The UCL Institute of Education

Front matter

RICHARD ALDRICH and TOM WOODIN ion

From training college to global institut

U) U) Lu or at = Q T

Contents

Acknowledgements [1st edition] Acknowledgements for the 2nd edition Note on the text

Abbreviations

CNN BWN BR

Index

312 338 344 346

Acknowledgements

Many people, too numerous to name individually, have contributed to this book; I thank them all most sincerely. Former members of the Institute of Education from around the globe graciously responded to my requests for information and materials. Informal discussions took place with many current members of staff, and with former staff and students at alumni and other gatherings organized by Rajee Rajagopalan. Formal interviews were recorded with Claudia and Anna Clarke, Eric Earle, Iris Forrester, Denis Lawton, Peter Mortimore, Peter Newsam, William Taylor, David Warren and Geoff Whitty.

Iowe a particular debt to Jennifer Haynes, the Institute’s archivist for the greater part of the period of research and writing, and to Stephen Pickles and his colleagues in the Institute Library. Archives and library staff at the British Library; Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design; Columbia University, New York; London Metropolitan Archives; London School of Economics; North London Collegiate School; Public Record Office; Royal Holloway, University of London; University of Leeds; University of London; and the University of Nottingham were also unfailingly helpful. In addition, Claudia Clarke most kindly granted me unlimited access to the papers of her late father currently in her care.

David Crook, Dennis Dean, Bill Dodd, Eric Earle, Peter Gordon, Peter Gosden, Norman Graves, Denis Lawton, Peter Mortimore, Clive Whitehead, Geoff Whitty and Susan Williams commented upon earlier drafts. Christopher Purday and Robert Lawrence provided valuable assistance with the illustrations; Judy Morrison with the bibliography. Deborah Spring, Brigid Hamilton-Jones and their colleagues in the Institute’s Publications Department and Sue Gray and her team at Book Production Consultants PLC saw the book into print.

My chief debt, however, as always, is to Averil Aldrich who has been fully involved at every stage in the research and writing of this book.

Richard Aldrich Institute of Education December 2001

Acknowledgements for the 2nd edition

It has been an honour to take forward Richard Aldrich’s centenary history, The Institute of Education, 1902-2002, by adding two chapters in a new edition to bring it up to the point of the Institute’s merger with UCL in 2014 — thus completing the history of its period as an independent institution — and on through the first few years of its time as a UCL faculty. Richard was an important scholar in the history of education who worked at the Institute for thirty years and continued to produce important work until his death in 2014. Averil Aldrich and family have been great supporters of this project and of the International Centre for Historical Research in Education (ICHRE) at the UCL Institute of Education. This book is partly a product of ICHRE, which is a supportive network of scholars, students and others who are interested in the history of education broadly conceived.

A number of people were important to the completion of this book. The ex-Director of the Institute, Becky Francis, endorsed the project and also contributed her personal reflections. Sue Rogers, the current Interim Director, as well as Chris Husbands provided valuable information and support. Geoff Whitty actively backed this second edition and gave his time generously. Geoff’s partner, Marilyn Toft, has maintained an active interest in seeing the project to completion.

Gary McCulloch and Vincent Carpentier formed an advisory committee and both read multiple drafts of the text; Georgina Brewis also commented on a draft. In addition, Emma Wisby provided detailed and invaluable feedback on the text and made very useful suggestions for inclusion of material.

The archivists at the Institute of Education Newsam Library were very helpful in making papers, archives and photographs available, particularly Becky Sims, Kathryn Hannan and Jessica Womack. Many people searched for photographs during the Covid-19 lockdown, especially Sarah-Jane Gregori and Samantha Arnold but also Kath Butler, Nathan Capstick, Jane Coles, Oliver Crawford, Stuart Foster, Andy Green, Leanne Holgate, Jason Ilagan, Heather Joshi, Michael Reiss,

I spoke with and emailed a number of people who worked at the Institute over the previous two decades and I thank them all: Peter Aggleton, Richard Andrews, Stephen Ball, Ronald Barnett, Clare Brooks, Andrew Brown, Peter Early, Becky Francis, Alison Fuller, Dave Gillborn, David Gough, Chris Husbands, Heather Joshi, Bryn Morris, Michael Reiss, Mary Stiasny, Geoff Whitty, Dylan Wiliam and John Yandell.

Pat Gordon-Smith at UCL Press was a great help in co-ordinating this project. Finally, I would like to thank not only my daughters, Ella and Eva, but also all the colleagues, former colleagues and students who have supported both editions of the book. Of course, I take responsibility for the interpretation of events and any errors.

Note on the text

Pages 1-259 of this book (chapters 1-11, plus the endnotes to those chapters)

are reproduced unchanged from Richard Aldrich’s 1st edition. Readers should therefore be aware that occasional references in those pages to the book’s ‘11

chapters’, or to Chapter 11 as the ‘final chapter’, have not been updated to take account of the newly written material that now follows from page 260 onwards.

Tom Woodin

UCL Institute of Education

September 2020

Abbreviations

AIMS

ATO AUT

BEAMS

BERA

BME BNU CAB

Academic Information Management System

Area Training Organization Association of University Teachers

School of the Built Environment,

Engineering and Mathematical and Physical Sciences (UCL) British Educational Research Association

Black and Minority Ethnic Beijing Normal University Central Academic Board

CAPLITS Centre for Academic and

CATE

CDEP

CDPE

CEPEO

CETLs

CHES

Professional Literacy Studies Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education

Child Development and Educational Psychology

Child Development and Primary Education

Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

Centre for Higher Education Studies

CLOSER Cohorts and Longitudinal

Studies Enhancement Resources programme

CLS CNAA

DERA DES

DfE DfEE

DfES DfID DHSS DICE EDC

EEC EEF

EFL EFPS

ELQ

EMU EPC

Centre for Longitudinal Studies Council for National Academic Awards

Digital Education Resource Archive

Department of Education and Science

Department for Education Department for Education and Employment

Department for Education and Skills

Department for International Development

Department of Health and Social Security

Department of International and Comparative Education Education in Developing Countries

European Economic Community Education Endowment Foundation

English as a Foreign Language Educational Foundations and Policy Studies

Equivalent or lower qualifications

Education Management Unit Education Policies Centre

EPPI-Centre Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Co-ordinating Centre

EPPSE Effective Pre-School, Primary and Secondary Education

EPSEN Educational Psychology and

Special Needs

ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages

ESRC Economic and Social Research Council

EU European Union

FCP Fellow of the College of Preceptors

FEC Full economic costing

FTE Full-time equivalent

FWWCBTP First World War Centenary Battlefields Tours Programme

HEADLAMP Leadership and Management Programme for New Headteachers

HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England

HEI Higher Education Institution

HMI Her/His Majesty’s Inspector

HMSO © Her/His Majesty’s Stationery Office

ICHRE International Centre for Historical Research in Education

ICRA International Centre for Research and Assessment

IDO International Development Office

IDU International Development Unit

IE Institute of Education Archives

ILEA Inner London Education Authority

INEI International Network of Educational Institutes INSET In-service education for teachers

IOE Institute of Education

IOE CI IOE Confucius Institute for Schools

IQ Intelligence quotient

IT Information technology

ITE ITT LCC LCLL

LDTC LDTCC

Initial teacher education

Initial teacher training

London County Council London Centre for Leadership in Learning

London Day Training College London Day Training College Council

LDTCLC London Day Training College

LEA LINC

LLAKES

LLC

LMA

LMP

LSB

LSE

LSHTM

MIT

NALGO

NCSL

NERF

NFER

NIACE

NICE

NPQH

NQT NSS

Local Committee

Local Education Authority Language Information Network Co-ordination

Centre for Learning and

Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies London Leadership Centre London Metropolitan Archives Linguistic Minorities Project London School Board

London School of Economics London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Massachusetts Institute of Technology

National and Local Government Officers’ Association

National College for School Leadership

National Education Research Forum

National Foundation for Educational Research

National Institute of Adult Continuing Education

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

NOVELLA Narratives of Varied

Everyday Lives and Linked Approaches

National Professional Qualification for Headship Newly qualified teacher National Student Survey

NUPE

NUT OECD

Ofsted OISE PFI PFUS PGCE PISA PRC

PRES

QAA QR

QTS RAE RAM RCKT REF RSA SCITT

SENCO

SLASH

SLMS

SOAS

National Union of Public Employees

National Union of Teachers Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Office for Standards in Education

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Private finance initiative Primary Follow Up Survey Postgraduate Certificate in Education

Programme for International Student Assessment

Planning and Resources Committee

Postgraduate Research Experience Survey

Quality Assurance Agency Quality related (research funding)

Qualified teacher status Research Assessment Exercise Resource Allocation Model Research, Consultancy and Knowledge Transfer

Research Excellence Framework Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce School-Centred Initial Teacher Training

Special Educational Needs Coordinator

School of Laws, Arts and Humanities, and Social and Historical Sciences (UCL) School of Life and Medical Sciences (UCL)

School of Oriental and African Studies

Unesco

WEA

WERA

Science Research Investment Fund

Sociological Research Unit Social Science Research Council Social Science Research Unit Science, technology, engineering and mathematics

Southern Universities Management Services

Teaching and Learning International Survey

Thomas Coram Research Unit Technical Education Board Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study Teaching and Learning Research Project

Teacher Training Agency niversities Council for the ducation of Teachers

niversity and College Union niversity Department of ducation

niversities’ Funding Council

U

E

U

U

E

U

University Grants Committee University of London Archives University of London Institute of Education

University of London Institute of Education Students’ Association United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Unit of resource

University Teaching Methods Unit

Workers’ Educational

Association World Educational Research Association

Chapter 1

In 1952 when the Institute celebrated its jubilee, the Director, Dr George Barker Jeffery, was greatly disappointed by his inability to commission a history of the first 50 years. Jeffery was a forceful figure, yet was advised by his ‘historian colleagues’ that ‘the history I demanded should and would be written. But the writing of history is a slow business and cannot be hurried even at the dictates of directors.”! The two hardback volumes to emanate from the celebrations of 1952 were a published version of six Jubilee Lectures’ and Studies and Impressions, 1902-1952, which comprised some 20 contributions from current and former staff and students.’ The only history to date is The Institute: A personal account of the history of the University of London Institute of Education, 1932-1972, published in 1986. This was written in retirement by Dr C. Willis Dixon, the Institute’s former Secretary. Dixon’s history is strong on administrative matters, particularly with reference to the wider Institute, the Area Training Organization (ATO) comprising some 30 colleges established in 1949.

This volume, therefore, is the first comprehensive history of the Institute and its predecessor, the London Day Training College (LDTC). It is comprehensive in encompassing the first 100 years of the Institute’s existence. On the other hand it is clearly impossible to do justice to all the work and influence of the LDTC and the Institute in a single volume. Some of its leading figures have already been the subject of major biographies.” Many themes, for example the Institute’s role in London or its influence within the Empire and Commonwealth, are worthy of separate studies.

The book is organized chronologically into 11 chapters and demonstrates changes and continuities over time in a variety of settings. Although the basic theme is institutional, the history of the Institute is located within metropolitan,

1. The front cover of

Willis Dixon’s history shows the first two Institute buildings and the design for the third

2 ¢ The Institute of Education: From training college to global institution national and international contexts. Brief conclusions are drawn at the end of each chapter, while an extended conclusion to the final chapter provides some analysis of the main themes to emerge in the first century of the Institute’s existence and looks forward to the next.

The history of the first 100 years of the Institute of Education falls naturally into four periods. Founded in 1902 by the London County Council in conjunction with the University of London, for the next 30 years it existed as the London Day Training College. Its original purpose was to train teachers for service in London’s elementary schools, but in 1909 the LDTC’s academic status was confirmed by its admission as a school of the University.° By 1932 the majority of students were preparing to teach in secondary schools, while a few were engaged in research for higher degrees. In that year the national and international roles of the LDTC were recognized by its transfer to the University of London. It acquired a new status as a central activity of the University and a new name - the Institute of Education. From 1949 the term Institute of Education was used to describe both the ‘central’ Institute and a ‘wider’ Institute, an Area Training Organization that included some 30 associated colleges and departments of education. In 1975 the ATO was formally brought to an end; four years later this decision was fully endorsed in a most practical way when the University of London decided to withdraw its validation of courses in the associated colleges. Thus by 1980 the Institute entered into the fourth stage of its existence, although it was not until 1987 that it received the charter of incorporation which confirmed its status as a school of the University once more.’

This chapter examines the foundation of the LDTC. The story begins with London, which in 1902 was widely regarded as being the greatest city in the world.

London

The greatness of London depended upon several factors. To the west was Westminster, the name synonymous with the mother of parliaments which together with the King Emperor, Edward VII, ruled not only over the inhabitants of the British Isles but also directed the destinies of a vast empire comprising more than 13 million square miles and 300 million inhabitants: an empire upon which the sun never set. At the heart of the city of London lay the undoubted financial capital of the world, the City itself, a term reserved for the original square mile, a mere 677 acres on the north side of the River Thames.’ To the east was the port of London, its vast network of docks providing safe anchorage and lucrative trading for the world’s largest merchant fleet. In the first decade of the twentieth century, London was a dense tangled mass of pedestrians, of horse-drawn traffic, of street sweepers and street sellers, of shops, warehouses, small manufactories, pubs, music halls and theatres. Above the jostling mass of humanity, on the great railway viaducts which traversed the city, trains drawn by steam-powered locomotives daily brought thousands of commuters to and from their work, and other travellers from more distant locations.

Yet there were several dark sides to this city, its inhabitants, and to the nation and empire of which it was a capital. Major rivals, notably Germany and the USA, were challenging British supremacy, both in economic and political terms. In January 1901 its people were stunned by the death of Queen Victoria, whose reign of some 64 years had meant that there were few members of the nation, or indeed of the empire, who could remember a time when she had not ruled over them. The Boer War of 1899-1902 demonstrated the diplomatic isolation of Britain, the inefficiency of British colonial policy and of its military forces, and a regime of callousness and neglect that led to the establishment of the first concentration camps and the deaths within them of some 40,000 women and children. Equally disturbing were the callousness and neglect evident in official attitudes towards the inhabitants of London itself. Crowded together in slum conditions, eking out a desperate existence in the narrow courts and alleys which contrasted so strongly with the elegant terraces of the West End, were a breed of people who bore few of the characteristics associated with an imperial race. The first systematic surveys of child health were to reveal that considerable proportions of the capital’s children were undernourished, inadequately clothed, dirty, verminous and suffering from serious physical defects.’ The same was true for adults, indeed a very high percentage of army volunteers for the Boer War were turned down on physical grounds.

In 1891 Sidney Webb, a trenchant observer of the metropolitan scene and a man who devoted his life to the reform of London, described this dichotomy in a pamphlet entitled The London Programme:

By himself the typical Londoner is a frail and sickly unit, cradled in the gutter, housed in a slum, slaving in a sweater’s den and dying in the workhouse infirmary. Collectively he is a member of the greatest and most magnificent city the world has known, commanding all the latest resources of civilisation and disposing of almost boundless wealth. "°

Another observer was Charles Booth, whose Life and Labour of the People in London published in 17 volumes between 1889 and 1903, showed that more than 30 per cent of the population were living in real poverty and more than 8 per cent in utter poverty. Booth, a shipowner born in Liverpool in 1840, was a pioneer of the modern social survey. One of his researchers was Beatrice Potter, daughter of an industrial magnate, whose interest in the alleviation of social problems had been aroused by a range of diverse experiences, including rent collecting, friendship with the evolutionary philosopher, Herbert Spencer, and an unrequited passion for the reforming mayor of Birmingham and radical politician, Joseph Chamberlain. Another who exposed the flaws in London society and questioned the political and

4 e The Institute of Education: From training college to global institution social foundations upon which the whole edifice of British greatness had been built was the Irish dramatist, essayist, critic and pamphleteer, George Bernard Shaw. In 1885 it was Shaw who introduced Sidney Webb, newly-graduated LLB at the University of London, to the Fabian Society, founded in the previous year to advance the cause of Socialism through the ‘inevitability of gradualness’. Within a short period of time Shaw and Webb had become acknowledged leaders of the Fabian cause. Indeed, Socialism was to be defined as ‘a great spider with a little Webb at its centre’."’

Socialism of various kinds — from municipal to international — was one of the inspirational doctrines of this period; national (and by extension municipal and imperial) efficiency was another. For it was the perception of many reformers, a perception confirmed by revelations as to the widespread poverty of the inhabitants of the empire’s greatest city and by the humiliations of the Boer War, that at the beginning of a new century both the nation and the empire were still characterized by institutions and practices that were medieval in their origins and Byzantine in their obscurantism and operation. Nineteenth-century ad hoc solutions to some of London’s problems had led to a chaotic administrative situation, not least in respect of education. In consequence, there were at least four London-based bodies with responsibility for education which contributed to the foundation of the LDTC. These were the London School Board (LSB), the London County Council (LCC) and its Technical Education Board (TEB), the University of London, and the Board of Education.

London School Board

The London School Board, established under the terms of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, was empowered to raise money from rates for the purpose of supplying elementary school places in areas of proven deficiency. Much was expected from the Board. Indeed, in a leading article published on the day of the first election, 29 November 1870, The Times declared that ‘No equally powerful body will exist in England outside Parliament, if power be measured by influence for good or evil over masses of human beings’.'* Further legislation of 1880 and 1891 rendered elementary schooling both free and compulsory for those who were not being educated by other means. Nevertheless, in spite of its eminent members - Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, Emily Davies and Thomas Huxley were among those who served on the first board under the chairmanship of no less a personage than John, first Baron Lawrence, a former Viceroy of India — the powers of the LSB were severely circumscribed. Elementary education was its remit, and attempts to supply education of a more advanced kind, as for example at the North London School of Art, led via the Cockerton Judgment of 1901 to the eventual demise of the school boards and their replacement by multi-purpose local education authorities.

One particular problem for the London School Board, as for all boards, was that it was not allowed to establish colleges for the training of teachers. Nevertheless, the Board pursued a vigorous policy of staffing its schools, wherever possible, with teachers who were both trained and certificated. Three initiatives in respect of teacher training may be noted here. The first was the establishment of 12 pupil-teacher centres; the second that for those who sought further training but were unable to proceed to a training college, in 1898 a further scheme was implemented which ‘was in effect an illegal training college’.'’ W.T. Goode, head of the Department of Education at Owens College, Manchester, was appointed superintendent of the ex-pupil teachers and, after a brief sojourn in the LSB’s own offices in the Embankment, a more permanent headquarters for the new courses was found at Graystoke Place School in the City. Science classes were provided at the Hugh Myddelton School and physical training at the Northampton Institute. Students taught half time in the Board’s schools and for the other half of their time were prepared, over a period of two or three years, for the Acting Teacher’s Certificate. Some even took a degree of the University of London. Although the Board of Education refused to recognize these teachers as having been college-trained, the London School Board did so from the beginning and in 1904 Graystoke Place became a recognized training college under the control of the London County Council. It continued until 1934, enjoying throughout that period a close relationship with the neighbouring Birkbeck College.'* The third initiative, and the most pertinent to this story, occurred in July 1899 when the London School Board recommended to the Technical Education Board of the London County Council that a day training college should be established in conjunction with the University of London."

London County Council

The London County Council was established in 1889. In 1904, following the special London Education Act of 1903 (for London education, with its 2,000 educational institutions, more than 20,000 teachers, a million children and students and annual expenditure of £4 million, was so vast an undertaking that it had been excluded from the Education Act of 1902) it became the educational authority for the metropolis with power to establish elementary and secondary schools, adult and evening institutes and teacher training colleges.'* Although in 1889 the new county councils were not given jurisdiction over education, they soon began to acquire permissive powers, while finance could be raised under the terms of the Technical Instruction Act of 1889 and the Local Taxation Act on liquor of 1890 (the so-called whisky money). At first the London County Council made little use of these opportunities. In 1892, however, the year of his marriage to Beatrice Potter, Sidney Webb was elected as Progressive member for Deptford and became chairman of a special committee established to investigate the

6 ¢ The Institute of Education: From training college to global institution possibility of a scheme for technical education for London. His supporters in this venture included Quintin Hogg, founder of the Regent Street Polytechnic, and Hubert Llewellyn Smith, secretary of the National Association for the Promotion of Technical Education.

Llewellyn Smith’s 1892 report on the resources for technical education in the capital ‘recommended a policy which combined a generous system of junior and senior scholarships to help elementary school pupils to go on to more advanced courses and institutions, and a programme of grants to support work in the secondary and technical schools and polytechnics’.'’ The report was accepted by the LCC, as was Webb’s recommendation that a Technical Education Board should be established, consisting not only of some 20 council members, but also of 15 representatives of other interests. Webb became the TEB’s first chairman, and also chaired its Higher Education Sub-Committee. Its first (and only) secretary was Dr William Garnett.'* Outside bodies represented on the Technical Education Board included the London School Board, London Trades Council and City and Guilds of London Institute (each with three seats) and the National Union of Teachers.

The third institution to be considered was the University of London. Its origins and development have been assiduously traced in works by Harte, Thompson and Willson.” There is no doubt that it was a curious animal, so much so that in 1888 Henry Wace, Principal of King’s College, advised the Royal Commission on Higher Education in London chaired by Lord Selborne that he had only two objections ‘to the title of the University of London: one, that it is not a University, and the other that it is not of London’.”°

The University had developed considerably since its second foundation in 1836 as a body whose powers were limited to matriculating and examining candidates and awarding degrees. After a series of temporary locations, in 1870 it acquired purpose-built accommodation in Burlington Gardens. In 1880 the first women were admitted to degrees, and new colleges for women were established — Westfield in 1882 and Royal Holloway in 1886. The London School of Economics (LSE) was another new foundation, established in 1895 by a group which included the Webbs, with funds from the bequest of Henry Hunt Hutchinson, a Derby solicitor who had committed suicide in the previous year. Yet in spite of these developments, to the great dissatisfaction of many of its affiliated colleges in the London area, the University remained, essentially, what it had always been, an examining body. In the 1890s Richard Haldane, subsequently Viscount Haldane of Cloan, was the leading exponent of the principle that the University of London should become a teaching as well as an examining university. His chief ally in this campaign was Sidney Webb. Their alliance led not only to a reconstituted central university but also supplied the impetus for the creation of further institutions, for example the

London Day Training College in 1902, and, in 1907, by means of an amalgamation of three existing institutions, the Imperial College of Science and Technology. Haldane was also the principal force behind the London University Act of 1898 under whose terms a commission chaired by Lord Davey was established to produce statutes for a reconstituted university.

From 1900 the University of London boasted a new home in the Imperial Institute at South Kensington, an enlarged senate and, most crucially, 24 ‘schools’ of the university located within a radius of some 30 miles. Students of these schools, henceforth designated as ‘internal’, as opposed to ‘external’ students from other parts of the nation or indeed of the world, would now be full members of a great metropolitan university. Eight faculties were established and a Board of Studies in Pedagogy set up. Its first chairman was the Revd T.W. Sharpe, Principal of Queen’s College, Harley Street and a former chief inspector of schools. The Board had been established following a conference held between representatives from University, King’s and Bedford Colleges and the College of Preceptors, which as early as 1878 had recommended to the University ‘the institution of a distinctive educational degree’.*! In 1934 it was renamed the Board of Studies in Education.” In 1890 King’s College established a training department which took men students for a two-year course of training for teaching in elementary schools.”’ A similar venture begun at University College in 1891 foundered in 1894. A training department for women established in 1892 at Bedford College lasted until 1922.

The reconstitution of 1900 was an essential element in the process which led to the establishment of the London Day Training College. It also helped to secure further recognition of the status of education as a field of study, for at this time there were no professors of education either at King’s or at Bedford. As Garnett noted in 1901 in respect of a proposal by the TEB to make a grant of £10,000 to the University:

it would have been impossible for the Technical Education Board to have made a grant to the London University before its re-constitution as a teaching body.... As soon as the University is responsible for the appointment of professors and for their payment out of its corporate funds ... the University will become an institution actually providing instruction.”

Board of Education

The fourth body to contribute to the founding of the London Day Training College was the Board of Education, London-based, but with national responsibilities. It, too, was newly constituted, having only in 1900 assumed the powers previously exercised by the Education and Science and Art Departments and the educational responsibilities of the Charity Commissioners. Since 1833 central governments had assisted education by a series of grants made to voluntary school

8 ¢ The Institute of Education: From training college to global institution bodies. In 1846 a new series of grants was begun which provided assistance for the establishment of a trained and certificated teaching force. By 1890 there were 43 training colleges for teachers: all were voluntary foundations. In May of that year, following a recommendation in the Cross Commission Report of 1888, the government issued Circular 287, which set out regulations under which day training colleges might be established in conjunction with universities and university colleges. The initial intention was that these colleges should supplement existing provision and supply a two-year course for those intending to teach in elementary schools. Very soon, however, some of the new colleges began to provide residential facilities and a variety of courses. These included one-year programmes for those who already held advanced qualifications, and three-year courses (extended to four from 1911) for those who wished to study concurrently for a teaching certificate and for a degree. Though some universities looked askance at education students, with their elementary rather than secondary school connections, the guaranteed funding which they brought was most welcome. By 1902 the central authority had approved the creation of some 20 institutions, providing more than a quarter of the 5,000 students then training for teaching in England and Wales.