|WikiProject Alternative education||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Education||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|This version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:|
No critique ?
It is suspected that this article (specifically source this cannot be definitively determined. (August 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)) may be a copyright violation, but without a
This article in its current state is both weakly and factually questionable. Any discussion of progressivism needs to get into the nitty gritty of the competing ideologies and methods of the various kinds of educational progressive during the progressive era, as there has never been a monolithic progressivism. I don't have the time for it right now, but I may sweep back at some point...कुक्कुरोवाच 18:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Progressivism In need for answer
We've been using Dewey very lopsidedly in public schools in the US since around 1998. Schools in the US took a turn for the worst around 1998. Why are teachers still defending an educational theory that has been failing them? Why are they blaming everything but the theory for the failure of US reading & Math skills? Why do they have this insane focus on just throwing students into groups instead of helping the figure the problem out on their own? Tests are what gage student's progress & it seems in schools that tests are the only chance students get to work on their own. I'd like an answer, all of my educational professors at National-Louis & those I know from Roosevelt have informed me that I don't have the degrees to question Progressive Education. This, to me, means that we have murdered Socrates in America. I would really like someone to answer my questions on this, teachers & professors won't. I'd sign this, but if anyone knew I wrote this I'd lose any position I had at a school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyone up to the task of cleanup?
This article is badly in need of some cleanup. I found it in rather poor shape; there was a large amount of material that appeared twice, as if someone hit "Ctrl-V" one too many times. Also, it is basically an essay, and not an encyclopedia article, with no hyperlinks or Internet-friendly navigation. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to apply to this project, so I am relying on other well-wishing Wikipedians to take up the task of bringing this up to a higher standard.
Marcfonline 02:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This article was tagged in March 2010 quite rightly for its resemblance to . However, it looks very likely that this content was copied from Wikipedia. Take, for example, the following evidence:
- The article was created in 2001, at which point it contained little of the current text. It did, however, say, "Progressivists claimed to rely on the best available scientific theories of learning. Most believed that children learned as if they were scientists, following a process similar to John Dewey's model of learning." This is on page 18 of the tagged suspect source, but that source cannot date back to 2001. On page 6, it quotes a 2003 source. Even in that section, there is evidence of natural evolution. Page 18 reflects this change of 1 April 2005 and this change of 10 August 2006 and this change of February 2007 by different contributors.
- The bulk of the material entered the article in July 2007. However, while this bulk growth of the article can itself be a red flag, there is still further evidence of natural evolution thereafter. The section heading added later in July 2007 by a different registered account is on page 25 of the external document, as are the textual changes introduced by that contributor when he "tried to make sense of the snippet of text after the bibliography". The "philosophy" section added by a different account in August 2007 is on page 18 of the source, while the"Development in the United States" header added in March 2008 is on page 19. Figures altered in October 2007 are on page 22 of the source as altered rather than as they originally were. See also .
As a final point, note the section immediately above this one in that book, on page 17, "Educational Essentialism". A comparison of that text with our article suggests their copying was not limited to this text. The section following on page 25 also looks familiar.
The Wikimedia Foundation and wikipedia community take copyright concerns seriously, and thanks are due the contributor who sought the investigation, since we have to be sure when such duplication exists that content on the website complies with copyright policy. I believe under the circumstances that we have to conclude that in this case, infringement is reversed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I discovered that according to this article, the Progressive Education Association (1955) lost the sponsorship by the Carnegie Foundation and Rockefeller Foundations due to "the involvement of many members of the PEA in communism". I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
broader consideration needed
Generally, the North American (US and Canada, anyway) "progressive" movement had three sides: pedagogical , organizational , and curricular. The article as it stands touches on some of the ideas behind pedagogical p.e., but overlooks another dominant strain in the testing and sorting movement, much inspired by eugenic thinking. See Thorndike, Terman, et al as supporters of this. Another strain of p.e. was organizational, to make schools as efficient as possible. Here one would touch on Cubberly and his influence, and the historical work of David Tyack (One Best System). Curricular diversification was a third element, and which was promoted by a number of people. So yes, this entry needs some major reworking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejdamer (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)