Ask a Montessorian

[HumbleThinker]

Yes, that's my view. If my child polishes her shoe and imagines it's a car, I actually feel that is great: not only is she showing creativity while getting the job done, but she's also discovered a strategy for making less liked tasks more fun, which is a skill that will serve her well in later life. 

   

I guess I'm just not a Montessori parent. I can see a lot of positives, it's true, but overall I just don't feel it's an approach I am attracted to for my particular kids. 

 

So I don't make another ridiculously long post that will just be repeating myself, I'll simply add that just as I have to be careful to not hastily label this behavior as "bad," we also have to be careful not to hastily label this behavior as "good." We have to ask ourselves such question as "is she REALLY showing creativity, or is that just how it appears to us?" Just the act of labeling her behavior as creativity, good or bad, is tacking on a lot of subjective baggage to our observations that we are likely to find is largely based on our prejudices.

 

And this right her is what really sets Montessori apart from all other approaches. Not the materials, not the focus on concentration or normalization, not anything else but the scientifically rigorous level of observation that focuses on each individual child. Other approaches have to rely solely on research that gives averaged-out results about children as groups. And when have the time to observe each child to "individualize," they are limited to the conclusions they can draw and responses they can implement. The quality of the observations simply will not be there if for no other reason than the environment isn't set up for it, whereas that is the entire basis by which the Montessori environment is set up.

[HumbleThinker]

I was thinking more about the concept of children being attracted to real work more. And I realised that what I observe with kids around me is they are less attracted to work and more attracted to copying what they see adults do.

 

My piano teachers dd siezed the moment the other day to try to give my baby a piano lesson. My kids have never tried to give anyone a piano lesson. She copied what she sees. A child in Montessori time copied a table being wiped. She wasn't attracted to wiping tables particularly she copied what she saw adults do. My baby pretends to talk on the phone. Again.. He is copying adult activity.

 

I think homeschooling actually allows kids more opportunity to observe and copy adult activity than even a well run children's house.

 

Personally I find some aspects of Montessori attractive like kids learning through work, and the non focus on grading etc. it does seem from what you are describing a little bit too rigid to me, but I am not a hugely orderly person.

 

I guess just some feedback for you in advocating I would suggest a couple of things... Take it or leave it... First know your target audience. This is a homeschool forum, so at best you might convince some of us to use some Montessori ideas. We're probably not all going to run and enrol in a Montessori school.

 

I'd try to keep your info a little shorter or more simple.

 

I'd try to have some statistics on outcomes. Although Montessori is supposed to be scientific from my quick web research it seems that outcomes are actually similar to traditional education.

 

Maybe also a bit of familiarity with other educational theories for people trying to compare.

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain so much and best of luck with it.

 

At the risk of using a gross metaphor, you are stepping right into the heart of Montessori's discovery of the secret of childhood. Absolutely children learn through observation. Through their five senses, their mind is absorbing everything around them. Yet not only that, but what they are absorbing is creating their personality, their intellect. And not only that, but they have a special "power" as Motnessori termed it called horme that attracts the child to exactly what they need to optimally develop at any given moment of their life. And because their whole internal drive is to adapt to whatever environment they find themselves in, they will want to recreate anything and everything they observe. This is all happening on an unconscious level, but this is why independence within a prepared environment is so emphasized in a Montessori. And by knowing how the child develops and observing him rigorously, we can determine what would be the best activity to present him at any given time. The really cool part is that it's not the activities themselves that appeal to the child, but certain aspects of the activities that either draw the child's interest or not.

 

So if we take the classic knowledge that the first person children will emulate is mom and dad (usually mom), observe exactly which actions that child is emulating, use our knowledge that they are internally driven to adapt to the environment, this leads us to the conclusion that this child desires and needs a real opportunity to emulate mom. He doesn't just want to pretend to cook like mom, he actually wants to cook like mom. His mind is drawn to the movements of her arms and hands, the smells and taste of the food, the orderliness with which she carries out this task, and just the fact that his actions are impacting the environment. Where the adult comes in is giving him materials fit for him, giving him the proper level of independence to try to cook, presenting cooking to him based on his current abilities, or even not presenting it to him if there are prerequisite skills he hasn't mastered yet. You want him to emulate you, but you don't want to set him up for almost inevitable failure either.

 

Ideally, if the guide is following the child, the environment is only as "rigid" as the child's inner guide, his natural processes, demand. The thing for the guide to differentiate is whether behavior is stemming from the child's natural guide or unnaturally developed impulses.

 

And thanks for the tips. I'm definitely trying to work on the short thing, but my excitement and not wanting to talk in soundbites often gets the better of me.

[idnib]

For instance, she discovered a universal interest children have around a certain age in the almost imperceptibly small. What other environment could this not only be discovered but by the environment's very nature intend for such discoveries to be made and encourage every adult in this environment to make such discoveries?

 

If there's an age window for this type of interest, how is that reconciled with the multi-age classroom? Or are you saying that the older children were introduced at an optimal time and even though that window has passed for them they still retain enough interest to assist children who are currently in that window?

[idnib]

Overall, we notice that she is simply entertaining herself, not concentrating, which we know from training and previous observations is not the natural state of any child nor is it conducive to her optimal development.

 

I guess being a Catholic, Montessori believed in Creation? Because I'm an evolutionist and I've seen young animals like to play. It's hard for me to believe simply entertaining oneself is not a natural state at least some of the time. I understand it's not desirable all the time, and too much may not be conducive to optimal development. But some of it must be natural, no? At the risk of wearing you out, can you explain these observations that have shown that a child entertaining herself means she is not in her natural state?

 

But we don't stop there. Instead of presuming our conclusions, we put this idea that this behavior is unnatural to the test. Over an extended period of time, we entice her with automobile and transportation related activities, such as classified cards about modes of transportation, cards with pictures of planes, trains, automobiles, etc. that we give her the name of. If this doesn't work, we may bring in a hood ornament from a car, talk about its history, usage, and significance, then invite her to polish it. If that doesn't work, then we may invite her to transport mulch in a wheel borrow, sing songs about automobiles, and so on. Notice that I am intentionally using the word "invite" over and over again, because I cannot force her to concentrate or use the materials correctly. Furthermore, if I did force her, it would destroy the objectivity of our experiment.

 

I can tell you this from observation myself and the observation of Montessorians for the past 100 years, but eventually she will connect with the environment, she will independently choose to use the shoe polishing material for shoe polishing, and her behaviors and movements will be more refined, more closely mirroring the general behaviors that are natural to all children, all the while retaining her individuality.

 

I'll have to take your word for it as I've never tried or observed anything like this. How do you know she has connected with the material vs. figuring out that if she doesn't use it correctly it will be taken away and she will be invited to do other things?

 

Thanks.

 

[HumbleThinker]

If there's an age window for this type of interest, how is that reconciled with the multi-age classroom? Or are you saying that the older children were introduced at an optimal time and even though that window has passed for them they still retain enough interest to assist children who are currently in that window?

 

I'm not sure I quite understand your question, but I will try to answer it and you can tell me if I missed the mark or not. I'm pretty sure this is wrong, but let's just say that the age window is 2.5-3 for sake of discussion. So I as the guide would ensure that there are materials in the casa that would meet this interest. I would connect the children with these materials, then I would leave it up to them whether they want to work with that material. The older children would either be drawn to that material for different reasons or not be interested in it at all. In general, Montessori classrooms want to take in children between the ages of 2.5-3 for various reasons I can explain in more detail if you want to, but that isn't always the case.

 

I'll give you a more concrete example with math materials that sort of ties into the target entrance age as well. The first time children are introduced to the four operations is with the golden bead work. It's super fun, but it's also really cumbersome and really time-consuming. Children 4-4.5 love the golden bead work and are especially enamored by the golden beads themselves. But a 5.5-6 year old? He will be bored out of his mind. He may find some novelty in it, but he won't be enamored with the golden beads as the younger ones are and they will not want to take all that time to do a single addition problem or whichever operation. They would want use something like the bead frames (essentially abacuses) or the practice charts, or maybe the stamp game (working out equations with squares with 1, 10, 100, and 1000 on them). However, if they haven't had the prior prerequisite activities, including that golden bead work they find boring, it's going to be quite difficult for them to function with the math materials. If there is any way to get such a child engaged with the math materials, great, but otherwise I would have to heavily adapt how I present the materials, which would border on essentially giving him traditional school lessons. Did that address your question or were you going in a different direction?

[idnib]

Did that address your question or were you going in a different direction?

 

Yes, that addressed my question, thank you.

 

I thought of another question. (Sorry.)

 

Is the goal to create an adult who behaves in this manner wrt using materials, concentration, etc. In an ideal world in which a child had done a full Montessori education for however high it goes, would that adult then not listen to the radio while driving? Or listen to a podcast while doing dishes? Is the idea than an adult is also most benefitted by correctly using materials and concentration? And if so, do you see that in the real world? Do Montessori-educated adults do one thing at a time, try not to entertain themselves simply for entertainment, etc?

[HumbleThinker]

I guess being a Catholic, Montessori believed in Creation? Because I'm an evolutionist and I've seen young animals like to play. It's hard for me to believe simply entertaining oneself is not a natural state at least some of the time. I understand it's not desirable all the time, and too much may not be conducive to optimal development. But some of it must be natural, no? At the risk of wearing you out, can you explain these observations that have shown that a child entertaining herself means she is not in her natural state?

 

It's not that entertainment itself is not natural, but an act that is pure entertainment is not natural. In a Montessori classroom, the children derive a lot of pleasure, a high level of entertainment, from their work because it is freely chosen. Montessori's first major observation of this phenomenon is that when she had traditional toys and Montessori materials in the her first casa and allowed the children to freely choose what to play with, in short time they were exclusively choosing the Montessori materials. In general, children are more careful with real, purposeful materials, get more engaged with them, and use those materials to refine their movements and intellect. Toys only offer entertainment and generally lead to covetousness, boredom, and a hard time engaging with the environment, particularly if they are overindulged with them.

 

Based on her and others observations of what children choose when left free, children's natural purpose is to adapt to their environment. Traditional toys don't do that, even many of those toys that are intended to be educational. The difficult things truly is differentiating between a child choosing to do something because they are following their inner guide and them choosing to do something because they have picked up abnormal behavior. This is why very small children can seem to really be interested in iPads or whatever; the visual and auditory stimulation create chemical cascades in their brain that overwhelm their natural guide. They're being entertained, but there it isn't meaning any of their natural needs, so their indulgence in it isn't natural. It isn't helping them to adapt to their environment.

 

 

I'll have to take your word for it as I've never tried or observed anything like this. How do you know she has connected with the material vs. figuring out that if she doesn't use it correctly it will be taken away and she will be invited to do other things?

 

That is a very good question that is one of the pitfalls that are observed and discussed again again in training. Indeed, if children feel that they HAVE to work, be "on task" to use a traditional school phrase, there will be negative behaviors that can be observed. The two biggest points to observe are the eyes and the hands. Where are they? How long are they looking at/manipulating the material? How refined are their movements? Does the child's face look contented? Etc. When children feel forced to use a particular material, "find a work" (a common phrase that even good Montessorians fall into using unfortunately), or to use a material in a way they do not want to just so they won't be invited to put it away, their eyes are all over the place, their easily distracted, their movements aren't efficient at all, and they usually won't demonstrate much of any understanding of what the material is trying to teach them. So it is certainly a fine line. But if the usage of the material is aligned with the natural interests of the child (and observations over the last 100 years has made it easier to decide what likely will meet their interests at any given time) and they are given the freedom within limits to choose their own activities, they won't want to use it a different way or they will respond joyously to being invited to use the material a different way because it is an aspect or use of the material that had not even occurred to them yet. Let me know if that got too technical or if I veered off where you wanted me to go with your question.

[Laura Corin]

There seems to be little room for outliers of any kind. This could be a positive or negative thing. 

 

This was what I found.  Calvin was an outlier - very bright but with delayed motor skills - so the learning that the system expected him to accomplish with his hands was not available to him.  

 

L

[HumbleThinker]

Yes, that addressed my question, thank you.

 

I thought of another question. (Sorry.)

 

Is the goal to create an adult who behaves in this manner wrt using materials, concentration, etc. In an ideal world in which a child had done a full Montessori education for however high it goes, would that adult then not listen to the radio while driving? Or listen to a podcast while doing dishes? Is the idea than an adult is also most benefitted by correctly using materials and concentration? And if so, do you see that in the real world? Do Montessori-educated adults do one thing at a time, try not to entertain themselves simply for entertainment, etc?

 

Don't be sorry. This is pretty much free training for me, which are two of my top 10 favorite words :D

 

It's hard to say for a couple of reasons. The first reason is one of the points I have not been explaining very well, which is that there isn't a completely rigid set of behaviors every child is expected to develop to use. There isn't a curriculum or anything that lists all the behaviors children are expected to acquire that every decision in a Montessori classroom is geared towards meeting. What is going on is that there are natural processes that guide the child's behavior in generally predictable ways when allowed to flourish in a prepared environment. Each child will have different potentials and exhibit these processes differently in some respects, so the goal in Montessori is for each child to reach his own potential. And in Montessori's view, when a person's processes are allowed to flourish at each of the four planes (0-6, 6-12, 12-18, 18-24), they will become an adult capable of creating a better society instead of being controlled by it.

 

The second reason is that the older we get, particularly in the third and fourth plane, the less we really know about their natural processes and thus their needs from a Montessori perspective. Montessori really only began her work with adolescents and the fourth plane is wholly theoretical from what I know. Adolescence, the third plane, is a real hot bed of activity right now. People are trying to find ways to meet Montessori's classic idea of the erdkinder (earth child) and to see what ways if any her ideas can be adapted to the urban environment while still being a proper environment for the adolescent. The Ohio Hershey School is the absolute model for the farm school Montessori spoke of, and the children absolutely flourish there. In the fourth plane, Montessori theorizes that the young adult is ridding himself of the last vestiges of greed, and other vices and is finding where he can complete his cosmic task, having a truly universal view of himself and everything else in his reality. 

 

So an adult who has ideally developed from birth through 24 has such purpose that he probably won't do much or at all purely for the sake of independence. And not because he feels that he has to or because he has been molded to not want to, but because that is how he naturally developed. I'm purely guessing at how much he would commit in acts purely for entertainment because I haven't observed how such a person acts. What I'm more familiar with is the first plane child, and I can say much more confidently that they will almost completely be uninterested in purely entertaining activities, though their senses can of course still be captured by them. 

[La Texican]

Ooh. I recognize that. I have a small set amount of schoolwork I expect him to do every school day. Sometimes he's on fire, and sometimes he isn't at all efficient.. To put it mildly. Yup, it's a total waste of a few hours some days. I guess Montessori would, I don't know do what about that, but I'm trying to teach him a routine, ya know? Just, sometimes they're into it, and sometimes they're not. I guess you have ways to urge them more "into it", by following their lead and having all the cool stuff. That would be cool to hear a plan about it. I just use zen-goggles my way through it, the "on fire" work and the waste each others time work, well either way it's work time and the quality is whatever it is for that day. I can see he's more satisfied on the good working days, but who knows if that's cause or effect or some part of a cycle, like they eat more some days than others, depending on their growth cycle.

[HumbleThinker]

Ooh. I recognize that. I have a small set amount of schoolwork I expect him to do every school day. Sometimes he's on fire, and sometimes he isn't at all efficient.. To put it mildly. Yup, it's a total waste of a few hours some days. I guess Montessori would, I don't know do what about that, but I'm trying to teach him a routine, ya know? Just, sometimes they're into it, and sometimes they're not. I guess you have ways to urge them more "into it", by following their lead and having all the cool stuff. That would be cool to hear a plan about it. I just use zen-goggles my way through it, the "on fire" work and the waste each others time work, well either way it's work time and the quality is whatever it is for that day. I can see he's more satisfied on the good working days, but who knows if that's cause or effect or some part of a cycle, like they eat more some days than others, depending on their growth cycle.

 

Man you people ask the toughest questions. I hope the parents and others in the community where I'll be working soon will be so engaged as to ask these kinds of questions. Montessori takes the long view. It's sort of like the difference between the weather and climate. The weather may change drastically from day to day, and so you can't really draw many conclusions from it. But climate is the long term trends when weather is charted over a long period of time. Because of the observations over the last 100 years, Montessorians can safely have faith that as long as they are supplying a prepared environment and allowing the child to independently act within it the child will develop as he is meant to. This faith allows us to sit and observe instead of trying to "put out fires" every second. And that restraint is required for concentration to develop in the classroom. Otherwise, the children will become just as erratic as the guide is being.

 

If we're putting out fires, the child may be working or "on task" in the short term, but his behavior will exhibit the frustration of someone whose inner guide is being thwarted. I wish I could find a way to put this zen-like state of intuition a guide has to develop over years of development and continual training to know when to act and when to stay back. If there's something to take from this, I guess it's that there isn't an expectation that child A should be sweeping today and child B should be doing exercise 2 of the Pink Tower. We of course have PLANS for what we are going to present or what we think the child will be doing each day, but there's a reason the word "invite" is in every write-up of every activity in the casa. If the child needs us to lay off that day or he suddenly just wants to do baking for two weeks straight and nothing else, then we follow that. We observe to try and figure out if he is doing this as a result of his inner guide or if there is something less ideal at work, but largely we lay off, especially if they are concentrating. 

 

Keep asking me questions about this and I can go for days and still have stuff to talk about. Montessori is a ridiculously simple concept but so ridiculously deep. There's that zen thing again :p

[Pen]

I haven't caught up with all the replies since my last post, but just realized a possible communication issue, which I thought I should mention. Because Montessori can refer either to the person Maria Montessori, or to the type of schooling it may be helpful to clarify which someone is asking about if they ask "How does Montessori handle ____" type questions. Possibly there is not a difference, but it also could be that in some cases there is a difference.

[Pen]

there's a reason the word "invite" is in every write-up of every activity in the casa. If the child needs us to lay off that day or he suddenly just wants to do baking for two weeks straight and nothing else, then we follow that. We observe to try and figure out if he is doing this as a result of his inner guide or if there is something less ideal at work, but largely we lay off, especially if they are concentrating. 

 

 

 

Is this also true at the older elementary and adolescent age?

[HumbleThinker]

I haven't caught up with all the replies since my last post, but just realized a possible communication issue, which I thought I should mention. Because Montessori can refer either to the person Maria Montessori, or to the type of schooling it may be helpful to clarify which someone is asking about if they ask "How does Montessori handle ____" type questions. Possibly there is not a difference, but it also could be that in some cases there is a difference.

 

Ah good point. I didnt even think about that. I'll keep that in mind.

[HumbleThinker]

Is this also true at the older elementary and adolescent age?

 

I would imagine so yes. The needs and processes at work are different, but they would still need independence and uninterrupted work.

[HumbleThinker]

Since the topic of play seems to be a hot topic currently, I'd like to ask you all some questions to get a better idea of your perception of play, the child, and the Montessori environment. Thanks in advance for indulging me.

 

1) What do you mean by "play?"

 

2) What about play do you think makes it necessary for the child's development and why?

 

3) How do you perceive a Montessori casa as not meeting this need?

[Mrs. A]

Ok. I'll give this a try. I've never really articulated my ideas about play before, so sorry if it comes out jumbled. :)

 

1) play is when a child is engaged in an activity which may or may not require the use of the imagination. It can involve using materials for their intended purpose, or using them in a new way. It can be done alone or with others. When I see my children playing they are usually deeply interested and involved in the activity. 

 

2) I feel that play is the business, or the work of children. It's how they engage with the world the majority of the time. Of course children also perform other daily activities like dressing and eating and age appropriate chores, etc., but the bulk of their time is spent in play. I feel like play is a form of narration (i.e. telling back what one understands about a given topic) and it's important for children to engage in play because it helps them to internalize and then express the things that they are learning about how to live in the world. 

 

3) I think that a Montessori environment does meet the needs of children with regards to play, but from what I'm understanding it doesn't meet those needs completely. Only half of the picture seems to be there. What's missing is the creative, expressive kind of play that involves experimentation and exploration of new ideas. The kind of play that involves role playing and trying out social behavior in a safe way seems to be absent. Perhaps the Montessori environment is the optimal environment for children, but we just don't live in an optimal world, and I think that experimental imaginative play can really be helpful in learning to adapt to imperfect environments.  

[Pen]

Ughh. ? Wish I could have given my kid a nice montessori or waldorf education, and they're exact opposites!! ...

 

 

This keeps striking me too. There are aspects that look similar from one to the other, like one might likely see a classroom with items kept on low shelves around the edge that the children can get to and take out and put back. It sounds like for both, the younger children have, ideally, a class that resembles a home with a real kitchen and so on as part of it.

 

But Waldorf is against early academics and waking up the intellect too early, and seeks an early focus on the heart and hands life aspects of the child, while trying to maintain something of a "dream" like state. Fantasy play and stories are a big part of the early Waldorf education--wooden castle toys, dress up silks for capes and so on and so forth. Marionette shows.

 

Montessori has very early stress on academics, and an avoidance of fantasy for the younger children.

 

And each seems to believe that they have 100 or close to that years of proof that their way is the right way, and that the opposite is bad.

 

Another difference is that in Waldorf everyone does pretty much the same thing at the same time, but with perhaps more flexibility in personal approach (except for a few things where there may not be enough room for everyone to do it at the same time, but that is rare)--for example, baking day is baking day for everyone, eurythmy movement time is that for everyone, circle time is circle time for everyone, etc. It is extremely group oriented and that is part of how it sees itself as working toward important social goals (though also there are some things kept deliberately limited so that sharing or taking turns is required--perhaps only one swing, for example).  In Montessori otoh, it appears that there would be children doing different things, but when they do an activity it is done in an extremely set, exact way.

 

I think a school that had both types of things available for young children, and let go of its belief that the one or the other is normal and good, and the other deviant or harmful, would be interesting.

 

 

 

I am wondering about the longer term results of these approaches. At this stage, Montessori has been around a long time. What do we know about what adults schooled in Montessori have gone on to do? Are there Montessori artists, musicians, scientists, peace activists, etc. to point to? Or ditto for Waldorf? The only former Waldorfian I can think of off hand is Paul Newman's daughter who runs Newman's Organics. (There are certainly many known former homeschoolers such as Margaret Mead, Thomas Edison, Mozart...)

[HumbleThinker]

Ok. I'll give this a try. I've never really articulated my ideas about play before, so sorry if it comes out jumbled. :)

 

1) play is when a child is engaged in an activity which may or may not require the use of the imagination. It can involve using materials for their intended purpose, or using them in a new way. It can be done alone or with others. When I see my children playing they are usually deeply interested and involved in the activity. 

 

2) I feel that play is the business, or the work of children. It's how they engage with the world the majority of the time. Of course children also perform other daily activities like dressing and eating and age appropriate chores, etc., but the bulk of their time is spent in play. I feel like play is a form of narration (i.e. telling back what one understands about a given topic) and it's important for children to engage in play because it helps them to internalize and then express the things that they are learning about how to live in the world. 

 

3) I think that a Montessori environment does meet the needs of children with regards to play, but from what I'm understanding it doesn't meet those needs completely. Only half of the picture seems to be there. What's missing is the creative, expressive kind of play that involves experimentation and exploration of new ideas. The kind of play that involves role playing and trying out social behavior in a safe way seems to be absent. Perhaps the Montessori environment is the optimal environment for children, but we just don't live in an optimal world, and I think that experimental imaginative play can really be helpful in learning to adapt to imperfect environments.  

 

Thank you so much for your POV. I think I understand what you are saying. I'm really excited to read you say that "I feel that play is the business, or the work of children, for this is Montessori's position as well. Her great insight was that even activities like dressing and eating and chores are play for the child as well. It even provides plenty of opportunities for creativity, both overtly through artistic endeavors as well as the creative license the children have in their usage of every material as long as it is constructive, which is to say assisting their internal process to construct their intellect. And a huge area of Montessori called grace and courtesy is role playing social situations. Children love practicing thanking each other or serving each other to practice for when there is a guest. And these skills are always presented at a neutral time and in a small group, so it is pure fun instead of a lecture or calling a certain child out (even when it secretly is ;)).

 

If you have the time, a good, brief article about creativity and Montessori can be found here at mariamontessori.com. It talks about primary and elementary.

[HumbleThinker]

I am wondering about the longer term results of these approaches. At this stage, Montessori has been around a long time. What do we know about what adults schooled in Montessori have gone on to do? Are there Montessori artists, musicians, scientists, peace activists, etc. to point to? Or ditto for Waldorf? The only former Waldorfian I can think of off hand is Paul Newman's daughter who runs Newman's Organics. (There are certainly many known former homeschoolers such as Margaret Mead, Thomas Edison, Mozart...)

 

Both of the founders of Google were Montessori children as well as Julia Child, Jeff Bezos, George Clooney, Will Wright, and Sean Combs (aka Puff Daddy/P. Diddy/whatever else) to name a few, Thomas Edison was actually a very early supporter of Montessori's work as well as Ghandi and the Dalai Llama.

 

And I don't know why I haven't mentioned this before since you seem very interested in research, but there is a very informative book entitled Montessori: Science behind the Genius that goes into how Montessori's ideas stand up or don't to more modern research. If I'm not mistaken Google Books allows a preview of it. Or if you want to know anything in particular, I could look it up in my copy and let you know what it says.

[La Texican]

Sorry for the multi posting, but it's hard to correct typeos on a tablet, and the tablet changes some of the words that I type. It's easier to type in the notepad then cut and paste in the forum, but I can only do that a chunk at a time.

[La Texican]

There's a lot of talk about the importance of unsupervised play running around the parenting books, and blogs, and forums. The simpler soundbites posted on facebook reference the old days when kids were kicked outside all over the neighborhood and played unsupervised, exploring under the house, and the vacant lot, and making their own rules, own activities, own games, and working out their own problems, unless there was a real problem, then they got an adult. The saying is that there's something developmentally missing in the helecopter parent generation, and that helechoptering is the pendulum swinging back from the latchkey kids generation.

[La Texican]

Other popular books, such as "how to talk so your kids will listen" apply the same idea to kids in a family. The idea is that parents want to help their kids, and tell them the answer, and fix every problem, but there's something developmentally missing if the kids don't learn to work through their own problems, without expecting mom to fix every little thing.

[La Texican]

Now, on one hand, you can say that Montessori fosters the child to grow independantly. That is the purpose of the program. On the other hand, it is fairly rigid in how it expects the child to grow. We expect you to choose to use these activities, and use them in just this way. That is missing the element of unstructured play from the first two examples, where the children make their own games, their own rules, and create their own solutions to their own problems. I think that might be the mismatch of ideals I can see between what you're describing and the topic of unstructured free play I've read in some of the topics mommies read and talk about.

[La Texican]

A popular choice for preschool these days is play-based daycare. Some preschools are very academic, very young. A more enlightened group of parents, usually above average parents with above average kids, have decided that kids will spend plenty enough time learning once school starts, years of learning and then work ahead of them. They are choosing strictly play-based daycares, intentionally looking for a daycare that does little to no academics. This is some of your potential customers.

[La Texican]

It's easy to say that Montessori offers the best of both worlds, academics taught by a play based method. It's probably a good thought experiment for you to imagine someone who, given all the information, would decide that play based daycare was better developmentally for their child, because some people do.

One family I know used Montessori and it didn't work because the child was always choosing a play activity instead of a work activity. The mother did not understand the problem because if you give a child a choice it's not odd that a child would choose a play activity. The teacher apparently thought it was a problem, and couldn't fix it.

[La Texican]

I don't know enough about montessori to know what the activities were, or what the teacher, kid, or parent did wrong. But apparently montessori is not an "anything goes" system and this didn't work out that time.

[IsabelC]

I light of the situation outlined above, I wonder whether Montessori is still able to 'work' well if the parents (or other primary carers) aren't fully on board? It is something that ought to be relatively consistent between home and school for optimum results? (even though this often wasn't the case for the earliest Montessori students)

[Mrs. A]

There's a lot of talk about the importance of unsupervised play running around the parenting books, and blogs, and forums. The simpler soundbites posted on facebook reference the old days when kids were kicked outside all over the neighborhood and played unsupervised, exploring under the house, and the vacant lot, and making their own rules, own activities, own games, and working out their own problems, unless there was a real problem, then they got an adult. The saying is that there's something developmentally missing in the helecopter parent generation, and that helechoptering is the pendulum swinging back from the latchkey kids generation.

 

 

Reading this I am struck by the thought that playing outside and being in nature so much like in "the old days" would provide many materials that are "real". It doesn't get more real than dirt and trees and plants and having to build and invent things yourself from scratch!  :lol: Perhaps that's why Charlotte Mason was so adamant that children be outside so much. Did Montessori encourage having the children outside?  How often does that happen in reality in a Montessori casa? 

[HumbleThinker]

I don't know enough about montessori to know what the activities were, or what the teacher, kid, or parent did wrong. But apparently montessori is not an "anything goes" system and this didn't work out that time.

 

Lots of good strains of thought in those posts, so I'll try to tie them all together here. The unstructured play you mentioned in yours posts shares a lot of qualities with Montessori work. I'll use Lenore Skenazy's stance as an example. You may remember her from many years back as the woman who made the news by letting her 9 year old ride the New York subway by himself. She didn't just send her 9 year old out one day and tell him to go do whatever or go ride the subway; he'd been riding with her for years, he'd memorized the route map, they'd practiced/talked about what to do if someone made him feel uncomfortable, and she felt he was perfectly capable of riding the subway by himelf based on her observations of him. Her decision to allow him to ride the subway was quite intentional and well informed.

 

That's essentially what happens in a Montessori environment. Based on my observations of each child and my knowledge of child development, I will present each child a material that they will hopefully connect to and freely decide to do utilize. A 3 year old may want to do an activity that he likely will not be ready for until he is 5 because it requires knowledge and skills that he has not even begun to master yet. And while I love that has such an interest in the materials, it is my responsibility as a guide who knows that such an endeavor will stifle his natural development to set a limit on such behavior, then entice him to begin an activity that will prepare him to eventually be able to use that material. As long as I'm objective and unemotional about it, he won't mind. And in a case where he may mind, I would still be responsible for setting a limit that this material is not available to him yet. So no, Montessori is indeed not an "anything goes" atmosphere, but then again children do not develop naturally in an anything goes atmosphere. Just as Lenore would not have sent her 5 or 6 year old child on the subway because she knew he wasn't ready, a Montessori guide would not allow a child to use a material he was not ready for. In both scenarios, the child was allow to act independently but within limits. You can't have freedom without discipline, and you can't have discipline without freedom.

 

A large strain that I'm picking up on is a dichotomy between play and work, though correct me if I'm misreading that. I would disagree with that very strongly. Montessori doesn't so much "offer the best of both worlds" because this implies that guides are imposing their ideas for what children should do doing as well as implying a dichotomy that needs to be balanced. What Montessori does is provide work that gives the child what he naturally wants (knowledge and skills to adapt to his environment which you might term academics) in the manner he naturally wants it (what you might call play). One of Montessori's great discoveries was that children absolutely wanted what we would term "academic knowledge" at a very early age but needed it presented in a manner that required movement, sensorial exploration, independence, etc. So traditional schooling, in her day and now, started teaching things like writing and nomenclature too late and in a completely wrong way.

 

We as adults have to be very careful that we are deciding how children should be educated based on their actual needs and not what we think they should be doing or what we think they are capable of or what model will mold my child into having the highest level of this or that skill. If we allow them to develop naturally, they will have the level of each skill that they are meant to have. And that is absolutely fine because they will far surpass anything we could imagine for them and anything an adult-imposed model of expectations could mold them into having. 

 

An article you may find interesting is The Five Characteristics of Play and Montessori Work. Unfortunately, there seems to be a redirect error on the blog, so an alternative article written by the same author is Play vs. Work: A Wrong Alternative. Thanks again for the thoughtful response.

[HumbleThinker]

I light of the situation outlined above, I wonder whether Montessori is still able to 'work' well if the parents (or other primary carers) aren't fully on board? It is something that ought to be relatively consistent between home and school for optimum results? (even though this often wasn't the case for the earliest Montessori students)

 

It is certainly much easier for the child if there is a consistency between how the adult views and responds to the child at school and at home. What we don't want to happen is for the home to be turned into a replica of the school environment, which some parents will unfortunately spend lots of well-intentioned money trying to do. This would cause almost as many problems as wholly inconsistent school and home environments. What might be paradoxical is that the poorer, more ill-informed families were much better at providing a home environment consistent with Montessori principles because they didn't have any ideas in their head for how to assist their child that would get in the way. They more or less took Montessori's word for everything, set back, and saw the results of their child's development, such as their child trying to teach them how to read. With so many websites and books, every parent has some amount of knowledge they will want to impart or use on their children that may or may not be consistent with the child's school environment. 

[HumbleThinker]

Did Montessori encourage having the children outside?  How often does that happen in reality in a Montessori casa? 

 

Absolutely! Any Montessori school worth it's salt will either have gardening or is in the process of having gardening. The basic idea is that the outside should be an extension of the indoor environment, prepared with the exact same rigorous standards as the indoor environment. And ideally the child will have complete freedom to go and work inside and outside, but sometimes licensing regulations and/or the physical layout of the school can force some minor or major compromises. 

 

A great anecdote involves the creation of what is called the "Botany Cabinet," which is essentially drawers with wooden insets of the basic leaf shapes (spatulate, ovate, etc.). Montessori was observing at one guide's school. The children had raked up the leaves outside into piles, and then proceeded to jump  and play in them. The guide observed this and thought it was great; the children had completed a work, raking, and were enjoying the outdoors. Without implying an answer to the question, Montessori asked the guide something to the effect of "What are they developing?" The guide couldn't come up with an answer, but over the next night created shapes of leaves out of some material. The children loved knowing the names of the leaves and trying to find examples of each outside. And without trying to stop them from playing in piles of leaves, they did. They no longer felt the urge to use the leaves as playthings but to use them to construct their intellects.

[La Texican]

This keeps striking me too. There are aspects that look similar from one to the other, like one might likely see a classroom with items kept on low shelves around the edge that the children can get to and take out and put back. It sounds like for both, the younger children have, ideally, a class that resembles a home with a real kitchen and so on as part of it.

 

 

I guess it's because kids are kids and whoever's spending their time watching them are going end up doing a lot of the same stuff. What Humble Thinker said about taking the long view and not running around putting out fires really resonated. When things aren't going as planned, you start wondering is this a healthy part of a growth spurt (physical or mental). Is this a problem that needs addressed? Was I wrong, or did I miss something when I planned this? Now our response is going to be different. My daughter asks, are fairies real? Are unicorns real? I say, do you want them to be? She says yes. I say, well I do too. Waldorf ssys unicorns live in the forest neat the beach, then puts a horn on a horse and takes the kids on a field trip to go see it. Montessori says no, now let's look at these horses, they have hooves. And these puppies have paws. And these chickens have claws.

 

eta: and SWB says look at this stack of books that has unicorn stories and pick one and I'll read it toyou, then we'll go study history from the mideval ages and learn about the real people who once invented the unicorn and dragon stories. If you'd like we can compare the unicorn myths between the Irish, French, Chines, and African versions.

[Pen]

from the dictionary on my computer:

 

play |plÄ|verb1 [ intrans. ] engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose : the children were playing outside | her friends were playing with their dolls.• [ trans. ] engage in (a game or activity) for enjoyment : I want to play Monopoly.• amuse oneself by engaging in imaginative pretense : the boys were playing cops and robbers.

[Pen]

I guess it's because kids are kids and whoever's spending their time watching them are going end up doing a lot of the same stuff. What Humble Thinker said about taking the long view and not running around putting out fires really resonated. When things aren't going as planned, you start wondering is this a healthy part of a growth spurt (physical or mental). Is this a problem that needs addressed? Was I wrong, or did I miss something when I planned this? Now our response is going to be different. My daughter asks, are fairies real? Are unicorns real? I say, do you want them to be? She says yes. I say, well I do too. Waldorf ssys unicorns live in the forest neat the beach, then puts a horn on a horse and takes the kids on a field trip to go see it.

 

Not in my experience with Waldorf.

The teachers do tend to believe in the reality of fairies and gnomes and so on, yes, and also God in some sense, none of which has materiality. Not so sure about unicorns though. However,the form that these things take is oral stories, dolls, paintings, drawings, puppet shows--not going to see a horse dressed up with a horn. Maybe you ran into this somewhere, but I think it would be unlikely in most Waldorf environments. The only really confusing make believe of a real thing mixed with unreal that happened IME, was that the children planted a large squash seed (which little fingers could handle) but then the teachers replaced them with  pansy plants in full bloom. I do not think they should have done that. My son knew he had a squash seed because we garden and that it would not make a pansy and not a flower that fast, but it was still very confusing to him that it seemed to happen. It may have been even more confusing to city kids who do not usually plant things, and may have led to a false sense of how long it takes things to grow and so on.

 

 

 Montessori says no, now let's look at these horses, they have hooves. And these puppies have paws. And these chickens have claws.

 

I do not know enough about M to know if that is so, but wonder if it is, do they look at the live animal? Or a file of pictures or what?

 

eta: and SWB says look at this stack of books that has unicorn stories and pick one and I'll read it toyou, then we'll go study history from the mideval ages and learn about the real people who once invented the unicorn and dragon stories. If you'd like we can compare the unicorn myths between the Irish, French, Chines, and African versions.

 

 

 

Another example might be Santa Claus--I assume that Montessori says: No, not real.  ??? I guess HT can clarify that.

 

Waldorf says: Yes, real.  He was a real man who lived a long time ago and gave food and money to poor people, and then later became a saint. And so the tradition of tangerines in shoes (at least in many Waldorf schools in USA) is a way of remembering that and the spirit of giving. I don't know how Waldorf in China  or elsewhere deals with this.

 

I also do not know what SWB has to say about Santa Claus...maybe again, we can compare traditions from around the world?

 

[Mrs. A]

So, would you say that activities that do not overtly develop the intellect have less value than those which do? In thinking of the playing in the leaves example, what if the playing in the piles stopped not because they could now identify the leaves and exercise the mind, but instead had stopped because the need to jump in the leaves had satisfied itself and they were ready to move on to identification and study of botany? How is it deviant to jump in leaves from the sheer joy of feeling the body fall into a soft pile? Why is that not a normal state? (Asking respectfully, not in a snarky way). 

 

What is the Montessori position on physical activity? I know you have things like walking the line, but what about the need to run and jump and otherwise move the larger muscle groups? I'm especially noticing lately that when my daughter (age 6) needs to move I'll find her doing things like running in a circle or hopping in place or standing on her head in a quiet, controlled sort of way. My son (agree 8), otoh, will get aggressive and find ways to make his sisters scream. Obviously that's partially a boy/girl difference, but what would you be likely to think of that? 

[Mrs. A]

 

Another example might be Santa Claus--I assume that Montessori says: No, not real.  ??? I guess HT can clarify

 

 

But since Montessori herself was Catholic, maybe the saint would be introduced here also?

[HumbleThinker]

from the dictionary on my computer:

 

play |plÄ|verb1 [ intrans. ] engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose : the children were playing outside | her friends were playing with their dolls.• [ trans. ] engage in (a game or activity) for enjoyment : I want to play Monopoly.• amuse oneself by engaging in imaginative pretense : the boys were playing cops and robbers.

 

I think psychological research makes the dichotomy in this definition a bit outdated. For a layman's definition I'm sure this is fine, but from my experience and my reading of the research, play serves a very practical, developmental purpose.

[Pen]

Absolutely! Any Montessori school worth it's salt will either have gardening or is in the process of having gardening. The basic idea is that the outside should be an extension of the indoor environment, prepared with the exact same rigorous standards as the indoor environment. And ideally the child will have complete freedom to go and work inside and outside, but sometimes licensing regulations and/or the physical layout of the school can force some minor or major compromises. 

 

A great anecdote involves the creation of what is called the "Botany Cabinet," which is essentially drawers with wooden insets of the basic leaf shapes (spatulate, ovate, etc.). Montessori was observing at one guide's school. The children had raked up the leaves outside into piles, and then proceeded to jump  and play in them. The guide observed this and thought it was great; the children had completed a work, raking, and were enjoying the outdoors. Without implying an answer to the question, Montessori asked the guide something to the effect of "What are they developing?" The guide couldn't come up with an answer, but over the next night created shapes of leaves out of some material. The children loved knowing the names of the leaves and trying to find examples of each outside. And without trying to stop them from playing in piles of leaves, they did. They no longer felt the urge to use the leaves as playthings but to use them to construct their intellects.

 

 

I think I am supposed to think that this is wonderful--but I feel queasy instead. 

 

 

So, would you say that activities that do not overtly develop the intellect have less value than those which do? In thinking of the playing in the leaves example, what if the playing in the piles stopped not because they could now identify the leaves and exercise the mind, but instead had stopped because the need to jump in the leaves had satisfied itself and they were ready to move on to identification and study of botany? How is it deviant to jump in leaves from the sheer joy of feeling the body fall into a soft pile? Why is that not a normal state? (Asking respectfully, not in a snarky way). 

 

What is the Montessori position on physical activity? I know you have things like walking the line, but what about the need to run and jump and otherwise move the larger muscle groups? I'm especially noticing lately that when my daughter (age 6) needs to move I'll find her doing things like running in a circle or hopping in place or standing on her head in a quiet, controlled sort of way. My son (agree 8), otoh, will get aggressive and find ways to make his sisters scream. Obviously that's partially a boy/girl difference, but what would you be likely to think of that? 

 

 

I wonder about these questions too!

[Pen]

I think psychological research makes the dichotomy in this definition a bit outdated. For a layman's definition I'm sure this is fine, but from my experience and my reading of the research, play serves a very practical, developmental purpose.

 

Then why do you seem to indicate that jumping in the leaves for the joy of doing so is inferior to identifying the leaf shapes by using  wood insets from a "Botany Cabinet"

[HumbleThinker]

 

Another example might be Santa Claus--I assume that Montessori says: No, not real.  ??? I guess HT can clarify that.

 

Waldorf says: Yes, real.  He was a real man who lived a long time ago and gave food and money to poor people, and then later became a saint. And so the tradition of tangerines in shoes (at least in many Waldorf schools in USA) is a way of remembering that and the spirit of giving. I don't know how Waldorf in China  or elsewhere deals with this.

 

I also do not know what SWB has to say about Santa Claus...maybe again, we can compare traditions from around the world?

 

 

In Montessori, there are "Classified Cards" which are pictures that can be social, scientific, or cultural things that children learn the names of. These lead later into three part cards and definition booklets. Topics include animals.

 

As far as Santa Claus, Montessori indeed would focus on Saint Nicholas to the complete exclusion of Santa Clause as a fantastical figure, though probably in the second plane because he is an historical figure. Education of the first plane focuses on the child's immediate environment. 

[HumbleThinker]

So, would you say that activities that do not overtly develop the intellect have less value than those which do? In thinking of the playing in the leaves example, what if the playing in the piles stopped not because they could now identify the leaves and exercise the mind, but instead had stopped because the need to jump in the leaves had satisfied itself and they were ready to move on to identification and study of botany? How is it deviant to jump in leaves from the sheer joy of feeling the body fall into a soft pile? Why is that not a normal state? (Asking respectfully, not in a snarky way). 

 

What is the Montessori position on physical activity? I know you have things like walking the line, but what about the need to run and jump and otherwise move the larger muscle groups? I'm especially noticing lately that when my daughter (age 6) needs to move I'll find her doing things like running in a circle or hopping in place or standing on her head in a quiet, controlled sort of way. My son (agree 8), otoh, will get aggressive and find ways to make his sisters scream. Obviously that's partially a boy/girl difference, but what would you be likely to think of that? 

 

The intellect is much more expansive than what is fed by academic pursuits. It is the entire personality of the child, his entire cognitive self. The child's natural processes strive to develop his intellect and he is driven completely by these processes and behavior developing from them being met or impeded, so actions that develop his intellect are of more value because they are an expression of his natural processes. These actions are said to be the child following his inner guide. This is comparable to the zygote following its inner guide to develop into an embryo and baby.

 

Actions that stem from the inner guide are quite often repeated. So whereas the children repeated using the Botany Cabinet, they all but ceased jumping in the leaves. If a child were to jump in the leaves, it would be up to me to figure out if this behavior will burn itself it, requiring no redirection, or whether I would need to entice the child by appealing to his inner guide to overpower the root of this behavior. The basis of deciding when to correct and when not to is always whether it will lead the child towards or away from concentration and following his inner guide. 

 

Physical activity, more specifically movement, is integrated throughout the entire casa. I'm drawing a blank off the top of my head as to any activity that does not involve movement in some way. And a vast majority of the materials in the casa have a large movement component in at least one of the activities that can be done with them. This includes large motor (carrying heavy things across the room, sweeping, washing, matching qualities of objects to the environment, etc.) and fine motor (placing, gripping, writing, sewing, etc.). Montessori actually spoke rather negatively about schools' perceived need for gymnastic, or physical, education because this showed that the methods of traditional school were separating mental and physical energies. This is a very important concept in Montessori because deviations arise from disharmony between mental and physical energies such as a child being told to sit down and listen to a teacher talk for hours or having the work he is engaged in interrupted.

 

Her biggest discovery on this front that has been upheld by modern research was the connection between movement and the development of the intellect. She borrowed a phrase from Aristotle that the "hand is the tool of the intellect." The hand is one of the most observed parts of the child's body in the casa for this reason.

[HumbleThinker]

I think I am supposed to think that this is wonderful--but I feel queasy instead. 

 

Why, if it is the child revealed through his actions that this was the correct choice? He was not forced to stop jumping in the leaves, nor was he less excited by using the Botany Cabinet. In fact he was more excited. Additionally, jumping in the leaves uses up his energies, while truly concentrated work on the Botany Cabinet actually increases it, another hint that the latter is more in line with the child's inner guide.

[La Texican]

Pen, I made up those examples as my impression of how waldorf and montessori function. I only wish I could have tried a montessori or waldorf education, I have no first hand experience. I did not know thst Waldorf teachers personally believe that fairies and gnomes are real (corporeal or spiritual?). I thought Waldorf did all that because they believed in the value of imagination. I knew they had some spiritual beliefs, like that children are souls that came here from somewhere else and the first seven years of life they're still "moving in" to their body.

 

I read your pansy story a long time ago. I told my hubby, "they make life more magical for the kids. They tell them to plant a seed. Then at night the adults plant pansies in the cup and say, look kids. Flowers come from seeds." I thought it was beautiful. The hubby's all like, "oh. So they lie to the kids."

[HumbleThinker]

Then why do you seem to indicate that jumping in the leaves for the joy of doing so is inferior to identifying the leaf shapes by using  wood insets from a "Botany Cabinet"

 

Because jumping in the leaves is solely entertaining. There is no sign that it develops the intellect. The Botany Cabinet, on the other hand, develops the intellect and, when it is freely chosen by the child, meets many of the psychological characteristics of play. If it was only a traditionally defined intellectual pursuit, then the child be very unlikely to choose it independently.

[La Texican]

Humble Thinker, I would have thought jumping in the leaves develops spatial awareness, large motor control, and excercising their legs and lungs for health. I agree, when kids get wound up, they get wound up more. And when they are calm it leads to more calmness. I don't think I would choose to entice them away from the leaves as a matter of course, as in, considering thatthe best choice every time it happened. I can see how you would, though, because, when you have them, they're at school. There's plenty of time for them to jump in the leaves when they get home.

[IsabelC]

Perhaps the logical/scientific side of things can only take us so far, and then we reach a point where it comes down to personal beliefs and taste (for want of a better word). I was also taken aback at the botany cabinet anecdote, because to me, the sheer joy (and even sheer pointlessness) of a child playing in a pile of leaves is one of the quintessential images of a happy childhood, and it feels deeply wrong on some gut level to discourage this (even very gently, and even when offering another valuable activity in its place). Or maybe that's merely me feeling defensive, because we actually have a family ritual of going to a special leaf playing place every autumn (there aren't many deciduous trees here, so it's actually a field trip to go find a big enough lot of leaves for real fun).

 

Humblethinker, I don't want to offend you, and as I have already said, I think that on the whole you are doing great job with explaining all of these interesting points. But, since you are looking to improve your communication about Montessori, here is some (I hope) constructive criticism. I think that it might really help to try and consider everything you are saying from the perspective of somebody who isn't a Montessori expert. Because I feel that a few of the comments you have made come across as having somewhat of a negative attitude toward non Montessori children and parents, as if we are unenlightened and ruining our children when we don't follow The Way. 

[IsabelC]

I read your pansy story a long time ago. I told my hubby, "they make life more magical for the kids. They tell them to plant a seed. Then at night the adults plant pansies in the cup and say, look kids. Flowers come from seeds." I thought it was beautiful. The hubby's all like, "oh. So they lie to the kids."

 

I'm like your husband  :lol:

I would do that as a fun surprise, but I would make it very clear that it was something I did. Otherwise that kid will be disappointed when the pansies take weeks to flower next time she/he tries planting seeds. 

[Mrs. A]

Because jumping in the leaves is solely entertaining. There is no sign that it develops the intellect. The Botany Cabinet, on the other hand, develops the intellect and, when it is freely chosen by the child, meets many of the psychological characteristics of play. If it was only a traditionally defined intellectual pursuit, then the child be very unlikely to choose it independently.

 

 

Here it sounds like you're saying that the intellect is the number one thing that Montessori is aiming to develop. But a person is not just intellect. Body, soul and mind are all part of what makes a person a person. I think I recall you saying earlier in the thread that Montessori is concerned with the whole person, but here that seems to be missing...

[Pen]

Pen, I made up those examples as my impression of how waldorf and montessori function. I only wish I could have tried a montessori or waldorf education, I have no first hand experience. I did not know thst Waldorf teachers personally believe that fairies and gnomes are real (corporeal or spiritual?

 

Spiritual. Or at least mainly so for most whom I spoke with about it. A few seem to have a more corporeal belief. Some do not believe in it, but like other aspects of Waldorf, and just go along with the gnomes and fairy part. Steiner was supposed to have been able to see gnomes and fairies--but I sometimes think he was playing games with his audience. 

 

 

 

). I thought Waldorf did all that because they believed in the value of imagination. I knew they had some spiritual beliefs, like that children are souls that came here from somewhere else and the first seven years of life they're still "moving in" to their body.

 

Right. And whereas Montessori seems to be extremely intellect oriented from what we are seeing in this thread, anyway, Waldorf has a pretty strong focus on the spiritual life. It also deliberately does not want the intellect to be especially awakened in those first years of life, instead focussing also on the physical embodiment and growth and the emotional aspects of life at that time. 

 

I read your pansy story a long time ago. I told my hubby, "they make life more magical for the kids. They tell them to plant a seed. Then at night the adults plant pansies in the cup and say, look kids. Flowers come from seeds." I thought it was beautiful. The hubby's all like, "oh. So they lie to the kids."

 

I think they could have still had the magic of 'flowers come from seeds'--because it IS magical!--without the lie part as to timing and wrong type of seeds. Actually, starting wheat growing one year and then milling the seeds into flour and making bread the next year is done in I think 2nd to 3rd grade, and they even do a back up planting in some of the children's yards in case the school garden fails over the summer. In the case of the pansies, the teachers wanted the children to have something to give the moms for Mother's Day and did not think it out in advance. They could have planted something (extra in case of failures) in September and had it ready to go home in May. Or they could have just been honest with the kids about what they were doing. The pansies in K was not a standard thing--the year before they had knitted hot pads for Mother's Day. That leant itself better to only starting the week or so before the event.

 

I also watched leaf jumping there. First the leaves were raked up, and then the kids jumped  in the piles and reraked and piled the leaves as they got scattered by the jumping, until they tired of that, and then the leaves were gathered up a last time and dragged or wheel barreled to the compost pile. And then they went on to something else. Exuberant physical play was a big part of things there...sometimes maybe going a bit too far to where injuries were happening more than they should have been happening, but on the whole, I think, a good thing.