An overview of the educational claims of the neo-traditional school of education in Europe and the United States in the first half of the 20th century and its impact.

The neo-traditional school of education emerged as an opposition to the Progressive school of education, and it has made sharp criticisms of Progressive education's overemphasis on child-centeredness, its denial of the teacher's guiding and authoritative role, its emphasis on children's direct experience and active curriculum at the expense of the race's indirect experience and disciplinary curriculum, and its emphasis on children's instincts, interests, and activities at the expense of rigorous discipline at school, leading to laxity in school management and laxity were sharply criticized. They advocated the restoration of traditional educational concepts and practices, the establishment of the authoritative role of the teacher, the restoration of the status of the subject-based curriculum, the reorganization of school discipline, and the improvement of the quality of classroom teaching, views and practices that made it seem as if people had gone back to the 1980s and 1990s of the 19th century. Adhering to these views and practices were the factorist, eternalist, and neo-Thomistic schools of education that arose in the 1930s and 1940s and were further developed in the 1950s and 1960s. These three schools of education have been called "neo-traditional" because of their distinctive opposition to progressivism and the restoration of traditional education. The reason why in front of the "traditional" add a "new" word, is because these three schools of thought not only inherited the essence of the traditional schools of thought, such as Herbart, but also on the basis of the development of innovation, performance is not only due to tradition, but also not confined to the tradition of the pioneering spirit of many of their views and ideas of education and give a person a refreshing feeling.