Ask a Montessorian

[ElizaG]

As with the "perfect child" business earlier in the thread, I get what HumbleThinker is trying to say, but think the tone and wording might be off.  Reading Maria Montessori's own writings (e.g., The Discovery of the Child), the impression I get isn't that she ever thought fun and games were bad.   What she came around to believing was that freely chosen work was a higher, more ideal pursuit -- comparable to the life of the monk, or the dedicated scientist or humanitarian -- and that even young children would be drawn to this, in the right environment.  

 

This might be easier for Catholics (among others) to accept and understand, because we believe strongly in supererogation, which is the ethical idea that our actions can be meritorious above what is strictly required.   Think of all the young saints who freely chose to give up sports, dancing, etc., to follow what they saw as a higher calling for their lives.   It's not that their companions were sinning by continuing to take part in those things.   But there's a sense of a "better part."  

 

By contrast, some theologies and philosophies tend toward the belief that, if there's a better thing, we're automatically morally obligated to do it.   To people who've been formed in this way of thinking, the claim that "X" is better than "Y" will quite possibly be taken as being legalistic and even condemnatory toward the people who do "Y."    American culture seems to be saturated with this mindset, but I don't think Montessori herself would have thought this way at all.  

 

It's not all about work=drudgery and play=fun. We're a homeschooling board, we're far beyond believing such simplistic things. If Tolkien (a very devout Catholic) didn't feed his imagination, there'd be no Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. 

Tolkien spent a great deal of his time on the philological (i.e., scientific) study of ancient and modern languages and literature.  This was what brought him joy, and fed his imagination.   It seems to me to be more "leaf cabinet" than "pile of leaves." 

 

And I'm not sure it's at all possible to generalize about what "we" believe, on this board.   A previous poster referred to a "sense of play as chaos, anarchy, joy," as if those three go together somehow.  This idea would clearly be bizarre to many of us here, as it would to Montessori.  (And Tolkien and Chesterton, for that matter.)

[Terabith]

What I always wonder about with the new 2.5 - 3 year olds in a classroom, is what the heck do they do for a full 3 hour work cycle?  I get the value of the grace and courtesy lessons as essential, but you can't practice asking to watch or rolling a rug for 3 hours.  Is there ever a transitional area of works that children can choose and do that do not have to have been presented?  I have wondered about the beginning of the year having a sensory table or some toys (bead threading, blocks, etc) available and then fading those out as they get more presentations?

[justamouse]

 

Tolkien spent a great deal of his time on the philological (i.e., scientific) study of ancient and modern languages and literature.  This was what brought him joy, and fed his imagination.   It seems to me to be more "leaf cabinet" than "pile of leaves." 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it did. And yet, in a hole there lived a Hobbit. It wasn't ALL modern languages and literature. There was England and long history of wee folk, and tall tales, and a deep sense of wonder and sacramentalisim. Smaug came from somewhere, as did Orcs, and how they interacted wasn't formed from language study. Did part of the world building come from that? I'm sure as he wrote an elven language. 

 

I didn't say that supererogation was BAD, nor did I take it as X is better than Y I said that this view of Montessori seemed narrow and one sided. Meaning both AND, not either or. 

 

Humble Thinker's posts has made Montessori seem dried up, and Maria herself as a dour spinster whose dried up face cracked when she smiled. And, frankly, I'd rather jump in a pile of leaves and read about unicorns than be so focused on intellect that it pushed out the sheer joy of living and leaf jumping. Or are there no happy and joyful saints, either? Are they all about work and spirituality and supererogation? I think not. 

 

 

 

[HumbleThinker]

I am sure many children find the botany closet fun, I know mine would, and I know I would. But I also would enjoy their playing in leaves, and have. I think people are prickly about it because through that story it would seem Montessori is saying that doing anything for pleasure is not normal, it's not to be encouraged and repeated. The story was about how she worked them OUT of play. OK, what about if we changed the analogy and talked about reading for pleasure? I can read Cicero for pleasure, and it helps form my intellect, but I also like reading novels for pleasure. They involve my imagination, and Chesterton's quote which made me mention him-

 

“Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.†GK Chesterton

 

It's not all about work=drudgery and play=fun. We're a homeschooling board, we're far beyond believing such simplistic things. If Tolkien (a very devout Catholic) didn't feed his imagination, there'd be no Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. 

 

​Where does art fall into the Montessori spectrum? Theater? Singing? 

 

It's not that doing anything pleasurable is bad, it is that acts that are solely for pleasure are unnatural to the forming child. No child naturally desires to to do anything solely for pleasure. Such a natural law/process would make no sense. It would be like the zygote and the subsequent cells doing something that wasn't involved in the development of the embryo and baby. The first plane child is running completely off these natural processes on an unconscious level, so if he is doing something purely for pleasure, he has picked it up from something in the environment. Purely pleasurable things quite often also involve intentionally losing control of one's self in either an active or passive way (ie. sitting down in front of the TV). The first plane child absolutely needs order in this stage to create an orderly self. Literally everything that happens to them will become a part of their intellect, their personality, so any loss of control will affect them. The second plane child doesn't have the same processes or the same needs as the first plane child, which I have no detailed training in, so I have no reason to think this would need to be redirected if they would even be interested in doing it at all. This is the perspective a Montessorian is coming at it from, or at least this one is.

 

The difficult thing about just hypothesizing about this is that there's no observation involved. While theory is great and necessary, observation is much more important because each child will present his own variations and instances for responding to him. Perhaps there is an instance where I shouldn't redirect this behavior. Perhaps I'm wrong entirely. If I was truly disrupting something that should not be disrupted, I would observe it impact their psyche through their outward behavior. Using observation so rigorously as a corrective tool is what I think really sets Montessori apart from any other approach.

 

And in all deference to Chesterton who I need to read more of and I'm sure is saying something more than what is on the surface of those words, I don't think appealing to children's credulity is the proper way to guide their imagination. If their imagination can be used to further their understanding of their environment, their adaptation to their environment, and their psychological development, I don't see why appealing to their credulity is necessary. There are many art activities in the Montessori Children's House, which like the vast majority of the other activities is focused on process instead of product. There's lots of singing and dancing and reciting of poems. There is also art folders that introduce the child to art from different continents, styles, and artists. Theater is more the second plane child's cup of tea, but there is plenty of acting out of phrases and sentences in language. And practical life is nothing but acting out what the child sees adults do.  Hope that helps.

[justamouse]

It's not that doing anything pleasurable is bad, it is that acts that are solely for pleasure are unnatural to the forming child. No child naturally desires to to do anything solely for pleasure. Such a natural law/process would make no sense. It would be like the zygote and the subsequent cells doing something that wasn't involved in the development of the embryo and baby. The first plane child is running completely off these natural processes on an unconscious level, so if he is doing something purely for pleasure, he has picked it up from something in the environment. Purely pleasurable things quite often also involve intentionally losing control of one's self in either an active or passive way (ie. sitting down in front of the TV). The first plane child absolutely needs order in this stage to create an orderly self. Literally everything that happens to them will become a part of their intellect, their personality, so any loss of control will affect them. The second plane child doesn't have the same processes or the same needs as the first plane child, which I have no detailed training in, so I have no reason to think this would need to be redirected if they would even be interested in doing it at all. This is the perspective a Montessorian is coming at it from, or at least this one is.

 

 

I guess I disagree. I can't compare the formation and intellect of a zygote (which is full of potential intellect) to a child who is developing that intellect. 

 

To agree with you, I would have to agree that God himself does nothing for pleasure, and to do that I would have to change my whole perception of the character of God. Otherwise we'd have no ice cream, and twinkle lights, and bouquets of flowers just for pretty. God could have made things functional. Instead He chose to make them beautiful, just for pleasure. 

[HumbleThinker]

I was a bit surprised when I heard the idea that jumping in leaves isn't productive. This activity and similar seemingly pointless activities do involve physical exercise. Being physically active is certainly important to a child's health and development. That makes me wonder — how does Montessori approach physical activity in general? Are sports valued?

 

The discussion on this thread makes Montessori seem very rigid in its approach. That surprised me. My niece attended Montessori primary and secondary schools in Europe. I had the impression that the method was all about developing independence and autonomy (which still appears to be true), but I also thought there was more space for the individual to explore personal interests outside a predetermined and very organized environment.

 

I also have another unrelated question. It appears that many of the preschool Montessori activities work on skills that could easily be mastered in a more natural environment at home. I remember my niece worked with frames that had button-up shirts and wooden shoes with laces, for instance. There are also activities that involve transferring small objects from one bowl to another. Why not button up actual shirts, lace up actual shoes, and help transfer pasta from the pan to a plate (for instance), rather than engaging in these artificial activities?

 

Movement is integrated into everything, for it is his physical connection to his environment and thus the key to his development. The hand in particular is, as Aristotle and Montessori put it, the tool of the intellect. The first plane child (0-6) is generally more interested in solo work, especially when compared to the second plane child (6-12), but they are still interested in group games, singing, dancing, and other activities. Sports are as appropriate as the children have the prerequisites to play them. 

 

I think part of the perception of rigidness, other than my still imperfect ability to present Montessori to an audience, is that we are talking about principles. When observation is added to the equation, there are plenty of instances where the principles are set aside temporarily for the sake of the child. But we can't really talk much about individual observation without children to observe and talk about.

 

The organization of the environment is part of what makes independence possible for the first plane child. His will to follow his inner guide is still developing, so structure assists him in developing this will. He is also not automatically going to take notice of those aspects of the environment or an activity that will lead to his natural development, so the guide's job is to bring these aspects to his attention, then to allow him the freedom to act upon them or not. Not everything he does can be presumed to arise from his inner guide or, when it does, lead to the conclusion his guide desires. This structure can come from the environment itself through what Montessori termed "controls of error," from the guide himself, or from other children. Controls of error and other children are the preferred routes; the guide redirecting is done when these other two are not being effective.

 

The activities you speak of work on a principle called "simple to complex." This simply means that the tasks that involve fewer movements are done before tasks that involve more movements asking more of the child. I'll use the dressing frames, specifically the button frame. Buttoning and unbuttoning a shirt in front of one self is simpler than buttoning it up while one is wearing it. There are a few other concepts that make the dressing frames a good alternative than buttoning real shirts off the bat; let me know if you want me to go into more detail on that point.

[HumbleThinker]

What I always wonder about with the new 2.5 - 3 year olds in a classroom, is what the heck do they do for a full 3 hour work cycle?  I get the value of the grace and courtesy lessons as essential, but you can't practice asking to watch or rolling a rug for 3 hours.  Is there ever a transitional area of works that children can choose and do that do not have to have been presented?  I have wondered about the beginning of the year having a sensory table or some toys (bead threading, blocks, etc) available and then fading those out as they get more presentations?

 

It depends on the child, but in general there is not the expectation that they will sustain themselves for a full three hour work cycle. They will have to develop the will to sustain themselves for a full three hour. The general idea is present, hope they concentrate and repeat (they probably won't), sing a song, invite to do a simple activity that has them going back and forth from your location, present again and hope they concentrate, when they don't maybe go outside, etc. etc. The earlier you can present them an array of simple grace and courtesy skills and preliminary exercises like opening and closing a door and spooning, the more constructive options they will have to freely choose. How to observe a presentation is a really useful grace and courtesy to present because the child will then be able to absorb another child work on an activity, which may lead to them working with it at a later time even without the guide presenting it. There are also transitional exercises such as puzzles for precisely this reason to keep the child busy on something vaguely constructive between presentations or other activities before he has begun concentration. And for some children, it may be appropriate for them to only stay for part of the work cycle before going home. It just all depends on the child.

 

The beginning of the year has always been the most interesting point of inquiry for me personally even when I was a traditional teacher.

[HumbleThinker]

Dd16 would like to do her required childcare hours at a Montessori preschool, so I'll be interested in hearing her observations if that goes ahead.

 

Thanks HT for the extensive and patient replies!

 

That's great! Observing a fully committed Montessori classroom is much more enlightening than just talking with even the most informative Montessorian. 

[mommymilkies]

It's not that doing anything pleasurable is bad, it is that acts that are solely for pleasure are unnatural to the forming child. No child naturally desires to to do anything solely for pleasure. Such a natural law/process would make no sense. It would be like the zygote and the subsequent cells doing something that wasn't involved in the development of the embryo and baby. The first plane child is running completely off these natural processes on an unconscious level, so if he is doing something purely for pleasure, he has picked it up from something in the environment. Purely pleasurable things quite often also involve intentionally losing control of one's self in either an active or passive way (ie. sitting down in front of the TV). The first plane child absolutely needs order in this stage to create an orderly self. Literally everything that happens to them will become a part of their intellect, their personality, so any loss of control will affect them. The second plane child doesn't have the same processes or the same needs as the first plane child, which I have no detailed training in, so I have no reason to think this would need to be redirected if they would even be interested in doing it at all. This is the perspective a Montessorian is coming at it from, or at least this one is.

 

I guess we will have to disagree on that.  Human and animal children do things for what appears to be pure pleasure often.  Or they appear to.  Is there not learning while jumping in a pile of leaves? There's the work of creating the pile, finding the right size for safe impact (physics?), sensory-proprioreceptive, tactile, pressure, sound, maybe even taste and smell.  All play has meaning and learning, though it may not look as formal or acceptable to teachers as a botany cabinet. And kids probably aren't thinking "I should really work on my spatial reasoning ability and gather these leaves."  They think "Leaves! Let's jump!"  Heck, even most Montessori places disagree about the rule of play.   It's obvious looking back that Maria Montessori's knowledge of child development and biology is out of date with what we know today, and most of her work took place with underprivileged children and those with "special needs".  Hardly representative of all children ever. 

[ElizaG]

Humble Thinker's posts has made Montessori seem dried up, and Maria herself as a dour spinster whose dried up face cracked when she smiled. And, frankly, I'd rather jump in a pile of leaves and read about unicorns than be so focused on intellect that it pushed out the sheer joy of living and leaf jumping. Or are there no happy and joyful saints, either? Are they all about work and spirituality and supererogation? I think not. 

 

I think statements like the above are why HT asked if people are starting with the assumption that work=drudgery and play=fun.   It's hard to see how else to read the last few sentences.  The implication seems to be that work, spirituality, and "going the extra mile" don't bring happiness and joy, and so everyone (including the saints) has to get those feelings from somewhere else.   Maybe you can clarify?    

 

In any case, what Montessori and her followers claimed to have observed, many thousands of times over many years, was that children were happiest and most joyful while working purposefully -- whether on intellectual, practical, artistic, or spiritual pursuits.   We can agree or disagree with this observation.   But even if we disagree, it doesn't follow that she was against the "joy of living."   On the contrary, she seems to have wanted to maximize it.  

 

Although I'm guessing she didn't experiment with the suggestions in The Little Flowers of St. Francis.  That would have been rather harsh.    :laugh:

 

How St. Francis, Walking One Day With Brother Leo, Explained to Him What Things Are Perfect Joy

[HumbleThinker]

I guess we will have to disagree on that.  Human and animal children do things for what appears to be pure pleasure often.  Or they appear to.  Is there not learning while jumping in a pile of leaves? There's the work of creating the pile, finding the right size for safe impact (physics?), sensory-proprioreceptive, tactile, pressure, sound, maybe even taste and smell.  All play has meaning and learning, though it may not look as formal or acceptable to teachers as a botany cabinet.  It's obvious looking back that Maria Montessori's knowledge of child development and biology is out of date with what we know today, and most of her work took place with underprivileged children and those with "special needs".  Hardly representative of all children ever. 

 

I'll use an anecdote of Montessori's I meant to use earlier that may clarify where Montessori is coming from. There was a child, IIRC he was 2, walking with his mother down a path. The child stopped to put rocks he found in his pail. He was taking far too long for the mother's liking, so she put all the rocks in his bucket for him. He was quite upset, dumped the bucket out, and lost all interest in putting the rocks in his bucket further. This was because despite the apparently purposelessness of putting rocks in his bucket, he was engaged in work, a task urged by his inner guide that focused his mental and physical energies. When a child's work is interrupted his energies are thwarted, and this causes mental trauma, which causes an outward outburst. There are also longer lasting effects. This doesn't happen when acts that are purely pleasurable are interrupted. Thus if such a reaction does not occur when jumping in leaves is redirected, then this is one piece of evidence to support that such an act did not involve concentration and was not contributing to his natural development.

 

Perhaps framing it another way will be helpful as well. Research shows that there are certain practices in traditional school that yield some positive outcomes. But I'm sure you believe there are alternatives in homeschool education that produce better results just as I believe that there are alternatives in Montessori education that produce better results. In the same way, we can point out positive aspects of jumping in leaves, but if redirecting it to another activity has more positive aspects, then redirection is to be preferred. 

[Runningmom80]

Maybe people are getting caught up with the terminology.

[dauphin]

I mentioned up post a bit that I attended Montessori school in the 70's...  I totally enjoyed my experience in Montessori and they did follow the "rules", but I do know that they did let us do other things too (hippy 70's!). ...

 

I know when I transitioned to public school ... I had real trouble understanding why I had to ask permission to go to the bathroom, or just get up and take a walk down the hall to stretch my legs.  It was a rough transition.  

  

 

I did too and the transition was for me too. More so than the bathroom example was the matter of no longer feeling like I was seeking to learn/develop mastery for its own sake (intrinsic motivation, owning my own success or failure and being able to -self-evaluate- (in part because of the design of the materials, I'm realizing now - control of error and other Montessori-ese I imagine) but rather being told that my job was to learn something solely so that I could demonstrate to -someone else- that I had learned it (i.e., on a test).

 

[quote name="HumbleThinker" post="5761909" timestamp="

children are encouraged to act out.

  

 

This was confusing-maybe this is regional but to "act out" is colloquially defined as overt misbehavior/defiance. Unless "acting out a sequence of events" or something like that is specified...

[snowbeltmom]

 

And yet another question. What do you think of secondary schools that follow a Montessori approach? I mentioned that my niece attended one. The school had to follow the national curriculum, but the approach to these materials was different. Students were supposed to have completed certain things by the end of a trimester, but they could choose what to work on within that trimester. The students worked in groups within the classroom, but could also choose to work on, for instance, math during an art class. 

 

This experience certainly led me to the conclusion that students have a lot of freedom within this system. The problem was that students could also decide not to complete the work. My niece had to repeat her first year in secondary school because she did not complete all the required materials and only tried to do everything frantically within the last few weeks of a trimester. She had this problem even though she had already attended a Montessori primary school. 

 

 

 

The Montessori school my kids attended is one of the oldest in the country and goes up to 8th grade.  We left the school when my oldest was 11 to begin homeschooling, so I am not sure if the philosophy was the same for the middle school as it was for the upper elementary classrooms, but in the upper elementary classrooms, the experience was exactly like you describe.  While most of the kids were motivated to learn, some in the class were not. 

 

There were zero consequences at the school for not completing the work.  The consequences were not felt until the student left the school. 

 

For those students who are motivated to learn, imo, the Montessori approach is great.  My kids feel that homeschooling has just been an extension of Montessori - they have a lot of input into what they study and the freedom to choose when to work on what. 

 

[Terabith]

Even Chesterton observed what Montessori wrote about the youngest child being attracted more to realism than fantasy: 

 

"We all love astonishing tales because they touch the nerve of the ancient instinct of astonishment.  This is proved by the fact that when we are very young children, we do not need fairy tales.  We simply need tales.  Mere life is interesting enough.  A child of seven is excited by being told that Timmy opened a door and saw a dragon.  But a child of three is excited by being told that Timmy opened a door.  Boys like romantic tales, but babies like realistic tales - because they find them romantic."

 

That said, in my observation, I've seen a strong attachment to certain fantastic, folk tales especially, among 3 year olds.  Not fairy tales per se (a la Andersen or Grimm), but "Goldilocks and the Three Bears," "The Three Little Pigs," "The Magic Turnip," etc.  But those are repetitive and predictable, with just a tinge of excitement.  They love nonfiction at that age (and I think the fact that there is a tendency to avoid nonfiction with the tiny tots does a great disservice to them; there needs to be more nonfiction written to the 2-4 year old audience, imo), but there is something in those nursery tales that calls to them, even if they are not realistic.  I've noticed that fairy tales really don't seem to speak to children until about six or seven, at least in the children that I've observed.  They may love the Disney movies, but that seems to be about the dresses and the trappings and the way that television itself excites them more than the stories.  The fairy tales themselves are intense and dark in a way that it seems more appropriate to slightly older children.

 

Three and four year olds love fictional books (Corduroy, Make Way for Ducklings, and the like), but in many ways, those are realistic, anthropomorphized animals in all.  They relate to real life experiences (loving a toy, the care of a mother for her children).  This is literature that speaks to their souls. 

 

I have noticed, in working in preschools, that there is a definite difference in the dramatic play of the 3 year old vs the 5 year old.  The younger children are doing imitative play.  They like to role play taking a bath, cooking, caring for a baby, and the like.  The practical life of a Montessori classroom makes tremendous sense to me, because it seems as if this imitative play stems from a desire to do the real things.  When they get a little older, 3.5 - 4 (approximately, in general), they seem to do more elaborate imitative play of other things, but it is still very grounded in reality (fire fighters, etc).  I'm not including things like dressing up as princesses, because I think that is more about the dressing itself and the glamor than princesses per se.  They love to pretend to be animals, and I think that's a way of processing what the experience, the reality of those animals are, as well as role playing the experience of a family with a slight variation.  ("I'm a baby kangaroo joey and you are my mommy.")  They want to know what it's like to BE the mother. 

 

But it's not until about 4.5 that I see much actual interactive pretend play, where they are playing WITH other kids as opposed to around them.  And really, that seems to come into fruition at 5 or even 6, which seems to align somewhat with Montessori's second plane of development.  And it's around 5 or 6 that the imagination seems to take off from things that are grounded in reality, which might be a bit earlier than the second plane of development, but I am guessing that there is more of a slide into planes than a strict delineation.  Around 5 or 6 they start to be able to imagine things that are truly foreign, beyond the trappings.  Pirate costumes are fun at 4, but it's more about saying "Arrr" and hitting people with pool noodle swords than what would it really be like to live on the ocean all the time and attack other boats. 

 

TV changes up all that.  Tiny tots will gleefully act out and repeat scripts and things that they have seen, but that's not really imaginative play.  It doesn't really progress.  They are attracted to superheroes, in my observation, but I think that is a combination of the princess/ dressing thing:  they like putting on cool looking clothes and an attraction to being heroic and good and helping others.  It's a desire that might be directed towards real models and examples of goodness:  soldiers, historical figures, police and fire fighters, saints. 

 

I don't know.  Those are my meandering thoughts on fantasy and reality and the interwoven-ness of them in little bitty ones. 

 

Despite thinking that a lot of their imaginative play (which I really do think is great and should be encouraged) is imitative and speaks to desires that can be fulfilled more deeply by a grounding in practical life, I am all about jumping in leaves.  Kids NEED physical, sensory, "uncontrolled" play.  A classroom doesn't lend itself to the physicality that they need as well.  They need to jump in leaves; they need to run and climb and figure out balance and play vigorously and learn to control their bodies when they figure out how to jump from one stump to the next, not just how to walk on a line without ringing a bell.  And I don't want to diminish the latter, but I think by practical necessity, Montessori classrooms prize walking on the line over stump jumping.  The botany cabinet leads to satisfaction, concentration, "flow," and true joy, but it's only really grounded in reality if they have the previous experience with real leaves:  what they look like, how they feel, what happens to them when they fall off the tree, how they pile up and feel when you jump into them.  Kids need that flow/ concentration/ satisfaction, but they need the playground, or even better, the woods as well. 

[ElizaG]

They need to jump in leaves; they need to run and climb and figure out balance and play vigorously and learn to control their bodies when they figure out how to jump from one stump to the next, not just how to walk on a line without ringing a bell.  And I don't want to diminish the latter, but I think by practical necessity, Montessori classrooms prize walking on the line over stump jumping.  The botany cabinet leads to satisfaction, concentration, "flow," and true joy, but it's only really grounded in reality if they have the previous experience with real leaves:  what they look like, how they feel, what happens to them when they fall off the tree, how they pile up and feel when you jump into them.  Kids need that flow/ concentration/ satisfaction, but they need the playground, or even better, the woods as well. 

Two references you might find interesting, if you haven't already read them:

 

1)  In the chapter on "Education in Movement" in The Discovery of the Child, Maria Montessori talks about the early M. schools' emphasis on gymnastics, swimming pools, tree houses, etc., and explains why they stopped talking about these activities.  (Short version:  she didn't think they were strictly necessary once the curriculum had been more fully developed, and the poorer schools often couldn't afford them.) 

 

2) The PDF at the link below has transcripts of interviews by David Kahn with Mario Montessori and another teacher who worked on developing the curriculum.  Among other things, they say that today's teachers generally aren't trained to use materials such as the leaf cabinet properly.  The work on classification and nomenclature is supposed to develop out of the child's contact with real objects in nature, but it's usually being done the other way around.   They made these comments in the 1970s; maybe the major training organizations have changed their methods since then, but I get the impression that the wrong ideas are still pretty widespread.

 

(The first part of the document is in Dutch, but the interviews, on pp. 7-22, are in English.)

 

http://www.kelpin.nl/fred/artikelen/Kosmische%20Opvoeding.pdf

[HumbleThinker]

 This was confusing-maybe this is regional but to "act out" is colloquially defined as overt misbehavior/defiance. Unless "acting out a sequence of events" or something like that is specified...

 

Ah, my apologies. Children act out commands, phrases, sentences, etc. such as "swim," "open the window," or "yesterday, Jeff ate steak and potatoes for dinner." Depending on what is written and the environment, they may have to pretend (like swimming) or act with the appropriate "props" (opening a window). 

[HumbleThinker]

It's good to hear that physical activity is encouraged. Activities that involve the whole body are important for health reasons. Working with the hands is great, but things like simply running around are also good for the body. I was starting to think that might be discouraged. 

 

I'll just add to this that movement that is controlled by the child's will as opposed to just going crazy/out of controll is what is encouraged. The focus of Montessori, concentration, only happens when the physical and mental energies are harmonized towards a single purpose, whether that purpose is getting from point A to point B or placing the tiniest cube of the pink tower.

 

 

Your second paragraph makes me curious about the "inner guide". Would you be willing to talk more about what this means? Do adults also have an inner guide? Is it essentially intuition, or just things one would like to engage in?

 

The child's "inner guide" is a term for the natural processes within every child which have the purpose of constructing the child's whole self and adapting him to his environment. These natural processes are as natural to the child as a a flower's or any other animal's processes are to it. They guide what aspects of the environment he will be most interested in. These guiding processes fade around 6 as the child enters the second plane (6-12), as they are no longer needed, but they are replaced by other natural processes. If you've ever heard the term "absorbent mind," it is one of those guiding processes natural to the child.

 

 

The dressing frames and wooden shoes confused me because dressing oneself and dressing someone else (or a doll, or a frame) do require slightly different movements. I was also amazed how expensive these objects are. I came across these dressing frames on the internet while looking for math manipulatives, and they are clearly better suited to a classroom environment, judging by price alone  :). 

 

That brings me to yet another question. Do you think it is possible to follow a Montessori approach in a homeschool environment? If so, do you see that as desirable?

 

Not fully no, but there are certainly principles for creating an prepared environment, that environment created to guide the child's natural processes, that can be applied to the home. Speaking generally to everyone, this brings up an important point that at it's heart the Montessori approach is simply about creating the ideal environment for the child in general and each child specifically. Even though the Children's House/school and the home environment will be different even when they are both perfectly prepared, they are still following the same principles for what a prepared environment is and how to make it better. Independence and access to uninterrupted, constructive work will be present in either environment. 

 

And yet another question. What do you think of secondary schools that follow a Montessori approach? I mentioned that my niece attended one. The school had to follow the national curriculum, but the approach to these materials was different. Students were supposed to have completed certain things by the end of a trimester, but they could choose what to work on within that trimester. The students worked in groups within the classroom, but could also choose to work on, for instance, math during an art class. 

 

This experience certainly led me to the conclusion that students have a lot of freedom within this system. The problem was that students could also decide not to complete the work. My niece had to repeat her first year in secondary school because she did not complete all the required materials and only tried to do everything frantically within the last few weeks of a trimester. She had this problem even though she had already attended a Montessori primary school. 

 

I wonder how much of what happens in Montessori secondary schools comes from Montessori herself, and how much of it is individual to the school itself. Didn't Montessori herself mainly focus on early education? My niece just got accepted into art college, so it all worked out in the end. However, there were many struggles along the way. The school's chaotic approach and lack of support certainly played a role in that. I also felt that she was blamed when she didn't naturally choose to complete the work. The idea was that students were personally responsible for their work. But these students (aged 12 to 16 I think, they transitioned to a more traditional approach within the same school which also has a non-Montessori branch after) obviously didn't all have the maturity to decide to complete all the required work. Maybe a lot of this is connected to the fact that this school still had to follow a predetermined curriculum due to government requirements?

 

It depends on the secondary school. She did a lot of research and observation of the second plane child (6-12), so there is a pretty well settled upon approach to the elementary classroom just as there is in a primary classroom. She also began developing a scheme for the third plane child (12-18) but died before a huge amount of work had been done. Before she died, she developedthe idea of the erdkinder, or child of the earth, based on her observations; those schools most closley following her work in this area are "farm schools," such as the Hershey Farm School in Ohio. I am personally very passionate about public Montessori so everyone can get in no matter their finances, but they can fall into the pitfalls that you described above, including the requirement to have standardized tests. Because Montessori is about catering to the natural child who needs an environment that is maticulously created, it isn't something that can be done in a piecemeal or eclectic fashion, which is largely what traditional schools do.

 

Additionally, because what is best for the second, third, and fourth planes are dependent on the needs of the previous plane being met, jumping into Montessori in elementary or later unfortunately does not work ideally for that child or the other children in the class. The environment a 9 year old who has not had an optimal environment for the past 9 years of his life will require a different environment than a Montessori elementary class. It sucks, but that is unfortunately how it is both in theory and from observation of many schools that have tried this.

 

Hope that answered all your great questions.

[HumbleThinker]

Even Chesterton observed what Montessori wrote about the youngest child being attracted more to realism than fantasy: 

 

"We all love astonishing tales because they touch the nerve of the ancient instinct of astonishment.  This is proved by the fact that when we are very young children, we do not need fairy tales.  We simply need tales.  Mere life is interesting enough.  A child of seven is excited by being told that Timmy opened a door and saw a dragon.  But a child of three is excited by being told that Timmy opened a door.  Boys like romantic tales, but babies like realistic tales - because they find them romantic."

 

That said, in my observation, I've seen a strong attachment to certain fantastic, folk tales especially, among 3 year olds.  Not fairy tales per se (a la Andersen or Grimm), but "Goldilocks and the Three Bears," "The Three Little Pigs," "The Magic Turnip," etc.  But those are repetitive and predictable, with just a tinge of excitement.  They love nonfiction at that age (and I think the fact that there is a tendency to avoid nonfiction with the tiny tots does a great disservice to them; there needs to be more nonfiction written to the 2-4 year old audience, imo), but there is something in those nursery tales that calls to them, even if they are not realistic.  I've noticed that fairy tales really don't seem to speak to children until about six or seven, at least in the children that I've observed.  They may love the Disney movies, but that seems to be about the dresses and the trappings and the way that television itself excites them more than the stories.  The fairy tales themselves are intense and dark in a way that it seems more appropriate to slightly older children.

 

Three and four year olds love fictional books (Corduroy, Make Way for Ducklings, and the like), but in many ways, those are realistic, anthropomorphized animals in all.  They relate to real life experiences (loving a toy, the care of a mother for her children).  This is literature that speaks to their souls. 

 

I have noticed, in working in preschools, that there is a definite difference in the dramatic play of the 3 year old vs the 5 year old.  The younger children are doing imitative play.  They like to role play taking a bath, cooking, caring for a baby, and the like.  The practical life of a Montessori classroom makes tremendous sense to me, because it seems as if this imitative play stems from a desire to do the real things.  When they get a little older, 3.5 - 4 (approximately, in general), they seem to do more elaborate imitative play of other things, but it is still very grounded in reality (fire fighters, etc).  I'm not including things like dressing up as princesses, because I think that is more about the dressing itself and the glamor than princesses per se.  They love to pretend to be animals, and I think that's a way of processing what the experience, the reality of those animals are, as well as role playing the experience of a family with a slight variation.  ("I'm a baby kangaroo joey and you are my mommy.")  They want to know what it's like to BE the mother. 

 

But it's not until about 4.5 that I see much actual interactive pretend play, where they are playing WITH other kids as opposed to around them.  And really, that seems to come into fruition at 5 or even 6, which seems to align somewhat with Montessori's second plane of development.  And it's around 5 or 6 that the imagination seems to take off from things that are grounded in reality, which might be a bit earlier than the second plane of development, but I am guessing that there is more of a slide into planes than a strict delineation.  Around 5 or 6 they start to be able to imagine things that are truly foreign, beyond the trappings.  Pirate costumes are fun at 4, but it's more about saying "Arrr" and hitting people with pool noodle swords than what would it really be like to live on the ocean all the time and attack other boats. 

 

TV changes up all that.  Tiny tots will gleefully act out and repeat scripts and things that they have seen, but that's not really imaginative play.  It doesn't really progress.  They are attracted to superheroes, in my observation, but I think that is a combination of the princess/ dressing thing:  they like putting on cool looking clothes and an attraction to being heroic and good and helping others.  It's a desire that might be directed towards real models and examples of goodness:  soldiers, historical figures, police and fire fighters, saints. 

 

I don't know.  Those are my meandering thoughts on fantasy and reality and the interwoven-ness of them in little bitty ones. 

 

Despite thinking that a lot of their imaginative play (which I really do think is great and should be encouraged) is imitative and speaks to desires that can be fulfilled more deeply by a grounding in practical life, I am all about jumping in leaves.  Kids NEED physical, sensory, "uncontrolled" play.  A classroom doesn't lend itself to the physicality that they need as well.  They need to jump in leaves; they need to run and climb and figure out balance and play vigorously and learn to control their bodies when they figure out how to jump from one stump to the next, not just how to walk on a line without ringing a bell.  And I don't want to diminish the latter, but I think by practical necessity, Montessori classrooms prize walking on the line over stump jumping.  The botany cabinet leads to satisfaction, concentration, "flow," and true joy, but it's only really grounded in reality if they have the previous experience with real leaves:  what they look like, how they feel, what happens to them when they fall off the tree, how they pile up and feel when you jump into them.  Kids need that flow/ concentration/ satisfaction, but they need the playground, or even better, the woods as well. 

 

Lots of great observations, so I hope I didn't miss anything in here. Montessori also observed that the first plane child (0-6) is concerned with the real even in their play, while the second plane child (6-12) becomes interested in things like fairy tales because their minds have gone from concrete to abstract. She observed on at least one instance that when a group of first and second plane children were sat down to listen to a fairy tale, the younger ones left to go work out in the garden or something, while the older ones were intently listening to the story. There used to be a lot more non-fiction literature for the youngest children. Austin Montessori has a good book list for this age group 

 

I agree with you that part of the draw to Disney is the pageantry and such, which makes perfect sense because children are attracted by beautiful things. This is why the aesthetic quality and maintenance of the environment is a major consideration for having a prepared environment. 

 

I like your point about play as a way of processing because even though we may disagree on how this play may/can/should look we both agree that it helps in processing the child's environment.

 

Indeed the transition between planes is a slide rather than a demarcation. This is why Montessori schools that have primary and elementary classrooms aren't supposed to advance children based on age but on readiness as evidenced by their physical, mental, and social development. And while second plane is REALLY where group interaction really kicks off, there is certainly a desire for group interaction before then just as you observed. 

 

And I would also agree with your observations of the effects of TV. It is more about the imitative than true imagination stemming from the child's own mind and his interactions with the environment. I would also add that because of the intense visual and auditory stimulation that screen-based media in general has, the child's mind is overloaded, made passive, and made subservient to these media. If you've seen the Lorax, these sorts of media are the bulldozers and other noise drowning out the voice of the Lorax, or the child's inner guide.

[HumbleThinker]

2) The PDF at the link below has transcripts of interviews by David Kahn with Mario Montessori and another teacher who worked on developing the curriculum.  Among other things, they say that today's teachers generally aren't trained to use materials such as the leaf cabinet properly.  The work on classification and nomenclature is supposed to develop out of the child's contact with real objects in nature, but it's usually being done the other way around.   They made these comments in the 1970s; maybe the major training organizations have changed their methods since then, but I get the impression that the wrong ideas are still pretty widespread.

 

(The first part of the document is in Dutch, but the interviews, on pp. 7-22, are in English.)

 

http://www.kelpin.nl/fred/artikelen/Kosmische%20Opvoeding.pdf

 

I'd like to comment on this point specifically since I just recently got out of training. My trainer heavily emphasized that the sensorial materials should not be introducing qualities, in this case leaf shapes, but building on the child's prior experience. I got the feeling that this was for the very reason your link talks about. So as Mario correctly states, the leaf cabinet shouldn't be introducing a spatulate leaf shape but instead drawing the child's attention to the fact that these leaves he has seen outside have names and can be classified by their shape.

 

To use a simpler example, the pink tower is not introducing the quality of size, for the child hopefully has interacted with objects of different sizes in his life. What it is doing is drawing the child's attention to the relationship between these objects with respect to their change in three dimensions including the terminology large/small, larger/smaller, and largest smallest. The pink tower is such a perfect tool for this because the quality of size is isolated, meaning every cube of the pink tower is alike except for size. By absorbing the idea of size with respect to the cubes of the pink tower, the child progressively develops the ability to abstract this quality out of the material and perceive it in his environment. 

[Pen]

...

Perhaps framing it another way will be helpful as well. Research shows that there are certain practices in traditional school that yield some positive outcomes. But I'm sure you believe there are alternatives in homeschool education that produce better results just as I believe that there are alternatives in Montessori education that produce better results. In the same way, we can point out positive aspects of jumping in leaves, but if redirecting it to another activity has more positive aspects, then redirection is to be preferred. 

 

I was only going to read not comment again, but since no one seems to be commenting on this, I decided to do so after all.

 

Yes. If you truly believe that the botany cabinet is more valuable to your student's lives, then redirection makes sense. (I think they both would have value, and so do not agree with the premise that the botany cabinet is better, but that is a different issue.)

 

However, I am wondering if this is not just a Montessorian value against certain forms of play? Rather than a desire to redirect toward what you see as the very best thing in each situation.

 

You have spoken of sugar as being bad and addictive. You also have spoken of real cake baking in the Casa. I would think that a salad and or vegetable soup would be more healthful and valuable in the children's lives than cake. Yet you sounded quite happy with the idea that Casa children make real cake instead of just pretend cake. When you see them making cake do you redirect them to make a more healthy food?

 

 

 

 

 

"To everything there is a season"

A time to read,

And a time to sew.

A time to walk on a line,

And a time to laugh.

A time to jump in leaves,

And a time to study them.

A time to redirect,

And a time to refrain from redirecting.

[HumbleThinker]

I was only going to read not comment again, but since no one seems to be commenting on this, I decided to do so after all.

 

Yes. If you truly believe that the botany cabinet is more valuable to your student's lives, then redirection makes sense. (I think they both would have value, and so do not agree with the premise that the botany cabinet is better, but that is a different issue.)

 

However, I am wondering if this is not just a Montessorian value against certain forms of play? Rather than a desire to redirect toward what you see as the very best thing in each situation.

 

You have spoken of sugar as being bad and addictive. You also have spoken of real cake baking in the Casa. I would think that a salad and or vegetable soup would be more healthful and valuable in the children's lives than cake. Yet you sounded quite happy with the idea that Casa children make real cake instead of just pretend cake. When you see them making cake do you redirect them to make a more healthy food?

 

 

 

 

 

"To everything there is a season"

A time to read,

And a time to sew.

A time to walk on a line,

And a time to laugh.

A time to jump in leaves,

And a time to study them.

A time to redirect,

And a time to refrain from redirecting.

 

If this position is truly consistent with Montessori principles and not simply my own position, then it is based on the child's natural development, not an arbitrary bias against some forms of play. Montessori did not have a problem with leisurely activity, actions only for pleasure, just not at the children's house, for the work cycles were structured time for the child's work, actions that meet the needs of the child's inner guide and thus are the most pleasurable. Outside of school, time should be unstructured. She may not have thought that this was the best use of the child's time, but she saw no problem with it as far as I know. This was the difference I was getting at in a reply to another poster earlier.

 

This idea also extends to the sugar conversation. From my time as a traditional teacher where parent's would bring cupcakes, cake, sugary cookies, etc. on a child's birthday, I can tell you for certain that there will be no cake making in my children's house if for no other reason that the sugar rush is highly distracting. Most guide's I've met, which are admittedly few, feel this way as well. And given that I control what is in the environment and which baking activity is set up (ie. baking biscuits or baking pita bread), there won't be any cake baking behavior to redirect.  When the child is developed enough to read recipes, perhaps it would be appropriate to invite him to bake any of the recipes in the recipe book, but I'd have to observe what this leads to to be sure.

 

But at the child's own home? Sure. I wouldn't personally recommend it, or if the parent's wish to make a cake I'd recommend only doing it very rarely, but given the unstructured nature of the child's time at home, there are different concerns than there are at the Children's House.

[Ausmumof3]

It is making more sense now I think. I am used to thinking of education as an all day whole life thing rather than time limited but your kids time in the children's house is limited so you want to maximise benefits while they are there. They have unstructured hours outside of that time for leaf jumping etc.

 

As homeschoolers education opportunities tend to be available all day so we might just go with the leaf jumping while it was there.

 

If you don't mind me asking, how much freedom do you as a guide have in choice of activities? I see from some info that there is a set range of basic activities but you mention things like bringing in a car hood to polish. Can you adapt or advance activities to meet individual needs? If you do, how do you make sure they are in the spirit of Montessori?

 

I have experimented with a couple of grace and courtesy lessons with my toddler and he's been loving it...

[ElizaG]

Austin Montessori has posted a homework list for the 9-12 year olds.  They note that "the freedom to choose one's work and to go as deeply as possible into a few subjects means that the learner may need to spend more time learning in order to get a well-rounded education."  They don't give assignments, but students are expected to choose activities from the homework list (or others that are comparable), and also spend half an hour each day reading books from the book list.   

http://www.austinmontessori.org/PDF/Upper%20Elementary%20Home%20Work.pdf

 

http://www.austinmontessori.org/Forms/Resources/Resources%20Page%20Reading%20Lists/Upper_elementary_booklist.pdf

 

The suggested activities are excellent, IMO.  They also sound like the sorts of things that many homeschooled children would choose to spend their free time doing anyway, without being told to.  (Which has me wondering if some homeschoolers are more normalized than some Montessori elementary students.   ;) )

[HumbleThinker]

It is making more sense now I think. I am used to thinking of education as an all day whole life thing rather than time limited but your kids time in the children's house is limited so you want to maximise benefits while they are there. They have unstructured hours outside of that time for leaf jumping etc.

 

As homeschoolers education opportunities tend to be available all day so we might just go with the leaf jumping while it was there.

 

If you don't mind me asking, how much freedom do you as a guide have in choice of activities? I see from some info that there is a set range of basic activities but you mention things like bringing in a car hood to polish. Can you adapt or advance activities to meet individual needs? If you do, how do you make sure they are in the spirit of Montessori?

 

I have experimented with a couple of grace and courtesy lessons with my toddler and he's been loving it...

 

Well the education is still all day because the child's natural processes are constantly constructing him from birth, but the Children's House and the home are two different environments so they should not perfectly mirror each other. The same principles that make the Children's House environment ideal for the child can and should be used to make the home and, ideally, everywhere else in society ideal for the child. For instance, the principle that there should be materials in the environment that are real and child-sized should lead all grocery stores to have child-sized grocery carts. My dream scenario is that parents who take their children out to restaurants, or even the restaurants themselves have a menu with large pictures of a small selection of food that the child has eaten before (and maybe one thing he hasn't) that the child can point to even if he can't talk to promote early independence.

 

There are fixed materials that have been experimented with in detail over 100 years, especially for sensorial and math. But there is also plenty of room for choice to respond to the child, especially in practical life. Language has a fixed set of activities, but the materials to go with these activities are largely made and personalitzed by the guide. For instance, there are classified cards that are just pictures of various items in the child's immediate reality, but I can choose whatever group of objects I want such as kitchen tools, transportation, fruits, or reptiles. As long as these personalized activities follow the same principles and their effect on the child observed, there's a good deal of freedom here.

 

And that's great that your toddler is loving grace and courtesy lessons. As long as they are done in the right spirit, children find them very fun and very fulfilling when they get the chance to utilize them in real situations.

[Ausmumof3]

Those supermarket trolleys are a pet hate of mine!!!! I almost deliberately avoid shops with them!!!!

[HumbleThinker]

Those supermarket trolleys are a pet hate of mine!!!! I almost deliberately avoid shops with them!!!!

 

Are you talking about these?  Cause I don't like those either.

 

 

 

I was talking about these just child-sized versions of regular shopping carts. My local Kroger has them and it is nice to see the children move around the store with a purpose instead of being shuttled around when their legs are clearly functional.

[Ausmumof3]

The latter. I have a four year old with a lack of awareness of other people and a two year old. Plus a 7 year old. I can't let one have a trolley without the other having one, and we end up taking up the entire aisle plus some and I am so distracted trying to watch that no one runs into someone else that I can't think about what I came to buy at all.

 

A basket is fine but as soon as you introduce wheels it's not so good.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Are you talking about these?  Cause I don't like those either.

 

 

 

I was talking about these just child-sized versions of regular shopping carts. My local Kroger has them and it is nice to see the children move around the store with a purpose instead of being shuttled around when their legs are clearly functional.

 

My children always moved with purpose around the store by walking nicely next to the cart or single file behind me through crowded aisles.

 

The vast majority of little children with these child-sized carts are a menace on wheels, especially to the elderly. They can't control them or judge the distance well to stop in time. Usually children who are able to maneuver a cart successfully are tall enough to use a regular one, or the adult-height carts that are half the depth.

 

[HumbleThinker]

My children always moved with purpose around the store by walking nicely next to the cart or single file behind me through crowded aisles.

 

The vast majority of little children with these child-sized carts are a menace on wheels, especially to the elderly. They can't control them or judge the distance well to stop in time. Usually children who are able to maneuver a cart successfully are tall enough to use a regular one, or the adult-height carts that are half the depth.

 

 

That's unfortunate. I see plenty of more children acting up in my local grocery stores who are either put in baskets or just walking around with their parents. And I see many instances of the child acting out what their parents are doing (shopping) or even trying to help but then being chastised for doing so. When they have a cart and have a clear goal in mind (ie. getting rice for dinner that night), they are totally focused on that. And some of them are clearly 5 and younger. 

 

But I can certainly imagine if a child is simply given a cart yet given no purpose, then he will find something to do with it that the adult will likely not like. This is especially true if they have seen other adults play with their cart or if prior to this the child's experience with carts was being pushed around while standing on the front or back of the cart. Like anything else, a child has to know what they are expected to do with the cart and develop the will to push the cart in the same safe manner the adult hopefully is. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

That's unfortunate. I see plenty of more children acting up in my local grocery stores who are either put in baskets or just walking around with their parents. And I see many instances of the child acting out what their parents are doing (shopping) or even trying to help but then being chastised for doing so. When they have a cart and have a clear goal in mind (ie. getting rice for dinner that night), they are totally focused on that. And some of them are clearly 5 and younger. 

 

But I can certainly imagine if a child is simply given a cart yet given no purpose, then he will find something to do with it that the adult will likely not like. This is especially true if they have seen other adults play with their cart or if prior to this the child's experience with carts was being pushed around while standing on the front or back of the cart. Like anything else, a child has to know what they are expected to do with the cart and develop the will to push the cart in the same safe manner the adult hopefully is. 

 

Well, no, I was speaking of children who are indeed attempting to shop properly with the little carts (fetching the rice, for example) but are unable to do so in spite of focusing on their mission. They could possibly do it if the aisles were clear, because that would leave some room for speed and judgment errors in maneuvering the cart, but the aisles are not clear.

 

I don't know what you mean about children playing with carts due to having seen their parent play with carts. I've not seen adults play with carts.

 

In your neck of the woods, preschoolers can navigate carts responsibly and correctly but adults play with them in a silly and dangerous way? Is that what you are saying?

[HumbleThinker]

Well, no, I was speaking of children who are indeed attempting to shop properly with the little carts (fetching the rice, for example) but are unable to do so in spite of focusing on their mission. They could possibly do it if the aisles were clear, because that would leave some room for speed and judgment errors in maneuvering the cart, but the aisles are not clear.

 

I don't know what you mean about children playing with carts due to having seen their parent play with carts. I've not seen adults play with carts.

 

In your neck of the woods, preschoolers can navigate carts responsibly and correctly but adults play with them in a silly and dangerous way? Is that what you are saying?

 

Ah, I see I misunderstood you. Children are not likely to control them perfectly on their first attempt, but how are they to learn without practice? I can imagine that at first the child will either focus on their goal to the detriment of their driving or vice versa. It takes practice to do both simultaneously. I've personally never had problems maneuvering around children with carts or them maneuvering around me. And I don't see this as much anymore as I used to, but I will still see adults or older children ride the cart down an aisle while standing on the lower tray portion of the cart. This is what I was talking about.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Ah, I see I misunderstood you. Children are not likely to control them perfectly on their first attempt, but how are they to learn without practice? I can imagine that at first the child will either focus on their goal to the detriment of their driving or vice versa. It takes practice to do both simultaneously. I've personally never had problems maneuvering around children with carts or them maneuvering around me. And I don't see this as much anymore as I used to, but I will still see adults or older children ride the cart down an aisle while standing on the lower tray portion of the cart. This is what I was talking about.

 

I never said (because I never assumed) the children in question were on their very first attempt or lacking practice.

 

I've also been able to escape tots with uncontrolled carts, which is why I spoke on behalf of the elderly and others who are not able to leap out of the way.

 

I guess we could take a poll which would show whether most people have found the tiny carts to be a good tool for their own young children or whether they've found that most children, even their own, find them hard to navigate, but it doesn't matter.

 

Really.

[IsabelC]

I wasn't going to post any more on this thread, but may I ask just one more question?

 

Are some children suited to Montessori education and some not? Or do you think that all (or most) children would thrive in a well-implemented Montessori casa?

[HumbleThinker]

I wasn't going to post any more on this thread, but may I ask just one more question?

 

Are some children suited to Montessori education and some not? Or do you think that all (or most) children would thrive in a well-implemented Montessori casa?

 

Since Montessori is not simply contained in the classroom but is based on freedom, the child's own developmental processes that are present in every child, and observation of the child as an individual, it is suitable for all children by definition as long as the adult follows the child. The only possible exception is children with extreme genetic disorders, though it should be noted that Helen Keller, a deaf-mute, was a Montessori child. 

 

Talking about school specifically, the older a child gets, the less likely he will be suited to a Montessori classroom, particularly if they are 6 and have never been in a Montessori primary classroom. 

[Ausmumof3]

Hey we could have a new kind of shopping cart debate!

 

There was a study recently about how children's ability to be aware of more than one thing at a time is much lower under a certain age. So although they might be able to push the cart in a quiet environment doing so in a busy shopping centre with distracting advertising, people and pyramids of randomly placed produce everywhere is limited no matter how much practise they have had. Mine do help with finding, putting in the cart and unloading, then putting away though.

[HumbleThinker]

Hey we could have a new kind of shopping cart debate!

 

There was a study recently about how children's ability to be aware of more than one thing at a time is much lower under a certain age. So although they might be able to push the cart in a quiet environment doing so in a busy shopping centre with distracting advertising, people and pyramids of randomly placed produce everywhere is limited no matter how much practise they have had. Mine do help with finding, putting in the cart and unloading, then putting away though.

 

Absolutely. If there's one aspect of a grocery store or any major shopping center for that matter that is not developmentally appropriate for children, it is the sheer amount of stuff there is. It's overstimulating, which can be very distracting/disturbing to children, especially really young ones. I'm not sure when your average grocery store ceases to be overstimulating.

[Ausmumof3]

That's for sure. It's much nicer when I can make it to the organic farm shed. Kids love that the man gives them apples and tells us about the produce too.

[HumbleThinker]

This might not be a popular excerpt retelling an experiment by a "Professor Levine," but unpopular things tend to be discussed more than popular things :p Keep in the mind, though, that she is using language of her time that may seem offensive to us but was not meant as offensive back then by professionals.

 

"In the film a group of children is seen coming into the room. They are interested and attracted by the various objects set before them. They are lively and their smiles indicate happiness in the midst of so many different things...After this part of the film has been shown, a second group of children is seen entering the room. They move slowly, stop, and look around. They barely handle the objects but gather around them and seem to stand inactive...

 

Which of the two groups was made up of defective, and which of normal children? The deficient children were happy, lively ones who moved about a great deal,passing from one object to another and playing with everything. To people watching the film, they give the impression of being more intelligent, since adults as a rule are accustomed to look upon vivacious, cheerful children who pass from one thing to another as more intelligent. 

 

But actually, normal children move about in a calm and tranquil manner. In the film they can be seen standing still for a long time and paying throughful attention to a single object. They prove in a striking way that calm and measured movement accompanied by throughtful consideration are the marks of a normal child.

 

Professor Levin's experiment runs counter to generally accepted notions since, in an ordinary environment, intelligent children will act like the deficient children in the film.A normal child as found in our school is something new. It is slow and reflective but its movements are controled by its ego and guided by reason. Such a child is stimulated by the objects it sees, but masters these impressions and as a consequence can make full use of them...When this inner discipline is lacking, an individual's activity can escape his personal control and be directed by the will of another or become a prey to external influences like a ship adrift."

 

Let me know your reactions.

[HumbleThinker]

I can't :)

 

Honestly, I can't get behind the dualism of 'deficient' and 'normal'.

 

Deficient in this context is the word in her time for special needs or retarded (or at least those children who were perceived to be). She was juxtaposing the perceived behavior of non-retarded children with the actual behavior of retarded children and comparing it to the actual behavior of non-retarded children.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I read the whole thread and hit the button to multiquote posts so many times that it would have been too cumbersome for me to actually respond to all those posts. In the end, I am utterly stupefied by the underpinnings of Montessori philosophy as expressed in this thread. I think my biggest concern (of my many, many concerns) is the apparent lack of acceptance or appreciation for divergent thinkers. If by peaceful, Montessori meant convergent, then no, I do not find that idea attractive in the least.

 

HumbleThinker, I understand that you are using particular, outdated definitions of normal, deficient, etc., but if your goal is to endear Montessori philosophy to prospective parents, you need to pick more accurate, modern words. Like yesterday. Truly though, I think perhaps people bristling at your descriptions of Montessori philosophy here don't lack understanding so much as they (and I) simply disagree with the basic tenets. Honestly, I can only hope you have expressed her ideas incorrectly, they are so disturbing to me.

[Farrar]

HumbleThinker, I understand that you are using particular, outdated definitions of normal, deficient, etc., but if your goal is to endear Montessori philosophy to prospective parents, you need to pick more accurate, modern words. Like yesterday. Truly though, I think perhaps people bristling at your descriptions of Montessori philosophy here don't lack understanding so much as they (and I) simply disagree with the basic tenets. Honestly, I can only hope you have expressed her ideas incorrectly, they are so disturbing to me.

 

Agreed wholeheartedly.  I came into this thread with a mild dislike of Montessori education based on having read some of her essays in grad school as well as having known Montessori educators and visited a couple of Montessori schools.  I admired many things about Montessori thinking, but also knew that I disagreed with some of the basic tenets.  After reading this thread, I feel a little appalled by Montessori education and its philosophical underpinnings.  Disturbed is definitely the right word.

 

HumbleThinker, one of your stated goals in starting this thread was to practice talking to parents about Montessori education.  May I suggest that if you approach parents and say some of the things you've said here that you'll simply turn them off to Montessori for good.  I don't know if any of your posts suggest that you have the ability to hear that advice, but I'll offer it anyway.  I'm probably too deviant to have an opinion here, but there it is.

 

One of the things that I have seen in some of the philosophies of education that came out of the late 19th century - Waldorf and CM in particular - was a refusal to update with the times and a desire to cling to the past, whether it made sense in context any more or not.  I mean, Waldorfians are Luddites and some CM'ers seem to think living books need to be a good century old to count.  I had felt, before reading this thread, that one of the things that distinguished Montessori thinking was that it was a living philosophy, willing to change, to look forward, to adapt to the present.  I think philosophies that do that, such as how WTM reinterprets and repurposes the trivium for the modern world and how SWB even updates and re-examines those ideas to keep them current, are the ideas that thrive.  Now I'm not so sure that Montessori does that.

[Alte Veste Academy]

One of the things that I have seen in some of the philosophies of education that came out of the late 19th century - Waldorf and CM in particular - was a refusal to update with the times and a desire to cling to the past, whether it made sense in context any more or not. I mean, Waldorfians are Luddites and some CM'ers seem to think living books need to be a good century old to count.

What I find most perplexing about modern CMers who idolize antiquated resources is that Charlotte Mason made a point of selecting new books to include in her program each year. She did try to keep things fresh, mixing the new in with classics.

[Farrar]

What I find most perplexing about modern CMers who idolize antiquated resources is that Charlotte Mason made a point of selecting new books to include in her program each year. She did try to keep things fresh, mixing the new in with classics.

 

Yes, from what I know about her, I think she would have changed with the times in ways that the AO board wouldn't completely like.  :tongue_smilie:

 

ETA: And perhaps Maria Montessori would have as well.  I can imagine her having been very interested in modern research about child development and I would expect she would have been willing to re-evaluate some things and update others.

[Pen]

Another possibility for endearing parents to Montessori (maybe), would be to post suggestions from a Montessori perspective on other threads here in answer to dilemmas being faced by home schoolers. Maybe if the Montessori approach sounded brilliant in a practical way, that would be more endearing than the philosophical ideas here. But it would probably only help if the ideas were things that could be done in a home school context, and if you could articulate it clearly.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Yes, from what I know about her, I think she would have changed with the times in ways that the AO board wouldn't completely like. :tongue_smilie:

 

ETA: And perhaps Maria Montessori would have as well. I can imagine her having been very interested in modern research about child development and I would expect she would have been willing to re-evaluate some things and update others.

Hmmm. Now I am wondering how SWB's philosophy, flexible as she is, will be represented (corrupted?) in 100 years.

[Farrar]

Hmmm. Now I am wondering how SWB's philosophy, flexible as she is, will be represented (corrupted?) in 100 years.

 

Hopefully they'll listen to her Home Schooling the Real Child lecture and rethink whatever dogmatism they come up with.

[HumbleThinker]

Agreed wholeheartedly.  I came into this thread with a mild dislike of Montessori education based on having read some of her essays in grad school as well as having known Montessori educators and visited a couple of Montessori schools.  I admired many things about Montessori thinking, but also knew that I disagreed with some of the basic tenets.  After reading this thread, I feel a little appalled by Montessori education and its philosophical underpinnings.  Disturbed is definitely the right word.

 

HumbleThinker, one of your stated goals in starting this thread was to practice talking to parents about Montessori education.  May I suggest that if you approach parents and say some of the things you've said here that you'll simply turn them off to Montessori for good.  I don't know if any of your posts suggest that you have the ability to hear that advice, but I'll offer it anyway.  I'm probably too deviant to have an opinion here, but there it is.

 

One of the things that I have seen in some of the philosophies of education that came out of the late 19th century - Waldorf and CM in particular - was a refusal to update with the times and a desire to cling to the past, whether it made sense in context any more or not.  I mean, Waldorfians are Luddites and some CM'ers seem to think living books need to be a good century old to count.  I had felt, before reading this thread, that one of the things that distinguished Montessori thinking was that it was a living philosophy, willing to change, to look forward, to adapt to the present.  I think philosophies that do that, such as how WTM reinterprets and repurposes the trivium for the modern world and how SWB even updates and re-examines those ideas to keep them current, are the ideas that thrive.  Now I'm not so sure that Montessori does that.

 

I'm sorry my explanations of Montessori have come across this way to you, but it is in fact a "living philosophy." Just as Montessori was constantly updating her environment in her own lifetime based on her observations and the observations of other Montessorians she has trained, it has been updated after her death as well. But living philosophy doesn't mean we disregard the observations or discoveries that have been made over the last 100 years while making our own. This position is supported by the fact that no major tenet of Montessori has been contradicted by modern research. Rather, they have been supported. 

 

I think part of the issue is simply one of language. Giving answers to specific questions is naturally going to sound like there are absolutes in Montessori, but saying "it depends on the child based on observation" to every question isn't going to tell you anything. There are no absolutes in Montessori; there are not patent responses to any one situation because every child is going to be at a different place. Even the presentations, which are meticulous in their every movement, are likely going to be adapted in one way or another to each and every child. 

 

Yes there is "normal development," but that isn't saying anything that doesn't apply to every biological organism known to man. You take a flower out of its optimal environment, and it will grow in an unnatural manner. Whether a flower has grown naturally or not is not based solely on rigidly comparing its outward appearance to an ideal flower, but by knowing biological processes that go into the creation of a flower and thus the kind of environment it needs and generally how it will appear. A wilted flower has clearly grown unnaturally, but you can't say that a flower that has grown 6.5in is unnatural while a flower that has grown 6.7in is. This is the same with the child: by knowing the processes that go into constructing him, including his psychology, we can know the kind of environment he needs and generally how he will develop. Children developing into being confident, competent, in control of their mind and body, willing and able to work for long periods of time exerting maximum effort, independent, joyous, obedient, cooperative, and more are all characteristics of their normal behavior. While children may manifest these behaviors differently and on different schedules, there is not, for instance, a child who is naturally lazy or will develop into being lazy just like there is no flower that is naturally wilted. 

 

I'm unsure what you take issue with specifically, so would be interested in hearing more specifics. You being deviated  or not doesn't mean anything and doesn't affect your ability to have an opinion. Unless you grew up in an optimal environment from 3-6, which I'm going to guess none of us here have, then we're all going to be deviated in one respect or another. But being deviated isn't an inevitability.

[HumbleThinker]

Another possibility for endearing parents to Montessori (maybe), would be to post suggestions from a Montessori perspective on other threads here in answer to dilemmas being faced by home schoolers. Maybe if the Montessori approach sounded brilliant in a practical way, that would be more endearing than the philosophical ideas here. But it would probably only help if the ideas were things that could be done in a home school context, and if you could articulate it clearly.

 

Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, I don't have the time currently to engage in more than one thread. Plus it is not really my goal here to endear the Montessori approach to anyone, but practice and get feedback on presenting Montessori to parents. See what gets good responses and what doesn't. Though now that I type that, I would be trying to endear Montessori to adults out in the real world, so perhaps trying to endear it to people here would have made the exercise a bit more realistic. 

[HumbleThinker]

Hmmm. Now I am wondering how SWB's philosophy, flexible as she is, will be represented (corrupted?) in 100 years.

 

I'm hearing you say that she could be corrupted/misrepresented in being too rigid, but do you also believe that she could be corrupted/misrepresented in being too loose? IOW, could ideas people come up with to adapt her philosophy to modern ideas actually betray her philosophy just as easily as these new ideas could align with it?