While many support the move, some educators are cautious, arguing that U-shaped seating may not suit daily teaching needs and could introduce fresh challenges rather than resolve existing issues
Published Jul 18, 2025 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jul 18, 2025 | 7:00 AM
Tamil Nadu on the way to adopt U‑shaped classrooms: Experts express mixed opinions(Representative Image/ Creative Commons)
Synopsis: Inspired by a scene from the Malayalam film Sthanarthi Sreekuttan, Kerala has initiated a shift to U-shaped seating in classrooms — a move Tamil Nadu adopted for middle schools on 12 July. Other southern states, including Karnataka, are exploring the idea, sparking debate among educators and parents about inclusivity, psychological impact, scientific basis, and the influence of cinema on education policy
Kerala has initiated a move to adopt a U‑shaped seating arrangement in classrooms, an idea inspired by a scene from the Malayalam film ‘Sthanarthi Sreekuttan’. Following that example, the Tamil Nadu government on July 12 announced that middle schools across the State will also shift from traditional row seating to this new layout. A few other southern states, including Karnataka, are exploring similar changes in their classrooms.
This story matters because it goes beyond a change in furniture. Educators and parents are asking whether such a system can genuinely make students feel included, improve comfort, and reduce the old back‑benching mindset. It also raises bigger questions on whether the approach is scientifically sound, how it might affect children psychologically and physically, and whether taking inspiration from a film is the right way to reform classrooms.
Experts who have weighed in on the move are divided in their opinions. While some believe the U‑shaped layout can encourage participation and break long‑standing classroom hierarchies, others are cautious about its overall impact and the practical challenges it may bring.
“Good ideas can come from anywhere, even from a film, because what matters is the value behind the idea, not the source,” said Dr. Niranjanaradhya V P, Development Educationist to South First. In a welcoming note on the initiative, he described the new seating plan as “a first step towards the democratization of classrooms.”
He explained that “the very purpose of education is democratization, socialisation and to achieve that we need classrooms designed in a way that removes hierarchies.” In a caste‑ridden society like ours, he said, the old seating system often reinforced divisions, with children from lower castes pushed to the corners or the back. “Adopting a U‑shaped arrangement is a good idea because it creates a sense of equality and togetherness among students,” he added.
Dr. Niranjanaradhya pointed out that similar approaches already exist. “We already see similar systems to some extent in places like Karnataka’s Nalikali classrooms, where multi‑grade students sit in a circle and engage in activities together,” he said, describing how such an environment gives children more freedom and encourages participation without rigid hierarchies.
However, he acknowledged that the change is not without challenges. “It can be challenging for teachers, because in such a setting they have to pay attention to every child and move around, but that is part of the change,” he said. This layout, he added, encourages dialogue and interaction rather than the one‑sided lecture method where the teacher knows everything and students are passive.
Concerns about visibility, he noted, are technical matters that can be addressed. “Even in traditional classrooms, students sitting at the back often struggle to see the board, so these are not new challenges,” he said. In his view, this shift is “an important step towards values like equality, non‑discrimination and socialization, which education should always uphold.”
Though many have welcomed the idea, there are voices that view it with caution. Some educators feel the change may not suit the realities of everyday teaching and could create new difficulties instead of solving old ones. Their concerns bring another side to the discussion, showing that the move to U‑shaped classrooms is not seen as a clear solution by everyone.
Not all educators see the U‑shaped layout as a step forward. Speaking to South First, D. Shashikumar, General secretary, KAMS Karnataka and Director of brain center, said, “The suggestions made by some experts, saying that a U‑shaped classroom environment will give more concentration to every child, are only partial and not practical for long hours.” He described the approach as something that might look good in theory but would not hold up in real conditions.
He warned that “the body posture and the neck of the students will have a greater impact on the spine and other physical issues,” adding that many classrooms have different dimensions where such an arrangement simply cannot work. He also said there are scientific recommendations against it, pointing out that “even orthopaedic experts have already said that it is not good.”
He raised a specific concern about how students would view the board from different sides of a U‑shaped layout. “When you sit on the side, you are not looking at the board straight. You are looking with only one eye instead of using both,” he said. “Both focal points have to be there when looking at the board. Straining at one side will definitely affect eyesight, posture, the neck and many things,” he added, pointing out that children are expected to sit in class for six to eight hours a day.
Responding to the belief that the U‑shaped layout would solve the back‑bencher problem, he said teachers already have ways to ensure attention for all students. “There is no back bench or front bench now, because even the third row will be monitored and more attention will be there in the classroom,” he said. He also added that seating is often arranged by height, not by whether a student is a fast or slow learner, calling the idea that all slow learners sit in the back “a rubbish submission of an old style.”
Shashikumar questioned the very foundation of the initiative. “No school has given something that cannot be seen,” he said. “There are no scientific studies, no beneficiary studies, and you cannot experiment on students based on individual perceptions.” In his view, placing students in a U‑shape occasionally for group activities may be acceptable, but keeping them in that position for an entire school day could cause more harm than good.
The move towards U‑shaped seating shows how schools are beginning to rethink old classroom models, balancing inclusion with practicality. With experts divided, it marks the start of a larger conversation on how learning spaces can truly support every child.
(Edited by Ananya Rao)
