Tom Steele presents a special form of community learning. The Swarthmore Educational Centre in Leeds was founded by members of the Quaker movement in 1909 with the aim of including and involving people in learning activities and making sure that people were treated with equality and respect. Swarthmore is a centre for Lifelong Learning, with community projects, including arts, ICT and ‘Skills for Life’ programmes. The author describes the work of the centre, which was strongly influenced by the involvement of the European Popular Education movement in the late 19th century. Dr. Tom Steele is Senior Honorary Research Fellow at the Faculty of Education of the University of Glasgow, United Kingdom.
The Swarthmore Educational Centre in Leeds was founded in 1909 by the Society of Friends (Quakers) as an educational settlement for its Adult School leaders in biblical and theological matters. It rapidly broadened its appeal to non-religious students and is now one of the oldest Adult Education centres in Britain. Thousands of adult learners have benefited from its combinations of liberal, vocational and creative arts programmes over the last century. It has remained a relatively inde pendent centre, running its own affairs through its own Council, while playing an important part in Leeds City’s broader Adult Education provision and attracting a considerable reputation, nationally. Funding changes over the years have required Swarthmore frequently to tailor its programme but it has demonstrably retained its identity as a welcoming place of student-centred education, a centre for the crea tive arts, a weathervane for innovatory reform with a focus on the social purpose of Adult Education.
The atmosphere in which it first saw light was highly charged with the ethical socialism of the late 19th century West Riding, which saw the phenomenal growth of the co-operative movement, the rise of the trade union movement and the birth of the Independent Labour Party. It was an outcome of what became known as the Quaker Renaissance, which tried urgently to find the relevance of New Testament teaching to social injustice and the economic exploitation of working people. This movement was led by Yorkshire Quakers, particularly the Rowntree family of York but also the Harvey, Whiting and Ford families. Inspired by the success of Nicolae Grundtvig’s Danish Folk High Schools, they attempted to create a similar kind of Adult Education in Britain. They were drawn to the Workers’ Educational Associa tion (WEA) in 1903 and its attempt to recruit the universities into the serious busi ness of workers’ education through the Tutorial system. To this they tried to add a powerful spiritual dimension based on Quaker teaching.
Although initially a charitable “Settlement” governed by its patrons, by the mid 1920s it had, through its Student Guild, developed the beginnings of a student democracy. The Guild at first organised Swarthmore’s social activities to enhance the “Fellowship” that lay at the heart of Quaker associational life, through rambling and cycling groups, debating and conversation. It gradually took a greater role in planning the Settlement’s programme and suggesting new educational ventures. By the end of WW2 a change of constitution meant that students could be directly elected onto Swarthmore’s Council itself.
In its first decade the core of Swarthmore’s founding programme was Bible studies, closely allied to the WEA/Oxford University Tutorial classes in political economy. However languages and the understanding of other cultures, especially German, were present as was the teaching of science and especially biology. Between the wars, language teaching in the context of international understand ing broadened and intensified, while Bible studies diminished and Swarthmore hosted an influx of refugees from Nazi persecution. The Arts and Crafts were also developed and other liberal studies such as English, philosophy and history became increasingly popular. By the 1960s Swarthmore had developed into a significant creative arts centre with an unparalleled diversity of courses. The 1970s and 1980s saw it opening its doors to radical campaigning groups, the introduction of Arts Fellowships and innovatory forms of Access, often leading the educational way forward in the North of England. In the last two decades it has increasingly targeted educationally deprived groups through contracts with providing agencies and has become what the educationalist Michael Young might have called a substantial “social entrepreneur”.
Swarthmore was opened as an educational settlement in September 1909, at 12 Clarendon Road, Leeds in Yorkshire. The huge crowd gathered outside heard a rousing speech from one of the main authors of the project, Arnold Rowntree, the nephew of Joseph Rowntree, on the need for loving fellowship in life and the right of all working men and women to a decent education. Its first Warden was Gerald K. Hibbert, 1909-1920, a rising thinker in Quaker circles. Hibbert’s wife Wilhelmina, although unpaid, took a great responsibility in running the settle ment and played an active role in teaching women, as she had done previously at Woodbrooke College, also recently founded by the Quakers. Swarthmore also encouraged non-believers to share in the atmosphere of fellowship and the settlement soon became a magnet for thoughtful working people determined to understand “the social problem” and their relationship to it. Recalling the period in 1949, Hibbert noted that Swarthmore was “definitely (though not narrowly) a Quaker organisation” and owed a great deal to its partnerships with the WEA and the University. He tried to marry the twin concerns of biblical understanding and the study of social problems in order to illuminate how the teachings of the bible might be applied to the injustices of contemporary society. Swarthmore, he said, set out with high aims:
“to assist in self education; to provide an evening college for the otherwise college-less; to be a home centre for men and women who wish to be serviceable; to create and cement friendships; to guide active workers; to inspire lives; to welcome visitors with open doors; to reach out helpfully to other Yorkshire centres.”
(Hibbert, 1911: 2-3)
Hibbert was a deeply religious man, although his form of religion might puzzle fundamentalists today. For him religion was utterly remote from religious dogmatism and inseparable from the needs of humanity:
“Quakerism looks on life as a whole: it cannot see religion as belonging to one department and reform to another. It sees that a religion which does not issue in social reform is a bastard religion, and not the religion of Christ; while social service divorced from religion loses it vitality and soon withers as a branch when severed from the trunk.”
(Hibbert, 1911: 12)
Computer and art rooms in Leeds, Source: www.swarthmore.org
The Assistant Warden and Lecturer was Maurice Rowntree, the son of Joseph Rowntree’s cousin Joshua, who had been the first Warden of the Woodbrooke residential settlement. He was described as an “adventurous spirit” because of his frequent travels in foreign countries to observe and draw lessons from their social conditions. Later he would give a course at Swarthmore on what he had seen in his travels in the USA, drawing attention to the truly appalling conditions he had found in the stockyards. The Hibberts and Rowntree were aided by up to five resi dent Leeds University students, on the Toynbee Hall model. They were funded by another Quaker foundation, the Flounders Institute, which also donated the nucleus of a library to Swarthmore. One of the students was Wilfred Allott, who had an Exhibition to the University in 1911 and succeeded as warden in 1922. Voluntary support was encouraged beginning with a gardening committee in 1910 and the gloomy patch of sooty dirt to the side of the house soon blossomed into a garden of tranquillity and beauty in which classes were frequently held.
So what kind of educational provision was on offer in these heady days for the 213 or so eager learners who devoted their evenings to study? The bias of the classes was religious (four out of the original seven classes) while the other classes were on social affairs. These included Economics and a course especially for women on Women Work and Wages. There was also a course on Life and Thought in the East. The first of the WEA/Oxford Three Year Tutorials was Economic History, taught by Henry Clay, which was regarded as exemplary. Clay, who later became a leading economist and was knighted for his contribution to public service, claimed it was among the happiest of his experiences. A key element of the class’s success was the “Book Box”, jealously guarded by a member of the class who became the class librarian, issuing books and making sure they were returned. Oxford loaned 42 books for the 29 members of the class, who wrote a very impressive total of 212 essays between them in one year (an average of seven per student). The Oxford Committee that oversaw adult Tutorial Classes agreed that a very high level of work had been done, “Easily equivalent to undergraduate standard”.
In the spirit of Quaker scepticism and undogmatic search for truth, Hibbert offered a course on Is Christianity True? as well as others on the Old Testament, New Testa ment, Quakerism, and Modern Prophets and their message. From Leeds University, Professor David Macgregor combined with Maurice Rowntree to teach a course on Economics and the Poor Law, which led to an indictment of the factory system. There was a practical Junior and Primary teachers’ class and, for women, a class on Child life and Labour. The beginning of another important line of tuition was the first language class in German which was held in 1914 on the eve of the Great War. This stemmed from a previous class on Germany and her People in 1910 given by the Warden in which he established that the key principle of language teach ing should be its grounding in the context of the culture and spirit of the language speakers. In the same year, a French language class was also started.
The First World War had a terrible impact and almost put an end to the Settlement. Quakers campaigned actively against it, Arnold Rowntree, as an MP in parlia ment, receiving threats and abuse while the sub-Warden, Maurice Rowntree, was imprisoned for conscientious objection in 1917. Moreover Swarthmore’s classes promoted radically challenging views about the evils of capitalism, which tutors argued did not correspond with the teachings of Jesus. Swarthmore did not get a good press or expect it. It nevertheless became a hub for the Adult School move ments in the West Riding, both in hosting visiting Friends and in giving extension lectures and “Swarthmore Sundays” away from home.
After the war Gerald Hibbert moved on to become headmaster of the Quak ers’ School at Ackworth near Pontefract in West Yorkshire, founded in 1779, and took up a more prominent role in Quakerism nationally. For about a year Edmund Harvey became the Warden, before being elected as Liberal MP for Dewsbury. Post-war social and economic conflict escalated into a crisis in belief and many now drawn to Swarthmore were not from the ranks of the faithful. The scholarly and mild mannered Geoffrey Hodgson, its next Warden, welcomed them all and with the creation of the Student Guild (later Student Committee), Swarthmore started to become a student democracy. Its reach also now extended, via Harvey and Maurice Arnold (briefly an inmate), to classes in Armley Gaol, in Leeds. In 1927 Hodgson retired and his suc cessor Wilfred Allott returned. He was largely responsible for making Swarth more a centre of “internationalism” by boosting the languages programme and welcoming European refugees from per secution. Allott made “internationalism” into a cause and frequently alluded to it in his annual reports, claiming that: “By our language classes we keep alive and inform the International idea” and in other places insisted the true function of language teaching was to gain an understanding of and empathy with the people of other countries. In practice the focus was on Europe and uniting it in the face of the rise of totalitarian threats. With some foresight, he quoted the contemporary Italian philosopher Bernadetto Croce on the need for a European union in which “men’s hearts will beat for Europe as they once did for their smaller countries”. Central to this effort was a remarkable teacher called Martha Steinitz, herself a German Jewish refugee, who taught German language courses for over thirty years. Classes in the arts and crafts also expanded, while those in bible study declined. In the three decades from its foun dation, Swarthmore had changed radically with a broader largely non-religious programme, increased funding from Leeds City Council, and a wide intake of students. Its founding links to Quakerism weakened and although they were never lost, a more secular atmosphere prevailed.
New subjects emerging from the ethos of the Students’ Guild that became regulars on the programme included two classes in Folk Dancing and Arts and Crafts, the early steps in the impressively creative programme Swarthmore was to offer by the 1960s. Play-reading and performance were to become mainstreamed classes by the mid-1930s with readings on Tuesday nights and rehearsals on Fridays – in one year attempting no less than seventeen plays. Although many of these are long-forgotten, a substantial number of serious modern plays included: O’Casey’s Juno and the Paycock, Pirandello’s Six Characters in Search of an Author, Auden and Isherwood’s On the Frontier and the Ascent of F6, O’Neill’s Mourning becomes Electra and, later, T. S. Eliot’s Family Reunion.
Collapsed in exhaustion, Allott ended his long stint as Warden early in World War Two and he was succeeded for three years by the sociologist, Desmond Neill. Once again, a World War dampened the Settlement’s fire and it might have been extinguished were it not, ironically, for the army itself. Swarthmore turned khaki, offering mostly language education for the Army Pay Corps based in Leeds. It heralded a remarkable recovery in the Settlement’s fortune and after the war its positive response to reconstruction provided a focal point. Neill was replaced by a former WEA Tutor Organiser, Maurice Hughes, who developed a radically community-orientated agenda (Hughes’s daughter, Kate Pretty, is currently a Pro-Vice Chancellor at Cambridge University) and then in 1949 by the more aesthetically-minded Geoffrey Hines. While Hines was rather circumspect about the politics of his predecessors, he established a firm financial base. He also returned a more ‘spiritual’ dimension to the curriculum while expanding the range of arts subjects, particularly literature. Hines was passionate about T.S. Eliot, with whom he corresponded. He also promoted the language programme to become the largest single sector. However, he fell out with the more “political” WEA and for almost a decade there was no WEA or Leeds University involvement in Swarthmore’s pro gramme. Post-war modernity intervened in other ways and Swarthmore decided to change its title from “Settlement” to “Centre”.
The breach with the WEA was healed following Hines’s departure in 1959, but the foundation he had laid for Swarthmore’s Arts programmes was developed by his successors, Brian Stapleton and especially Brian Thompson. This was the cultural revolution of the 1960s when the Centre became a haven for creative writers and artists, hosting provocative exhibitions and dramatic scenes (not all on the newly built stage). A succession of Gregory Fellows in Poetry and the Arts from the Uni versity of Leeds was encouraged into the Centre to nurture students’ creative talents. The Gregory Fellowships had been the inspiration of Professor Bonamy Dobrée with the help of the art critic Herbert Read (a former undergraduate and probably student at Swarthmore) who persuaded Eric Gregory, of Bradford-based printers Percy Lund Humphries, to fund the appointments.
Swarthmore Council decided to raise money to buy more of the Georgian terrace where it was based to expand classes and refurbish the rooms, receiving help from benefactors like the clothing manufacturer Bernard Lyons (probably in gratitude for the role Swarthmore had played in between the wars in welcoming refugees), and the City Council. But in a sense a climacteric had been reached where, financially at least, it would become difficult to call Swarthmore simply an “independent centre” since it now received most of its funding from Leeds – and the piper would ultimately call the tune. It was now more closely integrated into the City’s Adult Education provision and took in student overflows from the local technical colleges during the day. Nevertheless the voluntary movement in the shape of the Swarthmore Council and the various committees that ran its affairs, flourished.
Adult Education policy in Britain was now increasingly seen in terms of ‘national efficiency’ specialisation rather than general human development. Swarthmore re sisted this trend and its Warden, Brian Stapleton, argued on the contrary in favour of a “Grand Comprehensive Adult Education Centre” in which you could:
“in the same environment do art and art appreciation in the same or successive years, find yourself involved in discussion with photographers and language students studying the culture of different nations, and plan joint expeditions with archaeologists and botanists. The meeting points of different disciplines become a reality and the stimulus provided act outwards to other more exclusive environments.”
(Stapleton, 1964: 15)
Such a centre could flourish, Stapleton continued, only with an active partnership between all the providing agencies including the LEA, the WEA and the university. He was absolutely insistent that specialisation and segregation were simply not in tune with adult needs, whatever the efficiency-minded modernisers wanted. However, although undoubtedly following the path of virtue, such a stance was to put Swarthmore increasingly out on a limb as far as the new “managerialist” ethos was concerned. But Stapleton effectively built on Hines’s decade of consolidation, with languages at the core and a growing engagement with the practical arts alongside a renewed commitment to social sciences. This very much laid the basis for Swarthmore’s curricular balance for the following decades and the reinstate ment of the WEA/Leeds University Joint Committee programme gave it substantial academic credibility.
Stapleton was followed as Warden by Brian Thompson in 1964 who significantly expanded arts provision with exhibitions, creative writing programmes and further integration of Gregory Fellows into the programme. Thompson’s greatest success was the promotion of Creative Writing, building on the talents of the poet Bill Price Turner. He drew in a range of other poets including George Kendrick, David MacAndrew, Pete Morgan, and the then Gregory Fellow, Martin Bell. Another published poet, Muriel Berry, became a long term and much admired tutor into the 1980s and Thompson himself taught many classes. Novel writing flourished and Swarthmore fostered new talent. Margaret Jones, for example, was awarded Best First Novel of 1968 by The Daily Telegraph for The Day they Put Humpty Together Again (Collins, 1968) and another outstanding novel was As I was Going to St Ives by Elsie Nokes. Elizabeth North published her critically celebrated work The Least and Vilest Things (Gollancz, 1971), the first of her nine novels, which sounded a clarion call for women to throw off their chains: “I have decided I may become an emergent woman”, announced its heroine Hannah Green, after twelve earthbound years of marriage. Significantly, not only did this reflect the burgeoning “Second Wave Feminism” about to transform women’s lives in the 1970s but also enduring continuity with the late-nineteenth century wave of feminist writing that nourished suffragism. Perhaps not surprisingly, an interesting but now largely ignored novel of this period was by none other than Isabella Ford, a Quaker member of the original Swarthmore Council. Her novel On the Threshold (1895) as June Hannam notes: “explored the dilemmas faced by young middle-class women who enjoyed greater personal freedoms than their mothers but were still confined by social expectations and conventions”. (Hannam 1989:87) Plus ça change.
The radical cultural shifts begun in the 1960s continued into the 1970s. In 1973 the new Warden (and then Director after 1990) was Martin Russell who served for the longest period and presided over some the most critical changes faced by Swarthmore. The Centre’s open-door policy was generously extended and all man ner of campaigning groups now found shelter in it. Many hoped that the govern ment’s Russell Report on Adult Education of 1973 would initiate a new age for Adult Education and, although it did not receive adequate funding, it did act as a vital stimulus, focusing provision on what many saw as a long neglected concern for “the deprived”. The great scourge of the age, however, was mass unemployment and Swarthmore swiftly provided educational programmes for unemployment groups and established its own welfare counsel ling service. While continuing to expand its liberal and practical arts programmes in cooperation with the WEA and the University, Swarthmore intensified its own social concerns. Perhaps the most interest ing new programme was “Fresh Starts” which was one of the earliest “Access” to Further and Higher Education courses, complete with crèche and counselling. Another achievement was the succession of creative Arts Fellowships funded by Yorkshire Arts which cemented members’ relationships with practising artists. Spurred on by the success of its applications to the new sources of funding opening up, Swarthmore also secured funds to build a brand new hall to replace the now crumbling one built in the 1950s.
Members were given a much bigger say in how the Centre was run and informa tion increased exponentially – bulletins, newsletters, appeals and leaflets poured out of the effervescing Roneo machines (this was before photocopying) and onto notice boards and coffee tables. Members were now regularly asked their opinions and were press-ganged to serve on Swarthmore’s committees such as the House Committee, which was at the heart of the Centre. It ran the coffee bar, the crèche and playgroup, decorated these areas and organised social events, all on a volun tary basis, with their own separate financial accounts. In addition there was a new Programme Planning Board and by the end of the 1980s an Equal Opportunities Committee. As well as his admiration for Swarthmore’s voluntarism, the Warden, Martin Russell, was moved by the work of the great Brazilian educator Paulo Freire whose “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” had been recently translated into English and by the Russian/American “deschooler” Ivan Illich – it was “all cloth kits, woolly jumpers and bad hair”, one long-standing member recalled.
Swarthmore’s national reputation was endorsed by the Director of NIACE, Alan Tuckett, with a ringing approval of its achievement in a speech at Swarthmore’s eightieth birthday celebration. Tuckett concluded:
“I want to finish by celebrating something which is magic about this place… (Swarthmore members) burn with a passion and fire for learning. It’s because in the end culture is made by ordinary people sharing a sense of ownership of what they are doing. And whatever else it has, Swarthmore is uniquely, I think, in Britain the place where adult learning backs its rhetoric with its practice. The amount of student control in the management of this Centre is unparalleled in Britain and I think that is important for you to know and recognise”.
Without that voluntary effort and enthusiasm, Swarthmore would have looked very different. The line of dedicated chairpersons and officials, stretching back to its Quaker founders, who gave up their evenings for committee work and raising funds, who kept the coffee bar running, who spotted new needs for education and harassed local authorities for no reward other than to see the Centre flourish, made it a testament to civic pride. However, it wasn’t always seen this way by the Labour-led Leeds City Council, which in the late 1980s damagingly cut Swarth more’s budget and forced a serious financial crisis on the Centre. It meant that new mainstream funding had to be found, urgently. Ironically, given it was a Tory government’s legislation, the Further and Higher Education Act (1992) threw a lifeline and Swarthmore successfully applied for majority funding to be transferred to the newly created Further Education Funding Council (FEFC). However, it came at a cost, which was the large scale “accreditation” of the programme – a policy Swarthmore Council had long resisted – and Business Plans.
Driven by successive abrupt and unasked for funding changes, Swarthmore has been obliged to become a limited company and an “entrepreneurial” venture (although of a distinctly social kind). It has acquired a substantial administrative staff to deal with the various sources of income, the paraphernalia of accreditation and the priority groups at which it is targeted. Annual reports began to look more like company statements. Its annual income is now around one million pounds (compared with the £900 of its first year) with a comparable wage bill. The most noticeable change is that day-time provision is now dominated by contractual provi sion for deprived and disabled groups, but there is still a lively “self-funding” arts and crafts evening programme. Sadly, both languages and the close partnership with the WEA have all but disappeared from the programme and the voluntarist engagement significantly lessened. Links with the Society of Friends (Quakers) have however been renewed.
In the new language of “Lifelong Learning” that has accompanied New Labour’s educational policy, the Centre now describes its “core programme” as provision for the “excluded” and educational courses have become subtly retitled as “learning activities”. This reflected a shift from teaching-centred “education” to student centred “learning” and a concern for the perspective of the students or “learners” as they were now known, rather than the providing institution – “learning styles” replaced “teaching modes” as the dominant discourse. In some sense this shift of emphasis was something adult educators had been pursuing since the 1970s when UNESCO first promoted “education permanente” – although in truth it went back to Basil Yeaxlee in the 1920s (Yeaxlee, 1929). But it could be said that this was always Swarthmore’s style of provision and the language had only now caught up with the practice (one particularly regrettable piece of the new style vocabulary, however, was that courses were not so much “taught” as “delivered”, like the mail).
However, the programme at Swarthmore in some ways has had to retreat one stage further than that of its founders – who always assumed a certain literacy among its working class students – to the “deficit education” classes of the mid nineteenth century Adult Schools. “Targeting” meant that the Centre’s classes were now aimed at the most socially deprived students, whose existence is a sad com mentary on the failure of the welfare state to eliminate severe social deprivation over the intervening century and a half. Moreover, Swarthmore’s founders believed they were helping to educate a working class élite to lead the Labour movement into the new era of democracy and social justice through their own abilities. Education was to provide the tools for a new political order based on fellowship and equality and a rational belief that, if only people understood more about themselves and the world they lived in through applied study, social problems could be solved. By the year 2000, however, “targeting” had abandoned any such utopian aims and now meant preparing people from deprived backgrounds for the labour market, cultivating confidence in their own abilities and attempting to equip them with skills to make a living.
Although present provision appears to have travelled a great distance from the founding ideals of the European Enlightenment’s popular educational movements (see Steele, 2007) and the Quaker Renaissance of the late-nineteenth century, much has changed in the fabric of society. It is argued that compulsory educa tion, free health care and public housing, all of which were in many respects the achievements of these social movements, have reduced the need for popular Adult Education. The near 50 % of the post-school population who now receive Higher Education, which was unimaginable a half century ago, is a testament to the pressure for social equality. The bulk of the population is better housed, fed and educated than at any time and there is no need for the political and social move ments that brought institutions like Swarthmore into being.
And yet there is still plenty of “unfinished business” as Fred Sedgwick, the celebrated post-war District Secretary of the WEA in Yorkshire used to say. The movement of social equality has stalled and the life chances of the population are
still dependent on the luck of family circumstances. Through private education and the benefits of inherited wealth, the better-off are consolidating their hold on the prestigious universities. Wide-spread illiteracy and severely constricted lives still characterise the lower two decentiles and the wealth divide is increasing alarm ingly. Inequality on this scale, as Richard Wilkinson has recently argued, increases the likelihood of crime, social disorder, racism and seeking redress through political violence, as in the 1930s (Wilkinson 2009). On the other hand, Adult Education has demonstrated its enormous social value over the last century. As Swarthmore has clearly shown over its century, people respond much more positively to the arts and culture if their own creative potential is encouraged and developed – without the need for the qualifications’ “virus” introduced by policy makers. New social problems such as sexual, racial and social discrimination are much more likely to be discovered and attended to in the safe atmosphere of liberal education. Similarly, political and social problems can be effectively aired, if people can discuss them in an informed, open-ended and democratic environment.
Perhaps the most interesting decline in tuition is that in the sciences, the promise of which inspired the historical social movements. Despite its manifest virtues, science still struggles to compete with the certainties of revealed religion, perhaps precisely because it does not deal in such absolute “truths”. With the onset of potentially cata strophic climate change and the wide-scale denial of its existence, science within liberal Adult Education may have a crucial role to play. The courage to examine for oneself the evidence for and against and to engage in rational debate should indicate that institutions like Swarthmore are not just relics of a utopian golden age but key forums for social renewal.
Hannam, June (1989) Isabella Ford. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hibbert, Gerald Kenway (1911) Swarthmore and St Mary’s: An Expression of Modern Quakerism, Friends Quarterly Examiner, January 1911: 1-16 (Leeds City Reference Library L374.64 SW26).
Stapleton, G. B. (1964) ‘Cooperation, a View from the Centre’ in Adult Education Vol xxxvii, No 1 May, 1964: 14 -17.
Steele, Tom (2007) Knowledge is Power! The Rise and Fall of European Popular Education Movements, 1848-1939. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Tuckett, Alan (1989) ‘A Moment in the Sun’, a lecture to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Swarthmore, in Swarthmore 80th Annual Report.
Wilkinson, Richard and Pickett, Kate (2009) The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London : Allen Lane, 2009.
Yeaxlee, Basil A. (1929) Lifelong education: a sketch of the range and significance of the adult education movement. London: Cassell and Co.
DVV International operates worldwide with more than 200 partners in over 30 countries.
To interactive world map