The students at Francis W. Parker Charter Essential School have a distinct late-20th-century style with their baggy jeans and Doc Martens shoes. The classrooms are equipped with well-worn sofas and movable tables, a far cry from the old nailed-down desks of the past. However, the school’s philosophy is deeply rooted in the ideals of its namesake, Francis W. Parker.
Known as the "father of progressive education," Parker rose to prominence in 1873 as the superintendent of the Quincy, Massachusetts school system, which is located nearby. During a time when public schools focused on recitation, memorization, and drill, Parker advocated for placing the child at the heart of education and designing schools that catered to their students’ motivations and interests. The Quincy System, as it became known, replaced textbooks with magazines, newspapers, and materials developed by teachers. Students learned geography by exploring the local countryside and studied an integrated curriculum that emphasized hands-on learning and artistic expression.
Fast forward to the modern-day Parker School, which shares the same goal of centering education around the child. Students aged 12 and older progress at their own pace, following personalized learning plans that are collaboratively created by the students, their parents, and their teachers. Advancement from one division to the next is based on demonstrated performance, primarily through exhibitions and long-term projects.
Small class sizes and an advisory system allow teachers to develop a deep understanding of their students. They design and revise the curriculum to reflect the students’ interests and needs, fostering engagement and promoting learning. This approach may be considered radical due to its departure from traditional methods, but students like 15-year-old Kaitlin LeMoine appreciate the freedom and autonomy it offers.
The Parker School is part of a century-long debate in American education, commonly referred to as the "progressive" vs. "traditional" debate. This ongoing argument has seen fluctuations in intensity throughout the 20th century and remains unresolved to this day. At its core, the debate revolves around broader concepts such as the purpose of education, the importance of the child versus the subject matter, and the balance between spontaneous and formal approaches to schooling. It also encompasses the question of whether education should transform or preserve the nation’s cultural heritage.
Progressive education has historically emphasized active learning, collaborative planning, recognizing individual differences, and connecting learning to real-life experiences. There is often a push to address health, vocational, social, and community issues within the school’s mission. However, it is important to note that the debate cannot be simplified into predetermined categories. Education, regardless of its label, can be successful as long as it prioritizes thoughtful practices.
Larry Cuban, an education historian at Stanford University, argues that many schools have blended elements of both progressive and traditional teaching methods. This hybrid approach, termed "conservative progressivism," allows educators to adapt to the needs of their students while also valuing established instructional practices.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding progressive and traditional education goes beyond pedagogy and delves into fundamental questions about the purpose of schools and our beliefs about children and their upbringing. These questions, influenced by the country’s political and social context, have been present throughout American history. The answers we provide shape our national identity and contribute to the passionate nature of this debate.
According to Theodore R. Sizer, a co-principal of the Parker School and an advocate for modern-day progressivist thought, formal education serves as a battleground for competing values in society. He believes that this debate is deeply charged because those who have children care deeply about their education. It ultimately stems from differing views of human nature, with some seeing children as inherently flawed and in need of correction, while others view them as unique individuals who will naturally flourish. These opposing views represent distinct worldviews that shape our understanding of education.
In his book "The Transformation of the School," Lawrence A. Cremin pointed out that the progressive education movement in the early 20th century was a result of a larger social and political movement. During this time, there was significant industrial and urban growth in the United States. In just 35 years, the country went from being mainly agricultural to becoming an urban and industrial empire, with wealth concentrated among a small number of corporate giants. This rapid transformation was powered by the influx of immigrants into the cities, who often faced challenging working conditions.
One of the most influential figures in the progressive education movement was John Dewey, a philosopher and educator. Dewey’s writings spanned over half a century, and he became a prominent voice in the movement. He arrived in Chicago in 1894, during a major railroad strike that eventually led to the intervention of federal troops. The population of Chicago grew significantly during this time, largely due to immigration. The challenge was to find a way to reconcile the rapid industrialization with the well-being and freedom of individuals. Journalists exposed corruption in education and municipal government, while settlement workers like Jane Addams fought for better working conditions and improved city services.
Progressive politicians, such as Governor Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin, aimed to regulate industry and commerce, focusing on human welfare rather than corporate interests. They also sought to utilize the scientific expertise of universities to serve the government. In this turbulent period, educational reform became a priority. As Cremin stated, education was seen as central to social alleviation efforts by proponents of various progressive causes.
The progressive education movement was characterized by its pluralistic and often contradictory nature. Different individuals and groups had different ideas about what progressive education meant. Additionally, American education itself was quite diverse.
Historians have identified at least three strands of progressive education that grew from a common root and often overlapped. The "pedagogical progressives," including Parker, advocated for more student-centered classrooms, interdisciplinary learning, and schools with a more humane approach. Many of them were influenced by European ideas and scholars such as Friedrich Froebel and Johann Pestalozzi, who emphasized education that aligned with the natural development of children. These "child-centered progressives" believed that schools should be tailored to children’s interests and inclinations.
The ‘Reconstructionists’
While the progressive educators who focused on child-centered learning were primarily concerned with the inner development of students, the "social progressives" had a broader vision for the role of schools. They believed that in an industrial society, schools should take on many of the functions that were being neglected by families and communities. They aimed to create a more egalitarian order. The prominence of social progressivism grew during the Great Depression, when a group called the "social reconstructionists" advocated for a more militant role for schools. Prominent figures such as Dewey, Kilpatrick, Counts, Rugg, Childs, and Raup, who were professors at Teachers College, protested against the flaws of laissez-faire capitalism and challenged schools to build a new social order.
The social reconstructionists published their own journal called The Social Frontier. However, in the late 1930s, many members of the group left when a more radical faction suggested that schools should promote social indoctrination and engage in class warfare in order to achieve a better society. Robert M. Hutchins, the chancellor of the University of Chicago and founder of the widely-used Great Books program, later argued that this movement failed because the majority of Americans disagreed with the idea of a revolution being brought about through the teaching of revolutionary doctrine in schools. The social reconstructionists fell out of favor, especially during the anti-Communist fervor in the period before and after World War II. Nonetheless, their legacy can still be observed in the provision of health and other social services through schools, as well as in efforts to involve schools in community issues.
The ‘Administrative Progressives’
In contrast to the social progressives, the "administrative progressives" were more focused on helping students adapt to society rather than improving society itself. Led by figures such as Edward L. Thorndike, an education professor at Teachers College, and Ellwood P. Cubberly, a professor at Stanford University, they sought to use advancements in scientific measurement and testing to increase the efficiency of schools. They believed that this would better equip schools to accommodate the growing numbers of poor and immigrant students. The administrative progressives aimed to "equalize" educational opportunities by providing each student with a curriculum that suited their individual interests and abilities, with the goal of preparing them for their future roles in society.
Dewey criticized the administrative progressives, accusing them of attempting to maintain the existing order with minimal improvements. However, it was the ideas and methods of the administrative progressives which had the most immediate impact on schools. Practices such as more frequent standardized testing, differentiated curricula for students with different career aspirations, and ability-based grouping addressed the urgent need for a more rational organization of education, especially given the rapid and overwhelming increase in enrollment. One common tool used by administrative progressives was conducting surveys, in which educational experts would assess local school systems, identify weaknesses, and make recommendations for change. Between 1910 and 1919, at least 67 such surveys were published, and from 1920 to 1927, there were 114. While there is ongoing debate about the long-term effects of pedagogical progressivism, the influence of administrative progressivism has endured. Many aspects of it continue to shape school bureaucracies today. According to Stanford historian David B. Tyack, administrative progressivism was the branch of progressive education that had the most significant impact because it became ingrained in the educational structure. Its ideology centered around finding the right fit for each individual rather than striving for a uniform level of education for all.
Heyday of the Movement
By the time the Association for the Advancement of Progressive Education was established in 1919, the progressive movement was already moving in different directions, with various factions pushing and pulling for different goals.
Today, advocates of progressive education still refer to the study as evidence supporting their ideas. However, many of the schools involved in the initiative reverted back to more traditional practices once the foundation funding for the project ran out. Additionally, the loss of foundation support put the PEA in a financially vulnerable position, which ultimately led to the organization’s downfall in 1955.
During the time when the Eight-Year Study was taking place, a more harmful form of curriculum reform was gaining popularity across the country under the name of progressive education. Its origins could be traced back to the publication of Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education by the National Education Association in 1918. The NEA, which was primarily made up of school administrators, did not prioritize classroom teachers until later on. Cardinal Principles stemmed from the administrative progressives’ desire to achieve social efficiency, rather than introducing new pedagogical practices. It argued that schools should align their curriculum with the needs of society and adult activities, rather than focusing on traditional academic disciplines. It also recommended separating students into different educational tracks based on their interests and abilities. This utilitarian view of education was reinforced in the NEA’s publication Education for All American Youth in 1944, which continued to downplay the importance of subject matter.
The "life adjustment movement," which emerged in 1945, represented an extreme version of Dewey’s idea of preparing students to address society’s issues. Led by Charles A. Prosser, a vocational education expert, the movement asserted that only 20 percent of students were capable of pursuing college-preparatory work, while another 20 percent were suited for vocational training. According to this theory, the remaining 60 percent needed practical education that would prepare them for everyday challenges. In 1947, U.S. Commissioner of Education John W. Studebaker appointed a National Commission on Life Adjustment Education for Youth to promote this concept. Consequently, there was a surge in nonacademic high school courses that often lacked depth and relevance.
The implementation of life-adjustment courses in the late 1940s and early 1950s added to the growing criticism of progressive education. Even Dewey himself had expressed disapproval of his colleagues and followers, although his critiques were often subtly stated and went unnoticed. In his final book, Experience and Education (1938), Dewey criticized child-centered pedagogy for rejecting previous practices without sufficient reasoning. He believed that many of the newer schools disregarded the importance of organized subject matter and considered adult guidance as an infringement on individual freedom. Dewey’s criticisms, however, were overshadowed by the mounting external criticism, particularly during the height of the life-adjustment trend. Critiques came from various individuals, including Mortimer Smith and Albert Lynd, former school board members; Arthur Bestor, a historian from the University of Illinois; Chancellor Hutchins from the University of Chicago; and Hyman G. Rickover, a Navy vice admiral. These critics accused progressive schools of devaluing academics in pursuit of social aims, thereby neglecting intellectual development. Smith argued that child-centered schools had become dominated by children, lacking clear goals and failing to instill moral values in students. Lynd criticized the diminishing emphasis on learning while neopedagogues emphasized the supposed "real needs" of students.
Even without the influence of Sputnik, Cremin believed that progressivism would have ultimately faded away due to internal conflicts, distortions, a loss of popular support, a lack of understanding, and an inability to adapt to changing times. He noted that the collapse of the progressive movement was not surprising, but rather the speed at which it collapsed was unexpected. Both critics and supporters of progressivism acknowledge that the movement had two lasting effects. On the positive side, schools had become more humane and relaxed by the mid-20th century compared to their state in 1900. However, the increased expectations placed on schools by progressives to solve societal problems also made them vulnerable to criticism and accusations of failure.
There was a temporary resurgence of progressive thought and practices in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as the political and social climate in the United States shifted once again. A new generation of activists, often reinventing progressive ideas, emerged during this time. Educators such as James Herndon, John Holt, Herbert Kohl, and Jonathan Kozol wrote popular memoirs about their teaching experiences, particularly in racially segregated inner-city classrooms. They criticized the imposition of irrelevant subject matter and the lack of connection to students’ experiences and societal upheavals. They also condemned the monotonous routines, degrading discipline, and rigid schedules of many schools, as well as the authoritarianism that perpetuated social inequalities. These authors passionately described their own attempts at innovation.
The publication of these books, coupled with the political and social unrest of the era, revived educational practices reminiscent of the early 20th century. These practices included project-based learning, narrative report cards, individual and small-group instruction, student involvement in curriculum decisions, flexible use of space, and integrated curricula. This period saw the popularity of "open education," a relaxed approach to elementary schooling that incorporated many of these progressive practices. However, prominent figures in this neoprogressive movement, like Vito Perrone, were knowledgeable about the history of progressivism. Overall, Cremin and others lamented that the new progressives lacked a theoretical and historical understanding, resulting in a waste of energy as they reinvented pedagogical ideas that already existed. Kohl acknowledges this, noting that he formed his educational ideas before reading John Dewey, and believes that much of what they thought they were creating for the first time had already been established.
Unlike the earlier progressive movement, this temporary resurgence encountered opposition from the back-to-basics movement and the implementation of minimum-competency tests in the late 1970s. The lack of uniformity in the definition and practice of the new progressivism contributed to its rapid rise and fall, resembling a fleeting phenomenon.
Since the 1970s, progressive thought and practice have faced challenges in the political and educational climate of the United States. Increasing course requirements, reliance on standardized tests, and the emphasis on academic standards have often hindered the pursuit of innovative ideas following the principles of Dewey, Kilpatrick, and other progressive thinkers.
Contemplating the Legacy
In present times, there is still ongoing debate among educators and historians regarding the impact of the progressive movement. Many of the concepts that teachers now consider as standard practice, such as flexible furniture, small group work with students, the provision of social and medical services within schools, and integrated curricula, can be directly traced back to the progressive movement.
According to Ravitch, a senior research scholar at New York University who has criticized progressive education in her books, the most commendable aspect of progressive education is its methodology. She believes that the emphasis on projects and activities is almost universally implemented in American schools, which are considered to be progressive innovations. However, Cuban, the author of "How Teachers Taught," a historical account of instructional practices published in 1993, argues that although these changes have been significant, they do not represent the complete reorganization of classrooms and pedagogy that the progressives envisioned. He asserts that even during the peak of the progressive movement, most teachers adopted a hybrid form of "teacher-centered progressivism," where lectures and traditional teaching methods still dominated. While a core group of progressive teaching practices were adopted in elementary classrooms between the two World Wars, it never became the majority approach among teachers and had minimal influence in high schools.
Graham emphasizes that progressive education demonstrated that with talented teachers and students from families and communities that prioritize education, an exceptional education could be provided. On the other hand, it also exposed the fact that with less proficient teachers and students from unsupportive educational backgrounds, the education could be subpar. In summary, at its best, progressive education was excellent, and at its worst, it was abysmal.
A Challenging Endeavor
Why has the impact of progressive pedagogy been limited at best?
Historians provide several reasons for this. Firstly, the rigid structure of schools, which was established by administrative progressives, is resistant to progressive pedagogy. Elements such as short classes, a high number of students to be taught daily, limited collaboration among teachers, and college admission decisions primarily driven by test scores and course requirements all work against interdisciplinary, hands-on, and personalized instruction. Secondly, a set of social beliefs about what constitutes "school," often influenced by teachers’ own experiences, tends to discourage innovative teaching practices. Nancy Sizer, the co-principal of the Parker School and wife of Theodore Sizer, observes this phenomenon daily. She states that the reason Parker falls short of being perfectly progressive is due to the same old problem – teachers who mean well but feel anxious if their students don’t possess what they consider to be an adequate level of knowledge in subjects like calculus, biology, and Spanish. Consequently, progressive schools are constantly pulled in the opposite direction. Finally, as Dewey himself admitted, implementing an education system based on real-life experiences is far more challenging than adhering to traditional education methods. Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of education at Stanford, explains that teachers in progressive schools require extensive knowledge and skills to effectively teach both students and subjects. They need a strong grasp of their respective disciplines, an understanding of child development, and the ability to integrate the two seamlessly. Theodore Sizer echoes this sentiment, stating that it is much easier to run a highly controlled school that continuously tells students what to do, leaving no room for independent thinking, all while teaching to pass standardized tests. Conversely, it is more difficult to assert that the purpose of school is for each student to explore their own boundaries and to genuinely care about students’ development even when not being monitored.
The most substantial criticisms of progressive education revolve around its perceived devaluation of subject matter. Prominent critic E.D. Hirsch Jr., an English professor at the University of Virginia, has proposed a common core of knowledge that all students should acquire to thrive in a democratic society. He has expressed particular concern about what he sees as the decline of subject knowledge in the progressive approach. In his 1996 book, "The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them," Hirsch laments that progressive educational ideas have led to practical failures and greater social inequality, which he believes political liberals should oppose. He argues that the anti-subject-matter principles of progressivism have undeniably prevailed in American schools.
"This too shall pass"
In conclusion, the progressive movement’s impact on education has been a subject of continuous cycle. The debate surrounding it continues among educators, historians, and experts in the field. As with any pedagogical approach, there are both strengths and weaknesses associated with progressive education. The challenge lies in finding a balance that allows for the adoption of innovative teaching methods while ensuring that students receive a well-rounded education that encompasses a solid foundation of subject knowledge.
Progressives have the opportunity to embrace many of the principles of the current movement for higher academic standards, according to one perspective. The main difference lies in the belief that children should not be forced to learn certain things in order to survive, and that there is not just one way to acquire knowledge. This highlights the challenge of categorizing educators strictly into either progressive or traditionalist camps.
In the past, the traditional approach to education involved changing the curriculum to attract more students, while retaining the same teaching methods. Now, there is a shift towards maintaining a consistent curriculum, while incorporating both conservative content and progressive teaching strategies. This attempt to find a middle ground reflects the ongoing debate between progressives and traditionalists, which has persisted for over a century.
Despite efforts to find common ground, it is unlikely that the debate between progressives and traditionalists will come to an end. Many recognize the importance of this discourse, as it encompasses diverse teaching methods, the civic role of education, and the value of traditional knowledge.
Progressives who take a long-term view of history, such as Sizer, remain determined to continue the fight. They understand that these discussions fluctuate in cycles and must persevere through challenging times. Although facing constant opposition can be difficult, their background in history provides them with the resilience to persist.
