209. Open Or Structured?

I’m challenging another dichotomy. The open classroom, according to one of my professors, started in England during World War II. Many teachers went off to war, and they were replaced in classrooms by adults who had no idea how to run a classroom. So they gave lots of responsibility to children – put them in charge of their own learning. It worked. The rest is history.
Here, we tried to learn from the success of the British primary schools, and because we’re different people with a different history and different thinking, we had trouble. “Open classroom” came to have many meanings. It could be modelled carefully on the British open classroom. It could be a style of architecture – build a school without so many internal walls, and learning will happen.
Parents and teachers who didn’t like what was happening missed what they remembered as “structure.” They remembered knowing what to expect in school, and they wanted to make sure children could continue to know what to expect.
And so a dichotomy was born. There were “open schools” and “structured schools.” Or within a school, there were “open classrooms” and “structured classrooms.” As I taught, I often found myself cast in roles. There were usually two teachers per grade level where I taught, and depending on who the other teacher was, I was either the “open” teacher or the “structured” one. Usually, the “open” one.
I really believe that it’s a false dichotomy. Asking whether a teacher is “open” or “structured” is like asking whether a person is a Methodist or a Democrat. One can very easily be both. A well-run open classroom has a structure that can be far more profound and effective than many classrooms that have desks bolted down to the floor. Children are busy learning – much too busy to throw spitballs, or dip pigtails in inkwells. The teacher’s presence blends in smoothly.
For some teachers, order and predictability are easier if all the children are doing the same thing at the same time. Some children like it when that happens. In spite of my belief that children learn best when they learn in their own ways, it was usually easier for me, as a teacher, if they were all involved in the same kind of activity. And so I never quite had an open classroom, by my standards.
But I’ve seen teachers who have run what I’ve considered excellent open classrooms, and “structured” is totally inappropriate as an antonym for what they were doing.

Similar Posts

  • 2. “Back to Basics”

    I tried writing a brief article about Back-to-Basics movements. At first, it didn’t work. Back-to-Basics movements have been haunting me for twenty-five years, and my thoughts and feelings about them could fill up a book. They are based on points of view that are as hard to pin down as the “open classroom” concept. I…

  • 189. The Right Question

    Sometimes, when a particular child is a challenge, a teacher can spend an inordinate amount of time trying to come up with a successful approach. Teachers – especially experienced teachers – often have vast repertoires of strategies, and want to make sure they’ve exhausted these repertoires before asking for help. It’s partly a matter of…

  • 338. Babies

    I know people who are crazy about babies, and I also know people who aren’t. I’m one of the ones who aren’t. I’m glad there are babies; if it weren’t for babies, there wouldn’t be children. So to me, babies are definitely people to be welcomed, supported, respected, etc., and when I’m with babies, I…

  • 108. Chores

    I suggest that we throw out the word “chores.” It’s developed the wrong connotation. I don’t mean throwing out the whole concept; there are kinds of work that have to be done regularly, and it’s only fair to share the work among those who benefit by its being done. Some of those who benefit may…