Pen Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Oh I'm sure it is my fault for being too wordy and using too much jargon. The basis of "deviations" and "normalization" in Montessori is that humans develop both physically and mentally by set processes that can be observed. This is saying the same thing as pointing out that flowers develop by set processes. That is a helpful analogy, and seems much more positive! Through her observations, and the continual observations of Montessorians in the future, the "normalized child" has been seen as simply what the child will become when these processes are not obstructed. She observed that these processes operate optimally when the child is connected to and working within his environment. This is saying the same as pointing out that flowers grow best in optimal soil conditions. Ditto. Thus, it is the child who is constructing himself by their natural processes acting upon the environment. Yes there will be personality differences, but these differences will be present alongside the normalized child. If any behaviors that were considered "personality differences" fall away, then it can be assumed that these were caused by deviations and not natural development. And through everyone's observations, the materials that lead to concentration, which is necessary for normalization, were fine-tuned. By focusing on observation, the child's natural processes, and how the environment supports these in excruciating detail, Montessori is truly the science of education. And this makes perfect sense given that Montessori was originally a doctor. The stamp game is simply a math material whereby the child can make numbers and perform the four operations with "stamps" that are just color-coded squares with 1, 10, 100, and 1000 on them. I'll try to answer you in-text concerns quickly down here. I'm not sure what "unschooling" is, but if the child's interests are being followed and concentration fostered, yes they will almost certainly want to apply what they have learned in any area, math or otherwise, in practical ways such as the example I gave. The problem Montessori gets around was this one that you brought up: "A problem with that in real practice was that often the children needed more practice than they could get that way or needed a well thought out progression of problems that would get incrementally harder." This has been observed not to be necessary if the child is free to follow his interests and the progression of materials is presented properly at the right times. Concentration is pretty much what it sounds like: a sustained focus on an activity that comes from it aligning with the child's interests, which come from their natural processes. At it's most powerful, concentrating children have been observed repeating an activity 40+ times. There's a difference between interest and impulse, but I'll only get into that if you want me to. I'll give you an example of direct and indirect aims from an activity, in this case Dusting: "Direct Aim: To develop coordination of movement, independence, and concentration. Indirect Aim: Care of the environment. Indirect preparation for writing and reading." Any aspect of the materials that would get in the way of the child accomplishing these and concentrating would be changed. Hopefully that helps. I think I've answered your questions about what I mean by mold and normalization above, but let me know if you feel I have not. The short answer is that the child is doing it himself by connecting to the environment through work. Education in Montessori terms is different than education as traditionally understood, even in most progressive models. Intellectual and even social development as it is normally understood is at best secondary. Of primary concern is concentration; all else will fall into place after that. This is very interesting! Since Concentration is the key, primary concern, could you please write more about that, including how it is dealt with at the levels above primary, and how it would be handled if a child started into Montessori late. This can be seen where she is speaking of the order between concentration and character development: “The development of character comes after the children have begun to concentrate—because there is no character without personality. We cannot develop a character in a capricious, disorderly, inattentive, person†Thus the child must be gotten "back on track" so to speak before any major intellectual or social development can take place. A few aspects of a prepared environment in general are that it has a full set of Montessori materials that are maintained, there is freedom for independent, constructive choice, that it is ordered, a mixed age grouping, and that there is observation occurring. If the child has developed naturally in the first plane of development (simply birth-6 years of age), and his new set of needs of met in the second plane (6-12), then yes he will do these things spontaneously. If the child has some really big trauma in his past, perhaps even in ideal conditions he will still need time to completely normalize in elementary, but in general children will be normalized by the time they enter elementary in the ideal Montessori environment. Of course there will be prompting and presentations by the guide as in primary, but the child will be much more willing to follow-up independently than the first plane child. This is of course to the best of my knowledge since my training is primarily focused on 3-6. Hmmm. Wow! Maybe some of the people reading who have had children in Montessori could speak to if it actually does work out that way! The ideal Montessori environment is 30-40+ children with a guide and (sometimes) an assistant. Obviously in America, our laws are such that there will have to be an assistant. One of the many paradoxes that people encounter when studying and observing Montessori is that the more children there are the better. To keep it short, the children begin educating each other directly through giving presentations to younger ones that they have already been given and indirectly simply be allowing the younger ones to observe their activities. So that a lot of what happens would be younger children wanting to do what the older ones do? The first groups as a school gets started must be harder, I guess. And the lower the adult influence is felt in the classroom, the more independent the children will feel they can be within the limits set by the adult and reinforced by the oldest children in the classroom. This is the reason why Montessori classrooms have a three year age range and is important that a balance between all these ages is kept. Attrition is a problem, particularly in the 3rd year of primary when parents want to put their child in free, pubic kindergarten. But not after that? Once they stay for age 5, they stay? What about "Charter Montessori" programs where the school is free as a public school, but along Montessori lines? I know this is long, but I wanted to at least give a sentence or two to all of your questions and concerns without being so brief that it just causes more miscommunication. I do especially like the analogy to a plant growing. And I would like to hear a lot more about Concentration! If you were dealing with an older child who had not done Montessori, how would you think Concentration might be fostered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 I do especially like the analogy to a plant growing. And I would like to hear a lot more about Concentration! If you were dealing with an older child who had not done Montessori, how would you think Concentration might be fostered? I'm glad to see Montessori may have been redeemed in your eyes from the earlier confusion I caused :) We had to write an 8+ page paper about concentration in training, but I'll try to keep this post a bit shorter haha. Concentration in general is obtained when what is presented to the child aligns with his interests. At the risk of getting too technical again, the guide's job is to observe what the child's interests are and know where he is in his sensitive periods. Sensitive periods are essentially just periods of intense interest for specific aspects of the environment, specifically movement, refinement, order, and, most famously, language. There's some other mental processes at work, but that would be getting way too technical, so I'll only go there if you want. In the best case scenario, if a presentation aligns with his interests he will repeat the presentation immediately, but other times he may not repeat until a later time or even the next day. Concentration looks a lot like you would think: the child's eyes are focused on the material and his hands are engaged in constructive manipulation of the material, hopefully using it just like the guide presented it. Pretty much, when concentration starts happening, that's when the guide doesn't do ANYTHING with that child except observe him because during concentration is when inner construction is the most powerful and when were normalization begins to occur. The other behaviors that can be observed during concentration, like work ethic, peace, joy, refined movement, and rejuvenation are a glimpse into the behavior the child can show whether he's concentrating or not when he becomes completely normalized. Hopefully that gives some insight into the connection between concentration and normalization. I read this very apt passage from one of Montessori's books today, which pertains to your question about late arrivals and such: “You must not think that you can take a child at any age, say six or nine, and turn him into a perfect person. The perfection of a child of nine is dependent on the child that went before. In order to have a better child of nine, we must begin at birth…We cannot begin their education at six, because they have already been through an entire life which has now finished†It would be like transplanting a plant that had already grown in poor soil to optimal soil; the plant will improve, but it would grow as well as if it had been in optimal soil the whole time. Montessori's idea of education from birth is just an extension of what occurs in the primary classroom: give the child the optimal environment to meet the needs of his natural processes. Hopefully that was informative without being too long. Let me know if you have any more questions. I'm really loving the discussion. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 You may be interested in reading some of the research by Angeline Lillard who has been researching the differences and the different effects of "imaginitive play" vs. play in the Montessori environment, which there is indeed a lot of. An example is Playful Learning and Montessori Education. Not sure if you have access to journal articles, such as through a university, but if you do, her work is pretty interesting even if you don't agree with her conclusions. As far as Montessori's decision goes, in her first casa in Rome, she actually had toys and Montessori materials in the casa. In very short time, the children independently utilized the materials and ceased choosing to play with the toys, leading her to take them out of the classroom. There is a lot of play in the Montessori environment, some of it indistinguishable between traditional ideas of play and some of it much more different. Take baking for instance. A child could pretend to bake a cake or actually bake one. If you observe him, he will be doing the same movements with the same or more enthusiasm, but the child with real materials will have produced a real cake and his movements will be much more refined that the child who simply pretended to bake a cake. This goes for pretty much every material in the casa. In summary, the energies that a child is working out in pretend play are simply channeled in, what Montessorians believe, a much more developmentally appropriate manner that leads to better outcomes. ETA: There are many ways to use the materials, but some are constructive and some are not. The constructive uses are those leading to concentration, so even if the teacher has not shown how to combine the blocks of the brown stair, pink tower, and red rods, the child is free to do this. Not only will he likely be concentrating, the relationship between those three sets of materials is a very important discovery. Pretending it is a phone is not constructive. What Montessori observed is that when the child's imagination is grounded in reality, he develops much better, concentrates more, and moves further on the path of normalization, which is the natural cessation of behaviors generally considered negative and the increase of behaviors generally considered positive. Poor kids. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Every once in awhile I start to think I'm wrong about Montessori methods and that they're really actually great and what's my hang up. I mean, so many good materials and some really great ideas... But I just read through this thread and was reminded why I find the underlying philosophy behind Montessori antithetical to much of what I believe about education. I'm sure this is right for some people, but not me or my kids, that's for sure. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 Poor kids. Why? If they are choosing the Montessori "toys" over traditional toys and "playing" with them, then clearly the Montessori materials are more attuned to their natural interests than traditional toys. If you are looking for more traditional outgrowths of "pretend play," which more precisely is Vygotsky's concept of structured play, you should check out Tools of the Mind, which has been implemented in a good number of kindergarten and preschool classrooms and has a pretty good body of research showing its efficacy in promoting executive function. It's also a good parallel to how Montessori implements play, for it utilizes the same principles that makes Tools of the Mind effective just in a different manner that addresses other aspects of the child's development as well. They both encourage children to plan, follow through with that plan in a systematic but still independent way, cooperate with others, do activities they want to do anyway, etc. Montessori takes it a step further because the child's play creates predictable, meaningful effects on the environment and enhances the acquisition of real knowledge and skills. Practical Life? They're playing house in a real house. Sensorial? They're constructing relationships instead of just pretend structures (though this is also present early on, but naturally falls away through no action of the teacher). Language? They;re making meaning by acting out phrases and sentences and labeling their environment. Math? They're playing store with the most beautiful golden beads you will ever see while applying the four operations. When the outward appearance of play isn't pre-judged and a Montessori classroom is observed objectively, it's great to see what human's natural interest in play can look like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wapiti Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Of course there will be prompting and presentations by the guide as in primary, but the child will be much more willing to follow-up independently than the first plane child. This is of course to the best of my knowledge since my training is primarily focused on 3-6. Hmmm. Wow! Maybe some of the people reading who have had children in Montessori could speak to if it actually does work out that way! Are you asking about her other paragraph about concentration or are you just asking if the older students are more independent than the younger ones? (Eta, or maybe if I was entirely sure what HT is saying, I could comment on whether I've seen it work out that way, LOL.) Yes to the independence. FWIW, I've only heard of the primary teachers speak of normalization once in a blue moon but yes, "normalization" (from what I take it to mean!) doesn't take terribly long for the primary kids. For an older student who is new to Montessori, the ease of transition to the Montessori classroom format (maybe a better way to describe it? I dunno) would depend on the student's personality and prior experiences, I'd guess. I think that's a good question for an upper el teacher, specifically Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 Every once in awhile I start to think I'm wrong about Montessori methods and that they're really actually great and what's my hang up. I mean, so many good materials and some really great ideas... But I just read through this thread and was reminded why I find the underlying philosophy behind Montessori antithetical to much of what I believe about education. I'm sure this is right for some people, but not me or my kids, that's for sure. I'm sorry Montessori does not feel right for your children. The thing to remember about Montessori is that it is based on Montessori's original observations of children's natural behavior when the adult conceived prejudices of traditional and even other progressive approaches are put aside. Through much trial and error, she observed that even children others in society considered no better than garbage (ie. Roman street urchins) could become joyous, assertive, cooperative, competent, refined in their movements, and highly intelligent individuals when they were given an environment that caused them to concentrate and then were left alone. Even after discovering this "miracle" that garnered these ppor children the term "Miracle Children," she found the she was still underestimating their abilities because of traditional prejudices, particularly that children could not be educated before six. Her observations have been confirmed by hundreds if not thousands of Montessorians over the past 100 years, and the methods by which the environment is prepared have evolved based on these observations even after her death. What part of Montessori in particular do you not feel is appropriate for your children? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I'm sorry Montessori does not feel right for your children. The thing to remember about Montessori is that it is based on Montessori's original observations of children's natural behavior when the adult conceived prejudices of traditional and even other progressive approaches are put aside. Through much trial and error, she observed that even children others in society considered no better than garbage (ie. Roman street urchins) could become joyous, assertive, cooperative, competent, refined in their movements, and highly intelligent individuals when they were given an environment that caused them to concentrate and then were left alone. Even after discovering this "miracle" that garnered these ppor children the term "Miracle Children," she found the she was still underestimating their abilities because of traditional prejudices, particularly that children could not be educated before six. Her observations have been confirmed by hundreds if not thousands of Montessorians over the past 100 years, and the methods by which the environment is prepared have evolved based on these observations even after her death. What part of Montessori in particular do you not feel is appropriate for your children? :) I find this statement incredibly ironic given how judgmental Montessori thought is, as stated in your own posts, toward children's play. Some of it is "constructive" and some is not. Some of it is "deviant" and some is not. It's clearly a very prejudiced lens for what is good and bad in children. And while those prejudices may have arisen from Maria Montessori's admittedly very charitable and positive work with children who were sadly not valued, it is still a set of prejudices about what children should and shouldn't do. A set I don't agree with at all. I believe in children's free play and imagination. I believe in respecting the way that children play. I believe that everything I read about creativity and the role of play in early childhood brain development supports that emphasis in children's lives. I believe that the home is the best place for most children. I believe that life is messy and it's through that wonderful mess that we learn and grow. I believe in engaging my kids in conceptual math thinking that requires paper and that in order to save them writing (or heaven forbid, turning math into a bookmaking class Waldorf style) that means workbooks. I think what it really boils down to is that my view of education is deeply shaped by the idea that the role of education is to bring out that light, that uniqueness - what the Quakers would call that of God - from within each person. And the idea that we are molding children to all find the same conclusions, to all fit within the same set of normal confines, is deeply disturbing to me. I don't really care if it's jargon or not... It's not the way I see education at all. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 I find this statement incredibly ironic given how judgmental Montessori thought is, as stated in your own posts, toward children's play. Some of it is "constructive" and some is not. Some of it is "deviant" and some is not. It's clearly a very prejudiced lens for what is good and bad in children. And while those prejudices may have arisen from Maria Montessori's admittedly very charitable and positive work with children who were sadly not valued, it is still a set of prejudices about what children should and shouldn't do. A set I don't agree with at all. I believe in children's free play and imagination. I believe in respecting the way that children play. I believe that everything I read about creativity and the role of play in early childhood brain development supports that emphasis in children's lives. I believe that the home is the best place for most children. I believe that life is messy and it's through that wonderful mess that we learn and grow. I believe in engaging my kids in conceptual math thinking that requires paper and that in order to save them writing (or heaven forbid, turning math into a bookmaking class Waldorf style) that means workbooks. I think what it really boils down to is that my view of education is deeply shaped by the idea that the role of education is to bring out that light, that uniqueness - what the Quakers would call that of God - from within each person. And the idea that we are molding children to all find the same conclusions, to all fit within the same set of normal confines, is deeply disturbing to me. I don't really care if it's jargon or not... It's not the way I see education at all. Montessori observed that there are certain natural processes occurring in the child, and just like natural processes with everything else on the planet, these processes will have natural, predictable results, which she observed and Montessorians have observed across cultures around the world. And just like putting a flower in the best soil will feed its needs the best, placing a child in an optimal environment will feed his mind and body and spirit the best, leading to these predictable results of joy, calm, cooperation, etc. So to call her views prejudices would be to call what we know is the best environment for a flower and what its optimal development looks like prejudices. Prejudices are the ideas adults, some of them educators and some of them not, come up with based on their own beliefs of what would be best for children with no clear, observed goal in mind. Montessori not only observed the goal, the "normalized child," but observed the best way for the child to reach the goal through trial and error. I'm glad you believe in children's free play and imagination because so did Montessori. Montessori based her stance on anthropology and observing the child. She noticed that humans have a natural human tendency tor abstraction and imagination. She also observed how this tendency is manifest in children at their various stages of development. One thing she noticed is that when children had the choice between what is traditionally defined as "free play" and "playing" with the real materials, they almost inevitably chose the real materials after their first instance of concentration. Besides this, they "played" with the Montessori materials longer, took better care of them, and displayed what we would define as better behavior both while playing with and after playing with real materials. The conclusions she drew from this was that the children inwardly (aka subconsciously) found these materials to be more satisfying of their needs. What do you base your belief on? And it's is great that you mentioned God, because Montessori was a devout Catholic. She believed that the natural processes she observed in the child were a plan of development granted by God. Thus, for adults to create an environment that aligns with this plan, instead of trying to shape the child in their own image (an allusion to Genesis 1:27), is to cooperate with God's plan for the proper development of a human being. Doing so would, she believed, ultimately create a better society. The adult's primary job is to construct an environment conducive to the child's natural development, connect him to it, then get out of his way. The child then constructs himself just as a flower constructs itself. No adult molding necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I base my belief on more recent brain research as well as studies. I think the value of free play is pretty well established in early childhood development studies. I don't see that what you're saying is a belief in free play because you're placing a judgement on which play is better and which materials are better. Some children gravitate toward natural materials, others toward plastic schlock, others toward simple educational toys. Saying that some uses of the materials are better than others is not getting out of the way and letting the child develop as she needs. That's directing that development very closely and with a specific goal in mind. A noramlized child. The idea that there is such a thing is saying that you have a vision of what normal is and must be. And that any child who doesn't play in the right way is deviant. I find it difficult to believe that Montessori philosophy (putting aside the idea that many great ideas can be garnered from some of the methods) would find much traction with a homeschool audience when what you're saying is that the parents can't create an ideal environment and that the teachers are the experts who can correct all the deviant behavior that parents create in their kids. That's exactly why many of us homeschool - because we dislike that attitude from teachers and educators that they know our children better than us. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I base my belief on more recent brain research as well as studies. I think the value of free play is pretty well established in early childhood development studies. I don't see that what you're saying is a belief in free play because you're placing a judgement on which play is better and which materials are better. Some children gravitate toward natural materials, others toward plastic schlock, others toward simple educational toys. Saying that some uses of the materials are better than others is not getting out of the way and letting the child develop as she needs. That's directing that development very closely and with a specific goal in mind. A normalized child. The idea that there is such a thing is saying that you have a vision of what normal is and must be. And that any child who doesn't play in the right way is deviant. I find it difficult to believe that Montessori philosophy (putting aside the idea that many great ideas can be garnered from some of the methods) would find much traction with a homeschool audience when what you're saying is that the parents can't create an ideal environment and that the teachers are the experts who can correct all the deviant behavior that parents create in their kids. That's exactly why many of us homeschool - because we dislike that attitude from teachers and educators that they know our children better than us. On the one hand, of course I can see that corrective measures *in a school environment* would be of tremendous use to children who were not being raised in developmentally appropriate ways especially regarding skills required for academic learning (e.g. the original Montessori students). School imitates a proper home, school personnel and fellow students somewhat simulate a nuclear family, careful diligence is observed to maximize the time with concentration, tools and toys are only used under direct supervision for specific goals, sequenced learning in all academic areas is carefully observed, values and norms are strictly defined...again, all this distillation at school...I understand why it was desired and why it worked. It worked for those children because it was the Other Half. They retained their street smarts. Their survival skills, creative problem solving, and inner thought life were still their own. They may have learned how they must handle objects and ideas at school, and I have no criticism of that, but on their own time in the 'real' world they were observing natural developmental processes. (Far more than today's plugged-in, glassy-eyed media-addicted child, in my opinion.) Our street urchin who survived his environment was an excellent problem solver and thinker. I'm not glorifying the situation or suggesting neglect as a parenting method but I am saying that if he survived he obviously had learned to be creative. I think this Other Half of the students' life was an essential factor, because I think children who lack the opportunity to define themselves to some extent and to explore without a guide for large parts of their childhood are stunted. I think parents and educators who try to control a child's curiosity and personality to the nth degree as touted in this thread are denying his personhood as an individual made in the image of God and failing to nurture his God-given personality and bent. If Montessori education at home is about stalking children 24/7 to be sure they handle every stick and tree stump correctly and all their thoughts and actions are "normative" then I say the approach could easily and instantly become abusive. Perhaps that's why most homeschoolers don't do it, even though some glean a few ideas from the Montessori method. But to sign up wholesale, maybe this is why nobody does. Where does the child go to think his own thoughts and try out his own ideas if home isn't safe for that? How does a homeschooled child survive being hounded and judged in this way, with no street, farm, or home to go to afterwards to sort out his lessons and feelings through un-directed play and work? This sort of control in a school that exists to fill gaps? No problem. (Not my choice, but not a problem.) In a home? No way. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Why? If they are choosing the Montessori "toys" over traditional toys and "playing" with them, then clearly the Montessori materials are more attuned to their natural interests than traditional toys. If you are looking for more traditional outgrowths of "pretend play," which more precisely is Vygotsky's concept of structured play, you should check out Tools of the Mind, which has been implemented in a good number of kindergarten and preschool classrooms and has a pretty good body of research showing its efficacy in promoting executive function. It's also a good parallel to how Montessori implements play, for it utilizes the same principles that makes Tools of the Mind effective just in a different manner that addresses other aspects of the child's development as well. They both encourage children to plan, follow through with that plan in a systematic but still independent way, cooperate with others, do activities they want to do anyway, etc. Montessori takes it a step further because the child's play creates predictable, meaningful effects on the environment and enhances the acquisition of real knowledge and skills. Practical Life? They're playing house in a real house. Sensorial? They're constructing relationships instead of just pretend structures (though this is also present early on, but naturally falls away through no action of the teacher). Language? They;re making meaning by acting out phrases and sentences and labeling their environment. Math? They're playing store with the most beautiful golden beads you will ever see while applying the four operations. When the outward appearance of play isn't pre-judged and a Montessori classroom is observed objectively, it's great to see what human's natural interest in play can look like. I know what humans at play look like because I have four children. Are you a parent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I think this Other Half of the students' life was an essential factor, because I think children who lack the opportunity to define themselves to some extent and to explore without a guide for large parts of their childhood are stunted. I think parents and educators who try to control a child's curiosity and personality to the nth degree as touted in this thread are denying his personhood as an individual made in the image of God and failing to nurture his God-given personality and bent. If Montessori education at home is about stalking children 24/7 to be sure they handle every stick and tree stump correctly and all their thoughts and actions are "normative" then I say the approach could easily and instantly become abusive. Perhaps that's why most homeschoolers don't do it, even though some glean a few ideas from the Montessori method. But to sign up wholesale, maybe this is why nobody does. Where does the child go to think his own thoughts and try out his own ideas if home isn't safe for that? How does a homeschooled child survive being hounded and judged in this way, with no street, farm, or home to go to afterwards to sort out his lessons and feelings through un-directed play and work? This sort of control in a school that exists to fill gaps? No problem. (Not my choice, but not a problem.) In a home? No way. Yeah. That. You said it way better than I could, Tibbie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Farrar, I wonder if we are misunderstanding something. I don't know much about Montessori so I am responding mainly to points made in this thread (even the points that have been walked back :) ). I'm going to do some research on Montessori at home. I'm thinking what we're reading here is probably not what it looks like in existing homeschool settings which are directed by parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 And I hope I'm not too contentious. I like that the Ask a threads have been really respectful. I think Montessori classroom education probably is right for some families. And I know a lot of people appreciate the information here. I was interested reading through it myself, not having read anything really Montessori-ish since grad school. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I don't think the OP has said anything about what the normalization process might look like in a homeschool environment. From what I've read of Montessori's own writings, there's no reason children couldn't become normalized in this way, but there's no particular "system" for it -- at least, none that she ever worked on. It seems like more of an individual thing that could take a lot of different forms, and would depend largely on the adult's spiritual preparation and awareness (whether explicit or intuitive) of the "secrets of childhood" that Montessori discovered. The OP is trained as a classroom teacher. That *is* a system, i.e., a specific, repeatable way to achieve these results. So it's understandable that there would be a disconnect in our communication. What I've found, as a homeschooler trying to work with several different ages, is that you get to the point where you're not so much trying to "do Montessori" as to "be Montessori," in the sense of copying the approach by which she developed her system. Hmm, this isn't working. What would Maria Montessori do in this situation? And even if we were all 100% right in our assumptions on how she would handle things (which is unlikely :001_smile: ), we're all probably going to come up with slightly different solutions, because all of us have slightly different situations. At the same time, I do think we can learn a huge amount from classroom teachers, especially those with the traditional AMI training. Even though their views might sometimes seem rigid from our perspective, they have the great advantage of a solid basis in the theory. The newer organizations are sometimes more about the "how-to," which seems to me to be the least useful part for homeschoolers. The Michael Olaf web site gives one family's experience of Montessori-inspired homeschooling. The mother is an AMI trained Montessori teacher, and believes all the standard things about normalization, deviations, etc. (there's a very good article here), but she didn't try to replicate the classroom at home. If anything, what they ended up with is more like near-unschooling. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Maybe part of the disconnect that I'm feeling is that we don't really know the OP. And if she has some connection or experience with homeschooling I missed it. I am a former classroom teacher in a variety of types of schools. I thought I knew from education... and then I started homeschooling. It's really a different kettle of fish in many ways. Not in others - I value my experience in the classroom greatly and the experience of others. But it's not the same. Even the tiny, 30 kid school I worked at was radically different from being a homeschool educator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowbeltmom Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 My three kids attended Montessori. Montessori worked well for one, but not my other two. My middle child found it hard to concentrate with all the noise in the classroom. We moved him from his Montessori school (he attended three years of Children's House and 1 year of Lower Elementary) to a public school classroom for 2nd grade. My daughter spent way more time walking around the classroom talking to her classmates than she did actually engaging with any of the material. My oldest attended the Montessori school from Children's House until he began homeschooling at age 11. The Upper Elementary classroom did have a bit more structure to the class than the previous levels. However, there were some kids in my son's Upper Elementary class who had a competition going amongst themselves to see who could do the least amount of work possible each day. (These kids had been at the school since age 3) Since kids move at their own pace, there were not any consequences for "goofing off" and as a parent, it was difficult to know exactly what transpired each day in the classroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 I base my belief on more recent brain research as well as studies. I think the value of free play is pretty well established in early childhood development studies. I don't see that what you're saying is a belief in free play because you're placing a judgement on which play is better and which materials are better. Some children gravitate toward natural materials, others toward plastic schlock, others toward simple educational toys. Saying that some uses of the materials are better than others is not getting out of the way and letting the child develop as she needs. That's directing that development very closely and with a specific goal in mind. A noramlized child. The idea that there is such a thing is saying that you have a vision of what normal is and must be. And that any child who doesn't play in the right way is deviant. I find it difficult to believe that Montessori philosophy (putting aside the idea that many great ideas can be garnered from some of the methods) would find much traction with a homeschool audience when what you're saying is that the parents can't create an ideal environment and that the teachers are the experts who can correct all the deviant behavior that parents create in their kids. That's exactly why many of us homeschool - because we dislike that attitude from teachers and educators that they know our children better than us. I want to dive more deeply into other points in your post, so I will simply say that play research is actually rather inconclusive, with free play in particular not baring much positive effects compared to a control group. I'd recommend checking out the Tools of the Mind approach for a more traditional implementation of Vygotsky's ideas of play, which are more supported by research. What might be more interesting to you however may be Angeline Lillard's comparison of the Montessori approach with the concept of "playful learning" entitled "Playful Learning and Montessori." Your observation that "Some children gravitate toward natural materials, others toward plastic schlock, others toward simple educational toys" is an important one. What we need to take a step further is observing why some choose this and others choose that and what behavior children exhibit during and after playing with each. From my limited experience, and based on the experience of Montessorians from the last 100 years, children who are more grounded in reality, calm, cooperative, and have a strong work ethic among other behaviors will choose Montessori materials over traditional toys. Children who are simply surrounded by many traditional toys play with them for much shorter times, are less refined in their usage of these toys, and do not present the many positive behaviors seen in those who are concentrating with Montessori materials. These behaviors, which have been observed across cultures and were not taught, are effectively the benchmark for whether a material or a usage of a material is effective just as a flower looking healthy is a good indicator that it is in the proper environment. Studies have supported that the Montessori approach does indeed lead to executive functioning among other positive effects. There's also a good distinction to observe that goes back to the distinction proposed in the preceding paragraph. There are behaviors arising from the child's natural processes, and behavior arising from obstacles placed in the way of the child's development. Children chasing the later, what can be termed impulses, will exhibit a loss of energy and focus. Children following the former, what can be termed interests, will lead to an increase in energy and a noticeable focus. There's no theorizing necessary. If a flower wilts before its time, you're doing something wrong; if a flower is growing exactly as it should, you're doing something right. Thus deviation and normalization are not external measures, but simply based on an understanding that children have natural behavior arising from them being in the proper environment to develop and behavior developed from obstacles to their natural development. I agree with you that :I find it difficult to believe that Montessori philosophy would find much traction with a homeschool audience," but for different reasons. Montessori believed that the best place for the child up to 2.5-3 is with the mother, but that what his natural processes sought from his environment after that point is so great that a traditional home environment could not possibly provide this. There are indeed plenty of principles from the Montessori approach that can be adapted for the home, and I would be happy to go into those, but I personally don't see someone essentially making a Children's House in their own home working out very well when it's only populated by their own children. It should also be noted that Montessori not only declared that education for the child starts at birth, but even before conception education for the adult on the best ways to carry and care for their child should be a part of every society. So it's not simply a matter of the parents doing a bunch of things wrong, then the Children' House guide fixing it all. What the guide "fixes" if you want to think about it like that is a result of the child's experiences in the first three years of life. So these Montessori principles that can be applied at home are super important in the first three years of life while the child is at home besides being helpful throughout the child's life at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 You have a strong assumption that there's one right way to be and develop. I don't. And that school is a superior environment. So I'll bow out now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 And I hope I'm not too contentious. I like that the Ask a threads have been really respectful. I think Montessori classroom education probably is right for some families. And I know a lot of people appreciate the information here. I was interested reading through it myself, not having read anything really Montessori-ish since grad school. Absolutely not. I greatly appreciate the opportunities for discussion you are providing because I am going to meet parents who are well informed and have very strong ideas about what is right for their child. And these ideas, like in your case, may conflict with Montessori. No matter how free within limits Montessorians want to see children be, you're still the parent, so it's great that you care so much about your child's education. I personally believe that there isn't a more important choice in a parent's life than how their child will be educated from birth, which doesn't always mean being placed in a school. The point I want to get better at conveying is that the be-all-end-all of proper education is observing the child. As long as the adult, whether it's me the guide or you the parent, observe the child without clouding these observations with our prejudices, we're going to be right more often than we are wrong. It's our prejudices more than our ignorance that leads us to, for example, help a 2 year old who is trying to carrying something impossibly heavy across the room or complain to a 4 year old of the apparent nonsense of scrubbing a table 20 times. Little moments like that are what the "Montessori Method" is built on. This is why Montessori preferred her approach be called the "Child's Method." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 School imitates a proper home, school personnel and fellow students somewhat simulate a nuclear family, careful diligence is observed to maximize the time with concentration, tools and toys are only used under direct supervision for specific goals, sequenced learning in all academic areas is carefully observed, values and norms are strictly defined...again, all this distillation at school...I understand why it was desired and why it worked. It worked for those children because it was the Other Half. They retained their street smarts. Their survival skills, creative problem solving, and inner thought life were still their own. They may have learned how they must handle objects and ideas at school, and I have no criticism of that, but on their own time in the 'real' world they were observing natural developmental processes. (Far more than today's plugged-in, glassy-eyed media-addicted child, in my opinion.) Our street urchin who survived his environment was an excellent problem solver and thinker. I'm not glorifying the situation or suggesting neglect as a parenting method but I am saying that if he survived he obviously had learned to be creative. I think this Other Half of the students' life was an essential factor, because I think children who lack the opportunity to define themselves to some extent and to explore without a guide for large parts of their childhood are stunted. I think parents and educators who try to control a child's curiosity and personality to the nth degree as touted in this thread are denying his personhood as an individual made in the image of God and failing to nurture his God-given personality and bent. I'd agree with a lot of this. In Montessori terms, we'd describe this as the child having the opportunity to adapt to his environment through uninterrupted work, work being anything constructive he does that allowed him to focus and develop his energies. The "Other Half" as you term it is what the Montessorian strives to go on in their casa. What the casa is is simply an environment constructed to meet the developmental needs of the children instead of the adult world, which is decidedly not constructed to meet the developmental needs of the children. What they develop in the casa can then be applied to this other environment. If Montessori education at home is about stalking children 24/7 to be sure they handle every stick and tree stump correctly and all their thoughts and actions are "normative" then I say the approach could easily and instantly become abusive. Perhaps that's why most homeschoolers don't do it, even though some glean a few ideas from the Montessori method. But to sign up wholesale, maybe this is why nobody does. Where does the child go to think his own thoughts and try out his own ideas if home isn't safe for that? How does a homeschooled child survive being hounded and judged in this way, with no street, farm, or home to go to afterwards to sort out his lessons and feelings through un-directed play and work? This sort of control in a school that exists to fill gaps? No problem. (Not my choice, but not a problem.) In a home? No way. Home is where children should decidedly have much more unstructured time. Depending on what sort of homeschool model one is going for, I'd recommend that the time outside of "school" be largely unstructured but still having the home adapted to the child so that he can freely choose to "work" in each room as he wishes. Stalking children will actually break concentration, so one of the hardest things to learn for any adult is when to back off and when to step in so as not to abandon the child to any impulses which may not be natural to him (as opposed to his naturally arising interests). Having 30-40+ children also is a good way to ensure that stalking does not occur. If the adult presence is felt too strong by the children, it will inhibit their independent choice, which will get in the way of their concentration, and thus their optimal development. What you are describing sounds to me more like the traditional school concept of keeping children "on task," which is decidedly not what Montessorians are to do. Also, (and I promise I'll be brief on this point) the concept of "rest" is very important in Montessori. Maria Montessori observed that children would wander, become louder, become less coordinated, or even sit in one spot, seemingly restless but still subtly exhibiting the behaviors of concentration. When disturbed, they would be quite irritable and have a hard time concentrating for days afterward. When left alone, they would eventually choose a constructive activity to do, leading to more positive behaviors associated with normalization. As children were continually left alone in these periods she termed "false fatigue," the "rest" became deeper but shorter in length until it was not required at all. She surmised that this was a period of consolidation, a form of "inner work" that was just as much work as building the Pink Tower or something. Like normalized behavior, this has been seen in child after child when given the independence to concentrate on constructive work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 I don't think the OP has said anything about what the normalization process might look like in a homeschool environment. From what I've read of Montessori's own writings, there's no reason children couldn't become normalized in this way, but there's no particular "system" for it -- at least, none that she ever worked on. It seems like more of an individual thing that could take a lot of different forms, and would depend largely on the adult's spiritual preparation and awareness (whether explicit or intuitive) of the "secrets of childhood" that Montessori discovered. The OP is trained as a classroom teacher. That *is* a system, i.e., a specific, repeatable way to achieve these results. So it's understandable that there would be a disconnect in our communication. What I've found, as a homeschooler trying to work with several different ages, is that you get to the point where you're not so much trying to "do Montessori" as to "be Montessori," in the sense of copying the approach by which she developed her system. Hmm, this isn't working. What would Maria Montessori do in this situation? And even if we were all 100% right in our assumptions on how she would handle things (which is unlikely :001_smile: ), we're all probably going to come up with slightly different solutions, because all of us have slightly different situations. At the same time, I do think we can learn a huge amount from classroom teachers, especially those with the traditional AMI training. Even though their views might sometimes seem rigid from our perspective, they have the great advantage of a solid basis in the theory. The newer organizations are sometimes more about the "how-to," which seems to me to be the least useful part for homeschoolers. The Michael Olaf web site gives one family's experience of Montessori-inspired homeschooling. The mother is an AMI trained Montessori teacher, and believes all the standard things about normalization, deviations, etc. (there's a very good article here), but she didn't try to replicate the classroom at home. If anything, what they ended up with is more like near-unschooling. My main trepidation about generalizing the normalization process over to the homeschool environment is largely due to the lack of a Montessori trained guide (usually) and the lack of a large group of children (almost always). My understanding of the normalization process is that it requires a large group of children to reap its full effects. Definitely, any child, even an infant, can come to concentrate when their natural interests are met, and I'm sure this can lead to some gains in behavior, coordination, etc. However, when you observe even classroom settings with 15-20 children vs. 35 vs 50 (which I haven't had the pleasure of observing yet), even if you know nothing about concentration, you will notice differences in the behavior of the children. And the large the class is, the more and deeper concentration is observed. And this can largely be attributed to the adult presence being felt more strongly the lower the ratio is. This is why, for instance, I will have to work extremely hard on being unavailable because the new school I will be heading will at most have 12 2.5-3 year olds in it. And please indulge me in one example that I think perfectly illustrates why the number of children is so important. There is an activity, the most important activity in fact, called walking on the line. There is a simple elliptical line inside (and sometimes outside) the classroom that children are invited to walk on. When you have an entire casa of children walking on this line, with barely any space between them, none stepping on each other's feet, none stopping so that others run into them or the line is held up, it is the most beautiful thing to observe. The serenity and inhibition of motion demonstrated by the children led Montessori to declare that walking on the line was an "indirect preparation" for meditation. Now imagine this happening every single day, eventually arising purely spontaneously without any prompting from the guide. You unfortunately can't have this in a homeschool environment with a parent and a few children. It's all the more unfortunate because it is the single most important material for deep concentration in the casa despite just being a line of tape on the floor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Humble Thinker, I will join farrarwilliams in bowing out of this discussion as there will be no meeting of the minds on some of these philosophies. I'm glad to know a little more about Maria Montessori's work and objectives. Thank you very much for taking the time to share your information and answer questions about Montessori method at home. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 And please indulge me in one example that I think perfectly illustrates why the number of children is so important. There is an activity, the most important activity in fact, called walking on the line. There is a simple elliptical line inside (and sometimes outside) the classroom that children are invited to walk on. When you have an entire casa of children walking on this line, with barely any space between them, none stepping on each other's feet, none stopping so that others run into them or the line is held up, it is the most beautiful thing to observe. The serenity and inhibition of motion demonstrated by the children led Montessori to declare that walking on the line was an "indirect preparation" for meditation. Now imagine this happening every single day, eventually arising purely spontaneously without any prompting from the guide. You unfortunately can't have this in a homeschool environment with a parent and a few children. It's all the more unfortunate because it is the single most important material for deep concentration in the casa despite just being a line of tape on the floor. It's very funny that you mention this. At church today, because it's a special feast day, we joined in a procession with many other children and adults. It was a challenge to keep my bunch walking in single file, without wandering off, tripping on each other, getting mixed up with other families, etc. I told my husband on the way home, "we need to do more walking on the line!" :001_smile: To me, this moment illustrates what Montessori realized late in her life -- that everything in her method points toward the traditional Christian liturgy. Walking on the line is conducive to contemplation in the way you describe, but also in a very practical way. Because the point of the procession is to walk while praying, and you can't pray when you're constantly focused on the walking. At the same time, Catholic doctrine holds that the liturgy is both the source and the summit of the Christian life, which means that the liturgy itself is a powerful force for normalization. The same could be said for long hours of uninterrupted time spent in nature, or caring for animals and plants. I've never personally encountered a Montessori school that provides the children with both of these types of work, and in fact, many in our area don't provide either one. Well, maybe a few potted plants and some goldfish. Ironically, most of the schools around here don't do walking on the line, either. Our children attended an AMS school that did (though they weren't always "strictly Montessori" in other areas). I've even spoken with an AMI trained directress who doesn't do it, because she thinks it's strange and stifles the children's individuality, or some such thing. Come to think of it, she might say the same thing about our family's desire for religious education. So, when you consider factors such as: - the lack of authenticity in the curriculum of most Montessori schools - the impossibility of any US Montessori schools actually having anything near the desired child/adult ratio, due to legal requirements - the shortage of really good teachers, especially those who can handle special needs or gifted children, even in accredited schools - the prevalence of secularized, pan-religious, or "new age" mindsets, which don't sit well with many families - and the cost, both financial, and in terms of time that could be spent on family and community activities, even for parents who are very much on board with Montessori in principle, sending the children off to school doesn't always seem like the best option. We lasted less than a year at the AMS school before we went back to homeschooling. I've never regretted that decision. We'd probably reconsider it if we lived near a school that didn't have any of the above problems, but even then, I'm not certain it would be worth it, especially for the older children. I do agree that there are things you can do at school that you can't do nearly as well at home, but the reverse is also true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 It's very funny that you mention this. At church today, because it's a special feast day, we joined in a procession with many other children and adults. It was a challenge to keep my bunch walking in single file, without wandering off, tripping on each other, getting mixed up with other families, etc. I told my husband on the way home, "we need to do more walking on the line!" :001_smile: To me, this moment illustrates what Montessori realized late in her life -- that everything in her method points toward the traditional Christian liturgy. Walking on the line is conducive to contemplation in the way you describe, but also in a very practical way. Because the point of the procession is to walk while praying, and you can't pray when you're constantly focused on the walking. At the same time, Catholic doctrine holds that the liturgy is both the source and the summit of the Christian life, which means that the liturgy itself is a powerful force for normalization. The same could be said for long hours of uninterrupted time spent in nature, or caring for animals and plants. I've never personally encountered a Montessori school that provides the children with both of these types of work, and in fact, many in our area don't provide either one. Well, maybe a few potted plants and some goldfish. Ironically, most of the schools around here don't do walking on the line, either. Our children attended an AMS school that did (though they weren't always "strictly Montessori" in other areas). I've even spoken with an AMI trained directress who doesn't do it, because she thinks it's strange and stifles the children's individuality, or some such thing. Come to think of it, she might say the same thing about our family's desire for religious education. So, when you consider factors such as: - the lack of authenticity in the curriculum of most Montessori schools - the impossibility of any US Montessori schools actually having anything near the desired child/adult ratio, due to legal requirements - the shortage of really good teachers, especially those who can handle special needs or gifted children, even in accredited schools - the prevalence of secularized, pan-religious, or "new age" mindsets, which don't sit well with many families - and the cost, both financial, and in terms of time that could be spent on family and community activities, even for parents who are very much on board with Montessori in principle, sending the children off to school doesn't always seem like the best option. We lasted less than a year at the AMS school before we went back to homeschooling. I've never regretted that decision. We'd probably reconsider it if we lived near a school that didn't have any of the above problems, but even then, I'm not certain it would be worth it, especially for the older children. I do agree that there are things you can do at school that you can't do nearly as well at home, but the reverse is also true. Love the connections between walking on the line and Church. Montessori was very radical I think in that she believed that children would naturally develop a religious sense in the proper environment. I would be interested one day in taking the Cathechesis of the Good Shepherd training, which, if you didn't know, is a religious extension of the Montessori approach developed by a directress from Madrid that Montessori herself endorsed. Even doing it as an adult, it is a very meditative experience. Sad to hear the bad experiences with some of the Montessori schools and experiences. Montessori was really emphatic about gardening outside the casa and how walking on the line was the most important movement exercise if not the most important exercise period. Next to the silence game, it is the most powerful exercise at developing the will I usually don't see taking care of animals until upper elementary or middle school, though I have heard of a few casas that have a pet rabbit or guinea pig or something. The hard part about animals in the primary class is that it can sometimes be hard to implement without it being distracting instead of constructive. I'm not sure what Montessori's position on animals was. The cutting edge of Montessori advocacy currently is cooperating with licensing agencies to recognize the benefits of Montessori and go lax or wave some licensing rules for credentialed Montessori classrooms. It's also a really good example of AMI and AMS working together. Unfortunately, Montessori isn't a trademarked term (not for lack of trying by Maria), so anyone can claim to be Montessori. And AMI at least (and probably AMS) is working on having a better system for encouraging a better uniformity of quality across credentialed schools. I'm not sure about other countries, but the United States Montessori community especially is working on making more Montessori schools affordable given that the original casas were for children who were poorer than most poor children of the United States. There are a lot of affordable Montessori schools in the United States right now, but there definitely needs to be more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Are you asking about her other paragraph about concentration or are you just asking if the older students are more independent than the younger ones? I'm not asking if older students are more independent than younger ones, as that is true in any school situation I have ever seen, simply because they are older. I want to know if it is so that having been "normalized" in the Casa, whether they are then fully independent and spontaneous in self-teaching and self-molding from 1st grade on as seemed to be implied--that once normalized they do not any longer need, and in fact would be harmed, by the usual educational materials such as a math curriculum. The idea seemed to be that there is no need for any workbook or textbook with a good progression of problems in math, for example, because the children spontaneously and independently teach themselves without any such materials. I am trying to picture how they manage to start composing increasingly complex equations and so on in their own journals totally spontaneously and independently. It is a Wow! if true, and pretty mind-boggling. It certainly is not what I saw when I visited the Montessori in my area, but my understanding from HT is that it was not a "real" Montessori. Thus, I am wondering if parents with experience can verify that in a "real" Montessori, this is what would happen. Versus, that it is a nice sounding aim, but not actually realized outside of the theoretical realm. Separately, I am also very interested in the whole "concentration" idea. To me that makes a lot of sense as a primary focus, such that the child can learn any number of things when he or she concentrates, and cannot if he or she cannot concentrate. Since I do not have a 3 year old, I am interested in how one might work on Concentration with an older student. While it is interesting to have some more knowledge of Montessori, it is not actually germane to my life of my child's life. However, learning more about Concentration seems like it would be extremely important to people of all ages. Maybe I should start a thread about that as a spin-off, since the reply here seems to be that if not started in the Casa it is too late. Since my child was adopted at age 7, starting him in a Montessori Casa was not an option. And also having dealt with older foster children, the idea that if one has not started in a Montessori Casa at the right age, one might as well just give up as having a perfect child is hopeless seems...very...sad. My nephew at age 3 does go to a Montessori school, and so I guess has been there in time for the guides to normalize him from the right age. It will be interesting to see if he turns out perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I just heard an interesting radio program about the importance of free play, on a program called "On Being" with host Christa Tippet (I don't know how to spell her name), interviewing someone named Stuart Brown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wapiti Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I'm not asking if older students are more independent than younger ones, as that is true in any school situation I have ever seen, simply because they are older. I want to know if it is so that having been "normalized" in the Casa, whether they are then fully independent and spontaneous in self-teaching and self-molding from 1st grade on as seemed to be implied--that once normalized they do not any longer need, and in fact would be harmed, by the usual educational materials such as a math curriculum. The idea seemed to be that there is no need for any workbook or textbook with a good progression of problems in math, for example, because the children spontaneously and independently teach themselves without any such materials. I am trying to picture how they manage to start composing increasingly complex equations and so on in their own journals totally spontaneously and independently. It is a Wow! if true, and pretty mind-boggling. It certainly is not what I saw when I visited the Montessori in my area, but my understanding from HT is that it was not a "real" Montessori. Thus, I am wondering if parents with experience can verify that in a "real" Montessori, this is what would happen. Versus, that it is a nice sounding aim, but not actually realized outside of the theoretical realm. I don't think that's what "normalization" is supposed to mean, fully (as in virtually always) spontaneous and self-teaching. (I do find some of the Montessori jargon to be misleading, FWIW.) In theory, there should be initiative in choosing work, for example, and in many cases there are works with levels (say, Skyscrapers for example) where the student can progress relatively independently. Almost always, there are certain work requirements in the upper grades and also some amount of freedom for choosing - how this works varies widely among schools and among classrooms within the same school. Some of my kids have been better at initiative than others. *There are still presentations (lessons).* Since my child was adopted at age 7, starting him in a Montessori Casa was not an option. And also having dealt with older foster children, the idea that if one has not started in a Montessori Casa at the right age, one might as well just give up as having a perfect child is hopeless seems...very...sad. My nephew at age 3 does go to a Montessori school, and so I guess has been there in time for the guides to normalize him from the right age. It will be interesting to see if he turns out perfect. No, that's not at all how things play out IRL. I can see why you got that from what HT wrote, but I'll let her explain whatever she meant. FWIW, Montessori works for us better than traditional PS mostly due to the flexibility for 2e situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Texican Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 "I am trying to picture how they manage to start composing increasingly complex equations and so on in their own journals totally spontaneously and independently. It is a Wow! if true, and pretty mind-boggling. . is that the same as what the discovery based or constructivist methods say? OP, I don't really see what the benefit of using real materials at school vs. using real materials in a healthy home is. My kids follow real recipes and bake real cakes. What you're selling is mindfulness. What you're calling concentration is also called engaging the child in constructive activities. How is concentrating on stacking the pink tower more meaningful than concentracting on a snap circuits game? If the child is supposed to be trained in mindfulness or concentration during school hours, but to be left free after school lets out and the fruits of the hours spent in mindful concentration will show during that time, then do you believe that homeschoolers are just not getting enough hours of concentration consistantly every day? Which leads me to question one. Positive peer pressure is another thing that you're selling, since you said "children who select these activities" end up with these charachter benefits. Children who don't select these activities, in other words, tend to move on to another school. That is a true benefit, but that's how I'm hearing it. (1.) I hear you saying that every activity, every work, has been scientifically developed for each stage of a child's development for optimal growth with a specific endgoal in mind. I understand that such a complex system is so great it would never fit in list form, but could you outline a basic overview of essential steps in child development that you feel need to happen. What are some milestones that you think are necessary in a normalized or healthy development? (2.) My three year old stirs the mixes and helps clean up, my six year old follows the recipe, measures the ingredients, stirs the mixes, and helps clean up. Sometimes I even let him stir veggies on a hot stove (supervised, instructed, and admonished to watch what he's doing). I occasionally let them sweep, mop, vaccum, or wash a few dishes. I've always used the mantra, "look at what your hands are doing." Don't look at anything else while you're cutting with a knife, or making marks on your paper, or hitting a t-ball. I guess I always thought that Montessori was a good option for kids to learn these things, better in these ways than a public school. Maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems like you're saying a kid's missing out on something by learning at home rather than in a children's house. What do you feel they're missing, if anything, besides the positive peer group and age-appropriate independance from their mother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 I'm not asking if older students are more independent than younger ones, as that is true in any school situation I have ever seen, simply because they are older. I want to know if it is so that having been "normalized" in the Casa, whether they are then fully independent and spontaneous in self-teaching and self-molding from 1st grade on as seemed to be implied--that once normalized they do not any longer need, and in fact would be harmed, by the usual educational materials such as a math curriculum. The idea seemed to be that there is no need for any workbook or textbook with a good progression of problems in math, for example, because the children spontaneously and independently teach themselves without any such materials. I am trying to picture how they manage to start composing increasingly complex equations and so on in their own journals totally spontaneously and independently. It is a Wow! if true, and pretty mind-boggling. It certainly is not what I saw when I visited the Montessori in my area, but my understanding from HT is that it was not a "real" Montessori. Thus, I am wondering if parents with experience can verify that in a "real" Montessori, this is what would happen. Versus, that it is a nice sounding aim, but not actually realized outside of the theoretical realm. Separately, I am also very interested in the whole "concentration" idea. To me that makes a lot of sense as a primary focus, such that the child can learn any number of things when he or she concentrates, and cannot if he or she cannot concentrate. Since I do not have a 3 year old, I am interested in how one might work on Concentration with an older student. While it is interesting to have some more knowledge of Montessori, it is not actually germane to my life of my child's life. However, learning more about Concentration seems like it would be extremely important to people of all ages. Maybe I should start a thread about that as a spin-off, since the reply here seems to be that if not started in the Casa it is too late. Since my child was adopted at age 7, starting him in a Montessori Casa was not an option. And also having dealt with older foster children, the idea that if one has not started in a Montessori Casa at the right age, one might as well just give up as having a perfect child is hopeless seems...very...sad. My nephew at age 3 does go to a Montessori school, and so I guess has been there in time for the guides to normalize him from the right age. It will be interesting to see if he turns out perfect. It's not all going to be sunshine and rainbows just because the child has become normalized by age 6, but it's a huge start. For instance, I can imagine scenarios where a child has become normalized but perhaps has trouble with penmanship or hasn't fully mastered division or whatever, so may need some "adaptations," or modiefied presentations/materials that may be less than optimal. That said, you're still presenting in elementary, but ideally they are independently repeating the use of these materials after they are presented and having their imaginations stirred to research various topics on their own. The biggest reason that normalization is desirable AFAIK is the sheer amount that is presented, much more than in primary, and the emphasis on small group work which children 6-12 naturally want to do. Elementary classrooms are designed under the assumption that the children either are already normalized or well on the path of normalization, which is why most credentialed Montessori programs don't take in children who do not have a Montessori background. The other half of the equation, pun intended, is that much of the materials in elementary build off of the materials from primary. So for example, materials called the binomial and trinomial cubes give primary children a sensorial representation of the binomial and trinomial equations. Children in elementary then explore labeling each piece of the cubes to create and then write each equation. By the end of primary, children should have gotten to the small bead frame, which is essentially an abacus that allows them to count, add, and subtract into the thousands. Either before they move up to elementary or in the beginning of elementary, they will use the large bead frame, which is the same material only that it goes into the millions. Later they explore the patterns of the decimal system more in depth with other materials equipping them to go as high as they want by counting or with any of the four basic equations. They are still presented materials on how to accomplish this, but those with a Montessori background are much more equipped to independently repeat and explore with these materials than someone without. And it's not so much that it is too late to develop concentration after the age of 6, but that it's a lot harder. This is because certain neurological processes that make it a lot easier for the child of 2.5 or 3 to develop concentration are on the decline or gone around the age of 6. I can talk about them, but I'm pretty sure you would not be interested right now. For an older child, I would probably focus on involving him in as many tasks at home as possible with the goal that he will eventually spontaneously want to do these tasks without prompting because he finds them fun, fulfilling, helpful to you and/or himself, etc. Depending on his personality, you MAY have to use some more traditional behaviorist techniques to get him started. Like a younger child, just try to observe him to see what he is interested in and then try to get him involved in these activities as if you didn't already know he'd want to do it. And when he gets involved, leave him alone. Even a less than perfect child can still accomplish significant growth, so don't worry too much about that. Or if it really bothers you and you find Montessori to be a great Method that every child should have access to, lobby your government and community to support more Montessori schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 is that the same as what the discovery based or constructivist methods say? OP, I don't really see what the benefit of using real materials at school vs. using real materials in a healthy home is. My kids follow real recipes and bake real cakes. What you're selling is mindfulness. What you're calling concentration is also called engaging the child in constructive activities. How is concentrating on stacking the pink tower more meaningful than concentracting on a snap circuits game? If the child is supposed to be trained in mindfulness or concentration during school hours, but to be left free after school lets out and the fruits of the hours spent in mindful concentration will show during that time, then do you believe that homeschoolers are just not getting enough hours of concentration consistantly every day? Which leads me to question one. Positive peer pressure is another thing that you're selling, since you said "children who select these activities" end up with these charachter benefits. Children who don't select these activities, in other words, tend to move on to another school. That is a true benefit, but that's how I'm hearing it. (1.) I hear you saying that every activity, every work, has been scientifically developed for each stage of a child's development for optimal growth with a specific endgoal in mind. I understand that such a complex system is so great it would never fit in list form, but could you outline a basic overview of essential steps in child development that you feel need to happen. What are some milestones that you think are necessary in a normalized or healthy development? (2.) My three year old stirs the mixes and helps clean up, my six year old follows the recipe, measures the ingredients, stirs the mixes, and helps clean up. Sometimes I even let him stir veggies on a hot stove (supervised, instructed, and admonished to watch what he's doing). I occasionally let them sweep, mop, vaccum, or wash a few dishes. I've always used the mantra, "look at what your hands are doing." Don't look at anything else while you're cutting with a knife, or making marks on your paper, or hitting a t-ball. I guess I always thought that Montessori was a good option for kids to learn these things, better in these ways than a public school. Maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems like you're saying a kid's missing out on something by learning at home rather than in a children's house. What do you feel they're missing, if anything, besides the positive peer group and age-appropriate independance from their mother? Using the technical definitions, Montessori is a constructivist approach, though there is plenty of discovery :D The biggest advantages to a Children's House vs. a homeschool environment is the presence of a Montessori trained guide and the sheer number of children present. Among many other reasons, the more children there are, the less likely they are to be distracted by adult presence while they are working. Montessori observed that interruptions of concentration were one of the single biggest obstacles to children's development. There are plenty of principles that can be applied to a home environment that can greatly benefit the child and lead to some amount of concentration, but the optimal whole package won't be there in the home. Even if you can get a 3+ hour work cycle at home, saying nothing of two work cycles, I cannot imagine how it would be uninterrupted despite your best efforts. And even if it is an uninterrupted work cycle, I cannot imagine the child developing the deepest levels of concentration on his work. The other thing is that the Montessori materials have been scientifically tested for their effectiveness in leading to concentration, independence, skill development, etc. in each age group To use your example, the reason I would say concentrating on the Pink Tower would be more meaningful than concentrating on a snap circuits game is that the Pink Tower is more appealing to the child's natural mental processes, so he will engage with it more and more deeply than a snap circuits game. This gets into the principles of Montessori materials, which I'm not sure if you were wanting to get into that much detail or not. Don't get me wrong; snap circuits are cool, but for a child around 3-3.5, the pink tower simply calls to him more and leads to more developmental gains when he is connected to it for what it is. If he just sees it as a stack of blocks or some fantastical thing, then a snap circuit will probably be more appealing to him. Or to a child of 4 or 5, the pink tower is not as likely to appeal to his internal processes. Though I will say that a child would probably be quite interested in a real circuit board, especially a child of 6 or 7. Since this is already getting long, I will try to answer your last two questions briefly below, though they could be entire parent-talks in and of themselves. 1) When we talk about the path of normalization, two big concepts that are observed for are the levels of concentration and the stages of obedience. The levels of concentration are 0) no concentration; 1) First instances of concentration, though very erratic. Child usually starts day with "warm-up" activities that do not lead to concentration, then a period of "false fatigue" where he is at a low level of concentration but is sloppy, then a period of moderate concentration near the end of the work cycle, and finally rest, or mental consolidation (not typically sleep); 2) Less warm up activities, less false fatigue, longer and deeper periods of concentration followed by a period of "contemplation," or simply a deeper form of rest than previously; 3) Almost immediately begins work and enters concentration, sustaining it for almost the entire work cycle. Near the end of the child's time in primary, this may mean him working on a single activity for nearly 3 hours. The level of satisfaction and normalization upon exiting concentration will reflect the level of concentration that was attained. These levels are so natural to all children that they can be mapped out on what Montessori termed "work curves." Here's a direct quote form Montessori about the stages of obedience that will probably do more justice to the topic than I will and be less wordy. “The growth of obedience can be traced in three steps: 1) The physiological ability to do the task. Till this is developed the child may obey today, but refuse tomorrow, not from any will, but lack of complete development of this stage. 2) Capacity always to obey, automatically. 3) The highest form of obedience—very rare in adults—shown in being anxious, eager, and happy to obey†2) Those activities sound great. You're obviously free to take or leave this tip, but one small alteration I would suggest is to practice with them enough so that you are comfortable not having to remind them of anything while they are doing those tasks. This will of course be much easier with sweeping than cooking on the stove, but if you do get to this point, I think you may find that your children will be more engaged with these activities and more freely choose them even without you. You might have to show them over and over again to get to this point, but it will totally be worth it. As for your actual question, I think I touched on some of that above. A lot of it is the peer group and the presence of a trained adult who knows exactly what to look for and how to respond to he or she observes. The best thing parents can do to approach what a guide does in a children's house is to practice observing and giving their children space when they are engaged in constructive work. A good example to think about is that if a child is concentrating, even if a child is dumping an entire basin of water on the floor because they are missing the pail, we just take a deep breath and stay in our seat. When the child is no longer concentrating, then is a good time to bring up that you notice some water on the floor. And at a later time, show them again how to carefully hold the basin over the bucket then to pour the water into the bucket. The child will get infinitely more out of this experience than the usual adult response of chastising the child and taking the basin away from him as soon as he start pouring it on the floor. Hopefully your questions were answered. Let me know if they were not or if you have more questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowbeltmom Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The biggest advantages to a Children's House vs. a homeschool environment is the presence of a Montessori trained guide and the sheer number of children present. Among many other reasons, the more children there are, the less likely they are to be distracted by adult presence while they are working. Montessori observed that interruptions of concentration were one of the single biggest obstacles to children's development. There are plenty of principles that can be applied to a home environment that can greatly benefit the child and lead to some amount of concentration, but the optimal whole package won't be there in the home. Even if you can get a 3+ hour work cycle at home, saying nothing of two work cycles, I cannot imagine how it would be uninterrupted despite your best efforts. And even if it is an uninterrupted work cycle, I cannot imagine the child developing the deepest levels of concentration on his work. But, the more children there are, the more likely the child will be distracted/interrupted by another child. I would think it would be much easier for a child to work uninterrupted in a home setting than is would be working in a classroom with 27 other children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wapiti Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Even a less than perfect child can still accomplish significant growth FWIW, this use of "perfect" sounds very odd to the non-Montessori-trained, including me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 But, the more children there are, the more likely the child will be distracted/interrupted by another child. I would think it would be much easier for a child to work uninterrupted in a home setting than is would be working in a classroom with 27 other children. And this is why, along with the high child:adult ratio, there is a mixed age grouping. Indeed, if you had 30 2.5-3 year olds in a single class, you would have much the same problems you have in traditional school. However, if you have a group of 5-6 year olds who have had 2-3 years of experience in the casa, a group of 4 year olds who have 1 year of experience, and a group of new 2.5-3 year olds in roughly balanced proportions, the younger ones will absorb the positive behavior of the older ones and learn directly from the older ones showing them how things are done. This is also what allows academic education to occur for all children in the casa despite the large numbers. With a strong group of older children, I won't need to show every child every presentation because they will inevitably absorb it from others either through observation or direct peer-instruction. If you ever observe a Montessori classroom with attrition problems, they will often not have enough children or they will fill in holes in ways that result in an unbalanced mix or a lot of 4-5 year olds with no previous Montessori experience, which doesn't give the younger children as strong of role models to emulate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowbeltmom Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 And this is why, along with the high child:adult ratio, there is a mixed age grouping. Indeed, if you had 30 2.5-3 year olds in a single class, you would have much the same problems you have in traditional school. However, if you have a group of 5-6 year olds who have had 2-3 years of experience in the casa, a group of 4 year olds who have 1 year of experience, and a group of new 2.5-3 year olds in roughly balanced proportions, the younger ones will absorb the positive behavior of the older ones and learn directly from the older ones showing them how things are done. This is also what allows academic education to occur for all children in the casa despite the large numbers. With a strong group of older children, I won't need to show every child every presentation because they will inevitably absorb it from others either through observation or direct peer-instruction. If you ever observe a Montessori classroom with attrition problems, they will often not have enough children or they will fill in holes in ways that result in an unbalanced mix or a lot of 4-5 year olds with no previous Montessori experience, which doesn't give the younger children as strong of role models to emulate. The Montessori school my children attended had the proper balance of ages in each classroom. Many of the children started at age three and finished through 6 grade, with about 50% of the population attending middle school (7th and 8th). However, I still think that a child would be interrupted more in the classroom setting than he would be in his home environment, even with a balanced classroom. Direct peer-instruction occurs when one child is interrupted from his work to explain it to another child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 FWIW, this use of "perfect" sounds very odd to the non-Montessori-trained, including me. I agree. I've read a great deal by and about Montessori, and have never seen this emphasis on "the perfect child" being produced as a standard result of the method. They do talk about children perfecting their *skills*. And in a broader sense, they might say that the method is designed to give children the opportunity to perfect themselves. But the OP seems to be coming across as saying, in a very black and white way: "authentic Montessori program" -> "perfect child" "anything else" -> "not perfect child" which, as you say, seems very strange. Question for HumbleThinker: When Maria Montessori was developing her method -- let's say, when she and her son were in India, sometimes working with small groups and whatever materials were at hand -- are you certain that those individual children turned out to be "less perfect" than the ones today who attend an accredited Montessori school in the US? If so, is this certainty based on the theory, or on actual observation? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 I had forgotten about this, even though I just had another long conversation with our principal last week - he emphasizes the importance of small group work, something to do with development of self-concept (though I don't remember the specific language he used - that wasn't it). FWIW, this use of "perfect" sounds very odd to the non-Montessori-trained, including me. I couldn't tell you the importance off the top of my head beyond it's what they naturally want to do. Unlike the younger children who mostly work individually and essentially form a social unit by accident, older children more actively seek out groups to work with that have a leader. Montessori compared this favorably to the boy scout model that was emerging in her time. I can't really think of a better way to put the perfect part, particularly when those are Montessori's own words. The other part of Montessori besides the individual development is that it was to be a social revolution, the creation of perfect humans that would meet the potential naturally inherent in them, thus creating a better society than the one that caused the two world wars she lived through. Instead of trying to "teach" children ideas of brotherhood and peace, she saw the potential for children to naturally develop these qualities themselves if their needs are met from birth and any deviations caused by trauma or obstacles early in life normalized by 6 or so. Maybe optimal would be a better term, but it's saying the same thing. Maybe this will provide a bit of context to her usage of the word: "Let us picture to ourselves a clever and proficient workman, capable, not only of producing much and perfect work, but of giving advice in his workshop, because of his ability to control and direct the general activity of the environment in which he works. The man who is thus master of his environment will be able to smile before the anger of others, showing that great mastery of himself which comes from consciousness of his ability to do things. We should not, however, be in the least surprised to know that in his home this capable workman scolded his wife if the soup was not to his taste, or not ready at the appointed time. In his home, he is no longer the capable workman; the skilled workman here is the wife, who serves him and prepares his food for him. He is a serene and pleasant man where he is powerful through being efficient, but is domineering where he is served. Perhaps if he should learn how to prepare his soup he might become a perfect man! The man who, through his own efforts, is able to perform all the actions necessary for his comfort and development in life, conquers himself, and in doing so multiplies his abilities and perfects himself as an individual. We must make of the future generation, powerful men, and by that we mean men who are independent and free." "The child, unlike the adult, is not on his way to death. He is on his way to life. His work is to fashion a man in the fullness of his strength. By the time the adult exists, the child has vanished. So the whole life of the child is an advance toward perfection, toward a greater completeness. From this we may infer that the child will enjoy doing the work needed to complete himself. The child’s life is one in which work–the doing of one’s duty–begets joy and happiness. For adults, the daily round is more often depressing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 Direct peer-instruction occurs when one child is interrupted from his work to explain it to another child. Peer instruction can indeed be a chore that breaks one from his work, especially when it is more or less forced on the older child by the teacher. But when children are left to freely choose to help another, it produces many of the same effects as if the child was concentrating on his own individual work, and even has some positive effects unique to itself. Most love to do it and derive great satisfaction from it. So in this respect, peer instruction is as much the child's work as anything else. Another aspect of Montessori is the natural forming of social cohesion. Even though the children are effectively working for themselves, their own development, it results in a sort of accidental society that displays the beginnings of the characteristics humans traditionally give to idealized, peaceful societies. It is the foundation for the more intentional societies the children will create in the elementary classroom and beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 Question for HumbleThinker: When Maria Montessori was developing her method -- let's say, when she and her son were in India, sometimes working with small groups and whatever materials were at hand -- are you certain that those individual children turned out to be "less perfect" than the ones today who attend an accredited Montessori school in the US? If so, is this certainty based on the theory, or on actual observation? Perhaps I am emphasizing the idea of perfection more than Montessori herself did, which I certainly will strive to figure out. I know more about her original work in Italy than her work in India, so I'll use that as a basis of comparison. I think an important distinction to be made that I probably haven't been making very clear is between normalization and everything else such as academics. She discovered both what the "normal child" looked like and what the environment needed to put the child on the path to the "normal child" in her first casas in Italy. Much of her work after that, at least from my reading, was finding out just what the normalized or normalizing child could learn and the best way to facilitate that. She was also investigating the psychological factors that were going on in the child at each phase of his development. And we continue that work today, improving on, adding, or taking away materials based on rigorous observation. Sometimes even materials that were originally in elementary are moved to primary because we underestimated the child. But as far as I know, the basic principles of the prepared environment that Montessori discovered in Italy that lead to normalization haven't changed in 100 years because they've continued to work. I don't think having more or less intellectual ability was what she meant when she was talking about perfection but more so the ability to adapt to one's environment, to serve it instead of doing harm to it or being controlled by it. You raise an amazing question. I'm definitely going to go back in her writings to see if I have misappropriated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almondbutterandjelly Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 OP, are you a parent? What are their ages? Do you homeschool or have them in a Montessori school or somewhere else? I think these are important questions. You seem to be speaking from a very idealized place, but I suspect you have not actually been a parent or worked much with children yet. No offense is intended. I truly want to know where you are coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almondbutterandjelly Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Also, OP, since you are trying to figure out how to talk to parents about Montessori, I have a couple of vocabulary recommendations. You keep using the words "deviant," "normalize," and "perfect child." While it may be acceptable to use those words about children in your academic setting, you are going to destroy communication with parents if you use those words in discussions. "Deviant" in the real world means bad and abnormal. Don't ever use that word to talk about someone's child, unless you truly believe they are a budding serial killer. "Normalize" in the real world means to make normal, to make like everybody else. Most of us want our kids to retain their specialness, what makes them unique. We have no desire for them to become little robots, indistinguishable from the child next to them. I hope you don't mean it that way, but that's what that word connotes. So consider changing your terminology or you are going to turn off a lot of parents. Finally, the phrase "perfect child" in the real world generally implies one who always does what he is told and never gets into trouble. However, again, most of us don't seek a "perfect child." We want a happy child, a contributing member of society, a child who uses his gifts, but perfection is never our goal. I realize that you are not necessarily intending this idea with your use of "perfect child," but that is what it means out here in the real world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 OP, are you a parent? What are their ages? Do you homeschool or have them in a Montessori school or somewhere else? I think these are important questions. You seem to be speaking from a very idealized place, but I suspect you have not actually been a parent or worked much with children yet. No offense is intended. I truly want to know where you are coming from. No I'm not a parent, but I have been working with children of various ages since I was 14. I'll be starting as a Montessori guide in August (hence why I need this practice :D), but I have observed and taken over Montessori classrooms both as part of my training and outside of my training. I also have a Master's Degree in Early Childhood Development and a State Teaching License. So while I have observed a good deal of what Montessori and other Montessorians have observed, I of course have much more observation and experimentation to do on my own. What I like about Montessori is that it's not just a lot of theory that teacher's have to figure out how to put into practice by grasping in the dark, but it's methodical and based so heavily on observation that her writings are as practical as they are theoretical. And thanks for the suggestions in your next post (as well as everyone else if I haven't said it already). I will keep them in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Texican Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I never heard all this stuff before. I've heard that Montessori lets the child pick their own work from a list of stuff they're ready for. They're expected to choose their work, take it to the mat, and put it away when they're done. I've watched the YouTube videos of the pretty golden beads and other tactile Montessori materials. I've read that they use real plates and cups, only smaller, instead of plastic. It sounded nice, but in my area they only have a preschool. It only goes from age three to six. It just didn't make sense to pay that much money to send a kid to preschool, and then where would they go? At least, now that I've read this thread, it makes a little more sense to me why they'd bother making that school here. I was wondering why you would train a child to start learning by one method, then send them to public or Catholic school, where they would have to learn to do school by another method. Now I've read this thread I see you explaining it as more of a spiritual thing, and that the Montessori program sees a small developmental window between the ages of 3-6 as the time to make a person develop healthy habits for life. It doesn't seem so silly to me to have this preschool with no follow up plan for the k-12 years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 I never heard all this stuff before. I've heard that Montessori lets the child pick their own work from a list of stuff they're ready for. They're expected to choose their work, take it to the mat, and put it away when they're done. I've watched the YouTube videos of the pretty golden beads and other tactile Montessori materials. I've read that they use real plates and cups, only smaller, instead of plastic. It sounded nice, but in my area they only have a preschool. It only goes from age three to six. It just didn't make sense to pay that much money to send a kid to preschool, and then where would they go? At least, now that I've read this thread, it makes a little more sense to me why they'd bother making that school here. I was wondering why you would train a child to start learning by one method, then send them to public or Catholic school, where they would have to learn to do school by another method. Now I've read this thread I see you explaining it as more of a spiritual thing, and that the Montessori program sees a small developmental window between the ages of 3-6 as the time to make a person develop healthy habits for life. It doesn't seem so silly to me to have this preschool with no follow up plan for the k-12 years now. Glad to hear my rambling was helpful to someone haha. Here's a fairly famous (at least in the opinion of my trainer) response to a parent asking such a question: Parent: " Well, won't it be a problem if my child attends a Montessori school for three years and enters the public school so far ahead?" Montessori: " If you knew a famine was going to take place in three years, would you starve yourself for those three years in preparation?" Also, research suggests that Montessori children who start public school in kindergarten perform as well and better than non-Montessori peers in public school. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebot Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 We use about 50% Montessori in our homeschool. I've been reading this thread with interest because as my oldest DS is slowly entering the second plane I find we are using Montessori less. I find the work that is need of me to prepare the environment isn't worth the time it takes when there are other curriculums that can accomplish the same thing. I did want to chime in about La Texican talking about here children helping in the kitchen. I consider this practical life in our house. I tried setting up practical life trays, but the really great thing about homeschooling is that we don't have to imitate real life because we live it everyday. We eat a lot of mushrooms because lately my 3 year old has really wanted to cut up mushrooms. I've tried to lead him to other foods but he has a serious love of chopping mushrooms. I think the downfall of trying to implement the Montessori method at home is the lack of peer presence. My six year still can't tie his shoes and he has no desire to learn. If he was in a classroom of multiple other six year olds that all tie their shoes, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be bending over to help him still. An example of how I implement Montessori at home would be we are using BFSU. For the solid, liquid, gas lesson, I set it up on a tray. Three small jars one filled with dirt, one with water, one with air. I labeled them and left it on the shelf. This is no different than what BFSU recommends except for the fact that I left it there waiting for my DS to notice it and care. For the living/nonliving, I printed out some of the cards from montessoriprintshop so he could sort them. We don't use the Montessori materials exactly as they were meant to be used. Just as long as the kids are respecting the materials the can pretty much have free range, which may make HumbleThinker cringe just reading this. The pink tower was a complete bust here. Both my kids had been playing with the Melissa and Doug stacking blocks since before they could walk. The pink tower was just like that, but then they couldn't knock it down after they built it. The brown stairs were also a bust until we let DS's toy frog could hop of the stairs. The few things that we have loved are the bead material, continent maps, and sound boxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbelle Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I really enjoyed reading all the points of view on this thread. I went to Montessori in the 70's through 2nd grade. I am one of the types who thrived in Montessori and I really loved it. I hated public school. Later I went on to get a degree in Child Development and I really loved Piaget and I think his views fit well with Montessori ideas. I almost went to Montessori training, but then I got married and had children and things changed. I almost put my oldest into Montessori school, but the one close to us was very rigid and did not offer half days. It just didn't feel right for us and now we homeschool. I am a catechist for Cathechesis of the Good Shepherd. I do love it, but I know some think it's weird. One thing I think I would do if I had kids in a Montessori is do a home spelling program. I am not a natural speller and could have used the extra help at home with that. I know Italian is more phonetic, but that just doesn't work in English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy in TN Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I recently met a woman who incorporates Montessori into her homeschool and was very inspired to use some Montessori-esque things with my rising sixth grader. This thread has not inspired me to enroll my child in a Montessori program (not that I have any current intentions of putting him in any school), and it has not encouraged me to incorporate Montessori into my homeschool. I have enjoyed Michael Olaf, Montessori Print Shop, Montessori Commons, Cultivating Dharma, and the many, many homeschool blogs of families incorporating or inspired by Montessori. I have been very excited about the Great Lessons and their similarity to the Big History Project. I really like the timelines, maps, nomenclature cards, and task cards that tie-in with the Great Lessons, and the science lessons that naturally flow from them. I enjoyed the Advanced Montessori Method and the language arts/ grammar chapter and the natural lead-in to diagraming. I enjoyed making the connections between Montessori Shiller Math, Montessori influenced math- RightStart, Montessori based math- Mortensen, math derived from Mortensen- Crewton Ramone's House of Math, math influenced by Mortensen- MUS, and math inspired by Ben (Crewton Ramone) Education Unboxed. All of this research I have found interesting and inspiring. This thread... Not so much. Mandy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 We use about 50% Montessori in our homeschool. I've been reading this thread with interest because as my oldest DS is slowly entering the second plane I find we are using Montessori less. I find the work that is need of me to prepare the environment isn't worth the time it takes when there are other curriculums that can accomplish the same thing. I did want to chime in about La Texican talking about here children helping in the kitchen. I consider this practical life in our house. I tried setting up practical life trays, but the really great thing about homeschooling is that we don't have to imitate real life because we live it everyday. We eat a lot of mushrooms because lately my 3 year old has really wanted to cut up mushrooms. I've tried to lead him to other foods but he has a serious love of chopping mushrooms. I think the downfall of trying to implement the Montessori method at home is the lack of peer presence. My six year still can't tie his shoes and he has no desire to learn. If he was in a classroom of multiple other six year olds that all tie their shoes, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be bending over to help him still. An example of how I implement Montessori at home would be we are using BFSU. For the solid, liquid, gas lesson, I set it up on a tray. Three small jars one filled with dirt, one with water, one with air. I labeled them and left it on the shelf. This is no different than what BFSU recommends except for the fact that I left it there waiting for my DS to notice it and care. For the living/nonliving, I printed out some of the cards from montessoriprintshop so he could sort them. We don't use the Montessori materials exactly as they were meant to be used. Just as long as the kids are respecting the materials the can pretty much have free range, which may make HumbleThinker cringe just reading this. The pink tower was a complete bust here. Both my kids had been playing with the Melissa and Doug stacking blocks since before they could walk. The pink tower was just like that, but then they couldn't knock it down after they built it. The brown stairs were also a bust until we let DS's toy frog could hop of the stairs. The few things that we have loved are the bead material, continent maps, and sound boxes. Great to hear your experience of trying to implement aspects of Montessori in your home. Love that your 3yo already has a love for food. If you haven't already, maybe try to steer him to foods that can include mushrooms but also have other ingredients like pizza. And if you are personally getting tired of mushrooms, perhaps invite him to only put mushrooms on the part of the dish he is going to eat if that's possible. A lot of your examples are problems I think are inevitable when trying to implement Montessori in a homeschool environment, particularly the lack of a large number of peers. If a parent thinks their child would do better around very few children that's perfectly fine, but I think they would probably have better results implementing another model than Montessori. That isn't to say that it can't work, I'm just not seeing it work very well. For the sensorial materials, if the children aren't really grounded in reality, they won't go over very well; they'd have a better time with good ole' fashion blocks. Also, a big draw of materials like the pink tower and brown stair are the precision with which they are put together by an adult, so if that isn't clicking with them, then again good ole' fashion blocks would probably be better for them. And it would only make me cringe if they were given "free range" in a Montessori classroom and free range included hurting the materials. Even in my short time, I've seen so many "well loved" pink towers that were only a few years old (these materials are meant to last about 20 years). Materials not being maintained is unfortunately one of the easiest ways to get children to not connect with the environment. I've seen some great casas have issues almost entirely traceable to the lack of care in the environment. In a Montessori casa, children can utilize the materials differently than presented by the guide, but the guide needs to see that it is constructive, therefore meeting the purpose of the material. The cylinder blocks for instance are representations of changes in one or more dimensions, not a bus with 10 people in it. Thanks again for all the anecdotes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 I really enjoyed reading all the points of view on this thread. I went to Montessori in the 70's through 2nd grade. I am one of the types who thrived in Montessori and I really loved it. I hated public school. Later I went on to get a degree in Child Development and I really loved Piaget and I think his views fit well with Montessori ideas. I almost went to Montessori training, but then I got married and had children and things changed. I almost put my oldest into Montessori school, but the one close to us was very rigid and did not offer half days. It just didn't feel right for us and now we homeschool. I am a catechist for Cathechesis of the Good Shepherd. I do love it, but I know some think it's weird. One thing I think I would do if I had kids in a Montessori is do a home spelling program. I am not a natural speller and could have used the extra help at home with that. I know Italian is more phonetic, but that just doesn't work in English. There's so many great connections between Piaget and Montessori both in theory and as people, but I'll just give you one. Piaget was the president of the Swiss Montessori Society for a time and a sponsor of AMI. And that's so cool that you took Cathechesis of the Good Shepherd training. We had one of the trainers for that program visit our training center one day to talk about it and even demonstrate one presentation. I think it was about the metaphor of Jesus as the Good Shepherd leading His sheep. I'm not sure how well this would work in a homeschool environment, but the sandpaper letters (which include all the phonograms in English) are great language tools depending on the age of the child. Just make sure to get cursive, lower case ones. There's this great pocket of time between (I think) 2.5 and 3.5 where the child is especially drawn to tactile sensations. Combine that with a good background of playing sound games every day since at least 2.5 and you have a great foundation for writing with a moveable alphabet until they are ready to write in pencil. Spelling is a lot later at least in Montessori, 5.5-6.5. Now that I'm typing this, the one area that I should have been talking about this whole time for importing into a homeschool environment is language. Other than practical life, it's the most easily done outside of a school since it involves much less specialized material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.