Margaret Mathieson (1988; 1990) has underscored the seminal importance of Coleridge’s ideas about imagination, creativity and childhood for British education. According to Mathieson, Coleridge was also the major source of the ideal of an élite literary culture, based in the classics, English literature and the Bible, working to raise the spiritual and cultural level of the nation. Coleridge, Mathieson claims, introduced the notion of a ‘secular clerisy’, in which literature is a substitute for religion.  Further, by subordinating scientific and commercial values to literary ones, and by engendering an ethos of anti-urbanism and anti-industrialism in the educational establishment, the Coleridge tradition contributed to Britain’s post-war economic decline (Ibid 1988).

European formulations of the educational value of imagination and creativity in childhood drew on many of the same intellectual sources as Coleridge.  Pestalozzi evoked the restorative powers of nature. Froebel encouraged the systematic observation of nature as a spiritual exercise. Such ideas were taken up piecemeal in Britain, chiefly in Kindergarten, in ‘progressive’ private schools (e.g. Dartington, Bedales, Summerhill) and some primary schools. They also found support among teacher trainers in the Institute of Education, especially in primary art education.  And they constituted a major source of the tradition of taking the rural environment as a topic of study.

Medway and Kingwell (2010) and Hardcastle (2008) have discussed a pivotal shift in focus from rural to urban topics in a London school in the post-war period. There is no single explanation for how and why this happened. One explanation lies in the political outlook of teachers who were responsive to the language and culture of working class children. They were predisposed to recognize their pupils’ expressive capabilities.  A further explanation concerns the breaching of a highly stratified education system. The élite literary culture was transmitted chiefly by subject specialists (Classics and English) in public schools and state grammar schools. Creativity was fostered in primary schools by generalists.  Dialogue was rare.  But a major change occurred when some grammar school teachers moved into the stimulating context of a new kind of ‘comprehensive’ school where they took up methods developed in the primary sector. Much vibrant work followed, often drawn from pupils’ daily experiences of urban life outside the classroom.

But this doesn’t explain the shift away from anti-urbanism. After the war, the run-down condition of Britain’s citiesbecame a focus of national debate. The Festival of Britain (1951) promoted urban planning based on information gathered about people’s needs. There was ‘rediscovery’ of the urban working classes within the new Welfare State.

Drawing chiefly on evidence from oral interviews from a major research project, Social change and English 1945-65, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, we will discuss how such developments played out in two contrasting London schools, starting from what went on in classrooms.  This will involve mapping networks, contacts and ‘the kinds of correspondences that are characteristic features of modern cities ‘(Lawn and Grosvenor 1999).

Hardcastle, J L ‘Four Photographs in an English Course Book: A Study in the Visual Archaeology of Urban Schooling’, Changing English, Vol.15 No.1 March 2008, pp. 3 -24 Lawn, M and Grosvenor, I ‘Imagining a Project: Networks, Discourses and Spaces – Towards a New Archaeology of Urban Education’ in Paedagogica Historica Vol.35 No.2 1999 Mathieson, M and Bernbaum, G ‘The British Disease: a British Tradition’ in British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 26 No. 2 July 1988 pp.126-174 Mathieson, M ‘Progressive Educators and the Creative Child’ in British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 38 No. 4 November 1990 pp.365-380 Medway, P and Kingwell, P ‘A Curriculum in its Place: English Teaching in One School 1946 -1963’ in History of Education Vol. 39 No.6 November 2010 pp.749-765