Scheduling using work plans Montessori-style?

[dauphin]

If you're trying to follow Sayers/TWTM, combining it with Montessori might get tricky, as they're based on ideas of developmental stages that don't really line up with one another.   For one thing, you could say that Montessori front-loads the academics.   The work the children do in elementary, and especially in the 5th and 6th grades, is relatively academically intense.  In The Advanced Montessori Method, she says that her original elementary students had finished most of the standard high school curriculum by age 12.  

 

From ages 12-14, there are fewer formal requirements.  They're given more time outdoors, mentoring, and space to start to find their own path.   At 15, they have the choice of returning to intense academic work (with more specialization this time), or starting their vocational training.   

 

This doesn't really fit at all with Sayers.  

 

Instead of being "poll-parrots," the Montessori elementary children are learning to observe, make connections, and express themselves.  

 

Instead of being encouraged to argue, the early teens are sent out to the country and taught to do hard work -- and to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

 

And while the Sayers youths are expected to be mooning about, the Montessori ones are getting ahead with their future plans.

 

Something else to note is that Montessori's own idea of "classical education" was the traditional one, based on the study of the Latin and Greek languages and literature.  She didn't expect that all the children would choose this path, but they were given the option, starting with Latin and Greek in 5th and 6th grade.  In the following years, there's more space for customizing the curriculum, so the ones who are so inclined can go more deeply into these studies.  

 

By contrast, Sayers and TWTM are setting out to provide an educational plan for all children, through age 18.   They don't really address the fact that by the teens (or even earlier), some children are going to be working at a much higher or lower academic level than the average.  Others are already going to have a sense of their life's work, and will want to start spending more time on that.  With TWTM, you can add and subtract things within the framework, but with Montessori, starting at age 12, you can offer a whole different kind of curriculum. 

 

 

I think I disagree with Eliza. I think Montessori planes of development and WTM stages line up really well with each other. That's what I first liked about WTM actually.

 

 

Thank you. I just discovered one note for myself. I'm doing some broader decision making (like history subject matter, primary materials, etc.) and I'm working through the learning curve on one note through that process. I need to see if there's a video tutorial....

 

<quote from sbbulliv above that didn't come over when I quoted myself>

 

I think I do too, but I hope she'll come back and address this some more. But here's part of my reasoning: I was listening to the SCL talk given in 2013 by Andrew Elizalde and as he described how classical educators need to do a better job of rooting children in the 'grammar of math' - he described the use of concrete materials to illustrate (and help the concept take root, help child take ownership of the idea) increasingly complex math ideas and introducing them much earlier (because you are making them concrete). I was sitting there  the whole time going, um....helllooooo? Montessori???.  Here's a link:  

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/510035-grammar-of-math-and-montessori/

 

I think I'll go post this in our social group too :) I see several of you have joined but there's no chatter there yet :)

 

Oh and another comment about "disagreeing" with Eliza. It may be that she is totally accurate WRT Sayers/TWTM lack of fit with fundamental montessori ideology (I'm not grounded enough in either to make any strong declaration). It also may be that the part of classical education that appeals to me is both broader and more narrow than Sayers/TWTM. The way I think I might look at it is that the Truth is out there, and as each educational method approaches it, we begin to see the places where they overlap/point to one another (hence the conglomeration of classical/CM/Montessori in my mind that I think, in the end, will work out....).

 

 

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to address, as nobody has said what part of my description (in post #24) they disagree with, and why.    

 

 

See the bolded in the quotes above. So....one place where I felt like they actually lined up was based on Elizalde's definition of how to better teach math classically, by giving a better "grammar" of math, corresponded to introducing math concepts concretely, which is totally Montessorian.

 

But clearly you've read more on the subject(s) than I have. I have sort of an amorphous sense of the overlap, not a capacity to compare one definition to another and explain the history behind each theory. That's why I like your feedback on the matter-with links like the one to Pestalozzi and the Google Books one. But at the same time, while I like digging deeper and this clearly is the "kick" I"m on right now, I can't go too deep on educational theory, as I'm still more or less an overwhelmed (almost) first-year homeschooler. So at some point I need to dig in and go with -something- while I keep reading. You even are making me question "what is classical education," which I think is hardly settled among the experts, and figure out what it is in it that I value (and I think that's where the vague sense is part of the problem - I'm not sure exactly). I think it fits with my understanding of how the brain develops, how the natural inclinations that occur with developmental stages line up with grammar/dialectic/rhetoric as stages. I also agree with the director of the classical school that we left, who said that we don't sit and wait to ask for any rhetoric or dialectic until they turn 13/14/whatever. All of those activities can and should be occurring and encouraged (and supported through the teaching) at all ages and stages. Another line used by that director is that grammar/dialectic/rhetoric correspond to "what, so what, now what?" and that spoke to me - and is an example of how those activities can occur at all ages. Another thing I like about it is that they correspond, at least as I understand it, to: a) learning how to learn, and b) learning how to think, and c) learning how to put those two together and communicate/reason. But I also liked what I got from the short clip I listened to from David Hicks (because I haven't yet managed to decide that I need to scrape together the $35 for Norms and Nobility), is that the utter goal is not just knowledge (or wisdom and eloquence) but what we DO.  

 

So another thought, back to Montessori, is that the early stages (primary years) are emphasizing the grammar (the "what" that you need to know to move on). Also, the "learning to learn" that you are doing there is that you learn to be self-motivated - you are learning to love to learn, to learn for your own reasons, not because it's a box to check (or for a grade, or for some other carrot), but because of the intrinsic motivation. Yes, the prepared environment isn't conducive to homeschooling because of the breadth of materials you must make or buy, but I think the philosophy can exist outside of schools - but I think not if you ask Montessori trainers and devotees. That may be why there isn't many conversations like this occurring in Montessori circles (at least that I know of?)? Maybe because it takes a homeschooling mindset to see beyond it? Or something like that. I'm typing in a hurry, I didn't mean to respond at this kind of length right now, I have to run soon. But I will give one local Montessori director credit - when I was visiting her school (for my younger two who still attend Montessori), and shared my excitement about Classical/WTM/Sayers theories, she was very interested and asked for a link to Sayer's speech. But then again, at the time, she and I were geeking out a little bit on educational theories. Hm, I wonder if they'd let me sit in on some of their teacher training sometime.... ;)

 

[ElizaG]

See the bolded in the quotes above. So....one place where I felt like they actually lined up was based on Elizalde's definition of how to better teach math classically, by giving a better "grammar" of math, corresponded to introducing math concepts concretely, which is totally Montessorian.

What I wrote was specifically about the ages/stages model of Dorothy Sayers (as described in the "Lost Tools of Learning" essay), vs. the Montessori model.  If anyone thinks there are errors in the way I've characterized the writings of these two authors, I'd be interested in hearing about it.  

 

Andrew Elizalde seems to have adopted Sayers' use of the term "grammar" to correspond to the first stage of education, but he's using it in a different way.  For one thing, Sayers thought that the children should already be doing basic arithmetic before starting the "grammar stage."  

 

"But first: what age shall the children be? Well, if one is to educate them on novel lines, it will be better that they should have nothing to unlearn; besides, one cannot begin a good thing too early, and the Trivium is by its nature not learning, but a preparation for learning. We will, therefore, "catch 'em young," requiring of our pupils only that they shall be able to read, write, and cipher."

 

(source:  here, starting about half way down)

 

How you're supposed to teach children to read, write, and cipher when they haven't yet had any "preparation for learning," I don't know.   But even just from this passage, it's apparent that Sayers' view of very young children is strikingly different from Montessori's.   I tend to wonder if she even had a view of them at all.  

 

ETA:  TWTM resolves this by putting primary aged children right into the grammar stage.  TOG has "lower grammar" and "upper grammar."  Laura Berquist has a separate primary stage for K through 2nd.   The Bluedorns hold off on most formal academics until around age 10.  So there's no standard way of dealing with it.   Many of the curriculum authors seem to start with a plan for older children, and work backwards from that to figure out what to do with the little ones.  

 

This is what got me into Montessori in the first place.  It seemed as if there must be something else out there.  

[Pen]

I just found this thread and am enjoying reading it--giving it a bump too.

[AngelBee]

So glad I found this thread! This will be my "I'm sick in bed and want to read something awesome" thread today! :D