Parkhurst's ideas about the revitalization of education

René Berends, 2025

Version 1, 2025-08-16

Dalton education is a form of innovativeeducation, based on the ideas of American pedagogue Helen Parkhurst(1886-1973). This article introduces you to her. Her Dalton Plan is discussed,and the historical and current practices of Dalton education are outlined.

1.     Person and background

"Parkhurst was truly a ‘gutsy’ woman!” Thisis a statement by Vera Slabey, a woman who knew Parkhurst personally. She isfeatured in a short film made by a regional broadcaster in Wisconsin aboutParkhurst's life.

Parkhurst as a woman with 'guts'; that's how shecan be described. And because Parkhurst puts her ultimate goal into words inher publications as raising and educating children to become 'fearless humanbeings’. It's fair to conclude that Parkhurst embodies that goal of educationpersonally.

At the same time, Parkhurst is only a partialrole model for this. She is 'fearless.' Fearlessness, purposefulness, and awillingness to take responsibility define her character, but at the same time,her ambition, impatience, and strong personality make her difficult to workwith, and as a result, she overplays her hand several times in her life(Berends, 2011).

This section provides a brief biography.

Education as a calling

Parkhurst was born on March 8, 1886, in the townof Durand in Pepin County, in the western part of the state of Wisconsin,United States. Durand was founded by settlers some thirty years before herbirth, and in her youth, she still exuded the pioneering spirit of the settlerswho migrated west in America in the 19th century. Her parents ran a hotel, andher father was a cattle dealer for the large slaughterhouses in Chicago.

Helen's curiosity was nurtured by both herparents and her grandmother. At the age of five, Helen could already read andwas asked to demonstrate her skills at the Pepin County Teachers' Institute'ssummer school. Teachers from the region gathered for this purpose at the CourtHouse in Durand, across the street from the hotel. Helen would subsequentlyappear at the summer schools annually.

In 1904, Helen graduated from the local highschool. She later criticized her own school experiences. It was aclassroom-based, ‘demotivating listening education’ focused on discipline andmoralization. The constant sitting still, listening, memorizing texts, thefrequent practice and repetition, but especially the waiting for others duringclassroom lessons, curtailed her eagerness to learn and her work ethic. Herexperiences attending church also influenced her thinking about education andupbringing. Later in life, she argued that the harsh mental and physicaldiscipline advocated by the church and school was based on the false assumptionthat children possessed a bad nature, which had to be broken and subduedthrough norms and punishments during upbringing. "Children are not'bad,'" she believes. "They are misunderstood!" (Parkhurst,quoted in Lager, 1983, p. 63).

Parkhurst will strive throughout her life togive children their own voice and to encourage adults to listen to them. Herreflections on her own education, the conversations of teachers she overhearsas a ‘awake’ child in the hotel lounge, and her experiences during summercourses lead her early on to the realization that she wants to become a teacherand show adults the true nature of children.

Waterville

In her day, there was such a teacher shortagethat young people could become teachers after completing high school and takinga basic exam assessing their knowledge and skills. Parkhurst achieved thehighest marks ever achieved on the exam. She's quite proud of this, although itmust be said that the same tests were always used year over year, and she hadbecome familiar with their content through years of attending teachers' summercourses.

Just eighteen years old,she applies to the Black School in nearby Waterville. In this wooden,single-room schoolhouse, like tens of thousands that once stood in ruralAmerica, she is given sole responsibility for 45 children aged six to sixteen.The oldest children are therefore only two years younger than her.

When Parkhurst firstenters the school building, her heart sinks. The desks are screwed into thewooden floor in five long rows, wall-to-wall. They fill the entire classroom.In the middle of the room stands an unsightly wood-burning stove. In a deskdrawer, she finds a list of her students' names, divided into eight grades. Sixof them are sixteen years old. She also finds a list of texts to be used forthe various subjects and a sheet of paper listing the topics each student hasworked on at their own level. There's also a detailed schedule, which showsthat lessons are scheduled from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Every day, a lesson orquiz is scheduled for a specific grade every fifteen minutes. Children whoaren't scheduled for these classes have to work independently, memorizematerial, and wait for their turn.

Parkhurst realizes howroutine, monotonous, and uninspiring teaching must have been. When she hearsthat two of her predecessors have been bullied out, she decides to do thingsdifferently. She knows better than anyone that when the subject matter isboring and children are bored, they become disruptive and cause disciplinaryproblems. She wants to experiment and learn to teach in an enjoyable way. Helenrealizes that the first few days of the new school year are crucial, and thatclarity and willingness must be present from day one. She also understands howimportant the role of the oldest students will be. Therefore, she invites themto the school a few days before the school year begins.

Uneasy, yet curious, thestudents accept her invitation. Parkhurst quickly gains their trust andexplains her plans. She asks them to collaborate, explains that she wants toarrange the classroom flexibly, that she wants to get rid of the traditionalclassroom setup, and that she no longer wants to work with the prescribedtimetable and curriculum. She asks the children to contribute their ideas.Their ideas soon flow naturally. They express their desire to workindependently on interesting and meaningful assignments and to choose the orderin which they complete them. Parkhurst also adopts their idea of unscrewing thedesks from the floor and creating five groups of eight desks. There will be adesk group for each subject. The students also propose that, as the oldeststudents, they provide some supervision for the younger students. As ‘assistantteachers,’ they want to help with choosing, planning, and executing theassignments. On their own initiative, the oldest students choose one of them asa leader, to consult with Parkhurst more frequently on their behalf. Parkhurstdecides she wants to create weekly tasks for the youngest children and monthlytasks for the older children. Monday mornings are scheduled for creating weeklyschedules.

The 1904-05 school yearwas a success, thanks to a number of elements that would later form part ofParkhurst's Dalton Plan, or the Laboratory Plan, as she first called it.

River Falls

The following year, Parkhurst enrolled at theCentral Teachers' College in Riverfalls. She wanted to deepen her theoreticalknowledge of educational pedagogy and psychology in this program. But with heryear of experience, she felt she deserved some say in how her program was run.Unaccustomed to such self-assured, assertive students, this causedconsternation among the faculty. Parkhurst was rescued by a psychologyprofessor, Alice Schultez. She recognized her talent and ensured that Parkhurstwas allowed, on an experimental basis, to follow a shortened program tailoredto her needs.

‘Pestay,’ as Parkhurst was called at the program– after Pestallozi – was introduced to all sorts of reform pedagogical ideas atRiver Falls. Emerson (1803-1882) and Swift (1860-1932) made a particularimpression. She would cite them extensively in her 1922 book, Education onthe Dalton Plan. After completing her training, Parkhurst worked foranother year in neighboring Hudson, Wisconsin, at a similar single-room ruralschool to the one in Waterville. The following year, she was a supervisor atthe Rural Training School for Teachers. At just 22 years old, she then traveledthroughout the region advising teachers at similar rural schools (Berends,2011, p. 81, ff.).

New York, Tacoma and backto Wisconsin

Parkhurst spent hersummers in New York, absorbing the metropolis's culture and taking summercourses at various universities. However, she decided against pursuing furthereducation there. She was advised to further develop her own experimentalpractice.

In 1909, she travelled toTacoma, a city in Washington state, in the northwest corner of the country. Itwas a booming region. Parkhurst was accepted at the Edison School and quicklybecame involved in organizing the opening ceremony of a newly built sportsstadium. She took creative control of the festivities and organized a danceperformance for hundreds of children.

The school board isenthusiastic about Parkhurst's performance and organizational talent and wantsto keep her as a teacher. Parkhurst lays out her wishes. She wants toexperiment with her own ideas at a multi-classroom school. Their trust is sogreat that she is allowed to do so at the Edison School.

With five classes ofstudents aged eight to thirteen, she works with specialized laboratories forthe first time. Students are given the freedom to work on their assignments indifferent subject-matter rooms, with the independence and responsibility thatcomes with it. Parkhurst also develops the idea of the school as a community,where children learn from and with each other. In the two years that follow,more experiments are launched in the region, and Parkhurst travels to schoolsas a supervisor affiliated with the Training Department of Washington StateNormal School.

But then, in 1913—at theage of 27—she receives an offer she can't refuse. She returns to her home stateof Wisconsin and becomes director of the elementary education department atCentral Teachers' College in Stevens Point. There, she transforms the program'sassociated learning and practice school for students into an educational laboratory,based on her own ideas.

An intermezzo

While Parkhurst was busy shaping the programaccording to her own insights, different ideas were circulating in the Americaneducational world. That year, Maria Montessori visited the country for the firsttime and attracted considerable attention, resulting in the formation of groupseverywhere to establish Montessori schools.

In Stevens Point, too, Montessori was the talkof the town. Parkhurst, too, was curious. She wondered what Montessori knew moreabout children than she herself did. The following year, she decided to go toRome to participate in Montessori's second international training course.

Although Parkhurst wanted to be critical ofMontessori, the sixteen-year-older, scientifically trained Montessori made acrushing impression on her. Parkhurst briefly forgot all her own experimentsand fell head over heels for Montessori and her philosophy.

Their encounter withMontessori led to the two women collaborating intensively from 1915 to 1918. WhenMontessori was asked to design a ‘casa dei bambini’ at the 1915 World's Fair inSan Francisco, she enlisted Parkhurst's help. Parkhurst took charge and set upthe Montessori demonstration classroom in the Palace of Education. From behinda wide glass wall, visitors could observe how education was put into practicefrom a grandstand. The "glass classroom" was given a fabric roof,allowing the children's conversations and interactions with the teacher to beclearly heard. Because Montessori didn't speak English, Parkhurst was alsoasked to act as the teacher in the casa (Berends, 2011, p. 118).

This intensivecollaboration led to more. After the World's Fair, Montessori returned toEurope and asked Parkhurst to become her deputy in the United States. Parkhurstgave lectures and training sessions, mentored initiative groups, and becameinvolved in the establishment of new Montessori schools. She also managedMontessori's financial interests. At the end of 1916, she founded a teachertraining college in New York City, with an associated Montessori demonstrationschool.

The United States thenbecame involved in the First World War, making it difficult for Montessori tobe physically present when disagreements and conflicts arose between variousinitiative groups. Parkhurst was unable to manage all the developments in thevast country on her own. Moreover, she felt the need to forge her own pathagain. Ultimately, Parkhurst ended the collaboration in 1918. Montessori had bythen passed as a fad in America. Montessori schools came to a completestandstill. Only several decades later did Montessori education regain afoothold in the United States.

Dalton takes advantage of internationaldevelopments

Parkhurst resumed her own experiment and, in1919, with financial help from a friend, Mrs. Boardman Crane, founded her ownschool in the former Montessori demonstration school, the still-existing NewYork Dalton School. She remained its principal until 1942. Her ideas were alsointroduced at a school for handicapped boys in Pittsfield and, in 1920, at thePublic High School in Dalton. The Dalton Laboratory Plan was named after thistown in Massachusetts, undoubtedly thanks to the help of Mrs. Crane, who wasoriginally from there.

Interest in Parkhurst's Laboratory Plan quicklygrew. Japanese visitors were astonished by the students' behaviour. Likeuniversity students, they planned their assignments with the utmostconcentration and, to carry out their tasks, calmly walked through the buildingto the various labs.

The Englishwoman Belle Rennie became soenthusiastic that, back in England, she wrote about Parkhurst's ideas in theEducational Supplement of the Times (Rennie, 1920). A series of articles byParkhurst herself—also in the Times—further increased the enthusiasm. Soon,hundreds of schools followed Parkhurst's ideas. In 1922, Education on theDalton Plan was published. Parkhurst wrote the book at breakneck speed, dueto a great need for additional information in Great Britain. It took only a fewyears after the founding of the Dalton School in New York for Dalton educationto spread like wildfire. By the mid-1920s, thousands of Dalton experiments wereunderway worldwide, particularly in Great Britain, the U.S.S.R., China, andJapan.

It was a booming period for reformed pedagogy,and Parkhurst, as it were, rode the wave of these developments. While continuingto lead her own school, Parkhurst was fully occupied in the 1920s and 1930swith the (summer) courses she gave at American universities and with numeroustrips abroad, including to England, South Africa, Japan, and China. She gavelectures worldwide and supported new initiatives with her presence. Shereceived various honours. For example, she was decorated in China, and in 1937,the Emperor of Japan personally thanked her for her contribution to educationin his country.

Her own New York Dalton School grew into arenowned, yet elite, innovative school. As one of the 29 high-profile‘progressive schools,’ the school participated in the renowned ‘Eight YearStudy’ from 1932 to 1940. This study examined how the curricula ofparticipating high schools could better align with the programs of topuniversities in the country (Aikin, 1942). The study led to a curriculumoverhaul at the New York school.

A new career

After the stock market crash of 1929, theDepression, and the years leading up to World War II, attention to innovativeeducation waned worldwide, including Dalton education. With a few exceptions,such as in the Netherlands, governments decided to prescribe curriculum contentand often also methods nationally.

This was a time when many people, including theparents of Parkhurst's elite school, found themselves in financial difficulty.She herself was unable to ‘make ends meet’ at her school, adjusting herspending to accommodate the declining income. This led to financial problemsfor the school. In 1942, Parkhurst was forced to resign to save the school fromfinancial ruin. At the age of 56, she went on to study and earn her M.A.degree. She then began teaching at universities and began her own research,engaging children in engaging and current pedagogical themes from "theworld of the child." She records the interviews using a portable taperecorder, a fancy, new invention at the time. Later, the interviews take placein Parkhurst's home studio and in professional radio and television studios.

A significant number of recordings of thesethinking sessions were made into LPs. These still offer a wealth of informationabout how children in the 1950s thought and spoke about themselves. They spokefreely about topics such as love, faith, delinquency, learning, sex, cheating,and so on.

Parkhurst developed a unique specialization,which led to her being in high demand as an educator for radio and televisionwork. From 1947 onward, she had her own weekly radio program, Child's World,for ABC. This program also aired on television in 1948. In 1952 and 1953, shewas on the panel of the NBC television program It's a Problem, and in1953, she created the radio program The World of Sound with blindchildren. In the following years, Growing Pains was recorded for WBC, inwhich she spoke with teenagers at six different locations across the country.Parkhurst received several awards for this work and used the material forseveral publications: Exploring the Child’s World (1951), GrowingPains (1962), and Undertow (1963). The latter book is a documentarynarrative that reads as an indictment of a society that offers children fromdisadvantaged neighbourhoods few opportunities other than delinquent behaviour.

Parkhurst spent her final years with herpartner, Dorothy Rawls Luke. They made several trips, including a visit to theNetherlands.

When interest in Montessori education revived inAmerica in 1958, Parkhurst became involved again, giving lectures and helpingschools. She was also involved in new experiments with her own Dalton Plan.

She died on June 1, 1973, after a six-weekillness from a hip fracture sustained in a serious fall (Berends, 2011, p.214).

1.     Concept description

Parkhurst doesn't extensively and scientificallyanalyse the education system of her time in her Dalton Plan. Moreover, shedoesn't develop a comprehensive anthropology or provide a well-founded analysisof society on the basis of which she answers the ‘why’ question of educationand upbringing. Instead, her Plan is practical and pragmatic. This doesn'tmean, however, that it's impossible to form a picture of what she believes achild needs to achieve self-realization and what they need to develop into anactive cultural participant and cultural innovator.

The Dalton Plan as a response

Allthe reform movements described in this book can be seen as reactions to the wayeducation was shaped at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.This also applies to Parkhurst's Dalton Plan.

Parkhurstbelieves there is much wrong with education. "It is restrictive,un-educative (...) and fatal to the idea of a school as a vital socialunit." According to her, "any education is bad which leads to theformation of habits of laziness, carelessness, and failure, instead ofdiligence, thoroughness, and success" (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 18). As alreadymentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter, she criticizes the harshmental and physical discipline advocated by the church and education in her time.She believes this is based on the assumption that children possess a badnature, which must be broken and subdued through norms and punishments duringtheir upbringing. She disagrees with this. In her book she quotes Conklin, whostates: “Anyreligion or social institution is bad which leads to habits of piousmake-believe, insincerity, slavish regard for authority and disregard forevidence, instead of habits of sincerity, open-mindedness and independence”(Conklin quoted in Parkhurst, 1922, p. 4).

Parkhurstargues that the old system does not prepare children for life and for a rapidlychanging society. She indicates that in the future, “we must have flexibleindividuals in the future, who can do their tasks which we, in our ignorance,are unable even to discern today (Parkhurst's lecture at Caxton Hall. Quotedin: Susan F. Semel (2002), p. 81). However, children must be prepared for this.

Parkhurstwants to create conditions that enable students to take action themselves(Parkhurst, 1922). She argues that education in the past has primarily beenviewed from "the teacher's point of view" and that it has neverreally been discovered that "the student is equipped with a mind of hisown which not only craves practice, but which, if given the opportunity, couldsolve the problem of his education far better than we can do it for him"(Parkhurst, 1926, p. 3). Parkhurst believes that students should take charge oflearning themselves." We cannot learn for them. She observes that theconscientious teachers of her time—with all good intentions—driven theirstudents. And the more teachers dedicate themselves, the less likely studentsare to assimilate through their own efforts. In fact, Parkhurst argues: “It constitutes a gravedanger, for it tempts the conscientious teacher to drive the pupil, and themore she sets herself to feed him with knowledge the less will he be inclinedto assimilate it through his own effort. The more she teaches the less, infact, will he learn (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 65).

Revitalizingeducation

In herbook Education on the Dalton Plan, published in 1922, Parkhurst explainsthat she cannot change everything at once. Realistically, she argues that theDalton Plan can initially be implemented in existing schools, where instructionis organized into fixed grade levels with an existing standard curriculum."I offer it (the Dalton Laboratory Plan) as a first step toward thedevelopment of an educational program that will cultivate the creative capacityof both teachers and students. I have been impelled in its development by thedesire to remedy some of the ills underlying our schools, and especially theworst of these: the lack of learning opportunities for the student"(Parkhurst, 1922, p. 173).

Herfocus is on ‘a way of life for children’ (Luke, n.d.b., vol. 1, ch. 6, p. 86),for which, for the time being, any curriculum can be used. With the DaltonPlan, Parkhurst breaks through the rigid, frontal classroom approach (Luke,n.d.b.; Van der Ploeg, 2012). She aims to revitalize education, breathe newlife into the ‘old school,’ by making it a living entity capable of arousingand maintaining students' interest in their work (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 14). Sheenables students to learn at their own pace. "Only in this way canstudents thoroughly master the schoolwork” (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 37).

In herquest to revitalize education, she can't do everything at once! “Atthe moment, however, I shall confine my observations to its application as anefficiency measure involving both academic and social reorganization,” shewrote in 1922 (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 42). But she added that her ideas could alsobe applied to a much larger transformation, if they were applied not to thereorganization of an existing system, but to the organization of an entirely‘new enterprise.’ She expressed the hope that this would eventually happen and,in Education on the Dalton Plan, offered a glimpse into what thateducational ideal would look like: “In this case it could be used for the carryingout of a freer curriculum composed entirely of projects set by the pupilsthemselves, and where the instructors would be regarded as consultantspecialists. At the moment, however, I shall confine my observations to itsapplication as an efficiency measure involving both academic and socialreorganization.” (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 42). Itwas not until the 1930s that Parkhurst itself realised this ideal, when theschool took part in the Eight Years Study.

Twobasic principles

Therevitalization of existing education is called a simple and economicalreorganization of the school system (E. Dewey, 1922), characterized by theliberation of the student (‘liberation of the child’) and the socialization ofthe school (‘socialization of the school’). ‘Freedom’ and ‘interaction of grouplife’ (collaboration) are two basic principles in this regard. Later, Parkhurstdiscusses a third principle: ‘budgeting time,’ although this can be seen as acorollary of the first principle. By this, she means that children should learnto manage their own time as much as possible. She even calls it a form ofslavery if teachers control their students’ time too much. “Unless a pupil ispermitted to absorb knowledge at his own rate or speed he will never learnanything thoroughly. Freedom is taking one’s own time. To take someone else’stime is slavery” (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 16).

Parkhurst’spractical orientation and pragmatic character are expressed in theseprinciples. When she speaks of the principles of her Dalton Plan, she doesn'trefer to fundamental principles, but rather to ‘operating principles’ (van derPloeg, 2010). She sees an opportunity to break through the rigid, frontalclassroom teaching ("lockstep teaching") with a (limited) number ofdidactic and organizational measures (Luke, n.d.b.; van der Ploeg, 2012), whichcan yield significant gains in the short term.

Thefirst principle concerns the ‘liberation of the child.’ “This doesn't happen bykeeping them passive, separated, and in their place; it happens by keeping themquiet, making them memorize lessons, and having them recite them” (van derPloeg, 2010, p. 26). Without all this, learning connects with spontaneous andnatural development, and learning quickly becomes exciting, like play. TheDalton Plan therefore places schoolwork in the hands of the studentsthemselves. Parkhurst allows children to accept schoolwork as their"job," which they then organize themselves (how, where, and when) attheir own pace, undisturbed, dedicated, and focused. Doing it themselvescreates experience. To achieve this, Parkhurst (largely) eliminates theschedule and allows students to enjoy more freedom and work in an environmentadapted to dealing with differences. This leads to autonomy and independence.

ForParkhurst, freedom doesn't mean doing whatever you want. She states: “Thisideal freedom is not license, still less indiscipline. It is, in fact, the veryreverse of both. The child who ‘does as he likes’ is not a free child. He is,on the contrary, apt to become the slave of bad habits, selfish and quite unfitfor community life. Under these circumstances he needs some means of liberatinghis energy before he can grow into a harmonious, responsible being, able andwilling to lend himself consciously to cooperation with his fellows for theircommon benefit. The Dalton Laboratory Plan provides that means by diverting hisenergy to the pursuit and organization of his own studies in his own way. Itgives him that mental and moral liberty which we recognize as so necessary onthe physical plane in order to insure his bodily well-being. Antisocialqualities and activities are, after all, merely misdirected energy” (Parkhurst,1922, p. 15).

Thesecond principle – ‘interaction of group life’ – ties in seamlessly with this.Learning is a social affair, and that is precisely what children themselveswant: to interact and work with each other and with the teacher in various waysand at various times, in a relaxed manner, in changing groups, in varyinglocations, with varied learning resources and materials. All this ensures thatthe school functions as a miniature society, as a training ground for communitylife. According to Parkhurst, democratic education requires a true social life,cooperation, interaction, and interdependence. At school, children learn toactively participate in group life; they learn to cooperate and to assumesocial and societal responsibility.

Thedidactic and organizational school procedures that Parkhurst describes in her1922 book, Education on the Dalton Plan, are elaborations of the two aforementionedoperating principles: freedom and cooperation. She has students work inheterogeneous (age) groups in subject-specific classrooms (‘labs’:‘laboratories’) on meaningful, motivating assignments that they engage with.She gives children control over their own time (‘lab time’) and teaches them toplan the tasks themselves, tracking progress with graphs. Students areencouraged to help each other; they collaborate and learn from and with eachother, contributing to the school and the groups forming a sociallyexperimental environment (‘sociological laboratory’).

Thefurther development of Parkhurst’s ideas

TheDalton Plan, as Parkhurst described it in 1922, spread rapidly throughout theworld. By the end of the 1920s, it is estimated that several thousandexperiments were underway. Dalton education was also introduced in theNetherlands around that time. As a result, many of Parkhurst's initial ideascan still be found in modern Dalton education.

Butafter Parkhurst wrote the only book on her educational ideas in 1922, sheremained principal of the Dalton School for another twenty years. In thesubsequent period, while devoting another thirty years to interviewingchildren, she further developed her educational and pedagogical ideas.

However,she published little about this further development of her ideas, so theseideas were not widely known. Moreover, interest in reform pedagogy, includingParkhurst's Dalton Plan, waned in the mid-1930s, and this also prevented newinsights and ideas from becoming widely disseminated.

As aresult, knowledge of Parkhurst's post-1922 pedagogical ideas, how they wereimplemented at the New York school, and how they might be applied more broadly,is not widely available or known. Therefore, the following paragraphs willfocus on how Parkhurst also initiated curriculum renewal and her post-1942career, when she shifted her focus to pedagogy.

Revitalizationof the curriculum

Initially,Parkhurst pays little attention to the curriculum. For her, the overview oflesson content isn't the main problem. Her primary concern is introducing adifferent approach. “As long as nothing changes in that approach, thinkingabout a different curriculum is a waste of time,” state Otten-Binnerts et al.(2024). But that doesn't mean she considers the curriculum unimportant in thisinitial phase: “It would be folly to deny that all children enjoy a truly finemental meal more than a poor one” (Parkhurst, 1926, p. 3). “There are curriculaand curricula! (…) You say: ‘subject matter.’ I pay little attention (…). Butprograms are my hobby, because programs are the vehicles for curriculum; theygive or fail to give right conditions for learning. Bad programs can ruin goodcurriculum, causing fatigue, over-stimulation, or even pure boredom, or they canbe so flexible … My hobby is a vehicle which transports curriculum with aminimum of effort, waste, and nervous strain, and with a great deal ofsatisfaction and joy to pupils. This vehicle could quite properly have beencalled a ‘Program of Study’, but in 1911 I named it ‘The Laboratory Plan’ andin 1918 renamed it ‘The Dalton Laboratory Plan’” (Parkhurst, 1926).

Parkhurstthus distinguishes between the curriculum as the totality of learning contentand the integrated concept of ‘programs of study,’ which she sees as thevehicles that convey the curriculum and ensure that students engage in theiractivities and make working and learning more effective and efficient.

In Educationon the Dalton Plan, she also writes interesting things about the curriculumas ‘programs of study.’ The educational content must be meaningful, functional,and useful, ideally leading to ‘life-like experiences.’ She opts forsubject-integrated education (‘synthetic education’), which requires teachersto constantly be aware of the interconnections between learning content andmethods. She believes that school life should be so well-designed that childrencan practice gaining lifelike experiences, the experience every young personyearns for (Parkhurst, 1922). This is the basis for motivated learning: “Thecurriculum is dead without the live motive power of the child, it must work byboy and girl power. It must work through the strength of the boys and girlsthemselves” (Parkhurst, 1926, p. 4). Parkhurst predicts that her Plan will inspireand create a need for a better curriculum (Parkhurst, 1926).

Thatprediction came true in 1932 when the school participated in the ‘Eight YearsStudy’. This was an innovation and research program of the ProgressiveEducation Association to improve education in America (Aikin, 1942). The studyfocused on how schools could develop programs that better meet the needs ofyoung people and the programs of leading universities (Aikin, 1942).

Parkhurstdevelops programs for grades 9 through 12, all of which incorporate ‘socialscience’ not as a subject, but as an integrating and overarching theme for allcontent (Progressive Education, 1943). Within these programs, thematic areasare chosen for the upper grades that align with the interests and goals studentsthemselves identify:

Grade 9:         Life in New York City, viewedas a metropolitan community.

Grade 10:      The political, economic, and culturaltrends that have given character and differentiation to life in the UnitedStates today.

Grade 11:      The impact of European cultureon our lives today.

Grade 12:      Remarkable International Issuesand America's Relationship to Them

Parkhurst's‘any curriculum can do’ statement in Education on the Dalton Plantherefore misleads us. Revitalizing the ‘old school’ requires, for her, adifferent approach first, but once that is implemented, a change in thecurriculum is also necessary. Parkhurst's intentions regarding these ‘programsof study’ are best expressed in Diana Lager's doctoral dissertation: "It(the Dalton Plan) was created to serve the real needs of children and to helpfoster the ‘spiritual brotherhood of man” (Parkhurst quoted in Lager, 1983, p.140).

Apedagogical deepening for the revitalization of education

Workingfreely in classrooms on self-planned tasks and taking responsibility for themfuels the pedagogical foundation of the Dalton Plan. It motivates andstrengthens self-esteem and the feeling of working for oneself, not for theteacher. The democratic conditions under which students work also contribute tothis. Students are allowed to help and collaborate with each other. Parkhursteven believes that no one should isolate themselves. All students and teachersparticipate in activities and in solving shared and mutual difficulties(Parkhurst, 1922). Semel (2002) sees these democratic values as the pedagogicalfoundation of the Dalton Plan.

In herbook, Parkhurst—as already mentioned—expresses strong pedagogical criticism ofeducation. She sees habits of sincerity, open-mindedness, and independence asthe beacons toward which education should gravitate (Parkhurst, 1922). In 1937,she summarized the pedagogical, democratic values of schools as follows (Semel,2002):

1. The all-round development of the student – intellectually, emotionally,  aesthetically, and spiritually;

2. Addressing  individual differences;

3. The development of self-discipline in the student, which enables them to exercise freedom;

4. The growth of an active appreciation of and concern for the needs and achievements of other individuals and people.

Theseprinciples have been translated into four school goals (Parkhurst, 1937, citedin Semel, 2002):

1. The development in students of a personally formulated and cherished worldview. This is the overarching goal of the program and, ultimately, the unifying force for the individual;

2. The development of intellectual strengths: generalization, consistency, and     persistence in thinking, learning to plan to solve problems; the transfer of ideas from one field of activity to another, and so on;

3. The development of intellectual resources: basic concepts and information in important areas of knowledge, the ability to read purposefully, the     ability to discriminate between reading and observing, the ability to express oneself orally and in writing, and so on;

4. The development of a self-awareness that leads to a satisfying and joyful life. This is the overarching goal for the student, even though it may never have been formulated. It will be realized through location and the pursuit of interests, self-awareness through social relationships, the development of imagination in all areas of school activities, and so on.

Buildingblocks for a ‘Dalton pedagogy’ are not only provided by the didactic andorganizational procedures advocated by the Dalton Plan. The pedagogicallyenriched curriculum developed during participation in the Eight Years Studyalso contributes to this.

WhenParkhurst embarked on a new career path in 1942, another dimension was added.She interviewed children, first for her own research, and later for radio andtelevision programs. In these interviews, she literally gave children a voiceand space to participate. The themes discussed intersect with and can betranslated into educational pedagogy. These include conversations about death,prayer, God, falling in love, anger, homesickness, conscience, worries, sex andthe new baby, cheating, delinquency, and imaginary playmates, as well as moreeducation-related topics like sportsmanship, how children enjoy learning,truancy, children's rights, boredom, dealing with criticism, and creating withyour hands. In the interviews about racism and discrimination and the rights ofyoung people (Growing Pains, 1962, parts 4 and 5), Parkhurst shows how studentshave sharpened their judgment through their own experiences and how, inconsultation with the other children interviewed, they can adjust their(pre)judgments.

ForParkhurst, the extensive interview work is the proof of the pudding for hercore idea that children and young adults are perfectly capable of functioningas adult conversational partners.

Thepedagogical foundation underlying the Dalton Plan's educational elaborationsthus gains further depth—in her second career. The interview work was closelyrelated to her earlier work at the Dalton school. Her friend Dorothy Luke evencalls it the ‘other side of the same medal’ (Luke quoted in Fredericks-Salzman,1993). Parkhurst sought ways in which, based on her insights and experienceswith children, she could reveal their way of thinking and feeling. Her goal isto give the child a voice and help them help themselves.

Insummary, it can be said that Parkhurst's Dalton Plan was initially an(organizationally and didactically) subject-matter- and curriculum-neutraleducational concept, aimed at revitalizing the school procedures used ineducation. Parkhurst concretized this in her 1922 book, with basic ideas for amodest innovation: innovative, indeed, because it capitalized on studententrepreneurship and self-responsibility (Van der Ploeg, 2010). However, thisbook, and certainly the subsequent period, also provides building blocks thatpoint to a further deepening of this revitalization idea, with a focus onanswering the ‘why’ question of education, improving the curriculum as"programs of study," and focusing on pedagogical practice.

The educational and pedagogical vision of Parkhurst's Dalton Plan

Developingan educational-pedagogical vision addresses the ‘why’ question of education.But there's more to it than just the question of what kind of people we want tobring into the world. There are also questions about what the developmentprocess should look like and how teachers can contribute. Ultimately, thisdevelopment takes place in schools. A vision of the school as a parenting andeducational institution is therefore crucial. The remainder of this sectionwill elaborate on Parkhurst's answers to these five aspects of an integratededucational-pedagogical vision.

a.Vision of Humanity and human selfrealization

Asmentioned, Parkhurst was practical and pragmatic. She doesn't offer acomprehensive anthropology or social vision. The principles she outlines forher Dalton Plan are a practical tool for shaping education and also offer avalue-based approach to the purpose of upbringing and teaching.

Fearlesshuman being

Parkhursthas a positive and optimistic view of children. She believes that children arecurious, want to develop, and want to learn. In her book, she recounts aparable of an encounter with a railway official who is full of praise for hisboss, the railway company's director. He is a man who knows ‘how.’ He is a manof courage, a ‘fearless human being.’ He looks ahead and makes plans with thatrare ability developed through experience. Parkhurst then asks herself therhetorical question: "Isn't that what we as educators want to create:“fearless human beings? The world needs this kind of 'fearless,' enterprising,and responsible citizen” (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 22).

ForParkhurst, ‘fearless human beings’ are people who know how to live. Here, too,Parkhurst is practical and pragmatic. She is concerned with people who strivefor a happy life. For her, ‘self-realization’ therefore means developingwell-rounded and morally formed, democratic citizens—people who have been giventhe time, space, and freedom to discover their own preferences and interestsand develop strong talents. These are people who look ahead, who can plan, andwho approach life independently, confidently, and with self-confidence.

b. Vision on society and of developing human beings as members of society

For Parkhurst, the ‘fearless human being’ is not an ultimate individualist.It's not about ‘me-me-me.’ For her, self-realization means that the childdevelops into a flexible individual who functions as a member of society. Thatsociety, she believes, needs service and cooperation to solve major politicaland social problems (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 26). Education must develop a ‘newmachinery’ for a new world (Parkhurst, 1926, pp. 1-3). This requires curious,investigative, problem-solving, and enterprising people. Parkhurst clarifiesher vision for this more precisely: “We must not only extend knowledge ingeneral, but also apply knowledge to the service of humanity, so that eachindividual may be free to utilize his or her powers to the best of his or her ability”(Parkhurst, 1926). “We must provide opportunities (…) to learn not only how todevelop our intellect, but also how to behave (…) as part of society”(Parkhurst, 1922, p. 5).

Serving others and the world is precisely what children, according toParkhurst, want. If called upon, they won't look away. Children always want tohelp, solve problems, and be useful and valuable in the classroom and in theworld. They want to be taken seriously, take responsibility, matter, andpreferably work and learn ‘for real’. Schools must therefore accommodate theidea of ‘agency,’ the ability to exert influence and make their own decisions.

This vision aligns with the idea that knowledge, skills, and attitudes arepassed on to new generations through education. For Parkhurst, culture is not amuseum to be passed on. Society is changing, which means that children mustlearn to actively contribute to it. The Dalton Plan therefore offers broad,personal development education, in which children not only discover who andwhat they are, how they want and can be, but also learn how they should be.

c.  Vision on playing, learning, shaping and developing

Parkhurstanswers the ‘why’ question of education and upbringing with the idea ofdeveloping ‘fearless human beings.’ But she is primarily interested in the lawsof learning and the conditions that make learning possible and non-learningimpossible (Parkhurst, cited in Lager, 1983). She argues that when the DaltonLaboratory Plan is applied intelligently, it enables teachers to teach andstudents to learn (Parkhurst, 1922).

It isa misconception that students dislike learning (Parkhurst, 1926). If the rightconditions are created, learning can even be as enjoyable as play (Parkhurst,1922). She warns against mindless and meaningless rote memorization. Purememory work is difficult and taxing on the mind, Parkhurst argues (1922).Learning to live, work, and learn comes from practicing, together with othersand in the safe context of the school as a miniature society (Berends &Wolthuis, 2014). Education should therefore be characterized by the process ofgaining experience through trial and error ('life-like experiences'). ForParkhurst, there is nothing more instructive and effective than experiencing.True learning is experiencing. “Experience is the best and—indeed—the only trueteacher” (Dr. O’Brien Harris, quoted in Lynch, 1926, p. 10). Every young heartyearns for experience, states Parkhurst (1922). Dalton education is aboutgaining experience with meaningful work in real-life, meaningful, authentic,and functional situations that liberates students.

Studentsmust also be given the freedom and space to work uninterruptedly once they areimmersed in a subject. This makes them mentally sharper, more alert, and betterable to overcome any difficulties (Parkhurst, 1922).

Tofreely use the time and space to develop themselves, the Dalton Plan offerschildren a voice in what and how they learn ('student voice') and in theeducation that should be designed to achieve this. This autonomy is necessaryto allow students to work for themselves, not for the teacher. By allowingstudents to think and discuss their own learning and the education required forit, they learn to understand that schoolwork has goals, that it's work they canfreely plan for themselves, that they can budget their time for, and that it'swork they can carry out independently and collaboratively. Giving students(co-)influence over their own learning process in this way also means theylearn to take responsibility for their own schoolwork (their ‘job’).

Parkhurstalso believes that learning is a social matter. Students should be able toconsult with each other, help each other, and collaborate in an open atmosphereso they can learn from and with each other.

d.  Vision on the role of the teacher

At aDalton school, democratic equality prevails, no matter how unequal everyone is.Staff and teachers are therefore expected to be fearless. Democratic equalityalso means that what is expected of students also applies to teachers. Wenke andRöhner (1999) call this the parallelism principle of Dalton education.Furthermore, the ‘teach-as-you-preach’ principle applies to teachers.

Studentslearn for themselves. The teacher cannot do this for them. Therefore, theadvice to teachers is: "Stay out of the way" (Headmaster, n.d., pp.2-4). Parkhurst calls for removing obstacles that keep students from workingand arranging the environment so that children can get started and stay ontask. It's about ‘liberating the child.’ After all, you can lead the horse tothe well, but it has to drink for itself. It should primarily be the childrenthemselves who are working, who manage their own time, make their own plans,get started, and take responsibility.

Thiscertainly doesn't mean a laissez-faire attitude from teachers. It's abouthelping children help themselves, about empowering students, helping thembecome independent thinkers and self-advocates (Ellen C. Stein, quoted in NewYork Dalton School, 2019).

Thisdoesn't mean teachers don't give instructions. It primarily means they considerwhat instruction, guidance, or coaching each child needs. It's also aboutteaching children how to learn, discovering knowledge and its purpose, so thatit can be acquired and used when needed (E. Dewey, 1922, p. 160).

A keytask for Dalton teachers is to design their own Dalton tasks. Parkhurst arguesthat her Dalton Plan is not a cast-iron structure. It is "no method"and "no system" (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 34), meaning that the tasks(assignments) to be developed must be flexible and tailored to the children,the circumstances, what's going on in the group, and current events. Moreover,these tasks must be meaningful and functional, and working on them shouldprovide students with real-life experiences. Therefore, the Dalton task isnever intended as a checklist of tasks to be completed. This is precisely whatthe multiple meanings of the word ‘assignment’ demonstrate. That word alsomeans: dedication, obligation, award, acceptance, instruction, destination, andtransfer. These are meanings that the Dutch word ‘task’ lacks. Therefore, the‘assignment’ should be more than just a list of tasks. Parkhurst also asksteachers to create cross-connections between subject-matter content and to workin a more integrated manner. She refers to this as ‘synthetic education.’ Byworking thematically and project-based, children experience greater coherencein the learning material (Parkhurst, 1922).

TheDalton task should be constructed as a syllabus, containing not only thesubject matter but also useful suggestions and lists of questions to beanswered. It has already been noted that Parkhurst was more interested in thecurriculum as a ‘program of study’ than in an overview of lesson content. These‘programs of study’ should therefore include objectives, assignments,instructions, materials, and so on, enabling children to develop their ownplans, learn to make choices, and take responsibility. It is up to the teacherto put this into practice and support students in this process.

e.  Vision on the school

Parkhurstsees the school as a place where ‘community conditions’ prevail, just as inreal life (Parkhurst, 1922). Not only the curriculum but also the layout of theschool building are geared towards this (E. Dewey, 1922). In fact, life at a Daltonschool is therefore comparable to life in the outside world. Children learn forthemselves, just as they will later in life; they practice self-reliance andinitiative, just as they will as they grow; they shape their own destinies,just as they will when they later venture out into the world and provide forthemselves (Kimmins & Rennie, 1932). The world outside the school istherefore brought in and also entered.

Theschool as a miniature society takes shape in another way within the Dalton Plan.Parkhurst's school has a number of "houses." She divides the schoolpopulation into smaller, heterogeneous groups, each of which has its own spaceand its own permanent ‘house advisor.’ This is a class teacher or mentor.

In the‘houses’ at the Dalton school, students meet informally. Discussions takeplace; students help and advice each other, with the ‘house advisor’ playing aguiding and coaching role. The ‘houses’ also organize sports and culturalactivities among themselves, such as debate and reading clubs, thus serving astraining grounds for community spirit (Parkhurst, 1922).

1.     The practice of Dalton education at that time

Parkhurst'sDalton Plan spread explosively around the world in the early 1920s. Hundreds ofDalton schools were founded in Great Britain, Japan, China, and the U.S.S.R. Itis estimated that by the end of the 1920s there were approximately 10,000Dalton schools (Berends, 2011).

In allthese countries, Parkhurst's ideas were adapted to their own circumstances andcultures. This was indeed the intention. Parkhurst hoped that others would alsocontribute to the development and dissemination of her ideas. “I would be thefirst to hear welcome criticism” (Parkhurst quoted in Luke, n.d.a.). She urgedexperimentation with her Dalton Plan. “I do not claim to have perfected myplan. Many minds must concentrate and coöperate upon it if it is to be a livingand vital thing (…)” (Parkhurst quoted in Wilson, 1926, pp. 23-24). “If itstimulates sufficient interest to attract the finest energies of theeducational profession to the task, I shall be amply rewarded for my part ofthe great work” (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 174). Lynch, the headmaster of one of thefirst Dalton schools in England, also spoke of these intentions: “She desired thePlan to be a growing thing; and desired its growth to be contributed to byother experimenters besides herself” (Lynch, 1924, p. 8).

Butwhen the ‘progressive era’ ended in the 1930s and central governmentsincreasingly opted for ‘national curricula,’ all those Dalton initiativesdisappeared almost as quickly as they had appeared. Of the large number ofexperimental Dalton schools, only a few dozen remained after the Second WorldWar. The Netherlands is an exception. You can read more about this in the sectionThe Practice in the Netherlands at the Time.

Parkhurst'sPractice at the Time

Parkhurstinitially believed that the Dalton Plan could be applied to the reorganizationof any school, with the exception of nursery schools and primary schoolsintended for children under 9 (Parkhurst, 1922). At that age, children canread, which is a prerequisite for working independently on assignments. A fewyears later, younger children were also given the opportunity to attend herschool. This took place in a separate building (‘Little Dalton’), whereclassrooms were not used. Students were divided into year groups, each with itsown classroom. In the 1930s, Parkhurst also established a nursery for babiesand toddlers. At that time, the high school department was an all-girls school.The juniors also received lessons in developmental psychology and baby care. Inthe nursery, the girls received practical lessons. Around 1940, Parkhurstdecided to also co-educate the upper grades. Then the school is there for boysand girls of all ages (from 0 to 18 years old).

AtParkhurst's school, mornings are run without a timetable. Children first meetin their year groups and discuss their day together. Questions are answered,and the work for the rest of the morning is planned. Then, until 12:00 noon,there's ‘lab time,’ during which the children visit subject-specific labs(laboratories) of their choice, depending on the assignments they want tocomplete. In the labs, students work with different subject teachers inheterogeneous age groups. During ‘lab time,’ children are free to switchbetween labs and assignments as they see fit. For each grade level, there areassignments for all subjects, developed collaboratively by the teachers.Children receive an overview of the work for the entire year and how it'sdistributed across the ten months of the school year. For younger children, themonthly assignments are further divided into weekly assignments. In the labs,the subject teachers provide instruction and guidance in small groups. Studentscan plan their own work and work at their own pace. They can spend more or lesstime on it, depending on the effort required, their work pace, and theirmotivation. Students can also help each other and collaborate. Parkhurstdevelops various charts to track individual and group progress. Throughout theday, classes or meetings (‘conferences’) are also scheduled in the students'own ‘houses.’ These are usually communicated with the students via a bulletinboard.

Aftera shared lunch break, most afternoons are spent on group activities. These canrange from discussion and reading groups and attention to creative subjects andsports to visiting museums (Jackman, 1920). The school also offersco-curricular activities, in which children can participate voluntarily and oftheir own choosing. Consequently, the school days are often longer for thestudents than is typical in the Netherlands.

Practicein the Netherlands at the time

In theNetherlands, Dalton education looked somewhat different from its inception – inthe mid-1920s. Berends & Sanders (2014) argue that a distinctive Dutch formof Dalton education emerged, which they call ‘Dalton in the own classroom.’

Afterthe 1917 political decision that public and private education would be fundedequally and freedom of education was legally enshrined in the Constitution, theDutch government – unlike many other countries – was reluctant to prescribeeducational content, among other things (Bronneman-Helmers, 2011). This made itpossible to establish experimental schools, which broke with the prevailingclassroom-based, frontal, and simultaneous teaching. Among these schools, from1924 onwards, were the first Dalton schools.

It wasProfessor Kohnstamm – the first professor of pedagogy in the Netherlands – whobecame a leading advocate of Dalton education. In 1924, he and severalcolleagues published a study on Dalton education in England. He saw the futureof Dutch popular education in the "moral and civic education" heobserved at these Dalton schools, combined with the flexible schoolorganization (Bigot, Diels & Kohnstamm, 1924).

In theNetherlands, freedom was felt to formulate the core of Dalton education inthree distinct principles. When the Dutch Dalton Association was founded, itwas not Parkhurst's ‘freedom’ and ‘interaction of group life,’ but the threeprinciples of Albert Lynch, principal of one of the first Dalton schools inGreat Britain, that were adopted: (1) Freedom, (2) Individual Work, and (3)Mutual Cooperation. In the century that followed, Dalton's core philosophy wasperiodically discussed, and various tenets and principles were also used(Berends, 2024a).

InDutch Dalton schools, the Dalton Plan took shape within the classroom itself.Subject-matter classrooms were rarely used, which meant that another essentialelement of Parkhurst's philosophy never took off: collaboration across (age)heterogeneity. Collaboration, learning from and with each other, essentiallytook place only within the same age group.

Anothersignificant difference from Parkhurst's own practice was the design andimplementation of the Dalton tasks. From the outset, the Dalton task in theNetherlands took on the character of a ‘checklist’ of tasks to be completed,referring to assignments and pages from method booklets (Berends, 2024b).Assignments were completed individually, independently, and sometimescollaboratively, with children often having a choice of the order in which theywere completed. The tasks rarely involved integrated, meaningful work, or theacquisition of real-life experiences. This is a remarkable conclusion, becausethe "checklist" was precisely what Parkhurst himself did not want(Parkhurst, 1922). Another difference is the way "lab time" is used,the time students have at their disposal to work on their assignments. AtParkhurst's school, students were free to spend the mornings from 9:00 AM to12:00 PM, visiting various subject-specific classrooms at their own discretion.In contrast, Dutch Dalton primary schools, from the outset, offered extensive classroominstruction, with a relatively short period each day (estimated to be a maximumof 45 minutes) for students to work through the material independently, oftenin writing. From the outset, ‘lab time’ in secondary education took the form of‘Dalton hours,’ where students could spend an hour several times a week workingon subjects or assignments at their own discretion. This often came undercertain conditions, such as mandatory enrolment or the requirement to attendspecific Dalton hours.

Comparedto Parkhurst's practice, it's also striking that the use of ‘houses’ in DutchDalton schools hasn't taken off. These schools fit more into an Anglo-Saxoneducational tradition. However, because (age-)heterogeneous classroom practicesdidn't take off, the idea of the school as a community, the Dalton school as aminiature society, hasn't taken off in Dutch schools as explicitly as Parkhurstintended.

2.     The current practice of Dalton education

TheDutch Dalton Association (NDV) was founded in 1931. Schools wishing to beofficially recognized as Dalton schools become members of the NDV. Theassociation promotes the quality of Dalton education by periodically monitoringquality, inspecting schools, and prescribing training for teachers, educationalstaff, Dalton coordinators, and school principals, among others. The NDV alsoencourages research into Dalton education and offers support and space forexperimentation and the development of knowledge and materials, includingthrough conferences, inspirational meetings, and publications.

Asmentioned, the association periodically discusses how the essence of Daltoneducation should be summarized and defined. In 2012, it was decided to replacethe three principles (freedom within constraints, independence, and collaboration)with five core values (freedom and responsibility, independence, collaboration,reflection, and effectiveness). Kohnstamm's ideal – he envisioned a"Dalton" approach for the future of public education – was neverrealized, but through ups and downs in development, the number of Daltonschools has grown to around 400. More than 100,000 children in the Netherlandsattend Dalton education. In recent decades, this group has primarily been seenin secondary education and in the expansion of schools into integratedchildcare centers. Much work has been done, and remains to be done, on how toembody Dalton core values in, for example, the care of (very) young children.

TheDalton school is still ‘the school with the tasks.’ These tasks have, however,evolved significantly in recent decades. The task has evolved from a checklistof largely demotivating "must-dos" for children (they are not"finished tasks") to a program of study with more choice andownership for students—including setting their own goals—as well as moremeaningful and authentic themes and projects and more room for experientiallearning. This also fulfils the legal obligation to shape democratic (global)citizenship in a personal way (Otten-Binnerts et al., 2024).

Today'sDalton practice is also characterized – more than ever before – by offeringstudents more opportunities to contribute to their own learning and theeducational system that should be designed to achieve this (‘student voice’).

Furthermore,within the broad, personal developmental Dalton education advocated by the NDV,by broadening and deepening knowledge about the roots of Dalton education andParkhurst's intentions, there is more attention to issues such as cross-groupwork and citizenship education. This gives the Dalton core values moresubstance and depth in the development of individual school visions on Daltonand as a pedagogical, didactic, and organizational tool for realizing thisvision in their own practice.

Parkhurstwould be pleased if we were to continue to assess the Dalton Plan based on itsresults. She herself wrote about this: "These fruits, based on thetestimonies of countless teachers and students, have already transformed forthe better the mental and spiritual life of the schools where the plan has beenimplemented. These testimonies give me confidence that the benefits reaped fromthem will eventually reverberate through to the social and political life ofthe world" (Parkhurst, 1922, p. 174).

Literature

Aikin,W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study. With conclusions &recommendations (Adventure in American education Volume 1). Harper& Brothers.

Berends,R. (2011). Helen Parkhurst. Grondlegstervan het daltononderwijs. Deventer: Saxion DaltonUniversity Press.

Berends,R. (2024^a). Dalton LEF: VO. Liederholthuis: LeononProgressive Education.

Berends,R. (2024^b). Het werken met een taak honderd jaar geleden. DaltonVisieCongres Special.

Berends,R., & Sanders, L. (2014). Daltononderwijs in Nederland. De geschiedenisvanaf 1924. Deventer: Saxion Dalton University Press.

Berends,R., & Wolthuis, H. (2014). Focus op Dalton. Deventer: SDUP.

Bigot,L.C.T., Diels, P.A., & Kohnstamm, Ph. (1924). Het Nutsrapport: De toekomst van ons volksonderwijs II Scholen inlosser klasseverband. Amsterdam: Nutsdrukkerij.

Bronneman-Helmers,H. (2011). Overheid en onderwijsbestel. Beleidsvorming rond het Nederlandseonderwijsstelsel (1990-2010). Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

Dewey,E. (1922). The Dalton Laboratory Plan. Dunnon & Co.

Fredericks-Salzman,R. (1993). Dorothy Luke. Friend of Helen Parkhurst. Typoscript.

Headmaster(z.d.). Memorandum on The Dalton Laboratory Plan of Organising Schoolwork.Prepared fort he Governing Body of a large Secondary School for Boys. London:Dalton Association.

Jackman,E. (1920). The Dalton Plan. The School Review, 28(9), 688-696.

Kimmins,C., & Rennie, B. (1932). The Triumph of the Dalton Plan. London:Ivor Nicholson & Watson Ltd.

Lager,D. (1983). Helen Parkhurst and the Dalton Plan: The life and work of anAmerican educator. University of Connecticut.

Luke,D. (z.j.^a). Champion of Children. OngepubliceerdTyposcript.

Luke,D. (z.j.^b). Oasis for children. Alegacy from Helen Parkhurst. Ongepubliceerd typoscript.

Lynch,A. (1926). The rise and progress of the Dalton Plan. Reflections andopinions after more than three years’ working of the plan. London: GeorgePhilip and Son.

Lynch,A.J. (1924). Individual Work and theDalton Plan. A full account of the working of the Dalton plan in the elementaryschool. London: George Philip and Son.

NewYork Dalton School (2019). A History of Dalton in 101 Objects. NewYork: Dalton School.

Otten-Binnerts,V., Berends, R., Klaver, L., de Brouwer, J., & van der Zee, S. (2024). Daltonen Burgerschapsonderwijs. ‘Go Forth Unafraid’. Deventer: lectoraat Vernieuwend Onderwijs,Saxion Hogeschool.

Parkhurst,H. (1921, 2 juli). The Dalton Plan I. Times Educational Supplement.

Parkhurst,H. (1922). Education on the Dalton Plan. G. Bell & Sons, Ltd. / E.P.Dutton and Company.

Parkhurst,H. (1926). An explanation of the Dalton Laboratory Plan. DaltonAssociation.

Parkhurst,H. (1929). Programs of study. Teachers College Record (jan, 1929). NewYork City: Dalton Schools, Inc.

ProgressiveEducational Association Staff (1943). The Dalton Schools. In Thirty schoolstell their story, Vol. 5 (pp. 143-184). Harper & Brothers.

Rennie,B. (1920, 6 mei). An American Experiment. The Times EducationalSupplement.

Semel,S. (2002). Chapter 5. Helen Parkhurst and the Dalton School. In Sadovnik,A., Semel, S. Semel (2002). Founding mothers and others.NewYork: Palgrave.

Van derPloeg, P. (2010). Dalton Plan: oorsprongen theorie van het daltononderwijs. Deventer:Saxion Dalton University Press.

Vander Ploeg, P. (2012). The Dalton Plan: recycling in the guise of innovation. PaedagogicaHistorica: International journal of the History of Education 2012, 1-16.

Wilson,L., & Members of the Faculty of Philadelphia High School for Girls (1926). Educationfor Responsibility –The Dalton Laboratory Plan in a Secondary School. SouthPhiladelphia High School for girls. New Hork: the Macmillan company.