Battleground Schools - Thoughts

While reading, I paused when I saw that Dewey’s ideas were implemented in more progressive teacher colleges and in some classrooms, though most kept with traditional methods. Upon seeing this, I had to wonder if this was at a time of decent teacher autonomy in classrooms, which allowed for an individual selection of methods? And if so, were those who employed it still “hitting targets" or getting students to the curriculum-mandated level of understanding of facts or skill? I was interested in this aspect because it would make it harder to see why other teachers, perhaps at the same schools as these progressive ones, would not have this method spread to them by sheer proof of efficacy. I wonder if this suggests that it was often an issue of one's ideals or principles that made them stand against implementing them, even if it was in the face of proven success.


I also later paused at the first introduction of the ideas and methods of New Math. I think I found it shocking that it became such a dominant movement given how much it seems to lie in contrast to the ideas of Dewey and the progressivists, without necessarily being born out of explicit dissatisfaction with a part of the progressivists movement, but rather by the outside impact of the Cold War. While the New Math movement still seemed interested in targeting understanding, the intent of targeting university level math topics seemed like a recipe for failure given the number of students that would find now personal value in that learning unless it was already a field of interest for their future career plans. I wonder if this also speaks to how the paranoias of the state can lead to ineffective practices in spaces like schools, and even other fields like health care systems or food industries etc, as a result of not acting on more well-founded or research backed reasons to modify their operations.


Lastly, when I read about how right-wing evangelistic Christian religious lobby groups tended to align themselves with the traditionalists, hoping to bring in alongside them views on antigay rights or pro school prayer, I found this significantly highlighted the purposes school serves beyond learning course content, similar to our previous reading on the three curricula in schools. Additionally, I feel that their support for this method of school only helped clarify the essential 'con' of this model, in that the goal of the traditionalists was the serve up information to children and expect total acceptance of the 'facts,' including ones related to social or religious values if these were to become part of the curriculum. I feel that there was an understanding by these groups that progressivist models that aimed to develop problem solving skills and have more student-centered learning would necessarily output students that were more equipped to question such ideas in classrooms.