I don’t ever remembering despising school, but I can recall only a few times where I would say that I really felt at home. Oh, I learned to follow the rules, do my work, control my daydreaming in class, and get average grades on my report cards. But, in a sense—and I doubt that I’m alone in this—I kind of went through the motions of going to school. But there was one year that stands out as being particularly memorable; it was a year where I felt really excited about going to school, to the point where I was disappointed at the prospect of a sick day, a snowstorm or, at times, even a weekend.
In the middle of my grade 5 year, an addition to our elementary school was completed and most of us were moved into a brand new, fully carpeted, no-desks-just-tables, 1960′s style open concept classroom. (My friend and colleague Mike Harding has written about this idea at length over at voicEd.ca) There was something immediatly engaging about the environment. Perhaps it was the smell of new paint and carpet; maybe it was the sheer openness of the space. I don’t know what it was, but I was immediately drawn in and, truth be told, I felt like I was at home.
In using the intoversion/extroversion frame that we have pondering over the past few days, I can definitely point to the fact that the open-concept environment in which I was immersed for that year resonated with my need to find a space of my own when I needed it. I certainly wasn’t anti-social. In fact, I enjoyed the daily interaction, class discussions and, although I preferred to work on my own, I didn’t mind the occasional group project.
But I really shone when I was given the freedom to choose my own place and pace. There were tons of nooks and crannies to be found in that double classroom: bookshelves to hide behind, corners to explore, tables to curl up under and lots of carpet to lie on. For the times when we needed a little privacy, we had study carrels positioned around the room. Each had a filmstrip viewer, a cassette recorder and a set of headphones.
I do recall whole class lessons, but I also remember a great deal of time each day to do our own thing: reading kits, activity bins, microphones, record players, and even some really cool science equipment. I recall spending a whole week one time putting together a media program on hockey great Gordie Howe that featured a musical soundtrack, my own live “voice over” and a images shown using a Magnajector.
I loved to write and very much appreciated the opportunity to choose my own topics, find my own writing space and the ability to record my polished pieces.
My grade 5 classroom was certainly not an educational nirvana, but I do remember it offering me an environment in which I felt stimulated and energized. I don’t know if those responsible for the open-classroom concept had the introversion/extroversion spectrum in mind when they designed their approach but, in looking back, I can certainly say that it provided the balance that allowed some of us to thrive and feel at home.
It’s interesting to reflect back on the best of experiences. Ultimately, it should help us all to become better. Sadly, I think we tend to remember the not-so-good experiences. I never had the opportunity to try out an open concept environment. Over the years, it has been a good topic for educators to polarize themselves! I did practice teach at an open concept secondary school in Burlington. I enjoyed it although I only was there for 2 or 3 weeks. I understand the physical plant has been reconstructed to have traditional classrooms now.
It seems that every opportunity that I’ve had to teach in open classrooms have been followed by the reconstruction project that you’ve identified. Some incredibly powerful learning spaces have been totally “walled” and returned to their former “isolated” state. Sad, but perhaps a testament to the sense of isolation that is part of the DNA of this profession…
Thanks for plugging into this conversation!
Stephen while I recognize the total aesthetic of the open area environment and it’s inviting nature I can’t help but wonder how big a contributor to your sense of well being was the good chemistry between/among the teachers assigned to your suite.
I loved the physical ambiance of the open area schools where I taught but the “like-mindedness” of the four teachers assigned to the “suite” was paramount to it’s success. In a previous post I related the story of the junior division suite at one of my schools where one of the teachers refused to buy into the “team” concept and the resulting discord in the suite made for an uncomfortable atmosphere for the children.
In short, I guess I am saying that staffing determines the efficacy of an open concept environment more so than the warm and inviting space with all the trimmings.
I’m glad you found a bit of heaven in your open area experience but the primary reason for the failure of the whole concept was bad staffing. School boards and superintendents failed to make compatibility a prerequisite for placing teachers in open area schools. They just went back to their fill the spaces game. Here’s an opening. Here’s a teacher.
Hi Mike,
You’ve forced me to try to remember the staff. As it turns out, I remember very little about my grade five teachers…only glimpses. That said, I totally get what you’re saying, although I would suggest that much of this dynamic remains hidden from young minds…except when things aren’t going well. In those moments, everyone picks up on the vibe.
I wonder if we’ll ever get back to a point where we can actually offer principals/school leaders a louder voice in who comes to join their community.
There is another factor that has not been considered – the combination of education services being delivered by square footage and funding education services by per student formula. Models like the open concept classroom do not meet the criteria, since it requires more square footage than the bean counters allow.
If one reads the historical files in education, following the accounting and economic practices beginning in the 1940s or so, as changes were made in the delivery of education through the accounting practices, changes were made to the rules/regulation regime to reflect the new accounting practices.
Many practices at the school level, that were common in the past to a region, have more or less been eliminated by 2000. In the 1960s, I had many classes held outside sitting under one of the towering chestnut trees, sitting on the grass in a circle taking notes. Today, the same outdoor class is either banned or must meet narrowed criteria and paperwork crossing the ‘t’s and dotting the ‘i’s. Ate many of a lunch on the playground, instead of sitting in the classroom, and now there is rules in place in some regions, the banning of food and drink on the playground. What I have observed over the years, the education of children is no longer about the education of children, but it is all about providing education services within a set of narrowed criteria windows of costs and benchmarks.
Practices that were common are no more today, and innovative practices such as the open-concept classroom or the newer models of desk arrangement in a classroom or staffing according to the needs of an individual school are difficult to obtain, and as Pete has mentioned, polarization of educators is a common result. It suits the bean counters of the education system just fine, because the design and structure of the accounting regime, are to create the conditions to polarized the bottom level of the education system – the school – the educators – the parents – community – and the taxpayers.
The accounting and economic systems of the education system are designed to give an education to approximately 40 percent of students, and the remainder, the 60 percent are given second and third tier education. The educators are caught in the middle in an atmosphere that does not allow innovation that do not meet the criteria of costs, and if not, the regulation regime will effectively stopped educators of a school to innovate according to the needs of their students.
I know the education system is a complex beast, filled with many different types of complexity. One thing that I am sure of, only 40 percent of students will received an education after 12 years of formal schooling, that will provide them a strong foundation to stand on to effectively navigate society in their adulthood. Starting date, probably began in the 1980s across Canada, where the data streams will reflect the 40-60 ratio. In the adult data streams, it is not a coincidence the number of adults needing remediation, retraining and upgrading in basic skills after 12 years of schooling. Nor is it a coincidence that 48 percent of adult Canadians have low literacy skills, and 52 % have low numeracy skills. Is it a coincidence, the open-concept schools of the 1960s and 1970s were reconfigured in the 1980s? Is it a coincidence, when individual teachers using novel practices that increases the levels of literacy and numeracy of the classroom, beyond the standard outcomes of the school district, they are transferred to another school? Could list many more covering all aspects, but what is important to remember that the experiences of educators who went through school in the 1950s to 1979, are very different from the educators who went to school starting in the 1980s. What set received a better education? The set prior to the 1980s, before the bean counters and administrators took the 40-60 ratio to heart starting in the 1980s.
Michael points out, “I’m glad you found a bit of heaven in your open area experience but the primary reason for the failure of the whole concept was bad staffing. School boards and superintendents failed to make compatibility a prerequisite for placing teachers in open area schools. They just went back to their fill the spaces game. Here’s an opening. Here’s a teacher.”
Very true, and I bet the house by sending any teacher it was designed to ensure the 40-60 ratio. After all, can’t have all students rising to their full potential, it would cost too much.
On SQE today – “This video is well worth watching, because it puts flesh on the future of online learning. Although it focuses on post-secondary education, please note that K-12 students can take these courses. Furthermore, there is no reason why the concept cannot be applied to less advanced content.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6FvJ6jMGHU&feature=player_embedded
The 40-60 percent ratio, and where free on-line courses from the best universities are smashing the 40-60 percent ration to bits. Likewise, for public education K to 12, transforming classrooms in a 21st century open concept classroom. I believe one of the reasons why on-line learning of any type is not as prevalent in our public schools of K to 12, as it should be, by taking full advantage of today’s technology and what is already known in the science of learning, it would effectively destroy the present model of public education, to where only the teachers of the classroom are left standing. Instead of one teacher, 4 teachers to ensure all students reach their full potential, and not just the 40 percent. The days of sitting in a class, with row of desks offering education of the one-sized-fits-all will be no more. At the moment, on-line learning is restricted to the 40 percent of students in a model that is no different from the one-sized-fits-all models of classroom instruction.