The City and Country School and the Dalton School: Lessons From Two of New York City's Early Independent Progressive Schools

• In Event: "Schools of Tomorrow," Schools of Today Revisited: Lessons From Five Historically Progressive Schools

Abstract

The City and Country School was founded as an independent school in 1914 by Caroline Pratt in New York City. Based on the curriculum, pedagogy and philosophy in her I Learn from Children, City and Country was a model of Deweyan progressive practice. This paper chronicles its history through a number of school heads through today, when remains one of the most progressive, child centered schools in New York City. The Dalton School as founded as an independent school by Helen Parkhurst in 1918 in New York City. Based on the curriculum, pedagogy and philosophy in her Education on the Dalton Plan, Dalton was a model of Deweyan progressive practice. This paper chronicles its history through a number of leaders through today, when it is an elite college preparatory school, with only vestiges of its progressive past.

The paper analyzes how and why one school remained true to its founder’s vision and the other changed dramatically from her vision. Through an analysis of leadership, the effects of market forces, the effects of changing educational reforms, and issues of diversity, the paper examines the factors that lead to the sustainability of progressive reforms and provides lessons for contemporary reforms.


2. Perspectives: This paper uses the perspective summarized in the Paedagogica Historica special issue on ISCHE 30, which argues for the use of both historical and sociological analyses to examine education and inequality. The paper provides a sociological analysis of the history of the school through an examination of the evolution of its curriculum and pedagogy, its changes and leadership, its problems with sustainability and its effectiveness in serving a diverse student population.

3. Methods: The paper uses historical methods, including archival research, oral histories with living administrators and teachers, and qualitative sociological methods, including interviews with current teachers and administrators and ethnographic observations of the school.

4. Data sources: The paper analyzes archival documents, including memos, letters, newspapers, and planning documents, as well as interviews with former and current teachers and administrators.

5. Conclusions: The paper argues that both schools have undergone a number of changes in their long histories as they struggle to adapt to changing market and educational conditions. It explores how changes in leadership have been a key component of stability, change and sustainability. Finally, it argues that leadership has been a key component of why one school maintained its progressive identity, while the other has not.
6. Significance: The paper provides an important contribution to the literature on the history of progressive education through the analysis of two of the most important early progressive schools.

Author

• Susan F. Semel, City College of New York - CUNY