MUTUAL INSTRUCTION
A teaching method consisting in the reciprocity of instruction, whereby more advanced pupils act as teachers and guides to their less instructed companions.
The first schools based on this method, and therefore called schools of mutual instruction (m. i.), arose in England through the efforts of Andrew Bell (1753–1832) and Joseph Lancaster (1778–1838). Bell, an Anglican chaplain to British troops in Madras (India) and director of an orphanage for Indian children, had been forced by a shortage of teachers to introduce a system whereby the better pupils taught under his supervision. The experiment proved highly successful, and upon his return to England he published an account in a pamphlet: *An Experiment in Education, suggesting a system, by which a school or family may teach itself under the superintendence of the master or parent* (London, 1797). Meanwhile, Lancaster had opened in 1798 a school for poor and abandoned children in his own house at Southwark, and had independently developed the method of mutual instruction, later refining it in accordance with many principles proclaimed by Bell. He later made his findings public in two works: *Improvements in Education* (London, 1803) and *The British System of Education* (London, 1810). The two schools then developed as rivals, since Lancaster remained neutral on religious matters, whereas Bell adhered to the teachings of the Anglican Church. This rivalry gave rise to two distinct societies for the free dissemination of elementary education among the people: for Bell, the *National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church throughout England and Wales* (1811); for Lancaster, the *British and Foreign School Society* (1814).
A striking feature of these schools was their appearance. The master, seated at his desk, supervised and directed every movement, while the monitors—i.e., the better pupils—taught their respective groups. Discipline was firm and strict; Bell relied on punishments involving penance, whereas Lancaster used those involving ridicule (donkey’s ears, a placard on the back, etc.). Although the method of mutual instruction was not as novel as claimed—since similar practices existed among the ancients in humanistic schools (cf., for example, the advice of M. Vegio in his *De Educatione Puerorum*, in N. Sammartano, *I pedagogisti dell’età umanistica*, Mazara, 1948, pp. 57–60; and in the schools of the Jesuits and the Brothers of the Christian Schools)—the schools of mutual instruction nevertheless spread throughout much of the world. They had the advantage of enabling a single teacher to instruct a large number of pupils simultaneously; of training the ablest pupils for teaching careers; and of fostering emulation and a sense of familiarity and solidarity among the children.
In Europe, schools of mutual instruction spread to England, France, Switzerland, but especially to France and Italy. In Italy they flourished widely between 1819 and 1830, under the influence and through the efforts of Italians such as F. Confalonieri, G. Caponi, E. Mayer, and Cavour, who had visited these schools abroad, seen them applied with enthusiasm (albeit with some modifications) in the institutions of Pestalozzi, Girard, and Naville, and reported back home on their benefits and advantages.
Thus they were established in the Duchy of Parma (from 1819 onward) with the official favour of Maria Luisa; in Tuscany (from 1819 onward), promoted by C. Ridolfi and R. Lambruschini; in Lombardy (from 1819 onward), with the support of F. Confalonieri and the newspaper *Il Conciliatore*; in Piedmont and Liguria (from 1819 onward), through the efforts of Carlo Alberto (then Prince of Carignano), L. Arborio Gattinara di Brem, and P. Balbo; and in the Veneto and the Papal States. They were generally backed by founding societies that promoted them and provided necessary funds; moreover, patriots and various political currents saw in them an effective means of rapidly fostering national consciousness.
Yet the progress of pedagogy, the distrust of constituted authorities, criticisms that the master, instead of working directly with the pupils, did not even know them and that discipline had become a mere mechanism, and the dissatisfaction of many who regarded the reliance on extraordinary methods as futile—all these factors led, after a brief flourishing, to their suppression. In the Duchy of Parma they were abolished by the Regulations of 1831; in the Papal States in 1824; in the Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia, especially because of their close ties with *Il Conciliatore*; and in Piedmont and Liguria after the uprisings of 1821. In Tuscany they lasted until 1855.
Nevertheless, they left the lasting benefit of having brought before public conscience the vital issue of popular education.