Bringing Froebel into London’s infant schools: the reforming practice of two head teachers, Elizabeth Shaw and Frances Roe, from the 1890s to the 1930s

Abstract

This article explores how infant school reform took hold in London’s schools from the 1890s to the 1930s through examination of the work of two Froebelian head teachers, Elizabeth Mary Shaw and Frances Emily Roe. In contrast to teacher-led rote-learning methods and rigid discipline they implemented play-based activities drawing on children’s interests and introduced visits for nature study and projects. The research draws on logbooks, published accounts, reports of HMIs, local authority inspectors and school managers, and witness evidence submitted by Shaw and Roe for government reports. The data suggest that their work reflects developments in the educational experimentation which marked the period and demonstrates women’s agency in challenging conventional conceptions of infant teaching and expanding conceptions of educational spaces. The article illuminates how reform was disseminated and shows that as a result of their success both women achieved high professional status.

Keywords:

• infant schools
• educational reform
• Froebelian pedagogy
• women’s agency

Notes

¹School Board for London, Annual Report of the School Board for London for the year from Lady-Day 1899 to Lady-Day 1900 (London: SBL, 1900).

²Jane Read, ‘Gutter to Garden: Historical Discourses of Risk in Interventions in Working Class Children’s Street Play’, Children and Society 25, no. 6 (2011): 421–34; Kevin J. Brehony, ‘The Froebel Movement and State Schooling 1880–1914: A Study in Educational Ideology’ (PhD diss., Open University, 1987); A.M.M. Swanson, The History of Edinburgh’s Early Nursery Schools (Edinburgh: British Association for Early Childhood Education. Edinburgh Branch, 1975).

³Froebel Society, ‘Minutes’ (London: Froebel Society, May 17, June 2, 1886).

⁴Jane Read, ‘The Froebel Movement 1900–1939’ (PhD diss., University of Surrey, Roehampton University, 2011).

⁵George Kekewich, ‘The Value of Kindergarten Methods’, Child Life 6, no. 18 (1903): 83–4.

⁶Mary J. Lyschinska, The Kindergarten Principle, 6th ed. (London: Isbister, 1886).

⁷Charles Morley, Studies in Board Schools (London, 1897); Jane Read, ‘Free Play with Froebel: Use and Abuse of Progressive Pedagogy in London’s Nineteenth Century Infant Schools’, Paedagogica Historica 42, no. 3 (2006): 299–323.

⁸Kevin J. Brehony, ‘Transforming Theories of Childhood and Early Childhood Education: Child Study and the Empirical Assault on Froebelian Rationalism’, Paedagogica Historica 45 (2009): 585–604 ; R. Hofstetter and B. Scheuwly, eds., Passion, Fusion, Tension: New Education and Educational Sciences (Berne: Lang, 2006); R.J.W. Selleck, ‘The Scientific Educationist 1870–1914’, British Journal of Educational Studies 15, no. 2 (1967): 148–65; Read, ‘Froebel Movement’.

⁹Peter Cunningham, ‘The Montessori Phenomenon: Gender and Internationalism in Early Twentieth Century Innovation’, in Practical Visionaries: Women, Education and Social Progress 1790–1930, ed. Mary Hilton and Pam Hirsch (Harlow: Pearson, 2000), 203–20.

¹⁰J.J. Findlay and K. Steel, Educative Toys: Being an Account of Investigations with Montessori and other Apparatus, Conducted at the Fielden School (London: Blackie,1914); Elsie R. Murray, Froebel as a Pioneer in Modern Psychology (London: G. Philip, 1914); Kristen D. Nawrotzki, ‘“Like Sending Coals to Newcastle”: Impressions from and of the Anglo-American Kindergarten Movement’, Paedagogica Historica 43 (2007): 223–33; Read, ‘Froebel Movement’.

¹¹Brehony, ‘Transforming Theories’.

¹²W. Boyd, From Locke to Montessori: A Critical Account of the Montessori Point of View (London: Harrap, 1914); Kevin J. Brehony, ‘Montessori, Individual Work and Individuality in The Elementary School Classroom’, History of Education 29, no. 2 (2000): 115–28; Cunningham, ‘Montessori Phenomenon’.

¹³Kevin J. Brehony, ‘An “Undeniable” and “Disastrous” Influence? John Dewey and English Education (1895–1939)', Oxford Review of Education 23, no. 4 (1997): 427–45.

¹⁴Frances Roe, ‘From Formal Teaching to Natural Learning’, in Modern Education of Young Children, ed. Nancy Catty (London: Methuen, 1933), 1–16; Boyce, Play in the Infant School: An Account of an Educational Experiment at the Raleigh Infants’ School, Stepney, London, E.1. January 1933–April 1936 (London: Methuen, 1938).

¹⁵Joyce Goodman and Sylvia Harrop, ‘“The Peculiar Preserve of the Male Kind”: Women and the Education Inspectorate, 1893 to the Second World War’, in Women, Educational Policy-making and Administration in England: Authoritative Women Since 1800, ed. Joyce Goodman and Sylvia Harrop (London: Routledge, 2000), 137–55.

¹⁶Kevin J. Brehony, ‘“The ‘School Masters’ Parliament”: The Origins and Formation of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education 1868–1916’, History of Education 23, no. 2 (1994): 171–93.

¹⁷Board of Education, Report of the Consultative Committee upon the School Attendance of Children Below the Age of Five (London, 1908); Board of Education, Report of the Consultative Committee on the Primary School (London, 1931); Board of Education, Report of the Consultative Committee on Infant and Nursery Schools (London, 1933).

¹⁸Kevin J. Brehony, ‘English Revisionist Froebelians and the Schooling of the Urban Poor’, in Practical Visionaries (see note 9), 183–99; Anne Bloomfield, ‘“Mrs Roadknight Reports” Jane Roadknight’s Visionary Role in Transforming Elementary Education’, in Practical Visionaries (see note 9), 167–82.

¹⁹Peter Cunningham and Phil Gardner, Becoming Teachers: Texts and Testimonies 1907–1950 (London: Woburn, 2004); Goodman and Harrop, Women, Educational Policy-Making and Administration; Hilton and Hirsch, Practical Visionaries; Jane Martin, ‘Reflections on Writing a Biographical Account of a Woman Educator Activist’, History of Education 30, no. 2 (2001): 163–76; Jane Martin, ‘The Hope of Biography: The Historical Recovery of Women Educator Activists’, History of Education 32, no. 2 (2003): 219–32; Jane Martin, ‘Mary Bridges Adams and Education Reform, 1890–1920: An Ethics of Care?’, Women’s History Review 13, no. 2 (2004): 467–90; Jane Martin, ‘Thinking Education Histories Differently: Biographical Approaches to Class Politics and Women’s Movements in London, 1900s to 1960s’, History of Education 36, nos. 4–5 (2007): 515–33; and Jane Martin and Joyce Goodman, Women and Education, 1800–1980 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

²⁰Read, ‘Free Play with Froebel: Use and Abuse of Progressive Pedagogy in London’s Nineteenth Century Infant Schools’.

²¹Lyschinska, Kindergarten Principle.

²²Lucy R. Latter, ‘How Far is it Possible to Adapt the Kindergarten System to the Public Elementary Schools as Now Existing?’, Child Life 5, no. 19 (1903): 137–42.

²³Clara E. Grant, Farthing Bundles (London: Clara E. Grant, 1929); Clara E. Grant, From “Me” to “We”: (Forty Years on Bow Common) (London: Clara E. Grant, c.1940).

²⁴Roe, ‘From Formal Teaching’.

²⁵HMI Report, ‘Haselrigge Infants’ (1905), file EO/PS/12/H23/41, London Metropolitan Archives.

²⁶Board of Education, Report, 102.

²⁷Ibid.

²⁸LCC, ‘Inspectors’ Report. Haselrigge Infants’ (April 1914), file EO/PS/12/H23/44, London Metropolitan Archives.

²⁹Board of Education, Report, 102.

³⁰School Board for London. School Management Committee, Sub-Committee on the Kindergarten, ‘Minutes’ (1889), London Metropolitan Archives.

³¹Henriette Schrader Breymann, ‘Letter to Frau Louise Jessen, 31 July 1883’, in Mary Lyschinska, Henriette Schrader Breymann: Her Life and Letters, unpublished translation of Mary Lyschinska, Henriette Schrader Breymann. Ihr Leben aus Briefen und Tagebüchern (Berlin and Leipzig, 1922).

³²LCC, ‘Managers’ Yearly Report. Church Street Infants’, file EO/PS/12/W48/7 London Metropolitan Archives.

³³LCC, ‘Managers’ Yearly Report. Church Street’, /24.

³⁴LCC, Logbooks, ‘Haselrigge Road School. 1887–1913’ (Oct 27 1906), file EO/DIV9/HAS/LB/3, London Metropolitan Archives.

³⁵F. Holbrook, The Hiawatha Primer (London: George Harrap, 1910); F.H. Lee, The Children’s Hiawatha, adapted from Longfellow by F.H. Lee (London: Harrap. 1930); M.A. Proudfoot, Hiawatha Industrial Reader (London: Harrap, 1923), and Seymour Park Infants’ School, On the Trail of Hiawatha: A Course of Lessons for Young Children, arranged for One School Year (Manchester:Thomas Hope, 1910).

³⁶LCC, ‘Managers’ Yearly Report. Church Street’, /22, /24.

³⁷LCC, Logbooks, ‘Haselrigge’ (July 4, 1906), /3.

³⁸Emily Last, Memoir of Caroline Garrison Bishop of Edgbaston Froebel College, School and Kindergarten (London: Headley, 1936); Mabel Bloomer, A Year in the Infant School: A Fully Correlated Scheme of Work (London: Gresham, 1910).

³⁹Read, ‘Froebel Movement’.

⁴⁰Bloomer, Year in the Infant School.

⁴¹Board of Education, Report, 145; H.M. Kliebard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893–1958 (New York: Routledge, 1986).

⁴²J.S. Hall, ‘John Dewey and Pragmatism in the Primary School: A Thing of the Past?’, Pedagogy, Culture and Society 4, no. 1 (1996): 5–23.

⁴³Murray and Brown Smith, The Child under Eight (London: Edward Arnold, [1919]), 62.

⁴⁴Ibid., 139.

⁴⁵LCC, ‘Inspectors’ Report. Haselrigge’, /44.

⁴⁶Kilpatrick, ‘The Project Method’, Teachers College Record 19, no. 4 (1918); C.A. McMurry, Teaching by Projects: A Basis for Purposeful Study (New York: Macmillan, 1921); Hilda Gull, Projects in the Education of Young Children (London/Edinburgh: McDougall, 1932).

⁴⁷A. Hamaide, The Decroly Class: A Contribution to Elementary Education (London: Dent, 1925).

⁴⁸LCC, Logbooks, ‘Haselrigge’, March 1906, /3.

⁴⁹LCC, ‘Inspector’s Report. Church Street’, /2.

⁵⁰LCC, ‘Managers’ Yearly Report. Church Street’, /7; HMI Report, ‘Church Street’, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1902.

⁵¹LCC, ‘Managers’ Yearly Report. Church Street’, /24.

⁵²LCC, Logbooks. ‘Haselrigge’, February 1907, /3.

⁵³Ibid., July 1910.

⁵⁴Ibid., November 1910.

⁵⁵LCC, ‘Inspector’s Report. Haselrigge’, /44.

⁵⁶Ibid., July 12, 1907.

⁵⁷LCC, Logbooks. ‘Haselrigge’, December 4, 1909, /3.

⁵⁸Ibid., July 5, 1911.

⁵⁹LCC, Logbooks. ‘Haselrigge’, February 13, 1907 /3; LCC, ‘Managers’ Yearly Report. Church Street’, /22.

⁶⁰LCC, Logbooks. ‘Haselrigge’, March 7, 1907, /3.

⁶¹LCC, ‘Managers’ Yearly Report. Church Street’, /16.

⁶²Catty, ‘Frances Roe’, National Froebel Foundation Bulletin, no. 28 (1944): 1–2; Dorothy E.M. Gardner, ‘The Frances Roe Memorial’, National Froebel Foundation Bulletin, no. 29 (1944): 2.

⁶³Nancy Catty, ed., Modern Education of Young Children (London: Methuen, 1933), vii.

⁶⁴Lyschinska, Kindergarten Principe; Katherine Bathurst, ‘The Need for National Nurseries’, Nineteenth Century and After (1905): 818–24.

⁶⁵Roe, ‘From Formal Teaching’.

⁶⁶Ibid.

⁶⁷Catty, ‘Frances Roe’.

⁶⁸Roe, ‘From Formal Teaching’.

⁶⁹Jessie M. Mackinder, Individual Work in Infants’ Schools (London: Educational Publishing Co.,1923); Philip Ballard, cited in R.J.W. Selleck, English Primary Education and the Progressives, 1914–1939 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972), 43.

⁷⁰Roe, ‘From Formal Teaching’, 12, 13.

⁷¹Roe, ‘From Formal Teaching’, 13, 15–16.

⁷²E.R. Boyce, A Stores Project: A Report of an Experiment based on the Project Method in Education (London: Froebel Society, [1932]); E.R. Boyce, ‘The Work of the Five-Year-Olds’, in Modern Education (see note 63), 17–31. E.R. Boyce, ‘The Project in Action’, (ibid., 32–40).

⁷³Board of Education, Hadow Committee, ‘Infant and Nursery Schools. Committee Papers, 1930–32’, file ED10/149–150, The National Archives.

⁷⁴LCC, ‘Inspectors’ Reports, “The Burghley”’, file EO/PS/12/B92/44, London Metropolitan Archives.

⁷⁵Ibid.

⁷⁶Ibid.

⁷⁷LCC, Logbooks, ‘Burghley Infants’ School’, 1933–34, file EO/DIV2/BGH/LB/5. London Metropolitan Archives.

⁷⁸Frances E. Roe, ‘Studies of Froebelian Schools. II. The Burghley Infant School: A Froebelian Elementary School’, National Froebel Foundation Bulletin 24 (1943): 2–3.

⁷⁹Ibid., 2, emphasis in the original.

⁸⁰LCC, ‘Inspectors’ Reports, “The Burghley”.

⁸¹Anon, ‘Play, Work and the Bridge Between: An Educational Experiment’, Child Life, New series 5 (1935): 66–7.

⁸²Roe, ‘Studies of Froebelian Schools’, 3.

⁸³Ibid.

⁸⁴LCC, ‘Inspectors’ Report, “The Burghley”.

⁸⁵Ibid. (emphases added).

⁸⁶Brehony, ‘English Revisionist Froebelians’; Read, ‘Froebel Movement’.

⁸⁷Evelyn Lawrence, Friedrich Froebel and English Education (London: University of London Press, 1952).

⁸⁸Catty, ‘Frances Roe’, 2.

⁸⁹Ibid., 1.

⁹⁰Selleck, English Primary Education; Brehony, ‘“School Masters’ Parliament”’.

⁹¹William Boyd and Wyatt Rawson, The Story of the New Education (London: Heinemann, 1965).

⁹²Alfred J. Lynch, ‘English Elementary Schools and the New Education’, New Era 11, no. 43 (1930): 20–2.

⁹³Boyce, Stores Project; Boyce, ‘Work of the Five-Year-Olds’; Boyce, Play; Henrietta Brown Smith, ‘The Influence of Froebel in the Infant School’, Child Life 3, no. 6 (1937): 86–7; Catty, Modern Education.

⁹⁴Brehony, ‘English Revisionist Froebelians’; Brehony, ‘Montessori, Individual Work and Individuality’; Cunningham, ‘Montessori Phenomenon’.