1

Experimentingwitheducation:spacesoffreedomandalternativeschoolingin

the1970sIntroduction‘Oursisanagewhenallstructuresandinstitutionsareinquestion,asarethefaithsandvaluesthatunderliethem’,reflectedAustralianeducationalcommentatorHenrySchoenheimerinhisdepictionoftheproblemsfacingschoolsinthe1970s(Schoenheimer,1973,p.1).Themodernworld, he believed, confronted major political, moral and ecological crises to which theconventional forms of schoolingwere ill-equipped to respond: their practiceswere insteadexacerbatingsuchproblems.Alongwith internationaladvocatesof ‘deschooling’andradicaleducation such as Ivan Illich (1973[1971]), Paul Goodman (1964) and Paulo Freire (1972[1970]),Schoenheimersawschoolsasoppressive,socializingyoungpeopleintothehabitsofinstitutionalized thought and conduct, undermining individuality and dulling the creativespirit:hebelievedthatitwasimperativetodestroy‘‘theschoolasitnowis’(Schoenheimer,1973,p.3). Asaregularcontributortothenationalpress,Schoenheimerwasaprolificandinfluentialcriticofschooling.1Hisfrustrationswithtraditionalschoolingandconcernsaboutmodernity were shared by many educators, as was his desire to create new educationalcommunities. Ideas conventionally associatedwithprogressive education goingback to theearlytwentiethcentury,suchaschild-centredness,freedomandtheroleofschoolsasplacestofosterself-discoveryweregainingrenewedattentioninthelate1960s,alongsidearadicalcritique of schools that looked to their potential to disrupt entrenched power inequalities(Maslen1993).Bytheearly1970s,asmallbutneverthelesssignificantandinfluentialnumberofgovernmentschoolswithalternativeformsofcurriculum,schooldesignandorganisationalstructureswere established in Victoria, offering newways of imagining schooling, of beingstudentsandteachers(TheEducationalMagazine1973,1974).ThisarticleexploresphilosophiesofprogressiveandradicaleducationcirculatinginAustraliain the period immediately following the expansion of secondary schooling in the 1960s. Itexplores the rise of the alternative and community school movement in the governmentschoolsectorduringthe1970s,addressingtheideasofteachersandeducatorspredominantlyworkinginthestateofVictoria.Canvassingarangeofdebatesandeducational initiatives, itexamines two schools in Melbourne – Huntingdale Technical School and SwinburneCommunity School.While 1970s progressive schools held certain radical ideas in commonandsharedarepudiationofconventionalschoolstructures,therewereimportantdifferencesinphilosophyandsetting.Thezeitgeistofthe1970smightseemfamiliarenough,anditwouldbeeasytosimplyreadtheseschoolsoffthe‘It’stime’feelingforchangeandmodernization.But there remainmore challenging andmore important questions about how towrite thehistory of that mood and time in education once wemove from generalization to specificcases. Howwere radical ideas realised and translated in the set-up and design of schools?What material form did they take in the organisation of schooling within a mass state

2

schooling system? Contrasting the spaces, material arrangements and aspirations of twoschools–againstawiderbackdropof innovation–helps illuminatesomeof thecomplexityandparadoxesinthehistoryofprogressivethoughtanditsmanifestationsinstateschooling.

ThisdiscussionispartofalargerhistoryofprogressivethinkingandeducationalexperimentinAustraliaacrossthemid-twentiethcentury;thelargerprojectexaminesideasandfeelingsaboutwhat ‘progressiveeducation’wasandshouldbe, itsvisionsanddisappointments,andtheshiftingconceptionsoftheimaginedpupiltowhomitseffortsweredirected.Lookingtothe1960sand70s,callsforgreaterfreedomandopennessaccompaniedareconsiderationofthepedagogiesandplacesof schooling.Questionsabout the roleof schooling in relation todemocracy, community, and the challenges ofmodernitywere in play, bringing into sharprelief the social purposesofpublic education.This articleoffers a first explorationof theseideas, by considering the physical, imagined and symbolic spaces of alternative schools. Itdraws on published writings and reports from teachers and commentators at the time,publications from the Victorian Department of Education, media discussions, internal andpublisheddocumentationonspecificschoolsandoralhistoryinterviewswithformerteachersandprincipalswhoworkedatalternativeschools.Thebuildingsandarchitectureofschools,BurkeandGrosvenorargue, ‘shouldnotbeviewedmerelyascapsulesinwhicheducationislocatedandteachersandpupilsperform,butalsoasdesignedspacesthat,intheirmateriality,projectasystemofvalues.Inturn,thewaysinwhichbuildingsareusedandexperiencedgivethemmeaning’(BurkeandGrosvenor,2008,p.8.).Inthefollowingdiscussion,Ifocusnotontheactualexperienceofalternativeschoolspacesandbuildingsbutontheirimaginedeffectsand the deliberate reconfiguring of relations between schools and communities that theirdesignandsettingsaspiredtobothrepresentandenable.

Three inter-related arguments are developed. First, school design and spatial settingwereintegral to the promise of alternative schools. It is argued, however, that there weresignificantdifferencesinhowthiswasimaginedandmobilisedwithinastateschoolsystem,notably theways inwhich radical ambitions could be institutionalised or even normalisedinto the fabric of everyday schooling, as the contrast betweenHuntingdale and Swinburnereveals. Second, reconfiguring relations between the school and community was a centralplankofthealternativeschoolmovement.Opennesswasthecatch-cryofthedaybut itwasalwaysaboutmorethanatypeofclassroomspace. Itwasagesturetoopen-mindedness, tofreeingthemindofoldhabitsandwaysofbeingateacherandstudent,anditwasametaphorformoreopen,egalitariansocialrelations,toberealisedinthenewplacesandspacesoftheschool in the community and the community in the school. The space of the progressiveschoolenacteditsidealsasself-consciously,assertivelyandnormativelyastherowsofdesksand platformed teacher of the ‘traditional’ school. The contrast between Huntingdale andSwinburne shows differences in how those community relations – and the variouspossibilitiesandfuturestheyheralded–wereembeddedintheorganisationandpositioningoftheschool.

3

Third,claimsthatspaceshapessubjectivityhavebeenwell-rehearsed(e.gMassey1994),as

have arguments that educational discourses shape subjectivity and construct normative

identities.Complementingthesedebates,anemergingbodyofscholarshipis lookingathow

the design and aspirations of school spaces shape, make possible and regulate particular

teacherandstudent identities(Paechter2004;Kozlovsky2010;Leanderetal2011).This is

accompaniedbygrowing interestamonghistoriansofeducation inexploring theemotional

andsensoryregistersofthematerialityandspacesofschooling(Grosvenor2012;Sobe2012).

On the one hand, radical and socially critical schools challenged normative identities and

encouragedanoverhaulofestablishedideasaboutbeingateacherorastudent.Ontheother

hand,itisargued,alternativeschoolsoperatedwiththeirownnormsandanticipatedcertain

typesofchildrenandstudents, imagininghowtheywouldbest learn,behappyandsocially

engaged, and become free, critical and responsible future citizens. Such students were

variously characterized as choice making and self-starting, ‘“actively enquiring, flexible,

tolerant”’ (Wilkins 1972, 18), their capacities and creativity held back by the factory like

drudgery of regular schooling. New school environments and pedagogies responsive to

student interests were imagined as setting free such immanent or emergent student

subjectivities. Inordertounderstandthese identitynormsandaspirations, Ire-orient focus

fromthemorefamiliartargetsofenquirysuchascurriculum,informalinteractionorschool

cultures to look at how alternative school spaces, and the imagination, arrangement and

designofthephysicalandmaterialenvironmentexpressedparticularunderstandingsofthe

innerworldsandcapacitiesofnewtypesofstudents.

Alternativeschoolspromisedtoliberatestudentsfromtheconfinesoftheclassroomandtheconstraints of institutionalized learning. They variously occupied community buildings, re-created familial and intimate environments in older houses, or embraced innovative open-plan and purpose-built classrooms that reflected flexibility and utility, creating newopportunities for social and educational interactions. And alternative schools were to bedifferentinhighlyvisibleways,notonlyinphilosophy,curriculumorclassroominteractions.Thevery ‘look’, feel, set-upanddesignof theseschoolswas tobeobvious, toberecognisedandintelligibleasnot-like-school.TheFoucauldianconceptofheterotopiacapturesthisdualpositioningandambivalentrelationtothemainstream,inwhichalternativespaceswerebothlike school but not school, somethingmore, and something else. In a brief butmuch-citedessayFoucault gives an account of spaces and spatial arrangements ‘that have the curiouspropertyofbeingconnectedtoallotheremplacements,butinsuchawaythattheysuspend,neutralize, or reverse the set of relations that are designated, reflected, or represented[réflechis]bythem’(1998,p.178).Thesespacesareoftwotypes:utopiasandheterotopias.

4

For Foucault, utopias have no real place, and are ‘essentially unreal’: ‘They are societyperfectedorthereverseofsociety’.Incontrast,heterotopiasarerealplaces‘designedintotheveryinstitutionofsociety’,yettheyare‘utterlydifferentfromalltheemplacementsthattheyreflect or refer to’ (ibid). They represent, contest and reverse dominant emplacements’.According to Tamboukou: ‘In being different, heterotopias interrogate discourses andpractices of the hegemonic space within which they are localizable’ (Tamboukou, 2004, p.188); theypresent ‘akindofcontestation,bothmythicalandreal,of thespace inwhichwelive’ (Foucault, 1998, p. 179). I consider the potential of analysing alternative schools asheterotopic spaces, but more importantly note the different forms and ways in which ascounter-sitestheystandin‘anambivalent,thoughmostlyoppositional,relationtoasociety’smainstream’ (Saldanha, 2008, p. 2081). To help contextualise 1970s community schools, Inowturntoquestionsregardingthelongerhistoryofprogressivismandexaminesomeofthedistinctiveelementsof70sprogressivismwithinasystemofstateschooling.Ithenconsiderthecontextofstateschoolingatthetime,highlighting issuescriticisedbyalternativeschooladvocatesandtheinfluenceoftheopen-planethosamongeducatorsandbureaucrats.OldandnewprogressivesAnextensivebodyofhistoricalresearchexistsonprogressiveeducationintheearlytwentiethcentury,muchofitdominatedbythestudyofkeyindividuals,asCunningham(2001)notes,alongsideaburgeoningstrandontheinternationalcongressesandassociationswhichspreadand sustained theirwork (Brehony, 2004; Campbell and Sherrington, 2006). Scholarship ispatchier,however, from thepost-warperiodonwards.Drawingonhis studyofprogressiveeducation in the post-war UK, Cunningham suggests that research is also needed on the‘networksandstructuresthroughwhichindividualprogressivesoperated’(2001,p.433).Themostimportantquestionsforhistoriesofprogressivism,heargues, ‘havelesstodowiththeoriginsofideasandpracticesinthewritingsandexperimentsofawell-documentedfew,thanwiththedisseminationof these ideasandpracticesandtheir implementationoradaptationon a wider scale’ (2001, pp. 436–7). Fielding and Moss’ study of radical and democraticeducation (2011) gives an historical and philosophical account of post-war progressiveschooling,mainlyintheUK,butlookingalsotoEuropeandtheUSA.Itencompassestheideasof leading proponents as well as the work of teachers and head teachers and also,interestingly,theperspectivesofstudents.Theyturntopastexamplesofdemocraticpracticesin schools as a way of finding directions for the present, (Fielding and Moss, 2011, p. 2;passim). In many respects, their book is itself part of a tradition of progressive thought,grapplingwithwaysto‘searchforaradicaleducation’andof‘nottodespairoftheschoolasaplacetohelprealisehumanpotentialitiesandademocraticwayoflife’(2011,p.72).Such work points to an emerging interest in understanding the form and legacies ofprogressive and radical thinking in education in the latter half of the twentieth century; todate,however,itrepresentsarelativelysmallbodyofscholarship.Inthecaseofprogressive

5

and alternative education in Australia in the 1960s and 70s, there remains little work oneither the key figures or the national, school-sector, teacher and community networks thatadvocated and put such ideas into practice. Potts’ (2007) assessment of key progressivewriters is an exception, but even then it addresses only two examples of Australianprogressiveadvocatesinthe‘countercultural’era.Proponentsofalternativeschoolingcouldbefoundincurriculumassociationsandteacherunions,alongsideindividualsandgroupsofteachers in particular schools and bureaucrats and curriculum personnel within stateeducation departments (Noyce, 1985; interview with G. Tickell, 2012; interview with T.Delves, 2012). The progressive impulse also spread beyond specific community schools,influencing practices and structures in regular state schools—evident in, for example, theemergenceofsub-schoolsormini-schoolcommunities,studentgovernment,andcurriculumexperimentation(interviewwithD.Stark2012;interviewwithM.Vickers,2012).Transnationaldebatesandexchangeswerecentral to thisperiodofreform,as theyweretotheearlierwavesofprogressivism,withthevisits toAustralia in theearly1970sof leadingfiguresandthewidedisseminationoftheirtextsandideas(AUS,1972;TheOpenBook1972a,1972b)—Friere’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1972 [1970]) and Illich’sDe-schooling (1973[1971]). Australian activists and educators were, however, not simply in the thrall ofinternational experts and, as part of building an intellectual and cultural history ofprogressivisminAustralia,moreneedstobeknownaboutthere-contextualisationandlocalinventions and engagements with these mobile ideas and their variants of child-centred,humanist, libertarian, and socially critical alternative education.Adetailed considerationofthe ‘travelling ideas’ (Popkewitz, 2005) of progressive educational ideas in Australia isbeyond the scope of this article, but engagements with such debates form an importantbackdroptotheriseofcommunityschoolinginVictoriainthe1970s.Importantly, the growing interest in alternative schools during the early 1970s was notconfinedtoanichegroupofeducationactivistsorphilosophers. A ‘Dictionaryofkeytermsfor parents’ in the Education Supplement of the Melbourne Age included a definition ofcommunityschoolsas ‘progressiveschoolswhichaimtobreakdowntheoldstuffybarriersbetweenhomeandschool’(HillandMatthews,1973,p.10).Aspartofthis,‘kidsgoonlotsofexcursions,andadultscomeintotheschool—mums,dads,skilledorunskilled,potters,artists,anyonewhocaninterestkidsandmakethe“community”arealpartofschoollife.Communityschools open their libraries, sports facilities, craft rooms to theneighbourhood’. A sense ofdefinitechangewasintheair,withthearticleconcluding:‘Foralongtimeeducationistshavetalked about it. Now it seems to be happening’. Morewidely the 1960s and 70swas self-consciouslyanewtime—ofsocialmovements,offeminism,oftherightsandfreedomsoftheindividual (Noyce, 1985, p. 2). TheAustralian federal LaborGovernment came to power inDecember1972onthewinningsloganof‘It’stime’—timeforachangeofpoliticalparty,andtimeforcomprehensivesocialchange,witheducationalreformacentralpartofitsplatform.

6

The Educational Magazine (a publication of the Victorian Department of Education) ranseveralspecialissuesintheearly1970sonopenplanschoolsandtheneedfornewtypesofschool buildings. It reported on the philosophy of community schooling as well as theworkingsofindividualschoolssuchasSwinburneCommunitySchool,HuntingdaleTechnicalSchool and alternative annexes or settings, connected to high schools such as Moreland,CollingwoodandSydneyRoad(e.g.TheEducationalMagazine,1972,no4;1973,no.4;1974,no.1).Withintwotothreeyearstherewasaremarkable floweringof interest inalternativeeducationacrossthestate,withseveralsignatureschoolsestablishedwithinthestatesystemacross metropolitan Melbourne (Farrago 1972; The Open Book 1972b; The EducationalMagazine1973).Accompanyingthesedevelopmentsweredebatesabouthowtodistinguish1970salternativeschoolsfromearlierformsofprogressiveeducation—didtheyrepresentacontinuationoforabreakwiththeprogressivismofheearliertwentiethcentury?Progressiveeducationintheearlier twentieth century emphasized ‘experience that is meaningful for the child, self-directed activity, and freedom coupled with shared responsibility’ (Lawson and PetersoncitedinSaha1972,p.13).Itwasquestionedwhethersuchformulationsremainedappropriateinthemodernera.An‘interestedparent’reportinginTheAustralianHumanistonherstudyof ‘Freeschools inVictoria’ reflected thatwhile ‘“Progressive”used tomean“child-centred”whenallotherschoolsweretraditionalandsubject-centred’,shehadbeentoldthatnowadays‘educationalistsonlyspeakofprogressiveschoolsasanhistoricalmovement.Thenewtermis“life-oriented”, and this outgoing attitude, together with an emphasis on warm two-wayrelationshipsbetweenstudentsandtheir teachers,areperhapsthemaintrends in forward-lookingschoolstoday’(South,1972,p.6).Pupilswerenottobecutofffromtheworldaroundthem,summarizingthat‘societymustcomeintotheschoolandtheschoolintosociety’,(ibid).Othercommentatorsnotedacontinuationwiththespiritofearlierprogressivism,objectingtoviewsthatprogressiveeducationhaddeclinedifnotdiedbythe1940s,citingasexamplestheestablishment of schools such as Swinburne Community School in Melbourne or theAssociation of Modern Education (AME) in Canberra, and the spread of the open planclassroomsinprimaryschools(Saha1972,p.13).Schoenheimerobservedthatwhiletheterm‘progressive’wentoutoffavourinthe1960s,bythemid-1970sitwasbeingrevivedandused‘toindicateakindofschoolingthatisbeingofferedasanalternativetothetraditionalstyle’(1975,p.14).Thecurrent‘progressivepackage’waslikelytoinclude,heproposed,afocusonthe child learning ‘at his own pace’, exercising ‘guided choice’ on ‘what he is to learn, andwhenandhowandwhere’, the teacherasahelper,promotingself-discoveryandcreativity,withpupilsfreetomovearoundclassroomsandtheschool,motivatedbyself-disciplineandhappyrelationshipsbetweenpupilsandteachers(ibid).

7

While thereweresomecontinuities inbroadeducationalphilosophy, significantdifferencesexistedbetween theearlierprogressiveschoolsand the flourishingofalternativeeducationduring the 1970s. The earlier schoolswere typically private and small-scale, imbuedwithabstractidealsofindividuality,freedomandequality,guidedbyaromanticviewofthepowerofthenaturalenvironmenttostimulatethechild’slearningand,asexpressedfamouslyinthewordsofA.S.NeilofSummerhill,sawthat‘theaimofeducationistofindhappiness’(Punch,1969, p. 123). Examples of such schools in Australia include Koornong and Preshil inMelbourne (Koornong focus group, 2012; Goad, 2010; Smyth 1973a), and Quest Haven inSydney (Goad, 2013), all established in the interwar period, with Preshil the only onesurviving beyond the 1940s and continuing into the present day. A number of small-scaleprivateprogressiveschoolswereestablishedinAustraliaduringthe1970s(Connors,1971),such as ERA (Education Reform Association) established in Melbourne in 1971 (Smyth,1973b; ERA 1971/1972) and AME (Association for Modern Education) established inCanberra in1972(TheAMESchool2014). In termsof thehistoryofprogressiveeducation,however,oneofthemoststrikingaspectswastheestablishmentofalternativeschoolswithinstate school systems. Like the earlier progressives, these government schools were alsounderpinned, in varying degrees and shades, by humanist conceptions of the freedom ofindividuals,psychologicalunderstandingsoftheinnerworldofthechildandthetherapeuticpotentialofeducation;but for themostpart thisconvergedwithapoliticallyradicalstancetowards the cultural authority of traditional curriculum and social structures and adeterminationtoengagewithcommunitiesbeyondtheschoolwallsandgardens.Whilenoteschewing the freedom and choice-making capacities of the individual child, there was astrongandvocalcommitmenttodemocraticeducationandegalitarianismandafocusontheimportanceofcommunityandschoolrelations.Thisgavethemaquitedifferentfeelfromtheliberal, libertarian, middle-class forms of much earlier progressive education, commonlylampooned for indulging the children of the well-to-do and arty (Punch, 1969; Lambert,1969),orcriticizedasexclusivedomainsentrenchingsocialprivilege.Criticsofindependent(non-government)progressiveschoolsinthe1970ssawthemaselitistinstitutions, tending to the educational needs of those able to afford their fees. LyndsayConnors (1971), an advocate for state schooling, observed that it was not surprising thatchildren flourished in such schools. They had the benefit of small class sizes, attentiveteachers and often came from middle-class homes with parents ‘vitally interested ineducation,sociallycompetentandculturallyprivileged‘(Connors,1971,p.14).ForConnors,therealworkofprogressiveeducationshouldhavebeenamoredemocraticimpulsetowardsequalityofopportunity,toenricheducationforallstudents,notonlythosewhocouldaffordto pay for it, and to spread the principles of alternative schooling across mainstreameducation:

8

Fortunatelyforthosemanychildrenwhodon’tliveneara‘progressive’school,manyparentsandverymanyeducatorshavecommittedthemselvestoamuchwiderandmorechallengingtask—todevelopintellectualcuriosity,systematicthinking, resourcefulness, socialparticipationandculturalawareness ineverychild.Theyhavenotdesertedthemany;theyarepreparedtotackletheinertiaof a large system, to infiltrate a bureaucracy and to participate forcibly in afairlyuninvitingcontext.(ibid)

This was arguably the situation in Victoria, where the Department of Education providedfinancial and administrative support to establish alternative schools linked to mainstreamschools,as ‘annexes,’suchasSwinburneCommunitySchoolorasstand-alone,purpose-builtschools,suchasHuntingdaleTechnicalSchool,bothtakinginstudentsfromtheirschoolzone.Thisrepresentedashiftfromprogressiveschoolscateringtoself-selecting,fee-paying,nichepopulationstobecomingpartofapubliceducationsystem,potentiallyaccessibletoawiderpopulation. Moreover, the state community schools of the 1970s were less a bucolic andprotective retreat from the real world and more a determined engagement with localcommunities.Therewere,however, instancesof the ‘Summerhill’ typephilosophy:BrinsleyRoadSchool(1973–75),anannexeofCamberwellHighSchoolfundedbytheDepartmentofEducation,wasbasedinaformergrandhousewithextensivegardens,andhadanarty,self-discoveryethos—presentingassomewhatofaretreatfromtheworldandacommunityuntoitself(interviewwithR.Irving,2012;Gill1992).IturnnowtoconsideraspectsoftheeducationalclimateinVictoriaduringthelate1960sand70s, which provides a local context for the critique of conventional education and thecountervailingmoodofpossibilityrepresentedbythealternativeschoolmovement.Alternativestowhat?Criticismsofstateschoolingaboundedduringthe1960sand70s,andgalvanizedtheattentionofmanyeducationalactorsandstakeholders.InVictoria,theexpansionofsecondaryschoolswaswellunderway,withsignificantbuildingprogramsacrossthestateandaninfluxofyounggraduateteachers,manyfreshfromthenewuniversitiesofMonashandLaTrobeorpartofoverseas recruitment programs, were beginning to make their mark in staffrooms andclassrooms(Victoria,DepartmentofEducation,1973/74).Arecurringchallengewastomakesecondary schoolingmore responsive and appropriate for the growing student population,andfortheincreasingnumberofstudentseitheractuallystayingonorbeingencouragedtostayonbeyond thecompulsoryyears (Campbell andProctor,2014,pp.178–91).Questionsaboutthepurposesandorganizationofschoolwereposedwithaheightenedurgency.Inotehere threeeducational issuesdebatedextensivelyat the timeandwhicharedirectlyrelevanttotheup-swellofinterestinalternativeschools:theauthorityandimpactofexternal

9

examinations;thehierarchicalandperceivedanti-democraticcultureandpracticesofschools;and the design and physical set-up of standard-issue secondary schools. A former chiefinspector and director of Victorian secondary education during this period, Ron Reed,reflectingonhistimeinofficerecallsthat‘Ididhavetwofirmconvictions.Onewasthatthepressureofexternalexaminationsonthesecondaryschoolsystemmustberelieved;andthesecondwasthattheremustbeanearnestsearchforthetruepurposeofsecondaryeducation,asaphaseinitsownrightandnotmerelyaspreparationfortertiaryeducation’(Reed,1975,p.217).Reed’sownphilosophyandleadershipduringthisperiodwasvitaltosustainingthemoodandstructuralopportunitiesforchange(White,1985,pp.7–8).Theimpactofexternalexaminationsindictatingschoolcurriculumandinfiltratingeverydayschoolpracticeshad longbeen a sourceof controversy, connected to the influential role ofuniversitiesandtheirrequirementsforselectiveentrance.Bytheendofthe1960stherewasa strong push in Victoria to establish school-based assessment in the context of calls forcurriculumreform(Hannan,1985,pp.45–6;TheEducationalMagazine1972).Notallstatesfollowedthesamepathway. InNSW, forexample, theauthorityof theexternalexaminationremained and there was considerably less enthusiasm for alternative schooling (interviewwithVickers,2012). Indeed theNSWDirector-GeneralofEducationduring theearly1970s,Mr J. Buggie, rejected a proposal for an alternative school annexe in inner-city Leichardt,Sydney,onethatwastobemodelledonSwinburneCommunitySchoolinMelbourne.Buggiedeclared, ‘There appears to be little, if anything, which could be achieved at the proposedcommunityschoolwhichisnotcapableofachievementwithinexistinghighschools.Itwouldalsoappearthatthecommunityschoolcouldfallshortofachievingmuchofwhatisregularlyachievedwithinexistingschools’(TheAge,1974,p.23).In Victoria, however, the combination of supportive senior bureaucrats and networks ofcommitted teachers and advocates helped propel the alternative school agenda and itscritiques of regular schooling into the public domain. There had beenmore in-roads withschool-based assessment among the technical schools because they were not preparingstudentsforuniversityentrance,andinsomerespectstheseschoolsweresimplybeyondthepurview of the elite institutions. Indeed, as Gerry Tickell, former technical school Englishteacher and founding principal of Swinburne Community School, observed, the absence ofexternal examinations was an important reason why technical schools were able to leadcurriculumexperimentationatthattime(interviewwithG.Tickell,2012)andalsopartofthereasonwhy such schoolswere freer to create alternative purposes and spaces—physicallyand imaginatively—for schooling (Interview with T. Delves 2012). This combined withtechnicalschoolshavingwhatTickelldescribedasstrongcommunitiesofpracticeamongthehumanities teaching departments, a bond that was particularly close because they weresomewhatonthemarginsoftheregulartechnicalteachingdepartments,andthisheargued,

10

helped to foster the conditions for concentrated innovation and experimentation. Tickellrecalledthat

The humanities department was very quick on experimenting in all sorts ofways…We came from a university background…no other department in a techschool haduniversity graduates…soour linkswerewithhigh schools and in thesubject association we mixed very closely with them. So there was a lot ofexperimentation that went on with the English, creative writing, drama, film.(interviewwithTickell,2012)

Thehierarchicalstructuresgoverningstudent–teacherinteractionswereseentoworkagainsta warm and fair school environment, andmore participatory and egalitarian relationshipswere advocated. This required fostering a sense of democratic community instead ofinstitutionalobedienceandsocialconformity,givingvoicetostudents’viewsandpreferences,and bridging closer links between schools, communities and parents. The Victorian-basednewsletter,TheOpenBook:ForaFreeEducativeSociety,wasfirstissuedin1972,preparedbyteachers Bill and Lorna Hannan and Tim and Sue Maher. It distributed information oncommunityschoolingandrelatedprojectsandwasconcerned‘withbothideasandaction.Thedestructiveelementsofexistinginstitutionshavetobereformed,andworkablealternativesdeveloped’ (The Open Book 1972a). Contributions included accounts of community schoolsandinnovativepracticesandideasacrosstheAustralianstatesandinternationallyandcallstorespectthechoicesandinterestsofstudents.Thephysicalenvironmentofschoolswasalsosubjecttocritiqueamidagrowingfeelingthat‘school buildings of the future’ were needed (Morton 1973). For many, the standardclassroom,designedwiththeteacheroutfrontandstudentssittingpassively,representedtheantithesisofengaged learninganddemocratic schooling.AsSchoenheimeradvisedparents:‘The old-time standard arrangement of classroom desks or tables in rows and files isauthoritarian and teacher-dominated. It inhibits inter-pupil communication… and isthoroughly discredited among educationists as an outward symbol of uniformity andregimentation’ (Schoenheimer inAllwood, 1980, p. 156).The community schoolmovementpromisedabreakwithsuchtraditionsthroughitscreationofalternativespaces—physically,imaginatively and symbolically. There were, however, significant differences in how theseambitions for counter and radical spaces of educationwere understood and realised. Twomain strands are discussed here: the orchestrated environment of the ‘open plan’ andpurpose-builtspacesthatwouldinstitutionaliseexperimentation;andthemorehaphazardlylocalandmake-dospiritofschoolsoccupyingcommunitybuildings,blatantlyrepudiatinganyresidualappearanceofbeinglikearegularschool.‘Opennessisanattitudeofmind’2

11

Interestindesigningschoolsdifferentlywasnotconfinedtocommunityschoolactivities.AnEducationalFacilitiesResearchLaboratory[EFRL]wasestablishedin1968,undertheadviceof the Director of Secondary Education, Ron Reed. A branch of the Victorian EducationDepartment,theEFRLcomprisedarchitectsandadvisorsfromthesecondaryschooldivision,anditsremitwastoensurethatschooldesignwas‘closelyrelatedtomoderncurriculumandteaching techniques’ (The Educational Magazine, 1970, p. 286). In the 1970s, the moderneducational way was encapsulated in the open plan ethos. A 1974 issue of The EducationMagazine featured several articles on open education, with most highlighting theopportunities it afforded to treat students as individuals, to have ‘movement out of theclassroomtoresourcesbeyondit’andlearningprogramsthatwere ‘child-centredandoftenopen-ended’ (TheEducationalMagazine,1974).A regionaldirectorofeducation inVictoria,RonGinger,endorsedthespreadofopenplanschoolingasanoverallphilosophyforschools,onethatequipped‘childrentocopenotonlywiththepresentenvironmentbutalsowiththeunknownfuture’(Ginger,1974,p.40).Hebelievedthatitfostereda‘moreactiveanddynamicschool society with immediate and natural interaction between pupil and teacher’, and,echoingtheprogressivefocusonthehappinessofthechild,Gingerreflectedthat‘involvementandenjoymentarethekeystoprogressandplayneednotbedistinguishedfromwork’(ibid)Whilethenewclassroomswerepraised,acommonview,announcedinthearticleheadline,wasthat’Spaceisdesirablebutitiswhathappenwithinthespacethatmatters’(Ginger1974,p.40).’Openness signified muchmore than simply open classroom spaces or experimenting withwalls and the built environment: as Ginger summarised, ‘The open approach ismore thancreatingspace’(ibid).Itsignalledopennesstothechild’sinterests,tofreedomandchoice,andtowards others – teachers, students, the community – and to the future. For communityschooladvocates,opennessalsodenotedabreakwiththerigiditiesofthepast,andwiththehierarchicalorderingsoftheclassroom,curriculumknowledgeandsocialorganisation.Boththemetaphor and practice of opennesswere a response to the authority and strictures oftraditionandtheirinfluenceonthepresent,promisingamoreparticipatoryanddemocraticeducation.TeachersattendingaNationalOpenSpaceconference inAdelaide in1974 found thatwhileopeneducationcouldmeandifferent things, itwasgenerallyagreed that itwasa ‘desirablestatetowardswhichschoolscouldmove’onabroadscale(TheEducationalMagazine,1974,p.39). The ideal form of open education valued a wide range of choices for students—incurriculum,topics, learningmethods—fosteredwarmrelationsbetweenteachersandpupilsand,throughworkingalongsideparentsandadministrators,conveyedawillingnesstoengagewith the local community, and importantly a ‘maintenance of learning skills in order thatstudentsmightnotbeshutofffromthechoicestheycouldmake’(ibid).

12

The procedure for creating a purpose built open-school environmentwas elaborated: ‘Theschool should grow initially in flexible temporary accommodation; the design of thepermanent buildingswill be based on the emerging organizational pattern; the permanentbuildings should be erected at one time–not in stages–and the architects’ brief should bepreparedinco-operationwithstaff,community,andstudents’.Co-operationandconsultationwastocharacterizetheentireprocess,reflectingtheparticipatoryanddemocraticprinciplesattachedtotheopenplanagenda.OneoftheVictoriandelegatestotheAdelaideconferencewas Tony Delves, founding principal of Huntingdale Technical School, and the procedureoutlinedabovewaspreciselytheonefollowedinthedevelopmentofthatschool.Designingopenness

TwoyearoldHuntingdaleTechisan“open”,ruleandtimetable-freemaverickwithintheStatesystemwhichfromitsoriginshassetoutto involve itsstudents(now520)andstaffwiththesurroundingcommunity,andthecommunityinturnwiththeschool’,(McDonald1974,p.29)

Huntingdale Technical School began in February 1972 with a collection of temporaryportablesandmakeshiftbuildingsonaformergolflinkssiteinalower-middleclasssouthernsuburb of Melbourne. This was an area which in the post-war period had experiencedsignificant population growth due to affordable land and housing and immigration(HuntingdaleTechnicalSchool1978,p.1.16-1.20)Mostofthestudentpopulationcamefromthelocallyzonedcommunity,withsomestudentscomingfromoutsidetheareaattractedbyits experimental reputation, and by its second year, the school had 320 students (Maslen1973,p.14). Itsestablishmentwasunderpinnedbythreeprinciples: ‘learningcanonlytakeplaceintheindividual;theschoolisacommunityandoperatesassuch;andtheschoolispartofawidercommunity’(TheEducationalMagazine,1975,p.5;seetooHuntingdaleTechnicalSchool1978,pp.1.1-1.3).Even in itsearlydays, ‘thebuildingswerespecificallydesignedasportablestobeflexibleandtomeettheparticularneedsoftheschool’(Wilkins1972,p.18).Qualities of ‘self-direction and self-discipline’ in studentswere valued and cultivated at theschool: they were in a sense ‘necessary entrance behaviours for an unstructured, openlearningsituation’ (Wilkins1972,p.18).Awiderangeof subjectswasoffered,withproject-basedlearningandstudentsexpectedtonegotiatewiththeirteachersonthenatureoftheirwork. Determined to breakwith the conventional organisation of school knowledge, therewas‘virtuallynosetcurriculumassuch’and‘westartedwithbasicallyconstructingthewholeseriesofwhatwe’dcallsubjects,andkidscouldmoveinandoutofthose,picktheonestheywantedandnotwanted’ (InterviewwithT.Delves2012). For students, the schooldaywasintendedtobecharacterisedbyinterest-baseddecisions,negotiation,freedomtochooseandfeelingpartofacommunity.

13

Astheschoolgrew(by1975ithadmorethan500students),itdevised‘mini-schools’soastoretain the ‘atmosphereofwarmth, trust, and tolerance’a smaller school communityallows,and to avoid ‘the individual losing his identity in the crowd’ (Maslen 1973, p.15; TheEducationalMagazine 1975, p.5). Once established, the school staffworkedwith architectsattached to the Department of Education to design a new open plan secondary school(interviewwithT.Delves2012)andformalisetheexperimentation.TonyDelves,principalatthe school from its planning stages until he left at the end of 1979 (The Age, 1979, p.14),recalls:

IntheendIgotthebuildingsIwanted,wedesignedtheschoolfromnothingandsoIwas only part of the planning committee and the architectural grouping to developthat,andwebuiltaschoolthatwasverydifferentfromanythingelsethatwasaroundinthestatesystem.(InterviewDecember2012).

Whiletheschoolswasstilloperatingfromaclusteroftemporarybuildings,itwasnotedthatthe‘openplansystemofteachingisbeingtried,andtheonlyproblemsofarseemstobeoneofacoustics…thereisaneedforsmaller,self-containedareaswherestudentscanwithdrawforspecific individualactivitiesandtutorialstudies’ (Wilkins1972,p.18).Thedesignof thenewschoolincorporatedthismixofrooms,andwasabletoaccommodatethegrowingschoolpopulation.The new purpose-built Huntingdale comprised four large open spaces for general teachingand workshops, next to a series of smaller dedicated classrooms for textiles, art, science,music,filmandtv,forexample,andincludeda‘communitycottage’forusebymembersofthelocalcommunity, integratedwithintheschooldesign.Theclassroomswerearrangedintwoparallelrowsthatborderedacorridorofmixedcommonspaces–resourcecentres,generaloffice, and a dedicated outside quadrangle smoking space for use by staff and students(HuntingdaleTechnicalSchool1978,1.13)3.The‘smokingspace’symbolisedanaspirationformoreequalrelationsamongstudents4andstaff,andtheideaofitnowevokesthemoodofthe1970s,withstudentssmokingatschoolsignallingmildsocialtransgression,open-mindednessandacertainradicalcoolness.Thecommunitycottage,locatedinthemidstoftheclassrooms,next to theEngineeringworkshop andopposite the art room, aimed toprovide ‘a pleasantvenuetomeetpeople,tea-makingfacilities,somemagazines,easychair,etc.aswellasopenworkspacewithtelephoneandtypewriter,andacounsellingroom’.Anyoneattendingadultclasses,theirfamilies,and‘parentsofourstudentsandallothermembersofthecommunityare invited’ (Huntingdale Technical School, 1978, p.1.28). And the school’s resources andfacilities were available to the community after hours and weekends. The message wasunambiguous– thecommunitywaswelcome into theschool:asTonyDelves reflected: ‘Weworkedveryhardatthat.Weopenedthedoorstopeopleinthecommunity,weranclassesforcommunity people;we also allowed them to come into our ordinary classeswith the kids’(InterviewwithT.Delves2012).

14

Thealternativeschoolmovementwasnotallofonepiece.GerryTickell,foundingprincipleofSwinburneCommunitySchool,thoughtthateachonehadaslightlydifferent‘individualfeel’,andhecharacterizedthisdifferencealongtheaxisofcommunity.

HuntingdalewasbasedonthemodeloftheEnglishcommunitycollege…Huntingdale’smodel was to bring the community in…Swinburne’s model was to go out into thecommunity, and Brinsley Road [an annexe of Camberwell High School] was to shutitselfofffromthecommunity.SoBrinsleyRoadwasthenearestthingtoSummerhill…

Thesedifferentapproachestoforgingschool-communityrelationswerereflectedinthetypeof alternative school setting and the process for creating an environment that wassimultaneouslyschoolbutnotlikeschool–acountersite.

We[Swinburne]hadjustreallyachurchhallbasicallyandwetriedtogooutandfindthingsinthecommunityandsoonandthatwasabitdoctrinairereally.[influencedbytheprinciplesof ParkwaySchoolinPhiladelphia]…whereasHuntingdalehadthelot,you know they had a gymnasium and a hall and everything and they invited thecommunity in.Theysawtheirroleasbeingacommunityhubandtheywerebigtoo.(interviewwithTickell,2012)

‘Andnowaschoolwithoutbuildings’5Other conceptions of open schools involved a less explicitly planned and institutionalenvironment than Huntingdale. For some advocates, an open school was envisaged as ‘aschooloffewerthan100offewerpupils,operatingwithaminimumofformalbuildings,butmakinguseofcommunityfacilities,thechildren’sownhomesandparentparticipation’(TheAge,1971,p.15).EnglishteachersBillandLornaHannan(whowerealsoeditorsoftheTheOpenBook andactivists for alternative education) saw that ‘The schoolbuilding, perhaps aconvertedchurchhall,officeblockorgroupofhouses,wouldprovidespaceforthepermanentstaffandmoreformalteachingofsuchthingsasmathematicsandlanguages.Childrenwouldgo to the libraries, galleries, community centres, andpeople’sworkplaces for some lessonsandextrateachingmightcomefromlocalartists,tradesmenandparents’(Ibid).Swinburne Community School was established in February 1972 with 100 students as anannexeofSwinburneTechnicalSchool,withGerryTickellasprincipaland,likeHuntingdale,the school was funded and administered through the Victorian Department of Education.Swinburne is located in Hawthorn, in a leafy middle-class belt of Melbourne, but as theCommunityschoolnon-selectiveandsattachedtoatechnicalitsschoolpopulationwassocio-economicallymixed,withmoststudentslivinglocally.Thecommunityschoolwasbasedina

15

churchhallwhich‘comprisedanopenhall,akitchen,threesmalloffices(oneofwhichusedasastudentstudy),tworoomsofclassroomsizeandashedwhichhasbeenfittedoutasahomeworkshop’(Farrago,1972,p.11).Therewerenospecialistfacilities,laboratories,workroomsor resourcecentres: rather, theschooldrewoncommunity facilitiesandresources, suchaslocallibraries,museums,andsportsovals,goingtofilms,theatreandgalleriesaspartoftheireverydaycurriculum(South1972).The focus at Swinburnewas on adapting existing community resources, and to visibly andpractically placing the school in the community, rather thandesigning a newpurpose-builtenvironment,toarchitecturallyimposingopenness:othercommunityschoolssuchasSydneyRoad, followed a similar approach (South 1972). There is an intimacy and informality inoccupyingfoundeverydayspace,comparedtothedesignofdeliberatespacestoorganizeanddirectlearning.Schoolingwasvisiblyde-schooled.Questionsofscaleandsizeareimportanthere,withHuntingdalehavinga larger schoolpopulationandoperatingasa local technicalschool as well as attracting students from outside the zone drawn to its philosophy(Huntingdale Technical School 1978).On a smaller scale, Swinburnewas able to be visiblyembeddedwithinthecommunityandtofosterdirectengagementsinthehappenstanceoftheeveryday.Thiswasintendedtoallowforporousandreciprocalrelationsbetweentheschoolandcommunity,fosteringcurriculumexperimentation–organic,connectedtotherealworld– and egalitarian andwarm relations among students and staff: the desirewas to ‘see theschoolasasmaller,simpler,morepersonalinstitutionandtotakeitbackintothecommunitybothmetaphoricallyandphysically’(Farrago1972,p.13).Classes ‘were not compulsory’ and, as at Huntingdale, students had to be self-starters,propelledbytheirowninterests:“‘Thestudentsorganizethemselvesintotheirowncoursesofstudyandifnecessarytheygetadvicefromateacher.Theimportantdecision-makingisasmuch the students’ responsibility as the teachers’”’ (Farrago 1972, p.14). The two schoolsweresimilarinotherways:

Bothareattemptingtode-emphasisetheroleoftheschoolandoftheteacherastheauthoritariandirectorofeachchild’seducationalprogram; theyaredoingthis by shifting the responsibility back to the learner to decide where hisinterestslie…Botharedemonstratingthatthemajorelementsofachild’slife–school,home,andthecommunity–canbeintegratedeffectively.(Maslen,1973,p.16)

Understood as heterotopic spaces, both schools were simultaneously part of and self-consciouslyseparatedfromregularschooling,operatingasplacesofsamenessanddifference.They contested dominant forms of school organization and spatial relations, yet suchchallengesremained intelligiblewithinand inreference tomainstreamschooling,andwereenacteddifferently.

16

While sharing a commitment to community schooling, therewere important differences inhow Huntingdale and Swinburne registered their difference and envisaged alternativeenvironments. The former, a purpose-built and open plan setting with a distinctiveappearance, was nevertheless recognizable as a school, and its forms were arguablyrepeatable and sustainable within a state bureaucracy, having models and procedures tofollow. The latter, located in community buildings, was less immediately intelligible as aschool,andwhileitsphilosophyhadwiderimplications,itsactualformandsettingcouldnotbe readily imitated because it was so context, personnel and community specific. Thesedifferencespoint toamarkedphilosophical tension in the spreadanduptakeofalternativeschooling;woulditremainoppositionalorbeaforerunnerofmainstreamchange?Ontheonehand, there isaparadoxofsorts in thedeliberatelyopen-planbuilding,astrategybasedondesigning freedom and imposing experimentation, representing the formalisation andinstitutionalisationof a radical idea.On theotherhand, the community-based school, in itsexplicitdeparturefromthesemblanceof institutionalisedspaceandnotbeingtetheredtoarecognizable school sitewasmoreprovisional, lessamenable tobeingscaledup foramassschooling system, even though elements of its philosophy, such as student led-learning,infiltratedpartsofmainstreamschooling.Both schools were sites for social and educational experimentation, creating new types ofspaces for student learning, for cultivating choice-making, interest-driven and reflectivestudent identities, and for reconfiguring relations between school and the world around.Communitywasanover-determinedconcept inmanyrespects,valorisedas thesiteof localauthenticity, of organic social relations against the institutionalised, de-personalised,hierarchical arrangements of conventional schooling. Embracing community offered anenrichmentofschoolingandsignalledthepossibilityofegalitariananddemocraticallianceswithinandbeyondtheschoolwalls.ConcludingremarksTheradicalambitionsof1970salternativeschoolsarealongwayfromcontemporarypolicydebates about, for example, standards andaccountabilities, or testing and ranking studentsandschoolsagainst internationalbenchmarks.Thedescriptor ‘alternativeschooling’usuallymeans something quite different in the present from its use in the 1970s, – it now mostcommonly designates second-chance schools or alternative educational settings for at-riskstudents.Alternativeschoolshavethusbecomeresidualspaces,alastrefugeforthetroubledanddisengaged.Thevibrantalternativeandcommunityschoolmovementofthe1970s,whilehavingitsownredemptiveelements,beganfromadifferentsetofprinciples,withacritiqueof the status quo and demands for schools to change to accommodate transforming socialcircumstancesandcreatericherpossibilitiesforstudents:theschoolwaslessaclinictocuresocialillsthanalaboratoryforsocialexperimentation.

17

There is much more to be said about the 1970s eruption of progressive and communityschools,especiallyinregardtotheirlegaciesforbothmainstreamandalternativeschooling,and the forms of curriculum and knowledge-building accompanying their re-imaginings ofschool spaces and educational purposes. A related dimension is thememory of alternativeeducationinthepresent,echoingininstitutionalandpolicydiscoursesandinthelifehistoriesandpersonalnarrativesofformerteachersandstudents.Yetanotheristhehistoryofradicalideasandexchangesamongnetworksofinternationalandlocalexpertsandpractitioners.Asareferencepoint fora largerhistoricalstudy,however, thisarticlehas focussedondebatesabout alternative and open plan settings within a state education system, attempting tounderstandthemoodofthetimesandtheconvergenceofinterestintheseinnovations.Ithasexploredaspirationsforcommunityschools,lookingspecificallyattheimaginedeffectsofre-arranging the physical and symbolic space of schooling. This was prompted, initially, by agrowing interest within the history of education in the spatial, material and affectivedimensionsofschooling(BurkeandGrosvenor2008;Kozlovsky2010;Sobe,2012),sparkingquestionsabout the importanceofspaceanddesign for thenewprogressiveschools.Thesewerecentral to theambitionsofcommunityschools, leadingtoexperimentation inbuildingforms, pedagogy and curriculum, and as the contrast with Huntingdale and Swinburnesuggests, simultaneously formalising and keeping provisional the radical visions of theiragenda.

References

TheAge(1971),‘Andnowaschoolwithoutbuildings’,28October,p.15.

TheAge(1974)‘Progressiveeducationissofashionablethesedays,except,itseems,inNSW’,

12March,p.23.

TheAge(1979)’Nowit’sTonygoodbye’,9October,1979,p.14.

TheAMESchool(2014),‘TheAME[AssociationforModernEducation]School,1972-1996,

http://www.ameschool.org/index.htm:accessedFeb28,2014

Allwood,L.(Ed.)(1980),SchoenheimeronEducation,AustralianCouncilofStateSchool

Organisations,DrummondPublishing,Richmond.

AUS[AustralianUnionofStudents](1972),QualityinAustralianEducationConference,May

1972,ConferenceProceedings,AustralianUnionofStudents,NorthMelbourne.

Brehony,K.(2004),‘Aneweducationforanewera:thecontributionoftheconferencesofthe

NewEducationFellowshiptothedisciplinaryfieldofeducation1921–1938’,

PaedagogicaHistorica,Vol.40,No.5,pp.733–55.

Burke,C.andGrosvenor,I.(2008),School,ReaktionBooks,London.

Campbell,C.andProctor,H.(2014),AHistoryofAustralianSchooling,Allen&Unwin,Sydney.

Campbell,C.,andSherington,G.(2006),‘AgenealogyofanAustraliansystemof

18

comprehensivehighschools:thecontributionofeducationalprogressivismtotheOne

BestFormofUniversalSecondaryEducation1900–1940’,PaedagogicaHistorica,Vol.42,

No.1–2,pp.191–210.

Connors,L.(1971)‘Theunrealityofprogressiveschools’,TheNationalTimes,19–24April,p.

14.

Cunningham,P.(2001),‘Innovators,networksandstructures;towardsaprosopographyof

progressivism’,HistoryofEducation,Vol.30,No.5,pp.433–51.

Delves,A.R.andWatts,J.(1979)‘Ayearofevaluation’,Forumforthediscussionofnewtrends

ineducation,Vol.22,no.1,Fall,pp.27-29,25.

TheEducationalMagazine(1970),‘EducationalFacilitiesResearchLaboratory’,Vol.27,No.6,

pp.286–7.

TheEducationalMagazine(1972),SpecialIssueonExaminations,Vol.29,no.8

TheEducationalMagazine(1973),SpecialIssueonFreeSchools,Vol30,no.4,pp.1-20.

TheEducationalMagazine(1974),Specialfeatureonopeneducation,Vol.31,No.5,pp.38–48.

TheEducationalMagazine(1975),‘Communityandcontinuingeducation:Thecurrent

explosion,Vol.32,no.4,pp.3-8

ERA(1971/72),TheEducationReformAssociationSchool,Donvale,Prospectus,Donvale,

Victoria.

Farrago(1972),‘TheSwinburneCommunitySchool’,5May,pp.11–14.

Fielding,M.andMoss,P.(2011),RadicalEducationandtheCommonSchool:ADemocratic

Alternative,Routledge,London.

Foucault,M.(1998),‘Differentspaces’inRabinow,P.(Ed.),MichelFoucault,Aesthetics,Method

andEpistemology,TheEssentialWorksofMichelFoucault,1954–1984,Volume2,Penguin,

Harmondsworth,pp.175–85.

Friere,P.(1972[1970]),PedagogyoftheOppressed,Penguin,Harmondsworth,Middlesex.

Gill,R.(1992),‘Theschoolthatbrokealltherules’,SundayAge,4April,availableat

http://www.guitarteachers.com.au/guitar-teachers-articles/1992/4/4/the-school-that-

broke-all-the-rules/,accessed28February2014.

Ginger,R.(1974),‘Overview—openeducationinVictoria’,TheEducationalMagazine,Vol.31,

No.1,pp.40–1.

Goad,P.(2010),‘‘Achromeyellowblackboardwithbluechalk’:NewEducationandthenew

architecture:modernismatKoornongSchool’,HistoryofEducation:JournaloftheHistory

ofEducationSociety,Vol.39,No.6,pp.731–48.

19

Goad,P.(2013),‘Space,placeandhome:QuestHaven,Sydney’sfirstprogressiveschool’,paper

presentedattheAustralianAssociationforResearchinEducationConference,1–5

December,Adelaide.

Goodman,P.(1964),CompulsoryMis-EducationandtheCommunityofScholars,Vintage,New

York.

Grosvenor,I.(2012), ‘Backtothefutureortowardasensoryhistoryofschooling’,HistoryofEducation,Vol.41,No.5,September,pp.675–87.

Hannan,B.(1985),DemocraticCurriculum:EssaysonSchoolingandSociety,Allen&Unwin,

Sydney;VictorianSecondaryTeachersAssociation,Melbourne.

Hill,B.andMatthews,I.(1973),‘Communityschools’,TheAge,12February,p.10.HuntingdaleTechnicalSchool(1978)TheEvaluationBook:HuntingdaleTechnicalSchool,July

1978.Illich,I.(1973[1971]),DeschoolingSociety,Penguin,Harmondsworth,Middlsex. Illich,I.(1972),AlternativestoSchooling,publishedbyAndrewBain,AustralianUnionof

Students,Melbourne. Kozlovsky,R.(2010)‘Thearchitectureofeducare:motionandemotioninpost-war

educationalspaces’,HistoryofEducation,vol.39,no.6,pp.695-712. Lambert,R.(1969),‘WhatDartingtonwilldo’,NewSociety,30January,pp.159–61.Leander, K., Philips, N.C. and Taylor, K.H. (2010), ‘The changing social spaces of learning;

mappingnewmobilities’,ReviewofResearchinEducation,Vol.34,March,pp.329–94.Maslen,G.(1973),‘HuntingdaleTechnicalSchool’,TheEducationalMagazine,Vol.30,no.4,

pp.14-15.Maslen,G.(1993),‘Educationperspective:visionforanew,moreflexibleschoolsystem’,The

CanberraTimes,14July,p.25.McDonald,A.(1974),’Schoolsseekinvolvement’,TheAge,1974,May1,p.29.Morton,S.F.(1973),‘Schoolbuildingsofthefuture’,TheEducationalMagazine,Vol.30,No.1,

pp.21–3.Noyce,P.(1985),‘Preface’,inHannan,B.,DemocraticCurriculum:EssaysonSchoolingand

Society,Allen&Unwin,Sydney;VictorianSecondaryTeachersAssociation,Melbourne,pp.1–4.

Paechter, C. (2004), ‘Metaphors of space in educational theory and practice’, in Pedagogy,CultureandSociety,Vol.12,No.3,pp.449–65.

Popkewitz,T.(2005),‘Introduction’,inPopkewitz,T.(Ed.),InventingtheModernSelfandJohn

Dewey:ModernitiesandtheTravellingofPragmatisminEducation,PalgraveMacmillan,

NewYork,pp.3–36.

20

Potts,A.(2007),‘Neweducation,progressiveeducationandthecounterculture’,Journalof

EducationalAdministrationandHistory,Vol.39,No.2,pp.145–59.

Punch,M.(1969),‘Howtobea“progressive”schoolnow’,NewSociety,23January,pp.123–4.

Reed,R.(1975),‘CurriculumreforminVictorianschoolsinthelate1960s’,MelbourneStudies

inEducation,Vol.17,No.1,pp.214–24.

Ryan,E.L.(1971),‘Wideopenspaces’,TheTeachers’Journal:TheJournaloftheVictorian

Teachers’Union,Vol.LIV,August,pp.288–90.

Saha,L.(1972)‘Theproblemsofeducation’,TheCanberraTimes,9September,p.13.

Saldanha,A.(2008),‘Heterotopiaandstructuralism’,EnvironmentandPlanningA,Vol.40,pp.

2080–2096.

Schoenheimer,H.(1973),GoodAustralianSchoolsandtheirCommunities,VictorianTechnical

TeachersAssociation,Melbourne.

Schoenheimer,H.(1975),‘Howoureducation“system”ensuresacontinuityofignorance’,The

NationalTimes,6–11October,pp.14–16.

Smyth,G.(1973a),‘Thetraditionoffreedom:Preshil’,TheEducationalMagazine,Vol.30,No.

5,pp.14–15.

Smyth,G.(1973b),‘FreedomtoChoose:TheERAschool’,TheEducationalMagazine,Vol.30,

No.5,pp.16–17.

Sobe, N.W (2012): Researching emotion and affect in the history of education, History ofEducation:JournaloftheHistoryofEducationSociety,vol41,no,5,pp.689-695.

South,J.(1972),‘FreeschoolsinVictoria’,TheAustralianHumanist,June.ReprintedinModernEducation(theAssociationofModernEducationnewsletter),No.4,September1972,pp.6–8.AMESchoolCollection,ACTHeritageLibrary,Box1.

Tamboukou,M.(2004),‘Tracingheterotopias:writingwomeneducatorsinGreece’,GenderandEducation,Vol.16,No.2,pp.187–207.

TheOpenBook(1972a)TheOpenBook:ForaFreeEducativeSociety,no.1,Melbourne

TheOpenBook(1972b)TheOpenBook:ForaFreeEducativeSociety,no.2,Melbourne

Victoria,DepartmentofEducation(1973/74),ReportoftheMinisterofEducationfortheYear

1973–74,GovernmentPrinter,Melbourne.

White,D.(1985),‘Introduction’,inHannan,B.,DemocraticCurriculum:EssaysonSchoolingand

Society,Allen&Unwin,Sydney;VictorianSecondaryTeachersAssociation,Melbourne,

pp.5–13.

White,M.(2002),‘Schoenheimer,HenryPhilip(1918–1976)’,AustralianDictionaryof

Biography,NationalCentreofBiography,AustralianNationalUniversity,availableat

21

http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/schoenheimer-henry-philip-11632/text20777,

accessed16November2013.

Wilkins,S.(1972)‘HuntingdaleTechnicalSchool:Aboutstudentsaspeople’,TheEducational

Magazine,Vol.29,no.4,pp.17-18.

OralHistoryInterviews

RoyIrvine,7December2012

GerryTickell,20May2012

DougStark,27July2012

TonyDelves,14December2012

MargaretVickers,4June2012

1Schoenheimer’sviewshadanimpressivereach,throughhisroleasateachereducatoratMonashandLaTrobeUniversities,hisregularcolumnsinanationalbroadsheet(hewrotealmost400articlesforTheAustralian)andthroughdisseminationamongparentandteacherorganizations(White2002;Allwood,1980).2Subheading(p.38)from‘OpenEducation’,TheEducationalMagazine(1974,pp.38-39.3AnextensiveevaluationanddocumentationofHuntingdalewasundertakenin1978,sixyearsafteritwasestablished.AccordingtoDelves,‘WhenHuntingdalebeganinFebruary1972,theEducationDepartmentaskedtheschooltoexaminealternativesforcurriculumfacilitiesandthedevelopmentofcommunityrelationships.Inreturnforthischancetoinnovateacrossabroadspectrum,theschoolwasalsoaskedtoconductanassessmentofitsworkafterthefirstfiveorsixyearoperation’(DelvesandWatts1979,p.28)4Infocusgroupinterviewswithformerstudents,thesmokingspacewasasiteoffondmemory5TitleofanarticleinTheAge,(1971),p.15