teacher, was at the heart of formal training. Conceived
in these terms, the pupil-teacher model of apprenticeship formed the backbone of
teacher training and supply right through the remainder of the nineteenth century
and into the early twentieth century.
For most of the nineteenth century, when elementary school teaching,
associated as it was with the working classes, and only very basic forms of
culture and instruction, was aspiring to greater professional recognition, the
notion of a strong bond between experienced practitioner and apprentice teacher
was premised on the belief that teaching was a craft whose mysteries and
practices could be learned like many of the other traditional apprentice crafts.
Indeed, the language used to describe the nature of this bond conveys a powerful
sense of an almost sacred relationship in which the craft of teaching could be
 THE TEACHER AS TRAINER 35

modelled and learned through the direct influence of the expert practitioner. At
its best, the special relationship between apprentice and practitioner was highly
regarded and conceived as being imbued with intensely personal, intimate and
moral qualities. If head teachers took their responsibilities seriously and were
able to convey to their apprentices some of the mysteries of practical school
teaching, then this model of initial preparation formed a powerful form of
induction.3 Matthew Arnold, in his evidence before the Cross Commission, set
up in 1886 to investigate the workings of the elementary education acts,
described this relationship as being, ‘intimate and quasifeudal’, constituting the
greatest advantage of the pupil-teacher model of training.4 Taking a similar line,
one faction of the Cross Commission, which was particularly concerned with
preserving the traditional model of pupil teaching, described the traditional
relationship between head teacher and pupil teacher as embodying, ‘…very real
bonds of affection, as well as of responsibility and duty’.5
The crucial personal element of mentoring, in which novices were given
individual care and attention according to their needs, was clearly deemed
central to the effective training of elementary teachers. It is difficult to pinpoint
exactly the constituents of such a relationship, as there is limited documentary
evidence detailing its nature, but it was one which was clearly valued by many with
a fervent intensity. There was a profound sense that the moral relationship
between teacher and apprentice conveyed the skills of teaching in an almost
magical way. Whilst the rhetoric or professional lore around this relationship
was extremely positive, in practice, however, this relationship often fell short of
the ideal. The system depended upon the wholehearted and consistent support of
individual head teachers. Many rose to the challenge admirably but others often
fell short of expectations. Right from the start of the pupil-teacher system
complaints abounded about the widespread abuses and weakness of the
apprentice-practitioner model suggesting that, in practice, it was often
fundamentally flawed.
Two major criticisms were launched against head teachers. The first sprang
from neglect on the part of those who failed to take seriously their side of the
bargain in the pupil-teacher agreement, merely using pupil teachers as cheap
teaching fodder. The second was attributed to head teachers’ own lack of academic
training and shortage of time for instructing their pupil teachers in additional
academic work. Underlying both of these criticisms was the wider problem of
inconsistency between individual head teachers. Some pupil teachers working
under conscientious head teachers would have enjoyed a positive experience of
pupil teaching whilst others, under less capable direction, would have
experienced a less fruitful period of apprenticeship. Either of these experiences
could determine a pupil-teacher’s attitude and ultimate capacity for teaching.
36 POWER TO TEACH

Looking closely at the first of these criticisms, it was suggested that some head
teachers exploited their pupil teachers by using them as cheap teaching labour.6
In his evidence before the Cross Commission, Canon Daniel, Principal of
Battersea Training College, reported that he frequently heard complaints that
schoolmasters did not sufficiently instruct their pupil teachers in the craft of
teaching. When asked whether schoolmasters used their pupil teachers more as a
relief to their own teaching than as apprentices to be formed in the art of
teaching, he firmly replied that many masters failed in their responsibility to train
their apprentices.7 Similar evidence was heard from HMI the Rev. T.W.Sharpe,
who was concerned that many pupil teachers, particularly those in the smaller
voluntary schools, were exploited at the hands of unscrupulous head teachers. He
suggested that if pupil teachers had the misfortune to be apprenticed to such head
teachers they would receive very little instruction in the art of teaching and
would merely serve as drudges for particular classes.8 Likewise, the Rev. Canon
Warburton reported that many pupil teachers were used rather than improved and
he believed pupil teachers were the most overworked class of the teaching
profession.9
A second criticism launched against head teachers was that many of them
were unable or incapable of adequately instructing their pupil teachers.10 It was
not uncommon for head teachers to apprentice more than one pupil teacher. This
practice significantly affected their work-load and restricted the availability of
time for instructing individual pupil teachers on a one-to-one basis. Frequently,
head teachers had to snatch time to instruct their pupil teachers early in the
morning, during the lunch hour, or after school and at weekends. Some head
teachers were accused of failing to instruct their pupil teachers at all and many
were found to have given out private reading with no follow-up instruction or
explanation. Private study was often substituted for proper instruction leaving
many pupil teachers to struggle on alone with their studies. Mr C.Twiss, a
teacher at Warrington British School, informed the Cross Commission that
conscientious head teachers, particularly in urban schools, found it difficult to
find the time to instruct their pupil teachers properly because increased
administrative, teaching and management pressures had gradually encroached
upon time previously reserved for pupil teachers.11
The success of the traditional apprentice-practitioner model was therefore
heavily dependent on the commitment and experience of individual head
teachers. But there was no standardization of good practice. Experience varied
across schools with some pupil teachers receiving an excellent apprenticeship
and others being systematically exploited.12 As early as 1863, HMI Mr Laurie
questioned the wisdom of leaving all the training of pupil teachers to individual
head teachers. He was unable to express confidence in the role of many head
teachers, finding the existing system too unsystematic and haphazard.13 The Rev.
 THE TEACHER AS TRAINER 37

Sharpe summarized this inconsistency before the Cross Commission, ‘Some

have evidently been overworked drudges in ill-staffed schools, others have
evidently been taught before experienced and kindly teachers.’14 Similarly,
reflecting on his experience of the traditional pupil-teacher system, HMI Mr Airy
suggested that sometimes the relationship succeeded and sometimes it did not.15
Writing a review of the pupil-teacher system in 1908, Frank Roscoe, Lecturer in
Education at Birmingham University, discussed the benefits and pitfalls of the
classical pupil-teacher system. He suggested that the original plan had been
capable of producing teachers with remarkable skill in class control and school
management. Such teachers, however, were often sorely lacking in their own
general education because they had left school at such an early age and were
dependent for guidance in their later studies upon a head teacher who was
usually overworked and sometimes ill-qualified to direct the efforts of his
juniors.16

TOWARDS A PARTNERSHIP MODEL OF TRAINING:

1880–1910
Whatever its flaws, the traditional pupil-teacher system placed a heavy
responsibility on experienced teachers to play a central role in the initiation of
apprentice teachers into the craft of school teaching. In this role the teacher had
to juggle the normal everyday demands of their job and also act as a teacher
trainer. This worked with varying degrees of success and was heavily dependent
upon the individuals concerned. By the late nineteenth century, the intrinsic
flaws of this system were becoming increasingly apparent. Of particular concern
was the tendency towards the overworking and exploitation of pupil teachers in
schools which clearly did little or nothing to further their professional or
intellectual attainments. In other words, there appeared to be a serious
breakdown in the original conception of the apprentice-practitioner relationship.
As a result, the larger urban school boards began to experiment with a new form
of collective organisation in pupil-teacher centres where all the pupil teachers in
a town or region would combine in a separate location for academic and some
professional instruction. This meant that pupil-teacher centres and elementary
schools could work together to hone and refine their novice teachers. This had
the effect of significantly raising academic standards. As the pupil-teacher centres
developed, the advantages of higher standards, better teaching and reduced
exploitation of the novice teacher were recognized. There was, however, a
fundamental shift in the conception of training. The previously closed two-way
relationship between apprentice and practitioner was infringed by the
introduction of a third and novel element—the pupil-teacher centre. Arguably,
however, it was under the centre model of pupil teaching that the role of the
38 POWER TO TEACH

teacher as trainer was enriched and formalized and that embryonic forms of
partnership training were introduced.17
Under the centre model, head teachers were no longer given sole charge of
their apprentices, their work being shared with other agencies. Central instruction
instituted a new model of pupil teaching in which centres and elementary schools
had to work together to bring about the effective practical, professional and
academic training of their pupil teachers. Fundamental to the success of the
reformed centre model of instructing pupil teachers was close co-operation and
partnership between the staff of the centres and the head teachers of the practice
schools. The system could not be fully effective if pupil teachers were pulled in
different directions by separate or competing demands. The centre system
inevitably brought about changes which diluted the traditional relationship
between head teacher and pupil teacher. This established, but flawed,
relationship was replaced with a reformed and potentially dynamic interaction
between centre and school, from which pupil teachers could gain the advantages
of working with specialist subject teachers in the centres, together with continued
practical work alongside experienced teachers in the schools. Supporters of the
centres stressed the efficiency gains for pupil teaching brought about through an
enriched and mutually beneficial three-way responsibility between centre, school
and pupil teacher. If a correct balance of support was established between centre
and school, head teachers would not be excluded from the instruction of their
pupil teachers, as it was felt that a more efficient approach to practical school
management could be taken within the schools. Head teachers were given a
specific set of responsibilities in co-operation with the centres which were
intended to supplement and not to supersede their individual responsibility for
pupil teachers.
Discussing the issue of shared responsibility before the Cross Commission,
Mr W.B.A.Adams, Principal of London’s Fleet Road Senior Board School,
described the necessity for harmony between the centre and the school. He said,
‘You have the teacher of the centre and the teacher of the day school, and I think
that those two authorities must work in perfect harmony for the good of the pupil
teacher.’18 Similar views were expressed in the 1898 Departmental Committee
and National Society Enquiry.19 Before the 1898 Departmental Committee, Mr
William Taylor, Principal of the Walter St John School and Master of Method at
Battersea Training College, argued that, ‘…the connexion between the centre
teacher and the school teacher is really the very pivot on which the whole matter
turns’.20 Likewise, in her evidence before the National Society Enquiry, Annie
Evers, Principal of the Kennington Church Centre emphasized that the work of
the centre and of the head teacher of the school was essentially co-operative. She
suggested that there was no division of interest, both being concerned to do what
 THE TEACHER AS TRAINER 39

was best for the pupil teacher.21 In addition to this, Dr T.J.Macnamara talked
about the ‘dual control’ between head teachers of centres and of schools.22
Clearly, a coherent system of partnership between centre and school was seen
as fundamental to the smooth running of the centre model. For this coherence to
be achieved, a number of important steps had to be taken. These included the
formal definition of areas of responsibility and agreed syllabuses of work as well
as the maintenance of close lines of communication between centre and school.
By formally defining areas of responsibility between centre and school, local
school boards sought to guard against confusion, duplication and repetition of
work. Many of the school boards which operated the centre system formulated
regulations which explicitly divided the labour of centres and schools. The Leeds
School Board, for example, published in its annual year books the various
obligations towards pupil teachers of each agency. Head teachers were instructed
to take special interest in the actual class teaching of their pupil teachers and to
encourage them in the study and practice of the best methods of school
management, as well as to supervise weekly criticism lessons and model lessons.
The centres, on the other hand, were instructed to take responsibility for the
academic work of pupil teachers.23 Similar definitions of responsibility were
formalized under the London, Liverpool and Birmingham School Boards.24 Head
teachers operated mainly in the realm of practical and professional expertise
whilst the centres took over the intellectual and academic training of pupil
teachers.25 Sometimes, head teachers retained some of the academic work of
their pupil teachers with female staff usually being held responsible for
supervising needlework instruction. At Salford, for example, in addition to
exercising a general supervision of the teaching of their pupil teachers, head
teachers were also expected to view and correct systematic exercises in analysis,
parsing and paraphrasing, check that the maps given weekly in the schedule of
the centre were adequately prepared and correct notes given of lessons.26
As well as clearly identifying the responsibilities of centre and school, it was
common for the two agencies to confer over syllabuses of work. This allowed a
reinforcement of the work undertaken by both centre and school. For example,
A.L.Cann, Principal of the Bolton Centre, passed on a copy of the syllabus of work
to be accomplished in school method to local school head teachers. The latter
were then expected to base their criticism and model lessons around the centre
syllabus. If, for example, third year pupil teachers were scheduled to take the
teaching of grammar at the centre at a particular time, local head teachers were
asked to plan the subject of school-based criticism lessons in accordance with
this.27
One insight into how this shared responsibility for pupil teachers worked in
practice can be found in the evidence before the 1898 Departmental Committee
of Miss Davy, Headteacher of Westville Road Board School, Shepherds Bush,
40 POWER TO TEACH

whose pupil teachers attended the Tottenham Centre. Her duty was to instruct
her pupil teachers in the art of teaching and to keep in touch with the work of the
centre. She stated, ‘I always make a point of knowing what my pupil teachers are
doing at the centre. I talk to them of their work, inquire what books they read and
about their recreations and where they spend their evenings when not studying
and their Saturdays. I know generally how they spend their time.’28
In addition to clarifying and formalizing the obligations of centre and school
in the training of pupil teachers, a further important means by which coherence
and co-operation was made possible was through the development of systems of
communication and accountability.
The most obvious way in which communication was established was through
the pupil-teacher’s journal or report book, in which head teachers were expected
to record the progress of their pupil teachers in practical teaching and centre
teachers to record progress in academic subjects. Blank report books allocated to
all pupil teachers were officially published or lithographed. They usually
contained double pages with one side referring to school work, the other to
centre work. Space for dated and signed weekly comments on all aspects of the
pupil teacher’s teaching performance and academic progress was available.29 For
example, when the London School Board introduced its central scheme in 1884,
it stipulated that a journal was to be kept for each pupil teacher formally to
record attendance and head teachers’ comments on notes of lessons. The journal
was to be examined weekly by school managers and was expected to regularly
move between school and centre.30 By 1897, owing to pressure of work, London
modified these regulations, so that each report book was examined monthly and
also included comments on the academic performance of pupil teachers.31
Other centres adopted similar arrangements. Alfred Cann described how the
report book system worked at Bolton, reporting that:

We have monthly examinations and the marks are entered every month.
The principal of the centre makes a report in the report book, on the work
of each student during the quarter. There is a space left for criticisms on
lessons given in school and the head teacher has to fill up also a report on
the school work during that time. These report books are subjected to the
managers every month regularly, and are signed by the managers every
quarter.32

Likewise at Sheffield, the report book only worked with any success if the book
was regularly filled in and passed between the centre and the head teacher of the
practice school.33
The report book, in addition to providing an ongoing record of progress, was
also a critical means of communication between centre and school. It symbolized
 THE TEACHER AS TRAINER 41

the nexus between the two agencies. With its explicit page divisions and sections
each showing clearly the work of centre and school, the report book was a tangible
manifestation of shared responsibility. It enabled head teachers and centre teachers
to monitor the work of their pupil teachers and to be aware of various aspects of
work undertaken by the other partner. Moreover, if pupil teachers were
struggling, either academically or practically, the report book offered both an
indication of the difficulty and a mechanism through which it might be
addressed.
The report book kept centre teachers and head teachers informed of the work
and progress of individual pupil teachers. Supplementing it were regular meetings
between head teachers of schools and centres. These took place after annual
examinations, but commonly occurred throughout the rest of the school year
when specific problems emerged with individual pupil-teacher’s academic or
professional performance and behaviour. Pupil teachers were required to reach
satisfactory standards in both academic and professional aspects of their work
and this was reflected in the seriousness with which any imbalance between
these two areas was considered. Some of the larger school boards introduced
detailed procedures which made provision for the opinions and judgements of
representatives of both school and centre to be weighed in any disciplinary case.
For example, under the London School Board, head teachers were required to
report on the progress of their pupil teachers at Christmas, but to make contact
with the centre and local board inspector if at any other time they had cause for
concern. In 1903, London’s procedure was reviewed and a particular emphasis was
placed on the importance of considering the pupil teacher’s work and progress,
both at the centre and at their practice school. It was suggested that the first few
years of a pupil-teacher’s apprenticeship were crucial, for it was in this period
that head teachers might best judge whether the pupil teacher would succeed as a
teacher. It was also seen as appropriate that pupil teachers should be given an early
indication of their progress, should they need to be advised to seek other
employment. In the later years of apprenticeship, the Board was unwilling to
dismiss pupil teachers unless their conduct or teaching ability were poor.34
Bristol operated a similar scheme and held regular meetings chaired by the
managing subcommittee responsible for the work of pupil teachers.35
Under the traditional apprentice-practitioner model of training, pupil teachers
spent the whole working day in school with only one and a half hours additional
personal instruction outside of normal school hours. Throughout the school board
period, as conditions of pupil teaching changed, the amount of time spent by
pupil teachers in school was gradually reduced as was their teaching
responsibility and the number of children for whom they counted on the staff.
Prior to the centre system, the teaching load of pupil teachers amounted to
between 15 and 30 hours per week. In 1882 this was reduced to a maximum of
42 POWER TO TEACH

25 hours. By 1903, the maximum time spent in school during the shortened
apprenticeship of three years was 20 hours per week, not more than 5 hours in
any one day.36 Nevertheless, under the centre system, the practical side of pupil
teaching was increasingly systematized to ensure that all pupil teachers had
regular access to criticism lessons and opportunities for observation.
Of the centre model of pupil teaching, G.A.Christian wrote, ‘Time and
opportunity were afforded for observation and criticism lessons, and the pupil
teacher was regarded not as a scholastic drudge but really as an apprentice, to be
systematically trained in teaching and school-business.’37 Under specific
arrangements with individual school boards, head teachers were required to
exercise a strict moral supervision over their pupil teachers but most importantly,
were held directly responsible for instructing and exercising them in the best
methods of teaching and school management.38 These obligations were fulfilled
in a number of ways. The most important method involved head teachers in
observing pupil teachers teach criticism lessons across a range of subjects and
then formally assessing and discussing these lessons with the pupil teacher in
question. In addition, head teachers made regular general observations on other
lessons taught by pupil teachers and discussed with them their notes, planning
and preparation. Pupil teachers would often submit their lesson notes and plans
in advance and discuss with head teachers the best means of delivering certain
lessons.39 For example, Michael Gareth Llewellyn, in his recollections of centre
pupil teaching in Wales, described how his headmaster had taken a personal
interest in the development of his teaching, had given him many practical hints
and tips, lent him school method books and discussed the preparation of object
lessons.40 Head teachers would comment on the ability of their pupil teachers as
teachers, with particular reference to confidence, efficient use of the blackboard,
discipline, interest, planning, organization and delivery. Sometimes they would
give model lessons or allow the pupil teachers to observe good practice.
Undoubtedly problems did arise between centres and schools, but built into the
centre model were formal mechanisms which allowed such problems to be
identified and dealt with more systematically and effectively than had ever been
possible under the traditional closed apprentice-practitioner system. The centre
model dealt with pupil teachers and staff in large groups rather than depending
solely on an intense one-to-one relationship between individuals. Moreover, it
formalized obligations and established strict procedures for monitoring,
encouraging and assessing the progress of pupil teachers and the contributions of
those involved with their training. Head teachers were encouraged to participate
in and share responsibility for the professional preparation of pupil teachers but
if they neglected to fulfil their specified roles, they could be coerced into action.
However much the pupil-teacher system was criticized for its educational and
professional narrowness of aim, it was generally regarded as having turned out
 THE TEACHER AS TRAINER 43

competent and efficient teachers for the elementary schools. The moment of
transition from pupil to teacher implied within the concept of pupil teaching
must have varied between individuals and according to experience. Exactly how,
and at what stage this transition took place it is impossible to know. But a central
aim of the centre model of training, dependent as it was upon a shared
professional partnership between centre, school and pupil teacher, was this
fundamental process of initiating pupil teachers into the skill of teaching.
Perhaps the most obvious contender in the formation of pupil-teacher identity
was its parent identity. Ingrained into the pupil-teacher system was an assurance
that pupil teachers would be fully immersed in the world of their parent or model
identity—that of elementary school teaching proper. Pupil teachers were able to
observe, imitate, model and shape their own teaching skills on those of serving
practitioners. Before the establishment of centres, teachers were wholly
responsible for both the educational and professional development of pupil
teachers. The powerful relationship that could exist between pupil teachers and
their teachers was indeed likened to that of child to parent, so close was the
involvement on both sides.41 Under the centre system, teachers continued to play
a fundamental role in the practical and professional development of pupil
teachers.
The emerging pattern of training conceived in the pupil-teacher centre model
promised, in principle and in prospect, the germ of a coherent system of
professional partnership between trainees, trainers and practitioners. This
partnership offered chances not only to break down potentially divisive and
sterile institutional barriers, but also went some way to reconcile the academic,
practical and theoretical strands of teacher training.

THE DECLINING INFLUENCE OF THE TEACHER AS

TRAINER: 1920–90
Significantly, the pattern of reform in teacher training after 1900 placed the
education of intending teachers under much firmer central control and
supervision. Between 1900 and 1907, Board of Education policy decisions
marked the end of the pupil-teacher centres and the pupil-teacher system was
gradually phased out, with pupil-teacher centres either closed or absorbed into
the new municipal secondary schools, established by the 1902 Education Act.
The practical and professional aspects of pupil teaching were gradually eroded
until, in April 1907, the introduction of a new set of regulations for the
‘Preliminary Education of Elementary School Teachers’ replaced pupil teaching
with a radical new bursar scheme—removing any remaining practical
component from the intending teachers’ education. Following an extended period
of secondary education, bursars could enter training college straight away or
44 POWER TO TEACH

become student teachers in local elementary schools for one year prior to
entering training college.42 A major consequence of this policy shift was that
serving practitioners were gradually excluded from the initial preparation and
training of intending teachers. From the early years of the twentieth century, the
increasing alienation of the teaching profession from the training of future
teachers can be identified as a contributing factor to the damaging polarization
between professional sites of expertise—between those who teach in schools and
those who train teachers. By 1928, Herbert Ward, former Chief Inspector for
Training Colleges, found the gradual erosion and decline of teacher involvement
in the training process a cause for regret. He called for the unification of theory
with practice through institutional partnership.43
By 1928, the shape and form of teacher training had changed drastically from
earlier apprenticeship-based models. With the improvement and extension of
secondary education and the gradual abolition of the pupil-teacher system,
including the centres, by 1910, new recruits for the profession entered training
college or university following an extended period of secondary schooling.
Bursar and student-teacher schemes did operate in some areas where candidates
for the profession could work for one year in an elementary school prior to
entering training college. However, an influential report of a departmental
committee, set up to investigate the training of elementary school teachers,
discouraged any idea of apprenticeship training, arguing that secondary
education should be complete before professional training and practice began.44
Experience of school teaching prior to college training became more and more
unusual and the role of school teachers in the training process was limited to
supervision of school practice, which comprised between six and twelve weeks of
a two-year training course.
Gardner and Cunningham’s detailed study of the student-teacher scheme in the
inter-war period suggests that residual forms of apprenticeship, which valued the
input of expert practitioners, continued in part until 1939.45 Drawing on interview
data from former teachers, Gardner has argued that notions of apprenticeship
were deeply ingrained in the professional consciousness, in spite of the swing
towards a more college-based model of training. The student-teacher scheme,
introduced in 1907 as a replacement for pupil teaching and a rural pupil-teacher
scheme to meet the shortage of teachers in rural areas, retained a strong element
of school-based experience, in which serving teachers played a key role. Under
this scheme prospective teachers would complete full-time secondary schooling
at the age of 17 years and then be attached to a local elementary school, where they
would serve as apprentice teachers for four days a week, returning to secondary
school for further academic work for one day a week. Like the traditional pupil-
teacher system and centre system before it, the student-teacher scheme
emphasized the value of the relationship between novice and practitioner. It
 THE TEACHER AS TRAINER 45

afforded opportunities for the student teacher to observe practice, to try out
different forms of teaching and to gain confidence and experience in front of a
class. This model, which embraced craft-based conceptions of the teaching
profession and the transmission of professional expertise, was similar in
sentiment to that of the pupil-teacher system, but did not enjoy quite the same
benefits of institutional partnership, which was beginning to emerge under the
pupil-teacher centre model of training.
Whilst the embryonic forms of partnership promised in the pupil-teacher
centre model of training and subsequent residual forms of apprenticeship in the
student-teacher and rural pupil-teacher schemes did not take root in the
advancement of college-based training in the inter-war and post-war period, it is
important to recognize the way in which the notion of the teacher as trainer has
continued to shape professional consciousness and identity, albeit in a much less
overt way. Tensions over the appropriate balance of the practical and the
theoretical in ITT have been present since formalized training began. Even when
the colleges and university departments appeared to be dominant, serving
teachers were still central to the process. In 1926, around the time that the Board
of Education was endorsing less practical experience for student teachers it also
agreed that, ‘…the success of the training depends usually on the interest and
skill of the teachers under whom the students are placed…most ordinarily
efficient schools can be fruitfully used for practice, and most teachers of
experience have a good deal to impart to the novice’.46 The role of the teacher as
trainer under the college-based hegemony was one of school supervisor.
Different institutions set up different arrangements for the working out of this
role. At Cambridge Day Training College, for example, clear expectations for
school supervisors were drawn up of their responsibilities including the practical
arrangement of school experience for students, the observation of lessons, the
direction of reading and the induction of the student into the routine life of the
school.47 At Cambridge regular meetings were held with teacher supervisors to
provide opportunities for sharing of good practice and a scheme was set up to
release teacher supervisors to visit other schools to broaden their experience.48
At Leeds Day Training College, teachers selected for their experience and
competence in schools were identified to take direct responsibility of the practical
teaching of the student.49 At Darlington Training College, clear guidelines for
teacher supervisors were drawn up and it was recognized that they played a major
role in influencing the practical and professional development of students.50 For
student teachers, the interest and commitment of teacher supervisors could make
or break success in a school placement and make a real impact on confidence and
progress in practical teaching.51
Arguably the role of the teacher as trainer and supervisor of students’ school
experience was one in which the balance of power and responsibility was skewed
46 POWER TO TEACH

in favour of college or university authorities. In this role, vestiges of the expert-

novice relationship, so respected under earlier models of training, were clearly
present though in a diluted form. Some notion of partnership between school and
higher education institution (HEI) was necessary for the effective management
of this role but such a partnership was not based upon mutual responsibility or
control. Support in terms of funding, time, training and consultation was largely
absent from this model, suggesting a somewhat careless disregard of both the
professional value of the teacher as trainer and the value to the profession of this
role. Historically, the period of college-hegemony might be regarded as a
wilderness for the teacher as trainer. But, the teacher as trainer was still present—
one part of a longer historical continuum of involvement in ITT. The unsung role
of the teacher as trainer during this wilderness period deserves greater attention
than it has hitherto enjoyed. Not only might more research into this role offer a
deeper understanding of the nature of professional transmission and the influence
of the expert practitioner, but it might also offer insights into professional
identity and status during this period.

REINVENTING THE TEACHER AS TRAINER THROUGH

SCHOOL-BASED INITIAL TEACHER TRAINING
The shift in the early 1990s away from the hegemony of college or university-
based ITT towards school-based models based on partnerships between schools
and HEIs has been well documented. Within a decade, since the speech by
Kenneth Clarke, the then Secretary of State for Education, at the North of
England Conference in January 1992, ITT has been subjected to numerous
legislative and policy changes which have increasingly emphasized the value of
school-based practical training. In 1992 Clarke argued that the training of
teachers should be 80 per cent school based and that schools should be selected
for this purpose according to government-based criteria. The model would only
work effectively with much closer, formalized partnerships between schools and
HEIs, based upon a more equitable distribution of funding, with schools being
paid for taking student teachers, and the development of a new professional role
for serving teachers—the school-based mentor. Circulars 9/92, 14/93 and 10/97,
which established the frameworks for partnership and set out the criteria against
which student teachers should be assessed legislated for this change. The
Teacher Training Agency (TTA) was set up by the government in September
1994 to regulate the framework of partnership between schools and HEIs and to
draw up new standards for the training of teachers. Currently the TTA is pushing
further its commitment to school-based teacher training. All providers must work
in partnership with schools and actively involve them in the planning and
delivery of ITT, selection and assessment of trainee teachers. ITT providers are
 THE TEACHER AS TRAINER 47

responsible for drawing up partnership agreements which make clear to everyone

involved each partner’s roles and responsibilities and setting out arrangements for
preparing and supporting all staff involved in training, making clear how
resources are divided and allocated between the partners. In addition to a model
of ITT based upon partnerships between schools and traditional providers in the
HEI sector, the TTA is committed to developing more diverse routes into
teaching through entirely school-based programmes, such as school-centred-
initial-teacher-training (SCITT) schemes and the graduate teacher programme.
Central to the initiatives in ITT during the past decade, and closely aligned with
broader developments in the modernization of the teaching profession, is the
relocation of the serving teacher to the heart of the professional preparation of
the next generation of teachers. Arguably this is a fairly radical departure from
much of the established practice and policy of the twentieth century.
The politics and rationale for this shift towards school-based training have
been much debated.52 Generally, commentary and analysis of developments in
ITT in the past decade, mostly generated by professional teacher trainers from
within the HEI sector, have been negative and critical at worst and cautious and
sceptical at best.53 Indeed, critics of HEIs might argue that much of the critique of
new departures in teacher education policy has been undertaken by self-
interested members of the higher education community, with a vested interested
in their own position. Nevertheless, the rigid government control over the nature
and outcomes of training, brought about without adequate consultation with
HEIs or schools has been one focus for concern. The apparently wholesale
rejection of educational theory and the expertise of the HEI sector in favour of a
highly technicist skills-based framework, have been criticized. The nature of the
relationship between higher education and schools in respect to teacher training
has been debated and the diversity in the degree and nature of partnerships
between schools and HEIs highlighted. Recent research raises important
concerns about the viability of school-based training for purely practical reasons
and cites problems with support, time, expertise, commitment and priorities.54 In
essence, the rhetoric of partnership has been called into question. This critique
and counter-critique of current developments in ITT will doubtless continue as
providers and stakeholders affirm and reaffirm their respective roles, positions
and responsibilities and as government agencies continue to implement reforms
which are by their very nature politically and ideologically driven.
One interesting element of the critique of school-based ITT, is the idea that it
somehow reverts to an inadequate and flawed historical legacy—that of the
pupil-teacher system of the nineteenth century.55 Similar arguments, which dwell
on the current futility of resurrecting the failures of the past, have been used to
denigrate other policy initiatives, such as performance-related pay, the articled
teacher and SCITT schemes.56 From a historical perspective, this type of
48 POWER TO TEACH

critique, designed mainly for its sensationalist impact, is unhelpful. Not only
does it demonstrate the lip-service paid to the historical dimension in education,
but it draws upon inadequate and untested historical ‘myths’ about earlier models
of school-based teacher training in order to undermine recent developments. In
the context of school-based ITT, the historical myth resurrects the lore of the
atheoretical, unprofessional and crude ‘sitting by Nellie’ school of learning to
teach. Clearly, developments in school-based ITT since the 1990s do resonate
with earlier historical models of training and this is cause for regret by some
commentators.57 However, rather than viewing the historical version of the story
of ITT as deficient and lacking, this chapter has uncovered some of the more
positive aspects of embryonic forms of school-based partnership in ITT. This is
not to suggest that historical models were not without their own weaknesses and
flaws. It would be impossible as well as ahistorical to seek to transpose the
concept of the late nineteenth-century pupil-teacher centre into current practice.
Yet, rather than present the historical in terms of retrogressive, unfavourable
comparisons it might be more helpful to rethink the recent shift towards school-
based training as part of a much longer historical and professional tradition of the
teacher as trainer.
This chapter has shown how apprenticeship models of training characterized
the first century of formalized professional preparation. This model was refined
under the pupil-teacher centre regime of the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century and was evident in residual forms of school-based training in the bursar,
rural pupil-teacher and student-teacher schemes until 1939. During this extensive
period the teaching profession itself played a major role in the preparation of the
next generation of teachers. For much of the remainder of the twentieth century
the locus of control in ITT rested with colleges and university departments, but
the serving teacher as supervisor and adviser to trainee teachers was still a critical
feature of the training process, as were links between schools and HEIs. Long
before the Conservative government of the early 1990s commandeered the shape
and form of teacher training through a programme of legislative reform, there
had been calls for the greater involvement of schools and teachers in the training
process. This has been traced by Wilkin.58 In 1972, the James Report suggested
that schools be more involved in planning and supervising practical work and in
the early 1980s, HMI proposed the strengthening of partnerships between
schools and training institutions.59 This was carried through in practice with the
well-known partnership initiatives of the Oxford internship scheme and the
Sussex partnership model. Developments since 1992 have a well-established
historical legacy.
If a more positive version of historical models of school-based teacher training
exists, then what might it offer to current practice? The answer to this question
lies in the reconstruction of the teacher as trainer in the form of school mentor
 THE TEACHER AS TRAINER 49

and in the nature of partnerships between schools and HEIs. Husbands has
argued that, ‘At the heart of the development of the “partnership” model of
initial teacher education lies the role of the “mentor”.’60 This role, and
perceptions of it by mentors, students and HEI tutors has been subjected to some
scrutiny in recent years and the research findings raise some interesting issues. On
a positive note, professional mentors value opportunities afforded by their role
for professional and career development, either through structured mentor
training, work with students and HEI tutors and stronger links with the research
culture of HEIs. The benefits to the profession of close involvement with
intending and new teachers is celebrated by the TTA in its drive to develop more
school-based training.61 The professional benefits to teachers of close
involvement with the initial training process and the opportunities for refining
their own practice, sharing expertise and meeting a broader constituency of
professionals engaged in the process is not a novel concept and has long been
recognized. Research has also suggested that the mentor-trainee relationship and
affective and interpersonal factors is crucial to the success of school-based
training. The difficulty with this situation is the potential for a lack of
consistency or standardization between schools and training situations, based
upon highly personal considerations. It was the unique and special relationship
or bond between apprentice pupil-teacher and expert practitioner that was
deemed so important to the success of nineteenth-century apprenticeship training.
However, it was also recognized that in practice this relationship often failed,
depending on the personalities involved. The introduction of the pupil-teacher
centre, almost as a broker in this relationship brought about considerable benefits
and took the pressure off the teacher as trainer yet still retained a strong
relational element. Much of the research on mentoring draws attention to the
difficulties faced by mentors in terms of time, workload and divided loyalties.
Partnerships where mentors are fully supported and time for mentoring is
adequately funded are usually more effective and influence the quality of
mentoring in schools. Other research suggests that mentors are uncomfortable
with delivering on theory and would be happier for students to be located in an
HEI for the more theoretical aspects of their training.62 This suggests that a
balanced model of ITT which draws upon the craft and art expertise of the
schools and the science expertise of the HEI is preferable. This resonates with
ideas put forward at the turn of the twentieth century by educationists seeking a
science of teaching which was fully rooted in its art and craft, discussed in detail
in Chapter 2. This was the kind of model which was emerging under the pupil-
teacher centres over a century ago, but which was not allowed to develop.
Neither was it applied consistently or in a standardized fashion. Existing research
into current forms of school-based ITT all points to the need for highly
sophisticated partnerships between schools and HEIs—partnerships which go
50 POWER TO TEACH

beyond formalized administrative arrangements and allow genuine participation,

involvement, decision making and creation of effective training situations.
Whether or not such partnerships can be properly developed and sustained
remains to be seen, but if they do they will represent another important chapter in
the long history of the teacher as trainer.

NOTES

1. J.Dobson, The Training Colleges and their Successors 1920–1970’, in T.Cook

(ed.), Education and the Professions (London: Methuen, 1973), p. 50.
2. For a more detailed discussion of the history of the English pupil-teacher system
see, W.Robinson, Pupil Teachers and their Professional Training in Pupil-Teacher
Centres in England and Wales, 1870–1914 (New York: Edwin Mellen Press,
2003).
3. Report of the Royal Commission on the Working of the Elementary Education Acts
(England and Wales) (Cross) (hereafter cited as Cross Commission), (1886–1888),
Final Report, p. 279.
4. Cross Commission, First Report, 6 April 1886, p. 188,
5. Cross Commission, Final Report, p. 280.
6. Such concerns were expressed annually by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI) in
Annual Reports of the Committee of Council on Education (hereafter cited as
RCC). See, RCC, 1864, p. 63, RCC, 1874, p. 196, RCC, 1876, p. 427.
7. Cross Commission, Final Report, p. 282.
8. Cross Commission, First Report, 30 March 1886, p. 156.
9. Ibid., 11 May 1886, p. 288
10. Numerous references to this problem were cited annually by HMI. See for example,
RCC, 1861, p. 133, RCC, 1869, p. 287, RCC, 1872, p. 49, RCC, 1874, p. 169, RCC,
1876, p. 427, RCC, 1877, p. 521.
11. Cross Commission, Third Report, 23 June 1887, p. 450.
12. See for example M.Llewellyn, Sand in the Glass (London: John Murray, 1943), pp.
146–7.
13. RCC, 1863, p. 90.
14. Cross Commission, Final Report, p. 280.
15. Report of the Departmental Committee on the Pupil-Teacher System (1898),
(hereafter cited as the 1898 Departmental Committee), vol. II, 4 March 1897, p.
153.
16. The SchoolMaster, LXXIII, 1898, 6 May 1908, p. 979.
17. W.Robinson, “‘Expert and novice” in the pupil teacher system of the later
nineteenth century’, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 28, 2
(1996), pp. 129–41.
18. Cross Commission, Second Report, 11 November 1886, p. 50.
 THE TEACHER AS TRAINER 51

19. 1898 Departmental Committee, vol. II, 5 April 1897, p. 506.

20. 1898 Departmental Committee, vol. II, 15 February 1897, p. 65.
21. National School Society, Committee on the Pupil Teacher System, Report and
Minutes of Evidence (1898–9), (hereafter cited as National Society Enquiry), 9
November 1898 p. 49.
22. National Society Enquiry, 16 November 1898, p. 83.
23. Leeds District Archives, ACC, 1917.
24. Cross Commission, Final Report, p. 91.
25. Ibid…See National Society Enquiry, 30 November, 1898, p. 168, for details of the
Manchester Centre, 1898 Departmental Committee, vol. II, 15 February 1897, pp.
71–3, for details of the Birmingham Centre system, for details of the Sheffield
Centre system, 1898 Departmental Committee, vol. II, 22 February 1897, p. 127.
26. National Society Enquiry, 23 November 1898, p. 103.
27. 1898 Departmental Committee, vol. II, 8 April 1897, p. 333.
28. Ibid., 18 March 1897, p. 242.
29. Suffolk Record Office, Bury St Edmunds, HD 15221/1 and ADB 528/3/6. See also,
Essex County Record Office, Colchester and N.E. Essex Branch, E/Z 36/1, London
Metropolitan Archive, (hereafter LMA), SBL 1624. A blank Pupil Teacher’s
Report Book published by Waddington & Jackman was consulted at the Cambridge
University Library, reference 1906.10.46. The Guide: Pupil Teacher Register and
Record Book For Use in Elementary Schools (Birmingham: Davis and Moughton
Ltd, 1916).
30. LMA, SBL 734, 21 January 1884. See also The SchoolMaster, LIV, 1390, 20
August 1898, p. 287, in which an article on the London centres described the report
book as, ‘The tangible nexus between school and centre.’ For further details on the
working of the report books see: Cross Commission, First Report, 24 March 1886,
p. 152; Cross Commission, Second Report, 23 March 1887, p. 882; Cross
Commission, Third Report, 23 June 1887, p. 464; Cross Commission, Third
Report, 6 July 1887, p. 560; Cross Commission, Final Report, p. 89.
31. LMA, SBL 735, 7 November, 1887; LMA, SBL 735, 5 December, 1887. See also
1898 Departmental Committee, vol. II, 18 February 1897, p. 90.
32. 1898 Departmental Committee, vol. II, 8 April 1897, p. 333.
33. Ibid., 22 February 1897, p. 127.
34. LMA, SBL 748, 23 February 1903.
35. Bristol Record Office, MB/Pl, 10 April 1902, p. 80.
36. Board of Education, Memorandum on the History And Prospects of The Pupil
Teacher System (Circular 573) (1907), p. 16.
37. G.A.Christian, English Education from Within (London: Wallace Gandy, 1922), p.
34.
38. See LMA, SBL 1624, Mary Munro’s Report book listed the responsibilities of the
head teachers on the inside cover.
52 POWER TO TEACH

39. P.Heard, An Octogenarian’s Memoirs (Devon: Arthur H.Stockwell Ltd. 1974), pp.
58–9. Percy Heard, a former London centre pupil teacher, described the workings of
the report book as follow: ‘Each pupil teacher at the commencement of his career
was presented with a fairly large book resembling a ledger. This book, the pages of
which were ruled into three columns—matter, method, and teacher’s remarks, was
affectionately known as the ‘Notes of Lessons’ book. Each lesson must be prefaced
by its own private “introduction”.’ The idea of this introduction being to arouse the
attention of the children, and prepare them for the worst.’
40. Llewellyn, Sand in the Glass, p. 165.
41. Cross Commission, First Report, 30 March 1886, p. 165; Final Report, p. 91; Final
Report, p. 227.
42. For a fuller discussion of the demise of the pupil-teacher centres see Robinson, Pupil
Teachers and their Professional Training in Pupil-Teacher Centres in England and
Wales, 1870–1914, and W.Robinson, “‘In search of a plain tale”: rediscovering the
champions of the pupil-teacher centres 1900–1910’, History of Education, 28, 1
(1999), pp. 53–72.
43. J.Dover Wilson, The Schools of England (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1928).
44. Board of Education, Report of the Departmental Committee on the Training of
Teachers for Public Elementary Schools (Parliamentary Paper, 1924–25, cd 2409,
1925).
45. P.Gardner, ‘Intending teachers and school-based teacher training, 1903–39’,
Oxford Review of Education, 21,4 (1995), pp. 425–45, and P.Cunningham,
P.Gardner, B. Wells and R.Willis, ‘McNair’s lost opportunity: the student-teacher
scheme and the student-teacher’s experience’, History of Education, 24, 3 (1995),
pp. 221–9, P. Gardner, ‘The early history of school-based teacher training’, in
D.McIntyre, H. Haggar and M.Wilkin (eds), Perspectives on Mentoring (London:
Kogan Page, 1993), pp. 21–36.
46. Cambridge University Archive (hereafter CUA), Educ. 13/117, Board of Education
Report on School Practice, 1926, p. 12.
47. CUA, Educ. 21/26, Instructions for students on school practice, 1927.
48. CUA, Educ. 33/4, Minutes of scheme of practice meeting, 17 February 1910, p. 2.
49. Leeds University Archive, Education Department memorandum on practical
teaching, 1922.
50. Darlington Training College Archive, School practice: suggestions for supervisors,
1935.
51. Respondents interviewed for the project confirmed this view. See Chapter 1 for
details.
52. C.Richards, N.Simco and S.Twiselton, Primary Teacher Education: High Status?
High Standards? (Lewes: Falmer Press, 1998).
53. J.Furlong and R.Smith (eds), The Role of Higher Education in Initial Teacher
Training (London: Kogan Page, 1996); M.Booth, J.Furlong and M.Wilkin (eds),
 THE TEACHER AS TRAINER 53

Partnership in Initial Teacher Training (London: Cassell, 1991); R.McBride,

Teacher Education Policy: Some Issues Arising from Research and Practice
(Lewes: Falmer Press, 1996); P.Sikes, ‘A question of quality? reflections on the
“new partnership” in initial teacher education’ Mentoring, 1, 3 (1994), pp. 13–19;
L.Dart and P.Drake, ‘School-based teacher training: a conservative practice?,
Journal of Education for Teaching, 19, 2 (1993), pp. 175–89; L.Evans and
I.Abbott, ‘Developing as mentors in school-based teacher training’, Teacher
Development, 1, 1 (1997), pp. 135–47; K. Hawkey, ‘Mentor pedagogy and student
teacher professional development: a study of two mentoring relationships’,
Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 6 (1998), pp. 657–70.
54. Furlong and Smith, The Role of Higher Education in Initial Teacher Training’, A
Campbell and I.Kane, School-based Teacher Education: Telling Tales from a
Fictional Primary School (London: David Fulton, 1998); T.Maynard, ‘Learning to
teach or learning to manage mentors? Experiences of school-based teacher
training’, Mentoring & Tutoring, 8, 1 (2000), pp. 17–30; A.Hobson, ‘Student
teachers’ perceptions of school-based mentoring in initial teacher training (ITT)’,
Mentoring & Tutoring, 10, 1 (2002), pp. 5–20.
55. T.Wragg, ‘Two routes into teaching’, in Booth, Furlong and Wilkin, Partnership in
Initial Teacher Training. See also T.Maynard, ‘Learning to teach or learning to
manage mentors’.
56. See for example, T.Wragg, Classroom Teaching Skills (London: Routledge, 1984),
and for a fuller discussion of this, W.Robinson, ‘History of education in the new
millennium: retrospect and prospect in teacher training’, in R.Aldrich and D.Crook,
(eds), History of Education into the Twenty-First Century (London: University of
London Bedford Way Occasional Paper, 2000), pp. 50–62. See also, G.McCulloch,
‘Privatising the past? History and education policy in the 1990s’, British Journal of
Educational Studies, 45, 1 (1997), pp. 69–82.
57. A.Pollard, Changing English Primary Schools: The Impact of the Education
Reform Act at Key Stage One (London: Cassell, 1994).
58. M.Wilkin, ‘Principles guiding the future of higher education in initial teacher
training. Reasserting professionalism: a polemic’, in Furlong and Smith, The Role
of Higher Education in Initial Teacher Training.
59. C.Husbands, ‘Change management in education’, in McBride, Teacher Education
Policy.
60. Husbands, ‘Change management in education’, p. 28. D.Blake et al., ‘The role of
the higher education tutor in school-based initial teacher education in England and
Wales’, Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 3, 2 (1997), pp. 189–203.
61. Hobson, ‘Student teachers’ perceptions of school-based mentoring in initial teacher
training’.
62. Furlong and Smith, The Role of Higher Education in Initial Teacher Training.
 4
LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE I
BRIDGING THE THEORETICAL DIVIDE: MASTERS
AND MISTRESSES OF METHOD

This chapter will examine the role and function of masters and mistresses of
method in training institutions as teacher exemplars who bridged the theoretical
and practical divide. Links will be made between the role of these historical
personnel and the current development of the role of specially designated ‘super’
or ‘advanced skills’ teachers in schools. Masters and mistresses of method
traversed both the practical world of school and the theoretical world of training
institution, and had the potential to span that seemingly intractable gulf between
theory and practice in formal teacher training. As demonstrators of good
practice, giving ‘master classes’ to their student teachers, it is not too difficult to
see links between the method masters and mistresses of the past, and the
advanced skills or superteachers of the present.
Masters and mistresses of method have received limited attention in the
history of teacher training. Where they have been considered, they have often
been disparaged for offering narrow, limited and mechanical models of practice
for unwitting students to copy.1 Introduced into the new training colleges for
elementary teachers by James Kay Shuttleworth in the 1840s as one part of his
grand plan to expand teacher training and the supply of elementary teachers,
masters of method became critical to the formal training of would-be teachers.
Yet, it was the potentially crude, imitative model of theoretical and practical
instruction which historically has tarnished the professional reputation of these
masters and mistresses of method. Indeed Rich, arguing that ‘the normal master
was nearly always a man whose experience was limited to the training college
and elementary schools, and his methods, good enough in their way, did not
merit exaltation as models of general and exclusive imitation’, held masters of
method responsible for the narrowness and stereotyped quality of professional
training in the nineteenth century.2 This historical perception of masters and
mistresses of method has continued to influence educational thinking on the
subject. In 1984, for example, Wragg, apparently influenced by Rich, in a general
text on classroom teaching skills discussed the ‘rudimentary commonsense and
mechanical competence fostered by the normal school of the last century’ and
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE I 55

argued that the master of method was employed to perpetuate stereotypical and
normative teaching methods.3
An exception to this historical neglect of masters and mistresses of method can
be found in the work of J.B.Thomas and Alex Robertson who have considered
mistresses of method in the context of the emerging day training colleges of the
late nineteenth century, the expansion of university positions for women
academics, and the emergence of education as a university subject.4 In 1997,
Thomas reported on a study of a sample of 58 women staff in day training
colleges. This study, focusing on the biographies, educational backgrounds and
career development of such women, does not consider in any depth their role and
function in the professional training of students but does offer a useful starting
point for further analysis, both of men and women method tutors. Robertson, in
his work on teacher training at Manchester University, provides valuable insights
into the pioneering work of Catherine Dodd who was Mistress of Method at the
Day Training College from 1892–1905.5 Importantly, these brief studies begin to
challenge prevailing negative historical stereotypes and suggest that when
individual cases are closely considered, then a blanket dismissal of narrow
practices is inaccurate. Furthermore these studies raise interesting questions about
the educational backgrounds and experience of masters and mistresses of method,
differentiation between university and training college practices and gender
differentiation. Traditional histories of teacher training refer to method personnel
as masters, whereas in the highly feminized world of elementary teaching,
mistresses of method were also in place and played a key role.
The chapter is in four parts. First, the personal and professional profiles of
masters and mistresses of method are examined. Secondly, their role and
function in the professional training of student teachers is outlined. Thirdly, the
importance of the powerful personal influence of masters and mistresses of
method, not only on their students but also within the broader educational
community is examined. Finally, the idea of professional ‘mastery’ as it
transcends historical and current practice in teacher education, particularly in
relation to recent initiatives in ‘advanced skills teaching’ is explored.

PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL PROFILES OF

MASTERS AND MISTRESSES OF METHOD
In this study the educational backgrounds and career development of 73 method
personnel, 29 masters and 44 mistresses of method, have been examined. Fifteen
men and ten women represented day training colleges and 14 men and 34 women
other training colleges. A major source of information for the study was the
official staff register available for most training institutions, which provided
brief details relating to educational background, previous employment, current
56 POWER TO TEACH

responsibilities, salary and future positions of members of staff. Other less direct
sources such as applications and documentation for specific posts, minute books,
memoirs and registers have also been useful. If the conventional historical view
of a master of method is that he was a narrowly educated, inexperienced pedant,
then this study would argue that a more complex analysis is required. In
particular, the personal and professional profiles of masters and mistresses of
method operating in both day training colleges attached to the universities and
the traditional training colleges towards the end of the nineteenth century were
much more sophisticated, especially in terms of their own education and training
and in their broader experience and professional interests than has previously
been recognized. In spite of representing a diversity of professional
backgrounds, two core characteristics are common to all the masters and
mistresses of method reviewed. These made it possible for masters and
mistresses of method to move between the practical world of school teaching and
the more theoretical world of professional training and to offer students insights
and experiences which sought to harmonize both worlds.
The first and most obvious characteristic for both men and women method
personnel was their experience of either elementary or secondary school
teaching, often to the level of headship. A number of them had been trained to
teach through the elementary school, pupil teacher, training college certificate
route and had worked in the elementary sector, though often in higher elementary
or pupil teacher work.6 A number of female method personnel had come to
teaching through a different route, being drawn from the private, secondary girls’
school sector and often educated at Cambridge University and trained to teach
through the Cambridge Teachers’ Diploma. In the women’s training colleges
there was a trend for former students who had excelled in their college and
teaching work to be appointed to teach in practice schools attached to the college.
This gave them the experience and connections to move into method teaching
themselves at a later stage. For example, Isabella Valentine who was appointed
as Mistress of Method at Darlington Training College in 1904, was a former
student and had been governess in Darlington Training College’s Practice
School. Similar appointments were made at Salisbury and Lincoln Training
Colleges.
In conjunction with this practical experience, there was usually some
recognition either by peers or HMI of high levels of teaching skill. For example,
testimonials for J.W.Iliffe in his application for the appointment of the position
of Master of Method at Cambridge Day Training College, were particularly
glowing in this respect. Walter Flack, treasurer of the higher-grade school at
which Iliffe was a headteacher and a member of the Cambridge Town Council
wrote, ‘he has been very painstaking and has achieved higher results than any
former headmaster. He is the most successful teacher of science, and especially
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE I 57

of mathematics, that I have met during my office.’ In a similar vein,

A.E.Humphreys, fellow and tutor at Trinity College and secretary of the school at
which Iliffe taught, wrote that, ‘a singular clearness of exposition and method, a
thorough grasp of the aim and purpose of the school as a whole, a genial interest
in the general life and happiness of the scholars’ marked Iliffe out as a teacher of
some repute.7 This aspect of their experience qualified them to ‘master’ or
‘mistress’ the practical dimension of students’ professional training with
credibility.
A second characteristic was a commitment to the advanced study of education
or education-related subjects. In harmony with the practical aspects of their
experience discussed above, this academic orientation gave them credibility in the
theoretical side of their work. Many had higher degrees or advanced studies’
certificates and were distinguished in their practical qualifications having, for
example, been awarded places in the first division of the teachers’ certificate
examination. At the London Day Training College, for example, a number of
masters and mistresses of method had studied for a diploma in pedagogy at the
University of London. At other institutions some individuals spent time at the
University of Jena to study Herbartian methods of education, and others were
trained in Froebel or Montessori methods. Catherine Dodd, famous for her work
at Manchester University, had spent a number of years working with Professor
Rein at Jena, as had Iliffe at Cambridge.8 At Darlington Training College, Miss
Walker, the Assistant Mistress of Method, proposed a study visit to some of the
German schools at Jena, and was supported by the College in her endeavours.9
Agnes Bibby, Mistress of Method at Darlington Training College in 1904, had
the higher Froebel certificate in addition to other professional qualifications, as
did her successor Ellen Ashley and Maud Lloyd Davies, Mistress of Method in
Infant Training at Ripon Training College.10
By way of illustration, the following brief career vignettes of a sample of three
masters and three mistresses of method from a range of institutions studied,
exemplify the varied practical and theoretical/academic qualifications and
experience of method personnel and afford some insights into the type of
professionals who operated in this role.
William Parker Welpton served his apprenticeship as a pupil teacher in Leeds
in the 1890s, before training as a teacher at Yorkshire College. He occupied two
teaching posts and in 1896, was appointed as Method Master at York Training
College. More celebrated at York for his high standards of professional training
and his enthusiasm for classroom practice than for his academic prowess, he
later moved to the University of Leeds, Department of Education, where for over
30 years he served as Master of Method in charge of the practical training of
student teachers.11 He built close links between the University and local schools
and was heavily involved in the Training College Association and the
58 POWER TO TEACH

Association of University Teachers.12 In addition to his practical training work

and administrative duties, Welpton was the author of two influential education
books on artisan education and physical education and also contributed to other
works on school method.13 Upon his retirement in 1934, special tribute was paid
to his contribution not only to teacher training but to the wider educational world
in which he had served upon numerous school governing bodies, examination
boards, education committees and professional associations. Above all, however,
it was his belief in the high standing and heavy responsibility of the teacher’s
calling and in the importance of practically equipping young teachers for the job,
which warranted special mention.14 When he died in 1939, an obituary in the
Yorkshire Post confirmed earlier reports of his considerable reputation as a
demonstrator of teaching practice.15 Although his professional base was the
university department of education, Welpton, himself a trained and experienced
classroom practitioner, managed to successfully penetrate both the theoretical
and practical sites of professional expertise.
A somewhat different career trajectory can be observed for J.W.Iliffe. Iliffe
was primarily a teacher practitioner who maintained his professional identity as a
schoolmaster throughout his period of office as Master of Method at the
Cambridge Day Training College. He trained as an elementary school teacher at
St Mark’s Training College where he subsequently took charge of the junior
department of one of its large, attached practising schools. In addition to routine
teaching duties, he was also responsible for monitoring student teachers and
demonstrating good practice. He later moved to Cambridge, where he studied
part time for a degree at St John’s College gaining a first class in 1883 in classics
and mathematics and became principal of the Cambridge Higher Grade School,
where his excellent reputation for effective teaching was documented.16 It was
Iliffe’s professional skill and experience in both secondary and elementary school
work which earned him the post of assistant inspector of schools and later
earmarked him for the job of Master of Method at the new Cambridge Day
Training College. Whilst serving in this role to the Cambridge student teachers,
Iliffe continued to run the Higher Grade School. At seven o’clock each morning
of the week, students would meet at Iliffe’s house for method lectures on
education and for English and oral reading, which was part of their course.
Whilst he himself admitted that this was a severe test of their determination, he
judged the scheme a success. School practice was taken under Iliffe’s watchful
supervision and each week students taught a criticism lesson and he gave a
demonstration lesson. In August 1897, keen to broaden his own professional
education, Iliffe travelled to Jena to observe the pedagogical practices and
Herbartian methods being taught by Professor Rein. He was involved in the
running of the Cambridge Pedagogical Society where invited speakers led
discussions on issues of teaching and learning. He knew his students very well
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE I 59

and was closely involved in their practical training but, ultimately, found the
tensions of juggling his own teaching in school with the demands of the training
course too much. In April 1899 Iliffe moved to Sheffield, where he took up a
headship of the Central Higher School. He continued to keep abreast of
developments in teacher training, acting as an examiner in the practice of
teaching.17
In May 1911, William Stratford Levinson, temporary Assistant Master of
Method at Chester Training College, applied for the post of master of method at
St John’s College, York. Details of his application, which was unsuccessful, are
available and provide useful information on his professional background,
experience and career aspirations. Educated privately at Aberdare School he went
on to study history at the University of Wales where he was awarded a high
second class honours degree. He also trained as a secondary teacher at the day
training department of the university. His teaching experience included two years
as an assistant master in a private secondary school and a temporary post as
senior history and English Master at Farnham Grammar School. A keen sports-
man Levinson had Swedish Drill Certificates and experience of the cadet corps.
Testimonials from Professor Foster Watson, Master of Method at the University
College, Aberystwyth and the Principal of Chester Training College, indicated
that in addition to his high academic ability he was also able successfully to
apply his theoretical studies to practical teaching. Clearly ambitious to move into
college work, Levinson, at a young age, but with varied experience, was
mapping out a career in which he could harness his teaching skills and academic
interests in the training of teachers.
Like Welpton and Iliffe, Sarah Agnes Webb Grist, who worked as a Mistress
of Method and Lecturer in Education at Lincoln and Salisbury Training
Colleges, also began her teaching career as a pupil teacher. She trained at
Salisbury Training College, 1893–95, and was placed in the first class division of
the certificate examination. After completing her ‘probationary’ period in an
elementary school in Southampton, she moved to a post at the Rochester Pupil
Teacher Centre. From there she moved to Lincoln Training College and, by 1907,
she was appointed to the staff at Salisbury at the age of 32 years. In the interim
period she had studied part time for the LLA (Lady Licentiate in Arts) at St
Andrew’s University. This academic award enabled her to proceed to the
Cambridge Teachers’ Diploma, which specialized in the history, theory and
practice of education for would-be secondary and higher-grade school teachers.
She remained at Salisbury for the rest of her career and retired in 1937 aged 61
years.18
From a non pupil-teacher background but with experience in secondary high
schools, Dorothy Margaret Genner was appointed as Mistress of Method,
specializing in school practice and the theory and practice of education, at
60 POWER TO TEACH

Darlington Training College in 1911. She had not been a pupil teacher but was
educated privately at Brighton High School and Worcester Park High School.
She went on to train as a teacher at Edge Hill Training College 1904–07, where
she was placed in the first-class division of a three-year certificate course. On
completion of her training she embarked upon a three-year full-time course of
study at Liverpool University where she studied Latin, French, English Literature
and Modern History and was awarded a BA in 1907. She gained teaching
experience as Assistant Mistress at Firs Hill Higher Elementary School Sheffield
(1907–08), and Brighton Municipal School (1908–09). In 1909 she was
appointed as Assistant Mistress of Method at the Norwich and Ely Diocesan
Training College, where she remained for three years until her appointment at
Darlington. In 1913 she left Darlington to take up a post as Lecturer in English
and History at Truro Training College.19
Florence Jessy Davies was appointed as Mistress of Method at the London
Day Training College in 1909 before she moved to a similar appointment in 1912
at the London County Council Moorfields College. She had been educated at
Cheltenham Ladies College and Newnham College, Cambridge. In conjunction
with her studies at Cambridge she also studied part time at the University of
London and was awarded a first class BA degree in Classics and French in 1891.
In 1895 and 1896 she was placed in the first-class division of the Cambridge
classical tripos. On completing her studies she took up an appointment as Second
Mistress at King Edward’s High School, Birmingham. In 1900 she was
appointed as Headmistress of St Winifred’s School, Bangor, North Wales.
Between 1904–08 she worked as Mistress of Method at the London County
Council Training College at Graystoke Place. In 1906 she was awarded the
Diploma in Pedagogy from the University of London. At the London Day
Training College she was responsible for supervising students in school and for
providing tutorial work and lectures on methods of teaching.20 Similar
educational backgrounds in the academically ambitious girls’ schools and
Cambridge, can also be observed for Hannah Robertson, who became Mistress
of Method at Leeds University, and Catherine Dodd at Manchester University.
From this analysis of the professional backgrounds and experience of masters
and mistresses of method, two important questions emerge. The first relates to
possible differences in quality of staff between the university departments and
the ordinary training colleges. The second refers to differences in educational
background and teaching experiences between men and women. Those women
who were appointed to the universities tended to have been educated privately
and had studied either at Cambridge or London Universities. This suggests that
they were likely to have been drawn from more middle-class backgrounds than
those women and men who moved into method teaching from the elementary
tradition of school teaching and training. This interpretation is supported by
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE I 61

Thomas’ study of mistresses of method in the day training colleges. The sketchy
nature of the evidence available makes it difficult to undertake a wholly
systematic or comparable study of the educational and career profiles of all
method personnel. Nevertheless what this analysis has shown is that whether or
not the staff had training and experience in the elementary or secondary
tradition, they did have both practical and academic credentials. Masters and
mistresses of method were academically able, experienced practitioners with a
firm grasp of the theoretical and academic aspects of educational study. College
or university work offered career opportunities to ambitious men and women
teachers who were keen to advance their own educational and professional
standing and also to influence the development of the teaching profession
through training. The educational backgrounds, experience and career
trajectories of masters and mistresses of method suggest that existing historical
stereotyping of them may be inappropriate.

ROLE AND FUNCTION OF MASTERS AND MISTRESSES

OF METHOD
Responsible for the induction of trainee teachers into practical teaching, masters
and mistresses of method were well versed both in professional theory and
practice. For John Adams, Principal of the London Day Training College, the
master of method functioned as an important intermediary between theoretical
and practical elements of a teacher training course, ‘…the master of method, in
fact, holds an intermediate place between the teacher in the school classroom and
the professor in the University classroom’.21 Their role and function in the
training of students consisted of three main elements: formal instruction in school
method and principles of teaching; the supervision of demonstration and criticism
lessons with student teachers; and the organization and supervision of school
practice.
In the fulfilment of the theoretical or academic side of their role, method
personnel were responsible for the delivery of systematic courses on the
principles of teaching and special methods in the college or university setting.22
Students were taught how to prepare and plan lesson notes, the various means of
successfully imparting new subject matter to children, how to stimulate and
maintain their interest and how to question and elicit responses from them. They
also learned how to keep records, how to make their own teaching aids, how to
write on a blackboard and how to stand and conduct themselves in front of a
class. Advice on school management, organization and discipline was also
included. By the early years of the twentieth century, child study and psychology
also formed part of the courses on teaching method. It was not uncommon for
62 POWER TO TEACH

method tutors, mainly masters of method, to publish work on school method and
principles of teaching.
In constructing courses of teaching method, individual method personnel
pursued different emphases but were concerned to lecture on various aspects of
education and the art of applying its principles. It was this emphasis on the
adaptation of theoretical knowledge to the practical needs of a class of children
that distinguished the general method course from subject based method teaching
in different curriculum subjects such as English, History and Geography or
Physical Exercise, which would have been taught by subject specialist staff. At
Leeds University, for example, Welpton developed courses on the psychology of
education, the development of health and physical activities and the intellectual,
moral and social bases of education as well as the principles of education and
methods of instruction. At Manchester University, W.T.Goode, who later
became Principal of the London Day Training College, lectured on the theory of
education as well as taking classes on the special demands of reading and
recitation.23 At Chester Training College, detailed school management notes
were printed to complement a lecture course on the subject and included sections
on psychology, practical school work, timetables, home lessons, and suggested
schemes of work for criticism lessons in different curriculum subjects. Detailed
advice was provided on the use of the blackboard, questioning, the correction of
errors and the instruction of children in class, group or individual situations
according to ability.24 At Darlington Training College, final-year examination
papers on ‘Principles of Teaching’ for 1913 provide some indication of the
content of method teaching. The paper contains a number of problems which
might occur in everyday teaching situations relating to individual, groups and
classes of children. Its emphasis was upon the teacher’s ability to clarify, explain
and convey information to children, cross-curricular connections, questioning
and practical work. Questions included, for example, ‘lf you were in charge of a
class of 45 children below the age of nine, what means would you adopt to
ensure that no child is neglected—in a reading lesson, in a drawing lesson, and in
a conversation lesson? What are the necessary qualifications of a good teller of
stories to young children? How far and by what means can these be developed in
a teacher having no natural gift for story-telling?’25
Masters and mistresses of method straddled the theoretical and practical
domains of teacher training and moved between school and training institution.
At the heart of their work lay their ability to demonstrate good teaching and to
monitor and assess the teaching capacity of their students, whether this be
through the vehicle of student criticism lessons or during more extended periods
of teaching practice. Under the careful supervision of method tutors who at first
demonstrated elements of good practice, students would teach in front of their
peers and were later subjected to constructive criticism—undoubtedly a daunting
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE I 63

but salutary experience. Sometimes open discussion sessions were timetabled to

follow a demonstration or criticism session. Students were generally expected to
keep detailed notes of the main points arising from both demonstration and
criticism sessions and use these to inform their own planning of lessons.
At Leeds, practical training led by Welpton consisted of criticism and
demonstration lessons held weekly in the university and in neighbouring schools.
Divided into classes according to year of study and experience, students would
take it in turns to teach criticism lessons, observed both by their peers and
Welpton. They also observed demonstration lessons in various subjects which
took place in special demonstration schools in Leeds. Written reports on the
discussions which followed a criticism were produced by students, marked and
annotated by Welpton, and kept, along-side reports on their teaching and
observation practices, as a record of their ongoing professional development.
Students’ critical power and their performance in criticism sessions contributed
towards their final teaching practice mark. Considerable emphasis was placed on
the production of clear and comprehensive lesson notes, produced in advance of
lessons so that any subsequent criticism by staff and students could be focused
and informed. Similar schemes were in operation elsewhere.26 At Lincoln
Training College, for example, weekly demonstration lessons were given by the
mistress of method in the attached practising school, watched by students.
Students were then selected to deliver criticism lessons in front of their peers,
which were later discussed under the supervision of the mistress of method.27
Significantly, where method tutors observed students who were deemed to be
effective and competent teachers, they too were used for demonstration
purposes. Oral history testimony from former Lincoln, Darlington and Ripon
Training College students confirmed this informal practice. The organization of
practical training through demonstration and criticism lessons required careful
timetabling and planning. In 1914 at Lincoln, Agnes Bibby, the then mistress of
method, was unhappy with the hour slots allocated for such sessions. One-hour
slots provided insufficient scope for the expansion and elaboration of key points
and also made it difficult for students to arrange for anything in the form of a
correlated or application lesson. She devised an experiment in practical work in
which for each year group, a whole morning each week would be devoted to
either demonstration or criticism work. The plan, made with the full approval of
HMI, provided opportunities for more systematic and profitable work and
integrated the demonstrations of specialist subject staff with cross-curricular
links and plenty of time for discussion of the methods employed in
demonstration lessons.
During the late-nineteenth and early twentieth century, the criticism lesson
remained the ‘kingpin in the training of students to teach’, as it had done in
previous years.28 In spite of attempts to encourage cross-curricular and integrated
64 POWER TO TEACH

programmes of study, particularly with the growing emphasis on individual work

and child study in the early years of the twentieth century, the main focus of the
criticism lesson was a student’s performance in the individual unit of a class
lesson. Allocating students to individual criticism lesson slots was a practical
approach to providing students with a real basis for discussion, illustration and
even at times experimentation in relation to teaching method and provided a
useful way for method personnel to link the theory on principles of teaching with
the practice.
Students had to be inducted and trained to make the most of criticism lessons,
what to look out for and how to focus their observations. Professor Welton at
Leeds University advised that it would be

a good plan to train a class of beginners in reasoned analysis of lessons

before criticism is attempted. Analysis of good teaching profitably
precedes criticism of poor teaching. Such an analysis should set forth what
has been done, seek reasons for it, and note its effect. Demonstration
lessons are most usefully discussed in this way. After some practice in this
the class may be divided into two divisions, each of which takes in
succession different parts of the criticism.29

Welton also suggested that all students’ written criticisms should be carefully
examined by the master or mistress of method at the end of the lesson.
The practice of using a proforma for criticism was common to many training
institutions, and school method books or even special forms for criticism
outlined general criteria essential to constructive criticism and observation.30 At
Cambridge, Iliffe laid down a proforma which students were required to follow
in their observation of criticism or demonstration lessons. First, they had to
consider the selection of the matter, its quality, its quantity, its relevancy, and its
accuracy. Then they proceeded to analyse the method adopted by the teacher,
following the five Herbartian steps (preparation, presentation, systematization,
application and recapitulation). The questioning technique of the teacher was
considered, as well as any illustrations or visual aids. The final aspect of the
criticism concerned the relation of the teacher and the class. This embraced an
assessment of the sympathy, tact and power shown by the teacher, his manner,
language and tone and the position in which he stood. Hands in pockets was
definitely frowned upon! The attention, activity and order shown by the class and
the benefit they received from the lesson were also considered. Finally the
students were invited to estimate the causes of the success or failure of the
teacher. Notes on these points would be taken by students and kept in a special
book intended for the purpose. The role of the master of method in such criticisms
was that of a moderator and leader of discussion.
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE I 65

Formal supervision of school practice was another essential element of the

master or mistress of method’s role. The frequency, length and arrangements for
each school practice undertaken by student teachers varied between training
institutions, across time and according to the changing recommendations of the
Board of Education. This is discussed more fully in Chapter 6. Whatever the
school practice arrangements, a common convention was for masters and
mistresses of method to be in daily contact with their students in the planning
and execution of their teaching. Every evening or early in the morning before
they went off to school, students would be required to have any lesson notes
checked and monitored by the master or mistress of method. Sometimes, their
assistants or individual subject tutors became involved in this process. Students
would be visited in school on a regular basis and it then fell to the method master
or mistress to produce written reports on students and to judge their teaching
capacity, in liaison with school teachers and head teachers. Numbers of students
for whom masters or mistresses of method were responsible varied between
institutions, but would have not been less than 50.31
Overseeing and assessing a student’s performance on school practice, liaising
with schools and serving teachers and keeping abreast of the most current
developments in teaching theory, masters and mistresses of method occupied a
very prominent position in the teacher training culture. Whilst vestiges of
demonstration, model and criticism lessons continued into the 1930s, these
eventually disappeared as did the specific function and designation of master or
mistresses of method as the more general term ‘lecturer in education’ was
adopted. There was a shift towards more subject-based method teaching, with
much of the school experience taking place in local schools.

PERSONAL INFLUENCE OF MASTERS AND

MISTRESSES OF METHOD
In addition to the formalized aspects of their professional work with students, a
less tangible, but nevertheless important part of the work of method tutors was
their personal influence over the development of individual student teachers.
This characteristic is difficult to define, but clearly existed and could be
interpreted as one manifestation of the long tradition of professional training
through the close relationship between ‘expert’ and ‘novice’ practitioners, as
discussed in Chapter 3. Working in relatively small institutions in which students
and staff often lived and worked in close proximity, masters and mistresses of
method would know their students as individuals and would coach individual
needs. This close relationship is evident in oral history testimony, where former
college students describe their discussions with method tutors of the
particular practical circumstances of their own school practice class or lessons
66 POWER TO TEACH

late in the evening or early in the morning before embarking upon teaching. One
former Ripon Training College student recalled her dismay at having been
summoned to see the mistress of method following a criticism lesson, which had
gone well, but in which she had not pushed herself to her full capacities. The
mistress of method knew that the student had been coasting, and whilst the
results were fine, her full potential was not being realized. The student admitted
that she thought she would be able to get away with putting in a minimum of
effort on that occasion and was ashamed and horrified that the mistress of
method had seen through her’32 In lectures and formal demonstration and
criticism sessions method tutors clearly managed large groups of students, but at
the same time, got to know the individual strengths and weaknesses of students
under their care. If students were struggling with certain subjects or with
classroom management and voice production, it was the method tutors who
would help them overcome such difficulties.
Whilst it is in the nature of formal testimonials or obituaries of masters and
mistresses of method to be fulsome, these do afford some interesting
perspectives on their personal influence on students and other members of the
teaching professions. A sheaf of testimonials for J.W.Iliffe consistently remarked
upon his energy and powerful personal influence over students and his high
professional ideals. Upon the resignation of Hannah Robertson as Mistress of
Method at Leeds University in 1921, the University Council expressed their
regret and wished to place on record its strong sense of the value of the service
which she has given since her appointment in 1905. ‘By her wisdom, tact and
fine example, she has had an admirable influence upon the students committed to
her care.’ A special presentation from staff, students and former students was
deemed ‘an indication of deep and widespread feeling of respect and affection
entertained for her’.33 Also at Leeds, when Welpton retired, the University
Council issued the following statement, ‘As Lecturer in Education and Master of
Method he has helped to train a succession of students for the teaching
profession, and upon them his vigour of mind, strength of character and tireless
energy have made a deep impression.’34 A former colleague of Welpton,
C.M.Gillespie, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Leeds, suggested
that:

Mr Welpton has produced a deep and lasting influence on the students who
have passed through his hands, and if I were asked what are the chief
features of this influence I should say that by teaching and example he
instils into them a belief in the high standing and heavy responsibility of
the teacher’s calling and in the importance of equipping themselves
thoroughly for its exercise. Many a young man among his students who
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE I 67

started his training merely with the aim of making a living must have
completed it with a new idea of the dignity of the profession.

When Alice Martin, Mistress of Method at Lincoln Training College retired in

1917, it was noted that her ‘good intellectual standards, coupled with her great
abilities as a teacher of children enabled her to make most valuable contributions
to the professional training of the students from whom she expected, and
invariably obtained, a high level of technical competence’.35
As well as influencing the personal professional development of their
students, masters and mistresses of method were also involved in the wider
educational community, either with local teachers or in the dissemination of
good practice through publications, lectures, external examination and
scholarship consultancy work and professional organizations. This quality of
being able to reach beyond the immediate college or university situation into the
wider educational culture, reflected the ability of method tutors to gain
credibility amongst serving teachers, students and academics. Also, by working
within a broader professional constituency, method tutors were able to keep
abreast of new developments in schools and amongst teachers. Throughout his
career at Leeds, Welpton acquired a considerable reputation as a demonstrator of
teaching practice. He lectured for many years to teachers’ classes for the
Education Authority of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and also to their mining
instructors on teaching method. For several years he was in charge of the
educational side of the University Summer Schools at Whitby and Redcar, and
also lectured for the Board of Education at their summer School in Durham, in
special teachers’ courses at Bingley and to technical school instructors in
London. He regularly gave lectures and demonstrations of teaching to the Leeds
Association of Sunday School Teachers and the Educational Handwork
Association. He was an active participant at the annual North of England
Conference and an external examiner in other institutions. Less detailed
information is available for method tutors in other institutions, but there are
numerous references to similar practices and in particular to mistresses of
method giving additional lectures or talks to local teachers and students on new
developments in infant method and child study.

MODERN ADVANCED SKILLS TEACHING: MASTERY

AND EXPERTISE
Concepts of professional mastery in school teaching internationally are, within
current educational thinking, becoming very fashionable. In America, for
example, the professional development school movement, introduced in the
1980s to promote collaboration between teachers and professional learning,
68 POWER TO TEACH

prides itself on its ‘mastery sites of learning’.36 In Australia, the somewhat

controversial advanced skills teacher initiative has focused upon the designation
of ‘master teachers’ in the teaching career structure since the early 1990s.37 In
Britain, the language of mastery has emerged in recent years as part of the
teaching reform programme launched by the Labour government, first in 1997 in
its White Paper, ‘Excellence in Schools’, and later in its Green Paper, ‘Teachers
Meeting the Challenge of Change’ in 1998.38 The creation of a league of
superteachers or ASTs, to act as beacons of good practice from the classroom,
was just one of the many proposals forwarded to strengthen teaching through
better leadership and training and the reward of excellent classroom practice.
ASTs, introduced into the teachers’ career and pay structure since 1999, are a
late twentieth- and early twenty-first-century phenomenon. It would be
misleading, oversimplistic and ahistorical to view them as modern-day masters
and mistresses of method. The main duty of an AST is excellent classroom
teaching and ASTs spend 80 per cent of their time teaching their own classes. Their
main responsibilities, professional remit and firm location within the school
clearly renders them different from the masters and mistresses of method of the
late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. Yet, there are certain characteristics of
the AST role which resonate with those notions of professional mastery formerly
inscribed in the role and function of masters and mistresses of method in the
training of teachers. As leaders of teaching and learning, respected by their
colleagues and government, these special teachers, in addition to ‘demonstrating
good classroom practice both in person and through ICT links to other schools
and teacher training institutions’, are also expected to give ‘master classes’,
model and demonstration lessons out of school hours.39 Their function is to share
good practice in imaginative and innovative ways within the immediacy of their
school environment but also to be engaged in ‘outreach’ work in the wider
educational community. It is envisaged by the government that ASTs should play
an important role in teacher training through a close involvement in partnerships
between HEIs and schools and in helping with the induction and mentoring of
newly-qualified teachers.40 Recommendations include the appointment of ASTs,
as models or exemplars of high-quality teaching, to fellowships or even chairs of
HEIs involved in the training of teachers. Masters and mistresses of method had
a similar function to that of the modern AST in relation to professional training.
They moved between the world of school and HEI, albeit with a different
balance, and were responsible for sharing effective methods of teaching and
demonstrating good practice. Their professional credibility arose from their
teaching experience and strengths as well as their academic interests. A number
of masters and mistresses of method went on to develop their careers as
professors in university departments of education whilst others returned to the
world of school. What is interesting about the new model of rewarding excellent
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE I 69

classroom practitioners and involving them closely in initial teacher training and
the historical model of appointing masters and mistresses of method to
work across schools and training institutions, is the idea of fusing potentially
diverse professional practices and also the idea of flexible career structures
which maintain and value strong links with everyday classroom life as well as
with broader educational constituencies.
Quantification of professional mastery and teaching excellence remains hotly
contested and has not taken off within schools with quite the alacrity anticipated
by the government. For many teachers and educationists, the whole idea, as it is
being centrally imposed and with its negative associations with elitism,
competition or separatism, is riven with difficulties and is fundamentally flawed.
The main teacher unions were extremely hostile to the initial proposals for the
AST scheme, fearing that it would be divisive and unable to deliver on its
promises.41 Results of the ‘Advanced Skills Teachers Survey’, conducted by the
‘Excellence in Teaching Research Project’, at University College, Chichester,
found that overall, teachers felt that the majority of government proposals for the
AST grade were contradictory and badly thought through. Issues about the
selection criteria and process, the potential divisiveness within schools, career
development and unreasonable expectations were raised. It is interesting to note,
however, that this survey found that younger teachers were much more positive
about the scheme, viewing it as an alternative career path to the traditional
management route.42 Initially, take up for the scheme was slow and the
government’s target of 10,000 ASTs by 2002 was not reached, reflecting some
reluctance on the part of head teachers to become involved in the initiative.43
As a relatively recent development, it is difficult to assess the impact of the
introduction of ASTs either on schools or on teacher training. Generally positive
and optimistic, an HMI survey conducted in the summer of 2000 on a sample of
21 schools found that ASTs were having more of an impact on raising standards
of teaching and learning in their own schools in ‘inreach’ work, than on the
wider educational community. Significantly, there were some concerns over the
role of ASTs in teacher training, with only half of the sample being involved in
ITT and usually only in the role of school mentor. Only two of the sample had
been occasionally involved in ITT in an HEI. Work in ITT was not an explicit core
task for any AST. The report recommended that ways of capitalizing the rich
potential resource of ASTs for ITT should be further explored.
The promotion of the idea of ASTs and the importance the government places
on trainees working in schools alongside practising teachers surely lends itself to
some reinvention of the teacher exemplar model of professional transmission.
Today, even with the school partnership and mentoring models of training in
place, student teachers are rarely exposed to more than a limited range of
teaching styles, and are therefore unable to systematically critique them.
70 POWER TO TEACH

Moreover, with the exciting expansion of the use of ICT in education,

particularly in the technological break-throughs in video-conferencing, there is
clear potential for a new and more refined use of the teacher exemplar in training
novice teachers. This could be much more broad-based and less invasive than it
was formerly.
Perhaps also the inclusion of ASTs into programmes of teacher training offers
a timely opportunity for recapturing some of those crucial relational and
collegial aspects of professional practice which have arguably become
impoverished in recent years. Systematic opportunities for novice teachers to be
brought into a more regular and closer contact with experts, and where reflective
sharing and experimentation with different facets of pedagogical practice is built
into the training process, is needed in the context of current developments.44 This
might be seen as a natural extension and refinement of existing mentoring
schemes or it might be conceived of in a totally new way, in which different
roles and responsibilities are created for a wider range of teachers. By harnessing
the specialist expertise of teachers who are recognized ‘masters’ of their
classroom practice to enrich the theoretical and practical elements of training, a
fuller and more interactive partnership between schools and higher education
institutions might also be further enhanced. As, no doubt, the future development
of the teaching profession and the creation of a cadre of super teachers continues
to be debated, lessons from past models should be interrogated to see whether
they could contribute to modern policy and practice.

NOTES

1. See for example A.and E.Hughes, Learning and Teaching (London: Longmans,
1948), which celebrated the fact that old method courses had long been replaced in
teacher training courses. Standard histories of teacher training are also fairly
dismissive of the quality of the old method courses. See H.Dent, The Training of
Teachers in England and Wales 1800–1975 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1977);
L.Jones, The Training of Teachers in England and Wales (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1924); G.Ogren, Trends in English Teachers Training
(Stockholm: Esselte, 1953); R. Rich, The Training of Teachers in England and
Wales During the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1933).
2. Rich, The Training of Teachers in England and Wales During the Nineteenth
Century, pp. 78–9.
3. E.Wragg, Classroom Teaching Skills (London: Routledge, 1984), p. 1.
4. J.Thomas has undertaken some very interesting work on the careers of mistresses
of method in the universities. See J.Thomas, British Universities and Teacher
Education: A Century of Change (Lewes: Falmer Press, 1990), and J.Thomas,
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE I 71

‘Mistresses of method: women academics in the day training colleges 1890–1914’,

Journal of Educational Administration and History, 29, 2 (1997), pp. 93–107; J.
Thomas, ‘A note on masters of method in the universities of England and Wales’,
History of Education Society Bulletin 20, pp. 27–9; D.Hamilton, ‘a note on masters
of method and the pedagogy of nineteenth century schooling’, History of Education
Society Bulletin, 29 (1982), pp. 13–15.
5. A.Robertson, ‘Catherine I.Dodd and innovation in teacher training 1892–1905’,
History of Education Society Bulletin, 47, Spring (1991), pp. 32–41, and, ‘Schools
and universities in the training of teachers: the demonstration school
experiment 1890–1926’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 40, 4 (1992), pp.
361–78.
6. M.Vlaeminke, The English Higher Grade Schools: A Lost Opportunity (London:
Woburn Press, 2000), and W.Robinson, ‘Towards a bi-centenary review? historio-
graphical reflections on the 1902 Education Act’, The Oxford Review of Education,
2, 8 2/3 (2000), pp. 159–72.
7. Cambridge University Archives (hereafter CUA), Cambridge Day Training College
(CDTC) Files.
8. See Robertson, ‘Schools and universities in the training of teachers: the
demonstration school experiment 1890–1926’, and E.Fiddes, Chapters in the
History of Owen’s College and of Manchester University 1851–1914 (Manchester:
Manchester Universtiy Press, 1937), p. 173.
9. Darlington Training College Archive, E/DAR 1/3/Minute Book 2, 13 May 1904, p.
89.
10. College of Ripon and York St John Archive, RTC/STAFF/1, Staff Register, 1874–
1961.
11. G.McGregor, A Church College for the 21st Century? 150 Years of Ripon and York
St John (York: The Ebor Press, 1991), p. 96.
12. University of Leeds archive, General Education File 1890–1920, ref. 208. F1. See
also P.Gosden (ed.), The University of Leeds School of Education 1891–1991
(Leeds: Leeds University Press, 1991).
13. W.Welpton, The Principles and Methods of Physical Education (London:
University Tutorial Press, 1908). (Note that a Spanish edition was published in
Madrid in 1919.) W.Welpton, Artisan Education (London: Longmans, 1912);
W.Welpton, The Teaching of Geography (London: W.B.Clive, 1923). Welpton also
contributed chapters to J.Welton, Principles and Methods of Teaching (London:
University Tutorial Press, 1906).
14. C.M.Gillespie, Emeritus Professor and formerly Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Leeds, referred to Welpton’s career in a memorandum circulated
upon Welpton’s retirement in 1938. See University of Leeds Archive, General
Education File 208. F1, memorandum, 16 June 1938.
15. Yorkshire Post, 26 July 1939, p. 66.
72 POWER TO TEACH

16. Information on the career of J.W.Iliffe can be found in the CUA, CDTC files and
also at the University of Cambridge, King’s College Archive Centre, where his
letters to Oscar Browning are stored. See also [liffc’s evidence to the Report of the
Departmental Committee on the Pupil Teacher System, (1898), 27 May 1897, pp.
482–84.
17. CUA, Educ. 20/18.
18. L.Taylor, College in the Close: Salisbury Diocesan Training College Sarum St
Michael 1841–1978 (Wrington: The Woodside Press Ltd, 1978).
19. Darlington Training College Archive, E/DAR 9, Staff Records, 1878–1936.
20. University of London, Institute of Education Archives, Staff Book Register.
21. J.Adams, The function of the training college—Presidential Address to the
Training College Association’, Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 1, 3 (1912), pp.
198–205.
22. From the middle of the nineteenth century school method manuals and readers for
trainee teachers were published, mainly by teacher trainers. See for example: J.
Boardman, Practical School Method (London: Normal Correspondence College
Press, 1903); G.Collar and C.Crook, School Management and Methods of
Instruction (London: Macmillan, 1900); J.Cowham, A New School Method for
Pupil Teachers and Students (London: Westminster School Book Depot, 1894);
T.Cox and R. MacDonald, The Suggestive Handbook of Practical School Method
(London: Blackie & Son, 1896); T.Dexter and A.Garlick, A Primer of School
Method (London: Longmans, 1905); F.Gladman, School Method (London: Jarrold
& Sons, 1898); J. Green and C.Birchenough, A Primer of Teaching Practice
(London: Longmans & Co., 1911). Some discussion on the history of school
method books can be found in B.Simon, ‘Education in theory, schooling in practice:
the experience of the last hundred years’, in B.Simon (ed.), Does Education
Matter? (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1985), and D.Hamilton, ‘A note on
masters of method and the pedagogy of nineteenth century schooling’, History of
Education Society Bulletin, 29, 2 (1982), pp. 13–15; J.Thomas, ‘A note on masters
of method in the universities of England and Wales’, History of Education Society
Bulletin, 30, 1 (1983), pp. 27–9; N. Hole, ‘English Literature in the elementary
school 1862–1905: A study of teaching manuals’, unpublished MA Dissertation,
University of London Institute of Education, August 1997.
23. Fiddes, Chapters in the History of Owen’s College and of Manchester University
1851–1914, p. 171.
24. Chester City Record Office, Chester Training College Records, CR 86/12/32,
School Management Notes: Syllabus of Selected Lecutres on Psychology and
Method used in the Practising School, Chester College, printed by W.W.Dobson,
Chester, 1885.
25. Darlington Training College Archive, E/DAR/8/8, Final Examination Paper in
Principles of Teaching, 1913.
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE I 73

26. CUA, Educ. 21/27.

27. D.Zebedee, Lincoln Diocesan Training College 1862–1962 (Lincoln: Keyworth
and Fry, 1962), pp. 10–11.
28. O.Stanton, Our Present Opportunities: The History of Darlington College of
Education (Darlington: Olive M.Stanton, 1972), p. 78.
29. J.Welton, Forms for Criticism Lessons (London, Macmillan, Ist edition 1897, 2nd
edition, 1910).
30. See for example F.Gladman, School Method (London: Jarrold & Sons, 1898), pp.
157–8; E.House, Forms of Criticism for Lessons and Pedagogic Exercises (London
and Derby: Bemrose & Sons, (1899), Welton, Forms for Criticism Lessons.
31. For examples of Welpton’s reports see University of Leeds, Museum of the History
of Education, Day Training College Records, Reports on Students’ Teaching
Practice. See also University of Leeds Archive, Teaching Practice File, ref.
208.F29, 1910–1940.
32. Oral History Interview, Vera Brown, Ripon Training College student, 1930–32.
33. University of Leeds Archive, letter from G.M.Gillespie, University of Leeds, 14
November 1921.
34. Ibid.
35. Zebedee, Lincoln Diocesan Training College 1862–1962, p. 93.
36. See Journal of Educational Policy and Practice, 7, 1 (1993), for a special issue on
‘Professional Development Schools’ edited by H.G.Petrie, F.Murray, ‘All or none:
criteria for professional development schools’, Educational Policy, 7, 1 (1993), pp.
661–73.
37. J.Smyth, G.Shacklock and R.Hattam, ‘Teacher development in difficult times:
lessons from a policy initiative in Australia’, Teacher Development, 1, 1 (1997),
pp. 11–19.
38. DfEE, Excellence in Schools (London: DfEE, 1997), DfEE, Teachers Meeting the
Challenge of Change (London: DfEE, 1998a), DfEE, Standards Fund Grant for
Advanced Skills Teacher Posts (ASTs), 1999–2000 (London: DfEE, 1998b).
39. See above and also M.Baker, ‘Invasion of the superteachers’, Times Educational
Supplement, 30 October 1998, p. 20
40. OFSTED, Advanced Skills Teachers: Promoting Excellence and Teacher Education
and Training Division (London: OFSTED, 2000), DfEE, The Appointment and
Deployment of ASTS—a Survey by HMI (London: DfEE, 2000).
41. M.Baker, ‘Invasion of the superteachers’, K.Smith and D.Avers, ‘Collegiality and
student teachers: is there a role for the advanced skills teacher?’, Journal of In-
service Education, 24, 2 (1998), pp. 255–70; National Association of Head
Teachers (1998), NAHT Comments on the Advanced Skills Teacher Grade
(Haywards Heath: NAHT, 1998); National Association of Schoolmasters and
Union of Women Teachers, press statement, ‘NASUWT reaction to the
government’s proposals for Advanced Skills Teachers’, 2 March 1998; National
74 POWER TO TEACH

Union of Teachers, News Release: Advanced Skills Teachers, 2 March 1998;

Professional Association of Teachers, press release, ‘PAT says no to
“superteachers”, 2 March, 1998; M.Jennings, ‘Most heads opposed to
“superteachers”’, Times Educational Supplement, 3 September 1999, p. 9.
42. D.Blake, V.Hanley, M.Jennings and M.Lloyd, ‘“Superteachers”: The views of
teachers and head teachers on the Advanced Skills Teacher Grade’, Research in
Education, 63 (2000), pp. 48–59.
43. A.Sutton, A.Wortley, J.Harrison and C.Wise, ‘Superteachers: from policy towards
practice’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 48, 4 (2000), pp. 413–28.
44. For a historical perspective on demonstration teaching see A.Robertson, ‘Schools
and universities in the training of teachers: the demonstration school experiment
1890–1926’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 30, 4 (1992), pp. 361–78. See
also Chapter 5. The government’s proposals for training schools, outlined in the
1998 Green Paper indicate a renewed interest in demonstration teaching.
 5
LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE II
MODEL AND DEMONSTRATION SCHOOLS

If masters and mistresses of method represented a physical embodiment of the

unification of theory and practice in the training of teachers, then the model or
demonstration schools in which they practised their craft must also be viewed as
a tangible institutional commitment to this ideal. The history of schools attached
to training institutions, variously referred to as ‘model’, ‘normal’, ‘practising’
and ‘demonstration’ schools is limited and largely negative.1 These operated to
provide a ready-made teaching environment in which to test trainees’
competence, mainly through the medium of individual criticism lessons. They
were, however, subsequently condemned for offering a narrow, limited and
unrealistic practical experience and were later replaced with teaching practice in
a wider range of local schools. Nevertheless, a fundamental part of teacher
training throughout the nineteenth and into the twentieth century rested on the
belief that effective teaching methods should be transmitted to students through
some kind of modelling process in schools organized for this purpose. There
were flaws in the practical application of this belief, and various models were
developed over the period.
This chapter will analyse the function of model and demonstration schools in
the training of teachers with particular reference to the demonstration school
initiative in the period 1896–1932. First, there is a broad historical overview of
the development and use of college-based schools. Secondly, there is a detailed
consideration of the ideal of the demonstration school and its implementation in
the Manchester Fielden Demonstration Schools and other places. Thirdly, the
weaknesses of the demonstration school ideal will be reviewed. Finally, current
policy regarding the role of specially designated training schools in the initial
training of teachers will be considered in the light of earlier historical
developments.
76 POWER TO TEACH

NORMAL, MODEL AND PRACTICE SCHOOLS:

HISTORICAL LEGACY
The notion of modelling effective teaching and school management was an
essential component of formalized elementary teacher training from its inception
in the late 1830s.2 Practising or ‘model’ schools were built on the same sites as
the denominational training colleges not only to provide opportunities for
students to practise their teaching but also to serve as ‘models’ of the monitorial
plan, then very much in vogue and forming the core of professional training. As
pedagogical and educational trends changed, these ‘model’ schools no longer
modelled one particular type of school organization, but continued to operate as
the main practical training ground for student teachers. It was in the college
model school that criticism and demonstration lessons took place and where
inspectors would observe and examine students in their practical teaching. By the
1880s, the Education Department was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with
the limitations of the model schools. Colleges had not invested in the
improvement of buildings and facilities, so that, for example, the move away
from gallery teaching towards class teaching was not possible in many model
schools whose architecture and design reflected a much earlier era. Moreover, it
was argued that students were being exposed to narrow and unrealistic
experiences in the college schools which were extremely well staffed in terms of
staff-pupil ratios and which attracted local children of a higher social class than
normally found in elementary schools. There were also fears that teaching
methods were being reduced down to a body of fixed and stereotyped modes of
procedure which students were encouraged to imitate, copy or model uncritically.3
Negative HMI reports on school practice in the training colleges throughout the
1860s, 1870s and 1880s prompted a change of policy in which colleges were
induced to send their students to better designed local schools for some additional
practice.
An investigation of how individual colleges managed and adapted their use of
model schools throughout the period when they came under attack illustrates the
inherent difficulties and challenges associated with the system. It also
demonstrates, contrary to standard and official government histories of the
model school, that training colleges and their model schools were not static
entities but that they responded to and adapted to changing ideas and
philosophies of education over time. At Lincoln Training College, for example,
the practising school was plagued with negative reports from HMI during the
1860s and 1870s. These highlighted problems of overcrowding, particularly
when too many students were put into classes to teach, as well as poor quality
staffing, inadequate facilities and a failure to expose students to a wide age range.
Minutes of the governing body of the practising school and the practising school
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE II 77

log book offer useful insights into the weaknesses of a model which made the
College dependent on a single school for practical experience, whilst also
ensuring that it remained a financially viable functioning school, able to meet the
needs of its pupils.4 A main problem for the College was staffing the school with
highly-qualified staff who could cope with the potentially conflicting demands of
student teachers and children and the constant disruption to the timetable by
students in practice. Students were used to supplement the staffing of the school
in the absence of regular staff and were also used to chase up absentees.5
Frustration with weak students and the damaging effect of their poor teaching on
the children is evident in some of the log book entries. The most extreme of these
was reported on 14 April 1880, when first year student L.Cartwright gave her
first oral lesson on the subject of ‘the cow’ to the fourth class and was reported to
have, ‘asked the most senseless question any one well could’, including ‘what
are its eye? What are its legs? What shape its body, the last of which she
answered herself saying “It was round like a barrel”!’6
By 1895 the College recognized the problems and actively sought to improve
both the quality of staffing and the practical arrangements with the students. New
mistresses were appointed to the school and had a much closer relationship with
the College, being given time off school to meet staff in the college to discuss
timetabling and planning and even to examine students. Care was taken not to
overcrowd the school with students and by the late 1890s a much more
systematic programme was implemented with three weeks of blocked practice
either by junior (first year) or senior (second year) students, supplemented by
further placements in other schools in the city. Students were organized into
groups of eight, with four teaching and four observing at any one time. By 1898
a programme of child observation was trialled, reflecting the College’s desire to
keep abreast of new trends in educational thought. A new girls’ practising school
was built and opened in the College grounds in 1904. Here all model,
demonstration and criticism lessons were conducted by the mistresses of method,
and some initial practical work was undertaken by first-year students. Moreover,
this experience was broadened with subsequent school placements in the city and
as far afield as Nottingham, Sheffield and Grantham.7
The situation at Darlington Training College was very different and exposes
the problems around control and funding which afflicted and subsequently
undermined the potential of the model school and its later reincarnations.
Initially Darlington did not have its own practising school and arrangements
were made with head teachers of local schools who were given annual payments
for their services to students.8 The disadvantage of this arrangement was that the
schools were often at too great a distance from the college, creating difficulties in
terms of transport and timing. Schools closer to the college had a poor reputation
and served locally impoverished communities, thus skewing the nature of
78 POWER TO TEACH

practical experience offered to students. The college was deemed weak by HMI
who urged the importance of a college-based practising school. In 1882 the
College applied to the Education Department for its own practising school which
would be self-supporting and operated on the College premises, but which would
be organized in conjunction with existing Darlington School Board provision.
After much debate about funding and cost, the practising school was eventually
opened in 1888 and consisted of one long room divided into two by a glass
screen, with two smaller rooms for class lessons. It was a small school which
attracted a wide age range of infants, boys and girls. Its first headmistress, Miss
Fanny King, was a former student who had recently been promoted to a headship
at Milford British School, Derby. As curricula and methods changed throughout
the 1890s and early years of the twentieth century, this was reflected in the work
of the practising school. Object lessons, the copybook and the slate were
gradually replaced with an emphasis on practical study of local history and
geography and nature study.
The idea of a ‘demonstration’ school, distinct from the ‘model’ or ‘practising’
school of the old type emerged in the mid 1890s and was reputedly discussed by
the Incorporated Association of Headmasters in 1896 who were charged with
investigating the training of secondary school teachers.9 Subsequently, the idea
was taken up by other professional associations, including the Training College
Association and was championed by the likes of M.E.Sadler and J.J.Findlay, who
explored its potential and purpose in a special report for the Board of Education
in 1898.10 Findlay went on to direct the Fielden Demonstration Schools, attached
to the University of Manchester Department of Education. According to Findlay,
a demonstration school, controlled and managed by a teacher training institution
was essential to the satisfactory instruction of student teachers in principles of
teaching and should be, ‘expressly designed to correlate the lectures on education
with the practical exposition of method, to give reality to the study of Method
and of Curricula, to foster the spirit of investigation and to enable the student to
come into close contact with individual children for an extended period.’
Demonstration schools were a much more sophisticated version of the old model
school and were not merely schools in which students could practise. Rather,
they were intended to offer structured opportunities for observation and
experiment and for demonstrating to students the best methods of teaching. They
were designed to bridge the theoretical work of the college or University course
and the practical work of the school. Findlay referred to the ‘intimate bonds
between school and college’ if the system were to operate properly. The label
‘demonstration school’ itself was selected in place of the earlier terms, ‘model
school’ and ‘practice school’ to indicate that demonstrators, on a par with the
demonstrators in a laboratory, would be assisting students to gain continuous and
comprehensive experience of educational principles expounded in the
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE II 79

training college and demonstrated week in, week out in the school, where
lecturers and demonstrators united to associate theory and practice.11
The main obstacle to the widespread establishment of demonstration schools
in association with teacher training institutions was the locus of their control and
funding. Whilst nine out of thirteen university departments and some of the larger
voluntary training colleges such as Homerton, York and Darlington were able to
set up demonstration schools, their history was chequered and largely short-lived.
The Board of Education offered no special grants for the maintenance and
staffing of demonstration schools which had to rely on philanthropic support and
endowments. Following the 1902 Education Act, LEAs were made responsible
for providing facilities for the practice of training students. This meant that such
schools would have to conform to regulations about curriculum, organization and
inspection like any other recognized efficient state school. Former model or
practising schools now came under the authority of the LEA and not the training
institution. Training institutions had to negotiate access to these and the potential
for dispute over conflicts of interest was huge. In 1906, after lobbying from
Findlay and a group of Manchester MPs, there was a failed attempt at including
special provision for demonstration schools in the controversial Birrell Bill,
which was designed to overturn some of the legislative requirements of the 1902
Education Act. Whilst the Board of Education supported the idea of the
demonstration school it made no grants available to training colleges to run these
independently. LEAs did not prioritize demonstration schools or any schools
attached to training institutions in terms of funding, staffing and resources
largely because the students were likely to move into other authorities on
completion of their training. Demonstration schools, acting almost as educational
laboratories, required different textbooks, furniture and equipment. If they were
to provide the focus for experiments in method and curriculum then they would
not be able to adhere to the detailed regulations regarding curricula and
timetables which were rigidly applied to recognized schools.12
The idea of the demonstration school which functioned both as a test-bed for
educational theory and a practical training ground for student teachers was
wholeheartedly supported by the TCA which, together with the National Union
of Teachers (NUT) and the Council of Principals of Training Colleges,
throughout the 1910s, 1920s and early 1930s, regularly lobbied for their
independent financing and recognition by the government.13 The TCA argued
that ‘the demonstration school should be to other teachers and educational
organizers what garden cities and model dairies are to municipal building
committees and dairy farmers. They need specialized staff, equipment and
freedom from stereotyped inspection.14 In 1914, a deputation to the Board of
Education from the TCA stated that ‘many colleges felt that they were subjected
to a grave disability in not being able to illustrate properly in practice the
80 POWER TO TEACH

principles and theories of teaching taught in the college’. This was considered to
be an even more pressing problem, with the changes of policy towards pre-
training experience of teaching, with the abolition of pupil teaching and student
teaching schemes.15 Again in 1917 the TCA resolved that the Board of Education
be urged to give grants for the establishment and maintenance of Demonstration
and Research Schools under the direct control of training institutions. In view of
the national importance of teacher training, the TCA wanted sufficient funds to be
made available to appoint high quality and skilled staff, as associate lecturers,
who could demonstrate methods of teaching and supervise the teaching practice
of students. It was hoped that such personnel could be paid higher salaries than
those offered on the normal scale.16 By 1932 the situation had not been
effectively resolved. A letter to the Board of Education from the NUT,
representing the NUT, TCA and Council of Principals of Training Colleges
stated that:

It is felt that the organisation of periods of school practice is not in itself

sufficient to ensure that continual contact with child life without which
theoretical instruction in teaching tends to lose significance, and also that it
has been proved that teaching institutions undertaking advanced or
professional studies benefit if they have well devised opportunities for
experimentation and research.

In spite of these protestations there is no evidence to suggest that the ideal of the
demonstration school, funded and controlled by training institutions, was ever
fully realized. Increasingly, training institutions organized school placements for
their students in neighbouring schools. Many of the old model or practising
school buildings were either demolished or integrated for general college use.
Just as the designation ‘master’ or ‘mistress’ of method waned in the 1920s and
1930s, so too did the emphasis on demonstration models of teaching and a
singular practice school for experimentation and modelling. The bridging of theory
and practice which was embodied both in special method personnel and also in
special demonstration schools was for a time a realistic endeavour, but it was not
sustained and neither was it systematically applied across the whole spectrum of
training providers. Findlay and the TCA recognized the potential of
demonstration schools and for a period of ten to fifteen years there was clearly
some very interesting and useful educational work and training conducted in
accordance with the demonstration school ideal.
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE II 81

THE DEMONSTRATION SCHOOL EXPERIMENT

Findlay and his colleagues in the TCA were committed to improving the quality
and nature of teacher training. They were also keen to develop a scientific theory
of education which was based on sound principles drawn from the daily realities
of classroom life. The demonstration school had two main functions. First it
could serve as a model in which students could observe, practice and be exposed
to good teaching. Secondly it could provide the basis for some careful
experimentation, child study and testing of different methods, modes of
organization and school curricula. The demonstration school, not dissimilar to
the clinical schools used for medical students, was constructed as an educational
laboratory, ‘in which the student gets a first-hand knowledge of his subject,
while at the same time he is in touch with real scholars in a real school he sees
experienced teachers working out methods of teaching and control, his theories
are constantly put to the proof of experience, and, above all he keeps in touch
with child life’.17 There is a real sense of excitement and anticipation amongst
proponents of the principles of teaching based on scientific research. Findlay
wrote,

When the lecturers describe the great progress in educational methods on

which the basis of our modern practices are based, he quotes the teaching
experiments of Comenius, Herbart, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Lancaster and so
forth. But there is no finality about such things. We are only at the
beginnings. Never were there so many persons capable and desirous of
carrying on the work of these men as have grown up during the last twenty
years.

The extent to which demonstration schools could, in reality, operate as scientific

laboratories for the live experimentation on its educational specimens was
debatable. Without government grants, and having to conform to the
requirements of LEAs, opportunities for any radical experimentation were
limited. Then there were the ethical questions around the interference with
children’s education. Comparable, but different experimental schemes on the
continent and in America, such as the Lincoln Schools in New York, the Gary
Schools in Chicago and Dewey’s famous laboratory school in Chicago were
reviewed with interest but also some suspicion by British educationists.18
Certainly Findlay embraced both aspects of the ideal at the Manchester Fielden
Schools, largely because the schools were endowed and fee paying. An
inspection report for the schools in 1915 confirmed its experimental function, ‘It
is understood that the school is not more essentially a demonstration theatre than
a laboratory, on an experimental ground and that everything done in it has an
understood and definite relation to the needs of the students.’19 Some
82 POWER TO TEACH

experimentation on a much more modest scale took place at other institutions, but
for the majority of training institutions, particularly the more traditional
voluntary colleges, the challenge of ensuring that students were in receipt of an
adequate practical training was testing enough.
Little has been written on the demonstration school experiment to date, other
than Alex Robertson’s important article on the work of Findlay and his colleague
Catherine Dodd at the University of Manchester Fielden Demonstration Schools,
published in 1992.20 This offers some very valuable insights into Findlay’s work
and is focused on the contribution of universities to the development of an
academic study of education in its own right. It only goes so far, however, in
uncovering the actualities of the daily workings of the demonstration schools.
There is still more work to be done on this subject, but the historian, as ever, is
frustrated by a dearth of surviving material. It is recorded in Board of Education
memoranda that demonstration school experiments on a smaller scale than the
Manchester model also took place in London, under the auspices of the London
Day Training College, in Leeds, Cardiff and Bangor as well as at Oxford, York,
Aberystwyth and Cambridge.21 Little is known about these experiments and the
bulk of information relating to the demonstration school idea is linked to
Findlay’s work at Manchester which he widely publicized.
In spite of a limited evidential base, it is possible to make some tentative
observations about the emergent demonstration school of the early twentieth
century. By exemplifying the whole of school life—its organization, discipline
and the ‘social work of the teacher’ as well as teaching methods—the
demonstration school was ideally placed as the living embodiment of the
emerging new educational theory. It was envisaged that in the demonstration
school the systematic observation and recording of children’s learning,
demonstration of good practice to students by experienced teachers and
opportunities for teaching practice for students would combine to provide a
sound scientific basis for a practical pedagogy. Moreover, the demonstration
school would bridge the theory of the lecture theatre with the practice of the
school. According to Findlay,

…the demonstration school is expressly designed to correlate the lectures

on education with the practical exposition of method, to give reality to the
study of method and of curricula, to foster the spirit of investigation, to
enable the student to come into close contact with individual children for
an extended period and in the careful study of the characteristics of
children.22

He wanted training colleges for teachers to become far more than mere ‘degree-
getting academies’ and urged the government to provided the means for real
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE II 83

practice-based research in demonstration schools.23 Fully staffed by an elite

corps of expert classroom teachers who were also able to work with students as
demonstrators of good practice, he wanted a national system of demonstration
schools controlled by college authorities and inspected by the Board of
Education under the regulations for the training of teachers. He used the example
of his work at Manchester to demonstrate the advantages of such a model and
argued that,’…all alike concur in finding that great benefit is derived from
associating theory with practice, and from practice of a sort which involves real
responsibilities for results’.24
It was Catherine Dodd, Mistress of Method at Manchester University,
Department of Education, before Findlay’s arrival there, who made the first
tentative steps towards the demonstration school ideal at the University of
Manchester. At her instigation and with the approval of the University Council,
an elementary school and kindergarten were opened in 1902 in a house in
Brunswick Street near the college. The school was designated a demonstration
school where experiments could be made in new methods of teaching and where
students could observe carried out in practice the methods of teaching they were
learning on their training course. The school was entirely dependent on voluntary
subscriptions.25 When Findlay was appointed to the Sarah Fielden Chair in
Education in 1903, he prepared a scheme for a second demonstration school for
boys between the ages of 10 and 15 years. A house was taken in Lime Grove and
the school was opened in 1905, with financial support from Sarah Fielden, a
benefactress of the University.26 Eventually a much larger house and grounds in
Victoria Park were purchased by Sarah Fielden which meant that the
kindergarten and primary departments as well as secondary could all operate
together. The school was organized with ten classes of children, ranging from 5–
15 years, with an average of 20 children in each class. In addition to the
classrooms, there were two large demonstration rooms, equipped for the purpose
with chairs as well as the usual classroom furniture and able to accommodate up
to 30 students. These rooms were acknowledged to be too small for the purpose,
and attempts were made to erect in the grounds a demonstration hall specially
adapted for the work. Lack of funding meant that this ambition was never
fulfilled. With two acres of grounds there was plenty of scope for the
development of nature study and outdoor activities.
As it was financed and managed by a trust, the school was fee-paying,
charging between 1s to 1s 6d per week or up to £3 per year. This fee scale was
comparable to a cheaper fee-paying secondary school. It was attractive to lower
middle-class parents living in the suburbs of the city who were impressed with
the small classes, high academic standards and individual attention offered by the
school. An inspection report from 1905 suggested that parents were very pleased
with the school ‘due to the fact that there is such life and intelligence and
84 POWER TO TEACH

earnestness in the whole atmosphere. Everything is, or may be, the subject of
discussion. Reasons must be ready for everything done.’27 Moreover, parents
were consulted and fully informed about the experimental work of the school,
with regular meetings with Findlay and the rest of the staff.28
The staffing of the schools was considered with great care. The Headmaster,
Headmistress and demonstrators were all people of wide practical experience in
schools. Also, junior posts were filled either by graduate students who had
completed the Manchester University training course and showed particular
professional promise, or by other experienced teachers seeking to take advantage
of the opportunity to pursue their professional studies further. Part of Findlay’s
plan was to use the school as a training ground for educational research. Former
students were handpicked to specialize in educational research, receiving a small
salary and operating as research students, with a light teaching load and plenty of
time for the advanced study of education in the school. The senior teachers were
partly paid by the University to assist in the oversight of students and a share in
teaching and supervision was also undertaken by lecturers and demonstrators
from the University Department of Education.
In terms of organization and curriculum, the school took children from the age
of 4 to 15, offering kindergarten, primary and upper-school courses. In each of
these stages there were various experiments with testing out new methods of
teaching and curriculum, such as the use of Montessori apparatus in the
kindergarten, applying the Dewey curriculum to the primary school and
curriculum development in modern languages and mathematics teaching in the
upper school. The curriculum and methods were regularly discussed and altered
and there was a special emphasis on cross-curricular links and fitting certain
subjects to the age range and abilities of children. The branches of teaching
comprised the usual subjects taught in public schools, due attention being paid to
arithmetic, handwriting and other elementary studies. In addition, special
attention was paid to drawing and handicrafts, physical exercise, singing and
nature knowledge. Where possible open-air teaching took place. The schools did
not undertake to prepare scholars for public examinations or for scholarships but
sought to equip both boys and girls for future careers in the mercantile or
industrial world.29 Investigations were also conducted outside the field of
teaching proper, on the social and physical and psychological aspects of child
life and an annual school camp was organized for this purpose. These
experiments formed the subject of seminar discussions by university staff and
students.
A well-documented example of experimentation at the Fielden Schools was
the application of Montessorian principles to the work of the kindergarten under
the leadership of headmistress Miss K.Steel. In a book published in 1914, Steel
and Findlay explained how they had studied and discussed the experiment with
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE II 85

colleagues, visitors and students alongside the everyday business of teaching the
children.30 From September 1912, for one year they had set aside the first hour
of the school day in the kindergarten with children aged 4–6 years for
experimenting with apparatus either copied from Montessori models or designed
on similar principles. Adolescent girls from the upper school were also involved
in the work as part of their own domestic training. Arguing that their own ‘…
freedom from pedagogic shibboleths’ allowed for open debate and constructive
criticism, they were not wholeheartedly supportive of the Montessori method. In
particular they were unhappy with the commercialism of manufactured
Montessoriism and were worried that if the system were widely applied to
British schools, then important differences of culture, race, context and
environment might hinder its effectiveness.31 Steel, however, did like the way in
which the Montessori method forced teachers to engage in systematic child study
and urged the importance of demonstration schools for securing evidence of the
value of such educational techniques. Significantly, school inspectors found that
the experimental culture of the school did not appear to influence unduly the
attention or performance of the children, who were clearly accustomed to being
observed and taught by a variety of staff.32
Students were introduced to practical study in the schools in two ways: the
demonstration lesson; and the constructive criticism lesson. One or two hours in
each week were set apart for a demonstration lesson, which could be attended by
some 30 students at a time, as well as the normal class of children. The lesson
was selected from the regular programme of a class, to exemplify certain
principles of curriculum and method, and would be preceded by an account in
the lecture room of the aims underlying the work and followed at a subsequent
lecture by a discussion of results. Students were required to record the lesson and
to seek an interpretation of their observations. At the same time they were
encouraged to see the relation of this single lesson to the entire plan of pursuits.
A series of such lessons, accompanied by investigation of principles, provided
students in further sessions with a practical body of knowledge on the daily work
of teaching children in classes. Having gained experience in this way students
proceeded to put this knowledge to use by undertaking charge of a class. A few
lessons would be observed to gain knowledge of the class and then the student
would be made responsible for teaching the class for a school term, guided and
supported by a demonstrator or class teacher. All preparation of lessons would be
recorded and evaluated.
The oversight and examination into methods was completed in the work of the
seminar. This idea was borrowed from the German model introduced by Rein, a
follower of Herbart at Jena University. Students were expected, as soon as they
had their class under control, to give an open lesson in the presence of the third-
year group of diploma students, and thereafter, at a separate meeting, to explain,
86 POWER TO TEACH

and if needs be to defend, their plan of teaching. A well-conducted seminar

served to bring into relief the main ideas underlying the plan of teaching, and as,
week-by-week, the work of different parts of a school was brought under review,
the students were encouraged to make a comprehensive survey of the various
groups of school pursuits and of the methods employed to achieve the ends
proposed. The ethos of the model emphasized collaboration between children,
teachers, lecturers and demonstrators.
Detailed records were logged of the physical and mental development of the
children. As well as providing a valuable database for the study of child
development and children’s learning, they were also an integral part of a child
development course taken by students. This course, for example, was planned to
provide a practical knowledge of the mental and physical development of
children. Selected problems of school life, such as the development of speech,
the growth of number ideas, self-expression in drawing, were dealt with in some
detail. Students would undertake detailed observations of, for example, a child’s
speech, recording what was said and the conditions under which the observation
took place. Results would then be discussed, classified and examined in
seminars. A government inspection of the school in 1908 found that: ‘Students
there see the whole question of practical education approached in a systematic
and scientific manner; they learn the problems involved are more complex and
closely related to individual difference than they would find in the ordinary
course of practice; in particular they are made to realize the human (or
humanistic) side of their work.’33
On a more modest scale, other demonstration school experiments were being
conducted elsewhere. At Leeds Day Training College, for example, whilst there
was not one dedicated or independent demonstration school, an arrangement was
negotiated with the LEA for the Blenheim Girls’ and Boys’ Schools, in partnership
with the University to function as demonstration schools.34 Selected for their
high quality staff, who were subsequently paid an honorarium of £10 from the
University for their demonstration work, these schools were used for practice and
demonstration. Students attended these schools for the purpose of hearing
lessons given by the teachers, and of giving lessons themselves. At the
conclusion of the lesson a discussion, not criticism, of the lesson was led by the
tutor in charge, the head teacher of the school and the class teacher. This was
comparable to the seminar which operated at Manchester University.
Subsequently, because of pressure of numbers, more schools in the city were
adopted as demonstration schools. Whilst the extent of experimentation in terms
of curriculum and methods was limited, one of the Leeds Day Training College
demonstration schools at Kirkstall Road, under the headship of John Eades, went
on to become a centre for the implementation of the Dalton plan and other
experimental project methods in the mid 1920s.35 In London, a similar scheme
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE II 87

operated. Childeric Road School was the designated demonstration school for the
University of London Day Training College. Questions of curriculum and
methods were determined by college staff in conjunction with the head teacher
of the school to ensure that there was a close relationship between the principles
of teaching taught in the college and those observed in the school. Head teachers
from the demonstration schools in the London area organized themselves into a
professional association so that they could discuss the special problems and
interests of that type of school.36 At Darlington Training College, negotiations
with the LEA resulted in the College’s practising school becoming the Arthur
Pease Demonstration School. In 1913 the College narrowed the age range of the
school by removing the infants’ department and specializing in girls over seven
years of age.37 It went on to carry out experiments in Montessori methods, in the
aesthetic development of children as well as trying out some of the philosophies
of Dalcroze and Dewey.

THE FAILURE OF THE DEMONSTRATION SCHOOL

EXPERIMENT
A closer consideration of some of the difficulties faced by Leeds University in the
implementation of a demonstration model illustrates the nature of the practical
problems that dogged the scheme as it was applied in the diluted form to that
fully envisaged by the TCA, necessitated by negotiation with the LEA. In 1923
the University of Leeds held a conference on its demonstration school scheme at
which staff of the schools were consulted and asked for written confirmation of
their views. A conference report described the practical working of the scheme,
which consisted of eight specially selected schools in Leeds. The schools had 14
students in attendance for most of the week for school practice and observation
purposes. On the first Thursday of every month 60–70 students would attend to
watch a demonstration lesson given by the school staff. The University staff
were not engaged in teaching in the schools but did teach initial demonstration
lessons at the University to classes of children sent from the school. During the
summer term students would take up to three further weeks of intensive school
practice in the schools. Four clear problems emerged from the discussion.
First, there was the question of staffing of demonstration schools. Whilst
Leeds eventually recognized that teachers ought to be financially rewarded for
their additional services as demonstrators, this did not come without some
disagreement and debate within the University. As early as 1917, Margaret
Stainton, Headmistress of Blenheim Girls’ School, had written to the University
to complain that for over a year she had been expecting a financial settlement to
be formalized. Arguing that the demonstration work generated more than double
the normal workload of her teachers both within and outside of school, she was
88 POWER TO TEACH

strongly of the opinion that if the work was properly valued, then the teachers
should be paid.38 The University wanted the most experienced and competent
teachers to work with their students, but teachers were not always willing to
engage in demonstration work. A separate survey conducted by the TCA in 1924
suggested that teachers were wary of applying for posts in demonstration schools,
fearing the pressure of being on show, the interference in their routine class work
by students and the rushes of work that might arise when new methods were
being trialled. Ideally, if their contribution to the professional training of students
was recognized and valued, demonstration school staff should have been made
associate University staff and should automatically have been awarded salaries in
advance of the normal salary scales. Financial wrangling within the University of
Leeds and with the LEA demonstrated the difficulty of applying this principle.
Secondly, there was the practical management of students in a working
school. John Eades described how he had over a hundred students at any one
time to observe a demonstration lesson. Whilst the school was physically capable
of accommodating such numbers, Eades was worried that demonstration work
would interfere with the general work of the school. Similarly at the Blenheim
Boys’ School, up to eight students would be in attendance at all teaching
sessions. In addition to this, on the first Thursday of every month in the
afternoon, up to 70 students would come to watch four or five individual class
lessons being given by the school staff. Students were spread across the school,
but a total of 12 students could be in attendance at any one lesson. Again, there
were concerns about the disruption to the children and the teachers from such a
heavy student presence. Different models of practice and observation were tested
to give schools free time from work with students. At the Blenheim Girls’
School, for example, there was a free period from the end of February to the
beginning of July when teachers and children were only required for weekly
group demonstration and criticism lessons, before an intensive period of school
practice during July.
Thirdly, there was the potentially deleterious effect on the education of the
children. Weak students could unsettle the work and discipline of classes for
which they were made temporarily responsible. Even if students were of good
quality, the continuity of work was often broken, many new projects being
started by students on a placement and not completed. Whilst the students were
primarily motivated by a desire to gain experience and qualify, teachers in the
demonstration school were also charged with the responsibility of advancing
individual children.39 Whilst evidence from the Fielden Schools was largely
positive in relation to the combined effects of continuous exposure to
inexperienced students and an experimental culture, there were still concerns that
children would ultimately suffer from such a multi-purpose learning
environment.
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE II 89

This potential conflict of interest between the educational needs of students

and of children raises the final and possibly the most serious obstacle to the full
realization of the demonstration school ideal. It centres on broader ethical issues
in educational organization and research which continue to exercise teachers and
educationists today. Conducting educational experiments in publicly-funded
schools was not and could not ever be properly likened to say medical research
in a scientific laboratory, even though Findlay alluded to such an analogy.
Having established and set up the machinery to control, monitor and inspect a
national state education system it is not surprising that the Board of Education
prevaricated over the full implementation of the demonstration school ideal.
Whilst the practice and demonstration aspects of the idea were acceptable
and necessary to the proper professional training of future elementary and
secondary teachers, the experimental or laboratory aspects were much more risky
and had the potential to threaten or undermine the status quo. Independently
funded institutions, rather like the Fielden Schools, were more acceptable
because they did not formally fall under the auspices of a national state system.
The ideal of the demonstration school as envisaged by the TCA and its leading
advocates was never fully realized. Many of the reasons for the failure of the
demonstration school model to take a serious hold in teacher training
establishments have been generally outlined above in the historical overview.
Contested control, inadequate funding and conflicting interests made the practical
actualization of the ideal virtually impossible. Yet, as an ideal with some, albeit
short-lived, grounding in reality through the work of the Fielden Schools and
some other experiments, it had considerable promise. Not only did it offer
exciting opportunities in the refinement of professional training through
systematic and rigorous demonstration and observation, but it also offered a
basis for the establishment of a school-based tradition of educational research
and theory building which had hitherto been impossible. The demonstration
school ideal represented the possibility of a close partnership between working
schools and training institutions. It could only work well if staff were sufficiently
experienced and willing to work closely with students to demonstrate effective
methods of teaching. A demonstration school provided space and time for
reflection, discussion and debate about pedagogy and also opened up numerous
possibilities for curriculum innovation, research into child development and
experimentation. The fact that the potential of the demonstration school ideal
was impeded begs a number of questions about its practical viability.
90 POWER TO TEACH

THE DEMONSTRATION SCHOOL IDEAL REVISITED!

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY TRAINING SCHOOLS
Whilst historically the early twentieth century demonstration school was a
somewhat transient phenomenon, it is interesting that recent government
initiatives to improve standards in initial teacher training have revived some of
its main qualities and core principles. In September 2000, the government
launched its new ‘Training Schools’ scheme, which was promised in the 1998
Green Paper, ‘Teachers Meeting the Challenge of Change’, as one strategy for
the improvement of standards in initial teacher training, based upon a much more
active partnership between HEIs and working schools. In theory, the idea of the
twenty-first century Training School resonates with the idea of the twentieth-
century Demonstration School. Charged with demonstrating good practice in
ITT, training mentors and undertaking school-based research, Training Schools
are expected to work in close partnership with a nominated HEI and other
schools where appropriate. In the first round of applications for Training School
status a total of 130 bids was received, of which 44, mostly secondary schools,
were accepted. Selected for their existing reputation for good practice in teacher
training and a commitment, along with their named HEI provider, to develop and
disseminate more innovative approaches to ITT work, these Training Schools are
being funded through the government’s Standard Fund for three years in the first
instance. A further round of 28 Training Schools was appointed in September
2001. It is envisaged that Training Schools through their close involvement with
ITT, will not only contribute to the raising of standards in the professional
preparation of future teachers, but because of the nature of their work and
research will operate at the cutting edge of new developments in pedagogy. This
in turn will have a positive influence on pupil achievement and overall school
effectiveness.40
One of the projects being undertaken by the Training Schools scheme is the
creation of designated teaching observatories so that trainees can observe lessons
in ‘real time’. Updated in terms of technology and modes of transmission,
nevertheless, this idea echoes the ambitions of Findlay in 1908 for a purpose-
built demonstration hall in the grounds of the Fielden Schools. Integral to the
project is the belief that trainee teachers will benefit from a regulated exposure to
model forms of live teaching, which will form the basis of observation,
discussion, interpretation and subsequent refinement of pedagogical principles.
Other projects include the provision of training in the field of special educational
needs and training in innovative classroom management. These projects seek to
integrate general educational practices with the needs of trainee teachers and
have the potential to remove much of the polarized activities that have taken
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE II 91

place over the years in relation to the research and training activity of HEIs and
the daily ‘routine’ teaching activities of schools.
Two important differences distinguish the current schemes from the old
Demonstration School ideal which might make it more viable as a longer-term
component of ITT and school-based research. First, as a government-sponsored
and funded scheme aimed at improving standards in professional training it is
centrally controlled and funded. Schools from all over England representing 59
LEAs, over a third of all LEAs, are working on the scheme which means that
some geographical coherence and opportunities for formalized networking are
possible. National conferences as well as regular contact through regional and
email conferencing ensure that a forum for the dissemination and sharing of
successful practice and research findings is readily available. Secondly, there is
huge potential for tapping in to new technologies, hitherto unavailable to earlier
reincarnations of the model. At an obvious level this radically improves and
speeds up communication, and thus generates more immediate opportunities for
debate, discussion and further experimentation. In addition, new technologies
such as video-conferencing go a long way to address the physical problems of
space and time, which plagued the original demonstration school ideal. Training
Schools can now ‘virtually’ link up with groups of students and interact with
them, whilst not disrupting the smooth running of their own classrooms and
pupils.
The Training Schools initiative is very new and has so far not been externally
evaluated. It clearly holds potential for improving standards in ITT and in
creating a base from which educational experimentation and reform rooted in close
co-operation between schools and HEI providers, might emerge. In 1911,
Findlay wrote of the Fielden Schools that their direct purpose was ‘…to
demonstrate by a practical example the principles of teaching imparted to
students in training. It is believed that by this means our future teachers will also
gain a practical understanding of, and sympathy with, educational reform.
Reforms can only be realized when they are based on principles and tested by
experiment.’41 Whether or not the Training Schools will deliver on the
government’s brief for raising standards in ITT and how far they might fully
develop along the lines of the demonstration school ideal as catalysts for
educational reform remains to be seen.

NOTES

1. R.Rich, The Training of Teachers in England and Wales During the Nineteenth
Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933), A.Tropp, The School
Teachers (London: Heinemann, 1957); P.Gosden, The Evolution of a Profession
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1972).
92 POWER TO TEACH

2. See Public Record Office, Kew (hereafter PRO), Ed 86/24, memo of an interview
between Mr Chambers and Professor Findlay and Mr Nottingham (York Training
College) on the subject of practising schools for Training Colleges.
3. H.Ward and F.Roscoe, The Approach to Teaching (London: G.Bell and Sons Ltd,
1928), p. 63.
4. Lincoln Training College Archive, Minutes of Committee of Management/
Governing Body,Vols 3–5.
5. Lincoln Training College Archive, Practising School Log Book, 5–7 March 1879,
p. 427.
6. Ibid., 14 April 1880, p. 44.
7. D.Zebedee, Lincoln Diocesan Training College 1862–1962 (Lincoln: Keyworth
and Fry, 1962), pp. 10–11.
8. Darlington Training College Archive, E/DAR/DTC, Minute Book 1878–99.
9. J.Findlay, ‘The Demonstration School—and after’, Forum of Education, 2, 1 (1924),
pp. 37–41.
10. J.Findlay, ‘On the study of education’ (Board of Education, Reports and Inquiries,
vol. 2, 1898).
11. Findlay, ‘The Demonstration School—and after’, pp. 38–9.
12. PRO, Ed 86/23.
13. PRO, Ed 86/24, Ed 22/162 and Ed 86/24.
14. Report of the Training College Association discussion on demonstration schools,
Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 2 (1914), p. 313.
15. Ibid., p. 312.
16. PRO, Ed 86/24, Ed 22/162 and Ed 86/23.
17. J.Findlay (ed.), The Demonstration Schools Record Volume 1 (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1908), p. 12.
18. Findlay, ‘The Demonstration School—and after’, p. 39, and E.Claparede,
Experimental Pedagogy (translated from the fourth edition of Psychologie de
l’enfant et pedagogie experimentale by Mary Louch and Henry Holman) (London:
Edward Arnold, 1911).
19. PRO, Ed 119/53.
20. A.Robertson, ‘Catherine I.Dodd and innovation in teacher training 1892–1903’,
History of Education Society Bulletin, 47 (Spring 1991), pp. 32–41, and, ‘Schools
and universities in the training of teachers: the demonstration school experiment
1890–1926’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 40, 4 (1992), pp. 361–78.
21. PRO, Ed 86/24. For insights into the London Day Training College’s use of
demonstration schools see, R.Aldrich, The Institute of Education 1902–2002 A
centenary History (London: Institute of Education, University of London, 2002),
pp. 53–7.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE II 93

24. Findlay, The Demonstration Schools Record Volume 1, p. 2.

25. E.Fiddes, Chapters in the History of Owen’s College and of Manchester University
1851–1914 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1937), p. 175.
26. W.Robinson, ‘Battling with “crude and stupid methods”: Sarah Fielden and
experimental pedagogoy in the late nineteenth century’, unpublished conference
paper, Australian and New Zealand History of Education Society, annual
conference, December 2001.
27. PRO, Ed 119/53.
28. Ibid.
29. PRO, Ed 119/53, Fielden Schools Prospectus, 1911.
30. J.Findlay and K.Steel, Montessori Applications: Educative Toys (London:
Pedagogic Library Blackie and Son, 1914), p. 10.
31. Ibid., p. 24.
32. PRO, Ed 119/53, Inspection Report, 17 November 1908, by Messrs Barnett,
Henderson and Ward.
33. PRO, Ed 119/53, Inspector’s Report on the Manchester Fielden School, 1908.
34. University of Leeds Archive, report on professional training of students, June
1913, Leeds University, Memorandum on the Development and Organisation of the
Education Department, 3 June 1919, Provision of Demonstration and Practising
Schools.
35. J.Eades, Modern Ideas and Methods for School Teachers and Students in Training
From a Practical Teacher’s Note Book (London: E.J.Arnold and Son, 1920),
J.Eades, The Dalton English Course for Individual and Class Work (London:
E.J.Arnold and Son, 1927).
36. Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 4, 6 (1918), p. 323.
37. O.Stanton, Our Present Opportunities: The History of Darlington College of
Education (Darlington: Olive M.Stanton, 1972), pp. 126–9.
38. University of Leeds Archive, letter from Margaret Stainton, Headmistress of
Blenheim Girls’ School, 14 February 1917.
39. H.Wyatt, ‘School practice in the future’, Forum of Education, 1, 3 (1924), pp. 195–
202.
40. Information on the Training Schools initiative can be found on the DFES website
and the teachernet website, http://www.dfes.gov.uk and the teachernet website:
http://www.t4achernet.gov.uk/training. See also M.Coles, ‘The national SCITT:
teachers teaching teachers in training school’, Education 3–13, 28, 1 (2000), pp. 55–
9.
41. PRO, Ed 119/53, Fielden Schools Prospectus, 1911.
 6
LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III
EVALUATING STUDENT TEACHERS’ ‘POWER TO
TEACH’

This chapter examines the way in which student teachers were introduced to the
practical teaching dimension of their professional training and how this
dimension was measured and monitored. A particular focus for this chapter will
be a consideration of the way in which judgements about a student’s teaching
competence were formed and formalized in a final teaching grade. Comparisons
between excellent, middling and poor students will be drawn in an attempt to
understand what standards were expected and tolerated of student teachers and
the key professional factors which were valued in this monitoring process. Two
previously unused sources of data are used in the chapter. The first is a selection
of teaching observation proformas drawn up by individual training providers as
they assessed and compared their students.1 The second is a range of school
practice reports on individual students from six training providers in the period
1898–1920. By looking in some detail at the process of assessing students’
practical performance and the criteria against which they were appraised, it will
be possible to evaluate current ITT policy regarding the assessment of trainee
teachers, according to a set of centrally prescribed competencies or standards
from the perspective of a much longer historical continuum than is currently
acknowledged. This analysis also illustrates further the concept of ‘power to
teach’, as it related to the potential of novice teachers.
The chapter is in four main parts. First, arrangements for practical teaching
will be outlined showing how different institutions interpreted government
requirements in various ways. What was expected from students by way of
responsibility for teaching and recording their work as well as students’
perspectives on their practical experience will also be considered. Secondly, in
an attempt to assess what professional qualities were being evaluated, the
content of a range of observation proformas used by training institutions in the
assessment of students will be reviewed. Thirdly, the grading of students’
teaching competence on the scale A to E by training providers and by
government inspectors and differences between levels of competence in a set of
commonly understood criteria will be analysed. Finally, the use of a standards or
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 95

competency driven model of assessment in current ITT policy will be discussed

in the light of previous historical developments.

PRACTICAL TEACHING ARRANGEMENTS

Whilst the government specified the amount of time which trainee teachers
should spend in practical teaching experience, both in the training colleges and in
the university departments of education, there was considerable latitude in the
way in which training providers interpreted such regulations and numerous
permutations on the arrangements for practical experience. Regulations changed
throughout the period under review and were published either in codes of
regulations for public elementary schools or in the annual regulations for the
training of teachers. In 1900 students were required to spend a minimum of 150
hours in teaching practice, which could comprise a mixture of criticism,
observation, demonstration or practical teaching activities.2 The exact
specification of hours was subsequently replaced with a set number of days, up
to 60 hours to be spent in school practice and later again to a set number of
weeks. By the early 1920s the general rule was that students on a two-year
elementary course should spend up to 12 weeks engaged in practical school
work, with at least half of this experience taking place in the final year of
training. For those students who had prior experience of working in schools,
either as pupil teachers, student teachers or monitors, the period of practical
experience could be reduced to a minimum of six weeks.3 In practice, most
training providers made arrangements for between six to twelve weeks of
practical experience. This varied in intensity, according to the facilities available,
such as practising and demonstration schools, and the size and location of the
training institution. The six to twelve weeks was spent partly in continuous
blocked teaching placements of two to three weeks in working elementary
schools, and partly in additional experience in practising and demonstration
schools.
At St John’s College, York, for example, in the period 1898–1906, practical
teaching was broken down into three school placements of 84, 56 and 27 hours
each in local York schools and up to eight individual criticism lessons in the
college practising school.4 This clearly exceeded the minimum requirement of
150 hours as specified by the Board of Education. During the same period at
Cambridge Day Training College, a three-year elementary training course
included four blocked school placements of 74.5, 82.5, 25 and 25 hours.5 In 1900
Lincoln Training College interpreted the government’s requirements by
providing students in each year of training with an average of 72 hours in
blocked three-week practices in local schools in the Michaelmas term, as well as
eight hours of criticism lessons in the college practising schools during the Lent
96 POWER TO TEACH

or midsummer terms. Separate subject-specific teaching exercises were

organized in local schools and a detailed child study also counted towards the
practical teaching experience.
Whilst practical arrangements varied between providers it was common for
training institutions to work on a model which gradually built up and extended
the experience of students over the two or three years of the training course. A
report from Chester Training College in 1913 outlined in detail the practical
arrangements for students who were all required to undertake a minimum of nine
weeks’ practice in schools. If, however, students were deemed weak, in terms of
efficiency, ability and thoroughness, then an extended period of practice was
required. First-year students began their practical experience during the first term
and spent one week in the college school. The purpose of this initial experience
was to familiarize students with the general routine of school life and to observe
methods of teaching and children. During the second term, first-year students
would be sent to one of the nine designated practising schools in Chester and
were expected to put into practice some of the methods taught in college lectures
and demonstration lessons. A four-week block placement was arranged for the
first term of the second year, either in Chester or Liverpool or Birkenhead
schools. During this placement students were expected to take responsibility for
a whole class and demonstrate ability in class management and discipline, as
well as continuing to implement some of the methods taught in the college. In
addition to these blocked placements, senior students were also expected to give
up to three criticism lessons before their peers and junior students. A detailed
child study was also included in the practical teaching requirements. Students were
expected to keep all notes of lessons, criticism, and reports on visits of
observation, as well as the records of the child study in special exercise books
which were monitored and marked by various members of college staff. When
on a blocked teaching placement, it was envisaged that students would prepare
their lesson notes for the next day’s teaching in the evening and have these
checked by the master of method.6 Darlington Training College adopted a
similar gradual approach to exposing their students to increasingly more
demanding practical experiences. A discussion paper on practical teaching,
produced in 1913, recommended that in the first term, first-year students should
spend one session a week, preferably mornings, for six weeks in school. The
purpose of this initial placement was to acquaint students with the routine of the
ordinary school and to give them structured opportunities for child study.
Students would be organized into groups of eight and would experience the
ordinary timetable of the school with an emphasis on arithmetic and English.
During the second term this arrangement would continue, preferably with
students observing afternoon sessions and a different range of curriculum
activities. These half-day sessions were referred to as ‘method work’ and focused
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 97

on subject-specific teaching, demonstration and criticisms. By the third term

students would move to a three and a half week blocked placement. Those
students who had not worked as student teachers or uncertificated assistants prior
to college training were expected to undertake a further two weeks school
practice during the college vacation. During the second year, a similar pattern
was followed with a continuous programme of method work in schools and a
final school practice of three and a half weeks.
The challenge of ensuring that students were exposed to an appropriate
balance of experience has already been discussed in Chapter 5, in the context of
the demonstration school experiment. Nevertheless, training providers were
clearly committed to improving their practical teaching arrangements and
regularly discussed the possibility of modifying existing procedures in order to
improve the experience for students. At Lincoln Training College, for example,
staff meetings frequently addressed the issue of practical teaching and there were
regular discussions about the balance of work between practical and theoretical
requirements. In November 1912, the College experimented with a one-week’s
observation placement in Sheffield for senior students so that they would be
exposed to a different type of school and social context. A range of schools
participated in the experiment, including open-air schools, infant and special
subject schools. This new departure was discussed at length in an article written
by students in the Lincoln Training College Magazine. Subsequently, Lincoln
students were required to undertake one blocked placement of three weeks and
one of two weeks over a two-year course of training. Schools as far afield as
Grantham, Nottingham, Louth and Boston were used for such placements as well
as the College’s own practising school. Prior to each of these block placements
the normal College timetable was suspended so that students could plan lessons,
discuss subject-specific issues with individual tutors and watch demonstration
lessons in various subjects.7 In 1919, in an attempt to widen the Sheffield
experiment, an exchange visit to Whitelands Training College, London, for the
purpose of observing script handwriting teaching in the demonstration schools
was organized for selected senior students. During 1917–18, Wood Green Home
and Colonial Training College conducted an interesting experiment in school
practice, details of which were subsequently published in the Journal of
Experimental Pedagogy.8 This experiment emphasized the value of student self-
evaluation in school practice and was aimed at promoting greater reflexivity and
self-awareness amongst young teachers. Two blocked placements of one week
and two weeks in the first year were organized for students, with additional
placements for weak students if necessary. This was followed by two
longer placements of three weeks and two weeks in the second year with a
regular diet of criticism and observation lessons in between. The College limited
the usual close inspection of students by college staff in order to promote self-
98 POWER TO TEACH

criticism by students in formal discussion groups organized at the college in the

evenings during school placements. Initially the College was disappointed with
the quality of evaluations by students, but with some additional training and
demonstration, found that the scheme generated some very fruitful debates and
discussion without impeding the overall quality of teaching. The scheme was
subsequently modified to include a mixture of self-criticism, renamed
‘individual comment’, group criticism and inspection by college staff.
In order for their practical and professional skills to be effectively monitored,
students were all required to keep systematic records which were available for
inspection throughout the training course. By the 1920s training providers were
beginning to draw up codes of practice to ensure schools, supervisors and
students all understood what was expected of them during periods of school
practice.9 At Cambridge Day Training College, for example, every student was
required to keep a written record of school practice in a large notebook. Records
would contain general information on the school, the class, the timetable and
individual children. In addition, for at least two lessons taught per day, full notes
including subject matter and the method of teaching were to be provided. It was
advised that these notes should be such that a person who was not present at the
lesson would be able to understand clearly the parts played by both teacher and
class in each stage of the lesson. From the first day of the school practice,
students were expected to get to know the class, learn names and make notes on
the position of the class in relation to the school syllabus. A member of school
staff was appointed as official supervisor to arrange periods of observation in
other classes, the integration of the student into the wider extra-curricular life of
the school and to discuss teaching sessions. A member of college staff would
visit the students in school to inspect records, discuss general progress with the
school supervisor and observe teaching sessions. Students were reminded that
they should co-operate with the school and its staff and behave as though they
were a fully responsible member of staff.
Student memoirs from Lincoln and Ripon Training Colleges not only
corroborate the nature of practical arrangements for school practice outlined
above but offer different insights into the experience from the student’s
perspective. Memoirs emphasize the stress that was placed on the writing of
detailed lesson notes that could then be checked and monitored either by college
or school supervisors and the keeping of weekly and daily plans as well as
individual lesson plans in specially designated record books or school practice
diaries.
Students were often extremely anxious about school practice and knew how
important their overall performance was to the successful completion of the
training course. Clara Smith, a student at Lincoln Training College during the
early 1930s, recalled three school placements each of three weeks in length in
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 99

Grantham, Scunthorpe and Gainsborough, the first one being a paired practice in
which, ‘frightened to death we were. All frightened to death about it, so that I
think they put two together, so two of you could share the class.’10 Peer support
was an important feature of the overall experience of school practice for students
in residential institutions, the evening discussions, shared planning and resource-
making sessions all contributing to a sense of camaraderie and confidence-
building amongst students on practice. Elsie Armitage, a student at Lincoln
College during 1925–27, wrote, ‘During the two year’s training we had to do
three spells of teaching. I enjoyed the work and although teaching practice and
the observation lessons which we had to give were an ordeal we had fun and
laughter.’11
Given that training institutions devoted so much time to setting up school
practice and observing students at work, it is interesting that the students
themselves were unclear about the process of assessment. In particular, it would
seem that they were not given any advance warning of a visit by a college
lecturer, the implication being that they should always be in a position to be
observed at their best.

The lecturers would come in and you never knew when they were coming
in and they would sit at the back and read your notes and might write
something on them and then of course we had the discussions afterward,
and they would tell you things then, but nobody knew what their final
teachers marks were. All I knew was that I got a job in Birmingham and
we all knew that Birmingham wouldn’t accept any low grade teachers.12

Mrs Timms, also at Lincoln Training College recalled,

we never knew when they were coming round. There was perhaps a little
whisper that so and so was on the warpath. Then you would get somebody
come and look at you and sit at the back of the class. But you didn’t know
they were coming, but you knew there was somebody around and they
could just walk in. They went a lot on what your class teacher said.13

ASSESSING STUDENT TEACHERS THROUGH LESSON

OBSERVATIONS
Whilst students’ formal records of their practical school work formed part of the
evidence used to assess their professional development, the main source of
evidence of teaching ability was derived from written observations of a range of
individual class lessons taught by the student under review. Method personnel as
well as specialist subject tutors and school-based advisers or supervisors would
100 POWER TO TEACH

be involved in the formal observation of students on teaching practice. To ensure

some degree of consistency in the assessment of students, many training
institutions developed observation schedules or proformas to assist their staff in
making judgements about the quality of a student’s professional work. These
observation proformas varied between institutions in terms of length, level of
detail and order of emphasis but tended to cover very similar ground and
identified a common set of professional and personal skills which were deemed
necessary for judging teaching competence. There would also have been a
variation in the number of observation visits a student teacher might expect to
receive. The degree to which students displayed strengths or weaknesses in these
core professional qualities determined the nature of their final report and their
grading for school practice.
The content of teaching observation proformas from six of the training
institutions studied, three university departments and three training colleges, has
been analysed in an attempt to understand what formal criteria were being used
for the assessment of students’ performance as teachers and also the nature of the
descriptive language used to articulate the core professional qualities or skills
which student teachers were expected to exhibit.14 By way of illustration the
content of these proformas is replicated in full in Tables 2–7. Only one proforma
from Southampton Day Training College was found completed and the written
comments on the student under review are included alongside the proforma
headings. Common to all proformas was an initial section which would contain
important factual details such as name of student, period of practice, name of
school, class taken, subject taken and any special considerations. These details
have not been replicated. Some proformas, such as those from Darlington
Training College, Southampton Day Training College and St John’s Training
College provide greater elaboration of main headings, some with specific
examples and subheadings. Clearly, these proformas, represented in Tables 2–4,
are more useful for the purpose of trying to understand the finer points of detail
of the criteria used to assess students in practice and provide richer material for
analysis. Others, such as those for Cambridge Day Training College, Chester
Training College and Leeds Day Training College, represented in Tables 5–7,
just contain a brief list of general headings under which notes could be made. It
would only be possible to flesh out the detail on these general proformas if
supplementary written prose reports on individual students were available. This
is the case for Cambridge and Leeds, but not for Chester. These will be reviewed
later in the chapter when the grading of students is discussed (see Tables 2–7 at
the end of the chapter).
Whilst acknowledging the individual differences in layout and depth of this
sample of teaching observation proformas, it is, however, possible to identify
across the sample eight common broad categories under which student teachers
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 101

were assessed. These were: planning; personality; teach ing; class management;
discipline; progress of children; relationships with children; professional promise.
The language used to describe these broad categories varies between proformas,
so, for example, whilst Darlington Training College specifies a clear heading
entitled ‘personality’, the guidance for Chester Training College refers to the
slightly more ambiguous headings of ‘manner’ and ‘temper’. Table 8 shows the
extent to which these categories apply across the sample. Where individual
categories are not present in the proformas, these largely relate to those
represented in Tables 5–7, which contain less detailed information. An exception
to this is in proforma 1 from Southampton Day Training College which makes no
reference to progress of children (see Table 8 at the end of the chapter).
Having established the broad categories of assessment it is possible to begin to
define how these were articulated in terms of expectation. The importance of
careful planning and preparation is evident in five of the six proformas. At a
simple level, lesson plans and notes were reviewed as evidence of good
planning. In addition to written plans, students were expected to demonstrate
thoroughness and foresight in their preparation for individual lessons including
the setting up of any necessary apparatus, illustrations, models or teaching aids
and the organization of the class for the lesson. Part of this preparation included
an awareness of the particular needs of the class or age-group of children, so that
materials were appropriate and pitched at the right level. Some treatment of the
personality of student teachers was a category common to all proformas, though
it is difficult to quantify exactly what was being monitored in this respect.
Somewhat nebulous and highly subjective personality traits under review
included manner, temper, empathy with children, which could have a bearing on
the teacher-pupil relationship, ability to seek and take advice, self-awareness,
tact, general intelligence, flexibility and adaptability. Within the broad category
of teaching, a range of skills can be identified, including the ability to draw upon
a range of methods appropriate to the lesson and children, the ability to interest,
inspire and stimulate children to learn, the appropriate use of questioning and
responding to children’s answers, appropriate pace and structure of delivery.
Class management and discipline appear to be similar areas and included general
control of the class, the ability to manage children, the effective use of teaching
aids, some attention to the layout and physical teaching space and general
classroom presence. The categories ‘progress of children’ and ‘relationships with
children’ are less clear-cut and only appear in half of the sample. In both
instances this might relate to the cross-over between personality traits and
teaching qualities. Set against the other eight categories which would possibly
have been more easy to quickly identify, either in student records or through
lesson observations, these two categories relate to the impact of the teacher on
the children’s learning and would have been difficult to judge without a thorough
102 POWER TO TEACH

knowledge of the children involved. Nevertheless they indicate some concern

with measuring the effectiveness of the teacher. The final category, often
subsumed under general comments, provided some indication of the wider
impact of the student in the life of the school and his or her potential contribution
to the teaching profession when fully qualified.
The categories outlined in these observation schedules formed a fairly loose
framework against which student teachers were monitored and assessed.
Uncompleted and used for the whole student body in any one institution, these
proformas represented a removed ideal and not the reality of student experience.
Yet they do offer valuable insights into the professional skills and qualities that
student teachers were being initiated into during their course of training. The
language used to describe these skills or qualities might have changed in the
intervening century, but it is clear that many of the categories discussed above in
the context of early twentieth century student teachers, remain central to the
training process today. Just as individual training institutions set out criteria for
the observation, monitoring and assessment of student teachers a century ago, so
too do current training providers as they seek to ensure that their trainees are
effectively judged against the government’s standards for ITT.

GRADING STUDENT TEACHERS’ PERFORMANCE

A further body of material in the form of written prose reports on individual
students, together with teaching practice grades, complements and extends the
analysis of blank observation proformas. These not only begin to qualify and
explain the categories of professional competence in the proformas, but also
indicate levels of success or failure and degrees of progression. Written reports
on student teachers were available for six groups of students across five of the
training institutions studied spanning the period 1898–1920: London Training
College, with separate reports on men and women students, Cambridge Day
Training College, Southampton Day Training College, Leeds Day Training
College and St John’s Training College.15 This sample clearly favours the
university day training colleges, with only one example of denominational
training college present, but this is a reflection on the survival of these records in
the institutions studied, rather than a deliberate decision.
Copies of written reports on individual students were usually kept in a ledger
and varied in length between one or two fairly short paragraphs to full-page
entries per students. On consulting these documents I noted examples of
comments upon students who were classified on the A–E scale by reading
through the whole range of reports available. I also noted samples of full reports
for students graded in each of the five categories. I then hoped to be able to
categorize the range of comments or factors present within the grading system
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 103

and test for consistency between insti tutions. A complicating factor in this process
of data collection and selection was the subdivision of categories in some places
into minus and plus. Also, St John’s College used a numerical grading system on
a scale up to 160 marks, instead of the more usual A-E scale and I had to try to
adapt this scale to make it compatible with the other data. In spite of the
unavoidable difficulties of comparison and the small sample consulted, it has,
nevertheless, been possible to draw some general conclusions from this exercise.
From a starting point of identifying a set of shared positive and negative
comments within a range of common professional categories, most of which
appear in the observation proformas but are made less explicit in the written
reports, it was then possible to break these comments down according to the
grading of students and form a sense of what profiles very good (A), good (B),
average (C), poor (D) and failing (E) student teachers would have presented.
Significantly, in 1922, the Chief Inspector for Training Colleges, Herbert
Ward, grappled with a similar set of concerns when he tried formally to establish
recognizable profiles for student teachers on the A-E scale in a descending order
of merit.16 According to Ward the ‘A’ student ‘…ought to have something
distinctive either in personality, in superior education or in experience. One of
the marks of such a student will be the obvious capacity for growth. He will have
a touch of craftsmanship and will thus be distinguishable from the journeyman,
however skilled.’ Independence of thought, adaptability and a willingness to
apply their intelligence and knowledge to their work in schools characterized an
‘A’ grade teacher. Ward suggested that ‘A’ grade teachers would be few and far
between. ‘B’ class students, also relatively few in number, were classified as
good teachers with decided promise, not quite having the panache of the ‘A’
student. Ward described them as not having ‘mastered the whole art of carrying
with them all the members of their classes or of selecting and marshalling the
subject matter of their lessons. But they will possess some skill in technique and
some power of ‘getting home’ their lessons. They will be on good terms with the
children and able to control them with necessary firmness.’ With a few years’
additional experience after qualifying, it was expected that the majority of ‘B’
rated students would become ‘A’ rated teachers—‘real masters of their craft’.
The main body of students, still with much to learn, would fall into the ‘C’
category and it was hoped that they would become serviceable teachers. The
main weaknesses of a ‘C’ rated student were listed as imperfect self-control and
self-awareness, imperfect class control and management, want of appreciation of
the knowledge and abilities of the class, faulty presentation of matter to be
taught, an inability to get children to work themselves and various other more
minor technical issues. Whilst ‘B’ teachers were not deemed ‘fully skilful’, they
were different from ‘C’ teachers by virtue of their promise, independence and the
extent of their weaknesses. Ward emphasized, however, that the ‘C’ grade should
104 POWER TO TEACH

not be viewed in too much of a negative light. Rather, it indicated the

‘beginnings of skill and the germ of teacher-like qualities not yet developed’.
Experience in a supportive school would render ‘C’ rated teachers entirely
satisfactory members of the profession. In contrast, Ward argued that ‘D’ rated
teachers, about whose future there was some doubt, were markedly inferior but
not necessarily failures. Only ‘half-grown in personality and maturity’, Ward
recommended that ‘D’ rated teachers should be mentored by a sympathetic and
wise head teacher. If not, there was a real danger that they would become ‘the
drudges of the teaching world’. An ‘E’ rated student was one who, by virtue of
natural incompetence or inability, had failed in practical teaching and should not
be allowed to qualify for teaching. These general descriptions of student grades
clearly valued the importance of personality in the makeup of the young teacher
and were influenced by views on the students’ future potential and contribution
to the profession. They also recognized that student teachers were not fully-
fledged professionals and that their future development and ultimate teaching
power would be strongly influenced by broader experience and the right kind of
supportive working environment. Ward’s categories, intended for guidance not
prescription, provide a useful benchmark against which to test those from the
wider sample and also share a similar time frame.
At the first level of analysis of the wider sample of written reports, common
factors were identified and a set of positive and negative comments collated. These
largely correlate with the criteria identified in the observation schedules above
but also include subject knowledge, with some of the other categories joined
together. For purposes of comparison the following seven broad categories were
used: planning/preparation; subject knowledge; teaching; class and behaviour
management; relationships with children; personality; professional promise. Some
of the constituents of effective school practice identified in the comments in
written reports, included thorough and intelligent preparation and planning, clear
aims and objectives, a firm grounding in subject knowledge, a willingness to
experiment with new ways of stimulating children’s interest, varied questioning
techniques, presenting matter in a logical and systematic fashion and the
flexibility to use children’s responses to steer the progress of the lesson. Those
rather nebulous, but critical, personal qualities of character, combined with
professional insight, adaptability and resourcefulness were also assessed.
Conversely, negative comments were made on students who were deemed ill-
prepared, whose whole voice, manner and bearing was weak and ineffectual,
who lacked intelligence in their application of matter to method and in their
production of illustrations and blackboard diagrams and whose teaching style
took no account of the needs of the children in their charge. Table 9 shows
examples of this range of comments against the criteria identified (see Table 9 at
the end of the chapter).
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 105

Having established the shared criteria and the nature of comments made
against them, the next stage of analysis involved breaking these down further to
establish how they related to the A–E scale. This enables a deeper understanding
of what constituted proficiency in, for example, teaching or class management.
Rather than trying to compare whole profiles of ‘A’ students, ‘B’ students as so
forth, what this analysis does is compare progression within the A–E scale across
the seven broad categories of assessment.
It is difficult to distinguish between ‘A’ and ‘B’ class students with regard to
comments on planning and preparation. A thorough, systematic, effective,
methodical and purposeful approach was common to both categories. ‘A’ class
students had the edge in terms of their consistency and ‘universal’ well-
preparedness, suggesting that the distinction was one of degree. ‘C’ class
students might demonstrate satisfactory but insufficiently detailed planning and
weaknesses in preparation for individual lessons. ‘D’ class students had serious
weaknesses in their preparation, with meagre lesson notes. What distinguished a
‘D’ from a ‘C’ class student in terms of preparation was the degree of
ineffectiveness, so that even if planning was in evidence it was not very good.
‘E’ class students were not prepared at all.
In terms of subject knowledge, it is again difficult to distinguish between ‘A’
and ‘B’ class students, whose ‘first rate academic ability’ and good subject
knowledge were noted. In comparison ‘C’ class students demonstrated average
subject knowledge, fitting with their overall ‘average’ professional persona. They
showed lack of understanding when applying subject knowledge to lessons for
children and little evidence of an ability to transfer knowledge. ‘D’ class students
were classified with superficial subject knowledge and ‘E’ class students with
extremely limited subject knowledge and no ideas of their own.
The teaching category was multi-dimensional and included skill in method,
questioning, exposition, narrative power, the effective use of teaching aids and
the ability to pitch work at the right level for the children taught as well as the
use of the voice to communicate. ‘A’ grade students would demonstrate a
willingness to experiment with different approaches and methods and would
have plenty of good ideas for teaching, with a repertoire of techniques such as
narration, exposition, demonstration and modelling. They would know how to
utilize the answers of pupils and ensure that the work was pitched at the right
level for the age, ability and previous experience of the class. The effective use
of a range of teaching aids and illustrations, with particular emphasis on skill in
blackboard illustrations characterized an ‘A’ grade teacher, whose use of voice
would be clear with correct pronunciation intonation and variety in tone. In terms
of use of voice, questioning and use of teaching aids, there was little to
distinguish ‘A’ and ‘B’ grade students. However, ‘B’ students often had a
tendency to lecture rather than teach children and were less skilled in adapting to
106 POWER TO TEACH

the previous experience and ability of different groups of children. An example of

a ‘B’ graded student from the University of London Day Training College
illustrates some of these points:

An intelligent teacher and keen worker with a pleasant manner but

somewhat diffident and self-conscious. His science lessons show
considerable intellectual power and teaching ability, though he has a
tendency to lecture and occasionally talks over the heads of his pupils. He
is however making good progress and promises to become a very good
teacher. He has a good presence, a good voice, handles his apparatus and
blackboard well and is on very good terms with his boys.

‘C’grade teachers, whilst passing as satisfactory in teaching skills, were often

described as being ‘mechanical’ in the delivery of their lessons, thus rendering
them dull, boring and lacking in conviction. They also struggled with pitching
work at the right level. Overuse or under-use of teaching aids was reported for
‘C’ grade teachers. Their questioning skills were underdeveloped and did not
follow through with appropriate treatment of answers. Problems with their use of
voice were frequently highlighted, including asperity, squeaky and slovenly
spoken styles. Reports often criticized ‘C’ grade student teachers for their dialect
or regional accents. ‘D’grade teachers had little grasp of method, with limited
imagination or originality in ideas for lessons. Their questioning was feeble,
illogical and ill-formed and they used teaching aids inappropriately. It was in
their use of voice that ‘D’ grade teachers were most severely criticized.
Inexpressive, flat, monotonous, soporific and inaudible use of voice was
described. ‘D’ grade teachers were unable to juggle the various demands on them
as teachers and as a consequence could not see the class as a group of individual
children. An example of this can be found in a report from Leeds Day Training
College:

Mr A is good natured but weak. He has no control of voice and confuses

passivity with attention. He is very industrious but ineffective. His voice is
soporific. Lessons are adequately prepared but spoiled by voice and
slowness in speech and lack of knowledge of children. Blackboard not
intelligently used.

‘E’grade teachers had very similar profiles to ‘D’ grade teachers, with greater
severity in the comments. The general comment upon ‘E’ grade teachers was
that they had no teaching power and were unlikely ever to get it!
Class and behaviour management, included a range of skills including
organizing a class, setting children to work, managing classroom routines,
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 107

maintaining an effective classroom presence and managing children’s behaviour.

‘A’ and ‘B’ students possessed an easy confidence when managing a class,
largely through their own personal influence and powerful classroom presence
and natural, but not overblown, authority. For ‘A’ and ‘B’ students discipline
was not a problem, largely because children responded well under firm and fair
control. In contrast, ‘C’ class students had a more aloof, brisk and ‘business like’
approach to class management, often experiencing difficulties with class control
and commanding less respect from their pupils due to lack of force, presence or
from trying too hard to be accepted. An example of this can be found in a report
on a ‘C’ grade student from Southampton Day Training College, ‘Miss A has a
nervous manner with a touch of asperity. She is business-like in details. She
should make a very serviceable mistress.’ ‘D’ class students were frequently
deemed ‘uninspiring’ and ‘weak’ in terms of their class and behaviour
management and these qualities would have been quickly picked up on by
pupils. A classroom presence lacking heart and life often caused students to turn
to hasty and ill-tempered control strategies. ‘E’ class students lacked animation
altogether, with a dry, formal and inaccessible classroom presence.
In their ability to form good relationships and be on good terms with children,
there was little to distinguish ‘A’ and ‘B’ class students. ‘A’ class students might
have demonstrated a better understanding of children and taken care to know
children as individuals, whilst ‘B’ class students took a keen interest in children
who in turn regarded and respected them. ‘C’ class students were less tuned in to
the individuals in their classes and ‘D’ class students demonstrated a serious lack
of knowledge or understanding of children. ‘E’ class students were totally
incapable of forming any relationships with children and may even have shown
signs of positively disliking them.
In the final two categories, personality and professional promise, the
distinction between grades is much clearer. Regarding personality, ‘A’ grade
students shone. They were often described as having distinctive qualities of
charm, intelligence, determination, enthusiasm for the job, vitality and acumen.

A man of first-rate character and determination. Full of enthusiasm for his

work, working hard and learning fast. Most attractive in himself and
certain to have the very best influence on his pupils. Cultured in voice,
manner and appearance. Such faults as he had at first e.g. rapidity of
speech, a certain restlessness of manner, a tendency to needless repetition
and an insufficient awareness of his class, are gone. He teaches now easily
and with lucidity. His lessons are universally well prepared. He gets the
right kind of material for them and sweeps a wide ground from it. He
speaks clearly, using the right kind of words and sentences. Small boys,
while he is talking to them, are oblivious of all else. With bigger boys
108 POWER TO TEACH

when necessary an air of sternness comes over him and he allows no

latitude. Out of small and big boys alike he gets attention and a great deal
of work. His rough sketches on a blackboard, say of a Chinese house, are
done with great skill and are very valuable.

‘B’grade students were often described as having ‘pleasant’ personalities, keen

and eager, with a tendency to try too hard to please in an attempt to make a good
impression. ‘C’ grade students were amiable but weak, with a lack of self-
control and self-awareness and immaturity. ‘D’ grade students lacked the
delicacy and charm of ‘A’ class students, with lifeless, inert, uninspiring and dull
personalities. Similarly ‘E’ class students were characterized as dull, lifeless and
unhappy with little sympathy for the work of teaching.
‘A’class students were often graded as such because they had natural qualities
of leadership and an obvious, possibly ‘born’ aptitude for the profession. They
displayed all round abilities and had an obvious capacity for growth. In contrast,
‘B’ class teachers, whilst promising well, were not quite up to the ‘A’ grade.
They made good progress but tried too hard with a tendency to rush and take life
too seriously. They did not, therefore, possess the ‘natural’ abilities of the ‘A’
grade teacher. ‘C’ class teachers, promised to become ‘serviceable’ or ‘useful’ to
the profession but had only moderate ability and a tendency towards mechanical
teaching. ‘C’ class teachers still had much to learn and would have to work hard
to develop better teaching qualities. ‘D’ class students were markedly inferior
with no natural instinct for teaching and few talents. Furthermore, unlike ‘C’
class students, ‘D’ class students were unable to see their own faults or learn
from their mistakes. At the other end of the spectrum from their ‘A’ class peers,
‘E’ class students were deemed naturally incompetent, with everything to learn
in the art of teaching. They had no future potential and it was often suggested that
they become clerks. A report on an ‘E’ graded student from the London Day
Training College, replicated in full below, exemplifies these weaknesses.

Dull, lifeless, unhappy, turmoil. Can talk for three quarters of an hour on
lert pumps and force pumps and never hint at their every day use. Lectures
too much. Does not see his class. Talks into space. Learns nothing about
his own deficiencies from pupils’ notes of his lesson. Neither can he learn
from supervisions or assistant masters, primary or secondary. In
mathematics he teaches rule of thumb methods, in geography he cannot
show pupils how to use atlases. Confused exposition, in earnestness and
analogies. Of Mr B very little that is good can be said, only that he talks
easily and writes neatly. He has fatal fluency that has blinded himself and
other people to his faculty; few people can talk so much and say so little;
there is really nothing in what he says; it is not even good lecturing. What
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 109

he does say he avenges badly. He has no ideas of his own and only a few
that he has picked up from books. He has remained blind to his own
defects and nothing can convince him that he has any. His classes learn
nothing of value and are sometimes so bored and muddled that they are not
even disorderly; this condition he considers quite satisfactory. He might
make a good copying clerk but it is difficult imagining him doing any good
as a teacher.

This analysis of the way in which student teachers were assessed and graded in
terms of their competency to teach, further illustrates the concept of ‘power to
teach’ as examined in Chapter 2. ‘Power to teach’ combined personal,
professional, practical and theoretical elements of the ideal teacher. It included
teaching skills, intellectual strengths, the ability to maintain effective
relationships with children to promote learning and personal qualities. Not all
teachers had ‘power to teach’ and neither did all student teachers. ‘A’ grade
students clearly demonstrated ‘power to teach’, ‘B’ grade students were well on
their way to it, whilst for ‘C’ and ‘D’ grade students, ‘power to teach’ was a far
off, and potentially unrealizable, goal. The metaphor of master craftsmen, skilled
journeymen, semi-skilled and unskilled labourers, inferred in Ward’s 1922
analysis of student teachers’ competence, is helpful for an understanding of the
scale and degree of ability represented by the teaching profession as a whole.
‘Power to teach’, as manifested in ‘A’ grade students, represented the pinnacle of
teaching ability and was not a baseline for assessment of teaching quality. The
idea of ‘serviceable’ teachers and ‘drudges of the teaching world’, which ‘C’ and
‘D’ grade teachers were likely to become, seems to infer an acceptance that at
least half of the teaching profession would be mediocre or even poor-quality
teachers, which in turn would raise questions about standards of teaching and
learning and expectations for the teaching profession as a whole. In reality, both
historically and in the current context, the teaching profession would represent a
range of teaching competence. Criteria for the assessment of student teachers in
this study was not mandatory or formalized. It was easier to assess students on the
basis of what they did not do, rather than what they did do in the classroom.
Perhaps this goes some way to explaining current policy concerns with
establishing a formal baseline for assessing student teachers’ competence.

ASSESSING STUDENT TEACHERS TODAY:

HISTORICAL CONTINUITIES IN CURRENT PRACTICE?
During the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s the well-documented regulation
and control of ITT by government agencies, including the Council for the
110 POWER TO TEACH

Accreditation of Teacher Education (CATE) the TTA and OFSTED, marked a

significant change in the culture of ITT which for decades had enjoyed relative
freedom to determine the knowledge base and content of courses for students in
training.17 These policy changes reflected broader concerns with accountability,
performance management and the raising of standards across a range of public
sector services, of which education and teacher training were a part. Under
CATE, established in 1984, the idea of establishing a set of competences against
which student teachers could be assessed emerged and these were applied loosely
and on a voluntary basis by accredited institutions.18 Circulars 9/92 and 14/93
formalized a shift towards school-based training through a partnership model of
provision and shaped OFSTED inspection arrangements for ITT.19 Under these
arrangements it was important to ensure consistency between providers, not only
in the delivery of agreed courses, but also in terms of the expectations and
competences of newly-qualified teachers and how these were assessed and
moderated across the diverse spectrum of provision.
The TTA was established in September 1994 to regulate the framework of
partnership between HEIs and schools and draw up new standards for the
training of teachers. It has the authority to award student numbers to training
providers based on OFSTED inspection and other performance indicators and
thus has considerable power and control. In February 1997 the TTA produced
proposals for a training curriculum and standards for new teachers which
specified the standards required for the award of QTS as well as amendments to
intake requirements and ITT National Curricula for Primary English and
Mathematics. These were subsequently published by the DfEE in July 1997 as
Circular 10/97, Teaching: High Status, High Standards.20 These were further
amended under DfEE Circular 4/98 and incorporated four broad areas of
assessment including subject knowledge, planning, teaching and class
management, monitoring assessment, recording and reporting, and professional
issues, which were broken down into over 80 specific criteria.21 Students would
then be graded against each of these standards on a scale of 1–4 ranging through
very good, good, satisfactory and unsatisfactory. OFSTED was then charged
with ensuring that grades awarded to students were appropriate and consistent
and that training providers were complying with the TTA’s requirements.
Following a review of Circular 4/98 in 2001, a revised document has been
introduced to take effect from September 2002. This latest revision of the
standards claims to take greater account of professional values, interpersonal
skills and inclusion issues than previous versions. The new standards against
which student teachers are to be assessed and graded are broken down into
discrete units under three broad headings: professional values and practice;
knowledge and understanding; and teaching. It is anticipated by the TTA that these
standards ‘should ensure that all new teachers have the subject knowledge and
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 111

the teaching and learning expertise they need, and are well prepared for the
wider professional demands of being a teacher. They will also help to ensure that
training tackles issues such as behaviour management and social inclusion.’22
Within five years, a model of teacher training has emerged which is centrally
controlled through inspection, school-based and skills-oriented and which places
a high premium on subject knowledge. Never before has there been so much
detailed prescription of what student teachers should be taught, should know and
should be able to demonstrate in terms of technical skills and competence.
Critiques of this skills-based model, mainly by teacher educators in HEIs,
largely refer to Circular 4/98 and viewed it as reductionist, technicist and highly
politicized, aimed at ‘de-professionalizing’ and disregarding the professional
expertise and autonomy of the field. Questioning the basis and rationale upon
which the standards were drawn up, Richards, for example, has argued that this
standards-driven model is more about bureaucratic systems of assessing,
recording and reporting and highly instrumental perceptions of teaching and
learning than about holistic professional development. According to Richards,
Circular 4/98 was devoid of any real intellectual, moral, social, ethical or
relational dimension and failed to recognize the extreme complexity of the
teaching and learning process. It atomized teaching into easily measurable
components which took more account of the end-product rather than the process
of professional development.23 Simco extends this critique to problematize the
very idea of viewing the craft of teaching as a set of technical skills, to be easily
measured.24 He argues that technical skill should not necessarily imply an
intellectually impoverished model and highlights the profound complexity of
developing core teaching and management skills in the classroom, without which
any teacher would be unable to function and suggests that the ‘…straightforward
language of the TTA standards is seductive in terms of the amount of expertise
which each standard represents’.25
Setting aside for one moment, the immediacy and complexity of the political
agenda which has shaped recent developments in the provision of ITT and
stepping back from current critiques of a standards-based model of assessing
student teachers’ competence, is it possible to observe any continuities between
the more informal assessment criteria used by training providers in the early
years of the twentieth century and those used today? Assessment criteria, such as
those used in the current standards model and those used historically serve as
crucial indicators of what constitutes the basic requirements for effective
teaching. Whilst the very process of setting out such requirements necessarily
implies some oversimplification or reduction of the process of teaching into a
shared set of behavioural skills to be learned, practised and honed by student
teachers, surely there has to be some base- line or starting point from which
newly qualified teachers can then move forward and develop further their
112 POWER TO TEACH

professional role. Furthermore, the possession of a set of core technical teaching

skills, such as the ability to structure, sequence and deliver a lesson, use
questions effectively and differentiate work according to the ability of the pupils,
does not preclude creativity, imagination and personal influence.
Comparing the current standards with the seven professional categories
identified in the historical study suggests a high degree of consistency in terms
of what is and what was expected of student teachers, with some exceptions. The
historical categories included: planning/preparation, subject knowledge, teaching,
class and behaviour management, relationships with children, personality, and
professional promise. Given the different wording and ordering of criteria over
time, these categories loosely correspond to the current standards in relation to
professional values and practice (1), knowledge and understanding (2) and
teaching (3). In relation to the historical category, ‘relationships with children’ it
is possible to see some connection with the current model under professional
values and practice, 1.2 which requires teachers to treat pupils consistently, with
respect and consideration and concern for their development as learners. The
emphasis on knowledge and understanding in the current standards relates to
subject knowledge in the historical model, though clearly the current model is
more detailed and relates to National Curriculum requirements. There is greater
correlation between the teaching dimensions, under the current categories of 3.1
planning, expectations and targets and 3.2 teaching and class management. For
example the importance of planning and preparation is underlined in both
models, with an emphasis on the setting of clear aims and objectives. Under item
3.3, teaching and class management, there is correlation between the ability of
teachers to set high expectations for pupils’ behaviour and establish a clear
framework for pupil’s behaviour. The historical model placed much greater
emphasis on technical teaching strategies such as exposition, questioning and
narration, but this is implied in the current model in terms of the general
application of effective teaching strategies. Item 3.2 of the current standards
‘monitoring and assessment’ is not apparent in the historical criteria, and neither
of course is the emphasis on the use of ICT, though it is possible to substitute
this in the historical model with the emphasis on blackboard skills.
Significantly, two interconnected areas which exist in the historical model and
which are not made explicit in the current model relate to professional presence
and professional promise. It is interesting that within the historical context, when
assessments were made on student teachers’ professional persona and
professional promise, the language used to describe such qualities was rich but
highly value-laden, so for example, ‘vigour, determination and energy’ were
common descriptors for ‘A’ or ‘B’ grade students and ‘lifeless, inert and lacking
in force’ for ‘D’ or ‘E’ grade students. Judgements made in this context appear to
be highly personalized. There is something about these categories of professional
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 113

persona and professional promise which is much less tangible and difficult to
define or accurately measure than, for example, in the category of planning and
preparation. This is because these categories are less to do with technical skills
than they are to do with a much broader sense of what historically was defined as
the ‘power to teach’, a quality which embodied a range of technical competences
and personal qualities.
In comparing the broad categories of assessment for student teachers in the
past with those of today, it has been possible to observe a range of consistencies
which indicate that, in spite of significant changes over time to the social,
political, economic and technological context of teaching, there remains a shared
basis for defining a baseline of core pedagogical requirements for newly
qualified teachers.26 These relate to good subject knowledge, thorough
preparation and planning of lessons or sequences of lessons, appropriate class
and behaviour management to create a positive working environment, knowing
and understanding the learning needs of individual children, and the ability to
communicate effectively in the classroom context to stimulate learning. A major
difference is that the historical model was not formalized or mandatory and
relied on the sharing of good practice and shared understanding between training
providers, guided and moderated by HMI. Also, if the assessment indicators
were extended to probe the notion of ‘power to teach’, it becomes clear that
relatively small numbers of student teachers would have been credited with this
in its entirety. One of the main issues around the current application of the
standards model has been the grading of student teachers against the standards to
the satisfaction of OFSTED and the TTA. The historical analysis has looked at
the grading of students, and shown that there was consistency between those
providers identified in the study in their grading of students. It is not, however,
possible to test the accuracy or the degree of this consistency or to comment
upon its wider application. A major difference between the historical model and
current practice is the extent to which the assessment of student teachers against
baseline criteria is part of a much broader political and policy-driven concern to
raise educational standards in general and to raise standards of teaching in
schools.
114 POWER TO TEACH

Table 2: Example of completed teaching observation proforma, Southampton Day

Training College

Table 3: Example of categories in blank teaching observation proforma, St John’s

College, York, 1904
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 115

Table 4: Darlington Training College, suggestions for supervisors when observing

lessons
116 POWER TO TEACH

Table 5: Example of categories used in teaching observation, Cambridge Day

Training College, 1901–08

Table 6: Example of categories used in teaching observation, Leeds Day Training

College, 1909–10

Table 7: Guidance for assessing students in teaching, Chester Training College, 1913

Table 8: Correlation of categories for assessment across the sample

 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 117

Table 9: Examples of positive and negative comments against the seven professional
categories for assessment

NOTES

1. The term ‘training provider’ is used generically throughout this chapter to describe
provision from teacher training colleges, either denominational or LEA controlled,
and university departments of education.
118 POWER TO TEACH

2. See Lincoln Training College Archive, Lincoln Training College Magazine, 1897,
p. 28, for a detailed breakdown of how these 150 hours was spent.
3. Board of Education, Regulations for the Training of Teachers, (Cd. 854, 1922).
4. St John’s College, York, Archive, SJC/SP/1, School Practice Reports, 1898–1906.
5. Cambridge University Archive (CUA), Ed 24/1/2, Record of Primary Students,
1901–1908.
6. See for example, Chester City Record Office, Chester Training College Archive,
Report by the Master of Method, June 1913.
7. Lincoln Training College Archive, Minutes of Committee of Management, 1912–
21.
8. F.Wood, ‘The practical training of the teacher: an experiment’, Journal of
Experimental Pedagogy, IV, (1917–18), pp. 182–8.
9. CUA, Ed 21/26, Instructions to students for school practice, 14 March 1927.
10. Oral History Interview, Clara Smith, Lincoln Training College student, 1930–32.
11. Lincoln Training College Archive, Memoirs of Students, Elsie Armitage, 1925–27.
12. See note 10 above.
13. Oral History Interview, Grace Timms, Lincoln Training College student, 1930–32.
14. Southampton University Archive, Records of Southampton Day Training College,
MBK/9/3/5, loose insert proforma of lesson observation, 1919, St John’s College,
York, Archive, SJC/SP/1, School Practice Reports, 1898–1906, Darlington
Training College Archive, E/Dar8/2, School Practice File, suggestions for
supervisors, no date, CUA, Ed 24/1/2, Record of Primary Students, University of
Leeds, Museum of History of Education, AD1544, University Day Training
College Record Book on Teaching Practice, Chester City Record Office, Chester
Training College Archive, Report by the Master of Method, June 1913.
15. London University, Institute of Education Archive, London Day Training College
Records, IE/EXN, Diploma Reports, summary reports for men students and women
students, 1920, CUA, Ed 24/1/2, Record of Primary Students, 1901–08,
Southampton University Archive, Records of Southampton Day Training College,
MBK 9/3/5, volume recording students’ teaching practice, 1917–19, Leeds
University Archive, AD1544, Day Training College Record Book, Teaching
Practice, 1908–11, St John’s College, York, Archive, SJC SP/1/, School Practice
Reports, 1898–1906.
16. PRO, 22/158, Memorandum on the final examination marks for practical teaching,
1922.
17. H.Emery, ‘A National Curriculum for the education and training of teachers: an
English perspective’, Journal of In-Service Education, 24, 2 (1998), pp. 283–91, C.
Richards, N.Simco and S.Twiselton (eds), Primary Teacher Education: High
Status? High Standards (Lewes: Falmer Press, 1998)
18. DES, Initial Teacher Training: Approval of Course (Circular 3/84) (London: DES,
1984).
 LEARNING THROUGH PRACTICE III 119

19. DFE, Initial Teacher Training: Secondary Phase (Circular 9/92) (London: DFE,
1992) and DFE, The Initial Training of Primary Teachers (Circular 14/93)
(London: DFE, 1993).
20. DfEE, Teaching: High Status, High Standards (Circular 10/97) (London: DfEE,
1997).
21. DfEE, Standards for the Award of Qualified Teacher Status (Circular 4/98)
(London: DfEE, 1998).
22. TTA, Qualifiying to Teach: Professional Standards for Qualified Teacher Status
and Requirements for Initial Teacher Training, (London: TTA, 2002).
23. C.Richards, ‘Primary teaching: high status? High standards? Personal response to
recent initiatives’, in Richards, Simco and Twiselton, Primary Teacher Education:
High Status? High Standards, C.Richards, Primary Education at the Hinge of
History (London: Falmer, 1999), C.Richards (ed.), Changing English Primary
Education: Retrospect and Prospect (Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham, 2000).
24. N.Simco, ‘Initial teacher education as the acqusition of technical skills for
teaching: a panacea for the future?’, in Richards, Simco and Twiselton, Primary
Teacher Education: High Status? High Standards, p. 118.
25. Ibid., p. 123.
26. Note that earlier attempts at seeking to define core competencies in teaching also
reflect similar concerns. See, P.Broadhead, ‘A blueprint for the good teacher? The
HMI/DES model of good primary practice’, British Journal of Educational
Studies, xxxv, 1 (1987), pp. 57–71, and N.Bennett, ‘The effective primary school
teacher: the search for a theory of pedagogy’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 4,
1 (1988), pp. 19–30.
 7
TOWARDS A THEORY OF TEACHING

This chapter will focus on the embryonic development of a theory of teaching

amongst leading teacher trainers during the period 1900–20. It will argue that
during this period of innovation, serious attempts were made to empower
teachers with a theory of teaching which was rooted in, not removed from, the
realities of classroom life. The basis for this development was a growing interest
amongst teacher trainers, many of whom were based in the new university
departments of education, in seeking common pedagogical principles which
could form a professional consensus on good teaching practice. Moving away
earlier conceptions of teaching as a mere common-sensical art and critical of
inaccessible theories of education which were too removed from actual
experience, professional debates between teacher trainers who were networked
through the TCA sought a more research-led and scientific engagement with
practical pedagogy. The chapter reflects upon recent educational interest in the
power of pedagogy to improve school and teacher effectiveness and seeks to
bring a historical perspective on a highly complex and contested subject which
for many years has remained relatively obscure, even amongst educational
historians.
There are four parts to the chapter. First, for contextual purposes, the potential
of historical analyses of pedagogy is considered. Secondly, there is an
introduction to the nature of professional pedagogical debate in the first two
decades of the twentieth century. Thirdly there is a discussion of core principles
of teaching which were being developed by three key educationists, Joseph
Findlay, Thomas Raymont and James Welton. Finally, the relationship between
the historical quest for core educational principles and the current preoccupation
with pedagogy and practice will be considered.

WHY A HISTORY OF PEDAGOGY?

The notion that a theory of teaching could be inspired and guided by a set of core
guiding principles raises interesting questions about contemporary relevance and
application and historical continuity. Currently, there is a strong research and
 TOWARDS A THEORY OF TEACHING 121

policy-led interest in pedagogy as a vehicle for raising standards of effective

teaching, but this in itself is a fairly recent phenomenon. Much of the current
debate and policy rhetoric about pedagogy, however, fails to take any account of
the historical development of educational theory and teaching method.1 A
historical evaluation of the important continuities between past and present
approaches to teaching and learning requires a more systematic study of
pedagogics and a reclamation of a very long tradition of pedagogic inquiry,
which goes as far back as the early works of Comenius in the sixteenth century,
but which itself has been pushed to the periphery of educational analysis and
discussion. Earlier historians of pedagogy have also been subjected to the
vagaries of fashion as professional and government interest in pedagogy has
waxed and waned over time. In 1886, for example, Gabriel Compayre in his
history of the subject observed that, ‘pedagogy, long-neglected…has regained its
standing, nay more, it has become the fashion’.2 This has some resonance with
current developments. Compayre’s justification for studying the history of
pedagogy in his own time, however, raises some important questions for
historians of education today. He argued that, The history of pedagogy is a
necessary introduction to pedagogy itself. It should be studied not for purposes
of erudition or for mere curiosity, but with a practical purpose for the sake of
finding in it the permanent truths which are the essentials of a definite theory of
education.’3 The very notion of permanent pedagogical truths might seem at best
quirky and old-fashioned and at worst anachronistic to current research and
policy on effective school teaching in the twenty-first century. Yet, just as
Compayre sought to look back at the history of pedagogy for greater
understanding, it is arguably as instructive now to examine pedagogy historically,
not least because this might have some bearing upon the current situation.
Simon’s well-known critique of the historical denigration of pedagogy, written
in the early 1990s, argued that in Britain, ‘The most striking aspect of current
thinking and discussion about education is its eclectic character, reflecting deep
confusion of thought, and of aims and purposes, relating to learning and teaching
—to pedagogy.’4 He claimed then that aside from a brief flourishing of
professional interest in pedagogy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, Britain’s education system had long suffered from a lack of an all-
embracing, universalized, scientific theory of education relating to the practice of
teaching.
Perhaps the most important observation to be made about the current situation
is the overt politicization of pedagogy.5 This has happened in a professional
climate which, for the past 15 years, has experienced an increasingly centralized
and prescriptive approach from the government, first in the realm of curriculum
and school governance and more latterly in the training of teachers and classroom
practice through the literacy and numeracy strategies. The 1998 Green Paper,
122 POWER TO TEACH

Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change, outlined the government’s

proposals for the modernization and improvement of the teaching profession and
stated categorically that, The time has long gone when isolated, unaccountable
professionals made curriculum and pedagogical decisions alone without
reference to the outside world.’6 Seeking to determine, develop and disseminate
‘proven best practice’ these proposals included, amongst others, the
identification of advanced skills teachers to act as beacons of good practice from
the classroom and training schools to harness professional expertise and pioneer
innovative practice. Following the Green Paper, research commissioned from
Hay/McBer by the DfEE was designed to provide a blueprint of effective
teaching which focused on the combined interaction of core teaching skills,
professional characteristics and classroom climate.7 Without doubt, teaching,
learning and pedagogy have now moved to centre stage in the political arena.
Ironically, it is the teaching profession’s lack of clear and systematic
articulation about the business of effective teaching and learning which might
have contributed to this situation. In June 1998, Anthea Millett, then Chief
Executive of the TTA, argued that teachers have found it difficult or have even
been unwilling to talk about the nature of teaching. Bemoaning the lack of a
common instructional theory or pedagogic understandings amongst teachers who
for too long had internalized their teaching methods, she signalled that the time
had come for the government to encroach upon this aspect of teachers work as
part of its mission to raise standards in schools.8 The following year, an important
book edited by Mortimore also suggested that for too long teachers have had to
rely on ideological positions, folk wisdom and the mantras of enthusiasts for
particular approaches.9 The inference of recent work on pedagogy is that the
rather cosy professional notion of received practical wisdom is inadequate and
flawed. Rather, there is a demand for innovation, radical change and a newly
applied science of teaching.10 In particular, effective teacher behaviour is being
channelled into interactive whole class teaching. Clearly, the inherent danger of
this approach is not only the threat of an externally imposed technicist or
mechanistic style of teaching but also a cavalier disregard of a professional
legacy in which teaching methods have long been tried and tested.
In order to understand this pedagogical legacy, it is necessary to turn to the
historical development of educational theory.11 Simon has blamed a combination
of social, political and ideological factors for the dearth of a truly scientific basis
to the theory and practice of education. Yet, he also suggests that there was once
a brief moment in our educational past, when a rigorous and coherent system of
pedagogy was being developed and refined by the teaching profession itself.
This emergent pedagogical system which sought the systematic integration of
theory and practice flourished in the late-nineteenth-century pupil-teacher
centres and training colleges, and gained momentum in the early university day
 TOWARDS A THEORY OF TEACHING 123

training colleges. It was premised on a positive belief in the innate educability of

all children and in the central role of the school teacher to facilitate such a
process. The interruption of war and the ensuing rise of psychology,
psychometrics and intelligence testing in the inter-war period highlighted and
categorized the limitations of human potential and destroyed those earlier
pedagogical gains whose roots were found in the lowly-esteemed elementary
school tradition. A ‘laissez-faire’, highly individualized, private pedagogy
emerged after the Second World War as teachers tried to negotiate their way
around a confusing and contested muddle of ideological rhetoric. The unhelpful
dichotomization of progressive versus traditional teaching methods and child-
centred versus subject-centred frameworks has, according to Simon caused the
real question of the integration of theoretical knowledge with the practice of
education to be side-stepped.
Inspired by Simon’s identification of the late-nineteenth/early-twentieth-
century period of pedagogical advance in Britain, the main focus of this chapter
is on the development of a practical, experimental pedagogy amongst leading
teacher trainers in the UK during the period 1900–20 who were interested in
finding a rational basis for teaching, moving it from intuitive craft to a science of
pedagogy. Embryonic forms of pedagogic inquiry and research in this period
sought an integration of knowledge about teaching and its practical application in
an attempt to bridge the already firmly established theory/practice divide.

EARLY TWENTIETH-CENTURY PEDAGOGICAL

DEBATE
Professional debates between key members of the teacher training world in the
first two decades of the twentieth century focused on the need for experimental
pedagogy to underpin a new theory of education. Much of this debate was
enacted within both informal and formal professional networks: the TCA and its
branch meetings; annual conferences and publications; educational publishing
and the construction of training courses for teachers. This phase represented a
departure from earlier conceptions of education which tended to reduce the skill
of teaching to mere commonsensical art. It was also critical of over-complicated
and inaccessible scientific theories of education which were too removed from
actual experience.
This interest in seeking common pedagogical principles which could form a
professional consensus on good teaching practice is nowhere better illustrated
than in the foundation by the TCA of the Journal of Experimental Pedagogy
whose whole purpose was to promote pedagogic research. The journal, founded
in 1911, was edited by Professor J.A. Green, based at the University of
Sheffield, who was highly committed to promoting practical and theoretical
124 POWER TO TEACH

pedagogy. It published articles on research in schools and training colleges on

innovative approaches to the teaching of a variety of curriculum subjects as well
as more academic articles on theories of teaching, curriculum development and
teacher training. It was an important forum for debate on experimental pedagogy
and the interchange of ideas about teaching and learning. There was a particular
emphasis on the application of psychology to educational theory and a
commitment to understanding children as individual learners. In his presidential
address to the TCA in 1913, Green summarized the new mission of teacher
trainers and teachers to seek out principles for their practice, based upon sound
scientific understanding.

The difference between doctors and teachers is that doctors have managed
to persuade us that the mysteries of their profession rest upon special
knowledge relevant to our condition and teachers haven’t persuaded the
public that there is any specific scientific knowledge. A sound knowledge
of principles would carry the practitioner much further, particularly in
dealing with individuals in his class. It would prevent him from becoming
the victim of every faddist. The only protection against ignorance in high
places is knowledge, and the teacher who has firm hold of established
principles may freely accept or reject the views of those in authority over him
so far as they concern his work within the four walls of his classroom.
Teachers need to know how to treat new methods.12

The emphasis was upon the combined effect of seeking core principles to define
effective teaching practice, whilst at the same time using this increased scientific
foundation as a springboard for greater professional status and autonomy. Green
wanted teachers to enjoy ‘…a real grip of first principles and with a genuine
desire to keep critically abreast of pedagogic inquiry and research’.13 He
envisaged huge potential for the universities and teachers to work together to
further the study of pedagogy and hoped that the journal would support and
disseminate this work. For Findlay, the challenge was for teacher trainers and
teachers to engage in a professional debate which would ultimately ‘turn out
thinking men and women ready for the professional freedom which is theirs for
the asking’.14 This debate would seek out rule and law and would be based upon
close observation and analysis of classroom practice. Any theory of teaching
would have to relate to real teachers and real teaching contexts. Indeed, the
reason why educational theory was deemed so unpopular and irrelevant amongst
serving teachers was its apparent alienation from real practice. For this new
movement which sought an interplay of theory and practice, practice was to be
the final test. For Findlay, the agency of the teacher was critical to the process of
defining a theory of teaching. He argued that, ‘We can only establish education as
 TOWARDS A THEORY OF TEACHING 125

a professional pursuit by devoting to its study the same elaborate care, the same
spirit of devotion to our profession as we witness in other callings which have
won the confidence of the public by searching for common principles springing
out of and again reflecting upon that daily practice.’15
The remainder of this chapter focuses upon the contribution to this systematic
study of pedagogics of three particular teacher trainers—Joseph Findlay, Thomas
Raymont and James Welton. They were all experienced teachers of children and
trainers of teachers and had specialized in method teaching to student teachers.
Welton and Findlay were appointed as Professors of Education at Leeds and
Manchester Universities respectively and Raymont was Professor of Education
at the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire at Cardiff. They
all contributed to the Journal of Experimental Pedagogy and disseminated their
ideas at conferences and meetings of the TCA and in their own published works.
They were all concerned with elucidating some sort of rational basis for
teaching.

IN SEARCH OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES

The critical professional issue for Findlay, Welton and Raymont, as it still is for
educationists today, was the relationship between theory and practice. They
argued that the science and art of teaching had for too long been falsely
dichotomized. This had resulted in a confusion of disparate theories of education
which consisted either of dubious scientific claims divorced from experience or
practical hints and tips for teachers which were unrelated to existing
understanding about teaching and learning. Findlay argued that, ‘Theory without
practice is wind; Practice without theory is quackery.’16 Raymont was worried
about the piecemeal and haphazard application of psychology to education in the
name of science. Psychology at this time was itself in a state of flux with the
notion of Alexander Bain’s faculty psychology and the need for education to
train the senses, memory and imagination now redundant. The rigid polarization
of what Welton defined as ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ in education was therefore
identified as a real hindrance to the proper development of a theory of teaching
and learning.17
Rather than being set in antithesis to each other, it was suggested that theory
and practice should be considered in terms of a symbiotic relationship. Raymont,
castigating the disconnectedness of theory and practice in education, argued that,
Theory and practice are not opposed, but complementary, not different things, but
different sides of the same thing, each meaningless without reference to the
other.’ The two extremes between theory and practice were to be avoided: ‘The
mere theorist adept at spinning fine webs of doctrine who then collapses on
126 POWER TO TEACH

contact with the hard facts of experience; and the mere empiricist, or rule-of-
thumb practitioner, who seeks no rational basis for his practice.’18
Any theory of education which was not rooted in practice and which had not
been tested in the mettle of the classroom could not be upheld. What was being
sought was a ‘sane’ theory of education which harmonized the results of
experience.19 This should command the respect and inform the practice of teachers
and bear a direct relation to the lived realities of classroom life. As Raymont
argued, ‘A good practical teacher must have a theory behind his practice,
whether implicit or explicitly, and a sane theorist must have constant regard to
existing circumstances.’20 A crucial test for the validity of any theory was
whether its proponent could teach. It is significant that these educationists had all
served their time in the classroom and had distinguished themselves as practising
teachers before moving into higher education. Findlay, was particularly keen to
demonstrate that his ideas about education were not proclaimed from the remove
of the lecture room, but were drawn from and exemplified by his own practice
and experience. He argued that, ‘theory is practice become conscious of itself,
and practice is realized theory’.21
Similarly, Welton wanted to set an ideal of teaching which was practical and
argued that the ‘…true and effective way to train the practical teacher is to imbue
him with broad and fruitful principles and he becomes a real educative force just
in the degree to which, having incorporated those principles in the living texture
of his own thought, he brings them to bear on the living problems which every
day in school sets him to solve in such vast numbers’. For Welton, the principles
and methods he wanted to put forward were not academic but had to have been
proved by the successful working of everyone of them in school.22 Findlay
argued that,

You will perceive that we are seeking all the time for links by which we
may bind together the theory of education with the practice of it. We see that
in our science, as in every other, abstract principles can only be attained by
the slow process of experience; books on education, lectures on education
and psychology have their value, but only so far as they touch the practical
experience and observation of the student. Hence then the importance of
assigning a due place to that portion of the student’s work which is called
practical training.23

Raymont offered an interesting perspective on the justification for promoting

effective teaching through effective training in core principles. He argued that
teaching excellence spanned a range of competences from excellent, to good, to
tolerably good to indifferent to downright incompetent. For him, the great
teacher, rather like the great poet was born not made. This, however, left a
 TOWARDS A THEORY OF TEACHING 127

majority of teachers whose gifts were only moderate and for whom training
along the right lines was essential. Whilst he saw no urgent need of poets below
the first rank, he did see ‘…an urgent need that teachers of moderate gifts should
be trained to turn those gifts to the very best account, and one way of doing this
is to lead them to that reflective contemplation of experience which is the
essence of healthy theorising’ ,24

Essence, Rules and Integrity

In elucidating this ‘sane’ theory of education, Findlay, Raymont and Welton
were seeking to identify core principles of teaching and learning. They were
concerned with capturing and disseminating fundamental truths or rules of
practice which could be embraced by teachers. These generic principles
expressed and formulated from experience, practice and research, were to form
the bedrock of any proper theory of education.25 Findlay saw the mission of the
TCA as being the search for rule and law in teaching, generated by the proper
development of a scientific habit based on the belief that, ‘…truth in Education
as in all other sciences, must be sought, not only by reading and discourse, not
only by the intuitions of experience, but in patient, modest investigation’.26 In the
preface to Welton’s book for students on the forms of criticism lessons, W. Scott
Coward, HMI for Training Colleges wrote, ‘Mr Welton does not lose sight for a
moment, however, of the necessity of principles; they are luminous everywhere
throughout his book, and they form, as should ever be the case, the basis and
groundwork upon which the whole of the practical superstructure stands.’27 In
writing this book, it was Welton’s aim to produce a proforma for criticising a
lesson which would encourage students to record specific applications of general
principles. Welton clearly believed that there existed principles which
transcended time and context and which had been embodied in the practice of
educators who having reflected and meditated upon their work, found a rational
basis for the successful application of certain modes of teaching.
Engaged as they were in the business of training teachers, Findlay, Raymont
and Welton wanted the generic principles of teaching to be imbued by young
teachers. In the relative calm of a period of training away from the immediate
responsibilities of a class, trainee teachers could be grounded in the principles
and practice of their work. Training provided an opportune time for the problems
of school life and work to be thought out in the light of the wisdom both of the
past and of the present. The TCA endorsed this belief in the value of learning
principles at the training stage so that students should emerge ‘with a real grip of
first principles and with a genuine desire to keep critically abreast of pedagogic
inquiry and research’.28 Raymont argued that good teaching was the function of
many variables of which the study of the principles and methods is only one.
128 POWER TO TEACH

However, he regarded it essential that young teachers should study and

assimilate principles and methods to protect them from becoming blind imitators
either of their own past selves or of other people and to improve upon bad
practice. If young teachers began their professional careers, armed with a firm
grasp of the principles of practice and able to engage critically with a theory of
teaching, then this, it was hoped, would go some way in raising the status of the
teaching profession.29
However important the application of generic principles were to Findlay,
Raymont and Welton, they were not advocating a mechanistic or imitative mode
of practice and were highly suspicious of the notion of neat prescription or rigid
formulae. This raised an interesting tension. They recognized that there was a
potential conflict between a methodical approach to teaching and an individual
teacher’s professional freedom. Teachers could not be viewed as mere machines,
yet at the same time their teaching needed to be methodical. In seeking to
systematize the daily practice of teachers there would be some risk of
unthinking, mechanical application on the part of some practitioners. ‘Teaching
is emphatically skilled work. It may be done mechanically—but then the result is
inferior.’30 The slavish imitation of unthinking method was the antithesis of the
theory of education being sought. Welton deplored unthinking prescription and
verbal reproductions of textbook methods and rather promoted the need for
teachers, both experienced and novice, to develop themselves as critical,
reflective practitioners. He argued that the model for a work on teaching should
not be like a cookery book, with its detailed recipes directing the reader how to
produce by rule of thumb certain specific results. The unique individuality of
teachers was to be celebrated and the idea was that thinking and informed
professionals would apply principles of teaching according to their own
understanding and in keeping with the particular circumstances of their work.
The escape from mechanism in teaching, according to Welton, rested on
teachers’ willingness to engage in earnest reflection upon the purpose and nature
of teaching. The outcome of such a process would be a theory of teaching which
sprang out of actual school work, ‘…not an insubstantial vision spun out of the
clouds of an untrammelled imagination.’.31 It was teachers themselves who were
to be responsible for the development of a theory of education and who were to
secure professional security through their own intellectual, practical and critical
engagement with the principles.

Towards a Practical Pedagogy

It was in their discussion of the forms and process of teaching an individual
lesson that Findlay, Raymont and Welton began to probe the nature of a set of
fundamental propositions about teaching. Whilst they each tackled the issue in a
 TOWARDS A THEORY OF TEACHING 129

slightly different way, it is possible to identify common characteristics. They

were all influenced by the Herbartian model of a staged, systematic and
sequenced approach to teaching, but wanted to move away from what they
perceived as a potentially narrow, pedantic and overly teacher-oriented style.
Raymont was wary of discarding Herbart’s tried and tested maxims in their
entirety and sought to draw upon the wisdom of the past and integrate it with a more
practice-based analysis.32 They were all interested in the nature of children’s
learning and called for more research in this field. They all emphasized the need
for interaction between the teacher and the child. Welton suggested that the three
chief factors in education were the child to be taught, the subject matter and the
teacher. A theory of teaching must bring these into effective union and the role
of the teacher as mediator and guide was critical.33 My examination of their work
suggests five broad propositions for effective practice on the part of the teacher.
These are: planning; teacher-pupil interaction; lesson structure; core teaching
skills; and the power of the individual teacher to teach. These five propositions
are interdependent and only really make sense when considered as a whole unit.
The first was based on the need for meticulous forward planning and
preparation. Teachers were encouraged to think through the stages of a lesson
and write these down in detail. The usefulness of a model or proforma for lesson
planning to student teachers in training was highlighted. In particular, teachers
were urged to consider how the subject matter related to the class in terms of
their previous knowledge, range of ability and interest. Findlay urged
experienced teachers to write detailed lesson notes to provide the basis for a
systematic evaluation of a lesson and a reworking of planning for further lessons.
The keeping of a planning diary or notebook for each course study was advised.
The idea was to be flexible, not rigid at the planning stage.
The second concerned interaction between teacher and taught. This demanded
an ability to be flexible and adaptable on the part of the teacher. Meaningful
planning could only emerge from a thorough knowledge and understanding of
the children and an ability to adapt to particular educational contexts. There was
no place for old-fashioned, didactic ‘chalk and talk’ in this model of teaching.
Teachers were required to determine the flow, pace and dynamic of a lesson and
to respond appropriately to the needs of the class. According to Welton: ‘it is the
power of putting oneself in the mental place and attitude of the pupils, that marks
off the true artist in teaching from the mere mechanical grinder of facts and
formulae. To know where the pupils are and where they should try to be are the
two first essentials of good teaching.’34 Teaching was more than the efficient
delivery of thoroughly prepared lessons because individual teachers needed to
know their pupils and develop effective relationships with them. This clearly
required a degree of intuition and sensitivity to individual needs and
circumstances.
130 POWER TO TEACH

The third involved the logical construction of a lesson. It referred to the shape
and sequence of a lesson in which material was systematically organized into
manageable and orderly sections. Each of these sections would be thoroughly
revised before moving on with the lesson. Progression between stages was
crucial. According to Findlay: ‘…the quality of teaching, in the sphere of
method, is largely determined by the skill with which a teacher is able to analyse
and group his subject matter into sections’.35 This idea was drawn from the
Herbartian theory of formal stages from which the five-step model of teaching a
lesson was devised. The difficulty with this model was its assumption that the
five steps themselves reflected what was going on in the minds of the pupils and
that the pupils kept apace with the teacher. Findlay particularly urged teachers
not to fall into the trap of constructing staged lessons without an adequate
investigation of the needs of the class. An introduction would prepare children for
the lesson in which the teacher would offer explicit aims and objectives and show
the purpose of the work. Drawing on children’s existing knowledge and
recapping on previous lessons the teacher would focus and concentrate the
children’s minds and stimulate their interest. There would be opportunity for
cross-curricular links at this stage. The next stage would consist of the
presentation of new subject matter. There was particular emphasis on new
information being presented in such a way that it connected with existing
knowledge. Following the presentation of new knowledge, two further parts of
the lesson would seek to systematize and apply this knowledge to the practical
needs of daily life. Similar ideas would be compared and dissimilar ideas
contrasted with problem solving using new knowledge. Finally, a recapitulation
would draw together the main threads of the lesson, rehearsing main teaching
points and checking understanding.
The fourth proposition, without which neither of the previous three could
exist, highlighted certain core teaching skills. Broadly, these related to
questioning, exposition or explanation, narration and illustration. Oral
questioning was clearly a critical skill for a young teacher to develop but it was
important to recognize that questioning should not be the dominant mode of
instruction in a lesson. Different types of question were promoted including
preliminary ‘experimental’ questions usually asked at the start of a lesson to
probe children’s knowledge, recapitulatory or resume questions to test
understanding and interrogatory questions for examination purposes. According
to Raymont, good questions should incite a pupil to genuine activity of mind and
should cause him to observe, remember and think. The emphasis should not be
on a rapid fire and response style and questions should be framed so as not to
encourage guess work or simple yes or no answers. Teachers should construct
questions in relation to the ability of the children and should distribute them
 TOWARDS A THEORY OF TEACHING 131

carefully across the class.36 The atmosphere of a classroom should be friendly so

as to encourage children to ask questions.
The skill of effective exposition was also highlighted as a necessary
constituent of effective teaching. Raymont suggested that power to describe
clearly, to narrate vividly and to tell a story well was just as important as skill in
oral questioning. A fundamental part of the skill was the ability to narrate or tell
a story well and to illustrate teaching points in a vivid and lively fashion so as to
excite and maintain children’s interest. Welton argued that, ‘…the teacher should
therefore, cultivate the power of effective and vivid narrative—terse, pointed and
clear’.37 Like the structuring of a whole lesson, the points of a narrative should
also be well structured and orderly with essential points being stressed as
appropriate. Teachers should be mindful of their use of language and ensure its
relation to children’s comprehension. They should enter the spirit of the story
and their voice and manner should be varied with a balance between detail,
repetition (particularly for younger children) and description. Supporting this
view, J.Green, argued the narration and the ability to tell stories was the oldest
instrument of formal education, ‘The power to tell a story might not unfittingly
be regarded as an essential qualification of the teacher. If dealing with issues
outside children’s own experience, description which leads them to imagine and
call up images is important and teachers need to make use of what children
already do know.’38 For Green, effective teaching depended a great deal upon
individual teachers’ ability to engage in clear and graphic exposition.
The final proposition brought together all of the previous four ideas and
focused on the personal characteristics of the teacher. The individual uniqueness
of the teacher was the safeguard against slavish imitation and mechanistic
teaching. If teachers did not have the power to stimulate and sustain the interest
of their class through their use of language, expression, tact, sympathy, tone of
voice and overall demeanour, then a well-planned, carefully sequenced lesson
would be worthless. The onus was placed on the teacher to harness their
professional knowledge and their understanding of individual children to
ascertain their readiness for new information and experiences. Whilst Findlay,
Raymont and Welton found it instructive to formulate these general propositions
for teachers they were not claiming to afford definite and detailed guidance.
Rather, they wanted the careful application of general methods to particular
teaching contexts and hoped that young teachers would appropriate the ‘spirit’ of
a systematic approach to teaching without becoming enslaved to it. Welton
summed up this belief when he wrote: ‘…teaching, then, is educative as far as it
is stimulating. And in this the personality of the teacher counts for more than the
method of teaching’.39 The essence of these five principles for a theory of
effective teaching, whch drew upon core technical, managerial, organizational
and personal skills and qualities was ‘power to teach’. As has already been
132 POWER TO TEACH

discussed in Chapter 2, the personal dimension in teaching is perhaps the most

difficult aspect of teaching power to quantify and define. It is implicit in the
other more technical, managerial or intellectual powers, none of which could
properly function without some individual personal flair, instinct or intuition.

Experimental Pedagogy in its Infancy

In contributing to professional debate about the nature of effective teaching, the
TCA through the Journal of Experimental Pedagogy and such educationists as
Findlay, Raymont and Welton were beginning to formulate a particular model of
teaching which pulled together elements of received professional wisdom but
which also sought a scientific, rational basis. The development of ideas around
the rudiments of good teaching during the first two decades of the twentieth
century, however, only went so far. They were generated as principles based on
the experience of practice and to some extent were grounded in scientific
research and analysis. But, it was clear, that more systematic research based on
observation of classroom life was needed to underpin and validate knowledge
and understanding about the relationship between teaching and learning. The
broad propositions for effective teaching outlined did not, for example,
satisfactorily penetrate the vexed question of balancing the needs of the
individual against a whole class in mass schooling. Neither did they engage with
questions about the relationship between curriculum development and teaching,
nor systematic assessment of pupil learning as we would know it today.
Nevertheless, for a few decades at the turn of the twentieth century, there were
the beginnings of a movement amongst educationists and teacher trainers which
was pregnant with the possibility of a whole new world of teacher-based
research, observation, training and debate around the nature of teaching and
learning. There was an embryonic form of ‘sane’ educational theory which
envisioned a teaching profession responsible for the development of a practical
pedagogy. There was a call for fundamental pedagogical questions to be solved
by observation and experiment conducted under scientific principles. Findlay,
somewhat prophetically, in view of current government prescription around the
teaching of the literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools, argued that
if teachers did not take upon themselves the responsibility for finding out how
best to teach then agencies external to the profession would take over. He wrote,
‘if such claims to usurp the teachers’ function by prescribing text books, by rigid
limitation as to time and manner and method, it should be resisted’.40
Findlay recognized the potential for professional tension between research and
practice but was persuaded that the way forward was the working through of
theory in the classroom. It was to the training of teachers and the concept of a
demonstration or experimental school, discussed at length in Chapter 5, that
 TOWARDS A THEORY OF TEACHING 133

Findlay looked for a practical realization of his educational vision. Not dissimilar
to the clinical schools used for medical students, These schools are the
(educational) laboratories in which the student gets a first-hand knowledge of his
subject, while at the same time he is in touch with real scholars in a real school
he sees experienced teachers working out methods of teaching and control, his
theories are constantly put to the proof of experience, and, above all he keeps in
touch with child life.’41 When Green reviewed Findlay’s account of the Fielden
Demonstration Schools in The Demonstration Record for the Journal of
Experimental Pedagogy, he wrote of it being full of ‘pedagogic inspiration’, ‘All
students of education, and especially those who are interested in experimental
pedagogy will welcome the appearance of this new collection of material from
the Fielden School. The book is an able and honest effort to deal with the school
problem in the light of guiding principles and to put to practical test various new
ideas.’42 There was a real sense of excitement and anticipation amongst
proponents of the principles of teaching based on scientific research. Findlay
wrote:

When the lecturers describe the great progress in educational methods on

which the basis of our modern practices are based, he quotes the teaching
experiments of Comenius, Herbart, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Lancaster and so
forth. But there is no finality about such things. We are only at the
beginnings. Never were there so many persons capable and desirous of
carrying on the work of these men as have grown up during the last twenty
years.43

The Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, through its reporting of meetings and

symposia of the TCA, actively promoted the notion of a partnership between
teachers and other educationists and psychologists in the development of
educational research, publishing examples of small-scale research projects in
schools, usually devoted to the teaching of reading or number work, and arguing
that scholarships should be made available for teachers to engage in research. It
also advertised summer schools on pedagogy designed for teachers.44 By the
early 1920s a number of teacher-based research projects, conducted mainly in
association with demonstration schools were being published and reviewed in the
educational literature. These included, for example, an experimental scheme for
independent work for girls by Miss Palmer at the Childeric Road Demonstration
School under the London County Council, a project investigating the teaching of
arithmetic at the Crimsworth Demonstration School, associated with Mather
Training College, Manchester, and a study into the teaching of English by John
Eades, headteacher of Kirkstall Road School, Leeds used by the University for
school practice.45
134 POWER TO TEACH

By the early 1920s, however, the development of educational research moved

much more towards specialist forms of educational and experimental psychology,
with an emphasis on the expertise of researchers and psychologists and a
mistrust of the research skills of teachers. Symbolic of this shift, which also fits
with Simon’s model of educational research referred to above, was the relaunch
of the Journal of Educational Pedagogy in February 1923 as the Forum of
Education. Following Green’s death in 1922, the editorship of the journal was
taken over by C.W.Valentine, an established educational psychologist and
Professor of Education at the University of Birmingham. In his first editorial,
Valentine argued that the word ‘pedagogy’ had become unpopular and that the
journal would henceforth embrace a more rigorous psychological and
philosophical based approach.46 This was different to the original purpose of the
Journal of Experimental Pedagogy which was ‘primarily to promote pedagogic
research’ from the perspective of practical experience.47 To further emphasize its
overarching interest in educational psychology, the Forum of Education, was
again re-launched in 1930 as The British Journal of Educational Psychology.

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RESONANCE

At the beginning of this chapter, Compayre’s call in 1886 for the seeking out of
permanent truths in educational theory was put forward. As historians of
education we are all faced with a startling array of educational myths and
misconceptions. This is particularly the case in relation to conceptions of the
good teacher. Even early twentieth century educationists, a century ago, were
anxious to dispel uncritical, unthinking, mechanical, craft and imitative models of
the business of teaching and learning. The idea of historical continuum is largely
absent from current analysis of pedagogy. Much of what Findlay, Raymont and
Welton had to say about the systematic construction of a good lesson and the
qualities of a good teacher makes as much sense now as they must have done
then and what is more, much of these ideas have been translated into current
models of practice.
The five core principles identified in this chapter, though they refer to a
different set of contexts and climates than those of today, do clearly resonate
with recent research and recommendations for good practice, found for example
in the Hay/McBer report, commissioned by the Department for Education and
Employment in 2000.48 The current model of effective teaching focuses upon the
combined interaction of core teaching skills, professional characteristics and
classroom climate. Hay/McBer research into teacher effectiveness, based on
research conducted by Reynolds et al., identified 35 teaching skills, 9 classroom
climate dimensions and 16 professional characteristics. The report suggested
that, ‘effective teachers are good at planning, setting a clear framework for each
 TOWARDS A THEORY OF TEACHING 135

lesson. The effective teacher is very systematic in the preparation for, and
execution of each lesson.’ The first proposition for effective teaching in the
historical model advocated thorough planning and sharing of objectives.
According to Hay/McBer effective teachers ‘use their knowledge, skills and
behaviours to create effective learning environments in their classrooms’. This
resonates with the second proposition in the historical model which emphasized
the need for positive and purpose ful interaction between teacher and taught.
Hay/McBer suggested that the ‘effective teacher communicates the lesson
content to be covered and the key activities for the duration of the lesson.
Material is presented in small steps, with opportunities for pupils to practise after
each step. Each activity is preceded by clear and detailed instructions with time
for the review of lesson objectives and outcomes at the end of each lesson.’ In
the historical model the third proposition highlighted the logical construction of a
lesson with the structuring of lessons in clear parts, with an introduction, main
activity and plenary within a safe climate. The Hay/McBer study found
‘Effective teachers employ a variety of teaching strategies and techniques to
engage pupils and to keep them on task.’ These include teacher-led activities
such as the giving of well-paced instruction. The idea of core teaching skills was
expressed in the fourth proposition of the historical model. Hay/McBer identified
a set of professional characteristics essential to effective teaching, many of which
embrace the spirit of the fifth proposition of the historical model with its
emphasis on the personality of the teacher. The ideas of Hay/McBer are further
reflected in Muijs and Reynolds’ book on effective teaching, published in 2001,
which identified generic teaching skills which they term ‘the basics of teaching’.
These also expound the importance of planning, direct instruction, clearly
structured and presented lessons, questioning, classroom management, behaviour
management and classroom climate.49 Effective teaching practices proposed in
the current climate are not novel.
Fifteen years ago, Neville Bennett, in his article on the search for a theory of
pedagogy, referred to the continuing disputes about the purposes of education
and conceptions of good teaching, together with the marked tendency for
educationists to re-invent the wheel.50 Aside from the rather obvious observation
that current research on effective pedagogy may well be continuing this trend,
what else might the historical analysis which forms the basis of this book have to
offer? By seeking to clarify and define principles of teaching which rest on a
clear understanding of the relationship between teaching and learning and the
complexities of classroom interaction, this historical perspective can inform and
enrich new departures. In particular, the historical notion of ‘power to teach’
which incorporated a more holistic approach to pedagogy than is currently
conceived, might offer a greater conceptual understanding of the development of
136 POWER TO TEACH

pedagogy over time and calls for a much more critical engagement with these
developments by historians of education in the near future.

NOTES

1. An exception to this can be found in the work of R.Alexander, Culture and

Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education (London: Blackwell,
2001).
2. G.Compayre, The History of Pedagogy (translated by W.H.Payne, Boston: D.C.
Heath and Company, 1886), p. xii.
3. Ibid., p. xviii.
4. B.Simon, ‘Some problems of pedagogy revisited’, in The State and Education
Change: Essays in the History of Education and Pedagogy (London: Lawrence and
Wishart, 1994).
5. D.Gilroy, ‘The political rape of initial teacher education in England and Wales: a
JET rebuttal’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 18, 1 (1992), pp. 5–22.
6. DfEE, Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change, (London: DfEE, 1998).
7. DfEE, Research into Teacher Effectiveness, Report by Hay McBer (London: DfEE,
2000).
8. A.Millett, ‘Lets get pedagogical’, Times Educational Supplement, 12 June 1998, p.
28, and K.Thornton, ‘Teaching wisdom that stays silent’, Times Educational
Supplement, 3 September 1999, p. 6.
9. P.Mortimore (ed.), Understanding Pedagogy and its Impact on Learning (London:
Paul Chapman Publishing, 1999).
10. D.Reynolds, ‘Wanted: reliable self-starters’, Times Educational Supplement, 17
July 1998, p. 20, and ‘The need for a science of teaching’, Times Educational
Supplement, 31 July 1998, p. 10.
11. W.Robinson, ‘History of education in the new millennium: retrospect and prospect
in teacher training’, in R.Aldrich and D.Crook (eds), History of Education into the
Twenty-First Century (London: University of London Bedford Way Occasional
Paper, 2000), pp. 50–62.
12. J.Green, ‘Teacher, Doctors and Madame Montessori’, Journal of Experimental
Pedagogy, 2, 1 (1913), p. 45.
13. Ibid., p. 51.
14. J.Findlay, ‘Some problems in the training of the teacher: a symposium, Journal of
Experimental Pedagogy, 1, 3 (1912), pp. 232–5.
15. J.Findlay, Principles of School Practice (London: Macmillan, 1902), p. 263.
16. Ibid., p. 11.
17. J.Welton, Principles and Methods of Teaching (London: University Tutorial Press,
1906), pp. 10–11.
18. T.Raymont, The Principles of Education (London: Longmans, 1904), p. 24.
 TOWARDS A THEORY OF TEACHING 137

19. Ibid., p. 25.

20. Ibid.,
21. Findlay, Principles of School Practice, p.17.
22. Welton, Principles and Methods of Teaching, p. vi.
23. J.Findlay, The Training of Teachers (Manchester: Sheratt and Hughes, 1903), p.
23.
24. Raymont, The Principles of Education, pp. 25–6.
25. Findlay, Principles of School Practice, p. 11.
26. Findlay, The Training of Teachers, p. 23.
27. J.Welton, Forms for Criticism Lessons (London: Macmillan, 1902).
28. J.Green, ‘Teachers, Doctors and Madame Montessori’, p. 51.
29. Raymont, The Principles of Education, p. 23.
30. Welton, Principles and Methods of Teaching, p. 18.
31. Ibid.
32. Raymont, The Principles of Education, pp.21–2.
33. Welton, Principles and Methods of Teaching, p.19.
34. Welton, Principles and Methods of Teaching, p. 57.
35. Findlay, Principles of School Practice, p. 268.
36. Raymont, The Principles of Education, p. 259.
37. Welton, Principles and Methods of Teaching, p. 80.
38. J.Green and C.Birchenough, A Primer of Teaching Practice (London: Longmans,
1911), p. 40.
39. J.Welton, What do we Mean by Education? (London: University Tutorial Press,
1918), p. 179.
40. Findlay, Principles of School Practice, p. 11.
41. J.Findlay, The Demonstration Schools Record Volume 1 (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1908), p. 12.
42. Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 2, 3 (1913), p. 233.
43. J.Findlay, ‘The demonstration school—and after’, Forum of Education, 2, 1
(1924), p. 41.
44. Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 2, 1 (1913), p. 78.
45. J.Thomson, An Experiment in Number Teaching (London: Longmans, Green and
Co., 1922), N.Catty, A Study of Modern Educational Theory and its Applications
(London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1921), J.Eades, Modern Ideas and Methods for
School Teachers and Students in Training From a Practical Teacher’s Note Book
(London:E. J.Arnold and Son, 1920), J.Eades, The Dalton English Course for
Individual and Class Work (London: E.J.Arnold and Son, 1927).
46. C.Valentine, ‘Editorial’, Forum of Education, 1, 1, (1923), p. 3.
47. Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 2, 1, (1913).
48. DfEE, Research into Teacher Effectiveness, Report by Hay McBer (London: DfEE,
2000).
138 POWER TO TEACH

49. D.Muijs and D.Reynolds, Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice (London:
Paul Chapman Publishing, 2001).
50. N.Bennett, ‘The effective primary school teacher: the search for a theory of
pedagogy’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 4 (1988), p. 19.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MANUSCRIPT AND OTHER COLLECTIONS

Bishop Grosseteste College Archive, Records of Lincoln Training College.
Bristol Record Office, Records of the Bristol Pupil-Teacher Centre.
Cambridge University Archive, Records of Cambridge University Day
Training College.
Cambridge University, King’s College Archive Centre, Correspondence of
Oscar Browning.
Chester City Record Office, Records of Chester Training College.
Durham County Record Office, Records of Darlington Training College and
Records of Arthur Pease School (formerly Darlington Practising School
to November 1919).
Leeds University Archive, Records of Leeds Day Training College.
Leeds University, Museum of the History of Education, Education Student
and Staff Records (uncatalogued).
London University, Institute of Education Archive, London Day Training
College Records.
London Metropolitan Archive, London School Board and London County
Council Records relating to the Pupil-Teacher System in London.
Manchester University, John Rylands Library, Fielden Family Papers.
Public Record Office, Kew
Ed 22/158, Memorandum on Final Examination Marks for Practical Teaching,
1922.
Ed 86/24, Practising and Demonstration Schools.
Ed 119/53, Manchester University, Fielden Demonstration School.
Ed 22 67–169, Inspectors Reports on Training Colleges.
Ed 78, Teacher Training College Files: 4/Chester Teacher Training College, /
10 Darlington Teacher Training College, /20 Southampton Day Training College, /
34 Lincoln Teacher Training College, /67 York St John’s Teacher Training
College.
Ed 115, HMI Reports on Teacher Training Colleges: 3 and 4/Chester Teacher
Training College, /11 Darlington Teacher Training College, /40 Lincoln Teacher
Training College.
University College of Ripon and York St John Archive, Records of Ripon
Training College and Records of St John’s College, York.
Southampton University Archive, Records of Southampton Day Training
College.
Trowbridge Record Office, Records of Salisbury Training College.
140 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Warwick University, Modern Records Centre, Records of the Training

College Association.

CONTEMPORARY PRINTED WORKS

Official Papers

1846–1899 Minutes and Annual Reports of the Committee of

Council on Education
1886–1888, XXXVI Report and Minutes of Evidence of the
Commissioners appointed to Inquire into the
Working of the Elementary Education Acts in
England and Wales (Cross Commission)
1894–1895, XLIII Report of the Royal Commission on Secondary
Education (Bryce Report)
1897–1898, XXVI Report of the Departmental Committee on the Pupil
Teacher System
1900–1913 Annual Reports of the Board of Education
Board of Education J.Findlay, ‘On the study of education’, Reports and
Inquiries (Cd. 8943, vol. 2, 1898).
Board of Education Regulations for the Instructions and Training of
Pupil Teachers (Cd. 2140, 1904).
Board of Education Regulations for the Instructions and Training of
Pupil Teachers (Cd. 2607, 1905).
Board of Education Circular as to Additional Grants on Account of
Pupil Teachers (Cd. 2428, 1905).
Board of Education Regulations for the Instructions and Training of
Pupil Teachers (Cd. 3012, 1906).
Board of Education Regulations for the Preliminary Education of
Elementary School Teachers (Cd. 3444, 1907).
Board of Education General Report on the Instruction and Training of
Pupil Teachers With Historical Introduction 1903–
1907 (Cd. 3582, 1907).
Board of Education Circular 573 Memorandum on the History and
Prospects of the Pupil Teacher System (1907).
Board of Education Welsh Department, General Report on the
Instructions and Training of Pupil Teachers in
Wales (Cd. 3814, 1907).
Board of Education Regulations for the Preliminary Education of
Elementary School Teachers (Cd. 4038, 1908).
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 141

Board of Education List of Secondary Schools in England, Recognised

as Efficient, With a List of Recognised Pupil
Teacher Centres (Cd. 4374, 1908).
Board of Education List of Secondary Schools In England Recognised
as Efficient With a List of Recognised Pupil
Teacher Centres, 1907–08 (Cd. 4374, 1908).
Board of Education General Report on the Training of Pupil Teachers
in Wales and Monmouthshire, 1908 (Cd. 38114,
1908).
Board of Education Regulations for the Preliminary Education of
Elementary School Teachers (Cd. 4628, 1909).
Board of Education Regulations for the Training of Teachers (Cd.
7988, 1915).
Board of Education, Regulations for the Training of Teachers (Cd. 854,
1922).
Board of Education, Report of the Departmental Committee on the
Training of Teachers for Public Elementary
Schools (Cd. 2409, 1925).
National School Society, Committee on the Pupil Teacher System, Report
and Minutes of Evidence (1898–99).

Periodical Publications

Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 1911–22.

Lincoln College Magazine.
The Educational Times, 1 April 1910, pp. 163–4.
The Forum of Education, 1922–30.
The SchoolMaster, 1872–1914.

Books

Adams, J. The Practice of Instruction (London: National Society, 1907).

— Educational Movements and Methods (Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1924).
Boardman, J. Practical School Method (London: Normal Correspondence College Press,
1903).
Campagnac, E. Notes on Education with a Preface on the Art of Teaching (London:
Evans Brothers Ltd, 1934).
Catty, N. A Study of Modern Educational Theory and its Applications (London: Sidgwick
and Jackson, 1921).
— A First Book on Teaching (London: Methuen, 1929).
Christian, G.A. English Education from Within (London: Wallace Gandy, 1922).
142 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Claparede, E.Experimental Pedagogy(translated by M.Louch and H. Holman, from the

fourth edition of Psychologie de l’enfant et pedagogie experimentale), (London:
Edward Arnold, 1911).
Collar, G. and Crook, C. School Management and Methods of Instruction (London:
Macmillan, 1900).
Compayre, C.The History of Pedagogy (translated by W.H.Payne), Boston: D.C. Heath
and Company, 1886).
Cowham, J. A New School Method (London: Westminster School Book Depot, 1894).
Cox, T. and MacDonald, R. The Suggestive Handbook of Practical School Method
(London: Blackie and Son, 1896).
Davis, V. The Matter and Method of Modern Teaching (London: Cartwright and Rattray
Ltd, 1928).
— The Science and Art of Teaching (London: Cartwright and Rattray Ltd. 1930).
Dexter, T. and Garlick, A. A Primer of School Method (London: Longmans, 1905).
Dover Wilson, J. The Schools of England (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1928).
Dumville, B. Teaching, Its Nature and Varieties (London: University Tutorial Press, 1936).
Eades, J.Modern Ideas and Methods for School Teachers and Students in Training From a
Practical Teacher’s Note Book (London: E.J.Arnold and Son, 1920).
— The Dalton English Course for Individual and Class Work (London: E.J.Arnold and
Son, 1927).
Felkin, H. and E.An Introduction to Herbart’s Science and Practice of Education
(London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co., 1906).
Fiddes, E. Chapters in the History of Owens College and of Manchester University 1851–
1914 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1937).
Findlay, J. Principles of School Practice (London: Macmillan, 1902).
— The Training of Teachers (Manchester: Sherratt and Hughes, 1903).
—(ed.), The Demonstration Schools Record Volume 1 (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1908).
Findlay, J. and Steel, K. Montessori Applications: Educative Toys (London: Pedagogic
Library Blackie and Son, 1914).
Gladman, F. School Method (London: Jarrold & Sons, 1898).
Green, J. and Birchenough, C. A Primer of Teaching Practice (London: Longmans & Co.,
1911).
House, E. Forms of Criticism for Lessons and Pedagogic Exercises (London and Derby:
Bemrose & Sons, 1899).
Jones, L. The Training of Teachers in England and Wales (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1924).
Llewellyn, M. Sand in the Glass (London: John Murray, 1943).
Quick, R.Essays on Educational Reformers (London: Longmans, 1895).
Raymont, T. The Principles of Education (London: Longmans, 1904).
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 143

Rich, R. The Training of Teachers in England and Wales During the Nineteenth Century
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933).
Smith, F. and Harrison, A. Principles of Class Teaching (London: Macmillan and Co.,
1939).
Thomson, J. An Experiment in Number Teaching (London: Longmans, Green and Co.,
1922).
Waddington and Jackman, The Guide: Pupil Teacher Register and Record Book For Use
in Elementary Schools (Birmingham: Davis and Moughton Ltd, 1916).
Waples, G.Problems in Classroom Method (London: Macmillan, 1927).
Ward, H. and Roscoe, F. The Approach to Teaching (London: G.Bell and Sons Ltd,
1928).
Welpton, W. The Principles and Methods of Physical Education (London: University
Tutorial Press, 1908).
— Artisan Education (London: Longmans, 1912).
— The Teaching of Geography (London: W.B.Clive, 1923).
Welton, J.Principles and Methods of Teaching (London: University Tutorial Press, 1906).
— Forms for Criticism Lessons (London, Macmillan, Ist edition 1897, 2nd edition, 1910).
— What Do We Mean by Education? (London: University Tutorial Press, 1918).

Journal and Newspaper Articles

Adams, J.‘The function of the training college: Presidential address to the Training
College Association’, Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 1, 3 (1912), pp. 198–205.
Findlay, J.‘The demonstration school—and after’, Forum of Education, 2, 1 (1924),
pp. 37–41.
— ‘Some problems in the training of the teacher: a symposium’, Journal of Experimental
Pedagogy, 1, 3, (1912), pp. 232–5.
Green, J.A.‘Teachers, doctors and Madame Montessori’, Journal of Experimental
Pedagogy, 2, 1 (1913), pp. 43–53.
Hughes, A. ‘The play-attitude in the work of teaching’, Forum of Education, 1, 1 (1923),
pp. 63–7.
Reaney, M. ‘Education research: who is to undertake it?’, Journal of Experimental
Pedagogy, 2, 5 (1914), p. 382.
Spearman, C.‘The way to develop experimental pedagogy’, Journal of Experimental
Pedagogy, 1, 1 (1911), pp. 1–3.
Valentine, C.‘Editorial’, Forum of Education, 1, 1 (1923), p. 3.
Wood, F. ‘The practical training of the teacher: an experiment’, Journal of Experimental
Pedagogy, IV (1917–18), pp. 182–8.
Wyatt, H.‘School practice in the future’, Forum of Education, 1, 3 (1924), pp. 195–202.

Miscellaneous
Private donation to author:
Student’s Education Lecture Notebooks for Teaching, Clara Craven, Manchester
144 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Day Training College, 1904–05.

Student’s Lesson Notebooks for Teaching and Education Lecture Notebooks,
Edward D.Guest, Manchester Day Training College, 1908–09.
Obituary for W.P.Welpton, Yorkshire Post, 26 July 1939, p. 66.

Oral History Interviews

These were conducted by the author for ‘The Teachers as Trainer: Pedagogy,
Practice and Professionalism’ project, funded by the University of Warwick,
Research and Teaching Development Fund 1998–2000. (Pseudonyms used to
protect participants’ confidentiality.)
Amy White, Ripon Training College, 1923–25
Vera Brown, Ripon Training College, 1930–32
Grace Timms, Lincoln Training College, 1931–33
Elsie Harris, Lincoln Training College, 1926–28
Clara Smith, Lincoln Training College, 1928–30
Margaret Bone, Lincoln Training College, 1924–26

LATER SOURCES (POST-1950)

Official Records

DES, Initial Teacher Training: Approval of Courses, (Circular 3/84) (London: DES, 1984).
DFE,Initial Teacher Training: Secondary Phase, (Circular 9/92) (London: DFE, 1992).
DFE, The Initial Training of Primary Teachers, (Circular 14/93) (London: DFE, 1993).
DfEE, Teaching: High Status, High Standards, (Circular 10/97) (London: DfEE, 1997).
DfEE, Excellence in Schools (London: DfEE, 1997).
DfEE, Standards for the Award of Qualified Teacher Status, (Circular 4/98) (London:
DfEE, 1998).
DfEE, Teachers Meeting the Challenge of Change, (London: DfEE, 1998).
DfEE, Standards Fund Grant for Advanced Skills Teacher Posts (ASTs), 1999–2000
(London: DfEE, 1998).
DfEE, The Appointment and Deployment of ASTS—a Survey by HMI (London: DfEE,
2000).
DfEE, Research into Teacher Effectiveness, Report by Hay McBer (London: DfEE,
2000).
DFES website http://www.dfes.gov.uk and the teachernet website, http://
www.teachernet.gov.uk/training.
National Association of Head Teachers, NAHT Comments on the Advanced Skills Teacher
Grade (Haywards Heath: NAHT, 1998).
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 145

National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, press release,

‘NASUWT reaction to the government’s proposals for Advanced Skills Teachers’, 2
March, 1998.
National Union of Teachers, News Release: Advanced Skills Teachers, 2 March, 1998.
OFSTED, Advanced Skills Teachers: Promoting Excellence and Teacher Education and
Training Division (London: OFSTED, 2000).
Professional Association of Teachers, press release, ‘PAT says no to “superteachers’”, 2
March, 1998.
TTA, Qualifying to Teach: Professional Standards for Qualified Teacher Status and
Requirements for Initial Teacher Training (London: TTA, 2002).

Books

Aldrich, R. School and Society in Victorian Britain (London: The College of Preceptors,
1995).
Aldrich, R. The Institute of Education 1902–2002: A Centenary History (London:
Institute of Education, University of London, 2002).
Aldrich, R.and Crook, D. (eds), History of Education into the TwentyFirst Century
(London: University of London Bedford Way Occasional Paper, 2000).
Alexander, R.Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education
(Oxford: Blackwell, 2000).
Barber, M.Education and the Teacher Unions (London: Cassell, 1992).
Booth, M., Furlong, J. and Wilkin, M. (eds), Partnership in Initial Teacher Training
(London: Cassell, 1991).
Britzman, D.Practice Makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach (New York:
State University of New York Press 1991).
Campbell, A. and Kane, I. School-based Teacher Education: Telling Tales from a
Fictional Primary School (London: David Fulton, 1998).
Copelman, D.London’s Women Teachers: Gender, Class and Feminism 1870–1939
(London: Routledge, 1996).
Dent, H. The Training of Teachers in England and Wales 1800–1975 (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1977).
Depaepe, M.Order in Progress: Everyday Educational Practice in Primary Schools—
Belgium 1880–1970 (Leuven: University of Leuven Press, 2000).
Dobson, J. ‘The training colleges and their successors 1920–1970’, in Cook, T. (ed.),
Education and the Professions (London: Methuen, 1973).
Eaglesham, E. From School Board to Local Authority (London: Routledge, 1956).
Eaglesham, E.The Foundations of Twentieth Century Education in England (London:
Routledge, 1967).
Furlong, J. and Smith, R. (eds), The Role of Higher Education in Initial Teacher Training
(London: Kogan Page, 1996).
146 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gosden, P. The Evolution of a Profession (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972).

Gosden, P. (eds), The University of Leeds School of Education 1891–1991 (Leeds: Leeds
University Press, 1991).
Graves, N. (ed.), Initial Teacher Education: Policies and Progress (London: Kogan Page,
1990).
Hamilton, D. Towards a Theory of Schooling (Lewes: Falmer Press, 1989).
Heard, P.An Octogenarian’s Memoirs (Devon: Arthur H.Stockwell Ltd, 1974).
Jeffreys, M.Revolution in Teacher Training (London: Pitman, 1961).
Lodge, D. Mr Copping—A Master Teacher (York: William Sessions Ltd, 1983).
Lomax, D. (ed.), The Education of Teachers in Britain (London: John Wiley, 1973).
McBride, R.Teacher Education Policy: Some Issues Arising from Research and Practice
(Lewes: Falmer Press, 1996).
McGregor, G. A Church College for the 21st Century? 150 Years of Ripon and York St
John (York: The Ebor Press, 1991).
McIntyre, D., Haggar, H. and Wilkin, M. (eds) Perspectives on Mentoring (London:
Kogan Page, 1993).
McNamara, D.Classroom Pedagogy and Primary Practice (London: Routledge, 1994).
Mortimore, P. (ed.), Understanding Pedagogy and its Impact on Learning (London: Paul
Chapman Publishing, 1999).
Muijs, D. and Reynolds, D. Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice (London: Paul
Chapman Publishing, 2001).
Ogren, G.Trends in English Teachers’ Training from 1800: A Survey and an Investigation
(Stockholm: Esselte, 1953).
Ozga, J. and Lawn, M. Teachers, Professionalism and Class: A Study of Organised
Teachers (Lewes: Falmer Press, 1981).
Partington, G. Women Teachers in the Twentieth Century (Windsor: National Foundation
for Educational Research, 1976).
Pollard, A. Changing English Primary Schools: The Impact of the Education Reform Act
at Key Stage One (London: Cassell, 1994).
Richards, C. Primary Education at the Hinge of History (London: Routledge, 1999).
Richards, C., Simco, N. and Twiselton, S. Primary Teacher Education: High Status? High
Standards? (London: Falmer Press, 1998).
Robinson, W. Pupil Teachers and their Professional Training in PupilTeacher Centres in
England and Wales, 1870–1914 (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003).
Selleck, R. The New Education 1870–1914 (London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd, 1968).
Selleck, R. James Kay-Shuttleworth: Journey of an Outsider (London: Woburn Press,
1994).
Simon, B. Does Education Matter? (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1985).
— The State and Education Change: Essays in the History of Education and Pedagogy
(London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1994).
Simon, B. and Taylor, W. (eds) Education in the Eighties (London: Batsford, 1981).
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 147

Stanton, O.Our Present Opportunities: The History of Darlington College of Education

(Darlington: Olive M.Stanton, 1972).
Sutherland, G.Ability, Merit and Measurement: Mental Testing and English Education
1880–1940 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984).
Taylor, L.College in the Close: Salisbury Diocesan Training College Sarum St Michael
1841–1978 (Wrington: The Woodside Press Ltd, 1978).
Taylor, W. Society and the Education of Teachers (London: Faber and Faber, 1969).
Thomas, J.British Universities and Teacher Education: A Century of Change (Lewes:
Falmer Press, 1990).
Tropp, A. The School Teachers (London: Heinemann, 1957).
Vlaeminke, M. The English Higher Grade Schools: A Lost Opportunity (London: Woburn
Press, 2000).
Wooldridge, A. Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England c. 1860–
1990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
Wragg, T. Classroom Teaching Skills (London: Routledge, 1984).
Zebedee, D. Lincoln Diocesan Training College 1862–1962 (Lincoln: Keyworth and Fry,
1962).

Periodicals

Anonymous, ‘Training sixty years ago’, Journal of the Institute of Education of Durham
University, 4, 19 (1952), pp. 14–15.
Baker, M. ‘Invasion of the superteachers’, Times Educational Supplement, 30 October,
1998, p. 20.
Bennett, N. ‘The effective primary school teacher: the search for a theory of pedagogy’,
Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 1 (1988), pp. 19–30.
Bergen, B. ‘Only a schoolmaster: gender, class and the effort to professionalize
elementary teaching in England 1870–1910’, History of Education Quarterly, 22, 1
(1982), pp. 1–21.
Blake, D., Hanley, V., Jennings, M. and Lloyd, M. ‘The role of the higher education tutor
in school-based initial teacher education in England and Wales’, Teachers and
Teaching, Theory and Practice, 3, 2 (1997), pp. 189–203.
— “‘Superteachers” The views of teachers and head teachers on the Advanced Skills
Teacher Grade’, Research in Education, 63 (2000), pp. 48–59.
Broadhead, P. ‘A blueprint for the good teacher? The HMI/DES model of good primary
practice’, British Journal of Educational Studies, xxxv, 1 (1987), pp. 57–71.
Brooks, R. ‘J.J.Findlay, The King Alfred School Society, Hampstead and Letchworth
Garden City Education, 1897–1913’, History of Education, 21, 2 (1992), pp. 161–78.
Burgess, H. and Carter, B. ‘“Bringing out the best in people”: teacher training and the
“real” teacher’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 13, 3 (1992), pp. 349–59.
148 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Coles, M. ‘The national SCITT: teachers teaching teachers in training school’, Education
3–13, 28, 1 (2000), pp. 55–9.
Cunningham, P., Gardner, P., Wells, B. and Willis, R. ‘McNair’s lost opportunity: the
student-teacher scheme and the student-teacher’s experience’, History of Education,
24, 3 (1995), pp. 221–9.
Dart, L. and Drake, P. ‘School-based teacher training: a conservative practice?, Journal of
Education for Teaching, 19, 2 (1993) pp. 175–89.
Dent, H. ‘Nineteenth century attitudes to teacher training’, Times Higher Educational
Supplement, 31 December 1971, pp. 8–9.
Dent, H. ‘Twentieth century reports on the training of teachers’, Times Higher
Educational Supplement, 7 January 1972, pp. 10–11.
Depaepe, M. ‘Social and personal factors in the inception of experimental research in
education (1890–1914): an exploratory study’, History of Education, 16, 4 (1987),
pp. 275–98.
Emery, H. ‘A National Curriculum for the education and training of teachers: an English
perspective’, Journal of In-service Education, 24, 2 (1998), pp. 283–91.
Evans, L. ‘The practicalities involved in the introduction of schooladministered initial
teacher education in the United Kingdom: some policy issues and implications’,
Research Papers in Education, 12, 3 (1997), pp. 317–38.
Evans, L. and Abbott, I. ‘Developing as mentors in school-based teacher training’,
Teacher Development, 1, 1, (1997), pp. 135–47.
Gardner, P. ‘Intending teachers and school-based teacher training, 1903–39’, Oxford
Review of Education, 21, 4 (1995), pp. 425–45.
— ‘Teacher training and changing professional identity in early twentieth century
England’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 21,2 (1995), pp. 191–217.
Gilroy, D. ‘The political rape of initial teacher education in England and Wales: a JET
rebuttal’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 18, 1, (1992), pp. 5–22.
Hamilton, D. ‘A note on masters of method and the pedagogy of nineteenth century
schooling’, History of Education Society Bulletin, 29 (1982), pp. 13–15.
— ‘The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in England?)’, Pedagogy, Culture and
Society, 7, 1 (1999), pp. 135–52.
Hawkey, K. ‘Mentor pedagogy and student teacher professional development: a study of
two mentoring relationships’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 6 (1998),
pp. 657–70.
Hobson, A. ‘Student teachers’ perceptions of school-based mentoring in initial teacher
training (ITT)’, Mentoring & Tutoring, 10, 1 (2002), pp. 5–20.
Jennings, M. ‘Most heads opposed to “superteachers”’, Times Educational Supplement, 3
September 1999, p. 9.
Leinster-Mackay, D. ‘Frank Hayward, British neo-Herbartian extraordinaire: an
examination of his educational writings’, History of Education Society Bulletin, 69
(May 2002), pp. 26–48.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 149

McCulloch, G. ‘Privatising the past? History and education policy in the 1990s’, British
Journal of Educational Studies, 45, 1 (1997), pp. 69–82.
Maynard, T. ‘Learning to teach or learning to manage mentors? Experiences of school-
based teacher training’, Mentoring & Tutoring, 8, 1 (2000), pp. 17–30.
Millett, A. ‘Lets get pedagogical’, Times Educational Supplement, 12 June 1998, p. 28.
Murray, F. ‘All or none: criteria for professional development schools’, Educational
Policy, 7, 1 (1993), pp. 661–73.
Petrie, H. (ed.), ‘Professional development schools’, Journal of Educational Policy and
Practice, special issue, 7, 1, (1993).
Reynolds, D. ‘Wanted: reliable self-starters’, Times Educational Supplement, 17 July
1998, p. 20.
— ‘The need for a science of teaching’, Times Educational Supplement, 31 July 1998,
p. 10.
Robertson, A. ‘Catherine I.Dodd and innovation in teacher training 1892–1903’, History
of Education Society Bulletin, 47 (Spring 1991), pp. 32–41.
— ‘Schools and universities in the training of teachers: the demonstration school
experiment 1890–1926’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 40, 4 (1992),
pp. 361–78.
Robinson, W. ‘Pupil teachers: the Achilles heel of higher grade schools 1882–1904’,
History of Education, 22, 3 (1993), pp. 241–53.
— ‘“Expert and novice” in the pupil teacher system of the later nineteenth century’,
Journal of Educational Administration and History, 28, 2 (1996), pp. 129–41.
— ‘“In search of a plain tale”: rediscovering the champions of the pupil-teacher centres
1900–1910’, History of Education, 28, 1 (1999), pp. 53–72.
— ‘Towards a bi-centenary review? Historiographical reflections on the 1902 Education
Act’, The Oxford Review of Education, 28, 2/3 (2002), pp. 159–72.
Selleck, R. ‘The scientific educationist 1870–1914’, British Journal of Educational
Studies, 15 (1967), pp. 148–65.
Sharp, S.A. and Bray, A.P. ‘W.H.Winch: founder of the experimental approach in
education’, British Journal of Educational Studies, xxviii, 1 (1980), pp. 34–45.
Sikes, P. ‘A question of quality? Reflections on the “new partnership” in initial teacher
education’, Mentoring, 1, 3 (1994), pp. 13–19.
Smith, K. and Avers, D. ‘Collegiality and student teachers: is there a role for the advanced
skills teacher?’, Journal of In-service Education, 24, 2(1998), pp. 255–70.
Smyth, J., Shacklock, G. and Hattam, R. ‘Teacher development in difficult times: lessons
from a policy initiative in Australia’, Teacher Development, 1, 1 (1997), pp. 11–19.
Sutton, A., Wortley, A., Harrison, J. and Wise, C. ‘Superteachers: from policy towards
practice’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 48, 4 (2000), pp. 413–28.
Thomas, J. ‘The curriculum of a Day Training College; the logbooks of J.W.Adamson’,
Journal of Educational Administration and History, 11, 2 (1979), pp. 29–34.
150 BIBLIOGRAPHY

— ‘A note on masters of method in the universities of England and Wales’, History of

Education Society Bulletin, 30, 1 (1983), pp. 27–9.
— ‘Mistresses of method: women academics in the day training colleges 1890–1914’,
Journal of Educational Administration and History, 29, 2 (1997), pp. 93–107.
Thornton, K. ‘Teaching wisdom that stays silent’, Times Educational Supplement, 3
September 1999, p. 6.

Unpublished work

Hole, N.‘English Literature in the elementary school 1862–1905: A study of teaching

manuals’, unpublished MA Dissertation, University of London Institute of Education,
August 1997.
Robinson, W. ‘Battling with “crude and stupid methods”: Sarah Fielden and experimental
pedagogy in the late nineteenth century’. Conference paper at the Australian and New
Zealand History of Education Society, Annual Conference, December 2002.
 INDEX

Aberdare School, 57 Bennett, Neville, 131

Aberystwyth, 79 Bibby, Agnes, 55, 61
Adams, John, 15, 18, 21, 22, 24, 59 Bingley, 65
Adams, W.B.A., 37 Birkenhead, 92
Adamson, J.W., 21 Birmingham School Board, 38
Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs), 10, 52, Birrell Bill, 76
65–8, 118 blackboard illustrations, 26, 101
‘Advanced Skills Teachers Survey’, 67 Blenheim Boys’ School, Leeds, 83, 85
Airy, HMI Mr, 36 Blenheim Girls’ School, Leeds, 83, 84, 85
Aldrich, R., 18, 20 Board of Education, 5, 6, 42, 44, 63, 65, 76,
America, 65, 78 77, 79, 85, 91
apprenticeship, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 32, 33, 34, 35, Bolton, 39
40, 43, 44, 47, 48 ‘born’ teachers, 26, 28
Armitage, Elsie, 95 Boston, 93
Arnold, Matthew, 34 Brighton High School, 58
art of teaching, 12, 13–15, 18, 19, 22, 24, Brighton Municipal School, 58
48; Bristol, 40
interface with craft and science of British Association for the Advancement
teaching, 25–9 of Science, 19, 23
Arthur Pease Demonstration School, British Journal of Educational Psychology,
Darlington, 83 The, 130
Ashley, Ellen, 55 bursar scheme, 5, 42, 43, 47
assessment, 10, 90–91, 95–113
Association of University Teachers, 56 Cambridge, 79
associationism, 20 see also names of institutions in
ASTs see Advanced Skills Teachers Cambridge
Australia, 65–6 Cambridge Day Training College, 7, 44,
54–5, 56, 62, 91, 94, 96, 98, 112
Bain, Alexander, 19, 20, 121 Cambridge Higher Grade School, 56
Bangor, 79 Cambridge Pedagogical Society, 57
B.Ed. degree, 5 Cambridge Teachers’ Diploma, 54, 57

151
152 INDEX

Cambridge University, 54; craft of teaching, 12, 15–18, 22, 24, 33–4,
Newnham College, 58; 48;
St John’s College, 56 interface with art and science of
Campagnac, E.T., 14 teaching, 25–9
Cann, Alfred L., 38, 39 Crimsworth Demonstration School, 129
Cardiff, 79 criticism lessons, 41, 61–2, 82
Cartwright, L., 74 Cross Commission, 4, 34, 35, 37
CATE (Council for the Accreditation of Cunningham, Peter, 43
Teacher Education), 105, 106
Catty, Nancy, 14–15 Dalcroze, Emile Jacques, 84
Cheltenham Ladies College, 58 Dalton plan, 83
Chester, 92 Daniel, Canon, 35
Chester Training College, 7, 57, 60, 92, 96, Darlington School Board, 75
97, 112 Darlington Training College, 7, 44, 54, 55,
Chicago, 78 58, 60, 61, 74–5, 76, 83–4, 92–3, 96, 97,
Childeric Road Demonstration School, 111
London, 83, 129 Davies, Florence Jessy, 58
Christian, G.A., 41 Davies, Maud Lloyd, 55
Circulars: Davis, Valentine, 14, 15–16
Circular 9/92, 45, 106; Davy, Miss, 38–9
Circular 14/93, 45, 106; day training colleges, 4–5
Circular 10/97, 45, 106; see also names of colleges
Circular 4/98, 106, 107 demonstration lessons, 61, 82, 84, 85
Claparede, Edouard, 15 demonstration schools, 10, 72, 75–86, 87,
Clarke, Kenneth, 45 88, 128–9
class, social, 3, 24 Dent, H., 2
class and behaviour management, 26–7, Depaepe, M., 18,21
27, 97, 100, 102–3, 108, 109, 113 Department for Education and
college-and-university based models, 2–3, Employment (DfEE), 106, 118, 130
5, 6, 44 Departmental Committee on the Pupil-
Comenius, 117 Teacher System, 37, 38
Committee of Council, 6 Dewey, John, 78, 81
Compayre, Gabriel, 117, 130 Dexter, Thomas, 14, 19, 25
Conservatives, 47 DfEE (Department for Education and
core teaching skills see teaching skills Employment, 106, 118, 130
Council for the Accreditation of Teacher discipline, 26–7, 97, 103
Education (CATE), 105, 106 see also class and behaviour
Council of Principals of Training Colleges, management
76, 77 Dobson, J., 32
Coward, W. Scott, 123 Dodd, Catherine, 21, 53, 55, 58, 79, 80
Cowham, Joseph, 19 Durham, 65
 INDEX 153

Eades, John, 83, 85, 129 grading, 10, 91, 98–105, 109
Edge Hill Training College, 58 Grantham, 74, 93, 95
Education Act (1902), 5, 42, 76 Graystoke Place Training College, 58
Education Department, 73, 75 Green, J.A., 17–18, 22, 23, 24, 120, 127,
Educational Handwork Association, 65 129
educational psychology, 20, 21–2, 23 Grist, Sarah Agnes Webb, 57
see also psychology
effective teachers, 130–31 Harrison, A., 27–8, 28–9
Evers, Annie, 37 Hay/McBer, 118, 130–31
‘Excellence in Schools’ (White Paper), 66 head teachers, 33, 34–5, 36–7, 38, 39, 40,
‘Excellence in Teaching Research Project’, 41
67 HEIs see higher education institutions
experimental pedagogy, 22–3, 119–20, Her Majesty’s Inspectors see HMI
128–30 Herbart, Johann Friedrich, 20–21, 82, 125
see also pedagogy Herbartian methods/Herbartianism, 20–21,
exposition, 101, 126 55, 57, 62, 124–5, 126
higher education institutions (HEIs), 44, 45,
faculty psychology, 20, 121 46, 47, 48, 66, 87
Farnham Grammar School, 57 see also day training colleges;
Fielden, Sarah, 80 training colleges;
Fielden Demonstration Schools, 10, 72, 75, universities;
78, 79, 80–83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 129 names of institutions
Findlay, J.J., 21, 22, 23, 24–5, 75, 76, 77, HMI (Her Majesty’s Inspectors), 4, 33, 47,
78–9, 80, 81, 87, 88, 116, 120–21, 122, 61, 67, 73, 75, 109
123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128–9, 130 Homerton Training College, 76
Firs Hill Higher Elementary School, Hughes, A.G., 15
Sheffield, 58 Humphreys, A.E., 55
Fitch, Joshua, 13, 14, 19 Husbands, C., 47
Flack, Walter, 55
Forum of Education, 23, 129–30 Iliffe, J.W., 54–5, 56–7, 62, 64
Froebel methods, 55 Incorporated Association of Headmasters,
75
Gainsborough, 95 initial teacher training (ITT):
Gardner, P., 43 debate about nature of, 1;
Garlick, Alfred, 14, 19, 25 historical context, 2–8;
Gary Schools, Chicago, 78 regulation and control of, 105–6;
Genner, Dorothy Margaret, 58 role of ASTs in, 67–8;
Gillespie, C.M., 64 role of teachers in, 9, 32–51;
Goode, W.T., 60 role of training schools in, 86–8
Gosden, P., 2 intellectual or academic power, 27, 27
government control, 5–6, 46, 118 interaction, teacher-pupil, 125, 131
154 INDEX

ITT see initial teacher training Lincoln Schools, New York, 78

Lincoln Training College, 8, 54, 57, 61,
James Report, 5, 47 65, 73–4, 91–2, 93, 94, 95
Jena University, 20, 55, 57, 82 Liverpool, 92
Jones, Lance, 2 see also names of institutions in
Journal of Education, 19 Liverpool
Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 8, 17, Liverpool School Board, 38
18, 23, 93, 119–20, 121, 128, 129, 130 Liverpool University, 58
journals see report books Llewellyn, Michael Gareth, 41
Local Education Authorities (LEAs), 5, 76,
King, Fanny, 75 78, 83, 85, 87
King Edward’s High School, Birmingham, London, 65, 79, 83
58 see also names of institutions in
Kirkstall Road School, Leeds, 83, 129 London
knowledge and understanding, 106, 108 London County Council, 58, 129
London Day Training College, 7, 55, 58,
Labour, 66 59, 60, 79, 83, 98, 102, 104–5
Lake, Charles H., 19 London School Board, 38, 39, 40
Laurie, HMI Mr, 35 London University, 55, 58
LEAs (Local Education Authorities), 5, 76, Louth, 93
78, 83, 85, 87
learning through practice, 9–10, 14–15, Macnamara, Dr T.J., 37
52–115 management see class and behaviour
Leeds, 79, 84 management
see also names of institutions in Leeds Manchester, 76
Leeds Association of Sunday School see also names of institutions in
Teachers, 65 Manchester
Leeds Day Training College, 7, 44, 83, 96, Manchester Day Training College, 7, 53
98, 102, 112 Manchester Fielden Demonstration
Leeds School Board, 38 Schools, 10, 72, 75, 78, 79, 80–83, 85,
Leeds University, 55–6, 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, 86, 87, 88, 129
65, 83, 84–5, 121 Manchester University, 53, 55, 58, 60, 75,
lessons: 80, 81, 83, 121
criticism, 41, 61–2, 82; Martin, Alice, 65
demonstration, 61, 82, 84, 85; masters of method, 9–10, 52–65, 66
observation proformas, 90–91, 95–8, Mather Training College, Manchester, 129
110–13; mentoring, 32, 45, 47–8;
planning and preparation, 97, 100, 101, and pupil-teacher system, 33, 34
108, 109, 113, 125, 130; method, masters and mistresses of, 9–10,
structure, 125–6, 131 52–65, 66
Levinson, William Stratford, 57 method books, 10
 INDEX 155

methodology, 6–8 planning and preparation, 97, 100, 101,

Milford British School, Derby, 75 108, 109, 113, 125, 130
Millett, Anthea, 118 power to teach, 2, 9, 10, 12, 25–9, 90, 105,
mistresses of method, 9–10, 52–65, 66 109, 125, 127, 131
model schools, 10, 72, 73–5 practice:
Montessori methods, 55, 81–2, 84 learning through, 9–10, 14–15, 52–115;
Moorfields College, 58 relationship with theory, 5, 12, 18–19,
Mortimore, Peter, 118 22, 52, 72, 79, 119, 120–21, 121–2, 124
Muijs, D., 131 practicing schools, 10, 72, 73–5
principles of teaching, 10, 59–60, 116, 119–
narration, 26, 101, 126–7 20, 121–30
National Curriculum for Initial Teacher professional promise, 100, 103, 104, 108–9,
Training, 28, 106 113
National Society Enquiry, 37 professional status, 17, 18, 24
National Union of Teachers (NUT), 76, 77 professional values and practice, 106, 108
New York, 78 psychology, 20, 21–2, 23, 121
Newnham College, Cambridge, 58 Public Record Office, Kew, 7
North of England Conference, 45, 65 pupil-teacher centres, 4, 9, 32, 36–42, 44,
Norwich and Ely Diocesan Training 47, 48
College, 58 pupil-teacher system, 3–4, 5, 9, 32, 33–42,
Nottingham, 74, 93 43, 46, 48;
NUT (National Union of Teachers), 76, 77 rural, 43, 44, 47

observation proformas, 90–91, 95–8, 110– Queen’s Scholarships examination, 4, 33

13 questioning skills, 26, 101, 102, 126
OFSTED (Office for Standards in Quick, R.H., 19
Education), 6, 105, 106, 109 QTS, 106
oral history interviews, 8
Oxford, 79 Raymont, Thomas, 21–2, 29, 116, 121–2,
Oxford internship scheme, 47 122–3, 123–4, 125, 126–7, 128, 130
record-keeping, 94
Palmer, Miss, 129 Redcar, 65
partnership, 9, 32, 36–42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 Rein, Professor, Wilhelm, 20, 55, 57, 82
partnership agreements, 45 relationships with children, 100, 103, 108,
Payne, Joseph, 19,20 113
pedagogy, 10, 22–3, 116–31 report books, 39–40, 50n39
personal influence, 63–5 Reynolds, D., 130, 131
personal power, 27, 27–8 Rich, R., 2, 52, 53
personality, 27–8, 97, 100, 103–4, 108–9, Richards, Colin, 107
113, 127, 131 Ripon Training College, 7, 8, 55, 61, 64,94
Robbins Report on Higher Education, 5
156 INDEX

Robertson, Alex, 53, 78–9 Scunthorpe, 95

Robertson, Hannah, 58, 64 secondary education, 42, 43
Rochester Pupil-Teacher Centre, 57 Selleck, R., 18, 21, 24
Roscoe, Frank, 16, 36 seminars, 82
Sharpe, Rev. T.W., 35
Sadler, M.E., 75 Sheffield, 39, 74, 93
St Andrew’s University, 57 Sheffield Central Higher School, 57
St John’s College, Cambridge, 56 Shuttleworth, James Kay, 33, 52
St John’s Training College, York, 7, 57, 91, Simco, N., 107
96, 98, 99, 110 Simon, Brian, 1–2, 18, 20, 23, 117, 118–19,
St Mark’s Training College, 56 129
St Winifred’s School, Bangor, 58 Smith, Clara, 95
Salford, 38 Smith, Frank, 27–8, 28–9
Salisbury Training College, 7, 54, 57 social class, 3, 24
Sarah Fielden Chair in Education, sources, 6–8, 54, 90
Manchester, 80 Southampton Day Training College, 7, 96,
school-based training, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 32, 33, 97, 98, 103, 110
45–8 Spearman, Charles, 21
school boards, 38 Stainton, Margaret, 84
school-centred initial teacher training Standard Fund, 87
(SCITT), 46 standards, 10, 106–7, 108
school practice see teaching practice/ Steel, Katherine, 81, 82
school practice Stoy, Karl, 20
school supervisors, 44 student-teacher scheme, 5, 42, 43–4, 47
schools: subject knowledge, 100, 108, 109, 113
demonstration, 10, 72, 75–86, 87, 88, supervisors, 44
128–9; Sussex partnership model, 47
model, 10, 72, 73–5; Sutherland, G., 18
partnership with HEIs, 44, 45, 46, 47,
48; Taylor, William, 37
partnership with pupil-teacher centers, TCA see Training College Association
36–42; teacher-based research, 128, 129
practicing, 10, 72, 73–5; Teacher Training Agency (TTA), 6, 45–6,
teaching practice in see teaching 48, 105, 106, 107, 109, 118
practice/school practice; teachers:
training, 10, 72, 86–8, 118 ‘born’, 26, 28;
science of teaching, 12, 18–25, 48; effective, 130–31;
interface with art and craft of teaching, as trainers, 9, 32–51
25–9 ‘Teachers:
SCITT (school-centred initial teacher Meeting the Challenge of Change’
training), 46 (Green Paper), 66, 86, 118
 INDEX 157

teaching: voice, use of, 101, 102

as art, craft or science, 9, 12–31;
as assessment category, 97, 100, 101– Wales, 41;
2, 106, 108, 113; University of, 57
effective, 130–31 Walker, Miss, 55
teaching aids, 26, 101, 102 Warburton, Rev. Canon, 35
teaching observation proformas, 90–91, 95– Ward, Herbert, 16, 43, 99–100, 105
8, 110–75 Ward, James, 19
teaching practice/school practice, 10, 63, Warwick University, 6
90, 91–5; Watson, Professor Foster, 57
assessment of, 95–105, 110–13; Welpton, William Parker, 55–6, 60, 61, 64,
reports, 90, 98–105 65
teaching skills, 26, 27, 97, 101–2, 107, Welton, James, 62, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124,
131; 125, 127, 128, 130
core, 125, 126–7, 131 Whitby, 65
theory, 10, 18, 19–20, 21, 22, 23, 116–33; Whitelands Training College, London, 93
relationship with practice, 5, 12, 18– Wilkin, M., 47
19, 22, 52, 72, 79, 119, 120–21, 121–2, Wood Green Home and Colonial Training
124 College, 93–4
Thomas, J.B., 53, 59 Wooldridge, A., 18, 20, 23, 24
Timms, Mrs, 95 Worcester Park High School, 58
Tottenham Centre, 38 Wragg, E., 53
Training College Association (TCA), 8,
23, 56, 75, 76–7, 77–8, 84, 86, 116, 119– York, 79, 91
20, 123, 128, 129 York Training College, 55, 76
training colleges, 3, 5, 33, 73, 76 Yorkshire, West Riding of, 65
see also names of colleges Yorkshire College, 55
Training Schools, 10, 72, 86–8, 118 Yorkshire Post, 56
Tropp, A., 2, 24
Truro Training College, 58 Ziller, Tuiskon, 20
TTA see Teacher Training Agency
Twiss, C., 35

universities, 4–5, 58, 76

see also names of universities
University College, Chichester, 67
University College of South Wales and
Monmouthshire, Cardiff, 121

Valentine, C.W., 23, 130

Valentine, Isabella, 54