Neither Fish, nor Flesh, nor Good Red Herring

Every school my kids have attended so far is neither truly progressive, because kids have very little choice in what they do, nor truly traditional, because the academic content is so weak. 

Even curricula that are marketed as "progressive", like Trailblazers Math, contain all the worst aspects of traditional ed: bad homework, scripted lessons that kids are relentlessly marched through, and authoritarian pronouncements on how problems may be solved (no standard algorithms!)   

It seems to me that the biggest stumbling block that prevents schools from achieving true progressive ed is simply this: control.  To be truly progressive, to allow students as much freedom and autonomy as possible, just goes against the grain for educators.   School is a place where kids are told what to do.

The biggest stumbling block that prevents schools from achieving true traditional ed is a pervasive lack of interest in real content.  Professional-class parents are often more concerned about college admissions than learning.  Too many educators don't know what real content looks like, and mistake activity for engagement.

Poles Apart?

At its worst, the education debate becomes a clash between two extreme camps, which are often represented as follows:

To the right, we have the traditionalist camp, which is all about memorizable factoids, constant compliance, and standardized tests.

To the left, we have fuzzy progressives, who at their most mind-boggling urge us to reject "the deadly notion that the schools’ first priority should be intellectual development". These folks are all about the "guide on the side" rather than the "sage on the stage", against authoritarian classrooms, and in favor of giving students control over what, when and how they learn.

I reject both of these extremes. I would prefer to carve out a spot in the middle.

With the progressives, I care about my kids' experience at school. I've already had one child fall into profound depression because of school, and we don't need to go through that again. But I stand with the traditionalists with their interest in content and intellectual seriousness. I want my kids to be fluent in a foreign language, competent with math, conversant with history, able to write a coherent essay, and able to touch-type. With the progressives, I want them to be interested in learning more. Can't we cherry-pick the best of both worlds?

At our public school, I feel that they cherry-picked the worst of both worlds: that is, they had the top-down authority, and the constant threat of punishment, of the worst of the traditionalists, combined with the fuzzy content and silliness of the worst of the progressives. The result is dumb assignments like "write a list of healthy snack foods, one for each letter of the alphabet. First write it out as a rough draft, then make a neat copy with colorful illustrations, some clipped from magazines." This was a 5th-grade science (!) assignment. We had to fight with the teacher to get our daughter excused from it.

Readers, where are you on the traditionalist - to - progressive spectrum?

Where I Part Ways With Alfie Kohn

As I discussed previously, I am often in agreement with Alfie Kohn in his writings about education.

One big disagreement is over the issue of Chicago Math, aka "constructivist math". Kohn is a proponent of this approach, and he has written with contempt about the parents' groups that oppose it (see "Only for My Kid".) I've done a lot of reading about Chicago Math (on sites like kitchen table math and Out in Left Field), and my daughter suffered through two years of Trailblazers at her private school. I have come to the conclusion that on this issue, Kohn is just plain wrong.

The Chicago Math curricula are really terrible. Why? Because they contain hardly any math, and a great deal of pointless wankery, such as "write an essay about your favorite number". (True!) Kids can have years of this stuff, and still be unable to do even the simplest computations. When my daughter had Trailblazers, I went out of my way to tutor her at home with Singapore Math (I recommend it). Several of her classmates are now taking remedial math classes.

So, much as I want to like progressive ed, I also genuinely care about content. I want my kids to be capable and confident with math, and Trailblazers won't get them there. I want my kids to learn stuff, and I also want them to enjoy their childhood and not be overburdened with homework, pressure and competition.

In a similar vein, I really wanted to like this essay, "Turning Schools Into Robot Factories". And I did like it, right up to the point that the writer complained that upper elementary students "were also taught the formula for dividing by fractions (as if anyone ever does such a thing)". I want my kids to be able to divide by a fraction. It's part of the logical system known as arithmetic, and I think it's basic for any educated person. Is that too much to ask?

Alfie Kohn: Yes and No

There's a new article by Alfie Kohn here.

I've read a lot of Kohn's work, and I agree with much of it. His The Homework Myth should be read by everyone involved in education. I appreciate his focus on how schooling is actually experienced by real kids.

But I part ways with Kohn when it come to traditional vs. progressive ed. Real progressive education is vanishingly rare. I've never experienced it myself and it's not available for my kids. One of the few places it's still going on is at the University of Chicago Lab School, where Sasha and Malia went before their father got elected President.

While real progressive ed is rare, badly implemented faux progressive ed is ubiquitous. All those dumb poster and coloring projects, and the group projects that feature the one smart kid doing all the work, were started by people who thought they were embracing progressivism. Hah!

In my opinion, progressive education is so rare, and so poorly understood, that it's a lost cause for most American schools. It won't be anything more than a boutique choice for a long time to come.

I don't think traditional education is necessarily a bad idea, either. A thoughtful, well-designed lecture can be more engaging than a dumb group project. And there are some things that I think all kids should learn whether they're deeply interested or not (basic math and history come to mind.) Of course, a good teacher will make the material as interesting as possible.

I've noticed that Kohn himself travels around and gives ... lectures! He doesn't seem to mind "sage on the stage" when he's the sage. His lectures are very well-received, but have no apparent effect on the audience. The principal at the public school that we left claims to be a big fan of Alfie Kohn, but you'd never know it by the way she ran the school.

In my opinion, the goal for most public schools should be a good traditional education. Pushing progressive ed is just a waste of time at this point. Your thoughts?