Progressive Education, Conceptions Of

The term progressive education proves to be as amorphous as the term curriculum itself. Little consensus exists, and the concept, although often not specifically defined, leads to much misunderstanding. When used in the field of curriculum studies, progressive education adopts more of an ideological definition, representing a dynamic, transactional view of learning, and a focus on the interests of students. Such a working definition, however, provides little clarity when the term is so widely and casually used to describe a wide array of educational practices.

In The Transformation of the School, Lawrence Cremin warned against formulating any capsule definition of progressive education, maintaining that no common description exists nor could exist partly because of the character of the movement that necessitated conceptual diversity and differences. At the 1938 annual Progressive Education [Page 689]Association (PEA) meeting, a committee reported on its efforts to define the term and, although a statement was produced, nearly the entire group objected, explaining that progressive education is not a definition but “a spirit.” At times too focused and at other times too comprehensive, the term was viewed by Herbert Kliebard as vacuous and mischievous and carefully avoided in the writing of The Struggle for the American Curriculum. Even in the final report of the PEA's Eight Year Study (viewed as a defining progressive education document), Wilford Aikin never used the term progressive education except once in reference to a quotation.

Nonetheless, a vague and widely shared definition of progressive education emerged during the 1950s (continuing to today), oriented toward elementary education practices and defined by a “child-centered education” moniker focusing on the interests of children. With “learning by doing,” “teaching the whole child,” and “fostering creative expression” slogans characterizing progressive education, the practice was brutally criticized by educational critics who felt the “movement” had eliminated academic standards and fostered a generation of self-indulgent children.

One crucial issue pertaining to how progressive education is conceived stems from whether the term represents a distinctive set of beliefs or whether the definition arises from historical fiat; that is, whether progressive educators are defined by a set of beliefs, or whether progressives are defined as those educators who lived through the Progressive Era. Cremin, for example, situates the genesis of progressive education in the years immediately following the Civil War. Like him, most educational historians view progressive education as an outgrowth of the U.S. Progressive Era. From this perspective, the movement comes to fruition in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, beginning with Frances Parker's school in Quincy, Massachusetts (and then Chicago's Parker School), continuing through John Dewey's laboratory school at the University of Chicago, and followed by developments at the Gary, Indiana, schools, Winnetka, Illinois, schools, and Lincoln School and Dalton School in New York City and with the (diverse) writings of Ellwood Cubberley, William Wirt, Marietta Johnson, Caroline Pratt, and Margaret Naumburg. Progressive education seems, then, to have been codified into an ideology before the formation of the PEA. These practices differ strikingly from progressive education work of the 1930s and the secondary schools of the Eight Year Study, as portrayed at the Denver public school district, Des Moines public school district, Ohio State University (public) School, Tulsa public school district, and reflected in the diverse practices of Caroline Zachry, Alice Keliher, V. T. Thayer, Harold Alberty, Eugene Smith, Harold Rugg, and Boyd Bode.

...