Skip to main content Skip to navigation

Database

This is a new database under construction!

Burke, C. (2005) ‘“The School Without Tears”: E. F. O’Neill of Prestolee’, History of Education, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 263-275

ABSTRACT: Using archival research and content analysis of photos, Burke examines how the head teacher at Prestolee Elementary school in Lancashire - E. F. O’Neil - used both pedagogy and school building design to promote a positive learning experience based on ‘freedom’ and ‘learning through doing’

Page 264:1. O’Neill’s aim was to develop the innate characteristics of children at play in order to maximise their educational potential. Thus, rather than pedagogy and the built environment imposing their conception of learning upon children, O’Neill’s vision was to harness pupils’ in-built skills by catering to their needs.L.E: This is similar to the ‘user-centred’ design principles of David and Mary Medd. 

Page 265: ‘The Thrill of the Classroom’2. O’Neill – no college qualifications, refused to physically punish children, adopted the philosophy of ‘learning through doing’. However, this practical approach to education was not permitted during the formal school day by the government at this time (1910-20), and so O’Neill had to practice his experimental teaching methodology after school.

3. Early 20th Century pedagogy – focus on the material and physical conditions of teaching spaces. Dewey (1897) My Pedagogic Creed; ‘[…] education as a process of living rather than a preparation for life […]’ – the argument that the formalism of education system stifled children’s creativity and educational potential.

4. Other key names in 20th Century pedagogy – Maria Montessori, Holmes and Hawker – 1914 British Montessori Society, set up first conference on ‘New Ideals in Education’ which supported the ideal of the built environment promoting freedom. 

Page 266: ‘Challenging the Classroom’ 5. ‘The classroom predicates the arrangement of bodies in space around notions of authority and deference.’ O’Neill wanted to break free of these artificial distinctions of power through active, practical learning.L.E: This is obviously still a popular principle today, with great emphasis being placed on undergraduate research to support the ‘learning through doing’ approach, rather than relying on the ‘spoonfeeding’ method employed by some tutors.

6. Evidence for an official challenge against the classroom made by the Board of Education in 1898, arguing the classroom was not conducive to the modern industrial world and should therefore be replaced by workshops where student interaction was encouraged. Dewey and Parkhurst described this as ‘active learning’.L.E: Doesn’t this sound a lot like the ‘social learning’ environments that Oxford Brookes and Warwick are attempting to create today??? 

Page 267: 7. ‘Active learning’ promoted through freedom. Restrictive classroom emblematic of hierarchical education system e.g O’Neill outlines the ‘Punch and Judy’ and ‘Chalk and Talk’ teaching styles that render children passive ‘absorbers’.

8. Restrictive classroom also representative of social hierarchy of outside world e.g w/c children receive orders from m/c teachers. This is an example of social reproduction for a capitalist society – shouldn’t education challenge this and promote social mobility? Has this successfully been confronted by modern pedagogy?

9. Classroom environment characterised materially by the physical division of children from the teacher and the separation of different stages of the learning process; and atmospherically with classroom activities based on fear and humiliation, with the tutor as dictator. 

Page 268 – ‘Let Teachers be Spacious’ 10. ‘Let teachers be spacious’- i.e allow tutors to reorganise the built environment to challenge and ‘emancipate’ children from the established dictatorial pedagogy of the classroom.

11. E.g O’Neill used the school hall in Prestolee as an open plan learning space, with subjects and their resources placed on different tables. This allowed children access to their own method of learning in an environment where subjects were not separated, thus promoting interdisciplinary and interaction based ‘active learning’.L.E: Using Allen’s (2003) definition of power being a mobilisation of resources, O’Neill clearly recognised the importance of giving students ownership of their own learning via open access to resources such as books, and therefore moving away from teachers as all powerful dictators, to tutors as facilitators/providers of resources, empowering children to use them and learn as they see fit. 

Page 270 – ‘The Experiment in Practice’12. At Prestolee, there was emphasis on the responsibility of children for their own learning and the maintenance of the built environment, shown by a loose and fluid timetable that students could negotiate with tutors.

13. Also emphasis on the building of practical objects which children could actually use; students encouraged to disassemble school furniture to create an environment which they had built themselves according to their own needs. This established a sense of ownership for their learning space.

14. Teacher and pupil division at Prestolee became blurred as the focus was on communal responsibility. 

Page 272 – ‘The Evolution of a New System over Time’15. Prestolee prided itself on the freedom of time, space, and learning, with children in control of their own education. E.g interview with 13 year old Muriel Kidd, a pupil at Prestolee, illustrates how students were encouraged to independently research what they didn’t understand, and were given the opportunity to study for up to 12 hours a day if they so wished.

16. This system was criticised by the LEA, meaning the school had to introduce some formal teaching of key subjects. However, pupils were permitted to interact and help one another in a non-classroom setting. 

Page 273 – ‘The Outdoor Environment’17. At Prestolee there was no division between inside and outside, work and play, boys and girls. This fluidity was designed to promote freedom and research based learning e.g Sawyer (1944) ‘Do things, make things, notice things, arrange things, and only then reason about things.’L.E: Therefore, the built environment of the institution should make this research driven learning possible. For example, the Reinvention Centre at Warwick provides the floor space, computer technology, and presentation resources to make Sawyer’s vision a reality.

18. As a result of this open spaces approach, O’Neill challenged the idea that the LEA and Board of Education should define the curriculum. Prestolee illustrated that it could be shaped by the children’s own activities and interests.L.E: This is very similar to the ‘reflexive learning’ pedagogy of today. 

Page 274: Conclusion - 19. Pedagogy of freedom and active learning embedded in a flexible built environment based on minimal supervision.

20. Prestolee experiment ended with the Education Reform Act of 1944 which abolished elementary schools.

21. Excellent summarising quote to illustrate how architecture and pedagogy are inexplicably interlinked; ‘[…] one teacher’s (O’Neill) appreciation of the significance of the built environment and the material context of the school, combined with a view of the child as innovator, constructor and researcher of his/her own world, could act as a powerful pedagogical instrument.’ Research Leads – look into:Dewey (1897) – My Pedagogic Creed.British Montessori Society.‘New Ideals in Education’ conference and its history.Education legislation from 1900s to present today which may have influenced the built school environment.     

Laura Evans

Date
Wednesday, 05 August 2009
Tags
Pedagogy, 1920s, Prestolee Elementary, Schools, Catherine Burke, E.F O'Neill