By Amber Strong Makaiau
In the opening sentence of William Haye’s (2007) book, The Progressive Education Movement, he states:
For some time now, I have accepted the idea that a major theme in the history of education in the United States during the past century has been the ongoing debate between those who consider themselves traditionalists and those who espouse the principles of progressive education (p.xi).
This debate and need to distinguish between what constitutes a progressive philosophy and pedagogy, compared to more “traditional” approaches to education is well-documented and has no doubt played an important role in the evolution of the American progressive education movement. It has helped progressive educators clarify and define what they mean by a “progressive education” for both the movement’s critics and followers. It has also helped to create charts like Haye’s (2007, p.xiii) below, which didactically delineates the difference between traditional and progressive approaches to education.
The ongoing discourse and debate has also helped to create a solid body of literature, scholarship and research that contemporary progressive educators and schools now use to ground their philosophy, pedagogy and school programs. This includes the seven principles of the Progressive Education Association (1919) chapter one of John Dewey’s Experience & Education (1938), Alfie Kohn’s eight progressive education values (2008), and the Progressive Education Network’s six progressive education principles (2023).
As an early leader in the movement, John Dewey took the debate head on. This is most apparent in chapter one of Experience & Education (1938), which is appropriately titled, Traditional vs. Progressive Education.” He wrote, “the rise of what is called new education and progressive schools is of itself a product of discontent with traditional education. In effect it is a criticism of the latter” (p.18). Critical of an outdated and static education system that he believed to be inadequate for creating a better future society, Dewey went on to define a progressive philosophy and pedagogy in terms of opposing educational paradigms:
When the implied criticism is made explicit it reads somewhat as follows…To imposition from above is opposed expression and cultivation of individuality; to external discipline is opposed free activity; to learning from texts and teachers, learning through experience; to acquisition of isolated skills and techniques by drill, is opposed acquisition of them as means of attaining ends which make direct vital appeal; to preparation for a more less remote future is opposed making the most of the opportunities of present life; to static aims and materials is opposed acquaintance with a changing world (pp.18-19).
Explicit and vocal in his criticism, he summarized this about the traditional approach to education: “It is to a large extent the cultural product of societies that assumed the future would be much like the past, and yet…change is the rule, not the exception” (p.18).
As I read through Dewey’s early disquisitions and the scholars to follow who summarize his ideas using handy charts like the one above, I can see why his seminal definitions of progressive education (rooted in a strong critique of traditional schooling) make contemporary progressive educators wary of aligning themselves with anything traditional. It makes sense that teachers, in an effort to be seen as a true progressive educator, may shy away from using more traditional strategies even if those strategies can potentially meet the needs of their diverse learners. Common examples I observe are progressive educators only offering collaborative workspaces and seating arrangements, never providing direct instruction, and completely eliminating the use of textbooks and other pre-packaged curricular resources. On the flip side, I also observe teachers in very traditional school settings experiment with radically progressive approaches but hesitate to call themselves a progressive educator because of where they teach. All of this makes me wonder, is the T-Chart model for defining progressive education (e.g. traditional vs. progressive) useful but not ideal?
Tom Little and Katherine Ellison (2015) elaborate on the struggle progressive educators face when they define their work in opposition to a more traditional education. They write,
…even Park Day School hasn’t been entirely exempt from some forms of rote learning. I’ll give you a small example, a pet peeve of mine. I have yet to find a ten-year-old who can truly understand, much less explain, the concept of dividing fractions. Even adults often have a hard time with this level of abstraction. Nonetheless, a typical problem on a fifth grade math test, and, of course many of the standardized tests, is: “How many two-thirds are there in seven-ninths?” To answer this problem, fifth graders have traditionally learned a simple trick: invert and multiply. This means they can mindlessly “solve” the problem when they see it–but is this really how we create future scientists and engineers? Still, we teach this trick at Park Day, and have done so for years, because not to do so would leave our students unprepared for high school or beyond…(p.136).
While the tone of this passage is somewhat apologetic, I would argue that the cognitive dissonance and tough decision making described by Little and Ellison is critical to maintaining a progressive philosophy and pedagogy. While keeping the ethos of Dewey’s (1938) “new philosophy” (p.22) of education at the core of our work is essential, the worry of whether we are “progressive enough,” especially as it is measured on the either/or chart at the beginning of this blog may actually do us more harm than good.
To alleviate this potential problem of practice, I propose that we think of progressive education as a spectrum; a continuum rather than an either/or binary with traditional education at one end point and progressive education on the other. To illustrate the distinction between spectrum and binary thinking, here is a helpful quote from Chen (2023):
If binary thinking is black & white, spectrum thinking is life in technicolor: While binary thinking puts us at extremes, spectrum thinking considers alternatives and the middle. We're no longer operating in just a state of either/or, but in a space where both, between, other or neither exist.
When we re-envision progressive education as a spectrum–technicolor and all–we understand that there are two distinct philosophies and approaches to education, but also a range of values and practices that exist across the continuum. Ultimately, I believe that all educators and schools fit somewhere on this continuum of traditional and progressive approaches to teaching and learning, and in our day-to-day work as self-identified progressive educators and schools we sometimes slide up and down the continuum, but strive towards progressivism when possible!
It is quite remarkable, because when you take a closer look at John Dewey’s unfolding philosophy of progressive education in Experience & Education (1938)–despite his undeniable devotion to progressive principles and practice–it is clear that he also understood progressive education as existing on a spectrum rather than an either/or binary. He reflected:
Mankind likes to think in terms of extreme opposites. It is given to formulating its beliefs in terms of Either-Ors, between which it recognizes no intermediate possibilities. When forced to recognize that the extremes cannot be acted upon, it is still included to hold that they are all right in theory but that when it comes to practical matters circumstances compel us to compromise. Educational philosophy is no exception (Dewey, 1938, p.17).
His assertion that flexible thinking, compromise, and an openness to possibilities are fundamental to having a progressive philosophy of education is an important takeaway. It is also quite liberating.
Steadfast and determined in our efforts to deliver on the promise and potential of the progressive education movement, progressive educators must fully embrace the philosophical nature of our practice. Philosopher Dewey elaborates on this stating, “the general principles of the new education do not of themselves solve any of the problems of the actual or practical conduct and management of progressive schools. Rather, they set new problems which have to be worked out on the basis of this new philosophy (p.21 - 22). To further illustrate his point: “Let us say the new education emphasizes the freedom of the learner. Very well. A problem is now set. What does freedom mean and what are the conditions under which it is capable of realization” (p.22)? This is what it means to be a progressive educator: full of questions instead of only having answers, willingness to wrestle with ambiguity in place of always being certain, and constructively problem-solving rather than looking to ready-made ideas. And when we position progressive education on a spectrum rather than an either/or binary we gain the flexibility in our thinking, and the philosophical stance that is necessary for effectively translating theory to practice. At our core, we strive towards progressivism whenever possible, and we understand that the needs of individual students, ourselves, the diverse school contexts that we teach in, and the forever-changing world can sometimes demand other methods.
Works Cited:
Chen, O. (2023, March 1). Binary vs. spectrum thinking. Retrieved from https://ozchen.com/binary-vs-spectrum-thinking/#:~:text=If%20binary%20thinking%20is%20black,between%2C%20other%20or%20neither%20exist.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan Company.
Little, T. & Ellison, K. (2015). Loving learning: How progressive education can save America’s schools. W. W. Norton & Company.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Dr. Amber Strong Makaiau is a Specialist at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Director of Curriculum and Research at the Uehiro Academy for Philosophy and Ethics in Education, Director of the Hanahau‘oli School Professional Development Center, and Co-Director of the Progressive Philosophy and Pedagogy MEd Interdisciplinary Education, Curriculum Studies program. A former Hawai‘i State Department of Education high school social studies teacher, her work in education is focused around promoting a more just and equitable democracy for today’s children. Dr. Makaiau lives in Honolulu where she enjoys spending time in the ocean with her husband and two children.
