Beyond the Dichotomy: Re-framing the Intersectionality of the Trad/Prog Debate

Which system of education works best? Why do we need to ditch the traditional methods of teaching and introduce 'new' more social-constructivist methods? What's wrong with direct teaching? Why not spend time using inquiry based methods instead?

The sage on the stage or the guide on the side. Which is best? Trouble is, right now they are two sides of the same dominant cultural coin.

via GIPHY
For years I've seen that what works best is when I remove the barriers that my practice imposes on learning and, surprise, surprise, students' learning accelerates. So how about this question instead: Which parts of a traditional or a progressive approach is least helpful to students in this situation at this time?

One often missed variable in education is that it is situational. Different schools within a city will need different approaches because each school is a microcosm of a larger cultural macrocosm but an entity in itself due to its socio-cultural base. By becoming beholden to any one teaching approach the disenfranchising of learning begins to occur as the system will ignore the needs of learners in order to maintain its hegemony.

The stark result of this is the intersectionality of how little the traditional/ progressive debate has done to help educationally marginalised groups, and the debate has been going for a good 100 years as explained by Benjamin Doxtdator in this essay.

Underachievement by cultural or gender groups is a direct result of myopia that ensues when one dominant cultural narrative becomes dichomised. If I can use one analogy it would be the fable of The Dog and The Bone. All that the debate between traditional and progressive educational methods does is to steer the narrative in one direction: how to legitimise educational methods that produce underachievement and disenfranchise a proportion of the population because their stories and their needs are marginalised from the conversation as a natural result of lack of participation in the conversation. The illusion of choice within a dichotomy actually means fit in or miss out. Educational deficits are created when we do not stop to question how educational praxis disenfranchises or marginalises any one stakeholder.

Perhaps more relevant questions could be something like "How does this particular traditional or progressive method disenfranchises this underachieving gender/cultural group of learners? What else could be used to best meet their needs?"

The localisation of education is uncomfortable because then we are forced to really look at the needs of learners beyond the status quo of a homogenised system, or perhaps even acknowledge that parts of learning cannot be homogenised because it is localised and situational. The friction between this and standardised testing or policy is palpable but necessary because both can either serve to uphold the dichotomy or enable insight into when the system is marginalising a group of learners depending on how they're applied, as well as by and to whom they're applied.

This may sound complex but it's not. The simplicity lies in allowing for flexible thinking of what the challenges are in meeting diverse learning needs and gathering a wider range of voices to contribute to the conversation. We are lucky because we already have a large range of educational tools to choose from and new ones keep being perfected and created thanks to advances in cognitive research.

Instead of educational debates of what is best overall, wouldn't it be better to see education as ecology where aspects of many types of teaching are needed to create healthy and successful opportunities for different groups of human beings in different places? This cannot be created without involving all the stakeholders in the conversation and that is a very exciting proposition because finally, the dog will need to stop barking at itself, listen and perhaps even get to enjoy the bone.

My view is nothing new. It's old. Really old. It's the democratisation of education that John Dewey wrote about.

"The aim of education is to enable individuals to continue their education ... (and) the object and reward of learning is continued capacity for growth. Now this idea cannot be applied to all the members of a society except where intercourse of man with man is mutual, and except where there is adequate provision for the reconstruction of social habits and institutions by means of wide stimulation arising from equitably distributed interests. And this means a democratic society."

That the narrative and debate have not moved forward in 100 years means that there is something holding us back. Educational outcomes for maginalised groups have not moved much either, so somewhere, somehow there has to be a way to break out of the loop.

Please let me know when you find it.