Progressive Education National Network

[Katy]

In June, we posted questions about the term "progressive education." Just as the school year was ending, the conversation was getting lively and interesting. In response to many requests, we are continuing the conversation in October.

In today’s educational climate, many influences divide educators. Rather than empowering educators who deliver educational programs, external forces such as high stakes testing and standards dictate practices, withhold support, and label educational environments. Our aim is to use the term Progressive Education to promote inclusion, variety and diversity in practice, equity in populations, and understanding of multiple definitions in educational practice.

For more than one hundred years, the term "progressive education" has been used to describe ideas and practices that aim to make schools more effective agencies of a democratic society. Although there are numerous differences of style and emphasis among progressive educators, they share the conviction that democracy means active participation by all citizens in social, political and economic decisions that will affect their lives. Progressive education has often been associated with more active learning, cooperative planning by teachers and students, a greater recognition of individual differences, and attempts to relate learning to 'real life.'

If we share our success stories, we can learn from each other. Our stories help other people understand who we are. Please consider answering one of the following questions:
What is your definition of progressive education? Or: What do you do in your classroom (or school) that is child-centered and is an example of progressive practice?

[Helen M.]

Last year I always thought I would 'get to' responding...and I never did. I know that I need to do something right away if I want to accomplish it (either that or have a clear deadline!). so...

I have been thinking about this question a lot myself. I think of Progressive practices as being ones that promote curriculum that grows from the needs/interest/readiness of the child rather than from an imposed outside source ( should be reading at this point, be on this page on this day, meet 'standards'). And similarly, evaluates the child's progress from the child has been and is going vs. what characteristics they 'ought' to be acheiving. I guess I am saying bottom up rather than top down, or 'Democratic'.

Teaching in Public Education I am , in some ways, forced to do both things. As are my colleagues, whatever their philosophic bent. the pressure from Federal, State, and Local political forces are extreme at the present. This is not unusual in American education. Horace Mann tried to deal with the issue of inequity of funding and educational resources in Massuchussetts in the 1850's. Nothing much has changed.

Bottom line, we are in fact training the children of our Society to conform to what our Society wants/ needs. The problem is that we have no concensus on what that is!

As educators we do have to work towards trying to get children to 'conform'. When I teach 20 first grade students and each one wants my constant attention; the main thing I have to teach is that they have to wait their turn, listen to me, and work cooperatively. As an art teacher I also desperately need to teach them to clean up their mess, put their smocks on by themselves, and not to turn the water on too hard at the sink! Do I get a good look at what they are doing? Do I even know their names for the first few months? Realistically I have them for 45 minutes a week, if I spent 2 minutes with each child per class, that would be it!

It does get better. Some children listen; some aren't able too. I get better at communicating and at understanding the kids that can't. We establish a rapport and routines. Do I blame any colleagues out there who have everyone make exactly the same thing, with only paper, markers, and scissors? In the same class I may have an autistic child, a 'gifted' child, and one who doesn't speak English. Kids may be tired, watch too much TV, not have had breakfast, have parents who are divorcing...

I am beginning to see that all my colleagues, and all the children's parents were all once in my classroom, or in the classroom with mean teacher that yelled at them. Straddling all this is difficult; so much easier to have rules and regulations.

Those of us that bristle from those rules, have a difficult time conforming enough to be in positions of decision making and leadership in public education. What do we do about that?

Enough!
Helen

[Katy]

The following is a copy of the June postings. It is good food for thought and extended conversations.

Reggie:

[A. Griffin]

Claudia wants to know if anyone had something easy to say to people who question progressive education. Helen wants to know about the rules and lack of leadership in progressive education.

I want to know about those same things. Does anyone have answers for us?

[robin_lasersohn]

Vivian wrote that she like the process that The School in Rose Valley is going through to better define and articulate our model of progressive education and wondered where the school is located.

It is located in Rose Valley, Pennsylvania about 15 from Philadelphia. For more information about it, visit our Web site at www.theschoolinrosevalley.org

One of the things that stands out for me after reviewing the discussion of defining progressive education is the tension--longstanding within the progressive education movement I think--between those who emphasize the "child-centered" aspects of the philosophy and those who emphasize the "democracy" elements. In truth, the more child-centered models are not as effective in making schools agents of a democratic society, and conversely, the schools that are more focussed on democracy and society may not meet the needs of individual children nor honor childhood as well as the child-centered models. I would love to hear stories from other progressive educators about how this tension plays out in your school setting (if it does) and how this tension might influence decisions about how to articulate progressive education to others.

[HelenM]

I am thinking a lot about the efforts of educators to reach all children. This, in and of itself is democratic, and is in line with Dewey's vision of education for democracy.

Many colleagues were distressed by a visit to our faculty meeting by the acting superintendent of our school district. He declared that he was going to be cracking down on absenteeism among the staff, and that it was his belief that being a 'nice guy' did not work.

It has made me think about my own deeply held belief that it is, in fact, possible to take a more open and forgiving approach with fellow human beings; it is just much more work! It is distressing to be living in an era when increasingly human beings are undervalued and underappreciated for their uniqueness; for good and for bad.

Many, if not most of us who work with young children do attempt, against the many odds, to accept and support each child. I recently received the first CD of the Chester Children's Chorus. Their director John Alston wrote all the music, but a particularly lovely number is based on the words of Jesus, "Let all the children come to me, for theirs' is the Kingdom of God".

I think that those words were meant to express the potential and openess to life in each child. I believe that even difficult adults still have that child inside of them. Giving up on any human being, or expecting less than the best, is a destructive force. Progressive education for me embodies the desire to educate children in as humane and accepting a way as possible. It is not so much a specific practice, but more a resolve to respect individual differences within the whole.

[Guest]

Correction: the quote attributed to me by Katy in her post to this month's question should read:

In reading this discussion and the Ravich/Meier article, I made an attempt to identify some unifying themes related to Katy's question, which is essentially, "define or describe progressive education as you understand it". Our online discussion studiously avoids explicating educational content (curriculum) in favor of methodology, in other words, progressive education is about an approach to teaching and not so much about curricular content. In the Ravich/Meier debate, Ravich argues for a National curriculum, while Meier argues for the implementation of a more widespread approach to education which leaves curriculum besides the point.

In my opinion, the question of essential curriculum is not one which can be side-stepped if the criticisms of the rigor-standards-assessment advocates are to be quieted. The Ravich/Meier article makes it clear that Ravich and Meier, at least, agree about this.

Even if I accept that progressive education is the method that best meets childrens' educational needs, I still need to know what is being taught.

My ideal for a progressive school would be one in which a challenging, useful curriculum is taught well. I would hate to have to choose between a school at which a challenging, useful curriculum is taught poorly and one at which curriculum is secondary to pedagogy.

That aside, I'm not sure what you mean, Robin, by your statement that "In truth, the more child-centered models are not as effective in making schools agents of a democratic society, and conversely, the schools that are more focussed on democracy and society may not meet the needs of individual children nor honor childhood as well as the child-centered models."

HelenM (hi Helen) offers one interpretation of your statement by responding that she was thinking about "the efforts of educators to reach all children", which she sees as essentially democratic, and goes on to say "Progressive education for me embodies the desire to educate children in as humane and accepting a way as possible. It is not so much a specific practice, but more a resolve to respect individual differences within the whole."

I think we can all accept that on its face.

I found it interesting that as I was considering the questions posed by the posts so far this month and how they relate to our discussions about progressive education to date in general, I came across two book reviews, one in The American Scholar, of "An Argument for Mind", by Jerome Kagan, a psychologist and professor emeritus at Harvard, and one in today's New York Times Science section, about "Moral Minds", by Marc Hauser, a Harvard biologist. Robin poses a question about moral education and child-centeredness. In "An Argument for Mind", Kagan is described as "at the forefront of what is called the cognitive revolution in psychology... he has been party to a major paradigm shift within his discipline... [which] has moved the field from an emphasis on nurture to one on nature, from Freudianism and behaviorism at one end to evolutionary psychology and neuroscience at the other." Meanwhile, in "Moral Minds", Hauser is said to propose that "people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution... The proposal, if true, would have far-reaching consequences. It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes, but rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior."

Intriguing, especially if the question we are struggling with concerns the relationship between how we teach and what we teach.

[gsherif]

Well said, Guest---especially with regard to the split/integration between curriculum (content) and instruction.

I wonder if progressive educators would agree on a developmental model of democratic learning. For example, are there specific experiences of democracy that make more (or less) sense to a student based on his/her developmental age?
_________________
Gamal D. Sherif
www.ProgressEd.org