A Plea for Clarity in Progressive Education Rhetoric

The debate around the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in education has dominated headlines, but the focus on technology and trends often obscures deeper ideological contradictions in modern educational rhetoric. Terms like agency, personalization, and 21st-century skills are frequently invoked as progressive solutions, yet they often mask underlying issues in current learning models. In this article, I explore how the uncritical use of these buzzwords may dilute intellectual empowerment, particularly in an age where technological tools like AI dominate the progressive education narrative (Di Mario, 2023, May 23).

I do not write this as a cynical criticism to progressive ideals but as a call for clarity in the use of these terms in global educational settings. While I believe in education’s potential to empower students, this requires confronting contradictions in language and practice, particularly when these terms are invoked without full consideration of their implications in education by people in power. In this piece, I raise questions and urge the intellectual community and professional development gurus to seek clarity so that educational goals can be purposefully defined and pursued.

The Contradiction of Agency in a Standardized System

Progressive education has long promised a more inclusive, empowering learning model. With the rise of student agency, personalized learning, and 21st-century skills in the West, many schools now claim to honor inclusivity, individual choice, creativity, and critical thinking. However, we must be cautious - language alone does not guarantee progress. Often, terms like these risk creating a superficial illusion of empowerment, while deeper intellectual development is sidelined and teacher self-efficacy is reduced. When detached from a clear goal and theoretical depth, these buzzwords can weaken rather than strengthen democratic participation.

John Dewey posited that education should prepare individuals for democratic engagement, not merely meet economic needs. Yet today’s educational practices often reduce agency to surface-level choices, while the content and structure of learning remain rigidly controlled. For example, college admissions require mastery of specific subjects, national curricula dictate content, and standardized testing remains a primary measure of success (Alismail & McGuire, 2015). While these standards serve a purpose, they also highlight the contradiction: if true agency means the freedom to engage in intellectual exploration, how can it exist in such a system?

In an era shaped by AI, these contradictions have greater consequences. As Dewey envisioned, democratic education involves intellectual empowerment—not the illusion of choice within a predetermined framework (Dewey, 1916). If educational leaders continue to use the term agency without fully engaging with its implications within the current system of affairs, they risk devaluing the true meaning of the word and student individuality. Thus, educators must define clearly what they mean by these terms, especially when choices and outcomes are already dictated by external mandates. Educational visionaries, who are not educators themselves, who dream to reform education must start by addressing the underlying reasons for the current state and stop criticizing educators for their use of standardize testing or seemingly antiquated teaching strategies.

For example:

• College admissions requirements, for those who wish to attend, still require mastery or completion of specific subjects, such as mathematics, national language, history, and science.
• National curricula dictate what content must be covered at each grade level.
• Standardized testing remains a primary measure of educational success. This is not a criticism, but a reality established by the government to provide some kind of baseline standard.

Contradiction: Among the many and confounding uses of the word agency (Schoots-Snijder et al., 2025) if agency means genuine freedom of intellectual exploration, then how can it exist in a system where students have limited control over the knowledge they engage with and why it matters? True democratic education, as Dewey may have proposed, involves intellectual empowerment, not the illusion of choice within a predetermined structure. So, I am not criticizing that system; I am addressing that some educators are willing to use the word agency for student choice when choices are predetermined. Not participating in certain subjects is not a choice; it is a mandate. Thus, if an educational system does not allow it, educators/visionaries who like to use the term “agency” without explicitly engaging its implications they must establish the boundaries and definitions of what they mean when they use the term (see, Schoots-Snijder et al., 2025).

The Social Media Parallel: The Illusion of Choice

This agency contradiction mirrors what we see in social media algorithms, where users believe they are choosing what content they engage with but are being shown curated material designed to reinforce existing preferences and maximize engagement metrics (Pariser, 2011). Similarly, personalized learning platforms often filter content based on past performance, data patterns, or test scores, adapting from strict curricular adaptations (Taylor et al., 2021) limiting intellectual freedom and stifling curiosity.

Suppose agency in education is reduced to AI curated content without opportunities for theoretical exploration or philosophical depth, such agency provides an illusion of choice. In that case, it mirrors algorithmic control, training students to be passive consumers rather than critical citizens capable of challenging systems of power. If educational visionaries mean this type of use of technology to advanced students’ agency, they must be cautious and redefine the term to encapsulate what they mean within state given curricular adaptations.

21st-Century Skills: A Modern Rhetoric with an Old Structure

The language of 21st-century skills, critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication, dominates modern educational reform. Yet, when examined closely, these terms often serve as a modern mask for Industrial Revolution-era educational practices rather than genuine progress as intended (Alismail, & McGuire, 2015).

For reference, the industrial model of education emphasized:

• Age-based groupings.
• Standardized content delivery.
• Measuring productivity through standardized assessments.

Despite the progressive language, many 21st-century rhetoric still operates within this same framework:

• Collaboration often involves completing predetermined group tasks with limited intellectual freedom.
• Creativity, while ill-defined, is reduced to format choices, at best designing the learning path and not shaping learning outcomes. It is ill-defined because it is a preferred term to be used to criticize other established methods of learning. The term is used and even weaponized to criticize certain teaching practices, such as memorization or direct instruction.
• Critical thinking is encouraged within the curriculum-approved content.

Note: I have witnessed genuine 21^st century skills in my professional experiences and circles, but I have also observed a plethora of empty rhetoric paired with shallow implementations and weak purpose.

Contradiction: If 21st-century education aims to prepare students for a complex, evolving world, why do most reforms continue using fixed pathways and universal standards? Again, I am not criticizing this education model; I am criticizing the lack of clarity and depth when buzzwords are used, which places educators in an impossible task. Dewey's philosophy suggests that education should prepare students for life, emphasizing intellectual growth and civic responsibility over market demands. Such assertion may imply that we cannot only focus on career gains when it comes to developing skills for the future (See Alismail, & McGuire, 2015).

Theoretical Depth vs. Utilitarian Learning: The Case of Mathematics

Mathematics education offers a prime example of how utilitarianism can influence opinion towards education. Many modern curricula and narrative, including 21^st century skills narratives, emphasize real-world tasks like calculating budgets or interpreting graphs while de-emphasizing the theoretical foundations that drive scientific progress and technological advancements. Mathematics education is often the target of educational reforms trying to favor utilitarianism over abstraction. However, without abstract mathematical thinking, we would not have made scientific progress as humanity has so far (Baker, 2001).

Theoretical mathematics has been essential for:

• Cryptography and cybersecurity: Based on abstract number theory.
• Artificial intelligence and data science: Grounded in linear algebra and probability theory.
• Civic Participation: Statistical literacy is essential for interpreting media bias and challenging misinformation.

Contradiction: Suppose 21st-century education truly valued critical thinking and problem-solving. Why is theoretical mathematical so often sacrificed in favor of real-world applications? Is the utility of math what needs to be taught and not its seemingly less applicable theory (e.g., statistics versus calculus)? Why, as a society, do we continue to consider math essential? Why is the utility of mathematics often prioritized as the primary justification for its inclusion in progressive education models? If the idea of agency in progressive education were genuine, why are students still required to take mathematics and not music for example?

In a world where artificial intelligence can now handle many mathematical applications, education should focus on the full scope of what mathematics offers both, theoretical depth and practical application, if we, as a global society, still consider it a necessary part of education. Real-world application in mathematics can increase short-term engagement but often fails to develop the conceptual depth required for higher-order thinking (English & Gainsburg, 2016). Without theoretical math, students may risk being underprepared for the complex AI-agentic applications.

The Individualism vs. Collectivism a Seemingly Cultural Paradox

Modern progressive education often emphasizes individual achievement and personal choice, shaped largely by Western individualism. However, many non-Western educational systems focus on collective success and shared responsibility:

• East Asian Models: Emphasize grit, discipline, and communal responsibility (Wang & Lin, 2011).
• Indigenous Learning Systems: Value community-based knowledge sharing and intergenerational wisdom (Battiste, 2002).

Contradiction: If individualism remains the primary lens for progressive education, how can we expect students to address global issues like climate change and poverty, which demand collaborative action and shared accountability? How do we empower individuals to also think and act collectively?

A Call for Clarity: Beyond the Buzzwords

The current educational landscape is saturated with buzzwords taken from the 21st-century skills, agency, individualized learning, and so on often thrown around without clarity by progressive education voices. These terms often result in a conundrum; educators feel immense pressure to support individual learning preferences while also preparing students for standardized tests and college benchmarks.

The uncritical adoption of progressive buzzwords risks creating a system that simulates empowerment without fostering genuine intellectual growth or democratic engagement. To move forward, we must clarify the language of agency (by age, purpose, objectives), reclaim the value of theoretical knowledge, and respect the diversity of cultural perspectives

A truly democratic education requires more than individual success, it demands collective growth, intellectual depth, and moral clarity. Anything less risks leaving future generations vulnerable to algorithmic control, data bias, and intellectual passivity in an AI-driven world. Society's top concern should be preventing a dystopian future by making each citizen a truly technical, knowledgeable, ethical, and philosophical thinking agent in a global society that can have a voice in policy creation.

Generative AI (CHAT GPT 4o) was used in the author's preparation of this article to assist with form, style, spelling, grammar, and clarity of expression. The core content, arguments, and intellectual contributions are the author's own, while AI support was limited to improving readability and coherence.

References

Alismail, H. A., & McGuire, P. (2015). 21st Century Standards and Curriculum: Current Research and Practice. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(6). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083656.pdf

Baker, A. (2001). Mathematics, Indispensability and Scientific Progress. Erkenntnis, 55(1), 85-116. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20013072

Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in First Nations education: A literature review with recommendations. National Working Group on Education. Retrieved from https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/education/24._2002_oct_marie_battiste_indigenousknowledgeandpedagogy_lit_review_for_min_working_group.pdf

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.

Di Mario, M. (2023, May 23). The big debate: AI and education. Pearson International Schools. Retrieved from https://blog.pearsoninternationalschools.com/the-big-debate-ai-and-education/

English, L. & Gainsburg, J. (2016). Problem solving in a 21st-century mathematics curriculum. In LD. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education [3rd edition] (100 Cases series) (pp. 313–335). Routledge.

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin Press.

Schoots-Snijder, A. J. M., Tigelaar, E. H., & Admiraal, W. F. (2025). Curriculum guidelines for the development of student agency in secondary education: A systematic review. The Curriculum Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.318

Taylor, D., Yeung, M., & Bashet, A. Z. (2021). Personalized and adaptive learning. In Innovative learning environments in STEM higher education (pp. 23-39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58948-6_2

Wang, J., & Lin, E. (2011). Comparative studies on U.S. and Chinese mathematics learning and the implications for standards-based mathematics teaching reform. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11410202