Montessori Education

Written for a Masters level Understanding Education course.

Abstract

The educational community has long been familiar with the Montessori method for its international ability to remediate or engage children who are, for any number of reasons, not suited to traditional public schooling.  This paper examines the basis of the need for alternative schooling, outlines the development and evolution of the Montessori method and philosophy, and validates the methodology in research, providing a side-by-side comparison for examination of relative strengths and weaknesses of the program.  For 21^st century school reformists seeking alternative methods of education or an individualized, child-centered curriculum, Montessori presents itself as an adaptive, hands-on, future-friendly option for the democratic community as it evolves toward offering a full preschool to secondary public program.

Keywords: Montessori, constructivism, independence, Dewey, progressive, alternative education

Montessori: Evolving Toward a Public Secondary School in the 21^st Century

Since the time of early philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, to whom we can trace the traditional subjects of the common core curriculum, there have been heated political and social debates surrounding the field of education.  Rather than being discouraged by their recurrent nature, academic planners and developers must examine these questions anew to refresh our views and test our assumptions about the necessary directions of education in current society.  One of the most basic questions at the heart of this discussion is, what are the aims or purposes of education?  In order to create an effective program of education, we must work backwards from these desired goals to develop appropriate strategies for achievement, examining the implications and consequences of our decisions along the way.  As a matter of fact, John Dewey, a dynamic naturalist philosopher who advocated the method of science and recognized an ever-changing society, derived his recommendations for education based on the consequences of certain choices rather than on premises about the nature of society (Noddings, 2012; Simpson & Jackson, 1997).

Preparation for the future is often cited as one of the main purposes of education: schools are charged with preparing graduates with the right skill and knowledge sets to succeed in the future.  However, visions of the future are often clouded by knowledge of the past and present, or the assumption that what was useful in the past will dominate again tomorrow.  Dewey posited that education’s aim should be more education, or growth – growth that leads to discussion and deeper thinking, rather than succumbing to the notion of education as preparation for some unknowable future state (1938).  Education, then, is both the end and the means, and how we engage it as a vehicle depends upon further examination of and reflection on the philosophy of education.

The strong need for specific educational goals can be partially derived from the broader question, who should be educated?  Today’s overwhelming response of “everybody” – education and equal opportunity for all – signals an accountability that resonates throughout the education system in an alarmingly public manner.  An adequate response to this question necessitates thoughtful methodology, careful reflection and rational problem solving among the educational leaders of tomorrow…especially because we are now left with the greater debate over how individuals should be educated.

One size fits all?  A third question that has remained vitally relevant is, “should education differ according to natural interests and abilities?”  The common core curriculum insinuates that societal expectations can be met through the transmission of standard content through K-12 and assumes the importance of the traditional disciplines, but is traditional schooling enough to meet the needs of the present and ensure equality of opportunity and future success?  This paper argues that no, it is not, and in fact the Deweyan tradition defends that education should be tailored to the child – an idea also put forth by Plato, but according to hierarchical, functionalist categories that represented a person’s capacities rather than their individual needs and interests.

According to Johnston and Wetherhill (1998), multiple forms of school organization and structure or process are necessary in order to provide all students with appropriate opportunities to learn and contribute to society, as demonstrated by current drop-out rates and the sub-par performance and success of at-risk students.  While the standards movement has put a focus on accountability, it could be argued that control, order, and efficiency dominate the conventional system rather than care for the student:

If the pupil left it instead of taking it, if he engaged in physical truancy, or in the mental truancy of mind-wandering and finally built up an emotional revulsion against the subject, he was held to be at fault.  No question was raised as to whether the trouble might not lie in the subject-matter or in the way in which it was offered (Dewey, 1938, p. 46).

If students are expected to become actively engaged in their education, it is necessary to shift the emphasis from compliance and performance on standardized tests toward the construction of meaningful opportunities for students to learn.  We must find ways to cater the education process to each individual in the system while promoting equality.

Ideally, alternative schools would work alongside public schools to meet the ever-growing demands of current society.  Alternative education is often limited in the public’s mind to magnet schools, perceived merely as reform or correctional facilities for juvenile delinquents.  While this is indeed a part of meeting the needs of individuals outside of the conventional system (Johnston & Wetherhill, 1998), the issues of developing programs for at-risk students and equality in schooling are beyond the scope of this paper.  For the purposes of this discussion, one form of alternative schooling, the Montessori method, will be examined alongside traditional public schooling for its ability to meet the needs of individuals in a democratic community.

Better for the students.  Students who are permitted to become self-directed learners will likely have more favourable attitudes toward school and hold more adequate self-concepts (Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, 2005).  Part 3 will review the literature to determine in which areas Montessori students have demonstrated superiority to their non-Montessori schooled peers, examining relative strengths and weaknesses of the approach.

Better for the teachers.  Teacher satisfaction and sense of reward has been shown to be higher among Montessori educators (and private educators in general) than their public school contemporaries (Musella, Selinger, & Arikado, 1975).  Furthermore, greater satisfaction rates among teachers tend to result in lower turnover rates, meaning that Montessori schools can retain educators who are both happy and dedicated.

Freedom of schooling in a democratic society

The Montessori philosophy views the child as innately good, having natural tendencies toward and a desire for fulfillment (Montessori, 1988).  It nurtures children as they grow along planes of development (stages similar to those of Jean Piaget), in which they are observed to exhibit concentrated attraction to certain elements in the environment.  The focus of the Montessori method – constructivist in nature – is on developmental learning, a strong form of knowledge construction, rather than rote learning.  The teacher’s role is to guide the student toward developing the competency to complete his or her own work with confidence.

There are several strong alternatives to traditional education, and selecting one is a matter of comparison across key elements of organizational structure and curriculum models.  As pointed out by Edwards (2002), great variation can be expected to exist in application; the schools and classrooms do not necessarily look alike just because they derive from the same philosophy or theory, and the use of a name does not necessarily imply technical affiliation with that school of thought.  With that in mind, some of these alternatives will be addressed briefly in terms of their underlying goals and principles, or “best practice,” in order to situate Montessori among the options closest to Maria Montessori’s explicit idealism.  Specifically, these school communities are ones that focus on helping children realize their full potential as intelligent, creative, whole persons with means of assessment other than traditional tests and grades.  These students are active in their own development, as educators trust in the self-righting forces within them; however, as the child develops, the role of the teacher changes accordingly.

Waldorf education, founded by Rudolf Steiner and influenced by Emil Mott, was based on the vision of a school that would educate human beings on how to create a just and peaceful society (Thayer-Bacon, 2011).  His theory of child development posited three cycles of seven-year stages with distinctive needs for learning, modeled as an ascending spiral of knowledge.  Educational focus in the classroom is on bodily exploration, constructive and creative play, and oral language, story and song, with the aims of promoting engagement, concentration and motivation.  Waldorf curriculum has structure and sequence, but relies on sensory experiences and exploration rather than textbooks, with the teacher playing a performance role to lead or model whole-group activities.  Today, there are over 800 Waldorf schools in over 40 countries (Edwards, 2002).

Reggio Emilia, a city in northern Italy, took park in a coordinated effort by educators, parents and children followed World War II to build an exemplary system of preschools, evolving into a movement that spread throughout Europe (Edwards, 2002).  Though the program, based on an informal model, gives first priority to children with disabilities or social service needs, it represents strong and rich vision of the child who is full of intelligence, curiousity and wonder with a teacher who supports them in exploration and investigation.  Loris Malaguzzi derived his social constructivist theory from the thinking of Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner, similarly to Montessori, viewing education as based on relationships whereby the resourceful child becomes a “producer of culture, values, and rights” (Rinaldi, 2001, as cited in Edwards, 2002).  The teachers, who work in pairs to promote collaboration and mentoring in the system, serve as resources and guides.  The curriculum, though purposeful in its progression, does not have scope or sequence because teaching and learning are negotiated through emergent processes between adults and children.

School reforms have blurred the lines between the various movements and traditions over the years that have resulted in alternative schooling and curriculum; Montessori itself has had a tendency to function as a magnet school (Edwards, 2002).  Revival of Montessori’s popularity may have been spawned by the 1960s-70s educational movement known as “open education” that recommended following the interests of children and providing hands-on experience, emphasizing the senses and de-emphasizing formal lessons (Noddings, 2012).  Around the same time, twentieth-century psychologist and educator A. S. Neill, reflecting some of Rousseau’s concepts (to be discussed in Part 2), helped to develop an alternative form of schooling known as Summerhill that saw the child as naturally good, promoting play and allowing students a say in how the school was to be run (Noddings, 2012, p. 15).

Dimensional organization of a Montessori school

Maria Montessori felt that schools should assume the role of sponsoring reform in the care of the child, while the community as a whole works together to achieve a holistic peace education (Montessori, 1988).  Careful thought was provided to the physical organization and structure of the environment, which is designed to provide an atmosphere of “productive calm”; for instance, art is used in décor for the belief that it promotes concentration of thought.

Classroom (physical environment).  Classrooms are large, open-concept and typical of a child-centered atmosphere, featuring low shelves for familiar materials and display as well as worktables, a rug, and other dedicated floor space for ease of movement and activity.  Desks are typically arranged in rafts to promote individual and small-group learning.  The classroom atmosphere is intended to encourage social interaction for cooperative learning, peer teaching, and emotional development.

Curriculum (instructional objectives).  The Montessori curriculum is integrated and interdisciplinary, based on developmental psychology and woven into the Five Great Lessons, which are stories to inspire students to learn.  These stories coincide with the major curriculum areas in the Montessori method, leading to the study of topics ranging from practical life, sensorial, mathematics, language, and cultural subjects (social studies and the sciences).  While the Montessori curriculum has scope, sequence, and clear-cut domains, it is also unified, highly individualized, and internationally developed.  Focus is placed on the student’s abilities to problem solve, create and produce new ideas, and see the interdisciplinary connections of knowledge.  The four aims of a Montessori lesson are control (of self), concentration, independence, and order, thus fulfilling a main goal of ethics (Afshari, 2010).

Consistent with the Montessori method, Dewey did not see knowledge as best described and transmitted through the disciplines, but instead described in terms of its effects or usefulness, a debate that reached its peak in the 1960s-1970s (Noddings, 2012).  Dewey recommended that traditional subject matter not be abandoned, but simply taught in a genuine manner that students can relate to, as guidance in the instruction and inquiries of students (1997).  He did not see a need for rigid divisions between the disciplines, studied for their natural interactions as they appear in the world (1915).  Dewey’s idea was for students to experience a “personally unified curriculum…that makes sense to them in terms of human experience and, particularly, in terms of their own experience” (Noddings, 2012, p. 40).

Instructional materials and activities.  Manipulative materials, activities and experiences are designed to be attractive to students at various stages of development, fostering physical, intellectual, creative, and social independence.  They are also chosen to favour refined quality and natural materials.  Children learn from their own experiences and mistakes with kinesthetic objects and materials rather than from instruction – in other works, their learning comes directly from the environment and peers as opposed to from the teacher.  Any means by which the child’s intelligence is replaced by that of another (using textbooks or direct instruction) is abandoned for the benefit of self-discovery and independence over obedience.  For instance, in math, materials are used to represent math concepts such as fractions and decimals, and in geography, students might work with puzzle maps.

Time scheduling.  Working days involve minimal or no distractions: students have uninterrupted work periods to concentrate on activities of their choosing, guided by the teacher.  Classes that spend more than an hour per day in whole group instruction are departing from the Montessori model.  Students alternate between long periods of intense concentration and brief moments of recovery and reorganization.

Composition of classes.  Multiage classes (with age differences spanning up to 3 years) allow a heterogeneous group of students to observe and learn from older students, while developing at their own pace and experiencing normalcy in the range of abilities surrounding them.  Students work individually or in small groups of their choice, and may remain with the same teacher and basic group of peers for up to three years, allowing the time to foster real relationships and receive the care and guidance of their teacher with trust and understanding.

Student assessment and evaluation.  Montessori classrooms are non-graded, steering away from extrinsic motivators or rewards, although standardized tests are becoming more acceptable due to parental pressures to measure up to standards.  A variety of instruments are used, including quantitative norm referencing, criterion-referenced evaluation, qualitative evaluation, and ethnographic inquiry.  Typical forms of assessment include process-focused assessment, skills checklists, and mastery benchmarks.

Role of the teacher.  Teachers, generally known as ‘director’ or ‘directress’, place trust in the developmental abilities of students, following and observing their progress in an unobtrusive way to guide them to success.  Dewey believed that teachers must have aims for their chosen activities.  Therefore, in order to be optimally effective, the Montessori teacher is educated in areas of human growth and development, observational skills (to match students’ needs with the appropriate materials), a large array of learning materials and activities (and the ability to design their own learning environment), teaching strategies that facilitate individual growth, and leadership skills that foster a nurturing, supportive environment.  Patience, observation skills, and knowledge of the physical needs of the child are critical.

Role of the student.  Students are encouraged in persistence, learning to balance impulses and inhibitions in order to come to make decisions for themselves.  Dewey believed that students must be actively involved in their own learning, from selecting stimuli to setting objectives, pointing out that the childhood phenomenon of imitation serves its own purpose of meeting the child’s current objectives (1938).

While Montessori’s school organization and methods have experienced over a century of popularity and relative success among independent or alternative schooling, the nature of the technological era and the current standards movement in education causes one to question whether the freedom-based curriculum of Montessori meets the high expectations of parents and educators today.  Is Montessori adaptable to the 21^st century?  Can and should changes be made to the Montessori method in order to stand alongside traditional schooling in its evolution toward a Montessori secondary public school?  This paper will examine the history, evolution and research related to Montessori in order to address these questions.

 

1. Development of the Montessori Method

The mid-nineteenth century saw a movement away from the “one-room classroom” to graded schools, with students classified by age and achievement of standards.  By the late nineteenth century, most urban school systems in Canada had graded elementary and secondary schools (Rousmaniere, 2007), and educational reformers were divided into two main groups: “pedagogical progressives who promoted a child centered, humanistic approach to education, and administrative progressives who advocated for the development of school systems driven by values of fiscal economy and organizational accountability” (Tyack, as cited in Rousmaniere, 2007, p. 5).

Constructivist approach revitalizing the Progressive movement

Maria Montessori (1870-1952), Italy’s first female doctor of medicine, founded the first Montessori school (for low-income students aged 4-7) in Rome in 1907 following her observations of children’s work habits and involvement in activities.  Initially, she worked experimentally with “defectives,” children with disabilities who did not fit into the traditional schooling system; following a great improvement in these students, she began to also apply her method to “normal” children (Montessori, 1988).  For Maria, the goals of education were to develop independence, responsibility, and respect for others while experiencing a sense of normalcy and control.

The Montessori method has been considered a source of inspiration for progressive educational reform (Edwards, 2002).  It experienced a surge of interest between 1910-1920, but a falling out of popularity (mostly for political reasons related to the Fascist regime and fear of communism; Thayer-Bacon, 2011; Edwards, 2002) removed it from public scrutiny until the late 1950s, when developmental psychology revived its application and relevance to the modern classroom.  Montessori’s method is composed of three main parts: the first is motor education, which includes care and management of the educational environment; the second, strongly associated with the developmental stages of Montessori’s contemporary, Piaget, is sensory education, which is enhanced through the use of didactic materials and methods developed specifically to encourage recognition of variances in shapes, colours and sizes; lastly, language is addressed through precision of sensory description and teacher modeling (Montessori, 1988).

Hands-on, child-centered education

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), whose philosophies of freedom of education were naturalistic and progressive (though, reflecting a different time and place, were intended for males or Emile), believed that the child should learn according to his own interests and through hands-on experience, requiring sensitivity and anticipation on the part of the teacher.  Rather than imposing objectives for learning, the teacher is meant to facilitate inquiries, guiding the student based on his interests.  These ideas are echoed – for their equal application regardless of gender – in the work of Dewey; there is a common emphasis on student motivation and action, though Dewey differs on his concept of the child with potential for both good and evil, in which the education system plays a guiding role (Noddings, 2012).

Critical periods.  Rousseau and L. S. Vygotsky, like Piaget, believed that timing in education is crucial, a fundamental concept in developmental psychology.  Teachers must observe students carefully in order to make available the relevant and appropriate experiences or opportunities, triggering optimal development of the cognitive structure.  Piaget’s genetic epistemology (a form of constructivism that also combines features of rationalism and empiricism) stemmed from Kant’s rejection of the passive reception of sensory material, stating instead that the mind interacts with the world and both the world and mind limit the forms of human experience.  Piaget posited mechanisms of mind that allow organisms to test their knowledge in the world of sensory experience; all knowledge and perception is neither innate nor passively received, but rather constructed by the subject.  His reliance on unobservable mechanisms made his theory unfavourable to thinkers such as Dewey, but led to his rather useful theory for explanation of child behaviour through the developmental stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational.

Criticisms for Piaget’s theory include the fact that he concentrates too heavily on the individual child’s interactions with objects, ignoring the social aspects of learning so firmly emphasized by Dewey (1915).  The Montessori method does not encounter this flaw: children also learn from their interactions with their peers and the environment, and from guidance and relevant questioning from the teacher – this is more consistent with Vygotsky’s adaptation, social constructivism.  Though Dewey tended to be skeptical about “unobservable, underlying mechanisms of mind to explain what was accessible to observation” (Noddings, 2012, p. 25) and may have rejected Piaget’s cognitive structures, he likely would have agreed with his recommendations on education and the development of children.

Maria Montessori took this interest in timing further following her studies of animal physiology, describing the “critical periods in which certain capacities can and must be developed or lost” (Noddings, 2012, p. 16).  This led to her insistence “on the proper placement and use of all objects in the classroom” (Noddings, 2012, p. 17).  She viewed development as a series of six-year periods, each with particular sensitivities, modeled by repeating triangular waves.  In the infant-toddler phase (birth to age 3), with the “unconscious absorbent mind,” and the primary/preschool phase (with the “conscious absorbent mind” that emerges from age 3-6), the child seeks sensory input, regulation of movement order, and freedom to immerse themselves in chosen activities (Edwards, 2002).  These age groups typically have more than one teacher to engage in demonstration lessons to advance use of materials when an individual or group expresses readiness.  From ages 6-12 (lower and upper elementary), children engage in rational problem solving through their explorations of the wider words, learning to cooperate and amass cultural knowledge. Finally, from ages 12-18 (middle and high school), children construct themselves as social beings and humanistic explorers, seeking justice and real-world problems to solve.

Maria Montessori developed manipulative materials and activities according to her observations and the stage of the child (promoting the hands-on classroom approach).  Froebel, influenced by Rousseau, wanted the inherently good, nurtured child to handle objects and observe shapes as part of their education.  The objectives behind Montessori’s materials and activities are consistent with Dewey’s description of the fourfold interests of children: construction, inquiry, artistic expression, and communication (Dewey, 1915).

Individuality of instruction and student choice

In the Montessori classroom, learning occurs through the senses and inquiry (from both self- and teacher-initiated experiences) in a cooperative, nurturing atmosphere.  Students learn through their interactions and manipulation of materials, building a meaningful foundation for abstract understanding of ideas.  This approach to individual learning comes from a focus on the “whole child,” encompassing the physical, emotional, social, aesthetic, spiritual, and cognitive needs and interests which are seen as inseparable and equally important.  The child selects activities for learning based upon his or her own needs, since the teacher cannot possibly know the intimate needs of each unique child.  Maria Montessori believed that freedom in intellectual work is the basis for internal discipline, and that as the child masters skills, so does he master himself – if there are individual deviations or negative traits that stand in the way of the child’s development, such as selfishness, greed, or inferiority, the experiences of the democratic classroom are meant to help the child overcome these obstacles through social interaction and shared learning.  Trust, caring and independence are offered to the child who, according to the democratic nature of the classroom, has the right to feel him or herself to be of value.

The Montessori method’s focus on individual choice and rejection of the subordination of the individual to a system is consistent with existentialist ideas (though not the more lonely, fearful, pessimistic aspects of existentialism that were popular in the 1940s-50s).  Montessori makes use of stories (the Great Lessons) rather than argumentation or direct instruction as the mode of communication and inspiration, emphasizing the subjectivity and freedom of human beings to tell us what we might become as a consequence of our actions.  By “planning, reflecting, choosing, and acting, people make themselves” (Noddings, 2012, p. 62); concern lies not with how individuals define themselves, but how they exercise their freedom to define themselves.  Basic relevant themes of existentialism include individual and systems, the nature and significance of choice, the role of extreme experiences, and the nature of communication.

Existentialists, similarly to Dewey, “reject the idea of a preformed human nature that can be used to guide education, prescribe duties, and predict fate” (Noddings, 2012, p. 62).  It is what leads Nel Noddings to describe herself as “not just a white, female, American academic, although I am all of these.  I am what I do, what I make of myself” (2012, p. 67).  In other words, we must go beyond basic identification to reflective personal identification, holding ourselves responsible for our own choices and their consequences.  Ideally, in the Montessori system, students would use this freedom of experiences to come to identify with all living things.

While Dewey acknowledged that we participate in our own creation, he emphasized the role of the environment in our development – as most postmodern thinkers agree, people are shaped in multiple ways by their histories and cultures, personal experiences, and through interactions with others.  Knowledge does not exist in a vacuum, but is intertwined with social and political views and ideas, and so it is one’s relation with the knowledge that adds meaning.  Experiences lead to other experiences, and those before us can influence the nature of our experiences, as our experiences can change the nature of those tomorrow.  If all technology were to fail tomorrow, the human race may, for a time, be returned to a barbaric state from centuries ago, because the accumulation of experiences before us built the foundation for a world or specific situations that were not of our doing nor based on our particular constructed knowledge base.

Dewey claimed that an experience is only meaningful (and therefore educational) if it holds meaning for the person undergoing it (a view he shared with existential philosophers), necessitating that it is built on or connected to prior experience and engaging enough to encourage interaction between the student and the subject or object of study (1938).  Though these views led Dewey to be associated with child-centered education, he criticized the notion of the naturally good child who unfolds as he is nurtured and grows, as Froebel described (Noddings, 2012).  Teachers must consider where given experiences may lead – there must be continuity, so instruction must be prepared with due thought to students’ preparation and future needs.  Knowing students more intimately, though the multiage grouping in Montessori, caters to this preparation and the ability to know each individual student needs and interests.

Independence and a sense of global citizenship

The aim of Montessori education is to foster competent, responsible, adaptive citizens who are lifelong learners and problem solvers, demonstrating respect for themselves, others, and the environment – in other words, Montessori fosters a respect for life in order to help children develop a caring attitude.  The development of individual responsibility in emphasized by allowing students to maintain the classroom and materials (which are built to their proportions to permit them the liberty to pursue exercises at their own level), as well as participate in the development of class rules.

Much of today’s interest in and methodology of character education stems from Aristotle’s views on ethics, which concentrate on the real community and the virtue that is central to “the good life,” thus its practical appeal.  He believed that children should be trained to respond virtuously to the real demands of life – and because the social focus of heterogeneous Montessori classrooms lend themselves to a communal atmosphere, it is reasonable to deduce that students are exposed to the tools of developing virtuously without giving over to elitism or relativism, due to the practical and everyday nature of their interactions.

Dewey’s pragmatic form of ethics judges an act based on its consequences, seeing human events and needs as dynamic and changing.  There is an existentialist tone to his ethics, as he states that the individual must be willing to take full responsibility for the outcomes of their decision, first examining the problem from multiple perspectives and points of interest.  His method of reflection and the exploration of alternatives is procedurally powerful, and the outcome of moral decisions is individualistic in that, so long as the procedure is followed, the decision remains in the hands of the thinker without securing an independent, universal value.  While Montessori’s method certainly values the role of individual responsibility in the making of moral decisions, there might be criticism in the sense that a close classroom community has a need for more specific values to be taught in order to maintain proper social interaction and to aid the teacher to function as a consistent moral guide and role model.

Kant’s ethical approach (from a local rather than universal approach, assuming a richly complex, social being rather than a reasoning automaton) is more relevant, emphasizing the roles of autonomy, individualism and human rationality, and thus validating the Montessori approach of trust in the child.  According to Kant, a person is charged with making their own ethical decisions in order to have a sense of moral worth and duty, choosing to do right not out of obedience but because it is simply right.  Montessori did not see a need for teacher interference or moral instruction; it is the nature of the bonds and experiences formed over time (benefited by up to 3 years in a shared classroom with peers of varied stages of development or capability) that causes students to having a caring sense of duty toward the democratic classroom.

Communitarians, who have enjoyed a revival since the late 1970s, have criticized liberalism (the philosophical tradition with a focus on equality and liberty) for placing more emphasis on the rights of individuals than on their duties and loyalties to the community, as is problematic in the aforementioned theories of ethic.  Montessori manages to escape this criticism due to its active focus on civic education and respect for others and the environment – it is equally possible that ethical products in the classroom will arise from the moral life of the community.  In this way, Dewey, who has been labeled both a “pragmatic liberal” and a “democratic communitarian,” was correct when he stated there is no inherent conflict between the individual and the state: people can be both self-actualized and useful to the state because society treasures its individuals for creative thinking, while the individual can thrive in a democratic state, so the relationship is balanced and naturally reciprocal (Noddings, 2012).

According to Dewey, certain values and knowledge are products of inquiry and construction through social interaction; schools should not teach students these values but rather encourage children to communicate, inquire, and construct common values and knowledge.  Youth are prepared for democratic life (aka. receive cultural transmissions) by taking part in experiences that make the values real and significant for their own lives and becoming involved in appropriate forms of democratic living, rather than simply being taught information about democracy.  For Dewey, democracy was a mode of associated living with joint decision-making through shared processes of inquiry, ruled by rationality and fellow feeling; his two-part criterion for defining democracy involves the communication and sharing of interests and “the varied and free points of contact with other modes of association” (1997, p. 83).  Dewey, whose significant number of philosophical works mostly centered on the philosophy of education, viewed schools as the best forms of associated living, mini-societies organized democratically to promote the growth of individuals and society; this is justification for the Montessori method that avoids treating students as all alike, and ensures fair competition among them.

2. Evolution to Present Day: Montessori Moving Forward

While appropriate changes have been made to the original Montessori curriculum (such as the incorporation of computers and modifications to social studies to keep the information culturally relevant), the basic method has not been altered significantly since its design.  As in the past, independent schools can open and attribute the name “Montessori” to their program without being properly accredited, trained, or affiliated with/by any organizations, despite their wide availability and the growing number of teacher training programs in the Montessori tradition.

The power of the public

In the 1960s, American parents began to advocate for public Montessori education programs; increasingly, these programs have been developed not only for preschool and elementary levels, but also at the middle and high schools level (Edwards, 2002).  As Montessori increasingly interacts with the world of public school education, focus has been shifted to incorporating authentic and valid forms of assessment and evaluation (Edwards, 2002).  Formats recommended by the American Montessori Association include portfolios, presentations, and multimedia projects, assessments that authentically gauge children’s ability to interrelate ideas, demonstrate critical thinking, and apply information meaningfully.

Montessori schools are non-graded and extrinsic motivation (in terms of both rewards and punishment) is avoided; grades are rewards or punishments that, either way, can have a negative impact on the motivation to learn (Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, 2005).  The purpose of the non-graded system was to foster an attitude of cooperation rather than of competition, for school is where social awareness is developed, and competition can lead to an unconscious acceptance of injustice.  Montessori’s multiage classrooms ensure varying ability levels (as well as variance in a number of other demographic variables), helping each student feel normal no matter their placement or rank.

The reduced emphasis on conventional testing means that, in the past, answers to problems have typically been made available to Montessori students to maintain the focus of the academic journey on exploration and individual progression.  Standardized testing is, however, becoming more acceptable due to external pressure to meet curriculum standards – public Montessori schools especially comply with requirements for achievement tests, though they might be seen as irrelevant toward much of what students learn (Haines, 1995).  The majority of Montessori schools, public and private, now use standardized tests that offer minimal disruption of Montessori classroom activity.  This movement begs the question of whether the Montessori method is benefited by the use of standardized tests – will this not detract from its unique cooperative atmosphere and individualized opportunities?  As for their private school counterparts, who charge admission fees to the program, will administrators feel pressured for students to do well on these tests, considering the great deal of importance currently placed on the common core curriculum?  Part of this response depends on how these students already score in comparison, which will be examined in Part 3.

One problem related to public schools implementation is admission criteria.  Should children be admitted to elementary Montessori classes based on whether they have Montessori preschool experience?  Montessori classes function differently depending on the percentage of children with Montessori experience, who adapt easily to expectations in the Montessori elementary class.  If a number of students from the traditional system bring their expectations and experiences to Montessori with them, the practices involving free choice for major portions of the day are harder to implement.  However, restriction of enrollment to those whose families were able to afford private Montessori preschool poses a problem of equality.  District-sponsored opportunities or reduced tuition classes help to solve the problem, but this is not possible for all public Montessori programs.  In 1991, the admissions process was divided almost evenly between lottery, first-come first-served, and processes such as geographic location and screening, often giving enrollment priority to those who have a sibling already enrolled (Chattin-McNichols, 1992).

Another key problem raised in this debate is whether parents are becoming too invested in the common core curriculum.  Are standardized tests truly predictive of a successful future?  This depends, in part, on one’s definition of a successful future.  If success means having the independence and skills to navigate the exponential growth of the world around oneself with confidence and respect, then maybe faith should be in the hands-on, child-centered method of many alternative schools over the marketing of a common curriculum.

In 1981, approximately 50 school districts were known to have Montessori programs; a decade later, approximately 100 districts in the U.S. had some sort of Montessori program.  These are typically elementary programs, though some (Dallas Independent School District, Cincinnati, and Buffalo, N.Y.) continue beyond grade 6.  More recent estimates place the total number of Montessori schools at over 5000 in the United States alone, including 300 public schools and some high schools (Lillard and Else-Quest, 2007; Dohrmann, 2007).

More than a primary approach

By far the most common type of Montessori program is at the preschool and elementary level (3- to 6-year-olds), the traditional ages that Montessori first worked with, though many of these schools are unaffiliated with any national Montessori organization.  As more Montessori teacher education programs become available, the diversity of age groups welcomed in affiliated schools is also increasing.  With new schools opening to serve older children, and existing schools adding on elementary programs, the 6-9 and 9-12 levels of Montessori are growing quickly (McNichols, 1992).  Secondary programs remain few and far between as of yet, although this is an area that many schools are planning for.

How do the increasingly popular intermediate and secondary programs compare to the traditional public school?  In other words, how do the students fare on standardized tests; are they prepared for university or life in the community?  Part 3 aims to answer these questions through quantitative research to determine whether Montessori middle and high schools can expect to have a place alongside traditional schools in the future.

3. Toward a Research-Based Practice: How Does Montessori Score?

            The non-graded, non-traditional nature of Montessori schooling makes it difficult to evaluate quantitatively alongside traditional schooling.  Furthermore, its history as a predominantly private school means that the schools attract families of high socio-economic status, leading to the confounding element of parental selection.  Research studies in the past have reported equivalent or superior scores for Montessori students when compared to traditional programs, but as pointed as by Lopata, Wallace, and Finn (2005), these results are tarnished by a lack of comparison groups, statistical controls, and empirical testing for proper group comparisons, leading the findings to be inconclusive and limited.  In light of this fact, the present paper will review research articles from the past decade only, in order to examine the most current and relevant findings.  Priority is given to research beyond the preschool level in order to determine the success of Montessori approaches as applied to a higher level of education.

Lopata, Wallace, and Finn (2005) compared the academic achievement of students who attended public Montessori schools in urban New York to those who attended structured magnet, open magnet, and traditional non-magnet public schools in the area; comparison groups were matched on the demographic variables of gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status.  Overall, 67% of participants (N = 543) were identified as low income, and 47% were identified as “white,” with minority groups comprising the majority of the sample.

Students in the 4^th and 8^th grades were tested on standardized measures of math using the New York State Mathematics Exam and the TerraNova math portion, and language arts using the New York State English/Language Arts Exam and the TerraNova (Lopata, Wallace, and Finn, 2005).  Data records were collected by the schools and provided to the researchers anonymously, which were then analyzed using a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANOVA).  A significant main effect for school type and math achievement was found among the grade 4 students (but not in grade 8); Montessori students had significantly lower math achievement than traditional schooling students (SD = 0.37), though their scores were significantly higher than open magnet students (SD = 0.60).  No significant differences were found on language arts achievement at this level, though grade 8 students again differed significantly: Montessori students had the lowest scores in language arts achievement, significantly lower than those attending traditional schools and structured magnet schools (SD = 0.59 and 0.77 respectively).  Out of 12 contrasts that were tested, Montessori students only significantly outperformed alternative school systems on one, with no significant differences on seven.

Another finding of interest from this study was that minority and low-income students had significantly lower mathematics and language arts achievement than white, non low-income students (Lopata, Wallace, and Finn, 2005).  Though the results failed to support the hypothesis that Montessori schools are associated with higher academic achievement, there were a number of limitations that may bias the findings.  The greatest limitation was that data was only gathered from one school from each program type, and as aforementioned, individual schools can differ significantly from the underlying philosophy or theory in practice, especially when based on the instruction of a single teacher.  Furthermore, no subject data was available on duration of enrollment, which may impact the efficacy of the program; there is no guarantee that these Montessori students represented the true essence of the Montessori program (for instance, if they had recently transferred from another school system, they would bring biases from the former structure into the classroom).

Aiming to control for the confound of parental selection (a source of bias in a number of former studies), Lillard and Else-Question (2006) evaluated the social and academic impact of Montessori education with only participants who applied to a Montessori school is Milwaukee, Wisconsin that, importantly, did not anticipate the evaluation.  A randomized school lottery system was already in place, so those who were accepted comprised the experimental group (N = 59), while those who were not accepted (therefore entered other education systems) comprised the control group (N = 53).  Two groups of participants were tested: 5-year-olds from the primary (age 3-6) division and 12-year-olds from the elementary (age 6-12) division.  Demographic information was collected and it was found that parents from the experimental and control groups had similar incomes at each student age level; ethnicity, however, was not surveyed with the justification that parental income contributes more to child outcomes than does ethnicity, and gender was not controlled for, but was not found to contribute significantly to any of the reported differences.

Participants were tested for cognitive/academic and social/behavioural skills selected for importance in or relevance to “real life”; seven scales were administered from the Woodcock-Johnson (WJ III) Test Battery, while social skills were assessed according to problem solving regarding stories about social problems (Lillard and Else-Question, 2006).  The 5-year-old control group (N = 25) differed significantly from the experimental group (N = 30), supporting higher academic success for Montessori students in academic skill areas related to school readiness (including phonological decoding ability and applied math skills).  Montessori 5-year-olds also significantly outperformed the control group on a test of executive function, though no significant differences were found on the other academic measures.  In terms of the social and behavioural measures, Montessori students were significantly more likely to use reasoning skills when referring to justice or fairness and engaged in significantly more positive shared peer play (as well as significantly less rough play that was ambiguous in intent).  Finally, a False Belief task was administered to examine the children’s understanding of the mind (in terms of both subjective and objective representation of the world), advanced by social negotiation and discussion.  While 80% of Montessori 5-year-olds passed this task, only 50% of the control group was able to do so.

The testing of 12-year-olds demonstrated slightly different results; there were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups with regards to performance on the WJ-III tests, meaning that control groups either “catch up” over time or that this particular experimental group had not been more advanced in early reading skills (Lillard and Else-Question, 2006).  Perhaps part of the explanation was that this group started at the Montessori school when it was in its third year (at the time of the study, it was in its ninth year), when the applied methods may have been less reliable and consolidated.  Despite this finding, Montessori students’ essays were rated as significantly more creative with more sophisticated sentence structures.  In terms of the social skills test, Montessori 12-year-olds were more likely to select positive social strategies and express a great sense of community at school.

In conclusion, Lillard and Else-Question (2006) remarked that superior social effects following a Montessori education are especially significant considering that the home environment generally dominates the learning of these skills.  The researchers suggestion that replication of these findings in different Montessori schools (both affiliated, as was used in this study, and unaffiliated) would be useful in order to determine whether certain components of Montessori are associated with particular outcomes.

Dohrmann et al. (2007) also evaluated two groups of students from the Milwaukee public school system who graduated high school between 1997-2001.  The control group comprised individuals who had attended two different Montessori public programs from preschool through grade 5.  These participants were matched to a comparison group on the basis of gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and most importantly, high school attended, creating a valid control group.  Approximately 60% of each group was classified as non-white minority.

The academic achievement of participants (N = 53) was measured according to three scales (Dohrmann et al., 2007).  The Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE), a nationally standardized achievement test, measured five scales: reading, language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.  The ACT, the standardized test taken by college-bound seniors in the state, measured English, mathematics, reading, and science reasoning, providing a composite score.  Finally, the Cumulative Unweighted Grade Point Average (GPA) was used as a measure of overall high school achievement, and grade point averages for specific subjects (social studies, mathematics, science, foreign language, and English) were manually computed.  Several significant results emerged from the data, with the Montessori group scoring significantly higher on tests associated with mathematics and science (SD = 0.30).  There were no significant group differences for English, social studies or GPA, demonstrating that Montessori students perform as well as their matched high school peers on most measurements.

Additional findings of interest included the fact that females had higher GPAs than males (SD = 0.46), and, as shown in Lopata, Wallace, and Finn (2005), non-minority students outperformed minority students across all measurements (Dohrmann et al., 2007).  The authors discuss the implications of these findings, crediting the sensorial mathematics materials developed by Montessori that have children as young as 3 years old learning abstract mathematical concepts in concrete form (through use of manipulatives).  However, these concrete materials following the same principles of learning are also available in English and social studies.  The researchers suggest that the focus of traditional schools on literacy (while less than 10% of time is spent on math) may explain the gap in terms of exposure, as Montessori students spend approximately equivalent time periods on these subjects.  As the authors point out, in an era where a great amount of focus is placed on STEM (Science, Technology, Education, Mathematics), this result is key: if early exposure to a different mathematics and science program makes a difference late in high school, imagine what could be achieved with Montessori math/science education beyond grade 5.

In an effort to establish the extent to which former Montessori students (in the prekindergarten program) differ from those in traditional programs both socially and academically, Cook (2009) considers research from prekindergarten programs in both Montessori and traditional schooling programs, engaging in a meta-analysis to explore the literature.  Inconclusive results indicated that the academic gains made by a child in traditional prekindergarten programs (whether traditional or Montessori) diminish as the child gets older, though there are observable short-term benefits, especially for at-risk children.  In terms of social gains, students who attended Montessori programs tend to have better relationships with peers and teachers, as well as enjoy school more.  The author’s final recommendation is that aspects of Montessori education be incorporated into traditional programs as a supplement to the regular school day, while future research should carefully select larger samples from more than one school at a time.

Using the CAT (Canadian Achievement Test) to evaluate student performance against the national norm of stanine 5, Afshari (2010) tested 101 students from grades 3-6 who attended a Montessori school between 2005 and 2009.  A pattern of improvement was found in test scores as students progressed through higher grades, as is to be expected; more importantly, there was a consistent pattern of high academic achievement compared to the national norm for each of the five years of the study.  Female students tended to perform better than males, with the highest scores appearing in language and reading.  Specifically, Montessori students averaged 1.6 stanines above the national norm in mathematics, 1.8 stanines above the norm in reading, and 2.1 stanines above the norm in language.  The results of the study were found to be 73% reliable, though some confounding variables limit the generalizability of results due to specific factors that may have played a role in the successful academic performance of the students tested.  Among the factors that are common across all or most Montessori schools were small class size, low ratio of students to teachers, and the ability, through the nature of the method, to provide additional help to students in need.  Other factors that were attributed to student success were high expectations from teachers and administration, the socio-economic status of enrolled families, and the degree of involvement of parents in school life.

Conclusion

Is Montessori suited for the new millennium?  While many of the findings are inconclusive at best, research results in the 21^st century from studies that incorporated careful controls, most importantly Dohrmann et al. (2007), go beyond supporting the hypothesis that Montessori students are adequately prepared for the future: they suggest that the average Montessori student is just as prepared as the average student from traditional schooling, while exceeding their peers in social skills, positive attitudes toward learning, and even some academic skills.

For the 21^st century school reformist or parent seeking alternative methods of education with an individualized, child-centered curriculum, Montessori presents itself as an adaptive, hands-on, future-friendly option for the democratic community as it evolves toward offering a full preschool to secondary public program.

References

Afshari, N.  (2010)  Student Achievement in a Montessori School (Master’s thesis).  Nipissing University, North Bay, ON.

Chattin-McNichols, J.  (1992).  Montessori programs in public schools.  Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Cook, E.  (2009).  The extent that Montessori programs contribute to students’ academic and social gains and how Montessori programs differ from traditional programs (Master’s thesis).  Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan.

Dewey, J.  (1915).  The School and Society (2^nd ed.).  Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J.  (1938).  Experience & Education.  New York: Collier Macmillan Canada, Ltd.

Dewey, J.  (1997).  Democracy and Education.  New York, NY: Macmillian Company.

Dohrmann, K. R., Nishida, T. K., Gartner, A., Lipsky, D. K., Grimm, K. J.  (2007).  High school outcomes for students in a public Montessori program.  Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(2), 205-217.

Edwards, C. P.  (2002).  Three approaches from Europe: Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia.  Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4(1), 1-24.

Haines, A. M.  (1995).  Montessori and assessment: Some issues of assessment and curriculum reform.  The NAMTA Journal, 20(2), 116-130.

Johnston, B. J. & Wetherhill, K. S.  (1998).  HSJ special issue introduction – alternative schooling.  The High School Journal, 81(4), 176-182.

Lillard, A. & Else-Quest, N.  (2006).  Evaluating Montessori Education.  Science, 313, 1893-1894.

Lopata, C., Wallace, N. V., & Finn, K. V.  (2005).  Comparison of academic achievement between Montessori and traditional education programs.  Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(1), 5-13.

Montessori, M.  (1988).  The absorbent mind: The Clio Montessori series.  England: Clio Press Ltd.

Musella, D., Selinger, A., & Arikado, M.  (1975).  Open-concept programs in open-area schools.  Toronto, Ontario: Minister of Education.

Noddings, N.  (2012).  Philosophy of Education (3^rd ed.).  Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Rathunde, K. & Csikszentmihalyi, M.  (2005).  Middle school students’ motivation and quality of experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments.  American Journal of Education, 111(3), 341-371.

Rousmaniere, K.  (2007).  Go to the principal’s office: Toward a social history of the school principal.  History of Education Quarterly, 47(1), 1-22.

Simpson, D. J. & Jackson, M. J. B.  (1997).  Educational reform: A Deweyan perspective.  New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Thayer-Bacon, B.  (2011).  Maria Montessori: Education for peace.  In Factis Pax, 5(3), 307-319.