Modern Progressive Education Panel Discussion

The conversation traces progressive education from its early 20th century roots through periods of expansion and contraction, particularly noting how political contexts affect the movement's acceptance. The panelists emphasize that progressive education centers on challenging power structures, promoting co-creation between students and teachers, and asking fundamental questions about how we want to live together.

The discussion addresses why the term "progressive" becomes contentious during certain historical periods, drawing parallels between the McCarthy era and current culture wars. Panelists argue for maintaining the philosophical core of progressive education while adapting to contemporary challenges including climate change, technology ethics, and social justice. They emphasize that movement growth must preserve the "ethos and soul" rather than becoming packaged programs, and that change happens through grassroots organizing rather than top-down policy reform.

"The progressive education the American progressive education movement was born out of this time right after the civil war... of profound change... rapid technological innovation... shifting politics... huge wave of immigration big disparities of wealth... it's starting to describe this era that we're living in right now."

"There were more than one of the teachers in the room that said... 'we really emphasize learning by doing... school for the purpose of democracy collaboration social justice but we don't dare use the p word' because of all of the political ramifications."

"The most progressive thing would be to invite all voices in right and to have that debate and inherent in that progressive movement is an idea around empiricism inductive research analysis data driven."

‍

• The panel notes teachers who embrace progressive practices but avoid the "p word" due to political ramifications. Is this strategic retreat necessary for survival, or does abandoning the term weaken the movement's coherence? How might educators balance authentic practice with strategic communication in polarized environments?
• The discussion emphasizes maintaining progressive education's "ethos and soul" rather than creating packaged programs for rapid expansion. This creates tension between reaching more students and preserving pedagogical authenticity. How might the movement grow while maintaining its improvisational, context-responsive nature? What are the risks of both approaches?