Professional discourse among educators often includes the use of "slogans" and "generalizations." Generalizations are usually more precise than slogans, which can be interpreted differently and to various degrees. During the implementation of open education curricula in several elementary schools, the evolution of teachers' ideas on classroom techniques was examined. Komisar and McClellan's slogan system analysis was used to delineate two groups of teachers with different interpretations of open education. The two groups of teachers interpreted the same slogans in different ways, depending on whether they were affiliated with a parent-teacher coalition, the Open Classroom Committee (OCC), formed to support open education. A high level of ambiguity existed in the interpretation of slogans and in the development of open education curricula because the differences between the two groups were never openly articulated, and the teachers themselves were often not aware of the differences in perspectives about open education. The differences were largely apparent in the conception and organization of the curriculum. The OCC-affiliated teachers were pragmatic, functioned informally, and based their curriculum development and rules for student behavior on the collective experience of the class. Those teachers not affiliated with the OCC often used individualized lesson plans and performance contracts and were more likely to have structured classroom projects. The use and study of slogans in educational discourse can lead to improved communications for educational practice. (FG)