Progressive Education National Network

[Katy]

Progressive schools are often criticized for being “unstructured.” Many people see the freedom of choice and the opportunities to solve problems, and they often think that it represents an “unstructured” learning environment, where the impulses of children determine what happens on any given school day.

I think that progressive schools have structure. Ironically, I think that most progressive classrooms have more structure than authoritarian, teacher-directed models of education. A progressive teacher must be prepared, and/or do extensive planning for many possible outcomes and a variety of options. I see progressive education as a democratic model, not a dictator model. Democracies have structure. They are process driven, not outcome based; they are not always neat and tidy.

I am frustrated when people call my school unstructured; I believe it has a very strong structure and is a wonderful place to educate children.

One of the challenges that we all face comes with the claims of critics—including prospective parents—that our schools are unstructured.

What do you say when people criticize your school or class and call it unstructured?

[Mary Kay Going]

Fountas and Pinnell state in their book that the highest level of structure in a classroom is one where there is the most amount of diversity and diifferentiation of activity. I am not really quoting exactly since my book is at school but that thought has always stuck with me as something that fits for my school. It takes a great deal of teacher structure to know the specific academic strengths and needs of each child and to provide a wide range of opportunities for them to develop.

[Steve Nelson]

Welcome to my daily life. Calhoun is a progressive school in New York City, an oxymoron in itself! Here's what I tell the critics: When most folks think of or talk about structure they are stuck on the superficial: desks in neat rows, dress codes, lots and lots of rules. I point out that external structures, like those I mentioned, actually inhibit learning. Good schools (progressive schools) have invisible structure, organizing sensory experiences and the learning community in a way that allows rich, full human development. It is, to many folks, counterintuitive, but external structure is inversely correlated with social, emotional and intellectual development. Half the people believe me and come to or stay at the school. The other half think I'm an idiot and run away as fast as they can. Both are good outcomes.

Cheers,

Steve Nelson

[Ron]

I say that children learn by having experiences. I say that through choices children learn to be responsible. If all the choices are being made by others, children are not learning responsiblilty.

[Susan]

People often confuse rigid environments with structure. Structure means form or a manner of organizing. When people don't understand the form or the organization, I try to help them understand what they see. It does NOT always work.

[bettyach@ucsc.edu]

The issue of "structure" is particularly disturbing in the California context, where accountability constraints and prescriptive instructional policies are severly limiting the autonomy of both teachers and students to organize classrooms to meet the needs of diverse students. Give the vast differences between students in a given classroom (e.g. language needs, cultural backgrounds, academic development, social development, passions, etc.) it is ironic that the move to greater structure is really about the move to greater standardization of student's experiences and limits the capacity of educators to make expert judgement and adjust their practice according to the needs of individual learners. Thus structure has become a way to reduce education to standardization, ultimately doing a disserve to diverse youth. I guess I'd like to think about ways that move away from a discourse of "structure" to one that speaks of creating classroom environments that foster learning and development. The cooptation of "structure" as "standardization" and "control" is highly problematic.

I also think parents may need some scaffolding in thinking about this issue of support and have opportunities to think about how in their adult life they like to have an environment that has "organization" and "flexibility". I also wonder how we as educators can give them a flavor of this (something for them to experience) through an activity at the school. So that it is not something that they just observe in others.

[Carol]

I really agree with Betty. Are you from a university?

I would like to know the names of the books Mary Kay referred to.

I think that the highest goal for some teachers (and parents) in non-progressive classrooms is to control the kids, the experience, and the outcomes. Legislators are probably in this category too.

[Sabine]

I too find Betty's comments to be very thought provoking, and would like to incorporate Katy's reference to "many possible outcomes" into the discussion of structure as standardization. I think the idea of open-ended inquiry can be very threatening. One of the appeals of "structure" in such cases, as the term is misused or not, is that it can be employed as a hedge against ideas which challenge the ones that the structure supports.

[Robin]

I like the point that by "structure" people often mean external structures that are imposed by authorities. I think progressive education calls for the development of internal structures on the part of the child, and that the teachers' job is to foster that development. By internal structure, I mean ways to organize experiences and understanding inside yourself, the development of guidelines for how to relate to other people and function within the community--again, inside yourself. Children who have only had external "structures" imposed upon them sometimes do not develop the internal organization needed to be independent--in thinking or action. In fact, I see that children who enter progressive settings later in childhood have a harder time--and may contribute to the perception that "there is no structure here," because initially they behave that way. Developing internal structures is far more demanding and complex than obeying structures that are handed down, yet progressive schools are sometimes accused of not being "challenging" enough. Ironic.

[Julie Clark]

People who call progressive schools unstructured don't understand progressive education and the goals and the values.

[diana gomez]

The structure of progressive classrooms actually reflects our high expectations for students. For example, I expect that my students will be able to choose the kind of paper they will use, what they will write about and how they will write it. That is a lot more challenging than giving each child the same sheet of paper with the topic already decided for them and asking them to fill the space. We make demands on our students' abilities to organize themselves, make decisions, and control their work and behavior, and we help children gain these abilities by implementing structures which scaffold them. Then we gradually release the responsibility to the students. When the students are moving about the classroom, getting the materials they need, consulting other students as often as the teacher, and working independently and cooperatively in a seamless flow, an observer might call it "unstructured." We know better.

[Chris]

I get frustrated when we are criticized. I have never really known how to respond. Some of the teachers at my school tell parents we are not structured. The parents hear: We are not really teaching your child. Thank you to everyone who posted on this problem. It has given me some ideas that I will use the next time someone criticizes my class.