Pedagogue’s Graveyard: Why the Monitorial System Deserves a Second Look
In a world where teachers are scarce and class sizes are ballooning, an old abandoned educational method may offer a surprising modern solution.
In a dusty corner of history lies the Monitorial System, a teaching method that at one time promised to educate the masses with military precision and moral clarity. It was developed in the early 19th century by Joseph Lancaster and Andrew Bell, and it allowed a single teacher to train hundreds of pupils by delegating classroom responsibility to senior students, or ‘monitors’. Although it fell out of favour by the late 1800s, the education challenges of today’s world suggest it could be time to revaluate the benefits of an improved version of this forgotten pedagogy.
What was the Monitorial System?
The Monitorial System was a product of its time. Britain was in the throes of industrialisation and empire. Religious reform was also on the agenda. At this moment in history education for the poor was more of a novelty, and very few working-class children had access to schooling. Both Lancaster, a Quaker in London, and Bell, an Anglican clergyman who had worked in India, developed methods for educating hundreds of students using peer instruction. Although their ideologies were different, their pedagogy was similar in its features. A master teacher would train a team of older or more advanced pupils, who would then relay lessons to younger students in small groups. These scripted lessons were repetitive and focused on the basics skills such as reading, writing, arithmetic, and moral ethics.
In a practical sense, the classroom acted like a factory floor. Monitors would stand at the head of a row and deliver exercises. Students learned by rote, and the focus was on discipline, repetition, and religious morality. The benefits were obvious to philanthropists and government officials: it was cheap, it could be scaled up and it kept the children of the poor orderly and busy.
As Joakim Landahl of Stockholm University points out, the Monitorial System also had a distinct logic. It was far from being quiet. It was a world of regulated sound and movement. Students were constantly speaking and reciting, and be on the move constantly between stations. The teacher’s voice was rarely heard. Manuals, which still can be found today on eBay, would instruct teachers to remain silent and use signals such as bell ringing or gestures.
A 19th-century Danish watercolour depicting a classroom operating under the Monitorial System under the supervision of a single teacher. (P.C. Klæstrup)
Rise and Fall of a Method
By the 1820s Monitorial schools were flourishing across Britain, the United States, and the British Empire. The British and Foreign School Society (Lancaster’s organisation) and the National Society (Bell’s Anglican counterpart) competed to expand their reach. In the colonies Monitorial schools became a fixture of imperial pedagogy. They operated to instil loyalty and obedience along with basic literacy. But the system’s weaknesses soon became clear. It relied heavily on the abilities of the monitors themselves, many of whom were barely literate. While efficient, the method was rigid and mechanical. It taught children what to think, but how to think was not included in the method. As time passed educational theories evolved. By the late 19th century, professionally trained teachers and state-sponsored education systems made the Monitorial System obsolete.
Landahl helps us understand the consequences of the changes which were happening. The transition from Monitorial to teacher-led lessons in the 1860s marked a pedagogical evolution. It was a total paradigm shift in how classrooms were ordered. Classrooms became quieter and more hierarchical. Pupils who were once active and mobile were now seated in fixed rows. Learning became more about listening to the teacher and watching from a distance. The discipline of silence replaced the noise of practical engagement.
Can it Solve Present Issues in Education?
Now, in the 21st century, education systems across the globe face challenges Lancaster and Bell might have recognised. According to UNESCO, more than 69 million new teachers are needed worldwide to meet educational targets by 2030. In many countries a single teacher may be responsible for 60 or more students, particularly in south-Asia or sub-Saharan Africa. Even in wealthier nations the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated learning gaps and created crises in recruitment. Budget cuts and growing class sizes threaten to undo years of progress. Could a modern incarnation of the Monitorial System offer some relief?
The system was able to pioneer peer-to-peer learning which has seen a renaissance in modern pedagogical research. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development argues that students learn best when assisted by a more capable peer. Programmes in countries like India and Kenya already employ peer tutoring models to improve literacy and numeracy among the disadvantaged members of society. Some schools in the UK and US experiment with cross-age mentoring, where older pupils support younger learners. These efforts echo Lancaster and Bell more than they may realise.
Landahl’s research prods us to ask how we might alter the power-relations of the classroom. In a system where overburdened teachers need to constantly perform, through speaking, managing eye contact, and managing students behaviour, peer-led instruction could redistribute some of that responsibility. Not returning to rote recitation, but a progression towards a more communal classroom dynamic.
In a paper by Hassard & Rowlinson, they remind us of the caution any revival of Monitorial practices must take. The original system implemented a subtle design of rank and surveillance. Monitors were encouraged to report on their peers and behaviour was constantly evaluated. The end goal was compliance. Not a system suitable for society driven by tertiary sectors hungry for freethinking, creative individuals. If we do reimagine the Monitorial system today, we must first work out, what are we resurrecting them for?
Reinventing the Monitorial System for Today
Of course, resurrecting the Monitorial System in its antiquated form would be a mistake. Its industrial underpinnings do not complement the philosophy of modern education. Equally, rote memorisation, and a lack of pedagogical flexibility does not meet the needs of modern students. But its foundational principles all remain highly desirable. For example, the ability to scale up education quickly to cater for the needs of many. Also, the nurturing support of community-based learning is also goal highly prized by modern educators. In addition, student leadership is something which could be facilitated through the Monitorial way of learning.
A modernised version should keep the use of trained peer monitors, but instead bring in digital supports and pedagogical scaffolds to support. Instead of fixed rows and recitation of mantra, students could rotate through collaborative learning groups. In these, peer leaders, who are trained by teachers, could guide discussions or practice sessions. Technology could support lesson delivery, as well as track progress. The teacher’s role would change from that of a lone fountain of knowledge to a mentor-coach who oversees a network of learning.
The Monitorial approach would be especially valuable in schools which face chronic teacher shortages. In rural or post-conflict regions where professional staff are hard to come by, a system which blends local peer teaching and digital tools could offer continuity of learning, and avoid harmful disruptions to education. Even in high-income countries, where learning loss and disengagement are growing concerns, structured peer tutoring may help rebuild foundational skills and student confidence.
Lessons and Warnings from History
Of course, reviving the Monitorial System wholesale would be a mistake. Nobody wants a return of rote memorisation, or a lack of pedagogical flexibility. But principles such as community-based learning and student leadership are hugely relevant to the standards of today.
How might a modernised version look? Well, it could keep the use of trained peer monitors, but with digital supports and pedagogical targets. Instead of fixed rows and recitation, students could rotate through collaborative learning groups. Student leaders trained by teachers could guide discussions or practice sessions. Technology could support lesson delivery, and create systems for progress tracking, and feedback loops. The teacher’s role would shift from that of a solitary fountain of knowledge to a mentor-coach overseeing a learning network.
Such an approach would be especially valuable in schools facing chronic teacher shortages. In rural regions or post-conflict zones professional staff can be hard to come by. A system which blends peer teaching and digital tools could offer relief to severe disruptions of education. Even in high-income countries, where challenges in educational recruitment and disengagement are growing, structured peer tutoring may help build basic skills and student confidence.
A Model for Resilience
So why revisit a 200-year-old teaching system? Because today’s educational systems need strength. As the global population grows, as migration increases classroom diversity, and as digital technologies transform how students access knowledge, old answers can offer a new starting point.
The Monitorial System was built for a time of scarcity. And in a lot ways, there are signs that time has returned. If we can adapt, the idea that students can teach others may not be a step backward at all. Structure and support with ethically guided practice, it can provide a step towards greater educational sustainability. If recreated with modern values, peer-led learning could prove to be more than a stopgap.
References & Further Reading
Hassard, J. & Rowlinson, M. (2002) Researching Foucault’s Research: Organization and Control in Joseph Lancaster’s Monitorial Schools. Organization (London, England). [Online] 9 (4), 615–639.
Landahl, J. (2019) Learning to listen and look: the shift from the monitorial system of education to teacher-lea lessons. The senses & society. [Online] 14 (2), 194-.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), (2016) The world needs almost 69 million new teachers to reach the 2030 education goals. [pdf] Montreal: UNESCO. Available at: https://uis.unesco.org/en/files/fs39-world-needs-almost-69-million-new-teachers-reach-2030-education-goals-2016-en-pdf
