Running Head: Re-conceptualizing Education through the Lens of Progressivism

Re-conceptualizing Education through the Lens of Progressivism: The Relevance of

John Dewey in Education Today
Kirstin Reigler
Michigan State University
Fall 2018
TE 811

Abstract
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
1

In this paper, I challenge the modern day ideas of education, specifically the ideals of
curricula, government involvement, and teacher preparation and implementation in
our nation’s schools through the lens of John Dewey’s philosophy of progressivism.
In our educational system today, curricula is created to cater to a specific group of
students: middle to upper class, Caucasian, and coming from a specific home life -
one that includes a mother, father, stable jobs, and specific experiences. curricula is
also the center and foundation of our educational system today. The goal of the
educational system is to produce students who are considered proficient based on
district and state assessments that revolve around the curricula and teacher
implementation in the classroom.
The problem with this goal is that our students are not all middle to upper class,
Caucasian, and coming from a specific home life. Our classrooms are getting more
diverse every day, and the curricula as well as district and state assessments do not
reflect the students we service in our classrooms. However, these district and state
assessments are what gauge both teacher proficiency as well as student proficiency.
Rather than building an educational system that focuses on the child as whole, we are
focusing on content standards, standardized testing, and outdated curricula.
The population that suffers the most are students that are enrolled in schools
considered Title 1 schools. In the United States, the definition of a Title 1 school is as
follows: “ Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
amended (ESEA) provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs)
and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income
families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards.” (
United States Department of Education, 2015). These schools often service students
who come from low-income families, students who are labeled ESL (English as a
Second Language), students with disabilities and impairments, and students who
represent diverse cultures and heritages. Despite receiving more funding from the
government, the curricula is still not being altered to fit the needs in these schools and
classrooms. The students in these classrooms struggle to make connections with the
curricula, and do not see themselves represented. This results in lower assessment
scores, which in turn means lower proficiency for teachers and students. The
educational system is setting up our African American, Hispanic, and second-
language minority students for failure by making our schools curricula-centered
rather than child-centered, by allowing government officials to make decisions
without experiencing a typical classroom, and without preparing teachers
appropriately.
Philosopher John Dewey stated: “The child lives in a somewhat narrow world
of personal contacts. Things hardly come within his experience unless they touch,
intimately and obviously, his own well-being, or that of his family and friends. His
world is a world of persons with their personal interests, rather than a realm of facts
and law.” (Dewey, p. 5-6, 1902). As Dewey states, a child’s reality is their reality. For
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
2

our students in low-income and Title 1 schools, that reality looks much different than
what is presented in our mandated curriculas, and what teachers are prepared for in
their undergraduate teacher preparation programs. For an educational system that
focuses so much on curricula and assessments, we need to alter our curriculas to fit
the diverse needs and students we are servicing. Philosopher John Dewey offers
insight to the world of progressivism. John Dewey believed progressivism in the
education meant that the focus should be on the child, rather than the curricula or
assessments swirling around them. Can these ideas be applied to the rigid educational
system we have in place today? What can educators do in the classroom to service
learners that are not represented or catered to by the educational system? This paper
plans to investigate changes that can be made to make education more child-centered
and progressive, as well as how we can alter our curriculas, teacher preparation
programs, and government involvement to better fit learners from all walks of life.
Re-conceptualizing Education through the Lens of Progressivism: A Study on John
As We Interact with Our World: Dewey in Education Today
Philosopher John Dewey, born in 1859, spent much of his life considering how
the ideas of learning and thinking coincided with the world in which we live. While
many philosophers viewed the world and learning as separate entities, Dewey
proposed a different view: “the organism interacts with the world through self-guided
activity that coordinates and integrates sensory and motor responses (...) The world is
not passively perceived and thereby known; active manipulation of the environment is
involved integrally in the process of learning from the start.” (Field, p.1) The idea that
learning occurs as we interact with the world was a new idea for the educational world
in the early 1900s. Dewey went on to support this claim, arguing that education
should take place by allowing learners to interact with the environment. Overall,
Dewey’s ideas were broken into five main pillars: the definition of education, the
definition of school, the subject matter of education, the nature of methods used, and
the school and social progresses. (Dewey, p.77, 1897) Philosophers were split on their
views towards Dewey’s approach. Some philosophers criticized his approach, stating
that without having basic knowledge of the world in a formal sense - learning cannot
be completed. Others praised his approach, evaluating his ideas and putting them into
action. Dewey, naming these ideas and approaches “the new education”, quickly
found that his ideas were built on, and therefore led to, ideas in the progressivism era.
In recent years, many educators are still split regarding progressivism in the
classroom. Many teachers are attempting to implement the child-centered approach
that Dewey spoke so highly of, while many educators still believe in the basic
educational pillars of rote teaching: math, reading, science, writing, and social studies.
Today, I imagine many educators view themselves as progressivists. Using the
ideas Dewey proposed, teachers strive to build their classrooms to allow students to
learn from their environment and the world around them. The idea is to encourage
learning based on the entire child and their ideas of what is occurring around them, as
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
3

opposed to learning simply based on a strict academic curricula. Progressivist ideals

can be seen in programs such as STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and
mathematics) programs that encourage a more hands on learning environment that
pushes students to learn from experiences. Montessori programs focus on child-
centered approaches, that allow students to learn through inquiry and observations.
However, these programs are not the norm. They are few and far between, they are
often application only programs, and often they are tuition based. A large majority of
our population in the United States do not fit the stereotypical or monetary “mold” for
their students and learners to be a part of these programs. Instead, these students
attend public schools, which as a whole, stray from the progressivist ideals Dewey so
highly spoke of and researched.
Things need to change in our public schools in order for progressivist ideas to
take precedent. Government representatives making decisions for our classrooms and
teachers need to actually experience the classrooms that are students sit in daily, and
curricula that are selected for schools need to focus on all students, instead of just a
select, privileged group. Finally, teachers need to be educated on what they can do to
make their classrooms more progressive, so that students are not only academic
provided curricula, but how to interact with the world around them. Changing these
main pillars of education will be no easy feat, however making these changes could
benefit learning for all students for decades to come.

Walking the Line: Teachers Negotiating Government Involvement in Education

While Dewey’s theory of progressivism and “new education” did not directly
focus on what educators should do in their classrooms, it gave a detailed approach to
the ideas of learning. Teachers can use this philosophy of learning to impact their
teaching philosophies in their own classrooms. The disconnect comes when laws,
reforms, regulations, bills, and acts are enforced by the government involved with
education. The United States government has enforced laws and acts that require
educators to get students to “proficiency” in certain academic standard areas within a
school calendar year. While this appears to give educators freedom in their
classrooms, content standards are incredibly specific to certain academic skills. The
content standards seemingly box schools and educators into specific lessons, within a
very short time frame to get students to proficiency. Also, these content standards and
expectations do not account for students with learning difficulties, language barriers,
social and emotional delays, and students who are suffering with home life
difficulties. So, why are these strict content standards enforced?
While the representatives in our government making decisions regarding
education are competent and typically have some sort of experience in education, they
do not immerse themselves in actual classrooms, getting to know students. Content
standards were developed in the United States in the early 1990s, and were adopted by
nearly every state in the United States by the early 2000s. As of 2018, 41 states have
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
4

adopted these grade level content standards. (Common Core State Standards Initiative,
2018). These content standards are built and personalized on a state by state basis,
building on college and career readiness for students grades kindergarten through
senior year in high school. Once again, this focuses on a specific group of prospective
students; those who will be attending college, followed by a career. Dewey’s “child
centered” progressivism approach relies heavily on the idea of lifelong learning,
getting to know your students, and differentiating instruction to fit your students. “For
Dewey, education-as-growth is continuous across the lifespan and there is no sense in
which anyone ever becomes fully educated.” (Greenwalt, p.1, 2015) As Greenwalt
states, Dewey firmly believed learning is a skill that occurs within your environment
over the course of your entire life.
While Dewey did acknowledge the importance of the main areas of education,
such as math, reading, writing, science and social studies, he simply believed that the
way these ideas should be taught should take a progressivist approach. These content
standards, required by law, are built assuming that if met by students, they have
learned all the content they need to learn to be successful in life; through the years of
kindergarten through senior year of high school. While teachers and teacher groups
have had input and provided feedback on the content standards, they are enforced by
the state legislature. When these representatives are making decisions regarding
education, they do so with the mindset of budgets, goals for education in terms of
proficiency, and implementation. Rarely are decisions made based on the students
sitting inside the classrooms, and their capabilities. “One third grade veteran teacher
said, ‘I agree that a teacher can provide more meaningful educational experiences for
their students if they know their students' likes, dislikes, tendencies, etc. However, the
content that must be taught is dictated by the state and county. Teachers are limited by
the resources available to them at their school.’” (Kelleher & Leonall, p. 1, 2011) John
Dewey believed learning should be “child-centered” rather than “content-centered”.
State content standards are intensely content-centered, and they do no allow flexibility
for a “child-centered” approach. “In more conventional terms, educative experiences
are those that allow the learner to go on learning in the future: to become both more
open to the world and more responsible in shaping and directing it. When education is
viewed in this way, the job of the teacher is to assist in the process of the learner’s
growth through the progressive development and expansion of experience.”
(Greenwalt, p.2, 2015) In a progressivist classroom, the teacher is simply assisting
students in the process of learning by providing opportunities based on the world
around them.
Unfortunately, due to the strict content standards enforced by educational laws
and regulations; teachers do not have the ability to simply assist students in the
process of learning. Rather, educators are pigeon-holed into very specific lessons and
ideas in the classroom based on standards students must become “proficient” within.
Not only are these lesson specific to the content standards, they are also specific to a
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
5

select type of student. The content standards are formed for students who are viewed
as middle to upper class, caucasian, and students who have certain life experiences.
The content standards are not created with diverse students in mind, specifically those
of different races or cultures, those with disabilities, those with language barriers, and
those with social and emotional struggles. Teachers are forced to implement content
in their classrooms, that is not applicable for the majority of students sitting in front of
them.
Not only are academic content standards implemented to encourage student
proficiency in the areas of math, reading and writing, but academic content standards
are the foundation of teacher evaluation and assessments. Just as students are expected
to be proficient based on academic content standards, educators are expected to be
proficient in their careers as well. State governments make decisions on how to
evaluate educators, but a majority of states look at student growth to determine if
educators are proficient in their classrooms. Because of this, teachers are hesitant to
implement a progressivist approach in their classroom, as it strays from teaching to
the specific content standards selected by the states. Teachers walk a line between
wanting to offer progressivist approaches and opportunities to students in order to
make them well-rounded adults that can interact with the world around them, versus
teaching to the test to ensure proficiency. Teachers who implement the progressivist
approach in their classrooms produce lifelong learners that are confident and
competent; however according to state standards and testing, the students will not be
considered proficient. Vice versa, if teachers focus primarily on content standards and
eliminate Dewey’s progressivists ideals from their classrooms, students are simply
equipped to regurgitate academic information required by the state. The cycle trickles
from veteran educators, who often have a “survival” mindset in their classrooms,
down to novice teachers who are afraid to ruffle feathers and forge their own path.
The idea of these specific standards that focus on student proficiency, as well as
teacher proficiency, cause the “new education” of Dewey’s progressivism to be
neglected and push to the side. It can be seen the stronghold that government has on
education in terms of what teachers are required to teach in the classrooms, and even
though they do not tell educators how to teach content, teachers feel their creativity
stifled in order to meet the high demands of proficiency.
The first step towards implementing progressivism into the classroom, and
education as a whole, is to have more classroom representation within our
government. The major disconnect is that government officials lack knowledge and
experience of the diversity of the classrooms and students in the United States.
Representatives making decisions in education, should be spending more time within
the classroom. They should be getting to know the teachers that are educating our
nation's youth. They should be getting to know the diverse needs of the learners
within the classrooms and schools. If government representatives are more educated
on the teachers, students, and families they are servicing, then they will be able to
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
6

make more informed decisions based on what teachers should be implementing in

their classrooms and how they can be flexible in doing so. Teachers should also feel
comfortable and confident in voicing their opinions and concerns to their
administration, as well as their government officials. Teachers are the ones who know
their students, know their schools, and know the ins and outs of implementation in the
classroom. They should be able to represent themselves, their students, and their
families in real time, by having a direct communication with higher level officials.
Education is a top-down system, so if changes can be made starting at the top - it will
affect all levels of education, down to our students who need changes the most.

Teacher Education -Progressivism in the Classroom

In order for progressivism to build a foundation within our education system
today, teachers need to be educated on the benefits of progressivism and how
progressivism looks inside the classroom. Dewey believed that initial teacher
preparation has no other purpose than understanding the ability to recognize, inspire,
and direct mental activity of students. (Greenwalt, p. 3, 2015). Dewey claimed that
while it is vital for teacher preparation programs to focus on content knowledge, there
should also be a large focus on understanding how to guide learning and provide
opportunities for inquiry. Similar to how Dewey feels teaching and learning should be
“child-centered”, Dewey felt that teacher education should teacher centered. “He
believed that it is necessary for the teacher to know the children's instincts and
tendencies in order to plan instruction. Dewey thought of the school as a social
institution which prepares children for the proper social lives, and a place that is
concerned with the process of living for the present rather than the future lives of
students. His believed that school should deepen and extend values in children's
homes, that examinations were necessary only to test children's fitness for social life,
and that education must be authentic for students.” (Kelleher & Leonall, p. 1, 2011).
As Kelleher and Leonall noted, Dewey was not as concerned with the content that
educators were teaching in their classroom as he was concerned with the educators
ability to understand their students, plan instructions accordingly, and making
connections between the classroom, homelife, and the world around them. Therefore,
to educate and prepare teachers to frame their teaching with a progressivist approach,
Dewey believed they should immerse themselves in the classroom, immerse
themselves in getting to know their students, and take time to get to know themselves
as an educator. Future educators should also be learning how to differentiate their
instruction for their students. These ideas sound beneficial, but the reality is that
teacher preparation programs stray far from these ideas. Most universities focus on
content knowledge, and classroom management. Educators do not know how, nor do
they feel comfortable making their classroom child-centered while still implemented
academic based content standards.
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
7

According to a survey completed by Kelleher and Leonall, 86.9% of the

participants surveyed strongly agreed with the statement: “The teacher must know the
child's instincts and tendencies in order to plan his/her educational experiences.”
(Kelleher & Leonall, p. 1, 2011) This research shows that educators desire, and realize
the importance of progressivism and child-centered teaching in their classrooms. In
the same survey, a majority (55.2%) of participants surveyed disagreed with the
statement: “School should be "process of living and not a preparation for future
living.” (Kelleher & Leonall, p. 1, 2011). Once again, this shows that a majority of
teachers falls into the philosophical ideas Dewey presented of progressivism. The
study also yielded results that showed teachers do not feel they had been taught “how”
to plan educational experiences based on child’s instincts and tendencies, as well how
to prepare students for their current experiences as well as future experiences beyond
school. Most educators, especially those who had been in a classroom for a longer
period of time, felt that they had picked these traits up based on experience, rather
than being explicitly taught. This is the biggest issue with progressivism in the
classroom. Educators do not understand progressivism, or how to explicitly build their
classrooms around this philosophy of education.
Teacher preparation programs should be shifting their focus to support
education of the child, as well as academic content knowledge. Courses should be
offered that focus specifically on how to get to know your students, their values, their
passions and interests, and their learning styles. Not only does this help guide future
teachers in their ability to build relationships with their students, it also builds
confidence in their ability to manage their classroom, as well as build instructions and
lesson plans based on the diverse needs of the learners in their classroom. If courses as
these, are paired with academic content course, the balance will prepare future
educators for the reality of a classroom. In today’s classrooms, students are
increasingly diverse. Future educators should understand and be confident how to
address these diverse needs, wants, and desires to help students become proficient in
all areas of life.
How can we educate teachers who are already in the classroom? Each year,
educators are asked to attend varying types of professional developments, seminars,
professional learning communities, and team meetings. However, the majority of
these educational opportunities focus on academic content. Most professional
developments focus on implementation of curricula in the classroom, new tools for
the classroom relating to curricula, different strategies for implementation in the
classroom, or updated curriculas. Very rarely are opportunities offered to teachers to
educate themselves, or become familiar with, strategies to make the classroom more
child-centered. With the overwhelming push for students to be proficient, based on
district and state assessments, opportunities focusing on academic curricula takes
priority over classroom management, or classroom philosophy type opportunities.
This needs to change. As educators are in the classroom longer, the more susceptible
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
8

to falling into a routine in teacher they are. If educators are not offered opportunities
to be lifelong learners, as Dewey advocates for, the chances of them implementing
new and beneficial ideas in their classrooms are slim. As stated above, education is a
top down system. If state and government officials, as well as school boards and
administration can see the importance of child-centered education, they will offer
more opportunities for teachers to learn about these important philosophies. “In John
Dewey’s view, growth is represented by the ability of learning, forming habits and
readjusting activity to new conditions.” (Radu, p. 87, 2011). This can be referenced in
terms of students in a classroom, as well as teachers in professional learning
opportunities. Readjusting activity to new conditions is teaching as a whole. Each
hour, or each year, teachers see new students through their classroom door. These
students bring different needs, passions, interests, and wants to the classroom. This
means teachers should be readjusting their teaching, their implementation, and more
to fit their clientele, so to speak. However, teachers are not given opportunities to
learn about how to do this. They are limited in their opportunities for continued
learning, especially when it comes to progressivism in the classroom. This need to
change, if we want to frame education in a way that benefits students while they are in
the classroom as well as out in the world as adults.

Progressivist Curricula in Schools Today

Perhaps the most glaring issue in education today falls within the idea of
curricula. curricula, or the guide for teaching in the classroom, tells teachers what they
must teach and gives an idea of how they must teach it. These curriculas are built very
soundly around the content standards adopted by the state. They include all of the
subject-matter tied to the content area, and what specifically should be taught. It gives
a pacing guide, and sometimes even a word by word script of how it can be
implemented in the classroom. Most curriculas are used by school districts for
multiple years on end, sometimes exceeding a decade. They are rarely altered or
changed, and must be used by teachers according to school districts and
administration. Dewey himself, regarding curricula, states: “abandon the notion of
subject-matter as something fixed and ready-made in itself, outside the child’s
experiences; cease thinking of the child’s experiences as also something hard and fast;
see it as something fluent, embryonic, vital; and we realize that the child and curricula
are simply two limits which define a single process.” (Dewey, p. 10, 1902) curricula is
a fixed and ready-made entity. It is the same, year to year, and it is typically
implemented the same, year to year. However, as stated above, children and learners
are diverse. Needs, wants, desires, and passions are different. However, the
educational system is assuming that a “one size fits all” approach to curricula will
help students and learners become proficient, and meet content standard goals. This is
false, and this is where educators can fall into a pattern of poor routines. Dewey
believed that when curricula is offered as a one size fits all approach, rather than being
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
9

differentiated for students, three evils will occurs: first, “the lack of any organic
connection with what the child has already seen and felt and loved makes the material
purely formal and symbolic” the second, “lack of motivation - there are not only no
facts or truths which have been previously felt as such with which to appropriate and
assimilate the new, but there is no craving, no need, no demand” and finally, third
“even the most scientific matter, arranged in the most logical fashion, loses this
quality, when presented in external, ready-made fashion, by the time it gets to the
child.” (Dewey, p. 22, 1902) Overall, Dewey believes the cookie-cutter, and one size
fits all approach to curricula and education will result in students lacking connections,
lacking motivation, and lacking quality. This can especially be seen when curricula is
applied to schools with increased diversity, and student needs.
As mentioned in the abstract of this paper, Title 1 schools are schools that the
government “provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and
schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families
to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards.” ( United
States Department of Education, 2015). “In school year 2009–10, more than 56,000
public schools across the country used Title I funds to provide additional academic
support and learning opportunities to help low-achieving children master challenging
curricula and meet state standards in core academic subjects. For example, funds
support extra instruction in reading and mathematics, as well as special preschool,
after-school, and summer programs to extend and reinforce the regular school
curricula.” (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2015) The problem with Title 1
funds, are that they do not alter the creation of curriculas. As stated, funds can be used
to support students who struggle with curricula, but funds do not go directly to
creating student friendly curriculas. Since curriculas are written and created with state
content standards as their foundation, they are also written with a very specific group
of students in mind. curriculas are written to be implemented in middle to upper class
schools, and to be taught to students who are predominantly Caucasian and who have
had many life experiences, that many students in low-income schools have never had
the opportunity to experience. Therefore, as curriculas are implemented in low-
income and Title 1 schools, students struggle to make connections to their personal
lives, lack motivation, and do not see the quality of content; the three evils Dewey
referenced with a one-size fits all approach to curricula.
This issue begins with those who are writing curricula, as well as those who
select curricula for school districts. Again, tying to a top down educational system, all
curricula stems from content standards. These standards are implemented by officials
who are not in the classrooms, and teaching students. Therefore, the foundation of
curricula loses its reliability and validity before even being written. According to the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistic, the roadmap to becoming a curricula writer
does not require any classroom experience. To become a curricula writer, once must
obtain a bachelor's degree in curricula and instruction technology, English, or
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
10

journalism, have an educators’ or administrators’ license, and have 2-5 years’

experience in technical writing, educational writing, teaching, curricula design and/or
instruction materials delivery. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015) As you can see,
curricula writers are not required to ever interact with students, or become familiar
with a classroom setting. While experience in the classroom or teaching is welcome, it
is not necessary. After completing these steps, a curricula writer can obtain a position
in which they write a curricula that will be used daily in a classroom for students who
are diverse, taught by teachers who are diverse, taught in schools that are diverse.
These curriculas are built on the premise of academic curricula only, and not built
with students needs, desires, passions, and interests in mind. They are written based
on a stereotypical student, in a school that does not represent the reality of education
in the United States. Then, these curriculas are implemented day in and day out within
schools, for years on end. While most curriculas offer some flexibility for teachers
within their classrooms, they still follow the state mandated content standards and
most administrators require educators to follow district provided curricula. Following
Dewey’s ideas of progressivism and child-centered education, the idea of curricula
couldn’t be farther off track. curriculas are also produced and created by large
publishing companies, and sold to schools across the country. A student in an urban
school in Detroit could be learning from the same curricula as a student in a rural
school in Texas. Because of this, curricula is created in an even broader way.
Most school districts have select teams that choose curriculas that will be
implemented in schools. Why not choose the curricula that best fits students in your
school? curricula is expensive. For example, “Mystery Science” a well known science
curricula for grades kindergarten through 8th grade, costs a school with 11 elementary
schools $14,300 per year. (Overkleeft, 2018). Often, math and reading curriculas are
more expensive as they are a core content area, and often published by larger and
well-known companies. Districts could be spending upwards of $60,000 per year just
for curricula. curricula teams are encouraged by administration and school boards to
be frugal, as well as being given a budget as they are shopping for curriculas. This can
affect selected curricula based on school budgets. curricula that meets content
standards in an engaging way is rare. There are large publishing companies, Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, and more, that have somewhat of a monopoly on
curricula creation. Lesser known curricula publishing companies struggle to compete
with larger companies, and therefore cannot offer the same resources, tools, and
lessons. curricula must fit the educational model for the school district. Some districts
focus heavily on student collaboration, some districts focus on gradual release models,
and so on. Districts and curricula selection teams strive to find a curricula that will fit
into the educational model at their school.
After teams have found a curricula that fits the district budget, offers resources
and engaging materials, and fits into the educational model of the district - the options
are rare. Trying to find a curricula from the few options that represents diversity and is
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
11

created with different cultures, races, disabilities, and needs in mind is virtually
impossible. Therefore, most districts end up with curriculas that meet the basic needs
of learners - teaching the content standards that will be represented on district and
state assessments. However, these curriculas do not address the child as a whole in
any way, shape or form. Enter the three evils of curricula referenced by Dewey.
To make the shift to a more progressive classroom that focuses on the child as a
whole, rather than content standards and test scores, we need to change our curriculas
and make them more accessible for all educators and all students. This starts with the
creation of curriculas. It must be a requirement for those who are writing and creating
curriculas to have experience teaching in a classroom. It cannot be an option, but a
requirement. Those with teaching experience, and those who have experienced a
classroom can understand what should be included in a curricula, and be able to
represent that within curriculas. They can also understand students on a deeper level,
and be able to write curricula with students in mind - rather than just content. curricula
should also be written by a diverse team that will ensure the curriculas will also be
diverse. Stories, characters, names, phrases, story problems, and more should
represent a diverse population of students so that students can connect with the
content. Students need to see themselves represented in the curricula, they desire to
build connections with the content. As Dewey stated, students need to build off
interests and desires and motivations. curricula should be created with those things in
mind. Finally, curricula should also be attainable for all schools, meaning they should
be cost-effective. Good curricula should not be passed by because it does not fit the
budget needs of a district.
Benefits of Deweyism in Education
John Dewey believed that learning is an ongoing, life process. “In the
American pedagogue’s opinion, the educational process includes two aspects: a
psychological and a sociological one. He considers the psychological aspect to be
fundamental and very important. The learning capacity, which should continue in
adult life, without disappearing after childhood, represents a very valuable element
which is developed in the concept of permanent education.” (Radu, p. 87, 2011). Like
Dewey said, permanent education should prepare students for continued, and lifelong
learning. Implementing Deweyian approaches into the classroom and schools of our
culture today, would ensure students are always taking note of the environment
around them and learning from the environment and their experiences. Teachers using
a Deweyian approach in their classrooms helps prepare them for the future. As
students grow, and eventually enter careers, chances are they will be needing to learn
new skills, tasks, and ideas for their career. Chances are methods, technologies, and
philosophies will change in the workplace, forcing employees to learn new strategies.
If students have been taught using a Deweyian approach, they will feel more
comfortable when they learn as adults.
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
12

Not only does using John Dewey’s philosophy in education benefit students as
they grow into well-rounded adults, but it helps ignite passion and motivation in the
classroom. Rather than sitting in rows, and listening to an educator inform them about
academic content, students in a progressivist classroom are interacting with their
peers, interacting with their environment, and learning through trial and error. “In
John Dewey’s view, growth is represented by the ability of learning, forming habits
and readjusting activity to new conditions. In his experimental school in Chicago,
education was focused on the child’s needs – Student was learning by doing. The
authentic knowledge could be achieved only through direct experience.” (Radu, p. 88,
2011). Students will be more invested in their school work, if they are the ones
completing and actually doing the activities which lead to learning - a more hands on
approach. Not only will students be more invested, but they will be motivated towards
learning and success as they have taken ownership of their work. Dewey believed in
learning through discoveries, whether those discoveries proved or disproved students
thought and ideas, the students were learning.
Students also learn critical inquiry and problem solving skills when education
is child-centered. As educators allow students to work through problems on their own,
rather than supplying strategies and answers, students learn higher order thinking
skills to solve difficult problems - not only academic, but life problems. If students are
working in partnerships or groups in a child-centered approach, they are encouraged
to work through issues together to solve problems, rather than relying on the teacher.
Finally, students interact with their environments in progressivist education
models. Deweyian approaches allow students to be active, incorporate their
environment, and make connections to the environment. Student, especially those in
low-income and Title 1 schools rarely have real-world experiences to connect with
outside of their homes. A progressivist classroom would focus on bringing in
environmental and real-world experiences to their teaching, offering students a chance
to educate themselves with the world around them.

Conclusion
John Dewey created his philosophy of education, including his progressive
views, over 100 years ago. However, his ideals fit into education today and are vital to
the success of children not only in the classroom but as they grow into fully
functioning members of society. John Dewey believed in teaching learning, so that
humans could continue to learn from the world around them for their entire lives.
Schools today focus on regurgitation of facts so that students will be considered
“proficient” on district and state assessments. Schools today are not preparing students
for continued growth and learning once they leave formalized education.
If education today were framed in a Deweyian approach, students would have
the opportunities to interact with their environment, understand how to learn
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
13

throughout their lives and not just in the classroom, and students would gain critical
inquiry and higher order thinking skills - not just for academic purposes but for real
world situation purposes. Within a progressivist educational system, government
representatives and officials that are making important decisions for our schools
would be more involved within the classrooms, and make their decisions child-
centered as opposed to based on budgetary terms, or testing results. curricula would
represent all students, races, cultures, abilities, and languages - allowing students to
make connections with the content they are learning.
Finally, teacher preparation programs would prepare pre-service teachers to
build a classroom that is child-centered, rather than teaching to the test. These
programs would educate pre-service teachers on how to present curricula in a way that
all students can reach success, and make connections within the classroom and the
environment around them. Professional developments, professional learning
communities, and seminars would focus on how to benefit our students, get to know
our students, and understanding how to differentiate curricula for our diverse learners
rather than strict academic content.
John Dewey’s thoughts and ideas were powerful. They can benefit all students,
and all teachers and education today should be re-conceptualized to encourage not
only success for our students in the classroom, but success for learners throughout
their entire lives.
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
14

References

About the Standards. (2018). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/

Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogical creed. New York, NY: E.L. Kellogg &. Co

Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Field, A. (n.d.). John Dewey. Retrieved November 5, 2018, from https://www.iep.ut-m.edu/

Greenwalt, K.A. (2016). Dewey on teaching and teacher education. In M.A. Peters (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory (pp. 1-4). New York: Springer

Kelleher, R., & Leonall, H. (2011). Progressivism in the 21st century; is John Dewey relevant
today? International Journal of Arts and Sciences,4(16), 283-296.

Overkleeft, J. (2018, September 5). Mystery Science. Address presented at Kentwood Public
Schools curriculum Council, Kentwood.

Radu, L. (2011). John Dewey and progressivism in American education. Bulletin of the
Transilvania University of Braşov,4(53), 2nd ser., 85-90.
RE-CONCEPTUALIZING EDUCATION THROUGH THE LENS OF PROGRESSIVISM
15

U.S. Department of Education. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of State
Support. (2015). Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies
(Title I, Part A).