Progressive Twentieth Century Theories That Shaped Modern Education

Line.jpg

Introduction

Compulsory schooling in Britain began in 1870 but very soon reformers began to want to improve the system, making it more effective and in some cases more humane. Progressive reformers worked throughout the twentieth century and in this section some of their theories and the impact of those theories are examined.

Line.jpg

The Development Of Progressive Twentieth Century Theories

The twentieth century saw immense changes in approaches to and thinking about education. The introduction of compulsory schooling in the latter part of the nineteenth century focused very much on the ‘3Rs’. It has been said that originally these were ‘reading, writing and wroughting’ (or being able to fashion things with your hands as in wrought iron), rather than ‘reading, writing and ‘rithmetic’. Whether or not this is true, there were also demands to create a literate population who would be more open to government requirements. Tax demands, for example, are much less effective if those receiving them cannot read.

The demand for a system of universal education also came from employers. The Industrial Revolution had meant that employers needed factory workers who did not need to be well-educated and often included children who provided cheap labour. However, as the nineteenth century progressed, it became apparent that the international trade which had developed meant that employers also needed clerks and book-keepers who could do sums, read and write.

By the beginning of the twentieth century many were dissatisfied with the system of education that had developed since 1870. There were many progressive thinkers who wanted to bring about change. In the sections that follow, the ideas about education and learning which developed throughout the twentieth century will be considered.

Line.jpg

Key Dates

Line.jpg

Working Class Poverty And Educational Reform

The poor quality of life of many impoverished and therefore unhealthy children and families led some reformers, such as the McMillan sisters (How Children Learn pages 23-25) and Maria Montessori (How Children Learn pages 29-31) to create schools that would alleviate the children’s living conditions and improve their life chances. Both Maria Montessori (in Rome) and Margaret McMillan worked in city slum areas and developed strongly contrasting theories. The education developed by Montessori focused on practical tasks and sought to bring order and routine to children’s lives. The McMillan sisters (working mainly in London and Bradford) favoured Froebel’s ideas and highlighted the need to improve children’s health and well-being through outdoor play and the provision of a rich and stimulating learning environment. Margaret McMillan believed that what was often regarded as low intelligence in young children often had its roots in the conditions in which they were forced to grow up. She considered that the nasal and respiratory complaints from which many suffered contributed to poor speech; being ‘obliged to sit all day with their legs tucked under a table’ ([67]) and that their ‘fingers almost atrophied because they never had an opportunity to use them’ ([68]). This led the sisters to the conclusion that educating the hand and nurturing the development of spoken language is the most important work of early education. They believed that their theories would lead to a new pedagogy, a new approach to learning and teaching.

Idealism Before The Second World War

Two radical thinkers led the way. Edmond Holmes came first with the publication of a book in 1911 entitled What is and What Might Be which was to herald the progressive movement. He is said to have shocked many (see Key Figures in Idealism before the second world war below). He was followed by Homer Lane, an American who supported Freudian theories and was widely described as an extremist.

Then came Montessori (see How Children Learn pages 29-31) who is described as bringing ‘things back into the realm of the possible and nearly normal, to show that what wilder spirits had preached could be practised, even in the large classes of the elementary school’ ([69]). Although closely linked to these two extremists who were seeking to reform education in England, Montessori was regarded as the acceptable face of progressivism. She too had a powerful personality but because she was a doctor she was somehow regarded as more respectable. When she used words such as ‘freedom’ or ‘independence’ they seemed less threatening although it is clear that she was no less dedicated to reform of the education system.

In the period between the two world wars, other reformers such as Rudolf Steiner (How Children Learn pages 26–28) and Susan Isaacs (How Children Learn pages 32–35) began to set up what were regarded as progressive models of education. This progressivism often focused on children who were not poor, but in fact rather affluent. The work of these progressives arose out of dissatisfaction with existing approaches to education. In fact, like Margaret McMillan, they wanted to establish a new way of learning and teaching. Their work was often fuelled by the growing understanding of psychoanalytic theories (How Children Learn pages 17–20). Three key words characterise progressive approaches to education during this period – namely individuality, freedom and growth ([70]). The approaches also reflected the optimism felt by many educators and public alike as the First World War ended. This of course was not To last, as the Second World War loomed on the horizon.

It is interesting to consider that many of these radical approaches were often intended to run throughout childhood. However, although they have become widely accepted in the early years, their theories are rarely apparent in work with older children. Margaret McMillan’s school for example catered initially for children from two to nine years of age.‘She saw her principles as applicable to older children… the nursery…merely made a right beginning possible’ ([71]).

There are exceptions to this. Many Steiner schools Later for the full age range, although they do generally have a higher proportion of younger children. Summerhill, established in 1921 by Alexander Neill, remains a boarding school, catering for children throughout the years of schooling but understandably not catering for very young children.

21.jpg

Key Figures In Idealism Before The Second World War

Edmond Holmes (1850-1936)

The publication of Edmond Holmes’ book What is and What might be in 1911 is said to mark the beginning of progressive educational thinking in England (71). Holmes had been the Chief Inspector for elementary schools right up until the year of his book’s publication, but claimed that he had done ‘as much mischief in the field of education as (he) possibly could’ ([72]). The book was based on the work of a school in Sussex and in order to make the school anonymous Holmes referred to it as Utopia. He further claimed that it offered schooling in which children could feel free and joyful – which he contrasted with the ‘blind, passive, literal, unintelligent obedience… on which the whole system of Western education has been reared’ ([73]).

The publication of this book occurred at a time when there was widespread criticism of the education system. There was agreement about the need for change but wide-ranging disagreement about the direction that change should take. Play and children’s interests began to be talked about as a focus for learning and teaching.

There was, however, even tension between those we would now identify as having similar goals. Margaret McMillan, for example, believed she had nothing in common with Montessori; Susan Isaacs (How Children Learn pages 32–35) disagreed vehemently with Piaget (How Children Learn pages 36–38). (Paradoxically, Piaget made no claim to be an educational reformer, but he was to have a strong influence on developments in education after the second world war.)

Homer Lane (1875–1925)

It is suggested that Homer Lane provided a role model for A.S.Neill when he was setting up Summerhill School. Only someone as courageous as Neill would have felt able to act on such an example, since Lane has been described as extravagant and ‘too extreme to act as a model’ ([74]). He is variously described as determined to excel, ebullient, unpredictable and restless. In fact Lane is reported to have described himself as ‘the only man who really understood the message of Jesus Christ’ ([75]).

Lane was American, born in New Hampshire. He had had some remarkable results in working with young delinquent boys and when he visited England in 1912, he was invited by the Earl of Sandwich to set up a co-educational community which was to be called the Little Commonwealth. Lane had an unfaltering belief that giving difficult children freedom and trust would result in a community of order and authority. The results he achieved astonished many. A contemporary, Elsie Bazeley, said that the Little Commonwealth allowed progressives to see their ideals or convictions achieved ([76]), even though the school was only open for a short period of time. The Earl of Lytton described the community as proving that something believed to be unattainable could be achieved in practice ([77]).

Alexander Sutherland Neill (1883–1973)

Best known as the founder of Summerhill School, a progressive school renowned to this day as the school where children did not have to attend lessons, Neill and his writing have influenced the development of education in this country.

Neill was the son of a teacher and began his working life as a teacher in the state sector. He was unhappy about the education offered to children and in 1921 opened Summerhill School, which embodied many of the progressive ideas prevalent among thinkers and academics at that period. He wrote a number of books. Some, such as Summerhill, were specifically about his school and its work. Others such as The Problem Child (1927), The Problem Family (1949), and The Problem Parent (1949) were more general texts. Central to his beliefs was the idea that the happiness of the child was of paramount consideration in the child’s upbringing and that this happiness grew from a sense of personal freedom in the child. He felt that deprivation of this sense of freedom during childhood and all the consequent unhappiness experienced by the repressed child was responsible for most of the psychological disorders of adulthood. A Freudian, Neill was strongly opposed to sexual repression and the imposition of the strict Victorian values of his childhood era. This idea was controversial at the time, but even today the school has many critics and has often been reported as being in conflict with OFSTED. Most recent OFSTED reports of the school, now run by Neill’s daughter, have been favourable.

Neill felt that Summerhill School showed that, free from the coercion of traditional schooling, children and young people learned to develop their own motivation and did not act in the self-indulgent ways that adults might predict. He felt that children who attended Summerhill were likely to emerge with a healthy and mature scepticism towards adult society. The achievements of those attending the school were perhaps all the more remarkable considering that the children accepted by Summerhill were often from problematic backgrounds, where parental conflict or neglect had resulted in children arriving in a particularly unhappy state of mind. The school remains committed to democracy. Children are not compelled to attend lessons, meetings are held to determine school rules and pupils have equal voting rights with school staff.

22.jpg

H. Caldwell Cook (1885–1939)

Caldwell Cook’s influence in the progressive movement came from a book he published in 1917 which was entitled The Play Way. He had completed it in 1915, reputedly in a great hurry since he feared that the war would make it impossible for his message to be spread. He declared that ‘the one thing upon which my heart is fixed is to make this dream come true in this our England’ ([78]). It is important to remember that he was seeking to spread play-based approaches right through the secondary school, not merely within the primary school.

Key themes in the book echoed the views of other progressive thinkers with an emphasis on learning rather than teaching; joy; activity, interest and democracy. Caldwell Cook was renowned as a man of great commitment. He wrote that:

‘it must have occurred to every one that since a child’s life under his own direction is conducted all in play, whatever else we want to interest him in should be carried on in that medium, or at the very least connected with play as closely as possible’ ([79]).

The Third Force: The Emergence Of Humanistic Psychology

The end of the Second World War in 1945 brought a period of renewed optimism. The 1944 Education Act set up a three tier system of secondary education (grammar schools; technical schools and secondary modern schools). It was believed that it would be possible to offer teaching which more closely matched the learning needs of children – a debate which continues to this day, with talk of personalised learning and individual tuition.

Groups of psychologists at that time began to reject both behaviourism (see ‘Burrhus Skinner and behaviourism’ in How Children Learn page 42) and the psychoanalytic theories of Freud and his followers (see ‘Sigmund Freud and psychoanalytic theories’ in How Children Learn page 17) in favour of what they termed a ‘Third Force’, generally known as humanistic psychology.

The most famous of those leading this new movement were perhaps Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and Charlotte Buhler (who came to be known as the mother of humanistic psychology). Two meetings were held in the late 1950s in Detroit. Those who attended were interested in setting up a professional group in order to focus on broad topics such as self-actualization, health, creativity, being, becoming and individuality. In 1961, this movement was formally launched as the American Association for Humanistic Psychology.

Key Figures In Humanistic Psychology

Charlotte Buhler (1893–1974)

Charlotte Buhler was born in Berlin – her father an architect, her mother a musician. When she was still at school she expressed an interest in studying psychology. Her teacher’s retort that psychology was not about people but about sensory reactions is said ([80]) to have stimulated her interest in what has become known as ‘humanistic psychology’.

Because one of Buhler’s parents was Jewish, she and her family were in grave danger during the Nazi regime in Germany and Austria where she was working. In 1938 while Charlotte was in England her husband was arrested. She was eventually able to secure work for both of them and in 1940 they were accepted as refugees in America.

Charlotte’s work before and after this period focused on observations of children, from which she was able to make a strong contribution to understanding of child development.

In her work Buhler had inspired many women to study at a time when women were still not seen as being capable of academic work. Similarly, although Rogers and Maslow are frequently referred to as the fathers of this third force, Buhler’s ideas are said to have pre-dated theirs. She is widely described as the mother of humanistic psychology.

Carl Rogers (1902–1987)

Rogers was born in Chicago, the fourth of six children. He worked closely with Buhler and Maslow and in 1964 was elected ‘humanist of the year’. Some of his early work was with neglected and abused children. Rogers is probably best known for his contribution to psychotherapy and, working with his daughter, he developed the person-centred approach to therapy. His influence in education and training hinges around his view of ‘positive regard’. Those brought up in a climate of unconditional positive regard can achieve self-actualization or fulfilment while those who receive only conditional love find it more difficult to have a sense of worth – needing always to live up to other people’s expectations.

23.jpg

Abraham Maslow (1908–1970)

Maslow is perhaps the best-known of this group because of his work on self-actualization and the hierarchy of needs. An American, born in Brooklyn, Maslow was the eldest of even children. His work is regarded as innovative because he looked not at the mentally ill or disturbed, as many other psychologists did, but at those whom he considered to have achieved self-actualization of growth needs.

The hierarchy which Maslow identified was that bodily needs and the need for safety and security or love and esteem must be met before humans can go on to seek fulfilment. In his early versions of this theory, he omitted cognitive and aesthetic needs – perhaps otherwise described as far back as Socrates as a need for truth and beauty. This work continues to have a strong influence in management training.

Deschoolers And Their Theories

By the 1960s, the idealism which had been so prevalent at the end of the Second World War had begun to fade. All those who had seen the end of the war as a time to develop a more equal society began to become disillusioned. The school system was not living up to the ideals that had been so widely held. During the 1960s and 1970s a wide range of writers, mainly American, published books calling for ‘deschooling’ ([81]). Some of these writers called for the abolition of formal schooling. These became a focus for home schooling groups such as Education Otherwise. Other theorists and writers argued for a radical rethink of the ways in which schools are organised and what their purpose is thought to be.

Key Figures In The Deschooling Movement

Ivan Illich (1926–2002)

Illich was born in Vienna, Austria and studied in Rome and Salzburg. In 1951 he moved to New York, where he served as a priest in a community with high numbers of Irish and Puerto Rican parishioners. In 1956 he became vice-rector at the Catholic University in Puerto Rico. Throughout his life his focus has been on Latin America. It is from this perspective that his dissatisfaction with the role that education and other public institutions were playing in the lives of poor people that his work has grown. His most famous publication is Deschooling Society which was first published in 1971. This had been preceded (although published in English at the same time) by a book entitled Celebration of Awareness: a call for institutional revolution.

John Holt (1923–1985)

Holt has been described as the grandfather of the deschooling and homeschooling movements in North America. He wrote a number of influential books in the 1960s, the most famous of which are probably How Children Fail, How Children Learn and Instead of Education ([82]). His writing chimes well with the psycholinguists who favoured whole language approaches to literacy and to related demands for apprenticeship approaches to education. These theories themselves, of course, owe much to the work of Vygotsky (How Children Learn pages 39–41).

The Effective Provision Of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project (1997-2003)

Profile

The EPPE project is a government-funded longitudinal study which set out to compare the effects of different types of pre-school experience. The study is currently tracking children entering secondary schools who were first studied when they were in pre-school education.

Background

The rationale for the EPPE project arose out of the education grant which was offered to pre-school settings following the introduction initially of the Desirable Learning Outcomes and then the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. The government felt a need to weigh up which of the many diverse approaches to education in the early years were most cost-effective. They commissioned a team of eminent researchers led by Professor Kathy Sylva at Oxford University and Professor Iram Siraj-Blatchford from the Institute of Education in London. This project attempts to identify the factors that have contributed to children’s attainment and achievement.

Focus

The study aimed to track over 3000 children in order to:

The Influence Of EPPE Findings

This rich longitudinal study has offered a number of important findings. Among the most influential are:

Comment

This vast study has provided and continues to provide a huge amount of data about children’s learning. The findings about the quality of different forms of pre-school provision have been controversial and have not always informed government policy in the way that might have been hoped.

Line.jpg

Where To Find Out More

Line.jpg

24.jpg

Building Learning Power (BLP)

Profile

BLP aims to make children more effective learners by identifying the learning dispositions that will make them lifelong learners.

Background

Guy Claxton who established this approach is a psychologist. He was formerly involved in teacher education but now works with established teachers, developing approaches to learning. He lectures extensively and works in a variety of local authorities.

Focus

Claxton has identified four strands that children need to develop in order to be effective learners (see table on the following page). The four strands are resilience, resourcefulness, reflection and making relationships (or what he terms reciprocity in order to be able to identify 4Rs – but don’t be put off by the language). The following table identifies the qualities which contribute to each of the four strands of effective learning.

The Influence Of Guy Claxton

It is difficult to judge just how strong the influence of this work is since Claxton is not alone in calling for a stronger emphasis on dispositions for learning. This is also true of the deschoolers (see page 64); theorists advocating whole language approaches to literacy; Ferre Laevers’ work on well-being and involvement; Margaret Carr, one of the authors of Te Whariki (see How Children Learn pages 67-69); and the EYFS. However, it is clear that the flexible and creative approaches he advocates are in line with much current thinking.

(adapted from Guy Claxton 2006 BERA conference ‘Building Learning Power’)

Resilient

Resourceful

Reflective

Reciprocal (making Relationships)

Curious (proactive)

Questioning (how come?)

Clear thinking (logical)

Collaborative (team member)

Adventurous (up for a challenge)

Open-minded (‘negative capability’)

Thoughtful (where else could I use this?)

Independent (can work alone)

Determined (persistent)

Playful (let’s try…)

Self-knowing (own habits)

Open to feedback

Flexible (trying other ways)

Imaginative (could be)

Methodical (strategic)

Attentive(to others)

Observant (details/patterns)

Integrating (making links)

Opportunistic (serendipity)

Empathic (other people’s feelings)

Focused (distractions)

Intuitive (reverie)

Self-evaluative (how’s it going?)

Imitative (contagious)

Comment

There is some tension between government policies which recognise the need for flexible and creative learners and those which seek to return to old approaches to learning and teaching with more imposed structure and less room for beginning with what the learner already knows. Policy seems to be attempting to look in both directions like a two-headed pantomime horse! The Great Education Debate introduced by Callaghan has not resolved this conflict.

Line.jpg

Where To Find Out More

Line.jpg

Research And Theory-Led Teaching

The final years of the twentieth century saw some interesting and often conflicting ideas about learning and education. In 1967 The Plowden Report was published. It was strongly influenced by the work of Piaget and contained the memorable phrase ‘at the heart of the educational process lies the child’. It made the case for positive discrimination in favour of schools in areas of socio-economic deprivation, where teachers were to be better paid than those working in more affluent areas. It also placed a strong emphasis on the involvement of parents in their children’s education.

The Bullock Report, published in 1975, focused on language learning and teaching. It placed a similar emphasis on the role of parents. It included the words ‘the best way to prepare the very young child for reading is to hold him on your lap and read aloud to him stories he likes, over and over again’. The publication of this report coincides with and influenced many of the innovations in the teaching of reading and writing which occurred during the 1980s and 1990s.

In 1976 the Prime Minister, James Callaghan, referred to the secret garden of the curriculum. There was renewed interest in what should be taught and this was to lead to what has been called the Great Debate. In time this led to the introduction of the first national curriculum in the late 1980s. Although the government of the day claimed that teaching would be left to teachers, it was not long before the literacy and numeracy strategies were set out for primary schools describing in minute detail how reading, writing and mathematics should be taught.

This focus on both the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of learning quickly spread to the early years curriculum. The first step was the publication in 1996 of the Desirable Learning Outcomes. This was followed in 2000 by the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage, Birth to Three Matters in 2002 and then by the Early Years Foundation Stage guidance to be implemented in 2008.

Alongside these policy developments there has been a large amount of research and the development of wide ranging theories about learning and teaching. There are many difficulties in designing, carrying out and interpreting the findings of research projects. There are many different views about what education is about. Is it simply about making children literate and numerate as quickly as possible? What about computer literacy? Or emotional literacy? Or visual literacy? Is it about developing creativity? Is it about social and emotional well-being? Or good attitudes to learning? Of course, as early years practitioners you are likely to say that it is about all these things. But sometimes in trying to focus on one aspect of education practitioners can unwittingly undermine another. For example, if learning to read becomes a terrible chore and children cease to be interested in reading, then their disposition to learn may be undermined.

There are of course different views about how learning occurs, or even what it is. Those who believe that it is primarily about memorising will favour a different approach to education to those who believe that learning is mainly about problem-solving. Behaviourists (like Skinner – see How Children Learn pages 42–43) hold very different views from the humanistic psychologists introduced earlier in this section. Neuroscience (see ‘Research into brain development’ in How Children Learn pages 76–78) has taught us a great deal about learning, but there remain many things that we do not know about the processes involved. We know that memory plays a part; as do motivation, persistence and social context. What we don’t know is what will be needed in the future – perhaps this is why there is so much current interest in creativity. It may be that helping children to build flexible and creative brains is our best hope.

Perhaps a major factor to consider in evaluating research projects is the extent to which short-term gains in attainment may get in the way of long-term achievements. The early start to formal schooling which exists in this country ‘isn’t as impressive as one might imagine. If anything, the evidence suggests that our children are disadvantaged by starting school earlier than their international peers…. International studies show that children who enter school later do better at reading’ (17[83]). In the section that follows the focus will be on two contrasting approaches to evaluating and developing effective learning and teaching by theorists and researchers who share an aim to improve the quality of education.

Final Comment

The twentieth century has been a time of immense change and the twenty- first century looks likely to be a period of even greater change in education. Learning about learning has increased and developed and the themes that the early idealists evoked - namely individuality, freedom and growth - keep returning. As we learn more from neuroscience and learn to trust our professionalism, it looks likely that the debate will continue.

Line.jpg

Where To Find Out More

Line.jpg

67 McMillan, M. (1923) Education Through the Imagination. Sonnenschein (page 34)

68 Whitbread, N. (1975) The Evolution of the Nursery-Infant School. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

69 Selleck, R. (1972) English Primary education and the Progressives, 1914-1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (page 30)

70 Selleck, R. (1972) English Primary education and the Progressives, 1914-1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

71 Selleck, R. (1972) English Primary education and the Progressives, 1914-1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

72 Selleck, R. (1972) English Primary education and the Progressives, 1914-1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (page 24, citing Holmes)

73 Selleck, R. (1972) English Primary education and the Progressives, 1914-1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (page 23, citing Holmes)

74 Selleck, R. (1972) English Primary education and the Progressives, 1914-1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (page 28)

75 Selleck, R. (1972) English Primary education and the Progressives, 1914-1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (page 26)

76 Selleck, R. (1972) English Primary education and the Progressives, 1914-1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

77 Selleck, R. (1972) English Primary education and the Progressives, 1914-1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

78 Caldwell Cook, H. (1917) The Play Way. London: William Heinemann (page 2)

79 Caldwell Cook, H. (1917) The Play Way. London: William Heinemann (page 10)

80 Ragsdale, S. Charlotte Malachowski Buhler, Ph.D. (1893-1974) http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/charlottebuhler.html

81 Hern, M. (1996) Deschooling our Lives. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers (page 27)

82 Holt, J. (1964) How Children Fail. New York: Pitman. Holt, J. (1967) How Children Learn. New York: DelacourtHolt, J. (1976) Instead of Education. Boston; Holt Associates

83 Harker, L. (2007) ‘School must start at seven’. The Guardian December 12th