{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026751143963393172, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004927842309046111, 'mean_word_length': 5.609302325581395, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Reviews: Motion for a New Trial on Transfer

this dilemma, including inadequate teacher education, the financial exigencies of the Great Depression, Cold War fears and conformity, and local community resistance. His most fascinating and provocative explanation examines the assumptions driving American capitalism: 'The ideals of Progressive education were anomalous in a society that stressed competition more than cooperation and that placed an inordinate value on economic success, valuing it as an honorable reward for effort'' (p. 170). Zilversmit also dissects the inherent weaknesses of Progressive ideals and its movement. Finally, he alludes to another cause, but only teases the reader with it. Social class represented an important variable in the adoption of Progressive ideas and methods, and to some extent he discusses this factor when comparing two affluent communities like Winnetka and Lake Forest. Zilversmit too briefly points to the pioneering efforts of small "private" schools like the Francis Parker School in Chicago and the Lincoln School at Teachers College. This slender thread runs through his analysis, clearly emerging in this treatment of Waukegan's public schools: "While some of Dewey's ideas were accepted by many teachers in Waukegan, their implementation was generally limited to the new, middle-class, sections of the city" (p. 166). This point deserves fuller treatment. Nevertheless, as Zilversmit rightfully claims, Progressive school reform failed largely because of various and complex reasons, and because of external pressures and internal flaws. Historical studies of this period illustrate a complex and often contradictory time, which bequeathed us a mixed, and often confused, legacy. For example, some vestiges of Progressivism remain with us. Raymond Callahan (1962) and David Tyack (1974) have convincingly written about the proliferation and constancy of less desirable school reforms, such as the innovations introduced by "administrative progressives." Regardless of the interpretation, this body of literature in general and Zilversmit's book in particular attest to a rich, gritty, and usually contentious field of study. Zilversmit's finely detailed account of the conflicts and obstacles surrounding Progressive reform appears timely. The debate over outcomes-based-education, which would eliminate rigid agegrading, the resistance to cooperative learning, and the doubts expressed about the whole-language approach all fit into the continuum of the controversies involved with Progressive education. While efforts to revive and adopt Progressive methods and content continue, opposition abounds in America's paranoia over test scores and drive to develop human capital to facilitate international competition. Do history's lessons give us a hint as to which side will prevail?