 |
| Edmund Burke |
‘We build our building and then they shape us’ Winston Churchill.
‘Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it’ Edmund Burke
Don’t get me wrong. I believed the open plan schools of the
70s had, and their recent iteration MLEs, have great potential to develop ‘new
minds for a new millennium’ (see Churchill’s quote above) enabling students, as
the New Zealand Curriculum says, able to ‘seek, use and create their own
knowledge’. But , I also believe, that lessons learnt about the success and
failure of the 70s open plan buildings are worth considering (refer to Edmund
Burke’s quote above).
Modern Learning Environments are the government ‘flagship
for change’ and, to quote the Prime Minister, ‘a window to the future’ and will
be ‘what all NZ schools will eventually look like’. Similar rhetoric was heard
in the 1970s along with such ‘buzz’ words as: ‘flexible buildings’, ‘collaboration', 'future
thinking skills’, and ‘learner centred schools’, often along with derogatory
phrases such as ‘single cell classrooms’ being a thing of the past.
MLEs, if implemented properly, might well be ‘windows to the
future’ but education is always more than buildings and technology and it is
important that they don’t become the ‘silver bullet’ that when provided will
solve problems that ‘single cell’ classrooms are unable cope with. Those
teaching in such glamorous photogenic environments are naturally all too often
over enthusiastic about their experience but what is needed is a critical
appraisal of their success.
 |
| An evaluation of open schools |
Thinking about past history of open plan schools I came
across two books (one was more a booklet) that are worth consideration if there
are lessons to be learnt.
The first is a
NZEI book,
‘Aspects of School Organisation’ published in 1976, evaluating open
education schools.
The smaller booklet ,‘Learning with the Children’, was
published by myself outlining open education teaching in traditional classrooms
and the transferring of such ideas into an open plan school environment in the
1970s. The later booklet was republished and presented at the 1975 Auckland
world Education Conference held at the Elleslie Racecourse.
Re-reading such books brings to the forefront the
challenges, problems and some solutions that may apply to teaching in the new
Modern Leaning Environments.
By mid 1970s there were over 200 open plan units operating
in NZ schools. In most schools, over time, walls were replaced and teachers
reverted to ‘single cell’ classrooms.
The Education Department and architects may have thought they were ‘a
window to the future’ but the educational advantages of such flexible building,
for all the rhetoric was never realised..
The NZEI book had chapters by both practitioners and
educationalists. A chapter By Peter Ramsay (then at the School of Education
Waikato University) called ‘Egg Crate or Barn: the Open Teaching Controversy in
School Organization’ is well worth the read.
In this chapter he outlines the strengths and weaknesses of open plan
teaching; strengths and weaknesses that still apply in todays MLE schools.
 |
| Published for Auck NZEI World Conf 1973 |
The smaller ‘Learning with the Children’ booklet covered the
progress of a group of Taranaki teachers
introducing open education ideas in
traditional rooms beginning in 1970 and
later the development of such ideas in an open plan unit in 1974.
The success of such classrooms (self-contained or open plan)
was based on a shared set of beliefs about how students learn and the
successful transference of such beliefs to an open plan environment was the
result of the strong educational leadership of the Deputy Principal.
The open plan buildings only provided the opportunity.
This particular
successful open plan unit was cobbled together from a number of prefabs and, in
contrast to the ‘open prairies’ designed by the architects (Ramsay’s ‘barns’
and many modern MLEs), was defined as a ‘nook and cranny’ style and more designed by the teachers
involved.
The ideas
underpinning the open education classrooms, and later the open plan, were:
(1) The development of integrated programmes with themes
based on curriculum areas, the local environment and students interests.
(2) The valuing of the personal ideas, questions and theories of the students in all
areas of learning.
(3) Helping students develop confidence and take
responsibility for their own learning choices
(4) Teaching of skills at point of need, individually or in
groups, for students to complete quality work (this in contrast to the use of
ability grouping in reading and maths)
(5) Develop mathematics and literacy programmes based around
motivational challenges and, where possible, to teach skills to be used in the
inquiry programme.
(6) To really value the creative and language arts – for
many students areas of personal strength often neglected and an excellent way
for teachers to develop the idea of doing things well.
(7)
One vital idea was to ‘slow the pace of work’ so as to
provide time to come alongside learners to assist so they are able to achieve
their ‘personal best’ and to develop a
sense of craftsmanship. 'Stickability' or perseverance is a vital attitude. (Too many students think first finished is best. This
growth in quality thinking and presentation is best seen in individual student’s bookwork.)
 |
| Introducing challenges through displays |
(8)
A need to provide structure to provide security for
students but that this structure is best negotiated with the students
themselves.Students
need to know ‘what, why, when and how’ to do tasks undertaken. Day to day
organisation is continually evolving according to need and the growing skill of
both teachers and students. Rotation group work (not ability groups) is a means
to keep students and teachers on task. As the year progresses students are able
to undertake personal studies of their own choice (individually or in groups)
 |
| From 'Learning with the Children' |
(9) The best assessment is evidence of students’ growth in
the various areas of learning and in particular by what they can demonstrate,
exhibit or display. Comparison of the work completed in term one and four ought
to be obvious to students, teachers and parents.
(10) Room environments need to celebrate the thoughts and
achievements of students across all areas of learning. Units of work to be
displayed with provocative headings, study questions and where necessary,
framed students work.
(11) All the above demands teachers to be guides, coaches
and facilitators.
 |
| Encouraging 'slow' loking |
To translate this to
an open plan environment required leadership, positive relationships between
teachers, all in an atmosphere of mutual respect between teachers and learners.
The translation of ideas into an open unit was a real
challenge – particularly sharing of students with other teachers.
After two years the
ideas developed were:
(1)
The provision of a diversified ‘workshop’ day
allowing students to work individually or in groups providing greater choice
(and responsivity) and teacher and students skill developed. The more skills in
place the less structure required.
(2)
The importance of introducing skills required,
in realistic contexts, for students to become confident independent
learners. Most important was to
encourage the students to work carefully by ‘slowing the pace’ of their work
allowing teachers to assist as necessary.
(3)
The importance of the total learning environment;
student work to be displayed to celebrate achievement and for new topics to be
introduced by well-arranged teacher displays.
The Deputy Principal involving in establishing the open unit
(the students’ called it the ‘open planet’) had read widely about open
education and about open plans and had come to the realisation that many open
plans were basically introducing traditional ideas rather than new approaches.
As a result of this many such schools reverted to self-contained teaching as
documented in the NZEI book above.
 |
| Cant see the buildings for the student work |
He decided it was important to keep home groups to start the
day, and often to finish, to provide security. Students need to know ‘what, why, when and how’
to do tasks undertaken.
Day to day organisation is continually evolving
according to need and the growing skill of both teachers and students. Rotation
group work (not ability groups) is a means to keep students and teachers on
task. As the year progresses students are able to undertake personal studies of
their own choice (individually or in groups) security.
The programmes the teachers developed were formal and
informal; evolutionary in nature. Teachers, he felt, needed to keep a balance
of curriculum areas and, where choices were provided that students didn’t
revert to shallow ‘busy work’.
Teachers needed to keep the highest of standards for their
students with basic skills work covered by targeted withdrawal groups so all students
could produce work of their highest standard.
Cooperative planning is strength of planning in an open unit
to develop in depth content areas to be covered and choices for students to
select from; from this ‘master plan’ individual teachers plan further
activities for their assigned groups.
Students have a checklist to ensure tasks selected are completed.
Sometimes individual teachers become in house ‘experts’ and introduce a major
theme to the whole group. Often there are multiple studies in progress and as
students gain expertise individually chosen studies.
Maths and reading/language arts are covered in the morning
in withdrawal groups. Maths follows a topic approach and although one teacher
has overall responsibility each teacher plans their own activities; where
possible activities are planned to contribute to theme/inquiry studies.
Literature usually starts the afternoon programme and two
afternoons are spent on cultural activities – Maori culture and music taken by
two teachers while remaining teachers handle the PE programme. All other
afternoons students are involved in completing theme/inquiry tasks.
It is not possible to completely define the timetable in an
evolving unit but there is always enough structure to ensure all students are
on task. The open unit provides for flexibility and change and the variety that
evolves are appreciated by all. With experience there are activity works
through days – ‘true open education’.
 |
| From 'Learning with Children' booklet |
Organisations are simply a devise to ensure students are
involved so as each to produce work of the highest quality. The success of the
unit is reflected by the displays of student work and by their attitudes towards
learning; a community of scientists and artists who have done their best to express
what they have achieved; a community where all are continually learning.
The lead teacher’s final comments stress the importance of
relationships between all involved and that it is difficult to verbalise all
that has been achieved – to fully appreciate it all a visit is required. A
climate of controlled order and behaviour has been achieved and that this,
combined with the emphasis on disciplined work leads little unnecessary noise.
He saw the achievements of the teachers and students in the
unit as workshop for future education and was well aware that there is always
more to learn and to do.
 |
| Colonial display ( Bill Guild) |
In our own evaluation of our experiment implementing open
education/open plan schooling we wrote ‘It has not been as easy to develop room
environments and programmes as might have been expected.
Teachers felt real and
imagined pressures to conform to less venturesome methods and also found that
their theory of such teaching was often in advance of their ability to put
ideas into practice’ and that ‘and even well over a year our teaching ideas
were still being formulated and changed…..Early in the year the major fault was
to move forward too quickly forgetting the background of the children and our
own ability to cope with the diversity that eventuated.’ ‘We wanted them to
independent learners before they had developed the necessary skills to work
independently….children worked too fast with little sense of craftsmanship.’
Visitors who came to observe we always impressed with the
quality and creativity of the students work on display. The teachers involved
wrote ‘ The realisation of the importance of the room environment came slowly
to the children. As they saw their work mounted and displayed they began to
accept the room as their own and were able to recognise their own contributions
to the environment.’
Teachers concluded that ‘it should be appreciated that as a
method it is not an easy way to teach and requires considerable thought and
time to develop.’
John Holt (1964) wrote about his ideal school as a place in which 'each child in his own way can satisfy his curiosity, develop his
abilities and talents, pursue his interests, and from the adults and older children around him get a glimpse of the great variety and richness of life'.
This brings me back to thinking about current Modern
Learning Environment and Edmund Burke’s quote, ‘those who don’t know history
are doomed to repeat it’.
 |
| We need to look past the buildings |
MLEs are more than glamorous new buildings and
computer access – they are, as in the era of open plans, all about
relationships, leadership, and the quality of the teaching and to be judged by
the quality of achievements of their students.
'Happiness has to got to derive from achievement and success not by having a good time.' Charles Silberman ( another 70s educator.)
Our buildings may
indeed shape us, as Churchill wrote, but it is over to teachers to see that
students are ‘shaped’ in the most positive way.
 |
Did he get his fingers right?
|
I well remember being admonished by an inspector
for allowing my pupils to use their fingers! Guess she was wrong, as she was
about a number of other things.
“Researchers found that when 6-year-olds improved the quality of
their finger representation, they improved in arithmetic knowledge,
particularly skills such as counting and number ordering. In fact, the quality
of the 6-year-old’s finger representation was a better predictor of future
performance on math tests than their scores on tests of cognitive processing.”
“One of the things I’ve come to realize in my many discussions with
educators from around the globe is that there are a number of practices in our
current systems of schooling that “unsettle” us, primarily because they don’t comport
with what Seymour Papert calls our “stock of intuitive,
empathic, common sense knowledge about learning.” But what’s also notable about
those practices is that we rarely want to discuss them aloud, content instead
to let them hover silently in the background of our work.”
“When students (especially non-science majors) take required science
classes, there is a reason. It’s not so that they can learn about the names of
the planets or which plants you can eat (but that is useful to know). The
primary reason that students are required to take a science class is to help
them understand the nature of science.”
‘Our
classrooms are teeming with young neuroscientists! They may not be expressing
their findings with sophisticated expositions on the functions of neural
pathways or the specific regions of the brain, but they are often aware of the
circumstances and experiences that help them learn best. As we share with them
the scientific findings that underscore what promotes effective and lasting
learning, our students will likely offer us nods of understanding and agreement
as they respond with something to the effect of, "That's what we've been
trying to tell you!”'
“I believe we now know enough about learning and teaching that no
students need fail; and that all students can learn given the appropriate task,
time and help. Translating that into practice is the challenge. What is it that
we all know about learning? What are appropriate tasks for students, and what
is the role of the teachers in helping each individual learn? Answering these
questions develops a sense of shared purpose or vision for a school.”
