Talk:Montessori education/Archive 1

Archive 1

Structured lessons

There's no mention in the article of any structured lessons or student assessments. Without reading the New Zealand link, one could easily conclude that Montessori is just a glorified day-care. Could someone with Montessori experience please clarify? Gazpacho 21:10, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's because there *aren't* any structured lessons or student assesments :-). Each child has an individual program, and works at their own pace. The only structure is in the prepared environment and the equipment, the activities the children can choose have a large amount of inherent structure. I can describe some more of the philosophy about the equipment. Many modern developmental daycares have picked up elements of the Montessori Method. Thunderbolt16 03:35, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there is assessment in Montessori, just it is different to what one would expect in the regular schooling paradigm. All lessons are individualized, and have three stages. To put it simply, the first stage is the lesson where information is given to the child (either verbally or by means of a presentation of how to use materials), the second stage involves the child practicing, and the third period involves assessment. This means that assessment is ongoing and integral to learning, not something tacked on to satisfy external (adult) needs. Sharon Caldwell

Perhaps it is worth mentioning for those new to Montessori that the classroom consists of different academic and developmental areas ranging from mathematics and language to sensorial development and art. So, when a child has freedom to choose his or her activities for the day, the options provided are all educational or developmental in nature. This is a key difference between Montessori and daycare. The notable difference between Montessori and a structured class, such as a typical public school class, is that the child is in charge of choosing his or her activities. In this setting, teachers observe the student's progress, help when asked, introduce new equipment as needed, and provide suggestions for maintaining a balance among subject areas. [1] MontessoriHouse 10:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rounding Out the Article

This article needs to be balanced with some text and links that include criticism of the Montessori method. I don't mean to suggest that Montessori is inherently flawed. However, as someone who came to this article to learn about Montessori and determine whether it would be appropriate for my child, I'd like to hear some of the criticism. I'd also like a detailed comparison of the teaching philosophy with that of mainstream education (in my case, for North America). --Westendgirl 22:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been in a Montessori school myself, so I understand some of the problems first-hand, but I also would feel uncomfortable writing anything in detail, becasue my teacher was poor for a third of the years I went, and I have no experience with the pre-school aspect. That said, one of the biggest problems is that there is no plan written for anything above 6th grade. If a school does this it is not following the plan of Dr. Montessori. This causes many people to not go to begin with, or kids will be pulled out in 5th grade if the middle schools in the area start at 6th grade. --Alasseo 23:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Generally, its hard to write a compare and contrast paper about a 'standard' montessori school because, well there isn't any. Each school is different. Some montessori schools do labs for older children, some incorporate music and fantasy play, some don't. Some are extremely rigid, some aren't. There are also great philosephical differences among the different 'schools' of montessori. AMI is different than AMS, which is different from...etc.

FYI, Montessori does have a plan for 'middle' aged children, that is, don't concentrate on academics and primarily encourage physical activity, then do academics again, once they hit 14~15. Thunderbolt16 06:22, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, to be more precise, Dr. Montessori's middle-school plan is a farm school and only one exists in the United States (Hershey Montessori Farm School). The children are boarded there, and learn how to run a farm. Their studies are derived from this.

Re. "A survey conducted in 1981 collected data from 25 of the approximately 50 school districts nationwide" - in which country was this survey conducted? The incomplete references to (Chattin-McNichols, 1981) and (Michlesen and Cummings, 1991) are useless if there is no complete reference to the title/journal, or an external weblink.

I agree that this article could be expanded and better organized. Chattin-McNichols refers to a book called The Montessori Controversy. This book is out of print at this point. It's kind of controversial in it's own right, although I'm not sure the exact reasons. These references are so old it's appalling tho. There is a printed newspaper called the Public Montessorian (http://www.jola-montessori.com/psm/72/index.html) which might be helpul in getting up to date info on the current # of Montessori charters/magnets. There's got to be a LOT more than in 1991. Also, could check school affiliations on American Montessori Society site, lots of public schools affiliate with them (http://www.amshq.org/). I hope that's helpful! -- Northeast Montessori teacher

I am not convinced that the link provided to the Montessori Foundation should be included. It has no special status over any of the other organisations who sell services and products and is a commercial organisation. From my own research on the subject I believe the most authoritative source of information is the Montessori Index, http://www.montessori.edu, which is non-commercial.

www.Montessori.edu contains very little information and sells a number of things. There are really no Montessori sites that have nothing to sell. A while back, I added AMI and AMS just to give people a source of general information as they are the most non-commercial. Our site's homeschooling section has a homeschooling page with some of the most useful homeschooling information around. If I cannot link our site for homeschooling information (we discuss home classroom setups, provide an introduction to equipment, discuss books, and so forth), then no other sites should be linked either. MontessoriHouse 10:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, that other links are also not appropriate is not a reason to include yours, you seem to have a conflict of interest, and you were adding the link over and over, and that is the majority of your work. Please understand we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. If there are no external links suitable, then indeed, maybe all should go. But for that, please discuss further on this page until consensus is reached. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi I have been editing the page hope you think it is an improvement.

The fact that any school (I have read about numerous people being unhappy with schools where teachers have not had training) can call it's self Montessori needed mentioning in the introduction, it could have been inferred from the sentence mentioning the lack of Trade Mark so I have put it in there.

I have put a section in the home education which I hope is an improvement.

I have been so interested in Montessori I have been reading every criticism I can. I have listed some of the most common I could find.

Charleskenyon (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put back the section on modern criticism. The article does read like an advert and criticism does belong in it. I am a huge fan of the method and searched hard to find criticism. Please help increase the standard and not just delete. I found it hard writing the critisisms of the method as I am so enamored with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleskenyon (talk • contribs) 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section because, as written, it was original research. As editors our own collection of anecdotal evidence is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If there are reliable sources like peer reviewed research papers from educationalists that provide criticism then we could quote those. -- SiobhanHansa 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I will be totally honest here: I strongly question the neutrality of this article. In fact, I'll put it more bluntly: this article reads like a Montessori brochure, and is functionally devoid of useful information.

• What are the practical upsides of Montessori schooling?
  
• What are the downsides?
  
• What praise & criticism (from legitimate press or educators) have Montessori schools received?
  
• When/how would a child benefit from Montessori schooling vs. "standard" schooling?
  
• Are there cases when a child would not benefit from the Montessori method?
  
• What are some concrete, real examples of Montessori-style teaching?
  

I don't know anything about the Montessori concept - that's why I looked it up here. After reading this article, I still feel like I haven't learned anything. I do, however, feel like I just finished reading a sales-pitch brochure written by the Montessori Foundation for distribution to parents of potential students.

I have marked this article as needing to be reviewed for Neutrality. Before I start researching, are there any Wikipedians with an intimate understanding of Montessori schooling that could address some of these questions?
--205.156.188.254 19:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia site, not a place to get criticisms on theories. There are other sites for that sort of thing.

I don't think the article is biased so much as badly written. Most of the sentences are unnecessary, and the organization of the article is quite poor. Admittedly, I am reading this at 12:05 a.m. because I can't sleep, but I got nothing out of this article.
I would propose to rewrite this article to first systematically explain Montessori's original methods, and then separately discuss the variations practiced today. Most of what's currently here merely highlights the weaknesses of the wiki- format.
Anyway, I partially disagree with the response above. Since this should be a good encyclopedia entry about a theory, it should summarize the theory, place it in context, and then give some analysis or critical views on that theory. An entry on Marxism isn't complete without some description of its criticisms. That said, perhaps there should be a separate article on Montessori schools, which would be better suited to the apparent concerns of the parents of young children reading this to research preschools. Msr657 05:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no neutrality problem with this article. The POV check will be removed. 17 December 2005 2:21pm EST.

I've removed multiple commercial links and will continue to do so. M:The Montessori Magazine is a AMS booster magazine, intended for advertising, and thus shouldn't be included. --AM

MontessoriForEveryone and MontessoriBoard are commercial sites, and this I have removed both them and all references in the article to them. 70.100.251.10 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain this in my edit summary, but it wasn't long enough, so: the Philosophy part of the page said something like "Since Dr. Montessori's discovery of the child's true nature was accidental..." I felt that this wasn't impartial enough for an encyclopedia. It's the Dr.'s opinion, and probably that of some Montessori advocates, that the behavior in children reared in this method resembles their "true" nature, but that's far from a neutral view of the subject. I did my best to word it in a more objective manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaputa12 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In Search of Criticisms

Most of the comments on this page are from people who would like to see objective criticism of the Montessori method. As a parent of a pre-schooler, I was looking for that too. Generally, I am the most skeptical person I know, but I have to say that I have found very few things not to like about Montessori.

Before choosing a preschool for our kid, I observed the "best" traditional school in our fairly affluent area as well as the "best" Montessori school in our area. The differences were amazing. In the traditional school, the teacher was leader, activity organizer, and disciplinarian. And the kids were unruly and often unfocused. In the Montessori preschool, the kids were in charge. They were all engaged, and the teachers "merely" assisted them. A kid, approximately 4 years old, came up to me to show me his drawing. "See my Tyrannosaurus Rex!" All of the kids I met at the Montessori were incredibly articulate and self-confident.

We enrolled our kid in that Montessori as soon as we could. I found myself nodding like crazy whenever they explained their teaching philosophy to me. There really is very little to criticize about the method. It is incredibly well thought-out. Traditional schools are rigid, inelegant, and brute-force in comparison. It's my belief that the only reason *all* preschools and elementary schools aren't Montessori schools is that it requires extensive training of thoughtful and motivated teachers -- people in very short supply.

The only downside is that Montessori kids have to make the transition to traditional schools at some point, and some of them may find public schools to be a rather rude shock.

I am completely open to objective criticism. In fact, I found this page trying to find critical reviews and longitudinal studies. There really is no serious criticism from anybody familiar with the approach. It doesn't turn kids into geniuses, but it does apparently make them love to learn. I found one study at eric.ed.gov (run by the US Dept of Education) that follows Montessori kids for 18 years starting in 1986. The kids all planned to go to college. They all love to learn. They all seem self-confident. I wish our public schools could do that.

• so, Google [2] turned up a bunch of criticism. Also using google, I found a book criticising Montessori:

Professor William Heard Kilpatrick The Montessori System Examined, published in 1914

and a dissertation too:

FAUST, Ruth and Ann GOTTSTEIN. "Defining and Examining Areas of Criticism concerning Pedagogical Ideas of Maria Montessori with Emphasis on the Critics and their Criticism from 1910-1925." Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1984.

so if anyone wants to follow up on those sources (i'm way too lazy :) ), we might give this article some better neutrality. --147.154.235.52 19:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Here's another interesting paper that indicates that the Montessori Method is considered 1 of 4 viable childhood education methods:

http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07092004-220809/unrestricted/02jensendissertation.pdf

The four methods are:

(1) the Sensory Cognitive approach, or the Montessori Method; (2) the Behavioral approach implemented as Direct Instruction; (3) the Developmental Interaction approach implemented as Developmental Interaction (formerly known as Bank Street); and (4) the Cognitive Developmental approach implemented as HighScope.

Wikilinking

This page needs to be wikilinked. I've done a bit, if anyone wants to have a go at doing the remaining few paragraphs go ahead ... I'll remove this once I'm done (maybe by tonight in the UK) Nippoo 17:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Second that

"I will be totally honest here: I strongly question the neutrality of this article."

I would like to second that note. When one reads a adversting/marketing brochure, one feels as if one has acquired a certain kind of information about something: the kind that the thing provides about itself.

That's not the same kind of information one expects from an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic information is not by any means negative, but is informative without being judgmental. I don't find this to be remarkably informative, but it is quite troublingly glowing.

I need more facts, less glow.

...Would just less glow do? There are lots of facts here... I just went and mellowed the glow out a bit and let the facts speak a bit more for themselves, Cor 1:33AM, 2/12/06

Reinstating NPOV

I have problems with the tone of this article. It reads like some of the brocures I've read for Montessori schools, full of information without being informative. There needs to be more mention of criticisms and perhaps concrete example of what Montessori education involves. I checked the discussion page and saw that many others had the same problems with the article that I do and that it had been flagged before. Unfortunately someone removed the flag with a flat statement that there is no neutrality problem and nothing to back that statement up. Because the issue has not been addressed through changes in the article, I've reinstated the NPOV flag.Anthopos 05:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed much of the repetetive fluff. Looking a bit more neutral now? Cor, 2/12/06, 1:31AM

Removing NPOV

Anthopos: it is not NPOV that you are looking for, it's expansion to the article. Use _expansion_ tag if you may, but you are wrong that the article does not meet NPOV.

NPOV is for something in dispute. The article made no claims that Montessori is the best way or the only way to educate a child (that would be NPOV). The points mentioned about Montessori are *facts*. The Montessori method is described as a way of thinking about who children are - a *fact*. Montessori method's central focus is on the needs, talents, gifts, and special individuality of each child - again, a *fact*. Montessori classroom uses child-sized furniture and child-sized environment - again, another *fact*. So are the other points stated in the article.

If you can find sources stating that Montessori is not a way of thinking about who children are, does not focus on needs, talents, gifts, and individuality, does not use child-sized furniture, or disputing the *facts* themselves, by all means, quote the sources and use NPOV. If it's simply "I don't think Montessori would work", or "I think some other methods out there are better", that does not constitute NPOV.

NPOV tag will be removed.

Agreed. Just because you believe that George W. Bush is wrong or another president's policies are better, it does not mean statements of facts about George W. Bush or his policies are NPOV.

It should noted that article on Reggio Emilia approach[3] is similarly written, yet I don't see the same people complaining here go over and flag the Reggio Emilia article as NPOV. Why this apparent double standard is beyond me.

I have just tried to clean the article up some more. I agree it has serious problems, both with NPOV and with style generally. A good example is "The ability measurements of traditional educational systems are discouraged in Montessori practice; it is expected that different children will master different skills at different rates.". The weasel implication of this sentence is that purveyors of traditional education do not admit that different children will master different skills at different rates. This is an extreme POV about traditional education systems. There are very many such examples. I am restoring POV flag and cleanup flag, and I respectfully suggest that the anon who keeps removing it should register for a Wikipedia ID and sign his or her edits. Zargulon 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again I will remove the NPOV flag from this article. Statements on facts about Montessori is not POV. I respectfully suggest that people who flag the article NPOV to take a careful read about the Wikipedia standard before doing so.

Reverted above anon. Suspect trolling. Zargulon 08:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted above Zargulon's NPOV flag, for identifing facts as NPOV. Differences in opinion is not trolling. I suggest that the article to move into Mediation to settle the issue. 142.240.200.10 18:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted anon. If they were serious they would not have removed the cleanup tag as well as the npov tag. They are welcome to request mediation.

It is a hard fact the Montessori system does not apply grades against students - there is nothing NPOV about that. (If you have a problem with that then you don't have a problem with the article, but rather with the entire Montessori system itself.) However, it is not so much about different child mastering skills differently, but rather avoid using grades to foster negative competition among children or between children and their parents. (As adults we do that all the time - ie. my car is better than yours, my house is better than yours, I have more money than you, etc., exactly what Dr. Montessori wants to avoid for children.) I have changed the statement to reflect that point. With the change, NPOV flag will also get removed.Rgl168 03:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Maybe you can help clean up or explain the following in the 1st paragraph:

Voluntary assistant in what field.. what was she doing at Rome University?

What does responsive to doing work mean?

"In 1901 she returned to the University of Rome with a desire to study the mind instead of the body." where does it say she had previously wanted to study the body?

"to work with sixty young children of working families." were they feebleminded children?

What does "develop their activities" mean?

What does it mean to "absorb knowledge .. from their surroundings"? Zargulon 06:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have all the answers to everything, but I can answer "where does it say she had previously wanted to study the body?" - she started out as a medical doctor, figuratively speaking that would be "study of the body". Rgl168 01:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Having just read Montessori's _The Absorbent Mind_ (and only that), I do not see that the basic principles expressed in that book can be found in this article. I don't see that the Philosophy section actually describes the philosophy of the method, it is confusing and goes on the defensive way too quickly about the lack of grading, as if that is the pillar of the Montessori method.

I also see no mention of Cosmic Education, and hardly a mention of how the method in practice changes/evolves as the child moves from the "absorbent mind" period (3-6) to 6+. I specifically came to get an idea of what Cosmic Education is, what it's curriculum looks like, and where it is defined (which Montessori books). None to be found here.

Unfortuntely that there are others in this discussion view such comments as NPOV towards traditional education and quickly flag the entire article as NPOV, thus there is no choice but to defend it quickly.

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Montessori's philosophy! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Please sign your edits with four tildes. Zargulon 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there are good references to clarify some of the "philosophy" distinctions involved in how the "method" is represented. For example, to explain the source of the method in the unknown forces of nature. There is no comment about "normalization", which is a glaring omission from the article, as this is central to Dr. Montessori's original experience. In fact, I think references could be cited to show three distinct types of philosophy or methods: i.e., personality, cultural, and true natural. See, for example, "Essential Montessori", p.117.

There are also interesting references in "Maria Montessori: Her Life and Work" (Standing) that point to the difference between the "method" and the "experience" of Dr. Montessori. References to Montessori "theory" seem to be made as separate from Dr. Montessori's experimental work and experience. I'm not surprised that people get little from this article that distinguishes the "Montessori method" from other theories of conventional "child-centered" education. There needs to be greater clarity about the "child" in question. If there is going to be just one article on the "Montessori Method", then there must be some way to include the multiple philosophies involved in this method.

People who want more criticism of the "Montessori Method" will not be very satisfied with anything provided, until and unless there is clarity about what is the "method" itself. For example, you can criticize one philosophical type of the method, and agree with another. Havis1 (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor links in references

The references section has become a catch-all for individual schools to post links to their websites, and lots of webpages which just couldn't qualify as a legitimate source for a high school term paper. People can go to a web search engine and find random links no better nor worse than many of these sources posted here--and that's really not how the external link section should be used. I'll wait a bit for discussion, but the list needs to be culled. Ibyrnison 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it really a Montessori school?

Does this paragraph really need to exist? It seems to be more involved with Montessori education provides such as AMI, Waldorf, etc. and the education industry. I personally think that these issues are seperate from the Montessori methodology and philosephy and that it can be removed without any negative repercussions to the article as a whole. Thunderbolt16

It's not encyclopedic, and it's probably POV. There is an educational dispute over the issue, but the paragraph takes a position in this dispute. It needs to come out, or it should be rewritten to reflect the dispute itself rather than take a "consumer guide" type advisory role in the dispute. Ibyrnison 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it, unless someone feels that they can rewrite to be at least NPOV, and give a good starting point of explaining the controversy over naming. Thunderbolt16 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do it. There's not enough here to work with as is anyway.Ibyrnison 01:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC) rttr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.123.206 (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Abject Plagiarism

For all the debate above about whether the content has sufficient NPOV, most of it is actually directly copied from Montessori's own materials. For example, http://xxx.thechildrenshouse.org.uk/curricview.php?contentid=materials. Apart from any copyright violations, it removes any chance that this can be considered neutral. I've added the flag again until someone can actually write some independent, objective content for this. Tjsneath 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please investigate this apparent plagiarism? If it was actually written by Montessori, there is a chance that it's in the public domain and needs to be sited, otherwise we should remove it ASAP. Thunderbolt16 05:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any particular expertise on the subject, but I cleaned up some of the more blatant sales pitches In a couple sections. If it isn't starting from scratch because of plagiarism, the entire article needs pruning before adding useful information. YoMamma568 13:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Material written by Maria Montessori is in the public domain almost in its entirety. The Association Montessori Internationale holds the copyright on all her work and has issued a blanket release for use for educational purpose. I don't have a link to cite this but anyone is welcome to verify this by calling them directly. 70.100.251.10 14:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. For example, the [edition] of 'The Discovery Of The Child' lists it as copyright 1967 by Fides Publishers, Inc. Although AMI oversees the publication of her work, I don't believe they hold copyright on it - at any rate, not in the English translations. --MatthewDBA 14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, a blanket release for educational purposes is not the same as a release into the public domain and it is not sufficient for use on Wikipedia which requires text to be released under the GFDL (which does not require educational use). -- SiobhanHansa 16:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links, which are appropriate?

Noticed anonymous user 70.70.137.107 added a link to a site called "North American Montessori Center", which is a distance-learning training school. I question whether this link is appropriate given the External Links to be avoided guideline.

The link in question is to a specific, tuition-charging school in an article discussing a method (as opposed to an article discussing training centers). The site in question does not appear to contain additional information or sources for this article. Together, this seems to me this make it inappropriate. If having links to training centers is important for the article, I would think a link to AMI's list of training centers would be a much more appropriate link.

It's worth noting that this may simply be a new-user error, as this is the first contribution for that anonymous ip address, and we can kindly guide that individual to understand why this contribution is inappropriate.

I'm new to helping with this article, and as such haven't reviewed the existing links, so its possible this is not the only link contrary to guidelines. Also, since I'm new, it seemed best to have the existing group make the change to ensure its the correct thing to do. - Davandron | Talk 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also new to helping with the article. I've been adding a few things here and there. Full disclosure, I am a Montessori teacher myself. Despite my orientation, I agree that the article must be written from a NPOV, and have tried to go through and change small phrases which are too pro-Montessori.

However, I am somewhat distressed by the lack NPOV in the criticism section. The criticisms are vague, and many are uncredited. The one line which cites critics who say Montessori stifles creativity does have a link. I was really shocked when I clicked on the link and was directed to an extreme right-wing blog. My understanding is that Wikipedia editors must use credible sources, i.e. mainstream media, established texts and research, etc. I don't think propoganda, from left or right, should be used as source material. It would not be appropriate to use a Marxist pamphlet as a credible source, and I think that standard should apply to the whole political spectrum.

I would like to edit this sentence out and try to find some more main stream sources for the criticisms section. Since there has been so much controversy about NPOV, I did not want to do so without presenting this for discussion.

On another note, I am glad to see more pictures in the article. I am a little mystified by the first. It shows children sitting on the floor in child-sized furniture, but they are clearly writing while a teacher dictates. I do not see any of the usual Montessori materials in this classroom. Is this in fact from a Montessori school? I have been teaching for 10 years, and I have never seen a class like this. I'm not sure this accurately represents what a Montessori classroom looks like. User:Montessad72January 10, 2007

People keep adding their own external links to the Schools section, which are just thinly-veiled advertisments, I have removed them. Also there were way too many external links again so I have thinned them out Barrett90 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Montessori Board is a thinly (and poorly) veiled front for a chinese materials manufacturer, and as such I am continuously weeding them out when they spam this article. 70.100.251.10 19:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A History/Development Section

Hi, a history or development of the method section would also be helpful. Something that goes into why Dr. M felt the need to put together this program. Also, what happened during WWI and WWII? Was it disrupted like the Waldorf education programs in Germany? How has the program developed and changed over the years? I think something along these lines will help to get at some of the root questions people are coming here for (what's the real program about?). My only experience with Montessori is an elementary school we visited while looking for where to send our children. It was a prison, and we didn't go there. --Rocksanddirt 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

References needed

Both inline references that may exist (see the critisism section).

and whatever this is "Chattin-McNichols, 1981". This one seems to be used to support a fair bit of the public schools section. --Rocksanddirt 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sergey and Larry were Montessori students

So it must be googlicious right? Maybe this should be mentioned...

http://www.michaelolaf.net/google.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.179.3 (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of famous and/or powerful people who were Montessori students, but that's hardly encyclopedic information. I say leave it out. 69.207.139.221 01:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's really fascinating. Recently, more and more is being edited _out_ of Wikipedia. But to the average encyclopedia reader, it is definitely interesting not only to know the theory and history, but also practical examples. I call leaving this out bad style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.11.74 (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, encyclopedias aren't primarily concerned with what's interesting to the reader - otherwise they run the risk of becoming little more than trivia collections. An encyclopedia is meant to be an initial academic reference; thus, to contain what is important to know about the subject as part of the more general topic (in this case, education). -- MatthewDBA (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth including when they say illuminating things about the Montessori system? For example, Will Wright had quite a bit to say about his Montessori experience at the TED conference in 2007 - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/146 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totorotroll (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, in that case, that Mr. Wright is not talking about Montessori in general, but about his experiences with the Montessori system. He's not an educator, nor a pedagogical historian; he's not specifically studying the Montessori method in itself, but as it applies to him in particular. In this particular case I wouldn't call his view "notable," though it's certainly interesting. -- MatthewDBA (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content or brochure material?

I cut out the following because it didn't seem to belong in an encyclopedic article; the tone seemed more similar to what one might find in a magazine article on education aimed at parents, or maybe to a brochure on Montessori. Here's the paragraph for review and discussion:

One must be very careful in selecting a Montessori classroom. An improperly focused teacher can encourage poor habits in children because of the precepts of this philosophy; disobeying, tantrums, and general unruliness are areas that some children will not receive adequate and timely discouragement in and this detracts from the general classroom environment. As with all educational systems, the teacher/child-child/peer relationship must be fully scrutinized before committing any child to this scenario.

Comments, anyone? --MatthewDBA 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I say leave it out. Although slightly useful, as it refers to Montessori 'normalization', it's way too broad. At the very least it needs to be rewritten. 70.100.251.10 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

AMS Criticism

About this section:

"To some Montessorians, the AMS (American Montessori Society) located in New York appears to act more as a figure head than being the regulatory body for which Montessori Schools are assessed a membership fee. Many feel that there have been numerous schools in the North East that use the Montessori name but have a curriculum that acts contrary to the Montessori Philosophy. The AMS seem incapable of acting as a check on this as well as numerous issues like addressing pay for teachers (including working conditions), accreditation of teachers, misinformation of parents and quality of schools. It is therefore imperative for Parents to be educated on the type of schools their children will be attending, especially as the Montessori school fees are unfortunately beyond the reach of lower income parents, another aspect which is contrary to Maria Montessori's "Casa dei Bambini" where she catered for poorer children."

Although true, it's far from NPOV so I've removed it for now. Is it even worth fixing, especially considering its lack of a worldwide view on the matter? 17:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy paste of criticisms

in search of Montessori criticisms, I first looked up the wikipedia article. Then, after a bit of research on the net, I found this page: http://www.k12academics.com/montessori_criticisms.htm Which is word for word the same as this article. I'm not sure which one came first (my guess would be wikipedia). I thought I would find some explanation here, but that's not the case. If this website copy/pasted the wikipedia article, shouldn't there be a mention of it at least? If the wikipedia article was copy/pasted from this website, then one should probably check it's GFDL-compatible, and maybe let us know on this discussion page? Otherwise, I find the page informative, and not too glowy. 208.201.233.84 (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a word-for-word copy from an earlier version of Wikipedia. And they wouldn't be the first to copy a Wiki article as original work, nor will they be the last. 70.100.251.10 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Montessori in the United States

I have split out Montessori in the United States into a separate article. It avoids systemic bias issues and it lent itself to a stand alone article. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, no. The US is the primary market for Montessori schools by a huge margin. As the US goes, so goes the industry and the future of the pedagogy. Systemic Bias does not apply here. Incidentally, the US is the only country to try to integrate Montessori with the public school system, which is certainly topical and shouldn't have been split. Please discuss before making such a huge change in the article. 69.207.139.221 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article that I split off has now gone through the AFD process. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montessori in the United States. The result was to keep it. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with this statement, though: Currently, the United States is the only country in the world to have an extensive commitment to the Montessori Philosophy. I can understand saying that it is the country with the most schools and listing other things where Montessori is a driving force in America. At the same time, to say it's the "only country ... to have an extensive commitment to the Montessori Philosophy" is simply wrong. There are dedicated Montessori teachers throughout the world. I'd like to discuss it before anyone changes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattThePuppetGuy (talk • contribs) 03:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have edited this article to resolve some of the issues involved; expand and clarify the developments and controversies in this matter. I think this will tie in well to respond to questions and concerns about the method and how it developed - although I feel that the "method" article needs to include some of this same information, which is so basic to understand the root issues. Have a look at the newly edited version.Havis1 (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thesis with critique of Dr. Montessori's writing

I'm enjoying reading this - it is a thesis on the "objects" used in Montessori schools, from a semiotic point of view, and so far (Chapter 2) has a lot of interesting things to say about the writing style of Dr. Montessori's books: http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/1859 --Totorotroll (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify why I included this paragraph: people on this discussion page have been asking for critiques of Dr Montessori's writing, and this is one that I have found. I'm not sure if the ideas in the thesis warrant inclusion in the article page, as they are just one person's research --Totorotroll (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I have renamed it, as the criticism is limited to a single person's view and is far from modern. If anyone has recent negative articles they should probably go in a different criticism section. For that matter, Kilpatrick's criticism was so vitriolic and (in my opinion) mean-spirited, I wonder if it should merely be noted with something like "Kilpatrick was at one point a great detractor of Montessori and her method" as opposed to having something like a page and a half on their feud. Comments? 72.45.142.249 (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be allowed to remain up, without any warning to the reader, unless it has a legitimate section of criticism, I find it very hard to believe that noone with a background in education has made statements about the lack of creativity, and overly structured tasks that are trademark of Montessori schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.231.55 (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you find some, perhaps? -- MatthewDBA (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been working in Montessori my whole life and I don't know what "overly structured tasks" or "lack of creativity" you see in Montessori. Certainly not a trademark I am familiar with. In fact, I'd almost say that's more a trademark of regular education more than Montessori and I wouldn't argue it is a trademark of regular education. MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I too have spent years assisting in various levels of Montessori at a K-8 program (as well as having a daughter progressing nicely through it), and the usual comment from new visitors is that it seems to LACK structure. You actually have to be in it a while to understand that there even is structure in the apparent chaos. I too have no idea what the "lack of creativity" comment is, as the kids here get significant creative time in their schedule, and if they get done early on their daily studies, they get free time, usually used for art (depending on the student). I imagine there is a range of different approaches at different schools, but at this school, what the earlier commentator called "the lack of creativity, and overly structured tasks that are trademark of Montessori schools" makes no sense at all. I never would have allowed my daughter continue in an uncreative, overly structured environment, and I have been personally involved in it for years. I think the originator of this thread has no personal experience with or knowledge of Montessori in practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.51.237 (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirkpatrick makes his most telling "criticism", I think, by stating that Montessori offers the "spirit" but not the "content" of modern science. I think this is a valid criticism, since Dr. Montessori never claimed to have created a "method". But this criticism is also more directed to certain philosophies of the method in practice, depending on how you define the "Montessori method". Defining the method has to consider Montessori's claim of it as a true, but "new" science of the human spirit. Modern developments are now occurring, I believe, are now answering the argument that there is no "content" to the method as science. I think some of this needs to be added to the "method" article. I'm working on a major edit.Havis1 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

There is a picture on the page that has nothing to do with Montessori. It has children sitting at small tables with a teacher walking around in the background and all the children seem to be writing something. Is there a way to get a different picture on there? Immediately, people get the wrong image of what a Montessori School is if they look at that picture. MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Matt

Montessori Sensorial Materials

I added a new Montessori Sensorial Materials page. I want to add pictures, but don't have privledges to do so yet.

Please take a look at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_sensorial_materials

Please add more to it. What I have there took quite a bit of time to write and I'd like to add to it. Ideally, I would like to have some descriptions of the materials in different areas as well.

MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pink Tower?

I noticed that the "pink tower" is mentioned several times in the article, but there is no explanation of what it actually is. Can you provide one? Additionally, there are vague references to specific teaching tools of which, I suspect, the pink tower is one. Perhaps a section outlining what these tools are would be helpful? Galena11 (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Galenali. I did an article about the different sensorial materials. It might be useful to link to that. I'm not sure how to link to other areas very well, but I will look into it soon. I'd like to type more articles on different areas of the classroom, but just don't have time. Maybe someone else can work with me on it??? MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Iceberg to Blue Jays?

The science portion of the article was changed. It used to say: "For example, colors are not taught by having the child think of everything that is blue - blue jeans, the sky, icebergs, a picture of a blue cartoon elephant hanging on a wall. "

Now it says: "For example, colors are not taught by having the child think of everything that is blue - blue jeans, the sky, Blue Jays, a picture of a blue cartoon elephant hanging on a wall."

I don't care...since both are correct. Just wondering if it's going to be a habit to change everything in the list to something else that is blue? Was this done by a blue jay obsessed person? Curious what started it.

MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for major revamp

I've seen a number of concerns throughout the time I've been watching this page, and I have to admit that some of them strike rather close to home for me. I don't feel the article is well-rounded. For example, there needs to be a brief but clear exposition of criticisms of the method - and there have been several on different grounds. The article mentions the Erdkinder, but without defining the term in any way. (There are similar areas in which it seems that the article is written more for the specialist audience than for a general audience.) The article (obviously) needs more references, and the "Implementation" section concentrates entirely on the three- to six-year-old classroom. There are probably more deficiencies that I could point out, but those are the first that come to mind.

With that in mind, I've begun a rewrite of the entire article essentially from the ground up below my user page. It's not entirely developed, and there are new sections that should be added, but it's a start. I'd be interested in any comments. -- MatthewDBA (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am working up a "major revamp" in aandbox. I agree it lacks clarity and re-focus on the main topic involved. when I have a revised version ready for inspection, I will offer it here for comment.Havis1 (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have completing a "major revamp" of this article. Please take a look at it to offer comments. If there is no significant objection, I will then upload it accordingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Havis1/Montessori_method Havis1 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded the "major revamp" and the new version is now in the article. I think it responds well to resolve issues raised before. Thanks to those who offered comments, for example, to add a brief section on "elementary curriculum". Havis1 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Montessori

This section is MUCH too long especially since it discusses a critisism that is almost 100 years ago and was a mere 5 years after Montessori began teaching. Also, this criticism has been proven false by the passage of time and the overall success of Montessori educated children. I suggest major surgery. Operation will commence: March 1.--Buster7 (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Buster. I hope you don't mind. I put in more information about the differences between Montessori and Elementary with the language curriculum, like you stated. I hope it's enough and I hope an elementary teacher can provide more. I didn't want to say too much about it since I'm not 6-9 or 9-12.

I also couldn't do much with this:

"An appreciation for literature is another strong point in the Montessori elementary curriculum."

So I just left it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.125.133.64 (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. I don't mind at all. BTW....my daughter is a Montessori teacher. That and $3.50 gets me a cup of coffee at Starbuck's--Buster7 (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Praise

While interesting, does "Ayn Rand Praise" deserve it's own top-level section? Personally, I think it should be a subpoint under some other heading.

Daddy.twins (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While I am a very supportive fan of everything "Rand", I very much agree that it is only barely worth noting. I would not mind seeing it disappear from the article completely unless it was included in a section/thread of five or more supportive quotes from other notables.--Buster7 (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it, because her personal views are not important enough to warrant her own section. 67.65.162.70 (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No we don't need a section on praise from a crappy author of fantasy novels 12.52.96.200 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing!--Buster7 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This reads like an advert

There needs to be a much wider and more complete analysis of it's effects - both from people praising it and from people criticizing it. As a layman on the subject interested the learn about it to find out if when I have kids I should look into having them got to a Monstessori school I cannot find good information in this article as to the pros and cons. 12.52.96.200 (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A.G. Bell

Alexander Graham Bell was not only a great inventor but was also a teacher of the deaf and ,pertinent to this article, married to a deaf woman, Mabel Hubbard Bell. Mr. Bell was a vigorous supporter of advances in education, and invited Dr. Maria Montessori to bring her progressive methods to the United States. The Bells (Alexander and Mabel) started one of the first Montessori schools in the parlor of their home, with Mabel Bell as one of its first teachers. --Buster7 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please help improve this article by adding reliable references

I am bothered by the lack of cites in this article. The article has something over seven print pages of text, currently with 13 specific cites. The article contains many specific assertions which are not cited. Some whole sections of this article have no cites.
I have added the refimprove tag to the article -- "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Please do not remove this tag until adequate good cites have been provided.
I will not be doing this myself. Thank you. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

{{ambox}}

• • I will not be doing this myself, either. Your Welcome.--Buster7 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I am working on it now, but it's a lot of work. I hope some people out there can help me. Even if you just are reading Maria Montessori's work and come across something you noticed is in this article, but not referenced, please include it. Every little bit helps. MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The article now has 62 references, with almost all paragraphs having one reference and many paragraphs having multiple references. This should by now have achieved the goal of adequate good cites. BrainMarble (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Agreed, BrainMarble. MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

funding

i am amazed that this huge article does not touch on the subject of funding. Do these school get government funding, are they private schools, charter schools? Peppermintschnapps (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Montessori schools are privately funded; however, I haven't looked into them. Perhaps you should research this and add to the article appropriately... Alan (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Montessori schools" is not a monoculture; they can be public, private, parochial, etc. with correspondingly different funding sources. John Darrow (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

John's right. It would be impossible for the article to really list all the different types of funding available to schools that are either private or public. I don't even think there's a wikipedia article out there like that to link it to. MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)