When “Traditional is the New Progressive” is Just Old Wine in a Cracked Flask
A spicy takedown of education nostalgia, and why AI might just save the progressive dream
From: https://www.kirschnered.nl/2025/04/15/the-paradox-of-progressivism-in-education/
Let me start with a gentle clap for the article “The Paradox of Progressivism in Education” by Paul Kirschner. It’s smart. It’s detailed. It’s deeply worried that progressive education might be doing more harm than good. But it’s also missing something big. No, not a punchline—though it could use a few. It’s missing the entire future.
The argument goes something like this: Progressive education—child-centered, project-based, “let them explore” kind of stuff—sounds lovely, but in practice it leaves disadvantaged students drowning in cognitive overload, short on guidance, and poorly equipped for a world that still adores a good standardized test. Basically, rich kids get inquiry-based fun; poor kids get confused. The solution? Apparently, a warm, nostalgic return to good old-fashioned, sit-down-and-shut-up, chalkboard-and-drill instruction.
Ah yes. Because clearly the problem with a failing education system is that it hasn’t gone backwards far enough.
🚸 “Progressive education failed” is the wrong
conclusion
Kirschner’s central argument is that progressive education assumes students have strong support systems—which many don’t. Fair. But then he pivots to this idea that because progressive education hasn’t worked perfectly (in a system designed to fail the under-resourced), we should ditch it.
But here’s the thing: a broken bridge doesn’t mean the destination was a bad idea. If I build a janky staircase to the moon and it collapses, you don’t conclude the moon is a terrible vacation spot. You conclude I need better engineering.
Progressive education isn’t broken. It’s incomplete. It’s being asked to run a marathon with duct-taped sneakers. That’s not a paradox. That’s sabotage.
🤖 Dear Education Pessimists: AI Called. It Says, “Chill.”
There’s this weird assumption in the article that we’re stuck in a chalk-and-talk world forever. Nowhere does it consider tech, adaptive platforms, or AI tutors—tools that already exist and get better by the week.
AI can:
Personalize instruction in real time
Scaffold project-based learning
Spot and fix misconceptions early
Simulate mentorship for students without home support
Progressive education assumes ideal conditions. Fine. So let’s create them—with tools from the actual century we live in.
🧠 The “Luxury Pedagogy” Take is Backwards
The piece frames progressive education as a sort of luxury item—fine for the rich, unfair to the poor. But that’s a bit like saying democracy only works for people who already have rights. You don’t toss the system—you fix the access.
Yes, inquiry-based learning needs resources. So let’s give schools the tools. Let’s build platforms that equalize—not erase—opportunity.
🏫 Traditional Education: The Soft Bigotry of Low Innovation
Kirschner borrows the term “soft bigotry of low expectations” to critique progressive education. Ironically, it fits the traditional model better.
It’s condescending to assume disadvantaged students can’t handle curiosity, autonomy, or deep learning. The solution isn’t less complexity—it’s more support. More scaffolding. More tools. Less nostalgia.
Also, explicit instruction and progressive education aren’t opposites. They’re teammates. A modern education system blends both, wisely. (I’ll call it “tradigressive” if that helps sell it.)
✊ What We Should Be Saying Instead
If progressive education hasn’t delivered equity yet, it’s because we haven’t funded or designed it to do so.
So instead of saying “back to basics,” how about:
“Yes, progressive education needs a retrofit. Let’s rebuild it—stronger, smarter, fairer, and with a little help from the machines.”
TL;DR
Progressive education isn’t the problem. Underfunding, poor implementation, and outdated assumptions are. The tools to fix this exist—they just need champions.
Plus est en vous
Continued at
From Paradoxes in Education to Public Sector Fatalism
I recently posted a response to Kirschers post about the paradox of progressivism in education (https://www.kirschnered.nl/2025/04/15/the-paradox-of-progressivism-in-education/) - this post is a further reflection.
Thanks for this thoughtful and well-articulated comment. You raise a number of important points, and I completely agree that education needs to be grounded in research-validated, scalable practices. The Mississippi case is a great example of what can be achieved when implementation, training, and evidence are aligned.
I don’t see AI as a replacement for that kind of work—but potentially as a complement to it. The goal isn’t to jump on a shiny new bandwagon, but to explore whether AI, used carefully and deliberately, might help scale practices that are already proven. For example, tools that can support formative assessment, provide feedback, or help with differentiated instruction could free up teachers to focus more on teaching. But you’re absolutely right: that hinges on thoughtful design, realistic expectations, and solid training—not just dropping a tool into classrooms and hoping for magic.
Your point about accessibility and cost over time is a real one. The economics of GenAI are still evolving, and there’s no guarantee they’ll land in education’s favor. That said, I think it’s still worth beginning the conversation about how AI could support teachers—not as a silver bullet, but as one part of a broader toolbox.
Thanks again for engaging so constructively—really appreciate the insight.
Including an AI generated image in a post advocating for AI in education really hurts the point you’re trying to make.
It’s ironic that this is written in response that says “progressivism is prone to fads”, and you advocate for AI in education. We could look back at this and say it’s another fad. I think it’s easy to envision AI becoming less accessible and more costly, as the GenAI companies are currently burning through cash at historic rates and generating very little revenue.
I want to see education using research-validated practices that are scalable. Right now, AI is in its relative infancy and we have limited data to support widespread adoption of the technology. I don’t think teachers are the most technically savvy population. Is the capital required to train teachers in effective AI practices worth it? We don’t know. But we can look at what’s happening in Mississippi with improved reading achievement, and how the system is achieving that, and feel confident that is a better direction to take. The practices educators are using are research validated and they’re being trained appropriately to leverage those practices.