Analogies and Realities
The problem with Tim’s comparison of the traditional vs progressive debate with the French Revolution is that the analogy is based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of both.
UPDATED: (His comments below state that such a comparison was not his intention, the link to the blog is above).
Traditionalists were not one of the ‘factions’ that started the ‘revolution’ in education alongside the progressives.
The analogy only makes sense if describing a situation in which different factions within the progressive movement were all turning on each other. For example, if the debate were between those inspired by Dewey, as opposed to Freire, Piaget or AS Neill. Or maybe those who advocate for discovery learning, project based learning or flipped classrooms. This isn’t happening.
Any comparison between traditionalists and the Ancién Regime does not stand except for the fact that they did not want the system to change, and the neo-trads are not equivalent to those supporting Napoleon (though Gove was short, I guess).
As for the references to ‘terror’ – hardly. Bullying, for sure, but that was the only way that progressives have been able to impose their will over the decades.
As Jarlath O’Brien pointed out on his blog about inclusion, we do already have a range of schools, whether we agree with this situation or not.
I wouldn’t argue that progressives want a one-size fits all system, simply schools that will give them the autonomy to do what they think best but without any kind of accountability imposed on them. Therefore a system with both traditional and progressives schools will not do because in theory it restricts their ability to teach how they want where they want. Parental choice only seems to crop up when criticising overly traditional schools.
The two arguments I have heard from the progressive camp are:
a) What about parents in areas with only one local school?
b) Schools should engage with parents.
Both of these arguments are an attempt to suggest that progressive schools are the ideal default option.
A progressive parent living in a village with one traditional school is facing the same issue as a Jain living in a village with one local C of E school. A choice has got to be made. As for schools engaging with parents, there is a limit to that too. A Catholic school does not have stop saying prayers because an Atheist parent objects.
No analogy is perfect but the truth is that some of the objections to traditional schools simply deny the reality of the system that already exists. I have seen progressive Headteachers ignore the wishes of parents who wanted the school to firm up on discipline. It’s disingenuous of those who criticise Michaela, for example, when they equally don’t budge on their behaviour policy. It’s true that progressivism is less coherent than traditionalism in education but that is because of the lack of intellectual and rational thought at its heart. It’s just a hodge podge of different ideas which are valued purely for the fact that they are different to traditional methods.
The recent jitteriness from progressives really makes me wonder what it is exactly they have to be afraid of, other than the fear that they will be subjected to the same treatment as traditionalists in the past. A system where schools are open about how they educate children – like School 21 and Michaela, actually means that teachers are less not more likely to be treated badly because of the way they teach.
April 21, 2016 @ 2:51 pm
Although I make reference to the various different types of schools in this country, it does not follow that I support their existence. Single gender schools did not come into being on the back of a strong research base. They are a legacy of the preferences of generations past and they will never be removed. The evidence base that either girls or boys fare better in single gender schools is, I understand, extremely weak.
Churches of any denomination or other religions are involved in the management and organisation of schools also on the basis of a legacy of generations past. No-one seriously asserts that they are better placed than others to take responsibility for the education of children. As with single gender schools their removal would be political suicide and will never happen.
Their existence owes more to inertia than to any strong belief that children learn better without the opposite sex or in a school of a religious character.
April 21, 2016 @ 2:56 pm
That’s not the spirit in which the link was made but I will adjust it in the post if it did come across that way. It was made more as a reference to the current reality.
April 21, 2016 @ 6:12 pm
Hi, my reference to the French Reovution wasn’t an analogy about the conflict between traditionalist and progressives. I was making a point about how ideas matter, so people get passionate about them, and then factions develop. I actually think there is more that binds us than separate us and (this is the point of my final paragraph) that we should concentrate on dialogue, rather than trying to win the argument. Hopefully Homerton will be a start.
April 21, 2016 @ 6:26 pm
Still don’t agree with your idea about factions, even put like that.
I think teachers pre-1960s were teaching in the best way they thought they knew how.
They have been painted as ideological because it suits the progressive argument.
Neotraditionalists I would agree are ideological in their stance.
Any airing of the debate will result in a fuller understanding of the different positions.
April 21, 2016 @ 6:37 pm
I’m sure we disagree, but I would like to be represented fairly, perhaps you would consider revising your first paragraph?
And, who is painting teachers before the 1960s as ideological? Certainly not me, my point is most teachers are pragmatic not ideological.