I went to a completely open plan school, with no classroom space at all, just two 'ends', with four classes in each. Frankly we weren't taught much at all. It would have been impossible in the space and that wasn't the ethos anyway. We were supposed to teach each other. It was incredibly noisy, according to my mum, but none of the children seemed bothered by the noise. I suppose we soon got used to it and didn't know any different. This was in the seventies when there wasn't the pressure to teach things formally that there is now. Most of the top sets at my secondary school were made up of pupils from my terrible primary school. I'm sure there's some research to be done out there somewhere! We all loved it and I have to say we were very creative, if appalling handwriters on the whole! It must have been hell for the teachers who'd moved from the old, normal school building but most of the teachers were young and many had done their teaching practice there too, so they didn't know any different either. So, positives. None these days, that I can think of. In those days the theory was children could work with other children of any age so weren't held back or overwhelmed by having to be taught with theri own age group. The other positives were unique to the time and school (for example, having weeks and weeks to do an art project, and doing nothing else for those weeks and weeks! ). I don't think it did me any harm and makes me wonder if we do a great deal too much stressing about what children learn at primary school. We'd all gone to an excellent infants, where we learned to read and write so the damage inflicted by the juniors was somewhat mitigated by our thorough grounding. I think middle ability children probably suffered from lack of directed teaching. Depending on the school set up i suppose there may be scope for mixing children from different classes for certain activities.