This week, I was invited to visit Cathy's class at Carleton to talk about Prairie Creek and progressive education. I got to go last term as well and have really enjoyed the questions and challenges that are posed. Of course, there's never enough time, but Cathy asked her students to write down their questions on index cards and I'll have more leisure to address them here. Some of the questions are based on "The Case for Working with Your Hands", an article in a recent New York Times magazine.
"Isn't is possible to prepare all students for college without advertising it as the only worthwhile path? Don't schools have the obligation to prepare students for college so that it at some point down the road they decide it is a path they would like to pursue they are able to do so?"
This question was based on the Times article. Alfie Kohn would (and has) called it an excuse to claim that one must teach a certain way at a certain level in order to prepare kids for the next level. For him, the fact that most colleges don't teach progressively is their problem and we as progressive educators should not bend to their edicts. He would urge us to question the system instead of submitting ourselves to it. I think that all educators at all levels have a responsibility to teach in a way that engages students. Whether you work with first graders or graduate students, it's not enough for a teacher to say, "Learn it because it's on the test." Why is it on the test. How will the learner use the information? Why should someone learn it? If the answers to these questions aren't evident to the learner, the information will not be retained.
"Do kids at Prairie Creek have more diverse interests/possible career paths?"
I sometimes say that at Prairie Creek my class is full of quirky kids. I think that the environment allows kids to pursue their true interests instead of grouping with peers or conforming to media norms. I think all kids are interested in almost anything until they're taught that it's uncool to be interested. We actively work against this. I'm not sure if Prairie Creek alumni continue on their independent path. Anecdotally, I hear of many who are teaching or involved in the arts or social work but I don't have any longitudinal data to back that up.
"Crawford mentions in his NYT article that, 'Academic credentials do not guarantee this [a field of action where you can put your best capacities to work and see an effect in the world].' How does progressive education address this? What is the value of secondary or post-secondary education? Is it not extremely important? Is it okay, then, if students don't want to be at school? How do you confront?"
I agree that academic credentials don't guarantee you'll see the effect of your work in the world. I think that we as educators have a responsibility to create learning environments where students see that they can have an impact on the world and learn how to make a difference. Their work, from the earliest age, should have meaning. If more schools held meaning and agency as the gold standard of teaching then, perhaps, "academic credentials" would be more of a guarantee that one's work would make an impact on the world. For me, it's not okay if a child doesn't want to be at school but it's my job to find the root of the issue and address it directly. The more they feel that their work is real and has meaning, the more they will want to be at school. I end the year with twenty students who are sad that the last day of the school year has come.
"How does Prairie Creek evaluate the performance of teachers?"
We set yearly goals in four different areas: curriculum, professional, environment, and communication. We meet with our director about these goals at the beginning and end of the year. She observes established teachers informally and offers cognitive coaching to anyone who is interested.
"Are students ever held back to repeat a grade (beyond the two years they [spend in a classroom]? If so, is it for academic or maturity behavior reasons?"
The decision to retain a student is always made with careful thought and long deliberation. It very rarely happens in any school including ours. When it is considered an appropriate course, it can be for either academic or developmental reasons -- most often, these go hand in hand.
"What do you think is the best way to dispel the myths of progressive education? (Especially since information about it does not often reach parents of kids attending public traditional schools.) (Or is that assumption wrong.)"
I think, most frequently, people simply have never heard of progressive education. Even people who are involved in education often don't have a clear idea of what progressive education is or is not. I start with my classroom parents, using my blog to explain not just what we are doing but why we are doing it. Mixing pedagogy with the typical class newsletter fare has helped parents feel more connected to what happens in our classroom and why. We make an effort to do this school wide and have been somewhat successful. The wider community is much harder. We conduct a lot of open houses and work to communicate our mission and approach in the media. We invite education studies students and student teachers into our classrooms. We urge our parents to talk about the school and progressive education. The myths persist, however.
"What do you think about artificial learning environments? Do you think that students can learn without always having hands on experiences?"
I think that all schools are artificial learning environments but authentic learning can still occur in them. Hands on experiences are a great way to learn and often create deep understanding. However, they are not the only way to learn. Especially as students get older, they are able to learn in a much wider variety of settings and through a much wider range of methods. I still remember the first time I read about constructivism, "Yeah, great, but how do you learn about Pluto using a constructivist approach -- we're not all Mrs. Frizzle." But, of course, any educational approach taken to an extreme has fatal weaknesses. And, actually, I could now create an experience which would include a way for students to construct an understanding of Pluto.
"I think there are things that ALL students must know...do you think there are things everyone must know?"
This was one of my favorite debates with a former colleague. My answer probably doesn't come straight from the progressive playbook. I have found, for example, that students are able to explore and see the wonder of mathematics much better when they have a solid grounding in the basic facts and computational algorithms (addition, multiplication etc.) They are able to see patterns and don't spend as much energy on the more mundane aspects of their math work but can get right to the heart of a problem. They're much more flexible as mathematicians. In addition, we use a framework called the Habits of Mind that help concretize the things that successful learners do. These are things like "Responding with Wonder and Awe," "Applying Past Knowledge," "Working in Groups," and "Communicating Clearly." While I don't think the list is definitive, I would count these skills among things everyone must know about and cultivate. I also think that everyone needs to know how to be a critical reader who is able to synthesize various texts. Finally, I think all students need to have a basic financial understanding and an understanding of statistics and probability. These last few stem from my belief that the primary mission of public schools is to produce a citizenry ready to make good decisions about its leadership.
I'd love to hear how you would answer the questions above and any more questions that may have come up.