Policing Pedagogical Space: "Voluntary" School Reform and Moral Regulation

Policing Pedagogical Space: "Voluntary" School Reform and Moral RegulationAuthor(s): Bruce CurtisSource: The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 13, No. 3(Summer, 1988), pp. 283-304Published by: Canadian Journal of SociologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3340856 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 11:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Canadian Journal of Sociology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheCanadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.110 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:58:12 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3340856?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Policing pedagogical space: "Voluntary" school reform and moral regulation*

Bruce Curtis

Abstract. Recent investigations of the origins of public education reject a model of reform by imposition. Educational reform is viewed as a broadly popular "voluntary" process. Key propositions of an emergent "voluntaryist" model are examined and criticized. It is suggested that educational reform may be better viewed as a contradictory process.

Resume. Des etudes recentes sur les origines de l'education public rejettent l'hypothese d'une reforme imposee. On considere plut6t que la reforme 6ducationnelle resulta largement d'une action volontaire et populaire. Cet article analyse et critique les propositions centrales du modele "voluntariste," et suggere que la reforme 6ducationnelle devrait etre consideree comme un proces contenant des elements contradictoires.

* This paper was first presented to the Canadian Historical Association in Montreal 1985. Don Wilson provided a useful critique, as did Kari Dehli and three anonymous reviewers from the Canadian Journal of Sociology. I also wish to thank Michele Martin. All errors are mine alone. Please address all correspondence and offprint requests to Professor Bruce Curtis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5.

Canadian Journal of Sociology 13(3) 1988 283 283



Debate over the origins of public education in North America has shifted away from "revisionist" interpretations since the middle 1970s. In the revisionist account, and particularly in its "radical" variants, public educational reform was seen primarily as a response to the social changes accompanying industrial capitalist development. A state, more or less identified with an industrial bourgeoisie, was held to have organized public educational institutions in order to discipline a nascent working class in the productive skills and political ideology congenial to capitalist accumulation. At times seeing educational reform as a product of class struggle, at times seeing it as a product of the fears of elite groups, radical revisionist writers generally agreed that public educational institutions were imposed upon reluctant working classes (Katz, 1968; 1970; 1971; Bowles and Gintis, 1976).

This general position produced a barrage of criticism from writers holding quite different views of the nature of public education and its place in the structure of bourgeois society. Some writers accepted a view of educational reform as a process of social conflict or class struggle, yet rejected other elements of the revisionist analysis. Simon (1976) and Wrigley (1982) pointed to the centrality of workers' movements in the struggle for public education and rejected a straightforward notion of "reform by imposition." Snyders argued that the revisionist view reduced both teachers and students to the passive dupes of an omnipotent bourgeoisie (1976). Both Gorelick (1982) and Apple (1982) highlighted the necessity of understanding educational development in terms of contradictory social initiatives and some more recent work has taken a similar position (e.g., Aronowitz and Giroux, 1985; Shor, 1986). Other writers have stressed the importance of working-class cultural activities in the educational realm (Corrigan, 1979; Gardner, 1984; Johnson, 1979; McCann, 1977; Willis, 1977).

This kind of criticism forced leading revisionist writers to refine their accounts. Katz (1976), for instance, attempted to develop his conception of social class and sought to take account of the "imposed upon" workers so little visible in his early analysis by introducing the quasi-Gramscian notion of a "spontaneous acceptance of domination" by exploited classes. Gintis and Bowles attempted to deal with persistent criticism of their "functionalist" Marxism by arguing that the school might be seen as the site of contradictory discourses. While maintaining a "correspondence" between public education and capitalist production, Gintis and Bowles (1980) argued that contradictory elements in public educational development could be understood as the tempo- rary dominance of one of several contradictory educational discourses.

Despite such attempts to refine the revisionist account, a large number of historians and sociologists reject a model of educational reform as social conflict or class struggle. Collins (1977; 1979, following Bendix, 1964) has argued that a market model of educational organization more adequately captures the diversity of North American development. Others (Kaestle, 1983; Kaestle and

284



Vinovskis, 1980; Meyer et al, 1979; Ravitch, 1978; Tyack, 1977; Vinovskis, 1985), having examined local educational histories to test the propositions of the radical revisionist account, reject a model of "reform by imposition." Many of these writers present an account of educational reform as a broadly popular initiative in which state policy essentially codified and accorded with local educational interests. Serious conflict, let alone class struggle, over educational reform is held to have been largely absent during the key period of the common school revival (1830-1860).

This article critically examines this "voluntaryist" approach to public educational development. I take to heart Tyack's concern (1976: 389) that the theoreti- cal models invoked to explain social reform be made explicit. I contend that the proponents of voluntary reform operate within the confines of a narrowly empiricist model. While research conducted through this model has contributed to our knowledge of the detailed history of reform, it is nonetheless unable to come to grips with important aspects of the reform process. I suggest that a more structuralist model is better able to deal with the main areas of contention in the current debate, especially with respect to the nature of capitalism, the question of opposition and the form of state power. I begin with an overview of the voluntaryist critique of revisionism. An examination of key concepts follows, and the article concludes with some remarks on the importance of social contradictions in the process of reform.

I While there are real differences of emphasis and approach, moderate critics of revisionism share a set of objections to the revisionist account. Revisionists, it is held, take the organization of urban school systems, particularly in the industrialized northeastern United States, as their model for educational organization in general (Kaestle and Vinovskis, 1980: 21ff; Meyer et al., 1979: 592; Tyack, 1977: 174; cf. Curtis, 1984). However, during the period of the common school revival, the North American population was overwhelmingly "rural," spread out across a countryside interspersed with small villages and towns. This population for the most part was not engaged in factory production.

Nonetheless, well-attended schools existed before the common school revival (Gidney, 1975; Kaestle, 1983). The reform movement led not so much to an increase in schooling as to a shift from private pay and dame schools to publicly controlled and funded schools (Kaestle, 1983: 25; Kaestle and Vi- novskis, 1980: 5-6, 34). This suggests that industrial capitalist development did not cause the organization of school systems. The existence of well-attended schools in the absence of significant levels of industrialization suggests that demands for industrial discipline cannot account for the organization of such schools (Tyack, 1977: 175).

Revisionist writers frequently point to a general correspondence between the social relations of industrial wage labour and public schooling (Bowles and

285



Gintis, 1976). Some argue that this correspondence was caused by the pressure of capitalist social relations upon institutional organization. Voluntaryist writers accept the importance of this general correspondence, but contest its origins in capitalist social relations. Kaestle suggests that both factories and schools were subject to common institutional exigencies because of the scale of activities carried on in them. School discipline was a product of the size of schools. "The pressures for silence and regimentation in classrooms with sizes ranging from thirty to eighty children per teacher are obvious, quite apart from the demands of the outside world" (1983: 68). The increasing scale of activities produced a common "ethos of efficiency, manipulation and mastery" (1983: 69) in nineteenth-century institutional organization. Disciplinary activities in schools should not be seen as reflections of class interests. The technical conditions of schooling and the demands of parents account for the relations of superordina- tion/subordination in schools.

Critics of the revisionist account suggest that the bureaucratization of mid- nineteenth-century school systems has been badly overstated. Throughout the nineteenth century, central educational authorities are said to have been small and weak. Tyack (1977:176) shows that all categories of American federal state workers in 1831 numbered only 18,038 and two-thirds of these were in the post office. Many state educational departments had only two employees at mid- century. The central Education Office in Canada West (now southern Ontario) employed six people in full-time educational administration in 1857. These six - one of them the office messenger - administered the affairs of several thousand schools (Public Archives of Ontario [hereafter PAO], C6C, 1857).1 While state superintendents of education and inspectors of schools were frequently appointed during the common school revival, these officials were said to have had little power. Kaestle argues, State superintendents were more like preachers than bureaucrats. They travelled about their states, visiting schools, giving speeches, organizing teachers' institutes, gathering data, and spreading the common-school reform gospel. Some of them wanted more coercive authority, and they worked to create a rough hierarchy of professional supervision, but their regulatory power was moreform than substance. (1983: 115, emphasis added)

The absence of a large central state bureaucracy and the absence of some (unspecified) coercive powers on the part of actual school officials are held to discount the model of public educational reform as an imposition.

Voluntaryist writers contest the proposition that educational reform was the

1. These included the chief superintendent, his deputy, a second clerk, a clerk of correspondence, a clerk of accounts, and the messenger. Of course, who is to be counted as a "bureaucrat" is both

extremely important and debatable. If one counts all those carrying out public educational functions in the state systems in Canada West in 1857, the above group of six expands to include three-hundred-odd township superintendents, about eight hundred members of County Boards of Public Instruction, four thousand teachers, twelve thousand local school trustees, and an unknown number of township auditors, collectors, and other officers.

286



object of popular opposition, let alone class struggle. There are several ap- proaches to this question. Some writers examine the activities of artisanal workers during the period of school reform. During the 1830s, in America as in England, these groups actively agitated in favor of universal public education. By the 1850s, when state educational systems were largely in place, education had mainly disappeared as a political issue among the developing trade unions. While admitting that the activities of artisanal workers tell us little about more directly proletarian populations, some critics contend that artisanal support for universal education in the 1830s and the apparent indifference of trade unions in the 1850s indicate broad working-class support for state intervention in education (Kaestle and Vinovskis, 1980: 167-75). Meticulous dissections of the evidence offered by Katz (1968) for artisanal opposition to educational reform in Massachusetts by Ravitch (1978) and more recently Vinovskis (1985) reject the former interpretation (cf. Katz et al, 1987). Attempts to articulate socialist alternatives to public education and experiments in communitarian education failed (Kaestle, 1983: 136-48).

Many writers suggest that local educational organization in North America as a whole, or at least in Canada and the free states, was characterized by a broad political consensus. Parents opposed to some details of local educational management were seen to support public education in general (Kaestle, 1983: 69). Educational reform in Boxford, Massachusetts was "never seriously questioned" (Coons, in Kaestle and Vinovskis, 1980:149). If there was any serious opposition to common schooling in Lynn, Massachusetts it took no coherent form (Jenkins, in Kaestle and Vinovskis, 1980: 175). While some parents seemed to resist attempts to discipline their children, Kaestle concludes that, "School discipline offered something to everyone in a time of rapid change: obedient children for anxious parents, malleable students for efficient schools, and acquiescent citizens for the frail republic" (1983: 161).

Tyack suggests that the activities of local educational leaders throughout the United States created "a sense of common purpose and destiny sealed in the hearts and minds of individuals by persuasion" (1977: 176). Meyer et al. argue that educational reform can best be understood as a form of nation-building in which small proprietors, sharing "evangelical Protestantism, and an individualistic conception of the polity," joined to cement a common social identity (1979: 592). The seemingly disconsonant phenomenon of the passing of statutes making school attendance compulsory is regarded as a largely symbolic initiative (Craig, 1981: 184; Tyack, 1977).

A rather different approach is taken by Gidney and Lawr (1979; 1980a; 1980b) in a number of studies of educational administration in Canada West. An investigation of secondary educational policy in the third quarter of the nineteenth century detailed the defeat of attempts by the central educational authority aimed at the transformation of local grammar schools into institutions of classical learning (cf. Gidney and Millar, 1985). Local opposition from parents,

287



grammar school managers and other local residents worked to subvert in practice, and ultimately to block in principle, an unpopular central initiative (1979). A second study detailed ways in which central initiatives aimed at

securing uniform school books, raising standards of teacher certification, and consolidating local administrative units were subverted or manipulated in the locality in ways which rendered them congenial to local interests (1980a).

Of particular importance is the innovative "Bureaucracy vs. Community? The Origins of Bureaucratic Procedure in the Upper Canadian School System" (1980b). Here Gidney and Lawr directly challenge the proposition that bureaucratic educational reform can best be studied as the imposition of unwelcome procedure on localities by a powerful central authority. Drawing upon the massive correspondence of the Education Office of Canada West, which details the relations between local school units and the central authority over a forty- year period, the authors investigate the elaboration of administrative procedure in five areas of policy: locating schoolhouses, the free school vote, religious instruction, the content of the curriculum, and the role of local officials.

The School Acts in Canada West incorporated diverse and competing local educational interests in a common administrative structure. Conflicting local interests created an administrative dynamic in which pressure existed for the elaboration of bureaucratic procedure. In each of the five instances studied, the educational correspondence reveals the existence of hundreds (thousands?) of letters from parents, school electors, trustees, teachers, superintendents, and others insisting that the Education Office articulate clear and universally applicable guidelines for the resolution of local disputes. Bureaucratic administration was not a conscious objective of these correspondents. Rather, they sought workable solutions to particular local problems. But, as Gidney and Lawr point out,

such demands were also demands for what we now define as the classic modes of bureaucratic procedure - for the delineation of explicit, written rules of procedure; for the routinization of

responsibility and an orderly hierarchy of control; for specialization and expertise on the part of administrative officers; for universalistic rather than particularistic criteria for rule-making; and for a style of decision-making which consists of applying general rules to particular cases. (1980b: 448)

This work suggests that a key and neglected dimension of the formation of bureaucratic administrative procedure was local popular demand.

While they are cautious about drawing general conclusions from these studies, Gidney and Lawr do suggest explicitly at times that central initiatives were successful only where they accorded with local interests. This is interpreted to mean that the school system was fundamentally an expression and codification of popular educational interests (e.g., 1980a: 141). Where the central superintendent did succeed in school-building initiatives, this might be explained "by nothing more than his ability to codify the interests of those who sought a common school education for their children" (1979: 464-5). Writers following Gidney and Lawr have concluded that educational reform in Canada West was

288



a broadly popular process (e.g. Akenson, 1984). In sum, and in sharp contrast to radical revisionist accounts, proponents of

voluntaryism have come to argue that state educational organization was a broadly popular reform, a reform which produced no significant resistance, which essentially codified locally established interests, and which cannot meaningfully be seen as an imposition of one social group, class, or governmen- tal level upon another.

II Most of the critics of revisionism discussed above operate within the confines of empiricist models. On the one hand, this has enabled them to detail the richness of local educational development. At the same time, however, narrow empiricist usages, sometimes combined with conceptual confusion, create explanatory anomalies. This is particularly the case with respect to the concepts of capitalism, opposition, and power.

Early revisionist accounts tended to collapse the notions of urbanization, mass production in factories, and capitalism into a single causal complex (e.g. Katz, 1968). Critics of revisionism continue this equation of capitalism with factory production in cities and treat capitalism as a variable of equal epistemo- logical weight with ethnicity, religion, race, and so on (e.g., Jenkins in Kaestle and Vinovskis, 1980:172). The test of the proposition that industrial capitalism caused educational reform comes to be whether or not factories accompanied schools. Since schools were organized in the countryside where there were no factories, it is concluded that capitalism by itself cannot have caused educational reform.

The contention that town and country are different in principle underlies the voluntaryist argument that capitalist social relations were not causally related to educational reform. This contention in turn depends upon the conception of capitalism as a narrowly defined productive activity: factory production. If one rejects such a conception, the radical separation of town and country collapses and the question of the "local" origins of school reform appears in a different light.

A view of capitalism as a structure of social relations, founded ultimately upon private property in the means of production, the generalized production and exchange of commodities, the employment of wage labour and relations of exploitation, accords more completely even with the evidence presented by voluntaryist critics themselves about local educational organization. It also allows educational reform movements to be situated in a broader political economic context. Capitalist relations of production are reproduced through and are compatible with an array of cultural forms and social institutions. Capitalism is not best conceived as a factor in social development. Rather, it is better understood as a rational abstraction which points to certain ways of organizing the production and reproduction of material life in broad historical periods.

289



The extent to which capitalist relations of production actually exist and their degree of development in any given historical period is an empirical question. However, it is not essential that people work in factories and live in cities for there to be capitalism. What is at issue is the presence or absence of the production and exchange of commodities by private producers, and the extent to which this takes the intensified form of the buying and selling of labour power. In this view, capitalist relations of production are characterized by different degrees of development in different historical periods, and these may be seen as more or less distinct (although not mutually exclusive) stages (Marx, 1967: part 4; Lenin, 1970; Dobb, 1963).

Voluntaryist writers suggest that a major explanatory problem for their critique of revisionism is the observed national (and international) uniformity in educational organization in the nineteenth century (Tyack, 1977: 178). In fact, one should remark that "voluntary" reform is a poor descriptor for this phenomenon. If a large majority of people choose the same pattern in the same period, however formally free this choice, common social structural and cultural forces must be at work. Voluntaryist writers stress an underlying unity in cultural and religious outlook among state school reformers. Such cultural unity was cer- tainly in the process of formation. However, given that educational reform was a process which took place in this period in many different European and American states, the cultural unity which sustained it could not be based in religion, language, ornational institutions. I suggest that the broadly similarclass position of state school reformers, the generality of commodity production and exchange, and the political pressures generated by the intensification of those relations, constitute the elements of structural commonality in question.

Such a view accords with the evidence presented by voluntaryist historians themselves. Tyack suggests on a number of occasions that local educational leaders were of broadly middle-class origin and were concerned with "boosting" orderly local capitalist development (1977:178-80). Kaestle argues that reformers generally attempted to stabilize property relations and class distinctions as means to social progress (1983: 89-90). Meyeret al. suggest that the religious and individualistic thrust of school reform in the locality was combined with "the outlook and interests of small entrepreneurs in a world market" (1979: 592). While commonly rejecting capitalism as the major factor in educational reform, voluntaryist writers indicate that rural social relations were based on the production and exchange of commodities, with transitional forms of wage labour. Coons, for instance, in her study of reform in Boxford, Massachusetts, argues that in this rural-area school reformers were unconcemed with urban industrial development. They promoted rather a "straightforward, traditional concept of school discipline." Yet she tells us at the same time that

Boxford had a thriving shoe industry carried on by farmer-artisans in backyard shoe shops, where they used hand tools to do cutting, pegging, and stitching for Haverhill and Lynn manufacturers, who provided raw materials and wages. Such rainy-day and wintertime labor produced $52,975

290



worth of shoes in Boxford in 1837.... (in Kaestle and Vinovskis, 1980: 138, 148)

Commodity production and exchange unified the political economy of town and country.

Local educational leaders, voluntaryist writers point out, had well-established national and international connections. They communicated with one another in a well-established educational press and at school conventions and exhibitions. Cyrus Pearce of Michigan, Mann of Massachusetts, Ryerson and Duncombe from Canada, Henry Barnard, Alexander Bache, James Kay, and many other educational reformers and superintendents visited school systems in other countries. The pedagogical models and experiments pioneered as institutional responses to the social problems of poverty, unemployed and displaced populations in Europe enjoyed a general currency in North America (Curtis, 1988; 1984; Kaestle, 1973a; 1973b; Silber, 1973).

Educational reformers in North America were direct and active participants in an educational discourse which advocated state educational organization as a response to the social transformations wrought by the development and intensification of commodity production and exchange. Enlightenment philosophers and political economists took developing bourgeois civilization as an object of investigation. Civilization, seen to be propelled by changing modes of material production, was dissected both in terms of its impact on the structure of the self and in terms of the institutional supports which its continued development demanded (cf. Reid, 1983; Millar, 1779; 1803). Leading enlightenment writers advocated universal state education as a means of developing the "liberty" potentially unleashed by capitalist accumulation and as a necessary protection for a state increasingly dependent upon those whom the division of labour rendered "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become" (Smith, 1935, II: 267). These views were popularized in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (e.g. Stewart, 1793), translated into plans for domestic education (Hamilton, 1810; Edgeworth, 1815) and later into programs for the instruction of the poor (e.g. Lancaster, 1805; Stow, 1840).

School reformers in North America cited this body of work in support of their own plans (cf. Mann, 1868; Ryerson, 1847). They also had direct and important personal relations both with one another and with the translators of enlightenment discourse into educational experiments. The young Henry Barnard, for instance, later superintendent of schools in Connecticut, undertook an educational tour of Europe which involved lengthy visits to "one of the heroes of his youth, Lord Brougham," and to Thomas Chalmers in Scotland (Barard, 1970: 15-18; Chalmers, 1821; Brougham, 1841). In short, North American educational reformers understood the world through political and moral discourses con- cered with the consequences for social order and individual character of the intensified development of commodity production and exchange. In this way, educational reform in both town and country was propelled by a particular class and cultural understanding of capitalist development. However modified by

291



more localized forms of political organization, bourgeois internationalism was a real social force.

Were there not well-established and well-attended schools before the common school revival and does this not suggest, following the voluntaryist catechism, that reform systematized and coordinated local initiatives? This suggestion would be tenable if school reformers at the centre merely sought to strengthen and subsidize local educational practices. On the contrary, state school reformers in the free states, Canada West, andmostparts of Europe sought a new political role for the local school and opposed many popular educational practices.

Leading members of the governing classes in Canada West in the late 1830s and 1840s regarded local educational democracy as a major cause of political disorder (Sullivan, 1838). Others sought state control over education in Canada East as a means for the assimilation of the francophone population (Robinson, 1839). Robert Murray, first Assistant Superintendent of Education for Canada West, regarded the democratic character of local educational organization as politically obnoxious and as a barrier to social progress (cf. Hodgins, 1894-1912, III: 273-4; Gidney, 1971). The attempts of English middle- and upper-class reformers to subvert, destroy, and coopt working-class self-educational institutions are well documented (Gardner, 1984; Simon, 1974).

Like their Canadian counterparts, American school reformers sought to break district control over educational organization, to defeat private schooling, and to suppress such forms of community regulation as "boarding the teacher" (Kaestle, 1983: 110-11; Kaestle and Vinovskis, 1980: 33-4; Mann, 1868). The demands for order, silence, and regimentation which voluntaryist writers present as simple "technical" necessities of large-scale schooling are better seen as one product of what Finkelstein calls "intrusive" pedagogy (1974; 1975). State schools presented a radically different conception of pedagogical productivity from that which predominated in unreformed community schools. In the latter, large numbers and disciplinary demands for strict silence, punctual attendance, and so forth did not co-exist (cf. Gardner, 1984; Haight, 1885; Scherck, 1905). These are political, not technical, demands; demands which concern autonomy and authority.

In short, locally organized common schools and public schools were both denoted by the same noun, but in important ways the similarity ended here. Voluntaryist writers have been insufficiently attentive to the political significance of changingforms of educational organization. They tend to approach the changes wrought by public educational development as if public schools were unproblematically "better" than local common schools because more money was spent on them, because they were larger, brighter, or contained more books (e.g. Kaestle, 1983: 122). The prior question, it would seem, is how state schools differed from community schools, and what practices and cultural forms these state schools displaced.

292



The question of power and the nature of opposition in educational reform thus becomes crucial. But voluntaryists seek opposition only in the activities of organized public groups. Their investigation of opposition (and that of many revisionists as well) has focused on the resolutions of local school committees, voting behaviour, public statements of state agents, and published positions of organized workers. While common, such an approach is peculiar in principle and in practice.

The public sphere, that space "above and beyond politics" as Superintendent Ryerson dubbed it (Curtis, 1983a), is the formally democratic terrain of the modem state. In it, attempts are made to incorporate the diverse and antagonistic interests of groups and classes existing in civil society through forms of representation (cf. T6nnies, 1957). The public and its subjects are ordered and organized in the first place by the administrative labour of the state (Knight and Curtis, 1986; Kay and Mott, 1982). Seeking opposition to public space in the activities of groups charged with the management of public institutions seriously restricts the conception of opposition (as if one claimed to study class struggle without investigating the labour process). It seems improbable in principle that groups and bodies constituted by the state will unambiguously oppose their own conditions of existence. Moreover, such a conception leaves entirely unexam- ined precisely those processes of state formation per se whereby a state form public education - comes to acquire a monopoly over and to be equated with education in general.

Pedagogical practices were exercises in power and regulation. One reads repeatedly - in voluntaryist works as well - that state pedagogical practices aimed at moral discipline, sought to reform the habits, character structures, "hearts," and principles of students, and, through them, society as a whole. The power of pedagogy was a moral regulatory power whose points of contact were the selves, habits, attitudes, principles, and forms of character of the population. This power operated as a moral force on individuals and their social relations. Opposition to pedagogical practice and to the power of state education, it would follow, should be sought in empirical reactions to this moral regulation by those directly exposed to it.

The views of those supporting a view of voluntary school reform in this regard are startling. The social histories of American and British education and the archival sources for Canada West abound with accounts of schoolroom battles in which students refused pedagogical practices, with instances of teachers being assaulted or sued by irate parents and others, with local residents intervening in schoolroom practices, with accounts of the persistent opposition of students and their relations to regular and punctual attendance and with instances of more formal opposition to approved state practices (Finkelstein, 1975; Kaestle, 1983: 160; Humphries, 1981; Curtis, 1988). The level of combativity in the schoolroom and its vicinity was very high. Indeed, in the case of Canada West, one of the first amendments to the School Act of 1850 proposed fines or imprisonment

293



for "school disturbers" (Government of Canada, Statutes, 1853). Voluntaryists detail these events while denying their significance. Coons

notes that local school committee meetings in some districts of Boxford, Massachusetts voted to oppose the expulsion of students from the schoolroom under any circumstances, and resisted other attempts to increase the authority of the teacher at the expense of students and parents. Yet she concludes the content of educational reform was "never seriously questioned" (in Kaestle and Vi- novskis, 1980: 149-63). In a study of Lynn, Massachusetts in the same period, Jenkins argued that while parents opposed corporal punishment and supported non-attendance by students, these were not significant forms of opposition. "The corporal punishment controversies," he concludes, "were parent-teacher controversies." Since "nonattendance did nothing to articulate an alternative or a coherent criticism of the school system," it can be seen at best only "as passive resistance" (in Kaestle and Vinovskis, 1980: 174-5). Kaestle (1983: 161) takes this position to its limit in a passage cited earlier, detailing the intense antagonism of parents to attempts by state schools to punish their children, then assuming these parents "really" wanted "obedient children," and concluding that "school discipline offered something to everyone"!

How is such a serious misreading of the evidence possible? Two considera- tions are relevant. The terms of the initial revisionist debate presented the process of educational reform as one of direct class conflict and class struggle. Critics of revisionism accept these terms. They implicitly adopt a model of "reds" and "whites" in which class conflict demands the existence of visible class armies. Since such armies did not exist during the common school revival in North America, voluntaryist writers conclude that real opposition to state schooling did not exist. Yet Willis (1977), in work available for some time, argues cogently that while state schooling was indeed a class initiative, it operated in the public domain through mediate forms of classlessness. An earlier tradition, centred especially on Weber's analysis of the state (1958: 195), also examines the translation of the state's monopoly over the means of violence into administrative domination embodying principles of formal universality.

At the same time, voluntaryist critics have been insufficiently attentive to the impact of changing educational forms upon their own attempts to understand the social landscape. These writers tend to accept the official view of the state pedagogical project, and with it a management view of popular opposition. In categorizing the opponents of pedagogical practice as "the young casualties, the rejects, and the rebels of the larger society" (Tyack, 1976: 34), by documenting forms of opposition and then denying their significance, voluntaryist writers accept the official view of students as subjectively flawed and in need of discipline, however much they may resist. Opposition is thus trivialized as

"quaint" while at the same time normalized as a necessary part of state schooling. A growing body of literature argues that the state school itself is heavily

involved in the "infantilization" of its inmates. Ways in which state schooling

294



deprives people of speech, freedom of movement, of participation in labour processes, and of other kinds of autonomous self-direction enjoyed by young people in earlier periods (and possible at present under improved conditions) are increasingly well-documented (cf. Corrigan, 1986; Curtis, 1985; Hoskin, 1984; Humphries, 1981; Paterson, 1986). Work which ignores these processes, or worse, which documents them while denying them, contributes more to the police2 of pedagogical space than to its explication.

III Inattention to changing social forms characterizes the dichotomy Kaestle (1983: 115) and Craig (1981: 184) pose between substantial and formal, or real and symbolic power, and characterizes the contributions of Gidney and Lawr (especially 1980b) concerning the role of local popular demand. This is crucial for an understanding of educational state formation. What was the power of the state, and how was it disposed?

Consider the contention by Gidney and Lawr that bureaucratic educational procedure was insistently demanded by local school units, and hence should not be seen as an imposition by the state. Their general point is both well taken and important: accounts of reform which take central policy statements for descrip- tions of local practice are inadequate. A thorough grasp of the reform process cannot be gained through an exclusive concentration upon the statements of social leaders. Nor are the facts of the matter in question; local residents in nineteenth-century Canada West did indeed write thousands of letters to the central office demanding procedural prescriptions in administrative matters. These letters are readily accessible.

But while local demands for procedural guidance formed an important and frequently neglected dimension of bureaucratic development, Gidney and Lawr neglect the fact that they were generated in the first place by central policy initiatives. These authors do emphasize that public educational organization created conflict by uniting competing and antagonistic educational interests in a common administrative structure, but ignore the fact that this structure was the product of a state initiative in the first place, and that state administrative structure as such was a particular form of power.

The apparently mundane case of situating the school house is illustrative. Before the central initiatives of the 1840s, school units in Canada West were largely defined communally. An enabling Act of 1816 empowered any group of resident proprietors capable of providing a school house of a certain size to assemble at will for school matters, to elect trustees, hire teachers, and share in a small state school fund. The distribution of schools came to coincide more or

2. use the term "police" in its eighteenth and nineteenth century sense of the maintenance of public order. E.g., Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations Part 2 (1935), refers to roads and bridges as police. The reader might note that in French "police" and "policy" are denoted by the same noun - "police."

295



less perfectly with the density of settlement and the productive, political, ethnic, or religious character of local populations. The School Act of 1841 and those which followed substituted an administrative grid in which school units were to be mapped onto civil society according to uniform general criteria, which commonly allowed only one school per district. In consequence, town teachers were excluded from the educational market in large numbers and the number of urban schools fell. Rural residents, hoping to share in an enlarged school fund and seeking convenient access, markedly increased the numbers of schools. Given the financial limits of state-subsidized schooling, many rural school units ceased to be economically viable and unresolvable disputes raged in rural school sections about the precise location of the school. Those concerned frequently appealed to the central office for solutions to the problem.

The relation of central state to local school unit in the Canadian case should be seen as a dynamic one in which central initiative generated local reaction which in turn led to further central initiatives. Administration is an active process. Measures generate counter-measures which must in turn be incorporated into administrative structures. In the process, these structures tend to be solidified and forms of state provision come to exist as normal forms. At the same time, the power of the center tends to grow. Durkheim (n.d., 3: 173-8) and Foucault (1972; 1978), for instance, stress the growing power of the state stemming from the accumulation of knowledge. Knowledge gathered at the center may lead to the generalization of local solutions to educational conflicts and aids in administrative manoeuvering. More important, even local opposition to policy initiatives may contribute to the solidification, stabilization, and normalization of administrative structures, once it is organized by them. In Canada West, for instance, local opposition to the payment of school taxes frequently led residents to report violations of the School Acts to the central authority (e.g. PAO, C6C, 1858). Opposition itself functioned as a force of police.

While it is important to adopt a dynamic view of educational administration, close attention to the forms of political rule contained in administrative structures is also crucial for an understanding of educational reform as state formation. Voluntaryist writers remain trapped to a certain extent in another proposition of revisionism: the quality and value of public education is to be estimated by popular reaction to it. I have argued that voluntaryist writers confuse public and popular reaction. But an exclusive concentration upon subjective responses in any case may underplay the reality of objective political structures. The latter must be attended to, but not separated from the subjective responses - and the forms of subjectivity (cf. Foucault, 1983) - generated in and through them.

Here again the case of Canada West is instructive. With the passage of the effective School Act of 1850, popular education increasingly became public education. Other forms of education - private, sectarian, self, and productive - were increasingly displaced. With their displacement educational struggles

296



came to center upon the management of the state form, and ceased (more or less) to involve the articulation of alternative forms. The School Acts put new forms of political governance in place. They abolished the power of school meetings in the locality to directly govern the local school. The direct and regular participation of parents in pedagogical space was suppressed. Measures were taken to differentiate teachers from the community. Legal penalties were applied to effective opponents of pedagogical activity. The state came to specify the curriculum and the nature of school books. The direct participatory democracy characteristic of communal schooling was replaced in state administration by limited forms of representative democracy.

State educational administrators regarded these changes as educational in themselves. Administrative procedure was advocated tirelessly by the centernot simply as a response to local demands, but more especially as a form of political discipline in its own right. For instance, the Chief Superintendent for Canada West wrote to county clerks in 1852 that the clauses of the School Act

are not mere arbitrary provisions; they are means to a great end - the social elevation of the whole population of the land. And this elevation is not effected merely by schools, but by teaching and habituating the people at large to transact all their public affairs... in a business-like manner. The accuracy, punctuality, and method observed in such proceedings, will soon be extended to all the transactions of domestic and private life, and thus exert a salutary influence upon all the social relations and personal habits of the whole people. (PAO Cl, 1852, emphasis added)

Ryerson and others like him agitated, menaced, and exhorted local officials in an effort to make them follow administrative procedure, convinced that participation in particular forms of educational governance was a disciplinary force in its own right (cf. PAO, C2, 1853a; 1853b; Curtis, 1988).

As a particular form of education, as a state and public sphere, reformed pedagogical space embodied a political structure foreign to earlier community education. However much local residents, students amongst them, may have embraced particular pedagogical initiatives, however much they may have opposed particular pedagogical initiatives, after state intervention educational activities were located in a transformed set of political structures.

The dichotomy posed by voluntaryist writers between real and formal power, or real and symbolic power indicates a failure to grasp the essence of pedagogical power and of educational reform as state formation. As in the case of popular opposition, voluntaryist writers document the practical effectiveness of state educational power while denying at the same time that it had any "substance." Kaestle, for instance, describes the efficacy of Horace Mann's publication of school statistics as a means of "shaming" local school administrators into approximating official policy (1983: 122) while maintaining that such powers were merely "formal." The model of power here is a simplistic Weberian one: power exists where one group can impose its will over the resistance of another (cf. Weber, 1958: 78, 180).

But nineteenth-century pedagogical power, it must be remarked once again,

297



was primarily a moral regulatory power. This was not simply a coercive power, a power of the flesh, of bodies of armed men, or of bullets and bayonets. It assumed a monopoly over the means of violence as a means of obviating physical violence. "Obedience through fear,"wrote Horace Mann, "is without value; and not only so, but as soon as the fear is removed, the restrained impulses will break out" (1868: 456; cf. Durkheim, 1961). Pedagogical power could not be contained in bureaucratic forms. As a power which aimed at the "state of the heart" (Necker, 1835: 22), at the reconstruction of the selves of the mass of the population, pedagogical power was meant to be limitless. As local populations sought the bureaucratic regulation of educational power, school administrators argued against any such regulation. Teachers, for instance, were repeatedly counselled to avoid limiting their power by posting lists of rules in the school. They were urged to establish only one rule: "Always Do Right" (Cobb, 1847: 180), which would allow them sufficient room to govern.

This vagueness, this apparent lack of substance, these seemingly "symbolic" qualities are what is essential about many dimensions of educational governance. These forms of power and governance are transitional. They are situated between the moral economy of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and the forms of financial discipline which characterize the late twentieth century.

The crisis of moral economy of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is well known. English historians in particular have examined the ways in which new political economic relations consequent upon the rise of industrial capitalism undermined patters of authority and dependence based upon mutual (although unequal) obligation, face-to-face contact and personal acquaintance (Thompson, 1968; Calhoun, 1982). The rising bourgeoisie made a variety of attempts to substitute new instruments and practices of government forkey terms in the earlier moral economy. Many of these blended moral regulatory and bureaucratic elements. For instance, Steedman's (1984) study of the formation of rural English police forces details the operation of police in part through the selective moralization and display of certain members of the working class by local leaders. While resorting to direct violence in exceptional circumstances, police operated primarily as a force of example combined with scrutiny and

prestige. Foucault (1979) emphasized the centrality of "panoptic" modes of power in

the transition from a state power based on the direct application of physical violence to a state power based on rational administration. Panoptic power operates especially by inducing in the governed a sense of permanent visibility, and hence of vulnerability, to generalized social forces. Panoptic power operates beneath and below bureaucratic power, both as a totalizing and an individuating power (Foucault, 1978).

The main connection between central authority and local educational provision in most of North America and Britain in the mid-nineteenth century lay in

298



the instrument of inspection. Inspectors, called variously also commissioners, superintendents, visitors, and so forth, visited and examined local schools, urging adherence to state policy and collecting information about local conditions in categories specified by the central authority. Through inspection, the central authority put in place a panoptic and moral regulatory power based on personal contact, exposure, persuasion, and the moral authority of selected members of its agents in the "respectable classes." This power may well have been contested, but it was not simply an empty form.

IV The particular value of the voluntaryist critique of revisionist accounts of educational reform lies in its refusal to be content with a history consisting solely of the utterances of great individuals, or with a history which resolves the historical movement into a few abstract structural correspondences. Detailed empirical investigation of the reform process forces those studying the general political economic conditions of public education to refine their accounts. Rigorous local history reveals anomalies, tendencies, and counter-tendencies invisible to an abstract structural analysis.

Yet the narrowly empiricist usages adopted by the critics of revisionism lead them to distort or confuse sections of the empirical record. Resistance and reaction to state educational reform are evaluated in much the same way as they were by state administrators. Resistance in the public domain, resistance which went through "channels" or followed procedural rules has been privileged in the voluntaryist account. But these channels and procedures operated precisely to ensure the administrative containment of resistance and reaction. Voluntaryist writers tend to ignore or trivialize the resistance and opposition of parents, students, and "indifferent" local residents. Yet even by the canons of a purely empiricist methodology the experience and activities of those affected by social institutions must be taken seriously - that is, read in their own terms, and not seen simply as management problems. Students refusing to go to school may not have published a program for the reconstruction of the educational order, and only sporadically organized wider protests (Humphries, 1981). But we must re- member that virtually all North American jurisdictions encountered such persistent practical opposition to school attendance among students and many of their relations that compulsory attendance laws were passed and later enforced (cf. Tyack and Burkowitz, 1977). If educational reform was really a voluntary process, why did people everywhere have to be forced to participate?

I suggest the process of educational reform may be better approached through models which attend to changing forms of political rule and which are alive to the existence of social contradictions. Educational reform can be seen as a process through which forms of power congenial to a bourgeois democratic order were disposed in civil society. This process was characterized by the contradictions between formal democracy and substantial inequality which characterize

299



the bourgeois order generally. Universal rights to property and the formal equality of all citizens are the political structures through which class inequality and domination are reproduced (Kay and Mott, 1982; Pashukanis, 1978). The construction of the educational state contained these contradictory dimensions. As voluntaryist writers themselves point out, popular reaction to state intervention was ambiguous. Many people supported educational reform in general, voted for free schooling, thought the common school as a means to abolishing class distinctions a good idea, and supported the principle of regular attendance. But these same people opposed the regular attendance of their own children, contested the authority of teachers to specify the curriculum, resisted many disciplinary initiatives in the educational domain. An alertness to the contradictory features of the reform process - as it embodies the fundamental contradic- tionof democratic class exploitation-willbetter inform ourunderstanding. But these contradictions are not to be grasped in a model which dismisses conflict over education to sustain a view of universal educational harmony. By viewing educational reform and administration as processes characterized by a dynamic tension between initiative and resistance, and by attending at the same time to the emergence, stabilization, and normalization of forms of social power (to the exclusion of others), we may come to unravel the formation of the educational state.

References Akenson, Donald

1984 The Irish in Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Apple, M.W.

1982 "Reproduction and contradiction in education: an introduction." In M. Apple, ed., Cultural and Economic Reproduction in Education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Aronowitz, S. and H.A. Giroux 1985 Education Under Siege. Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey.

Bamard, Henry 1970 Barnard's School Architecture. New York: Teacher's College.

Bowles, S. and H. Gintis 1980 "Contradiction and reproduction in educational theory." In L.Barton et al., eds.,

Ideology and the Curriculum, pp. 51-65. Lewes: Falmer Press. Brougham, Henry Lord

1841 Speeches. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard. Calhoun, Craig

1982 The Question of Class Struggle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chalmers, Thomas

1821 The Christian and Civic Economy of Large Towns. Glasgow: Chalmers and Collins. Cobb, L.J.

1847 The Evil Tendencies of Corporal Punishment. New York: Newman. Collins, Randall

1979 The Credential Society. New York: Academic Press. 1977 "Some comparative principles of educational stratification." Harvard Educational

Review February: 1-27.

300



Corrigan, Paul 1979 Schooling the Smash Street Kids. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Corrigan, Philip 1987 "In/forming schooling." In D. Livingstone, ed., Critical Pedagogy and Cultural Power.

Toronto: Garamond Press. Craig, J.E.

1981 "The expansion of education." Review of Research in Education 9: 152-213. Curtis, Bruce

1988 Building the Educational State, Canada West 1836-1871. London, Ontario: Althouse Press; Sussex: Falmer Press.

1985 "The speller expelled: disciplining the common reader in Canada West." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 22(3): 346-68.

1984 "Capitalist development and educational reform: comparative material from England, Ireland and Upper Canada to 1850." Theory and Society 13: 41-68.

1983a "Preconditions of the Canadian state: educational reform and the construction of a public in Upper Canada, 1837-1846." Studies in Political Economy 10: 99-121.

1983b "Schoolbooks and the myth of curricular republicanism: the state and the curriculum in Upper Canada, 1820-1850." Histoire socialelSocial History 32: 305-29.

Dobb, Maurice 1963 Studies in the Development of Capitalism. New York: International.

Durkheim, ltmile 1961 Moral Education. Glencoe: Free Press. n.d. "De l'6tat." In Textes. Vol. 3. Paris: lEditions minuit.

Edgeworth R.L. and M. Edgeworth 1815 Practical Education. London: Hunter, Craddock and Joy.

Finkelstein, B. 1975 "Pedagogy as intrusion." History of Childhood Quarterly 2(3): 349-78. 1974 "The moral dimensions of pedagogy." American Studies 15: 79-89.

Foucault, M. 1983 "The subject and power." In H.Dreyfus and H. Rabinow, eds., Michel Foucault.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1980 Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon. 1979 Discipline and Punish. New York: Vantage. 1978 The History of Sexuality Vol. 1. New York: Pantheon. 1972 The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Harper and Row.

Gardner, P. 1984 Lost Elementary Schools of Victorian England. London: Croom Helm.

Gidney, R.D. 1975 "Elementary education in Upper Canada: a reassessment." In M.B. Katz and P.H.

Mattingly, eds., Education and Social Change. New York: New York University Press. 1971 "The Rev. Robert Murray: Ontario's first Superintendent of Schools." Ontario History

63 (4): 191-204. Gidney, R.D. and D.A. Lawr

1980a "Who ran the schools? Local influence on education policy in nineteenth century Ontario." Ontario History 72(3): 131-43.

1980b "Bureaucracy vs community? The origins of bureaucratic procedure in the Upper Canadian school system." Journal of Social History 13(3): 438-57.

1979 "Egerton Ryerson and the origins of the Ontario secondary school." Canadian Histori- cal Review 60(4): 442-465.

Gidney, R.D. and W.P.J. Millar 1985 "From voluntarism to state schooling: the creation of the public school system in

Ontario." Canadian Historical Review 64(4): 443-73.

301



Gorelick, Sherry 1982 City College and the Jewish Poor. New York: Schocken.

Government of Canada 1853 "An act supplementary to the School Act of Upper Canada." Statutesl6 Vic., c.185.

Haight, Canniff 1885 Country Life in Canada Fifty Years Ago. Toronto: Hunter.

Hamilton, E. 1810 Letters on the Elementary Principles of Education. London.

Hodgins, J.G., ed. 1894-1912Documentary History of Education in Upper Canada. Toronto: King's Printer. Hoskin, Keith

1984 "Cobwebs to catch flies." Unpublished paper, Joint School of Classics, University of Warwick.

Humphries, S. 1981 Hooligans or Rebels? Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Johnson, Richard 1979 "'Really Useful Knowledge': radical working-class culture, 1790-1848." In J.Clarke et

al., eds., Working Class Culture. London: Hutchinson. Kaestle, Carl

1983 Pillars of the Republic. New York: Hill and Wang. 1973a The Evolution of an Urban School System: New York, 1750-1850. Harvard: Harvard

University Press. 1973b Joseph Lancaster and the Monitorial School System, ed. New York: Teacher's College.

Kaestle, Carl and Maris Vinovskis 1980 Education and Social Change in Nineteenth Century Massachusetts. Cambridge,

Mass.: Cambridge University Press. Katz, M.B. et al.

1987 "The origins of public high schools." History of Education Quarterly 27(2): 241-58. Katz, M.B.

1976 "The origins of public education: a reassessment." History of Education Quarterly Winter: 381-407

1971 Class Bureaucracy and Schools. New York: Praeger. 1970 "Education and social development in the nineteenth century: new directions for

enquiry." In P. Nash, ed., History and Education, pp. 83-114. New York: Random House.

1968 The Irony of Early School Reform. Boston: Beacon. Kay, G. and J. Mott

1982 Political Order and the Law of Labour. London: Macmillan. Knight, G. and B. Curtis

1986 "The publicity of state subjects." In D. Paletz, ed., Political Communication Research, pp. 49-61. New Jersey: Ablex Press.

Lancaster, J. 1805 Experiments in Education as It Affects the Industrious Classes. London: Darton and

Harvey. Lenin, V.I.

1970 Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Moscow: Progress. Mann, H.

1868 Life and Works. Vol. 3. Annual Reports on Education. Boston: Fuller. McCann, P., ed.

1977 Popular Education and Socialization in the Nineteenth Century. London: Methuen. Marx, K.

1967 Capital. Vol. 1. New York: International.

302



Meyer, John et al. 1979 "Public education as nation-building in America: enrollments and bureaucratization in

the American states, 1870-1930." American Journal of Sociology 85(3): 591-613. Millar, J.

1803 An Historical View of English Government. London. 1779 The Origin of the Distinction of Ranks. London.

Necker, A.A. de Saussure 1835 Progressive Education. Boston: Ticknor.

PAO (Public Archives of Ontario) 1852 "Circular to clerks of counties." LetterbookG, 10 July,.Record Group 2 (Education), Cl

(Outgoing Correspondence). 1853a Chief Superintendent to County Clerk, Barie, 21 July, .C2 (Draft Outgoing Correspon-

dence). 1853b Chief Superintendent to County Clerk, Hastings, 29 July, Record Group 2

(Education),.C2 (Draft Outgoing Correspondence). 1857 "Monthly pay list of the officers of the Education Department, Upper Canada, February

1857." Record Group 2 (Education), C6C (Incoming General Correspondence). 1858 John McIntyre, #5 Bagot to Education Office, 18 January, Record Group 2 (Education),

C6C (Incoming General Correspondence). Pashukanis, E.

1978 Law and Marxism. London: Ink Links. Paterson, Fiona

1986 "Schooling the Family." Paper presented at the British Sociological Association, Manchester.

Ravitch, D. 1978 The Revisionists Revised. New York: Basic Books.

Reid, Thomas 1983 Inquiry and Essays. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Robinson, J.B. 1839 "Robinson to Arthur, 19 March 1839." In C.R. Sanderson, ed., The Arthur Papers. II:

91. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ryerson, E.

1847 Report on a System of Public Elementary Instruction for Upper Canada. Montreal: Lovell and Gibson.

Scherck, M.G. 1905 Pen Pictures of Early Pioneer Life in Upper Canada. Toronto: Briggs.

Shor, I. 1986 Culture Wars. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Silber, K. 1973 Pestalozzi: the Man and His Work. London: Routledge.

Simon, Brian 1976 "Contemporary problems in educational theory." In Intelligence, Psychology and

Education: A Marxist Critique, pp. 264-81. London: Lawrence and Wishart. 1974 The Two Nations and the Educational Structure, 1780-1870. London: Lawrence and

Wishart. Smith, A.

1935 The Wealth of Nations. London: Methuen. Snyders, G.

1976 Ecole, classe et lutte des classes. Paris: Presses univdrsitaires. Steedman, C.

1984 Policing the Victorian Community. London: Routledge.

303



Stewart, D. 1793 Outlines of Moral Philosophy. Glasgow: Creech.

Stow, D. 1840 The Training System. Glasgow: Blackie.

Sullivan, R.B. 1838 "Mr Sullivan's report on the state of the province." In C.R. Sanderson, ed., The Arthur

Papers, pp. 132-54. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Thompson, E.P.

1968 The Making of the English Working Class. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Tonnies, F.

1957 Community and Society. New York: Harpers. Tyack, D.

1977 "The spread of public schooling in Victorian America: in search of a

reinterpretation." History of Education 7(3): 173-82. 1976 "Ways of seeing: an essay on the history of compulsory schooling." Harvard

Educational Review 46(3): 355-89. Tyack, D. and M. Burkowitz

1977 "The man nobody liked: toward a social history of the truant officer, 1840-1940." American Quarterly 29: 31-54.

Vinovskis, M. 1985 The Origins of Public High Schools. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Weber, Max 1958 Essays in Sociology, ed. H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Willis, P.

1977 Learning to Labour. Westmead: Gower. Wrigley, J.

1982 Class, Politics and Public Schools: Chicago, 1900-1950. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

304



Date post:	20-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bruce-curtis
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Policing Pedagogical Space: "Voluntary" School Reform and Moral Regulation

Documents