Among Women: The Participation of Men in the Froebel and Montessori Societies.

Dr Kevin J. Brehony School of Education The University of Reading Email: k.j.brehony@rdg.ac.uk

Paper presented to the History of Education Society's Annual Conference

Breaking boundaries: Gender, politics and the experience of education. Winchester 35 December 1999

Introduction In this paper I look at a sample of men who were closely associated with and were active within the Froebelian and Montessorrian movements in England. My interest in these men developed from an increasing realisation that these educational movements may be best understood as forming parts of the women's movement that sprang from first wave feminism. I was motivated by a desire to try to establish what if anything was sociologically specific about these men who, unlike the vast majority of their contemporaries, devoted large parts of their lives to social action within movements composed overwhelmingly of women. Employing what Ricouer terms, 'the hermeneutics of suspicion'1 I suspected that these men would have sought to dominate the organisations they were members of and act in traditional ways towards the women they were associated with. Before considering in some detail the individual and collective characteristics of the men selected for study it was first necessary to establish the extent to which it was legitimate to regard the Froebel and Montessori movements as comprising parts of the women's movement. Jrgen Reyer and Ann Taylor Allen have made such a case for the German Froebel movement2 but as far as is known no one has done so for these movements in England. In order to reach an answer to this question,

evidence regarding the positions held by leading Froebelians and by Montessori is reviewed. Gender, in contrast with sex, is a relational concept and by virtue of this it is not possible to tell the stories of the men without also outlining the stories of women. Specifically, this necessitated some consideration of the politics of the struggle for women's emancipation for without this the significance of the actions of the Froebelian and Montessorian men may be grasped only partially.

In What Sense Were The Froebel And Montessori Movements Part Of The Womens Movement? The women's movement that emerged in England in the mid-Nineteenth Century is best known for its involvement in the struggle for women's suffrage that culminated in the granting of votes for women over the age of thirty in 1918. Despite universal suffrage not being gained until 1928 this was the high water mark of 'first wave' feminism3 as feminism after the First War ceased to be a mass movement4 and did not become so again until the 1970s. It would be inaccurate, however, to characterise 'first wave' feminists as being solely concerned with the suffrage question. Other issues that were at the forefront of feminist campaigns

were the removal of legal barriers to women's citizenship and access to secondary and higher education. Anne Taylor Allen, whose work on the kindergarten movement in Germany and the USA has done so much to illuminate its links to nineteenth century feminist movements, concludes that 'equal rights' feminism associated with the suffrage movement and 'familial' or 'relational' feminism, the kind embraced by the kindergarteners, were complementary rather than conflicting approaches.5

Spiritual Motherhood Both the Froebelians and the Montessorians adhered to the position known as 'separate spheres' regarding the roles of men and women. This perspective held that rather than women demanding equality with men they should escape the bondage of the domestic ideology that confined middle class women to the home by pursuing separate but equal roles in the public sphere; the sphere of paid work. These roles were to be an extension of those imposed on essentialised women but instead of confining women to the domestic hearth, caring and nurturing could be projected as qualities needed in the public sphere. 'Spiritual Motherhood'6 or 'Social Maternalism', was a variant of this perspective which was prevalent within the Froebel movement. Froebel himself repeated

continually: "The fate of nations lies far more in the hands of women-ofmothers- than in those of rulers, or of the numerous innovators who are scarcely intelligible to themselves. We must train the educators of the human race, for without them the new generations cannot fulfil their mission." (Shireff) It was a concept that was widely accepted within the Froebel movement and beyond. The term spiritual mother was used by the Ronges7 the founders of the first kindergarten in England. Countless references and allusions to the notion occur in the writings of Baroness Bertha Marenholtz Bulow, Froebel's indefatigable exegete. In her book Women's Educational Mission the Baroness wrote a succinct outline of the position: Until the mothers amongst the lower classes are a better educated race, the education of their children must be the care of the educated classes. Here is a wide field open for all the efforts of a truly maternal heart. It is for woman to effect a reformation in all the charitable and educational institutions which now exist, to increase their number, extend their influence, and make them work in connexion with each other.8 Emily Shirreff writing three years later in 1858 and some years before she helped found the Froebel Society in England, explained in similar vein that, what society wants from women is not labour, but refinement, elevation of mind, knowledge, making its power felt through moral

influence and sound opinions. It wants civilisers of men, and educators of the young.9

Montessori's feminism Neither of Montessori's principal biographers,10 accorded much significance to the fact that Montessori was a woman as were most of her followers.11 Neither of them addressed the question of what it meant to be a woman in medicine in Italy during a period when women all over Europe were struggling to be admitted into the public sphere. As Burstyn has pointed out, these accounts also miss the fact that Montessori's choices were made for her by a male establishment and that her, 'routes for self expression were dictated by the fact that she was a woman'.12 Burstyn described Montessori as a feminist13 while Cohen noted that she was, 'active in the women's rights movement'.14 It is indisputable that however these terms are construed, Montessori like the Froebelian women should be seen as part of the women's movement. In her book, 'The Montessori Method' there are a number of hints that she accepted the separate spheres argument and its concomitant notion, spiritual motherhood. When speaking, for instance, of the expected affects of the 'communising' of the 'maternal function' in the Case dei Bambini, the nursery she established in the model tenements of San Lorenzo in Rome,

Montessori referred to the 'new woman' who would come forth like a butterfly from its chrysalis and 'be liberated from all of those attributes which once made her desirable to man only as a source of the material blessings of existence'. This 'new woman' would be, 'like man, an individual, a free human being, a social worker...'.15 The notion of women as mothers to society, as carers and social workers is present in her discussion of the role of the directress of the Children's Houses. She is constructed as, 'a cultured and educated person' who is also 'a true missionary, a moral queen among the people', an 'almost savage people', to whom she dedicates her time and her life as well as living among them.16 Montessori's discussion of the kind of person who would make a good directress underlines the fact that it was principally women who, to use the Althusserian phrase, were interpellated by her discourse.17 In America, Montessori's loyal supporters were almost exclusively women but in England many of her English followers were men. Of the original twenty eight members of the Montessori Committee, fourteen were men18 Men, mainly from the 'academy', the newly established University Departments of Education were also prominent in the public discussion of the Montessori method although much of their contributions were critical.19. While at the height of enthusiasm for Montessori, men such as Holmes or Kimmins typically addressed meetings, the large audience, as

at a meeting in London in 1913 at the Caxton Hall was said to have been, 'composed almost entirely of Ladies'.20 Nevertheless, unfavourable contrasts were frequently drawn in the press with the Montessori movement in America where, it was declared, 'women played a much larger part in American education than in England'21 The Froebel and Montessori movements may justifiably therefore be regarded as women's movements. Not just because they consisted mainly of women or because it was women who they mainly addressed but principally because they offered to middle class women a redefinition of their selves and identities which would enable their entry into the public sphere. That theirs was a professionalising project is something that many have commented upon.22 However, this being so does not disqualify these movements from being considered part of the wider women's movement.

The Sample As has been noted, the Montessori movement in England contained within its initial organisation several men in positions of leadership. At a preliminary meeting to discuss the foundation of a Froebel Society held on 4 th November 187423 it was agreed by the women present that a letter be sent inviting membership to several sympathisers who included one

man, Professor Joseph Payne. Payne was the holder of the first Chair of Education in England at the College of Preceptors.24 He was also a supporter of women's education and he was a member of the central working committee of the Women's Education Union. On his death, his place on the Committee of the Froebel Society was taken by W. Sonnenschein; the second of several men to participate in the running of the Froebel Society. In choosing to discuss only some of these men inevitably there is a certain degree of arbitrariness in the choice of this sample. The principle criteria adopted in its selection was sustained involvement in the formal organisations of these movements. On these grounds Michael Sadler was excluded despite his being at one time a President of the Froebel Society. Although his occupancy of this position may be taken to indicate some sympathy with the Froebelians, this was mainly an honorary position of short duration. Similarly, Robert Morant, Sadler's great rival, was rejected even though for a brief period he was a member of the Council of the Froebel Society25. For the most part, the men discussed here were cultural outsiders. They were nearly all excluded in some way from the hegemonic ruling bloc of landed capital, Tory politics and the Church of England. This was also the case of the women in the movements they were involved in except that these women were doubly excluded; once due to their alternative

culture and twice as women. Nevertheless, the men considered here were not excluded from all aspects of the hegemonic culture. Claude Montefiore, for example, was a Tory, like most other extremely wealthy men. An affiliation that became much stronger when, at the end of the century, the owners of capital deserted the Liberal Party. Montefiore seems to have been an exception but it appears that religion rather than politics was of the greater importance in confirming the identity of these men as cultural outsiders. Until, for example, the Prince of Wales introduced Jews such as the Rothschilds, the Sassoons and Sir Ernest Cassell into his 'smart set', they were not, on the whole, acceptable in 'society'.26 Unitarians were in a similar social position as was recorded by Molly Hughes who, while in charge of teacher training at Bedford College, was told by a wealthy member of the college council that Unitarians were 'looked upon as atheists, and by many as inferior socially'. 27 It seems almost unnecessary to point out that they were also supporters of women's education which also was a minority position among men in general and some of the Froebelians like Herford and Montefiore were Germanophiles. Given the fact that it originated in Germany, it is not altogether surprising that the Froebel movement contained within its ranks large numbers of Germanophiles. This observation is so obvious that it is surprising that it has largely gone unrecognized by most of the

chroniclers of the Froebel movement in England. This is unfortunate as its significance lies mainly in the symbolic role played by Germany in the discourse of those forces in England that were pursuing a strategy of modernization. In many respects, Germany occupied a similar position to that which the Soviet Union did in relation to scientists and other Left intellectuals in the nineteen thirties. It was Germany that provided for the modernizers of the late nineteenth century their image of the future. 28

William Henry Herford The first man to be considered here was a confirmed Germanophile but perhaps more importantly the most unequivocal in his support of the women's movement. After attending Shrewsbury school William Herford entered Manchester College, York in 1837 to prepare for the Unitarian ministry. On completion of his course he was offered a post as a minister at Lancaster but chose instead to continue studying in Germany. In 1842 he became a student at the university of Bonn. Following a period in Berlin, Herford returned to England in 1845 and Lancaster, where he agreed to be a minister to the Unitarian congregation for a year. Before the year was up he left Lancaster to become the tutor of Lady Byron's grandson, Ralph King. Lady Byron then persuaded Herford to accompany her grandson to the Pestalozzian school at Hofwyl in

Switzerland which was then under the control of Wilhelm von Fellenberg. Her intention was that Herford would study the Pestallozian system and on returning to England, open an English Hofwyl. Herford went to Hofwyl in 1847 but returned to Lancaster in 1848 not as a teacher but a minister once more. However in 1850 he opened a boys school run on Pestalozzian lines which attracted the support of Unitarian families from a wide area. At its height, the numbers of boys in the school reached twenty-one but fell by 1860 to sixteen or seventeen.29 In the following year, Herford closed the school and left Lancaster and returned to Switzerland. In 1863 he returned to Manchester and after again practising as a minister, opened what became Ladybarn House school30 with his daughter Caroline, in 1873. This was a coeducational school31 run on Froebelian lines. Herford was a strong supporter of women's education who campaigned for the right of women to attend universities and coeducation was seen by him as beneficial to girls. By this time, Herford was a committed Froebelian and he organised the foundation of the Manchester Kindergarten Association in 1872.32 In 1880 he sent a letter to the Froebel Society requesting its co-operation in the forming of a deputation to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Mundella for the 'introduction of the Froebel System into the Government Elementary schools'. 33 The Froebel Society agreed to Herford's proposal and a meeting was held at 48 Wimpole street on the

24th June to discuss the form and composition of the deputation. Herford was present at this meeting as were five other men and seven women but not one woman is recorded as having spoken.34 In spite of this, Herford proposed that the deputation be led by Emily Shirreff the Society's President and Alfred Bourne put a resolution to the meeting containing the demands of the Froebel Society.

Rev. Alfred Bourne (1832-1908) Much of Alfred Bournes childhood was spent in Jamaica to which he returned in 1863 as the superintendent of cotton plantations. After four years study at New College, Hampstead he obtained a BA degree in 1858. Ordination as a Congregationalist Minister followed. In June 1868 Bourne was appointed Secretary of the British and Foreign, School Society. This body had begun in 1808 as the Royal Lancasterian Society and when it emerged six years later it aimed to promote, the Education of the Labouring and Manufacturing Classes of Society of every Religious Persuasion..35 As this objective indicates, the form of monitorial schooling provided by the British and Foreign, School Society was unsectarian, a label which, when decoded usually signified Nonconformist. Like its rival in the promotion of monitorial schools, the Anglican, National Society also trained teachers in the conduct of their

respective monitorial systems. After the Education Act of 1870 the demand for teachers increased in line with the expansion in the numbers of elementary schools. Bourne played a prominent part in the expansion of training provision at the British Societys colleges at Stockwell and Borough Road. 36 In 1872, the Society opened new colleges for women at Darlington and Swansea and another for infant school mistresses at Saffron Walden in 1884. It was Bourne who appointed Eleanore Heerwart in 1874 to open a kindergarten training department at Stockwell. This was followed in 1876 by the opening of the Stockwell Kindergarten Model School. The colleges of the British and Foreign Society formed the working class wing of the Froebel movement. Their students were drawn from the respectable layer of the working class and the kindergarten was given an inflection which made it more suited to the conditions existing in working class schools. This made Bourne a powerful gatekeeper representing the Froebel movement to the state elementary school system and that system to the Froebel movement. His main objective was the reform of state elementary schooling rather than the implementation of the kindergarten within them. Herford, on the other hand, aimed to introduce 'the kindergarten principle' which he defined as a focus on the ends, rather than the means, of schooling.37 This approach was unlikely to appeal to those like Bourne

who were seeking to apply rational models of problem solving in which the ends were limited but clearly defined and who were prepared to accept the routinisation of school work. Unlike Herford, who was a maximalist in his demands that the full kindergarten be implemented,38 Bourne was prepared to seek a compromise with the Education Department in order to gain a toehold for Froebelian methods in the elementary schools. In other respects too Bourne was different to Herford. While Herford ran schools and wrote an exegesis of Froebel's system 39 Bourne acted in the public sphere of education policy and administration. In 1884 he organised a demonstration of the kindergarten at the International Exhibition on Health and Education held in London.40 Bourne also appeared as a witness before the Cross Commissioners. In 1886 the Council of the Froebel Society received a telegram from Claude Montefiore to say that he had communicated with the Secretary of the Royal Commission on Elementary Education and that a formal request from the Council should be forwarded to the Commission regarding the examination of a representative. The meeting agreed to select a Bourne.41 At its next meeting, the Council considered a letter from Marie Lyschinska,42 that contained the suggestion that 'a lady be associated with W. Bourne to represent the views of the Froebel Society before the Commissioners' The Hon Mrs Buxton was selected to accompany him.43

Lyschinska was a close ally of Froebel's grand-niece, Henriette SchraderBreymann who was vigorous in her support for Spiritual Motherhood. And while her action in suggesting that a woman accompany Bourne is open to interpretation, it is at least plausible to suggest that this was the action of someone identified with the women's movement. During the course of his appearance before Cross as Secretary of the British and Foreign School Society, Bourne was examined at some length but not about the kindergarten. At the end of his evidence he stated that he was prepared to give evidence on the kindergarten but only if he should be chosen as part of a deputation from the Froebel Society.44 Presumably this was to ensure the Hon Mrs Buxton's presence but they were not called and so his views on the kindergarten were not presented.45 Bourne was also for many years the Principal of Stockwell College after having formerly been Secretary to its Ladies Committee.46 In his later years he suffered from ill-health and, as the Froebelian Elsie Murray put it, Lydia Manley47 was 'practically Principal' from 1884 until her death in 1911. Officially, she was only made Principal in 1892. The evidence is admittedly slight but in Murray's observation may be read the resentment felt by women staff that their college Principal was a man. Bourne's active involvement with the Froebel Society lasted until his retirement due to ill health in 1890.48 Nevertheless, it was not his only

educational cause and in 1889 at the height of the craze for Sloyd49, Bourne, in his capacity as the Sloyd Association's secretary wrote a letter to the Froebel Society offering the financial terms of a merger proposal.

Claude Goldsmid Montefiore (1858-1938) Claude Goldsmid Montefiore (1858-1938) like Bourne was involved in the affairs of the Froebel Society for many years. His mother was a member of the Goldsmid family which, like that of the Montefiore's, was one of the elite families of Anglo-Jewry which were linked through ties of business and marriage50. The young Claude Montefiore was educated privately and for much of that time he was taught by Philip Magnus (1842-1933), a minister at the West London Reform Synagogue who became an archetypal, 'industrial trainer' or modernizer51. In 1878 Montefiore entered Balliol College Oxford where he gained a First and formed a life long friendship with its Master, the formidable Benjamin Jowett. Montefiore's career was somewhat untypical as, until the 1880's, few sons of the Anglo-Jewish elite attended the ancient universities. This was partly due to the barriers, which until the passing of the Universities Tests Act of 1871, Jews were confronted by. A corollary of their disbarment on religious grounds was their tendency to seek to enter the

City rather than the professions for which most university graduates were prepared. On leaving Oxford he went to study in Berlin as had Magnus before him. On his return to England, Montefiore became involved in the founding of the Jewish Religious Union for the Advancement of Liberal Judaism. This was a radical reform group that stood, in relation to conservative Jewish Orthodoxy in a way analogous to the standing of Nonconformity to the Established Church.52 'Amply endowed with wealth, learning and leisure'53, Montefiore devoted the rest of his life to writing religious texts, and fostering Jewish and nonJewish educational ventures, among which was the Froebel Society. While in Berlin he had encountered the Froebel movement and, on returning to England in 1883 he soon became the honorary secretary of the Society and subsequently its Chair54, a post he held until 1904. 55 When it was first proposed by Emily Shirreff that Montefiore become the permanent chair of the council it was minuted that he, "dwelt first on what he considered to be his own insufficient knowledge of our work however great his interest in it".56 Nevertheless, he was elected at the next meeting on Nov 28th. This protestation of ignorance of the Froebelian position does not appear to have been an expression of modesty on Montefiore's part. His biographer, Lucy Cohen, asked him if the kindergarten system had an 'especial appeal to him?' He responded

negatively and explained that his involvement was due to his mother's friend, the prominent Froebelian, Julia Salis Schwabe asking him to join the Committee.57 For someone who professed, at best, only a qualified enthusiasm for the kindergarten, Montefiore's commitment to the movement that promoted it was extraordinary. In 1897 when the financial situation of the Froebel Society was described as "serious" because its income was 179 and its expenditure 222, Montefiore donated 40 to make up the deficit.58 His philanthropy was also vital to the establishment of the Froebel Education Institute in 1892 which was a project instigated by Julia Salis Schwabe. He served as treasurer and chairman of the Froebel Education Institute.59 Later, in 1921, Montefiore lent the money necessary for the purchase of Grove House which became the headquarters of the Froebel Education Institute.60 Montefiore was also involved in the Sesame Club as one of the three members of the Froebel Society who served on its committee.61 This was a broadly based organisation that attracted individuals and organisations interested in educational reform. From this emerged, in 1899, the Sesame League which aimed to establish a 'House for Home Life Training' modelled on the Pestalozzi-Froebel House in Berlin.62 This latter institution was the organisational base of Henriette Schrader-Breymann whose support for Spiritual Motherhood has already been noted and whose thinking and practice was a key resource for Froebelian

revisionism.63 When in England, Henriette Schrader-Breymann stayed with the Montefiore family. 64 Like Bourne, Montefiore seems to have been given, or he appropriated, tasks that required action in the political or public sphere. At the Froebel Society Council's discussion of the decision of the London School Board not to replace Miss Lychinska. Montefiore reported that he had that day seen Mr Davies65 and Mr Graham Wallas at the School Board Offices at Mr Davies' request. Davies had wanted to know what teaching work was actually done by the Society and what classes for Elementary school teachers they were holding. He stated that he would be glad if the Society could devise a scheme of kindergarten instruction for teachers of the Board. It was decided that a sub committee would be set up consisting of Kate Phillips, Alice Woods, Bowen , Findlay and Montefiore to draw up a scheme..66 Montefiore had himself been a member of the London School Board although for a period of three months only. In 1888 he was co-opted to represent Tower Hamlets. 67 A vacancy had occurred following the resignation of Edward North Buxton and since, according to Montefiore, there were over 3,000 Jewish children attending Board Schools in Tower Hamlets, his cooption was, in part, motivated by the desire to represent them68. He lost his seat at the School Board election later in the year when he stood as a Tory. The poll in Tower Hamlets was topped by

Annie Besant who was then a member of the Marxist, Social Democratic Federation and who appears to have had more success in appealing to the Yiddish speaking working class Jewish voters than Montefiore. Politics, however, does not appear to have held the attraction for him that it did for his elder brother Leonard who died in 1879 at the age of twenty six.69 Leonard was a friend of Alfred Milner a leading Tory and Imperialist. Claude also became a friend of Milner and he shared his politics. He was also a prominent anti Zionist believing that Jews should assimilate into the societies they lived in. Perhaps this desire to assimilate was the motive for his philanthropy. Not only did he rescue the Froebel Society on several occasions but he also provided substantial sums for the Froebel Educational Institute.

Men in the Montessori Movement There is much less evidence concerning the men who supported Montessori in England than there is for men in the Froebel Movement. This is partly because the Montessori Association archives are not publicly available assuming they still survive. It is also due no doubt to the attitude of Maria Montessori to her followers which was highly autocratic and demanding of absolute loyalty. Montessori men are as a consequence rather shadowy figures.

Rev. Bertram Hawker Bertram Hawker, was a friend of the former Chief Inspector for Elementary schools, Edmond Holmes 70 who was himself an enthusiast for Montessori's work. Hawker had founded with his wife in 1908, the Kindergarten Union of South Australia. They also established a Kindergarten in Adelaide. After visiting Montessori in Rome Hawker returned to England. In 1912 together with Holmes among others he helped found the Montessori Society of the United Kingdom. He also opened the first Montessori school in England in a room in his house at East Runton in Norfolk. Around twelve pupils chosen from the local elementary school attended and they were taught by Evelyn Lydbetter71 who was one of the first teachers in England to take Montessori's training course.72 In 1914, Hawker organised a conference there. The subject was the Montessori System of Education and Holmes the Buddhist ex -Chief HMI was among those invited to speak.73 At the conference a resolution was put that the Earl of Lytton, who was also the president of Mens League for Womens Suffrage74 and Hawker form a committee to organise further conferences to bring, together not only representatives of the Montessori movement but of all kindred movements....75

Claude Claremont Claremont's early work with Dr. Montessori was interspersed with postgraduate studies at the London School of Economics, University College, London and the University of Rome, where he worked in the fields of psychology, anthropology and physiology. He also studied the mathematical calculus for evaluating statistical data under the Eugenicist and Fabian, Karl Pearson...Claude Claremont attended Dr. Montessori's training course in Rome in 1913 following his graduation as a B.Sc. in Engineering from the City and Guilds College of London University. A London study circle was organised by Claude Claremont who acted as Montessori's interpreter in 1914 when next she held her training course in England. Following three years as head of the Montessori department at St. George's School, Harpenden, he moved to St Christopher's School, Letchworth where he also held a similar position. In 1922 a teachers training college was opened by the Theosophical Educational Trust at Letchworth. This was intended to prepare teachers for work in coeducational schools. Under its auspices, Claude Claremont,76 ran a Montessori training course there.

From 1925 to 1960, Professor Claremont was principal of the Montessori training centres in London and Cranleigh. He also lectured all over Europe and wrote many pamphlets and books on Montessori.77 In 1963 he moved to the United States where he worked as a director of training, first in California, and later at the Southeastern Institute for Montessori Studies. in September, 1967, he returned to California to start a new training centre in Santa Monica. His wife, Francesca, a noted historian and novelist, continued running the centre they had started together after his death in December, 1967 78.

Men Supporters Of Women's Suffrage The organisations formed by men to support suffragists and suffragettes are not strictly analogous to the educational movements considered here. If a parallel was required then a far better one would be Joseph Tate, the first secretary of the Equal Pay League founded in 1903 and subsequently the National Federation of Women Teachers.79 Nevertheless, some men did form organisations to support suffragists and suffragettes and by so doing demonstrated their ability to accept the leadership of women and play supportive as well as subordinate roles within the women's movement. Among the most prominent of these men were Laurence Housman brother of the poet A.E. Housman who was a member of the

Mens League for Womens Suffrage which supported the 'constitutional' suffrage cause. He was also a member of the Mens Social and Political Union which supported the militant suffragettes. These were essentially auxiliary organisations80 that followed and supported the women's struggle for the suffrage. Other notable supporters were and Frederick Pethick Lawrence, William Baillie Weaver81 and George Lansbury. Significantly, the latter two were theosophists which was one of several elements often present in a cultural and political ensemble that also linked feminism to anti-vivisection, children's rights, vegetarianism and pacifism.82

The Politics of the Froebelians and Montessorians in relation to the women's struggle The adoption of political stances, even those to do with women's suffrage was something the Froebel Society tended to avoid. An example of this neutrality was the refusal to send delegates to the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies' demonstration on 13th June 190883 as, 'the question of Women's Suffrage was outside the scope of the Froebel Society's work.'84 A rare exception to this lack of political engagement was a decision to support by signing the Women's Local Government Society's memorial to Lord Salisbury, 'in respect of the position of

women in education in England and Wales.' This referred to the fear that many women had that they would not be permitted membership of the new Local Education Authorities that were about to replace the School Boards on which women could sit. Paradoxically, Montefiore was asked to sign on behalf of the Council85 Later in the year even this expression of support was rescinded when the committee decided that as the election of women on to local government boards lay beyond the scope of the Society no delegate would be sent to a conference on the Education Bill organised by Women's local Government. Society.86 Less is known about the attitudes of the organised Montessorians but as individuals they seem to have been much more politically engaged than the Froebelians. Many feminist teachers in the National Federation of Women teachers discussed Montessori's ideas and attempted the implementation of her system.87 Among these perhaps the most well known was Muriel Matters.88 Noticing in a newspaper that Muriel Matters had returned from studying under Montessori in Barcelona Sylvia Pankhurst immediately contacted her with a view to her organising a Montessori class at the Mothers Arms in London's East End. Matters was a militant suffragette and a member of the Women's Freedom League. 89 A balloonist, she distributed leaflets over the Mall in the heart of London from a dirigible in January 1908 on the occasion of the opening of Parliament.90 In October 1908 she, along

with two other women, had chained herself to the brass grille in the Ladies' Gallery of the House of Commons, behind which, women were discreetly hidden from the Members of Parliament. Shouting 'Votes for Women' she and her fellow fighters for women's' suffrage, was carried out attached to the grille which had to be removed91. In 1909 she again dropped leaflets over London from a balloon painted 'Votes for Women' arguing that a proposed petition to the Prime Minister on women's' suffrage was constitutional. During the Dublin lockout of 1913, Matters, together with Dora Montefiore, later a founding member of the Communist Party of Great Britain,92 became involved in helping the children of the workers led by Larkin and Connolly.93 In Dublin Matters had tried unsuccessfully to find a Montessori teacher and later decided to be trained by Montessori herself. It would be illegitimate of course to infer from the political orientation of a few that of the many. But there is some evidence that the Montessori movement in England, if not elsewhere, was inextricably bound up with the gender politics of the early twentieth century. The National Union of Teachers' journal, the paradoxically but nonetheless significantly named Schoolmaster carried attacks on Montessorimania whereas the women in the NFWT who were soon to break away from the NUT over the issue of equal pay, tended to support Montessori's ideas.94 Montessori's book The Montessori Method has many references to the freedom and

emancipation of the child, the working class and of women and as Kean observes NFWT teachers drew parallels between advocacy of freedom for the child and their own struggle for freedom as 'disenfranchised citizens'.95 Conclusion Evidence concerning the views that these men held regarding women's suffrage or women's emancipation in general is sparse. There are some grounds, however, for holding the view that the efforts of male allies of the women in the movements were appreciated and welcomed. On the death of the influential HMI Joshua Fitch, for example, the Froebel Council agreed to send condolences to Lady Fitch on her husband's death. The relevant minute read that Council, "wishes to express its sense of the continuous and enlightened support which Sir Joshua always gave to movements in which women were specially concerned.96. What is interesting about this is that Fitch's support for the kindergarten was far from unqualified but that the Froebelians as women, a rare identity, rather than as interpreters of Froebel wished to send their condolences. Initially, the men considered here performed acts of representation on behalf of women in the public sphere though sometimes they did so in association with women. This was because women were excluded from representing themselves. It is in this context that the Bryce Commission was so innovative as for the first time three women were permitted to

serve on a Royal Commission in order to represent women's views. Because women were excluded they lacked to a certain extent access to the networks of power that traversed the fields of educational policy making and administration. The men therefore were conduits between the public and private Later, as the struggle of women intensified with the eruption of militancy orchestrated by the WPSU women became hostile to their being represented by men. I think this goes some way to explaining the differences that may be detected between the Froebelians and the Montessorians. Emily Shirreff struggled hard for women's education but by the time Montessori arrived the context was changing. Education for women had been to a considerable extent conceded. Moreover, Montessori believed she was and acted as if she was equal to men. Emily Shirreeff, on the otherhand may have been the leader of the deputation to Mundella but it was the men that did all the talking. If then in its initial phase in England the Montessori movement was closely related to the feminist struggle the decline of that struggle after the First War with its concomitant effects on women teachers 97 may account, if only in part, for the rapid evaporation of support and enthusiasm for Montessorianism during the post war period. The story of the men is one therefore that is impossible to disentangle form the stories of the women and the causes they supported.

P. Ricoeur. Freud and philosophy : an essay on interpretation (New Haven ; London, 1970). 2 J. Reyer. Friedrich Frbel, the profession of Kindergarten teacher and the bourgeois women's movement West European Education 21,2, (1989), 29-44. A. T. Allen. Spiritual Motherhood: German Feminists and the Kindergarten Movement 1848-1911 History of Education Quarterly 22,3, (1982), 319-339. A. T. Allen. "Let us live with our children": Kindergarten movements in Germany and the United States, 1840-1914 History of Education Quarterly 28,1, (1988), 23-48. 3 S. Walby. From private to public patriarchy Women's Studies International Forum 13,1/2, (1990), 91-104. 4 S. K. Kent. Sex and suffrage in Britain 1860-1914 (London, 1990). 5 A. T. Allen. "Let us live with our children": Kindergarten movements in Germany and the United States, 1840-1914 History of Education Quarterly 28,1, (1988), 23-48. A similar point is made by Steedman also C. Steedman. Childhood Culture and Class in Britain: Margaret McMillan 1860-1931 (London, 1990). 6 See further C. Steedman. The mother made conscious - The historical development of a primary-school pedagogy History Workshop Journal 20, (1985), 149-163. 7 J. Ronge & B. Ronge. A Practical Guide to the English Kindergarten (London, 1865). 8 B. M. v. B. Marenholtz-Buelow. Woman's Educational Mission: being an explanation of F. Frbel's System of Infant Gardens (London, 1855). 9 E. Shirreff. Intellectual Education and its Influence on the Character and Happiness of Women (London, 1858). 10 R. Kramer. Maria Montessori: A Biography (Oxford, 1968). E. Standing. Maria Montessori her Life and Work (London, 1957). 11 Standing does record however Montessori's attendance at a feminist congress in Berlin in 1896 and at another held inn London in 1900.E. Standing. Maria Montessori her Life and Work (London, 1957). 12 J. N. Burstyn. Maria Montessori History of Education Quarterly 19,1, (1979), 143-149. 13 J. N. Burstyn. Maria Montessori History of Education Quarterly 19,1, (1979), 143-149. 14 S. Cohen. Educating the children of the urban poor Maria Montessori and her method Education and Urban Society 1,1, (1968), 61-79. 15 M. Montessori. The Montessori Method (New York, 1912). 16 M. Montessori. The Montessori Method (New York, 1912).

17 18

T. Eagleton. Ideology (London, 1991). S. Radice. The New Children: Talks with Dr Maria Montessori (London, nd). 19 W. Boyd.'The Montessori system' in (eds. J. Adams),Educational Movements and Methods (London, 1924),49-62. W. Boyd. From Locke to Montessori (London, 1914). E. P. Culverwell. The Montessori Principles and Practice (London, 1913). C. Grant. English Education and Dr Montessori (London, 1913). 20 Times Educational Supplement 4th March 1914. 21 Times Educational Supplement 7th December 1915). 22 J. Reyer. Friedrich Frbel, the profession of Kindergarten teacher and the bourgeois women's movement West European Education 21,2, (1989), 29-44. T. S. Popkewitz. A Political Sociology of Educational Reform (New York, 1991). 23 Froebel Society Minutes 1. 1874-1876 24 Frances Mary Buss, the founder of the North London Collegiate School, together with a German kindergartner, Miss Doreck of Wurttemburg, induced the College of Preceptors to run a course of lectures on Froebel. 25 Froebel Soc Minutes 20th March 1899. He became a member of the Joint Board Minutes 16th October 1899 He resigned from the Council in April 1900 citing "in consequence of his time being so fully and at the same time so irregularly occupied". Froebel Soc Minutes 9th April 1900. 26 And even then they continued to face barriers to their acceptance. See: K. Middlemass. Pursuit of Pleasure (London, 1977). and T. M. Endelman. Communal solidarity among the Jewish elite of Victorian London Victorian Studies 28,3, (1985), 491-526. . 27 M. V. Hughes. A London Home in the 1890's. (Oxford, 1978). 28 For such a view see M. E. Sadler.'The Unrest in Secondary Education. In Germany and Elsewhere' in (eds. B. o. Education),Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (London, 1902a),ix-167.
29 30

W. C. R. Hicks. Lady Barn House and the Work of W. H. Herford, etc. [With "The School: essay towards humane education by W. H. Herford" and with a portrait.] (Manchester, 1936). 31 K. J. Brehony.'Co-education: perspectives and debates in the early twentieth century' in (eds. R. Deem),Co-education Reconsidered (Milton Keynes, 1984),1-20.

32

P. Woodham-Smith.'History of the Froebel Movement in England' in (eds. E. Lawrence),Friedrich Froebel And English Education (London, 1952),34-94. 33 Froebel Society Minutes II 1876-1882 12th June 1880 34 Froebel Society Minutes II 1876-1882 24th June 1880 35 quoted in J. Murphy. Church, State and Schools in Britain, 1800-1970 (London, 1971). 36 Anon. In Memoriam Alfred Bourne Child Life X,38, (1908), 67. 37 International Health Exhibition. The Health Exhibition Literature (London, 1884). 38 K. J. Brehony.'Revising Froebel: English Revisionist Froebelians And The Schooling Of The Urban Poor' in (eds. P. Hirsch & M. Hilton),Practical Visionaries: Women, Education and Social Progress 1790-1930. (London, forthcoming), 39 W. H. Herford. The Student's Froebel (London, 1905). 40 E. R. Murray. A Story of Infant Schools and Kindergartens (London, 1912). 41 Froebel Society Minutes 7th May 1886. 42 Lyschinska held the post of Superintendent of Method in Infant Schools at the London School Board. 43 Froebel Soc Minutes 17th May 1886 44 PP. 1886. XXV. op. cit. Q. 10,570. 45 Woodham Smith P. Woodham-Smith.'History of the Froebel Movement in England' in (eds. E. Lawrence),Friedrich Froebel And English Education (London, 1952),34-94. claimed that Bourne and Mrs Buxton presented 'a series of resolutions' to the Cross Commission but none appeared as memorials in its report. 46 G. P. Collins. The contribution of the British and Foreign School Society to the Kindergarten movement from 1868 to 1907 with particular reference to Stockwell and Saffron Walden training colleges (1984). 47 Lydia Manley (1847-1911) was appointed head teacher at Stockwell in 1884 to replace Eleonore Heerwart and she became the principal of the college in 1892. In 1900 she became a member of the first Consultative Committee of the Board of Education (PRO ED 24/186) and the author of an obituary described her as an 'able adviser in State methods of education'. Times Educational Supplement. August 1. 1911. A. H. Wood, the secretary to the Consultative Committee (1907-1909) described her as a useful member of the Consultative Committee, 'not merely as an expert on Training College questions but indirectly through her practical experience of the product of Elementary and Secondary schools'. PRO ED 24/218 Wood to Morant 14/9/1911. 48 Froebel Society Minutes 10th Jan 1890

49

K. J. Brehony. 'Even far distant Japan is 'showing an interest' History of Education 27,3, (1998), 279-295. 50 Claude Montefiore was a great grandson of Mayer Amschel de Rothschild (1818-1874) the founder of the English branch of the Rothschilds. DNB p. 264. 51 For Magnus and his role in the education of Montefiore see: Foden, F. (1970) Philip Magnus. London, Valentine, Mitchell. pp. 45-46. and Cohen, L. (1940) Some Recollections of Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, 1858-1938. London, Faber and Faber. p. 37. R. Sebag-Montefiore. A Family Patchwork (London, 1987). 52 T. M. Endelman. Communal solidarity among the Jewish elite of Victorian London Victorian Studies 28,3, (1985), 491-526. 53 DNB p. 625. 54 Montefiore attended his first Committee meeting 16th Feb 1884 .(Froebel Soc Minutes) 55 The resignation letter from Montefiore was read. Due to ill health he was to be absent from England from November to April. "he would be glad to help the work from a material point of view quite as much as heretofore." Froebel Soc Minutes 19th Oct 1903. See also Child Life. Vol. VI. No. 21. 1904 p. 49 56 Froebel Soc Minutes 21 st November 1892 57 L. Cohen. Some Recollections of Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, 18581938 (London, 1940). 58 .Froebel Soc Minutes15th March 1897 59 P. Woodham-Smith.'History of the Froebel Movement in England' in (eds. E. Lawrence),Friedrich Froebel And English Education (London, 1952),34-94. 60 The loan was later converted into a gift. L. Cohen. Some Recollections of Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, 1858-1938 (London, 1940). 61 P. Woodham-Smith.'History of the Froebel Movement in England' in (eds. E. Lawrence),Friedrich Froebel And English Education (London, 1952),34-94. 62 K. J. Brehony.'Revising Froebel: English Revisionist Froebelians And The Schooling Of The Urban Poor' in (eds. P. Hirsch & M. Hilton),Practical Visionaries: Women, Education and Social Progress 1790-1930. (London, forthcoming), 63 K. J. Brehony.'Revising Froebel: English Revisionist Froebelians And The Schooling Of The Urban Poor' in (eds. P. Hirsch & M. Hilton),Practical Visionaries: Women, Education and Social Progress 1790-1930. (London, forthcoming),

64

Lyschinska cited in I. M. Lilley. The Dissemination of Froebelian Doctrines and Methods in the English System of Elementary Education. 1854 to 1914 (London, 1963). 65 Davies was chair of the School Management Committee of the London School Board 66 Froebel Society Minutes 21 October 1895 67 G. Alderman. London Jewry and London politics, 1889-1986 (London ; New York, 1989). 68 D. Rubinstein. Annie Besant and Stewart Headlam: The London School Board Election of 1888 East London Papers 13,1, (1970), 3-24. 69 L. Cohen. Some Recollections of Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, 18581938 (London, 1940). 70 Holmes gave an account of Hawker's discovery of Montessori in E. G. A. Holmes. New Ideals in Education New Ideals Quarterly 5,1, (1931), 5-11. 71 An account by Lydbetter appeared as E. Ledbetter. The Montessori System Child Study 6,3, (1913), 54. 72 Times Educational Supplement 5th November 1912 73 E. G. A. Holmes. New Ideals in Education New Ideals Quarterly 5,1, (1931), 5-11.. 74 He was also the brother of Constance Lytton a member of the militant Women's Social and Political Union who became an invalid as the result of force feedingR. C. C. Strachey. The cause : a short history of the women's movement in Great Britain (London, 1978). 75 Times Educational Supplement 4 August 1914 76 A biographical note on Claremont appeared in Communications No 4, 1991 : 26. 77 C. A. Claremont.'The Montessori movement in England' in (eds. F. Watson),The Encyclopaedia and Dictionary of Education (London, 1922),1123-1124. 78 Communications No 4 1991:26 79 H. Kean . Deeds not words the lives of suffragette teachers (London, 1990). 80 S. Stanley Holton. Suffrage Days (London, 1996). 81 For Baillie Weaver see L. Stanley, A. Morley & G. Colmore. The life and death of Emily Wilding Davison : a biographical detective story (London, 1988). As Chair of the Theosophical Trust he was closely connected with St Christopher School, Letchworth See Brehony, K.J. A Dedicated Spiritual Movement: Theosophists and Education 1875-1939. Faiths and Education, XIX International Standing Conference for the History of Education at National University of Ireland Maynooth. 3rd-6th September. 1997 Unpublished.

82

L. Stanley, A. Morley & G. Colmore. The life and death of Emily Wilding Davison : a biographical detective story (London, 1988). 83 C. S. Bremner. Women teachers as suffragists Journal of Education XXX,July, (1908), 456-7. 84 Froebel Society Minutes 85 Froebel Society Minutes 20th Jan 1902 86 Froebel Society Minutes 21st April 1902 87 Kean , 1990 #2751: 51] 88 Brehony, K. J. 'Individual work: Montessori and English Education Policy, 1909-1939'.Paper given to Division F American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans April. 1994. Unpublished paper.
89

H. Kean . Deeds not words the lives of suffragette teachers (London, 1990). 19-21 90 R. Fulford. Votes for Women (London, 1957). 91 R. Fulford. Votes for Women (London, 1957).:191,E. S. Pankhurst. The Suffragette Movement (London, 1977).] 92 D. B. Montefiore. From a Victorian to a modern (London, 1927). 93 E. S. Pankhurst. The Home Front (London, 1987). C. D. Greaves. The Life and Times of James Connolly (London, 1972). E. Larkin. James Larkin (London, 1965). S. Levenson. James Connolly (London, 1973). 94 H. Kean . Deeds not words the lives of suffragette teachers (London, 1990). :51-2 95 H. Kean. Challenging the state? : the socialist and feminist educational experience, 1900-1930 (London ; New York, 1990). 96 Froebel Soc Minutes 20th July 1903 97 H. Kean . Deeds not words the lives of suffragette teachers (London, 1990).: 99-113]