In this essay we consider how the principles evident in Dewey's Democracy and Education would have been evident in response to the civil rights movement that took shape shortly after his death, and to the major educational reform movements of today. While acknowledging that Dewey's views on race and human development were inevitably influenced by his social and intellectual context, we maintain that he was fundamentally opposed to racist ideology and related popular beliefs, and that his deep commitment to democracy as a social process would have made him a staunch supporter of the civil rights movement and associated demands for racial equality. We likewise argue that Dewey would have had deep misgivings about the standards-driven assessment regimes that underlie current national reform efforts. In the end we suggest that Democracy and Education still has much to offer students of education today, and can serve as a helpful guide to those who would seek to change educational practice for the better.

Democracy and Education appeared amid intense debate over the relationship between school and work. This debate revealed a stark contrast between Dewey's idea to educate young people to understand the complex relationships of modern industry and the ideas of educators who equated vocational education with training fourteen- to sixteen-year-olds for maximal productivity, a view written into the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. Whereas Dewey favored integrating vocational education with “a new kind of general education,” his antagonists assailed advocates of the “general” or “academic” curriculum as reactionaries who infected public education with impractical theories that only served those with time and money to indulge their interest in cultural values detached from daily life. Significantly, Dewey did not respond with a defense of theory over practice but with an assertion that his opponents’ thought was permeated by theories, ironically drawn from some of the same sources that influenced mainstream advocates of the “new” education. Understanding how combatants could derive conflicting conclusions from the same sources illuminates the paradoxes and aids in explaining the timing and scope of the Progressive movement.

This essay examines three schools in New York City—the City and Country School founded in 1914—and two founded in 1974 and 1984—Central Park East Elementary School 1 and Central Park East Secondary School—with respect to how they reflected Deweyan pedagogic practices and Dewey's belief in democratic education.1 It analyzes whether such pedagogic practices can be maintained over time. City and Country, founded by Caroline Pratt, reflected many of Dewey's ideas and remains true to its founder's vision today. CPE 1 founded by Deborah Meier with five teachers reflected the progressive ideas of its founder, many of which were consistent with Deweyan philosophy. It remains progressive although there have been recent attempts to make it more traditional. CPESS, founded by Deborah Meier, reflected both Deweyan philosophy and the ideas of Theodore Sizer. After Meier left in the 1990s, the school became less progressive and eventually was closed and then reopened as a traditional high school. These histories indicate that Dewey's work on education was at the core of all of these schools’ philosophies and practices. Although there have been uneven successes in keeping Dewey's progressive practices alive, they demonstrate that Dewey's work is relevant and is being practiced today.