Charles Silverman's book Crisis in the Classroom is enjoying well deserved success. The book, the result of a $300,000 Carnegie Foundation grant for study of teacher training, is broad in scope. Far from limiting itself narrowly to the area of teacher training it raises basic philosophical and scientific questions: How can we train teachers unless we know what it is that teacher's do which brings about desired changes in students? What are these desired changes?
Crisis in the Classroom examines the philosophic issues, analyzes and rejects the recent destructive criticisms of public education by such writers as Kozol, Goodman, Kohl and Friedenberg, weighs the impact of recent advances in curriculum reform and technology, and evaluates a host of special educational programs in the United States and abroad. Unfortunately, most of the content of his analysis has been ignored by the press. Instead, the press has stressed one single issue: the British infant school concept (also known as the "open corridor" or "open classroom" concept). My support of the "open classroom" idea is already on record. Recent newspaper articles have indicated that the idea also has the support of Harvey Scribner, New York City's Chancellor of Schools and Ewald B. Nyquist, New York State Education Commissioner.
While all this publicity has served the purpose of stimulating, discussion on how to reform all our schools, it has had unfortunate effect of leading many to believe that the "open classroom" is the only "good" way to teach, that reading and math achievement will definitely improve with this method and that any teacher can apply it easily. These, and similar erroneous views, threaten to turn a valuable insight into a dangerous fad If this danger is to be avoided, the well deserved enthusiasm for the open classroom must be placed in proper perspective.
No Single Method is Best for All Teachers
First, we must recognize that there is no single method which is best for all teachers and for all students. Charles Silverman has carefully pointed out that there are excellent traditional teachers and traditionally run schools and that these teachers and schools, doing well in their way, should not change. The open classroom approach, a departure from the "lecture methods" should appeal both to those teachers who find it difficult to hold their pupil audience for long periods and to those students who just cannot sit still and listen.
It is unwise to urge either open or traditional classroom styles on all teachers: No matter what the benefits claimed for any method, in the hands of someone who is coerced, it will be poorly executed. Just as there are teachers who function better in different styles, so there are children who respond better to a more formal classroom environment. Instead of mandating the open classroom as a replacement for the traditional one, we should provide choice of classroom styles for both teachers and parents.
Second, the evidence now available does not prove that the open classroom produces greater achievement in reading and math. Advocates of the program hope that this will be true. Silverman's advocacy is much more sober. His support is based on the view that children do no worse in specific skills in the open classroom but that other values are derived from the informal atmosphere, It seems that those who are now proclaiming guaranteed success for the program have committed themselves to the results of an experiment before the results are really in.
Third, the techniques of the open classroom cannot be easily adopted by every teacher. When the lesson or lecture method is abandoned, children learn by working with concrete materials and with each other ( as well as with adults) in the school. The organization of these experiences for students cannot be left to chance. It must be carefully planned, in a process requiring sophisticated knowledge of materials, careful diagnosis of the needs of each child, diligent preparation and enormous energy. The ineffective open classroom - like the old progressive schools which used John Dewey as an excuse for "child-centered" excesses - is the easiest of all to run: Just put out the toys and turn the kids loose. This is what will go on in the name of open classrooms if the program is developed without integrity. If the majority of the teachers in school conduct the program in this slipshod way, it will become impossible to learn or to teach, as aimlessness rapidly becomes the school standard. The students, who are always candid, tell you what they learn under these conditions: nothing.
These dangers should not deter us from doing all we can to bring about enjoyable, relaxed classrooms in which students operate free from fear and secure within limits appropriate to their ages. If we are to teach this goal, three guidelines must be observed: 1. Teachers should be allowed the right to choose the way they want to teach. 2. No open classrooms should be established without a pre-adoption workshop of at least one semester for each teacher. 3. Many principals eager to show their educational leadership and having read of the support for open classrooms have announced that their school must follow the program. This is wrong. Instead, principals should be encouraged to so structure their schools that teachers using any method get the support they need to continue. If a principal is wholly committed to only one method (in spite of the lip service given to respect for individual differences), he will operate against the effectiveness of teachers not using that method.
The open classroom must be welcomed, not as a new gospel to be imposed on the unwilling, but as a new way available to those unhappy with the old.