Limitations of interpretations of revisionist historians concerning educational development in the 1930s and 1940s are examined. Revisionists have made uninformed assumptions about educational practice and have ignored significant aspects of educational development. Often their conclusions are too limited in scope. For example, they tend to view the progressive education movement as the major expression of liberal educational thought. However, these historians have neglected state and local curriculum programs. Two other conclusions seem to be lacking in evidence drawn from educational practice. One is the contention that educators have largely ignored the roles of community agencies other than the schools in the educational process. The second is that schools are oppressive institutions which regiment, indoctrinate, and sort children. This conclusion excludes an examination of classroom aims, content, and methods, and consideration of directional changes. Actually, since educational practice is so diverse, generalizations about instruction are invalid. Revisionists have also neglected source materials concerning curriculum development during this era. It is suggested that these historians will present a more valid picture of progressive education if they give more attention to what really happened in the schools during the 1930s and 1940s and to the kind of change that leaders in the field were seeking. (Author/KC)