Progressive and Traditional -- Good read

[Anonymous]

"Progressive" and "Traditional"
In Independent Schools: What Do These Terms Mean?
by John M. Love

This past July, 35 years after I first set foot in an independent school, I started working at Fieldston School in the Bronx.

Fieldston is my fourth independent school. I worked 8 years at Portsmouth Abbey School in Rhode Island, 16 years at the Wheeler School in Providence, and 7 years at the Latin School of Chicago.

Portsmouth Abbey, a co-ed boarding school governed by an English Benedictine monastery, is unapologetically traditional. Although I can't recall many conversations about progressive education at Wheeler, it is certainly a progressive school. There was a lot of talk at Latin about tradition, and since the Francis W. Parker School up the street described itself as progressive, whenever Latin folks wanted to talk about the many non-traditional things we believed and did, we always used the word "innovative," which was Latinspeak for "progressive."

The five boroughs of New York City have a total of 58 National Association of Independent Schools member schools, and those schools come in as many flavors as Baskin-Robbins. In the competitive world of New York City admissions, this abundance leads to the making of some very fine distinctions, but however finely you cut, Fieldston falls into the progressive pile. This February we devoted an entire MAD, or Modified Awareness Day, to the topic of progressive education, with many sessions in the daylong schedule of events planned and led by students. Although we frequently fail the test, it is no exaggeration to say that at Fieldston we test everything we do and every change we contemplate with the question, "Is this progressive?"

If there is a corpus of beliefs about progressive education, it can be found in the writings of John Dewey. This statement, from an 1897 Dewey article in The School Journal, expresses a core tenet in that corpus of beliefs:
I believe that this educational process has two sides-one psychological and one sociological; and that neither can be subordinated to the other or neglected without evil results following. Of these two sides, the psychological is the basis. The child's own instincts and powers furnish the material and give the starting point for all education. Save as the efforts of the educator connect with some activity which the child is carrying on of his own initiative independent of the educator, education becomes reduced to a pressure from without. It may, indeed, give certain external results, but cannot truly be called educative.
The statement lies at the heart of progressive education, but during the intervening 108 years progressive independent schools have developed a much wider array of practices than Dewey describes here or anticipates elsewhere. For their part, traditional schools have developed their own best practices, including many that Dewey would endorse.

So let's pose the question in 2005: is it possible to characterize the differences between schools that view themselves as progressive and schools that view themselves as traditional in a way that distinguishes the two groups? And can we do it in a way that doesn't equate either camp with best practice, to the exclusion of the other.

Let's proceed inductively. In other words, let's first identify a series of markers, relatively concrete, some even superficial, which most of us will agree distinguish progressive from traditional practice, and let's focus on Upper Schools, where differences between traditional and progressive are somewhat more visible than in Lower Schools. Then let's see if there are any universal principles or themes behind the markers.

Curriculum
In traditional independent schools, academic departments rule. Most courses are departmental, and most of the courses an Upper School student takes, whether elective or required, fall within departmental graduation requirements. Academically selective traditional independent schools normally offer a wide array of Advanced Placement courses, and many departments offer honors or advanced or accelerated courses in both Middle and Upper School. Most departments give semester and final exams. Beyond exams, the evaluation of individual student performance depends primarily upon the student's individually written papers, quizzes, and tests. Students receive letter grades on individual assignments and on report cards throughout Middle and Upper School.

By contrast, students in progressive schools spend significant time studying and working in courses outside traditional academic departments. The arts, community service, and ethics all offer as wide a range of courses as the academic departments, and students devote considerable time to those fields. Academic teams, independent study, interdisciplinary or extra-departmental courses, and senior projects are also a significant part of the academic program. Departmental graduation requirements are normally less extensive than in traditional schools. Advanced Placement courses are relatively few, as are honors or advanced courses. Most departments do not give exams, and the evaluation of individual student performance depends significantly on individual and group projects, presentations, and portfolios. Letter grades, if they are given at all, may be given only in the Upper School or in certain courses or departments.

Departments
In traditional English departments, other than a few classics from ancient Greece and Rome, the literature students read comes mostly from England and America, with a few canonical European authors also included. In Middle School students learn how to write short expository essays, and study traditional grammar. The focus of writing in the Upper School falls on critical essays and research papers.

In progressive English departments, required or core courses include the works of African, Asian, and South American writers, and there are electives devoted to the literature of those regions of the world. Creative writing, journalism, and journal writing are a significant part of the writing curriculum, sometimes at the expense of expository and critical essays, and, if it is taught at all, grammar is taught "in the context of the student's own writing."

A teacher of Shakespeare in a traditional independent school will accurately describe his or her class as discussion-based, but he or she is likely to come into class with several passages marked from last night's reading, and to make sure that those passages are discussed in class that day, so the students don't miss anything important. A teacher of Shakespeare in a progressive school is less likely to have marked out certain passages for discussion, and will let the students' questions and comments determine which passages are discussed that day.

Traditional history departments focus their attention on the history of western Europe and the United States. Most courses cover a specific country or geographic area within a specific time frame, and there is an effort, over the span of Middle and Upper School, systematically to "cover" the world.

Progressive history departments are likely to devote more attention to the history of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South America, at the expense of ancient and early European history. Courses are frequently organized around themes or topics and cross regional and chronological boundaries.

Latin is frequently an important component in a traditional language department. At some point in Middle or Upper School all students may be required to take Latin. If not required, Latin frequently enjoys some kind of special status within the department. Students are grouped by ability in language classes to the extent that numbers allow such grouping. The best language students spend a significant amount of time reading literature in the target language.

If there is a privileged language in a progressive language department, it is likely to be a recently added non-Western language--Arabic, Chinese, or Japanese. Few language classes are grouped by ability. Of the four skills, speaking and listening receive significantly more emphasis than reading and writing. In addition to the language-related field trips and overseas trips that many schools in both camps offer, on-site immersion activities are a significant part of the language program in progressive schools.

Traditional math departments carefully sequence distinct pre-algebra, algebra, and geometry courses in Middle and early Upper School, and students are grouped into several ability levels, often beginning in Middle School. A significant percentage of Upper Schoolers follow a pre-calculus/calculus sequence in the upper grades.

Progressive math departments integrate algebra and geometry starting in Middle School. There is a relatively well-developed Upper School curriculum in statistics or in some other area of math for students who do not pursue calculus.

A math teacher in a traditional independent school will spend a significant amount of class time reviewing those problems in last night's homework about which the students have questions, and will introduce new material by demonstrating how to solve typical problems related to the topic. Whether he or she is testing student knowledge of last might's material or introducing something new, a math teacher in a progressive independent school will ask students to spend a good deal of class time doing problems they have never seen before and discussing their various solutions to those problems.

Biology, chemistry, and physics are the big three in traditional science departments, and most students are encouraged or required to study all three. Physics is normally taught last and requires a background in functions and trigonometry, if not calculus. As numbers permit, there are advanced or Advanced Placement courses in all three subjects as well. The best science students have the opportunity to pursue independent science research.

Biology and chemistry are frequently integrated in progressive science departments. "Conceptual physics" may be taught early in Upper School in lieu of the math-intensive version of physics taught in traditional schools. Some other area of science--animal behavior, astronomy, environmental science--may be a signature program because of faculty expertise or the school's surroundings or its relationship to a nearby scientific institution. A variety of students pursue research.

Although it probably has a significant community service program, the focus of the ethics or character education curriculum in a traditional school grows out of the religious or other received values embodied in the school's mission.

In addition to a significant community service program, the focus of the ethics or character education curriculum in a progressive school is likely to be developmental, i.e., related to the real-life situations or developmental milestones the students are likely to face at various stages of Middle and Upper School, peers/prejudice/sex/drugs/rock 'n' roll.

Student Support
In a traditional school, faculty advisors view themselves chiefly as academic advisors, in keeping with their traditional roles. Students and parents with concerns outside of academic areas are more likely to contact deans or other school specialists to address those concerns than to contact faculty advisors.

In a progressive school, faculty advisors view themselves as advisors to the "whole child." They frequently work together in grade-level teams and receive ongoing professional development in their expanded roles as advisors.

Academic support or learning resource teachers in traditional schools spend most of their time working one-on-one with students or with small groups of students, offering in-house tutoring to help them with course work.

Academic support or learning resource teachers in progressive schools spend a significant portion of their time working with the faculty, educating them about learning differences and advising them how they can adapt their curricula and pedagogy to meet the needs of students with a variety of learning differences.

Student-Faculty Relations
In traditional schools, relationships between students and faculty are friendly, but a certain formality prevails. However close they may be, students rarely, if ever, call faculty members by their first names. Student and faculty lounges, dining areas, and hangout spaces are usually separate from each other, and each group respects the privacy of the other group's informal spaces. The school maintains certain public spaces which students rarely enter except on official business.

Student-faculty relationships in progressive schools are less formal. Students are on a first-name basis with many faculty. Students hang out in or near faculty offices, students and faculty eat in the same areas and sometimes at the same tables, and there are few private spaces for either group. The school maintains few, if any, public spaces from which students are normally excluded.

Student Behavior
Whether or not students in traditional schools wear uniforms, there is likely to be a dress code that prohibits the wearing of several items that students normally wear outside of school. Faculty also observe a dress code. Rules and regulations are clearly spelled out, as are the processes for handling violations of both major and minor rules and regulations and the likely consequences of those violations. Although they may work with Disciplinary Committees, principals and other administrators are primarily responsible for handling alleged violations of major school rules. Those in charge of managing student behavior have discretion, but they respect and normally follow past precedents.

Both students and faculty in progressive schools frequently wear the same kinds of clothes to school that they wear every day. Major rules may be clearly spelled out, along with the process for handling their violation and the possible consequences of those violations, but minor rules and regulations may be less clearly articulated. Representative students and faculty play a significant role in handling alleged violations of major school rules. Although those in charge of managing student behavior are aware of past precedents, they exercise wide discretion in handling individual cases.

Governance and Decision-Making
Independent schools generally offer teachers a high degree of academic freedom, but in a traditional independent school this freedom comes up against the high value such schools normally place on a carefully articulated curriculum and consistency of expectations among teachers. The curriculum in a given course is likely to grow out of a consensus among the teachers of that course, but individual teachers will normally not depart from that consensus, and change in the curriculum will happen only slowly. Department chairs regularly monitor tests, paper assignments, and grading patterns to ensure that a certain measure of consistency prevails among individual teachers in the department.

Progressive schools normally give more freedom to individual teachers, even within a core or required course. There is likely to be a broad consensus about curriculum, but even within multi-section courses individual teachers will likely diverge from each other in the details of their curricula and pedagogy. Department chairs normally monitor assignments and grading patterns only in response to complaints from students and parents about inconsistencies in grading and expectations.

Governance and decision-making in traditional independent schools normally follows clearly established guidelines. The Board of Trustees concerns itself chiefly with advancement, facilities, finance, and strategic planning, leaving the academic program largely to the administration and faculty. Most communication between the Board and the school administration and faculty flows through the Head of School and perhaps one or two key administrators involved in advancement or finance. The Education Committee is not a very strong or influential committee. Although they will normally be consulted about facilities enhancements, faculty do not normally concern themselves with advancement, finance, or strategic planning.

In progressive schools, there will normally be a fair amount of regular contact between trustees and the faculty and administration, and decision-making may be more diffuse and less clearly articulated. The Education Committee may play an active role in academic policy, and faculty members may sit on a number of Board committees. In progressive schools, the faculty will also play an ongoing role in strategic planning. There will be a regular program of educating the Board about the academic program and issues facing the faculty and administration, and a similar program of educating the faculty about issues related to advancement and finance.

What Does It All Mean?
The above description suggests that traditional schools differ from progressive schools in what they teach. In their reliance on discrete departments, in the curricula and pedagogy of those departments, in their approach to student behavior and to the autonomy of the individual teacher, traditional schools place a premium on the received wisdom of their predecessors as to what is worth learning.

Progressive schools usually have a "wide tent" approach to the question of what is worth learning. A larger share of the literature, history, and languages of the world are worthy of study, and the process of learning frequently matters as much as what's learned.

Traditional teachers usually regard their school as a special place, separated from the students' everyday lives. With that separation comes certain ceremonies of dress and behavior that students are expected to learn.

Progressive teachers see the school as an extension of the students' everyday lives. There are no formal spaces and no prescribed codes of dress or behavior governing the faculty's interaction with students.

Regarding decision-making, in traditional schools jurisdictions are clearly marked out. Most decisions are made by an individual or small group closely involved with the area.

In progressive schools everybody gets to weigh in on everything. Individuals or small groups may have the responsibility or authority to make decisions, but much of their time is spent getting input from a wide array of voices.

John Love is Upper School Principal at Ethical Culture Fieldston School, Bronx, New York.

http://www.independentteacher.org/vol2/2.2-4.html

[Anonymous]

Wow. That was an excellent synopsis. Thank you. I particularly agree that there is no need to argue whether strictly traditional or strictly progressive is "best" -- it would be difficult to find any school that was purely one or the other. Rather, the schools (in the DC area anyway) seem to exist somewhere along the continuum, allowing parents to select the amount of traditionalism or progressivism that will best suit the learning styles of their individual children. Two common difficulties are when (1) parents firmly believe in one form of schooling and lovingly "inflict" it on children who might be better suited for the other form and (2) parents who face the challenge of trying to select just one school for siblings who learn in very different ways and might do better in different schools.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for this. It reinforces what we had hoped. From day one we thought a progressive program would be a better match for our family. We are sending our child to Burgundy Farm Country Day School. A few of our friends who are REALLY into the traditional schools raised eyebrows - not so much in a sneering or unpleasant way - just sort of surprised. I get the sense that they think that progressive = hippie/throwback to the 60s. It is almost as if they find it "quaint" that we want to send our child to this kind of school! Weird, huh?

I am a firm believer in "fit" and while their children may do fine at a traditional school, bottom line is we felt progressive was the way to go. We definitely place a high value on the "journey" as well as the "endpoint," and hope that the approach will lead to strong problem-solving skills and an appreciation for the learning process itself. If you sit back and observe, it may be clear which children naturally gravitate toward this. In our case, the pre-school teachers agreed that it was likely to be a good match and so we felt pretty comfortable with our decision.

[Anonymous]

10:16 here. We also send our child to Burgundy Farm for the exact same reasons as PP. And we have encountered the same raised eyebrows! I struggle to be non-judgmental about others' school choices and always hope to receive the same consideration in return!

[Anonymous]

I used to nanny for some children who attended Burgundy. I got the impression that it was fairly progressive but judging from the homework they brought home, it seemed sadly traditional and very like my own public school homework. Spelling workbooks, math worksheets. There were a lot of things that were great about the school like the location and the W. VA campus but from what the teachers sent home, I wouldn't pay the kind of money that the school costs for worksheets!

[SurelyYouNest]

That rocks, OP, excellent read and fascinating info. Thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous]

In reply to 13:26

I believe that parent pressure is a large part of the worksheets used at Burgundy. Specifically, for those uncomfortable with the Everyday Math Curriculum, the worksheets provide the extra practice parents say they want, but not during school time when the more collaborative, innovative math instruction occurs. Similarly, parents who are nervous about the use of "invented spelling" feel more comfortable when their children bring home spelling practice. The school provides the children with some traditional practice as a supplement to the more progressive teaching that occurs at school. Just my perception of course. Again, even the "progressive" schools exist on a continuum with some elements of traditional schooling also used. One could view this as implementing best practices across the spectrum OR trying to have it both ways and possibly achieving neither ...

[Anonymous]

Agree with PP 14:02. I'm going to ramble here, but just want to add some thoughts based on my experience. There must be others out there with similar notions...

Ok, here goes: I went to public school and was sent home with the boring busywork starting at about 2nd grade...all those spelling and math worksheets, fill-in-the-blank worksheets, etc.

The difference is this: I also had to deal with the boring busywork while IN school.

Don't get me wrong, the public school system I attended was fine... but it definitely was as traditional as a school can get. Teachers stood at the front and "taught". They asked questions to see if we had "good" comprehension and if we "retained" information. We went home that night and "practiced" what was "taught." Then we were tested on what we "learned."

There was very little room for exploration or to pursue a genuine interest, other than the occasional semi-scripted "project." The teachers had a standardized curriculum that they needed to get through. Children needed to show via test results that they "got it." So while I did indeed learn my ABCs, how to multiply, and (sort of) how to sew a crappy gym bag, I wouldn't say that I was in any way inspired or thought school was fun!

Now some people might argue that school isn't supposed to be "fun," but this is definitely where my philosophy would diverge from theirs. I think WANTING to go to school each day and finding it fun is half the battle. It sets the stage for the child to be more receptive to learning.

But again, just my two cents. I turned out relatively OK by going to public school (or so I am told), but sometimes I wonder if I would have turned out more than OK if I had gone to a place where there was a completely different approach to learning.

[Anonymous]

I will say that we thought that progressive would be best for our dd. I often wonder if parents project their own ideas on their kids.
Anyway, I don't buy the whole progressive thing. I don't think that math should be taught that way.
But it lends itself to other subjects such as social studies, and history.
We went with traditional and we're happy.

[Anonymous]

17:47, did you end up trying a progressive school for your DD and find that it didn't work? or did you just consider the progressive education and ultimately go with traditional?

PS I think it is nearly impossible not to project some of our own ideas on their kids at this young age (I am talking pre-K or K, here). It's definitely important that the parents buy in to whatever school they select, because you will have to support it in all sorts of ways. If it turns out that as the child gets older his or her learning style doesn't work with the progressive education then for sure it is time to think about switching. If you don't have your child in a preschool it may be harder to figure out what is a good match. It is nice to be able to get the input of those who interact with your child in a more school-like setting.

[Anonymous]

We took a good look at progressives, and thought that since our dd had some mild gaps in abilities, it would be best to have a standard curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Good read. Thanks for the original post.

I've always been in favor of a progressive education theoretically. However, once in a while, I get nervous and want a more traditional approach for my child to ensure that s/he understand the basics/core. The reality is that most schools are in the spectrum. Ultimately, some children can function well in both academic environments and it is then really up to the parents to decide what are the most important educational objectives we have for our children.

[Anonymous]

I am a basics person myself. The studies keep coming back with basic math and memorization better, phonics over sight reading, and so on. Won't risk it with my kids. After two hours of drilling in school, they can still have creative fun for the rest of the day.

[Anonymous]

Another good read I just came across while searching for more stuff on progressive educations:

Spring 2008

Progressive Education:
Why It’s Hard to Beat, But Also Hard to Find

By Alfie Kohn

If progressive education doesn’t lend itself to a single fixed definition, that seems fitting in light of its reputation for resisting conformity and standardization. Any two educators who describe themselves as sympathetic to this tradition may well see it differently, or at least disagree about which features are the most important.

Talk to enough progressive educators, in fact, and you’ll begin to notice certain paradoxes: Some people focus on the unique needs of individual students, while others invoke the importance of a community of learners; some describe learning as a process, more journey than destination, while others believe that tasks should result in authentic products that can be shared.[1]

What It Is

Despite such variations, there are enough elements on which most of us can agree so that a common core of progressive education emerges, however hazily. And it really does make sense to call it a tradition, as I did a moment ago. Ironically, what we usually call “traditional” education, in contrast to the progressive approach, has less claim to that adjective — because of how, and how recently, it has developed. As Jim Nehring at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell observed, “Progressive schools are the legacy of a long and proud tradition of thoughtful school practice stretching back for centuries” — including hands-on learning, multiage classrooms, and mentor-apprentice relationships — while what we generally refer to as traditional schooling “is largely the result of outdated policy changes that have calcified into conventions.”[2] (Nevertheless, I’ll use the conventional nomenclature in this article to avoid confusion.)

It’s not all or nothing, to be sure. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a school — even one with scripted instruction, uniforms, and rows of desks bolted to the floor — that has completely escaped the influence of progressive ideas. Nor have I seen a school that’s progressive in every detail. Still, schools still can be characterized according to how closely they reflect a commitment to values such as these:

· Attending to the whole child: Progressive educators are concerned with helping children become not only good learners but also good people. Schooling isn’t seen as being about just academics, nor is intellectual growth limited to verbal and mathematical proficiencies.

· Community: Learning isn’t something that happens to individual children — separate selves at separate desks. Children learn with and from one another in a caring community, and that’s true of moral as well as academic learning. Interdependence counts at least as much as independence, so it follows that practices that pit students against one another in some kind of competition, thereby undermining a feeling of community, are deliberately avoided.

· Collaboration: Progressive schools are characterized by what I like to call a “working with” rather than a “doing to” model. In place of rewards for complying with the adults’ expectations, or punitive consequences for failing to do so, there’s more of an emphasis on collaborative problem-solving — and, for that matter, less focus on behaviors than on underlying motives, values, and reasons.

· Social justice: A sense of community and responsibility for others isn’t confined to the classroom; indeed, students are helped to locate themselves in widening circles of care that extend beyond self, beyond friends, beyond their own ethnic group, and beyond their own country. Opportunities are offered not only to learn about, but also to put into action, a commitment to diversity and to improving the lives of others.

· Intrinsic motivation: When considering (or reconsidering) educational policies and practices, the first question that progressive educators are likely to ask is, “What’s the effect on students’ interest in learning, their desire to continue reading, thinking, and questioning?” This deceptively simple test helps to determine what students will and won’t be asked to do. Thus, conventional practices, including homework, grades, and tests, prove difficult to justify for anyone who is serious about promoting long-term dispositions rather than just improving short-term skills.

· Deep understanding: As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead declared long ago, “A merely well-informed man is the most useless bore on God’s earth.” Facts and skills do matter, but only in a context and for a purpose. That’s why progressive education tends to be organized around problems, projects, and questions — rather than around lists of facts, skills, and separate disciplines. The teaching is typically interdisciplinary, the assessment rarely focuses on rote memorization, and excellence isn’t confused with “rigor.” The point is not merely to challenge students — after all, harder is not necessarily better — but to invite them to think deeply about issues that matter and help them understand ideas from the inside out.

· Active learning: In progressive schools, students play a vital role in helping to design the curriculum, formulate the questions, seek out (and create) answers, think through possibilities, and evaluate how successful they — and their teachers — have been. Their active participation in every stage of the process is consistent with the overwhelming consensus of experts that learning is a matter of constructing ideas rather than passively absorbing information or practicing skills.

· Taking kids seriously: In traditional schooling, as John Dewey once remarked, “the center of gravity is outside the child”: he or she is expected to adjust to the school’s rules and curriculum. Progressive educators take their cue from the children — and are particularly attentive to differences among them. (Each student is unique, so a single set of policies, expectations, or assignments would be as counterproductive as it was disrespectful.) The curriculum isn’t just based on interest, but on these children’s interests. Naturally, teachers will have broadly conceived themes and objectives in mind, but they don’t just design a course of study for their students; they design it with them, and they welcome unexpected detours. One fourth-grade teacher’s curriculum, therefore, won’t be the same as that of the teacher next door, nor will her curriculum be the same this year as it was for the children she taught last year. It’s not enough to offer elaborate thematic units prefabricated by the adults. And progressive educators realize that the students must help to formulate not only the course of study but also the outcomes or standards that inform those lessons.

Some of the features that I’ve listed here will seem objectionable, or at least unsettling, to educators at more traditional schools, while others will be surprisingly familiar and may even echo sentiments that they, themselves, have expressed. But progressive educators don’t merely say they endorse ideas like “love of learning” or “a sense of community.” They’re willing to put these values into practice even if doing so requires them to up-end traditions. They may eliminate homework altogether if it’s clear that students view after-school assignments as something to be gotten over with as soon as possible. They will question things like honors classes and awards assemblies that clearly undermine a sense of community. Progressive schools, in short, follow their core values — bolstered by research and experience — wherever they lead.

What It Isn’t

Misconceptions about progressive education generally take two forms. Either it is defined too narrowly so that the significance of the change it represents is understated, or else an exaggerated, caricatured version is presented in order to justify dismissing the whole approach. Let’s take each of these in turn.

Individualized attention from caring, respectful teachers is terribly important. But it does not a progressive school make. To assume otherwise not only dilutes progressivism; it’s unfair to traditional educators, most of whom are not callous Gradgrinds or ruler-wielding nuns. In fact, it’s perfectly consistent to view education as the process of filling children up with bits of knowledge — and to use worksheets, lectures, quizzes, homework, grades, and other such methods in pursuit of that goal — while being genuinely concerned about each child’s progress. Schools with warm, responsive teachers who know each student personally can take pride in that fact, but they shouldn’t claim on that basis to be progressive.

Moreover, traditional schools aren’t always about memorizing dates and definitions; sometimes they’re also committed to helping students understand ideas. As one science teacher pointed out, “For thoughtful traditionalists, thinking is couched in terms of comprehending, integrating, and applying knowledge.” However, the student’s task in such classrooms is “comprehending how the teacher has integrated or applied the ideas… and [then] reconstruct[ing] the teacher’s thinking.”[3] There are interesting concepts being discussed in some traditional classrooms, in other words, but what distinguishes progressive education is that students must construct their own understanding of ideas.

There’s another mistake based on too narrow a definition, which took me a while to catch on to: A school that is culturally progressive is not necessarily educationally progressive. An institution can be steeped in lefty politics and multi-grain values; it can be committed to diversity, peace, and saving the planet — but remain strikingly traditional in its pedagogy. In fact, one can imagine an old-fashioned pour-in-the-facts approach being used to teach lessons in tolerance or even radical politics.[4]

Less innocuous, or accidental, is the tendency to paint progressive education as a touchy-feely, loosey-goosey, fluffy, fuzzy, undemanding exercise in leftover hippie idealism — or Rousseauvian Romanticism. In this cartoon version of the tradition, kids are free to do anything they please, the curriculum can consist of whatever is fun (and nothing that isn’t fun). Learning is thought to happen automatically while the teachers just stand by, observing and beaming. I lack the space here to offer examples of this sort of misrepresentation — or a full account of why it’s so profoundly wrong — but trust me: People really do sneer at the idea of progressive education based on an image that has little to do with progressive education.

Why It Makes Sense

For most people, the fundamental reason to choose, or offer, a progressive education is a function of their basic values: “a rock-bottom commitment to democracy,” as Joseph Featherstone put it; a belief that meeting children’s needs should take precedence over preparing future employees; and a desire to nourish curiosity, creativity, compassion, skepticism, and other virtues.

Fortunately, what may have begun with values (for any of us as individuals, and also for education itself, historically speaking) has turned out to be supported by solid data. A truly impressive collection of research has demonstrated that when students are able to spend more time thinking about ideas than memorizing facts and practicing skills — and when they are invited to help direct their own learning — they are not only more likely to enjoy what they’re doing but to do it better. Progressive education isn’t just more appealing; it’s also more productive.

I reviewed decades’ worth of research in the late 1990s: studies of preschools and high schools; studies of instruction in reading, writing, math, and science; broad studies of “open classrooms,” “student-centered” education, and teaching consistent with constructivist accounts of learning, but also investigations of specific innovations like democratic classrooms, multiage instruction, looping, cooperative learning, and authentic assessment (including the abolition of grades). Across domains, the results overwhelmingly favor progressive education. Regardless of one’s values, in other words, this approach can be recommended purely on the basis of its effectiveness. And if your criteria are more ambitious — long-term retention of what’s been taught, the capacity to understand ideas and apply them to new kinds of problems, a desire to continue learning — the relative benefits of progressive education are even greater.[5] This conclusion is only strengthened by the lack of data to support the value of standardized tests, homework, conventional discipline (based on rewards or consequences), competition, and other traditional practices.[6]

Since I published that research review, similar findings have continued to accumulate. Several newer studies confirm that traditional academic instruction for very young children is counterproductive.[7] Students in elementary and middle school did better in science when their teaching was “centered on projects in which they took a high degree of initiative. Traditional activities, such as completing worksheets and reading primarily from textbooks, seemed to have no positive effect.”[8] Another recent study found that an “inquiry-based” approach to learning is more beneficial than conventional methods for low-income and minority students.[9] The results go on and on. In fact, I occasionally stumble upon older research that I’d missed earlier — including a classic five-year investigation of almost 11,000 children between the ages of eight and sixteen, which found that students who attended progressive schools were less likely to cheat than those who attended conventional schools — a result that persisted even after the researchers controlled for age, IQ, and family background.[10]

Why It’s Rare

Despite the fact that all schools can be located on a continuum stretching between the poles of totally progressive and totally traditional — or, actually, on a series of continuums reflecting the various components of those models — it’s usually possible to visit a school and come away with a pretty clear sense of whether it can be classified as predominantly progressive. It’s also possible to reach a conclusion about how many schools — or even individual classrooms — in America merit that label: damned few. The higher the grade level, the rarer such teaching tends to be, and it’s not even all that prevalent at the lower grades.[11] (Also, while it’s probably true that most progressive schools are independent, most independent schools are not progressive.)

The rarity of this approach, while discouraging to some of us, is also rather significant with respect to the larger debate about education. If progressive schooling is actually quite uncommon, then it’s hard to blame our problems (real or alleged) on this model. Indeed, the facts have the effect of turning the argument on its head: If students aren’t learning effectively, it may be because of the persistence of traditional beliefs and practices in our nation’s schools.

But we’re also left with a question: If progressive education is so terrific, why is it still the exception rather than the rule? I often ask the people who attend my lectures to reflect on this, and the answers that come back are varied and provocative. For starters, they tell me, progressive education is not only less familiar but also much harder to do, and especially to do well. It asks a lot more of the students and at first can seem a burden to those who have figured out how to play the game in traditional classrooms — often succeeding by conventional standards without doing much real thinking. It’s also much more demanding of teachers, who have to know their subject matter inside and out if they want their students to “make sense of biology or literature” as opposed to “simply memoriz[ing] the frog’s anatomy or the sentence’s structure.”[12] But progressive teachers also have to know a lot about pedagogy because no amount of content knowledge (say, expertise in science or English) can tell you how to facilitate learning. The belief that anyone who knows enough math can teach it is a corollary of the belief that learning is a process of passive absorption —a view that cognitive science has decisively debunked.

Progressive teachers also have to be comfortable with uncertainty, not only to abandon a predictable march toward the “right answer” but to let students play an active role in the quest for meaning that replaces it. That means a willingness to give up some control and let students take some ownership, which requires guts as well as talent. These characteristics appear not to be as common as we might like to think. Almost a decade ago, in an interview for this magazine, I recalled my own experience in high school classrooms with some chagrin: “I prided myself on being an entertaining lecturer, very knowledgeable, funny, charismatic, and so on. It took me years to realize [that my] classroom was all about me, not about the kids. It was about teaching, not about learning.”[13] The more we’re influenced by the insights of progressive education, the more we’re forced to rethink what it means to be a good teacher. That process will unavoidably ruffle some feathers, including our own.

And speaking of feather-ruffling, I’m frequently reminded that progressive education has an uphill journey because of the larger culture we live in. It’s an approach that is in some respects inherently subversive, and people in power do not always enjoy being subverted. As Vito Perrone has written, “The values of progressivism — including skepticism, questioning, challenging, openness, and seeking alternate possibilities — have long struggled for acceptance in American society. That they did not come to dominate the schools is not surprising.”[14]

There is pressure to raise standardized test scores, something that progressive education manages to do only sometimes and by accident — not only because that isn’t its purpose but also because such tests measure what matters least. (The recognition of that fact explains why progressive schools would never dream of using standardized tests as part of their admissions process.) More insidiously, though, we face pressure to standardize our practices in general. Thinking is messy, and deep thinking is really messy. This reality coexists uneasily with demands for order — in schools where the curriculum is supposed to be carefully coordinated across grade levels and planned well ahead of time, or in society at large.

And then (as my audiences invariably point out) there are parents who have never been invited to reconsider their assumptions about education. As a result, they may be impressed by the wrong things, reassured by signs of traditionalism — letter grades, spelling quizzes, heavy textbooks, a teacher in firm control of the classroom — and unnerved by their absence. Even if their children are obviously unhappy, parents may accept that as a fact of life. Instead of wanting the next generation to get better than we got, it’s as though their position was: “Listen, if it was bad enough for me, it’s bad enough for my kids.” Perhaps they subscribe to what might be called the Listerine theory of education, based on a famous ad campaign that sought to sell this particular brand of mouthwash on the theory that if it tasted vile, it obviously worked well. The converse proposition, of course, is that anything appealing is likely to be ineffective. If a child is lucky enough to be in a classroom featuring, say, student-designed project-based investigations, the parent may wonder, “But is she really learning anything? Where are the worksheets?” And so the teachers feel pressure to make the instruction worse.

All progressive schools experience a constant undertow, perhaps a request to reintroduce grades of some kind, to give special enrichments to the children of the “gifted” parents, to start up a competitive sports program (because American children evidently don’t get enough of winning and losing outside of school), to punish the kid who did that bad thing to my kid, to administer a standardized test or two (“just so we can see how they’re doing”), and, above all, to get the kids ready for what comes next — even if this amounts to teaching them badly so they’ll be prepared for the bad teaching to which they’ll be subjected later.[15]

This list doesn’t exhaust the reasons that progressive education is uncommon. However, the discussion that preceded it, of progressive education’s advantages, was also incomplete, which suggests that working to make it a little more common is a worthy pursuit. We may not be able to transform a whole school, or even a classroom, along all of these dimensions, at least not by the end of this year. But whatever progress we can make is likely to benefit our students. And doing what’s best for them is the reason all of us got into this line of work in the first place.

_______________________________________________________________________________

SIDEBAR:

A Dozen Questions for Progressive Schools

Because of what I’ve described as the undertow that progressive educators inevitably experience, it’s possible for them to wake up one morning with the unsettling realization that their school has succumbed to a creeping traditionalism and drifted from the vision of its founders. Here are some pointed questions to spur collective reflection and, perhaps, corrective action.

1. Is our school committed to being educationally progressive, or is it content with an atmosphere that’s progressive only in the political or cultural sense of the word?

2. Is a progressive vision being pursued unapologetically, or does a fear of alienating potential applicants lead to compromising that mission and trying to be all things to all people? (“We offer a nurturing environment . . . of rigorous college preparation.”)

3. Is the education that the oldest students receive just as progressive as that offered to the youngest, or would a visitor conclude that those in the upper grades seem to attend a different school altogether?

4. Is the teaching organized around problems, projects, and questions? Is most of the instruction truly interdisciplinary, or is literature routinely separated from social studies – or even from spelling? Has acquiring skills (e.g., arithmetic, vocabulary) come to be over-emphasized rather than seen as a means to the end of understanding and communicating ideas?

5. To what extent are students involved in designing the curriculum? Is it a learner-centered environment, or are lessons presented to the children as faits accomplis? How much are students involved in other decisions, such as room decoration, classroom management, assessment, and so on? Are teachers maintaining control over children, even in subtle ways, so that the classrooms are less democratic than they could be?

6. Is assessment consistent with a progressive vision, or are students evaluated and rated with elaborate rubrics[16] and grade-substitutes? Do students end up, as in many traditional schools, spending so much time thinking about how well they’re doing that they’re no longer as engaged with what they’re doing?

7. Do administrators respect teachers’ professionalism and need for autonomy – or is there a style of top-down control that’s inconsistent with how teachers are urged to treat students? Conversely, is it possible that teachers’ insistence on being left alone has permitted them to drift from genuinely progressive practice in some areas?

8. Are educators acting like lifelong learners, always willing to question familiar ways – or do they sometimes fall back on tradition and justify practices on the grounds that something is just “the [name of school] way”? Are teachers encouraged to visit one another’s classrooms and offered opportunities to talk about pedagogy on a regular basis?

9. Is cooperation emphasized throughout the school – or are there remnants of an adversarial approach? Do students typically make decisions by trying to reach consensus or do they simply vote? Do competitive games still dominate physical education and even show up in classrooms? Do most learning experiences take place in pairs and small groups, or does the default arrangement consist of having students do things on their own?

10. Is homework assigned only when it’s absolutely necessary to extend and enrich a lesson, or is it assigned on a regular basis (as in a traditional school)? If homework is given, are the assignments predicated on – and justified by -- a behaviorist model of “reinforcing” what they were taught – or do they truly deepen students’ understanding of, and engagement with, ideas? How much of a role do the students play in making decisions about homework?

11. Does the question “How will this affect children’s interest in learning (and in the topic at hand)?” inform all choices about curriculum, instruction, and scheduling – or has a focus on right answers and “rigor” led some students to become less curious about, and excited by, what they’re doing?

12. Is the school as progressive and collaborative in nonacademic (social, behavioral) matters as it is in the academic realm, or are there remnants of “consequence”-based control such that the focus is sometimes more on order and compliance than on fostering moral reasoning, social skills, and democratic dispositions?

[Anonymous]

Thank you for another excellent article that educates parents about the different philosophies. Are there any educators out there that can help illuminate which schools in this area best define the values discussed here? How can parents determine if their children are better off learning under one style compared to another?