0 3TRADITIONAL SCHOOLING BIG BOYS PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION

TRADITIONAL SCHOOLING REBELLIOUS BOYS AND THE PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION Patrick J. Finn

American schools in the Traditional Erafrom colonial times until after the Civil Wardid not permit children to generate ideas or to argue about the truth or value of what others had written. Their aim was to develop character and intellect in the young by teaching them long-established knowledge. Facts and skills were presented in small "teachable" parts and taught in rigid order from easy to hard. The school day consisted of lectures, drill, memorization, recitation, and examinations. Interaction between pupils was limited to competition. The teacher and the textbook were the only legitimate sources of information. The concept of educating a person to be a teacher was unheard of. Men who could read and write set themselves up as schoolmasters. The teacher's continued employment did not depend on whether he had any particular talent for teaching; it depended on whether he could control the students. Severe corporal punishment was common. "Big boys" were often the teacher's nemesis. In 1837 more than 300 schools in Massachusetts were "broken up" by rebellious pupils. Assaults upon the teacher were nor uncommon. In 1850 fewer than half the nation's white children were in school. The concept of individual differences was unheard of. Students who failed to perform well were thought to have moral failings such as laziness or rebelliousness. If they did not drop out, they were kicked out. By1870, 50 percent of the population lived in cities. Children who had worked on the farm now worked in factories. Soon child labor laws were enacted, and children became unemployable. In Philadelphia in 1870 more than 20,000 children were running the streets in idleness and vagabondism. Concern over delinquency and some genuine regard for the welfare of children prompted a demand for compulsory education. By 1919 every state had compulsory education laws, and older childrennow compelled to attend schoolwere even more prone to violent resistance to traditional teaching and discipline methods. Before the Civil War nearly all white Americans had western European roots. Differences among them were dwarfed by differences among immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the newly freed African-Americans after the Civil War. Differences in what could be reasonably expected from different students became too apparent to ignore. Industrialization offered men better paying jobs, and women could be paid even less than men had been paid. By 1870 the majority of teachers were women. Simultaneously, public attitudes toward brutal

treatment of children were changing and prohibitions against corporal punishment were written into most school district's rules. "Progressive" ideals were invoked to calm the troubled waters. Progressive Education is based on ideals of the eighteenth century Enlightenment. Contrary to church teaching that children need discipline to counteract their fallen nature, Enlightenment philosophers argued that man is not inherently evil, and that children should be nurtured and permitted to grow naturally in a healthy, stimulating environment. John Dewey (1869-1953) became the best-known proponent of what became known as "progressive education. There are two central concepts of progressive education. First, schools should deal with the whole childhis or her personality, social skills and attitudes, and physical well-beingrather than focusing exclusively learning facts. Therefore, education should be interesting and enjoyable. Second, children have different experiences, abilities, and interests. Therefore, knowledge and skills are not taught in a rigid order dictated by some concept of easy-to-hard; they are taught in an order dictated by the interests, experience, and abilities, of individual students. Reading, writing, and learning facts are joined by art, music, shop, cooking, dramatics, and physical education. The teacher and textbook are no longer the sole legitimate sources of knowledge. Pupils go to the library, on field trips, interview local citizens, and so on. They are permitted to work independently and in small groups, to move about the room, to engage in interesting projects, and to use a variety of methods and materials. When a student performs poorly, the teacher questions whether the student has the necessary background or considers how s/he might capture the student's interest before deciding that the students are lazy or unable to learn. Punishment typically involves the loss of some privilege accompanied by suggestions for changes in behavior and explanations of why they are necessary. The ideal is not discipline from above, but self-discipline. Progressive education concepts offered the schools an escape from the crisis precipitated by compulsory education laws. Schools continued teaching the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic in grades one through six, but there were now flexible standards. Less was expected (and less demanded) of some students based on their "aptitude" or "intelligence." All students would move from one grade level to the next even though there might be a wide range of achievement among them. As early as seventh grade such courses as art, music, cooking, and auto mechanics were added to the curriculum. The adoption of flexible standards, and a diversified curriculum dovetailed with the growing testing movement and created a new profession--school counseling. Intelligence and achievement tests were used to assign students to "tracks" or "streams." High schools developed academic, commercial, and vocational programs. During the Traditional Era schools segregated students by a process of exclusionstudents who did not conform and perform well were expelled. Schools in the Progressive Era segregated students by directing them into different tracks or streams. It must have been immediately apparent that membership in these track was highly correlated with he social class of the students, but this fact was, and still is, largely

ignored if not denied There is a whole literature railing against the practice of grouping students by ability and differentiating the curriculum. This practice, it is claimed, separates students by social class and giving working-class students traditional education and more affluent students progressive education. Jean Anyon provided a slightly different analysis: Both working-class and middle-class students get a somewhat softened version of traditional education. The difference is that middle-class students cooperate; working-class students do not. More affluent classes get progressive education. Does any of this comport with your experience of American schools?