Following Reading College’s recognition as a Day Training College in 1899, it became increasingly evident that, despite construction work, the premises on Valpy Street were inadequate for an institution that had aspirations to become a University College or University. As W. M. Childs put it in ‘Making a University’:
‘The new buildings of 1898 gave relief, but we had hardly become used to them before we began to outgrow them. The prospect was serious. The site would take no more buildings; it could not be enlarged and to put part of the College elsewhere would destroy unity, and was otherwise impracticable. We began to talk of migration and rebuilding, not too hopefully.‘ (p. 38)
South front of the College in Valpy Street, showing the South-East Wing under construction (Calendar 1897-8)
It is well known that the original College was relocated to the present London Road Campus in 1905. I was surprised to discover, therefore, that a sketch plan of Reading dated 1902 showed the present location of Kendrick School as the new site.
Edited Map from the Calendar of 1902 showing the college on the site of today’s Kendrick School
The locations marked on the plan are:
A: College Buildings and British Dairy Institute in Valpy Street;
B: College School of Music;
C: ‘Site of new College buildings’ (now Kendrick School);
D: College Garden (rented for Horticultural Teaching and Practice – now part of the University’s London Road Campus);
E: St Andrew’s Women’s Hostel;
F: St George’s Women’s Hostel.
The explanation for this anomaly is that in 1901, Reading’s Town Council came up with a proposal that would have solved the College’s problems of space: the College’s premises in Valpy Street would be exchanged for the section of municipal estate shown on the map. The parties came to an agreement the following year and all seemed well until 1903 when lawyers uncovered insurmountable problems relating to the proposal’s legal validity, leasehold rights and possible restrictions on building.
In the College map of 1903, therefore, reference to the ‘Site of new College buildings’ had been removed.
Sketch Plan from 1903 published in W, M. Childs’s memoir (1933)
In 1903, W. M. Childs took over from H. J. Mackinder as Principal of what was now University College, Reading. It was Childs who sought a solution by approaching Alfred Palmer, a member of the College Council, about the possibility of taking over land and buildings on London Road that had been the Palmer family home.
Palmer had recently agreed to donate £6,000 to the College building fund, and an agreement was reached by which this donation was sacrificed in exchange for the transfer of the property to the college. The following is an extract from Palmer’s letter of agreement, written to the Principal from his home in Wokefield Park, Mortimer on January 13th 1904:
‘I am willing to give the College the grounds and buildings known as “The Acacias” and “Greenbank” including the stabling, cottage, paddock, and the strip of ground adjoining the paddock …. There is a frontage on to the London Road of about 270 feet, a depth of about 700 feet along the Redlands Road, and a width of about 340 feet along the Acacias Road. In making the offer of this site I withdraw my promise of contributing Six Thousand Pounds to the building fund of the college.‘
Palmer also declared that he was prepared to sell the houses and gardens of Nos. 32, 34, 36, 38 and 40 London Road for £4,000, thus providing an extra 240 feet of frontage.
Plan of the land and buildings donated by Alfred Palmer (the College’s Official Gazette, Feb 1904, p. 6)
On 19 January 1904, the College Council accepted the offer unanimously and the first removals from Valpy Street to what was to become today’s London Road Campus began in 1905. The annual calendar used the map below to illustrate the most convenient route between Reading’s two stations and the two sites.
The best route from the stations and Valpy Street to the new campus (edited from the University College Calendar, 1905-6)
Sources
Childs, W. M. (1933). Making a university: an account of the university movement at Reading. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
University College, Reading. Calendars, 1902-3, 1903-4, 1905-6.
University College, Reading. Official Gazette. No 33. Vol. III. 21stJanuary, 1904.
University College, Reading. Official Gazette. No 34. Vol. IIi. 22nd February, 1904.
University Extension College, Reading. Calendar, 1897-8.
The Discipline Book is a bit of a mystery. It can be found at the bottom of a box of papers about women students: documents about the requirement to wear hats, their volunteering for social work, rules in women’s halls, boat racing for women and regulations about contact between the sexes.
The book is an impressive and expensive-looking volume with its embossed crest, gold lettering, and an elegant lock. It bears the name of The University Extension College Reading, and looks as though no expense was spared to record the misdemeanours of its students.
Nevertheless, the contents are a disappointment. Only the first page contains any entries, all dated June 1900. By this time the Extension College no longer existed, having become Reading College in 1898. On this single page are the names of a mere seven students. Five of them had committed the sin of breaking the ‘10.30 Rule’, arriving late at their accommodation; one had failed to sign a register; and a certain Miss Sheppard, the only female, had been reported by Miss Sealey for ‘irregularity and idleness’ (see below for further details).
The first page of the Discipline Book
The only other information is on a loose sheet dated May 1902. It refers to two male students, Messrs Evans and Thomas. The writing is hard to decipher, but lateness was again an issue as well as ‘going out in the evening with girls’. It was feared that this might ‘lead to trouble’.
A loose sheet inserted into the Discipline Book
I don’t know who filled in these entries. Was it the Principal? The Censor? The Vice-Principal? The Master of Method? They do, however, reflect issues of student discipline that remained a concern for staff and students for many years to come.
J. C. Holt’s official history of the University of Reading records the changing nature of the general regulations for students and the specific rules and customs for halls of residence between 1921 and 1973. They deal with matters such as compulsory attendance at Sunday worship, wearing academic dress, smoking, ‘lights out’ and curfews. The 10.30 rule (10.00 on Sundays) was still in force in Wessex Hall in the 1920s. In women’s halls in the 1930s no student was allowed to leave the premises after hall dinner without the warden’s permission, though there were some privileges for ‘senior students’. All visitors had to leave by 6.00 pm and men could not enter student rooms without the warden’s permission. At Wantage Hall in 1930:
‘Guests (men) may be entertained at meals in the Hall or at tea in rooms, if due notice has been given…. Ladies are not admitted to the precincts of the Hall unless the permission of the Warden has been obtained. When such permission has been granted, the visit must terminate before 7.0 pm.‘
Institutions varied considerably and the conflicts in universities and colleges during their early days are documented from a women’s perspective by Carol Dyhouse: confrontations between students and wardens over regulations that sometimes seemed more suited to a boarding school than higher education. In some places, the need for chaperones could hinder women’s access to the library, college societies and even tutorials, and the penalties for contravening rules about contact between the sexes could be severe.
Who were Miss sealy and the delinquent students?
The College Calendar of 1899-1900 lists Miss Sealey as Teacher of Needlework (Diploma, Gold Seal, London Institute, Registered Teacher of Needlework, City and Guilds Institute). Miss Sealey ran an ‘evening’ class that took place on Thursdays and Saturday mornings and was typical of the many technical, commercial and craft courses run by the College at the time. The syllabus consisted of:
‘Cutting out from diagrams and making simple garments. Drawing diagrams on sectional paper. Repairing underclothing and household linen.‘
I assume that Miss Sealey also had other responsibilities which is how she came into contact with Miss Sheppard. The only person with that name in the examination lists is a Daisy Sheppard who studied English Literature while training to be an elementary school teacher between 1899 and 1901. I assume this was in the Day Training section. If this is her true identity, she passed her first year (Division 2) and her second and final year (Division 3) despite her ‘irregularity and idleness’.
As for the male students:
Mr Judd (10.30 Rule: ‘Excuse: midnight train to Town. twice. no leave‘). Edward Thomas Judd was awarded the Associateship in Agriculture in May 1902.
Mr Mansfield (?) (10.30 Rule: ‘This the 2nd time. I have sent for him.‘). I can find no record of this student despite trying different spellings.
Mr John (10.30 Rule: ‘Went for a walk after 10.30.‘). David W. John passed the Board of Education Certificate Course (Primary Division) in 1901. He was successful in College Associate examinations in Fine Art (‘Drawing freehand’ and ‘Drawing with chalk upon the blackboard’), English and History,
Mr K. C. Johnson (10.30 Rule: ‘Very late: theatrical rehearsals.’). Kenneth C. Johnson passed in ‘Geology and Physical Geography and in Agriculture (Soils and Crops)’ in 1900.
Mr E. C. Childs (Not signing a register: ‘Forgot.‘). Edward C. Childs was another Primary Education student who qualified in 1901. He passed a wide range of College Associate examinations: English, Mathematics, Fine Art, Greek, Latin, Philosophy, French and Geography. He continued his studies at Reading and obtained an external BA from the University of London in 1902.
Evans (‘going out in the evening with girls’, etc.). Walter O. Evans went on to complete the Associateship in Letters in (English Literature, History, Geography, Maths, Education) with a Class II, Division ii pass.
P. Thomas (‘going out in the evening with girls’, etc.). Three Thomases are mentioned during this period, but this is Powell Thomas who passed the Associateship Examinations in 1903 (English & History – both with Distinction, and Education).
Post Script
I wondered whether Edward Childs was related to William MacBride Childs (then Vice-Principal; later Reading’s first Vice-Chancellor) but I can find no reference to him in Hubert Childs’s biography of his father.
Sources
Childs, H. (1976). W. M. Childs: an account of his life and work. Published by the author.
Dyhouse, C. (1995). No distinction of sex? Women in British universities, 1870-1939. London: UCL Press.
Holt, J. C. (1977). The University of Reading: the first fifty years. Reading: University of Reading Press.
Reading College. Official Gazette. No 2. Vol. I. January 3rd 1902.
Reading College. Official Gazette. No 12. Vol. I. August 20th 1902.
Reading College. Reports to the Academic Board, 1899-1900 and 1900-01.
Reading College. Calendar, 1899-1900.
University College, Reading. Official Gazette. No 18. Vol. I. December 24th 1902.
University College, Reading. Official Gazette. No 28. Vol. II. August 26th 1903.
University of Reading Special Collections. Uncatalogued papers relating to women students. Reference UHC AA-SA 8.
In my post about the Normal Department I noted that the origins of Teacher Education at Reading University could be traced to the founding of the University Extension College in 1892. In 1898 this became Reading College, soon followed by recognition as a Day Training College. This extended its field of operations and laid the foundations for what would eventually become today’s Institute of Education.
According to Carol Dyhouse’s ‘Students: a gendered history‘, day training departments in colleges and universities were introduced by the government in 1890 and were responsible for a significant increase in student numbers, particularly of women. Reading and Southampton followed in the steps of 13 other institutions in gaining recognition in 1899.
Reading College Calendar 1899-1900: Childs was still Lecturer in History & English Literature; he became Vice-Principal in 1900, Principal in 1903 and Vice-Chancellor of the University in 1926
By the time of Edith Morley’s appointment in November 1901, the Day Training College was preparing 80 full-time students for the Elementary Teachers’ Certificate on a course lasting two years. These students formed the bulk of full-timers in the arts and sciences.
The provision was innovative in at least two ways. First, from the outset most students were accommodated in halls of residence (rendering the phrase ‘day training’ inappropriate). And second, thanks to the cooperation of heads of the other departments, they were admitted to degree courses. The latter initiative raised some eyebrows in Whitehall but it seems to have been a success in as far as the trainees became fully integrated members of the student body and helped to secure the future of a group of subjects that became the nucleus of the Faculty of Letters. In other words, Education was at the very centre of academic activity.
A half century later, in 1949, Sir Frank Stenton, the University’s third Vice-Chancellor, paid tribute to the role of this early Education department in helping to overcome fears that the College was doomed to provide little more than technical instruction:
‘For this, all who are interested in the University of 1949 owe gratitude to the little group of teachers and students who formed the miserably housed and infelicitously named Day Training College of fifty years ago.‘ (p. 4)
Admission to the Day Training Department
Those eligible for admission were:
Candidates who had obtained a first or second class pass in the Queen’s Scholarship Examination;
Certified teachers who hadn’t received 2 years training;
Graduates;
Candidates over the age of 18 who had passed an examination approved by the Government Education Department.
Candidates in categories 2 and 3 only had to complete one year of the course.
Acceptance was subject to a health check conducted by the Medical Officer, Dr J. B. Hurry, and a declaration that it was the candidate’s bona fide intention to teach in a state school.
The College received £20 per student in fees (£10 from the student and £10 from the Government Education Department). Grants for maintenance for Queen’s Scholars consisted of £20 for women and £25 for men. Students not living at home paid a maintenance fee of £15 (women) or £12 (men).
The Course
As the first-year timetable below suggests, students were kept busy six days a week with a combination of subject knowledge and lectures on teaching method. These were interspersed with just four short slots for private study or tuition.
The first published timetable for the Day Training Department (Reading College Calendar 1900-01, p. 119)
The Master of Method
The creation of the Day Training Department also marked the appointment of the first official Lecturer in Education. As can be seen from the first Calendar extract above, this was J. H. Gettins who served as ‘Master of Method‘ until 1907 when he was succeeded by H. S. Cooke.
Professor Albert Wolters, the subject of a previous post on this blog, had been a student in the Day Training Department in 1902. Nearly half a century later, he still had fond memories of Gettins:
‘The staff consisted of Mr. J. H. Gettins, who, harassed but cheerful, worked from morn to night, giving lectures and supervising school practice, knowing all the time that by reason of the training being concurrent with academic studies his Department was a nuisance.‘ (p. 18)
During Wolters’s time as a student, teaching practice was a mere three weeks per session and took place at the Swansea Road Board School. Further schools became involved later, including Redlands.
The Next 50 Years
In the half century following its establishment as a Day Training College in Valpy Street, the Education Department went from strength to strength and was responsible for a number of key innovations. A previous post has already mentioned the Department’s early contribution to educational research and to the schooling of evacuees during World War II, following which it was fully engaged in the government’s Emergency Training Scheme.
One particular initiative excited wide interest. This was the University College’s ‘Farm School‘ at Shinfield, an experiment that took place between 1912 and 1926. It was attended by as many as 120 children annually from the borough including pupils from Redlands School (by then the Department’s ‘demonstration school’). Sadly, the scheme was abandoned as priorities changed when the University College became the University of Reading, but the tradition of Outdoor Education is still maintained today through the work of Dr Helen Bilton, Professor of Outdoor Learning at Reading’s Institute of Education.
Post Script
There were Mistresses of Method as well as Masters, though none of the lecturers in education at Reading ever had the title.
In Edith Morley’s chapter on women at universities, she includes training teachers as one of four kinds of opening available to women:
‘These posts, which are remunerated on about the same scale as other University lectureships are well suited to those whose interest lies mainly in purely educational matters. Girls who have obtained good degrees, but do not wish to devote themselves entirely to scholarship, will find here an attractive and ever-extending sphere of influence.’ (p. 19)
And:
‘Mistresses of Method are well aware that the ideal type of training has not yet been evolved: they are seeking new ways of carrying on their work and experimenting with new methods at the same time as they are guiding others along paths already familiar to themselves.‘ (p. 19)
During the 50 years between 1899 and 1949 there were 32 full-time Education staff at Reading. Seventeen were women (these figures omit academics such as Edith Morley who were in other departments but contributed subject-specialist expertise to Education courses).
Sources
Armstrong, H. (1949). A brief outline of the growth of the Department. In H. C. Barnard (Ed.), The Education Department through fifty years (pp. 9-17). University of Reading.
Barnard, H. C. (1949). A note on the term “Day Training College. In H. C. Barnard (Ed.), The Education Department through fifty years (p. 8). University of Reading.
Campbell, I. E. (1949). The farm school, 1912-1926, and the development of courses in rural science for intending teachers. In H. C. Barnard (Ed.), The Education Department through fifty years (pp. 33-6). University of Reading.
Dyhouse, C. (2006). Students: a gendered history. Abingdon: Routledge.
Morley, E. J. (2014). Women at the universities and university teaching as a profession. In E. J. Morley (Ed.), Women workers in seven professions: a survey of their economic conditions and prospects (pp. 11-24). London: Routledge. [Edited for the Studies Committee of the Fabian Women’s Group].
Morley, E. J. (2016). Before and after: reminiscences of a working life (original text of 1944 edited by Barbara Morris). Reading: Two Rivers Press.
Reading College. Calendar, 1899-1900 & 1900-01.
Reading College. Report of the Academic Board, 1898-9 & 1899-1900.
Stenton, F. (1949). Vice-Chancellor’s foreword. In H. C. Barnard (Ed.), The Education Department through fifty years (pp. 4-6). University of Reading.
Wolters, A. W. (1949). Early days. In H. C. Barnard (Ed.), The Education Department through fifty years (pp. 18-20). Reading: University of Reading.
