Stamp, Robert M. “Growing Up Progressive? Part I: Going to Elementary School in 1940s Ontario.” Historical Studies in Education vol. 17, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 187-98.

The overall style and tone of this article is quite different from others we have read this semester. It is told from the author’s first-person perspective, and includes poetry by the author. The article seems to be a combination of Stamp’s memories of elementary school in the 1940s, and research done to determine the exact curriculum his teachers were meant to be following during this time. He appears to have referenced the Ontario curriculum from 1937, which is a great primary source.

Stamp points out the fact that his school was progressive in theory, but not necessarily in practice. He suggests that this is because the teachers were not properly trained in the new curriculum. I feel this is is continuing problem in the education field in Canada, as I know a number of teachers today who feel the training they have received was inadequate. One could ask what other concepts we have studied this semester were affected by a lack of training for teachers. Though it is obvious, it is interesting to realize that teachers are only one individual, and yet they are tasked with providing education to dozens of students per year. How could provinces better ensure that the teachers they hire are completely qualified, and that they receive adequate training in the curriculums put forth by the province?

Stamp, Robert M. “Growing Up Progressive? Part II : Going to High School in 1950s Ontario.” Historical Studies in Education vol. 17, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 321-31.

In the second part of Stamp’s story of his “progressive” education, the reader is told about the details of attending secondary school in Ontario in the 1950s. I find this first-hand account very interesting and easy to read. Stamp’s tone is generally positive towards his schooling experience, though he is definitely skeptical of the “progressive” label the curriculum had been given. One interesting note he makes is the difference between most academic subjects (English, Latin, History, etc.) and science. Science seems to be the only class that allows for hands-on learning rather than memorization, which is one of distinguishing factors between progressive and traditional education. Overall, Stamp’s depictions of progressive education in the 1940s and 50s does not seem very progressive at all.

I’ve noticed that Stamp’s depiction of secondary school is quite similar to my own, even though they are more than fifty years apart, and in opposite ends of Canada. The classes seem similar; I also learned about Shakespeare, and English kings, and completed chemistry labs. One big difference, however, is the inclusion of current events in my schooling. Stamp mentioned that his classes required them to memorize lists without taking any time to reflect on meaning; my secondary school courses focused much more on real-world application and current day happenings.

Both of Stamp’s articles refer to home economics and gendered curriculum, which happens to be my research topic for this course. His statements about home economics are very similar to other research on the topic; he states that home economics was offered to the girls and “shop” class to the boys. He also states that 90% of those enrolled in the “commercial” curriculum in secondary were girls. This “commercial” curriculum taught things like typing and shorthand, which would have been common careers for women during this time period. As Stamps puts it, “…boys shy away from what seem to be gender-specific courses and programs” (323). The opposite also seems to be true, as Stamp states it is almost all boys in the Grade 13 program that is “heavy on mathematics, physics and chemistry” (324).

Heyking, Amy von. “Selling Progressive Education to Albertans, 1935-1953,” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 340- 354.

Heyking’s article delves deeper into the creation and implementation of the the “New Education” curriculum, this time in Alberta rather than Ontario. Heyking references Robert Stamp, the author of the previous articles, as a leading historian specializing in the progressive education movement in Canada. This implies to me that the pool of historians researching this area of Canadian history may be scarce.

Like Stamp, this article mentions the fact that the new curriculum was implemented very effectively. Once again, teachers play a large role in the failure of the curriculum taking hold. However, rather than a lack of training, in Alberta the culprit seems to be an unwillingness to implement the new program by many teachers. This concept, again, makes one realize that teachers are individuals with their own opinions and it is easier said than done to completely re-do the curriculum and except them to make these changes. Since many of these teachers were educated under the traditional curriculum, and also trained to teach this same curriculum, perhaps they felt the old program was the best for children. This reminds me of today, with the recent change to the British Columbian curriculum to a more progressive approach. Will it end the same – with teachers not implementing the new program effectively?