Music Educators Journal

Every time a new wave in education splashes about, it seems as though everyone wants to dive in before knowing what lies beneath the surface. This opening article is a kind of “state of the wave (movement)” message—a necessary caution not only for those moving along nicely with the current, but also for those who may already be over their heads and those who have yet to test the water. The author, Vincent R. Rogers, has been a prominent spokesman for open education for the past decade. The writer/editor of Teaching in the British Primary Schools, he is director of the Center for Open Education at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.—Ed.

In his book, Open Education: The Informal Classroom, Charles H. Rathhone wrote that “a current danger, especially as open education gains in popularity in the United States, is that some well-meaning Americans will seize upon a few of its practices without fully comprehending their meaning in terms of (the) underlying rationale. They will then learn, I fear, that educational change unaccompanied by an integral, comprehensive philosophy cannot in the long run he sustained.” In this next article, Roland S. Barth, author of Open Education and the American School, gives us the rationale in the form of “assumptions” about learning and knowledge and then ties these in with instructional practices to present an overview of what open education is all about. Barth is principal of the Angier School in Newton, Massachusetts.—Ed.

If the material in this time and thought line seems a bit redundant, then you will have gotten the point. In a sense, open education is not really new; the basic principles are rather old, having their roots in John Dewey's progressivism, in Maria Montessori's work, in Susan Isaac's writings, and so on. In England, for example, informal classrooms have been developing, in practice, since the Second World War, and the theories behind them go back still further. This time line, then, has several purposes: to trace some of the historical thought-paths to open education today, to highlight some of the key events in the development in the United States, to rekindle interest in some of the older writers on education, and to provide references to some of the more significant documents (such as the Vermont Design for Education and-the “Bible” of the movement-the Plowden Report). Thus, the following section is intended more for browsing, spot checking, and documentary reference than for continuous reading.—Ed.

Since American open education has been so strongly influenced by practices in Great Britain, it is logical to turn there for our first look at how music functions in this type of learning environment. Marie Westervelt, like most other authors in this issue, has seen the British schools in action and thus is able to dispel some common myths through first-hand knowledge. One idea to be exploded is that everything in an informal classroom is individualized and that there is no way to develop performing groups. Not so. In the integrated day, there are numerous opportunities for instrumental lessons, regular ensemble experiences, skill development, and broad participation. The author is presently completing doctoral studies at Syracuse University, New York.—Ed.

How does music fit into the American open classroom? Obviously, it cannot be confined to a music room in the school, although a special music room should supplement classroom music areas. It cannot be simply a scheduled activity with the music specialist, although certain types of experiences must be scheduled. It cannot be based on a set of objectives for an entire class, although objectives are vastly important. In short, the music specialist faces a challenge in the open classroom, but a very promising and involving challenge. The potential for the music program is described in the following article by Keith Thompson, who is on the faculty of the School of Music at The Ohio' State University, Columbus.—Ed.

The degrees to which music can he integrated in the open classroom and to which it can become an outstanding or simply average component of the curriculum will vary from school to school, depending on the school's philosophy, the stage of development, the personnel involved, and so on. In the open school, as in the traditional school, there is no one way that a music program can or should operate. Perhaps one of the best means of seeing what is actually going on now is to look in on several different schools to note the different approaches. Here, then, are four brief sketches of music programs in open classrooms—both public and private—in New York, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts.—Ed.

The degrees to which music can he integrated in the open classroom and to which it can become an outstanding or simply average component of the curriculum will vary from school to school, depending on the school's philosophy, the stage of development, the personnel involved, and so on. In the open school, as in the traditional school, there is no one way that a music program can or should operate. Perhaps one of the best means of seeing what is actually going on now is to look in on several different schools to note the different approaches. Here, then, are four brief sketches of music programs in open classrooms—both public and private—in New York, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts.—Ed.

The teacher in the open classroom has been variously described as “facilitator,” “guide,” “resource person,” even “travel agent.” Perhaps such terms have contributed to a false impression of the teachers role, resulting in the mistaken notion of some teachers that open education is a laissez-faire approach. But the teacher is not simply a consultant not an overseer of a haphazard, unstructured, chaotic “experience center,” as some might think. Rather, he must do a great deal of planning and continuous evaluation to provide the structure within which the child can function freely and personally in terms of his particular interests, needs, and abilities. There is structure existing, for example, in the teachers selection, arrangement, and substitution or replenishment of learning materials; structure is provided as the teacher moves in and out of the childrens activities and as he keeps a visual watch on areas being neglected or used extensively by certain students; there is structure in scheduled activities and in the teachers feedback as he helps the children achieve a balance in their free activities; and structure arises on a very personal level as the teacher comments, raises questions, suggests, and builds on spontaneous happenings (but does not “direct” or “manipulate”) to help each student find meaningful experiences in music in terms of himself. Charles H. Rathbone, author/editor of Open Education: The Informal Classroom, discusses the teachers role in this next article. A former assistant professor of education at Oberlin College in Ohio, he is now director of New City School in St. Louis.—Ed.

Stocking the open classroom with learning materials is more than a matter of choosing and buying; it often means scrounging for, stumbling on, and inventing. And it also involves careful analysis, evaluation, and planning to make sure that the materials are appropriate and stimulating for a particular group of students at a given time, accommodating a wide range of activities, interests, and ability levels. It must be remembered, though, as the Education Development Center has pointed out in Instructional Aids, Materials, and Supplies, that “instructional aids and materials have no inherent power. A classroom can offer a rich material environment yet be sterile and lifeless. Materials … acquire value only as they are acted upon by children's and teachers' minds.” In the following article, Helen Loftin Cornell, elementary music teacher with the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, offers suggestions for developing music materials for the open classroom.—Ed.

Many of the ideas presented in this issue can be used effectively by teachers who are not involved in open education. For example, the strategies suggested by Joseph W. Landon in the accompanying article can be applied in both traditional and transitional classrooms. A former president of the California Music Educators Association and former vice-president of MENC's Western Division, Landon is a professor of music and education at California State University, Fullerton. In the May 1973 issue of MEJ he described his observations in British primary schools; here, he deals with techniques for individualizing music education. It must be realized, of course, that individualized instruction and open education are not the same thing. Individualized programs, packets, and contracts may accommodate an individual student's pace and may offer some alternatives in selection, but once selected they generally place restrictions on the student's choice of activities, materials, and mode of operation, and they generally predetermine the outcomes. Nevertheless, what Landon describes can be effective tools for “opening up” the traditional learning environment, for moving toward a modified or transitional classroom, and for recognizing to some degree students' individual styles.—Ed.

In Open Education and the American School, Roland S. Barth wrote that “one central idea differentiates the open educator's concept of evaluation: in the open school, evaluation is primarily for the benefit of the learner, and only secondarily for the convenience and benefit of parent, teacher, or administrator…. The teacher's intention … is not to judge but to reflect back to the child the consequences of his behavior. As judge, the adult's best interests are served: he asserts his power and influence over the child. As facilitator, the child's best interests are served: he becomes aware of his difficulties, the need for improving his performance, and ways of doing so.” In this next article, evaluation by the music teacher is discussed by Eleanor Duckworth, a Canadian educator who has served as a translator for Jean Piaget during his United States lectures. She is senior research associate at the Atlantic Institute of Education, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and coordinator of the Institute's “Lighthouse Learning Program.”—Ed.

As Keith Thompson notes in his article earlier in this issue, making the transition to open education takes time—because it involves changing people. It is not just a matter of altering the arrangement of a room, removing the bells and buzzers, and stockpiling materials in interest centers. It requires a different way of seeing the child and understanding the child, as well as a change in the teacher's attitude and self-image. Adopting theories and principles that may he foreign to one's own background and education is difficult enough, but even more challenging perhaps is putting those principles into practice as a teacher. In addition to new programs in preservice teacher education, assistance in making the transition can come through inservice programs, including teachers' centers and advisory services. These are described in the following article by Bernard Spodek, who has prepared teachers for open education through his work at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he is professor of early childhood education. An active supporter of the movement and editor of the forthcoming Studies in Open Education, he has also been involved in inservice programs, including one at the Olive School (the subject of another article in this issue).—Ed.

Charles E. Silberman has referred to the arts as “the business of education as much as reading, writing, math, or science.” Such a view from a prominent critic of education is indeed heartening, and it is one that is shared by those who believe in the integrated day, the Leicestershire method, informal classrooms, or open education. The arts at the core is the subject of this last, “rounding out” article by Annette R. Guenther, who is a curriculum specialist in language arts and early childhood education in the Bucks County Public Schools, Doylestown, Pennsylvania.—Ed.