tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post1081265811481031621..comments2024-03-08T00:21:56.482-08:00Comments on kitchen table math, the sequel: The Book Knight on Liberal Arts EducationCatherine Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-17400737217281085392010-02-22T01:49:01.720-08:002010-02-22T01:49:01.720-08:00This is partly right--and partly wrong. There was...This is partly right--and partly wrong. There was no golden age of education--and there was NO time when fifth graders, on average, were more proficient than they've been in the past 50 years. I DO have a NUMBER of historic books, and I also know what grades they were intended for! How was your College Arithmetic class? Wait, you didn't know that arithmetic was a for-credit college course? It used to be, at the turn of the century! Education used to be MUCH, MUCH more narrow than today. Look at the courses in the most prestigious schools in 1900 versus the average high school today. If anything, we're attempting too much and therefore doing it badly (a la Everyday Math, for instance!).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-64953099644303300962010-01-13T19:24:10.200-08:002010-01-13T19:24:10.200-08:00RMD--there is a Montessori curriculum--traditional...RMD--there is a Montessori curriculum--traditionally teachers create albums of the course of study during teacher training. Some teacher training programs sell copies of them now instead of requiring the student to create them.<br /><br />PhysicistDave--yes to black holes and evolution. Montessori introduces children to the beginning of the universe, the development of life on Earth beginning with bacteria, the appearance of the earliest humans, the history of the development of writing and the history of the development of numbers. The five great lessons are supposed to give the children a sense of wonder about the world and a sense of the place of human beings in it. The curriculum includes astronomy, matter and energy, ecology, botany, and zoology. It looks high content to me--at least in comparison to my local public schools, although, as noted by others, Montessori schools can vary quite a bit.Karen Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075997477474697121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-59922680330801527922010-01-13T18:28:43.222-08:002010-01-13T18:28:43.222-08:00PhysicistDave -- absolutely, there are a lot of di...PhysicistDave -- absolutely, there are a lot of different meanings of "progressive" being thrown around here. I would like to clarify the basic points I have been trying to make.<br /><br />In my experience, the problem with the public schools is not that they are "too progressive". The local public schools that I pulled my daughter out of have almost no progressive features (not even constructivist math, that I know of.) Nonetheless, they are terrible schools -- authoritarian, punitive, brutal. You can't blame everything on progressive ed.<br /><br />Similarly, I feel that it is not fair to blame "progressive ed theory" for practices that every progressive ed proponent I've ever read is strongly against. For instance, if your child gets punished at school for some trivial bit of incomplete homework, you have every right to complain, but don't blame "progressives".<br /><br />It isn't right to take "progressive" as a catch-all term for bad educational practices. I think there are valid objections to progressive ed (hollowed-out content), and valid objections to traditional ed (not supportive enough of children's intrinsic motivation to learn.) <br /><br />I agree with the progressive insight that it is a poor trade to fill a child full of facts and skills if the process robs the child of his interest in learning. <br /><br />My dream school would take a good unbiased look at all the various theories and practices and take the best features of each. I would like to see solid content and curriculum aligned with real respect for each child.FedUpMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951858601020687242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-35142435989490882982010-01-13T17:06:33.674-08:002010-01-13T17:06:33.674-08:00about Montessori . . .
I haven't seen any st...about Montessori . . . <br /><br />I haven't seen any studies that examine the Montessori method. I think that's because while we talk about it as a cohesive curricula, it's more of a set of guidelines and philosophy than a spelled out curriculum. (at least I haven't seen one guide that spells out all Montessori curricula)<br /><br />I'm not saying Montessori is good or bad, nor can I comment on whether it's progressive, liberal, or any other terms. However, I haven't seen any evidence that it is effective. It's just too hard to say because implementations vary considerably.<br /><br />Here are some research take-aways that might be helpful if you're interested: <br /><br />- Follow Through told us that, in general, more-structured curricula are more effective than less-structured curricula. Direct Instruction, the most structured curricula, clearly worked in all cases, while Open Classroom, the least structured, was one of the few methods that performed below average (i.e., students were worse off than the "typical" or average curricula). <br /><br />- Tools of the Mind, another preschool curricula, actually has substantial evidence backing up its effectiveness. It's the only such curricula that I know of that has evidence it works.<br /><br />- Engelmann did a small study comparing his early Direct Instruction method vs Montessori. (Google "acceleration intellectual development"). He compared the success of his methods vs children who didn't gain admission to a Montessori program. I can't remember all of the details, but the gains from Direct Instruction were rather significant (maxed out one of the math tests) with only an hour or so of instruction per day.RMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08625944233681296812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-8056858983850769292010-01-13T16:48:55.097-08:002010-01-13T16:48:55.097-08:00Beth wrote to me:
>Actually, Alfie Kohn has an ...Beth wrote to me:<br />>Actually, Alfie Kohn has an article about "Bad Apples" where he argues the same point, but from the opposite side. He says that as long as you've still got grades, punishments, and an authoritarian classroom, you've "poisoned" any attempt you might make at progressive education.<br /><br />And, again, I’d say that Alfie, Allison, and I can all be right – I certainly agree that the existing schools are far from the progressive ideal, but I also disapprove of that ideal.<br /><br />I think the debate here is largely just a matter of using the word “progressive” in two different ways. The way it has generally been used (see Kliebard’s book that I mentioned above for details of the history) includes two separate sets of features: content/curriculum features and style/organization features.<br /><br />For nearly a century, people who call themselves “progressive educators” have been overwhelmingly opposed to strong academic content.<br /><br />I take it you yourself are *not* progressive in that sense, at least given your praise for Singapore Math and Classical Roots!<br /><br />You are, however, “progressive” in terms of the style/organization features: opposition to grades, etc.<br /><br />That’s fine. Your views seem fairly close to my own (and, I suspect, closer to Allison’s than the early part of this thread would have indicated). I’m probably a bit less “progressive” than you on the style/organization features, but we’d have to exchange views in more detail for me to really know.<br /><br />But, please, just be aware that, given the history of educational debate for at least a century, when you say “progressive” in the context of education, most people who know about past and present educational debates will tend to assume, as Allison and I did, that you are referring to “progressive education” in both the content/curricular sense and the style/organizational sense.<br /><br />I do understand now that you are just using the word “progressive” in a different sense than it is commonly used. <br /><br />Incidentally, I think that Kohn et al. do tend to emphasize the style/organization aspects of the debate because that is their strong point: most adults have unpleasant memories of having to get permission to use the rest-room, for example. The curriculum/content aspects of progressivism are their weaker points, and so they tend to downplay those to some degree, but that is still a very big part of progressive education historically and in practice.<br /><br />At any rate, your kid is *your* kid, so even if everyone here did disapprove of your approach to education, it really would not matter. It’s not our decision.<br /><br />I’ll be interested to hear how the Montessori school works out. I’ll be particularly interested to hear if they encourage kids to take a high-content approach: do kids early in grade-school learn about evolution, black holes, mummies, and knights and castles, or is all that deemed “developmentally inappropriate"? On that issue, I am a committed “Hirschian.”<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-67715110291033617732010-01-13T14:26:09.470-08:002010-01-13T14:26:09.470-08:00Karen W. -- your comment makes me even more intere...Karen W. -- your comment makes me even more interested in the Montessori school we've applied to. I hope they've got a place for dd!FedUpMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951858601020687242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-67590428388454005722010-01-13T13:07:25.698-08:002010-01-13T13:07:25.698-08:00Consider the different approaches of the Montessor...Consider the different approaches of the Montessori method and current public school practices. The Montessori curriculum includes geography, history, grammar and penmanship. The reading/spelling programs uses phonics. The 3-6 math program emphasizes place value and learning math facts. Children are encouraged and expected to memorize facts. The names of parts of plants and animals. Geographical place names. The parts of a volcano. The names of geometric solids and shapes including the names for different kinds of triangles. They practice sorting invertebrates from invertebrates, living and non-living, magnetic and non-magnetic. Children are not forced into group work and certainly not in mixed-ability groups. Children are actually expected to master a work before they can move on to the next level. Despite appearing like a "guide on the side", a Montessori teacher presents direct instruction lessons to individual students, small groups and the whole class. Control of error is used to help the child correct his work. There are right answers in the Montessori classroom. I think Montessori success supports the emphasis on content, direct instruction, and mastery frequently mentioned at KTM.Karen Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075997477474697121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-26463536767562233172010-01-13T09:14:01.338-08:002010-01-13T09:14:01.338-08:00While I'm on Maria Montessori, I'll addres...While I'm on Maria Montessori, I'll address this:<br /><br />Allison said:<br /><br />********<br />Maria Montessori was a Italian Catholic Communist ...<br />********<br /><br />In Maria Montessori's world, "Catholic" and "Communist" were starkly opposed ideologies. Saying she was "Catholic Communist" is like saying she was "right-wing left-wing." It's highly unlikely.<br /><br />In any case, I have never seen anyone but Allison describe MM as "Communist", and I've never seen any evidence that she was Communist. There's plenty of evidence that she was Catholic, though.FedUpMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951858601020687242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-88915361478356641732010-01-13T06:49:23.291-08:002010-01-13T06:49:23.291-08:00PhysicistDave, I understand your point that it is ...PhysicistDave, I understand your point that it is theoretically possible that progressive ed hasn't been fully implemented by the public schools, but at the same time it has ruined the schools. I just don't agree with it. <br /><br />Actually, Alfie Kohn has an article about "Bad Apples" where he argues the same point, but from the opposite side. He says that as long as you've still got grades, punishments, and an authoritarian classroom, you've "poisoned" any attempt you might make at progressive education.<br /><br />Finally, I would really like to discuss Maria Montessori. As I said earlier, Montessori is the only truly progressive education my kids have experienced, and it was great for them. It's "progressive" in the sense that it is very much about kids teaching themselves, the teacher is a guide on the side, and kids are encouraged to make sense of the world in their own way and at their own pace.<br /><br />It's interesting to me that even in this discussion, with people who can't stand anything progressive, there's only one person on record as not liking Maria Montessori. <br /><br />Why does Montessori succeed where other attempts at progressive ed fail? I would say it's because Montessori is thoroughly progressive, as opposed to the public schools, where a few badly-understood progressive notions have been pasted onto a deeply traditional system.<br /><br />Maria Montessori designed an entire curriculum, and teaching materials, and a space for children to work in. She invented various manipulatives to teach math. She succeeded in teaching kids who had been categorized "retarded" so that they performed better than the average normal kid. (I wonder if they were the "ADHD" kids of her day.) <br /><br />A good Montessori school actually carries out the progressive ideas that public schools just talk about. In the Montessori school we've applied to for younger dd, when you walk into the classroom you'll see kids totally engaged in various projects. Many work on their own, but you'll also see some small groups. The teacher circulates as a "guide on the side". Many of the projects the kids work on have been carefully designed to be "self-correcting" -- sort of like puzzles. I think this is especially true of the math projects. <br /><br />Now, having written that, I hope the school we saw has a place for dd, and I hope it lives up to our expectations! <br /><br />By contrast, when I walked into my daughter's public school, I did not see kids engaged in projects. I saw a lot of bored kids looking vacant (including my daughter.) I saw a teacher struggling to maintain constant control of the classroom. That's not progressive education.FedUpMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951858601020687242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-39579853888101765302010-01-13T06:05:27.558-08:002010-01-13T06:05:27.558-08:00SusanS said:
*******
The entire [progressive] phi...SusanS said:<br /><br />*******<br />The entire [progressive] philosophy almost exonerates bad schools and bad teachers. How can they be responsible if they are only guides on the sides? Hey, they provided him with a strategy. Sure, even the kid's parents can't figure it out, but that's not their problem.<br />*******<br /><br />SusanS, I understand your point, and it's valid. But I had a public-school principal who used the traditional philosophy the same way. "You dare to question me? I'm the expert here! Sit down and shut up!" A bad school (or principal) will use whatever is to hand to exonerate themselves and avoid making changes.<br /><br />SusanS also said:<br /><br />*******<br />And there's plenty of room for punitive behavior from progressive schools. I've seen it with my own children as they are expected to have the executive functions of a college student.<br />*******<br /><br />Susan, I hear you. I've seen the exact same thing. But again, I don't think we get to blame "progressives" for this. I don't know of any progressive ed proponent who thinks it's a good idea to take a child's recess away because she forgot one detail of the 10 random bits of homework she was supposed to turn in that day.FedUpMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951858601020687242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-65705021285865679382010-01-13T05:45:15.556-08:002010-01-13T05:45:15.556-08:00Anonymous, I just started with the "Classical...Anonymous, I just started with the "Classical Roots" books. I've worked through chapter 1 of the first workbook with my daughter. She enjoyed it, and I think it's a useful approach, although we found one explanation that wasn't clear (how "onion" is derived from "unus", if you're interested.) I didn't do a lot of research -- someone recommended "Classical Roots" on this blog, I looked at it on Amazon, and I thought "what the heck -- it's worth ten bucks to try it out."FedUpMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951858601020687242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-46028291933233120612010-01-12T20:12:19.958-08:002010-01-12T20:12:19.958-08:00Beth wrote to me:
>But I can't agree with y...Beth wrote to me:<br />>But I can't agree with your characterisation of progressive ed as a "poison". Good old Maria Montessori? She's not poisonous to me.<br /><br />Beth, I actually do not know much about Montessori, one way or the other – I don’t think I have ever mentioned her before.<br /><br />I myself do think some aspects of progressive education – “social studies” replacing history and geography, “constructivism” replacing the standard algorithms in math – are “poison.” <br /><br />But, in any case, I was just using the “poison” analogy to explain how someone could agree with you that the existing public schools are not truly “progressive” but also feel that the “progressive” features they do have (such as the two I just mentioned) are enough “progressivism” to do great harm.<br /><br />I was just trying to make the abstract point that, as a matter of logic, you yourself can be right that the public schools are not really very “progressive,” and that Allison can also be right that “progressivism” is nonetheless wrecking the public schools.<br /><br />You also wrote:<br />> But I also think that progressive ed thinkers like Alfie Kohn have useful points to make about student interest and motivation, and the deadening effect of carrots and sticks. Even constructivism seems to me like it could be a useful motivator, if it was used thoughtfully and as just one piece of the curriculum.<br /><br />I see your point.<br /><br />But, of course, in a very real sense, the “traditional” approach to geometry (axiom/theorem/proof) is more “constructivist” than the modern let’s talk-about-shapes approach to geometry: in the “traditional” approach, you have to “construct” a lot of proofs for yourself. <br /><br />And, I suspect that almost all of the “traditionalists” here prefer the traditional proof-constructing approach to geometry over the modern silliness.<br /><br />But, as it happens, the term “constructivist” in modern educational debates is generally applied to the invent-arithmetic-algorithms-for-yourself approach, but not to the prove-geometric-theorems-for-yourself approach.<br /><br />So, most of us use the term “constructivist” that way, since that is how it is commonly (if illogically) used nowadays.<br /><br />In some sense, “constructivism” is trivially correct: until you manage to “construct” knowledge in your own head, you yourself do not have that knowledge.<br /><br />But, in the rather specific sense that “constructivism” is used in educational debates today, I think it is fair to say that “constructivism” is generally a bad thing.<br /><br />You also wrote:<br />>Sometimes I think that the public schools cherry-picked the absolute worst aspects of every theory and implemented those. "Traditional ed? That means carrots and sticks, strict discipline, make the kids shut up and do what they're told. Okay, we can do that. Progressive ed? That means we don't need to worry about content and we can tell the kids to teach themselves.<br /><br />I agree, and few private schools are all that much better – that is why we are homeschooling.<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-33843426995172430312010-01-12T19:53:49.475-08:002010-01-12T19:53:49.475-08:00Beth,
Sorry to interrupt this thread, but could y...Beth,<br /><br />Sorry to interrupt this thread, but could you tell me about your experience with the "Classical Roots" books? Have you just started using them recently, or have you been at it for a while? Logistically, how do you break up the lessons or units over the course of the week? Also, what made you choose those books over other Greek/Latin roots curricula?<br /><br />Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide on this subject.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-70276615081643175732010-01-12T18:13:09.731-08:002010-01-12T18:13:09.731-08:00PhysicistDave -- I didn't think you were casti...PhysicistDave -- I didn't think you were casting aspersions when you suggested I didn't follow the nightly news. I don't take that as a criticism.<br /><br />But I can't agree with your characterisation of progressive ed as a "poison". Good old Maria Montessori? She's not poisonous to me. <br /><br />I understand your point about anti-intellectualism and hollowed-out content, and I think these are valid criticisms. But I also think that progressive ed thinkers like Alfie Kohn have useful points to make about student interest and motivation, and the deadening effect of carrots and sticks. Even constructivism seems to me like it could be a useful motivator, if it was used thoughtfully and as just one piece of the curriculum.<br /><br />Sometimes I think that the public schools cherry-picked the absolute worst aspects of every theory and implemented those. "Traditional ed? That means carrots and sticks, strict discipline, make the kids shut up and do what they're told. Okay, we can do that. Progressive ed? That means we don't need to worry about content and we can tell the kids to teach themselves. Okay, we can do that. Perfect! Now everybody's happy!"<br /><br />ConcernedCTParent -- I'm using Singapore Math with my daughter, and it's been a big help. It's clear, not too repetitive, and it does the job in a way that no previous math teaching has done for her. I'm a big fan. We've also started working through the "Classical Roots" books that were recommended on this blog. Again, I'm a fan.FedUpMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951858601020687242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-34889862877375885982010-01-12T17:34:01.399-08:002010-01-12T17:34:01.399-08:00Beth, I'm not sure what you mean by "trad...Beth, I'm not sure what you mean by "traditionalists". The truth is that I wouldn't exactly consider myself traditional and don't necessarily want a traditional education for my children. I do NOT want Everyday Math and I absolutely DO want Singapore Math. Singapore Math is NOT traditional-- but it's what I want for my children.<br /><br />I only ask because the kind of liberal arts education I defend has more to do with content and breadth of knowledge than with a particular philosophy of teaching or classroom management. I believe in effective curricula, effective instruction, and implementation of practices that are supported by what we know about how children learn (see Daniel Willingham, for example). I want an education that is based not on what sounds fun and engaging (group learning, differentiated instruction that's NOT, discovery, and so on) but what inspires a love of learning and inquisitiveness that is not superficial-- the kind of learning that inspires self-confidence through mastery and deep content knowledge. <br /><br />What I want to see more of in public education has everything to do with content and curricula and much less to do with theories that sound good on paper and in the education school classroom, but leave children thirsting for more and woefully unprepared for the expectations of college and career.<br /><br />So, I don't necessarily want what you think I want. I want a liberal arts education where content knowledge reigns supreme. I want it delivered in a way consistent with what works in a boots-on-the-ground sort of way, in the Daniel Willingham sort of way, in the Palisadesk and Rafe Esquith sort of way.<br /><br />That's the public school education that I would like to see available to all children.concernedCTparenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755180042426047454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-46617414864111430852010-01-12T17:27:13.208-08:002010-01-12T17:27:13.208-08:00Beth wrote:
>If Alfie Kohn could see what was g...Beth wrote:<br />>If Alfie Kohn could see what was going on in our local public schools, he would be appalled, and rightly so. All you traditionalists would likely be appalled, too, possibly for different reasons.<br /><br />Yeah, that is certainly true.<br /><br />You also wrote:<br />>The public schools, at least in our district, are not bad because they're too progressive or too traditional. They're just bad.<br /><br />I think that is part of the issue under debate. There are certainly very few public schools that are <i>truly</i> progressive from the perspective of traditional progressive education.<br /><br />However, it may still be (and I think it is) the case that part of what is wrong with the schools is that they have implemented some progressive ideas. For example, a number of threads here on ktm have documented examples in public schools of “constructivism.” And, I suppose almost all of us endured “social studies” pushing out geography and history, at least in early grade school.<br /><br />Historically, constructivism and “social studies” are connected to progressive education.<br /><br />So, it is possible to sensibly argue that progressivism has wrecked the schools and still agree with you that the schools are far from being truly progressive.<br /><br />Here is an analogy: one drop of a potent poison may kill you, even though your body is not soaked in the poison.<br /><br />Similarly, a fairly small dose of progressivism may be enough to wreck a school, even though the school is not “truly” progressive.<br /><br />I actually think that is the case, as do, it seems, some other people here.<br /><br />That being said, as I have indicated above, I also agree with some of your complaints about “traditional” schooling: I do not think the solution to the problems of the schools is simply to try to turn the clock back to 1900.<br /><br />That is why I tend to describe our own approach in our homeschooling as “academically-oriented, high-content, developmentally inappropriate” rather than as “traditional” or even “classical.” From some of your comments, I suspect that you might largely agree with the approach we are taking. (I even suspect, that if you and Allison started talking about exactly what you thought should be taught and how it should be taught, you might find significant agreement.)<br /><br />And, parenthetically, I <i>really</i> was not casting aspersions in suggesting that you must not have followed the nightly news during the election season! I am a bit of a political junkie – the kind of fellow who used to watch C-SPAN during my free time (when I had free time – before we had kids). But the only real story in the election was “Charismatic Young Black Guy Beats Inarticulate Old White Guy.” Those Americans who skipped following the daily news minutiae were almost certainly making a wise use of their time.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-43317003013266948512010-01-12T16:33:57.253-08:002010-01-12T16:33:57.253-08:00SusanS said:
*****
And there's plenty of room...SusanS said:<br /><br />*****<br />And there's plenty of room for punitive behavior from progressive schools.<br />*****<br /><br />The punitive behavior I complained about was not at a progressive school. It was at a public school. They used a traditional math curriculum (Houghton-Mifflin) with a completely stage-on-the-sage approach. <br /><br />I believe my original point was that it is not fair to claim that the problem with public schools is that they're too progressive. In our district, the schools are absolutely not progressive, in the sense that I can't imagine any progressive educator walking in and saying, "yeah, this is what I had in mind." The kids have no control over what they do, and they're not following their own interests. They're constantly being bashed by sticks or lured with carrots. <br /><br />When I think "progressive", I'm thinking about people like Alfie Kohn, John Holt, and Maria Montessori. As I said, I don't agree with them about everything, but I agree about some things.<br /><br />If Alfie Kohn could see what was going on in our local public schools, he would be appalled, and rightly so. All you traditionalists would likely be appalled, too, possibly for different reasons. And that is what I've been trying to say all along.<br /><br />The public schools, at least in our district, are not bad because they're too progressive or too traditional. They're just bad.FedUpMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951858601020687242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-86476334171277413362010-01-12T16:30:08.103-08:002010-01-12T16:30:08.103-08:00What I think happened is that all the schools are ...<i>What I think happened is that all the schools are basically traditional in tone. Then a bunch of progressive theorists came along, and their way of thinking became fashionable (I don't doubt that you hear a lot of it in ed school.)<br /><br />The result is that our schools are basically traditional in structure and outlook, but the content has been hollowed out and there's a lot of progressive-sounding jargon and activities pasted on top.</i><br /><br />Beth, YES: 100%.<br /><br />As someone who wants ALL children to be able to get a quality education, I completely agree: we've kept the traditional structure but laid a veneer of "progressive" education on top of it.<br /><br />IMO, what plays a far greater role than educational or political outlook is the content knowledge (both in the subject being taught and in the ability to understand mathematics/statistics/research) of the people in the field. Without that, there's just going to be a lot of gullibility and not a lot of wise innovation.Hainishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-23001997758128776052010-01-12T15:49:51.917-08:002010-01-12T15:49:51.917-08:00I would have weighed in on this long and rambling ...I would have weighed in on this long and rambling thread, but PhysicistDave and ConcertedCTParent have basically covered everything far better than I would have.<br /><br />I would like to reiterate what ConcernedCTParent said about the connection of progressive ed, as we know it, and constructivism (child centered learning, children constructing their own knowledge, guides on the side, etc.) <br /><br />The implication of all this is that children are responsible for their own learning. They never do anything wrong that needs to be addressed in a simple, direct manner. They are making "wrong choices" and are in need of character ed to discover the proper strategy for success. <br /><br />The entire philosophy almost exonerates bad schools and bad teachers. How can they be responsible if they are only guides on the sides? Hey, they provided him with a strategy. Sure, even the kid's parents can't figure it out, but that's not their problem.<br /><br />And there's plenty of room for punitive behavior from progressive schools. I've seen it with my own children as they are expected to have the executive functions of a college student. <br /><br />They are also expected to reveal their personal opinions daily in order to receive a decent "class participation" grade, a grade that used to be used as extra credit,but has now turned into a level-the-playing-field grade.<br /><br />SusanSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-83279745101999683102010-01-12T15:00:48.727-08:002010-01-12T15:00:48.727-08:00concernedCTparent,
The new link has to be cut-and...concernedCTparent,<br /><br />The new link has to be cut-and-pasted to make it into a single line – at least in my browser, but then it works.<br /><br />Yeah, the article you link to does express the general meaning of the phrase “progressive education.” I think we should all recognize that different progressive educators would want to emphasize different aspects, and, of course, they would all want to rewrite Reedy’s description in their own words.<br /><br />But, as much as progressives may disagree on the details, there is and long has been a recognizable critter known as “progressive education” to friend and foe alike, and Reedy captures the basic characteristics of that critter.<br /><br />The same, of course, applies to “classical education.” I am much more critical of classroom learning than many proponents of classical education, I think a preplanned curriculum is often undesirable, I have some doubts about testing procedures that are favored by many classical educators, and I put a much higher emphasis on advanced science and math at an early age.<br /><br />Nonetheless, for all my specific disagreements, it would be fair to categorize me as an advocate of ‘classical education.”<br /><br />“Categorizing” is not always wrong – in fact, we humans cannot think without it.<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-60781748506760245502010-01-12T14:42:10.168-08:002010-01-12T14:42:10.168-08:00Sorry about that...
http://www.coreknowledge.org
...Sorry about that...<br /><br />http://www.coreknowledge.org<br />/CK/about/CommonKnowledge<br />/v18IV_2005<br />/v18IV_2005_JReedy.htmconcernedCTparenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755180042426047454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-33649355372522505142010-01-12T14:17:56.465-08:002010-01-12T14:17:56.465-08:00concernedCTparent,
The link you entered is broken...concernedCTparent,<br /><br />The link you entered is broken, broken so badly that I can’t figure out what you tried to enter. You might try reposting it.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />>I can't help but think that at least in the context of the original debate, that we're defining key ideas quite differently.<br /><br />That is indeed clearly happening.<br /><br />Beth has a concept of “progressive education” that is not clear at all to a lot of us.<br /><br />And, it seems Beth is not aware of the meaning that the phrase “progressive education” has generally had for a century or more – as I pointed out in my post on Kliebard’s <i>The Struggle for the American Curriculum</i>, this meaning of “progressive education” is not a polemical or pejorative one: it is a meaning that has been used by all sides of the debate since early in the twentieth century. For example, when I was a young kid in the fifties, the term was used as it is today (and was a big topic of debate back then, too).<br /><br />It’s true, of course, that there is not a simple connection between one’s views on progressive education and one’s political views. But it is also true that “progressive educators” have, historically, tended to be very far to the left, indeed far beyond the normal American political spectrum. Again, Kliebard documents this in great detail (and, as I said, above, his book is not a political hatchet job: he is actually somewhat sympathetic to the progressive educators).<br /><br />Perhaps, part of the confusion is that, in ordinary English, “progressive” just means trying to make progress. In that sense, of course, <i>everyone</i> thinks he is “progressive.”<br /><br />But the word has acquired a much more specific meaning in the field of education, going back nearly a century. For a very long time, “progressive” in education has meant an anti-academic, anti-intellectual pedagogical approach – the Waldorf schools are an (admittedly eccentric) example.<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-81354627589504536562010-01-12T11:48:35.330-08:002010-01-12T11:48:35.330-08:00Beth- this discussion has certainly gone places I&...Beth- this discussion has certainly gone places I'd never imagined it would when you and I began our discussion many, many comment entries ago. Ironically, at this point we seem to be back right where we began. I can't help but think that at least in the context of the original debate, that we're defining key ideas quite differently. <br /><br />Just to be clear, when I say I prefer a classical education (note: not traditional education) to a progressive education I'm thinking of something along these lines:<br /><br /><a href="%E2%80%9Dwww.coalitionforchildren.orgwww.coreknowledge.org/CK/about/CommonKnowledge/v18IV_2005/v18IV_2005_JReedy.htm%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow">Progressive Education</a> <br /><br /><br />And as for what happened to your daughter on her last day of accelerated math, I don't know anyone who believes in a classical/liberal arts education who would approve of it either. It's not conducive to learning. Period.<br /><br />*As a disclaimer, I am a mom in a high SES suburban CT district who removed her 3 children from the public schools to homeschool them. My children once were students of Montessori pre-schools and I am happy to say that I was very pleased with the outcome. Looking back, that's not one of the decisions I've ever regretted in terms of their education and I certainly don't believe either that or the random fact that I have read <i>Das Kapital</i>, for example, make me a Marxist.concernedCTparenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755180042426047454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-78920139712979945902010-01-12T10:46:33.274-08:002010-01-12T10:46:33.274-08:00Ah, yes, many of us are constrained by the housing...Ah, yes, many of us are constrained by the housing market. <br /><br />Our local high school has begun to offer online AP courses to the student body, mainly in response to parental complaints about the lack of AP classes. As I understand it, though, the grades received appear on your transcript, but aren't used in figuring class rank. (I could be wrong, as I have this from a current parent. I think the feeling is a general level of mistrust vis-a-vis grading standards.)<br /><br />It seems to me that many high schools' policies aren't easily accessed by interested families. The changing demographics explain the emphasis on homework and "participation," although it seems to stack the deck in favor of "teacher's pets."Cranberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-61968440886184059622010-01-12T10:39:48.152-08:002010-01-12T10:39:48.152-08:00lgm, what you describe is just like our local publ...lgm, what you describe is just like our local public schools, in a wealthy district in suburban PA. They're punitive to the point of being brutal.<br /><br />That's why it just baffles me to hear people say the problem with public schools today is that they're "too progressive." In my dreams! If the public schools were too progressive, I would send my kids there and save a ton of money. <br /><br />I pulled my daughter out of the public schools after she became deeply anxious and depressed because of the constant punishment and humiliation. There's nothing progressive about that.<br /><br />Allison says:<br /><br />******<br />Teachers haven't punished students for things not done in years now.<br />******<br /><br />It is completely standard in our district that kids are punished for incomplete homework, with loss of recess, scolding, and being shamed in front of their friends. It happens every day. They're also punished for poor performance.<br /><br />In my daughter's last day in "accelerated" math, before I pulled her, the teacher handed back a test and announced, "Somebody in this class got less than 50 per cent!" Of course, all the kids were craning their heads around and checking each other's papers to see who it was. It was my daughter. Can you imagine how that felt? I don't know of anyone in progressive education who would approve of that.FedUpMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951858601020687242noreply@blogger.com