Racism+-+'The+Progressive+Basics'

Racism: "The Progressive Basics" As I was reading through the majority of the article, the progressive students at Putney irritated me to nearly no end. These kids sereiously were "self righteous, privileged teenagers" (279). If the Putney students were doing the same type of work as other schools in the country, only better, then I could understand a reason for smugness; however, as it was, the progressive school didn't focus on a balance between arts and sciences, it merely focused on the arts. Then again, I don't know that I can call sheep-sheering an art. For a school that's suppose to champion free thought, I find that Putney is hypocritical and its idea of "free thought" is merely confomrity to the opposing side of mainstream schools. If free thought were championed, surely some of the students would actually like Seventeen Magazine, and there would be less of a like-minded attitude towards the magazine. I also really dislike how the Putney students questioned everything. Sure, questioning things is fine and good, but there comes a time when the continual "why?" and devil's advocate just needs to stop, it gets annoying to everyone around the questioner and stops anything from ever getting done.

I do think that the comparrison Delbanco makes between Putney students and regular high-school students really shows where progressivism fails. Of course, the students in a progressive school are encouraged to question and are essentially taught that they are the greatest. On the other hand, traditional high school, while it might actually go so far as to say you'll always fail, does teach that a student can fail and isn't a special singularity; everyone is just like everyone else. The biggest difference though is preparedness; progressive students simply aren't. Sure, the argument could be made that a person doesn't need a college education or need to know math to get through life, but at the same time, those same students who follow that line of thought aren't becoming successful. I completely agree that "there comes a time when students need to know the score, need to know they deserve a C in a subject in which they don't pass muster, need to realize the world may not appreciate their poetry and science-fair projects as much as they themselves do" (280). I think the Putney students are too encouraged; everything they do is met with a "good job", even if it wasn't. That kind of blind optimism doesn't help a student's progress, it hinders it; students need discouragement so that the encouragement they get actually means something. Then there's the long-term differences in the workforce. Normal high-school students easily adapt to working under a boss and doing as they're told and acting polite; Putney students would inevitably see themselves as important and needing to be on the same level as everyone else, even to the point of questioning a boss, subordination, which is a one-way ticket to getting fired.

I think Delbanco's argument is nicely summed up when she states "All kids could profit from exposure to the sort of positive, supportive, hands-on school environment that comes with the progressive philosophy" (281-282). Delbanco is saying that progressivism has its rough spots, but it also has its merits, and the education system should adopt methods to create a school that's even better than the two ends of the extreme. Even though Delbanco comes from a progressive school, she also comes from the normal education system, and I think that gives her the ability to see where both sides are coming from and nonsubjectively compare and contrast both schools of thought. Although, while I completely agree that students need a motivation boost, they can't be given too much freedom or else they will end up more ill-prepared than Putney students; giving a student who has been used to the system complete freedom will just result in the student doing essentially nothing. Despite that I agree with Delbanco's sentiment, I don't think a motivation change solves every problem facing education, her idea is simply a basic. At the same time, there's the fact that even in normal high school, students are accustomed to continual success so much to the point that students will drop a class if their grades end up going down. In this regard, I would say Delbanco's argument needs to stand firm: the two ideaologies need to merge, but now it's that discouragement needs to be encouraged. Students need to be driven to apply themselves, not worry about grades, while at the same time they need structure and a solid way to assess progress.