9 ms·

My partner became involved in Montessori a few years ago, and I've been really impressed with how it works. If you don't know much about Montessori, here is my

by bbayles 10y ago

My partner became involved in Montessori a few years ago, and I've been really impressed with how it works. If you don't know much about Montessori, here is my "in a nutshell" version: It's a method of schooling usually associated with preschool and elementary education. There are mixed age groups (e.g. 3 to 6) in classrooms. There is at least one adult who gives one-on-one lessons on how to work with "materials." The materials do the teaching, not the adult. There are hundreds of different types of materials. They're designed to teach or exercise a particular skill, but they look like games and are all designed to be "beautiful" as to entice children to them (Montessori is really serious about this; materials are not allowed to be broken or chipped or worn). They follow a particular progression. Children may work with any material for which they've had a lesson. They can work with it as many times as they like. My favorite example of how Montessori works is how it develops reading skills. First a child is introduced to materials that involve very short crayons - when they use them they strengthen the muscles in their hands. Then they're introduced to letter-tracing materials. Then they're introduced to letter/sound matching materials. Children who follow these lessons wind up writing first, and then reading follows very naturally. The emphasis on developing physical capabilities first really demonstrates the attention to detail that's typical of Montessori. The math education progression is impressive also. There are materials that have children doing proto-multiplication, exponentiation, algebraic manipulation, and more. My partner developed a material that teaches counting, addition, and subtraction in base 8. (Her 4 and 5-year-olds understood it much more quickly than her colleagues!) There are parts of the method I don't like (e.g. dogmatic resistance to rewarding performance, for example), but overall it feels like a huge improvement over typical early childhood education.

tamana 10y ago
> Montessori is really serious about this; materials are not allowed to be broken or chipped or worn This is a traditional pseudoscientific gimmick to drive sales revenue. In the real world, children are enticed by non-new and broken things just fine... until their parents, competitive peers, TV, or lovers insist they be more materialistic and wealthy signalling.
- bbayles 10y ago
  Citation needed? I'm just describing the Montessori method, which was developed in the early 1900s. But maybe they were driving "sales revenue" then also?
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "In the real world, children are enticed by non-new and broken things just fine... until their parents, competitive peers, TV, or lovers insist they be more materialistic and wealthy signalling." Tamana is describing a behavior known to anyone who have ever watched children play or explore the world. They start out interested in all kinds of stuff regardless if it's shiny or in perfect condition. Later, after much cultural conditioning, they might become adults who aren't interested in such things. The change is conditioned into them overtime. So, focusing on such attributes when training children is unnecessary given it's crap adults make up. If anything, children having some of their best experiences with heirlooms of varying quality might make them prefer such things in the future due to the mental association. So, Montessori method promoters themselves need to show some citations for making that a requirement. Meanwhile, that should probably be stripped out of the method given there's no hard science backing it as necessary for children's learning. As I illustrated, it's even potentially harmful in predisposing them toward specific aesthetics and disposable goods.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      Do you have kids? My toddler won't even eat a cookie that has a corner broken off.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        I help raise many of them. They're picky on some things but not on others. Keeping them from grabbing and playing with stuff or going into random places is work. All of them, despite many dissimilar bloodlines, seem to have in common the willingness to explore something once motivated. It doesn't need to look perfect to motivate them although certain things seem to evoke a negative reaction. Greens on a plate or scary-looking insects come to mind. Exposure reduces this. You can use aesthetics as a motivator for children. However, it being mandatory for anything they benefit from could make them very superficial. Show them something shiny they'll enjoy. Also, show them a worn-out book that has something they'll enjoy or learn from. Do both. Get them to focus on what something is rather than just appears to be.
k-mcgrady 10y ago
I remember reading that when you compare the development of a child that went to a regular school vs. Montessori the results are the same.
- savanaly 10y ago
  That's quite surprising, given how different the methods are. What about a control group that received no schooling?
  - mrmffh 10y ago
    Why?
  - nibs 10y ago
    Unschooler here. I am the only unschooler from my 12 person cohort of hippie parents who did not go to University. And I am doing okay. So I think school basically has no effect. Mostly just daycare. It is good at that, though.
    - clentaminator 10y ago
      How would you know what you don't know, though? Or what you never experienced or could have experienced? Genuine question, just curious how anyone firmly on the "schooler" or "unschooler" side of the fence can know without some kind of external reference, particularly one which they themselves didn't choose in case of bias.
      - nibs 10y ago
        The assumption is that if there is something you need to know and you encounter a situation that requires it, you can learn it. And if it turns out you do not need it, you saved the time. Further, formal instruction only works for some types of people, albeit probably most. Synthesis from learning when you are interested tends to be more useful than memorization. The experienced part is the scary one, although in terms of spending time with peers, doing sports, art, etc. we did not really miss out on that.
chrisper 10y ago
I went to a Montessori Kindergarten as a child. I think it was good, but I do not remember much anymore. I remember all the toys and other things that taught me reading, counting, fine motor skills etc.
- centizen 10y ago
  If you think it was good, it probably was - all I remember about traditional kindergarten was hating it.
  - balls187 10y ago
    Those injection molded plastic beds for the kids to sleep in.
  - corysama 10y ago
    I was so bored in kindergarten that I barely participated at all. When it was over, the teachers thought I must be slow so I should be held back and do it all again. Thankfully my mother knew it was because I was bored out of my mind and fought to prevent that.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    I went to a Waldorf kindergarten. I have no negative memories of it, but my mother assures me that I hated it. I suspect that she hated it on my behalf. That said, they apparently voiced strong disapproval of the fact that I could already read, so it's not something I could actually recommend. It probably just didn't come through to the small me.
    - AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
      > That said, they apparently voiced strong disapproval of the fact that I could already read Strange, I had the same experience in a public kindergarten. I never understood that attitude. I could read at a 5th grade level in kindergarten, but that was treated as an evil thing by the teachers because the material they were trying to teach was far below me. I suppose I can understand that in retrospect now that I think about it though, it must be frustrating to have a kindergartener who doesn't bother listening to a teacher teaching the alphabet, but doesn't even know how to tie their shoes so there's no possible way they could be skipped ahead.
GuiA 10y ago
Alternate pedagogies (Montessori, Waldorf, etc.) seem to work quite well for early childhood education, but I'm very skeptical of them for middle school, and especially high school (what Montessori defines as "3rd stage"). The reason for this is that extremely few people I've met who went to such high schools came out of them with levels in science/math that could be reasonably qualified as decent (and often borderline on catastrophic). One of the main issues is certainly that some of those pedagogies do have pseudo-science/religion baked in, and they have a hard time ridding themselves from that past (notably Waldorf). Another problem is that the kind of teachers who are attracted to these pedagogies rarely have scientific/mathematical backgrounds, and as a result this aspect of the education suffers. It's a problem that they don't like to talk about. The hard thing to wrestle with here is that for many scientific disciplines, hardcore reading and memorizing is vastly more efficient than inferring everything from observation and first order principles. Now you don't want to overcorrect and do ~only~ that, but there's a reason medicine students spend many years cramming. See: "Does Waldorf Offer a Viable Form of Science Education?" http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jelinekd/publications/waldorfscience.pdf http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jelinekd/publications/waldorfsci...
- misja111 10y ago
  I can confirm. Montessori education is great for kids under 12. For middle or high school, it was actually Maria Montessori who said, when asked what she saw as the best education for teenagers, that it was useless to try to force adolescent to concentrate on intellectual work. Instead she recommended an Earth school, where children would live close to nature, eat fresh farm products, and carry on practical work related to the economics of supplying food, shelter, transportation, and so forth. The Montessori middle- and high schools that currently exist, at least in Europe, do not follow Montessori's advice at all. Instead they have a kind of half hearted mix of regular education with some elements of lower age Montessori, such as more responsibility to make your own homework planning. For many teenagers this is not a good combination and they drop out.
- tremon 10y ago
  extremely few people I've met who went to such high schools came out of them with levels in science/math that could be reasonably qualified as decent Hi, nice to know you. Montessori-educated until University here. Even in high school, it's all about the learning material: as long as the teachers were skilled enough to make me interested in the subject, there was hardly any limit to what I could take in. I left school with high marks across the board, with five languages and all STEM subjects except biology (because I hated the learning material with a passion). That said, my parents encouraged the same at home so it's not just my school: I wrote my first BASIC program with my father when I was nine, and there was a surplus of construction toys (Lego, Mecano, electric science kits) at home as well. (edit: I'm not familiar with official "Montessori" policy on high schools, but I want to add that our school roster was partly free: we had a number of mandatory class hours for each subject, but were expected to spend more time in school than just our roster: all teachers had "open hours", which you could use to get additional mentoring from the teacher, peers or sometimes senior year students)

by bbayles 10y ago

tamana 10y ago

> Montessori is really serious about this; materials are not allowed to be broken or chipped or worn This is a traditional pseudoscientific gimmick to drive sales revenue. In the real world, children are enticed by non-new and broken things just fine... until their parents, competitive peers, TV, or lovers insist they be more materialistic and wealthy signalling.

bbayles 10y ago
Citation needed? I'm just describing the Montessori method, which was developed in the early 1900s. But maybe they were driving "sales revenue" then also?
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "In the real world, children are enticed by non-new and broken things just fine... until their parents, competitive peers, TV, or lovers insist they be more materialistic and wealthy signalling." Tamana is describing a behavior known to anyone who have ever watched children play or explore the world. They start out interested in all kinds of stuff regardless if it's shiny or in perfect condition. Later, after much cultural conditioning, they might become adults who aren't interested in such things. The change is conditioned into them overtime. So, focusing on such attributes when training children is unnecessary given it's crap adults make up. If anything, children having some of their best experiences with heirlooms of varying quality might make them prefer such things in the future due to the mental association. So, Montessori method promoters themselves need to show some citations for making that a requirement. Meanwhile, that should probably be stripped out of the method given there's no hard science backing it as necessary for children's learning. As I illustrated, it's even potentially harmful in predisposing them toward specific aesthetics and disposable goods.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Do you have kids? My toddler won't even eat a cookie that has a corner broken off.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      I help raise many of them. They're picky on some things but not on others. Keeping them from grabbing and playing with stuff or going into random places is work. All of them, despite many dissimilar bloodlines, seem to have in common the willingness to explore something once motivated. It doesn't need to look perfect to motivate them although certain things seem to evoke a negative reaction. Greens on a plate or scary-looking insects come to mind. Exposure reduces this. You can use aesthetics as a motivator for children. However, it being mandatory for anything they benefit from could make them very superficial. Show them something shiny they'll enjoy. Also, show them a worn-out book that has something they'll enjoy or learn from. Do both. Get them to focus on what something is rather than just appears to be.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

I remember reading that when you compare the development of a child that went to a regular school vs. Montessori the results are the same.

savanaly 10y ago
That's quite surprising, given how different the methods are. What about a control group that received no schooling?
- mrmffh 10y ago
  Why?
- nibs 10y ago
  Unschooler here. I am the only unschooler from my 12 person cohort of hippie parents who did not go to University. And I am doing okay. So I think school basically has no effect. Mostly just daycare. It is good at that, though.
  - clentaminator 10y ago
    How would you know what you don't know, though? Or what you never experienced or could have experienced? Genuine question, just curious how anyone firmly on the "schooler" or "unschooler" side of the fence can know without some kind of external reference, particularly one which they themselves didn't choose in case of bias.
    - nibs 10y ago
      The assumption is that if there is something you need to know and you encounter a situation that requires it, you can learn it. And if it turns out you do not need it, you saved the time. Further, formal instruction only works for some types of people, albeit probably most. Synthesis from learning when you are interested tends to be more useful than memorization. The experienced part is the scary one, although in terms of spending time with peers, doing sports, art, etc. we did not really miss out on that.

chrisper 10y ago

I went to a Montessori Kindergarten as a child. I think it was good, but I do not remember much anymore. I remember all the toys and other things that taught me reading, counting, fine motor skills etc.

centizen 10y ago
If you think it was good, it probably was - all I remember about traditional kindergarten was hating it.
- balls187 10y ago
  Those injection molded plastic beds for the kids to sleep in.
- corysama 10y ago
  I was so bored in kindergarten that I barely participated at all. When it was over, the teachers thought I must be slow so I should be held back and do it all again. Thankfully my mother knew it was because I was bored out of my mind and fought to prevent that.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  I went to a Waldorf kindergarten. I have no negative memories of it, but my mother assures me that I hated it. I suspect that she hated it on my behalf. That said, they apparently voiced strong disapproval of the fact that I could already read, so it's not something I could actually recommend. It probably just didn't come through to the small me.
  - AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
    > That said, they apparently voiced strong disapproval of the fact that I could already read Strange, I had the same experience in a public kindergarten. I never understood that attitude. I could read at a 5th grade level in kindergarten, but that was treated as an evil thing by the teachers because the material they were trying to teach was far below me. I suppose I can understand that in retrospect now that I think about it though, it must be frustrating to have a kindergartener who doesn't bother listening to a teacher teaching the alphabet, but doesn't even know how to tie their shoes so there's no possible way they could be skipped ahead.

GuiA 10y ago

Alternate pedagogies (Montessori, Waldorf, etc.) seem to work quite well for early childhood education, but I'm very skeptical of them for middle school, and especially high school (what Montessori defines as "3rd stage"). The reason for this is that extremely few people I've met who went to such high schools came out of them with levels in science/math that could be reasonably qualified as decent (and often borderline on catastrophic). One of the main issues is certainly that some of those pedagogies do have pseudo-science/religion baked in, and they have a hard time ridding themselves from that past (notably Waldorf). Another problem is that the kind of teachers who are attracted to these pedagogies rarely have scientific/mathematical backgrounds, and as a result this aspect of the education suffers. It's a problem that they don't like to talk about. The hard thing to wrestle with here is that for many scientific disciplines, hardcore reading and memorizing is vastly more efficient than inferring everything from observation and first order principles. Now you don't want to overcorrect and do ~only~ that, but there's a reason medicine students spend many years cramming. See: "Does Waldorf Offer a Viable Form of Science Education?" http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jelinekd/publications/waldorfscience.pdf http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jelinekd/publications/waldorfsci...

misja111 10y ago
I can confirm. Montessori education is great for kids under 12. For middle or high school, it was actually Maria Montessori who said, when asked what she saw as the best education for teenagers, that it was useless to try to force adolescent to concentrate on intellectual work. Instead she recommended an Earth school, where children would live close to nature, eat fresh farm products, and carry on practical work related to the economics of supplying food, shelter, transportation, and so forth. The Montessori middle- and high schools that currently exist, at least in Europe, do not follow Montessori's advice at all. Instead they have a kind of half hearted mix of regular education with some elements of lower age Montessori, such as more responsibility to make your own homework planning. For many teenagers this is not a good combination and they drop out.
tremon 10y ago
extremely few people I've met who went to such high schools came out of them with levels in science/math that could be reasonably qualified as decent Hi, nice to know you. Montessori-educated until University here. Even in high school, it's all about the learning material: as long as the teachers were skilled enough to make me interested in the subject, there was hardly any limit to what I could take in. I left school with high marks across the board, with five languages and all STEM subjects except biology (because I hated the learning material with a passion). That said, my parents encouraged the same at home so it's not just my school: I wrote my first BASIC program with my father when I was nine, and there was a surplus of construction toys (Lego, Mecano, electric science kits) at home as well. (edit: I'm not familiar with official "Montessori" policy on high schools, but I want to add that our school roster was partly free: we had a number of mandatory class hours for each subject, but were expected to spend more time in school than just our roster: all teachers had "open hours", which you could use to get additional mentoring from the teacher, peers or sometimes senior year students)