THE SCIENCE and ART DEPARTMENT 1853-1900 Thesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE SCIENCEAND ART DEPARTMENT 1853-1900 Harry Butterworth Thesis submitted for the degree of Ph. D. Department of Education University of Sheffield Submitted July 1968 VOLUMELWO Part Two - Institutions and Instruments PART TWO INSTITUTIONS AND INSTRUMENTS CHAPTER SIX The development of facilities for the teaching of Science CHAPTER SEVEN The South Kensington Science complex CHAPTER EIGHT The development of facilities for the teaching of Art CHAPTER NINE The South Kensington Art complex CHAPTER TEN The Inspectors CHAPTER ELEVEN The Teachers CHAPTER TWELVE Students, Scholarships and Text-books. CHAPTER SIX THE DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES FOR THE TEACHING OF SCIENCE a) Schemes before 1859 i) The basic difficulties ii) A separate organizational scheme iii) A meagre response b) Provincial institutions in the early days i) Trade Schools ii) Mining Schools iii) Navigation Schools iv) Science Schools v) The arrangements for aid c) The Science subjects : general development i) Major divisions ii) A "newt' subject: Physiography iiz. 3 yS iii) Other "new" subjects: Agriculture and Hygiene iv) Relative importance of the "divisional' d) The machinery of payments on results in Science i) The general principles ii) Specific applications iii) The Departmental defence e) The organisation of the system of examining f) Abuses of the examinations system i) The question of "cram"" ii) The question of "security" g) The Science Subjects : "Pure" or "Applied"" ? i) Basic premises ii) Reasons for reluctance to aid "trade teaching" iii) criticisms of the "pure" teaching iv) The continued debate v) Attempts to still criticism h) The encouragement of practical work 18gß i) The development of day Science Schools from 1859 i) The remnants of the old system ii) The problem of the creation of day schools iii) The growth of schools "outside" the Education Department iv) Criticisms of the curriculum v) General criticisms of the system vi) The last years of the day Science Schools j) The development of evening Science Schools from 1859 i) The first years of the scheme ii) The need for systematic courses iii) Transfer of responsibility from Local Committees k) Reactions to the system of payments on results in Science i) The first years ii) The influence of T. H. Huxley iii) The middle years iv) The major criticisms v) The last years of the system 186 a) Schemes before 1859 i) The basic difficulties Playfair's difficulties in developing a system of instruction in Science three-fold. which would parallel the provisions made for Art instruction were First, he had to deal with a metropolitan establishment, on the staff of which he had served, which was headed by a strong-minded Director who had initially been his patron, but who came to resent what he regarded as interference. The problems of working with de la Beche and, later, Murchison1 added to Playfair's difficulties with his political chiefs, and they were to affect his whole policy for the development of Science facilities, which was based on a strong and co- operative Central Institution. They must, therefore, be briefly alluded to from time to time in this section. Secondly, Playfair, unlike Cole, had no real provincial foundation on which to build. "The Department found much prepared (in Art) and a feeling for it already created in the public mindV Science had "many difficulties to 1 surmount and much to organise", he could rightly say. Thirdly, Playfair had to develop a demand for Science teaching in a society where it was not by any means appreciated as necessaryq where the teachers to give the instruction did not exist, and where the basic primary education, on which a secondary structure could be erected, was deficient. When, in the third year of the Department's existence, the services of a teacher of Chemistry were offered to "middle-class 2 and grammar schools" in the London areas there was not a single reply* The limited facilities for science instruction in the middle years of the nineteenth ' century have been detailed. "Try Oxford and Cambridge as we might, they will never become places for industrial education, which is our present object", 4 the Consort's Secretary believed at the time the Department was created. ii) A separate organisational scheme Cole's original plan appears to have envisaged provincial schools which 5 would combine facilities for Science and Art instruction, and in Playfair's dealings with de la Beche, he too would seem to have been thinking along these 6 lines. In February 1853, however, both officials "agreed that no professions should be made in teaching science in district schools".? The scientific I Address at the People's College, Sheffield, 25 October 1853 2 SC. S_I. A. 8244 (J. C. Buckmaster) 3 Chapter I Section (e) 4 MS letter Grey to Cole 2 February 1853 5 Address of November 1852 6 MS letter Playfair to de la Beche 20 August 1851 7 Cole MS Diary 10 February 1853 18 instruction which was given developed, therefore, in separate institutions, demand did probably because it had to be given where demand arose. Such a not institutions necessarily coincide with that for instruction in Art. A few were already in existence, and in other areas, teachers with some scientific training could be induced to co-operate with the Department. "Science has not yet exercised its full influence on your district because there has not yet existed a race of men to translate its abstractions into your utilities", Playfair told an un-named pottery manufacturer in the first months of the new Department's existence. "It is important that your artisans should have a practical acquaintance with Chemistry"", he went on. "buy should you not have a School of Industrial Knowledge instead of Art only? ". He ended by offering to l prepare a plan for instruction. He would thus appear still to have been considering a "combined operation?, but such Schools did not originally develop. iii) A meagre response While there may have been no strfcture, there was some provincial demand. 2 3 Birmingham, Bristol, the Potteries and Newcastle-on-Tyne4 authorities all asked to be "connected with the Central School". A few Schools in connection 5 with the Department were founded, and science drawings were added to the 6 diagrams which it would supp4y. (These found illustrious subscribers in Florence Nightingale? and the King of Siam ). Yet in successive years Playfair had to admit that there were "only one or two Schools"9 and that "growth will be comparatively slow". Attempting to inspire provincial enthusiasm was "dreary Playfair later. "There little and weary work" , said was response ... 11 my voice sounded to myself as the voice of one preaching ihethe wilderness"* 1856 saw renewals of proposals for Science instruction. There was a long discussion with their host, Lord Ashburton, about a proposed House of Lords Committee ""to do something for Science"", when both Cole and Playfair spent a 12 weekend in Hampshire. Playfair, however, asked Cole to delay the appointment I Draft MS letter by Playfair, no addressees 17 June 1853 (Cole Correspondence) 2 D. S. A. Ist Report 398-01 3 mid. 403-405 4 Ath. 26 February 1853 5 D. S. A. let Report xxx-xxxi 6 D. S. A. 2nd Report ix and 14-15 7M5.5 8 Mr 5.55 9 D. S. A. Report XXV 10 D. S. A. 3rd Report xxiv 11 Wemyss Reid o. cit. 152 12 Cole MS Diary 12 January 1856 188 1 there of such a Committee. This could have been because he felt that was so the little progress to report, or it may have been due to his desire to await for results of reorganisation under the Lord President. Proposals by Heywood a Commons Select Committee to enquire into science instruction were also deferred. Such an enquiry would be "vague and indefinite", said Stanley, the President of the Board of Trade, and Paldmerstong the Premier, doubted the practical results. Heywood promised to return to the matter in the next 2 session, but nothing more was heard of such a scheme for another decade. When the Department was united with the Education Department under the Lord President, Playfair returned to a previous themes that there was a need "first 3 to infuse Science into primary education", and, in doubting any real progress so long as the primary schools were ""too far apart fron the secondary schoolst'. he urged a concentration in the primary field on the "sciences of observation" 4 (zoology, botany and physiology") both in schools and Training Colleges. Despite his relative hopelessness at the time of his greatest troubles with the Central Schools which caused him to hint at inevitable failure in a 5 letter to the Consort's Secretary, Playfair continued to plead for increased instruction. science This would, he argued, "prepare the working classes for a more intelligent appreciation of the principles of their employment ý6 and he urged the creation of local Mining Schools as "feeders" for the Central Schools he flourish which, argued, would not until they existed.? However, he seems have done to nothing about a Science Directory which would list the subjects the offered and aid which would be given, when this was suggested to him by 8 In his last Cole. year with the Department, he could report that he had the Schools visited each of existing twice in the course of the year and (This conducted examinations. reveals that, despite Cole's title of Inspector General, Playfair continued to exercise ""inspectorial" functions. ) He however, 9 could, see no speedy prospect of self support. He appears to have felt that he had achieved little in his five years of endeavour, and his dis- illusion in the face of general and specific difficulties, as has been recorded, led to his partial, and eventually complete, withdrawal from the affairs of the 1 MS letter Playfair to Cole 12 January 1856 Hd.