Will “Open Classrooms” Return?*

From time to time I have published posts that take a look at innovations that policymakers and practitioners hailed as “transforming” or “revolutionary” insofar as altering how districts conduct business, schools work, teachers teach and students learn. Not only hyped in the media and by word-of-mouth, these innovations spread across thousands of schools in the U.S. as their brand became known. Each turned out to be a reform du jour.

Such stories are a reminder of the ever-changing topography of U.S. schooling. Historians of education are like geologists who inspect strata of rock formations for what flora and fauna existed in earlier times and what accounts for their appearance and seeming disappearance. But most important of all, is how the birth and disappearance of an innovation affects the present.

For this post,  I examine the “Open Classroom” that mushroomed in schools and districts in the late-1960s through most the 1970s. To describe the innovation, I ask some of the questions that Jane David and I used when we wrote Cutting through the Hype (2010) and added a few that answer: “Whatever happened to ….”

If some readers are curious about particular reforms they experienced and now seem to have disappeared, please send me your thoughts.

The “open classroom,” an innovation that swept over U.S. schools between the late 1960s and early 1970s (see here and here), caused a few waves only to disappear from schools by the end of the decade with nary a ripple since. But appearances can be deceiving.

Where did the idea originate?

U.S. educators who visited British schools in the late-1960s spread the gospel of “open classrooms” in the Plowden Report (also called “open education” and “informal education”). Policymakers, academics, practitioners, and student-centered reformers watched teachers teach and listened to headmasters about the child-centeredclassroom that echoed in the ears of U.S.visitors as Deweyan progressivism clothed in 1960s apparel. Americans returned to their classrooms, schools, and districts filled with the optimism that accompanies true believers and began instituting open classrooms in big city and suburban districts (see here).

What is it?

Thousands of elementary school classrooms–out of a few million–became home-like settings where young children sitting on rugs, cushions, and chairs moved from one attractive “learning center” for math to others in science, reading, writing, and art. Teams of teachers worked with multi-age groups of students and created non-graded elementary schools (see here).

In both Britain and the United States, open classrooms contained no whole-class lessons, no standardized tests, and no detailed curriculum. The best of the open classrooms had planned settings where children came in contact with things, books, and one another at “interest centers” and learned at their own pace with the help of the teacher. Teachers structured the classroom and activities for individual students and small work groups. They helped students negotiate each of the reading, math, science, art, and other interest centers on the principle that children learn best when they are interested and see the importance of what they are doing.

Consider the scene from a 3rd-grade open classroom in a New York City elementary school described by two proponents, Walter and Miriam Schneir, in a 1971 New York Times Magazine article:

What is most striking is that there are no desks for pupils or teachers. Instead, the room is arranged as a workshop.

Carelessly draped over the seat, arm, and back of a big old easy chair are three children, each reading to himself. Several other children nearby sprawl comfortably on a covered mattress on the floor, rehearsing a song they have written and copied into a song folio.

One grouping of tables is a science area with . . . magnets, mirrors, a prism, magnifying glasses, a microscope. . . . Several other tables placed together and surrounded by chairs hold a great variety of math materials such as “geo blocks,” combination locks, and Cuisenaire rods, rulers, and graph paper. . . . The teacher sits down at a small round table for a few minutes with two boys, and they work together on vocabulary with word cards. . . . Children move in and out of the classroom constantly.

Some photos of Open Classrooms in the 1970s:

Gifted children at President Avenue Elementary School in Los Angeles, California, work with small computers, rabbit skeletons, and microscopes. California was one of 10 states that had full-fledged education programs for the gifted in 1973.

Taped individual programs with headsets, open classroom, Granada Community School, Belvedere-Tiburon, California. Photo: Rondal Partridge. Source: Robert Propst, High School: The Process and the Place, ed. Ruth Weinstock (New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1972).”

What Problem Did Open Classrooms Intend to Solve?

The story of how a British import called “informal education” became the reform du jour in the U.S. begins with critics’ heavy pounding of traditional teaching through lectures, textbooks, and tests. Such teaching turned off students to authentic learning and could be transformed through “open classrooms” where student passions, interests, and curiosity could unfold through projects, learning centers, integration of different subjects, and multi-age groupings.

Richly amplified by the media, “open education” in its focus on students learning by doing resonated with vocal critics of creativity-crushing classrooms as just the right kind of solution to what ailed traditional public school teaching and learning.

Did Open Classrooms Work?

Depends on how one defines “work.” If the common measure of “work” is increased test scores on standardized tests, then the answer is somewhere between “maybe” and “no.” After all, the progressive/constructivist approach to teaching and learning, classroom organization, and student participation sought to increase student outcomes such as independent thinking, problem-solving, increased creativity, and others that few available tests then (and now) measured. Researchers and teachers who believed in the principles of informal education and adopted the innovation, adapting its organization and techniques to the students in their classrooms, more often than not, concluded that Open Classrooms worked (see here and here)

What Happened To Open Classrooms?

“Open classrooms” peaked in the mid-1970s and within a few years the innovation moved from the center of the public radar screen to a mere blip on the edge. There were both external and internal reasons for the shrinking of “open classrooms.”

Public concerns over a lagging economy, rising unemployment, and the Vietnam War grew into a perception, again amplified by the media, that academic standards had slipped, desegregating schools had failed, and urban schools had become violent places. School critics’ loud voices and rising public concern over these messy problems melded into “back-to-basics” policies that toughened the curriculum, increased the teacher’s authority, and required more work of students. Public perceptions of “open classrooms” tilted toward low academic standards and high emphasis on what today would be called “social emotional learning.”

Because there were different definitions of what exactly an “open classroom” was and how it worked, teachers varied in which parts of the innovation (e.g., multiple learning centers, flexible time schedule, student choices) they would adopt and adapt. Thus, putting the innovation into practice differed from classroom to classroom in a school, from school to school, and from district to district.

Then there was the increased workload of teachers to find materials, integrate different academic subjects into units, reorganize space and furniture in their classrooms, and shift in their beliefs about how best students learn. Much was expected of the teacher.

Consider also the students. Increased student choice depended a great deal upon their motivation, interests, and aptitudes. Most students relished the increased role that they played in their learning but there were (and are) many students who needed prodding and would avoid choices that gave them more work to do.

Both internal and external reasons combined to remove the “open classroom” innovation from public attention and practitioner interest.

So were “open classrooms” just another fad? Yes and no. The yes part of the answer is that “open classrooms” as the educational version of long tail fins on cars and short skirts had, indeed, soared and faded from the public scene. But to call it a fad would miss the deeper meaning of “open classrooms” as another skirmish in the ideological wars that have split educational progressives from conservatives since the tax-supported schools opened their doors in the mid-1800s.

Times have changed. Standards-based curriculum and test-based accountability where test scores, and dominates talk about schools, there are many teachers, particularly in the primary grades, who continue learning centers and similar activities. “Open education” is still present in schools founded decades ago such as the Los Angeles Open Charter School,  Salt Lake City’s The Open Classroom, the INDIGO program in Santa Clara County (CA), and many others. There are elementary school teachers and principals who still work quietly but keep their heads low to avoid in-coming shells of criticism from colleagues and parents. They blend learning centers with whole class instruction and worksheets.

Most high school teachers, however, continue to use teacher-centered practices leavened slightly by informal practices that have crept into their repertoires. The “open classroom,” then, was not a hula-hoop fad but another skirmish in the nearly two-century long ideological war in the U.S. over how best to make children into good adults and a better society.

So the “open classroom” has clearly disappeared from the vocabulary of educators but readers should expect another variation of “open education” to re-appear in the years ahead. As I read and listen to the rhetoric of “personalized learning” initiatives, the high-tech approach to student engagement and participation suggests such a return. So deep-rooted traditional and progressive ideas about classroom teaching and learning and the best knowledge to instill in the next generation still appear (and will continue to reappear and fade) among taxpayers, voters, teachers, and parents.


*Open classrooms are not the same as “open space” schools. The latter buildings had large open spaces for both teachers and students to have lessons. Often these open spaces were partitioned off by bookcases and temporary walls to lessen interior noise. While they were initially popular in many districts, over time interior walls were constructed and eventually “open space” schools, resembled regular public schools.

Open classrooms can occur in both “open space” and conventionally built multi-story schools with linear hallways and adjacent classrooms.



Filed under Uncategorized

10 responses to “Will “Open Classrooms” Return?*

  1. I was in elementary school in the 1970s, and my first-grade teacher tried some of these techniques. I enjoyed it thoroughly and still remember specific things we did. In Santa Clara, we still have Washington Open https://woe-scusd-ca.schoolloop.com/. Several similar parent-participation public elementary programs are available in the County, including one I helped get started: https://www.indigoprogram.org/. From my experience with Indigo and my observations of the other programs, these are not exactly like the Open Schools of the ’70s. They have taken the best parts and added new innovations. Teachers commonly place their students in these schools, and they have long waiting lists. They are the only examples I have ever seen of public schools prioritizing children’s needs.

    • larrycuban

      Many thanks, Beth. Did not know about INDIGO and will add it to the post. That teachers enroll their kids in these schools/programs is a wrinkle I hadn’t thought of. Larry

      • For my friends and me, these places represent how we learned to teach. By the time our children were born, they were in “No Child Left Behind” hell in other schools, and we wouldn’t tolerate it. These schools are wildly popular, and I wish more leaders would take the hint! [We also have Christa McAuliffe School, Ohlone School (Palo Alto), and Discovery Charter (two campuses) using this model. There are some new progressive public school campuses, too, but I don’t know much about them.]

  2. Gary Yee

    My wife’s first teaching position was at MLKjr in West Oakland, in 1972. The innovative school was design supported a new and progressive public housing complex, ACORN. It was an open classroom/open space school, designed with three pods, with classes in pie shaped “rooms” with unused folding walls; students had access to higher or lower grade materials, according to ability and interest. Each pod was led by an experienced lead teacher.
    Instruction included learning centers, tape recorder listening stations, tables not rows of desks. Teachers and the principal were selected and trained in the open classroom methodologies, and they committed to work longer hours together to learn what was not taught in their teacher education classes.
    Over time, as staff transitioned out and new staff came in, bookcases separated the classrooms, then permanent walls; teaching at the school today is indistinguishable from what happens in other district schools. But I know that the notions of child-focused instruction, hands on learning, and teacher collegiality that she learned at MLKjr stayed with her, her entire forty year career as a teacher and a principal.
    Dr Marcus Foster, our Superintendent, was quite a supporter of this school during his tenure, 1970-1973; we celebrate his 100th birthday (March 31), and grieve his death by gun violence while at a school board meeting (November 6), this year, 1973.

    • larrycuban

      I appreciate very much, Gary, your memory of Caroline and her work at MLK Jr. Yes, Oakland was one of many Bay Area districts that launched open education classrooms and schools. And, yes, what you described happening at the school gibes with what I know and have researched. Thank you.

  3. I have one important dogma when it comes to teaching – KISS: Keep it Sexy, Stupid! The seating arrangements barely matter if the teacher presents engaging material that enlightens and empowers students. So long as children are as comfortable as possible and can hear every word, we can teach them in rows or in a more open-plan setting. The personality and passion of teachers matter a great deal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s