Dodo Eggs

The “Dumbknuckle Ideal” is a train of thinking that fails to consider possible flaws in any given idea.  The “Ideal” shines a bright spotlight on a few select positives allowing everything else to fall into shadow.  For example, moving to a different country right before tax day sounds like a good way to avoid taxes and see the world but…

Let’s not forget Murphy’s Law, “If something can go wrong it will.” And the ever-complimentary Teply’s Law, “There’s more that will go wrong than you can believe.”

During my college experience, I was assigned observations and practicum at different public schools.  The placement I remember better than any other was a school that was built following the “Open Space Model.” 

Here’s a brief description from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2302/Open-Classroom-Schools.html.  Anything in parenthesis was added later by the staff at DodoEggs.com. 

This is the type of hoo-ha I had to read to become an educator.  WOW, did I waste my opportunity for a college education.

“In the mid-1960s (don’t trust any “idea” from this decade.  I’m warning you) Americans visited the English infant schools, which promoted self-determination. These elementary schools advocated “informal” (read chaotic) or “open” (they still mean chaotic) education and the “integrated day.”  (Not sure what that means.)  The “integrated day” (ok, here it is) refers to an interdisciplinary approach in which content from various subjects is woven and presented in a hands-on, problem-solving context (Sounds good Mr. Egghead.  Now you try teaching this way.). Educators from several continents adapted and applied these concepts in new open space or open plan facilities.

The open classroom school generally had an architectural configuration of large pods (caveronous enclosed spaces) containing six to twelve classrooms, each with an outside access and no interior walls (You read that right.  NO WALLS!). Children were not assigned individual desks; they sat in cooperative small groups (mobs) at tables. Teachers usually defined their workspace by their arrangements of bookshelves and cabinets (and let’s not forget cubical partitions stolen from their spouce’s office). The lack of hallways meant more space was available for instructional use (Yes, and if we don’t bother to make roads we’d have more land to farm!). The outside accesses and lack of walls allowed for greater accessibility (They left out noice and airborne objects.  A typo I’m sure.). These design changes also resulted in a more efficient use of energy at a time when energy was becoming more costly (??????).

The changes in the internal structure of the pod (sounds kind of sci-fi) accommodated changes in the philosophical approach taken by educators. Without traditional rooms, teachers could redefine the nature of their role (too many jokes here…sarcasm overload…try to control myself). The teacher shifted from the dispenser of knowledge to the facilitator of learning (what was wrong with dispensing knowledge?). Teachers were no longer isolated from each other. They were better able to confer and plan (shout over each other). Learning became an activity that was child centered rather than teacher-oriented. Standard grade-level skill checklists were set aside and the differences in individual needs provided the rationale for the curricula (In other words, teach to each student.  THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH THIRTY KIDS!)   Students’ progress was not based on rankings, which define success in a competitive context (you know, like real life – we would hate to give competive, hardworking kids an edge.); instead, evaluation of progress was reported in terms of the individual’s achievement in relation to growth from previous levels and the individual’s initiative and responsibility as demonstrated in academic and related arts areas (cows tell each other the same thing before taking another bite of grass.)

As the role of the teacher changed, methods of instructional delivery were necessarily challenged. Traditional instruction involved discrete (as in focused and structured, two words the auther doesn’t use) subject areas with generalized class expectations for performance. The open space philosophy altered the format of instruction. Classes were replaced with interest centers, which offered topical activities. Center choices promoted the discovery method, a precedent to constructivism (This sounds wonderful to everyone who has never taught before). Learners were prompted to explore and develop their own connections in order to promote concept development and the scientific method. Students moved among the centers largely by choice and often without specific schedules (Chaos!  Children cannot do this!  And if they could, it would take teachers six hours of planning a day to create five or six interest centers!) 

Class composition was reminiscent of the one-room schoolhouse. Teachers arranged flexible multi-age grouping within the interest centers. Mindful of individual needs, teachers were challenged to maintain fluid group membership (and keep thier magic wands polished and fully loaded with magic glitter). In this manner, they could naturally develop a disposition towards diversity and citizenship (the first draft said math and reading but they were reaplaced by more important goals). In some open classroom schools, homerooms or “family groups” (??????????) were not configured by grade level. A class may have contained five students at each level, kindergarten through fourth grade. Each year, five would enter, and five would graduate. The stability of relationships over a number of years allowed a different social dynamic (math and reading…math and reading…repeat after me…math and reading). The homeroom was designed to reflect the cooperative nature of learning. Over time the teacher could develop a richer knowledge of each student and serve as a long-term counselor and mentor.

The construction of open classroom schools declined by the mid-1970s (the drugs wore off). Concerns about noise and distraction encouraged educators to return to a traditional approach (and utopia dies..sniff, sniff). Although the open classroom movement lost popularity, certain aspects of its philosophy and methods were reshaped and used. Many open-space facilities have been remodeled with the addition of inside walls, or become magnet programs, which have located technology labs and computer stations conveniently in the open spaces (well, we’ve got to do something with these buildings!).  Research has indicated that the open classroom approach may not have significantly improved learning, but it certainly did not impede achievement(then why stop building them?). Additional research suggested that children in open classroom programs did score higher than traditional classroom students in self-concept, attitudes towards school, and creativity (math, reading, science, social studies…all absent from this list).

• Teaching for Teachers
• Earning an F
• Too Big
• Enjoying The Sunshine
• Reading for Meaning