I agree the social aspect is certainly important, but I don't think I see how pretending to, lets say, sweep is any more or less focused on mastering the social relationships among family members than actually sweeping. The child is still pretending to be mom or dad in both cases, and once children master skills such as sweeping, they are very eager to implement them around the Children's House. When a child learns to tie his shoes for instance, he is likely to go around asking every child he sees with untied shoes whether he can tie their shoes. From a social perspective, not only is he putting into action asking people if he can touch them and offering them a service, the person whose shoe he is tying is being gracious enough to offer him an opportunity to help and to put his shoe tying skill into action. To me, I see all the aspects of play that are important to the child in activities in a Montessori classroom with the added bonus of it actually having a real impact on the environment. So instead of pretending to cook for everyone like mom does, a child can actually cook for everyone like mom does. Just as mom cooks real food, the child cooks real food, so he can get the social and non-social aspects of various activities simultaneously. See what I mean? Very good point, though.

To the best of my knowledge, which is only a little bit, there are still manipulatives and there is no direct foreign language instruction, but don't quote me on that last part. Elementary comes a bit closer to traditional education in that it is much more academically focused than primary. The elementary "curriculum" generally begins with five "Great Lessons" that essentially give the child an overview, a taste, of the history of the universe and of mankind specifically. This is to inspire the children to learn anything and everything. Then presentations are given either individually or in small groups that essentially introduce them to ideas they could learn through further exploration/research and then let them independently figure it out if they wish. Just off the top of my head, I remember seeing a young girl researching the geography of Africa, getting out a map of Africa with lots of holes in it, then labeling every river and capitol of Africa with little flags that went into the holes. It was pretty amazing. Ideally, the child's curiosity also compels them to ask questions which the guide will equip the child to answer for himself. Small group research is constantly going on The big thing in elementary is "Going Outs," which are basically research field trips that are planned by a small group of children. This article gives a good summary of what goes on in Elementary.

Absolutely. Observation is the next best thing to actually getting their hands on things. A very close second at that. On a side note, a principle that is followed particularly with the practical life and senorial presentations is either talking or moving at one time, but not both. And it's mostly just moving. It's interesting to see how more engaged children are during the presentation and after the activity is handed over to them when talking is at a minimum and not at the same time as moving. It's not so much a need as simply what children often will do when they are fully engaged in an activity. They will have no sense of the ends of the activity, only the means. Through this repetition, their movements are likely to get more refined on their own and they are likely to make fewer mistakes with each repetition. In a way, you could say it is a need the child himself has expressed that he needs to better himself, but it's nothing we need to force on him. There's lots of reasons why a child may not repeat an exercises. Sometimes they simply aren't interested, they don't need to repeat it, they've become focused on the product instead of the process, and it can even be a result of well-intentioned mistakes we make. Another maxim of Montessori is that "every unnecessary help is a hindrance." Even in my practice teaching, This was part of the reason Montessori found that richer children took longer to engage with the environment than poorer children. I've seen even slight well-intentioned assists on my part make a child completely disinterested in an activity.

It is what the child is doing all the time. He is absorbing every aspect of his environment and every single bit is being used to construct himself. Like a Polaroid takes in everything in its sights and prints it permanently on the photo paper, the child absorbs everything in his environment with his senses, which is permanently imprinted on his mind. This development is either getting obstructed, or it is not. With respect to order, the child can construct his mind in an orderly manner, which requires an orderly environment, or he can construct his mind in a disorderly manner, which occurs in a disorderly environment. The more orderly the environment, the more orderly the mind. When the child concentrates, the highest quality development occurs because all of his mind and body are focused on the same task that interests him. At the deepest level of concentration, next to no external act can interrupt the child's concentration. The child's development cannot be sped up or improved upon except perhaps by changing his genetics or something crazy like that. It's like an embryo. There's plenty of ways you can mess up the development of an embryo (alcohol, drugs, stress, etc.), but it's going to develop at its own pace. Public schools are exempt from licensing regulations as these are for daycares, which are generally private. There's a whole lot of hoops you have to jump through to get classified as a school if you are not a public school. It's the same reason why daycare transportation has to have seat belts but school buses don't. The rationale behind the nap rule is exactly the reasons you describe above: children being forced to not nap or at least not being provided the opportunity for an adequate amount of napping. It's good in theory, but I'd venture to guess that most daycares don't do this and the rule itself is a mistake in execution. Forcing children to "try" to nap is about as productive as forcing them to try to use the bathroom. The easiest and most developmentally appropriate thing to do is to allow them to sleep when they are tired and go to the bathroom when they need to.

Very good points. Practicing before doing is a way of increasing the child's independence. By seeing an adult do it before doing, he has something he can imitate, measure his actions against, and ultimately surpass. As long as the activity has feedback he can see (like water getting all over the floor or clothes still being wrinkled), he can refine his movements largely independent of adult intervention. What practice allows for that doing it "for real" does not is endless repetition.

Haha you don't need to tell me about crazy Montessori ladies; my trainer is known as one even among the circle of Motnessori trainers. Thanks for the wishes. :D

That sucks. I think the moral of the story is that traditional schooling is quite deficient at cultivating good social cohesion in the presence of divergent learners haha No i don't think you are. The difference between the "norms" set by traditional education and those set by Montessori is that those of traditional education are determined by the ideas of adults, many of whom have next to no knowledge of child development, which will inevitably be rigid and narrow, while those of Montessori are determined by study of the child, including observation of his physical and psychological development. In this way the norms are naturally wider and more accurate. And because how each child manifests these patterns of development can vary widely, the planes are used as guides instead of rigid markers. The day is largely the same for the older child, though the materials he has access to are more complex. The materials are still largely sensorial in nature (IOW, they are hands-on and visual) because the first plane child is a sensorial learner. Even the most abstract materials are still hands on in some way. To specifically focus on math, the most abstract material is probably the "Dot Game," which involves adding many numbers together by writing dots with a marker in columns labeled 1, 10, 100, 1000, and 10000. It's essentially fancy tally counting. The next closest group of materials are the practice charts, which are grids for the four operations with the first two numbers in an equation and the answer. The child uses his fingers to find the answer on the chart with the goal of memorizing every essential math fact, eventually being able to recreate the chart on a blank one. Other than that, every math material uses manipulatives in some way, including math materials that come after the ones I described. The older child will, based on his experience, be more of an asset to the younger children, spontaneously helping them with presentations, how things are done in the classroom, etc. if he wishes. The child will be able if he wishes to write compositions even before he can use a pencil. He can use the moveable alphabet. Once he can read what he writes back, he'll be ready to move onto reading activities, though this generally takes about 6 months of using the moveable alphabet. He'll begin with words, then phrases, then sentences, then stories over this time period. He can even continue to use it after he has begun reading activities, which invite him to write with a pencil, though most likely he will wish to write with a pencil more than with the moveable alphabet. History is largely a second plane interest, though historical figures are discussed with various materials. The first plane child is largely concerned with his immediate environment. Science largely deals with things like animals, plants, etc.. Static objects more so than processes. Foreign language is touched with cultural stories referencing pictures or objects. For those casas able to do so, an assistant who speaks nothing but a foreign language can be used as foreign language immersion. There aren't separate classes or days or teachers who come in for each subject. Hope this helps.

Children can and will perform actions that to us adults seem completely pointless, like cleaning a table when it has ceased being dirty. But the larger point is that the children are largely process oriented in this phase. Whether the act genuinely has an external purpose or not, the child is doing it because the process is compelling to his mind. And unbeknownst to him, engaging in these behaviors is constructing his very being. And the more compelling, the more constructive this behavior is, the more they will repeat it. Children have been known to repeat activities dozens of time before choosing to stop. Connecting this to the above, the process of sweeping is what the child desires. He doesn't particularly care if he is making the mess or the mess was made by someone else. This is one of many ways how Montessori activities are like play, which is how a very young child tends to learn best. Additionally, by creating his own controlled mess and then cleaning it up, he is practicing sweeping for when it becomes necessary. And third, the mess made with flower petals is much more obvious than natural messes which are sometimes more subtle. Finally, dry messes don't happen as often in the Children's House as wet messes. And since the wet messes are much more obvious and can get out of control much more than dry messes, we don't intentionally spill water on the floor to wipe it up. I understand your justification for not intentionally making mess with the flower petals, but this is the justification for why we do it. And on as an extra bonus, it gives the child something to do with dried petals from flowers used for flower arranging. From the perspective of the activities as chores or discrete skills, a general principle of Montessori in the practical life area is to present skills before they are needed. It's less distracting to practice setting a table before it's time for lunch because when you are practicing there is all the time in the world and there's less pressure to do it correctly right then and there. Plus practicing an activity before it's time to perform it "for real" is what people in general tend to do, whether child or adult.

They are dropped off at the door. Depending on the physical setup of the lot, there could be room for a walkway leading up to a porch and/or gate or there could simply be a sidewalk in between the door and the parking lot. They straggle in within a given time frame and are greeted as they come in. The expectation is that they are all there by the time the morning work cycle begins. If they come in after, I would greet them at each of our earliest convenience when neither of us are working. Compare the look on his face when he is allowed to complete a difficult task himself to the look on his face when he is interrupted. The former is a look of satisfaction, the latter a look of defeat or annoyance depending on the demeanor of the child. Thankful is probably not the correct word, since the child will likely have no knowledge of me letting him work out the problem himself. He'll hopefully save all the praise for himself. Furiously is flower language that seemed to be desired. And what would like for me to call the child's act of creating himself, which is nothing short of the act of creating a future adult? No, it's literally a small sticker for the purpose of focusing his attention. When the child first is presented sweeping, he is usually 2.5-3. After a while, he may not need it. Just threw in some different activities for variety. I don't know the exact number, but there's easily over 100 possible exercises in a complete Children's House, and that doesn't count the constructive uses/combinations of materials that the child may discover himself. And everything in the Children's House is child-sized save for the few things that are exclusively for the adults, such as a couple observation chairs. Part of it is simply that it is a "rule" in the room that there is no running. I put rule in quotes but this is not like traditional education where I am directly laying down rules such as no running/walking feet, no hitting/gentle hand, etc., though this may become necessary for certain children. I am modeling them through my own actions and redirecting them to activities that will meet their "sensitive period" for movement, which is simply a strong interest that lasts for a period of time that generalizes across all children. This indirectly sets a limit that we walk in the classroom. The activity for redirection, such as a movement song, is an attempt to satisfy this sensitive period in a more constructive manner. It's more constructive because the child is invited to focus his energies towards a specific purpose with specific movements, in this case dancing. If a child is not ready for this, he may need to run around aimlessly outside, though even before this more focused movement activities will be attempted, such as an obstacle course, rope bridge, labyrinth, wheelbarrow work, etc. The important theory to understand is that the child actually desires direction for his energies; he simply needs a patient guide to show him in one of the manner directions that exist in the environment. That was my not so subtle complaint that naptime, at least in my state, is mandatory to the point that children under a certain age are forced to attempt to take a nap for 30 minutes. This is utterly pointless in the Montessori environment for children are free to take a nap whenever they want and are informed that time has been set aside specifically for napping if they wish to take it. Thanks for the critique.

I agree completely. On a larger scale, what kind of society is the next generation going to create when from the age of 6 (if not earlier) they are seeing and developing these sorts of competitive attitudes? Not only is it likely going to raise a bunch of narcissists, but their self-images are likely going to be extremely fragile as research suggests. Why not raise children who compete with themselves, to be better than they were yesterday, and who engage in friendly competition with their peers to the betterment of themselves and the classroom society? These sorts of people can be encouraged to better themselves by seeing the accomplishments of others and be happy when others accomplish something they have accomplished in the past. The best part is, we as adults don't have to teach this at all; this is a naturally developed behavior when they are allowed to freely engage in meaningful work with 30+ other children.

It's the training I've taken and the fact that I'm still working on expressing these ideas to people who have not taken 850 hours of Montessori training, so it's nothing on you. Behavior is a big part of it, especially with reference to each individual child, because it encompasses all of the outward signs of what's going on inside of them. But even at this, Montessori training teaches us to look at extremely subtle behaviors that most people aren't going to be looking for or notice. Knowing something about child development and child psychology helps us understand what is likely going on so that we can properly interpret their behavior. Having information about the child's background, home life, and such helps, too. Montessori recommended a home visit to see what the child's home environment is like and make closer connections with the parents, but I know a lot of parents aren't comfortable with that because they think they are being judged or something like that. It's not full-proof, but nothing created by humans ever is. So knowing that all children have an absorbent mind, have the capacity for enjoying work, joy, cooperation, etc. allows us to have hope that they're getting along just fine even if it doesn't look like it. But even the decision to just sit back and wait is a calculated decision based on observation and knowledge of the child's past. Think of it like a seed. Some tiny little seed is going to grow into a 100 foot tree, but you wouldn't know it just by looking at it as a see or even in the middle of its growth. You have to know from knowledge of this plant and prior experience with other examples of this plant that it is going to grow into a 100 foot tree. It might grow at a slower or faster rate than others or have slightly different bark than others, but it's going to end up as a 100 foot tree.

Good question. No clue. Probably the hardest thing for non-Montessorians to accept is the psychology. From the day the child is born, he is constructing his intelligence at the expense of the environment. That's how his mind works, and it's what we as a species got in exchange for the instincts that grant most other animals the ability to walk and talk immediately or shortly after their birth. So while it may not be ideal, his simply being in a prepared environment is constructing his intelligence in a quality manner. When whatever psychological barrier that is impeding his connection with the environment dissolves, he will likely breeze through the early materials that he has been observing for a year and get to where he would have been if he did not spend a whole year just observing. And this isn't just theorizing; it's happened many times in other Montessori casas. This ability to overcome psychological adversity in such a profound manner is unique to the first plane child because of the absorbent mind. It's the same phenomenon that makes things like executive function and foreign languages effortless for the first plane child to obtain, while it is painstaking (or at least requires conscious effort) for just about everyone else. The difference between public school and a Montessori casa is that the child is developed through direct teacher instruction in public school. As a former public school teacher for a bit and having been originally educated to teach public school, Even if it was a phase and he eventually got back "on task" as traditional education speaks of it, I honestly don't know how the teacher thought he wouldn't be behind. And once you get behind in traditional education, it is extremely hard to not stay behind. The parent absolutely knew. They had to take a leap of faith, yes, because we cannot see the child's psychological development until it manifests itself, but their faith in their child paid off as described above. And the same aspects of those parent's child that allowed her to develop just fine despite outside appearances are in every child that has ever existed. Now for some children there may be cause for more concern, but those conclusions would have to be based on observation and knowledge of things like their development and their home life. Once we start assuming how a child's outside behavior should appear and base our decisions just on that, we miss extraordinary events.

Absolutely. Books appropriate for a first plane child are about real topics (bees, flowers, children doing real activities independently, Australia, shoes, etc.), have high quality pictures, and high quality verbage or terminology. They should be relatively short, but they shouldn't be 2 or 3 pages. But if a child for whatever reason wants and is equipped to handle larger books (ie. chapter books), then they can be brought in.

Then they would be free not to do so. But the capacity for externally pointless repetition is inherent in every child. It's not something they consciously choose to do, but are compelled to do when their physical and mental energies harmonize. This means that their body is in the process of carrying out what their inner guide compels without internal or external distractions. And children are process oriented in the first plane unless they have learned to worry about the product.

I was labeled gifted in elementary school and did the whole nine yards of going to those interviews and a gifted center once a week. It was interesting at first, then it was more annoying than anything else to have to get bused somewhere once a week. The thing that made it worth it was the good friends and teachers I met there and more interesting work. The environment bred unnatural attitudes, particularly of competitiveness, though. And compared to the social cohesion in a well run Montessori room, it just doesn't compare. I do take your points though, particularly speaking of gifted as another kind of special needs label. But not only do issues like that particularly matter in a Montessori Children's House, there isn't any sort of labeling in a Children's House. This is going to sound really trite, but every child is special and they all have their own needs, so labeling a handful as special needs isn't particularly useful. You're still going to follow the child no matter what. I've recently read of casa's where the children don't even know the children who are "special needs." They just know they have different needs and different strengths, but that describes everyone so the children don't stratify the classroom. They'll only do this if they get that vibe from the guide. For the absorbent mind, though, that is a trait every single human being has unless there is some major genetic abnormality that I've never heard of. In modern terms, the concept of an absorbent mind is comparable to neuroplasticity, which is present in everyone. And there is enough in the casa (or that can be added) that the child will be attracted to something. It may take a while, even three years, but as long as the child is followed, then it doesn't matter. Having 30+ other children in the environment can help. That's the beauty of having an absorbent mind: even if the child is doing nothing, or nothing that I would like him to be doing, he's doing something. There's children who, because of their past, literally do not touch a single material for their first year. And guess what? That is a-ok because I know that he is absorbing hundreds of presentations over that year from watching other children or watching me that are constructing his mind. I'm of course going to invite him to receive presentations when I falsely think he might be ready, but he is absolutely free to refuse, and if he's not ready to receive a presentation, he absolutely will refuse.