Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1986 31

Child-centred, Gender-centred: a criticism ofprogressive curriculum theory from Rousseauto Plowden

JOHN DARLING

ABSTRACT The child-centred theme of natural development in Rousseau's Emile hasexercised a powerful and benign influence on education. Rousseau's proposed curriculumfor girls, however, seems extraordinarily illiberal, requiring as it does a rigorouspreparation for playing the traditional female role in a male-dominated society.

It is argued here that such a conservative policy on the education of girls is inevitablein an educational theory which makes a virtue of its empirical foundations. Observa-tional studies of the female's nature and of her needs and interests portray her as societypermits or requires her to be rather than as she could or should be. This is a dangerousweakness in influential twentieth-century versions of child-centred theory which haveembraced a scientific approach in the hope of enhancing their credibility. The fulleducational development of girls, however, requires a distinctive vision of how thingsought to be, a willingness to defend such value judgments, and a determination tointervene positively in the classroom.

INTRODUCTION

The 'progressive' theory of child-centred education constitutes a broad platform onwhich a great diversity of liberal reformers have spoken about schools. Over the last200 years this educational philosophy has captivated the imagination of the enlightenedwhile its critics have been made to look increasingly churlish and uncaring. Where atheory is so seductively attractive, it is particularly important to be sensitive to anypossible defects or dangers.

This paper is written in the belief that the rhetoric of reform associated with child-centred education disguises the way in which this philosophy reinforces an essentiallyconservative conception of education. In itself, this is not a novel claim. Progressivismhas been portrayed as offering more subtle classroom techniques for exercising wide-ranging powers over pupils [1]; it is said to provide "greater effectiveness for socialcontrol and structuring aspirations" [2]. One writer alleges that its critique of book-based education lends support to those who want to prevent the educational advance ofworking class pupils [3]. And another declares that

what starts out as an assertion of human liberation becomes turned back onitself as a means of further repression or accommodation. [4]

Where this paper may be breaking new ground is in highlighting the tension between

32 Oxford Review of Education

this kind of educational philosophy and the feminist objective of changing school andsociety along non-sexist lines. This point is important in its own right; but it is alsoimportant for the way it underlines the inherent conservatism of child-centrededucation, and because it shows how this is attributable to the nature of progressiv-ism's theoretical basis.

ROUSSEAU ON THE DETERMINANTS OF A GIRL'S CURRICULUM

A prima facie case can be established by looking in the first instance at that greatsource of all child-centred writing, Rousseau's Emile. Froebel was inspired by thiswork, and A. S. Neill felt in hindsight that he had been unwittingly practising itsprinciples. Two modern classics of child-centred education, England's Plowden Reportand Scotland's Primary Memorandum, both bear witness to Rousseau's influence andcan be understood as attempts to cash out some of his principles in modern classroomterms.

Among the principles governing Emile's curriculum are three which have beenespecially admired. First, Emile should have unlimited scope for play. This isadvocated partly on humanitarian grounds, and partly because of the learning potentialof such activity. Secondly, Emile is not to be pressurised into studying: learning will beacquired when the child develops the appropriate interests and capacities. Thirdly,Emile is not to be directly taught: instead he should be encouraged to think things outfor himself and to draw conclusions from his own experience.

As well as giving this well-known account of the education of Emile, Rousseau'streatise also describes the ideal curriculum for a girl. (This programme is proposed foranother fictitious character called Sophie.) Rousseau's curriculum for girls has notbeen widely discussed, and it is symptomatic of our times that one writer has recentlytried to explain this in terms of sex bias. Historians of educational thought are declaredto

have neglected Sophie because they have implicitly defined their subjectmatter as the education of male human beings, rather than the education ofall human beings. [5]

There are, however, other possible explanations for the neglect of Sophie's educationwhich are more plausible and less strained. Emile is a long book to study, and Sophiedoes not appear until the second half of the narrative. The account of her education ispedestrian compared with Rousseau's proposals for Emile: why should educationalistsspend time on the former when the latter offer stimulation and illumination? Finally,the principles of Sophie's education are too far out of tune with our thinking in the lastquarter of the twentieth century for them to be seen as relevant, assimilable or worthyof consideration. It is hoped, however, that this paper will show that Rousseau's viewson girls' education are significant and enlightening, though not in the way Rousseauintended.

In Rousseau's account of Sophie's education all the principles outlined above arereversed. Sophie is to have little freedom [6]. Her play, says Rousseau, ought to befrequently interrupted so that she learns to put up with life's irritations. Instead oflearning being pursued in accordance with the learner's own pace and inclinations,Sophie's lack of application in arithmetic lessons is to be combated by rewarding goodwork with cherries [7]. Instead of exercising her own judgment on religious questions,she is to learn religious doctrines without going into the reasons for holding them [8].

Progressive Curriculum Theory 33

Rousseau's underlying reason for this difference in strategy is that girls' educationcannot be the same as boys' education because girls are not the same as-boys. Inpositive terms Rousseau sees the female as more modest, more cunning, moreunderstanding of the opposite sex and more skilled in personal relationships. Thethings women lack are concentration, accuracy, moderation in both religious faith andsexual desire, skill in abstract disciplines and good judgment in literary matters.Rousseau's explanation of these differences between the sexes is that they arecomplementary and that male and female are intended to pool their native resources:

Woman has more wit, man more genius;woman observes, man reasons; together they

provide the clearest light and the profoundestknowledge which is possible to the unaided mind. [9]

But this division of talents hardly suggests a partnership between equals, and Rousseauin fact maintains that the law of nature bids the woman obey the man. In proceduralterms it is significant that Emile's development is explained in its own terms whileSophie's nature is explained in terms of how it differs from Emile's.

Perhaps the most important difference in his curricular proposals for girls and boysis that while Rousseau explicitly rules out the preparation of boys for any specificfuture role, a girl's education is to be conducted in the light of the destiny which hernature determines. Men, he says, are only sometimes men, but women are alwayswomen [10]. Females should play the role of compliant wife, mother and home-maker,and girls should be educated with this future in mind.

Why does Rousseau believe in the importance and Tightness of the woman'straditional role? In the first place he suggests that it has always been like this. Thetraditional role is more generally accepted the further back you go in history; and, forRousseau, earlier times were closer to a state of nature and therefore morally superior.Further, the nature of the sex act shows that the male is intended to dominate and thefemale is meant to please. Physiologically, the female is made for child-care; herdomestic role is essential for the prospering of family life; and any subsequent changeof role is supposedly injurious to her health. Finally, a woman will not flourish in maleoccupations ("a woman is worth less as a man") [11]; so she should stick to what sheexcels in instead of rebelling against nature's intentions.

These intentions are manifest at an early age; every young girl actually likes sewing,says Rousseau, and loves playing with dolls. This, he concludes, "shows her instinctivebent towards her life's work" [12]. Today we might be able to think of alternativeexplanations for these interests. It is certainly curious that while in other contextsRousseau is very much alive to the power of environmental influence and thelikelihood of children acquiring ideas which are prevalent in society, his explanation ofgirls' interest in sewing is given in terms of instinct and a 'grand design'.

The design of nature means that the future role of every girl is laid down in advance.This role determines what every female needs—essentially, male admiration andrespect. This need in turn dictates the curriculum for girls. "They should learn manythings, but only such things as are appropriate" [13]. These include learning to bepleasing, learning to submit to male authority and acquiring useful accomplishments.One such accomplishment is the art of conversing agreeably with their husbands: forthis girls require an education that transcends the more menial domestic arts. Theymay, for example, be introduced to logic and metaphysics but they "should only skimthe surface" [14]. A girl's curriculum must from start to finish be designed for the

34 Oxford Review of Education

benefit of men; but since women need men's good-will, this kind of instruction willalso be to the benefit of the female pupils.

Rousseau's views on the nature of girls' education are directly related to his views onthe proper place of women: indeed he treats the two questions as a single issue. We cantell that his stance here is conservative even by the standards of his times; first,because he presents it as a call to return to the ways of nature; and secondly because hecriticises contemporary loss of respect for the traditional sexual division of labour. Hecomplains that men are working in shops and in the tailoring trade while women setthemselves up as literary critics. Before the eighteenth century was out, Rousseau wasbeing powerfully castigated by Mary Wollstonecraft on behalf of 50% of the popula-tion [15].

How did the founder of progressive educational theory come to propagate such aview of females and their education? It is tempting to try to excuse this as anidiosyncratic aberration explicable in terms of Rousseau's troubled experiences withthe opposite sex. Like most men, he found difficulty in getting his women to be exactlyas he wanted them to be. Unlike most, however, he seems to have been unable to cometo terms with this. It may be that writing Emile was his response: a fantasy curriculumwas designed which would produce women in an unblemished form, prepared to playtheir proper role.

Instead of this easy, dismissive interpretation, however, it seems more fruitful to tryto see why the kind of liberal educational philosophy for which Rousseau is justlyreputed could accommodate or even entail such an impoverished curriculum for girls.His unabashed espousal of what we now call 'sexism' provides a conveniently dramaticprompt for the question: Is there something in child-centred education which lendssupport to such a conservative position and which obstructs the development of moreradical views? To explore this question effectively we must move beyond Rousseau tomore modern, and widely accepted, statements of child-centred thinking.

THE APPEAL TO SCIENCE

The essence of the child-centred critique of traditional schooling is that its methodsare 'ill-matched to' or 'not in harmony with' the nature of those whom it purports toeducate. So progressive writers from Rousseau onwards have spent much time andspace explaining to readers what children are really like, how they develop, and howthey learn.

The picture of the child presented in typical child-centred writing is one of a naturallearner who is keen to find things out and anxious to make sense of his world. Theobjection that this view is at odds with the experience of many teachers is brilliantlydeflected in a way that confirms the progressive's perception of both child and school.Pupils may in practice seem reluctant to learn, but this, it is argued, is due to theiroriginal disposition being thwarted and perverted by a repressive and unintelligentprocess of schooling. The devastation caused by educational traditionalism can bedemonstrated by observing that five-year-olds enter school keen, interested, eager tolearn and noting that after 15,000 hours of schooling they emerge cynical andindifferent. This loss of interest is seen not as a natural development, but as somethingpathological which requires diagnosis.

One important part of the answer has been to say that while each child is aninstinctive researcher, the form that his enquiries would naturally take bears littleresemblance to the subject-based divisions of knowledge that make up the traditional

Progressive Curriculum Theory 35

curriculum. To replace this the child-centred educationist advocates a curriculumwhich is based on the child's needs and interests, and which takes proper account ofthe nature of the child and the way he develops. Hence the Plowden Report's famousdeclaration:

At the heart of the educational process lies the child. No advances inpolicy... have their desired effect unless they are in harmony with thenature of the child, unless they are fundamentally acceptable to him. [16]

But what is the nature of a child, or indeed the nature of a human being? And how is itto be known? A reading of Rousseau's Emile is useful here if it serves to alert theunwary to the problems of characterising this kind of foundation objectively. What istransparent in Emile is the extent to which Rousseau's account of woman's needs andnature was influenced by his view of the ideal society. Perhaps the only thing that canbe said in Rousseau's defence is that he was at least open in his claim that women weredesigned for a specific and subordinate role, and that this traditional social/sexualarrangement was one which he saw as desirable.

Where the social premise is suppressed, however, it is harder to challenge what ispresented as 'fact'. In 1944 the Norwood Report claimed that there were three kinds ofpupil, each needing a different kind of education. Some children were said to be"interested in learning for its own sake" and "able to grasp an argument". There wereothers whose "interests and abilities lie markedly in the field of applied science orapplied art" for whom "subtleties of language are too delicate". And there was a thirdtype whose mind "must turn its knowledge or its curiosity to immediate (practical)test" [17]. One cannot resist the conclusion that such perceptions are determined bythe desirability of having children enter a stratified adult society at one of three levels.Similarly, racist governments which argue about the difference in nature betweenwhites and blacks and the consequent differences in their respective needs areinevitably influenced by what they see as the proper role of blacks in society.Wherever a subordinate role is envisaged, a limited and limiting curriculum is deemedappropriate. So the concept of 'education according to nature' can be a reactionarydictum as well as a reforming one depending on the political perspectives of the user.

Today child-centred theory tries to avoid these quicksands of subjectivism by basingitself on the rock of science. Modern statements of progressivism are pre-occupiedwith demonstrating that their preferred approach is derived from empirical research.The Primary Memorandum was seen by its authors as being "built round Piaget" [18],and the Plowden Report parades the names of a number of psychologists in sectionsheaded 'The Children: their growth and development' and 'Children learning inschool'. Accounts of the child's nature which could once be dismissed as the spuriousviews of armchair philosophers could now be presented as established scientific fact[19]. The progressives' belief that they have science on their side is the moderneducational equivalent of an army's belief that it has God on its side—and it is equallygood for morale. Teachers who adhere to traditionalist ways come to be seen as simplyill-informed about relevant scientific findings.

The Primary Memorandum neatly summarised this outlook:

The pattern of education in the primary school years must . . . above all haveregard for the nature of the child and for the way he grows and developsduring this period. In recent years research has yielded a considerableamount of information on these very points, and if education at the primary

36 Oxford Review of Education

level is to meet the child's needs and interests, this body of knowledge mustexercise a decisive influence on the attitude and practice of teachers. [20]

Two years later, the Plowden Report echoed the central idea:Knowledge of the manner in which children develop... is of prime impor-tance, both in avoiding educationally harmful practices and in introducingeffective ones. In the last 50 years much work has been done on the physical,emotional and intellectual growth of children. There is a vast array offacts.. . [21]

In their enthusiastic embrace of developmental psychology, both documents fail toshow any critical awareness of the limitations of this kind of empirical investigation.There seems to be a naive supposition (or perhaps a hope) that the child-centredapproach to education can be justified without introducing evaluative non-scientificconsiderations. This paper now raises the question of how far one can legitimately geton the basis of observational studies, and examines the danger of being guided byexisting patterns of child development.

NEEDS AND INTERESTS REVISITED

R. F. Dearden has drawn attention to the fact that careful observation of children issometimes seen as capable of revealing their 'needs'. As Dearden points out, a need isnot a characteristic that can be observed or noted simply by empirical methods: toidentify a child's needs one must go beyond Plowden's 'vast array of facts'. Someone'shaving a need involves an assumed purpose or desired end which can be achieved byfulfilling the 'need'. Now there may in practice be no difficulty in establishing what isneeded where the relevant purpose or desired end is beyond dispute. That a starvingman needs food is obvious because it is clearly better that people should live ratherthan die. Equally a steeplejack needs a good head for heights because his job is definedin terms of working at a great distance from the ground. We may make a logicallysimilar claim about inanimate objects. If a television set shows a pictureless screenthen it needs to be repaired. This claim seems beyond argument not because everyoneattaches a positive value to television programmes, but because showing a movingpicture is what television sets are for. The purpose of a television set is built into itsdesign. But the purpose of a human being (beyond such basic objectives as keepingalive) is not self-evident. Consequently the goals to be realised by education aresubject to debate of a kind that cannot be settled by empirical research. As Deardenputs it:

One has to look behind statements of need to the values that are guidingthem, for it is here that the issue substantially lies. [22]

Dearden is less satisfactory when he goes on to suggest "giving up talk about acurriculum based on children's needs" on the grounds that "every curriculum is aneeds-curriculum". While it may be true that all educational programmes could becharacterised in such terms, child-centred educationists are not making a whollyvacuous point. They are surely advocating attending to the needs of the child, ratherthan to the needs of government or the needs of industry. Yet it will be argued laterthat their inability to deal adequately with these broader social considerations consti-tutes a significant weakness which requires analysis. Dearden himself, however, seemshere to be falling in too readily with the assumption that 'needs' must be not the needs

Progressive Curriculum Theory 37

of society but the individualistic kind which studies of children purport to reveal.Nevertheless, Dearden's basic point holds good: what we judge children to need willdepend on how we think they ought to develop. This question is not rigorouslypursued by the Plowden Report which instead contents itself with the differentquestion of how children actually do develop.

We have noted that in child-centred education 'interests' are often linked with'needs' to provide a dual organising principle for the curriculum. However, the notionof 'interests' is a straightforward one, and there is no logical difficulty in establishingempirically who has what interests when. Following Rousseau's report that girls likesewing and playing with dolls, it will now be useful to go on to examine some otherobservations made by progressives about female interests.

The idea of education which caters for each child's interests suggests designing acurriculum which allows choice between different activities according to the child'sactual preferences. The school which developed this principle as far as it would go wasA. S. Neill's Summerhill. Neill is generally seen as the most radical of child-centrededucationists, and he consistently argued that a child should spend his time pursuingwhatever interested him. Despite some critical remarks about our patriarchal society,Neill's brief discussions of the differences between male and female remain at analarmingly superficial level. He notes, for example, that girls are more concerned withtheir appearance and are less active in school management; and that boys do moredamage because, unlike girls, their fantasy life requires pirate ships and gangster hold-ups. Yet he offers no account of why the sexes differ in these ways. However, when hegoes on to suggest that boys may be more creative than girls he becomes morereflective and conjectures that he may have acquired this impression because atSummerhill there is a lot of material which boys are interested in but girls arenot—radios, engines, and a workshop with iron and wood [23]. But he does nottake the next step of asking why these different patterns of interest have arisen: hemerely accepts them. Such a casual noting of these differences is hard to defendwhere every pupil's learning programme is directly determined by his or her actualinterests.

The constraints of a more conventional classroom may impose limits on the scopefor pursuing individual interests. Nevertheless, in its discussion of art and craft, thePrimary Memorandum states: "There is no reason other than that of expediency whyall the members of the class should be occupied on similar tasks." And it declares:"Railway and aeroplane modelling has a strong appeal for many boys, as does doll'shouse furnishing for girls" [24]. This line of thought is taken a step further when it issuggested that sewing techniques should be imparted to girls, but apparently not toboys. While the girls are learning sewing, the boys are no doubt learning sawing. This,after all, seems to be the logic of an interest-based curriculum. The question is whethereducators should accept such one-sided patterns of interest as 'natural', or view themas an undesirable kind of development which ought to be corrected.

It is clearly not enough to establish what children's interests are. We must also askourselves such questions as: What kind of interests would we like children to have?And how ought their interests to develop? From these evaluative questions there is noescape, whatever may be urged to the contrary by those progressives who adhere toNeill's non-interventionist principles. Surely it is a mistake to think that if the teacherdeliberately refrains from implanting or cultivating interests in pupils, these pupils willgrow up in a kind of vacuum which will permit self-determination? Even within

' specially designed environments like Summerhill wider society brings its own pressures

38 Oxford Review of Education

to bear. These need to be evaluated by the teacher so that he or she can decide whetherthey should be welcomed, or resisted, or provided with a counter-balance.

It is noteworthy that feminists do not shrink from making their evaluations openlyby demanding a curriculum which encourages boys to develop an interest in cooking,and girls to develop an interest in metalwork. This proposal reflects a distinctive viewof the kind of people feminists would like to have emerging at the end of the schoolingprocess, and the kind of society that should be aimed for. Feminists have a vision ofalternative social arrangements and relationships which are seen as morally superior toexisting ones.

Moral and political ideals, however, are shunned by both the Plowden Report and thePrimary Memorandum. How do they see the connection between today's pupils andtomorrow's society? We have seen in what they say about children the assumption thatthe way to proceed is to study what children are like and then design a curriculumwhich will reflect this. Similarly, in so far as it is deemed necessary to take society intoaccount, it seems one should study the nature of the social environment and thenensure a good match between this and schooling's end-product. Thus the PrimaryMemorandum:

Education must . . . have due regard... for the attainments, qualities andattitudes which society will expect of him as an adult. [25]

But what if society puts a premium on people who are grasping, competitive, self-centred and uncaring? And what if society expects males to be dominant and femalesto underachieve? Such questions are simply not considered.

The Plowden Report underlines the need to predict what society will be like whenprimary school pupils leave schooling behind [26]. The perceived rate of social change,however, creates a difficulty which is ingeniously circumvented in both documents byarguing that education should make children adaptable. An unpredictable social orderis to be matched by a curriculum for flexibility. As might be expected, there is noserious attempt to tackle the questions of how society ought to develop, and whatcontribution schooling could make to promoting such development.

CONCLUSION

Earlier in this paper it was claimed that the most basic charge levelled by progressivesagainst educational traditionalism is that traditionalists are not adequately informedabout the nature of children. The consequence of this is that the traditional curriculumis incorrectly designed and cannot succeed: the way to produce a soundly designedcurriculum is to pay due heed to the scientific findings of developmental psychology.

This suggests that modern child-centred education is a technically superior versionof the same thing: it does not involve a new and different view of what education isfor. Despite expressions of egalitarian sentiment and vague talk of valuing theindividual, it tries to avoid seeing education as a tool for changing society (or indeedfor conserving it). From Rousseau to Plowden it has been anxious to demonstrate itsown empirical foundations, but a science of childhood cannot see beyond what is.Psychologists may give us increasingly sophisticated accounts of how children actuallydo develop, but this is no substitute for asking 'How do we want them to develop?'Today's pupils constitute tomorrow's society; but questions about preferred socialorders cannot even be considered in a scientific theory of education. It is a mark of thecaptivating power of child-centred educational theory that many liberals are only now

Progressive Curriculum Theory 39

coming to recognise the importance of tackling such questions: feminists have certainlydone much to put them back on the agenda.

Perhaps, however, the conservatism of child-centred education goes beyond itsseemingly scientific basis. The favoured accounts of what children are like are reportednot just in detail, but in loving detail. Underlying these apparently dispassionateobservations, there is often a relish for childhood the way it is. Rousseau speaks of "thecharm we find in beholding the beauties of childhood" [27] and advises:

Love childhood, indulge its sports, its pleasures, its delightful instincts...[28]

It is a short step from this to his coining the ultimate conservative slogan, "What is, isgood" [29]. One symptom of this kind of belief is the great reluctance of the thorough-going child-centred teacher to intervene, to direct or to criticise when dealing withchildren. But if we are to further the aim of a society where there is a just and equalrelationship between the sexes, then teachers must be prepared to challenge some ofthe observed patterns of boys' and girls' development, and not just allow things to taketheir 'natural' course.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

[1] See DARLING, J. (1978) Progressive, traditional and radical: a re-alignment,Journal of Philosophy of Education, 12, pp. 160-161.

[2] SHARP, R. & GREEN, A. (1975) Education and Social Control: a study inprogressive primary education , p. 224 (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).

[3] JONES, K. (1983) Beyond Progressive Education, p. 31 (Basingstoke, Macmillan).[4] SCHAPIRO, H.S. (1984) Ideology, hegemony, and the individualizing of instruc-

tion: the incorporation of 'progressive' education, Journal of Curriculum Studies,16, p. 377.

[5] MARTIN, J.R. (1981) Sophie and Emile: a case study of sex bias in the history ofeducational thought, Harvard Educational Review, 51, p. 371.

[6] ROUSSEAU, J.-J. (1911) Emile, translated by B. Foxley, p. 333 (London, Dent).[7] Ibid., p. 332.[8] Ibid., p. 340.[9] Ibid., p. 350.

[10] Ibid., p. 324.[11] Ibid., p. 327.[12] Ibid., p. 331.[13] Ibid., p. 327.[14] Ibid., p. 389.[15] WOLLSTONECRAFT, M. (1975) A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, (Ed. by

C.H. Poston), ch. 5 (New York, Norton).[16] CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (ENGLISH) (1967) Children and

their Primary Schools (The Plowden Report), Vol. 1, p. 7 (London, HMSO).[17] See LAWTON, D. (1977) Education and Social Justice, ch. 3 (London, Sage).[18] FARQUHARSON, E.A. (1985) The making of the Primary Memorandum, Scottish

Educational Review, 17, p. 26.

40 Oxford Review of Education

[19] For an uncritical statement of this view, see MOORE, T. (1982) Philosophy ofEducation: an introduction, pp. 32-3 (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul):

What is needed in an educational theory is an accurate factual picture ofhuman nature. . . and this can only come from... scientific studies ofchildren themselves Piaget, Freud, Kohlberg and others. . . have moreto offer in this respect than the great names in traditional educationaltheory.

Quoted in CARR, W. (1985) Philosophy, values and educational science, Journalof Curriculum Studies, 17, p. 122.

[20] SCOTTISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (1965) Primary Education in Scotland (ThePrimary Memorandum), p. 3 (Edinburgh, HMSO).

[21] CACE, op. cit., p. 7.[22] DEARDEN, R.F. (1968) The Philosophy of Primary Education, p. 16 (London,

Routledge & Kegan Paul).[23] NEILL, A.S. (1968) Summerhill, p. 29 (London, Penguin).[24] SED, op. cit., p. 170.[25] Ibid., p. 11. See also p. 17.[26] CACE, op. cit., p. 185.[27] ROUSSEAU, op. cit., p. 123.[28] Ibid., p. 43.[29] Ibid., p. 344.

Correspondence: John Darling, Department of Education, University of Aberdeen,King's College, Aberdeen AB9 2UB, Scotland.