Drinking the Montessori Kool-Aid

Employees of Kraft Foods Inc. may refer to this thread by its alternate title, Drinking the Montessori FlaVor-Aid.

Our eldest son will be beginning preschool in the fall. After looking around a bit, Mrs. Anvil and I have settled on a nearby Montessori school. I was quite enthused about the program, as a number of its core practices (e.g., exploiting children’s natural urge to learn, multi-age classrooms, lack of unidirectional teacher lecturing/hectoring) felt right to me.

Looking ahead to kindergarten and elementary school, however, it occurs to me that the boy’s formal education should probably be based upon something a little more substantial than “feeling right,” so I’ve started doing some research on the topic.

I’m about halfway through Maria Montessori’s The Absorbent Mind, and am, frankly, fairly depressed by it. Popular depictions of Montessori as a rigorous investigator are really not borne out by this book. It’s scientific foundations are nebulous, and the entire thing is saturated with coy references to some greater teleological end that the method is designed to serve.

Additionally, works by the AMI/AMS/etc. seem to regard the method with a devotion bordering on the cultish: only Montessori materials must be used, and they may be used only in a rigidly prescribed manned; Maria Montessori was a towering genius who discovered “universal truths” about the way children learn.

Now, I understand that most of Montessori’s theory was built up after the fact, as a way for her to describe and explain her successes to a wider audience. As such, I suppose it’s quite possible that the theory can be safely ignored, and the basic method embraced if it is successful in its primary aim (educating children). And I also understand that the presence of unquestioning adherents does not in itself reflect negatively on the method.

The question, then, is: is there a good reason to drink the Montessori Kool-Aid? Is there good, rigorous, data-intensive research out there that supports its claims of greater long-term educational competence?

So far, all I’ve found is:

  1. This study, which makes some fairly questionable design decisions, and appears to overstate its conclusions (not terribly surprising, given the admitted desire on the part of the study sponsors to reach a positive outcome).

  2. This ERIC digest, which cites a pair of studies showing some possible long-term benefit for very young Montessori students (though I have not read the actual studies yet).

And that’s really about it.

Can anyone supply pointers/leads to more?

As the parent of two kids who went through preschool recently, I really question the importance of any sort of “curriculum” at this stage. It’s really just all about learning to socialize in groups, learning to listen when it’s not your turn, maybe some letters and counting and a bit of hand’s-on “science”. I would place far more weight on the training, experience and temperment of the teachers, the amount of turnover (which can be really high), the competence of the director, approaches to discipline and those sorts of things. Unless your child’s experience has been really bleak up to this point (and I’m sure it hasn’t), preschool is only going to make a difference to the extent that it’s pleasant and stimulating.

Preschool is going to have a negligible inflluence on the academic career of a child of the sort of parent who does the sort of research you have described.

Our kid’s teacher had some Montessori training, but she wasn’t rigid about it. All that’s really required is cheerfulness, founts of patience, and the knowledge and willingness to find interesting age-appropriate things for them to do. And lots of running around.

I’m not saying this isn’t a good school, but you need to see what they actually do. Visit classes with and without your child. Talk to other parents, if possible. That’s where you’ll really get the scoop.

Side question: “AMI”? “AMS”? The only AMS I know of offhand is the American Mathematical Society, and they leave math ed stuff to the Mathematical Association of America.

Consider the topic.

AMS = American Montessori Society
AMI is most likely American Montessori, Inc ,
although it could be Montessori Education - Association Montessori Internationale (AMI).

I attended more than one Montessori school. My experience was that the schools were not homogenous.

Given this, I’m not sure of how informative a study may be. Of course, it’ll yeild up more information, but it may be more related to the schools studied rather than the teaching methods.

You may be better off with an in depth examination of the actual schools you have to choose from rather than a broad survey of many schools. I mean how many different choices do you have?

My kids are in Montessori, one in upper elementary (in his case, equivalent to fifth grade) and the other in the second year of primary (preschool).

In my experience, though the AMI literature plays up Maria Montessori as the great educational leader, the people involved at grass-roots level, which is to say the teachers, administrators, and parents at the actual schools, have a much more realistic view. Myself, I’d say she discovered something important and wonderful when she worked with the children in the mental institution, and later repeated that work with the children at the early pre-schools. But she also was capable of great flakiness, and the later in her life you look at what she was saying and writing, the more flakiness you’ll find. “Our” preschool and school have a similar attitude. (Nobody, absolutely nobody, follows every word of Dr M’s writing. If they claim they do, ask them if they follow her advice on feeding children - which would include lots of chocolate, white bread as opposed to wholegrain as it is “more digestible”, and raw eggs still warm from the hen :eek: )

The materials are great, but they can be overemphasized, especially in primary. What AMI requires for certification is a “great work period” in the morning, ideally three hours, when only Montessori materials are available. (Note that this doesn’t mean only the iconic “didactic materials”! A full set of materials is quite extensive.) Part-time preschools may well end the day there, but if they continue after lunch you should expect to see outdoor play and/or free play indoors with more familiar toys.

I’m happy my kids have the opportunity to go to Montessori schools. I love that they can develop at their own pace. I love that they are in mixed-age groups, both because of the academic aspects and the social aspects. I love the emphasis on respect - for one’s self, for others, and for one’s surroundings. I love the discipline to teach self-discipline. I love the emphasis on becoming competent and independent. I love the way my twice-exceptional older son is treated as an individual, a resource, and a part of the community, rather than a “problem” to be dealt with or solved.

But I also know that not all Montessori schools are the same. Even among those with AMI or AMS certification, there’s a lot of variety, and certainly among non-certified schools. (There are some quite good schools out there which have chosen, for one reason or another, not to be certified.) My advice is to look closely at the school you’re considering. If it’s a school that concentrates on turning out little Wunderkinder, look elsewhere - in my opinion, the mission of a Montessori school is to help the parents help the children grow as human beings. If they talk a lot about following the words of the master, RUN - a Montessori school should be flexible, they should follow the child and not the book. A good Montessori school is a beautiful thing. A bad one is not worth the tuition fees.

I spent some time myself in a Montessori environment and didn’t grow up to kill anyone. yet.

Well, honestly, here’s my opinion. I remember the time spent there (kindergarten and first grade) very fondly. I had a lot of fun, and my very attentive teachers, I’m now told, found out a lot of things about me by observing unstructured play.

I’m not going to pretend that it’s some cure-all for the world’s ills, but I had lots of fun in there, and did not have any fun for a long time when I left for a more traditional “advanced” school. I was behind in writing but ahead in reading and most other areas. Despite the fact that I was clearly having no problems in any area but writing (disgraphia is a common condition in my family), the traditional school decided it would be best for me to repeat second grade. I don’t think anything shows the difference between a Montessori learning environment and a regular environment than these experiences (a Montessori program would never have held someone back for failure to progress in a single area).

What would I recommend? I’d say go with Montessori, not because their education methods are in any way superior (I can’t say either way), but because an investment in fun, memorable childhood experiences is better and more useful, in my opinion, than the structured society-preparation in traditional schools. I know that I will be sending my daughter to our local Montessori as soon as she’s eligible.

Thanks for all the replies so far. I think I may have obscured a few points in the OP, so I’ll just note:

  1. I absolutely agree with this statement:

I’m happy to have my son in this particular school for the next two years, but I’m really looking for more information about Montessori elementary schools.

  1. Both flodnak and humanist are echoing, I think, a point I made in the OP: there are a lot of things about this method that just feel right, and seem so much an improvement over the kind of traditional schooling I went through. However, at some point, I think I owe it to my children, myself, and my not-insubstantial property tax bill to justify these decisions with a bit more rigor. The noticeable weirdness of Montessori and her followers does nothing to dissuade me from that thought.

While personal interaction with prospective schools and their teachers is certainly a large part of my plan, I would very much like to see some hard data on the subject. With the proliferation of competing educational systems in the last century, you’d think someone would have run a large scale prospective longitudinal study by now…

I was just at a meeting at my son’s school tonight, and the head of the school mentioned that recent research on Montessori (I believe at the middle school level) was going to be written up in several academic journals.

I believe she said something was in the current issue of the American Journal of Education, and forthcoming in the Elementary School Journal (ESJ) and the Handbook of Child Psychology - Volume 1, Theories of Human Development.

I’m always a little leery of research comparing private-school children to public-school children, because we know by virtue of their being in a private school that the former group is self-selected and may be biased in all sorts of ways that provide a better explanation for achievement differences (better than the curriculum). I’ve got to read it in depth to know.

Thankfully, I don’t see Montessori as some cult, so I didn’t find it necessary to grind through a bunch of research before enrolling. From the sorts of advocacy I see my son’s school trying to do, apparently a lot of parents are there just because it “feels right” for their child; they aren’t really capable of (or interested in?) recounting the Montessori philosophy in depth. So while you may run across a school which is very rah-rah about it, it’s possible that the literature is misleadingly gung-ho.

During my wife’s studies in her Early Childhood Education degree they went through a lot of different theorys and practices.

Just an interesting fact: originally the Montessori schools format was meant to be used to teach mentally retarded children using task focused learning. The child could choose to learn what they wanted but they needed to fully complete a task prior to moving to a new task, teaching them to complete tasks and see things through while learning the task. This teaching method was able to be modified into what it has become today.

A lot of people swear by the “open environment” provided in letting the child focus on their interests. At higher levels like grade school the ideas behind being focused on a task until completion is also a very good skill to learn.

My wife’s personal feelings differ at the Pre-school age where she is against the rigid curriculum based schools and is more of the “let the child learn through experimentation” mindset. Giving them multiple areas of interest each day that relate to the subject but not forcing them to follow through to a pre-defined ending.

I think the drive to goal based learning being pushed younger and younger is getting a bit out of control. One private school here in Washinton has a curriculum for Kindergarteners which includes “The Cival War” and says childeren will be able to identify the causes leading up the the war. In kindergarten i remember learning to write my letters.

I put three children through Montessori pre-school and my wife has a degree in early childhood special education. We’ve been bombarded with Montessori information from every angle – normal kids, exceptional kids, special needs kids, what kind of teacher gravitates to the Montessori model, you name it.

Here’s the important thing to remember: One size does not fit all! You may find the best Montessori program in the world, only to discover that your child responds best to being put into a seat and lectured to for a half-hour. There’s nothing magical about any system.

That said, what I liked about Montessori instruction, particularly in the early years, was the emphasis on going at your own rate, but completing one task before starting another. Of course, our Montessori teachers “encouraged” their students to “experiment” with different tasks so the kids would move out of their comfort zone.

And just to recap, let’s look at the basic educational models:

Affluent public school – Go find a desk
Poor public school – Pretend you have a desk. And a book.
Progressive public school – Let’s put our desks in a circle
Catholic school – Go sit in that desk
Religious school – God has revealed that this is your desk
Expensive sectarian private school – Your mommy and daddy bought this desk for you
Vocational school – Today we’re going to build a desk
Montessori school – Let’s all discover a desk
Military school – The only way this class can function is for each of you to sit in your assigned desks quickly, correctly and without question.

For a sobering perspective, read the book, Freakonomics. Just about every bookstore in the country has it in stock right now.

The economist author found little or no correlation between the school and the future success of the children. Similarly, he claims that what the parents do has little effect, but what the parents are has a huge effect.

Whether you believe it or not, it raises some interesting points to think about.

Sorry to bump this thread, but just so the archives has this for the next person who searches…

I am not in a position to comment on the claims made in the book, mainly because the authors devote so little space to presenting the data, and instead jump directly to their conclusions.

However, the basis for the chapter on schooling is the National Center for Education Statistics Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, which is pretty much exactly the type of study I was looking for in the OP. Unfortunately, the study has not been completed yet (the birth cohort was begun in 2001), so it doesn’t yet lend itself to drawing a lot of conclusions. The data is not available online, but you can order a CD for free from the Department of Education.