> > The Progressive Education Association's 7 guiding principles
> >
> > 1. The child should be given the freedom to develop naturally

Remember this was the summary of a group's philosophy, in practice it was more complex. In practice you must balance the fact that all children are different, and learn differently. I agree there are differences between right and wrong but there is not a right and wrong way to learn. I personally have trouble with repetitive memorization, reciting the multiplication tables endlessly didn't help, neither did writing page after page of spelling words (which should be obvious). Some people do learn well like this though.

> My red flag just went up! Children should NOT be given the freedom to develop naturally. Despite what the humanists say, there ARE absolutes and there ARE differences between right and wrong! Left to themselves, children will not do right. Children need to be taught right from wrong. This applies to education too. Many children don't want to go to school, and when they're at school they don't want to be there; they'd rather be outside playing. Even children who are interested and excited about school aren't going to show the same level of enthusiasm for every subject.
>
> > 2. Intrest provides the motivation for all work.
>
> It would be nice if this were true, but it isn't. If this principle had been used in my education, I would never have learned any math or science. Interest is possibly the *best* motivation for work, but it's not the only one, and if it were there would be very little actual work accomplished.

What they mean is that teachers should work to make classes more interesting. I to wouldn't have learned any math if I only had to learn what I was interested in. A key point to Progressivism was the difference between passive and active education. Passive is siting in rows, taking notes spouted at you by a teacher. Active is learning through doing. This can actually be applied to math. For instance, when I was taught about money I had some real problems with it. It was just numbers on paper. It didn't have any connection to my life. I just had to fumble through worksheet after worksheet, falling behind in class, till my Mom explained it to be in a way I could understand at home. A progressive way to teach money would be to play store, get some of the plastic model food, some toy money and actually have the students practice buying and selling, monitoring them to point out and correct mistakes.

The problem is Active Education is much more work for the teacher than Passive. Many progressive teachers slack off, disregarding the progressive principals. This is what gave the progressive movement a bad name, and John Dewey, as the most well know proponent of the progressive school of education also inherited the bad name.

John Dewey knew the progressive system would be more difficult to teach and he emphasized this in his writings.

> > 3. The teacher should be a guide in the learning process, not the task-master.
>
> Actually I think a teacher needs to be a little bit of both.

They do, a progressive teacher focuses more on being the guide than on being the taskmaster. This is a situation in which I personally flourish. My worst teachers have been the disciplinarians, I will to learn dropped, I loathed going to school.

> > 4. The scientific study of pupil development should be promoted by the refocusing of information to be included on school records.
>
> No comment.
>
> > 5. Greater attention should be given to everything that affects the child's physical development.
>
> True...but schools can't accomplish this. The school has no control over certain areas of the student's environment, such as home life and spiritual development. Forgive me if I've misunderstood what this principle is saying.

Yes, but prior to the Progressive movement no thought was given to the home environment at all. My Mother is an elementary school teacher, and she makes it her business to know where each student is coming from. She can better understand students who regularly misbehave since she understands their whole story, allowing her to both keep control of the class and hopefully helping the student as well.


> > 6. The school and home should cooperate to meet the natural interests and activites of the child.
>
> No problem with this one. Although some attention should be paid to what the "natural interests and activities of the child" are. A kid who enjoys torturing small animals shouldn't be encouraged in pursuing his interests...

If this were the case the progressive teacher would advise the parents to seek therapy for the student and probably suggest a reputable therapist. By "natural interests and activities" they mean positive ones. If a student shows talent in art they should be encouraged to explore that, if a student is fascinated by the dinosaurs they should be encouraged to study them

> > 7. The Progressive School should be a leader in educational movements.
>
> Yes, it should be / should have been. But I think it was doomed to failure due to instabilities in it's guiding principles.

I think its guiding principles were sound, but lazy teachers did it in.

> It sounds like you are a lot more informed on this issue than I am. From what you've said here, it seems that John Dewey's ideas weren't all bad. I will have to re-evaluate my opinion of him.

Like I said, his writing is dull, but his ideas are good.

> Gri"still plans to home-school"shny

My Mom has taught in both private and public school, and she uses a combination of progressive and Pereniallist (your "tried and true methods") methodology. Her kids lover her. She is teaching 4th grade in a brand new public school in North Carolina.

I've never been home schooled, but I have been in both public and private school. The two years I spent in private (1st grade and my freshman year of High School) were absolutely dreadful. In 1st grade I had an inexperienced teacher who stuck firmly to the pereniallist system, and didn't know how to deal with the weird kid who liked to take his shoes off and doodle on his work sheets. I spent a lot of time in the hall, and I didn't even relies I was being punished, I preferred it out there. In my freshman year I can't really blame all the teachers, two of them were insane disciplinarians (my English and Religion teacher), but the real problem was the administration. I've never been in a school run so ineptly. Several students were expelled for having long hair, but the students who stole money from the cafeteria were let back in after two weeks. There were over a dozen students who would have been expelled from any public school for discipline problems but were never even sent home. One kid even had those 'snapper' things that you throw at the ground to make them pop, in class, interrupting class. He wasn't expelled. He, and his troop of friends (including most of the class) thrilled in tormenting me, and I *KNOW* the teachers and the principal were aware of it, I told the principal about it once, and the teachers would have had to been blind not to see. No one lifted a finger to help me. My parents tried, but there was little they could do. I'm firmly of the decision that the school was more interested in making money than teaching.

That last bit was off topic, but I still need to rant about it every now and then.

On a more on-topic note I'm glad I was never home schooled. I'm rather introverted in real life; it takes me a long time to make friends. I think that is I wasn't sent to school, if I wasn't thrown into the school environment I would be much more isolated and shy than I am now. The interpersonal skills a student learns on the playground and in study groups are important skills. Educational experts and theorists call this the hidden curriculum.

Speed'the son of a teacher/former principal'ball