Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2017
On the surface, the thesis that progressive education was “the educational phase of American Progressivism writ large” appears valid; but when one examines the various stages in the development of progressive education it becomes more and more like a misleading generality. The thesis suggests, among other things, that progressive education was a unified movement that continued to give expression to the ideology of progressivism until the mid-nineteen-fifties. Even if one were to ignore the other serious problems raised by this thesis, it would still be necessary to explain how it was possible for the educational phase of the progressive movement to survive by some thirty-five years the parent reform movement that came to an untimely end in 1920 with the landslide presidential victory of Warren G. Harding. But there is a more serious difficulty with Lawrence Cremin's thesis that may make it unnecessary to explain the strange tenacity of the progressive educator. In The Transformation of the School, Cremin observed that during the thirties a paralyzing split developed within the movement when influential educationists reacted against the child-centered pedagogy, which had reached its apogee during the twenties, by seeking “to tie progressive education more closely to political Progressivism.” Simply stated, the question that must be answered is whether the ideology of social reform-minded educators like George S. Counts, Harold Rugg, John L. Childs, and William H. Kilpatrick, who were the influential educationists to whom Cremin is referring, can be identified with the ethos of progressivism, with its emphasis on economic and political individualism. And if it cannot, then it would appear that the progressive education movement encompassed at least two distinct and often conflicting ideologies, of which only one can be identified with the progressive movement.
1. Cremin, Lawrence A. The Transformation of the School (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1961), p. viii. Rush Welter has uncritically adopted the Cremin thesis: “As educational historians have just begun to realize, the progressive movement in education and the progressive movement in politics were not simply parallel phenomena but variant forms of the same middle-class impulse.” Popular Education and Democratic Thought in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), p. 258.Google Scholar
2. Cremin, op. cit., p. 181.Google Scholar
3. Wilson, Woodrow The New Freedom (Toronto: The Musson Book Company, 1913), p. 89.Google Scholar
4. The quotation was taken from one of Wilson's campaign addresses contained in The Progressive Years, edited by Otis Pease (New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1962), p. 369.Google Scholar
5. Goldman, Eric F. Rendezvous with Destiny (New York: Random House, Inc.; Vintage Books, 1959), p. 64.Google Scholar
6. Hofstadter, Richard The Age of Reform (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1961), p. 145.Google Scholar
7. Lippmann, Walter Drift and Mastery (New York: Mitchell Kennerley, 1914), p. 295.Google Scholar
8. Ibid., p. 298.Google Scholar
9. Gabriel, Ralph A. The Course of Democratic Thought (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1940), p. 338.Google Scholar
10. Rugg, Harold and Shumaker, Ann, The Child-Centered School (New York: World Book Company, 1928), p. 229.Google Scholar
11. Dewey, John and Dewey, Evelyn, Schools of To-Morrow (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1915), p. 139.Google Scholar
12. Dewey, John The School and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Phoenix Books, 1956), p. 29.Google Scholar
13. Dewey, John “Progressive Education and the Science of Education,” Progressive Education, V (1928), 201.Google Scholar
14. Cremin, op. cit., p. 88.Google Scholar
15. Mann, Horace “Twelfth Report of 1848,” The Life and Works of Horace Mann (Boston: Lee and Shepard Publishers, 1891), p. 289.Google Scholar
16. Wickersham, J. P. “Education as an Element in Reconstruction,” Proceedings of the National Educational Association, VII (1865), 549.Google Scholar
17. Newell, M. A. “President's Address,” Proceedings of the National Education Association, (1877), p. 6.Google Scholar
18. Cremin, op. cit., p. 88.Google Scholar
19. Veblen, Thorstein The Engineers and the Price System (New York: Huebsch, 1921), p. 156.Google Scholar
20. Beard, Charles A. The Economic Basis of Politics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1923), p. 37.Google Scholar
21. Cohen, Morris “A Slacker's Apology,” The New Republic, XXI, No. 261 (December 3, 1919), 1–2.Google Scholar
22. Hofstadter, Richard op. cit., p. 318.Google Scholar
23. Dewey, John Liberalism and Social Action (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, Inc.; Capricorn Books, 1963), pp. 54–55.Google Scholar
24. For example, in a survey of 85 leading liberals conducted by the editors of The New Republic in April 1935, only 50 liberals agreed with the statement, “Socialism can be approached by gradual measures, using constitutional means.” On the issue of social welfare measures, especially old age and unemployment, they were in unanimous agreement that the Federal Government should assume responsibility. While the majority favored a high degree of public ownership of natural resources and public utilities, 32 liberals expressed their desire to see “the social ownership of all material instruments of production.” The New Republic, LXXXII, No. 1063 (April 17, 1935), 274-75.Google Scholar
25. Kilpatrick, Wm. H. (ed.), The Educational Frontier (New York: Appleton-Century, 1933), p. 36.Google Scholar
26. Committee on Social-Economic Problems of the Progressive Education Association, A Call to the Teachers of the Nation (New York: The John Day Company, Inc., 1933), p. 9.Google Scholar
27. Ibid., p. 19.Google Scholar
28. Ibid., p. 20.Google Scholar
29. “Educating for Tomorrow,” The Social Frontier, I, No. 1 (October 1934), 4.Google Scholar
30. “Teachers and Labor,” The Social Frontier, II, No. 1 (October 1935), 7.Google Scholar
31. “Class and Social Purpose,” The Social Frontier, II, No. 5 (February 1936), 135.Google Scholar
32. Dewey, John Democracy and Education (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916), p. 52.Google Scholar
33. Cremin, op. cit., p. 231.Google Scholar
34. The editors of The Social Frontier acknowledged that the statement was taken from the Report of the Commission on Social Studies of the American Historical Association.Google Scholar
35. Bruce Raup, R., Axtelle, George E., Benne, Kenneth D., and Othanel Smith, B., The Improvement of Practical Intelligence (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1943), p. 49.Google Scholar
36. Ibid., p. 99.Google Scholar
37. Evans, Hubert “The Social Character of Problem Solving,” Progressive Education, XXVI, No. 6 (April 1949), 162.Google Scholar
38. Ibid., pp. 163-64.Google Scholar
39. Benne, Kenneth “Democratic Ethics in Social Engineering,” Progressive Education, XXVI, No. 6 (April 1949), 207.Google Scholar
40. The development of social reconstructionist thought, as well as the struggle between the two factions of the progressive education movement, are dealt with in considerable detail in a manuscript, “The Radical Years: The Progressive Educator and the Depression,” which will soon be published by Random House.Google Scholar
41. “The Liberal Dilemma,” Manus, XVII, No. 46 (November 11, 1964), 1.Google Scholar
