My experience as of up to recently is the transition in Gallego & Cole in
pretty accurate. I am always amazed how the class of the neighboring
community is such a determiner of the classroom environment. My home
school which is lower income to low middleclass recently got rid of the
tables and put in desks, but as a rule it had more desks than tables in the
first place. The schools in more middleclass communities (although they
still have a high % of low income) tend to be more open.
I do know my community school had recently waited two or three years for
new windows, was bumped a few times so the middleclass community schools
could get computers and such.
This is not directed at any body in particular, but it seems that often
open classrooms get discussed as if class is not an issue. If you go to
school in a middle class community that controls the school board you are
in a better position to afford an "open classroom". It is not uncommon for
some teacher to take out a $2-5000 loan every year or so to pay for that
open classroom. I did my student teaching in a critical-progressive-open
classroom and it came with a price tag. There were many ideas that I
needed to discard because the cultural capital was not available. At the
beginning of the year we had tables, but as the year progressed more
students came and those tables needed to be replaced by desks.
I remember when I went through my SOE there was a couple of us very
concerned with class, race etc. The others were placed in a very wealthy
school in which each classroom had their own science lab with a sink for
evey other student. They thought it was great and it was so compatible
with the progressive ideas about science that were taught in the methods
classes. We of course did science, but it could no way compare with the
"ideal" in which the method classes thought it ought to be taught.
I very much agree with Ken when he mentions many teachers find a way as in
the large open hallways, but that is because teachers are very committed to
their students and have to pay a price that is not always fair. Many
teachers put forth 25% of their income to have a classroom their children
deserve, but there are those like myself who can not afford such an
investment even though I don't love the kids any less, and that of course
will have an impact on the classroom I will have.
Sadly, I would say if you follow the money you will find open classrooms.
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: Graham Nuthall <G.Nuthall who-is-at educ.canterbury.ac.nz>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 1999 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Classroom architecture
> Mike and others
>
> Thanks for the very interesting selection from the Gallego & Cole book.
>
> Some additional thoughts:
> R.S. Adams & B.J, Biddle, Realities of Teaching: Explorations with
> videotape, (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1970), has some interesting chapters
> on classroom communication patterns and classroom architecture -
allocation
> of roles, frequencies of who talks to whom and when, related to seating
> patterns and classroom design.
> Also: In many New Zealand elementary school classrooms, the
open-classroom
> movement of the 1970s has had a residual effect on the architecture and
> furnishing of classrooms. Most that I have worked in recently have larger
> open spaces with mats for sitting on the floor, old sofas and other
> informal furniture for book corners, etc. Was the open classroom movement
> in the US widespread? did it leave any residual effects on architecture
and
> seating?
>
> Also: I read of classrooms being redesigned by those committed to
learning
> styles so that students can lie on the floor, listen to soft music, etc.
> There was a posting about 2 years ago on this site about such a
classroom.
>
> Graham
>
>
> Graham Nuthall
> Professor of Education
> University of Canterbury
> Private Bag 4800
> Christchurch, New Zealand
> Phone 64 3 3642255 Fax 64 3 3642418
> http://www.educ.canterbury.ac.nz/learning.html
>
>