Montessori was situated in peace education, honoring the wisdom of the young child. As modernization and globalization take over the world, peace is one of the areas that we, as humans, still struggle with. Montessori's words are timeless as nurturing the basic goodness of children through observation, inquiry, discernment, and joy.

Critical voices say that Montessori pedagogics is not for all. Children with learning difficulties or children who lacks self-regulation may suffer from the ideas practice rests upon. Some critics state that Montessori pedagogy is only for well adapted middleclass children. Montessori schools (in Sweden) are also sometimes described as “old fashion” since the influence from the outside world (e g parents, children, media) is not significant. M. education is sometimes described as traditional, not adapting or changing, when teachers or educators wants to keep the pedagogy as close to M:s original ideas as possible. And by doing so I guess they do the opposite to what Montessori intended.

The entire book "The Science Behind the Genius" by Lillard (2008) is a good way to answer your question - it takes modern science and supports her findings about how children learn. I disagree with respondent #2 as the method was developed using children with special needs, and the Early Childhood curriculum is designed with sensory materials to assist sensory integration and to help children to develop self-regulation skills, and then applied to "normal" children. The perspective that AMI vs. AMS takes are very different with respect to adaptation of pedagogy to practice with AMI being more traditional, and AMS being more adaptive here in the US. I would assume Sweden's experience is with the more structured AMI. As there is no one way that Montessori is implemented here due to the 1967(?) legal decision that Montessori the name is considered public domain, the difference between classroom practices vary widely, as described by Chattin-McNichols (not sure of spelling) and Massey. Overall, the individualized nature of the curriculum means that it is adaptive to each child when implemented correctly - that changes the nature of teacher from knowledge-giver to learning facilitator as in reggio emilia, but with more specific didactic toys for exploration. The curriculum grows more constructivist with age. It is a systemic developmentalist (Miller, 2006?) but holistic education.

Montessori's approach was developed with the poorer children and those living with life's greater struggles that related to single headed households, impacts of poverty, social exclusion, lack of participatory rights. Her ideas are used around the world and in some cases with children with deep struggles such as the TIbetan refugee children in northern India.

Her ideas have been interpreted and practiced infusing cultural beliefs and norms, sometimes without consciousness but rather from teachers with out recognizing the water in which they swim. in the Us for instance, the focus on materials rather than the pedagogy resonates with the materialistic culture.

Teachers interpret her theories, teachings, pedagogy, and insights from their own lens which can greatly limit the impact of her intent and holistic pedagogy.

There are no nations, except Bhutan which is currently trying to develop a national policy of holistic education, that has embraced holistic education. There are schools dotted around the world, those who claim they follow a method from Montessori, however if we deconstruct the method, most times I have experienced a lack of depth in the theoretical foundation and a focus on the materials.

Agreed, Deborah - about the dangers of implementation from those who do not incorporate the action research and reflective praxis embedded in the pedagogy to inspire self-development and the more comprehensive/holistic view of the child - but I feel that this that is more an individual implementation issue: I've seen some Europeans so focused on the original lesson that they will not allow the kids to mix the pink tower and the stair, and I've seen some Americans that will focus on the development of the child's concentration to the point that they will protect the engagement in the work cycle past the scheduled end time. Good and bad, well-trained and poorly trained teachers exist worldwide. The original question seems potentially uninformed, and I think that a focus on the understanding of the method to develop a pros/cons list relative to the original inquiry will serve this discussion best, but I look forward to reading your work, now that I have seen your responses. Best to all!

There seems to be an interesting link between the ideas of Montessori, Heidegger ('teaching is letting learn'), Carl R. Rogers ('freedom to learn') and contemporary findings/theoretical assertions such as Howard Gardner's ('multiple intelligence'), Ken Robinson's ('allowing creativity at school'), and Sugata Mitra's ('self organised learning environments'), to name only the youtube stars.

The use of technology in teaching for learning with deep understanding (as opposed to learning and repeating) seems to corroborate Montessori's approach to the human being named child.

In my view, Montessori's perceptions belong to the 21st century; but then again other past thinkers' ideas do so. It's on us to use them carefully and wisely to raise generations of creative and harmless (to themselves, to others, to the environment) human beings.

Montessori, of course, said "there is no such thing as the Montessori method, just follow the child". That is (still) rather revolutionary. Rigorous observation, and continuous innovation in materials (or learning objects) were the core of her approach, and are a very tough act to follow. In a sense she was 'only as good as her next innovative response to what she observed in the needs of the child'.

In a research team on 'emergent' learning, we have tried to come to grips with the underlying theory that seems to inform this kind of responsive, yet rigorous approach. This led us most recently to draw on the work of the neurologist Ramachandran, specifically his notion of what we are calling 'creative synaesthesic ability', which starts to explain some of the underlying neurological mechanisms that Montessori seems, implicitly, to have drawn on. See the abstract here: http://learning-affordances.wikispaces.com/Synaesthesia

Most grateful, Roy, for an invaluable tip.

:)

Very rich comments. When I first learnt about Montessori over 36 years ago, I had the honor of taking the certification with Dr. Caspari, who was a student of Maria in India. She was with PMA at the time, not AMI or AMS. We not only learnt theory and how to use the materials, we were also asked to demonstrate our awareness of development, observation and the use of the natural world by providing the lessons using what was available, i.e. stones, plants, soil, rocks (the basic elements). In other words going far beyond materials that so many current teachers follow. This training opened up an opportunity to recognize the importance of the basic elements of our planet in relationship to human development. The connection to nature, the observation of nature, which the developing child is part of and how this can lead to right knowing, right understanding and right human conduct with mindful and intentional skilled facilitation in the process of self discovery and learning for the young child. I truly believe this process can lead to a peaceful way of living. Teachers, directors of learning, facilitators of development, adults in the world can treat children differently with open heart, mind and mindfulness using many of Montessori's, as mentioned above, rigorous attention to observation and discernment, can change the world in one generation. There is hope!

Thank you all.

Deborah, connection to nature, as you say, is a rigorous business. Mindfulness similarly can be seen as the foundation for intellectual thought - particularly if (in conventional scientific terms) it includes what is called 'full life-cycle' environmental analyses. And seeing your life-cycle clearly, against the life-cycle of other organisms and systems could put you on the way to mastering mindfulness in a Zen sense, no?

More prosaically, I have recently come to think of observation, mindfulness, discernment and description as key to science - natural and social. It starts with collection - of things, data, and impressions, goes on to classification and taxonomy, and then to systems thinking. But description is key.

I love the way you seem to link the engagement of the Montessori directress/teacher as mindful observation of the child, with the pupil's mindful engagement with nature (including their own 'nature'?). Its the same thing, and they can learn this mastery from each other, no?

Description (for me) - is the next step - articulating and sharing what you think you see, and comparing it with the descriptions of others. Its where the real work, and the interesting conversations begin.

Hi Magdalena, I 'd love to hear more about Vygotsky's critique, do you have any particular links I could look at?

Thanks

Dear Magdalena, thanks for the reference.

And I agree with you, its not Montessori's fault. 'Follow the child' is a challenge, and requires a lot of work and thinking. That makes Montessori education only as good as the 'directress' - or as bad, unfortunately. I took my children out of a bad Montessori school, run by an unthinking, unperceptive teacher, but fortunately found an excellent one in its place.

Hello!

I started at a Montessorian school when I was around five. When I was eight to nine, I went to Lycée Pasteur.

I think that I have been better prepared than my mates and I was very, very pleased with learning. I only have good memories from that time.

I believe that much of the theory behind the Montessori method is sound. It loses its intent when people who like the idea practise it based on reading books about Montessori. I would like to see more research on the social implications of this method.

From this last answer it seems clear to me that the relationship between student and teacher is fundamental in any pedagogy or methodology a teacher decides to embrace. Relationship being the key to life, again with one self (not as in ego rather meant as self-discovery), with family, society and nature. A teacher who continues to discover themselves through their relationships with students, deeply cares about the community of learning and uses this as the basis for teaching has taken the first steps to holistic education. Monetessori's writing can provide a provocation that may offer a teacher to greater understanding and development of classroom ability. I especially enjoy using her chapter on discipline with pre-service teachers as this chapter offers a clear concept of discernment; where the children are guided to discern their behaviors, personal and social outcomes, extending that to nature and using inquiry to think of other possibilities. The language of possibilities is something I do not observe often in classrooms in terms of guidance and discipline, there seems to be much more of a duality paradigm.

@Magdalena & Fillipo: A number of schools create their environments by simply putting Montessori materials in selected classrooms of the traditional school buildings that limit child access, or even treat Montessori as a specialty subject within a regular public school program. Likewise, these programs vary widely in their application of Montessori pedagogy to teacher instruction. Some schools have fully certified Montessori educators, some have a mix, and some have public school teachers who received Montessori instruction limited to solely to specific materials or lesson delivery. This makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of Montessori as an educational program, and “these findings highlight the need to establish limits for acceptable variability in Montessori implementation” (Daoust, 2004, p. 140).

Also Chattin-McNichols wrote an entire book about The Montessori Controversy (1992) and in his work, he noted that membership in either of these or any other accrediting agencies is voluntary, that membership does not guarantee higher quality than a non-member school, and that non-membership does not mean that a school and its staff is less committed than others to following the pedagogy and praxis established by Dr. Montessori. He further argues in his notes about Montessori Programs in Public Schools, that “Many people rely on a school's affiliation with...AMI…or...AMS to determine whether the school's program actually uses Montessori methods. But the majority of the public schools have not chosen to affiliate with either organization, usually citing financial restrictions” (p. 2). In recent years, AMS and AMI affiliates and other Montessorians have begun to work together to present a unified vision of Dr. Montessori’s work, to protect the basic integrity of the method, and to provide in-depth information to educators as to what is the essence of an authentic Montessori school.

I think Rambusch and Stoops say it best “a school can have all of these [easily discernable] characteristics [like materials, small furniture] without taking on the distinctive characteristics of Montessori education” (1992, p.2). According to Shuker,

"A school, therefore, can offer the appearance along with the name but not the substance."

Anyway, if used correctly, the observation of self, student, and other teachers is designed to make you a more reflective practitioner, but that only works if you do it, and if you are willing to confront your biases and expectations and actually honor the potential of the child. I read in a blog recently a note of gratitude from a Montessori teacher saying that she was grateful for the lessons SHE receives constantly from working with the children for the past 20 year, that they always manage to surprise and delight her with what innate capacities they have and how they learn and grow. I agree with Roy. It all hangs on the teacher. And we took my eldest out of a bad teacher situation. She was fired and now my younger one is in the same school with two new teachers (well, one is still an intern). We're really happy with that.

@ Deborah - Holistic educators such as Rachael Kessler, John P. Miller and Parker Palmer have written about the central importance of the relationship between teachers and students; it is not the method, not the degree of freedom or structure provided, but the qualities of openness, respect, integrity and caring that make education real and meaningful. (Miller, 1998) Also with discipline, I've found a number of places that use NVC (Marshall Rosenberg) in parent and teacher training and that makes a world of difference. I've taken a couple of courses in it. I love it, but it requires a level of mindfulness that can be emotionally exhausting. But I think it mirrors what Montessori teachers are supposed to do, if they follow Dr. Montessori's advice and hold reverence and respect for the children as spiritual beings with unrealized potential and we are just facilitators and shepherds of their development.

Link to NVC: http://www.opencommunication.org/aboutnvc.html

Montessori was in many was an empirical 'action researcher', though she worked with other researchers, like Piaget. Recently a colleague and I wrote a paper on embodied learning and synaesthesia, which tried to explain some of the more remarkable things about learning in a Montessori classroom (particularly mathematics) and in an interactive installation for Autistic children.

We found that synaesthesia, and particularly creative synaesthetic ability, as opposed to involuntary synaesthetic perception, could explain quite a lot about learning in general, as well as in these two case studies.

The paper is forthcoming in MIT's Leonardo journal (in 2014), but there is an abstract here ( http://learning-affordances.wikispaces.com/Synaesthesia ) and more discussion of some of the issues here ( http://learning-affordances.wikispaces.com/Researching+Synaesthesia )

In many ways, she tacitly anticipated the synaesthesia research that this paper is based on.

@Deborah Lack, fascinating idea - NVC. Thanks for the link.

In a much more modest way, some of the other work we are doing (on nested narratives: http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/nested_narratives_enabling_students_to_make_sense_of_their_learning/), and on footprints of emergent learning (http://footprints-of-emergence.wikispaces.com/) works with enabling people to explore and articulate their tacit understandings of their learning - particularly about who they are, and want to become, rather than what they want to be able to 'do'.

Its similarly non-judgemental, and based on the principle that because its tacit learning, its personal, and it is only shared if and when the person is comfortable enough to do so.

@ Roy: Love the article and the process re: narratives. Looks like you all are congruent with the Reggio Emilia Approach (REA) to learning, which is based on completely emergent curriculum and class narratives. http://www.reggiochildren.it They work with Project Zero @ harvard.

As for the synaesthesia, I had been on that site recently doing research for a paper on parallels between special ed and holistic ed, with a focus on Montessori, Waldorf, and REA (in progress). My main synaesthetic parallel was actually with Waldorf Education, which has a very strong arts-based curriculum and includes a lot of storytelling as well. I find it very similar in many fundamental ways to Montessori - I have done teacher training and research on them both and have one child in each type of school. Looking forward to reading more of your work. Thanks for the links & am happy to collaborate anytime.

@ Deborah Lack: Thanks for the link to Reggio, looks great. I should make contact with them and with Project Zero. It makes sense that Waldorf would have many links to synaesthesia, its so strongly 'embodied'.

A few of us in our research group had been involved with Montessori education for many years, but had never 'put 2 and 2 together' to relate it to an adequate theory - until we bumped into Ramachandran's work on synaesthesia (in a separate research project on affordances for learning in higher education) and started to explore what he alerts us to, which we are now calling 'creative synaesthesic ability' (see the paper forwarded elsewhere).

The implications are really interesting: if it is true that creative synaesthesic ability is the basis of everything we (human and animals) do - and this is greatly extended in human language, then that opens up the possibility for us to use this knowledge to create a whole spectrum of educational and learning and cognitive development steps/ mechanisms/ learning objects/ learning processes.

The pedagogical question is then how to 'realise' the fullest possible spectrum of learning spaces / opportunities/ objects etc, and provide (all) that for children to explore on their own terms - to follow their own needs, as it were.

That in turn is interesting (if this still makes sense) because it provides a framework for teasing out the detail of the all the 'steps' that should be available to all children (and its up to them which ones they choose to use) - but the framework should also be available to all teachers, so that they can use it diagnostically, pedagogically, and creatively - for further innovation.

Steiner and Montessori seem to have 'realised' so much of this in their own work, it seems a pity that it is rare that people (like you) are engaged in both.

@Deborah Lack:

You write that:

I read in a blog recently a note of gratitude from a Montessori teacher saying that she was grateful for the lessons SHE receives constantly from working with the children for the past 20 year, that they always manage to surprise and delight her with what innate capacities they have and how they learn and grow.

However much I learn from other people, books etc, I am constantly reminded how much I still learn from my observations (many years ago) of the innate motivation and ability of children in a Montessori environment to organise their own learning, if exposed to such a rich choice of learning possibilities.

Sure, good equipment costs, but what a small price to pay for self-motivated learners. Isn't that what we all aspire to in our teaching?

If psychologist Angela Lee Duckworth is right (http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html)

GRIT (not talent, IQ, motivation, health, etc.) is the most important component of success in life.

Could it be that the apparent success of Prussian-type schooling (as practiced in China, Russia, etc. and in the former Eastern bloc states) in producing successful people (musicians, athletes, scientists) is due exactly to its blunt inhumaneness, and soft and creative methods (Waldorf, Montessori) will generate (maybe) happier but less successful people? What is the role and relationship between motivation within the classroom and motivation from other sources (family, society, status, bad look)? Can/should one be happy without being successful? Can/should one be successful without being happy?

Robert, nice question, but I think it's the wrong one!

One of the points (for me) about (good) Montessori education is that the drivers (the grit?) are internal motivation. What is that all about? Well, at a parent workshop at the Montessori training centre in Sandton, Johannesburg, we were explaining how learning is driven by internal motivation and mindfulness of their own needs (unconscious in small people, but 'perceptive' too). One of the parents said: "There is no such thing as internal motivation, only external motivation works. I run five large companies on that basis." (And he had arrived in a brand new Rolls Royce, which he thought made his point).

So what's the point?

I would always choose internal motivation, for my own learning, and for the learning of people I teach, if at all possible. I think external motivation is:

0. Lazy - it's too easy in the short term.

Designing 'with' internal motivation takes a lot more thought and time (see also: The Art of War by Sun Tzu - Denmar translation - on 'shih')

1. Unsustainable - in the medium to long term.

2. Inefficient (you have to keep on applying it, everyday, so it becomes expensive)

3. Kills the passion for learning, curiosity, and innovation.

But ... I dont have a Rolls Royce to show for my approach.

So... another (real) story ... Mother Theresa was visiting Cape Town many years ago, and helping the sick - in fact cleaning up some wounds that were rather smelly. One of the South African Cabinet Ministers accompanying her said to her: "You are amazing. I wouldn't do that for a million dollars". To which she replied: "Neither would I".

See also: Benchmarking and Mastery in Mathematics, here: http://www.slideshare.net/dustcube/benchmarking-1

An answer to my own question? (the first ever, methodolgically founded and comprehensive) World Happiness Report 2012: http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs%20Writing/2012/World%20Happiness%20Report.pdf