La Texican Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Ha-ha, teaching them to walk reminds me that I did not teach my daughter to walk, my son, who's 3 yrs. older did. At first I was mad when he started dropping her, until I realized the 3rd or 4th time she was falling in a more controlled manner, butt first, then using her thighs to drop more slowly. She was gaining balance very quickly. I told my husband what I saw happening and he said, "Well, he did learn to walk more recently than you. He probably remembers it." But my (then 4 yr. old) did like to experiment with the baby. Soon his favorite game was to run in fast circles around the baby while she stood still, until she got dizzy and fell down. I let him because she liked it and I figured it was good for her co-ordination, but I told him to stop whenever he tried to do it to other toddlers. I remember watching at the playgrounds when he was smaller. The other kids woulhelp him climb on equiptment that was too high for him. I watched and knew both of my kids had good co-ordination, and worked to develop it better. Sometimes other mothers or grandmothers would act very worried to see my small children playing on the big kid equiptment. I had seen them so many times. When they got in a position they couldn't manage they would ask for help. But I knew all the work they had done before, and that I usually don't stop them. I think that if children are stopped from taking these risks when they are little they don't develop a good idea of what they can't do, and also they don't develop their co-ordination. Then I think they take risks they're not equipped to judge, and haven't developed the co-ordination to take when they're older and you're not watching closely. This almost sounds like some of the Montessori ways you've described, except that it's more physical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share Posted July 8, 2014 Ha-ha, teaching them to walk reminds me that I did not teach my daughter to walk, my son, who's 3 yrs. older did. At first I was mad when he started dropping her, until I realized the 3rd or 4th time she was falling in a more controlled manner, butt first, then using her thighs to drop more slowly. She was gaining balance very quickly. I told my husband what I saw happening and he said, "Well, he did learn to walk more recently than you. He probably remembers it." But my (then 4 yr. old) did like to experiment with the baby. Soon his favorite game was to run in fast circles around the baby while she stood still, until she got dizzy and fell down. I let him because she liked it and I figured it was good for her co-ordination, but I told him to stop whenever he tried to do it to other toddlers. I remember watching at the playgrounds when he was smaller. The other kids woulhelp him climb on equiptment that was too high for him. I watched and knew both of my kids had good co-ordination, and worked to develop it better. Sometimes other mothers or grandmothers would act very worried to see my small children playing on the big kid equiptment. I had seen them so many times. When they got in a position they couldn't manage they would ask for help. But I knew all the work they had done before, and that I usually don't stop them. I think that if children are stopped from taking these risks when they are little they don't develop a good idea of what they can't do, and also they don't develop their co-ordination. Then I think they take risks they're not equipped to judge, and haven't developed the co-ordination to take when they're older and you're not watching closely. This almost sounds like some of the Montessori ways you've described, except that it's more physical. Haha great memories and I absolutely agree with your points. One thing I've noticed is that the parents that I personally think are too worried like the other mothers and grandmothers in your example have a tendency to put their children on places they think the child wants to go but can't get to himself. Unfortunately that's probably the easiest way to freak your child out and/or make him dependent on you. And like you said, it's also a good way for your child to develop into someone who takes risks without judging them properly. You know what's a great way for a child to figure out he's taking too big a risk or needs to change what he is doing? Falling flat on his behind :D In Montessori, we call that a "control of error." And like in your example, they're a lot more effective most of the time than anything an adult could tell a child. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share Posted July 8, 2014 Or, imagine that you live in a society that includes people of all different sizes but the "giants" seem to control the world, and they're widely believed to have the power to tell you what to do as well. Yes, furniture and utensils are generally made to fit the size of these giants. Sometimes that's annoying, but in other instances it doesn't bother you. What really bothers you is that the giants don't take you seriously, even though you're a human as well. You don't like it when the giants have certain ideas about how you should be acting, what kind of activities you should enjoy, and what kind of thinking you should be engaging in. When you express your opinions about things that are important to you, such as climate change or bird species, they "gently" redirect you to the things they think you should be doing instead. Meanwhile, you can hear one giant talking to other giants about developmentally appropriate activities for small people such as yourself. The giants may mean well, but because they never allow you to express your true self, you are just frustrated. Other small people just don't seem to be all that interesting. They don't want to talk about interesting stuff either. And the giants are concerned that you don't seem to like other people your own size. You can't wait to be a giant yourself one day, so perhaps others will actually listen to you. Meanwhile, you think anything that's specifically made for people your size is symbolic of your obvious lack of power and independence, particularly when the giants mention that all this stuff is made especially for little people to make them feel independent. (Or in other words, how does Montessori deal with gifted children?) She takes the analogy at lot further than I took it to include some of what you talking about: the "giants" doing things like giving you rewards you don't want, punishing you for every little thing you do they don't like, or using their size and authority to compel you to do everything they want you to do, yet they also want to ignore you much of the time even at times you actually desire guidance. You want to know how to do something like make your own food, yet even on the off chance they let you do so, they don't show you how and then scold you when you do it in a way they don't like. On a side note, an artist created an interesting outdoor exhibit that I'm sure is long gone that was basically a model kitchen made for giants as a visual representation of Montessori's analogy. There is no necessity in Montessori for the distinction between gifted and non-gifted. The child is free to work with the materials at his pace. Everything that the child could need is in the casa, and if it isn't it can be added. What is developmentally appropriate is not so narrow as to exclude a child's interests as long as those interests are his own instead of a simple whim or impulse. Many materials have exercises that engage the student with that material further. The presence of other children of varied ages encourages children to learn from their elders and teach their youngers. Montessori mused, and I agree with her based on some study I've done on gifted education years ago, that “May not the manifestations of the genius be but the manifestations of a vigorous life, saved from perils by its exceptional individuality, and therefore itself alone capable of revealing the true nature of man?" IOW, "geniuses" are the lucky one's who made it through the thresher of an unprepared environment. I would surmise that all children have the potential for genius if genius is rightly understood. And even if they don't, all children have the capacity to meet their potential, whatever it is. ETA: This article may give you further information for your question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I agree that all children have the possibility to reach their potential. They have a long future ahead of them, but they are also individuals right as they are — something that deserves respect. Without doing any deeper investigation, I can say that this is exactly where my intuitive dislike of these different planes of development comes from. Perhaps the child doesn't have an absorbent mind that wants to choose from predetermined hands-on activities involving polishing tables and doing arithmetic with beads. Perhaps he wants to talk about his love of primary numbers, or perhaps she wants to investigate why there is so much injustice in the world, figure out why people aren't truly equal, and have a discussion about it. Perhaps that's his deepest, natural self. If it is, wouldn't it be wrong to deny that by saying stuff about how we can all be a genius? Right. And maybe his deepest, natural self resists being steered by a "prepared environment" and "invitations." Perhaps he longs for more meaningful, self-emanating control, not just the superficial control allowed to him by the head giant (control of an environment that has been pre-determined to best meet universal needs...a bit of an oxymoron, in my opinion). I am fascinated by how questions about the prepared environment have been answered by cooking and cleaning analogies and the need for child-size implements, mostly because diminutive tools are the least of my problems with the philosophy. LOL 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Yes, thank you! It's a bit like saying freedom can exist within prison walls. An artificial environment is not natural by definition. There is an inverse relationship between the freedom that is possible and the extent to which the environment is controlled. I remember when my daughter was three, she didn't want to wear underpants at all for a while. It was quite the struggle. I thought I was being terribly clever by offering her two different options and asking: "Do you want this one, or that one?" She replied: "No, I don't think you understand what I am telling you. I don't want to choose between two different colors of the same thing. I don't want that thing at all." Her tone was condescending, in reply to my previous equally condescending question. A carefully prepared environment is like the parent who wants her kid to choose between two pairs of underpants. It's a false choice. One can only choose from the available options. The natural environment (such as the family home and the society outside of it) is also limited. However, choices are naturally limited within this environment, rather than artificially. My son can't attend the robotics class he wants to attend because I can't afford it, not because I think it's developmentally inappropriate. :lol: She sounds like a riot! Good logic skills, that one! :lol: Also, my children would certainly never polish tables that are already clean or actually make the floor dirty so they can then clean the mess up. They would think such activities are insane. (And one of them would still fit into that "first plane".) Yeah, I've met a lot of kids, and my kids don't even mind cleaning, but I have yet to meet a child who projected internal feelings of "every fiber of your being told you to clean up certain unkempt parts of this house..." Wouldn't mind meeting (or, better yet, having) that kid though. :lol: Maybe it's similar to how my DD always wants to change her sheets after her brothers climb all over her bed after climbing trees at the park? Every fiber of her being wants the chunks of bark and sand and dirty boy cooties off her bed linens. LOL 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share Posted July 8, 2014 Earlier in this thread, you readily accepted the notion that special needs children exist. Giftedness is, I think, a special need as well. The problem is that it comes with a stigma — the idea that gifted individuals are more worthy than others exists, as well as the idea that gifted individuals believe they are more worthy than others. The idea that parents of gifted children believe their kids are better than others goes along with this. Giftedness is certainly more than the result of a (properly administrated) IQ test. It is also, inevitably, a divergent cognitive style. My comments actually did come from personal experience. I was formally identified as gifted during adulthood. That means that I didn't know what was "wrong" with me throughout my childhood, and that caused various painful experiences that left deep marks on my personality. This is not usually something that is particularly productive to discuss, because of the stigma that is attached to the word "gifted". On the other hand, I do not recall any trauma or even mild discomfort in relation to furniture and utensils that were too big. It's not that I have a problem with the existence of these things. They do encourage independence and skills that might not be possible with items that aren't designed for the person's size. Yet, these are problems that can certainly be overcome with minor adaptations where these things are not available. For example, a stool enables small children to work at a kitchen counter. I agree that all children have the possibility to reach their potential. They have a long future ahead of them, but they are also individuals right as they are — something that deserves respect. Without doing any deeper investigation, I can say that this is exactly where my intuitive dislike of these different planes of development comes from. Perhaps the child doesn't have an absorbent mind that wants to choose from predetermined hands-on activities involving polishing tables and doing arithmetic with beads. Perhaps he wants to talk about his love of primary numbers, or perhaps she wants to investigate why there is so much injustice in the world, figure out why people aren't truly equal, and have a discussion about it. Perhaps that's his deepest, natural self. If it is, wouldn't it be wrong to deny that by saying stuff about how we can all be a genius? ETA: I probably need to clarify that I don't think traditional public schools do have the answers to dealing with these problems. They tend not to. But trends in child development are just trends — they may refer to the majority of the population but not to everyone. Rigidly denying that those who radically fall outside of these trends exist is not helpful to these individuals. I was labeled gifted in elementary school and did the whole nine yards of going to those interviews and a gifted center once a week. It was interesting at first, then it was more annoying than anything else to have to get bused somewhere once a week. The thing that made it worth it was the good friends and teachers I met there and more interesting work. The environment bred unnatural attitudes, particularly of competitiveness, though. And compared to the social cohesion in a well run Montessori room, it just doesn't compare. I do take your points though, particularly speaking of gifted as another kind of special needs label. But not only do issues like that particularly matter in a Montessori Children's House, there isn't any sort of labeling in a Children's House. This is going to sound really trite, but every child is special and they all have their own needs, so labeling a handful as special needs isn't particularly useful. You're still going to follow the child no matter what. I've recently read of casa's where the children don't even know the children who are "special needs." They just know they have different needs and different strengths, but that describes everyone so the children don't stratify the classroom. They'll only do this if they get that vibe from the guide. For the absorbent mind, though, that is a trait every single human being has unless there is some major genetic abnormality that I've never heard of. In modern terms, the concept of an absorbent mind is comparable to neuroplasticity, which is present in everyone. And there is enough in the casa (or that can be added) that the child will be attracted to something. It may take a while, even three years, but as long as the child is followed, then it doesn't matter. Having 30+ other children in the environment can help. That's the beauty of having an absorbent mind: even if the child is doing nothing, or nothing that I would like him to be doing, he's doing something. There's children who, because of their past, literally do not touch a single material for their first year. And guess what? That is a-ok because I know that he is absorbing hundreds of presentations over that year from watching other children or watching me that are constructing his mind. I'm of course going to invite him to receive presentations when I falsely think he might be ready, but he is absolutely free to refuse, and if he's not ready to receive a presentation, he absolutely will refuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share Posted July 8, 2014 Also, my children would certainly never polish tables that are already clean or actually make the floor dirty so they can then clean the mess up. They would think such activities are insane. (And one of them would still fit into that "first plane".) Then they would be free not to do so. But the capacity for externally pointless repetition is inherent in every child. It's not something they consciously choose to do, but are compelled to do when their physical and mental energies harmonize. This means that their body is in the process of carrying out what their inner guide compels without internal or external distractions. And children are process oriented in the first plane unless they have learned to worry about the product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 8, 2014 Author Share Posted July 8, 2014 OK, HumbleThinker, I realize you're going to be working with the under-six crowd, so it might make sense to limit the discussion to that group. Within that environment, can children choose to sit and read instead of doing hands-on activities? If the answer is yes, what kinds of books are available? Absolutely. Books appropriate for a first plane child are about real topics (bees, flowers, children doing real activities independently, Australia, shoes, etc.), have high quality pictures, and high quality verbage or terminology. They should be relatively short, but they shouldn't be 2 or 3 pages. But if a child for whatever reason wants and is equipped to handle larger books (ie. chapter books), then they can be brought in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Texican Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Wow. How would you explain to the parent paying all that money that their child was sitting there doing nothing for an entire year? I pulled my kid out of public because they told me he didn't do his work for several months. They told me several reasons why he'd be fine, and I shouldn't worry about him he'll grow out of it. To me, it made more sense to keep him home playing in mud puddles (although it ended up he did plenty of work at home). What is the point of sending a child, if they're not participating? Some of this thread has gone a little negative, and I hope this doesn't feel like I'm jumping on a dogpile, but this one was truly a doozy for me. Did the parents know the child was doing nothing and not participating for an entire year? I was upset that I was not told sooner. I would have tried to work with everybody and figure it out, but they waited too long to tell me what was happening with my own kid (and didn't really give me any answers that showed they had tried to work it out, or figure out what was going on.). To me, a child not participating means they're in the wrong environment, or the wrong age to be there, or there's something not working somewhere. Why would I send my kid to school to waste time when he can waste time at home? Take-away note, parents deserve to know what's happening whenever they trust other people with their kids. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 Wow. How would you explain to the parent paying all that money that their child was sitting there doing nothing for an entire year? Good question. No clue. Probably the hardest thing for non-Montessorians to accept is the psychology. From the day the child is born, he is constructing his intelligence at the expense of the environment. That's how his mind works, and it's what we as a species got in exchange for the instincts that grant most other animals the ability to walk and talk immediately or shortly after their birth. So while it may not be ideal, his simply being in a prepared environment is constructing his intelligence in a quality manner. When whatever psychological barrier that is impeding his connection with the environment dissolves, he will likely breeze through the early materials that he has been observing for a year and get to where he would have been if he did not spend a whole year just observing. And this isn't just theorizing; it's happened many times in other Montessori casas. This ability to overcome psychological adversity in such a profound manner is unique to the first plane child because of the absorbent mind. It's the same phenomenon that makes things like executive function and foreign languages effortless for the first plane child to obtain, while it is painstaking (or at least requires conscious effort) for just about everyone else. I pulled my kid out of public because they told me he didn't do his work for several months. They told me several reasons why he'd be fine, and I shouldn't worry about him he'll grow out of it. To me, it made more sense to keep him home playing in mud puddles (although it ended up he did plenty of work at home). What is the point of sending a child, if they're not participating? The difference between public school and a Montessori casa is that the child is developed through direct teacher instruction in public school. As a former public school teacher for a bit and having been originally educated to teach public school, Even if it was a phase and he eventually got back "on task" as traditional education speaks of it, I honestly don't know how the teacher thought he wouldn't be behind. And once you get behind in traditional education, it is extremely hard to not stay behind. Some of this thread has gone a little negative, and I hope this doesn't feel like I'm jumping on a dogpile, but this one was truly a doozy for me. Did the parents know the child was doing nothing and not participating for an entire year? I was upset that I was not told sooner. I would have tried to work with everybody and figure it out, but they waited too long to tell me what was happening with my own kid (and didn't really give me any answers that showed they had tried to work it out, or figure out what was going on.). To me, a child not participating means they're in the wrong environment, or the wrong age to be there, or there's something not working somewhere. Why would I send my kid to school to waste time when he can waste time at home? Take-away note, parents deserve to know what's happening whenever they trust other people with their kids. The parent absolutely knew. They had to take a leap of faith, yes, because we cannot see the child's psychological development until it manifests itself, but their faith in their child paid off as described above. And the same aspects of those parent's child that allowed her to develop just fine despite outside appearances are in every child that has ever existed. Now for some children there may be cause for more concern, but those conclusions would have to be based on observation and knowledge of things like their development and their home life. Once we start assuming how a child's outside behavior should appear and base our decisions just on that, we miss extraordinary events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Texican Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I'm very glad to hear that the parent knew, could be involved, could make an informed decision. Yes, even homeschoolers talk about how most young children process a lot more input, even when there's not much output. I could see myself possibly , making that decision to stay, if the teacher was open about what was going on and took time to make meetings to discuss it. My kid would have been fine academically in school because he could already read and could write all his letters. The way the school handled this just didn't give me anything to have faith in them. Woo-yeah, I'm sure I'm not doing the extraordinary version of homeschooling my kids. They get a lot, they do. I'm always looking at this board to see what to teach them. Yet I say it's not extraordinary because I know that when use your hand to reach for one thing you have to let go of another. When my chance at raising them is at it's end, when they're grown, I'm sure there'll be things I wish I could have given them. I guess I'm missing most of what you're saying about judging a child's behavior and basing our decisions on that. Maybe I'm not getting it because I don't have a program or a prepared environment, which probably would make things look different, even the child's behavior. As is, what else do I have to base my decisions on besides a child's behavior? (Genuinely curious). Is that just another way of saying to trust that they're getting something from the input even if it doesn't show yet, or is that sentiment about something else, some other way of making decisions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowbeltmom Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 There is no necessity in Montessori for the distinction between gifted and non-gifted. The child is free to work with the materials at his pace. Everything that the child could need is in the casa, and if it isn't it can be added. What is developmentally appropriate is not so narrow as to exclude a child's interests as long as those interests are his own instead of a simple whim or impulse. Many materials have exercises that engage the student with that material further. The presence of other children of varied ages encourages children to learn from their elders and teach their youngers. :iagree: Since every child can work at his own pace, there is no need for labels. This lack of labels was the biggest difference I noticed between the Montessori school and the public school environment. In the public school, those kids labeled as "gifted" at age 6 were placed in a separate class until age 12. The parents in my daughter's K and 1st grade class were constantly comparing kids - another mother had even gone through my daughter's homework folder to see my daughter's work when she was at the house for an afterschool playdate. I only discovered that she did that when another mother called me concerned because the mom that went through my daughter's folder had called the other mom to discuss the folder contents. The level of competitiveness was crazy, but these parents were anxious for their kids to be accepted into the "gifted" program because they felt those kids had more advantages and opportunities. It didn't help that the school refused to disclose the criteria for selection into the program and those parents with political clout seemed to always have their children selected into the program. There was none of that nonsense at the Montessori school, and I think the main reason was that no child was being denied an opportunity that another child was receiving. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 I guess I'm missing most of what you're saying about judging a child's behavior and basing our decisions on that. Maybe I'm not getting it because I don't have a program or a prepared environment, which probably would make things look different, even the child's behavior. As is, what else do I have to base my decisions on besides a child's behavior? (Genuinely curious). Is that just another way of saying to trust that they're getting something from the input even if it doesn't show yet, or is that sentiment about something else, some other way of making decisions? It's the training I've taken and the fact that I'm still working on expressing these ideas to people who have not taken 850 hours of Montessori training, so it's nothing on you. Behavior is a big part of it, especially with reference to each individual child, because it encompasses all of the outward signs of what's going on inside of them. But even at this, Montessori training teaches us to look at extremely subtle behaviors that most people aren't going to be looking for or notice. Knowing something about child development and child psychology helps us understand what is likely going on so that we can properly interpret their behavior. Having information about the child's background, home life, and such helps, too. Montessori recommended a home visit to see what the child's home environment is like and make closer connections with the parents, but I know a lot of parents aren't comfortable with that because they think they are being judged or something like that. It's not full-proof, but nothing created by humans ever is. So knowing that all children have an absorbent mind, have the capacity for enjoying work, joy, cooperation, etc. allows us to have hope that they're getting along just fine even if it doesn't look like it. But even the decision to just sit back and wait is a calculated decision based on observation and knowledge of the child's past. Think of it like a seed. Some tiny little seed is going to grow into a 100 foot tree, but you wouldn't know it just by looking at it as a see or even in the middle of its growth. You have to know from knowledge of this plant and prior experience with other examples of this plant that it is going to grow into a 100 foot tree. It might grow at a slower or faster rate than others or have slightly different bark than others, but it's going to end up as a 100 foot tree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 :iagree: Since every child can work at his own pace, there is no need for labels. This lack of labels was the biggest difference I noticed between the Montessori school and the public school environment. In the public school, those kids labeled as "gifted" at age 6 were placed in a separate class until age 12. The parents in my daughter's K and 1st grade class were constantly comparing kids - another mother had even gone through my daughter's homework folder to see my daughter's work when she was at the house for an afterschool playdate. I only discovered that she did that when another mother called me concerned because the mom that went through my daughter's folder had called the other mom to discuss the folder contents. The level of competitiveness was crazy, but these parents were anxious for their kids to be accepted into the "gifted" program because they felt those kids had more advantages and opportunities. It didn't help that the school refused to disclose the criteria for selection into the program and those parents with political clout seemed to always have their children selected into the program. There was none of that nonsense at the Montessori school, and I think the main reason was that no child was being denied an opportunity that another child was receiving. I agree completely. On a larger scale, what kind of society is the next generation going to create when from the age of 6 (if not earlier) they are seeing and developing these sorts of competitive attitudes? Not only is it likely going to raise a bunch of narcissists, but their self-images are likely going to be extremely fragile as research suggests. Why not raise children who compete with themselves, to be better than they were yesterday, and who engage in friendly competition with their peers to the betterment of themselves and the classroom society? These sorts of people can be encouraged to better themselves by seeing the accomplishments of others and be happy when others accomplish something they have accomplished in the past. The best part is, we as adults don't have to teach this at all; this is a naturally developed behavior when they are allowed to freely engage in meaningful work with 30+ other children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowbeltmom Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I agree completely. On a larger scale, what kind of society is the next generation going to create when from the age of 6 (if not earlier) they are seeing and developing these sorts of competitive attitudes? Not only is it likely going to raise a bunch of narcissists, but their self-images are likely going to be extremely fragile as research suggests. Why not raise children who compete with themselves, to be better than they were yesterday, and who engage in friendly competition with their peers to the betterment of themselves and the classroom society? These sorts of people can be encouraged to better themselves by seeing the accomplishments of others and be happy when others accomplish something they have accomplished in the past. The best part is, we as adults don't have to teach this at all; this is a naturally developed behavior when they are allowed to freely engage in meaningful work with 30+ other children. :iagree: The ability for the child to progress at his own pace, coupled with the ability to explore his interests is at the heart of Montessori, imo. At least, this is what appealed to my husband and me when we were comparing schooling options. (Homeschooling wasn't on our radar at that time.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Thank you for the example; it was helpful. I think that because the conversation has largely revolved around theory and a few isolated examples of application that has probably contributed to the lack of perceived warmth and nurturing along with other factors like my word choice. I'll try to match their language in my brief (hah) description below: ***Could you do it in first person and only put what you see of the children, rather than statements that suggest you can read their minds?*** In the morning, children enter the classroom independent of their parents with a confident smile on their face because they know they will be independently taking care of and growing in their house for the rest of the day. The guide squats to their eye level and sticks out her hand to greet them. ***They are dropped off at a parking lot? They all come in at once in a line so that you can be there to greet them all? Or they straggle in and you leave off whatever else you are doing to greet each one? Most shake her hand and greet her back, though a few have still not warmed up to this ritual yet. After they put their stuff away with care into their cubbies then the work cycle begins. One child is still by the cubbies trying to remove his jacket after just learning how. He will be at it for another 10 minutes, but he is thankful that none will assist him until he asks. Yet all the guide does when asked is hold his right sleeve taught with her thumb and index finger; he does the rest. ***How do you know he is thankful? Does he say so?*** Some children settle into an activity they have been presented recently, furiously perfecting their movements and constructing their minds without even realizing it. ***I don't know what it means to "furiously" perfect movement, and find the "constructing their minds" similarly offputting language to what you had been doing in the theory discussion. Johnny spreads flower petals on the floor to sweep up; he is confident that he does not need to use the sticker ***"sticker"? more Mont. jargon?*** as a guide anymore as he was presented. He repeat this many times, dropping fewer and fewer petals on the way to the compost bin. Sally is wondering around looking for something to do; she is not bothering anyone, so she is left to continue thinking, though she may be assisted later by a simple request to show the guide what she knows how to do. Jane is gleefully engrossed in pretending to be upset that she is giving away all her gold beads to three of her classmates; they are practicing subtraction. Scott is outside watering the flowers; he has chosen to be involved with these flowers from the beginning from transporting the soil in a wheelbarrow, to hoeing, planting, and watering. He takes pride in his work and in showing others how to care for the flowers and even what each of their names are. Two others are eating a snack of carrot sticks another child had cut for the class. *** These helped to paint a picture. I was surprised not to see shoe polishing, pink tower building, metal forms (or whatever those are), and baking, since prior posts by you had led me to expect that these would be huge in the day I guess all the tools are child size?*** A few others have decided to run around the classroom. Knowing this is because of their sensitive period for movement, the guide does not punish these children but joyfully invites them to learn a new song that has a lot of movement. The children happily come along, figure out maybe half the words of the song, but perfectly replicate the movements. One goes off to walk on the line. The guide points out a few chairs that aren't pushed in; another chooses to fix this. Another chooses to go outside to walk around the labyrinth...or wash the windows; he bounces between the two because he can't decide. The last child is extremely excited to receive a presentation on washing a table, for she has observed the guide present it many times; she enjoys the transition between small and large circular movements. ***again these are helpful details to get an idea of the day-- if you are the guide, what is in your mind that leads you to invite them into learning a song with movement instead of just letting them run? or redirecting to the outdoors if the running is disturbing indoors?*** Charlie has been in the class for 3 years, so he knows it is almost time for lunch. He invites a few others to set the table for lunch. One of them has only practiced this once, so Charlie patiently shows him what he can do. From 3 years of the guide's example, he knows that showing is much more effective than explaining. The guide sings a song, announcing the end of the work cycle, and the children clean up, wash their hands, get out their lunches, say their thanks, then begin to eat. The adults assist here and there, but the children largely open their food independently; there was a recent parent talk giving the parents many ideas for how to pack a lunch the children could open and eat independently. ***helpful*** At nap time, the younger children get out their cots and blankets to the nap area within the classroom. Behind the scenes, the guide is trying to convince the licensing agency to exempt her class from the napping regulations (winkwink) because his children are free to nap in the nap area whenever they recognize their bodies need it just like with snack. A few go to sleep. Most get up after their state mandated 30 minutes of trying to go to sleep and transition into the afternoon work cycle. Also during this time, the youngest ones are picked up by their parents, for they are still transitioning into a full-day at the casa. ***napping regulations? winkwink? I don't understand you. *** The afternoon work cycle appears largely the same as the morning one. Part of the way through, the guide invites the children to listen to a story on bees. None accepts this invitation, so the guide puts the book away for another day. She misread the state of concentration the children were in. Though near the end of the day, one of the oldest children goes to the book corner to read it to himself. The end of the day is nearing, so the children perform their end of the day jobs to ensure their home is clean and orderly for them tomorrow. I'd say it is getting there. Needs refinement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helena Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Holy cow OP you are a true champion! I can't read anymore of this thread because my head is starting to hurt. :lol: My mom has owned a Montessori school for over 30 years. I've been very lucky to study with some old school mentors and educators and just kind of grow up around the whole scene since the 70's. It's not all too serious you know, those Montessori ladies know how to loosen up and have a good time... I've had some crazy Montessori conference weekends over the years. Haha!! You know what I think (for whatever it's worth ;) ), teachers evolve. The theory is only part of the beauty. Once the pink tower baby cube goes missing enough times, and your hands get real good and dirty, when you've been in the trenches for so long... it's the love, and adaptability... the softening that completes the picture. OP I wish you a wonderful, fulfilling future in Montessori. :) 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 They are dropped off at a parking lot? They all come in at once in a line so that you can be there to greet them all? Or they straggle in and you leave off whatever else you are doing to greet each one? They are dropped off at the door. Depending on the physical setup of the lot, there could be room for a walkway leading up to a porch and/or gate or there could simply be a sidewalk in between the door and the parking lot. They straggle in within a given time frame and are greeted as they come in. The expectation is that they are all there by the time the morning work cycle begins. If they come in after, I would greet them at each of our earliest convenience when neither of us are working. ***How do you know he is thankful? Does he say so? Compare the look on his face when he is allowed to complete a difficult task himself to the look on his face when he is interrupted. The former is a look of satisfaction, the latter a look of defeat or annoyance depending on the demeanor of the child. Thankful is probably not the correct word, since the child will likely have no knowledge of me letting him work out the problem himself. He'll hopefully save all the praise for himself. ***I don't know what it means to "furiously" perfect movement, and find the "constructing their minds" similarly offputting language to what you had been doing in the theory discussion. Furiously is flower language that seemed to be desired. And what would like for me to call the child's act of creating himself, which is nothing short of the act of creating a future adult? **"sticker"? more Mont. jargon?*** No, it's literally a small sticker for the purpose of focusing his attention. When the child first is presented sweeping, he is usually 2.5-3. After a while, he may not need it. *** These helped to paint a picture. I was surprised not to see shoe polishing, pink tower building, metal forms (or whatever those are), and baking, since prior posts by you had led me to expect that these would be huge in the day I guess all the tools are child size?*** Just threw in some different activities for variety. I don't know the exact number, but there's easily over 100 possible exercises in a complete Children's House, and that doesn't count the constructive uses/combinations of materials that the child may discover himself. And everything in the Children's House is child-sized save for the few things that are exclusively for the adults, such as a couple observation chairs. ***again these are helpful details to get an idea of the day-- if you are the guide, what is in your mind that leads you to invite them into learning a song with movement instead of just letting them run? or redirecting to the outdoors if the running is disturbing indoors?*** Part of it is simply that it is a "rule" in the room that there is no running. I put rule in quotes but this is not like traditional education where I am directly laying down rules such as no running/walking feet, no hitting/gentle hand, etc., though this may become necessary for certain children. I am modeling them through my own actions and redirecting them to activities that will meet their "sensitive period" for movement, which is simply a strong interest that lasts for a period of time that generalizes across all children. This indirectly sets a limit that we walk in the classroom. The activity for redirection, such as a movement song, is an attempt to satisfy this sensitive period in a more constructive manner. It's more constructive because the child is invited to focus his energies towards a specific purpose with specific movements, in this case dancing. If a child is not ready for this, he may need to run around aimlessly outside, though even before this more focused movement activities will be attempted, such as an obstacle course, rope bridge, labyrinth, wheelbarrow work, etc. The important theory to understand is that the child actually desires direction for his energies; he simply needs a patient guide to show him in one of the manner directions that exist in the environment. ***napping regulations? winkwink? I don't understand you. *** That was my not so subtle complaint that naptime, at least in my state, is mandatory to the point that children under a certain age are forced to attempt to take a nap for 30 minutes. This is utterly pointless in the Montessori environment for children are free to take a nap whenever they want and are informed that time has been set aside specifically for napping if they wish to take it. I'd say it is getting there. Needs refinement. Thanks for the critique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 Could you define this please? Does an activity have to be non-productive for it to meet that definition? Knitting is repetitive for instance, but it does produce something. Children can and will perform actions that to us adults seem completely pointless, like cleaning a table when it has ceased being dirty. But the larger point is that the children are largely process oriented in this phase. Whether the act genuinely has an external purpose or not, the child is doing it because the process is compelling to his mind. And unbeknownst to him, engaging in these behaviors is constructing his very being. And the more compelling, the more constructive this behavior is, the more they will repeat it. Children have been known to repeat activities dozens of time before choosing to stop. I agree that teaching life skills to children is important, and I also agree that demonstrating skills can be much more productive than describing them verbally. To me, it makes more sense to invite my children to participate in these things as they come up. (Not invite in the Montessori sense obviously — when someone spills a drink in my house, they will clean it up.) When you sweep the floor because it's dirty, you're doing something helpful. When you make the floor dirty so you can then clean it, you are not doing anything useful. The floor gets dirty often enough to ensure that real-life practice will be available on a very regular basis :). The same goes for other practical activities like cleaning and setting tables, doing dishes, folding clothes and putting them away, etc. That's called "chores". So do you believe that practicing these skills as they come up is less valuable than practicing them in a controlled environment where there is no actual need for these things? I completely agree that children like to contribute to their environment in a positive way on the whole, but only when there is a true need. Isn't it really like that for all of us, unless we have OCD or something like that? Connecting this to the above, the process of sweeping is what the child desires. He doesn't particularly care if he is making the mess or the mess was made by someone else. This is one of many ways how Montessori activities are like play, which is how a very young child tends to learn best. Additionally, by creating his own controlled mess and then cleaning it up, he is practicing sweeping for when it becomes necessary. And third, the mess made with flower petals is much more obvious than natural messes which are sometimes more subtle. Finally, dry messes don't happen as often in the Children's House as wet messes. And since the wet messes are much more obvious and can get out of control much more than dry messes, we don't intentionally spill water on the floor to wipe it up. I understand your justification for not intentionally making mess with the flower petals, but this is the justification for why we do it. And on as an extra bonus, it gives the child something to do with dried petals from flowers used for flower arranging. From the perspective of the activities as chores or discrete skills, a general principle of Montessori in the practical life area is to present skills before they are needed. It's less distracting to practice setting a table before it's time for lunch because when you are practicing there is all the time in the world and there's less pressure to do it correctly right then and there. Plus practicing an activity before it's time to perform it "for real" is what people in general tend to do, whether child or adult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 I personally don't have any experience with gifted classrooms, certainly not in primary school. Differentiation only occurred later on, for secondary education. The cool kids were those not interested in academics. If there was a competitive atmosphere, it had absolutely nothing to do with "I'm smarter than you". I am sure that what you and others describe occurs, but that was not my experience at all. (Quite the opposite — I was bullied for my academic interests, including by teachers who claimed I had not written my own essays.) That sucks. I think the moral of the story is that traditional schooling is quite deficient at cultivating good social cohesion in the presence of divergent learners haha I agree that this type of competition isn't helpful for anyone, and I can also agree that not labeling children at all is a positive thing as long as their needs are truly met. I mentioned gifted education not because it's important to me that gifted children are labeled as such, but because it's important to me that the needs of those who fall outside of the norm are met. That includes children with various special needs. "Special needs" is really just another way to express that a child falls outside of the norm and things that meet the needs of the majority of other children will not meet the needs of these children. It's wonderful that Montessori sees children as individuals. No sarcasm. I'm not saying that Montessori might not be able to provide most children with a good education. But defining certain developmental planes and stating that these are applicable no matter what was what led me to conclude that the needs of radically divergent individuals might not be met. I don't believe it is possible to say that anybody's development will occur in a certain way no matter what. I hope you don't think I'm being snarky. I'm not. No i don't think you are. The difference between the "norms" set by traditional education and those set by Montessori is that those of traditional education are determined by the ideas of adults, many of whom have next to no knowledge of child development, which will inevitably be rigid and narrow, while those of Montessori are determined by study of the child, including observation of his physical and psychological development. In this way the norms are naturally wider and more accurate. And because how each child manifests these patterns of development can vary widely, the planes are used as guides instead of rigid markers. If you would indulge me, I'd be very interested in hearing what a typical Montessori day might be like with older children as well. At what point do the hands-on activities start to be replaced with other activities? When does math without manipulatives start? When do children learn to write compositions, and what's the system for that? How about history, foreign languages, science (which obviously lends itself well to hands-on experiments)? You gave a picture of what the Montessori early primary day is like. I know what my niece's time in her secondary Montessori school was like as well (no wooden equipment was involved). If you'd be able to fill in the gaps and describe what happens between those two stages, I'd really like that. The day is largely the same for the older child, though the materials he has access to are more complex. The materials are still largely sensorial in nature (IOW, they are hands-on and visual) because the first plane child is a sensorial learner. Even the most abstract materials are still hands on in some way. To specifically focus on math, the most abstract material is probably the "Dot Game," which involves adding many numbers together by writing dots with a marker in columns labeled 1, 10, 100, 1000, and 10000. It's essentially fancy tally counting. The next closest group of materials are the practice charts, which are grids for the four operations with the first two numbers in an equation and the answer. The child uses his fingers to find the answer on the chart with the goal of memorizing every essential math fact, eventually being able to recreate the chart on a blank one. Other than that, every math material uses manipulatives in some way, including math materials that come after the ones I described. The older child will, based on his experience, be more of an asset to the younger children, spontaneously helping them with presentations, how things are done in the classroom, etc. if he wishes. The child will be able if he wishes to write compositions even before he can use a pencil. He can use the moveable alphabet. Once he can read what he writes back, he'll be ready to move onto reading activities, though this generally takes about 6 months of using the moveable alphabet. He'll begin with words, then phrases, then sentences, then stories over this time period. He can even continue to use it after he has begun reading activities, which invite him to write with a pencil, though most likely he will wish to write with a pencil more than with the moveable alphabet. History is largely a second plane interest, though historical figures are discussed with various materials. The first plane child is largely concerned with his immediate environment. Science largely deals with things like animals, plants, etc.. Static objects more so than processes. Foreign language is touched with cultural stories referencing pictures or objects. For those casas able to do so, an assistant who speaks nothing but a foreign language can be used as foreign language immersion. There aren't separate classes or days or teachers who come in for each subject. Hope this helps. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 Holy cow OP you are a true champion! I can't read anymore of this thread because my head is starting to hurt. :lol: My mom has owned a Montessori school for over 30 years. I've been very lucky to study with some old school mentors and educators and just kind of grow up around the whole scene since the 70's. It's not all too serious you know, those Montessori ladies know how to loosen up and have a good time... I've had some crazy Montessori conference weekends over the years. Haha!! You know what I think (for whatever it's worth ;) ), teachers evolve. The theory is only part of the beauty. Once the pink tower baby cube goes missing enough times, and your hands get real good and dirty, when you've been in the trenches for so long... it's the love, and adaptability... the softening that completes the picture. OP I wish you a wonderful, fulfilling future in Montessori. :) Haha you don't need to tell me about crazy Montessori ladies; my trainer is known as one even among the circle of Motnessori trainers. Thanks for the wishes. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 I don't really understand the idea of playing at real life. We did have child size brooms etc at home and there was an age where they loved to help but not as play. They liked helping because it was real work. The table needed setting because we were about to eat. The floor needed sweeping because everyone had made a mess at breakfast. Their rooms needed dusting because the dust was making them sneeze, the boiled eggs needed peeling because they were having boiled eggs for lunch... As I child I enjoyed certain tasks as well...ironing ( strangely...I guess that was wasn't really needed IRL but mum ironed everything so in our home context it was real helping ). The only thing I loved to do that was play work was washing my hair ribbons and drying them in the sun. That was a sensory pleasure. I guess I am thinking of these things all happening in the home context, where there simply is no pressure to practice before you have to do it. Doing it is the practice. Very good points. Practicing before doing is a way of increasing the child's independence. By seeing an adult do it before doing, he has something he can imitate, measure his actions against, and ultimately surpass. As long as the activity has feedback he can see (like water getting all over the floor or clothes still being wrinkled), he can refine his movements largely independent of adult intervention. What practice allows for that doing it "for real" does not is endless repetition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 They are dropped off at the door. Depending on the physical setup of the lot, there could be room for a walkway leading up to a porch and/or gate or there could simply be a sidewalk in between the door and the parking lot. They straggle in within a given time frame and are greeted as they come in. The expectation is that they are all there by the time the morning work cycle begins. If they come in after, I would greet them at each of our earliest convenience when neither of us are working. Compare the look on his face when he is allowed to complete a difficult task himself to the look on his face when he is interrupted. The former is a look of satisfaction, the latter a look of defeat or annoyance depending on the demeanor of the child. Thankful is probably not the correct word, since the child will likely have no knowledge of me letting him work out the problem himself. He'll hopefully save all the praise for himself. ***I think the more specific you can be the better, like saying, "I see Jacob has a satisfied look on his face as he ..."*** Furiously is flower language that seemed to be desired. And what would like for me to call the child's act of creating himself, which is nothing short of the act of creating a future adult? ***There is nothing I would like you to write specifically since I have no experience with it. I am looking for you to paint a word picture that I can understand. Something that sounds real and down to earth, not like spouting off your classwork's technical terms for your Mont. teaching degree. The child's act of creating himself to me is either no different than what every child is doing all the time, in which case silly to mention, or sounds like mumbo jumbo. Writing well is hard work. Describing things well is hard work. And dealing with tone and nuance at the same time as you get facts across is even harder. The tone you have been using has turned some of us off, even some who apparently like Mont. and have children in it."*** No, it's literally a small sticker for the purpose of focusing his attention. When the child first is presented sweeping, he is usually 2.5-3. After a while, he may not need it. ***But not something that is likely to come through to most of us without an explanation, since I do not think most of us use stickers like this."*** Just threw in some different activities for variety. I don't know the exact number, but there's easily over 100 possible exercises in a complete Children's House, and that doesn't count the constructive uses/combinations of materials that the child may discover himself. And everything in the Children's House is child-sized save for the few things that are exclusively for the adults, such as a couple observation chairs. Part of it is simply that it is a "rule" in the room that there is no running. I put rule in quotes but this is not like traditional education where I am directly laying down rules such as no running/walking feet, no hitting/gentle hand, etc., though this may become necessary for certain children. I am modeling them through my own actions and redirecting them to activities that will meet their "sensitive period" for movement, which is simply a strong interest that lasts for a period of time that generalizes across all children. This indirectly sets a limit that we walk in the classroom. The activity for redirection, such as a movement song, is an attempt to satisfy this sensitive period in a more constructive manner. It's more constructive because the child is invited to focus his energies towards a specific purpose with specific movements, in this case dancing. If a child is not ready for this, he may need to run around aimlessly outside, though even before this more focused movement activities will be attempted, such as an obstacle course, rope bridge, labyrinth, wheelbarrow work, etc. The important theory to understand is that the child actually desires direction for his energies; he simply needs a patient guide to show him in one of the manner directions that exist in the environment. ***Say that then. It may need a bit of editing and revision but it is better than what you wrote before.*** That was my not so subtle complaint that naptime, at least in my state, is mandatory to the point that children under a certain age are forced to attempt to take a nap for 30 minutes. This is utterly pointless in the Montessori environment for children are free to take a nap whenever they want and are informed that time has been set aside specifically for napping if they wish to take it. ***I do not know if this would be known to all the parents in your state. I don't think it true in mine. When my ds was in K at public school the day went from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM with no rest period and they got in trouble if they rested. To me a rule about rest times does not sound so bad, though I can understand you wanting to get an exemption. Personally I do not think "winkwink" comments help your tone or clarity of communication. *** Thanks for the critique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Thanks for the description, but what happens during the second plane? Do manipulatives go away then, and are those other subjects I mentioned covered? I gather there are still manipulatives at the second plane, I think that was the point when HT was trying to say that the most abstract things were the ...whatever she said... Meaning that other things, math especially, are still done with a lot of manipulatives and a lot of hands on learning always, that that aspect does not stop in the second plane. I guess that is my understanding from IRL even more than HT. The Mont school I saw did use workbooks too, but HT says that is not "real" Montessori. I gather that even in "real" Mont. if the children have a "prepared environment" they have books and so on available to teach themselves from, and sometimes a presentation from the "guide"... I saw one on science where the kids were gathered for a talk on the Cambrian period. I gather that composition writing at a "real" Montessori happens before learning to hold a pencil that it is somehow part of the "explosion into writing" that HT spoke of. HT wrote: "The day is largely the same for the older child, though the materials he has access to are more complex. The materials are still largely sensorial in nature (IOW, they are hands-on and visual) ... The child will be able if he wishes to write compositions even before he can use a pencil. He can use the moveable alphabet. Once he can read what he writes back, he'll be ready to move onto reading activities, though this generally takes about 6 months of using the moveable alphabet. He'll begin with words, then phrases, then sentences, then stories over this time period. He can even continue to use it after he has begun reading activities, which invite him to write with a pencil, though most likely he will wish to write with a pencil more than with the moveable alphabet. " Apparently in a "real" Mont. school unlike the one I visited, the second plane child self teaches things like composition with no curriculum. Or maybe self teaches is the wrong idea. It sounds like it supposedly just unfolds like a developing flower. Or even doesn't unfold, but "bursts" into being fully formed. It sounds lovely, but I remain dubious about the reality of this. Or at least the reality for all children evolving into terrific composition writers based only on a "prepared environment." I think the ideal may well look like it manifests in my nephew who is in Mont. now, but I think it would do so wherever he went to school because he is that sort of kid--very self confident, and academics come easily to him; no LDs. My ds otoh I think would have spent his time doing non-academic activities since with LDs they would have been hard, and Mont. would not have seen to it that he had something that could work well for his learning differences. As with Waldorf, he would probably have enjoyed the activities and the social life, but would not have learned the standard school subjects. But that can only ever be a guess. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terabith Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I've been thinking about the difference between children doing practical life activities and "playing house" or doing other dramatic play. I'm struck that most children enjoy doing both things, and I think what it boils down to is they prefer to do the real activities/ real living for the mastery and control of themselves and their environment, but what they are working on "perfecting" when they "play house" or do most pretend play is the SOCIAL aspect. They're working on mastering the social relationships among family members: what it means to be the mother, the father, the baby, the vet, the rodeo star, etc. I think the times a child prefers to play with the toy kitchen, etc is because at that moment they are wanting to focus on the social/ relational aspect of the play (either with another child who is also pretending, or in learning to understand social relationships more deeply/ practice empathy) rather than on the tasks themselves of ironing/ sweeping/ cooking, etc. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 ***There is nothing I would like you to write specifically since I have no experience with it. I am looking for you to paint a word picture that I can understand. Something that sounds real and down to earth, not like spouting off your classwork's technical terms for your Mont. teaching degree. The child's act of creating himself to me is either no different than what every child is doing all the time, in which case silly to mention, or sounds like mumbo jumbo. Writing well is hard work. Describing things well is hard work. And dealing with tone and nuance at the same time as you get facts across is even harder. The tone you have been using has turned some of us off, even some who apparently like Mont. and have children in it."*** It is what the child is doing all the time. He is absorbing every aspect of his environment and every single bit is being used to construct himself. Like a Polaroid takes in everything in its sights and prints it permanently on the photo paper, the child absorbs everything in his environment with his senses, which is permanently imprinted on his mind. This development is either getting obstructed, or it is not. With respect to order, the child can construct his mind in an orderly manner, which requires an orderly environment, or he can construct his mind in a disorderly manner, which occurs in a disorderly environment. The more orderly the environment, the more orderly the mind. When the child concentrates, the highest quality development occurs because all of his mind and body are focused on the same task that interests him. At the deepest level of concentration, next to no external act can interrupt the child's concentration. The child's development cannot be sped up or improved upon except perhaps by changing his genetics or something crazy like that. It's like an embryo. There's plenty of ways you can mess up the development of an embryo (alcohol, drugs, stress, etc.), but it's going to develop at its own pace. ***I do not know if this would be known to all the parents in your state. I don't think it true in mine. When my ds was in K at public school the day went from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM with no rest period and they got in trouble if they rested. To me a rule about rest times does not sound so bad, though I can understand you wanting to get an exemption. Personally I do not think "winkwink" comments help your tone or clarity of communication. *** Public schools are exempt from licensing regulations as these are for daycares, which are generally private. There's a whole lot of hoops you have to jump through to get classified as a school if you are not a public school. It's the same reason why daycare transportation has to have seat belts but school buses don't. The rationale behind the nap rule is exactly the reasons you describe above: children being forced to not nap or at least not being provided the opportunity for an adequate amount of napping. It's good in theory, but I'd venture to guess that most daycares don't do this and the rule itself is a mistake in execution. Forcing children to "try" to nap is about as productive as forcing them to try to use the bathroom. The easiest and most developmentally appropriate thing to do is to allow them to sleep when they are tired and go to the bathroom when they need to. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 I guess in a home environment, practice is informal but takes place from babyhood. I know I used to talk the babies and tinies through what I was doing. And goodness knows they observed me doing the tasks a zillion times. Observation plus commentary daily, really. Absolutely. Observation is the next best thing to actually getting their hands on things. A very close second at that. On a side note, a principle that is followed particularly with the practical life and senorial presentations is either talking or moving at one time, but not both. And it's mostly just moving. It's interesting to see how more engaged children are during the presentation and after the activity is handed over to them when talking is at a minimum and not at the same time as moving. When they expressed an interest in helping, I showed them how to do it and then helped them 'shape' their sweeping ( or whatever task it was ) until they were doing it correctly. I still don't understand the need for endless repetition. I mean, I understand that's what been observed - and to some extent, I've observed a desire for some repetition in my kids and the kids I've nannied over the years - swinging, for example or repetition of favourite books - but in my experience, I don't see a consistent need for endless repetition. It's not so much a need as simply what children often will do when they are fully engaged in an activity. They will have no sense of the ends of the activity, only the means. Through this repetition, their movements are likely to get more refined on their own and they are likely to make fewer mistakes with each repetition. In a way, you could say it is a need the child himself has expressed that he needs to better himself, but it's nothing we need to force on him. There's lots of reasons why a child may not repeat an exercises. Sometimes they simply aren't interested, they don't need to repeat it, they've become focused on the product instead of the process, and it can even be a result of well-intentioned mistakes we make. Another maxim of Montessori is that "every unnecessary help is a hindrance." Even in my practice teaching, This was part of the reason Montessori found that richer children took longer to engage with the environment than poorer children. I've seen even slight well-intentioned assists on my part make a child completely disinterested in an activity. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 Thanks for the description, but what happens during the second plane? Do manipulatives go away then, and are those other subjects I mentioned covered? To the best of my knowledge, which is only a little bit, there are still manipulatives and there is no direct foreign language instruction, but don't quote me on that last part. Elementary comes a bit closer to traditional education in that it is much more academically focused than primary. The elementary "curriculum" generally begins with five "Great Lessons" that essentially give the child an overview, a taste, of the history of the universe and of mankind specifically. This is to inspire the children to learn anything and everything. Then presentations are given either individually or in small groups that essentially introduce them to ideas they could learn through further exploration/research and then let them independently figure it out if they wish. Just off the top of my head, I remember seeing a young girl researching the geography of Africa, getting out a map of Africa with lots of holes in it, then labeling every river and capitol of Africa with little flags that went into the holes. It was pretty amazing. Ideally, the child's curiosity also compels them to ask questions which the guide will equip the child to answer for himself. Small group research is constantly going on The big thing in elementary is "Going Outs," which are basically research field trips that are planned by a small group of children. This article gives a good summary of what goes on in Elementary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleThinker Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 I've been thinking about the difference between children doing practical life activities and "playing house" or doing other dramatic play. I'm struck that most children enjoy doing both things, and I think what it boils down to is they prefer to do the real activities/ real living for the mastery and control of themselves and their environment, but what they are working on "perfecting" when they "play house" or do most pretend play is the SOCIAL aspect. They're working on mastering the social relationships among family members: what it means to be the mother, the father, the baby, the vet, the rodeo star, etc. I think the times a child prefers to play with the toy kitchen, etc is because at that moment they are wanting to focus on the social/ relational aspect of the play (either with another child who is also pretending, or in learning to understand social relationships more deeply/ practice empathy) rather than on the tasks themselves of ironing/ sweeping/ cooking, etc. I agree the social aspect is certainly important, but I don't think I see how pretending to, lets say, sweep is any more or less focused on mastering the social relationships among family members than actually sweeping. The child is still pretending to be mom or dad in both cases, and once children master skills such as sweeping, they are very eager to implement them around the Children's House. When a child learns to tie his shoes for instance, he is likely to go around asking every child he sees with untied shoes whether he can tie their shoes. From a social perspective, not only is he putting into action asking people if he can touch them and offering them a service, the person whose shoe he is tying is being gracious enough to offer him an opportunity to help and to put his shoe tying skill into action. To me, I see all the aspects of play that are important to the child in activities in a Montessori classroom with the added bonus of it actually having a real impact on the environment. So instead of pretending to cook for everyone like mom does, a child can actually cook for everyone like mom does. Just as mom cooks real food, the child cooks real food, so he can get the social and non-social aspects of various activities simultaneously. See what I mean? Very good point, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausmumof3 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Also I think even very young kids can care about the result not just the process. Eg my 2 yo is an obsessive door shutter and runs for a cloth to clean up "messy messies". But once the door is shut or the mess is clean he is done. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I guess in a home environment, practice is informal but takes place from babyhood. I know I used to talk the babies and tinies through what I was doing. And goodness knows they observed me doing the tasks a zillion times. Observation plus commentary daily, really. When they expressed an interest in helping, I showed them how to do it and then helped them 'shape' their sweeping ( or whatever task it was ) until they were doing it correctly. I still don't understand the need for endless repetition. I mean, I understand that's what been observed - and to some extent, I've observed a desire for some repetition in my kids and the kids I've nannied over the years - swinging, for example or repetition of favourite books - but in my experience, I don't see a consistent need for endless repetition. I seem to have the same experience as you of seeing children want to repeat favorite books or oral stories, swinging and so on. But not re-sweeping a floor or re-shining a mirror or other things that apparently are observed as commonly repeated in Mont. classroom. Even without the word "endless," I do not see many activities being deliberately repeated, other than that in real life they need to be done multiple times (dishes and floors and so on get dirty and need to be cleaned multiple times per day or week). But then, if there were a limited number of things to do in a schoolroom, then re-sweeping or re-shining makes more sense to me. Particularly if other activities (swinging perhaps, or running and jumping?) were being redirected this way. I don't know what to make of it. The mismatch between what is apparently observed in a Montessori setting and elsewhere seems odd. Unless it is the idea of adults having assisted causing them to be less interested. But adults help with swinging, and that does not seem to make it uninteresting. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebot Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I have been following this thread off and on and wanted to recommend the blog http://montessorinuggets.blogspot.com She homeschools her son and is a AMI elementary trained teacher. I have part of her albums and find myself taking bits and pieces that I think will work for my DS and mix it with the other curricula that we are using. Eta her personal blog of how she is homeschooling her son Montessori style http://montessoritrails.blogspot.com 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I have been following this thread off and on and wanted to recommend the blog http://montessorinuggets.blogspot.com She homeschools her son and is a AMI elementary trained teacher. I have part of her albums and find myself taking bits and pieces that I think will work for my DS and mix it with the other curricula that we are using. Eta her personal blog of how she is homeschooling her son Montessori style http://montessoritrails.blogspot.com Thanks! I think I got more helpful info. from these links than from the rest of this thread! I was particularly interested in the idea of work contracts that I had seen at the Mont. school I visited, thinking that might have a beneficial place in homeschool. While HT said it is not a part of real Mont., I was glad to see it here: http://montessorinuggets.blogspot.com/search/label/work%20plan as "work plans." I would be interested in more thoughts on incorporating this idea into homeschool! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Dialectica (and others too), you might be interested in: http://www.countrysidemontessori.org/Content8bdb.html/ for a day in a life of an elementary student. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewelma Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 HumbleThinker, I know I am late to the party. I got through the first 5 pages last night, and finally had to skip to the end. :001_smile: So I am not sure if these things have already been discussed. You asked with help in explaining yourself to people new to Montessori, and these are my suggestions: 1) Vocabulary. Here are a few ideas to fix those pesky words: Deviant - poor habits that we all develop Normalized - replace poor habits with good habits of concentration and socialization Perfect child - Child who has met her full potential Often more words are better than jargon. You really really need to get rid of those 3 words from your language. 2) You need to broaden your education about education! Right now you cannot compare Montessori methods to other methods, and you cannot explain how primary leads to elementary in the Montessori school. It makes you appear to be prosletizing from a place of ignorance. So I suggest you do some serious reading on: Waldorf education Charlotte Mason Unschooling Elementary education using Montessori methods Secondary education using Montessori methods -------- I also have a point to make about the philosophy of the sensory environment. I fell in love with the Montessori methods when my oldest was about 4, and personally hand-made all the montessori math manipulables, including the golden beads. It took my sister and I 20 full hours to string all those beads (so 40 person hours); we even made the thousand block. I read books on how to present the materials and to guide their use. And you know what? My older boy never needed them. Ever. He already knew everything about math that those manipulables could teach him. Now my boy is pretty special when it comes to math, but you need to be aware that not all kids are sensory learners. Hope my above list is helpful to you, Ruth in NZ 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happybeachbum Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 What I find most perplexing about modern CMers who idolize antiquated resources is that Charlotte Mason made a point of selecting new books to include in her program each year. She did try to keep things fresh, mixing the new in with classics. Yep! And the obsession with the word twaddle. The problem with this is that twaddle in her time could have become considred classics in ours. IDK i've seen some discussions on CM blogs/forums that boggle the mind. I think the OP should really study other philosophies. Not dissing Montessori, but it does help to learn/read about others ideas of learning. This is why it's better to learn the philosophies etc., but it doesn't mean you have to take everything. Even CM, Montessori, Steiner and others who came to similar conclusions about learning and education didn't agree with each other. Take what works and leave what doesn't work for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happybeachbum Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Another possibility for endearing parents to Montessori (maybe), would be to post suggestions from a Montessori perspective on other threads here in answer to dilemmas being faced by home schoolers. Maybe if the Montessori approach sounded brilliant in a practical way, that would be more endearing than the philosophical ideas here. But it would probably only help if the ideas were things that could be done in a home school context, and if you could articulate it clearly. From what was explained her I would have been redirected all the time. I was the kid you put in time out and would come up stories and doing it in different voices. I freaked my mom out! I was also a big time day dreamer in the early years too. I like realistic things yes, but according to my mom I liked the fantastical elements as well. To me that's something wrong to say it's unnatural and yet you have to redirect a child from doing it. Must not be unnatural after all. IDK 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happybeachbum Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I'm hearing you say that she could be corrupted/misrepresented in being too rigid, but do you also believe that she could be corrupted/misrepresented in being too loose? IOW, could ideas people come up with to adapt her philosophy to modern ideas actually betray her philosophy just as easily as these new ideas could align with it? Just like an inaccurate translation of Stanislavsky ended up with the creation of the Method by Strasberg who focused on emotional memory. It took Adler and Chekov (those of their students as well) to learn the Stanislavsky system because they learned them from the man himself. And here's the kicker. By the time Chekov learned from him he had changed his ideas. He went from believing in emotional memory to imagination, because he believed that emotional memory was unreliable and potentially dangerous. What you think years ago might change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runningmom80 Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 What's up with the bumping of old threads lately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 What's up with the bumping of old threads lately? I dunno, but I don't remember this one and it has some interesting discussion. I'm kinda glad it got bumped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneStepAtATime Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 happybeachbum has been bumping quite a few old threads recently. Not sure why but I agree with maize, some have had some interesting info on them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runningmom80 Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 I didn't realize it was the same person bumping the threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 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. Yes, homeschooling is a lot more like tutoring than it is like being a classroom teacher, and the two things are so different that I can completely fail at and loathe one (classroom teaching) and succeed at and love the other (tutoring/homeschooling). As for Montessori, I like some of the methods too - encouraging independent, physical competence and altering the environment to enable that. I saw a blog where she was homeschooling Montessori-style and has installed a second coat rack at a lower level in the coat closet so her kids could hang up their own coats. That kind of thing makes a lot of sense to me! But the ideology of it that says you have to do this certain method wholesale or your kid will not achieve his full potential - that is BS, and makes me mistrust the whole enterprise. Waldorf people have the same attitude, ime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 ack zombie thread! sorry 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.